Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 1991 1104 PC REGMOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 AGENDA MOORPARK PLANNING CO] MEETING OF: November 4, 1991 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL 170 ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL Chairman Michael H. Weener Jr. Vice Chairman John Torres Commissioner Bart Miller Commissioner Steve Brodsky Commissioner Christina May (805) 529.6864 4. PROCLAMATIONS. COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None., y m the public may address the Commission during the u is Comments poraon o t e agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing item. Speakers who wish to address the commission concerning a Public Hearing item must do so during the Public Hearing for that item. Speaker Cards must be received by the Recording Secretary prior to the Public Comments portion of the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order that their Speaker Cards are received. A limitation of 3 minutes shall be imposed upon each speaker. Copies of the reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business on the Agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public review. Any questions concerning any Agenda item may be directed to the Community Development Department, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021, (805) 529 -6864. PAI "W..'8M AWWPW c:VA0hW"'PtAEf SCOTT MONTGOMERY ROY E. TALLEY JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tom Coumilmember Cwmilmember Coumilmember Prrded On RecyciedPeper Planning Commission Agenda Meeting of November 4, 1991 5. ADDITIONS. OR REORDERING OF THE AGENDA 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 7, 1991 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS 8. CONSENT CALENDAR No items for consent. Page -2- A. General Plan Amendment No GPA -89 -1 Zone Chance No Z -89 -1 and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study City initiated Update to the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and associated rezoning within the existing City limits which proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having approximately 14,127 dwelling units, an estimated 204 acres of Commercial and an anticipated 561 acres of industrial development. Also, a Sphere of Influence Expansion Study which proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having a total of approximately 5597 dwelling units and 9 acres of Commercial. There are additional land use changes to include agricultural, open space, park, utilities, and public/institution land uses: The public review period for the Draft EIR is from October 11 to November 25, 199L Limited copies of the Draft EIR and Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements are available for review or short -term loan at City Hall. Two copies of these documents are also available for review at the Moorpark Library at 699 Moorpark Avenue. Purchase orders will also be accepted for the Draft EDt and Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements at City Hall, although a short delay may be required to reproduce copies. The proposed planning area for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update includes the existing City limits and approximately 11,798 acres of unincorporated land surrounding the City. CRL- IOt30t9I-- 1t17pw Cr \NF51 \)aR\91 -II.4 Planning Commission Agenda Meeting of November 4, 1991 10. 11. STAFF COMMENTS 12. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 14. CBL- 10:30191- 4:47p® C: \WP51 \NIW\91 -11.4 Page -3- AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AGENDA CITY OF MOORPARK } COUNTY OF VENTURA } ss STATE OF CALIFORNIA } I, Celia LaFleur, appointed Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that I posted a copy of the Moorpark Planning Commission Agenda for the r meeting of /�GGG�� �9�i� at the following location: Moorpark Community Center 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California, 93021 Said agenda shall remain in place until after the meeting for the availability of public review for at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Section 54954 et.seq. of the California Government Code. Celia LaFleur, Secretary to the Planning Commission ITEM q ' A 0 AP o 7�, !'- MOORPARK aar o./1 0 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 a pa9 +� req �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: The Planning Commission 7 FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development � -J��C DATE: October 31, 1991 (PC Meeting of 11/4/91) SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT . Discussion: Since mid-1989, the City has been working with the General Plan consultant, PBR, to update the General Plan Elements, EIR and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study. The relative importance of a General Plan, EIR and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study is evident, since it is a compendium of city policies regarding the long-term development of the City. Thus, the first public hearing on November 4 , 1991 represents the culmination of all the efforts expended during the General Plan Update process . The Planning Commission may hold public hearings in addition to the previously scheduled November 4th and 16th, 1991 public hearings . However, PBR's contract limits their participation in public hearings to 2 Planning Commission hearings and PBR's Traffic Engineer, Austin Foust Associates, will only be available for one Planning Commission meeting without the payment of additional compensation. Staff has identified items that may warrant some review or discussion on the EIR, Land Use and Circulation Elements and Sphere of Influence Expansion study. Such items are attached to this staff report and identified as "Topical Items for Planning Commission Discussion. " On November 4 , 1991 , staff is requesting that the Planning Commission determine what, if any, adjourned public hearings should be called to discuss the EIR, Land Use and Circulation Elements and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study. Public testimony on the EIR must be completed by November 25, 1991; however, public hearings may continue on the Land Use and Circulation Elements and Sphere of CRL-JO131r91-J1124am Al\CPU11-4.PC PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. BERNARDO M. PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY ROY E. TALLEY JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Prn Tern rnrrnrOmrr,mner ram" General Plan/Sphere of Influence Study, and EIR October 31, 1991 Page 2 Influence Expansion Study until January 6 , 1992 . This deadline is needed in order to adhere to the Council's intent to have final action on these matters concluded by the Council on or before February 29 , 1992 . Furthermore, staff is requesting that on November 4 , 1991 the Planning Commission identify what update documents will be discussed at specific hearing meetings in order for staff to prepare an agenda of items to be discussed at public hearings . The Commission may wish to follow the agenda outline provided by PBR. Throughout the General Plan, EIR and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study review process, staff will request that the Planning Commission be specific to staff and the City Council in identifying concerns and recommendations . Recommendations: 1. That the Planning Commission determine how many additional dates for this public hearing are needed to receive public testimony on the adequacy of the EIR, Land Use and Circulation Elements, and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study. If possible, determination of specific dates should be made at the November 4 , 1991 public hearing. 2. That on November 4 , 1991, the Planning Commission identify what topics for discussion will occur at specific adjourned or regularly scheduled public hearings. Attachments : Topical Items for Planning Commission Discussion PBR Agenda PBR Presentation Agenda Comparisons in Land Uses Planning Definitions for the public cc: The Honorable. City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager CRL-JO,31r9J-JJ:24am Ar\GPUJJ-4.PC General Plan/Sphere of Influence Study, and EIR October 31, 1991 Page 3 TOPICAL ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 4, 1991 REGARDING: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION UPDATE AND SPHERE STUDY Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following issues when reviewing the Environmental Impact Report, related updated elements and Sphere of Influence expansion study: A. Possible Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Discussion Topics: 1. Are impacts associated with the Updated Land Use and Circulation Elements fully mitigatable? Are further modifications in proposed land use alternatives needed in order to mitigate potential impacts as a result of the updated Land Use and Circulation Elements? 2 . Historically, an EIR contains a discussion of possible alternatives that would reduce or avoid impacts that are not fully mitigatable. Should there be a consideration of the less intense alternative, Alternative 2? 3 . The EIR assumes that all necessary traffic improvements can be feasibly funded. Since a traffic improvement study has not been prepared, it is difficult to make a determination of possible costs and environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes in land use. 4 . Do cumulative and individual impacts associated with Specific Plan areas need to be identified within the City area? 5 . The Biological Resource map and discussion (Exhibit 18) do not specifically point out the Oak Woodland, commonly referenced as a "riparian forest. " Environmental impacts associated with elimination or reduction of this natural resource should be carefully reviewed. 6 . Page 37 begins to discuss consistency with Regional Plans; Are these conclusions supportable? B. Possible Land Use Discussion Topics: 7 . How important is a Greenbelt to the City? 8. Policy 6 .3 , Page 12 : How will multiple ownership within a Specific Plan area work as owners desire to develop at different time periods? CRL-1001r91-1lh24am A:\GPU!1-4.PC General Plan/Sphere of Influence Study, and EIR October 31, 1991 Page 4 9 . Policy 16 . 3, Page 17 : Development on slopes greater than 20%. What does this policy accomplish in practical terms? 10 . Should all undeveloped areas with a 20% or greater slope be protected through an open space land use designation ( including slopes on General Plan Update participant properties or addressed in some other way? If yes, what density of development should be allowed? 11 . Should important ridgelines in all undeveloped areas be protected? If yes , what density of development should be allowed, if any? 12 . Should important natural features- such as stands of oak trees and wetlands be protected with an open space designation that would prohibit or restrict future development? 13 . With the City, Ventura County Transportation Commission or Los Angeles County Transportation Commission having central authority over most of the excess railroad property, is there a need for the C-I (Commercial Industrial) mix zone? (Reference pg. 23 ) 14 . Section 3, page 6 : Are there other community issues related to understanding Land Use changes? 15 . Why is the OS-2 land use zoning listed on the east side of Walnut Canyon Road adjacent to Specific Plan Area 2? 16 . Should the General Plan Zoning Compatibility Matrix be reviewed? How will consistency of land uses be assured? For example, the PUB (Public/Institutional) land use designation is not compatible in most zones where it is placed? How will blending of compatible land use designations be achieved? 17 . Should all General Plan Update participants ' properties receive a change in land use or should the land use designation remain the same as the current General Plan for some of these properties? For example, one General Plan Update participant (Estes) has requested a high density residential designation to allow development of a mobile home park on the west end of the City north of the railroad tracks . Based upon the Updated General Plan, this would not be consistent with the surrounding land use, this may possibly result in spot zoning, and the access to community services may be inadequate. Furthermore, another participant (Guny's ) requested change in land use, that was not considered. CRL-10:31:91-11:24am As\CPU11-4.PC General Plan/Sphere of Influence Study, and EIR October 31, 1991 Page 5 18 . Does the Planning Commission want the land use intensity increased in the downtown area consistent with recommendations in the Downtown Plan? 19 . Should commercial and industrial zoning in the City be increased or decreased? 20 . Should part of the existing commercial land designation south of Los Angeles Avenue between Moorpark Avenue and Liberty Bell Road be considered for residential land use? 21 . Should a revision on alternative two be used in order to lower the intensity of development, thus achieving feasible mitigation? C. Possible Circulation System Discussion Topics: 22 . Policy 1 .2, Page 5 : How does the City prevent a property owner from building on the continued 118 freeway roadway corridor? 23 . Policy 3 . 7 , Page 7 : Should the hillside road standards be included in the Circulation Element? 24 . Should finance mechanisms be identified for the streets included in the Circulation Element Amendment; it should be identified when they will be needed. 25 . Is there a clear need to understanding of what is happening at the 118/23 freeway connector? How will the JBR property be served? 26 . Should the circulation element show a signal at both Goldman Avenue and Maureen Lane? • 27 . Levels of Service associated with , the proposed circulation plan are identified as having no significant impact as a result of the proposed change in land use and circulation. 28 . What new roadways should be included on the preferred circulation alternative? 29 . Should the proposed SR118 westerly extension end at Gabbert Road or should the connection continue west of Gabbert Road to Los Angeles Avenue or further west? 30 . Is a Highway 23 bypass appropriate? CRL-10r31r91-11r21am A,\CPUl1-4.PC 1 General Plan/Sphere of Influence Study, and EIR October 31, 1991 Page 6 31 . Should Broadway be connected to Highway 118 through Alamos Canyon? If yes, should Campus Park Drive be extended to connect with Broadway? This latter action would be inconsistent with prior Council action on not using Campus Park Drive as access to Happy Camp Park. 32 . Is the Planning Commission in favor of showing one or more east-west connector streets between Walnut Canyon and Grimes Canyon Roads to improve emergency access and minimize long, dead-end roadways? 33 . Should the Circulation Element on the Updated General Plan, reconfigure streets to portray feasible locations for proposed arterial . For example, C Street as indicated on Figure 2 of the Circulation Element, does not indicate a logical location for the proposed street. 34 . The proposed circulation plan identifies that no impacts will occur to surrounding circulation systems . Does the Planning Commission concur with this? 35. The circulation element does not address the potential impacts of commuter rail (a 1994 Moorpark project) on the circulation of the downtown area . 36 . The proposed bikelanes on Spring Road appear to be deficient . D. Possible Sphere of Influence Land Use Topics: 37 . Does the Planning Commission wish to give any consideration towards the land use designations proposed? 38 . Does the Planning Commission agree with the boundaries proposed as the expanded Sphere of Influence area? Those persons interested in reviewing the study have identified that there is a difficulty in reading the related maps to iOntifying by name, streets and major landforms impacted by the expanded Sphere of Influence as well as related documents. CRL-JO;31r91-J1r24am Ar\GPU11-4.PC