Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 1129 CC SPC ITEM 04AITEM.I. A MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council �/� FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Developmenv Paul Porter, Senior Planner DATE: November 18, 1993 (CC meeting of November 29, 1993) SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN AND DRAFT EIR, AMENDMENT TO LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO REFLECT AMENDED LAND USES, AND AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADOPT AMENDED LAND USE REGULATIONS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AS ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY. Background and Discussion On November 10, 1993, the City Council received testimony regarding the amendments to the Specific Plan and Draft EIR. The public hearing on the amendments to the Carlsberg Specific Plan and EIR was closed on November 10 and the hearing was continued to a special City Council meeting on November 29, 1993. The City Council directed staff to prepare the Final EIR and to send it to the commenting agencies. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed amendments to the Carlsberg Specific Plan has been completed by Impact Sciences and sent to the commenting agencies and the City Council on November 18, 1993. Recommendations: 1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report as being complete and adequate. 2. Direct staff as deemed appropriate regarding the Specific Plan. MOORPARK. CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of ACTION: By PP11:18: 93111.10a": \299am .CC 1 PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY county of ve, era Representing Ex- officio: November 24, 1993 Mr. Jaime Aguilera, Director Community Development Department CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 SUBJECT: CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) Dear Mr. Aguilera: Director Deputy Directors RECEIVED — N 0 V 2 9 1993 City of Moorpark The Public Works Agency has reviewed the responses to our written comments contained in the document prepared by Impact Sciences, Inc. and dated November 18, 1993. We are still concerned that the cumulative traffic impacts of the subject and other projects in the City of Moorpark (City) on the Regional Road Network and other County of Ventura roads in the area are not adequately addressed nor is adequate mitigation for these impacts contained in the FEIR. The responses to our June 10, 1993 comments by the traffic consultant, Austin -Foust Associates, are numbered and we will address the responses in a like manner. Response No. 1 The consultant states that the City traffic model "... does not have the ability to forecast the cumulative traffic conditions on the County or CMP regional roadway system in these areas." While we don't dispute this statement, the lack of ability to analyze the cumulative impacts with the City traffic model does not excuse the project from analyzing the cumulative impacts this and other projects have outside of the City limits. The County is considering a traffic impact mitigation fee ordinance and this ordinance, if adopted, will generate a funding sourc-1 to rnitigate impacts on County roads. The County's ordinance will, however, only be applicable to the unincorporated area and those cities which have reciprocal agreements with the County. Passage of the ordinance must be considered speculative at this time and with no reciprocal agreement with the City, this fee can not be considered as a mitigation in this FEIR. The City may want to consider requiring the developer to retroactively pay such traffic mitigation fees to the County as determined by pending County ordinance if such ordinance is approved by the Board of Supervisors by January 1, 1995. Mr. Jaime Aguilera -- 2 - November 24, 1993 Response No. 2 We agree that the City and the County should enter into a reciprocal traffic agreement and a draft agreement has been sent to the City for your consideration. Lacking a finalized agreement we maintain that this and other City projects' cumulative impacts on the Regional Road Network and County roads in the vicinity of City are not adequately addressed. An agreement would provide the mechanism for the project to contribute to the improvements required on the Regional Road Network and County roads on a fair share basis as recommended in the FEIR. Response No. 3 While there is no requirement in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) to provide an analysis of traffic in the year 2010, the County's planning horizon is 2010 and the County General Plan contains traffic projections to the year 2010. The FEIR has not disagreed or refuted these projections and we would encourage their use in determining the projects proportional share of costs to fund improvements needed to serve the 2010 traffic. The last sentence of the response presupposes an agreement between the City, County, and the project applicant as adequate mitigation for the projects' 2010 impacts. Only if all parties are willing to actively seek such an agreement can this be considered a possible mitigation. We are willing to open discussions with the City at any time on a reciprocal traffic agreement and the issues pertaining to traffic impacts of City of Moorpark projects on the Regional Road Network and County roads. Please call me at (805) 654 -2077 should you wish to discuss this matter further. Very truly yours, W. utch Britt Deputy Director of Public Works Transportation Department wss.--'90:- c: Supervisor Vicky Howard Arthur E. Goulet Dennis Slivinski Robert B. Brownie Steve Manz Keith Turner Ventura County Transportation Commission November 29, 1993 Mr. Jim Aguilera, Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: Issues Pending - Carlsberg Specific Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Aguilera: Information is submitted, as requested, to you for consideration by members of your staff and the City Council as they conduct their deliberations on the pending amendment. We will respond to identified issues at the request of the City Council. Active Park - During our last public hearing Councilman Montgomery asked that we consider providing an active park. It was suggested that a park in lieu of a portion of the institutional lot(s) be used. In response to that request we have enclosed a plan which would allow for an active park site which would be centrally located in Area C and yet would not adversely impact the proposed project due to a loss of potential revenue with the a park site in lieu of institutional use. Affordable Housing - Staff has recommended that 15 units be designated for inclusionary affordable housing based on a proposed formula (Attachment A is enclosed) made a part of the Staff Report. In our opinion there is no requirement to subsidize the down payment in order to meet the targeted 15 units needed to meet the mandate of being affordable to a "moderate income family of four ". A change in the down payment to 20% (expressed as a LTV of 80 %, see proposed draft amendments to Attachment A) will comply with the City's mandated requirement to provide such units. We believe that the nonsubsidized formula as proposed allows a builder to design 15 affordable units in Area C having a "Market" price of approximately $250,000. The advantage to this change is that the financing proposed is conventional and does not require continued involvement by the City or builder to assure that there are no unwarranted windfall profits to the initial buyer such as occurred in one project in the City. We have attached a comparative analysis which indicates that the "Subsidy" formula (95% LTV) would require an aggregate subsidy of an estimated $569,303 ($37,954 per unit) . Page 2 The formula, if not modified as suggested, requires the developer to request the 17 additional lots recommended by the Planning Commission or the direct participation by the City (reduced fees and /or cash, documented in the form of a second trust deed) be granted. See attachement re Area C for added lots and active park. Commercial Use NE corner of Spring Road and Tierra Rejada Road - A site of approximately 4 acres could be engineered if the City determines that this would be an appropriate land use at this location. A preliminary layout will be submitted as soon as it is complete. This change could be accommodated by either a reduction of 4 acres in the SR /C area in the NE corner of the project or by limiting the aggregate square footage of commercial buildings to the levels studied in the SEIR. As we believe all of the above issues can be achieved without modification of the existing SEIR, we request that the Council certify the SEIR and adopt the proposed amendment including the above changes to the Specific Plan at the November 29th hearing. Yours truly, CARLSBERG FINANCIAL CORPORATION Ronald S. �Tankersl eside t Enclosures DRAFT - Language to be included in Development Agreement should be similar to the following: Construction of Affordable Units. Consistent with the approved Carlsberg Specific Plan dated , 1993, Developer, in consideration for obtaining residential land use designations and zoning for the Specific Plan area that allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted from to , agrees to construct a total of single- family detached units affordable to Area Moderate Income households. The term "Area .Moderate Income" means 120 percent (120%) of the annual median income for Ventura County, adjusted for actual family size, as determined by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development ( "HUD "), or any successor agency pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. The Area Moderate Income shall be adjusted upward annually at such tine as the HUD update is published. Developer shall provide or arrange for financing to be provided for all Affordable Units consistent w' the f ng: e(pshall A loan to value ratio of percent bT:Zpercent offered. The minimum down payment permitted shall,be and buyer shall have option of providing p ( ) of the required down payment in the form of a gift Ck/�D rom a family member or a grant or unsecured loan from a nonprofit organization or public entity. A 30 -Year, level- payment, fixed- rate-mortgage shall be offered with an interest rate not to exceed 8 percent (8%). The monthly housing expense to income ratio to be used to qualify buyers shall be 33 percent (33 %) of the borrower's stable monthly income for all monthly housing expenses, and the total obligations -to- income ratio to be used shall be 38 percent (38 %) of the borrower's stable monthly income for all monthly debt obligations, including monthly housing expenses. Buyer's income not to exceed Area Moderate Income, adjusted for family size. Buyer shall not be prohibited from participating in any locally subsidized second mortgage program. If subordinate financing is involved, the combined loan -to -value ratio may not exceed i4c- percent ( 9 S %) . ATTACHMENT A 3Rg;RE -V,I r;8 9 RE 3[233 35 EeJeS:RGReRa 822 99 y32¥ GRIT d\3§ - \6 &HSxaeE SJ3;G4 K'S E 228 &\ei .«RAN Gq&'«3m5DEGE d /2 2VC99£ eg4yR37N.*z R \S9 9E5 - ;7 9359 /E I Qg AgRRE -33 S3EREE 4 JEREa 112 G9 RA DES @ G 9hEGeL Q Q s!& QEb9 CA- 3 QJ; Qg �a265 wGmKe &! PER MONTH -g 9.R9t 11,49 Age« LOAN AND INTEREST RR 2. y! eQ 3a RA Re «g -!7 SALES PRICE 2 §a Q\82 2egSALS PRICE - RF9yEE G2 /46 SRKET RIS -5 2 PER a4 e9 /y »R2'Ea1Ree@ UNIT R7,J4 QqR J D8O¥ UNITS RI TIMES 52Q5147 g eSRpEgRE¥E9RED 58 /g Eea 23a CRa3 $1,:22 !4§ 119 Q Q ! ;§& $1,471 $201 444 $510,161 $251,805 $ /6 $0 !s $0 #@O2