HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1992 0122 CC SPCMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Moorpark, California January 22, 1992
A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was
held on January 22, 1992 in the Council Chambers of said City
located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Lawrason called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez,
Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason.
Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard
Hare, Deputy City Manager; and
Cheryl Kane, City Attorney.
2. CLOSED SESSION:
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember
Perez seconded a motion to go into Closed Session for a
discussion of all items listed on the agenda:
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 Ventura County Community
College District vs. City of Moorpark.
E. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs.
City of Moorpark.
F. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito
Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark.
G. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road
(Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8.
H. Negotiations for Real Property on Los Angeles
Avenue (East) pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8.
I. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties,
LTD. vs. City of Moorpark.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 2
January 22, 1992
J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Camrosa
Water District.
K. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Pacific
Bell.
L. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern
California Edison Company.
M. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Shell
Oil Company.
N. Negotiations for Real Property for Arroyo Vista
Community Park pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8.
O. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of
High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8.
P. Negotiation for Real Property at the Moorpark
Community Center site pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven
Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager;
and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney.
The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 6:51 p.m.
Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out
of Closed Session and only items 2.1. and 2.J. had been
discussed.
AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The
meeting reconvened at 7:13 p.m.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Talley.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 3 January 22, 1992
4. ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley,
Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason.
Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare,
Deputy City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City
Attorney; Pat Richards, Director of
Community Development; Lt. Dean,
Sheriff's Department; Mary Lindley,
Assistant to the City Manager; Charles
Abbott, City Engineer; Kathleen Mallory -
Phipps, Associate Planner; Lillian
Kellerman, City Clerk; Dorothy Vandaveer,
Deputy City Clerk.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Joseph C. Latunski, 289 Casey Road, spoke in
protest of the increase in the City's building and
safety fees.
B. Mark McQueen, 181 Wicks Road, expressed concern
that he may not be able to develop his property
unless the density is such that it will allow a
14,000 square foot lot. He indicated that he has
been advised by planning staff that the zoning is
going to be medium density and he hopes that is
accurate.
C. Jim Hartley, 5950 Gabbert Road, expressed concern
that the City Councilmembers may not be thinking
about the best interest of the City, but instead
are posturing for election to higher office.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Consider General Plan Update Land Use and
Circulation Elements, Sphere of Influence Expansion
Study, and Environmental Impact Report (GPA -89 -1
and Zone Change 89 -1). Staff Recommendation: Open
the public hearing and receive testimony.
(1) Staff and Consultant Presentations
Ms. Mallory Phipps gave the staff report.
a. Ken Ryan, spoke representing PBR, the
City's consultant for the preparation of
the General Plan Update. He gave a short
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 4
January 22, 1992
review of the General Plan Update process
and the major modifications to the Plan
thus far.
Mr. Ryan indicated that Land Use Policy
numbers 5.1 and 6.4 conflict and this
should be resolved. He also indicated
that special consideration should be
given to the downtown area and the
Scaroni property. He continued by saying
that if EIR Alternative 4 is recommended
it will result in more environmental work
being required and significant changes to
land use and circulation element
documents.
b. Kendall Elmer, spoke representing Austin
Faust Associates, Inc., the traffic
engineering consultant for the General
Plan Update process. He gave a brief
overview of the circulation element and
stated there are maps provided for
traffic circulation, bikeways and
equestrian trailways.
Mayor Lawrason opened the public hearing.
(2) General Plan Participant Presentations
a. Gordon Milligan spoke representing the Levy
Company, 651 Via Alondra, Camarillo. He gave
a brief description of the density categories
of the proposed development and added that
they would include both market rate and
affordable units. He said 25% of the project
would be open space including a 13 -acre
downtown park site.
b. John Newton, 4412 Summerglen, spoke
representing the Estes Trust Property, P. O.
Box 1542, Simi Valley. He provided a
description of the physical location of the
property and the attributes of the piece of
property. The proposed use is as a mobile
home park with a density of 5.0 per acre (172
units).
In response to Mayor Lawrason, Ken Ryan stated
that this property is not designated as prime
or statewide agricultural land.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 5
January 22, 1992
C. John Newton, also spoke representing the
Kavlico Corporation, 14501 Los Angeles Avenue.
He provided a physical description of the
property and said the request is for
industrial zoning. He stated that the 23/118
connector will wrap around the Kavli property.
d. John Newton gave a presentation on behalf of
A &A Development, 4875 Spring Road. He said
this 3.86 acres is otherwise known as the
Mcdonald's property. He provided a physical
description of the location of the property
and the uses of the surrounding properties.
He said that if the McDonald's project is
approved, it would sever approximately one
acre from the parcel and the balance of the
property would only develop as the economy
improves.
e. John Newton also gave a presentation for JBR
Development Company, 8383 Wilshire Blvd,
Beverly Hills. Mr. Newton provided a physical
description of the land and a brief history of
the density designations that have been given
to this property. He said the existing land
use designations are Open Space 1 and Rural
Low. He said some portions are developable
and some are not without interfering with
major drainage courses. The proposed overall
density for the land use is 1.6 dwelling
units /acre.
Mr. Newton said the proposed D Street
connection would provide access to the
development and the project would call for an
extension of Spring Road to Princeton to allow
a more direct route and smoother traffic flow.
Councilmember Montgomery asked Mr. Newton if
some attention was given to equestrian
passageways. Mr. Newton responded that they
have indicated trails in the drainage areas
and he pointed out two trails that are
proposed for the property.
Mr. Montgomery expressed interest in how the
already proposed trails, which are external to
the property, will cross these representative
properties and said that a map would be
helpful to the Council.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 6
January 22, 1992
f. Abe Guny, 616 Fitch Avenue, described his
project and indicated that 90% of the land is
proposed to remain greenbelt.
g. Tom Schleve, 8160 Happy Camp Road, provided a
physical description of the location of his
property and said they are proposing 13 acres
of very high density and 18 one -acre parcels.
He indicated that Mr. Guny's access road would
become an intersection and that his amendment
would set aside 25 acres for a downtown park,
10 acres for an active park site with the
remainder a passive park.
h. Irma Tucker, 29800 Agoura Road, Agoura, spoke
representing the Moorpark Unified School
District. She provided a brief history of the
site of their property and indicated that the
proposed use would be high and very high
density residential. She said the School
District wishes to work with the City to meet
the residential needs of the City and to
provide an economically viable development for
the District.
In response to Councilmember Perez' question
concerning the exhibit she presented during
her presentation, Ms. Tucker explained that
the gymnasium has already been portioned out
for the Boys and Girls Club and said the use
of the auditorium is still in question.
She indicated that the school district has not
developed a conceptual design yet because the
General Plan Update would provide a range that
could be worked within for the entire site and
the design would be tailored to meet the needs
of the school district.
i. James H. Scaroni, 5740 W. Greentree Drive,
Somis, described his property as being two
acres located at Everett and Walnut Canyon.
He is proposing construction of an affordable
condominium project which would feature 28
units, a combination of 2 and 3 bedroom units.
Mayor Lawrason recognized Bob Braitman from the
Local Area Formation Commission.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 7 January 22, 1992
Bob Braitman, Executive Officer of the Local Area
Formation Commission, 800 South Victoria Avenue,
Ventura, explained the adoption of a Sphere of
Influence and the annexation process from LAFCO's
perspective.
Mr. Braitman indicated that it is important for the
City of Moorpark to maintain a dialogue with the
Flood Control District, the County Agricultural
District and the Ventura County Road Department as
they all have an interest in the City's General
Plan.
He continued by saying that cities do not adopt
sphere of influence studies as that is LAFCO's
responsibility. Similarly, the adoption of a
General Plan Update is the responsibility of cities
and not of LAFCO. He stated that LAFCO recommends
that cities' General Plans include much larger
areas than just the land within the city
boundaries. He expressed three areas of concern
with Moorpark's General Plan:
1. Sufficient information is not provided in
either the General Plan or the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for LAFCO to consider a
sphere change for the Specific Plans 4, 5, 6,
7 or 8.
2. Regarding the EIR, it does not evaluate
combined development impacts for the Specific
Plans and the relationship of their
development to each other.
3. Each Specific Plan sets aside the same acreage
for school sites regardless of location.
In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr.
Braitman said the additional information needed for
the specific plans pertains to the EIR as well as
the land use designations. He said even though the
EIR is intended to be a program EIR, a comparative
analysis between the specific plans should be done.
In response to Councilmember Wozniak, Mr. Braitman
said LAFCO cannot approve an annexation that is
inconsistent with a city's sphere of influence. He
said there is no obligation on the part of the city
to apply for annexation during any specific time
period nor timing requirements for a landowner to
request annexation.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 8
January 22, 1992
In response to Mayor Lawrason, Mr. Braitman
concurred that the appropriate time to approach
LAFCO with the sphere of influence question is when
the Specific Plans are developed.
(3) Public Comment regarding the General Plan Update.
a. Joseph C. Latunski, 289 Casey Road, spoke in
support of the City expanding its boundaries.
b. Antoine Iskandar, 469 Las Palomas Drive, Port
Hueneme, said he owns the land south of Los
Angeles Avenue and west of Liberty Bell Road.
He said the City's rezoning of his property
would devalue it and he requested that he be
removed from the General Plan Update process.
C. Phil Vein, spoke representing JEMCO
Properties, 9061 Santa Monica Blvd, Los
Angeles. He endorsed the change of the
realignment of State Route 118 at Buttercreek
Road. He requested that policy 2.5 and policy
2.6 of the Circulation Element be worded in
such a way to allow the realignment to take
place. He requested that the word "required"
be changed to "encouraged ".
In response to Councilmember Perez, Mr. Vein
said the property on the south side of Los
Angeles Avenue is farming property.
d. Pat Ellis spoke representing Unocal, 1201 West
5th Street, Los Angeles. She said she is
concerned that the density proposed for their
property has been reduced from 697 dwelling
units to 181. She asked the Council to
consider density of one and one -half dwelling
units per acre and mixed residential use with
affordable housing as an element.
In response to Councilmember Talley, Ms. Ellis
said Unocal has no specific conceptual plan
yet.
Mr. Talley indicated that some sort of plan
would be helpful to the Councilmembers in
determining what density should be given to
this property.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 9
January 22, 1992
In response to Councilmember Perez, Ms. Ellis
clarified that the part of the property
suitable for affordable housing is a small
pocket of land adjacent to Moorpark College.
Ms. Ellis confirmed that it would be an
apartment or condominium complex and not
single family dwellings.
e. Jim Hartley, 5950 Gabbert Road, made the
following comments with regard to the General
Plan:
1. He said he supports Specific Plan 7, but
not Specific Plan 6. He said he believes
urbanization in the eastern direction is
acceptable, but does not support
urbanization on the south side of Happy
Camp Regional Park.
2. He is concerned with the Circulation
Element at the intersection of Gabbert
Road, Poindexter Avenue and the railroad
tracks.
3. The recreation element is excellent and
the equestrian plan is good. He
commented on the statement that
equestrian and hiking elements are
compatible, but that bicycling is not.
He argued that bicycling is compatible
with the other two uses and that there is
a good rapport among the three as long as
the trails are two track.
4. He said the commercial use restriction on
High Street is in conflict with an
already existing granary located in this
area.
5. He does not support McDonald's at the
entrance to the City and said it should
be located at the proposed K -Mart
development area, but not at a primary
entry to the City.
6. He supports the JBR proposal.
7. He supports the projects of Mr. Guny and
Mr. Schleve.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 10
January 22, 1992
8. He does not support the school district's
proposal regarding the old school site.
9. He wants the City to get Blue Star to
terminate its operation.
10. He suggested that once the update is
approved, the zone changes should be done
immediately.
Councilmember Montgomery said he would
appreciate additional comments on the
equestrian trail issue from Mr. Hartley.
f. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette Street, said she
is concerned that the highest density of the
General Plan Update is proposed for the
downtown area. She said the enjoyment of the
rural atmosphere of Moorpark should not be
restricted to those who can afford expensive
homes out of the downtown area.
Mrs. Brown stated that Alternative 4 of the
EIR is not a fiscally responsible approach.
g. Mrs. Brown stated that Bill Poleri had to
leave, but requested that he be allowed to
speak at the next public hearing.
h. Ethel Sulkis, 270 Sierra Avenue, said she
resents the fact that all very high density
projects are being proposed for the downtown
area.
Mrs. Sulkis presented a letter for the record
from her neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. R. Riggs.
i. Barbara Schultz, 116 Sierra Avenue, commented
that the Gisler property near her home is
zoned agricultural and she has not observed it
being used for that since she purchased her
home and that the piece of property south of
her, north of Los Angeles Avenue between
Shasta and Liberty Bell Road should remain
medium density. She continued by saying that
some kind of buffer should be allowed between
industrial, commercial and residential areas;
the downtown park should actually be located
"downtown "; some of the Redevelopment dollars
should go to the downtown residents; the City
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 11
January 22, 1992
should not restrict the location of McDonald's
signs; affordable housing should be spread
throughout the City and not in just one area;
and the extension of Liberty Bell Road to
Poindexter should not take place.
j. Gary Austin, Messenger Investment Corporation,
17512 Von Karman, Irvine, indicated that they
are referring to their property as Hidden
Creek Ranch. Mr. Austin said they want their
property annexed to he City with a one
dwelling unit per gross acre density. He said
that is the dividing line between urban and
non -urban designation. He disagreed with the
statement that residential development
projects are a cash drain on a community. He
said most projects come in with their own
infrastructure and do not need to drain the
City's resources for services.
Mr. Austin said there would be two benefits if
his property is annexed: 1) part of their
plan would be to include over 1800 acres to be
designated open space contiguous to Happy Camp
Regional Park, and 2) an alternative regional
route would be provided to Walnut Canyon Road
(SR23) .
k. Abe Guny, 7250 Walnut Canyon Road, spoke
regarding the east /west connector and the
impact on Walnut Canyon. He requested that,
when the zoning process is complete, he be
allowed to apply for a higher density to be
consistent with surrounding property land use
designations which are higher than the ones
for his property.
AT THIS POINT IN the meeting a recess was declared. The
time was 9:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m.
Ms. Kane indicated that the letter submitted by Ms.
Sulkis for Mr. & Mrs. Merritt Riggs should be read
into the record.
Mayor Lawrason read a letter from Mr. and Mrs.
Merritt Riggs, 336 McFadden Avenue, which expressed
their concern that high density projects not be
built in the downtown area.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 12
January 22, 1992
Councilmember Montgomery indicated that he would
like the following information for the next
meeting:
1. Proposed equestrian access to Happy Camp
across the JBR property.
2. Reasoning behind the bisection of Mr.
Iskandar's property by Unidos Avenue and the
justification for the creation of the street
and zoning change for his property.
3. Identification of the location referenced by
Mr. Hartley regarding the compatibility of
hiking, biking and equestrian trails.
Mayor Lawrason requested information regarding the
Unocal property, Specific Plan Area #3, in regard
to the Unocal representatives comments this
evening.
Councilmember Perez requested information on the
zone change request by Mr. Guny for his property.
Mr. Kueny stated that staff would need to consult
with the City Attorney regarding the
appropriateness of a discussion of Mr. Guny's zone
change as part of the General Plan Update process
as the Planning Commission had not addressed this
subject.
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember
Talley seconded a motion to continue the public hearing
to January 29, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember
Perez seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session for
a discussion of all items listed:
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 Ventura County Community
College District vs. City of Moorpark.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 13 January 22, 1992
E. Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs.
City of Moorpark.
F. Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito
Abatement District vs. City of Moorpark.
G. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road
(Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8.
H. Negotiations for Real Property on Los Angeles
Avenue (East) pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8.
I. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties,
LTD. vs. City of Moorpark.
J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Camrosa
Water District.
K. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Pacific
Bell.
L. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern
California Edison Company.
M. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Shell
Oil Company.
N. Negotiations for Real Property for Arroyo Vista
Community Park pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8.
O. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of
High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8.
P. Negotiation for Real Property at the Moorpark
Community Center site pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven
Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager;
and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney.
The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 11:52 p.m.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 14
7.
January 22, 1992
Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out
of Closed Session and only item 2.G. had been discussed.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember
Wozniak seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried
by unanimous voice vote. The time was 11:52 p.m.
ATTEST:
Lillian E.
Kellerman, C'
C 0
r j�%
Paul W. L ason Jr., or