Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1998 0527 CC ADJMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California May 27, 1998 An Adjourned Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on May 27, 1998, at the Moorpark Community Center, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mr. Gary Austin led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Evans, Perez, Teasley, Wozniak and Mayor Hunter Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works; Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager; Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk; Susan Meyer, Deputy City Clerk. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: Gerald Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, spoke regarding funding for the July 3rd fireworks event possibly causing park closures within the City. He also expressed his concern regarding the library hours. Lori Rutter, 11611 Pinedale Road, suggested that the City Council agendas should identify if an applicant has been invited to attend a Council meeting. She also commented that the three - minute limitation for commenting on a project be extended. AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING, Mayor Hunter stated that Presentations /Action /Discussion Item 6.A. should be taken first, due to the attendance of County of Ventura staff for that item. CONSENSUS: By consensus the City Council determined that the agenda should be reordered to take Item 6.A. before Item S.A. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 May 27, 1998 6. PRESENTATIONS /ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Consider Comments to be Provided to County of Ventura on Moorpark Road Realignment, South of Tierra Rejada Road - Draft Environmental Impact Report (continued from May 20, 1998). Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to execute a letter expressing opposition to the proposed project. Wayne Loftus gave the staff report. Mr. Butch Britt, Deputy Director of Public Works, Transportation Department, County of Ventura, gave a presentation regarding the County's proposed Moorpark Realignment Project. He emphasized there was no approved alignment, environmental document or final design for the project. He said the County's goal is to reduce the frequency and severity of accident levels. He further discussed the three alternative alignments studied. —' In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Britt indicated that the highest accident area on the road is essentially the whole length of the road and that over the last three years approximately forty -one accidents have been property damage only incidents while seven or eight were injury accidents. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Britt indicated that it is the County's intent to reduce the number of places where cross traffic occurs and to reduce the severity of accidents by improving sight access and reducing the severe horizontal and vertical curves. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Britt identified several sources of funding for the project, including from gas tax and the Moorpark Road Trust Fund. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Britt also indicated that the differences between Alternatives A and B were that Alternative A had the least environmental impact, including least impact on existing farmland and wetlands, and Alternative B impacted flood plains and wetlands and would require more agricultural land conversion. Mayor Hunter questioned why Alternative C, improving existing Moorpark Road, was the least environmentally preferable. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 May 27, 1998 Mr. Britt explained that the footprint of the roadway becomes greater due to the fill required, that the roadway was one and three - fourths of a mile longer than their preferred alternative, and that a detour was required during construction that would impact agricultural land. In response to Councilmember Perez, Mr. Britt indicated that the Norwegian Grade Trust fund was established in the early 19701s, and that use of these funds was left open, allowing use for this project. Councilmember Teasley expressed concern there was no dedicated through lane on Spring Road northbound and that traffic could back up due to the left -turn traffic. Mr. Britt responded that the County can look at the need, but felt traffic volumes did not currently warrant a dedicated north -bound through lane. —' Councilmember Perez commented that unanswered questions remain regarding right of way access and potential land takings issues related to agricultural land impacts for both Alternatives A and B. Mayor Hunter expressed his desire to preserve agricultural land and that he believed this project would be totally inconsistent with the County's expressed desire to preserve agricultural land. He also stated he was concerned that the City's Spring Road intersection, and the quality of life in Moorpark, would be adversely impacted by traffic that should not be brought into the City. Councilmember Wozniak stated that the potential for growth inducement is his primary concern with Alternatives A and B. He agreed with Mayor Hunter that Moorpark did not need the additional traffic and that Alternative C, improving existing Moorpark Road, should be selected. Councilmember Teasley stated that if Alternative C does require the most take of agricultural land, then she could support the selection of Alternative A with a dedicated northbound through lane at the intersection. Councilmember Evans also expressed his concerns with dividing the agricultural land area but felt it was a Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 May 27, 1998 good idea to have a discussion with Supervisor Mikels regarding Alternative C. MOTION Mayor Hunter moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to approve the staff recommendation. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -1, Councilmember Teasley dissenting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Consider Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 8 /SP -93 -1, General Plan Amendment No. 93 -1, and Zone Change No. 93 -3 (Prezoning), Applicant: Hidden Creek Ranch Partners (Continued from May 20, 1998; Public Hearing Closed on May 20, 1998). Staff Recommendation: 1) Discuss the Specific Plan and related applications and; 2) Continue the Item to a date certain meeting to further discuss the Project. Councilmember Teasley excused herself and left the dais. The time was 8:30 p.m. Mr. Miller stated that there was no staff report. Councilmember Wozniak stated that previous written staff reports had identified issues that needed to be discussed and the Council should start with those issues. Mayor Hunter referred to the May 6, 1998, staff report and asked if there were any additional Council concerns. In response to Councilmember Wozniak, Mr. Miller stated that he would research the number of acres proposed for development that encroach into 20 percent slope area. In response to Councilmember Wozniak, Mr. Miller confirmed that responses to a letter from a Mr. Ulmer were covered in the documents already provided to the Council. He further stated that in response to the earlier question, 710 acres of 20 percent or greater slope area would be graded, but that the prominent ridgeline at the north side of the property would not be impacted. In response to Councilmember Perez, Mr. Miller confirmed that staff had recommended shifting units out of Planning Unit 19B and into other planning units proposed for development. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 May 27, 1998 In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller stated that a significant number of trucks would be removed from Los Angeles Avenue if the State Route 118 bypass arterial was built. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller provided a summary of a previous staff report pertaining to the State Route 118 bypass arterial cost estimates and summarized four options. Mayor Hunter commented on a May 1998 Route 118 bypass construction cost estimate prepared by staff that showed the least expensive option for the State Route 118 bypass costing approximately $28 million and the most expensive option costing approximately $72 million. Mr. Kueny stated that the cost estimates were not fully accurate and that certain projects could potentially absorb some of the cost of construction within their project limits, including right of way dedication. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller stated that direct east -to -west access is most important when looking at the options for the State Route 118 bypass. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller explained that Moorpark College is interested in an alternative site for the observatory, and that the alternative site could be addressed in a Public Facilities and Infrastructure Plan that would be required prior to approval of any development projects within the Specific Plan area. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller indicated that the projected buildout for the project is approximately 2015. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller stated that the Planning Commission had scheduled the Development Agreement hearing for June 8. In response to Councilmember Perez, Mr. Miller stated that State law mandates a public hearing but doesn't specify what the Planning Commission's review is to entail. Mr. Kueny explained that the City Council could select a time for the Council's public hearing on the Development Agreement. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 May 27, 1998 Councilmember Perez stated that he thought that the Planning Commission could complete its review so as to allow a City Council public hearing on June 17, 1998. CONSENSUS: By consensus the City Council determined that a public hearing for the Development Agreement should be scheduled for June 17, 1998. Councilmember Wozniak stated that he had questions regarding grading, phasing, land use, and circulation. He further stated that he wanted more information on mass grading and whether there was a way to control how much grading occurred during a certain phase by either limiting the number of dwelling units allowed to be constructed at one time or by limiting the cubic yards or area of grading. Mr. Kueny stated that the Development Agreement Ad Hoc Committee had discussed including language to allow mass grading for all of an approved phase, but that smaller -- phases may be needed. He also stated that the developer's goal would be to balance earth movement in each phase. Mr. Miller stated that the need for the east -west roadway affects the mass grading required and the timing. In response to Councilmember Wozniak, Mr. Miller stated that each phase is intended to be balanced so as to avoid transport of dirt. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller stated that a more detailed phasing plan and grading schedule could be included in the Public Facilities and Infrastructure Plan. Mayor Hunter indicated his concern on the air quality and requested that staff draft a phasing grading schedule that would address the Council's concerns. Mayor Hunter indicated that the topic of circulation, such as Alamos Canyon and Campus Park Drive and Collins _ Drive access to the project, should be discussed all at one meeting. He requested two more meetings with the first meeting addressing land use, phasing, grading, and traffic circulation, and the second meeting addressing other issues identified in the May 6, 1998, staff report, including fiscal impacts. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 May 27, 1998 AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING a recess was declared. The time was 9:33 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:50 p.m. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to defer consideration of parks and schools to be discussed together along with land use. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller stated that the development agreement does outline more specific information on affordable housing, including numbers, phasing, and affordability requirements. Mr. Kueny indicated that affordable housing is to be addressed in the required infrastructure plan, and that there would be an implementation agreement for affordable housing to ensure maintenance of affordability. Councilmember Perez commented that the Ad Hoc Committee's intent was to meet a range of housing needs. He indicated there was a need to build in flexibility into the implementation plan. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Miller indicated that prior to approval of any subsequent projects such as subdivisions, a comprehensive Public Facilities and Infrastructure Plan would need to be completed by the master developer and submitted to the City Council for approval. Councilmember Perez suggested that the Council look at remaining issues to determine if any could be discussed at this meeting. Mayor Hunter stated that land use decisions would affect decisions on other issues, such as open space. He suggested the Council continue the item to June 17 and then further continue to June 24 to complete the Council's discussion of issues. Mr. Kueny discussed the draft schedule for the June 3 meeting and suggested that three general plan amendment pre- application items could be postponed, if the Council wanted to continue the Hidden Creek Specific Plan to June 3. CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to continue this item to the June 3, 1998, meeting. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 May 27, 1998 MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Evans seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Teasley absent for the vote. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Hunter adjourned the meetincya�t 10:15 p.m. PWr3'c-k Huntl; `Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffe tedt, City Cle