Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1997 1022 CC SPCMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California October 22, 1997 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on October 22, 1997 in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 7 :19 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development, led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Evans, Teasley, Wozniak and Mayor Hunter. Absent: Councilmember Perez Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Captain Mike Lewis, Sheriff's Department; Deborah Traffenstedt, Principal Planner; John Whitman, Traffic Engineer; Lillian Hare, City Clerk; and Lisa Pope, Deputy City Clerk 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Mayor Hunter explained why it was necessary to conduct an election for park maintenance assessments and discussed specifics of Measure P. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Consider Continued Public Hearing for Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project (Specific Plan No. 8 /Specific Plan No. SP -93 -1, General Plan Amendment No. GPA -93 -1, and Zone Change No. ZC- 93 -3), Applicant: Hidden Creek Ranch Partners. Staff Recommendation: Accept public testimony and continue the public hearing to a scheduled special City Council meeting on November 12, 1997, for focused discussion of Specific Plan affordable housing, school sites, agricultural land, various property ownerships, and other issues. Mr. Miller encouraged the public to refer to the staff reports for further detail on the project. Ms. Traffenstedt gave the staff report. She responded to the questions raised by the City Council at the October 8 meeting pertaining to transportation and circulation, Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 October 22, 1997 grading, growth management, oil wells /drilling, phasing, fire protection, Guidelines for Orderly Development, schools, and processing time limits. Joe Foust, Austin Foust and Associates, addressed the Council regarding improvements in the level of service and traffic counts. He discussed a discrepancy in the data, incorrectly indicating less traffic at the intersection of Collins Drive and Campus Park. He explained the same hours had been compared but not necessarily for the peak hours. He showed a view graph of the hourly fluctuation in traffic. He stated the peak hour had not been reported in the study. He stated the signal improvement has made a significant improvement. In response to Councilmember Wozniak, Mr. Foust stated there had not been a traffic reduction during peak times. He also indicated that traffic was heavy during the a.m. hours and the intersection was operating at 70 percent of capacity. He indicated that there was an improvement in the level of service from 92% to 70o but that the same amount of traffic was entering the intersection. He felt the improvement was due to the improvements to the signal. In response to Councilmember Evans, Mr. Foust explained that approximately 1600 cars passed through the intersection when operating at 70% capacity. He stated the mitigation factors would add to the capacity of the intersection. Mr. Miller stated the traffic study for the project estimated 13,000 more trips through the intersection as a result of the project at total build out. In response to Councilmember Evans, Mr. Foust stated the intersection was currently handling 17- 18,000 cars per day. In response to Councilmember Teasley, Ms. Traffenstedt explained the reasons for deleting the Lagoon freeway interchange. She explained that the intersection would improve the level of service but other improvements could be done instead to improve the area at a lower cost. Mr. Foust concurred. He stated the traffic study indicated that the Lagoon interchange would benefit only one intersection at a large cost. Gary Austin, 959 South Coast Drive, Costa Mesa, stated the cost estimate for the interchange was $15 million and Caltrans would not support building the interchange until the Alamos interchange was built. He also stated that several trees would have to be removed. He discussed the Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development. He stated Moorpark was designated for future urban development Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 October 22, 1997 and growth. He discussed the City's review of the General Plan in 1992 and the determination regarding where growth would occur within the City. He explained why the City was considering a project outside of the city. He discussed development clustering of single family homes. He stated their goals were to create as much open space as possible, to separate neighborhoods and to create as many parks, incorporating a variety of recreational activities, as possible. He stated the net density was 2.3 dwelling units per acre and explained that they were offering 50% open space when the General Plan only required 25 %. He stated the project was designed to incorporate organized sports activities, hiking, biking, equestrian trails, and facilities for people of all ages. Mayor Hunter asked which portion of the 2,200 acres of public open space was useable. Mr. Austin stated there was tremendous diversity and he could not quantify the precise amount of useable open space. He discussed the north eastern buffer that would be created between Moorpark and Simi Valley. Dawn Mortara, 6239 Seabiscuit Place, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. She state the EIR should not be certified. She discussed her concerns with the project . including lack of roads, waiver of the City's hillside ordinance, devastation to the environment, and financial demands on those who currently live in the City. She discussed the increased traffic from other developments and the necessity to mitigate these problems prior to approving another project. She said she felt the project was excessive and unnecessary. James Sumstine, 973 E. Main Street, Ventura, Ventura County Astronomical Society, Inc. (VCAS), spoke in opposition to the project. Dave Holland, PO Box 4368, Simi Valley, of the Ventura County Astronomical Society, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. He stated the proposed project would destroy the observatory at Moorpark College. He explained that excess light pollution would destroy the night sky. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Holland stated the Moorpark observatory is the only useable observatory in Ventura County and was used by many people. Rick Williams, 5464 N. Vista Park Drive, Ventura County Astronomical Society, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. He discussed the Junior Astronomer Program held at the observatory. He stated the commercial projects would destroy the night sky view from the observatory. Jim Cassou, 7160 Shakespeare Place, Ventura County Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 October 22, 1997 Astronomical Society, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. He discussed the conclusion in the EIR report of the effects on the observatory as being significant. He discussed the observatory's commitment to the public and the wide area of its members. He stated Ventura County Astronomical Society works on cleaning and upkeep of the observatory and assists in college laboratory classes. He discussed the use of the observatory by students from other colleges because they can not see the night sky in the San Fernando Valley because of the light pollution. He invited the City Council to visit the observatory. He discussed the problem of lighted signs in shopping centers and suggested adoption of a light pollution ordinance. Councilmember Evans asked if there was somewhere the observatory could be moved in order to mitigate the light pollution. Mr. Cassou stated they had suggested having the observatory moved to higher ground, as far away from development as possible, but it was also necessary to shield lighting. -- In response to Councilmember Teasley, Mr. Cassou explained that the College and Ventura County Astronomical Society worked together to maintain the observatory. Jim Tymezyszyn, 6990 Lafayette Street, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. He discussed the increased traffic and the issue of open space. He addressed Councilmember Teasley's objectivity in voting on the project due to a possible conflict of interest. Alice Tseng, 6801 Trojan Court, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. Art Lenox, 15654 Harte Lane, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. He discussed the EIR and said it should not be certified. He discussed the problem of contamination. He stated oil production had been occurring for 40 -50 years and there had been spillage causing contamination on the site. He stated there are remnants of gasoline and diesel components used to wash down the drills. He displayed a map of inactive wells on the property and explained that the wells still had crude oil contamination. He stated the EIR had no mitigation measures for contamination areas outside of the development areas and suggested an assessment be done to determine the levels of contamination. He also discussed his concerns with dust that would be caused by grading. He stated his concern with the spore that caused Valley Fever. He discussed a current case of Valley Fever caused by the 1994 earthquake. He stated air modeling studies and air. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 October 22, 1997 monitoring mitigation of hazards must be done. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Kueny stated oil drilling sites and contamination would be addressed on November 12. Alisse Weston, 844 E. Main Street, Ventura, Environmental Defense Center (EDC), addressed the Council in opposition to the project. She discussed the problems of doubling the size of the City and increasing the City's population by 1/3. She discussed the effects on schools and roads in the development and future costs to taxpayers. She discussed the environmental problems and stated the impacts could not be mitigated to insignificance. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Kueny stated an interim report regarding the development agreement would be complete by the end of the month and Council would be asked to set a hearing on the matter for the beginning of December. Patricia Duck, 14663 Loyola Street, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. She discussed the dust and dirt accumulation that would occur during the building of the project. Frank Zamrock, 8424 Happy Camp Road, discussed the "peace and quiet" aspect of Ventura County and Moorpark. He spoke in opposition to the project. He discussed the 15 years of cement trucks and dust that would occur while building the project. Lori Rutter, 11611 Pinedale Road, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. She discussed the Hidden Creek Ranch Executive Summary. She discussed the unique quality of Moorpark and said she did not feel more tax money would improve the City. She urged Council to update the General Plan to eliminate Specific Plan No. 8. Roseann Mikos, 14371 E. Cambridge Street, stated the EIR. for the project was inadequate. She discussed her concerns with the grading plan. She requested the elimination of grading slopes over 20 %. She urged Council to preserve the open space and deny the project. Gerald Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, discussed the light pollution and its negative effect on the observatory at Moorpark College. He discussed the possible future expansion of Moorpark College and the necessity to set land aside for its future growth. Rorie Skei, 5750 Ramirez Canyon Road, Malibu, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC), stated the Conservancy's interest in preserving open space. She discussed her Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 October 22, 1997 concerns that the items discussed in the EIR were not adequately addressed. Paul Edelman, 5750 Ramirez Canyon Road, Malibu, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, asked if an economic analysis had been done and if staff had commented on it. Mayor Hunter stated the analysis had been done. Mr. Edelman stated the Conservancy opposed the project but encouraged the clustered approach. He discussed Planning Area 45 and asked if that open space was included in the open space dedication. He stated Planning Area 45 should be covered under a separate EIR. He stated it was important to cluster the project and pull the project back to the west. He stated there should be a 1:1 ratio of open space dedicated to a public agency. In response to Councilmember Evans, Mr. Edelman stated the Conservancy was opposed to the project but preferred the cluster concept of the project. Linda Myszkowski, 15309 Seitz Court, addressed the Council -- in opposition to the project and discussed her incident with Valley Fever. Janet Murphy, 15308 Seitz Court, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. She asked questions regarding traffic and discussed the involvement of other local agencies. She stated the land was designated open space and should remain with that designation. Ted Martens, 15745 Swift Place, addressed the Council in favor of the project. He discussed his positive experience with the Messenger Company. He stated his concerns about the outcome of the project if the City did not approve it. He discussed the natural buffer which will be provided by the project. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, a recess was declared. The time was 10:02 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:27 p.m. Mr. Austin discussed the repetition of comments made at prior meetings. He stated he had approached Dr. Walker at Moorpark College 2 or 3 years ago and had not received a definite response regarding relocation of the observatory. He stated there was some concern about the location being moved away from the campus and its decreased effectiveness as a teaching facility. He expressed Messenger's willingness to assist in moving the planetarium. In response to Councilmember Evans, Mr. Miller explained that if the project was developed under the County, the Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 October 22, 1997 County had guidelines for urban development in place. He explained the question was to what extent would the County follow the guidelines. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller stated if the County controlled the project, the applicant could apply for a zone change and the maximum zoning would be calculated under the current County zoning code. In response to Councilmember Evans, Mr. Miller explained the process for certification of the EIR. Councilmember Evans requested information be brought back to Council regarding similar projects and how existing home values were impacted. He discussed contamination on the project site. He asked for clarification on the contamination of the unused wells and what would mitigate the problem. Dana Privitt stated the level of analysis was commensurate with the project. She explained additional analysis could be done and further explained the requirements for an EIR. She discussed a Phase One Hazardous Materials Analysis. -- She stated the standard level of analysis had been completed pursuant to requirements for an EIR. Mr. Miller added that there has been oil production on the property, but only outside of the proposed development area. In response to Councilmember Evans, Ms. Traffenstedt stated the County's comment regarding the adequacy of the EIR was related to the open space and addressed their concern and support for open space and the use of clustering development. Councilmember Teasley asked for clarification as to which areas of contamination would be cleaned up. Mr. Miller stated the development areas would be mitigated. He explained that Torch Drilling has been contacted regarding removal or relocation of wells. Councilmember Wozniak discussed Torch Drillings' reluctance to move the well sites. He suggested it be a requirement in the development agreement. He discussed the contamination of roadways. He asked if the areas outside the development area would be cleaned. Ms. Privitt stated staff and the applicant could come up with a program to expand or better define affected areas for cleanup. In response to Mayor Hunter, Ms. Privitt stated the issue of the compatibility of the oil wells with future development had been addressed. She stated the mitigation Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 October 22, 1997 program precluded access to the wells. In response to Councilmember Evans, Mr. Miller stated representatives from Leighton would be at the next meeting to further discuss the issue of oil wells and contamination. He stated a preliminary assessment had been done and all contamination could be mitigated. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Foust said the Collins /Campus intersection improvements would require a 12 foot encroachment into Griffin Park. He discussed the addition of a west bound left turn lane. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller stated information regarding the impacts of Highway 118 and 23 would be brought back on November 12. Mayor Hunter discussed the traffic numbers for the intersection at Collins and Campus park. Mayor Hunter asked about grading required on slopes greater than 20% and less than 20 %. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller stated the applicant had asked for relief from the Hillside Ordinance. Mr. Austin discussed the revisions to the grading plan and the net impacts. He stated the grading process would all be done on site. Mayor Hunter asked for a quantification of the cut and fill. In response to Councilmember Wozniak, Mr. Austin discussed the amount of dirt being moved and explained the numbers would be further quantified when the plans were more detailed. Mayor Hunter asked for clarification on what was meant by open space and how it would provide a public benefit. Mayor Hunter asked staff to provide a copy the of recently adopted Guidelines for Orderly Development. He requested Council be provided with a copy of the County's comments on the Draft EIR and the EIR discussion on Valley Fever. Councilmember Evans requested a copy of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) guidelines. Ms. Traffenstedt stated the topics to be covered at next meeting. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 October 22, 1997 MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Evans seconded to continue this item to November 12, the public hearing to remain open. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 5. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Teasley seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was x:15 p.m. _ , PatricKHunter, Mayor ATTEST: