HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0506 CC REG ITEM 09AMOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 9302,1„,�r, �RN -6864
Mooting
199,
I
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development.,
DATE: May 4, 1992 (CC Meeting of 5 -6 -92)
SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
REGARDING SPECIFIC PLAN IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, LAND USE
MIX, AND DENSITY BONUS
SPECIFIC PLAN IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
The City Council in their action of April 29, 1992 elected not to
include Specific Plans numbered 3, 4,5,6,and 7 for further
consideration. The Council did include Specific Plan Nos. 1, 2 and
8. The Council also took action to designate other properties
considered for General Plan amendment as having a Specific Plan
land use designation and a certain number ( Numbers SP 9 and SP
10).
Staff is suggesting that the Council give some consideration
towards renumbering the Specific Plan areas so that they are
sequential. Specific Plans No. 1 and 2 should remain the same with
Specific Plan No. 9 changing to 3, No. 10 to 4 and No. 8 to 5 (This
is based on Specific Plans within the City limits having a lower
number than any Specific Plan outside the existing City limits).
LAND USE MIX
Attached are draft pages 25, 26, and 27 from the Land Use Element
text. The shaded areas are new text following the Council's April
29th meeting. Inasmuch as only the Public /Institutional Land Use
designation received a specific discussion of area set aside; there
is a question as to how the Council desires to illustrate other
desired land use designations within each Specific Plan area.
Also, staff has modified the Public Services/ Infrastructure text to
address set - asides and financing for schools and community
services. The specific land use determinations for land uses such
as park, open space, schools are no longer identified.
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR.
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
Prfnteri 0, P-1-4 P.—
MAXIMUM DENSITY
With the Council's action of April 29th to determine specific
residential land use designations a Maximum Density and a Density
Limit was created. During Council's discussion of the Specific Plan
areas there was some consideration of the ability to increase
density with certain "public amenities" or "public benefits"
generated by the projec*. However, there was no discussion
regarding the mechanism, or a listing of qualified amenities /
benefits. Staff will provide proposed language regarding this
matter on May 13, but the City Council should provide any further
direction at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. That the City Council concur with the proposed renumbering of
the Specific Plan areas.
2. That the City Council provide direction regarding how the Land
Use mix is to be identified within the Land Use Element text.
3. That the City Council provide any further direction regarding
achieving Maximum Density in Specific Plan areas.
ATTACHMENT: Draft pages 25, 26, and 27 of the Land Use Element
text.
+ +.. +x +. };y,. x• +w r +xvtt•'+•^rrt +••:, +y ••:s::. +:e•.; t.};s .. }..4. , , ,;.r r•,+• x.}}•••• rs •;:C }xa:fvtr,"::`r:':t >}}:t;r. ^;•:t; }x }: ;r: n:cc:t; }}q: +:r 4:fr.. ; Y: }:t Lx, ., }: +: ;r,.p}.: }+}: ;} . . ;> }t+,
,,,•. }�.} � , ^� C + : ♦ •'�•. wY#:,•".}` +•: } }•'^: +... , t• .s. +•r � < r •:u'�: •: }:: }:: #.c#.. +w�` "ic:'�:3o-k �9�%Y
,.�s`-3:' <�f::•.:•.�:aas•.s •}a+:Z.�•`ti rx}, ser }.:;;.:,�. rr.. sa•:: ..•...t... r .. +•: se.,:s.•ase.'�#z ..•:,x:,.., }., t. r.: r,.se tf:. +;s4 f +shf,.�..,f�e} �.: rkv} 4w..•}•. s..urkY
-- Planning Area Within City Limits
......
As noted on the Land Use Plan, wee d specific plan areas have
been designated within the undeveloped areas of the existing City
of Moorpark limits (specific plan numbers 1 -34) . These specific
plans have been designated to address comprehensively a variety of
land use issues including topography, viewshed and circulation.
Each specific plan area wi3 be
qu r d f b inc ludes A a�u n mum C
25 percent of the total acreage` for open space. a ��e-97
prepesed with-i.. -LI—fie plan 3 Iffelude residential uses at -a
m } densi-t� -e€---e - dwelling -pew -sere— As noted earlier,
residential densities exceeding the maximum density could be
granted at the discretion of the Moorpark City Council for projects
that are consistent with the State Density Bonus Law and City
Municipal Code. Specific plan areas within the City are assigned
an overlay designation, as shown on the land use map, to reflect
the permitted land uses in absence of an overall specific plan.
Specific Plan 1
Specific Plan 1 consists of 285 acres under one owner, located in
the western section of the City, north of Poindexter Avenue and the
Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Gabbert Road crosses the
westerly portion of the specific plan area. Generally, the
specific plan area is characterized by rolling hillsides which are
currently used for grazing purposes.
Opportunities and Constraints
Specific plan area development issues to be addressed during
specific plan preparation and subsequent review will include:
Topography - An evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils, seismic
faults, and other geotechnical constraints within the hillside
areas of development will be considered during the develop-
ment /review of this specific plan. Consistent with City policy,
grading is restricted on slopes greater than 20 percent and
development prohibited in areas where potential hazards cannot be
fully mitigated.
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development /review of this specific
plan.
Viewshed - The visual importance of hillside horizon
lines /prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from
surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and
review of this specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should
be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and
natural resources.
25
.;.,k ;, }•,:5. .31.:x ..tin;.v.; v; {.Y:ti.'itx v:. -.})::;. nr.v „•.}•:v. •{:. }v.}•.•�.;x::
pvyxy v;;.y ;S•,.y,c. , .}. .v.; . ;•v; vvv.•.vv.v: yvv. iik3•vv,•.vv's;Y::gY::2 :ivy::.;. .{':�`$�y n.v .iia.....vv. n4n�CvA +:vriv:i•':�.{v}.i. ^. }:,: • :' :i�v.L2i�:tiitiv.::�i• :.. }.. r. •$.
ay`:Y2.$k• .. �4n1 .:i�x�4•h4:v^. �� f •��.•�:•v'•}nv �'. } ��.iii3} �• i }r. \• tiv.��Y:•kvvM. 2.rkvn:s3.. v.A•.vx�.:<. � . � }:v}$.. •.vvS.v+� < \Sn+v<::n�k xi$i:�xins].v 2.... i X3.. `i• } }:4{ev:.G•:iiv�if +'xe4i$�
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (i.e., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation. The preservation of any resources
determined to be significant shall be encouraged through habitat
preservation, enhancement, or replacement.
Archaeology - The specific plan area will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur within the overall plan area
and their potential significance.
Public Services/ Infrastructure - Water, sewer, gas and electric
service to the specific plan area will be provided through service
extensions from existing::: transmission lines in the surrounding
area. 1 5 8 ;Lf8t ,p22 'tntlll ire... e r du ted . s ur t �....�i ve .....
Circulation - The specific plan area circulation network will
require consideration for topographical constraints, viewshed
issues, and the adjacent Southern Pacific railroad tracks; shall
provide protection for the conceptual alignment of the future SR-
118 freeway corridor; and shall ensure that roadway rights -of -way
are protected for the planned roadway upgrades, improvements, and
additions as identified in the City's circulation plan.
Proposed Land Uses
The following land use table indicates the proposed land use mix
for this specific plan.
SPECIFIC PLAN 1
Land Use Mix:
Total Acres 285 acres
Total Dwelling Units
W
,;.,•'ii . }}:a} Xa %, } + }:: nii:'•}: 7{a, %•hr'.i :; x;i •:i•v.' +.: {. :v •'a:: ^: Aa: {• }: {. }:.: {• }: ^} 4}: 4:}}; yM1: f1}}}:{;}: {;Y%• ?,}:Y }:: }:;: {?{:i'f.% {iY %: : {::'+.i
......,�.oX* .hh Ya.�}.•�ti,• hh'; K� h`,h h;,hh'Q Y •{hk k•'{+ hp •} '@ .,'yf . ,•., 2 rbx��} �; <{3�:k•.��,.�.. � k, «caw r...i :i +. k� ,..
,. v }`��C:,��{c•�h�., . ;•x,�.h� +. �,a, { •:a r h,a..vs.,w.3� k {,,, ,�. s :. •::.•. }::ar,.•r:,}.,a,.r .s • ..ac:• }, }.•:• }.v
Park 13aet2es
Open Space I aeres
School
OVERLAY DESIGNATION:
Agriculture 1
Specific Plan 2
Specific Plan 2 consists of 445 acres under single ownership. It
is located northerly of the City, east of Walnut Canyon Road and
west of College Heights Drive. Generally, the majority of this
specific plan area is characterized as a gently sloping plateau
with prominent hillsides in the northern section, and is currently
vacant and used for seasonal grazing.
Opportunities and Constraints
Specific plan area development issues will be addressed during
specific plan preparation and subsequent review, and include:
Topography - Existing steep hillsides within the specific plan area
require a complete evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils, and
other potential geotechnical constraints during the develop-
-- ment /review of this specific plan. Consistent with City policy,
grading is restricted on slopes greater than 20 percent and
development prohibited in areas where potential hazards cannot be
fully mitigated.
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development /review of this specific
plan.
Viewshed - The importance and visibility of hillside horizon lines
and prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from
surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and
review of the specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should
be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and
natural resources /hazard areas.
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (i.e., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation and review. The preservation of any
resources determined to be significant shall be encouraged through
habitat preservation, enhancement, or replacement.
Archaeology - The specific plan area will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur within the overall plan area
and their potential significance.
27
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: May 5, 1992 (for May 6, 1992 City Council Meeting)
SUBJECT: Termination of PBR's contract for Updating of the General
Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements, Sphere of
Influence Study and Related Environmental Impact Report.
Staff is suggesting that the Council consider termination of the
General Plan Consultant's contract. The following information has
been provided to assist the Council in their decisions regarding
this matter.
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — BACKGROUND
( HISTORY
Original Contract Amounts
In June of 1989, the original PBR contract amount was $143,500.00.
In September of 1990, this contract amount was revised and the
contract amount was increased by $24,230.00; subsequently in
September of 1990 the original contract was revised from
$143,500.00 to $167,730.00.
The additional costs incurred was due to: the need for additional
property ownership identification and mapping, additional
Environmental Impact Report alternative analysis, and expansion of
the Environmental Impact Report to include areas within the
proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion study area.
In March of 1991, PBR's contract was increased by $2,250.00 for
preparation of: a Horizon Line Exhibit, Valley Floor Exhibit, and
a comparison table of land use alternatives within the
Environmental Impact Report.
In September of 1991, the City and PBR (in cooperation with AFA)
agreed to "close out" the first contract with an outstanding
balance. By September of 1991, PBR's contract had been "revised"
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR.
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
Printed On Recycled Pane-
The Honorable City Council
May 5, 1992
Page 2
three times and AFA' s contract had been revised twice. By September
of 1991, PBR's contract, due to the subsequent contract revisions,
had totalled $169,980.00.
CONTRACTS
Settlement and Agreement Contracts
On September 9, 1991, the City and PBR signed a Compromise,
Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement and an Agreement for
Completion of the General Plan Update.
The Compromise, Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement closed the
first contract. However, a caveat was put in the Settlement
(Section 1A, page 2) which stated that the City shall pay to PBR
$14,729.49 remaining of the first contract. The Settlement Contract
also stated that the City would pay, in two installments,
$44,000-00 to PBR. In total, the Settlement specified that the City
would pay to PBR a total of $58,729.49, after closure of the first
contract.
The Agreement Contract stated that the City would pay to PBR
$38,959.00 for completion of the General Plan Update.
CSettlement and Agreement Summary
The remaining balance to PBR is as follows:
First Contract: $14,729.49 (Contract closed -
with balance due to
PBR, money due
w i t h i n t h e
Settlement Contract)
Settlement Contract: $44,000.00 (Settlement)
Completion Agreement: $38,959,00
C
The Honorable City Council
May 5, 1992
Page 3
Contract Summary, Including all Contract Revisions
PBR: Contract Amounts: Cumulative Budget:
Original
Revised
Revised
Settlement
Agreement
Total PBR Amount:
PAYMENTS
$143,500.00
$ 24,230.00
$ 2,250.00
$ 58,729.49
$ 38,959.00
$167,730.00
$169,980.00
$228,709.49
$267,668.49
$267,668.49
Payments Remaining to be Paid to PBR Under the Settlement:
The City has paid the entire Settlement amount of $58,729.49, no
balance remains.
Payments Remaining to be Paid to PBR Under the Agreement:
As of March 1, 1992, under the Agreement Contract, PBR has
indicated that $12,730.00 remains to be paid (1). Per work task
PBR 's invoices show the following remaining balances for completion
of the following work tasks:
1 The balance amount includes money due to AFA.
The Honorable City Council
May 5, 1992
Page 4
Task
Budget
Invoiced (2)
Remaining
Phase
I
$16,000.00
Task A
(DEIR(3)
$ 2,000.00
$ 2,000.00
$
0
Task B
(FEIR(4)
$14,000.00
$14,000.00
$
0
Phase
II
$14,959.00
Task A
(DLU +C(5)
$ 2,150.00
$ 2,150.00
$
0
Task B
(FLU +C(6)
$ 6,900.00
$ 79.00
$
6,821.00
Task C
(LUMaps)
$ 4,900.00
$ 0
$
4,900.00
$ 1,009.00
$ 0
$
11009.00
Phase
III
$ 8,000.00
$8,000.00
$
0
Public Hearings
Total Remaining:
ADDITIONAL COSTS
$12,730.00
Special Meetina Attendance Costs outside of Contract Budaets:
PBR's contract identifies that PBR will attend two Planning
Commission meetings and two City Council meetings. Any meeting
attendance in addition to these two meetings, would require payment
of funds above and beyond the contract amount to the consultant.
On two occasions, PBR attended additional meetings (November 21,
1991 at a cost of $653.80 and December 20, 1992 at a cost of
$823.80). Total special meeting costs above and beyond any contract
cost has totaled $1,477.60.
2 As of March 9, 1992
3 Draft Environmental Impact Report
4 Final Environmental Impact Report
5 Draft Land Use and Circulation Element
6 Final Land Use and Circulation Element
The Honorable City Council
May 5, 1992
Page 5
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY - BACKGROUND
HISTORY
Oriuinal Contract Amounts
The City entered into a contract with PBR for a Sphere of Influence
Expansion Study. The original contract amount was $38,550.00. Of
this contract amount, PBR has identified that $12,610.40 is
remaining to be paid to PBR.
Based upon the Sphere of Influence contract, the remaining Sphere
of Influence Contract balance is allocated for the following work
tasks: Consultant attendance at City Council meetings, Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) application submittal, LAFCO meetings,
revisions as requested by LAFCO, and project coordination.
Recommendation:
1) Concur with staff's recommendation to terminate the General
Plan Consultant's contract for updating of the General Plan
Land Use and Circulation Elements and Sphere of Influence
Contract.