Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0620 CC REG ITEM 11CBERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Councilmember LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Backg o end MOORPARK ITEM M E M O R A N D U M The Honorable City Council STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J.KANE City Attorney IICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of ommunity Development 3. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer IOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development June 1, 1990 (CC Meeting of 6 -6 -90) GENERAL PLAN UPDATE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES At the General Plan Update workshop held on May 30, 1990, the Council was presented with information related to three reliminary land use alternatives and related circulation system altpernatives. At that workshop, staff recommended that the Council continue the discussion related to the land use and circulation alternatives to your June 6 meeting. The Council requested that copies of the exhibits be provided to you prior to your June 6 meeting. PBR is sending copies of the land use alternatives, existing land use, and existing General Plan exhibits by Federal Express, with delivery expected on Saturday, June 2. It is our understanding that PBR is also providing the Council a list of positive and negative considerations associated with each of the three land use alternatives. We have not had the opportunity to review PBR's list of considerations. In the following discussion section, we have included our own list of issues related to developing a preferred land use and circulation system alternative. Also addressed below are questions related to land use alternatives for the proposed expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence. Staff is recommending that the Council provide general direction to PBR at this time regarding what you want to be included in the preferred land use and circulation system plans. Staff has not had the opportunity to provide our comments to PBR related to these 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 The Honorable City Council June 1, 1990 Page 2 alternatives. I am proposing that we forward both Staff and Council comments to PBR and have them prepare conceptual preferred land use and circulation system alternative plans to be presented at the next workshop (either June 25 or 27). Draft goals and policies will be presented at this workshop, and the Council and Planning Commission would then have the opportunity to provide PBR with final recommendations related to a preferred land use and circulation system alternative which would be analyzed as the "proposed project" in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Additional changes to the preferred land use and circulation alternative may be required after the EIR analysis is complete in order to minimize environmental impacts. Staff is recommending that the Council consider the following issues when reviewing the alternative plans: Land Use Alternatives: Should all undeveloped areas with 20% or greater slopes be protected through a open space designation (including slopes on General Plan Update applicant properties)? If yes, what density of development should be allowed? Should important ridgelines in all undeveloped areas be protected? If yes, what density of development should be allowed? Should important natural features such as stands of oak trees and wetlands be protected with a open space designation that would prohibit or severely restrict future development? Is the Council in favor of the specific plan approach? If yes, what areas (including General Plan Update applicant properties) should receive a specific plan designation? For example, a specific plan designation may be appropriate for the Unocal, JBR, Levy, the area south of Los Angeles Avenue and west of Moorpark Avenue, and other large acreage properties. Does the Council want to see all General Plan Update applicant properties receive a change in land use or should the land use designation remain the same as the current Plan for some of these properties? For example, one General Plan Update applicant (Estes) has requested a high density residential designation to allow development of a mobile home park on the west end of the City, north of the railroad tracks. This would not be consistent with the surrounding land use, would result in spot zoning, and the access to community services would be poor. The Honorable City Council June 1, 1990 Page 3 Does the Council want the land use intensity increased in the downtown area consistent with recommendations in the Downtown Plan? Should commercial zoning in the City be increased or decreased? Should industrial zoning in the City be increased or decreased? Are there specific land use designations proposed to be changed that the Council would prefer to remain the same as shown on the existing General Plan? For example, Alternative 2 shows AG -1 and M designations in the industrial park area on the west end of town. Currently this land is zoned and planned for industrial use. Circulation Svstem Alternatives: What new roadways should be included on the preferred circulation alternative? For example, is the Council in favor of the Highway 118 extension to the west end of town? Should this extension terminate at Gabbert Road or should the connection to Los Angeles Avenue be west of Gabbert Road? Is a Highway 23 bypass appropriate? Should Broadway be connected to Highway 118 through Alamos Canyon ?. If yes, should Campus Park be extended to connect with Broadway? Is the Council in favor of showing one or more east -west connector streets between Walnut Canyon and Grimes Canyon Roads to improve emergency access and minimize long, dead -end roadways? Sphere Area Land Use Alternatives: Staff is seeking confirmation that the Sphere study area would be analyzed using an "average` of one dwelling unit per acre. Does the Council wish to give any consideration towards allowing the consultant the opportunity to make recommendations of other land uses where they may deem them appropriate? l � The Honorable City Council June 1, 1990 Page 4 Should large acreage properties in the expanded Sphere area be designated as specific plan areas (for example, the Messinger and Levy properties)? Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate. PJR /DST cc:PBR