Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1992 0226 CC SPCMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California 00133 February 26, 1992 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on February 26, 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 5:58 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason. Absent: Councilmember Perez. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. 2. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak 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. J. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al. K. Negotiations for Real Property for Arroyo Vista Community Park pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. L. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. M. Negotiation for Real Property at the Moorpark Community Center site pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. N. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Moorpark Unified School District. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Perez absent for the vote. 00134 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 February 26, 1992 Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers but Councilmember Perez; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. Councilmember Perez joined the Closed Session at 6:27 p.m. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 6:58 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only items 2.D., 2.E., 2.G., 2.L., 2.N., had been discussed. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 6:58 p.m. Mayor Lawrason called the meeting back to order at 7:32 p.m. He explained that this was a special meeting of the City Council for the Council to discuss the General Plan Update and that the public hearing was closed. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Dee Talley. 4. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak and Mayor Lawrason. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Pat Richards, Director of Community Development; Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior Planner; and Lillian Kellerman, City Clerk. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: Joe Latunski, 289 Casey Rd., stated he should not have to pay for trash pick -up service when his trash is not picked up. Dennis Miller, 229 Charles Street, asked the Council to consider reopening the public hearing on the General Plan Update. He said the City should adopt a policy limiting the City Council's ability to increase residential density to a small percentage of the City's land area in any 10 year period. Rene Mayfield, 6085 Darlene Lane, was not present when called to speak. John Roberts, 15787 Graduate Circle, spoke representing the Campus Hills Home Owners Association (HOA). He said Resolution 90 -634 was adopted to establish a zone to allow parking in excess of one hour by permit only on portions of certain streets near Moorpark College because of parking abuses by students at the College. He said residents in the area are not receiving the parking enforcement which was promised. He said the HOA was receiving 3.7 calls per day regarding problems related to parking. Councilmember Montgomery responded to Mr. Roberts that the Council would see that the problem was resolved by adequate enforcement. Sandra Schneider, 4731 Elderberry Avenue, addressed the Council. She said she watched the General Plan Update meetings on cable and had concerns regarding the proposed specific plan developments. She presented a petition to the Council signed by 15 of her neighbors expressing their opposition to the proposed plans to develop significant portions of open and agricultural land within Moorpark. Mark Stanley, 721 Sir George Court, said he watched the General Plan Update meetings and was concerned with the proposed development in his neighborhood. He asked where he could get more details on the specific plan projects. 0 013 5 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 February 26, 1992 Mayor Lawrason responded that Mr. Stanley should contact staff who would be able to answer questions in relation to the location of his property. Councilmember Talley explained the Specific Plan process. Gerry Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, said that the gates behind City Hall should be unlocked during Council meetings so that overflow traffic would have a place to park. John Roberts was allowed to address the Council again. He said he thought the public hearing for the General Plan Update was closed. He said various petitions regarding the General Plan Update had been presented at the Campus Hills Homeowners' Association meeting but he had informed the HOA that the petitions could not be presented to the Council because of the closure of the public hearing. He asked to be allowed to submit further information to the Council as the Council had taken additional testimony and accepted another petition tonight. He said he had not heard any protest from the City Council regarding the new General Plan comment given this evening. Mayor Lawrason responded that the public hearing was closed and asked the City Council for a ruling on the acceptance of the material Mr. Roberts wished to present. Councilmember Perez said that he felt many of the questions from speakers tonight had been general questions and they were appropriately directed to staff for answers. Ms. Kane said that as she had advised the Council at the last General Plan meeting concerning the General Plan hearing process. She said the Council has Closed the public hearing and any testimony relative to the General Plan would be outside the scope of that public hearing. She said the Council would be raising procedural issues to accept public testimony after the public comment period. She said she agreed with Councilmember Perez that some of the speakers tonight have just asked questions, however, there was also some testimony that was directed specifically to the General Plan or properties that are the subject of general plan amendment consideration. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Ms. Kane said that what has been received has been made part of the record but the Council could make a statement that they would not consider it as part of their deliberations on the General Plan. She said she strongly recommended that no further testimony on the General Plan be taken. Mayor Lawrason stated that he had announced that the public hearing on the General Plan was closed and expected the public to adhere to that but they had not. He said he agreed with Mr. Perez that the questions asked had been, for the most part, general in nature. He said that at this point he will make the statement that none of the information heard this evening will be used in deliberations on the General Plan Update. Councilmember Perez said he agreed. Councilmember Montgomery said he did not know how the public could be kept from exercising their freedom of speech. MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Mayor Lawrason seconded a motion that the Council will not consider public comment received since the closure of the public hearing in their deliberations on the General Plan Update. In response to Councilmember Montgomery's question regarding telephone conversations received by Councilmembers at home regarding the General Plan Update, Ms. Kane said any information received that has not been recorded on the public record raises another problem. The purpose of a public hearing is to allow full disclosure of the information that an individual Councilmember is 00 36 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 February 26, 1992 going to base his decision on and to give people who have an opposing view the opportunity to come forward and set forward their opinions, particularly landowners. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said written material received outside the public hearing raises the same concerns as oral comment. CLARIFICATION OF THE MOTION: In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Councilmember Perez clarified that the motion's intent was that all public comment whether written or oral, received since the public hearing was closed, would not be used in deliberations on the General Plan. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion failed by roll call vote 3 -2, Councilmembers Montgomery, Talley and Wozniak dissenting. Mayor Lawrason asked what alternative the Council had at this point. Ms. Kane said that the Council could reopen the public hearing and at that time the Council could accept into the record the written testimony and verbal testimony that had thus far been received and give anyone else who wished the opportunity to testify, the forum to do so. Councilmember Montgomery said he did not support reopening the public hearing. He said he felt another option was to accept the minimal risk involved and allow the public to continue to speak under public comment and receive any written testimony the public wished to submit. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Ms. Kane said that Councilmember Montgomery's alternative was a matter of weighing the risks and she could not give a legal opinion on that. Mayor Lawrason said it was his concern that the process be kept within the guidelines of the law so that the City was not open to litigation. Councilmember Talley suggested that the Council reopen the public hearing for one more meeting and advertise that date as the last open hearing date. MOTION: Councilmember Talley moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to readvertise and reopen the public hearing. Councilmember Montgomery said he would not support the motion as it would extend the process without adding anything to it. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that substantive changes in the General Plan would require review by the Planning Commission. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that she would need specific examples to determine what was a substantive change. Councilmember Talley said that the whole process might be extended. He said he had some concerns that the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to comment on some additional alternatives to those in the EIR. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that the Council could continue reviewing the General Plan Update documents even if the motion to reopen the public hearing passed as long as the Council made no final action. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Kueny indicated that March 16 was the earliest date that a public hearing could be advertised. OO137 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 February 26, 1992 In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that straw votes would be permissible and the Council would need to be clear that before any final decisions were made on the General Plan that final testimony had been considered. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that to the extent that the Council was changing policies substantively and the substance of any change was not considered by the Planning Commission, those changes would have to go back to the Planning Commission for its review and comment. Councilmember Montgomery requested that the City Attorney determine if any substantive changes had been made thus far by the Council. Ms. Kane said that she would have to review the changes made thus far by the Council to make that determination and could probably accomplish that before the next meeting. Mayor Lawrason said that the Council had not made any final changes on the General Plan yet. The goals and policies are still in draft form. Councilmember Talley said he agreed with the Mayor regarding the fact that the Council had not made any substantive changes yet. He continued by saying that if the Council did not follow any of the alternatives listed in the EIR, but come up with proposals of lesser impact, that would be a substantive change. In response to Councilmember Talley, Ms. Kane said that if he was referring to the Land Use Map and if the Council's final determination was a Land Use Map that was not part of the EIR and was not otherwise considered by the Planning Commission, it would have to be returned to the Planning Commission for its review and comment. Councilmember Montgomery said that it appeared to him that the Council was "in decision avoidance ". He said he felt that the Council should "get on with their job." Councilmember Talley said he had requested an answer from the City Attorney because it was his understanding that the Planning Commission was told that they had to stay within the confines of the EIR -- Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 or no project. He said in order for us to do our job, the Council may not be able to address Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 as written in the EIR. He said he asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to look at other scenarios and they responded yes but that they (the Planning Commissioners) were told "no they couldn't." He said the Planning Commission should have been allowed to get the proper guidance and the proper opinions that would have allowed them to proceed in a direction similar to that in which the Council desires to go. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried by roll call vote 4 -1, Councilmember Montgomery dissenting. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to set the General Plan Update public hearing for March 18, 1992, moving regular business to a meeting on March 25, 1992. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said that the Council should not take public comment on the General Plan outside of the public hearing. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to continue discussion of the General Plan Update at the meeting of March 11, 1992; no public testimony, written or oral to be taken until the reopening of the public hearing on March 18, 1992. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 00138 February 26, 1992 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: Continue Council discussion. Mayor Lawrason said the Council went through the Land Use Designations and now had that document in revised draft form. He suggested reviewing the Circulation Element. In response to Councilmember Talley, Mr. Richards indicated that staff would review the General Plan policies relative to compatibility with the County's Congestion Management Plan. The Council reviewed the Circulation Element contained in a document dated February 11, 1992 By Consensus, the Council made the following changes and /or requests for revisions to policies of the Circulation Element: Policy 1.2 - staff was requested to revise this policy and bring back to the Council for consideration new wording to indicate that this policy deals with a State route and not another arterial. Policy 1.3 - staff was directed to revise this policy to add "soundwalls" after "special landscape treatments...." and any other such similar mitigations. Policy 1.4 - staff was directed to revise this policy to replace "should not allow" with "discourage" and to reconsider the use of the word "through ". Policy 1.6 - staff was directed to revise this policy to replace "shall be evaluated" with "shall be reviewed and if necessary updated." Policy 2.1 - staff was directed to revise this policy to change the word "standard" to "objective" or a similar word. Policy 2.2 - staff was directed to revise this policy to delete "specified performance standards" and to define more clearly the performance standard. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 9:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m. Policy 2.4. - staff was directed to revise this policy to add the word "new" after "All ". Policy 2.6 - staff was directed to revise this policy to say that any project should have adequate secondary access. Policy 3.3 - staff was directed to revise this policy to read "Roadways in hillside areas shall not have a significant, adverse impact on the natural contours of the land; grading of streets shall be minimized and harsh cut slopes which may not heal into natural appearing surfaces shall be avoided." Policy 3.4 - staff was directed to add the word "New" to the beginning of the sentence. Policy 4.1 - staff was directed to change "shall" to "should" in the policy. 00 1 39 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 February 26, 1992 Policy 5.1 - staff was directed to revise this policy to reflect that this policy is required for new development. Policy 5.6 - staff was directed to revise this policy by placing a period after "industrial building site" and deleting "with a large work force ". Policy 5.8 - staff was directed to revise this policy to include language that, though not required, a meandering sidewalk or landscaping between the sidewalk and the curb shall be considered. Policy 6.1 - staff was directed to revise this policy to read "Equestrian linkages to regional parks shall be developed and maintained" with additional language to be developed by staff addressing a requirement for linkages from within the City to outside the City. Policy 6.2 - staff was directed to strike the word "major" and "wherever feasible ". Policy 6.3 - a new policy was added for which staff was directed to write language to address the integration of multi -use trails -- equestrian, bicycle, and pedestrian. Policy 7.1 - staff was directed to place a period, ending the sentence, after "and commuter rail." Policy 7.2 - staff was directed to delete the word "large" and "with a large work force" from this policy. Policy 7.3 - staff was directed to look at this policy with regard to the paratransit plan. Policy 7.4 - staff was directed to delete "vehicle -miles traveled" and insert "vehicle trips ". Staff was directed to develop a policy or policies regarding a plan for the collection and expending of air pollution control monies. 4.0 Implementation Mr. Richards stated that with the identification by the Council of a number of new policies, this section must be revised by staff to include those new policies. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Richards indicated that the figures in the table on page 14 referred to average daily trip capacities. Staff was directed to change 7.0 Equestrian Facility Plan, bullet 4 to read "Equestrian trails and hiking trails are generally compatible." CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to review Table 1 - Standards for Roadway Levels of Service, 6.0 - Bikeway Plan, and 7.0 - Equestrian Facility Plan at later date. The Council discussed the upcoming reopening of the General Plan public hearing. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane clarified that General Plan Update applicants should be allowed to speak if they desired at the reopened public hearing. 00; 411) Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 February 26, 1992 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined that all previous speakers at the Council General Plan public hearings are to be noticed regarding the reopening of the hearing; all those providing written comment to the Council on the General Plan since the beginning of the public hearing are to be noticed regarding the reopening of the public hearing; no time limit will be set for speakers at the reopened public hearing. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council directed that Rene Mayfield be specifically noticed regarding the upcoming reopening of the public hearing for the General Plan. Councilmember Montgomery requested that the rules governing public hearing speakers for the reopened public hearing should be clarified -- what limits there were; when they can speak; how they can register to speak; what they will be allowed to present to the Council. Mayor Lawrason requested that staff prepare an opening statement to address Councilmember Montgomery's concerns regarding the rules governing speakers at the reopened General Plan public hearing, which rules should be the rules of procedure for the City Council. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council directed staff to place the notice of the public hearing in the newspaper, to prepare a press release and cablecast notice of the reopened public hearing; a copy of the public hearing notice to be reviewed by the Council at the next meeting. Mayor Lawrason asked for consideration for a later motion to leave the public hearing open until the end of the General Plan process. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to continue Council discussion of the General Plan Update to March 11, 1992. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley 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. Southern California Edison, et al 00141 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 February 26, 1992 K. Negotiations for Real Property for Arroyo Vista Community Park pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. L. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. M. Negotiation for Real Property at the Moorpark Community Center site pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. N. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Moorpark Unified School District The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 11:12 p.m. The Council reconvened into Closed Session at 11:22 p.m. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney. Ms. Kane left the Closed Session at 11:28 p.m. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 12:02 a.m. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only A. Personnel and, C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) were discussed. 7. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Talley moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 12:02 a.m. Paul W. wrason Jr. V kayor ATTEST: