Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1990 1010 CC ADJMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California October 10, 1990 An Adjourned Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California was held on October 10, 1990 in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Pro Tem Montgomery called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present were Mayor Pro Tem Montgomery, Councilmembers Brown, Harper, and Lawrason Absent: Mayor Bernardo Perez 3. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Brown seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session for a discussion of the following: A. Personnel. B. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1) . C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). D. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Moorpark Unified School District. E. Litigation concerning Moorpark Unified School District vs. City of Moorpark. F. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District vs. City of Moorpark. G. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of Moorpark. H. Negotiations for Real Property on the North Side of Tierra Rejada Road East of Spring Road (Pacifica Corp.) pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.8. I. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 October 10, 1990 J. Litigation concerning Colonial Mortgage vs the City of Moorpark K. Negotiations for Real Property at 289 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.8 L. Negotiations for Real Property on Los Angeles Avenue (East) pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.8. M. Negotiations for Real Property for a portion of Moorpark Community College (Ventura County Community College District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.8. The motion carried by voice vote, 4 -0, Mayor Perez absent. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers, except Mayor Perez; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; Pat Richards, Director of Community Development; John Knipe, City Engineer; and Shant Agajanian, City Consultant. Mayor Perez joined the Closed Session at 6:24 p.m. The Council reconvened into Open Session at 7:07 p.m. Mr. Kueny announced that only Potential Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) was discussed and there was no action to report out of Closed Session. Mayor Perez declared a recess at 7:07 p.m. and indicated Council's intention to return to Closed Session at the conclusion of the Open Session portion of the meeting. The full Council reconvened at 7:20 p.m. at which time Cheryl Kane, City Attorney, left the meeting. 4. ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Review Sphere of Influence Expansion Study Area Land Use Plan Ms. Traffenstadt gave the staff presentation pointing out the revisions to the Sphere of Influence Expansion Study boundaries. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 October 10, 1990 The following filled out speaker cards and addressed the Council: A. David Schwabauer, 12598 Broadway commented on the Sphere of Influence Study and also commented that he felt not enough roads are being planned by the City. B. Colin Velasquez, 476 West Los Angeles Avenue, said that it seemed nothing was being done to improve the downtown area. He said he would like to see some regulatory relief and the adoption of the general study on the downtown area. Councilmember Lawrason and Mayor Perez indicated that the Council was working on the elements of the downtown plan. C. RoseAnn Brodsky, 4572 Vista Del Valle, said she thought it was "outrageous" that Council was studying the expansion of the Sphere of Influence. She said the citizens don't want growth. D. Eddie Ramseyer, 1881 Knoll Drive, of Ramseyer & Associates, said that he would like to see the Sphere adopted as recommended by the City's consultant, PBR. E. Harvey Wolchuck, 10838 Broadway, said he owns 50 acres in lemons and oranges. He went over the expense of water for irrigation, which he said was costing him too much to make a profit. He asked for clarification on the westerly boundary of the sphere. Councilmember Harper says he is adamantly opposed to urbanization of the expanded area of the sphere of influence boundary. Councilmember Lawrason says his support is based only on a study of the area, that there is no intention to urbanize those areas, just study and plan for the City's future. F. Dennis Hardgrave, 1830 Lockwood, Oxnard, representing the Levy Company, said he supported a natural buffer in Specific Plan Area 5 as recommended by PBR. He said in Specific Plan Area 5, there is a need for the Highway 118 bypass to be six - lanes. In addition, he said he would propose some text language regarding an area of benefit, within the sphere area. Councilmember Harper stated that the Sphere of Influence Expansion Study should be discontinued. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 October 10, 1990 Councilmember Montgomery said that the residential component of the land uses proposed should be developed f or the study. He indicated that Mr. Braitman f rom LAFCO spoke about a minimum number of dwelling units per acre and that approximately one dwelling unit per acre was an under utilization of the land. Councilmember Montgomery said dwelling units should be based on gross acreage of the residential component. Councilmember Lawrason asked if the consultant was clear that the General Plan Update boundaries are separate from the Sphere Study. In response, Mr. Richards said that PBR had given the assurance that we will have separate numbers for both. Councilmember Harper said that if you look again at the summary provided by PBR, the generation factors are inconsistent with the figures being used in the Carlsberg Specific Plan. Off about 12% on the low side. He said he was concerned that this is a first step in doubling the size of the city. Councilmember Brown said that the study was the first step in avoiding development beyond the City's control. Mayor Perez said that he was alarmed at the numbers in the study, and did not see that the City needs to move forward with the study. He said he did not want to expedite growth around the City. Councilmember Montgomery suggested that for the purposes of the study the City should make some changes to the dwelling units shown in the specific plan areas -- one dwelling unit per residential acre, calculated by taking the total acres, subtracting the acres identified for neighborhood commercial, agricultural, open space, pools and parks and calculating one dwelling unit for that net acreage, and since agricultural and open space does receive a residential allocation, that one dwelling unit per 40 acres be analyzed for them. Councilmember Brown said that the Cities of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks planned beyond their City limits and that almost every city in Ventura County includes land outside their city limits in their general plan. Councilmember Harper said the City should hold off on the study until the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance was in place. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 October 10, 1990 Councilmember Harper asked that Home Acres be excluded from the study. Councilmember Brown indicated her support of removing Home Acres from the study. In response to Council questions, Mr. Richards indicated that Home Acres was included for study purposes only. Mr. Kueny suggested Home Acres be identified as a separate entity on the map and be included in the study as part of the cumulative impacts for the area only. Councilmember Montgomery said he supported going ahead with the study in conjunction with the General Plan Update, in order to get a total picture. He requested the following revisions to the dwelling units for Specific Plan Areas: Specific Plan #1 - 351 Dwelling Units Specific Plan #2 - 1,185 Dwelling Units Specific Plan #3 - 3,221 Dwelling Units Specific Plan #4 - 843 Dwelling Units Specific Plan #5 - 269 Dwelling Units Specific Plan #6 - 321 Dwelling Units For a total of 6,190 instead of 8,628 Dwelling Units. Councilmember Harper said that given the impacts that would be caused by this, he could not now support the certification of the Carlsberg EIR. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Lawrason seconded a motion to move ahead with the Sphere of Influence Expansion Study as revised with regard to dwelling units by Councilmember Montgomery above and the study area as presented in the revised map by PBR and staff, the Study to be incorporated into the General Plan Update process from this time forward. The motion carried by roll call vote 3 -2, Councilmember Harper and Mayor Perez dissenting. In response to Councilmember Brown, Mr. Kueny said that one or two additional workshops would be held prior to the public hearings on the General Plan Update. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 5. CLOSED SESSION: October 10, 1990 MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Brown seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session for a discussion of 1) Personnel, and 2) Negotiations for Real Property at 289 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.8. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 8:45 p.m. The Council reconvened into Closed Session at 9:05 p.m. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager. Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager, joined the Closed Session at 9:20 p.m. The Council reconvened into Open Session at 9:22 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and both items were discussed. 6. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Brown seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 9:22 p.m. Bernardo M. Perez, Mayor ATTEST: