Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1992 0129 CC SPCMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California January 29, 1992 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on January 29, 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 7:17 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Perez. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Pat Richards, Director of Community Development; Kathleen Mallory - Phipps, Associate Planner; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Lillian Kellerman, City Clerk; and Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Joseph Latunski, 289 Casey Road, spoke regarding the fiscal responsibility of the officials of the City and stated that the citizens should decide the General Plan Update not just the City Council. B. Connie Lawrason, 4291 Ambermeadow Street, expressed concern about the traffic arms that block traffic unnecessarily at the railroad crossings on Spring Road and Moorpark Avenue. She indicated that this evening traffic was blocked for 11 minutes. She contacted the Watch Commander at the East Valley Sheriff's Station and hopes someone in the City will take a stand to correct the faulty arms. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: January 29, 1992 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: Continue the public hearing and receive testimony. Mayor Lawrason noted that the public hearing remains open. 1. Joseph Latunski, 289 Casey Road, stated that traffic problems are of utmost importance in the consideration of the General Plan Update. He encouraged all Moorpark residents to come forward and give input to the Council regarding this issue. 2. John Newton, 4410 Summerglen Court, said he was available to answer questions. 3. Abe Guny, 7250 Walnut Canyon Road, clarified that a portion of the proposed east /west connector of the 118 bypass would go through his property. As part of this negotiation, he is requesting fair and equitable consideration by having zoning assigned to his property that would be in concert with designations assigned to surrounding properties. He indicated that if this rezone cannot be part of this General Plan Update, he will apply for this to be considered in March when the General Plan Update process is complete. 4. Bob Wright, 145 Park Lane, stated his opposition to the portion of the General Plan Update which will affect his property. He said it will damage his property by devaluing it and splitting it diagonally with an extension of Unidos Road. He said his property would have two different land use designations. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 January 29, 1992 In response to Mayor Lawrason, Mr. Richards clarified that the line on the map is intended as an illustration from Unidos Avenue (existing road) to a future road and is not a definite proposed change to the General Plan Update. He said there is no intent to bisect Mr. Wright's property. Mr. Wright also indicated that he did not receive the first public hearing postcard notice in time to attend the previous week's meeting. Councilmember Montgomery requested Mr. Wright bring the notice to the next hearing if he still has it. 5. Charles Schwabauer, 12681 Broadway, read a letter from the Leavens Family stating they want their property to be included in the sphere of influence study. He said they are interested in getting a road reserved on the map to take the sand, gravel, cement and asphalt truck traffic east and /or west and south to connect to Highway 23, thus routing and bypassing the agricultural and populated areas of Fairview (Fruitvale Avenue) and most of Moorpark. He continued by saying that only part of this road is shown on Figure 2 of the Moorpark Circulation Element and the rest of the road, as proposed by Charles Schwabauer and Dean Rasmussen, should be added so that Quality Rock and Blue Star traffic is routed from the plants to Highway 23. 6. Dennis Hardgrave, from Development Planning Services (DPS) , 651 Via Alondra, Camarillo, spoke representing the Levy Company. He referenced a letter which was sent to the Council by DPS on January 15. He provided the following recommended changes: Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 Regarding Specific Plan No 1 January 29, 1992 (a) Page 5: Under land use mitigation measures we recommend that the 25% open space acreage within specific plans may be dedicated to the city, the park district, or an open space agency similar to COSCO in Thousand Oaks. (b) Page 32 of the draft EIR, Incorporated Areas: The first paragraph of this text implies that portions of Specific Plan #1 are classified as either Prime or Statewide significant agricultural lands. Exhibit 6 of the EIR shows that neither Prime or Statewide agricultural land is located within Specific Plan #1. There is no loss of agricultural land in this plan area; therefore, there is not an adverse environmental impact. The text should be amended to correct this discrepancy. (c) Regarding the interim 118 bypass freeway, Mr. Hardgrave requested that the roadway be moved 850 feet west of Buttercreek Road. He said it would take care of the traffic further west and would not impact Specific Plan No. 1. Regarding Specific Plan No 5: (a) From an EIR point of view, one -third of Specific Plan No. 5 is not prime agricultural land based on the U.S.D.A. soil analysis. (b) DPS has an updated proposal for Specific Plan No. 1 which includes: (1) A signalized intersection at Los Angeles Avenue west of Buttercreek Road (2) At -grade railroad crossing through the Estes property Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 January 29, 1992 (3) Signalized intersection at Gabbert Road and Poindexter to an overpass or bridge at Walnut Canyon Road. Mr. Hardgrave encouraged the City Council to see the benefit of Specific Plan No. 1 as it has been designed and proposed. He said it provides 1) key circulation elements, 2) a downtown park and 3) an opportunity to do an affordable and higher priced mix of housing in the community. 7. Gary Austin, 17512 Von Karman Blvd, Irvine, gave an overview of the proposed development alternatives for the Messenger property. He said their alternatives are: 1) annexation of their property to the City of Moorpark, 2) develop in the County of Ventura, or 3) approach the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) to be considered as a new city. Mr. Austin presented two exhibits and discussed each in detail. One represented the alternative of annexation to the City and the other represented the formation of a new city. He indicated that Messenger Investment Company favors annexation to the City. He said the plan to annex would provide the following benefits to the City of Moorpark: a) Expanded tax base, b) Open Space (1800 acres) C) 250 -acre nature park d) 27 -hole golf course e) Equestrian community f) Improved circulation g) Wide range of residential product h) A major component of the City's affordable housing element 8. Bill Messenger, 17512 Von Karman, Irvine, spoke as owner of Hidden Creek Ranch. He said it is their objective to have the project become part of Moorpark. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Gary Austin said the annexation alternative would allow about 4,800 dwelling units (1 dwelling Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 January 29, 1992 unit per acre plus a density bonus) resulting in about 14,222 people at build out. It would be similar density to the Wood Ranch development in Simi Valley. If a new city is formed it would have approximately 9,600 dwelling units (2 dwelling units per acre) resulting in about 27,200 people. It would be similar in density to the Peach Hill area of Moorpark. Mr. Austin responded to Councilmember Montgomery by stating that they believe the land will be annexed, but if it is not, they will proceed to the next alternative with no intention of harming the City of Moorpark, but to pursue their rights to develop. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Mr. Austin said there is not sufficient information provided now for LAFCO to be able to make a decision. He said LAFCO would need to see a well - developed circulation system, range of land uses, indication of densities, information relative to soil and geology studies on the property. Councilmember Talley asked how density numbers for each specific plan are determined. Mr. Richards clarified that the specific plan numbers were reached during the General Plan Update workshops and that the intent was stated by the property owners. AT THIS POINT in the meeting the Mayor declared a recess. The time was 9:09 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:29 p.m. Councilmember Wozniak asked Gary Austin why this issue is being presented now instead of at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Austin said the Planning Commission had a straw vote regarding further investigation of specific plans 4,5,6,7 and 8 and their decision was not to consider the sphere study area. Councilmember Perez stated his concern that the proposed circulation may not be significantly beneficial to Moorpark; that Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 January 29, 1992 there is not a clear definition of the affordable housing to be provided; and that no detailed information regarding the fiscal benefit to the City has been provided by the applicant. Mr. Austin said the one mechanism to make certain information is forthcoming and that all expectations are agreed upon and met is a development agreement. 9. Jim McGrath, 11015 Los Angeles Avenue, said their property is included in Specific Plan No. 6. Mr. McGrath requested that they not be included in the City limits as they want to remain agricultural as long as they can. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. McGrath said the 118 bypass could go through their property, but he would like a buffer zone of 500 yards and that the bypass should be closer to the Edison easement. He also indicated that they would like to be better informed of the public hearings. 10. Jim Scaroni, 5740 W. Greentree, Somis, said his property is located at the corner of Walnut Canyon Road and Everett Street. He requested a land use designation change to very high density residential for this parcel of land. He said his proposed project would improve the property value and the neighborhood significantly and would provide affordable housing in downtown Moorpark. He also commented that he is concerned that the Hidden Creek Ranch project might extend the General Plan Update process longer and he would like special consideration so as not to delay consideration of his application. 11. Del Suttle, 15527 Dracena Avenue, said the most appropriate place for high density designation is in the downtown area as long as it is not clustered in one location. He also commented that he was disappointed in the conceptual plan presented by Moorpark Unified School District at the January 22 hearing. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 January 29, 1992 He stated his support of the McDonald's proposed project and believes the ideal location for the downtown park is the lower ballfields on the Casey Road High School site. Mr. Suttle expressed his support for annexation of the property of the proposed Hidden Creek project so the City will retain control over development of the property. 12. Mitri Muna, 2654 Whitechapel Place, Thousand Oaks, spoke about property located at Liberty Bell and Los Angeles Avenue (west of Liberty Bell and south of Los Angeles Avenue). He is representing the owners of this property. He requested that the Council support the very high density zoning for the back portion of this property and he agreed that Unidos Avenue be extended through the property; however, the owners do not want to be encumbered with the cost of developing the street. The owners do want access to their property from Los Angeles Avenue to the commercial portion. 13. H. Rosekrantz, 22924 Bluebird Drive, Calabasas, expressed his opposition to the proposed diagonal road from Park Lane to Millard. He suggested deleting the diagonal line from the map. 14. Patty Waters, 10865 Broadway, spoke representing Waters Ranches. She expressed concern that certain goals and policies had been deleted from the Draft Land Use Element and that buffer zones must be allowed. She commented on the following: (a) Regarding Goal 11 - 200 feet is not a sufficient minimum setback (b) Regarding Comment 25.4 in the EIR - She questioned the necessity for fencing. (c) Regarding Comment 25.3 in the EIR, she said agricultural land is not a holding mechanism for urban development. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 January 29, 1992 (d) She said equestrian trails located next to agricultural land are not a compatible use because horses carry disease which in turn can invade the crops on adjacent land. (e) She expressed concern with the development of Hidden Creek and does not support it being developed out to 27,000 people. 15. Gerald Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, spoke regarding the control of insect pests on the equestrian trails. With regard to the staff report, Councilmember Montgomery commented that he disagrees with the need for Unidos Avenue to be extended. He also questioned why minor streets are shown on the circulation element. With regard to the location of equestrian and bike trails, Councilmember Montgomery agreed with the rewording as follows: Page 18 of the Equestrian Facility Plan (Land Use and Circulation Element) bullet item number 4: "Equestrian trails and hiking trails are considered compatible with bike paths where trails are wide enough to accommodate bikes." Councilmember Montgomery continued by saying Mr. Guny's property is a matter yet to be dealt with and that the 118 bypass will not be a reality until this situation is resolved. Councilmember Perez said the bypass for State Route 118 is a benefit to the City and the ultimate obligation is to make it happen as soon as possible. He continued by saying he wanted additional staff response on how the Council could move forward with properties that are not part of the General Plan Update. Mayor Lawrason confirmed that a packet of additional information had been received from Pat Ellis, Unocal representative. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Mr. Richards said that Unocal chose not to participate in the General Plan Update process. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 10 January 29, 1992 Councilmember Talley requested a legal opinion regarding the ramifications if the Council chooses to consider alternatives that are of a lesser impact on the environment than those outlined in the Environmental Impact Report. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to continue this item to a special meeting on February 1, 1992 at 10:00 a.m. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 6. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Talley moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to adjourn to 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. J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Camrosa Water District. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 11 January 29, 1992 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. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 10:38 p.m. The meeting reconvened into Closed Session at 10:45 p.m. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers, Steven Kueny, City Manager and Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 11:05 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only items 6.G. and 6.0. had been discussed. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 12 7. ADJOURNMENT: January 29, 1992 MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 11:05 p.m. Paul W. L rason Jr., yor. ATTEST:,. — Lillian E. Kellerman, City