Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1987 0909 CC ADJMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California _ ._ ______September , 1987 The adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California was held on September 9, 1987, in the Council Chambers of City Hall located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by Mayor Clint Harper. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember John Galloway. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmember Eloise Brown, John Galloway, John Patrick Lane, and Mayor Clint Harper. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Patrick Richards, Director of Community Development; Lt. Michael Brown, Sheriff's Department; Thomas P. Genovese, Deputy City Manager; and Maureen W. Wall, City Clerk. Absent: Councilmember Thomas Ferguson. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS, AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None were presented. 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS_TO,__THE AGENDA: Nothing was reordered, nor added to, the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No one wished to address the Council. 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS: No reports were presented. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: Nothing was presented on the Consent Calendar. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California 2 September 9, 1987 A. Continued Public Hearing - Residential Development Management System. Further consideration of a draft Residential Development Management System so_ -as to implement Measure F a ballot measure limiting the number of residential dwelling units to be constructed within_ a calendar__y_ear. Patrick Richards, Director of Community Development, gave an overview of the matter from his staff report dated September 4, 1987. The Public Hearing was then opened. A -1. Mr. Tom Zanic, 520 Broadway, Suite 100, Santa Monica, representing Urban West Communities, indicated his areas of concern were: grading for Planned Communities, rating and application criteria, definition of the term "project ", number of allocations per project, the encouragement of infrastructure improvements, consideration of site dedication for a new fire station, seniority points for partially completed projects, amendments to projects after allotment, and the 1986 allocation. A -2. Mr. Phil Vein, 6685 Princeton Avenue, representing U.S. Condominium Corporation, expressed their opinions and concerns with: the prohibition of the issuance of any further permits for the calendar year 1986; their position that all applicants must have a tentative map approval prior to their applying for an allotment; the definition of the phrase "normally installed" used in Section 10.06 -A -1, 2 & 3; the definition of the phrase "substantially altering" used in Section 10.06 -7; their opinion that the proposed point awards does not fairly consider the entry level or first time home buyer segment of the population; non - applicable items contained in Section 10.06 -C should immediately be identified; and all available permits should not go to one applicant. They also felt grading balance must be addressed, especially in large multi - phased projects. Councilmember Lane commented he did not feel one applicant should receive all allotments available in a given year. A -3. Ms. Elaine Freeman, 24005 Ventura Boulevard, Calabasas, representing Griffin Homes, stated their primary concern was that Planned Communities should have the opportunity to obtain allocations without having an approved tentative map and planned development. A -4. Mr. Russ Russell, of Camarillo, representing G1enHaven, stated they felt an amendment should be passed which would allow small projects under 25 or 30 units in size to be considered on a case -by -case basis and maybe granted allocations to relieve the critical financial burdens they might be forced to carry. The Public Hearing was closed when no one else wished to speak. AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING, the Council recessed, the time being 8:33 p.m. The Council, with Councilmember Ferguson absent, reconvened at 8:52 p.m. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California _ _ 3 _ September 9, 1987 The Council then began discussion concerning the proposed Residential Development Management System. By consensus of Council, paragraph C was eliminated to encourage in -fill, and density reduction was to be encouraged in paragraph A. They also directed that language would be added to allow balanced grading with encouragement to cause planting and irrigation of such slope and pad areas to reduce the impact of such grading. The adequacy of such a plan will be determined by the Director of Community Development and appealable to the City Council. By consensus they also directed that applicants must have a tentative map approved prior to applying for an allotment. Language was also to be added to allow off -site amenities to be considered within reason, plus language for two application windows for the first allotment, dividing the first allotment in half. This will not overlap the process for the 1988 allotment. By consensus, if there was no competition within a given year, then the 60% maximum percentage of the allotments to one developer, could be exceeded. Additionally, it was determined not to issue another 400 allotments for 1986. Seniority points were also deleted. "Lower income" was defined as 65% of the Ventura County median income. "Senior citizen" was defined as 62 years of age and older. The procedures and by -laws of the Residential Development Evaluation Board shall be developed at a Public Hearing by the Board, subject to the approval of the City Council. Two filing periods will be allowed for 1987 allocations. Wording was eliminated in the draft document relating to priority ranking of projects which tie in percentage scores. Under the heading "Water Supply Impact," ten points will be awarded a project when the entire project can meet domestic and fire flows without further transmission pipeline, pumping station, or storage tank improvements which involve no net capital contributions by the water purveyor. Under the heading "Wastewater Capacity Impact," ten points will also be awarded a project. when wastewater service can be provided to the project without plant or existing system improvements, which involve net capital contributions by the waterworks purveyor. AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING, the Council recessed, the time being 10:52 p.m. At 11:10 p.m. the Council, with Councilmember Ferguson absent, reconvened. Staff was directed to use Camarillo's Community Improvements as presented to Council. Range 5 was added under "Community Improvements" when a project provides storm drainage which will serve as a flood control system, above standard City requirements, which will benefit an area in the City significantly greater than the area of the project itself. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California 4 _ _ September 9, 1987 Under "Fire Protection," 10 points will be awarded when a project provides a new fire station. If an approved site is given and accepted, 8 points will be awarded. If a project provides major equipment or major equipment housing at no net financial participation by the Fire District, 7 points will be awarded. Under "School Impact," school impact shall be measured from operating, under construction, State funded or closed existing facilities for purposes of determining scoring. Eight points will be awarded when the appropriate school has the capacity to absorb the children expected to inhabit the project without necessitating or adding facilities or double sessions or other unusual scheduling or classroom overcrowding at the elementary, intermediate and high school, as determined by the Moorpark Unified School District. Under "Major Street Intersection Impact" points shall be based on projected peak -hour levels of service at major street intersections which are directly impacted by the project. The Department of Community Development shall select the two intersections. The lowest level of service of at least two intersections for a.m. or p.m. peak -hour cumulative traffic volumes shall be used to determine the number of points awarded. The proposed section entitled "Freeway Interchange Impact" was deleted. Under "Design Quality - Buildings," the criteria for exterior materials is if the building materials of a project are durable, are the same or higher than the quality of surrounding developments, and do not adversely impact adjacent land uses. In the same section, the criteria for relief if to avoid monotonous elevations, architectural relief is used in the design to provide interest and variety. Under the criteria for proportion, the scale of the project does not overwhelm any adjacent buildings. Under the criteria for window and door placement, visibility into adjacent areas is minimized by the window and door locations. Under "Design Quality, Site and Parking," the criteria for noise impact is noise emitted from the project will not significantly interfere with any adjacent land uses. The occupants of the project are protected from excessive noise outside and within the site, through screening, setbacks, and building materials. The criteria for screening walls along right -of -way is all centralized parking areas are screened from public view with a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. The criteria for proximity to structures is the centralized parking area is conveniently located to provide ease of access to all users. The criteria for parking lot lighting is whether it will provide adequate illumination to provide a secure environment but it will not emit a significant amount of light beyond the project. The criteria for auto headlight intrusion is the centralized parking area is designed so that illumination from auto Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California _ 5 _ September 9, 1987 headlights will not disturb or disrupt the occupants of the project or adjacent land uses. The heading "Deleterious Impact of Trees" was amended to read, "Deleterious Impact on Trees." Also under this section, three points will be awarded where grading or trenching, as shown on the approved grading plan, impacts more than five (5) percent but less than twenty -five (25) percent of the on -site and off -site trees, with a diameter of four (4) inches or greater, or provides a replacement of trees at a 3:1 ratio. Under the heading, "Provision of Water Conservation Features," page 18 of Camarillo's provisions was to be inserted. AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING, the Council recessed. The time was 1:08 a.m. At. 1:17 a.m. the Council reconvened, with Councilmember Ferguson absent. Under the heading, "Provision of Energy Conservation Features," three points will be awarded for an effective solar space heating system that is capable of conserving forty (40) percent or more of unassisted expected Annual Space Heating Energy ... (when) installed for every dwelling unit. Three points will be awarded for heat pumps (which) are installed in all dwelling units, and three points will be awarded ... (when) southern orientation windows in every dwelling unit are shaded with heavy projections, louvers, shutters, trellis, or similar shading devices in a manner that maximizes winter heating and summer shading. Under the heading, "Bicycle and Footpaths, Equestrian Trails, Facilities and Greenbelt ", six to ten points will be awarded (when) the project provides all Class 1 on -site and off -site bicycle and footpaths, equestrian trails and facilities and greenbelts consistent with the General Plan and /or any applicable Specific Plan or Planned Community Plan and provides critical linkages for such bicycle, footpaths, and equestrian trails and greenbelts. One to five points will be awarded (when) the project provides all Class 2 on -site and off -site bicycle and footpaths, equestrian trails and facilities and greenbelts required by the General Plan and /or any applicable specific Plan or Planned Community Plan. The entire section entitled "Multi- Family Residential -- Allotment Points," was deleted. Under the heading, "Absence of Deleterious Impact on the Physical and /or Aesthetical Environment," ten points will be awarded (when) the project will not create any significant impacts on air, water, flooding, plants, animals and noise, takes advantage of natural features in its layout and unit design, is compatible with adjacent land uses, has design features which add to the quality of the area, does not significantly diminish any viewsheds, and does not take any land out of productive agricultural use. Seven points will be Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California _ 6 September 9, 1987 awarded (when) the project creates minimal environmental impacts which are mitigated at no expense to any public agency and is compatible with the adjacent land uses but does not incorporate any exterior quality design enhancements beyond those required. Three points will be awarded (when) the project creates significant environmental impacts which are mitigated by significant cash contributions or major improvements. Under the heading, "Needed Public Facilities," six to ten points will be awarded (when) the project provides on -site public facilities in addition to those required and provides a share of off -site facilities required by adopted standards, and policies and regulations, plus the project provides on -site or off -site critical linkage in the major street system, improved functional park land, school rooms, or other vital public facilities benefiting more than just the project itself, consistent with adopted plans of the public agency that would administer the particular facility. The entire section entitled, "Incentives Contributing to the Public Welfare," was deleted. 10. COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: Councilmember Brown commented she did not like the apparent caricature of seniors in the recreation pamphlet. 11. DISCUSSION /ACTION ITEMS: None were presented. 12. ORDINANCES: None were presented. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: The following items were directed to be placed on future Council agendas: a review of Ordinance No. 51, consider crossing guard problems, consider bike lane striping in the Mountain Meadows area, consider stop signs at Christian Barrett, and consider speed humps on Christian Barrett. 14. CLOSED SESSION: None were scheduled. 15. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Galloway moved and Councilmember Brown seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The voice vote was unanimous with Councilmember Ferguson absent. The time of adjournment was 2:30 a.m. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California ATTEST: I City Clerk Mayor September 9, 198