HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 1986 0611 PC REGMOORPARK
JAMES D. WEAK STEVEN KUENY
Mayor City Manager
SOMAS C. FERGUSON CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tern City Attorney
ALBERT PRIETO RICHARD MORTON
Councilmember Director of
DANNY A. WOOLARD Community
Cou nci Imem ber Development
LETA YANCY- SUTTON R. DENNIS DELZEIT
Councilmember City Engineer
DORIS D. BANKUS JOHN V. GILLESPIE
City Clerk A G E N D A Chief of Police
THOMAS P.GENOVESE
City Treasurer
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, June 11, 1986
7:00 p.m.
L. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Planned Development Permit No. PD -1050 (Clare Short) - Continued
from May 28, 1986
B.
Requesting approval of revised plans to construct a 7,313 square foot
neighborhood shopping center located at the northwest corner of High
Street and Moorpark Road.
ect to
Ordinance to Permit
C. Proposed Amendment to Article 47 - HOME
existing definition anc
D. OSCAR - Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element - DRAFT
the
The City of Moorpark is required by the State to adopt elements of
of a general plan, among which are the Open Space and Conservation
Elements. State law requires',these elements so that each city develops
comprehensive guidelines for the protection and proper management
of natural resources.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
AGENDA - THE PLANNING COMMISSION
p. 2 - June 11, 1986
6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
A. Minor Modification for Planned Development Permit No. PD -1047
Anthony Annotti)
Minor Modification to PD -1047 to allow for parking for eating
establishments.
7. COMMISSION COMMENTS
A. Sub- Committee Reports - Re: HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE
B. Planning Commissions - Re: MANAGED GROWTH
8. STAFF COMMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
FILE COPY dim 5D
DIN
l 1 NE
Michael Brandman Associates Environmental Research•Planning and Processing•Resource Management
May 1, 1986
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Frank B. Wein, Director of Development Services, Michael Brandman
Associates, Inc.
SUBJECT: Draft Open Space, Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR) Element
Introduction
The Community Development Department is recommending approval of the draft
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR) Element and the Draft Negative
Declaration. The City of Moorpark is required by the state to adopt elements of a
general plan. Among the California state law required elements are the open space
and conservation elements. They are required so that each city develops a
comprehensive guideline for the protection and proper management of natural
resources.
According to state general plan guidelines, the conservation element should:
(a) promote the protection, maintenance and use of the state's natural resources;
(b) prevent the wasteful exploitation, destruction and neglect of the state's natural
resources; and (c) recognize that natural resources must be maintained for their
ecological value as well as for their direct benefits to people. The open space
element should include: (a) an inventory of privately and publicly owned open space
lands; (b) goals and policies for preserving and managing open space lands; and
(c) specific programs which the legislative body intends to pursue in implementing its
open space plan.
Beyond the basic requirements, local governments may choose to consider other,
locally relevant issues in their general plan. Although the recreation element is not
required by state law, the City of Moorpark has included this as a component to the
OSCAR Element of the General Plan. As a part of the general plan, state law
requires the policies and implementation measures for these issues must be internally
consistent with those of each required element.
Proposal
The OSCAR Element states goals, policies and programs for two mandated general
plan elements, open space and conservation, and for one optional element,
recreation. The Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Elements are
complementary and, as permitted by state law, can be combined into a single
3140 Red Hill Avenue,Suite 200,Costa Mesa,CA 92626,(714)641-8042
,..
Planning Commission Memorandum
May 1, 1986
Page 2
element, as in the City of Moorpark Open Space, Conservation and Recreation
Element. Since requirements for the Conservation Element closely parallel those for
an Open Space Element, they can be combined. Similarly, recreation programs are
linked to open space and conservation programs and parks and recreation facilities
constitute a major open space resource. Since the three elements are closely
related, they were combined to establish a comprehensive and coherent policy.
Statement of Environmental Findings
An Initial Study was conducted by the firm of Michael Brandman Associates, Inc.
(MBA) under contract to the City of Moorpark. The Initial Study was conducted to
evaluate the potential effects of the adoption of the OSCAR Element. Based on the
findings contained in the attached Initial Study, it has been determined that this
project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
Planning Commission and City Council Action
The OSCAR Element and the Negative Declaration will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
Recommendations
City staff recommends approval of the Draft OSCAR Element and recommends
approval of the Negative Declaration.
CB/mw
JN 226-0007
Attachments: A. Initial Study
B. Negative Declaration
FILE COPS
J*eni. 7. ,4
5 June 1986
To Jim Hartley
Subject-Hillside Ordinance
Dear Jim:
I perceive two general areas that should be considered in terms of a potential
Hillside Ordinance.
First is that of safety and welfare, i .e. , erosion control , drainage, etc. Second
is aesthetics.
Staff in the person of Steve Kueney did provide us with a wide range of comparable
regulations and ordinances from surrounding communities. From my reading of them,
there is a common denominator in terms of controls. Assuming that these communities
have done their research appropriately, essentially a consensus of the more desirable
features of each of these would be a reasonable approach. You might wish to make
a chart of each major component such as cubic yardage, slope, etc , and then list what
each of the ordnances of surrounding communities has determined. If you found that
be discarding the extremes, and taking the average of what is left gives a reasonable
figure, then that might be the way to go
On the asthetics, several options exist ranging from a total ban on ridgeline con-
struction , to an attitude of laissez faire, I think that there should be a limit,
and the limit should be based on the size of the development . Where more than one
dwelling unit is nn a ridgeline for each five acres of lnnd , there should be a
prohibition to prevent exceeding this limit. This gives large lot owners or farms
the right to bwild on the most advantageous spot on their propeerty, but it prevents
a mass developer such as the Griffin project where the Planning Commission attempted
to limit massive clustering of houses on ridgelines.
Also the clustering or density averaging that Council hust adopted will open the
doors for a developer to completely clutter a ridgeline using density averaging.
I hope these thoughts may be of some assistance to you.
W. J. La.Perch v0, 4100
cc:Planning Commission J��o ,A*:0