Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2021 0106 CCSA REG ITEM 08A SUPPLEMENTAL MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Shanna Farley-Judkins, Principal Planner DATE: 01/06/2021 Regular Meeting SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution Rejecting General Plan Amendment Request No. 2019-02 to Change the General Plan Land Use Designation on 7.4 Acres of Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Beltramo Ranch Road from Low Density Residential (L), High Density Residential (H) and Park (P) to Very High Density Residential (VH) for Conceptual Development of a 69-Unit Residential Project, on the Application of Jay Deckard (for Warmington Group) CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED Subsequent to the preparation of the staff report, the attached correspondence was received. Attachment Item: 8.A. SUPPLEMENTAL From: To: Subject: Date: Cheri Ackermann Planning Public comment to Public Hearing item 8A Monday, January 04, 2021 7:41:13 AM I am opposed to Request 2019-02 requesting a change to VH. Los Angeles Avenue is ah·eady crippled by excessive trnffic from existing propeities/businesses. The existing infrastrncture cannot supp01i the addition of this high traffic volume. It is aheady impossible to travel from the Los Angeles Ave. freeway offramp to Tiena Rejada, and vice versa, due to traffic backup. I am unable to patronize businesses in this stretch of Los Angeles Avenue because of this traffic. It is easier for me to travel East on Tiena Rejada to Simi Valley and shop there. Contributing to this deadlock should not be enabled finiher by adding VH housing. Thank You. Cheri Acke1mann -- ATTACHMENT From:Holly Daley To:Planning Subject:General Plan Amendment Request No. 2019-02 Date:Wednesday, January 06, 2021 5:10:46 AM Dear Honorable Mayor Parvin Council and Planning Department, I live on Maureen Lane along the eastern side of the proposed project. I am opposed to changing the zone from low density to very high density. Our street is low density with ranch style homes. We have no street lights or sidewalks. The proposed project does not fit with our neighborhood. My concerns are: noise pollution light pollution loss of privacy traffic congestion Please reject this project. I am against this project as designed. Respectfully, Holly Daley From:Paul Farley To:City Council & City Manager; Planning Subject:General Plan Amendment Request No. 2019-02 Date:Wednesday, January 06, 2021 2:54:27 AM Dear Honorable Mayor Parvin, City Council, Planning Department, Thank you for the opportunity to voice my thoughts on the General Plan Amendment Request No. 2019-02. I live on Maureen Lane and my home is along the eastern edge of the proposed project. I believe that the design is too dense for the existing neighborhood. Our homes are zoned low density single story (every house on Maureen Lane) and I don’t believe the developer is taking that into consideration in their design. I believe the project is a bad fit and does not protect the integrity of our existing neighborhood. The transition request is from low density to VERY high density, that is a big leap. I also want to clarify that Maureen Lane residents are not anti growth, or anti housing. We are not against a group of landowners who pooled together to sell to this developer. But they are selling, and leaving, and forever changing the neighborhood that we live in. Our homes are single story, rurally zoned ½ acre parcels. The houses on the west side of the parcel are approximately 5’ lower in elevation than the proposed project and the proposed homes would tower over their backyards. IF this goes forward, the perimeter of homes around this project should be required to be single story along the Maureen Lane and Elderberry boundaries. You have given the developer multiple shots at revising their plan. It is still a bad fit and the current design fails to consider the existing conditions. Please reject this request and require a better project that successfully transitions an existing low density neighborhood to the neighboring high density neighborhood. I don’t believe a land band of Very high density is the answer. I am against this project as designed. Respectfully, Paul Farley Maureen Lane Resident From: Charity Katz [mailto ] Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 1:21 PM To: Janice S. Parvin; Planning; City Council & City Manager Subject: Dissention for Warmington Development I wish to express my concerns about the proposed Beltramo Ranch development on Los Angeles Avenue, which is adjacent to my HOA, Heather Glen, and the communities on Maureen Lane and Loretta Drive. First and foremost, during the committee meeting, the developers were told that their plan was not acceptable, and they could only present to the city council if they dr astically reduced the density. They went from 69 homes to 52 homes, and are still well within high density. They may have reduced from very high density, but, as we have learned, they can, once approved, adjust the number of homes and actually increase the m from the proposal. This should not be a high density area. It is inconsistent with the Maureen and Loretta neighborhoods, and stating that it is consistent with the other planned developments is moot as they have yet to be built . Not only that, but they went from having no homes butting up against the Elderberry and Maureen homes to adding homes along those property lines again. If they simply removed those homes, they could have 29 homes and show respect for the neighboring communities. They could have even simply eliminated the 22 townhomes, the two north corner lots, and had 45 homes. With the elimination of the townhomes, they could have added sufficient guest parking, and even converted some of the remaining homes to larger homes within the revised plan and larger lots to keep in line with Maureen neighborhoods. Perhaps to increase desire in purchasing in that neighborhood, they could have added a pool and rec center for that community in the space where the eliminated homes were. So many options besides infringing on the neighboring communities and keeping the density set to high. This should be a low or medium density area . They chose not to do that. I do appreciate the addition of the guest parking spots. I believe that is very important to reduce the chances of overflow into the Heather Glen community, especially with the open walkway. However, even with that one positive improvement, there are still additional concerns. With only one entrance and exit for the new development, the incr eased chances for an accident are exponential. That stretch, in particular, is already dangerous, and increasing unprotected left turns, especially during rush hours, has the potential to be catastrophic. With 52 homes of 3+ bedrooms, it is reasonable to e xpect a minimum of 100+ cars turning in and out of there multiple times per day. I would imagine that is, in part, why that area has been designated as low density as it is just not safe. How will this be resolved in the future? It seems the only way this may be resolved is by adding access through either Heath Glen or Maureen/Loretta Drive, and neither of those is a reasonable solution as they will increase traffic congestion and decrease the safety in neighborhoods that have very little traffic except for those who live there. Increased congestion on LA Avenue is going to be an issue, which is already a huge headache during rush hours and promises to become a real nightmare once the other approved developments on LA Avenue are completed. Another development is NOT needed right off of LA Avenue. The city cannot handle it on its main road where the majority of our commerce is. This will also force more people onto Poindexter and Tierra Rejada, creating more disruption for those areas. In addition, Poindexter already experiences concerns with accidents and people driving too fast - especially by the school. This will make that worse. Even with the pandemic and reduced traffic, it takes 15 minutes at peak times to just get to the freeway. That will become unreasonable with new developments on the main road. The other proposed developments have entrances via lights. The only way into this development when headed west is an unprotected left. The duplexes off of New LA more towards the freeway have been blocked from making an unprotected left. Will that happen here? In that case, what will they do? Drive through Heather Glen to make a u- turn? There is not a good solution to this. How will guaranteed access to the Arroyo be maintained? Right now the proposed gr een space being added is where the pedestrian access to that area is, and while there is nothing stating they will limit it or close it, we were told, they would explicitly add permanent access in writing to the plans, but I do not see that. How will that be enforced once all the units are sold? Overcrowding in schools is an issue already, and I do not see how adding hundreds of new homes between this and other developments, with potentially thousands of new students (when there is more than one child in the home) will work with the limited school slots currently available. We are introducing more children than are graduating, and we are adding to that burden with these new developments while cutting school funds and resources - e.g., our librarians for one. There are other objections that I and others have to this development, but almost all these objections relate to trying to preserve the quality of life that we enjoy in our little slice of Moorpark. I purchased my home in Heather Glen because it was a quiet, family community. I want to keep it that way without feeling like I am living in a congested city. I also have concerns for our neighbors on Maureen Lane and Loretta Drive and want them to be able to keep the unique, old Moorpark ambiance they enjoy as well. Allowing this development to proceed will significantly change both our worlds. While I understand that something must be done with this land, I think there are better options than houses that we just do not need and cannot sustain, especially given the other already approved developments. Why can this land not be purchased by the city and used in a way that benefits the community? Perhaps in conjunction with the high school for the needed pool for our sports team? Beltramo Ranch road can be expanded with an actual bridge so that the students can walk to practice, and to help with the ongoing maintenance costs, pool memberships (e.g., YMCA type memberships) and day pass sales could be sold to Moorpark community members. I am certain fa milies would gladly engage with this, and then it solves the land use issue, the lack of a pool for the high school in light of the closure of the pool at Fitness 19, and brings something to the community that we have been begging to have added. As a citizen of Moorpark who loves this community and especially cherishes the ambiance and character of the neighborhood I live in here, I urge the Committee and the Council to not approve the General Plan Amendment requested by the Warmington Group. If the proj ect appeals to you, please find another parcel where it won’t impact the quality of life of people who have chosen their homes for that very blessing, as well as create safety hazards in a very congested part of the city. Thank you, Charity Katz From: [mailto:] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2021 2:34 PM To: Moorpark; Troy Brown Subject: January 6,2021 Council Agenda Item 8.A. GPA Request No. 2019-02 Honorable Mayor and City Council, With today's events I'm reminded of the importance of respecting established processes and norms. In regard to Item 8.A. , I support the CEDC and staff recommendation for denial. My specific comments about the 69 unit proposed project as submitted to CEDC on 9/16/20 are included on p.320 of the staff report. In summary my concerns were primarily that the density and parking were not compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. As stated in the staff report, the Council can consider only the proposed 69 unit project. The report further states " Any other proposed design or request would need to be submitted to the City for processing consistent with the adopted process. " This contradicts the point on p. 7 of the report that the Council can accept a project with a different density for GPA processing. What project would that be ? Whatever it might be , it hasn't been submitted to the CEDC, City Council or the public or reviewed by staff as part of this Public Hearing. How is it possible for the public to comment on something that hasn't been included in this Public Hearing? Action to accept and process another proposed project would be contrary to established City rules and practices that allows the public to comment on proposed projects. Again, I support the denial of this GPA request. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of my comments as well as those submitted by others on this matter. Steve Kueny From: To:Planning Subject:General plan amendment prescreening application No. 2019-02 Date:Monday, January 04, 2021 7:11:15 AM We very much oppose the change to "very high density residential" on this project. We don't believe the space is big enough to accommodate the amount of people who will ultimately live there. The noise and traffic will impact the surrounding residents as well as the privacy of the residents directly connected to the property. Please vote down the change. Thank you for your time and consideration. The Padilla Family From:ANGELA ZAPATA To:Planning Subject:Beltramo Ranch Date:Tuesday, January 05, 2021 5:09:18 PM Dear Planning Department, I am writing to make it clear I am 100% against the Beltramo Ranch housing project. I am 100% against changing the zoning to high density. Please do not overlook our community that have already purchased our houses in this neighborhood. The traffic on LA Ave and Tierra Rejada are already too much. That strip of land is not large enough to cram so many people in it. Our quality of life would be negatively impacted immensely and we would be very upset. Our park, our access to the arroyo, parking, and the traffic are all major concerns to my family and I. Please deny the request for very high density zoning change and do not allow that housing project to continue. Thank you, Angela Zapata Moorpark, CA 93021-