HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 1003 CC REG ITEM 08AMayor Perez called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Councilmember Harper led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Brown, Harper, Lawrason,
Montgomery and Mayor Perez.
Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare,
Deputy City Manager; Susan Cauldwell,
Assistant to the City Manager; John
Knipe, City Engineer; Lt. Rodriguez,
Sheriff "s Department; Pat Richards,
Director_ of Community Development; Paul
Porter, Senior Planner; Debbie
Traffenstadt, Senior Planner; Ken
Gilbert, Public Works Director; Phil
Newhouse, Director of Community Services;
Mary Gayle, Acting City Attorney; Lillian
Kellerman, City Clerk; Dorothy Vandaveer.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS, AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
Proclamation to designate September 13, 1990 as D.A.R.E. Day
of Moorpark.
Mayor Perez read the proclamation and Community Services
Officer Richard Barber received it.
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion to add as item 11.J., Use of the Moorpark
Unified School District facilities by the City, the need for
action having arisen after the posting of the agenda. The
motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
CONSENSUS: By Consensus, the Council determined to consider
this item after the Consent Calendar.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember
Montgomery seconded a motion to reorder agenda item 11.I. to
after the Consent Calendar,
6. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Pamela Castro, 479 Charles Street, appealed to the City
Council to reconsider buying the entire site of Moorpark
Memorial High School on Casey Road from the Moorpark
Unified School District. She stated it could be used for
recreational activities that are needed in the City.
B. Patricia Arambula, 10756 Citrus Drive, spoke in favor of
the acquisition of the entire Moorpark Memorial High
School site by the City of Moorpark.
C. Valerie Arvizu, 377 Cornett Avenue, stated that her
property is adjacent to school property. She asked why
the School Board is having to use modular trailers at
school sites for classrooms instead of utilizing the
classrooms at the Moorpark Memorial High School. She
indicated that the site should not be purchased for the
purpose of development, but should be purchased for
recreation or school facilities.
D. Ronald Tankersley, 2800 28th Street, Suite 200, Santa
Monica, spoke regarding Item 11.F., the proposed
Carlsberg development. He stated that the applicant has
reviewed the amended scope of work and suggested a
meeting be scheduled at the earliest opportunity between
City staff, the applicant and the consultant for the
purpose of clarifying and amending the scope as necessary
and to review certain cost items and alternatives.
E. Linda Symchak, 13647 Blacksmith, spoke in favor of the
change of zoning code to permit day care in industrial
zones in the City of Moorpark.
a benefit. `
G. Linda Martinez, 11957 Honeybrook Court, requested the
City Council's support to the PTSA of Moorpark High
School to involve the entire community in Red Ribbon Week
which promotes a drug -free environment.
H. Barbara Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue, spoke regarding the
purchase of -the Moorpark Memorial High School. She
questioned whether only Redevelopment Agency funds would
be used to purchase the site. She also indicated her
desire for the City to purchase the site for the
establishment of a downtown park and to provide meeting
places that are needed within the City. Regarding
Mission Bell Plaza, she asked if meeting notices are
going to be mailed to property owners for the hearing to
be held on September 11), 1990.
I. Howard Sessler, 6061 Gabbert Road, spoke regarding Items
11.D. and 11.E. and stated that he is not in agreement
that the Code Enforcement Officer be allowed to issue
citations when personal contact would suffice.
J. Anna Bell Sessler, 6061 Gabbert Road, stated that she had
spoken to the Moorpark Unified School Board about using
a room at the Memorial High School as a storage room for
spinning equipment. The rates the school board quoted to
her were prohibitive so the room was made unavailable to
her for this use. She also requested more publicity be
given to the activities of the Seniors in the community
notices and bulletins that are mailed to the citizens of
Moorpark by the Communi-ty El:.ervices Department.
7• COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Councilmember Brown said she and Councilmember Montgomery had
mailed a letter to Ventura County Cablevision protesting their
two - tiered levels of service and charges. She solicited
letters from the citizens to U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum
who is working on regulatory leg.:i.sl.ation for regulating cable
TV.
A. Warrant Register
1989/90
Manual
Warrants 12231,
L2327,
12336,
12342
$47,018.17
Voided
Warrants 10088,
10342,
10517,
10815,
L0872,,
11023
(2,426.76)
Warrants 12360,
12369,
12376,
12379,
12384,
12400, 12409,
12420,
12428,
12429, 12436
$191,313.5
9
1990/91
Manual
Warrants 12149, 12231 - 12237,
12322 - 12326,12327- 12335,
12337-12342 $
29,137.59
Warrants 12355 - 12359, 12361- 12368,
12370 - 12378, :12380- 12383,
12385 - 12399, 12401 -12436 $227,164.1
3
B. Consider PD 980 Minor Modification No 5 Request to Make
Minor Modifications to the Existing Windows and Doors on
a Freestanding Satellite Building in the Town Center.
Staff Recommendation: Receive and file.
C. Consider a Retort Regarding Consultant Services for a
Financial Feasibility Study on the Carlsberq Specific
Plan. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file.
1. Consider DP -302 (Woodcrest) Exoneration of Bond. Staff
Recommendation: Exonerate monument bond.
K. Consider Los Angeles Avenue (East) Widening Proiect
Acceptance of Right -of -Way. Staff Recommendation:
Execute the Certificate of Acceptance to Conejo Ready
Mix.
L. Consider Request for Additional Funding for DUI Lawsuit
Aqainst the County. Staff Recommendation: Authorize
payment of $1,230 as the City's share of costs of the
lawsuit.
M. Consider Tract 2865 (Pardee) - Exonerate Bond for Parkwav
Landscaping on the North Side of Tierra Rejada Road.
Staff Recommendation: Approve bond exoneration.
N. Consider Approval of Attendance at League of California
Cities Annual Conference. Staff Recommendation: Approve
request per MOP 1.
O. Consider Resolution 90 -706 Deleting Parking Restrictions
on a Portion of University Drive. Staff Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution 90 -706.
P. Consider Status of Summer Youth Employment Program.
Staff Recommendation: Receive and file.
Q. Consider Establishment of FY90191 Budget for Affordable
Housing Fund Program. Staff Recommendation: Approve
recommended budget.
R. Consider General and Miscellaneous Fee Schedule. Staff
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 90 -707.
S. Consider Request for Overnight Travel Authorization for
Richard Hare Deputy City Manager. Staff Recommendation:
Approve travel request..
Councilmember Harper expressed concern with placement of
an access driveway in the proposed plans.
In response to Councilmember Harper, Mr. Richards
indicated that the action to receive and file the staff
report on the status of the project did not indicate
finalization of the plans, more staff work and discussion
will occur.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Brown
seconded a motion to receive and file the report. The motion
carried by unanimous voice vote.
E. Consider Consultant Services - Proposal to Provide
Financial Analysis in Conjunction with the Review of the
Bibo Affordable Housing Proposal. Staff Recommendation:
Select the firm of Urban Futures Inc. and authorize the
Mayor to sign a contract for services.
Mr. Kueny requested that this item be continued to the
next meeting at which time a contract with Bibo to
finance the proposed consultant services would be
finalized.
CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to continue
the item to the next reguLlrly scheduled meeting.
F. Consider Ventura County Sheriff's Department Federal Drua
Abuse Grant Request.. Staff Recommendation: Receive and
file.
Councilmember Lawrason explained to the citizens that the
Ventura County District Attorney and the Sheriff were
seeking federal block grant funds to combat drug abuse in
Ventura County. He expressed his support of the program.
MOTION. Councilmember Lawrason moved and Councilmember
Montgomery seconded a motion to receive and file the report.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Lawrason
seconded a motion to receive and file the report. The motion
carried by unanimous voice vote.
T. Receive Crossing Guard Manual. Staff Recommendation:
Receive and file.
Councilmember Brown expressed her hope that all
Councilmembers would read and become familiar with the
Crossing Guard Manual and be able to make the public
aware of the limitations of the Crossing Guards in the
execution of their duties.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion to receive and file the report. The motion
carried by unanimous voice .,ote..
11. ACTION /DISCUSSION ITEM:
I. Consider Donation of $200 to Purchase Ribbons for Red
Ribbon Week - A Cooperative Effort to Show Support for
Combatting Drug Abuse. Staff Recommendation: Direct
staff as deemed appropriate.
Councilmember Brown expressed her support for the PTSA
sponsored Red Ribbon Week.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion to approve the donation of $200 for the
purchase of Ribbons for Red. Ribbon Week; funding to come out
of the adopted Public Safety Budget. The motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.
Mayor Perez noted that the public hearing had been
continued open.
Steven Brodsky, 4572 vista Del Valle, addressed the
Council stating that problems are encountered when low
flow systems are installed in some existing systems. He
recommended the need to include the specifications in the
ordinance for the fixtures and plumbing to be used when
installing low flow systems.
Councilmember Harper indicated that he had handed out an
article on low flow features. He recommended that the
ordinance be brought back amended to include the
specifications for and type of fixtures and plumbing to
be required.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Brown
seconded a motion to continue the item, public hearing open,
to the September 19, 1990 meeting; proposed ordinance to be
amended to include specifications for and type of fixtures and
plumbing to be required for low flow systems in new
construction. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
B. Consider Zoning Ordinance Update. Staff Recommendation:
Begin review of draft :zoning ordinance. (Continued Item
9.F. from 8/15/90)
Mr. Porter gave the staff report.
Mayor Perez noted that the public hearing had been
continued open. There were no speakers present for the
public hearing.
Councilmember Brown questioned the basis for determining
the square footage on Sec. 8107 -1.7 - Second Dwellings
(Granny Flats), page 58 of the proposed ordinance. She
indicated that she would like the square footage figure
to have a relationship between building size and lot
size.
C. Consider Amendments Proposed to Zoning Code to Revise and
Clarify Residential Planned Development (RPD) Permit
Requirements and to Include a Requirement that an RPD
Permit be Obtained for Projects Creating Five or More
Separate Lots in any Residential Zone Staff
Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. 130 which would
revise various sections of the City Zoning Code related
to RPD Permit Requirements and introduce ordinance for
first reading. (Continued Item 9.G. from 8/15/90)
Ms. Traf fenstadt gave the staff report and indicated that
the Planning Commission recommendations had been
incorporated into the draft ordinance.
Mayor Perez noted that the public hearing had been
continued open. As there were no speakers, Mayor Perez
closed the public hearing.
Ms. Gayle indicated that paragraph three of the recitals
of the ordinance should be amended to include the
September 5, 1990 public hearing date.
Ms. Gayle read the ordinance title.
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember
Brown seconded a motion to read the ordinance by title only
and waive further reading. The motion carried by unanimous
voice vote.
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember
Harper seconded a motion t.c:, declare Ordinance 130 introduced
and read for the first time The motion carried by unanimous
voice vote.
vehicle to deal with abandoned wells.
Mr. Gilbert explained that the County's model ordinance
was written to deal with modifying and capping wells and
not to deal abandoned wells.
In response to Councilmember Brown, Mr. Gilbert indicated
that he would identify the County agency responsible for
abandoned wells and report on the status of their
efforts.
Ms. Gayle read the ordinance title.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion to read the ordinance by title only and
waive further reading and declare Ordinance 131 introduced and
read for the first time. The motion carried by unanimous
voice vote.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Brown
seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 90 -708 establishing
certain groundwater conservation fees; to authorize approval
of the Service Agreement between the City and the County of
Ventura relating to the Groundwater Conservation Program; to
authorize Mayor to execute [ill documents. The motion carried
by unanimous voice vote.
10. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Councilmember Montgomery discussed the proposal received from Mr.
Pruner regarding ambulance service and committee review of the
props sal.
Councilmembers Brown and Harper indicated that a letter should be
sent to the County Board of Supervisors stating that Mr. Pruner of
Pruner Ambulance informed the Council that Moorpark's response time
is inferior to response times of ether cities in the County of
Ventura.
Councilmember Lawrason discussed his support of the police
operation to enforce the liquor laws which was run on the evening
of August 30.
Mayor Perez congratulated his daughter on her birthday.
Planning Ordinance to Committee. Staff Recommendation:
Consider tabled motion. (Continued Item 11.E. from
8/15/90)
In response to Mayor Perez, Ms. Kellerman read the tabled
motion from the July 23, 1990 meeting as follows:
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Lawrason
seconded a motion to refer the matter to a committee
consisting of Councilmember Montgomery and Mayor Perez.
The Council then voters or the tabled motion.
VOTE ON TABLED MOTION: The motion carried 4 -1, Councilmember
Harper dissenting.
B. Consider Change to Zoning Code to Permit Day Care in
Industrial Zones. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as
deemed appropriate. (Continued Item 11.K. from 8/15/9-0)
Mr. Richards gave the staff report. He recommended that
the Council consider allowing the Director of Community
Development to approve the issuance of the permits for
day care schools in industrial and commercial areas using
the same process used for Minor Modifications, under
which the Council is noticed in a timely manner that the
permit is being issued and the opportunity then exists
for Council to appeal the decision within a given
timeframe.
BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to follow
the process as outlined by Mr. Richards above.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and-Mayor Perez seconded
a motion to direct staff to bring back an amended Ordinance
No. 112, modified to delete conditional use permit as the
instrument to regulate Child Day Care and Schools. The motion
carried by unanimous voice vote.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion to suspend current enforcement action under
the current Ordinance 112. The motion carried by unanimous
voice vote.
that a table and seating be provided at the north end of
the City Hall in a patio area for use by staff and the
public.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion to request the Parks and Recreation
Commission to consider a design for a picnic pavilion for the
Community Center Park, prior approval of the Council to be
obtained before implementing the design. The motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion that the Council approve a patio at the
north end of City Hall, the size to be determined by the
Public Works /Facilities Committee. The motion carried 4 -1,
Mayor Perez dissenting.
D. Consider Code Enforcement Priorities. Staff
Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Councilmember Brown stated that a careful review of the Code
Enforcement Officer priorities is needed at this time. She
said she felt some enforcement time and effort is being spent
on issues which the Council will review as part of the
downtown consideration.
BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to continue
this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
E. Consider a Report Regarding the Use of Citations for Code
Enforcement Officers. Staff Recommendation: Approve a
resolution allowing Code Enforcement Officers to issue
citations.
Pat Richards gave the staff report indicating that issuing
citations is an effective measure in reaching compliance with
regard to code violations. He said the two actions before the
Council tonight are to grant the authority to issue citations
to the Code Enforcement Officer and to review and implement a
bail schedule.
seconded a motion to refer the item to an ad hoc committee
consisting of Councilmember Brown and Mayor Perez. The motion
carried by unanimous voice rote.
CLOSED SESSION:
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember
Brown seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session for a
discussion of item 14.B. Potential litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). The motion carried by
unanimous voice vote. The mime was 10:20 p.m.
Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven
Kueny, City Manager; Mary Gayle, Acting City Attorney;
and Pat Richards, Director of Community Development.
The Council reconvened into Open Session at 11:05 p.m.
Ms. Gayle stated therf> was no action to report out of
Closed Session.
F. Consider Amendment to Scope of Work and Contract Between
the City and PBR Regarding the Carlsberg Specific Plan
and EIR and Amendment to Contract with Carlsberg
Financial. Staff Recommendation: Approve the
modification of the existing contract with PBR and
approve revised agreement with Carlsberg and authorize
the Mayor to sign both agreements.
BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to dispense
with the staff report.
Ms. Gayle stated that under the Council Rules of
Procedures, Section i.12 of Resolution No. 87 -412, the
Council could set a date to reconsider their action of
August 15„ 1990 regarding --his matter.
Mr. Kueny indicated that an indemnification by the
developer must be agreed upon and in writing.
BY CONSENSUS: The Council indicated that all those who gave
testimony at the recent public hearings should be notified of
the special meeting.
G. Consider A Request by the Planning Commission Regarding
the Jordan Ranch Protect. Direct staff as deemed
appropriate.
In response to Council. question, Mr. Richards indicated
that although the City would not directly be affected by
the proposed annexation of Jordan Ranch by Simi Valley,
a policy shift in the region could occur as a result of
the action.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Mayor Perez seconded a
motion to receive and file the report.
H. Consider A Report Regarding Temporary Commercial Uses in
the Downtown Area of the City. Staff Recommendation:
Approve the use of a six (6) month temporary use permit
for certain commercial activities in the downtown area.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Brown
seconded a motion to approve the staff recommended action to
approve the use of six (6) month temporary use permits for
existing uses in the proposed Downtown overlay zone area which
provide goods or services that promote the Downtown area as
outlined in the staff report; staff to report back to the
Council with an analysis of the effectiveness of such a
program no later than April .1991. The motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.
J. Consider Use of Moorpark Unified School District
Facilities by the Cite
The Council indicated their shock over the turn of events
in the negotiations with the School District on the Casey
Road property and the disallowing of the use of School
District facilities b, the City.
Ms. Gayle indicated that it would be appropriate for the
Council to discuss the Casey Road property acquisition in
Closed Session.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was
11:30 p.m.
Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; Steven
Kueny, City Manager; and Mary Gayle, Acting City Attorney.
The Council reconvened into Open Session at 11:55 p.m. Ms.
Gayle stated there was no action to report out of Closed
Session.
In response to Council questioning, Mr. Kueny went over
the recreation activities held at School District
facilities.
BY CONSENSUS: By Consensus the Council determined to ask the
School District for clarification as to whether the Community
Arts program and the Literacy program would be disallowed the
use of School District facilities.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Brown
seconded a motion to authorize staff to draft a letter for the
Mayor's signature to the Moorpark Unified School District
Board requesting the earliest possible meeting to discuss the
School Board decision to disallow the use of School District
facilities by the City, and the earliest possible time for an
open joint meeting between the City Council and School Board
for a discussion of all outstanding issues in dispute. The
motion carried by unanimous} voice vote.
12. ORDINANCES:
None were presented.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None were discussed.
iEi'•! pot an" "iii ;;:;1tL (j:.t,l :]] C ._. 311illlt: ':1) �c ?] "11[lE!Clt• i;(YC�E:: :iE?4,t:l.. :i'
�,5. Pc)t:Errla iii:,.; :I jY _C {WVn . uant: no :'oi,alrnnurd, c;( >m t3ac,tl '
:: . �:I•, ::: ]:;.i 7 '; 4��11: . c,:•�r :�:::1]:.rl: .'i t't .:: ]91)c)]ril_.r:c � : ]it:El�r1:i,.lr•;c .• :
MUM E.; S c h o: L 1):_Elt:r ic
•c •cp::::nnn; INUL .'.::,1 arUMV COM=A q: Qh!"l-
1) :_E�t:C'li:': us. City of Pc:c)]rf)E.rl. . : : .
°lnr E::: L ImopE._ y On ilm tfurt.:. now n, .
]2oaa El 27 of - Lnq E:md 'PuNi.f ich
r`
nyn rnnE ': CUP - ;ri:._ n _1945, E,.
:•ognvEDC' i;1c t. Iloo ':avh .(1 )
• .t` � 4 li 1 - -� 1 1 - -t'C �.1:e1th[1:.,,.
])._St'.C'K7 WE;. City of Hoo rf1:.C.i
=01*11 out
Map AwtLon,
'Is notion carrh
U1' ME. E'C :pe rt:j' an 5 . M
I;]1: to Ccwrnr Y77 Code llr,i::_On
f Zo r 3na. Pr;.: arty y 289
4 ind ,.rl101: 1. U:._ t7 irt:; i)ur':..,1l]1:
Won, , _
by ll'.917.L17OICEI w.i(;f'.
�:I:''E[] Vii• =O..tf]' Ln t", : r]E!E!t inq i :c'. 0 im :E. 11 ' C, . tl[a
�r' i,c l.:1L•
MA nvot 1:1(1 r'E.- :l"`JE?I1vV into C 'tll:s'e'CL' Wsnom an
Mr. Kueny reported that only items 14.B., 14.C., 14.I.,
14.J., and 14.K. had been discussed in Closed Session and
reported the following action out of Closed Session regarding
item 14.C., that the City Council authorized the City Manager
to proceed with obtaining a structural engineering report on
a block wall from Dickerson & Associates for the Pacifica
portion of Tract -2865 at a cost not to exceed $3,000.
15. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous
voice vote. The time was 12:45 a.m.
Bernardo M. Perez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Moorpark, California September 5, 1990
A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was
held on September 5, 1990, in the Council Chambers of said City
located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Perez called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2• ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Brown, Harper,
Lawrason, Montgomery and Mayor Perez
Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard
Hare, Deputy City Manager; Mary
Gayle, Acting City Attorney.
3. CLOSED SESSION:
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember
Lawrason seconded a motion to go into Closed Session for
a discussion of 1) Personnel 2) Potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b)(1), 3)
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9 (c) , 4) Litigation concerning City of Moorpark
vs. Moorpark Unified School District, 5) Litigation
concerning Moorpark Unified School District vs. City of
Moorpark, 6) Litigation concerning Ventura County
Community College District vs. City of Moorpark, 7)
Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of
Moorpark, 8) Negotiations for Real Property on the North
Side of Tierra Rejada Road East of Spring Road (Pacifica
Corp.) pursuant to Government code Section 54945.8, 9)
Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement
District vs. City of Moorpark, 1.0) Litigation concerning
Colonial Mortgage vs. the City of Moorpark; 11)
Negotiations for Real ]Property at 289 Casey Road
(Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government
Code Section 54945.8; 12) Negotiations for Real Property
on Los Angeles Avenue (East;i pursuant to Government Code
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 2 September 5, 1990
Mr. Kueny reported there was no action to report out of
Closed Session and that only Potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b)(1), and
Negotiations for Real Property at 289 Casey Road
(Moorpark Unified School district) pursuant to government
Code Section 54945.8 had been discussed.
15. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember
Lawrason seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion
carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 7:18 p.m.
Bernardo M. Perez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION
Moorpark, California
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and
the City of Moorpark, California was held on July
Chambers of City Hall of said City, located a
Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
July 9, 1990
Planning Commission of
9, 1990 in the Council
t 799 Moorpark Avenue,
The Joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting was called to
order at 7:15 p.m. by Mayor Perez.
2. ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Eloise Brown, Paul Lawrason, Scott
Montgomery, and Mayor Bernardo Perez
Present: Commissioners Bill Lanahan, Glen Schmidt, Michael
Scullin, and Roy Talley
Absent: Councilmember Clint Harper and Commission Chairman John
Wozniak
Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Patrick Richards, Director
of Community Development; Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior
Planner and Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk
3. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP
Pat Richards introduced Cheri Phelps and Ken Ryan from PBR and
Terence Austin from Austin - -Foust Associates, Inc. Mr. Richards
explained that the objectivpes of this workshop are to review the
land use element draft goals and policies; to continue discussion
of alternative land use plans, and to discuss the sphere of
influence expansion area land use alternatives as prepared by
PBR. Also discussed tonight would be the traffic analysis
prepared by Austin Foust; Associates, Inc. Exhibits were
,presented which consisted of maps that corresponded to each of
the proposed land use alternatives.
Mr. Richards recommended; that City Council and Planning
Commission consider an extension to the current schedule to
accommodate the sphere of influence study.
I. Ken Ryan, PBR, began the discussion of the goals and
Policies outline and the criteria that were used to draft
them. He indicated tat the criteria were as follows: 1)
issues defined in eaplier workshops, 2) constraints that
have been set forth by, the Council and the Commission, and
.3) the existing General Plari .,)nd future needs.
I
W
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California July 9, 1990
Commissioner Schmidt indicated that the text of the new
goals and policies is too wordy and ambiguous in some
instances. He also suggested that the format of the City
of Simi Valley's General Plan goals and policies might be
a good example to foll.c.w.
Regarding the format, Councilmember Brown stated that the
goal should be stated clearly first and policies required
to achieve that goal should appear immediately after.
Mayor Perez and Councilmember Brown both suggested that the
category entitled "issues" in the current Land Use Element
can be omitted from consideration. The issues will be
addressed as the various land use elements are put in place.
Mr. Richards summarized the discussion by stating that
staff's recommendation is to begin evaluating the current
goals and policies with the category entitled "issues"
stricken and to bring the current guidelines up to date with
additions to include the philosophical differences between
the existing and the proposed goals and policies.
By consensus, the Councilmembers and Commissioners decided
to proceed with evaluation of the goals and policies as
presented by PBR, and directed PBR to revise the draft goals
and policies consistent with staff's recommendations.
II. Ken Ryan continued the presentation by providing a recap of
each of the three land use alternatives. He then stated
that PBR needed direction from the City Council and the
Planning Commission before they can progress any further.
This direction was to be gained by answering six questions
regarding land use. These questions were outlined in a
memorandum from PBR and were discussed as follows:
Question No. 1
Should Specific Plan Area designations be used for large
undeveloped areas as a method for controlling growth,
providing for the extension of services and circulation
improvements in and around the city?
By consensus, the Councilmembers and Commissioners decided
in favor of the use f Specific Plan Area designations
within the City.
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California July 9, 1990
Question No. 2
Should hillside densities be based on a 20 percent or
greater slope criteria, and /or should they be based on
preservation of the city's "horizon line ?"
Councilmember Brown proposed that it should be based on the
preservation of the horizon line.
In response to Council-member Lawrason, Cheri Phelps
clarified that a horizon line is not the same as a
ridgeline. A ridgeline changes as to location of the viewer
within the city, but a horizon line remains basically the
same with the contour c::7f' the horizon.
Mr. Kueny said that the same standards for question no. 1
should also apply to question no. 2. He continued by saying
that it needs to be determined which participants in the
General Plan Update are in the Specific Plan Areas proposed
by PBR.
Cheri Phelps said PBR can identify the areas that have
participants and they, are recommending either a specific
plan or an overlay designation for the areas with multiple
landowners. She explained that the specific plan is for
areas with landowners who can agree on the development
schedules and that the 'overlay designation is for areas with
multiple landowners who may not be in concert on all
development issues. The overlay designation allows the
development to proceed without one owner delaying the entire
process for the others.
Commissioner Schmidt indicated his support if the question
is restated to read "Should hillside densities be based on
a 20 percent or greater slope criteria and development of
those areas which have been identified above the horizon
line ?" He stated that it is essential for clarity that they
identify the affected participants in the General Plan now.
Their property may be given the overlay type designation
later on and will be considered on that basis, but it is
important to have those land areas identified.
By consensus, the Counci- 1. and Commission members agreed with
Commissioner Schmidt's, proposed change and to give further
consideration to the question when the affected participants
in the General Plan Upd,!:,te are identified.
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commissior
Moorpark, California July 9, 1990
Question No. 3
Is a restrictive open space category appropriate to limit
future development in areas of significant natural resources
(oak groves, arroyo areas, etc.)?
Councilmember Brown said that changing certain industrial
areas to a restrictive open space category will be an
extremely difficult choice with existing structures already
there. It will cause dissatisfaction with current
landholders.
Pat Richards emphasized at this point the importance of the
open space designation and that it should not be considered
lightly.
Councilmember Scullin,stated that the preservation of oak
trees and other natural elements can be accomplished without
tying it to the zoning .restrictions.
By Council consensus, it was decided that the Open Space 4
designation will not: work within City boundaries.
Restrictive language; will be used when development is
proposed for these areas. The Open Space designation could
be used in the expanded study area.
Question No. 4
What is the appropriate intensity for downtown development
(i.e., consistent with 'r (j.rea ter than the current downtown
area study)?
There was Council consensus that the intensity for downtown
development should be consistent with the current downtown
area study.
Question No. 5
Should the current General Plan Amendment applicants receive
their requested land uc;e changes?
By City Council consensus, the discussion of this question
was deferred to be included in the discussion of the land
use alternatives.
A recess was taken at 9:30 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at
9:45 p.m.
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California July 9, 1990
Question No. 6
What is the Council's preferred circulation improvement
scenario based on the traffic consultant's recommendations
as shown?
The existing circulation element would remain the same and
two arterial roadways (east /west and north /south) would be
added to give maximum flexibility and room for growth.
III. Alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft Environmental
Impact Report were presented as follows:
City Incorporated Area
"The Project" - Existing general plan land use corrected to
show approved developments such as Mountain Meadows,
Villa Campesina, Griffin Campus Hills, Cabrillo Economic
Development Corporation, and Freeway Business Center,
existing parks, the current Carlsberg Specific Plan project,
and General Plan Update applicant requests as originally
submitted.
- Does not reflect Westland Company's current proposal
(multi - family along Los Angeles Avenue and high density
single - family along Arroyo).
Final plan will include specific plan designations for
certain areas.
Alternative 1 - No Project (existing General Plan).
Alternative 2 - A less intense alternative to consist of
existing (corrected) General Plan, the Carlsberg Specific
Plan as currently proposed, a reduction of the commercial
area south of Los Angeles Avenue between Moorpark Avenue and
Maureen Lane by approximately 40 percent, and each General
Plan Update applicant request at one land use designation
lower than requested.
Alternative 3 - To include all components of Alternative 2,
the Westland Company' s, current development proposal, and the
Estes Trust property as Rural Low.
Sphere of Influence Expansion Area
"The Project" - Alternative 1 with change to school sites
to reflect 20 acre minimum size. Correct eastern boundary
for proposed Specific Plan No. 4 and correct land use
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California July 9, 1990
t
summary to be consistent with new boundary (current boundary
extends into Simi Valley's Sphere of Influence). Also, the
precise boundary of Happy Camp Regional Park should be
shown.
Alternative 1 - No Pro , ct (City and County existing General
Plans) .
Alternative 2 - An alternative which would not result in ADT
exceeding that produced by one dwelling unit per acre for
entire study area (i.e., 1.31,000 ADT). Uses other than
residential would be permitted as long as maximum ADT was
not exceeded.
Alternative 3 - Origi.nal Sphere Area Alternative 2 as
proposed by PBR.
IV. Public Speakers:
A. Dennis Hardgrave, representing the Levy Company, 1830
Lockwood #110, Oxnard, requested the 139 -acre tract
west of the Buttercreek L tract be shown as a separate
Specific Plan area in the sphere area. He also
outlined that 1,) the hillside ordinance does not
provide flexibility that the specific plan concept
does, 2) specific plans are a good tool in the case of
multiple landowners with usable planning modules that
can be adopted, "f; the bevy Company will continue to
work on the 11 +3 L)-,'Pass rroposal.
B. Gary Austin, 1E,presenting Messenger Investment
Corporation, 1751.. Von Karman, Irvine, indicated his
firm's general desires it this point as being 1) to
support the specific plan concept in the sphere -of-
influence areas, 2) establish a 20% range of affordable
housing in development, 3) to have a connector road
from Alamos Canyor to Broadway, and 4) to have open
space land design it ions at approximately 40 -50% versus
25 %.
C. Eddie Ramseyer, ilamseyer. & Associates, 1881 Knoll
Drive, Ventura, asxed when the next General Plan Update
Workshop will be -�16
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of t -he
City Council /Planning Commissiot-,
Moorpark, California July 9, 1990
Pat Richards indicated at this point that the next workshop will be
to accomplish the following: 1) consider the preferred project plan
for the City limits and the Sphere -of- Influence area, 2) consider
revised policies, and 3) presentation by PBR of a screen - checked
Environmental Impact Report to thy: Council and Planning Commission for
review.
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 1_,m.
Mayor, Bernardo M. Perez
ATTEST:
Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk
John Wozniak, Commission Chairman
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE N°
CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION
Moorpark, California
September 10, 1990
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of
the City of Moorpark, California was held on September 10, 1990 in the
Council Chambers of City Hall of said City, located at 799 Moorpark
Avenue, Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The Joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting was called to
order at 7:15 p.m. by Mayor Perez and Chairman Wozniak.
2. ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Eloise Brown, Paul Lawrason, and Mayor
Bernardo Perez
Present: Commissioners Bill Lanahan, Michael Scullin, and Roy
Talley, and Chairman John Wozniak
Absent: Councilmembers Clint Harper, Scott Montgomery and
Commissioner Galen Schmidt
Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Patrick Richards, Director
of Community Development; Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior
Planner and Dorothy vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk
Councilmember Montgomery joined the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
3. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP
I. Pat Richards explained that this is the 5th of 7 workshops
concerning the General Plan Update which 1) consists of the
land use and circulation elements and 2) the expanded study
dealing with the sphere of influence. He stated that
approximately 770 notices were sent to landowners in the
sphere of influence , - -udy area notifying them of this
meeting.
ARr n 4 L. - ......] - .. __ L _.. _ - _
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California September 10, 1990
At this point, Mr. Richards introduced the Executive
Director of LAFCO, Bob Braitman, and stated that he will
speak specifically about the sphere of influence process and
how that process might affect the City. Mr. Richards
explained that the sphere of influence line as it currently
exists is the same as the City boundary line." He then
indicated that another presentation would be made by Reddy
Pakala, Ventura County Waterworks District, regarding the
future sewage treatment plant capacity and the current
process used to monitor growth and future sewage treatment
needs in the City.
Mr. Richards went on to explain other items to be discussed
would include the land use and circulation goals and
Policies and the updated schedule as proposed after the
discussion concludes. He stated that there will also be a
question and answer period at the end.
II. Bob Braitman began his.presentation by giving a background
of his involvement with the incorporation process of the
City of Moorpark. He restated what Mr. Richards had said
earlier that the City boundaries and the sphere of influence
are one in the same at this time. He said that when LAFCO
adopted the City's sphere of :influence it was assumed that
when the City was ready to cause an annexation, the sphere
of influence would be re- examined. This is the process that
is being undertaken no- w_n.t.h all other cities in the County.
Mr. Braitman explained that LAFCO was formed as a regulatory
agency concerning Cit,ir and Special District boundaries.
Ventura County is unique because of the distance that still
exists between communities. In Ventura County, LAFCO has
developed areas of interest. where they divide the county
into major geographic areas representative of community
identity. Within each area of interest there should be no
more than one city. 'TrIis means that other cities cannot
encroach upon another ity "s -irea of interest.
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California September 10, 1990
3
With regard to the sphere of influence in Moorpark, he
expressed concern with the fact that no agricultural area
was being proposed to be retained. He said if Moorpark
wants to have an industrial base, then it must provide
housing for those persons who work within the industries.
Also, the idea of having acreage without agriculture needs
to be addressed because it tends to be low - density,
expensive housing. He continued with the recommendation
that the sphere of influence application should not be part
of the General Plan Amendment, but should be submitted to
LAFCO after the General. Plan has been approved.
In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Braitman stated
that the concern with no retention of agricultural areas on
the sphere of influence study area maps shows that LAFCO
wants to see efficiency of land use and housing that is
affordable.
Councilmember Brown asked for a definition of the term
"viable agriculture land ". Mr. Braitman stated that
definitions for that term do exist in CEQA and the
Williamson Act, however the definition tends to be
subjective.
Mr. Braitman concluded by recommending that the City of
Moorpark adopt the General Plan for a study area which may
extend outside City limits and the sphere of influence may
differ from that study area. He recommended not using the
terminology "sphere of influence" in the General Plan.
The Mayor then accepted questions from the audience which
clarified items of general interest to the public.
As a result of one of the questions, Mr. Braitman provided
a handout to the Deputy City Clerk regarding the annexation
process that is follow(, 3d by LAFCO.
III. Reddy Pakala, Venture County Public Works, gave his
presentation which included a projection of future
requirements of the sewer plant to meet the needs of growth
and development in Moorpark. He stated that the Waterworks
District No. 1 will provide service needs based on approved
land uses and project. st:bmit:ted from the City Planning
Department.
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California September 10, 1990
4
In response to Mayor Perez, Mr. Pakala stated that a
reclaimed water (tertiary) facility will be complete by the
middle of 1992. He continued by stating that this will be
paid for by the customers who want to use the reclaimed
water, or the State of California has revolving loan grant
money that may be available for the reclamation projects.
The Mayor asked for questions from the audience. Several
residents inquired about an odor that has been apparent
possibly coming from the sewer wastewater treatment plants.
Mr. Pakala stated that the Waterworks District has had
complaints. He explained that the treatment does not cause
the odors. The sledge in the ponds is what can cause an
odor.
At 9:05 p.m., a twenty- minute break was taken. The meeting
reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
IV. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE - LAND USE GOALS AND
POLICIES
Ken Ryan initiated the review of the land use alternatives
goals and policies by stating that the goal statements have
been related to the policy statement and the changes have
been made as a result or the :last workshop.
The Mayor then opened the item for discussion.
Councilmember Brown indicated that policy 4.2.2 on page 4
does not address the center part of the City. She would
like to see reference 1cb the downtown area added.
Mayor Perez and Councilmember Montgomery asked why some
policies are "encouraged. ", such as 7.2 and 7.3, and others
are written in mandated form. Ken Ryan responded by saying
that in these two cases clustering is encouraged, but not
mandated.
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California September 10, 1990
5
Ken Ryan said that policies 3.1 and 5.1 are to encourage the
affordable housing element. Mayor Perez agreed, but pointed
out that those are just suggested and not mandated. He was
looking for something more substantial.
At this point, Cheri Phelps reminded the rotzncil and
Commission that they are dealing with an update to the land
use and circulation element and not to the housing element.
By consensus, the City Council and Planning Commission
members then proceeded to review the goals and policies on
a page by page basis with the following comments:
o Policy 1.3, page 2 - Councilmember Lawrason asked if
it is mandated that the land use element be
accomplished every five years? Mr. Richards responded
that the guidelines encourage cities to review and
revise their General Plan elements approximately every
five years. In response to Councilmember Lawrason, he
said the language in policy 1.3 is adequate.
o Goal 2, page 3 - Commissioner Lanahan stated that the
word "promote" should not be used, but instead the word
consider should Ye used.
Councilmember Montgomery stated that Goal 2 should
have two accompanying policies as follows:
Policy 2.1 - Plan ;or the ultimate physical boundaries
and service area crf the city
Policy 2.2 - Reduce conflicts among industrial,
commercial, residential, and agricultural land uses
within and immediately adjacent to the city
o Policy 3. 1, page :i - Councilmember Brown indicated that
it should be chanced from:
"Provide a mix of residential densities which meets the
needs of all econcmic segments of the community."
to: "Provide a mix of residential densities which
accommodates the rousinq needs of all members of the
community."
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California September 10, 1990
6
o Page 4 - Councilmember Montgomery stated that the ones
beginning with a preposition would read better if they
were reworded (e.q., Goal No. 4)
o Policy 6.4, page 6 - Councilmember Montgomery
questioned where the declaration came from. Mr.
Richards indicated that this is a reflection of the
general overall policy. He said it can be generalized
or it can be made more specific.
o Policy 7.4, page f5 - Councilmember Montgomery said the
word discourage should be in there to begin " ........
discourage (instead of reduce) the number of curb cuts
and number of vehicle trips on adjacent roadways."
o Policy 9.4, page 7 - Councilmember Lawrason believed
it should read "encourage" instead of "promote". Mayor
Perez disagreed. General consensus to have it worded
"Encourage the comprehensive......
o Policy 9.7, page �i - Councilmember Brown said the word
"unified" should tie changed to "integrated ", so as to
avoid a cookie ci.tter type architecture.
o Policy 10. 3, page 8 - Mayor Perez asked how is an
upgrading accomplished of something that is already
there? Mr. Richards responded that special
circumstances generate the need to upgrade.
o Goal 11, page 9 - Councilmember Brown asked if the word
viable could be changed to prime and that the words,
"Identify and", b(, added to the beginning of this goal.
o Policy 12.3, page 9 - Commissioner Lanahan requested
this be changed t:,- read: "Encourage the exchange of
public and private open space and recreational uses to
serve residential rieighb)rhoods."
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission-,
Moorpark, California
September 10, 1990
o Policy 14.4, page 11 - Councilmember Brown suggested
that it read ".......and enhance the area adjacent to
the Arroyo Simi floodway......"
o Policy 15.5, page it - Councilmember Montgomery said
it seems redundant and unnecessary. Mr. Ri;.dhards said
it is not redundant by law inasmuch as the City must
either have its own Hazardous Waste Management Plan or
adopt the County's as Moorpark has accomplished. The
Policy is needed to identify the City's plan as
required by state law.
o Policies 15.2 and 15.3, page 11 - Councilmember
Montgomery said the wording could be substantially
stronger, i.e., "protect and preserve" instead of just
"encourage ".
Councilmember Brown said the "ecologically sensitive
habitats" are identified by whom? Mr. Richards said
they could be identified by a variety of sources and
he suggested leaving it somewhat broad so the
determination can be made later.
Mayor Perez stated that he would like to have it say
something to the effect "as identified by appropriate
agencies ".
Councilmember Montgomery at this time suggested
dropping the first three words in 15.3 and replacing
them with "preserve ".
Commissioner Wozniak said he does not see anything that
pertains to recycling conditions. He said there should
be some statement that "promotes recycling ".
Mr. Richards said another policy could be added that
deals with recycl.i.rng efforts by the City and leave it
broad - based.
o Policy 16.4, page 12 - Councilmember Brown said the
term "identifiable" neighborhoods is not good, because
Moorpark as a city is identifiable.
Commissioner Talley said this concept will encourage
the separatism feeling within the City, which is not
what they want to achieve.
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California September 10, 1990
8
There was a general consensus that PBR will reword
this policy.
o Policy 16.2, page 12 - Chairman Wozniak asked that the
word "significant" be stricken.
o Policies 16.4 and 17.1 - It was agreed that they
overlap considerably, but no change was indicated.
o Goal 18, page 14 .- Councilmember Montgomery said the
term "visually substandard" is not acceptable. Cheri
Phelps suggested that it read "To provide for and
promote the visual quality of areas in the
community ..... . "'By Council consensus PBR will reword
this goal.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
o Policy 1.2 , page 1 - By Council consensus this item
will be reworked by PBR.
o Goal 3, page 2 - Councilmember Brown indicated that a
policy needs to be added that says "Attempt to provide
or develop inter- a. :, -ty transit throughout the County."
V. Alternative Land Use Plans
Ken Ryan gave an overview of what items have been included
in the alternative land use plans. He briefly summarized
the Preferred Land Plan. Statistical Summary. He explained
that several of the elements are based on the figures from
Ventura County. Solid waste is reflective of the County and
is based on the default factors, which are used while they
are determining current and future needs.
Cheri Phelps said PBI< needs more direction before a
preferred circulation F -,i.an can be derived and incorporated
i ntn i-h� i 7 , _ - -
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California
9
September 10, 1990
*TBD (To be determined)
DETERMINATIOI
Yes
No
No
No
Not in City
TBD*
TBD
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
:E
Kendall Elmer said with this information they will use the
traffic model to determine the potentially best circulation.
Mr. Richards stated that the impact of the decisions made
in this regard will require major changes to the land use
plan and that it may have to come back to the Commission and
Council before finalization.
VI. General Public Questions /Answers
o David Schwabauer, 12598 Broadway Road, commended the
City Council and Planning Commission for looking into
this item now. He agrees that the Waterworks District
No. 1 boundaries are appropriate for the sphere of
influence expansion. He indicated that the distinction
made between prime agricultural land and viable
agricultural land is a valid one.
o Barbara Shultz, 1.16 Sierra Avenue, questioned what is
the designation of the Gisler property. She stated
that she had heard it referred to as commercial and
future commercial, Mr. Richards clarified that there
is no change to its current designation of Medium
Residential and : -O application is being considered.
NO. OF
SEGMENT
LANES-
SR-118 Bypass - Gabbert to SR -118 Freeway
6
Los Angeles Avenue - Buttercreek to west of
Grimes Canyon
6
Moorpark Avenue - L.A. Avenue to SR -118 bypass
4
Walnut Canyon Road - SR -118 bypass to Broadway
4
Broadway Road - Walnut Cyn to Grimes Cyn
4
Grimes Cyn Road - Broadway Rd to north of
Shekell
4
Grimes Cyn Road - Gabbert to Broadway
4
SR -23 Bypass - SR -23 Freeway to Walnut Cyn
4
L. A. Avenue - Spring to Princeton
4
High Street - Gabbert to Spring
4
Gabbert Road - High to Grimes Cyn
4
A Street - High to B Street
4
Happy Camp Road - Broadway to 1,'2 mile north
of Broadway
4
*TBD (To be determined)
DETERMINATIOI
Yes
No
No
No
Not in City
TBD*
TBD
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
:E
Kendall Elmer said with this information they will use the
traffic model to determine the potentially best circulation.
Mr. Richards stated that the impact of the decisions made
in this regard will require major changes to the land use
plan and that it may have to come back to the Commission and
Council before finalization.
VI. General Public Questions /Answers
o David Schwabauer, 12598 Broadway Road, commended the
City Council and Planning Commission for looking into
this item now. He agrees that the Waterworks District
No. 1 boundaries are appropriate for the sphere of
influence expansion. He indicated that the distinction
made between prime agricultural land and viable
agricultural land is a valid one.
o Barbara Shultz, 1.16 Sierra Avenue, questioned what is
the designation of the Gisler property. She stated
that she had heard it referred to as commercial and
future commercial, Mr. Richards clarified that there
is no change to its current designation of Medium
Residential and : -O application is being considered.
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission
Moorpark, California September 10, 1990
10
Ms. Shultz also requested clarification on terminology
in the goals and policies.
o Gary Austin, 17512 Von Karmon, Irvine, spoke
representing Messenger Investment Co., stated that the
traffic numbers generated by the model are alarming
to him and he does not feel that these assumptions are
valid. He recommend ^d a reevaluation specifically with
regard to the property owned by Messenger Investment
Co. It is not their intent to develop industrial on
that property and he stated that the traffic reduction
would be significant if the industrial and commercial
assumptions were eliminated.
Mr. Austin indicated that they are in escrow with
Unocal for property within proposed Specific Plan 10.
He pointed out that a lot of the land in Simi has been
master planned already and will be approved by October
or November at the latest. Messenger Investment Co.
is anxious to move ahead with their projects and the
City of Moorpark should keep them in the planning area
with regard to the General Plan Update process.
o Jeanne Dewhurst, 4176 Santa Rosa Drive, spoke regarding
equestrian facilities. She suggested a policy that
would allow the development of equestrian trail
linkages to regional parks.
Mr. Richards responded by stating that the City of
Moorpark does not have the ability to provide those
trails. That would imply that the City would provide
construction and at: the present time it does not have
the capacity to do that. It would very clearly
obligate the City for construction.
Ms. Dewhurst then s ;poke in favor of policy 14.5 on page
11, which promoters compatible open space /recreational
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission,
Moorpark, California September 10, 1990
Ll
preparing a specific plan on their property. They are
committed to doing moderate to low -cost housing on a
portion of this property and would like to see their
project be accessible to the shopping areas of the City
and have interaction with the downtown area.
M
He also spoke regarding the Levy Company's "1 5ortion (139
acres) of Specific Plan 5 immediately west of the
existing Buttercreek tract, south of L.A. Avenue. This
property was also part of an original application for
General Plan Amendment when they first started this
process for the Levy Company. At the second workshop
it was discussed that their 139 acre property is an
obvious division of urban /rural (buffer zone) . The
Levy Company would prefer a separate specific plan for
that 139 acre property as originally requested as part
of the General Plan Study,,
o Jeanne Dewhurst, 4176 Santa Rosa Drive, stated that
Home Acres is a very unique community and that most of
its residents do riot want to become part of the City
of Moorpark.
Mayor Perez asked if there were any final comments from the
Council or Planning Commission.
There were none.
VII. Schedule
Cheri Phelps said that with the changes they have been given
this evening, they must request additional time for
preparation to bring these items back to the Council. She
suggested that they will make the modifications necessary
bring these items back at a regular Council meeting in
October as opposed to an additional workshop.
Mr. Kueny said the Council will not have the changes in time
to consider them at the meeting of September 19 and October
3 will be the earliest possible date. He commented that a
special meeting may be in order to address the changes the
first or second week or October.
Cheri Phelps said the first week of October will give staff
and the consultants timE' to prepare the necessary materials
for Council review pri >r to ttie next meeting.
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the
City Council /Planning Commission.
Moorpark, California September 10, 1990
12
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
Bernardo M. Perez, Mayor
Chairman, John Wozniak
ATTEST:
Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Moorpark, California September 12, 1990
A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was
held on September 12, 1990, in the Council Chambers of said City
located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Perez called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Brown, Harper,
Montgomery and Mayor Perez
Absent: Councilmember Lawrason
Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl
Kane, City Attorney; Pat Richards,
Director of Community Development.
2. CLOSED SESSION:
MOTION: Councilmember,Harper moved and Councilmember
Brown seconded a motion to go into Closed Session for a
discussion of Potential' litigation pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9 (b)(1). The motion carried by voice
vote 4 -0, Councilmember Lawrason absent.
Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers except
Councilmember Lawrason; Steven Kueny, City Manager;
Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Pat Richards, Director of
Community Development.'
The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 7:48 p.m.
Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out
of Closed Session.
AT THIS POINT in the meeting a 10 minute recess was
declared.
The Council reconvened;into Open Session at 7:55 p.m.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegignce was led by Councilmember
Montgomery.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 2
4. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
5. ACTION /DISCUSSION:
September 12, 1990
Councilmembers Brown, Harper,
Montgomery and Mayor Perez
Councilmember Lawrason
Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl
Kane, City Attorney; Pat Richards,
Director of Community Development;
Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager;
John Knipe, City Engineer; Lillian
Kellerman, City Clerk.
A. Reconsider_ Council Action of August 15 1990
Regarding the Carlsberg Specific Plan
Mr. Kueny gave the staff report and reminded that
the public hearing was previously continued to
October 17, 1990, and it is staff's recommendation
to direct the consultant, PBR, to proceed with
finalizing the EIk for presentation to the Council
no later than October 3, 1990 with Council action
on the final environmental document at the October
17, 1990 City Council meeting.
MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember
Montgomery seconded a motion to direct that the
Environmental Impact Report be completed by October 3,
1990 and be ready for Council action by the October 17,
1990 City Council meeting. The motion carried by voice
vote 4 -0. Councilmember Lawrason absent.
Mayor Perez indicated that the agenda item tonight was
not a public hearing and while those who had presented
speaker cards would be allowed to speak, they would not
be on the official Carlsberg public hearing record.
The following persons who presented speaker cards spoke:
Ron Tankersley, 2800 28th Street, Santa Monica, said that
he would reserve his comments to a later time.
Roy Brown, 4675 Bella Vista Dr., said he had no comments
at the present and had been under the impression that the
item tonight was a public hearing item.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 3 September 12, 1990
Steve Brodsky, 4572 Vista Del. Valle, said that he was
very concerned with the fiscal aspects of the project and
the financial responsibility of the applicant and that
the project should not be done.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved that the Council
adjourn to Closed Session for a discussion of all items
listed on the Special Meeting notice.
The motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Kueny indicated to the Council that it was staff's
intention to place reconsideration of the Council's
August 15, 1990 action on the Carlsberg Specific Plan
back on the next regular City Council meeting of
September 19, 1990.
Councilmember Montgomery asked when the traffic analysis
and other items requested by the Council at the August 15
meeting would be available.
In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Richards
indicated that he would have to obtain that information
from PBR but that October 1st was the date that PBR was
working to for first return to the City of that
information.
In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Kueny said
staff recommended the agenda item for the September 19
meeting be a reconsideration of the action taken on
August 15 concerning the Council's direction to amend the
specific plan for the revised land use plan that had 431
dwelling units relocated on the property on different lot
sizes than had been previously considered.
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember
Brown seconded a motion to approve the staff
recommendation as outlined by the City Manager above.
The motion carried 3-1,, Councilmember Harper dissenting,
Councilmember Lawrason absent.
MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved and Councilmember
Montgomery seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session
for a discussion of 1) Personnel 2) Potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b)(1), 3)
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9 (c) , 4) Litigation concerning City of Moorpark
vs. Moorpark Unified - School District, 5) Litigation
concerning Moorpark Unified School District vs. City of
Moorpark, 6) Litigat.1"C41 concerning Ventura County
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Page 4
September 12, 1990
Community College District vs. City of Moorpark, 7)
Litigation concerning the County of Ventura vs. City of
Moorpark, 8) Negotiations for Real Property on the North
Side of Tierra Rejada Road East of Spring Road (Pacifica
Corp.) pursuant to Government code Section 54945.8, 9)
Litigation concerning the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement
District vs. City of Moorpark, 10) Litigation concerning
Colonial Mortgage vs. the City of Moorpark; 11)
Negotiations for Real Property at 289 Casey Road
(Moorpark Unified School district) pursuant to Government
Code Section 54945.8; 12) Negotiations for Real Property
on Los Angeles Avenue (East) pursuant to Government Code
Section 54945.8. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0,
Councilmember Lawrason absent.
AT this point in the meeting a 10 minute recess was declared.
The Council reconvened into Closed Session at 8:O0 p.m.
Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers but
Councilmember Lawrason; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard
Hare, Deputy City Manager; and Cheryl Kane, City Attorney.
The Council reconvened into Open Session at 9:31 p.m.
Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report out
of Closed Session and only Potential litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9 (c), and Negotiations
for Real Property at 289 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified
School district) pursuant to Government Code Section
54945.8 were discussed:
15. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Councilmember. Brown moved and Councilmember
Montgomery seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion
carried by voice vote. The time was 9:31 p.m.
Bernardo M. Perez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk