Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1991 1104 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 4, 1991 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting called to order at 7:07. Chairman Michael H. Wesner presiding. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Tina May. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Steve Brodsky, Christina D. May, Barton Miller, Michael H. Wesner. Absent: Commissioner John Torres Other City Officials and Employees present: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; Kathleen Mallory Phipps; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Ken Ryan, PBR, Cheri Phelps, PBR and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROC LAMATIONS. COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA No items added or reordered. a:\91 -11.9: Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Page -2- 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Wesner second a motion to postpone the approval the minutes of October 7, 1991 with an amendment to reflect Commissioner May's October 7th statement that "Conejo Ready Mix is an adjoining property owner and declared no conflict of interest regarding Conejo Ready Mix since her appointment to the Planning Commission ". Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. Motion: Commissioner Brodsky moved and Commissioner Miller second a motion to excused the General Plan Traffic Consultant, Austin Foust and requested that they be present for the Planning Commission meeting of November 18, 1991. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS None CONSENT CALENDAR No items for Consent Calendar. 9. PUBL]:C HEARINGS A. City initiated Update to the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and associated rezoning within the existing City limits which proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having approximately 14,127 dwelling units, an estimated 204 acres of Commercial and an anticipated 561 acres of r a:\91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 industrial development. Study which proposes a total of approximately Commercial. There are e. agricultural, open public /institution land Page -3- Also, a Sphere of Influence Expansion (year 2010) land use plan having a 5597 dwelling units and 9 acres of additional land use changes to include space, park, utilities, and uses. The public review period for the Draft EIR is from October 11 to November 25, 1991. The proposed planning area for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update includes the existing City limits and approximately 11,793 acres of unincorporated land surrounding the City. Chairman Wesner stated the purpose for the public hearing which was to allow PBR to make their presentation regarding the General Plan Update and it's related EIR, and the Sphere of Influence Study. Then follow with the Commission and staff comments. He requested that speakers who wished to comment complete a Speaker Card and provided it to the Recording Secretary and at 10:30 p.m. the Commission would break to evaluate the proceedings of the General Plan Update in order to conclude their meeting at 11:30 p.m. The Director gave a brief overview of the General Plan Update creation process. He requested that the Commission consider the number of future meetings to be held and that November 25, 1991 was deadline to receive comments on the adequacy of the General Plan Update and Sphere of Influence Study. And that the next regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting would be on November 18, 1991. The Director advised the Commission of the meeting dates that the Council will be review and from the Council's direction this will determine the General Plan Update meeting schedule. The Director introduced Ken Ryan, Project Manger, Phillips Brandt Reddick. Mr. Ryan referenced his staff report dated November 4, 1991 to the Planning Commission. This report was the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element overview summary which highlighted primary topics. Mr. Ryan also provided staff and the Commission with a Land Use and Circulation summary of impacts taken from the Draft EIR, and a two page handout on "What an EIR Is ". Mr. Ryan proceeded to a:\91 -11.9: Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Page -4- give an outline of how the EIR process currently stands. He said that the flow chart indicated that the Planning Commission had started the public hearing process and review. His request of the Commission was that they propose and provide their comments on the General Plan Update Land Use and Circulation Elements, open the public hearing, receive comments, questions and provide discussion in preparation for the :Final EIR. Mr. Ryan continued to outline the purpose of the General Plan Update as it related to the State of California Planning and Zoning Laws. That the Land Use Element was prepared as part of the General Plan intended to designate the general distribution, location, and the extent of uses within the planning area. That it also included a statement of population intensity and building intensity associated with that element. That the Circulation Element indicated the general location, and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals and public facilities. Mr. Ryan identified the General Plan Amendments as follows: A) Vii to C2 B) AG 1 HD C) GUNY OS1 RL D) JBR OS1 RL TO SP -2 E) F11 TO IND 1 F) AG 1 TO SP -1 G G) MI, TO H VH H) SCH DIS PROP H TO VH I ) MI, TO CO J) RL TO RH, VH, RS1 & PARR. He requested that all comments, oral and written be available to PER so that they could respond to the final comments. That the Planning Commission provide their recommendation on certification and adequacy and that they find that the EIR adequate in terms of addressing all impacts and reducing impacts to an adequate level and make a recommendation to approve the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Mr. ]cyan explained the project process of the General Plan Update, it's purpose, the role of the participants, and existing data evaluation which consisted of baseline data report and traffic analysis. a: \91 -11.9. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Pave -5- He identified how staff had prepared for the community participation program and the identifying related topics of: a. Existing Conditions b. Key Issues /Opportunities and Constraint C. Community Goals and Policies d. Alternative Concept Plans e. Preferred Planning Alternatives f. Draft Circulation Element g. Draft Land Use Element h. Draft EIR Mr. Ryan identified Major Impacts to be: a. Land Use - Conversion of existing nonurbanized lands to urbanized uses. Partially mitigated by the City's implementation of policies and programs which preserve open space, viable agricultural lands, significant natural features, etc. b. Air Quality - Increase in total emissions. Partially mitigated by incorporating all possible transportation control measures into individual projects. C. Acoustics - Significant noise level increases due to increase traffic. Partially mitigated by the City's implementation of Noise Element policies which involve provisions for appropriate site planning and design, city review of proposed projects, community Noise Ordinance enforcement, and additional acoustical analysis/ mitigation from future project applicants. d. Aesthetics Conversion of existing nonurbanized, rural lands to urbanized uses. a: \91 -11.9• Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Page -6- Mr. :Ryan referenced the five alternatives: a. No project - mandated by CEQA b. Buildout per existing City and County General Plans for the overall study area. Environmentally inferior because the safety aspects of an improved circulation system would not be addressed. C. Buildout of a less intense alternative for the overall study area. Viewed superior to the project because of the fewer trips, reduction of impacts on public services. This alternative did not achieve the level of housing, or additional employment and additional circulation improvements proposed primary within the Sphere of Influence areas would not be implemented. d. Buildout of a more intense alternative for the overall study area within the City. Not preferable to the proposed project due to greater impacts. e. Buildout of the Updated Land Use Plan as proposed for the City area and the existing County General Plan for the proposed sphere of influence expansion area. Viewed as slightly superior to the project from an environmental because impacts would be reduced. Mr. :Ryan identified the purpose of the Circulation Element which was to designate a safe and efficient circulation system for the City. The approach identified was goals, policies, implementation measures and Circulation Element maps prepared in order to- address identified circulation issues including Regional Transportation Corridors; City Street System; Future Growth; Transit System; Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Facilities; and Transportation Demand Management. The Roadway Circulation Plan was also identified in the following roadway systems improvements that will need to be implemented: a. Connection of the SR -118 and SR -23 freeways and new interchanges at Collins Drive and Princeton Avenue. b. Provision of an east /west SR -118 arterial bypass. a :\91 -11.9, Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Pane -7- c. Provision of a north /south SR -23 arterial bypass from the SR -23 /SR -118. d. Extension of Spring Road north to the SR -23. e. Provision of a "B" Street local collector road which accesses Los Angeles Avenue and the SR -118 bypass. f. Provision of a local collector system to serve circulation needs in the area bounded by the Los Angeles, Arroyo Simi, east of Tierra Rejada Road and west of Spring Road. g. Revision of a local collector system to serve circulation needs in the northwest portion of the City with "C" Street between extension of Gabbert Road and components. h. Provision of a roadway system to serve circulation needs in the Carlsberg Specific Plan area. i. Provision of a north /south local collector connection (Liberty Bell Road) between Los Angles Avenue and Poindexter Avenue. j. Revision of an eastern extension of Broadway Road potentially connecting with Alamos Canyon Road. In terms of the Circulation Element Impact summary, buildout of the General Plan would result in traffic volumes exceeding roadway capacities at several intersection without adequate mitigation measures. Future development planned for the City and the proposed sphere of influence as well as changes recommended in the Circulation Element Update will require major new roadway development and improvements. Mitigation summary following: a. City to develop insure a level planning area. �- a: \91 -11.9 for impacts are identified by the a program to monitor traffic volumes to of "C" would be provided throughout the Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Page -8- b. City to implement all roadway addition, upgrades, downgrades, and deletions as identified within the circulation section of the Draft EIR C. City to adopt roadway design standards and transportation design criteria. d. City to adopt a transportation improvement fee program e. City to adopt a specific offsite roadway /traffic signal improvement fee. That the Land Use Element approach to the General Plan Update EIR acts as supporting document for the Land Use Element. Goals, policies, implementation measures and Land Use Plan maps have been prepared in order to address identified land use issues including Land Use designations; Redevelopment; Natural features: Public Services and Regional Plans. The :Land Use Plan had been prepared in accordance with the State General Plan Guidelines which designates the amount, location, distribution, density and intensity of each land use proposed. The following are significant land use changes included within the proposed Land Use Element: a. Specific Plan designation for three large areas within the present City boundaries, primarily existing as nonurbanized land. b. Specific Plan Designation for five large areas within the proposed sphere of influence area which currently exists as nonurbanized land and rural uses. C. Incorporation of nine pending General Plan Amendment requests. d. Designation of VH /H land uses adjacent to the Arroyo Simi south of New Los Angeles Avenue. e. Inclusion of all current plans for the City area south of the Arroyo Simi. f. Designation of the Arroyo Simi Floodway identified on FEMA maps. a : \91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Page, -9- Land Use Element Impact: a. Buildout of the General Plan resulting in conversion of existing nonurbanized land uses to the urbanized uses of the Updated Land Use Plan. b. The project at buildout does not conform with the County's population forecasts, the county will updated its population criteria based on 1990 census data. C. Adoption of the Land Use Element Update will influence the need for updating and revising other existing elements of the General Plan. 7:45 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Chairman Wesner reminded the public that whether the public supports or opposes the issues brought forward at this public hearing to please limit their comments to three minutes. Testimony received from the following: Char]:es Schwabauer, Leavens Ranch Manager, 12681 Broadway, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Schwabauer identified SP -7 and the Mineral Resource Zone that exists. His comment was that further consideration be given to the circulation pattern near and within SP -7 due to the high volume of truck traffic that currently exists. Eddie Ramseyer, Ramseyer & Associates, 1881 Knoll Drive, Ventura, CA. Mr. Ramseyer identified his letter to the Planning Commission dated October 28, 1991. Mr. Ramseyer requested that there be some consideration made to 1) linking Princeton Avenue to SR -23 /Spring Street intersection; 2) Shift SR -23, from Spring Road intersection to Broadway, easterly; and that 3) "C" Street be shifted northerly. Mr. Ramseyer also requested that the Commission and staff consider a change to the Table on page 28 for SP -2 and on Exhibit 3 - that the residential land use be identified with the following designations (underlined). The requested chances used target densities shown in Table 2, Page 20, to make dwelling unit calculations conform to the Residential Land Use densities, making data consistent within the exhibit and tables. a: \91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Page -10- Land Use Mix Tota:L acres 445 Tota:L dwelling units 712 du Rural High 2 du Medium Low 78 du Mediiun 432 du High 200 du Commissioner May stated that she had no concern with the proposed change in high density, but inquired whether the low density would allow for equestrian type housing. Commissioner May was concerned whether the proposed change would preclude the estate dwelling units from development. John Newton, Representative for JBR and Estes, 4410 Summer Glen„ Moorpark, CA. Mr. Newton's comments related to the JBR property only. Mr. Newton reiterated Mr. Ramseyer's comments pertaining the overall density of the JBR proposal and that the Parkside Estates master plan property be treated as originally proposed with no additional development to the open space areas. Mr. Newton restated and concurred with Mr. Ramseyer's statements to the Circulation Element. Commissioner May inquired of Mr. Newton whether the Princeton Avencie SR -23 off ramp would be provided by CALTRANS in the current project. Mr. Newton replied yes, but the new "DII Street would not be provided by CALTRANS. Chairman Wesner inquired of the Director whether the public testimony was beyond the scope of the EIR by hearing specific plans? The Director said that staff preferred direct comments which related to the adequacy of the EIR document to help the consultant respond to public comments. Robert Warren, Ramseyer & Associates, 1881 Knoll Drive, Ventura, CA. Mr. Warren spoke of the inadequacy of the present SR -118 alignment without the proposed bridges. His major concern was traffic from a quarry through town and that there: was no access to the freeway. That the Princeton Avenue ramps could be the method to access truck traffic onto the freeway. Commissioner Brodsky inquired about the proposed intersection Princeton Avenue to Collins Avenue as shown in figure 1 of the Ramseyer Associates letter dated October 28, 1991. a: \91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Pane 11 Ken Ryan addressed the Commission by saying relative to the Princeton Avenue connection in terms of General Plan buildout that the connection would not be needed, and that the critical issue is phasing. That in terms of the interim it would be critical, but in terms of buildout of the General Plan it is not critical. That regarding the SR -23 north /south connector, it was more critical that the link is made and that the precise alignment was not critical in terms of impact to the EIR. That "C" Street further north and looking at the alignment the response to grade adaption, design solution would not matter as long as the Link is made. In terms of the density changes, Ken Ryan explained that PBR's numbers are based on the total dwelling units and that since the total dwelling units did not change it would not make a significant change in terms of the overall environmental analysis. That the traffic engineer did use the numbers because densities are being changed per those request and that the :Findings would be very similar and in some cases you have a high density, and as long as the number does not change, the higher density is a reduction in trips for that particular use. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette, Moorpark, CA. (No audio available.) Carmela Vignocchi, Assistant Superintendent - Moorpark Unified School District, 30 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, CA Ms. Vignocchi thank the City and the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak on the EIR. Ms. Vignocchi address three comments as she read from the Moorpark Unified School District letter dated November 4, 1991 to be considered as follows: 1. School Facilities Mitigation - Inclusion of appropriate mitigation measures to adequately address impacts upon public school facilities and related capital outlay requirements resulting from community growth and development generated by the a Land Use and Circulation Element Update and the Sphere of Influence Expansion. a:\91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Page -12- 2. Land Use - Inclusion of adequate set- asides of land use designations for school purposes, including bus turn -outs and joint -use potential for recreational facilities, both within the City and the Sphere area. 3. School District Application for General Plan Amendment - Uniform application of planning guidelines and criteria that are consistent with standards established in the Land Use and Circulation Element Update in determining land use recommendations for the School District General Plan Amendment application. In conclusion, Ms. Carmela Vignocch said that they are looking forward to the continuing working relationship with the City of Moorpark and its consultants on the General Plan Update. If there are any questions please contact Mr. Duffy, District Superintendent. Abe Guny, 7250 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Guny commented on his property which is designated by the Land Use & Circulation Element as RL, also how does this relate to the current the zoning? Ken Ryan said that there are a number of circumstances that do not have a category that corresponds with the General Plan Land Use Plan and one of the mitigation measures is to update the zoning to respond to a preferred land plan category and that was one of the recommendations to update the zoning code and zoning map to respond to new land use designations. It is a mitigation measure to correcting the zoning code to correspond to the current zoning categories. Mr. Guny was concerned that he have a clear understanding of the land use designation for his property and inquired of Ken Ryan if this issue would be address prior to the completion of the E:IR documents. Ken Ryan said the general plan process will result with a one dwelling unit per five acre minimum on the Guny property. As a General Plan designation with a recommended mitigation measure and implementation measures that requires zoning to respond to that. The Director said it is the intent of the City that the zoning and General Plan be consistent at the time of final change. a:\91 -11.9 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Page 13 That even if the City utilized the existing zoning designation of Rural Exclusive it would have the RE -5 acre minimum lot size to be consistent. Chairman Wesner summarized by saying it was an issue of consistency and mitigation that will get the designation of 1- 5 acres per dwelling unit. Mr. Guny's second request was that the City amend the General Plan and Zoning to allow medium density (3.1 - du /acre) on his property west of Walnut Canyon Road. That the medium density category would be consistent with the approved Tentative Map No. 4652 on the south parcel and would be the same as the existing land uses to be decided for the Levy property. Mr. Guny said based on the 42 acre area the maximum number of dwelling units which could be built in this area would be 65 homes. Chairman Wesner call for a break at 8:40 p.m. and requested to reconvene at 8:50 p.m. Testimony continued: Harvey Wolchuck, land owner, 10838 Broadway, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Walchuck identified on the Land Use Map the area extending north of the City to south of the City; the Los Posas Area of Interest. He question why the western portion of the expansion area was an irregular boundary line. Ken Ryan stated that the boundary that was reflected in the draft: EIR and Land Use & Circulation Element was the study area that was determined initially by the City to be the appropriate planning area to be analyzed as part of the General Plan Update. That it had been modified over the original boundary which went into the Los Posas Area of Interest. That adjustments were made to insure the City was not within other areas of interest boundary, and therefore the boundary had been pulled back. That the City provided a boundary that followed Grimes Canyon Road. The Director concluded by saying that Grimes Canyon Road was a physical feature and identifiable and the primary reason for the :Limitation on study area. That the boundary primarily followed Waterworks District No. 1. a: \91 -11.4 r Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Page 14 John Newton was call to the podium, but was absent when called upon. Phil Vein, Representing Jemco Properties, P.O. Box 233, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Vein referenced the January 1991 General Plan Update workshop in saying that the SR -118 bypass was indicated on the westerly boarder of town. That in the most recent EIR, the SR -118 is shown as a dotted line beyond the property which was shown on the westerly boarder next to American Products development and curves southerly approximately at the Buttercreek intersection. That a map was submitted in June 1991 and that the EIR seemed to be forcing the .property to enter the adjacent property. That the map indicated access off of Los Angeles Avenue, but an optimum situation pursuant to Policy 2.5 and 2.6. Mr. Vein provided the Commission with a line drawing with the previously access alignment and the current alignment. John Newton, Representative for JBR and Estes, 4410 Summer Glen,, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Newton addressed the Estes GP- 89 -1B, concurred with Phil Vein and his comments that indicated a westerly freeway connection at Gabbert Road, and suggested a four lane arterial between the Southern California Edison and the :industrial area and connect to an improved intersection with four lanes. That the preferred alternative seemed to address a way in which it could be considered an improvement. Mr. Newton addressed item A17 regarding potential for spot zoning and some other concerns, access etc. for the mobilehome park designation that the Estes Trust has proposed. That the property showed as high density on the new land use designation map, and what is needed is 7 du to the acre that exceed the target of 5 in that high density range, however theree are provisions for exceeding that density and we are able to address this. He identified the Estes property on the map be submitted to the Commission. He talked of the benefits of mobilehome property being isolated (i.e. Villa del Arroyo), Fillmore and Santa Paula, although considered spot zoning the notion was to provide an important type of housing for this community. Regarding C -29 preferred Gabbert Road, that it was a logical connection that can be built within that corridor. r a: \91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Pace -15- Another subject was A -C Construction. Mr. Newton asked the Commission to refer to the letter dated November 4, 1991 which states that the exhibit in the EIR figure 3 (existing General Plan Map) was incorrect, that it was shown as medium density residential, that it was a graphic error. His final comment was on Ravlico 89 -1E, that there was nothing negative or positive. That access would come from below and that all were in agreement to that. Regarding Anderson 89 -1A, that it had removed from the GP process and processing on it's own under the guidance of McDonald's. The Director addressed the Chair and said that the Anderson 89 -1A had not technically been removed from the GP Update and that it would be processed separately as part of the GP Update. Elaine Freeman, Urban Strategies, 2509 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Thousands Oaks, CA Ms. Freeman address Specific Plan 8 (page 37) refers to 4500 acres and pointed out that a portion of the property - the Open Space portion, that the area to the west surrounding the Open Space property of approximately 240 within the SP -8 boundary and that it was under separate ownership. Ms. Freeman requested that the document reflect the two different ownerships. Secondly, Ms. Freeman said that the Specific Plan proposal called for 231 du and that Specific Plan also recommended 258 Open Space within the boundaries of the Specific Plans. That the property owner for the record be designated for, or get a portion of the proposed Specific Plan units. Also that they be allowed to process separately if they chose to do so and not its a part of the Specific Plan. Ms. Freeman identified the surrounding properties of SP -8. Commissioner May inquired if SP -8 was one property owner. Ms. Freeman replied no. Dennis Hardgrave, Representing Levy Co., Development Planning Services, 651 Via Alondra #714, Camarillo, CA 93012 Mr. Hardgrave identified the Levy Company as being a group of private investors on the property and not to be confused with the Bank of A. Levy. I/— a:\91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Page 16 His comments were on the 285 acre parcel referred to as Specific Plan #1. He commented on the extension of High Street coming across the Levy property to service the Estes property and that it was the intent to leave the entire parcel westerly in an Open Space configuration. That there was no intention to create a four way intersection crossing Gabbert Road at that location to provide any access to any other uses is the Park District takes the property it would be for their use. Mr. Hardgrave addressed the Commission stating that in the EIR there were 7900 dwelling units as of December 1990 built in the City of Moorpark, and that the City area existing General Plan at buildout was 8981 dwelling units. That the General Plan at buildout and the proposed City area do not to include the Specific Plans 4 -8 which is proposing a total dwelling units of 14,127, and increase of approximately 51150 units. Mr. Hardgrave questioned the information related to existing and proposed dwelling units and could only justify 3850 (in comparison to the 5146 proposed) additional units added by the General Plan Update. His concern was that there may be an inflated environmental impact figures as it may relate to air quality, traffic, etc. Mr. Hardgrave requested the Commission to consider a recommendation that the 25% Open Space acreage within Specific Plansa be dedicated to the City, the Park District or a current method used by Thousand Oaks called Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency. That this could insure maintenance and permanent preservation of these Open Spaces. Mr. Hardgrave referenced page 5 - restricted grading on slopes. That the previous Council and Commission had discussions in providing an ordinance like the Simi Valley Hillside Ordinance. To consider the ability to allow flexibility in Specific Plan area when the benefits would outweigh the impacts. He said that another item covered briefly was fiscal impacts Of the General Plan. That the fiscal impacts of the City in having new development oppose to rehab development in the redevelopment district was significant in terms to the property tax revenues to the district and to the City. His estimation was that there would be at buildout, an increase of over $700,000 per year to the City redevelopment district. a: \91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 -- Paae 17 He requested that the term to restrict grading be amended throughout the General Plan and that the EIR read "to minimize grading on slopes of 208 or grader ", which would also provide staff, Council, and Commission a case by case decisions on slope preservation. Page 6 under Transportation Circulation Measures - amend "all roadway additions upgrades downgrades within development project boundaries" recommended in Section 3.2 shall be implement as development occurs to accommodate the proposed General Plan Land Use Plan. The intent to clarify the responsibility of future development to build all on -site improvement proposed in the Circulation Plan. Page 12 under Aesthetics Mitigation Measures - delete "hillside development ordinance" and amend to "the City shall employ a mechanism such a viewshed preservation criteria in order to protect the visually significant horizon lines in the community ". Page 32 the first paragraph of the text implies that portions of Specific Plan 1 are classified as either Prime or Statewide significant agricultural lands. Exhibit 6 of the EIR shows that neither Prime or Statewide agricultural land is located within Specific Plan 1. He requested that the text be amended to correct the discrepancy. Page 89 -90 under Land Use Element and the EIR reflect the redevelopment district as a mitigation tool to encourage and fund development of affordable housing units. Also thought the incentives available to the City and developers within the district it would be likely that more affordable housing units can be provide in a variety of densities. Mr. Elardgrave other comments related to Page 93, 115, and 125 as stated in his letter dated November 4, 1991. Deborah Menard, Representing Regal Park HOA, 150 -802 Majestic Court:, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Menard reminded the Commission of a recent action in the arguments related to high density proposed between Los Angeles Avenue and the Arroyo Simi. Ms. Menard was concerned with the high density still proposed between Los Angeles Avenue and the Arroyo Simi. a: \91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Pace -18- That there should also be consideration of providing high density throughout the community, that condensing high density in one area would turn downtown into a downtown Los Angeles. Another concern was that there was not any consideration to the amount of park and recreation space for lower density areas, and was not proportionate to park and recreation that is on the map in the high density areas. That there was no recreation area in the high density areas. Ms. Menard asked that the Commission remember the issues brought up with the proposed Bibo development. Ms. Menard requested that the General Plan and the area that is designated high density be changed so that the same concerns do not have to be addressed each time that a new high density project is proposed between Los Angeles Avenue and the Arroyo Simi. Sheldon D. Liber, Representing Bolling, Gill, Allen & MacDonald Architects, 901 Corporate Center Drive, #501, Monterey Park, CA 91754. Mr. Liber stated an intersection at Buttercreek Road could circumvent future intersection at SP -5 and that the potential of having access from SP -5 to Los Angeles Avenue should be taken into consideration. That a study be provided for a Gabbert Road connection. Patty waters, 10865 Broadway Road, Moorpark, CA. Ms. waters spoke; on specific parts of the land use and the General Plan related to agricultural section Goal 11 and requested that the same goal remain and in the original agricultural section of goals and policies. Specifically the criteria of "land use and compatibility" That equestrian property of 2 or 3 acre parcels adjacent to farm uses create problems inasmuch as crop disease, running sprinklers and causing drought and stress to the trees. Ms. Waters commented on the expansion study and requested the Commission consider the importance of policies relating to land use and compatibility as they relate to suburban rural and farming, and the preservation of agricultural use. Comments closed at 9:45 p.m. a: \91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 Pace -19- The :Director reminded the Commission of the need to schedule the General Plan Update for specific meeting dates other than their regular meeting dates of the first and third Mondays of each month. Commissioner Brodsky questioned staff as to the availability of the Austin Faust, Traffic Engineer. The Director said this is subject to contractual agreement. Mr. Ryan commented that the current contract agreement requires that the draft response to comments be submitted to City staff on December 9 and in order to adhere to the schedule all comments will need to be completed on November 25, 1991. Mr. Ryan commented that in adhering to the EIR schedule final EIR submitted to the City is on December 23, 1991, and response to comments on December 9, City staff comments back to PBR on December 16, and in to the City on December 23, this would not be a problem as long as there are not any major revisions or substantial changes that would affect the EIR documentation. Commissioner Brodsky questioned the Chair at what point do the Commissioners address their goals and policies and the adequacy of the EIR. Chairman Wesner responded at the close of public testimony unless there were specific questions needed to be addressed. The Director reiterate that the deadline for comments to be received no later than November 25, 1991. Motion: Chairman Wesner moved and Commissioner Miller second a motion to continue the Planning Commission meeting regarding the General Plan Update public hearing to November 18, 1991. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. 10. Discussion Items Commissioner Brodsky inquired of staff as to the status of fire sprinklers, and the issue of residential addresses within multi. - family development in relation to emergency service. a:\91 -11.4 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 4, 1991 11. Staff Comments None. 12. Commission Comments Chairman Wexner commented that the Council had recently adopted a resolution regarding the rules and procedures for meetings and requested that staff provide this information to the Planning Commission. 13. Future Agenda Items None. 14. Ad ou:rnment There being no further business the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. R pec.fully submitted _Z L by: Celia LaFleur, Recording Secretary Chairman 'iqlrmom wons-10'ro, a:\91 -11.4