Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1990 0910 CC JNTMINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION Moorpark, California September 10, 1990 A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, California was held on September 10, 1990 in the Council Chambers of City Hall of said City, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Mayor Perez and Chairman Wozniak. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Eloise Brown, Paul Lawrason, and Mayor Bernardo Perez Present: Commissioners Bill Lanahan, Michael Scullin, and Roy Talley, and Chairman John Wozniak Absent: Councilmembers Clint Harper, Scott Montgomery and Commissioner Glen Schmidt Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Patrick Richards, Director of Community Development; Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior Planner and Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk Councilmember Montgomery joined the meeting at 7:30 p.m. 3. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP I. Pat Richards explained that this is the 5th of 7 workshops concerning the General Plan Update which 1) consists of the land use and circulation elements and 2) the expanded study dealing with the sphere of influence. He stated that approximately 770 notices were sent to landowners in the sphere of influence study area notifying them of this meeting. Mr. Richards introduced the team of consultants who are involved in the analysis of the two elements; Kendall Elmer from Austin -Foust Associates, and Cheri Phelps and Ken Ryan from PBR. He indicated that the goals and policies of the land use and circulation element will be discussed by Ms. Phelps and Mr. Ryan. He invited the public to review the exhibits and to ask questions. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California September 10, 1990 2 At this point, Mr. Richards introduced the Executive Director of LAFCO, Bob Braitman, and stated that he will speak specifically about the sphere of influence process and how that process might affect the City. Mr. Richards explained that the sphere of influence line as it currently exists is the same as the City boundary line. He then indicated that another presentation would be made by Reddy Pakala, Ventura County Waterworks District, regarding the future sewage treatment plant capacity and the current process used to monitor growth and future sewage treatment needs in the City. Mr. Richards went on to explain other items to be discussed would include the land use and circulation goals and policies and the updated schedule as proposed after the discussion concludes. He stated that there will also be a question and answer period at the end. II. Bob Braitman began his presentation by giving a background of his involvement with the incorporation process of the City of Moorpark. He restated what Mr. Richards had said earlier that the City boundaries and the sphere of influence are one in the same at this time. He said that when LAFCO adopted the City's sphere of influence it was assumed that when the City was ready to cause an annexation, the sphere of influence would be re- examined. This is the process that is being undertaken now with all other cities in the County. Mr. Braitman explained that LAFCO was formed as a regulatory agency concerning City and Special District boundaries. Ventura County is unique because of the distance that still exists between communities. In Ventura County, LAFCO has developed areas of interest where they divide the county into major geographic areas representative of community identity. Within each area of interest there should be no more than one city. This means that other cities cannot encroach upon another City's area of interest. He continued by saying that LAFCO has no ability to adopt general plans or establish zoning. LAFCO primarily plans the future jurisdictional boundaries of a city. The process for changing a sphere of influence is set forth by state law. Any public entity can request a change by filing an application with LAFCO, which must be accompanied by a map of the area to be changed and a specific purpose of why the change is being requested. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California September 10, 1990 3 With regard to the sphere of influence in Moorpark, he expressed concern with the fact that no agricultural area was being proposed to be retained. He said if Moorpark wants to have an industrial base, then it must provide housing for those persons who work within the industries. Also, the idea of having acreage without agriculture needs to be addressed because it tends to be low - density, expensive housing. He continued with the recommendation that the sphere of influence application should not be part of the General Plan Amendment, but should be submitted to LAFCO after the General Plan has been approved. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Braitman stated that the concern with no retention of agricultural areas on the sphere of influence study area maps shows that LAFCO wants to see efficiency of land use and housing that is affordable. Councilmember Brown asked for a definition of the term "viable agriculture land ". Mr. Braitman stated that definitions for that term do exist in CEQA and the Williamson Act, however, the definition tends to be subjective. Mr. Braitman concluded by recommending that the City of Moorpark adopt the General Plan for a study area which may extend outside City limits and the sphere of influence may differ from that study area. He recommended not using the terminology "sphere of influence" in the General Plan. The Mayor then accepted questions from the audience which clarified items of general interest to the public. As a result of one of the questions, Mr. Braitman provided a handout to the Deputy City Clerk regarding the annexation process that is followed by LAFCO. III. Reddy Pakala, Ventura County Public Works, gave his presentation which included a projection of future requirements of the sewer plant to meet the needs of growth and development in Moorpark. He stated that the Waterworks District No. 1 will provide service needs based on approved land uses and projects submitted from the City Planning Department. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California September 10, 1990 4 In response to Mayor Perez, Mr. Pakala stated that a reclaimed water (tertiary) facility will be complete by the middle of 1992. He continued by stating that this will be paid for by the customers who want to use the reclaimed water, or the State of California has revolving loan grant money that may be available for the reclamation projects. The Mayor asked for questions from the audience. Several residents inquired about an odor that has been apparent possibly coming from the sewer wastewater treatment plants. Mr. Pakala stated that the Waterworks District has had complaints. He explained that the treatment does not cause the odors. The sledge in the ponds is what can cause an odor. At 9:05 p.m., a twenty- minute break was taken. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. IV. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE - LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Ken Ryan initiated the review of the land use alternatives goals and policies by stating that the goal statements have been related to the policy statement and the changes have been made as a result of the last workshop. The Mayor then opened the item for discussion. Councilmember Brown indicated that policy 4.2.2 on page 4 does not address the center part of the City. She would like to see reference to the downtown area added. Mayor Perez and Councilmember Montgomery asked why some policies are "encouraged ", such as 7.2 and 7.3, and others are written in mandated form. Ken Ryan responded by saying that in these two cases, clustering is encouraged, but not mandated. Mayor Perez expressed concern that some of these goals and policies preclude affordable housing. In response to Mayor Perez, Cheri Phelps agreed that lower density, residential development tends to preclude affordable housing. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California September 10, 1990 5 Ken Ryan said that policies 3.1 and 5.1 are to encourage the affordable housing element. Mayor Perez agreed, but pointed out that those are just suggested and not mandated. He was looking for something more substantial. At this point, Cheri Phelps reminded the Council and Commission that they are dealing with an update to the land use and circulation element and not to the housing element. By consensus, the City Council and Planning Commission members then proceeded to review the goals and policies on a page by page basis with the following comments: o Policy 1.3, page 2 - Councilmember Lawrason asked if it is mandated that the land use element be accomplished every five years? Mr. Richards responded that the guidelines encourage cities to review and revise their General Plan elements approximately every five years. In response to Councilmember Lawrason, he said the language in policy 1.3 is adequate. o Goal 2, page 3 - Commissioner Lanahan stated that the word "promote" should not be used, but instead the word consider should be used. Councilmember Montgomery stated that Goal 2 should have two accompanying policies as follows: Policy 2.1 - Plan for the ultimate physical boundaries and service area of the city Policy 2.2 - Reduce conflicts among industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural land uses within and immediately adjacent to the city o Policy 3. 1, page 3 - Councilmember Brown indicated that it should be changed from: "Provide a mix of residential densities which meets the needs of all economic segments of the community." to: "Provide a mix of residential densities which accommodates the housing needs of all members of the community." Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California September 10, 1990 6 o Page 4 - Councilmember Montgomery stated that the ones beginning with a preposition would read better if they were reworded (e.g., Goal No. 4) o Policy 6.4, page 6 - Councilmember Montgomery questioned where the declaration came from. Mr. Richards indicated that this is a reflection of the general overall policy. He said it can be generalized or it can be made more specific. o Policy 7.4, page 6 - Councilmember Montgomery said the word discourage should be in there to begin " ........ discourage (instead of reduce) the number of curb cuts and number of vehicle trips on adjacent roadways." o Policy 9.4, page 7 - Councilmember Lawrason believed it should read "encourage" instead of "promote ". Mayor Perez disagreed. General consensus to have it worded "Encourage the comprehensive ............." o Policy 9.7, page 8 - Councilmember Brown said the word "unified" should be changed to "integrated ", so as to avoid a cookie cutter type architecture. o Policy 10. 3, page 8 - Mayor Perez asked how is an upgrading accomplished of something that is already there? Mr. Richards responded that special circumstances generate the need to upgrade. o Goal 11, page 9 - Councilmember Brown asked if the word viable could be changed to prime and that the words, "Identify and ", be added to the beginning of this goal. o Policy 12.3, page 9 - Commissioner Lanahan requested this be changed to read: "Encourage the exchange of public and private open space and recreational uses to serve residential neighborhoods." o Policy 13.1, page 10 - Mayor Perez asked how this is really achieved. Mr. Richards explained that this policy is put in place because it will be reviewed in the future. It is the identification that the City is cognizant of the need for affordable housing and will work towards it. However, there is no guarantee that it will be achieved. Councilmember Brown stated it should read "Plan" instead of "strive". Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California 7 September 10, 1990 o Policy 14.4, page 11 - Councilmember Brown suggested that it read ".......and enhance the area adjacent to the Arroyo Simi floodway ...... " o Policy 15.5, page it - Councilmember Montgomery said it seems redundant and unnecessary. Mr. Richards said it is not redundant by law inasmuch as the City must either have its own Hazardous Waste Management Plan or adopt the County's as Moorpark has accomplished. The policy is needed to identify the City's plan as required by state law. o Policies 15.2 and 15.3, page 11 - Councilmember Montgomery said the wording could be substantially stronger, i.e., "protect and preserve" instead of just "encourage ". Councilmember Brown said the "ecologically sensitive habitats" are identified by whom? Mr. Richards said they could be identified by a variety of sources and he suggested leaving it somewhat broad so the determination can be made later. Mayor Perez stated that he would like to have it say something to the effect "as identified by appropriate agencies ". Councilmember Montgomery at this time suggested dropping the first three words in 15.3 and replacing them with "preserve ". Commissioner Wozniak said he does not see anything that pertains to recycling conditions. He said there should be some statement that "promotes recycling ". Mr. Richards said another policy could be added that deals with recycling efforts by the City and leave it broad - based. o Policy 16.4, page 12 - Councilmember Brown said the term "identifiable" neighborhoods is not good, because Moorpark as a city is identifiable. Commissioner Talley said this concept will encourage the separatism feeling within the City, which is not what they want to achieve. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California 8 September 10, 1990 There was a general consensus that PBR will reword this policy. o Policy 16.2, page 12 - Chairman Wozniak asked that the word "significant" be stricken. o Policies 16.4 and 17.1 - It was agreed that they overlap considerably, but no change was indicated. o Goal 18, page 14 - Councilmember Montgomery said the term "visually substandard" is not acceptable. Cheri Phelps suggested that it read "To provide for and promote the visual quality of areas in the community......" By Council consensus PBR will reword this goal. CIRCULATION ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES o Policy 1.2, page 1 - By Council consensus this item will be reworked by PBR. o Goal 3, page 2 - Councilmember Brown indicated that a policy needs to be added that says "Attempt to provide or develop inter -city transit throughout the County." V. Alternative Land Use Plans Ken Ryan gave an overview of what items have been included in the alternative land use plans. He briefly summarized the Preferred Land Plan Statistical Summary. He explained that several of the elements are based on the figures from Ventura County. Solid waste is reflective of the County and is based on the default factors, which are used while they are determining current and future needs. Cheri Phelps said PBR needs more direction before a preferred circulation plan can be derived and incorporated into the General Plan Circulation Element. A determination of which Preferred/ Sphere Plan Circulation Improvements are desired will be helpful to PBR. The following determinations were made as a result of discussion with City Council and Commission members. Mr. Kueny opened the discussion by gaining consensus from the Council and Commission that High Street should not extend beyond its current terminus and it will remain two lanes. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California 9 September 10, 1990 *TBD (To be determined) Kendall Elmer said with this information they will use the traffic model to determine the potentially best circulation. Mr. Richards stated that the impact of the decisions made in this regard will require major changes to the land use plan and that it may have to come back to the Commission and Council before finalization. VI. General Public Questions /Answers o David Schwabauer, 12598 Broadway Road, commended the City Council and Planning Commission for looking into this item now. He agrees that the Waterworks District No. 1 boundaries are appropriate for the sphere of influence expansion. He indicated that the distinction made between prime agricultural land and viable agricultural land is a valid one. o Barbara Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue, questioned what is the designation of the Gisler property. She stated that she had heard it referred to as commercial and future commercial. Mr. Richards clarified that there is no change to its current designation of Medium Residential and no application is being considered. NO. OF SEGMENT LANES DETERMINATION SR -118 Bypass - Gabbert to SR -118 Freeway 6 Yes Los Angeles Avenue - Buttercreek to west of Grimes Canyon 6 No Moorpark Avenue - L.A. Avenue to SR -118 bypass 4 No Walnut Canyon Road - SR -118 bypass to Broadway 4 No Broadway Road - Walnut Cyn to Grimes Cyn 4 Not in City Grimes Cyn Road - Broadway Rd to north of Shekell 4 TBD* Grimes Cyn Road - Gabbert to Broadway 4 TBD SR -23 Bypass - SR -23 Freeway to Walnut Cyn 4 Yes L. A. Avenue - Spring to Princeton 4 Yes High Street - Gabbert to Spring 4 No Gabbert Road - High to Grimes Cyn 4 No A Street - High to B Street 4 Yes Happy Camp Road - Broadway to 1/2 mile north of Broadway 4 TBD *TBD (To be determined) Kendall Elmer said with this information they will use the traffic model to determine the potentially best circulation. Mr. Richards stated that the impact of the decisions made in this regard will require major changes to the land use plan and that it may have to come back to the Commission and Council before finalization. VI. General Public Questions /Answers o David Schwabauer, 12598 Broadway Road, commended the City Council and Planning Commission for looking into this item now. He agrees that the Waterworks District No. 1 boundaries are appropriate for the sphere of influence expansion. He indicated that the distinction made between prime agricultural land and viable agricultural land is a valid one. o Barbara Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue, questioned what is the designation of the Gisler property. She stated that she had heard it referred to as commercial and future commercial. Mr. Richards clarified that there is no change to its current designation of Medium Residential and no application is being considered. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California September 10, 1990 10 Ms. Shultz also requested clarification on terminology in the goals and policies. o Gary Austin, 17512 Von Karmon, Irvine, spoke representing Messenger Investment Co., stated that the traffic numbers generated by the model are alarming to him and he does not feel that these assumptions are valid. He recommended a reevaluation specifically with regard to the property owned by Messenger Investment Co. It is not their intent to develop industrial on that property and he stated that the traffic reduction would be significant if the industrial and commercial assumptions were eliminated. Mr. Austin indicated that they are in escrow with Unocal for property within proposed Specific Plan 10. He pointed out that a lot of the land in Simi has been master planned already and will be approved by October or November at the latest. Messenger Investment Co. is anxious to move ahead with their projects and the City of Moorpark should keep them in the planning area with regard to the General Plan Update process. o Jeanne Dewhurst, 4176 Santa Rosa Drive, spoke regarding equestrian facilities. She suggested a policy that would allow the development of equestrian trail linkages to regional parks. Mr. Richards responded by stating that the City of Moorpark does not have the ability to provide those trails. That would imply that the City would provide construction and at the present time it does not have the capacity to do that. It would very clearly obligate the City for construction. Ms. Dewhurst then spoke in favor of policy 14.5 on page 11, which promotes compatible open space /recreational uses of the Arroyo Simi floodway. She also asked the Council and Commission not to forget horse owners and encourage spaces for them to ride. o Dennis Hardgrave, 1830 Lockwood, #110, Oxnard, spoke representing the Levy Company. He said the Levy Company supports development and looks forward to Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California September 10, 1990 11 preparing a specific plan on their property. They are committed to doing moderate to low -cost housing on a portion of this property and would like to see their project be accessible to the shopping areas of the City and have interaction with the downtown area. He also spoke regarding the Levy Company's portion (139 acres) of Specific Plan 5 immediately west of the existing Buttercreek tract, south of L.A. Avenue. This property was also part of an original application for General Plan Amendment when they first started this process for the Levy Company. At the second workshop it was discussed that their 139 acre property is an obvious division of urban /rural (buffer zone) . The Levy Company would prefer a separate specific plan for that 139 acre property as originally requested as part of the General Plan study. o Jeanne Dewhurst, 4176 Santa Rosa Drive, stated that Home Acres is a very unique community and that most of its residents do not want to become part of the City of Moorpark. Mayor Perez asked if there were any final comments from the Council or Planning Commission. There were none. VII. Schedule Cheri Phelps said that with the changes they have been given this evening, they must request additional time for preparation to bring these items back to the Council. She suggested that they will make the modifications necessary bring these items back at a regular Council meeting in October as opposed to an additional workshop. Mr. Kueny said the Council will not have the changes in time to consider them at the meeting of September 19 and October 3 will be the earliest possible date. He commented that a special meeting may be in order to address the changes the first or second week of October. Cheri Phelps said the first week of October will give staff and the consultants time to prepare the necessary materials for Council review prior to the next meeting. Minutes of the Joint City Council /Planning Moorpark, California VIII. ATTEST: ADJOURNMENT Meeting of the Commission 12 September 10, 1990 The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. "S Bernardo M. Perez, Mayor AIIAA Chairman, John Wozniak