Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0723 CC SPC ITEM 06BERNARDO 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 MOORPARK ITEM. 1.1, A. STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: July 6, 1990 (cc meeting July 11, 1990) SUBJECT: Comprehensive Program for General Plan Amendments (CPO) At the Council's June 27, 1990 meeting, Staff was directed to have the Planning Commission review the draft CPO. The Commission was to comment on the draft so that the Council could have benefit of their input prior to taking any firial. action. On July 2, 1990 the Planning Commission (Chairman Wozniak absent) considered the draft CPO, which was presented to the Council at their June 27, 1990 meeting. The Commission members noted general concurrence with the intent of the CPO. The members also were concerned regarding the limited time for review. There were no other comments beyond the above tw^:. BERNARDO 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 MOORPARK M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk DATE: July 20, 1990 STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORDINANCE - JULY 23, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Attached is the analysis done by the City Attorney regarding the Gary Austin letter to Mr. William Messenger, Jr. relative to the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance (CPO). The election resolutions for the CPO will be provided Monday for Council action should the Council determine to place the measure on the November 6, 1990 ballot. 07/20/90 17.04 $213 236 2700 13I9«r LA MAIN - -- CITY OF MOORPARK [a 002/008 LAw oFFl.ces BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN ONE WILSHIRC •UILDINQ MARTIN J. BURKE' GRCGOPY A. OOCIMO 4524 SOUTH QRANO AVENUE, I]"' FLOOR vENTURA COVN'� OFF-Ct JAMES T 6RAOSHAW,.100 ELIZABETU L_ HANNA LOU ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 00017 9310 0001MCROSA ORIVC MARK C. ALLEN, JR.' KAT.RYN R oCTERS. Sy,TE I MARTIN L 4URKE 05A E. Aq ANITZ 12131 236-0600 ;AWAAILLO, CALIPCCNIA 230:6 CARL K. NEWTON' KIM E. MCNALLY 'SOS. 267-3.64 J. ROGERT ILANORICK' O£NN/B I. ♦LOYp NORMAN G GAART L.INOA I- OAUBE TELECOP-9 -. 12131 236.7700 EDwAPO M. PDX' M. 6016 BOSAK OPANGE COUN• OF /ICE DENNIS R 4URKE' ROSIEST V, WADDEN 7 +00 6R15TOL _TRCCT LELANO G OOLLEy' FRANK K. WN-TCHCAO, Zff MARRY C. WILLIAMS iJ' G 449 COLIN L[NNARO' SCOTT H. CAMPBELL 11913.10471 COSTA MCi A, CALIVCRNIA 2¢640 THOMAS J. FEELEY. MARYANN LINA GOOOKINO 17141 547.619111, NCIL K TCAGCR• TIMOTHY 9. Mt OSKER ROYAL M. SORENBEN BRIAN A. PIERIK' DIANA L. IICLO Ilew144p1 CHARLES M. CALOERON' RITA J. TAYLOR L,ONTON 4LA2A PETEP M. THORSON' 17NEN J. 'JAWSON 7300 COLLEOC 6QIJL4t VAPQ JERRY M. RATT(RSON JAMES F. RIOAu 944-11! 220 HAROLD A. BRIOOES' JAMES A. FELTON OVER.A ND PARK, -IANSA.9 44Q-0 CHERYL J. NANO TERRY R KAUPMANN tell/ 334 -6[00 RAYMOND J. FUENTLS' STCPNCN R. ONSTOT Vt ROIN1A R . PESOLA JAIME AREVALO J uly 20 1990 1990 D. C6UNSC- S. PAUL §QVGUERA S. r, OANIELS CRAWlORO, LC , pwlGNr A. NcwELL B, OEPEK 6TRAATSMA MARIANNE WOO OOUOLAA C. NOLLANO JOHN L CAVANAVOH DON O. KIRCHER MARK 0. NENStAY -IC-ELL VAOONAWIL -A PETER 0. TREMBLAY WRITER'S DIRECT 0-A6 SCOTT F. FIELD G MICNACL X.C.*AtA MARY RCOUS OAYLE' POOER L ITO 213--236 -2721 RUFUS G YOUNG, JR. OUR FILE NO. 01359 -001 a bROYCaa16MK corro..hOK �. •ROF {YSOKAL A&�OCIATIOK A13NI1Tt0 KA6A6&YH]OURI Telecopy 7/20/90 'ADyrtT[p K­6.6 Honorable Mayor Bernardo Perez and Members of the City Council City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers: You have asked me to respond to the issues raised by Mr. Gary Austin in a letter dated July 11, 1990 to Mr. William Messenger, Jr. Those issues, which challenge the CPO on its face, are addressed below in the order in which they are raised in the letter. 1. "The state planning and zoning law clearly requires local legislative bodies to have unfettered discretion in the processing of general plan amendments." 07/20/90 17:04 $213 236 2700 LA MA I N - -- CITY OF MOORPARK (� 003 /003 Mayor Perez and Councilmember July 20, 1990 Page 2 or administrative actions. in gimpaon and Mueller the construction of courthouses by the board of supervisors was held to be an administrative action implementing a state policy that counties provide suitable quarters for the courts and thus beyond a vote of the people. Finally, L.I.F.E. Co mittee v City of Lodi, (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1139, dealt with an initiative ordinance prohibiting any annexation to the city unless an amendment to the city's land use element for the property was first approved by the voters. The initiative was invalidated as being in conflict with the Municipal Organization Act ("MORGA'I), the state- wide statutory scheme which gives LAFCOs the power to order annexations. In LgAl, the court did state that requiring voter approval of general plan amendments is an invalid use of the initiative power. (213 Cal.App.3d at 1148 -49.) However, that statement is dicta- -that is, not essential to the determination of the case and therefore not binding in subsequent cases. Furthermore, the court failed to reconcile the statement with its earlier recognition in L!2di. that "the adoption of or an amendment to a general plan has traditionally been held to be subject to the exercise of the initiative power. (O'Loane v. O'Rourke (1965) 231 Ca1.App.2d 774, 783 -785, 42 Cal.Rptr. 283.)" (213 Ca1.App.3d at 1143.) The fact that 1&qJ is not a present statement of the law is clearly evidenced from an amicus curiae brief in a case currently pending before the California Supreme Court-- Lesher Comm., Inc V. City of Walnut. There the Pacific Legal Foundation uses L2di and the other authorities cited by Mr. Austin to frame the legal proposition that Mr. 07/20/90 17:05 $2100 236 2700 E31'i &S LA MAIN --- CITY OF MOORPARK Z 004/008 Mayor Perez and Councilmember July 20, 1990 Page 3 without addressing, the issue of the power of the voters over the general plan. 2. "If it is determined that the legislative intent behind the CPO is simply to permit the City to stop indefinitely all new development which would exceed the holding capacities stated in the CPO unless the voters decided otherwise, then application of the CPO to a land- owner may well violate the state and federal constitutions as a taking of private property for a public purpose without payment of just compensation." Neither of the two cases cited by Mr. Austin, Los Angeles, (1987) 107 S.Ct. 2378, and Agins y. City of TJl?Urou, (1980) loo S.Ct. 2138, support this proposition. In First English the U.S. Supreme Court held that just compensation must be paid only when a land use regulation denies a landowner "all use of his property ". (107 S.Ct. at 2388.) In &gJM the U.S. Supreme Court upheld zoning of 1 -5 dwelling units per acre. Under state law, property may be developed consistent with its general plan designation. The CPO does not deprive any land in the City of its current land use designation under the general plan. Assuming that the current land use designations are viable, no landown x could possibly be deprived use of his property by the CPO.T/ A landowner with an existing viable land use designation has no entitlement to a general plan amendment to "up zone" that The written opinion of the California Supreme Court in �'1i20�y0 17:06 'd213 236 2700 Mayor Pere2 and Councilmember July 20, 1990 Page 4 &LA LA MAIN --- CITY OF MOORPARK U ti�i5i00 designation; nor is there anything in the law to suggest that with the mere passage of time an existing land use designation losses its viability. It is, of course, possible that, as with all ordinances, the CPO could be abused in its application. For example, the land use designation of some land could be so greatly reduced that it no longer had any beneficial use in order that the land use designation of other land c uld be increased without exceeding the holding capacities.V In such an event, the CPO as applied, rather than the CPO on its face, would be the subject of litigation. 3. The CPO "does not pass constitutional muster as there is no apparent rational relationship between the restrictions imposed by the CPO and a solution to traffic problems or any other public problem." None of the cases cited by Mr. Austin are germane to the CPO. Y_.11aae of Eucli d v Ain r 1?ual tY CO., (1926 ) 47 S.Ct. 114, is the seminal case upholding the power of cities to engage in zoning. There the U.S. Supreme court declared that for an ordinance to be unconstitutional the Provisions must be "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, moral or general welfare." (47 S.Ct. at 121.) In the California Supreme court held that an9ordinancel.3d 8481 eliminating billboards was reasonably related to traffic safety. In Terminal 1 A7,A Co n V. City County of San Fs�ncieco, (1986) 177 Ca1.App.3d 892, the court refused to invalidate an ordinance prohibiting the conversion or demolition of residential hotels on the ground that it was 07/20/90 17:06 $213 236 2700 Bt1"I ; LA MAIN - -- CITY OF MOORPARK (7j 006/008 Mayor Perez and Councilmember July 20, 1990 Page 5 Contrary to Mr. Austin's contention, the CPO is not a traffic ordinance; rather, it is an ordinance affording the voters „the opportunity to directly participate in the decision to amend their General Plan . . . ." (CPO § 17.60.010). Unless and until, the courts declare that the voters do not have the right of direct participation, the CPO reasonably achieves a valid purpose. 4 Spirit of the California iEnvironmental he letter and the A (Cal.pub,Res.Code §§ 21000 - 21177) by unlawfully requiring ) that major discretionary governmental acts (i.e., the adoption of general plan amendments) be made solely by the public vote once holding capacities are met.', not enable othe aCi o City to "Circumvent cthe ecrucial tenvironmental review process that CEQA was enacted to secure." Only initiatives that are placed on the ballot by voter petition are exempt from CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines, tit. 14 Ca1.Admin Code § 15378(b)(4); Rfpin y. City of Sanrn va,-• (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 458.) Under the CPO, the approval of a general plan amendment would never be exempt from CEQA as the decision would always be made by the City Council. They voters only decide holding capacities, and placing that decision on the ballot would also be subject to CEQA if done by action of the City Council rather than by petition of the voters. 5. "To ignore the fiscal impact of a proposed general plan amendment concerning land use intensity and density is . . . prohibited by law n 07/20/90 17:07 la21J 236 2700 Mayor Perez and COuncilmember July 20, 1990 Page 6 BWc &S LA MAIN • -- CITY OF MOORPARK 1?1 007/00° results in non - uniform treatment of landowners within the same zone . . . in violation of California law." Equal protection does not require uniform treatment, only a reasonable basis for the legislative classification. Basically, the only type of case in which an equal protection has been successful is where an individual landowner has been singled out for disparate treatment. ( t , (ND Cal. 1988) 701 F.Supp. 179, wherein an initiative measure precluded Fry from obtaining a change of zoning for her property without prior voter approval and there was no evidence that the land had any unique characteristics to justify such singular treatment.) Government Code section 65852 requires that zoning regulations 'tbe uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone . . . .11 Again, Mr. Austin's citation to stautory law is not germane. The CPO is not a zoning ordinance; nor does it affect the zoning districts and zoning regulations as they are constituted under the City's zoning ordinance. 7. The CPO is inconsistent with the existing general plan and requires preparation of an EIR. The merits of both contentions turn on specific facts. Since Mr. Austin does not recite any facts to support his contentions, there is no present legal response. An T hAuA "r.oxri cl .. _4_4 _j ... _ nt a... �. _! . ,_I 07/20/90 17: 08 'a213 236 2700 bV1,`s. -c; 5922/mam/8081B 045485 - 004 -001 July 11, 1990 To: Mr. William Messenger, Jr.. From: Gary Austin Re: City of Moorpark Proposed Comprehensive Program Growth Management Ordinance ( "CPO "1 /compliAnrA with Laws You have asked me to research whether the CPO contains any significant legal flaws which may render it invalid and unenforceablQ if adopted by the City of Moorpark ( "city,,) and /or the voters of Moorpark. Based upon my research, consultations with our legal counsel, and interviews with various persons connected with the CPO process, I have concluded that the CPO has several legal defects: 1. The City is attempting to allow the voters to Process general plan amendments on a single issue (density and intensity of use) by leaving it to the voters to approve any changes in land use designations, or the creation of new land use designations, which operate to exceed the holding capacities established by the CPO. It is beyond the scope of the initiative power for the voters to attempt to exercise such discretion over such general plan amendments. The state planning and zoning law clearly requires local legislative bodies to have unfettered discretion In the processing of general plan amendments. The City must be free to make truly comprehensive changes to the general plan as changing conditions dictate, without constraint from the voters as to "single focus" issues. &g, Cal. Gov't. Code 565350- 65359; Simpson v. Hit , 36 Cal. 2d 125 (1350);_el ler v. Brown, 221 Cal_ Ann- 7a 7i n • T T " T I -2- 2. The restrictions imposed by the CPO MUpt relate to protection of the public health, safety and welfare. U.S. CONST. amend. V; CAL. CONST. Art. XI, S7; Berman v. Parkr,•348 U.S. 26 (1954); Assoc. Homsbuilders of the Greater Eastbav v. City of Liyernore, 18 Cal. 3d 582 (1976). From reading the CPO, it is very difficult to divine exactly what type of public ill the CPO intends to cure by adopting the CPO. If it is determined that the legislative intent behind the CPO is simply to permit the City to atop indefinitely all new development which would exceed the holding capacities stated in the CPO unless the voters decide otherwise, then application of the CPO to a landowner may well violate the state and federal constitutions as a taking of private property for a public purpose without payment of just compensation. U.S. CONST. amend. V, XIV; First English Lutheran Evangelical Church of Gler►dale v. County of Los Angeles, 107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987); Agins y. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980). 3. Even if it is determined that the CPO is intended to resolve a legitimate public health and safety problem such as traffic, the CPO still does not pass constitutional muster as there is no apparent rational relationship between the restrictions imposed by the CPO and a solution to traffic problems or any other public problems. U.S. CONST. amend v; CAL. CONST. Art. 1, S7; Villaae QJEuclid y Ambler Realty Co.,, 272 US 365 (1926); Metromedia Inc y City of San Diego, 26 Cal. 3d 848 (1980); Terminal Plaza Corp. y. City and County of San rrancisco, 177 Cal. App. 3d 892 (1986). In Pact, the CPO would seem to worsen the City's ability to deal with present and future traffic problems. The lack of any provisions in the CPO permitting an owner to mitigate its traffic effects effectively denies the City of any practical and /or economic means of developing new street and highway improvements. 4. The CPO violates both the letter and the spirit of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code SS21000- 21177) by unlawfully requiring that major discretionary governmental acts (i.e., the adoption of general plan amendments) be made solely by the public vote once holding capacities are met. CEQA's paramount objective is to ensure that the discretionary acts of governmental agencies receive a thorough *valuation of all of their environmental effects, and this policy is clearly expressed in that legislation. Cal. Pub. Res. Code SS 21000, 21001; Friends 91 Mammoth y. Board of r,— -r, —, * If--- n..,,... 4-,. n n.. I -,.3 , a -, I. n", k .,_- --- •--•' - -3- S. At a minimum, docisions an to whether to restrict density and intensity of use pursuant to the CPO will have a profound fiscal impact on the City, and will likely have other significant effects as well, such as significant impacts on traffic and long term impacts in the area. One particularly critical portion of any environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA Is the determination of the fiscal impact of a proposed governmental action. 14 CCR §15131. To ignore the fiscal impact of a proposed general plan amendment concerning land use intensity and density is not only prohibited by law, it is irresponsible government as well. In summary, the CPO, at a minimum, does not comply with the statutes and constitutional provisions listed below. a. U.S. CONST. amend. V, XIV Berman v. Parker: Assoc. CAL. CONST. Art. X1, S7 Iiomebuilders of they Greater Lastbay X. city. of Livermore: First English Lutheran Evangelical Church of Glendale V. County of Los Angeles: "Agin v. City 4f Tiburon b. U.S. CONST. amend. V Villaae of Euclid v. CAL. CONST. Art. I, S7 Ambler Realty Co.: Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Dieao: Terminal Plaza CorR. v. City and County of San Francisco. C. Cal. Pub. Res. Code S§ Friends of MammQth v_ 21000, 21001 Board of Supervimorg of Mono CSZUDt.Y d. 14 CCR 515131 e. Cal. Gov't. Code §65350 - aimpson v. Hite: Mueller 55359 v. Brown; L.I.F.E. Committee V. City_ of -d- 1. The CPO denies equal protection of the law under the federal and state constitutions by treating similarly situated landowners differently depending solely on when they apply for a general plan amendment changing a land use designation. The CPO also results in non - uniform treatment of landowners within the sarao zone for the same reasons, in violation of California law. 2. The CPO amounts to a general plan amendment which is internally inconsistsnt with the City's existing genaral plan. 3. It appears that the City intends to certify a negative declaration under CEQA in .connection with its approval Of the CPO, or will find that the CPO is exempt from the Provisions of CEQA. Certification of a negative declaration will not comply with CEQA as approval of the CPO will have many very significant effects on the environment, not the least of which are traffic, fiscal, and long -term cumulative impacts generally linked to decisions concerning allowable intensity of use and density. Preparation of an environmental impact report is required under CEQA for the City's proposed action. Finally, approval of the CPO is a project which is not exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Many local governments that have grappled with growth control measures over the past several years have addressed, and in some cases have cured, many of the detects set forth above in drafting their growth control ordinances. while it is Possible that the CPO could be revised to cure these deficiencies, Substantial re- drafting will be required. As it is currently written, it appears that the cpo leaves itself fairly wide open as the subject of protracted and expensive litigation, comparable to the litigation currently pending over Simi valley's growth management plan. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES 1830 Lockwood, Suite 110 Oxnard, CA 93030 Jul y 1 1, 1990 (805) 988 -1806 The Honorable Bernardo Perez Mayor of the City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, uA 93021 RE: Comprehensive Planning Ordinance Dear Mayor Perez: Our firm represents the Levy Company, owners of a 285 acre parcel included in the current General Plan Update identified as GPA 89 -1 (F). Additionally, Levy Company owns a 139 acre parcel immediately west of the existing Buttercreek Tract for which we have requested General Plan Update consideration of a land use designation of one unit per gross acre in a Residential Planned Development concept with perimeter open space and clustered lots or dwelling units. We are in disagreement with the current draft of the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance (CPO) and request that it be amended to address these concerns. The CPO is unfair to the General Plan Update applicants in that it creates an additional step in the land use entitlement process which was neither disclosed to our client and other update participants, nor was it implied by staff or the City Council to any participants i n any of the initial requests for participation in the General Plan Update, requests for share Of cost payment of General Plan Update costs, or included in the scope of work which would be involved in the current General Plan Update. The inequity created is that the General Plan Update which is now underway will not be exempted from the CPO if the ordinance is in effect prior to the adoption of the updated General Plan. It is unfair to the update applicants to pay for a General Plan Update, have that pier, . approved by the City Council, and then have to go through the process of having that General Plan Update, or a particular segment of the update, validated by a vote of the registered voters of the city at a later date. Effectively, the actions of the City Council and the General Plan Update applicants to create the plan now underway at this time have little entitlement value if they must still be processed individually or as a group under the CPO- We are requesting that the current General Plan Update properties be specifically exempted from the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance Further, the Levy Company has proposed an east -west Highway 1 18 bypass through their 285 acre parcel which could be built in the near -term future on the roadbed of the ultimate State Route 118 freeway. As proposed, this roadway would be built with a combination of developer and public funds to provide a circulation alternative to Los Angeles Avenue for through traffic and locally- generated traffic leaving the City of Moorpark. This roadway aliqnment has been included in the Austin -Fnnst rirr idnr;nn nlanc fn +ho The Honorable Bernardo Perez Mayor of the City of Moorpark RE: Comprehensive Planni rig Ordinance July 11, 1990 Page Two of Two Finally, it is the intent of the Levy Company to pursue the possiblity of development of a substantial number of residential dwelling units to be marketed to low and moderate income households in the high density segment of the 285 acre parcel. The Comprehensive Planning Ordinance as drafted does not provide for exemption to affordable projects. This oversight is unfair to low and moderate income persons in that the additional costs of processing time and expense of an affordable project will be passed directly on to the buyers of these units. Further, it is possible that the public vote on a specific affordable housing project under the CPO criteria may result in a denial of the specific project request, not on the basis of traffic generation as is intended by the CPO, but on prejudice against affordable housing. We request that language be included in the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance which would specifically exempt low and moderate income - targeted projects under guidelines utilized by the County of Yenture and other public agencies. The Comprehensive Planning Ordinance as drafted is unfair and punitive to both the landowners and developers doing business in the City of Moorpark. More importantly, it will not achieve the purported goal of this City Council, which is to provide traffic solutions. As a result, there will be little in the way of traffic sol utions brought forward by the private sector and thru traffic on the 118 and 23 from sources outside the control of the City of Moorpark will continue to increase. Overall, the CPO will have a negative effect on existing residents and the quality of life in Moorpark as the roadway system deteriorates. Development Planning Services and Levy Company cannot support the enactment of this ordinance and will continue to press for a more equitable way to enforce traffic monitoring standards. Si rice rel y, i Dennis Hardgrave for the Levy Company cc: City Council and City Clerk Levy Company GREATER LGS VLN T;,fr Building Industry Associ(ition of Southern Camoi f, July 11, 1990 Honorable Mayor Bernardo Perez City of Moorpark City Hall 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mayor Perez: Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed Comprehensive Planning Ordinance (CPO). We appreciate the chance to provide information pertaining to issues such as this, which profoundly affect the industry we represent. Briefly, the salient points of our correspondence relate to; a request for clarification concerning the adoption and implementation, a request for information concerning the General Plan Update, a discussion of the effectiveness of existing growth controls, and a discussion on the appropriate role of elected officials in land -use decisions. To begin, we need to clarify how the CPO is intended to be adopted and become effective. The original proposal as we understood it was to take the proposal to the electorate for adoption. Is this still the intent? If not the approval' requires the normal advertisement, public hearings, first and second readings, and effective dates prescribed by law. In addition, we are interested in the processing of the General Plan Update. The draft CPO recognizes the importance of the update by making allowances for its incorporation into the CPO. Given the impending adoption of the Update, it would appear to be prudent to await :_ts approval. Page 2 What possible benefit can be derived from an ordinance which will increase city costs for staff oversight and initiative expenses, when existing controls such as Measure F have so measurably restricted residential development. Probably the most significant policy issue to be raised by the CPO is the appropriate role of elected officials in the land planning process. Moorpark, as well as most cities, incorporate to allow local control of land -use decisions. Cities expend significant portions of their budgets supporting the planning process through the retention of professional staff and consultants. Using the resources available through the city, elected officials have the information necessary to make intelligent decisions concerning the complex issues frequently encountered in land use planning. The CPO in effect, allows elected officials to abdicate their fiduciary duty to their citizens. Instead of relying on the careful reasoning of individuals they have elected, voters will be forced to make important decisions based on 60 second sound bites ,nd campaign literature. Future city officials will also he handicapped by the proposed CPO. Future city councils will not be able to respond to opportunities or problems with the flexibility of current or past councils. Even City proposed general plan amendments must go through the !iitiative process, which is only fair. Given the myriad problems associated with the draft Comprehensive Planning Ordinance, and the unquestioned impact of existing growth control measures and ]Land use planning law, the CPO's adoption is unwar!arr,ed.. Page 3 The Building Industry Association would like to thank you in advance for considering the points we have outlined above. Sincerely yours, Robert K. Holmes Legislative Advocate RKH:mb cc: Eloise Brown - Councilwoman Paul Lawrason - Councilman Clint Harper - Councilman Scott Montgomery - Councilman Steve Kueny - City Manager Patrick J. Richards - Director Community Development Cheryl Kane, Esq. - City Attorney BERNARDO 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 MOORPARK ITEM � A4/7) - M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community DATE: June 27, 1990 (cc meeting 6/27/90) SUBJECT: Comprehensive Planning Ordinance Background STEVEN KUENY f� City Manager v CHERYL J.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer Development On June 6, 1990, the City Council reviewed the latest draft of the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance. This item was carried over to the meeting of June 27, 1990 to incorporate text changes by the City Attorney and to resolve a discrepancy regarding the Base and Holding Capacity ADT numbers. Discussion In the previous draft, the Base and Holding numbers were transposed and the totals presented to Council represented the existing conditions (what was previously known as the Base). In this report, the figures represent the City build -out at the current General Plan. Staff is aware of the differences between the totals of Austin -Faust and what staff is showing in the latest draft. The base capacities for the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance is based upon the build -out of the city at the Current General Plan Designations. This does not include any of the proposed General Plan Amendments. The Carlsberg Specific Plan is exempt from the provisions of this proposed Ordinance and is not reflected in the total ADT numbers. The following totals have been developed separately by staff and Austin -Faust in conjunction with the General Plan Update and work done on the CPO draft. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 The Honorable City Council June 26, 1990 Residential Commercial Office Industrial Other (schools, parks churches) Austin -Faust 99,500 ADT 11,391 DU's 122,100 ADT 2,069 TSF* 16,800 ADT 1,076 TSF* 56,900 ADT 8,883 TSF* 34,000 ADT 329,300 Staf f 99,647 ADT 75,566 ADT 40,135 ADT 28,173 ADT 243,521 2 As can be seen, a large disparity exists between the totals presented above. The following is a description of the differences between Austin -Faust and Staff's ADT numbers: Residential Austin -Faust quotes a total of 11,391 dwelling units (7,221 units currently). Staff totals are 8,835 units presently and 10,120 total units of General Plan build -out in units. This represents a difference of 1,271 units, but only 147 total ADT difference. Austin -Faust includes 28 traffic study zones which are outside the city limits. These 28 zones are listed as including 1,597 units which would reduce Austin - Faust's total to 9,794. Commercial /Office Austin -Faust has divided their commercial calculations between retail and office uses based upon a 60% retail and 40% office split. Staff assumes that all commercial will be retail (Staff's ADT calculations for shopping centers takes into account a commercial /office mix). Austin, -Faust projects 2,069,000 square feet of commercial and 1,076,000 square feet of office at General Plan build -out. Austin Faust included the Carlsberg business park as part of "Office" numbers. Staff also included the Carlsberg Specific Plan category for industrial only. Staff projects a total of 1,600,317 square feet commercial and office. This represents a difference of 1,544,683 square feet and 63,334 ADT at build - out. *TSF - Thousand square feet The Honorable City Council June 27, 1990 Industrial Austin -Faust indicates a General Plan build -out total of 8,883,200 square feet of industrial space for creating 56,900 ADT. Staff totals are 5,550,727 square feet at build -out. The difference of 3,332,473 square feet represents approximately 22,300 ADT. In addition, 357,000 square feet of industrial is included in the Austin -Faust numbers outside of the city limits. Other Austin -Faust ADT numbers include schools and parks in this category; however, staff included churches. Austin -Faust also used a higher student generation factor in their numbers. CEOA Requirements In order that this draft ordinance adhere to the State CEQA Guidelines, staff has prepared a Negative Declaration. The review period for the Negative Declaration is 21 days. Therefore, no final action may be taken by the Council until after the 21st day. The review period is from June 27, 1990 to July 18, 1990. Attached to this report is a reply from the City Attorney regarding the subject of CEQA as it relates to the draft CPO. Staff does not recommend that the Council consider an exemption under the CEQA, inasmuch as the burden of findings would potentially extend the process. Conclusion Staff believes that our numbers are a more accurate representation of the conditions within the corporate boundaries and should be used to set the base and holding capacity numbers within the drift CPO. Austin -Faust ADT Staff ADT Schools (EL) 4,547 stu 4,683 3,930 stu 4,055 (HS) 1,093 stu 1,519 904 stu 1,193 Parks 74.6 acres 273 100.69 acres 3,679 Churches 394 College 13,000 stu 20,150 11,500 stu 17,825 approximately 34,,000 28,173 CEOA Requirements In order that this draft ordinance adhere to the State CEQA Guidelines, staff has prepared a Negative Declaration. The review period for the Negative Declaration is 21 days. Therefore, no final action may be taken by the Council until after the 21st day. The review period is from June 27, 1990 to July 18, 1990. Attached to this report is a reply from the City Attorney regarding the subject of CEQA as it relates to the draft CPO. Staff does not recommend that the Council consider an exemption under the CEQA, inasmuch as the burden of findings would potentially extend the process. Conclusion Staff believes that our numbers are a more accurate representation of the conditions within the corporate boundaries and should be used to set the base and holding capacity numbers within the drift CPO. The Honorable City Council June 27, 1990 Recommendation 4 Direct Staff as deemed appropriate. Attachment: - 6/25/90 Draft Comprehensive Program for General Plan Amendments Ordinance. 6/26/90 Letter from City Attorney CM26JUN9 *TSF - Thousand square feet ORDINANCE NO. -- CITY OF MOORPARK 16003/015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.60 OF THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO A COMPREHENSIVE-PROGRAM FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Moorpark Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 17.60 to read as follows: Chapter 17.60 Comprehensive Program for General Plan Amendments 17.60.010 Intent and Purpose. The General Plan is a comprehensive, long -term plan for the physical development of the City. It is the basic land use charter governing the direction of future land use in the City. As a result, the 06/25/90 18.10 X213 236 2700 BW &S LA MAIN --- CITY OF MOORPARK _@]0 ©41015 General Plan embodies fundamental land use decisions that guide the growth of the City. Amendments to the General Plan have the potential for resulting in ultimate physical changes in the configuration and character of the City. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to afford the residents of the City the opportunity to directly partici- pate in the decision to amend their- General Plan, which amendments, individually or cumulatively, would have the effect of significantly increasing the density or intensity of land use in the City. 17.60.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, unless the content clearly requires a different meaning, the words and phrases set forth in this section shall have the following meanings. (a) "ADT" means average daily vehicular trips. (b) "Component" means each parcel of land that is the subject of a General Plan amendment. (c) "General Plan" means the General Plan of the City of Moorpark, and each Element thereof, as of the effective date of this chapter. LL n rah, Elan Up Batt m� 2n anPndm n G to to tip nPral l n, ex amen nts c argina tthhie 1a use desicnatjQn gf Jalad., 4CCur sU � re �f rP. �f t Pner_ � Plan I wa.g ; n roa�.r_ s QZ Z01- L. 1990. CJK /:ti ? /0RD7 _^ 51 Ob /'L5 /yU 16:10 2 zIj 2:b Z'109 tiWb:� LA MAIN - -- (A1Y Uh MUUKVAKK VVJiVt' 1. "Gover❑ ental" a � use des ian, at�ior facilities for " operation of governmental agencies 2.r fob provia� gYices -govern ental agencies. Permitted Uj_U inc u =doL,. but muted, hall libraryf museum, %jUj m Xa fire at n and offer (f) "Gross acreage" means gross acreage rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. (g) "Land Use Designation" means rural low residential, rural high residential, low density residential, medium low density, residential, medium density residential, high density residential, very high residential, neighborhood coltr,ercial, general commercial, commercial- industrial mix, limited industrial, medium industrial, agriculture 1, agriculture 2, open space 1, open space 2, school or park, as described in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, r noveYnmental, as described in Le-1 of this section. (h) "Moorpark Territorial Area" means the geographical area shown as territorial area on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A. (i) "Moorpark Non- , "erritorial Area" means any geographic area that is not , thir, the Moorpark Territorial Area. 3- . 06/25/90 15:10 'a213 236 2700 BVI&S LA MAIN - -• CITY OF MOORPARK Q1006i015 (j) "Post - Amendment ADT" means the ADT per gross acre of the Post - Amendment Land Use Designation times the gross acreage of the component. (k) "Post - Amendment Land Use Designation" means the land use designation to which the component is proposed to be changed. (1) "Pre-Amendment ADT" means the ADT per gross acre of the Pre - Amendment Land Use Designation times the gross acreage of the component. (m) "Pre- Amendment Land Use Designation" means the Land Use Designation from which the component is proposed to be changed. 17.60.030 Limitation on General_ Plan Amendments. A. The Planning Commission shall not recommena approval of, and the City Council shall not approve, any General Plan amendment that would cause the Base Capacities established by this chapter to exceed the Holding Capacities established by this chapter. Ir the event that a General Plan amendment consists of more than one component, the Planning Commission shall not recommend approval of, and the City Council shall not approve, any combination of components that would cause the Base Capacities to exceed the Holding Capacities. -4 CJK /WP /CRD7 351 (05/21/96) B. For each proposed General Plan amendment, the Following information shall be reported by the Director of Community Development to the Planning Commission and the ,. City Council during the public hearings required by State statute and City ordinance. 1. The Pre - Amendment ADT for each component. 2. The Post- Amendment ADT for each component. 3. The Base Capacity for each land use category. 4. The Holding Capacity for each land use category. C. The City Council may, by resolution, adopt rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this section. 17.60.040 Establishment of Base and Holding Capacities. A. As of the effect;ve date of this chapter, the Base Capacities, by land use categories, shall be as shown CJK /wP /ORD73511 (05/21/90) 06/25/90 18: 11 IC213 236 2700 below and the Holding Capacities, by land use categories, shall be 1.05 times the Base Capacities as shown below. Base capacities Holding C_ a�aci.ties Land Use Cate ories _ - Residential 99, (,,4 7 Total ADT 1014,6,;'-(7 Total ADT 3 b 74 Total ADT /5/ d 6 7Total ADT Non - Residential j 7 17.60.050 Revision of Base Capacities. A. Neither one of the Base Capacities shall be increased or decreased, or otherwise revised, except as provided by this section. B. Upon the adoption of any General Plan amendment which would change any permitted land use From one Land Use Designation to another Land Use Designation, the City Council shall revise the Base Capacities in accordance with this subsection. The Pre - Amendment ADT for each approved component of the General Plan amendment shall be subtracted from the applicable Base Capacity and the Post - Amendment ADT for each approved component of the General Plan amendment shall be adde(J to the applicable Base Capacity. C. Upon the adoption of any General Plan amendment that is for the ir_tial Land Use Designation of any Moorpark Non -- Territorial Area, -6- CJK /wP /0RJ73511 (05/21/90) the City Council shall ()6/25/90 18:12 %T213 2116 2700 BW &S LA MAIN - -• CITY OF MOORPARK Z009/015 revise the Base Capacities in accordance with this subsection and subsection B of this section shall not be applicable. The Initial - Amendment ADT for each approved component of the General Plan amendment shall be added to the applicable Base Capacity. The initial- Amendment ADT shall mean the ADT per gross acre of the initial Land Use Designation minus ADT per gross acre times the gross acreage of the component. For purposes of subsection B of Section 17.50.030, there shall be no Pre--Amendment ADT and the Initial - Amendment ADT shall serve as the Post - Amendment ADT. D. Subsection B of this section shall not be applicable and no revision shall be made to Base Capacities when the General Plan is amended to change any permitted land use from one Land Use Designation to another Land Use Designation: 1. In conjunction with the initial adoption of a specific plan for the Moorpark Territorial Area bounded by New k" Anae L, p e to the north, V.errq P da to the south, 23 KLQ.Pwa to the east and a RQa to the west; or i- Cj,K /71;P /ORD7 5�1 06/25/90 13:12 -a213 236 2700 BPI &S LA MAIN -- CITY OF MOORPARK Z 010/015 z. In order to meet the City's share of the regional housing need set forth in any State mandated amendment to the Housing Element. This exception to subsection 8 shall apply only to the extent that the change in Land Use Designation is necessary to increase the inventory of residential land to the gross acreage needed to accommodate the number of dwelling units, t)y housing types for each income level, that comprise the City's share of the regional housing need. 17.60.060 Revision of Holding Capacities. A. Neither one of the Holding Capacities shall be increased or decreased, or- otherwise revised, except as provided by this section. B. The Holding Capacities, or either one of them, may be revised at any time and in any amount by a simple majority of the voters of the City voting on the revision at a special or general election. 17.60.070 Calcination of ADT. A. The ADT by Land Use Designation and the land use category into which each Land Use Designation falls is as follows: CJ:K /;r a /CRD7 3 55 11 06i25i90 18. 13 la213 236 2700 BW&S LA MAIN - -- CITY OF MOORPARK Z 0111015 Land Use Categories 1. Residential -Rural Low (� l � Rural High pA Low Density ( Medium Low Density �-' (' Medium Density 4 Oj High Density 7 Very High 1°-5 __ 2. Non - Residential ADT Per Gross Acre PI� l 26.16 40.24 40.9 Neighborhood Cormercial 920.20 General Commercial _575353 Commercial-industrial Mix 345,44 Limited Industrial 115.35 Medium Industrial 115. Agriculture 1 4=21 Agriculture 2 1 Open Space 1 1.00 Open Space 2 .25 School 56.0_$, Park X54 0 06/25/90 15:13 U213 236 2700 BW&S LA MAIN -- CITY OF MOORPARh Z012/015 B. The General Plan shall not be amended to add any new Land Use Designation or revise any existing Land Use Designation without the amendment and a corresponding ADT per gross acre for the new designation being approved by a simple majority of the voters of the City voting on the amendment and the corresponding ADT per gross acre at a special or genera! election. RIPM UJ ion ot n r 1 Plan to aubsectJnn A ction and �raoraoh sec on 17.60.020 shy b amended r hwith to be consistent H th ht Land Usk esionat�oonss described in the eneral E Ua n 2.date. � lila mP time, s i cif¢ this s ion hs� l also _bg Aa1nd2.d to rove r ADT er ro s 4911 LOr e -a�Q Lie Designation t i s not ggn aired in subseetiM 8 section r the acer� zo 2f the --- __ t__n n ral Plan e. The Dada � —��ar sg ac- rg.��La<<d_ 219 Deslgna 'on shall be tba y r ae of thg A TS r cro s r of s — q IgAl onable ramp g� uses that w ld be by that nena ADT ",h 4�_h the AD. e2 land use na takn — f-L= tL.P. then cu__ adition h Institt �• .� of Traf l� neers' Manua? . N_o_twithstar.d� na UbSP_ct;-ga f this � - - -- –� c t i r end se_r_ti�P_ 17,5Q.100,� Lae7dment �— psi Lv phis subgA r, 11 1�g JLZ.S- d by Zuu- r i l- a�n__d__ kh�;�, n c,�,�t r ems;: ;L� the 06/25/90 13:14 X213 236 2700 BW &a LA MAIN - -- CITY OF MOORPARK Q]013,/015 17.60.080 Official Record of Capacities. A. The Director of Community Development shall keep an official record of the Base Capacities and of each revision thereto. No revision shall be made to the Base Capacities except as expressly provided by this chapter. B. The Director of Community Development shall, keep an official record of the Holding Capacities and of each revision thereto. No revision shall be :Wade to the Holding Capacities except as expressly provided by this chapter. C. In the event that any General Plan amendment, or component thereof, fails to become effective or is set aside, voided or annulled by a court of competent jurisdiction, the corresponding revisions shall be deleted from the Base Capacities. 17.60.090 Judicial Review. Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul any action to amend the General Plan contrary to the provisions of this chapter or to revise the Base Capacities or the Holding Capacities contrary to the provisions of thLs chapter shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and the City Council is served within thirty _l, 30} days after the date of 06/25/90 18:14 $213 236 2700 BW &S LA MAIN • -- CITY OF MOORPARK U014/015 such action. Thereafter all persons are barred from such action or proceeding or from any defense of invalidity or unreasonable of that action on the ground that it violates this chapter. 17.60.100 Amendment of Chapter. This chapter shall not be amended or repealed without the approval of a simple majority of the voters of the City voting on the amendment or repeal at a special or general election. SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. Pursuant to section 4013 of the California Elections Code, this Ordinance shall be considered as passed and adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the City Council. and shall go into effect 10 days after that date. Vt-), Z-Z), w to: 1Z Uzlj Z-,% 2'100 EiP,«S LA MAIN --- CITY OF MOORPARK Z 015/011 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of the city and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the vote is declared by the City Council, PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 19 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Ci-K WP /ORD i I n Z / -) ,. /'7 n , 06i26/go 17720 $213 236 2700 ?WUi LA MAIN - -• CITY OF MOORPARK Z 002/004 LAW OFFICES Bumcn, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN ONE WILS —RE 8-11-0 '`O M1aTtN J. BUPKV ORCQOR+i, COC-0 16t4 SOJTH GRAN::? AVENUE. 'i— FLOOa V VtNTURA COUNTY OFFICE JA-KES C. GLEN. AW JR.- CLILABN L HANNA L LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 2 2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE MARTIN L 6URKV LISA E. KRANITZ ( (2131 236-1-7600 C SUITE - CARL K. NEWTON- KIM C. MCNALLY 1 10001 •07.3406 J. ROBERT FLANOPICK• DENNIS 1. FLOYD NORMAN G GAART UNOA L. OAUOC T TLI.LCOPICR:. la.3: 236-27; EDWARD M. rax• M. LOIS B06AK O ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE OCNN16 R 6LIAW ROSCRT'A WADDEN 3 3200 BRISTOL STREET LCLANO C. DOLLEY• ♦RANK w. WMITCw EAD, ai H HARRY C WILLIAM6 J JrTC 610 COLIN LCNNARD+ LCOTT M. CAMPBELL 4 41012-44!171 C COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 09620 THOMAS J. FCCLCY4 MARAANN LINK GOOORIND 1 17-111 616 -66o NEIL /i YLAGCR' TIMOTHY B. MCOSKER R ROYAL N. GCRCNSEN BRIAN A PIERIK" DIANA L. FICLO 1 11611.1ia1: CMA RLC6 K CALOCRON* RI TA J. TAYLOR L LIGHTON PLAZA PETER M. THOPSOh. STEVEN J. DAWSON 7 7300 COLLEGE ■O$JLCVAaO J LRRY M. PATTCR60N JAM" F. RIGAU i iU -TE 220 HAROLD A 6RIOQES- JAMES R. FCLTON O OVCOILANQ PARK, KANSA6 66210 CMCRYL J. KUNG' TERRY R KAUFMANN t t9131 339-6EOO RAYMOND J. FUEI.IT[S. STEPw CN a, ONSTOT VIRGINIA R. PEBOLA JAIME ARCVALO J June 26, 1.990 �. PAVL 6RUGUCRA F. DANI966 CRAWFORD. 4 4C COUNSEL 6. OCR CK STRAATSMA MARIANNE WOO D DWIGHT A. NEWELL DOUGLAS C. HOLLAND JOHN E. CA.VANAUGH DON Q. KIRCNER MARK Q MENSLEY MICHELE VAOON- RIVERA PETER D. TREMBLAY W WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL SCOTT ►, e1tt0 G MICKAEL 2WCIOACK MARY REOU6 GAYLE-- ROGER % ITO 2 213 -236 -2836 OUR FILE NO. 01359 -00. YROF1?AOIONAL C011FOKAnON O +A POOKN1O "AL A1SOC.AT1ON "ITTE` """'"' ` " " " ° "I T Telecopy 626/90 Mr. Patrick Richards Director of Planning a and Redevelopment City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 9 93021 "-w 1- t0 Dear Pat: The City Council is considering the adoption of an ordinance, otherwise known as the "CPO ", that would subject major general plan amendments to approval by voter initiative. The City Council is also considering submitting the CPO to the voters as an initiative ordinance. By telephone inquiry of June 20, 1990, you asked whether the CPO is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (110EQA11, Pub.Res.Code § 21000 et sea.) Further inquiry was made by the City Council at its meeting of June 20th. Proposed governmental action is subject to CEQA unless (i) the action does not constitute a project or (ii) the action comes within an exemption. (CEQA Guidelines, title 14, Cal.Admin.COde § 15061.) Specifically excluded from the definition of project is the submittal of a proposal to a vote of the People. (Guidelines, § 15378(b)(4).) However, the submittal has to be a non - discretionary, ministerial act; that is, action pursuant to a pe- tition signed by the requisite number of voters. ;��jp v t City of Santa Monica, 06/26/90 17:20 x'213 236 2700 Mr. Patrick Richards June 26, 1990 Page 2 BWL S LA MAIN - -- CITY OF MOORPARK Z 003/004 110 Cal.App.3d 458.) Since the CPO would be placed on the ballot by City Council initiative rather than voter initiative, the action is discretionary rather than ministerial. Project means "the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately . . . ." (Guidelines, § 15378(a).) An action is exempt from CEQA where it can be seen "with certaintytl that there is "no possibility" of a significant e�ect on the environment.. (Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3).) The CPO would impose a procedure by which general plan amendments are processed in the City. The CPO imposes no criteria by which general plan amendments would be evaluated for approval; nor does the CPO foster the initiation of general plan amendments. Thus, if you recommend to the City Council, and the City Council finds, that the CPO does not constitute a project that has the potential for resulting in a direct or ultimate physical change in the environment or that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the CPO may significantly affect the environment, then a determination can be made that the CPO is not subject to CEQA. Otherwise, an initial study must be undertaken. The results of that study will then determine if a negative declaration is warranted or if an environmental impact report must be prepared. The CPO does not present a special or unique situation under CEQA. As a general rule, any activity over which the City has discretionary approval should be subject to a preliminary review to determine whether the activity is subject to CEQA, A notice of exemption may be filed following the approval of any activity which the City decides is not subject to CEQA. The posting of the notice by the county clerk starts a 35 day statute of limitations l� This exemption is in addition to the so called statutory exemptions (Guidelines, § 15260 nt 4:�a.) and categorical exemptions (Guidelines, § 15300 Qt aea.), none of which I believe have the possibility )f application to the CPO. 06/26/90 17.21 U2110 266 Et17& ; LA MA I N --- CITY OF MOORPARK Q004/004 Mr. Patrick Richards June 26, 1990 Page 3 period on legal challenges to the City's decision; without a notice of exemption the statute of limitations is 180 days. If I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, CHERYL J. KANE CITY ATTORNEY, MOORPARK; and BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN CJK:hsk cjk /LTR47659 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES 830 Lockwood, Suite 110 Oxnard, CA 93030 July 1 1 , 1990 8051988 -1806 The Honorable Bernardo Perez Mayor of the City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Comprehensive Planning Ordinance Dear Mayor Perez: Our firm represents the Levy Company, owners of a 285 acre parcel included in the current General Plan Update identified as GPA 89 -1 (F). Additionally, Levy Company owns a 139 acre parcel immediately west of the existing Buttercreek Tract for which we have requested General Plan Update consideration of a land use designation of one unit per gross acre in a Residential Planned Development concept with perimeter open space and clustered lots or dwelling units. We are in disagreement with the current draft of the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance (CPO) and request that it be amended to address these concerns. The CPO is unfair to the General Plan Update applicants in that it creates an additional step in the land use entitlement process which was neither disclosed to our client and other update participants, nor was it implied by staff or the City Council to any participants in any of the initial requests for participation in the General Plan Update, requests for share of cost payment of General Plan Update costs, or included in the scope of work which would be involved in the current General Plan Update. The inequity created is that the General Plan Update which is now underway will not be exempted from the CPO if the ordinance is in effect prior to the adoption of the updated General Plan. It is unfair to the update applicants to pay for a General Plan Update, have that plan approved by the City Council, and then have to go through the process of having that General Plan Update, or a particular segment of the update, validated by a vote of the registered voters of the city at a later date. Effectively, the actions of the City Council and the General Plan Update applicants to create the plan now underway at this time have little entitlement value if they must still be processed individually or as a group under the CPO. We are requesting that the current General Plan Update properties be specifically exempted from the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance. Further, the Levy Company has proposed an east -west Highway 1 18 bypass through their 285 acre parcel which could be built in the near-term future on the roadbed of the ultimate State Route 1 18 freeway. As proposed, this roadway would be built with a combination of developer and public funds to provide a circulation alternative to Los Angeles Avenue for through traffic and locally- generated traffic leaving the City of Moorpark. This roadway alignment has been included in the Austin -Foust circulation plans for the General Plan Update and was endorsed by the City Council at the General Plan Workshop of July 9, 1990 for inclusion in the preferred alternatives for El study. The preliminary Austin -Foust traffic reports have indicated that without the construction of the east -west bypass at this location there will be no possibility of achieving the City Council's desired traffic levels of service on Los Angeles Avenue, Spring Road, or High Street. The current draft of the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance is unfair to the developers of that roadway in that there is no provision for credit, exemption, or other recognition of the positive impact which this new roadway would have on the overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) capacity of the city roadway network. if the intent of the CPO is to be a traffic monitoring device it is logical and equitable to have the ordinance provide a mechanism for credit evaluation of a project on the same quantitative basis as it utilizes in punitive evaluation, in this case ADT and traffic levels of service. We are requesting that the CPO provide exemption to those projects which create additional ADT capacity to the city roadway network, specifically the Levy Company 285 acre project I'ut,Ii� AI;( •m, y Lnlill(, n)cnt - I'I,r'Inn,h ,,I,r; ) - P r ( , I . ct M,trt,Igwncnl The Honorable Bernardo Perez Mayor of the City of Moorpark RE: Corn pre hensive Planning Ordinance July 11, 1990 Page Two of Two Finally, it is the intent of the Levy Company to pursue the possiblity of development of a substantial number of residential dwelling units to be marketed to low and moderate income households in the high density segment of the 285 acre parcel. The Comprehensive Planning Ordinance as drafted does not provide for exemption to affordable projects. This oversight is unfair to low and moderate income persons in that the additional costs of processing time and expense of an affordable project will be passed directly on to the buyers of these units. Further, it is possible that the public vote on a specific affordable housing project under the CPO criteria may result in a denial of the specific project request, not on the basis of traffic generation as is intended by the CPO, but on prejudice against affordable housing. We request that language be included in the Comprehensive Planning Ordinance which would specifically exempt low and moderate incorne- targeted projects under guidelines utilized by the County of Yenture and other public agencies. The Comprehensive Planning Ordinance as drafted is unfair and punitive to both the landowners and developers doing business in the City of Moorpark. More importantly, it will not achieve the purported goal of this City Council, which is to provide traffic solutions. As a result, there will be little in the way of traffic solutions brought forward by the private sector and thru traffic on the 1 18 and 23 from sources outside the control of the City of Moorpark will continue to increase. Overall, the CPO will have a negative effect on existing residents and the quality of life in Moorpark as the roadway system deteriorates. Development Planning Services and Levy Company cannot support the enactment of this ordinance and will Conti nue to press for a more equitable way to enforce traffic monitoring standards. Si r►cerel y, Dennis Hardgreve for the Levy Company cc: City Council and City Clerk Levy Cornpang \ MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY July 19, 1989 The Honorable Mayor City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mayor Perez: Bernardo Perez Messenger Investment Company has raised a number of issues and concerns regarding the proposed Comprehensive Program Ordinance ( "CPO "), under consideration by the City Council. These concerns involved legal, fiscal and planning related matters that cause us to believe that it would not be in the best interests of the City of Moorpark to approve the CPO at this time. Although some modifications have been made to the draft text, we still believe there are a number of flaws still remaining. To assist the Councilmembers in their deliberations, we have prepared additional information for their consideration. This letter is intended to supplement and update our legal objections to the CPO contained in the memorandum (the "Memorandum ") from Gary Austin to William S. Messenger, Jr. which was presented to the City of Moorpark City Council (the "City ") at its July 11, 1990 meeting and incorporated into the administrative record. 1. The Negative Declaration Notice (the "Notice "� is Legally Insufficient and the Findings in the Negative Declaration and Initial Study are not Supported By Any Evidence On June 28, 1990, the City caused the Notice to be published in the newspaper. Attached to the Notice was a copy of the Initial Study the City used to evaluate whether the CPO would or could have any significant effect on the environment. Attachments 1 and 2 to the Initial Study propose to describe the project and to provide an environmental evaluation of the project ( "Environmental Evaluation "). 17512 Von Korman Avenue, Irvine, CA 92,714 714 4 1'4-1300 Facsimile: 7141474 -8411 Honorable Mayor Bernardo Perez July 19, 1990 Page 2 The Initial Study specifically stated that placing the CPO on the ballot would not have a significant effect on land use, population, and housing, but these three survey questions had "No" responses qualified by use of an asterisk. The City concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and thus a Negative Declaration, rather than an EIR, was the appropriate CEQA document.(1) The City appears to have reached this conclusion by assuming that any application for a General Plan amendment which would have to be approved by the voters would first be fully evaluated under CEQA and approved by the City. The City went on to state in its Environmental Evaluation that the City would conduct the appropriate CEQA analysis in connection with each and every General Plan amendment application. Also attached to the Negative Declaration was a copy of what we think is the most recent version of the CPO. The CPO's terms unfortunately defeat the project evaluation procedure set forth in the Environmental Evaluation. The Environmental Evaluation states that "Full CEQA clearance would be obtained and the City Council would make a decision either to approve or deny a project before a decision is requested by the voters." In contradiction to the Environmental Evaluation, CPO Section 17.60.030 provides, in pertinent part, that "the Planning Commission shall not recommend approval of, and the City Council shall not approve. any General Plan amendment that would cause the Base Capacities established by this chapter to exceed the Holding Capacities established by this chapter." Since CPO Section 17.60.060 B. provides that the Holding Capacities may be changed only by a vote of the people, it follows that by the CPO's express terms the City Council cannot possibly approve a General Plan amendment which would result in Base Capacities that exceed Holding Capacities (an "Excessive Amendment ") unless the Holding Capacities were previously revised by the electorate. Therefore, the City cannot engage in CEQA analysis or project evaluation as stated in the Environmental Evaluation for the voters' benefit before a decision is made at the ballot box to revise Holding Capacities. The City's conclusion in the Negative Declaration that the CPO will not have a significant effect on the environment is premised upon the fact that there will be a full evaluation and approval of all General Plan amendment applications, including Excessive Amendments, by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This conclusion, and its supporting analysis in the Negative Declaration, is unfounded and the Notice is incorrect and misleading to any member of the public trying to discern the purpose and environmental effect of the CPO. MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMAANY Honorable Mayor Bernardo Perez July 19, 1990 Page 3 As originally pointed out in the Memorandum, we maintain that the CPO violates CEQA by attempting to circumvent the environmental analysis process in the adoption of General Plan amendments.(2) We further believe that the City's adoption of the CPO or placing it on the ballot would have many significant effects on the environment including land use, population, housing, fiscal and other significant impacts, and that an environmental impact report must be prepared before the CPO is even placed on the ballot.(3) In addition, we believe that the Notice does not fairly or accurately reflect the true contents and potential significant environmental effects posed by the CPO, is not in substantial compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092, and is therefore not legally sufficient public notice under CEQA,(4) and that the findings in the Negative Declaration and the Initial Study are not supported by the terms of the CPO or any other evidence. Accordingly, even if the City feels a Negative Declaration is appropriate, with which we disagree, the City is not authorized to take action on the CPO unless and until a corrected and legally sufficient Notice has been published for the required length of time under state law, and until an accurate and supported Negative Declaration has been prepared.(5) 2. The CPO Unfairly and Illegally Discriminates Between The Owner of the Carlsberg Specific Plan Area ( "CSPA Owner") and the Balance of All Potential General Plan Applicants In the Moorpark Territorial and Non - Territorial Areas CPO Section 17.60.050 D. 1. specifically provides that the CSPA is exempt from the CPO's purview. The City Attorney has confirmed this special exemption in its impartial analysis of the CPO. Accordingly, the City proposes to apply a radically different standard for approval of General Plan amendments to the CSPA Owner(should a General Plan amendment be required in connection with the approval of its specific plan) as opposed to all other property owners subject to the CPO, with no reason for the distinction. We believe that such discriminatory treatment violates equal protection of the laws, and as such is in violation of the federal and California constitutions (6) and federal statutes. In land use regulation generally, equal protection does not require that all land be treated uniformly, only that there be a reasonable basis for imposing different classifications. But, it is clear there must be a reasonable basis.(7) In Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa, the Court of Appeal concluded that "A city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land, and the court may properly inquire whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance "(8) MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY Honorable Mayor Bernardo Perez July 19, 1990 Page 4 Neither the language of the CPO nor any other facts in our knowledge suggest that there is any reasonable basis for treating the CSPA Owner any differently than the other potential General Plan amendment applicants, including those property owners participating in the General Plan update process. The CPO does not even provide the appearance of a fair and impartial application of the CPO to all affected owners. There is nothing inherently different about the CSPA which justifies the exemption contained in the CPO. Just as it is legally prohibited to discriminate against a particular parcel of land, the impartiality standard is violated by discriminating in favor of a parcel or area without any rational basis for doing so.(9) In summary, it is both illegal as well as fundamentally unjust to "carve out" one owner from the effect on an ordinance which is likely to have such a profound impact on the property ownership rights. 3. The Voters Have No Power Under State Law to Make the Holding Capacity Decision Required By the CPO. We have given considerable thought to how the CPO may be revised to make it enforceable. We do not believe this is possible, however, because the CPO's central feature is also its fatal flaw: the desire to have the voters tie future City Councils' hands on the single issue of land use intensity. It is well settled in the California zoning law that the Legislature intended that local legislature bodies have the authority and duty to periodically evaluate and approve general plan amendments.(10) It is equally clear that where the subject of an initiative conflicts with a matter of statewide concern, the initiative power may not be validly exercised.(11) California case law has many decisions that deny the voters the right to directly decide local issues which they may have a keen interest in, because of a clearly expressed state law preemption of the initiative subject matter.(12) As much as the voters may desire to have the right to perpetually override their elected officials on the single issue of intensity of land use, as the CPO provides, it is clear that the electorate simply has no power to do so under California state law. State law requires that their elected representatives have unfettered discretion in making such decision.(13) The prohibition of restrictions on future legislative bodies in making decisions for the public health, safety and welfare is not a new concept in California.(14) California law has long prohibited local government from attempting to limit the discretion of future elected officials in exercising its public power. As MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY Honorable Mayor Bernardo Perez July 19, 1990 Page 5 one example, California case law has consistently found so- called "contract zoning" to be unconstitutional, because it prevents future legislative bodies from being able to react to the interests of the public health, safety and welfare under different circumstances. It also denies all persons affected by the zoning decision procedural due process by deriving them of notice and opportunity to be heard. It is important to note that the only exceptions to this general prohibition on contract zoning is the Development Agreement law and the Vesting Tentative Map Law, which are special and specific pieces of state legislation, enacted by the Legislature to help cure a specific need for housing development in the state. It is clear that only under limited circumstances, and then only with the express consent of the Legislature, may a future City Council's hands be tied in making land use decisions. 4. The CPO is not Rationally Related to the Advancement of Legitimate State Interest and Violates Due Process. To satisfy substantive due process, a land use regulation must be reasonably related to a legitimate state purpose.(15) Even assuming for the sake of argument that the CPO is intended to preserve close to the same intensity of land use that the City currently enjoys, and that such purpose is legitimate, there is no reason to believe that the CPO advances that purpose. The number of ADTs for each land use designation appears to have been arbitrarily assigned. There is nothing in the CPO or elsewhere which suggests that there is any credible nexus between land use intensity and the number of ADTs assigned to a particular Land Use Designation in the CPO. In fact, a particular Land Use Designation, under certain project design circumstances, could generate far more or far less ADTs than the number currently assigned in the CPO, depending in part on mitigation measures incorporated in the project. The arbitrary assignment of ADTs to Land Use Designations in the CPO is no more an accurate index of land use intensity than if the CPO assigned a certain number of undefined "density units" to a particular Land Use Designation. Either way, neither the City nor the voting public has any way of knowing what actual effect on land use intensity and related significant effects that a particular General Plan amendment may have. Without an accurate way of determining the particular intensity of use posed by a Land Use Designation, the CPO cannot be seen as rationally achieving its assumed purpose of controlling the levels of land use intensity in the City. MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY Honorable Mayor Bernardo Perez July 19, 1990 Page 6 Finally, numerous competing interests are ignored completely in the CPO. Future residents of the community will be deprived of affordable housing opportunities, as growth limitations will effectively freeze housing development. The business community and labor interests are also forgotten. We have submitted much information on the negative fiscal impact of the CPO. The CPO cannot impair an essential government function, such as the City's ability to raise tax revenues to carry on municipal government.(16) Residents in adjacent communities will be forced to bear the burdens of encroaching growth without any help from the City. Due process requires that all these competing interests be served, but the CPO appears only to accommodate those interested in stopping further construction.(17) 5. The CPO amounts to A Regulatory Taking of Private PropertX for Public Use, Both On Its Face and As Applied. The trend in taking cases is to require considerable judicial deference where the land use regulation is founded on public safety concerns and strict judicial scrutiny where the alleged regulatory taking is based on other governmental concerns, such as, protection of aesthetics and open space.(18) The purpose of the CPO seems clearly oriented toward preserving aesthetics and the character of the City through regulation of land use intensity, and hence is far more vulnerable to a claim of taking. The CPO represents a substantial overregulation of property which the property owner is powerless to influence. He is not even entitled to mitigate his own development traffic impacts and this preserve the economic viability of his property as well as his investment backed expectations in owning the property. There is no "credit" mechanism in the calculation of ADTs which takes into account traffic mitigation measures. The CPO on its face and in its application will amount to a temporary or permanent taking of private property for public use. MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY Honorable Mayor Bernardo Perez July 19, 1990 Page 7 In summary, we respectfully request the City to consider carefully the objections raised in this letter and in the memorandum and to disapprove placing the CPO on the ballot. It is plain that the CPO is illegal both in its original construction and in its future application to General Plan amendment applicants. We feel that the CPO is vulnerable not only to a post election challenge, but perhaps to a pre - election challenge as well. The City and all citizens should work together to come up with a fair, balanced, legal, and constructive approach to land use and growth management in the City, and we are eager and committed to participate in that process. Respectfully submitted, MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY for STRATHEARN VENTURA PARTNERS L.P. kU7 4A�L- Gary Austin Vice President GA /sjc cc: Eloise Brown, Councilmember Clint Harper, Councilmember Paul Lawrason, Councilmember Scott Montgomery, Councilmembei Steve Kueny, City Manager Lillian Kellerman, City Clerk MESSENGER IN VESTMENT COMAANY 1. Public Resources Code SS21100- 21177 2. In Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino 202 Cal. App 3d 296, 248 Cal. Rptr. 352 (1988), the court specifically disapproved deferral of the assessment of impacts and development of mitigation measures required under CEQA -202 Cal App 3d 296, 307. 3. CEQA clearly requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. See, Pub. Res. Code S21003.1, No Oil. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles 13 Cal. 3d 68, 84, 118 Cal. Rptr. 34, 529 P. 2d 66 (1987). 4. Pub. Res Code S21091(b), Guidelines S15072. In Plaggmier v City of San Jose 101 Cal. App. 3d 842, 161, Cal. Rptr. 886 (1980), the court emphasized the need to give proper notice to the public of the opportunity to review a Negative Declaration and protest its conclusions, due to the "terminal effect" Negative Declarations have on the environmental review process. 101 Cal App. 3d 853, 161 Cal. Rptr. 892. 5. Plaggmier, supra, 101 Cal. App. 3d 854,161, Cal. Rptr. 893. 6. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, CA. CONST art I S7. 7. Associated Home Builders etc Inc v City of Livermore 18 Cal. 3d 582, 135 Cal.Rptr. 41 (1976). 8. 126 Cal. App. 3d 330, 336, 178 Cal Rptr. 723, 727, citing Wilkins v. San Bernardino 29 Cal. 2d 332, 338, 175 P.2d 542 (1946'11. 9. The standard set forth in Wilkins, supra, clearly mandates impartiality and permits no discrimination, even in favor of a parcel. 10. Government Code SS65300,6:5030.1, 65358. 11. Mueller v. Brown 221 Cal. App. 2d 319, 325.34 Cal. Rptr. 484 (1963), Legislature v. Deukmejian 34 Cal. 3d 658, 194 Cal. Rptr. 781, 669 P. 2d 17 (1983). 12. Mueller supra, see, also Simpson v. Hite 36 Cal. 2d 125, 22 P. 2d 225 (1950). 13. L.I.F.E. Committee v. City of Lodi 213 Cal. App. 3d 1139, 1148 -49, 262 Cal. Rptr. 166 (1989). 14. Simpson, supra, set forth this rule 40 years ago. 15. Associated Home Builders etc Inc v City of Livermore 18 Cal. 3d 582, 135 Cal. Rptr 41 (1976), Terminal Plaza Corp v City and County of San Francisco 177 Cal. App 3d 892, 908, 223 Cal. Rptr. 379 (1986). 16. See, BirkenfeId v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129, 143 -44 (1976) 17. Associated Home Builders etc. Inc. v. City of Livermore supra. 18. First Evangelical Lutheran Church v Los Angeles County, 107 S.ct. 2378. 2385, 96L.ED. 2d 250 (1987), See also , Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn v De Benedictis, 107 S.ct. 1232, 94L.Ed2d472(1987) MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY VCEM J G E p Lo er Executive Officers President Ralph C. Schumacher Abex Aerospace Vice President, Administration Dana Weber Young D.W. Young & Associates Vice President, Communications Kim Bryson Bryson Escrow, Inc Vice President, Finance Robert K. Foote H & H Oil Tool Company Vice President, Events Jeffrey C. Hass G.I. Industries Vice President, Marketing Richard H. Goodrich Bank of America Vice President, Natural Resources Carolyn havens Leavens Ranches Vice President, Government Affairs Joseph Priske Priske Development, Inc Vice President, Strategic Planning Stacy Roscoe Procter & Gamble Paper Products Immediate Past President Jack E. Dwyer Brown Commercial Brokerage Executive Director Nancy M. Williams Board of Directors Robert Amenta California Lutheran Univesity Fred G. Buenger Coast Chandlery William G. Campbell Santa Paula Savings & Loan Association Marc Charney Nordman, Connany, Hair & Compton Donald W. Cluff The Oaks at Ojai Thomas Coulter Continental Lawyers Title Mario J. de los Cobos Southern California Gas Company David Dunn Chevron U.S.A. Inc Richard L. Fausset Fausset & Associates Carl 1— thorp, Esq. Lowthorp, Richards, McMillan, Miller, Conway & Templeman Stephen Maulhardt Maulhardt Industrial Center James Munson Coldwell Banker Commercial Neil B. Nadler DALJM Commercial Industrial Real Estate Douglas Peck, Jr. Bank of A. I—,, Jack Poe Semtech Corporation Gib Poiry GTE California, Inc oras Racicot Southern California Edison Company Pierre Tad. Limoneira Associates Anthony Taormina Oxnard Harbor District Larry Thomason 3M Company Delanie Vazquez Vazquez Enterpnzes July 23, 1990 City Council City of Moorpark Attention: Mayor Bernardo Perez Scott Montgomery Eloise Brown Paul Lawrason Clinton Harper Dear City Council Members: The Executive Directors of the Ventura County Economic Development Association has asked I present the following comments at today's City Council Meeting. These comments are the unanimous position of the Executive Directors. We have several concerns regarding the proposed Comprehensive Planning Ordinance and how it would affect the economic vitality of Moorpark. First, the CPO would be expensive and time-consuming to administer. Every time the city is faced with a commercial or housing project that exceeds the cap, an election must be held to determine project approval, regardless of the benefits that project may bring to Moorpark. Ballot box planning is a most inefficient, uneconomical way to determine land use. Also, city government would be more efficient and economically run if the staff and city council were permitted to do the jobs for which they were hired or elected, including making land use decisions. The voting citizenry of our Ventura County communities have bestowed an implicit trust on their local governments. No citizen can be expected to spend the time and energy to gain the expertise to make an informed decision on the planning issues that come before you. That's your job. The permitting and approval process provides the necessary tools for you and your staff to make planning decisions to benefit the future of Moorpark. Ventura County Economic Development Association • 500 Esplanade Drive • Suite 810 • Oxnard, CA 93030 • (805) 988 -1106 ION 17 __• AM Executive Officers President Ralph C. Schumacher Abex Aerospace Vice President, Administration Dana Weber Young D.W. Young & Associates Vice President, Communications Kim Bryson Bryson Escrow, Inc Vice President, Finance Robert K. Foote H & H Oil Tool Company Vice President, Events Jeffrey C. Hass G.I. Industries Vice President, Marketing Richard H. Goodrich Bank of America Vim President, Natural Resources Carolyn Leavens Leavens Ranches Vice President, Government Affairs Joseph Priske Priske Development, Inc Vice President, Strategic Planning Stacy Roscoe Procter & Gamble Paper Products Immediate Past President )ack E. Dwyer Brown Commercial Brokerage Executive Director Nancy M. Williams Board of Directors Robert Amenta California Lutheran University Fred G. Buenger Coast Chandlery William G. Campbell Santa Paula Savings & Loan Association Marc Chamey Nordman, Cormany, Hair & Compton Donald W. Cluff The Oaks at Ojai Thomas Coulter Continental Lawyers Title Mario J. de los Cobos Southern California Gas Company David Dunn Chevron U.S.A. Inc Richard L. Fausset Fausset & Associates Carl Lowthorp, Esq. Lowthorp, Richards, McMillan, Miller, Conway & Templeman Stephen Maulhardt Maulhardt Industrial Center James Munson Coldwell Banker Commercial Neil B. Nadler DAUM Commercial Industrial Real Estate Douglas Peck, Jr. Bank of A. levy Jack Poe Semtech Corporation Gib Poiry GTE California, Inc Oras Racicot Southern California Edison Company Pierre Tada Limoneira Associates Anthony Taormina Oxnard Harbor District Larry Thomason 3M Company Delanie Vazquez Vazquez Enterprizes Second, placing an artificial cap on housing development and commercial opportunities will stifle the business vitality in Moorpark. The CPO's restrictions on development will reduce the affordable housing available, and its time consuming and costly requirements will result in increased home prices. With no affordable housing, our employment base will dwindle, and our businesses will suffer. Third, substantial sources of city revenues- -such as property taxes and building fees and permits- -will be greatly reduced, as will future revenues. Where is the city going to get the funds it will need for infrastructure, parks, roads, public safety-- things that affect our quality of life here in Moorpark? Will we be forced to pay higher taxes as a result of this CPO ?This proposed CPO will hurt Moorpark, its housing, economic base, and quality of life. I do not believe that all the ramifications of the measure have been adequately addressed, and I urge the city council not to adopt this ordinance. Sincerely, Jac Dwyer Executive Director Immediate past President Ventura County Economic Development Association • 500 Esplanade Drive • Suite 810 • Oxnard, CA 93030 • (805) 988 -1106 .iohn W. Newton & Associates, Inc 1ptofcsstona.f Coniuftants Asadurian Professional Buildinc; 165 High St , Suite 204 Post Office Box 471 ""park, colifornia 9302.1 [805) 529 -3651 ulv 23. 1990 Honorable City Council 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: Comprehensive Planning Or,_,inance (CPO) Dear Council Members: The proposed routine referral of land use decisions to the general public for a vote is ill- advised. This ultimate growth management concept is actually no mana ement at all. Moorpark's citizenry is not incapable of deciding when and where a basis of concern exists in regards to proposed changes in land use different than that established in the General Plan. It is an insult to our Community's residents to them regarding what t to dictate ype of project, or what level tom' intensity requires their direct mandates. I have lived and workedrherepforoa' of project such as the CPO years and can assure you that Moorpark residennttsoareanotybashfuI they are aware and involved when the need arises. The democratic process involvin,A representative government has worked well in this Country in excess of 200 years. Elected Officials and their appointed specia'_ commissions are in the j best possible position to evaluate project proposals. The (you) have read y CEQA compliance issues; are sroutinunderstaddandiregularl ordinances and other regulations, anc; are y consider Policies, with the residents of our communit constant interaction and more knowledgeable than these ffiN(ialso is better informed entrusted with rendering (you) who are competing land uses in our Cityons invo_vir'a conflicting and Mistakes as perceived by the voting public are resolved / via reelection campaigns, initiat ive�.; , cr otrtri against project implementation. lawsuits -h F' s ystem workkss. . REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE C:orrxrierciol • k)dustr of . Lond M] � Residenilol Rebcaticx) RESD',P f PEAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT 7EVEL' to r Engineering •Land Dwislon . Perm:is PL-nnina • Zornng Honorable City Council July 23, 1990 Page 2 Also, if the CPO was conceived , a means of defeating any V possible, or some targeted, amendments ';o the General Plan currently being processed, then it should be rejected immediately as the unfair, immoral and potent:ialy Illegal subversion that it is. If this was not the original intent, of the proponents of the CPO, but that potential has ri_)w been realized, then it must: be rejected for the same re&:,ons. Our firm represents 4 applicants involved in the General Plan Update. If the net result of the CPO is to render these future decisions invalid and subject them to a referendum, it essence, then your authorizing the GPA applicants to proceed,and tc finance the City's General Plan Update way beyond the scope of 'he applicants' requests, would be a deliberate fraud. You ca 't simply change the rules midstream without incurring some form of liability to those who proceeded and paid fees in good faith. They asked for inconclusion in the process and a fair hearing and decision on the merits of the request, under the rules of engaclement at the time. You allowed them to proceed under those I .r-". I implore you to reject the CPO 'n the :strongest of terms. Our General Plan is the blueprint and development guideline for our City. The community underst—inds and embraces the General Plan. The complexity of the CPO and :ts potential for incurring more lawsuits against the City, cost.: g all of us (the residents and property owners) money in legal rees and settlement costs, is founded on poor judgement. Land se planning does not belong in the courts; these decision, are entrusted to you. After all is said and done, if lard ]e matters are routinely referred to the voters by elected of'.cials who are in the best Position to ascertain project imp ac, project benefits, and public liability; then this ultimate growth management is no management at a11. — - -- You are our elected managers. Fxercise the responsibility You asked for, and we gave you. Manage our City and its future growth and development. You will be the firs'., to know if we aren't happy with your decisions. c;erely J O , 4. Newton cc: City Manager