HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2003 1216 PC REGResolution No. FIC- 2003 -453
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY - December 16, 2003
7:00 P.M.
Moorpark Community Center
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
799 Moorpark Avenue
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2003.
-------- -- ------- -------------- ----- ----- ----- ------- ----- - ----- -----
------------------------
Any member of the public may address - ----- the ----- Commission during the Public
Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Discussion
item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing
or Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Discussion portion
of the Agenda for that item. Speaker cards must be received by the Secretary
for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comment; portion of
the meeting and for Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item
of the Discussion portion of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing
must be received prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing. A limitation
of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion
item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon
each Public Hearing item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in
lieu of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Discussion items. Copies
of each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the
Community Development Department /Planning and are available for public
review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the
Community Development Department at 517 -6233.
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2003 \03_1216_pca.doc
Planning Commission Agenda
December 16, 2003
Page No. 2
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2003 -453)
A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001-05, Zone
Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for
1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located. Generally
North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land
Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal
Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN:
500 -0 -120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135. -
145, -1551, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, -
235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0 -110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
185) (Continued from December 2, 2003 Meeting)
Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public
comments and continue the agenda item with the public
hearing open to the January 61 2004 Planning
Commission meeting.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. January 6, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting:
• General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change
No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001-01 (North
Park)
11. ADJOURNMENT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to review an agenda or participate in this meeting, including
auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Community Development
Department at (805) 517 -6233. Upon request, the agenda can be made available
in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Any request
for disability- related modification or accommodation should be made at least
48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to assist the City staff in assuring
reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting
(28 CFR 35.102- 35.104; ADA Title II).
ITEM: 6.A.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 2003
Pacae 1
1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
2 December 2, 2003, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic
3 Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021.
4
1.
CALL TO ORDER:
5
Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
6
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
7
Vice Chair DiCecco led the Pledge of Allegiance.
8
3.
ROLL CALL:
9
Commissioners Lauletta, Peskay and Pozza, Vice Chair
10
DiCecco and Chair Landis were present.
11
Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community
12
Development Director; Walter Brown, Assistant City
13
Engineer; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; Scott Wolfe,
14
Principal Planner; and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary.
15
4.
PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
16
None.
17
5.
REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
18
None.
19
6.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
20
A. Amended Regular Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2003.
21
B. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2003.
22
MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Commissioner Lauletta
23
seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Amended
24
Regular Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2003 and the Regular
25
Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2003, be approved.
26
(Unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
\ \mor pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003
Draft\03_1202_pcm.doc 0 e l 0 0
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 2003
Pacte 2
1 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
2 None.
3 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4 (next Resolution No. 2002 -452)
5 A. Consider Proposed Development Agreement with SunCal
6 Companies (Moorpark 150 LLC) pertaining t:o General
7 Plan Amendment 1998 -01, Zone Change 1998 -01, Vesting
8 Tentative Tract Map No. 5130 and Residential Planned
9 Development No. 1998 -02.
10 Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing,
11 accept public testimony and close the public hearing;
12 and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2003- recommending
13 to the City Council approval of a Development
14 Agreement with Moorpark 150, LLC.
15 Barry Hogan provided the staff presentation.
16 The Commission questioned staff about affordable
17 housing units including:, homeowner's equity,
18 implementation of the program, and covenants. They
19 questioned mention of the driveway length, usage of
20 the Consumer Price Index increase, unit square
21 footage, air quality fee calculation and charges.
22 Chair Landis opened the public hearing.
23 Ed Pickett, applicant, was available t:o answer
24 questions.
25 The Planning Commission questioned applicant on the
26 location of one -story homes and location changes for
27 the one and two -story units.
28 Chair Landis closed the public hearing.
29 MOTION: Vice Chair DiCecco moved and Commissioner
30 Peskay seconded a motion to approve staff
31 recommendations and adopt Resolution No. PC- 2003 -452.
32 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
\ \mor pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003
Draft\03_1202_pcm.doc 000002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 2003
Pacre 3
B. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone
Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for
1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally
North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land
Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal
Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN:
500 -0- 120 -065; 500 -0 -170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -
145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, -
235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0 -110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
185) (Continued from November 18, 2003 Meeting)
12
Staff Recommendation:
Continue to accept public
13
comments and continue the agenda item with the public
14
hearing open to the
December 16, 2003 Planning
15
Commission meeting.
25
16
Dave Bobardt provided the
staff presentation.
17
The Planning Commission
meeting was recessed at 7:30
18
p.m. due to computer
technical difficulties. The
19
Planning Commission meeting
reconvened at 7 :33 p.m.
20
Frank DePasquale, Moorpark Unified School District
21
Superintendent, discussed future population growth
22
charts, which did not include North Park Village; the
23
Vision 2010 Committee (Strategic Planning Team);
24
balancing school attendance with ethnicity; slow
25
learners and household incomes; accommodations to
26
increase ethnic interest; development buildout
27
schedule; history and projections; district goals;
28
CBEDS; bonds; completed and ongoing projects; pending
29
site acquisitions; generation factors and
30
comprehensive versus academic schools.
31
The Commission questioned Dr. DePasquale on what
32
factors were used in MUSD's projections; what time
33
periods were used; what bond projects :represent,
34
classroom capacities; ethnic enrollment percentages;
35
design capacity, creation of a Master School Plan
36
consistent with the City's General Plan expected
37
buildout and inclusion of funding and strategic
38
locations; population demands; school grade levels;
39
North Park Village requirements; and one high school
40
for the city population.
\ \mor pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003
Draft\03_1202_pcm.doc O u c ( ) a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 2003
Paae 4
Kim Kilkenny, applicant, commented on MUSD mitigation
fees and provided the Commission, staff and the public
with a copy of his Power Point presentation which
dealt with his responses to inquiries raised from the
last Commission meeting, which included using more
narrow street sections; neighborhood density and lot
sizes; density and relocation of thirty -three lots;
retail versus neighborhood center area; pedestrian
connections; lanes and median on the Moorpark College
road; architectural style and elimination of the
"Italianate" style home; guaranteeing the Preserve
will be placed in public ownership and assurance of
Preserve access and maintenance; lake maintenance and
public access and inclusion in HOA CC &Rs; :fiscal and
economic impact on the City and the creation of a
Community Facility District; quasi - public uses and
broadening opportunities; Collins Road traffic
improvements; interchange timing schedule in relation
to construction; interchange security and applicant
paying deposits; the processing schedule for the
project and Memorandum of Understanding.
The Commission questioned Mr. Kilkenny on parks and
active recreation.
Francis
Chan, Pastor at Cornerstone
Valley and Moorpark, spoke
and stated that he found a
and parishioners and North
that.
Church in Simi
in support of the project
need for more church space
Park Village could offer
29
David Bagwell, resident, spoke in support of
the
30
project and stated that the applicant did more
than
31
was needed by providing an interchange, paying a
lot
32
of money back to the community, including state
and
33
federal taxes. He commented that he liked the school
34
options, stated it was a beautiful project and that
it
35
would not disrupt the small town feeling.
36
James Carpenter, resident, spoke in support of
the
37
project and stated that North Park Village
had
38
presented a beneficial project, which offer; numerous
39
public benefits and facilities in addition to
the
40
specific development. He commented that Moorpark
had
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003
Draft \03_1202_pcm.doc 000004
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 2003
Pacte 5
1
catered to the people and North Park Village has bent
2
over backwards by listening to the public and
3
incorporating their responses. He felt fortunate to
4
have this project in Moorpark.
5
Tim Rosevear, resident, left the meeting earlier, but
6
had submitted his comments on a written statement
7
card.
8
Harold Bilich, resident, not in support of the
9
project. He commented that he liked -the rural
10
atmosphere, and that there were still questions about
11
traffic at Collins and Campus Park Drive. He commented
12
on tax revenue at only a 3 -7o difference; the
13
observatory site, the Fire Department, school and the
14
sales tax loss because residents will go to Simi
15
Valley and not Moorpark Marketplace. He commented that
16
the developer addresses issues after the public
17
questions him and does not offer beforehand, which is
18
a detriment. He stated that the City should forget
19
million dollar housing because it will not benefit the
20
residents, but the City should increase low income
21
housing which is a benefit.
22
Lyle Pennington, resident, spoke in support of the
23
project and stated he was attracted to the planning in
24
Moorpark and the quality of the project when finished.
25
He stated he had seen two presentations from the
26
College on how they would mitigate traffic with
27
growth. He commented that the public should not be on
28
North Park's back, because with or without this
29
project traffic is still a challenge.
30
Suzanne Wilson, resident, not in support: of the
31
project. She stated that she read an article that
32
Caltrans has delayed the widening of the 11.8 freeway
33
and now 250 -300 high school students will be traveling
34
Collins Drive. She commented that the developer
35
promises working with Caltrans on the interchange, but
36
she expressed her doubt and said that the developer
37
should get the money from Caltrans.
\ \mor pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003
Draft\03_1202_pcm.doc 066005
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 2003
Chris
project
all of
Pacae 6
Childers, resident, spoke in support of the
and commented that North Park Village has met
the public's concerns.
Tim Saivar, resident, not in support of the project.
He commented on his concerns regarding the Hidden
Creek project and the current status of the
neighborhoods in the City. He stated he believes the
people will go to Simi Valley with their tax dollars.
He commented that Hidden Creek proposed 2 golf courses
while North Park proposes a lake but there are no
outlets for the lake and expressed concerns with
erosion of the land and where the water will go. He
commented on existing commercial centers. He commented
further that if this project is not developed, we will
have a lot of bike paths, bike trails and picnic
grounds as opposed to a gated community for the
affluent.
John Shishino -Cruz, resident, not in support of the
project. He expressed appreciation to the developer
for working with people's concerns. He stated that he
still wants to see answers to his questions on safety
and would like the comment period left open longer. He
commented that traffic has not been brought up and it
will get worse and the sports park is good for little
leagues but will bring more kids and more houses.
Diane Galvin, resident, spoke ii
project, and stated she watched the
the SOAR initiative, processed over
stated that she would like to move i
and would like to see the project
within sixty days.
support of the
Messenger Project,
a long time. She
to a larger home
go to the voters
Janet Murphy, resident, stated that the air, water and
land should be held in trust. She commented on the
mitigation measures and that the Commission should
examine them because mitigation is to lessen the
impacts of the project. She stated she would like time
to respond to the responses to comments received to
the draft EIR and requested the Commission extend the
timeframe for that.
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 a �.i O G ri O ��
Draft \03_1202 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 2003
Paae 7
1
Denise Piehn, resident, spoke in support of the
2
project, and stated that she followed the Hidden Creek
3
project as well and the current project was an
4
improvement. She commented on the lakes, small
5
recreational activities, places to dine, new aquatic
6
programs (water polo and swimming) and stated that she
7
wanted to see this project brought to the voters soon.
8
Lisa Leal, resident, spoke in support of the project
9
and stated that she had reviewed and was not in favor
10
of the Messenger Project. She stated that the current
11
project had ambiance, a school and a fire station. She
12
commented on the applicant's work with the people and
13
the amenities of the proposal. She stated that she
14
wants to live and shop in North Park and wants it
15
brought to the people for a vote.
16
Dorothy Ventemiglio, resident, not in support of the
17
project. She stated that the land is impaired was
18
originally owned by Big Mountain oil companies and now
19
Unocal, which all had oil production and had
20
contaminated the soils. She discussed her
21
understanding of previous production activities and
22
potential contamination issues. She commented that the
23
twenty -five million dollar offramp was not covered in
24
the EIR and commented regarding oil seepage in that
25
area. She commented on the fast pace of the project
26
and concerns relating to potential contamination and
27
proximity to the Simi Valley landfill site.
28
James Roller, resident, not in support of the project.
29
He stated that Moorpark is a beautiful community and
30
has the best high school in the nation. He commented
31
on the presentation. He stated the Commission had done
32
a great job, and commented on growth. He stated the
33
need for presentation of a comprehensive and accurate
34
EIR report, citing the recent fires.
35
Five (5) written statement cards were submitted, three
36
(3) in favor and two (2) in opposition. Their
37
statements will be included in the record.
38
The Commission questioned the process for pursuing the
39
City's fees, using funds to take care of traffic
\ \mor pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003
Draft\03_1202_pcm.doc ® CI G O 7
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 2003
Pacre 8
1
problems, 300 foot buffer versus the
proposed 200 foot
2
between homes and brush, the status
of the response
3
letters staff has received to the
EIR, comments on
4
land plan and dedication to landscape,
and the desired
5
election date for this project.
6
MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved
and Commissioner
7
Lauletta seconded a motion to
approve staff
8
recommendation.
9
(Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
10 9.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
11
None.
12 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
13 • December 16, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting:
14 - General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change No.
15 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 (North Park)
16 Barry Hogan discussed future agenda items.
17 11. ADJOURNMENT:
18 MOTION: Commissioner Lauletta moved and Commissioner Peskay
19 seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting.
20 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
21 The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
22
23
24 ATTEST:
25
26 Barry K. Hogan
27 Community Development Director
Kipp A. Landis, Chair
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 06 GO 08
Draft \03_1202_pcm.doc
ITEM: 8. A.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
Prepared by: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager
DATE: December 10, 2003 (PC Meeting of 12/16/2003)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change
No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for 1,650
Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally North of
Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately
Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant:
North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0- 120 -065; 500- 0 -170-
135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -
195, -205, -215, -225, -235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -
175; 500 -0- 292 -1351, -145, -195, -215, -225; 615- 0 -110-
205, -215; 615 -0- 150 -185)
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2003, the Planning Commission received a
presentation from Dr. Frank DePasquale on the school needs from the
North Park project. In addition, the applicant addressed some of
the issues raised at previous meetings and additional public
comments on the project were received. The Planning Commission
continued the agenda item to December 16, 2003 with the public
hearing open. Staff noted that Responses to Comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be presented to the
Planning Commission at the December 16th meeting.
DISCUSSION
Attached are: 1) a draft of the Responses to Comments on the Draft
EIR; 2) a Revised Draft EIR that incorporates changes as a result
of the Responses to Comments; 3 ) a Plant Survey Report; 4 ) a new
Chapter 3.3(b) that includes an analysis of impacts to the SR -118
and SR -23 freeways and ramps; and 5) a memo from the consultant's
biologists on the impact of the fire. The purpose of these five
documents and how they fit in the decision - making process on the
North Park project is discussed below.
CY ® ®9
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \ 3 216
PC Report.doc
Honorable Planning Commission
December 16, 2003
Page 2
Responses to Comments - Section 15132 of the Guidelines for the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Title 14, Chapter 3 of
the California Code of Regulations, require a Final Environmental
Impact Report to consist of: 1) the Draft EIR or a revision of the
draft; 2 ) comments and recommendations received on the! Draft EIR
either verbatim or in summary; 3) a list of persons, organizations,
and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; 4) the responses
of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in
the review and consultation process; and 5) any other information
added by the lead agency.
The Responses to Comments document attached meets the requirements
for items 2, 3, and 4 above. Section B of this document includes a
list of all agencies, organizations, and individuals who provided
comment on the Draft EIR, either in writing or orally before the
Planning Commission at its hearings on August 19, 2003 and
September 16, 2003. A total of 135 comment letters and e -mails
were received during the 75 -day comment period. Section C includes
thematic responses to issues that were raised frequently, along
with photocopies of all the letters received with annotations on
the margins that refer to individual responses that follow each
letter. Section C also includes a summary of points raised by each
speaker during the public hearing (or submitted on a written
statement card), followed by appropriate responses. The, Responses
to Comments document also includes additional appendices of
information that is referenced in the responses or added to the EIR
by the City as additional information.
Revised Draft EIR - Although CEQA does not require the EIR to be
reprinted with changes as a result of the responses to comments, it
is difficult to track the changes unless they are all incorporated
into the document. The Revised Draft EIR includes underline and
strikeout text to show the changes made as a result of responding
to the comments. In addition, staff asked for an additional visual
simulation and some minor changes to the text that have been
incorporated in the Revised Draft EIR.
Plant Survey Report - Although not available when the Draft EIR was
released for public review, a spring survey of plants was performed
on the proposed development area of the site to identify sensitive
plant species. The results of this survey have been incorporated
into the Biological Resources section of the EIR and the survey is
added to Appendix E of the EIR, the Biological Resources Report.
Chapter 3.3b: Freeway Traffic - One comment made by Caltrans on the
Draft EIR was a request for an analysis of project impacts on the
freeway mainline and ramps. Such an analysis was not included as
these have not typically been requested or included in EIR
documents in the past. The results of the analysis have been
0GU010
Honorable Planning Commission
December 16, 2003
Page 3
assembled in a new chapter in the EIR, Chapter 3.3b. The analysis
shows significant unavoidable impacts on the State Route 118
Freeway from the project and also on the State Route 23 Freeway if
the lane additions on the SR -23 are not completed. The threshold
of significance in the analysis is an increase in the traffic
volume /road capacity ratio of 0.02 or greater by the project for
sections operating at a level of service F or worse in the peak
hour. No mitigation could be identified related to the proposed
project to address this impact.
As a result, this unavoidable impact constitutes significant new
information as defined by Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines,
and requires recirculation for public review and comment. The
comment period is the same as for an Environmental Impact Report.
Also, under the City's Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA, a
public hearing before the Planning Commission is required to accept
oral comments. Staff has publicly noticed the availability of this
new chapter for review. The comment period extends from December
16, 2003 to January 30, 2004. Copies of the new chapter are
available for review at City Hall, the Moorpark Library, and on the
City's website. CD -ROM's with the new chapter can be purchased
from the Community Development Department and paper copies can by
purchased from Postnet copy service located in Moorpark.
When only portions of the EIR require recirculation, State law
allows the limitation of comments to the information that is
recirculated. Staff has requested that comments be limited to the
information in this chapter. Response to comments on this chapter
will be added to the existing responses to comments to constitute
one of the components of the "draft" Final EIR. It is expected
that draft responses to comments received on this chapter could be
completed within a few weeks of the end of the comment period.
Fire Memo - After the October 25 -26 fire, staff asked the EIR
consultant to assess the impact of the fire on the findings in the
EIR to determine if any changes were needed. The EIR consultant
sent its biology staff out to the site. A memo from the
consultant's biologists is attached. The area where the California
gnatcatchers were spotted was burned and the gnatcatchers were no
longer present. A number of oak trees on the site had also burned,
however many survived the fire. The conclusions in the EIR have
not been altered as a result of the fire as the pre -fire habitat is
expected to return, although it may take years for some of the
areas to return to the pre -fire state. This memo is provided as
additional information to be included in the administrative record
for the EIR.
O G 0 1 1
Honorable Planning Commission
December 16, 2003
Page 4
STAFF RECOMONDATION
Continue to accept public comments and continue the agenda item
with the public hearing open to the January 6, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS (under separate cover):
1. Draft Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
2. Revised Draft EIR
3. Revised Appendix E ((Biological Resources Report)
4. Chapter 3.3(b) Freeway Mainline Analysis
5. Fire Memo
OCCO12