Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2022 0524 PC REGMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Moorpark, California May 24, 2022 A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark was held on May 24, 2022, in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Barrett led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Administrative Specialist Valencia administered roll call. Present: Staff Present: Commissioners Alva, Brodsly, Rokos, Vice Chair Barrett, and Chair Landis. Carlene Saxton, Community Development Director; Doug Spondello, Deputy Community Development Director; Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner; Shaun Kroes, Public Works Manager; Jeremy Laurentowski, Parks and Recreation Director, Brendan Kearns, City Attorney's Office; and Kat Valencia, Administrative Specialist. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS: None. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 6. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: Community Development Director Saxton requested that the agenda be reordered to have the consent calendar ahead of public hearing items. The request was approved by unanimous voice vote 5-0. Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 2 May 24, 2022 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND REPORTS ON MEETINGS/CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY THE COMMISSION: Deputy Director Spondello introduced Mr. Brendan Kearns, City Attorney's Office, to the Commission. He also announced that several department directors were present for the meeting, as well as staff from the Ventura County Sheriff's Department and Fire Protection District. 10. CONSENT CALENDAR: A Consider Draft Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for the City Engineer/Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Departments for FY 2022/23 through FY 2026/27. Staff Recommendation: 1) Find the draft Five Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022/23 through FY 2026/27 to be in conformity with the Moorpark General Plan, except as noted in the staff report. 2) Find the planned acquisition of street right-of-way for certain specified projects described in this report, to be in conformity with the Moorpark General Plan. (Staff: Shaun Kroes) MOTION: Commissioner Barrett moved, and Commissioner Brodsly seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote 5-0. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A Consider Resolution No. PC-2022-669, Recommending That the City Council Approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2021-03 Amending Chapters 17.08(Definitions), 7.20 (Uses by Zone), and 17.28 (Standards for Specific Uses) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code to Define "Chain Store" Uses and to Establish Regulations Related to the Operation of Chain Stores on High Street in Anticipation of the Interim Urgency Ordinance Expiration on August 21, 2022. Staff Recommendation: 1) Re-open the public hearing, accept public testimony, and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2022-669 recommending to the City Council adoption of an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2021-03. (Consultant: Adam Pisarkiewicz) Commissioner Brodsly recused himself from Item 8A and left the room. Consultant Adam Pisarkiewicz gave the staff report. Chair Landis opened the public hearing. Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 3 May 24, 2022 Mr. Colin Velazquez, a High Street business owner, spoke in opposition of the proposed ordinance and voiced concerns with the ordinance discouraging development on High Street. Chair Landis closed the public hearing. A discussion followed among the Planning Commissioners, staff, and consultant which focused on the following: 1) Concerns related to removing "retail service" from the ordinance; 2) Support for the modified ordinance; 3) Clarification on criteria. MOTION: Commissioner Rokos moved, and Commissioner Alva seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation. The motion carried by unanimous roll- call vote 4-0. (Commissioner Brodsly recused himself) Commissioner Brodsly rejoined the dais. B. Consider Resolution No. PC-2022-671, Recommending to the City Council the Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report {FEIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan and Approval of Specific Plan 2019-01, General Plan Amendment 2020-01, Zone Change 2019-01, Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 5708 (2019-01) and Development Agreement 2019-01 for the Proposed Tract, Master Planning and Development of 755 Residential Units, 28.78 Acres of Open Space, a 6.77-Acre Public Park and 7.23-Acre Passive Park, as well as Roadways, Stormwater and Detention Facilities, and Associated Improvements on 277.3 Acres of Property Generally Located North of Poindexter Avenue, West of Casey Road, and Extending Approximately 1,700 Feet West of Gabbert Road on the Application of Harriet Rapista on Behalf of Comstock Homes. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council: a) Certify the FEIR for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQWA Findings of Fact, and adopt Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA; and b) Approve Specific Plan 2019-01, General Plan Amendment 2020-01, Zone Change 2019-01, Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 5708 (2019-01) and Development Agreement 2019-01. (Staff: Doug Spondello) Deputy Director Spondello gave the staff report. Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 4 May 24, 2022 Deputy Director Spondello introduced Debra Geiler, Comstock Homes, who gave a brief introduction to the Hitch Ranch presentation. Mrs. Geiler then introduced Dennis Hardgrave, Hitch Ranch land planner, who presented the High Ranch Development. Mrs. Geiler gave some closing comments regarding the Hitch Ranch Development. Deputy Director Spondello gave the staff recommendation and made himself available for any questions. A discussion followed between the Commissioners, staff, consultant, and staff from the Ventura County Sheriff's Department and Fire Protection District regarding the following: 1) Clarification regarding Tables 3.2-4 through 3.2-6; 2) What the funds allocated to Arroyo Vista Park will be used for; 3) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Numbers; 4) Why this project is not subject to SOAR restrictions; 5) Affordable housing; 6) Changes made within the last 30 years as it relates to the Land Use Element and Housing Element; 7) Relationship between City property and Hitch Ranch project; 8) How SB-9 affects the neighborhoods; 9) Area contribution fees; 10) North Hills Parkway Roads; 11) Whether there are any active projects in the North Hills Parkway area; 12) Clarification on Special Condition No. 21; 13) High Street designation plans; 14) Conditions for fire safety; 15) Gabbert Road plans; 16) Summary of access plans for safe evacuation during an emergency; 17) Analysis of the number of homes as it pertains to safe egress; 18) Whether there is a higher chance of fire hazard on account of vaulted utilities versus above-ground wiring; 19) Assessing improvements from a fire perspective resulting from new landscaping versus the existing brush; 20) Whether the fire analysis determined the need for any additional fire department personnel, additional water for fire flow, etc.; 21) The difference between a Residential Planned Development and a Specific Plan, and why this project was determined to be a Specific Plan; 22) Parks Department involvement with the project; 23) How this project addresses the 20% grading requirements; 24) Alternative analysis within the EIR; 25) Agency feedback regarding the EIR findings; 26) Traffic impact classifications; 27) Impact Hitch Ranch project will have on High Street; 28) Whether level of service impacts related to Los Angeles Avenue arterial was part of conducted studies; 29) Questions regarding adequate water supplies to meet project demands; 30) Whether there is a local water well that would help service the development project; 31) Whether the water agency has provided a will serve letter; 32) Whether City Council could request that water agencies explain data associated with their master plan for long term capacity as it pertains to the project and existing conditions; 33) How reclaimed water will be part of the project; 34) Alternatives to the proposed project and methodology behind the alternatives; 35) Aesthetics analysis and impact to population on south side of town with a north view; 36) Whether there is a 30 model of the project; 37) Whether there are any requirements related to LED lighting within the project; 38) Affordability with Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 5 May 24, 2022 respect to CEQA; 39) Solar panels; 40) RHNA allocation as it pertains to the General Plan. Chair Landis called a 10-minute recess at 9:16 P.M. Meeting reconvened at 9:27 P.M. Chair Landis opened the public hearing. Zoom registrant Max Ghenis, representative for Ventura County YIMBY, spoke in support of the project due to the need for multi-family housing near transit. Zoom registrant Bill McReynolds, President of the Los Angeles Ventura Chapter of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, spoke in support of the project due to the proposed project offering a multi-income community. Zoom registrant Linda Braunschweiger, CEO for the Housing Trust Fund of Ventura County, spoke in support of the project due to the diverse community it would serve. Zoom registrant Lynn David, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services for Moorpark Unified School District, spoke in support of the project and stated that attendance would increase by an anticipated 419 students across all grade levels. Zoom registrant Dr. Roseanne Mikos spoke in opposition of the project due to concerns including the Draft EIR, as well as concerns regarding entitlement issues being discussed during one single meeting. Zoom registrant Trevor Zierhut spoke in favor of the project on account of it accommodating the number of housing units needed to reach RHNA goals. Mr. Ken Rayzor spoke in support of the project on account of affordable housing needs. Mr. Rick Schroeder, Many Mansions business owner, spoke in support of the project stating that it would be a welcomed addition to the City of Moorpark. Mrs. Dianne McKay, Chair for Ventura County Community College District, spoke in support of the project due to a shortage in housing needs which the project would help alleviate. Mrs. Patricia Ducharme spoke in opposition of the project on account of fire evacuation concerns. Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 6 May 24, 2022 Mr. David Lauletta spoke in support of the project on account of the demand for housing. Mrs. Barbara Wareham spoke in opposition of the project due to concerns regarding impact to rural area ranch homes and evacuation issues. Mrs. Andrew McClellan spoke in support of the project due to the sustainability the project would provide to the community. Mrs. Kathleen Stacey spoke in opposition of the project on account of concerns related to traffic, fire, wildlife, water, and power. Mrs. Nora Morris, who serves on the Moorpark Foundation for the Arts, spoke in support of the project, and stated that the project would help preserve families, future, and safety. Mrs. Morris added that the proximity of the Hitch Ranch project to the theater in addition to the amenities that it would provide related to outdoor arts, creates opportunities for change in the lives of children growing up in the Moorpark School District. Mrs. Megan Rayzor, Director of Education for Moorpark High Street Arts Center, spoke in support of the project on account of housing needs the Hitch Ranch project would help address. Mr. Dan Waldman spoke in support of the project on account of the development extending Casey Road and High Street, as well as it providing Walnut Canyon with a second way in for first responders in the event of an emergency. Renee Delgado, Moorpark resident and realtor, spoke in support of the project on account of housing needs and the positive impact the project will have on businesses. Gayle Bruckner spoke in opposition of the project due to concerns related to the EIR, grading, Gabbert Road fire evacuation issues, and mitigation. Mrs. Jeanine Alexander, a teacher in the Moorpark Unified School District, spoke in support of the project and stated that it would extend High Street and add much needed homes for young families. Mrs. Sharon Noel spoke in spoke in opposition of the project on account of concerns including the location of the proposed project being identified in the States very high fire hazard severity zone, related fire evacuation concerns, and comments provided by VCTC. Mr. Ken Trigueiro, CEO and President of People's Self-Help Housing, spoke in support of the project and stated that the project would contribute to creating Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 7 May 24, 2022 homes that would be affordable, especially for essential workers making below the medium income level, who are most in need. Mrs. Sara Soudani, housing advocate, spoke in support of the project due to housing needs. Mrs. Michelle Morony spoke in opposition of the project on account of the traffic design and the implications it will have on the city, as well as concerns related to the train tracks, water, and opposition to the North Hills Parkway plans. Mr. Tim Devens spoke in opposition of the project due to concerns related to water shortages, traffic, and fire. Mrs. Jennifer Devens spoke in opposition of the project due to concerns related to finite resources, reclaimed water plans, Gabbert Road evacuation concerns, and infrastructure concerns. Mr. Todd Cottle, representative for CNC Development, spoke in favor of the project stating that Hitch Ranch would provide a significant public benefit through the proposed amenities, infrastructure improvements, and single and multi-family housing options that would be created. Mr. Chad Stratton spoke in opposition of the project on account of grading concerns that may cause radioactive ingestion. Mr. Hugh Riley, President for the Moorpark Foundation for the Arts and Executive Director of the Ventura Council of Governments, as well as former Assistant City Manager for City of Moorpark, spoke in support of the project on account of it helping meet RHNA mandated goals. Mr. Riley stated that failure to meet these goals could result in the invalidation of the City's General Plan, and a loss of state appropriations and grant assistance. Dr. Mark DiCecco, Architect, and land planner with a doctoral dissertation in sustainable suburban development, spoke in support of the project on account of public benefits, trails, parks, amphitheaters, amenities, and affordable housing. He also addressed water concerns, building codes related to fire safety, RHNA numbers, housing opportunities, and development intensity. Chair Landis closed the public hearing. A discussion followed among the Planning Commissioners, staff, and City Attorney's office representative, which focused on the following: 1) Concerns regarding the extension of High Street; 2) Support for the project; 3) Railroad crossing concerns; 4) Reiteration of the new access points identified for emergency evacuation; 5) Fire Department approval of the project; 6) Egress Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 8 May 24, 2022 Plans ; 7) Water concerns ; 8) Whether it would be feasible to make a recommendation to Council to add the railroad crossing at Gabbert Road to the CIP ; 9) Housing needs in the City ; 10) The positive impact the project would have on the business community as well as Moorpark schools; 11) Mitigations related to grading ; 12) Historical information regarding Hitch Ranch Project being proposed prior to 1999 ; 13) Traffic concerns; 14) Concerns related to water shortages; 15) Lack of a 3D model of the proposed project; 16) Whether further review related to height and setback guidelines would be possible prior to the final approval of the project ; 17) The Planning Commissions responsibility as it pertains to the Development Agreement ; 18) SB-9 ; 19) Concerns regarding the design of a few of the architectural aspects in the Specific Plan ; and 20) Contrasting downspouts on the Specific Plan. MOTION : Commissioner Barrett moved , and Commissioner Rokos seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation with modifications of approval as proposed by the Commission , including the removal of "metal halide" from the lighting concept on the Specific Plan regarding LED lights , removing a photo depicting contrasting downspouts from the Specific Plan and replacing with a more appropriate depiction , and changing traditional home requirements to specify stucco elements . The motion carried by roll-call vote 5-0. 9 . PRESENTATION/ACTION/DISCUSSION : None . 11 . ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Chair Landis moved , and Commissioner Alva seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote 5-0. The time was 11 :35 p.m . ?-. Carlene Saxtov-- Community Development Director