HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2004 0120 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2004 -453
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY - January 20, 2004
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:
A. Consider Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
Mark DiCecco
Kipp Landis
David Lauletta
Robert Peskay
Scott Pozza
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
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 Comments 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 \2004 \04_0120_pca.doc
Planning Commission Agenda
January 20, 2004
Page No. 2
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2004.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2004 -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, -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 January 6, 2004 Meeting)
Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public
comments and continue the agenda item with the public
hearing open to the February 3, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting.
B. Consider a Public Hearing to Accept Oral Comments on
Chapter 3.3b (Freeway Traffic) of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No.
2001 -01: North Park Village and Nature Preserve
Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, accept
public testimony on Chapter 3.3b of the Revised Draft
EIR (Freeway Traffic) , and refer the comments to staff
for preparation of responses.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Consider Recommendation to City Council on Design
Guidelines for Solar Energy Systems
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004-
recommending to the City Council adoption of
Design Guidelines for Solar Energy Systems.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 20, 2004
Page No. 3
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. February 3, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting:
• General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change
No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 (North
Park)
B. February 17, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting:
• Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2003-
02, General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone
Change No. 2003 -02 and Tentative Tract Map No.
5425 (Shea Homes, Inc.)
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: 4. A.
MOORPARK PLANNING C0144I S S ION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared By: Laura Stringer, Senior Managem t Analyst
DATE: January 7, 2004 (PC Meeting of 1/20/04)
SUBJECT: Consider Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
DISCUSSION
Municipal Code Chapter 2.36.080 and Section 3.1 of Resolution PC
2002 -430 (Rules of Procedure for Commission Meetings and Related
Functions and Activities) require the Planning Commission to
select a Chair and Vice Chair, from among the appointed members,
during January. Each such selection shall be by three (3) or more
affirmative votes. Additionally, each person so selected shall
serve until the end of a one -year term or until a successor is
chosen (at any time) by three (3) or more affirmative votes,
whichever occurs first.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Select a Chair and Vice Chair.
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \P C POLICIES \agenda 000001
reports \2003 \pc 040120 select chair.doc
ITEM: 6.A.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 6, 2004
Paae 1
1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
2 January 6, 2004, 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 7:07 p.m.
6 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
7 Commissioner Lauletta 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; Brad Miller, City Engineer; Walter
13 Brown, Assistant City Engineer; David Bobardt, Planning
14 Manager; Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analyst; and
15 Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary.
16 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
17 Mr. Hogan introduced Brad Miller, City Engineer.
18 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
19 Mr. Hogan announced that selection of the Chair and Vice
20 Chair will be included under Item No. 4 of the January 20,
21 2004 Planning Commission Regular meeting agenda.
22 6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
23 A. Regular Meeting Minutes of December 16, 2003.
24 MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Commissioner Pozza
25 seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular
26 Meeting Minutes of December 16, 2003, be approved. (Motion
27 carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 000002
Draft \04 0106 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 6, 2004
Paae 2
1 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
2 None.
3 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4 (next Resolution No. 2004 -453)
5 A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone
6 Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for
7 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally
8 North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land
9 Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal
10 Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN:
11 500 -0 -120 -065; 500 -0 -170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -1351, -
12 145, -155, -165, -175, -1851, -1951, -205, -215, -2251, -
13 235, -245, -255; 500 -0 -281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
14 1450, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0- 110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
15 185) (Continued from December 16, 2003 Meeting)
16 Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public
17 comments and continue the agenda item with the public
18 hearing open to the January 20, 2004 Planning
19 Commission meeting.
20 Dave Bobardt gave the staff presentation.
21 The Commission questioned staff on Campus Park Drive
22 extension, improvement to Campus Road at the college,
23 public swim area, affordable housing offsite instead
24 of in -lieu fees, at grade crossing (undercrossing
25 versus overcrossing), forecasted population figures, a
26 definitive edge for swimming in the lake and pool,
27 full time road connection for ingress and egress, a
28 separate access to the project, youth sports park
29 design description, mixed use (residential &
30 commercial), satisfying low income housing
31 requirements, water resources, Fox Canyon Ground Water
32 Management issues, the traffic study and impacts on
33 Highway 118 and 23, access to the lake, trails and
34 travel around the perimeter of the lake, the Broadway
35 extension analysis, open space and canyons, and
36 homeowner's association responsibility.
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 000003
Draft \04 0106 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 6, 2004
Pacae 3
1
Kim Kilkenny, applicant, presented evidence of his
2
previous development performance with the Otay Ranch
3
project and commented on his matrix of concerns. He
4
reviewed issues that have been resolved with staff and
5
those that still need resolution.
6
The Commission questioned Mr. Kilkenny on low
7
income /high housing, market rate mixed uses, housing
8
for college students, parks, road improvements, school
9
site, housing for the university staff, perimeter road
10
and problems involved, the extension of Broadway,
11
narrowing the street widths, increasing density for
12
Planning Area 31 and smaller lots.
13
Cheri Risley - Bohnert, resident, spoke in support of
14
the proposal, and stated she was in favor of not
15
reducing lot sizes, but was in favor of the lake and
16
swim site. She commented on street issues at the east
17
side of the campus. She stated that she did not
18
support the expansion of Broadway, but would like to
19
see bike trails around the project and wanted the
20
interchange.
21
Lyle Pennington, resident, spoke in support of the
22
project, and stated the project and its construction
23
was a big win for the city. He commented that traffic
24
congestion at Campus Park was contributed to by the
25
growth of the college, and that there were no plans by
26
the college or the city to resolve the issue. He
27
suggested that the applicant's proposal for an
28
interchange will solve the problems.
29
Lowell Preston, representing Fox Canyon Groundwater
30
Management Agency, stated the draft EIR did not
31
analyze the quantity and quality of the ground water
32
nor did it address the basin and overpumping issues.
33
He commented on potential water loss and subsidence
34
issues, and explained the intent of the surcharge.
35 Diane Galvin, resident, in support of the proposal
36 left early and submitted a written statement card.
37 Lisa Leal, resident, spoke in support of the project.
38 She stated that the North Park Village project was
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004
Draft \04_0106_pcm.doc 000004
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 6, 2004
Paae 4
1 above and beyond Otay Ranch's development and was a
2 quality project. She commented that most developers
3 leave when their projects are complete but this
4 applicant would stay in Moorpark. She commented
5 positively on the lake, that the project offers
6 revenue and beauty to Moorpark, shopping opportunity,
7 a youth sports park, and an offramp to help with
8 traffic issues.
9 Seven (7) written statement cards were submitted and
10 all seven (7) were in favor of the project. The
11 statements will be included in the record.
12 The Commission questioned staff on ground water
13 issues, oil and gas wells, responsibility for cleanup
14 (scope of work), long term cleanup issues and
15 resolution and elimination of specific issues
16 discussed at previous Planning Commission meetings.
17 MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Commissioner
18 Peskay seconded a motion to approve staff
19 recommendation.
20 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
21 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
22 None.
23 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
24 A. January 20, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting:
25 • General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change
26 No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 (North
27 Park)
28 • Public Comments on Re- circulated Section of
29 Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No.
30 2001 -01 (North Park)
31 • Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2003-
32 02, General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone
33 Change No. 2003 -02 and Tentative Tract Map No.
34 5425 (Shea Homes, Inc.)
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004
Draft \04 0106 000005 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 6, 2004
Paae 5
1 Barry Hogan discussed future agenda items and noted
2 that the item for Shea Homes would not be heard on
3 January 20, 2004 meeting, but would be heard at a
4 later meeting. He stated that Austin - Foust, traffic
5 consultants would be present to discuss the North Park
6 Village Project at the January 20, 2004 meeting.
7 11. ADJOURNMENT:
8 MOTION: Commissioner Lauletta moved and Vice Chair DiCecco
9 seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting.
10 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
11 The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
12
13
14 ATTEST:
15
16 Barry K. Hogan
17 Community Development Director
Kipp A. Landis, Chair
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 O ���
Draft \04_0106_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 Mana e D
DATE: January 13, 2004 (PC Meeting of 1/20/2004)
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, -2051 -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)
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
This item has been continued by the Planning Commission with the
hearing open since October 7, 2003. Mr. Kendall Elmer from Austin
Foust Associates, preparer of the City's traffic model and the
analysis contained in the EIR for the North Park project, has been
asked to address the Planning Commission on traffic concerns at the
January 20, 2004 meeting. An additional agenda item on January 20,
2004 is a public hearing to accept oral testimony on Chapter 3.3b
(Freeway Traffic) of the Revised Draft EIR. Concerns raised on
water, groundwater, and oil wells are expected to be addressed by
staff at the February 3, 2004 meeting, and responses to comments on
Chapter 3.3b (Freeway Traffic) are expected to be presented to the
Planning Commission at the February 17, 2004 meeting.
A recommendation by Community Development staff was provided to the
Planning Commission at its meeting of January 6, 2004. A number of
proposed changes to the Specific Plan were included in the staff
recommendation. In order to focus on unresolved issues associated
with the applications for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan,
and Zone Change, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040120 PC Report.doc 0000017
Honorable Planning Commission
January 20, 2004
Page 2
begin identifying these unresolved items. A copy of the January 6,
2004 Planning Commission agenda report is attached.
STAFF RECOMMMATION
Continue to accept public comments and continue the agenda item
with the public hearing open to the February 3, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting.
Attachment:
January 6, 2004 Agenda Report
006008
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared by: David A. Bobardt, Planning Man e
DATE: December 30, 2003 (PC Meeting of 1/6/2004)
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 -135, -145, -195, -215, -225; 615- 0 -110-
205, -215; 615 -0- 150 -185)
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission has been discussing the proposed North Park
project since October 7, 2003. Planning Commission meetings since
then have focused on the following topics:
October 7, 2003: Regulatory Context
October 21, 2003: Project Description
November 4, 2003: General Plan Issues
November 18, 2003: Specific Plan Issues
December 2, 2003: Schools
December 16, 2003: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR)
The public hearing on the project applications has been kept open
through each meeting. This report presents staff's preliminary
recommendation on the applications for the general plan amendment,
specific plan, and zone change. A recommendation from the Planning
Commission will be sought only after the Planning Commission
receives draft responses to any comments received on the new
chapter of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (3.3b:
Freeway Traffic).
ATTACHMENT
000009
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 2
DISCUSSION
General Plan Amendment Application
As noted in the staff report for the November 4, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting, staff has identified 10 key issues related to
consistency of the proposed North Park Specific Plan with the goals
and policies of the City's General Plan, mostly related to the Land
Use and Circulation Elements. In addition, the Planning Commission
identified key General Plan issues related to the extension of
Broadway, provision of entry -level housing and mixed use housing,
schools and the buildout of the City of Moorpark with and without
the North Park project. These issues are discussed below:
Maintaining the Suburban / Rural Character of the City:
The proposed North Park Specific Plan calls for the development of
1,500 single- family houses on 761.4 acres of the project site. At
a density of just under 2.0 units per acre, this density would be
among the lowest in the City if the project is approved. Its
density is comparable to the development in the northern end of the
Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan project (Pardee) at 1.9 units per
acre, and slightly higher than Country Club Estates (Toll Brothers)
at 1.5 units per acre.
Preservation of Important Natural Features, Agricultural Areas, and
Visually Prominent Hillside Areas; Integration of the Proposed
Development with the Natural Features; and Consistency with the
Hillside Management Ordinance:
The proposed North Park Specific Plan focuses its development in
the southern, less visually prominent portion of the project site,
with the development area of approximately 1,140 acres taking up
approximately one -third of the project site. There are no prime
farmlands or farmlands of statewide importance on the project site;
however, it is used for cattle grazing.
The Specific Plan proposes mass grading on the development area,
cutting the smaller ridges and filling the smaller canyons on each
plateau, while preserving the canyons that separate the plateaus
along with approximately two - thirds of the site, primarily in the
steeper, most visible, northern portions of the site. This
approach also minimizes the number of manufactured slopes needed in
the development areas.
The plan is not consistent with the restrictions of the Hillside
Management Ordinance that prohibit grading or construction on
portions of the site with 500 or greater slopes, with limited
exceptions. Plans submitted by the applicant indicate that of
approximately 1,148 acres of the property in this slope category,
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 0 0 0010
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 3
195.6 acres, or 17.0%, would be graded. The Hillside Management
Ordinance allows for a Development Agreement to specifically exempt
properties from its restrictions. Community Development staff finds
that the approach proposed to developing the North Park site is
sensitive to its natural features by preserving the most visually
prominent features on the site. The applicant is seeking a
Development Agreement for this project.
Variation of Residential Product Types (Including Mixed Use and
Affordable Housing) :
The proposed North Park Specific Plan offers essentially one type
of market -rate housing product type: large -lot single family
housing. Densities within individual planning areas on the site
range from 1.4 to 2.6 units per acre. Some variety is provided
with the affordable housing, which is proposed at 18.1 units per
acre.
The relocation of 33 lots from the groundwater recharge area to
Planning Area 31 (residential area around the lake) brings the
density of this residential area up to 2.9 units per acre. The
increase of density around the lake and commercial center is
consistent with General Plan policies to have the highest densities
closest to arterials and shopping areas. Planning Area 31 could
even support higher densities to create a higher level of activity
around the lake and commercial center and allow for more walking
opportunities to the lake, community park, school site, and
commercial center.
Activity around the lake and commercial center could be further
enhanced by the development of the commercial center as a mixed -use
residential and commercial center. Market -rate apartments with
views and within walking distance of the core of the development
would provide for a greater variety of housing product types in the
City, supporting Housing Element goals. At the present time,
apartments and condominiums of five or more units make up 10.10 of
Moorpark's housing stock, compared to 14.1 o countywide.
Such a mixed -use development could also include some of the
affordable units in order to reduce the concentration of these
units in one location. The 150 required affordable units should be
located in several developments either on or off site, and mixed
with market -rate units to avoid a concentration of high density
affordable housing in a single location. In the past, the City has
not allowed concentration of affordable housing as a part of any
other development, except in the case of the 17 affordable units of
William Lyon, located on the west side of Walnut Canyon Road.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc
000011
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 4
Availability of Public Services and Facilities (Including Schools):
Key services for consideration include the provision of water,
parks, and schools.
Water - Potable water is proposed for the lake, and recycled water
is proposed to irrigate common landscaped areas. Water issues are
addressed in detail in the Revised Draft EIR and Responses to
Comments. A report on the water supply to satisfy Senate Bill 610
(Costa) was prepared for the Ventura County Waterworks District No.
1 and adopted by the District Board. This report documents the
availability of water to serve the project. As a Development
Agreement is proposed as part of this project, additional detailed
analysis is required that proves availability of sufficient water
supply during normal, single -dry, and multiple dry years from
reliable sources using a 20 -year projection of demand. The City
has requested this analysis from Waterworks District No. 1, and it
will be provided to the Planning Commission when available
(expected January 2004)
Parks - With 38.3 acres of public parks (6.63 acres /1,000
residents) and 26.1 acres of private parks (4.52 acres /1,000
residents), the North Park project exceeds the City's standard of
5.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. The applicant
has also proposed that PA -38, a 5.1 -acre private park, be combined
with PA -37, a 4.7 -acre public park, to create a 9.8 -acre public
park. This would increase the public park acreage to 43.3 acres,
or 7.52 acres /1,000 residents, with private park acreage decreasing
to 21.0 acres, or 3.63 acres /1,000 residents. Public access to the
parks could be improved by switching locations of PA -10, the 29.1
acre community park, with PA -21, the school site. This would allow
for a road undercrossing or overcrossing between the community park
and the lakefront park if desired by the City, potentially
expanding their utility. It should be noted that the established
practice of the City is for public park design and programming to
be developed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and City
Council.
Schools - In its comments on the Draft EIR for the North Park
project, the Moorpark Unified School District has requested a site
not less than 18 acres to accommodate the students estimated from
the project. The applicant has agreed to modify the plan to
provide an 18 -acre school site. Dr. Frank DePasquale,
Superintendent, addressed the Planning Commission on the School
District's planning and needs at its December 2, 2003 meeting. Dr.
DePasquale mentioned that plans for the use of the site have not
yet been made, but that it would likely be either an elementary
school or a Kindergarten through 8th Grade school.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 0 0 00 12
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 5
Expansion of Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB);
Buffer Area between Moorpark and Simi Valley; and Buildout of
Moorpark:
CURB Expansion - The North Park Specific Plan site is on land
between the Cities of Moorpark and Simi Valley. It is outside the
Moorpark's Corporate Boundary, its Sphere of Influence and the
Moorpark CURB. It is in the City's Area of Interest. The project
involves consideration of an expansion of the Moorpark CURB to
place the area proposed for development (exclusive of the Nature
Preserve) within the Moorpark CURB. The proposed General Plan
Amendment would involve consideration by the Moorpark voters,
consistent with Measure "S ".
Buffer Area - The North Park project proposes a buffer from
development a minimum of 600 feet in width and an average of over
1,000 feet in width along its eastern property line. At the
present time the area north of the SR -118 freeway is largely
undeveloped between Moorpark College and Madera Road, a distance of
approximately 2.5 miles. The buffer proposed by North Park would
maintain a visual separation from existing development in Simi
Valley, particularly since the eastern portion of the North Park
project site is not visible from the freeway. The SR -118
interchange proposed as part of the North Park project would be the
most visible feature in this area, approximately one mile east of
the Collins Drive interchange and one mile west of the future
Alamos Canyon interchange.
The Canyons project site (Unocal), which abuts the North Park
project site to the east in Simi Valley's Sphere of Influence,
currently includes two proposed residential villages at its western
edge, separated from development proposed on the North Park project
site by the eastern portion of the North Park Nature Preserve. The
applicant for the Canyons project has indicated that a revised plan
would be submitted in early 2004. Details on this revised plan are
not available at this time.
Buildout of City - The question of the expansion of the growth
boundary of the City touches on issues related to maintaining a
suburban /rural identity, appropriate buffers from development
planned in Simi Valley, open space issues, continued use of the
site for cattle grazing, wildlife corridors and the ultimate size
of the City when built out under the General Plan. The City of
Moorpark is currently forecast to have a population of
approximately 44,300 at build out; this would increase to
approximately 50,100 (13o increase) if the North Park Specific Plan
is approved.
The following table shows an estimate of population, housing, and
employment with and without the North Park project under buildout
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc
000013
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 6
of the General Plan. Current population per household and vacancy
rate figures are used in this estimate. This estimate does not
account for additional employment induced by the new residences.
Preservation of Significant Vegetation and Environmentally
Sensitive Habitats:
With the development area covering approximately 1,140 acres of the
Specific Plan site, potential native grassland, coastal sage scrub,
oak woodland and riparian habitats are all affected. Although much
of the site was burned in the October 25 -26, 2003 fire, the habitat
is expected to recover. Mitigation for loss of the habitat is
addressed in the Revised Draft EIR. It should be noted that the
conclusion of the EIR is that the loss of approximately 703.4 acres
of native grassland and non - native grassland is an unavoidable
significant impact that contributes substantially to an ongoing
regional and local loss of foraging habitat for special status
raptor species, particularly the white - tailed kite, northern
harrier, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, merlin, prairie falcon,
short -eared owl, long -eared owl, and burrowing owl. Approval of
the project would require findings that the benefits of the project
override its significant environmental effects.
Mitigation of Traffic Impacts and Phasing of Traffic Improvements
with Development:
The most impacted intersection in the project vicinity, the
intersection of Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive, is currently
functioning below City standards during morning and afternoon peak
hours. Improvements to this intersection are proposed as part of
the Specific Plan. Per the Commission's request, an updated
exhibit showing the proposed improvements and their effect on the
operation of this intersection is attached.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 0 0 00 14
EXISTING (2003)
BUILDOUT UNDER
BUILDOUT IF
ESTIMATES
APPROVED
NORTH PARK
PROJECTS AND
PROJECT IS
CURRENT GENERAL
APPROVED
PLAN
POPULATION
34,529
44,310
50,068
HOUSING
9, 895
12, 698
14, 348
UNITS
EMPLOYMENT
9, 052
16, 697
16,900
Preservation of Significant Vegetation and Environmentally
Sensitive Habitats:
With the development area covering approximately 1,140 acres of the
Specific Plan site, potential native grassland, coastal sage scrub,
oak woodland and riparian habitats are all affected. Although much
of the site was burned in the October 25 -26, 2003 fire, the habitat
is expected to recover. Mitigation for loss of the habitat is
addressed in the Revised Draft EIR. It should be noted that the
conclusion of the EIR is that the loss of approximately 703.4 acres
of native grassland and non - native grassland is an unavoidable
significant impact that contributes substantially to an ongoing
regional and local loss of foraging habitat for special status
raptor species, particularly the white - tailed kite, northern
harrier, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, merlin, prairie falcon,
short -eared owl, long -eared owl, and burrowing owl. Approval of
the project would require findings that the benefits of the project
override its significant environmental effects.
Mitigation of Traffic Impacts and Phasing of Traffic Improvements
with Development:
The most impacted intersection in the project vicinity, the
intersection of Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive, is currently
functioning below City standards during morning and afternoon peak
hours. Improvements to this intersection are proposed as part of
the Specific Plan. Per the Commission's request, an updated
exhibit showing the proposed improvements and their effect on the
operation of this intersection is attached.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 0 0 00 14
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 7
Under the present proposal, all project traffic not using the
freeway interchange (and all traffic from Phase "A ") would use
Collins Drive for access. Turn movements to and from Campus Road
would be prohibited. Circulation would be improved if Campus Road
could be used as a second means of access. Campus Road, however, is
a private driveway of Moorpark College, and not a public street.
It would need to be acquired and improved to public street
standards if utilized as a through way. An alternative to the use
of Campus Road is the development of an extension of Campus Park
Drive as analyzed in the Alternatives chapter of the Revised Draft
EIR. Both the Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive routes from the
project site would end up in the same location, the intersection of
Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive, however, the provision of an
additional route helps spread the impact of the traffic and it
allows college students to access to parking lots along Campus Road
from the new interchange without having to circle around the
college.
Another key issue for consideration is the timing of proposed new
freeway interchange with the development of the proposed project.
The construction of this interchange and the access road from the
interchange to the project site (and Moorpark College) is a key
public benefit. It would accommodate much of the Moorpark College
traffic that comes from the east. The Moorpark College Master Plan
estimates that approximately 400 of college students come from the
east. Building permits for the first phase could be tied to
progress on the completion of this interchange and access road to
ensure its completion.
As indicated in Chapter 3.3b of the Revised Draft EIR, the project
would add to traffic on the SR -118 and SR -23 freeways, which would
exceed design capacity with or without the project. Timelines for
improvements to the freeway vary due to the uncertainty of funding
these improvements. The proposed Specific Plan includes land for a
neighborhood center which, with convenience retail, could help
reduce project freeway traffic. The shopping center approved at
Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive would also help reduce freeway
traffic from the North Park project. Other than through local land
use policy, which promotes trip demand reduction measures
incorporated into the project design, policy and spending issues
for freeways need to be addressed at a regional level.
Extension of Broadway
The current Highway Network Plan of the Circulation Element shows
an extension of Broadway from its eastern terminus to the SR -118
freeway at Alamos Canyon Road as a Rural Collector. This Rural
Collector was identified in the 1992 Circulation Element "to serve
circulation needs of potential future development in the portion of
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 000015
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 8
the planning area northeast of the City limits." Specific Plan
Area No. 8 was planned for this area, to have a development of up
to 3,221 dwelling units, provided that the City Council determined
substantial public benefit from the amenities and /or financial
contributions.
The SOAR Ordinance, Measure "S ", amended the land use element by
establishing an urban service boundary that did not include
Specific Plan Area No. 8 and by deleting all planning for Specific
Plan Area No. 8. It also amended the Circulation Element by
amending the purpose of the planned extension of Broadway to be for
"potential agricultural, open- space, or recreational uses in the
portion of the planning area northeast of the City limits."
The proposed North Park Specific Plan, as currently designed, does
not include a road connection between Alamos Canyon Road and
Broadway. The traffic study contained in the Revised Draft EIR
does not indicate the need for such a road to provide for traffic
demand from the project. The traffic study projected that only to
of project trips would travel north on Walnut Canyon Road,
potentially to Broadway (some may turn at Championship Drive). A
higher number, 480 of project trips, are projected to travel east
of the City on the SR -118 freeway. With the proposed new
interchange, an additional connection at Alamos Canyon Road would
be redundant. While regional benefit may be gained by a connection
of Broadway to Alamos Canyon Road, such a purpose for a regional
connection was not contemplated in the City's general plan, both
before and after the approval of Measure "S" by the Moorpark
voters.
Provision of Public Transportation and Trails:
The Circulation Element does not address bikeways on the project
site but does include an equestrian trail connection through the
site. An extension of planned trails to be consistent with the
goal for a citywide system of safe, efficient and attractive
bicycle and pedestrian routes is a critical issue for
consideration, given the size of the project site. Such a multi-
use trail connection to the Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park should
be easily accessible to the public with appropriate parking
facilities. Consideration should also be given for facilities for
the City's transit route to serve the public parks and commercial
center if this project is approved.
Avoidance of Hazards:
Issues related to geologic hazards, flooding, and existing oil
extraction activities are addressed in the Revised Draft EIR,
Comments, and Responses to Comments. Mitigation is included to
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc
000016
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 9
ensure proper abandonment of
development footprint.
Noise Compatibility:
existing oil wells within the
Traffic noise and noise compatibility of the proposed park site are
addressed in the Revised Draft EIR, Comments, and Responses to
Comments. Traffic noise from the project is both individually and
cumulatively less than significant. Future activities at the
proposed Community Park (identified in draft Specific Plan as Youth
Sports Park) are not known at this time and would ultimately depend
upon consideration of a park improvement plan by the Parks and
Recreation Commission and City Council. Such a plan would address
the issue of noise, as well as, night lighting and expected
nighttime activities.
Specific Plan and Zone Change Application
As the Planning Commission is only considering General Plan
Amendment, Specific Plan and Zone Change applications, conditions
of approval normally developed for consideration of Tentative Tract
Maps and Planned Development Permits are not provided. Rather, any
conditions would take the form of recommended amendments to the
Specific Plan. It should be noted that all mitigation measures
developed as part of the Revised Draft EIR would be applied to the
project, unless findings are made supported by substantial evidence
that such mitigation measures are infeasible. Amendments to the
Specific Plan could be made to address General Plan issues as well
as other issues.
Staff recommended amendments to the Specific Plan to address
General Plan concerns are as follows:
A. Provide for a greater variety of residential densities, with
the highest densities around the lake and commercial center.
Any increase in overall density of the development area should
result in an increase in the size of the nature preserve.
B. Provide a mixed -use commercial /residential development at the
neighborhood center. Include both market -rate and affordable
units in this development.
C. Provide a more detailed plan for the provision of affordable
units that includes greater mixing of affordable units with
market -rate units, possibly both on and off site.
D. Switch the locations of PA -10 (Community Park) with PA -21
(School) to allow for a road undercrossing or overcrossing
between the 29.1 acre Community Park and Lakefront Park if
desired by the City.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 0 0 0017
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 10
E. Delete any schematic diagrams of public parks or any
discussion of improvements or programming of public parks.
Parks should be referred to by names designated in the Open
Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element based on their
size and service area. The design and programming of public
parks should take place through the established practice of
the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. The
Specific Plan should, however, identify appropriate funding
mechanisms for the improvement and maintenance of the public
parks.
F. Incorporate a public swim area (with restrooms and locker
rooms) and public boat rental operation (docks and concession
building) into the proposed lake to enhance the public benefit
of the lake.
G. Provide an 18 -acre school site as requested by the Moorpark
Unified School District.
H. Include a phasing plan that ties the issuance of permits in
Phase A to continued progress on the development of the new
SR -118 interchange and access road.
I. Provide a full -time road connection to the site (in addition
to Collins Drive) either through the conversion of Campus Road
to a public street or through the extension of Campus Park
Drive.
J. Include language in the Specific Plan that transit stop
locations shall be provided for the commercial center and
Community Park, if desired by the City.
K. Provide public access from the Lakefront Parks to a trail
connection that reaches Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park.
Extend public access to at least 750 of the lake frontage.
Provide a public pocket park at the turnaround point of the
lake public access (trail).
The following table identifies 21 issues that that the applicant
has identified during the hearings on the proposed Specific Plan
project. The applicant's option to address these issues and
staff's recommendation on each issue are included. Some of these
repeat the General Plan concerns noted above.
No.
Issue /Project Proposal
Applicant
Option
Staff
Recommendation
1
School Site Size (PA-
Increase the school site
Increase the school site
10): 12 -acre school
to 18 net usable acres to
to 18 net usable acres to
site.
satisfy a request from the
satisfy a request from the
Moorpark Unified School
Moorpark Unified School
District.
District.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 0 0 00 is
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 11
No.
Issue /Project Proposal
Applicant
Staff
Option
Recommendation
2
Day Care Site Size (PA-
Reduce the size of the day
Reduce the size of the day
22): 1.6 acre day care
care site to .5 acres to
care site to .5 acres to
site.
allow for an increased
allow for an increased
school site size.
school site size.
3
Vernal Pool
Relocate the water tank to
Relocate the water tank to
Preservation - Water
avoid the impacts to the
avoid the impacts to the
Tank (PA -54): Water
vernal pool watershed.
vernal pool watershed.
tank encroaches into a
vernal pool's
watershed.
4
Vernal Pool
Modify the alignment of
Modify the alignment of
Preservation- Moorpark
Moorpark College Road
Moorpark College Road
College Road Alignment:
and /or require the
and /or require the
Moorpark College Road
adjacent slope to be
adjacent slope to be
encroaches into the
returned through the use
returned through the use
pool's watershed.
of walls to prohibit
of walls to prohibit
encroachment into the
encroachment into the
vernal pool watershed.
vernal pool watershed.
5
Wildlife Movement:
Modify the North Park land
Modify the North Park land
Moorpark College Road
plan to add a second
plan to add a second
contains one wildlife
wildlife crossing on
wildlife crossing on
crossing
Moorpark College Road.
Moorpark College Road.
(Included as Mitigation in
the Revised Draft EIR)
6
Canyon Crossing: Road
Modify the Land Plan to
Re- evaluate the number of
crossing impacts mature
relocate a canyon crossing
living oak trees in the
trees.
to minimize impacts to
impact area (as a result
trees. Alternative 1 would
of the October 25 -26, 2003
preserve an additional 49
fire) and develop a
trees. Alternative 2
crossing to preserve as
would preserve an
many as possible without
additional 64 trees but
the need for a sewer
would require a wider
pumping facility. Trees
canyon crossing and
to be removed would
installation of a sewer
require replacement or
pumping facility.
compensation consistent
with City Ordinance.
7
Gated Entry Locations:
Relocate the middle and
Relocate the middle and
The middle and western
western entry cottages
western entry cottages
entry cottages are
further into the
further into the
immediately adjacent to
community.
community. PA -11 should
public areas. The
be in front of any entry
proposed public Nature
gate and the western entry
Park (PA -11) is behind
gate should be moved west
a gated entrance.
to be less visible from
the public areas.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc Q
000019
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 12
No.
issue /Project Proposal
Applicant
Staff
Option
Recommendation
8
Separation of Lakeside
Consolidate PA -37 and PA-
Consolidate PA -37 and PA-
Parks (PA -37 and PA-
38 into a single 9.8 -acre
38 into a single 9.8 -acre
38): Public and private
public accessible lakeside
public accessible lakeside
park separated by
park on the north side of
park. Create a separate
commercial center.
the Neighborhood Center.
public swim area in the
This re- configuration also
lake adjacent to this park
widens the end of the lake
with restroom and changing
to increase its
facilities, and provide a
recreational value.
public boat rental
operation with concession
building and docks.
Incorporate timing
language to tie permit
issuance to completion of
this amenity.
9
Lakeside Neighborhood
Move the Lakeside
Move the Lakeside
Center (P -50):
Neighborhood Center (P -50)
Neighborhood Center (P -50)
Currently between a
to the east or west.
to the east or west.
public and private
park.
10
Parking for Nature
Clarify that public
Clarify that public
Park: The park is
parking at the Nature Park
parking at the Nature Park
placed behind the entry
is a permitted use.
is a permitted use.
cottage and parking is
not shown on the plan.
11
Length of Public Access
Extend the lakeside public
Include at least 75s of
on Lakeside Trail: The
trail to connect the
the lake perimeter as
proposed plan calls for
revised 9.8 acre lakeside
publicly accessible by a
a public trail on a
public park to the
pedestrian trail. Provide
portion of the south
trailhead location in PA-
for a public pocket park
lake shore from the
44.
at the mid - point. Connect
commercial center to a
the revised 9.8 acre
pocket park (PA -41).
lakeside public park to
Public access to the
the trailhead location in
Nature Preserve is
PA -44 as part of this
indicated but not
trail.
clearly defined.
12
Mixed Use (Residential
Modify the plan to permit
Include both market -rate
and Commercial: No
all or a portion of the
and affordable housing
mixed -use development
affordable housing
units as part of a mixed -
is proposed.
requirement be satisfied
use (horizontal and /or
as a mixed -use component
vertical) development in
within the Neighborhood
PA -50. Reduce the size of
Center PA -50.
the commercial component
to allow for housing on
this site. Possibly
increase the size of PA -50
with a reduction to the
size of PA -31 to
accommodate a mixed -use
development.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 0 0 0020
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 13
No.
Issue /Project Proposal
Applicant
Staff
Option
Recommendation
13
Public /Quasi- Public
Designate PA -9 for
Provide several locations,
Uses on PA -9: The
Public /Quasi - Public Uses.
possibly both on and off
Specific Plan now
the project site for the
locates 150 affordable
provision of affordable
housing units on PA -9.
housing units mixed with
market -rate units to avoid
a concentration of
affordable units in a
single location.
14
Night Lighting at the
Prohibit night lighting at
Eliminate any exhibits or
Community Park (PA -10):
the park (PA -10).
references to this site as
The DEIR analyzed the
a Youth Sports Park.
impacts of night
Designate the site a
lighting of the park.
Community Park and follow
the normal City process of
park and facility design
through recommendation by
the Parks and Recreation
Commission and approval by
the City Council.
15
Nature Preserve
Enact a condition to
Mitigation in the Revised
Maintenance Funding
require the establishment
Draft EIR provides that a
of an ongoing funding
non - wasting endowment or
program for the
landscape management
maintenance of the
district be established to
preserve in the amount
provide for ongoing
requested by SMMC.
management costs of the
Nature Preserve.
16
Groundwater Recharge
Remove development from
Remove development from
Outcrop: The Specific
the outcrop and relocate
the outcrop and relocate
Plan development
33 residential lots into
33 residential lots into
footprint encroaches
PA 31.
PA 31.
into about 15 acres of
the Fox Canyon Outcrop.
17
Street Widths: The
Modify the plan to apply
Leave the Street Standards
proposed Specific Plan
narrower streets
as shown in the Specific
applies County Road
standards.
Plan and consistent with
Standards.
the City of Moorpark
adopted standards.
18
Moorpark College Road
Modify Moorpark College
Modify Moorpark College
Design: The proposed
Road to become a four -lane
Road to become a four -lane
Specific Plan
collector with a 13 -foot
collector with a 13 -foot
establishes Moorpark
wide median.
wide median.
College Road as four -
lane collector without
a median.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 0 0 00 21L
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 14
No.
Issue /Project Proposal
Applicant
Staff
Option
Recommendation
19
Architectural Style:
Modify the Specific Plan
Add a ranch home as an
The proposed Specific
to delete the `Italianate
architectural style.
Plan identifies a
House" style and add a
series of architectural
ranch -style theme.
styles, generally
categorized as
"California
Heritage", including
`Italianate House"
style but not including
a ranch -style theme.
20
Guarantee Lake
Impose a requirement that
Impose a requirement that
Maintenance and Access:
as a conditional of
as a conditional of
The proposed Specific
approval the project's
approval the project's
Plan identifies states
CC &Rs provide that the
CC &Rs provide that the
that the proposed lake
Homeowner's Association
Homeowner's Association
will be accessible to
maintain the lake to
maintain the lake to City
the public.
prescribed standards, and
of Moorpark prescribed
be obligated to continue
standards, and be
public access to the lake;
obligated to continue
and that these
public access to the lake;
restrictions cannot be
and that these
modified without a
restrictions cannot be
unanimous vote of all
modified without a
members of the Homeowners
unanimous vote of all
Association.
members of the Homeowners
Additionally, require the
Association and approval
applicant to provide an
of the City of Moorpark.
easement be granted to the
Additionally, require the
City assuring public
applicant to provide an
access to the lake.
easement be granted to the
City assuring continuous
public access to the lake.
21
Collins Road
Impose a requirement that
Include the improvement of
Improvements: The
as a conditional of
the Collins Road /SR -118
proposed Specific Plan
approval of the project's
and Campus Park
requires that the
the applicant immediately
intersection as part of
applicant complete the
and diligently pursue the
the Specific Plan, with
Collins Road
Collins Road improvements
timing for improvements to
improvements prior to
upon project approval by
be completed prior to the
the issuance of the
the electorate and
issuance of any permits
first building permit.
annexation of North Park
related to the Specific
Village into the City.
Plan, including soil
testing.
With appropriate amendments to the Specific Plan as recommended,
along with the incorporation of all mitigation measures contained
in the Revised Draft EIR, staff finds that the proposed project
could be found consistent with the goals and policies of the City's
General Plan, would provide both market rate and affordable
housing, would meet school needs, and would provide a public
benefit in the dedication of public open space, the publicly
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 0 0 00 2 2
Honorable Planning Commission
January 6, 2004
Page 15
accessible lake, public parks, a fire station site, and an
additional freeway interchange. Community Development staff
recommends that the project be approved, subject to the recommended
amendments, all mitigation measures, and any amendments of the
Planning Commission. It should be noted that ultimate approval is
subject to an affirmative vote of the Moorpark electorate.
STAFF RECONaIENDATION
Continue to accept public comments and continue the agenda item
with the public hearing open to the January 20, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENT:
Proposed Improvements to the Intersection of Collins Drive and
Campus Park Drive
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040106 PC Report.doc 0 (� (!� 0
ITEM: 8. Be
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared by David A. Bobardt, Planning Mana
DATE: January 13, 2004 (PC Meeting of 1/20/2004)
SUBJECT: Consider a Public Hearing to Accept Oral Comments on
Chapter 3.3b (Freeway Traffic) of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 2001 -01: North Park
Village and Nature Preserve
BACKGROUND
On July 11, 2003, the Community Development Department released a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed North Park
Village and Nature Preserve Specific Plan for public review. The
period for accepting written comments was from July 11, 2003 to
September 24, 2003. During the course of preparation of Responses
to Comments, new information on significant impacts of the project
related to traffic on the SR -23 and SR -118 freeways was identified.
This information was added as a new chapter (Chapter 3.3b) in the
Revised Draft EIR for the North Park Specific Plan. In accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because new
significant effects have been identified which can not be mitigated
by the project, this new chapter must be circulated for public
comment for at least 45 days. The Community Development Department
released this new chapter for public review on December 16, 2003,
with written comments due at City Hall by 5:00 PM on January 30,
2004. The City's adopted procedures for the processing of EIRs
require the Planning Commission to hold hearings on Draft EIRs. A
similar process would apply to this new chapter of the Revised
Draft EIR that is being circulated for public review.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission hearing allows for the acceptance of oral
comments on a Draft EIR. In this case, comments should be limited
to the new information (Chapter 3.3b: Freeway Traffic) that has
been circulated for public review. Oral comments on Chapter 3.3b
received at this hearing will be treated in a similar manner as
\ \mor pri sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040120
Draft EIR Report to PC.doc
000024
Honorable Planning Commission
January 20, 2004
Page 2
written comments received on this chapter. Relevant concerns will
be summarized and written responses will be prepared. Draft
responses will be provided to the Planning Commission, along with
draft CEQA Findings for this project. The Commission will then be
asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy
of the EIR in satisfying CEQA requirements. This recommendation
will be forwarded to the City Council along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation on the General Plan Amendment, Specific
Plan, and Zone Change applications.
The Notice of Availability of Chapter 3.3b of the Draft EIR also
noticed this hearing. It was sent to property owners within 1,000
feet of the project boundaries and was published in the Ventura
County Star. In addition, Public Hearing signs were posted at
College View Park and on the property (at the Moorpark College
overflow lot).
STAFF RECObMNDATION
Open the public hearing, accept public testimony on Chapter 3.3b of
the Revised Draft EIR (Freeway Traffic), and refer the comments to
staff for preparation of responses.
000025
ITEM: 9. A.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared by Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner
DATE: December 18, 2003 (PC Meeting of 1/20/04)
SUBJECT: Consider Recommendation to City Council on Design
Guidelines for Solar Energy Systems
BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2003, the City Council considered a report by Community
Development staff pertaining to the feasibility of requiring
photovoltaic generation systems to be installed consistently on all
new residences. Staff had studied the issue and determined that
while the photovoltaic technology shows future promise, it has not
yet progressed to the point that uniform mandatory placement of
such systems would be cost effective.
As part of the recommendation to the City Council, staff also
suggested that the matter be further studied to determine what
measures would be appropriate in those instances where the use of
photovoltaic or other solar systems is feasible. Of particular
concern was the establishment of guidelines pertaining to the
placement of such systems, as they could cause an adverse visual
impact. The City Council concurred and referred the matter back to
staff for further study; and asked that staff expand the study to
include commercial and industrial uses.
DISCUSSION
Since that time, staff has reviewed pertinent pre - empting laws and
the practices of other cities. The City's ability to regulate
these uses is limited by the California Solar Rights Act to those
actions which do not affect either the cost of implementing the
system, or the efficiency of the system, by more than 200.
In recognition of this, staff has proposed the guidelines shown in
Exhibit A of the Draft Resolution attached to this report. These
guidelines will allow staff to regulate the placement of these
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \Z 0 A \2003 \Photovoltaic Guidelines \PC Agenda Report.doc 000026
Honorable Planning Commission
January 20, 2004
Page 2
systems to safeguard the aesthetic characteristics of the City and
its neighborhoods to the greatest extent allowable under the law,
while ensuring that the ability of property owners to place and
utilize these systems is not hindered.
The main thrust of the guidelines is to strongly favor the
placement of the proposed systems in locations which are the least
visible from public rights -of -way, other public facilities, and
neighboring residences and businesses. To this end, the guidelines
place the burden of proof on the applicant to show that the
placement in a non - preferred location is necessary to meet the
requirements of the Solar Rights Act.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The adoption of Design Guidelines for Solar Energy Systems is
considered to be a "project" under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), requiring an appropriate level of environmental
review. In accordance with the City's environmental review
procedures adopted by resolution, the Community Development
Director determines the level of review necessary for a project to
comply with CEQA. Some projects may be exempt from review based
upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be
exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not
necessary where it can be determined that there would be no
possibility of a significant effect upon the environment. A
project which does not qualify for an exemption requires the
preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential
environmental impacts.
Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may
determine that a project will not have a significant effect upon
the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
prepared. For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration will prove to be sufficient environmental
documentation. If the Director determines that a project has the
potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation
can not be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
is prepared.
The Director has reviewed this project and found it to qualify for
a General Rule Exemption in accordance with Section 15061 of
California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). No further
environmental documentation is required.
000027
Honorable Planning Commission
January 20, 2004
Page 3
STAFF RECObMNDATION
Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council
adoption of Design Guidelines for Solar Energy Systems.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution PC -2004-
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, the City Council has identified the use of solar
energy systems as an effective and desirable means of producing
energy which is plentiful, non - polluting, and does not deplete
the natural resources as many other energy sources do; and
WHEREAS, the negative visual impacts associated with the
use of these systems can be significant, particularly when
viewed from neighboring properties or public rights -of -way; and
WHEREAS, the California Solar Rights Act limits the ability
of the City to restrict the use or placement of solar energy
systems to the degree that the costs would increase by more than
twenty percent (200), or that the efficiency would be degraded
by more than twenty percent (200); and
WHEREAS, draft Design Guidelines for Solar Energy Systems
have been prepared in recognition of the desire of the City to
both promote the use of solar energy and minimize the visual
impacts of solar energy systems consistent with the limitations
established by the California Solar Rights Act; and
WHEREAS, the Design Guidelines for Solar Energy Systems are
exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the general rule that CEQA
only applies to projects that may have a significant effect on
the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The
Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark recommends to the
City Council the adoption of the Design Guidelines for Solar
Energy Systems, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The Community
Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this
resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in
the book of original resolutions.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \Z O A \2003 \Photovoltaic Guidelines \PC Reso.doc
PC ATTACHMENT 000029
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 2
The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 2004.
Kipp A. Landis, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
Exhibit A - Design Guidelines for Solar Energy Systems
000030
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
1. These Guidelines shall apply to the installation and
maintenance of solar energy systems for all uses in all
zones Citywide. Solar energy systems, as referenced herein,
shall refer to any system, or component equipment of such
system, associated with the collection of sunlight, its
conversion to usable energy (whether electricity or heat),
and the transmission and storage of that energy to the
building or facility the equipment serves.
2. Proposals for the placement of solar energy systems shall
be accompanied by an assessment of alternative locations on
the subject property, along with justification for the
selection of the preferred alternative. Placement of the
equipment shall occur on the location least visible from
the public rights -of -way and neighboring properties.
Exceptions shall be granted in instances where installation
in a non - preferred location will result in cost reductions
of at least twenty percent (200) or increases in power
generation of at least twenty -five percent (250) when
compared to the City preferred location. The applicant
shall have the burden of proof to show that an alternative
location will meet these requirements.
3. Solar energy system equipment shall be placed in locations
which are the least visible from public streets, public
facilities, and neighboring properties. Avoiding visibility
from public rights -of -way shall be the highest priority,
followed by avoiding visibility from neighboring
properties. Placement on the roof plane facing away from a
street is the preferred location.
4. Placement of equipment on flat roof elements is acceptable,
so long as the equipment or its support structures are not
visible from public streets, public facilities or
neighboring properties. The equipment shall be screened
with an architecturally compatible structure.
5. Equipment and required structural supports shall be placed
as close to the roof plane as possible while still
maintaining safe and effective operational conditions.
000043JL
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 4
Flush mounting is required on pitched roofs, unless flush
mounting would constitute a significant impact on cost or
efficiency, as defined by the California Solar Rights Act.
Equipment and support structures shall not extend beyond
the existing roof area, or above the top of the wall, of
the building upon which they are mounted.
6. Equipment frames, support structures, and related rooftop
equipment shall be painted to match, as closely as
possible, the predominant color of the roof. The color
shall be subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
7. All electrical wiring shall be enclosed in conduit and all
exterior conduit and exterior plumbing on buildings shall
be painted to match, as closely as possible, the surface
across which they run. Ground - mounted plumbing and conduit
shall be buried underground.
8. All solar energy system equipment shall be considered
accessory structures and shall meet applicable setback and
height limitations.
9. Solar energy system equipment, including hot water storage
tanks, shall not occupy required parking spaces.
10. Non - functional solar energy systems shall be repaired or
removed within 3 months of becoming non - functional.
11. Review and approval of solar energy system installation to
existing buildings shall be accomplished through non-
discretionary process (i.e. Zoning Clearance), unless
significant alterations to the subject building are
required. In these instances, a Permit Adjustment, Planned
Development Permit or other discretionary process as
determined by the Community Development Director shall be
the appropriate mechanism for review and approval.
OCJCU 2