HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 1101 CC REG ITEM 11L MOORPARK ITEM II •
ELOISE BROWN PaK "� STEVEN KUENY
Mayor 0 �4 City Manager
BERNARDO M. PEREZ F � CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tem /4l11W� City Attorney
CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. i`ty,' m
� PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember - o Director of
PAUL LAWRASON v4o/ ,„ . Community Development
Councilmember "TE° �`' R. DENNIS DELZEIT
SCOTT MONTGOMERY • City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
RICHARD T. HARE Chief of Police
City Treasurer
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: October 23, 1989 (CC meeting of 11/1/89)
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY
Background
At the Council's October 18, 1989 meeting there was a discussion of a
proposed Las Posas Valley Greenbelt (Agenda -Item 11.G. ). As part of this
discussion there were comments and concerns regarding future annexations.
Also, the Council had requested the status of a Sphere of Influence Study.
Staff advised the Council that such a study was yet to start. The Council
asked for a report back to them regarding this matter.
•
Discussion
Consideration towards accomplishing a Sphere of Influence Study came about
during February of 1989 at the time when the Council was discussing the PBR
contracts for the General Plan Update and Carlsberg Specific Plain (see
attached minutes from the 2/15/89 meeting) . From the February meeting the •
Council directed staff to seek a proposal. from PBR -for the preparation of a
Sphere of. Influence Study. PBR submitted drafts of their proposal to staff
during March and April of 1989. •
•
The General Plan Update process returned to the City Council on May 17,
1989 (see attached minutes) after a number of interested parties dropped
out of the GP Update process. The subject of annexation study did not
occur at that meeting.
The current contract with PBR (page 4 - see attached) incorporated the
City's RFP dated September 1988. One of the work tasks for PBR to
accomplish according. to the City's RFP is to "identify areas for potential
annexation. to the City (see attached) . The PBR contract document added the ,
language of "based upon the results of the Sphere of Influence Study'.'.
This was done because they had submitted a study and assumed that the City
would approve it.
•
799 Moorpark Avenue • Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
gpu. doc,/dw4.
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: October 23, 1989 (CC meeting of 11/1/89)
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY
Page -2-
To date the Council has not reviewed the PBR proposal to accomplish a
Sphere of Influence Study nor has any action been taken to approve either
the study or a contract with PBR. A review of Council minutes was
accomplished by staff from April to June of 1989 regarding this matter.
Staff has attached the April proposal from PBR. There has been no in depth
analysis of it's contents by staff to date. Of note is the fact that PBR's
original proposal, as an option in their GPA work, was only $6,200. This
proposal is between $12,000 and $16,500. Should the Council wish to pursue
PBR's proposal, further negotiations would be needed.
Staff is of the opinion that PBR is obligated to perform at least a general
review of the potential for annexation as part of the current contract. A
clarification of this will be accomplished by staff. Should the Council
wish to expand the study of the annexation issue(s) the study as proposed
by PBR may be appropriate. Staff does have some concern with a timing
issue as it relates to the GP Update process. Staff would prefer to have
land use decisions, at the edge of the City, created in order to better
understand expected growth trends.
Staff Recommended Action
That the City Council postpone a Sphere of Influence Study until much later
in the General Plan Update process or at the conclusion of the process.
Attachments:
February 15, 1989 City Council Minutes
May 17, 1989 City Council Minutes
General Plan Update RFP - Page 6
Page 4 of PBR Contract OORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Page 13 of PBR Contract City Council Meeting
Sphere of Influence Study - Draft Proposal M /fir 1981 -
of
F
ACTIO
gpu.doc/dw4
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 10 February 15, 1989
•
3. Condition ld - Add this wording to the end of the
Condition: "All reimbursable costs must be
substantiated by TOPA. The final decision on the
amount of reimbursement shall be made by the City
Council ."
The. Council recognized Paul Gienger (representing TOPA
Management Company) who questioned whether TOPA or the City was
to prepare the agreement referred to in Condition 4a. The
Council and Staff clarified that the agreement would be
prepared by the City Attorney for review by the developer.
Mr. Gienger then stated he agreed to all conditions as
clarified by the Resolution and corresponding Exhibit.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Lawrason
seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 89-535, as amended. The
voice vote was unanimous.
AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING, Mayor Brown declared a recess, the time
being 8:55 p.m. The Meeting reconvened at the hour of 9:20 p.m.
11.E. Consider a recommendation from the Council 's Community
Development Committee and a report from staff regarding
consultant selection to update the General Plan Update - Land
Use and Circulation Elements and create a Carlsberg Specific
;) Plan. Staff recommended that the Council uphold the
recommendation of the Community Development Committee and
select the firm of Phillips Brandt Reddick (PBR) to accomplish
both the General Plan Update and Specific Plan work.
Councilmember Montgomery expressed concern that the City is
accepting General Plan Amendments and making them into a
General Plan Update. He recommended instead that the City look
at its boundaries and sphere of influence, with the scope of
the updating process to include those areas where people have
not requested amendments, but where the Council can use
foresight in planning the community. Councilmember Montgomery
advised that of the two funding alternatives, he preferred
Table "A", based on average daily trips created by the land use
change.
Councilmember Harper lauded Staff for the excellent report on a
complicated matter. He advised that using the Average Daily
Trips (ADT) as a determinant for fair-share costs, keeps the
process simple and more defensible.
Director of Community Development, Pat Richards, advised that
the Phillips, Brandt, Reddick (PBR) proposal included a $52,000
option for a geo based, computerized land use system. Staff
could be trained to update the computerized system after
initial set up.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 11 February 15, 1989
•
Council discussion included the purpose of a sphere of
influence - to discourage urban sprawl; to be large enough to
maintain the City; that it is not to accommodate growth but to
control what happens around the City' s boundaries.
Consideration of the City's sphere of influence could be a part
of the contract negotiations for the General Plan Update.
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Perez
seconded a motion to select the firm of Phillips, Brandt, Reddick to
complete all planning services and environmental impact reports for
both the Update to the Circulation and Land Use Elements of the
General Plan and Carlsberg Specific Plan under separate contracts
and time frames; to direct Staff to enter into contract negotiations
with PBR for both contracts; to accept the recommendation of the
Committee regarding the level of citizen participation; to
determine that no work shall be performed by PBR until all deposits
are made to the City; and to approve the method for determining fair
share payments using Table "A" (Average Daily Trips) identified
within the Staff report.
Upon the recommendation of City Manager Kueny, and concurrence by
the maker and second of the motion, the motion was amended to
include direction to re-calculate Table "A" to reflect the most
recent proposal submitted by the Moorpark Unified School District
relative to a high density General Plan designation on 15.49 acres
\ (Parcels A, B and D) of the Casey Road School Site.
The voice vote was unanimous.
As a clarification to the Carlsberg Component, City Manager
Kueny advised that he had spoken briefly with Mr. Tankersley,
and Mr. Tankersley wants to pursue further the amount of Staff
overhead that will be added to his required deposit; therefore,
this item will be brought back to the Council before the
NQJ agreement with Carlsberg can be finalized.
8.E. Reduction/exoneration of bonds for LDM-3/PD-1010 (Palmer).
Staff recommended that the Council accept public improvements
except specified portion of Moorpark Avenue and exonerate
monument and grading bonds on specified dates and reduce
performance and payment bonds.
City Engineer Dennis Delzeit advised the Council that the
Settlement Agreement does require that the developer post cash
for the construction of the pedestrian bridge; and therefore,
amended Staff' s recommendation to include that the City Clerk
reduce the Performance and Payment Bond from $400,000 to
$160,000 "pending the City' s verification of sureties for
construction of the pedestrian bridge, per the Settlement
Agreement."
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and. Councilmember Montgomery
seconded a motion to accept the public improvements for PD-1010;
J with the exception of Moorpark Avenue from Los Angeles Avenue 265
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 11 May 17, 1989
11.D. Consider modification to General Plan Update process.
Staff recommended they be directed as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Debra Traffenstedt advised that of the eighteen
original applicants for the 1989 General Plan Update, only
eleven have formally filed. Some of the applicants have
changed their land use density request, and this may require a
revision in the contract with Phillips, Brandt, Reddick (PBR)
to complete the General Plan Update and the environmental
impact report. The cost each applicant was to pay was based on
a division of the total cost between the original eighteen
applicants. Those costs must now be redistributed among the
remaining eleven applicants, less the $3,500 reduction in the
PBR contract resulting from the changes to the scope of work.
A recalculation of costs indicates the cost per applicant has
increased by approxmately one-third. If the eleven applicants
are required to pay the recalculated cost, additional
applicants may drop out of the current upate process.
Councilmember Lawrason expressed concern with the , slight
pass-through cost reduction in the PBR contract resulting from
the reduced scope of work.
In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Director of Community
Development Pat Richards advised that the Average Daily Trips
(ADT) factor was almost doubled when the seven applicants
withdrew from the process. If the ADT factor was not
increased, the City would have to pay approximately $100,000 to
cover the difference.
Councilmember Harper advised that he would not support spending
public funds for land speculations; and, further, he was
against the entire update process and felt that general plan
amendments should only be considered when accompanied by a very
specific plan.
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Lawrason
seconded a motion to: 1) Confirm that the General Plan Update shall
analyze the original requests of the applicants upon which the PBR
proposal was based unless the revised proposal represents a decrease
in development potential for the property; 2) Require all applicants
to provide specific acreages and a location map for all requested
land use designations; 3) Direct staff to obtain a written response
from all applicants by May 31 regarding agreement to pay revised
costs based upon a reallocation of the costs among the current
eleven applicants; and 4) Direct staff to bring this matter back
before the Council on June 7 for a determination on approval of PBR
to initiate work on the General Plan Update. The motion carried,
with Councilmember Harper dissenting.
CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined that the Community
Development Committee would meet with staff and representatives of
J PBR to discuss further changes in the contract amount.
• City of Moorpark
• RFP Request for Proposals
Page 6
b. Potential multiple family residential south of Majestic
Court and west of Moorpark Avneue.
c. Commercial office designation for southwest corner of
Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road. Is it still valid?
d. Stratthern Ranch property. (Provide an analysis of
potential growth impacts to the City.)
e. Freeway Business Center (Science Drive) . Some of the
text and maps in the current Land Use Element show this
area as either open space, or "non-growth". Make sure
this area is appropriately indicated in the new Land Use
Element.
f. Happy Camp Canyon Park - show precise boundaries on map.
g. North side of Los Angeles Avenue between the Edison
substation and American Products building.
28. Provide analysis of all present General Plan amendment
requests and make recommendations regarding each. Plus
provide an analysis of one general plan land use designation
at the next lower designation than requested and at the next
higher designation that currently exists.
29. Land Use Element, page 41, Neighborhood Commercial Center
change to eliminate the requirement for a - "Convenience
Market".
30. Land Use Element, page 42 - revise section on Commercial
Industrial mix.
31. Land Use Element, page 42 - revise Growth Table population
projections.
32. Land Use Element, page 57 - Table 9 revise Zoning
Comparability Matrix. (Use same design for General Plan and
Zoning.)
33. Identify how publicly owned property should be shown on the
land use map and what uses are permitted.
34. Identify areas for potential annexation to the City.
FR"1 C11 PP
881908A/CHRONI PJR:crl -'
c i a r.
against all claims. demands, damages, liabilities, losses,
costs or expenses arising from, or in any way connected
with, the performance of this agreement by PBR or the City.
b
3. Bear an endorsement or have attached a rider whereby it is !;
provided that, in the event of cancellation or amendment
of such policy for any reason whatsoever, the City shall
be notified by mail , postage prepaid, not less than thirty
(30) days before the cancellation or amendment is effec-
tive. PBR shall give City thirty (30) days written notice
prior to the expiration of such policy.
4. Be written on an Occurrence Basis.
F. Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph E, PBR shall
'provide general public liability including automobile liabil-
ity and property damage insurance in an amount not less than
one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and annual
aggregate. .
G. Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph E, PBR shall pro-
vide workers' compensation insurance as required by the Cali-
fornia Labor Code. If any class of employees engaged by P8R
in work under this agreement is not protected by the workers'
compensation.. law, PSRshall provide adequate insurance for the
protection of such employees to the`;;satisfaction of the. City.
H. PBR shall , not assign this agreement, or any of the rights, .
duties or obligations hereunder. It is understood and acknow-
ledged by the parties . that PBR is uniquely qualified to per-
form the services provided for .in ,.this agreement.: ':
I. The City's Request for Proposal (RFP) dated September, 1988 1.
and Response to said RFP `are hereby incorporated into this
agreement. Where said RFP and Response are modified by the
agreement, the language contained .in the agreement shall take
precedence.
6 KS;'
v.Y
•
commercial ,desi,gn ,overlay areas with specific goal and poli-
��� " Create _ . . .. .
q.
cies related to development. _
-, u , capacity of various
land use designations in light of service cap
. � � � ,. flood con--
_ ,,-
Review, streets, storm drains,
systems, waste, - ; .
sewer, ,x..
infrastructure Y
.-t roe,,,ctc.).•
oal s ands pol i ci es ;of the
downtown plan into the land use
•; ,,•Incorporate: g ... R
element of the plan.
1 : .,
„'i `1 - :
ark Land Use Element is consistent with an
Make; that .the Moorpark l i cable county plans.
d
•� .<... other app
1-,,takes.-.into account any,
., , , u on the
, = ;.,; }, ,i :.,�,.. to . the: city.�,, based P.
otenti al,, _..
. Identify areas.. for P annexation ` ;
• sphere .of influence study.
results- of the_ sp . _ :: , ., •-
_. 1 a list of permitted uses.
• Identify publicly owned land and produce
-+ the
,update an effective tool;,
Create a. document .that :can be usedkas ie
to
city's zoning ordinance. - • i
Additional changes to the existing•n land use element for incorporation into
the new element, including the following:
41 neighborhood commercial center - change to
. Land use element, page- ,
eliminate the. requirement for a "convenience market."
el '�
• Land use element, page 42, revise section on commercial/industrial
mix.
went age 42, revise growth table population projections.
• Land use ele � P.
Table 9 revise zoning comparability matrix
Land use •element, page 57 _
• (use same design for general plan and zoning).
i
13 — , ,l e/�, .f Cow D'�
I
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
AGREEMENT FOR PREPRATION OF A
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , .1989
by and between the City of Moorpark, a municipal corporation located in
the County of Ventura, State of California, hereinafter referred to as
"CITY" and "PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, INC.", a California Corporation, here-
inafter referred to as "PBR".
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, City has the need for the preparation of a Sphere of
Influence Study;
WHEREAS, City desires to contract for such services with a private
consultant in anticipation that said private consultant can provide such
services in a manner acceptable to the City; and
WHEREAS, PBR is experienced in providing such services for municipal
corporations and is able to provide personnel with .the proper experience,
certifications and background to carry out the duties involved; and
WHEREAS, City wishes to retain PBR for the performance of said ser-
vices;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, benefits
and premises herein stated, the parties hereto agree as follows:
City does hereby appoint PBR in a contractual capacity to perform the
services in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth
in Exhibit "A"; with the authorities and responsibilities ordinarily
granted to this type of consultant work.
I. Compensation to PBR
The fees in full compensation to PBR for the services rendered
shall be as set forth in Exhibit "A".
1
II. Termination
This agreement may be terminated with or without cause by City
at any time with no less than 30 days written notice of such termination.
In the event of such termination, PBR shall be compensated for such ser-
vices up to the date of termination. Such compensation for work in pro-
gress shall be pro-rated as to the percentage of progress completed at the
date of termination.
This agreement may be terminated by PBR only by providing City
with written notice no less than 30 days in advance of such termination.
III. General Conditions
A. City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the
direct payment of any salary, wage or other compensation to
any person employed by PBR performing services hereunder for
City.
B. PBR is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly
independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its offi-
cers, employees, servants or agents shall have control over
the conduct of PBR or any of PBR's officers, employees or
agents, except as set forth herein.
C. At the time of 1) termination of this agreement of 2) conclu-
sion of all work; all original documents, designs, drawings,
reports, diskettes, computer files, notes, and other related
materials whether prepared by PBR or their subcontractor(s) or
obtained in the course of providing the services to be per-
formed pursuant to this agreement shall become the sole pro-
perty of the City.
D. PBR shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City and its
officers, employees, servants and agents serving as indepen-
dent contractors in the role of City Manager, Deputy City Mana-
ger, Director of Community Development or City Attorney from
.2
any claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense,
for any damage whatsoever, including but not limited to death
or injury to any person and injury to any property, resulting
. from misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions of PBR or
any of its officers, employees or agents in the performance of
this agreement, except such damage as is caused by the sole
negligence of the City or any of its officers, employees, ser-
vants or agents.
The City does not, and shall not, waive any rights that it may have
against PBR by reason of Paragraph E hereof, because of the acceptance by
the City, or the deposit with the City, of any insurance policy or certifi-
cate required pursuant to this agreement. This hold harmless and indemni-
fication provision shall apply regardless of whether or not said insurance
policies are determined to be applicable to the claim, demand, damage, lia-
bility, loss, cost or expense described in Paragraph E hereof.
E. PBR shall secure from a good and responsible company or compan-
ies doing insurance business in the State of California, pay
for, and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of
this agreement that policies of insurance required by this
paragraph and shall furnish to the City Clerk of the City cer-
tificates of said insurance on or before the commencement of
the term of this agreement. Notwithstanding any inconsistent
statement in any of said policies or any subsequent endorse-
ment attached thereto, the protection offered by the policies
shall :
1. Name the City and its officers, employees, servants and
agents serving as independent contractors in the role of
City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Director of Community
Development or City Attorney, as additiona insured with
PBR.
2. Insure the City and its officers and employees, while
acting in the scope of their duties under this agreement
against all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses,
3
costs or expenses arising from, or in any way connected
with, the performance of this agreement by PBR or the
City.
3. Bear an endorsement or have attached a rider whereby it is
provided that, in the event of cancellation or amendment
of such policy for any reason whatsoever, the City shall
be notified by mail , postage prepaid, not less than thirty
(30) days before the cancellation or amendment is effec-
tive. PBR shall give City thirty (30) days written notice
prior to the expiration of such policy.
4. Be written on an Occurrence Basis.
F. Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph E, PBR shall
provide general public liability including automobile liabil-
ity and property damage insurance in an amount not less than
one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and annual
aggregate.
G. Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph E, PBR shall pro-
vide workers' compensation insurance as required by the Cali-
fornia Labor Code. If any class of employees engaged by PBR
in work under this agreement is not protected by the workers'
compensation law, PBR shall provide adequate insurance for the
protection of such employees to the satisfaction of the City.
H. PBR shall not assign this agreement, or any of the rights,
duties or obligations hereunder. It is understood and acknow-
ledged by the parties that PBR is uniquely qualified to per-
form the services provided for in this agreement.
I. The City's Request for Proposal (RFP) dated February, 1989 and
Response to said RFP are 'hereby incorporated into this agree-
ment. Where said RFP and Response are modified by the agree-
ment, the language contained in the agreement shall take pre-
cedence.
4
J. Payment to PBR shall be made by the City within 45 days of
receipt of invoice, except for those which are contested or
questioned and returned by City, with written explanation
within 30 days of receipt of invoice. PBR shall provide to
City a written response to any invoice contested or questioned
and further, upon request of City, provide City with any and
all documents related to any invoice.
K. Any notice to be given pursuant to this agreement shall be in
writing, and all such notices and any other document to be
delivered shall be delivered by personal service or by deposit
in the United States mail , certified or registered, return
receipt requested, with postage prepaid, and addressed to the
party for whom intended as follows:
TO: City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark CA 93021
Attention: City Manager
•
To: PBR, Inc.
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine CA 92714
Attention: Phillip R. Schwartze, Vice President
L. Nothing contained in this agreement shall be deemed, con-
strued, or represented by the City or PBR or any third person
to create the relationship of principal or agent, or of a part-
nership, or of a joint venture, or of any other association of
any kind or nature between the City and PBR.
M. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties
concerning the subject matter hereof and all prior agreements
or understandings, oral or written, are hereby merged herein.
This agreement shall not be amended in any way except by a
writing expressly purporting to be such an amendment, signed
and acknowledged by both of the parties hereto.
5
N. Should interpretation of this agreement, or any portion
thereof, be necessary, it is deemed that this agreement was
prepared by the parties jointly and equally, and shall not be
interpreted against either party on the ground that the party
prepared the agreement or caused it to be prepared.
0. No waiver of any provision of this agreement shall be deemed,
or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether
or not similar, nor shall any such waiver constitute a con-
tinuing or subsequent waiver of the same provision. No waiver
shall be binding, unless executed in writing by the party
making the waiver.
P. In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the
enforcement of, or the declaration of any right or obligation
pursuant to this agreement or as a result of any alleged
breach of any provision of this agreement, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover its costs and expenses,
including reasonable attorney's fees, from the losing party,
and any judgment or decree rendered in such a proceeding shall
include an award thereof.
Q. Cases involving a dispute between the City and PBR may be
decided by an arbitrator if both sides agree in writing, with
costs proportional to the judgment of the arbitrator.
R. This agreement is made, entered into, executed in Ventura
County, California, and any action filed in any court or for
arbitration for the interpretation, enforcement or other
action of the terms, conditions or covenants referred to
herein shall be filed in the applicable court in Ventura
County, California.
S. The captions and headings of the various Articles and Para-
graphs of this agreement are for convenience and identifica-
tion only and shall not be deemed to limit or define the con-
tent of the respective Articles and Paragraphs hereof.
.6
IV. Responsible Individual
The individual directly responsible for PBR's overall performance
of the contract provisions herein above set forth and to serve as
principal liaison between PBR and City shall be Cheri Perisho
Phelps.
Upon mutual written agreement of the parties, other individuals
may be substituted in the above capacities as .responsible indivi-
duals.
V. Implementation
The City shall provide PBR with written notice in advance of the
date at which these services are to be implemented if different
than the date of the agreement.
CITY OF MOORPARK PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, INC.
Eloise Brown, Mayor Phillip R. Schwartze, Vice President
7
EXHIBIT 'A'
Task Outline
A. Utilizing the draft sphere, prepare a sphere of influence document and
plan of service, per the LAFCO guidelines.
1. Prepare documents and graphics (30 copies)
2. Meet with City Council or subcommittee
3. Prepare necessary categorical exemption support document (Code
15306)
B. Review the draft plan of service and sphere of influence documents
with the city sphere of influence "committee"
1. Review second draft and graphics (1 meeting, 30 copies)
2. Modify plans as necessary
C. Present the draft sphere of influence document and draft plan for
services document to the City Council for review and approval .
1. Prepare public review documents and graphics in final form (30
copies)
2. Meet as necessary with City Council (2 meetings)
D. File LAFCO documents and appear before LAFCO (1 meeting, 50 copies)
1. Meet individually with LAFCO Commissioners to discuss sphere of
influence proposal (5 to 10 meetings)
2. With approval of Council , modify documents as necessary to address
concerns of LAFCO Commissioners (1 meeting with Council )
3. Present program to public hearings at LAFCO (1 meeting)
Budget
Task A $ 6,500 - 7,500
Task B 1,000 - 2,000
Task C 1,000 - 2,000
Task D 3,500 - 5,000
TOTAL $ 12,000 - 16,500
Schedule
Preparation of all documents April
Meetings with sphere committee and Council May/June
Document submission to LAFCO July
1
Issue: Sphere of Influence/Annexation Strategy
At the time of incorporation, the city of Moorpark's sphere of influence
and city limits were the same. The ability to manage growth in Moorpark,
provide municipal services, and ensure land use compatibility will depend
to a great extent on the ability to influence development occurring out-
side the city.
. Phil Schwartze, Principal of PBR, was an eight-year member and is the
former chairman of the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO).
. PBR has extensive experience in working with large landowners who may
be skeptical of annexation. Our clients include Rancho Santa Marga-
rita, Santa Fe Land Company and The Irvine Company.
As part of the overall understanding of the future infrastructure require-
ments and socioeconomic considerations of the general plan, an appropriate
sphere of influence and phased annexation strategy document will be pre-
pared. Project Principal Phillip Schwartze is intimately familiar with
the most current requirements for sphere studies. This internal city docu-
ment will address the ability to provide cost-efficient services to unin-
corporated areas and the phasing plan for annexations both inhabitated and
uninhabited through the Ventura County LAFCO.
The sphere of influence and future annexations will depend on the approved
sphere of influence. given to Moorpark by the Ventura LAFCO. In order to
understand the city's ability, one must first understand the role of LAFCO
and the rules and regulations established for that Commission.
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is a regulatory body respon-
sible for the discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of the
orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies based
upon local conditions. There is a LAFCO in each county in California
except San Francisco.
2
A commission may consist of five or seven members. Most commissions are
five member commissions and are comprised of two members of city councils
(chosen by the mayors of the cities in that county), two members of the
county board of supervisors (chosen by a majority of the board), and a
fifth member, representing the general public, selected by the other four
members. Any LAFCO may allow independent special district representation
on the commission, thereby expanding it to five members, such as the
Ventura LAFCO.
1. John Flynn (County Supervisor)
2. Madge Schaefer (County Supervisor)
Alt. - Maggie Erickson (County Supervisor)
3. Vicky Howard (City of Simi Valley)
4. Dorill Wright (Mayor - Port Hueneme)
Alt. - Alex Fiore (City of Thousand Oaks)
5. James Gordon (Local resident)
Alt. - Robert Embry (Local resident)
POWERS AND DUTIES OF LAFCO
California state law empowering LAFCO is the Cortese-Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985. In meeting its responsibility, LAFCO is
required to "review and approved or disapprove, with or without amend-
ments, wholly, partially or conditionally, proposals for":
Cities
- the incorporation of cities;
- the exclusion of territory from a city;
- the disincorporation of a city;
- the consolidation of two or more cities;
- the development of new communities within jurisdiction of the commis-
sion pursuant to Section 33021 and 33298 of the Health and Safety
Code.
3
Districts
- the formation of special districts;
- detachments;
- dissolutions;
- mergers;
- reorganizations;
- consolidations.
and
- the annexation of territory to local agencies provided that the commis-
sion shall not impose any conditions which would regulate land use or
subdivision requirements.
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Sphere of Influence - A plan for the probable ultimate physical boundaries
and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Commission (Cali-
fornia Government Code Section 56076).
STATMENT OF PURPOSE
1. To facilitate orderly urban growth in the (unincorporated) areas
adjacent to a city.
2. To promote cooperative planning efforts between the various cities,
county and districts to facilitate proper effectuation of their respec-
tive general plans.
3. To coordinate property development standards and encourage timely pro-
visions of adequate and essential services such as sewer, water, fire
and police protection when urbanization occurs.
4. To assist all governmental agencies in planning the logical and econom-
ical extension of all their facilities and services, thus avoiding
unnecessary duplications.
4
5. To assist property owners to plan comprehensively for the ultimate use
and development of their lands.
POLICY GUIDELINES
1. A sphere of influence presumes eventual annexation to, and provision
of, urban services by the affected local governmental agency.
2. Spheres of influence will guide the future expansion and organization
of local governmental boundaries by doing (but not being limited to)
the following:
a. Providing long-range guidelines for the efficient and economical
provision of organized community service and orderly change of
governmental organization.
b. Discouraging the potential duplication of services by two or more
local governmental agencies.
c. Guiding the Commission in its deliberations • on specific changes of
organization.
d. Indicating the need for specific governmental reorganization
studies.
3. Annexations should proceed in a sequential manner. Each local agency
should identify areas within its LAFCO approved sphere of influence
where services are now provided or where services are planned to be
provided within the next ten years and submit promptly to LAFCO any
plans for the development of such areas as they are formulated. Such
areas will be considered by LAFCO as appropriate for annexation.
4. Phased urban development contributes to the orderly growth of urban
areas. LAFCO encourages the provision of urban services within and
immediately adjacent to existing urban areas before they are provided
to areas not yet devoted to urban uses.
5
5. LAFCO will exercise its powers, specified in California Government
Code Section 56375 to encourage and provide planned, well-ordered,
efficient urban development patterns.
6. LAFCO encourages cooperation and communication among cities, districts
and the county relative to using "spheres of influence" as not only a
LAFCO policy plan, but rather as a basis for other planning projects
within the county.
7. LAFCO discourages the formation of independent special districts
within cities spheres of influence.
8. LAFCO discourages the annexation of unincorporated territory to inde-
pendent special districts when such territory is within a city's
sphere of influence. LAFCO may condition any such special district
annexation on concurrent city annexation when the territory is contigu-
ous to such city (dual annexation policy).
9. LAFCO requests the Ventura County Planning Commission to refer all
proposed subdivisions, rezoning applications and major development pro-
posals which are within a city's sphere of influence to that city for
review and comment.
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
Government Code Section 56425 specifies the following four factors which
must be considered when establishing or reviewing spheres of influence:
1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural
and open space lands.
2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in
the area.
3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public ser-
vices which the agency provides or is authorized to provide.
6
4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the
area if the commission determines they are relevant to the agency.
In addition, the Commission shall consider the following criteria for
determining a city's sphere of influence:
- Provision of water transmission mains
- Ample sewerage facilities
- Adequate police and fire protection
- Waste disposal
- Parks and recreation
- Compatible street circulation
- Economic and social relationships
- Natural topographic features such as rivers, ridgelines, ravines, etc.
- Man-made barriers such as freeways, major streets, railroads, etc.
- Recognition of formal general plans adopted by all public agencies
- Existence of unincorporated "islands" in the area
- Existing school , postal and judicial districts and other special dis-
tricts which give municipal type services
- Consideration of property owner statements indicating preference of
his choice of jurisdiction
- The revenue needs of cities
These criteria are used to determine which city is the most capable of pro-
viding the necessary public facilities and services essential to urban
development. In applying the above criteria, the Commission's sphere
determinations will not be based on any single factor, but rather will
include a composite consideration of all the factors that are applicable.
PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
1. Each city should define and determine its boundaries in the areas of
the county which, in its judgment, bears a relationship to its future
planning.
2. Consideration of the previously mentioned criteria factors should
guide each city in its determination of its proposed sphere of influ-
ence.
3. If two ore more cities feel that a certain area in the county relates
to their planning program such studies should be conducted jointly by
the appropriate representatives of the cities involved and the Local
Agency Formation Commission in order to establish areas of agreement
for all concerned.
4. At such time as agreement is established between all the affected agen-
cies a map should be prepared which delineates the areas of agreement.
5. Copies should be filed with and reviewed by the Local Agency Formation
Commission.
6. The spheres of influence of other public entities should be defined
where appropriate.
7. If the cities or other governmental entities cannot agree on the boun-
daries or conditions of a sphere of influence the collected informa-
tion and points of view may be filed with the LAFCO by an affected
agency with a request that the LAFCO make the final determination.
•
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING AND UPDATING SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
1. The Local Agency Formation Commission will review and update a city's
sphere of influence once every three years, and other agencies'
spheres of influence once every five years, unless circumstances war-
rant an earlier review. A sphere of influence review and update can
also be initiated by resolution requesting such review by the county,
or the affected city or district.
2. A "Plan for Services" shall be completed and submitted by the affected
city or district. This plan shall include, but is not necessarily
limited to the following information:
a. A master plan for the provision of services including:
- Description of the services to be provided
- Level and range of services
8
- When services will be available
- Location of present services
- Present population and projected population for the study area
for the next ten years
- Present and proposed land use
- General plan designations for the area
- Reasons that justify the sphere maintenance or extension
b. A map or maps showing the area to be included within the sphere
which clearly show(s) the following:
- Topography
- Urban areas
- Open space and agricultural areas
- Industrial areas
- Major highways and freeways
- Existing boundaries of the involved city or district
- Boundaries of contiguous cities and districts as they, relate
to the area under review, including the sphere of influence
lines for adjacent cities and districts.
A sphere of influence extension request for, a city or district shall
clearly justify the action and include a time frame for possible annexa-
tion. Capital improvement projects shall be identified which would be
planned for the sphere of influence.
LAFCO STAFFING
Each commission has an executive officer who is assisted in preparing the
analysis of proposals by other county departments, eg. , the county asses-
sor's office, elections, planning, county health and the county public
works departments. Each LAFCO is financed by its county board of supervi-
sors. The county counsel provides the commission with legal advice.
Robert Braitman, Executive Officer
9
ADDITIONAL REPONSIBILITIES OF LAFCO
In addition to other powers, LAFCO shall initiate and make studies of
existing governmental agencies. Such studies shall include but not be lim-
ited to inventorying such agencies and determining their maximum service
area and service capabilities.
•
10