Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1991 1118 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 18, 1991 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting called to order at 7:25 p.m.. Chairman Michael H. Wesner presiding. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance led by Ken Ryan, PBR. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Steve Brodsky, Christina D. May, Barton Miller, John Torres, Michael H. Wesner Jr. Absent: None. Other City Officials and Employees present: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; Kathleen Mallory Phipps, Associate Planner; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Ken Ryan, PBR; Kendall Elmer, Austin Foust Associates; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS. COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. a:\91 -11.18 5. 1 7. Q REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Motion: Moved by Commissioner May and second by Commissioner Brodsky to reorder the Agenda and open the public hearing for Item 9.B RPD -91 -2, ZC -91 -1 and Tentative Tract No. 4792 Urban West Communities prior to Item 9.A General Plan Update, Land Use & Circulation Element, and Proposed Expansion of the Sphere of Influence. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Torres to defer the minutes of November 4, 1991 to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments presented. CONSENT CALENDAR A. RESOLUTION NO. PC -91 -252 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND RELATED FUNCTIONS AND .ACTIVITIES. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Torres and second by Commissioner May to approve the Planning Commission Resolution No. PC -252 Rules of Procedure for Commission Meetings and Related Functions and Activities. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -3- ._ PUBLIC HEARINGS Agenda reordered to present Item 9.B RPD -91 -2, ZC -91 -1 and Tentative Tract No. 4792 prior to Item 9.A General Plan Update, Land Use & Circulation Element, and Proposed Expansion of the Sphere of Influence. Chairman Wesner informed the public of the Commission's intent of the public hearing and procedures on such meeting. A. Entitlement: RPD 91 -2 ZC 91 -1 Tentative Tract Map No. 4792 .Applicant: Urban West Communities Proposal: The applicant is requesting a zone change (ZC) from Planned Community (PC) to Residential Planned Development (RPD) for Tentative Tract Map No. 4792 which represents the final phase of PC -3, Planned Community 3. This subdivision, known as the villas at West Ranch, is to construct 196 residential multi - family townhouse units on approximately 11.64 acres (507,038 sq. ft.). Location: The proposed development is located on the Northeast corner of Countryhill Road and Mountain Trail Street. Presented by Kathleen Mallory Phipps, Associate Planner. Reference: Staff Report dated November 18, 1991. Testimony received by the following: Tom Zanic, Urban West Communities, Santa Monica, CA 90401. Mr. Zanic proposal before the Commission and development. He explained part of housing mix proposed. a:\91 -11.18 520 Broadway, Suite 100, gave an overview of the the existing surrounding the Specific Plan and the Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -4- Mr. Zanic identified that a written disclosure was provided to all home buyers within the Planning Community at the time of sale describing the nature and the range of housing types expected. He explained the project land use and density and how it had been a part of the Specific Plan for the last 10 years and totally integrated to the master infrastructure planning for the Mountain Meadows. That roads, circulation, water and sewer, drainage and schools. He went on to identify that each dwelling unit included two covered parking areas, a total of 96 guest parking spaces, and two on -site tot lots were included. Recreation areas are off -site and within walking distance. plus every unit had its own private outdoor space for bar -b -ques and lawn furniture. That exterior walls would be compatible with the rest of West Ranch, rough iron /stucco. That the private spaces viewed within the development would be provided with wood fencing. Mr. Zanic went on to say that this was a market rate project and that and no density bonuses were included. Mr. Zanic introduced the project architect, Manny Gonzalez. Mr. Zanic then went on to identify his concerns addressed in his letter of November 18, 1991 regarding condition numbers RPD- Condition No. 49, Tract Map- Condition No. 20, Tract Map - Condition No. 28, RPD- Condition No. 25, Tract Map- Condition No. 23, RPD- Condition No. 80 and 80. RPD - Condition No. 49 - MODIFY: "Prior to any occupancy, the northeastern extension of Countryhill Road shall be in place provided the City and the County of Ventura Have entered into a maintenance agreement for the Peach Hill Watercourse and related facilities, and have issued necessary permits at least 120 days prior to occupancy ". Tract Map- Condition No. 20 - MODIFY: "The applicant shall deposit with the City of Moorpark a contribution for the Spring Road /Tierra Rejada Road Improvement Area of Contribution. a: \91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -5- The actual deposit shall be then current Spring Road /Tierra Rejada Road Improvement Area of Contribution applicable rate at the time of issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a Building Permit." Tract Map- Condition No. 28 - MODIFY "The applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land on behalf of itself and its successors, heirs, and assigns agreeing to participate in the formation of an assessment district or other financing technique including, but not limited to, the payment of traffic mitigation fees, which the City may implement or adopt, to fund public street and traffic improvements directly or indirectly affected by the development. Tentative mitigation fees shall be used for projects such as, but not limited to New Los Angeles Avenue. (This condition shall not apply to future homeowners.) RPD- Condition No. 25 - MODIFY SAME AS RPD- Condition No. 28 Tract Map Condition No. 23 - DELETE THE CONDITION RPD - Condition Nos. 80 & 81 - Clarify department responsibility. Manny Gonzalez, Van Tilburg & Partners Architect, 225 Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica, CA. Mr. Gonzalez said that a great of amount of time and detail was provided in the architecture of the development. Part of the uniqueness of the units were private entry, private patio area, arches, window treatment, elevations, and most of all consideration for the single family element. Gregory J. Barker, Representing Mountain Meadows Neighborhood Council, 12453 Hillside Drive, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Barker was concerned with additional traffic generated by the UWC proposal within the specific areas of Countryhill Drive, Mountain Trail, and the close proximity of the grade school. His second concern was the on -site guest parking for the proposed 196 multi - family units, and 96 guest parking space within the development. Also that the more than one Home Owners Association is proposed for the new development. a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Commissioner Torres asked if Urban West Communities had previously met with the surrounding homeowners to address their concerns. Mr. Barker replied yes and but that the developer was unaware of the items listed in the Homeowners Association letter dated November 12, 1991. Mr. Zanic addressed the letter of the Homeowners Association dated November 12, 1991, in saying the parking standards for the City of Moorpark are much higher than most other cities and UWC has complied with the City's requirements. Regarding the traffic on Mountain Trail, staff's City Engineer, and UWC Traffic Engineer's have reviewed this and concluded that a four way stop sign will be provided at Mountain Trail and Mountain Meadow. Regarding the wood fencing for the proposed project will be used within the private space and not exterior or public edges. His comment to selling only to owner occupancy was that these homes will be offered in the same manner that single detached units are sold. The Liirector said that those conditions identified by Mr. Zanic are not supported for change on staff's behalf. That staff's opinion is to require masonry stucco fencing as in previously proposed developments. Commissioner Brodsky commented that because UWC considered 196 multi - family units as "not a high end market rate," this would not justify reasons for wood fencing. Even though that the individual dwelling units have their own patio area in each unit, this should not be considered as recreation areas, it is part of the private property. Also that recreation facilities reflected in the project identified for adult or minor children uses, and consider recreational facilities such as basketball or tennis courts? Mr. Zanic replied that recreation amenities matched up to the South Village development and the idea of attracting the retired market buyer, or young single adults. Commissioner Brodsky discussed the proposed elevations and how sliding glass doors would be visible from rear yards. Mr. Zanic commented that the top story would be visible. a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -7- Commissioner Brodsky asked of the level of service for Mountain Trail Road. Chairman Wesner replied level of service identified is "B ". The phasing plan was also discussed. Mr. Zanic gave information about the phasing plan, models first, additional units, recreation areas. Commissioner Brodsky question how it could be possible that the proximity of 8 garage doors are within 3 feet of the street and how will cars exiting from the garage area? Mr. Zanic said that both UWC and City Engineer had met and addressed the design pattern. Lee Ward, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 106 South Mentor Avenue, Suite #100, Pasadena, CA 91106. Mr. Ward responded to Commissioner Brodsky's comment and said that the location of the garage doors face is where alleys have been provided, and usually traffic patterns would be coming from neighboring residents. That the sight distance is adequate at the 15 mile per hour speed limit. Guest parking concerns would be regulated by vehicle code enforcement, speed limit signs, stop signs at each alley. Commissioner Torres commented on the recreation pool and how would it accommodate 196 multi - family dwelling units. Mr. Zanic said that the pool size is 25 feet x 60 feet. Commissioner Torres questioned Mr. Zanic whether the issue of wood fencing opposed to stucco fencing was negotiable. Mr. Zanic stated that the wood fencing would not be visible from the street and that the interior edges of the project would display wood fencing. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Zanic the price range of such units. Mr. Zanic said the range considered is $135,000 to $165,000 and that an income of $40,000 to $50,000 may qualify. Color scheme and materials also discussed. Commissioner May stated that Condition No. 28 was appropriate under the request of mitigation fees, but not necessarily under the general fund. a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -8- Chairman Wesner question Mr. Zanic of Mr. Barkers concern regarding Homeowners Association's. Mr. Zanic replied that a two tier system would be setup, a master association would be responsible for main common areas (recreation), and exterior (landscaping), and a separate HOA for each phase and their attention would be primarily maintenance. Chairman Wesner said "essentially there would be 7 HOA ".Chairman Wesner asked Mr. Zanic his intent of requesting clarification of Condition Nos. 80 and 81. Mr. Zanic said that conditions 80 and 81 are fire department requirements and concerned that the City intent of requiring fire conditions may extend the processing of this project. The Director spoke on several issues related to the development. He said that the applicant has addressed City requirements, and that the engineering department had met on the concerns of parking, circulation and traffic signage. In addition the City could restrict curb parking by enforcement. r Commissioner May questioned staff if Condition No. 49 could be modify or change wording to "no occupancy permit ". The Director said that this would become a problem because once the units were built the buyer is ready and waiting to occupy the unit and to hold this process generally means the buyer has the hardship. Mr. Zanic responded to staff's comment of RPD- Condition No. 49 requiring the City and the County to enter into a maintenance agreement for the Peach Hill Watercourse area prior to issuance of building permits ................" His suggestion was to modify the wording to "that the applicant be required to begin construction to that road 30 days the two agencies reaching agreement ". The Director informed the Commission that this matter also relates to circulation requiring a high density project, and that the project will require as much circulation as possible before it gets to far along, and the connection of roadways must be considered. r- a:\91 -11.18 A. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -9- Motion: Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Miller second a motion to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of December 2, 1991 and direct staff and the applicant meet to discuss the points of concern and the basis related to Condition No. 28. Amended by Commissioner Brodsky to include staff's concerns on wood fencing. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. City initiated Update to the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and associated rezoning within the existing City limits that proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having approximately 14,127 dwelling units, an estimated 204 acres of Commercial and an anticipated 561 acres of industrial development. Also, a Sphere of Influence Expansion Study that proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having a total of approximately 5597 dwelling units and 9 acres of Commercial. There are additional land use changes to include agricultural, open space, park, utilities, and public/ institution land uses. The public review period for the Draft EIR is from October 11 to November 25, 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. (8:54 p.m.) Chairman Wesner discussed the outline and provisions of concluding comments on the Draft EIR of General Plan Update. He requested that speakers focus on comments specifically related to the EIR. a: \91 -11.18 /I- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -10- Chairman Wesner quoted CEQA EIR Guidelines section, along with Greenbound vs the City of Los Angels, California appalled court 1984. Mr. Ryan gave 10 minute overview of the General Plan Update process and explained to the public attending how the City and consultants had come to this matter of the Draft EIR. He then introduced Kendell Elmer, Traffic Engineer. Mr. Elmer's discussion was primarily on the road -way system prepared for the Circulation Element. He identified the traffic model and purpose, and plots of existing and future (year 2010) traffic volumes. From this came the comprehensive traffic analysis study of the EIR process. Key facilities recognize as part of the Circulation plan were SR -118, SR -23 now under construction, interchanges at Princeton Avenue and Collins Drive, SR -118 bypass arterial extending from the SR -23 SR -118 connector to Los Angeles Avenue, with a grade separation crossing at Walnut Canyon Road. Part of the plan �- included SR -23 bypass arterial from freeway connector north to Broadway and an extension of Spring Road north to the SR -23 bypass is included. In the southwest portion a local collector "B" Street will serve the area by the railroad and Los Angeles Avenue and the Southern California Edison on the east side. Local collectors shown south of Los Angeles Avenue serving areas between Spring Street and Goldman. Local collectors shown in the northern portion of the City identified as Gabbert extension to Grimes Canyon Road, an extension of Casey Road over to Gabbert Road and a connection of "A" Street between SR -118 bypass arterial. Local roadway shown in the Moorpark Highland's area to be the extension of Science Avenue from New Los Angeles Avenue to Tierra Rejada Road and the extension of Peach Hill Road to Science Avenue extension. The center of town includes a connection of Liberty Bell Road between Los Angles Avenue and Poindexter Avenue. Major facilities identified outside of the city limits is the extension of Broadway connecting to the SR -118 that primarily serves SP -8. a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -11- The Circulation plan also identified one grade separated railroad crossing with at present four others that were not grade separated and several existing and proposed tract signals locations, now shown to warrant signals under the circulation analysis. Mr. Ryan stated that the Land Use Element was prepared to designate proposed general distribution and general locations of intensity of land use designations. The approach to this utilities the General Plan Update EIR as supporting documentation for the Land Use Elements that contains goals policies and the land use plan in order to conform with California State law. Mr. Ryan then identified each Specific Plan requested land use. Testimony received by the following: William LaPerch, 7200 Walnut Canyon, Moorpark, CA. Mr. LaPerch said that the current decisions made would affect the r future of the City of Moorpark for the next 100 years. That this was the first set in the potential destruction of the city. As a former Planning Commissioner, Chairman he requested that the Commission to examine the risk benefit ratio and finding solutions in advance, which the EIR does not address or meet the requirements. Mitigation measures show to be uncertain and non - specific, and recommended that when problems arise the City will then take measures to correct the problem. Mr. LaPerch said that corrective actions should be in place before the problem. Partially mitigated - a contradiction in terms. Previous recommendations to permit approval have included air quality deterioration solutions to be van pooling, staggered work hours, flex hours have not been implemented. Mr. LaPerch then spoke of water shortages, and the EIR suggesting solutions by way of low flush toilets, and drought resistent plants. That currently there was no hillside grading ordinance and the EIR identified that some time in future the City should adopt a hillside grading ordinance, and the potential 20% grading regulation. a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -12- Mr. LaPerch urged the adoption of alternative number one. He said that under 45 days and a couple of meetings he though it was impossible to approve an increase of 10,500 homes by reference of the specific plans proposed. John Beley, 7343 Griffith Lane, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Beley spoke of his reasons for moving to Moorpark. He further stated that he could support the expansion of the Sphere of Influence only to observe the hillsides and canyons. His biggest concerns related to Specific Plan No.8 and the extension of Broadway and the current 50% slope areas within the canyon and exiting at Alamos Canyon. He described it to be unjust to the area for development. Mr. Beley suggested a parkland designation, along with supporting equestrian trails. Another concern Mr. Beley had was that the Campus Park residential area was separate from downtown Moorpark, west of the City on bike trails. He requested consideration of bike trails to the western portion of the City. Jacques Varin, 4365 Hitch Blvd., Moorpark, CA. Mr. Varin said that consideration should be given to those who provided the expansion study and the foresight to the study. Mr. Varin expressed his concerns with traffic circulation problems, but suggested that perhaps we need to look ahead at new roads, although improvements may be a long time away. He referenced Santa Rosa Valley and the 20 acre parcels that are now under the County jurisdiction. He suggested that Moorpark would have better control over the use of the Santa Rosa Valley 20 acre parcels. Mr. Varin was unclear of the General Plan text about whether a General Plan was general and not specific plan for the City of Moorpark. His final statement talked of Moorpark for the future of our children, being too restrictive with development, and the high cost of housing. Sam McIntyre, 5895 McIntyre requested study, and how he fire and police. a: \91 -11.18 Grimes Canyon Road, Moorpark, CA. Mr. that the Commission support the expansion now enjoys partial City services such as Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -13- Nicholas Hollander, 3835 Hitch Blvd., Moorpark, CA. Mr. Hollander a previous east coast resident described his search for a small town atmosphere. He spoke of his experience with congestion, oppressed intercity, vacant stores, and concluded by saying "what is wrong with being small." He requested that Moorpark find a way to solve the problems that now exist. James Nelesen, Pastor, 6648 Bernal, Simi Valley, CA. Mr. Nelesen did not comment on the EIR for Moorpark because he was not a resident of the community. He asked that the Commission honor the commitment made under Goal 6 To include space for religious institutions in specific plans as they come before the Commission. Also that under other uses in the General Plan there was no reference to Goal 6 on page 31 where other uses are suggested. He requested that the Commission consider that there is a place in all specific plans to include religious institution hat come before the Commission Margaret Kirnig, 10725 Citrus Drive, Moorpark, CA Ms. Kirnig talked of the City's prior conduct on Measure F, 2 story homes adjacent to Home Acres that are separated by a buffer zone. Ms. Kirnig suggested that the City survey residents requesting their preference for development. That the EIR needed a regional map to reference the proximity of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks, landfill, state water resources, etc. She spoke regarding equestrian /bike trails and transit systems and asked that they be more than recommendations. That AQMP weather permitting air quality is making progress although slowly. That the population projection of 54,000 was inconsistent with the proposed by AQMP. Eloise Brown, 131 Annette, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Brown spoke of the Commission reordering the Agenda. That their were people who left their name and address and said they felt no reason to be present because the same concerns being address at this meeting were concerns addressed at previous workshops. She request the public be provided with a copy of a map showing the current changes within the City. She strongly encouraged tree planting within hillside development. a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -14- Dawn Mortara, 136 Bear Valley Road, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Mortara read from a prepared statement as follows: "The priority is land use and traffic circulation and that it was important to keep Moorpark's suburban rural character. Maintain open space between Moorpark and it's neighbors. Ventura County has committed to the idea of open space and believe Moorpark should commit to the same policy as well. We should not develop up to our City limits, but leave an undeveloped area to separate Moorpark from adjacent cities to keep from becoming like the San Fernando Valley. Regarding the environment I would like to see the Happy Camp area spared as little as possible and resulting air and noise pollution. That road proposals would consider avoiding the park, especially the wilderness area that is impacted by the truck traffic. Traffic is an issue that road construction has not caught up with. Houses continue to be built in the City that will increase traffic in the future and will continue to deteriorate." Regarding mitigation measures on page 7 the report suggest that circulation improvements be funded by new development. Which development does this reference? This seems to be a never ending circumstance, "you need roads so you build houses so you need more roads so you build more houses. Ms. Martara questioned the following: Page 6 suggest that Moorpark can maintain a level C of service. She question if it were possible. Mitigation section regarding "mitigated to a level of insignificance." Whether these mitigation measures will work and how will they be monitored. Ms. Martara said there are no mitigation solutions within the EIR to create the health, safe and beautiful environment that we all choose to live in. r a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 James or Lynnette Scaroni, 5740 W. Greentree Drive, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Scaroni read from his letter dated November 18, 1991 requesting that the General Plan Update include his property for zoning of very high density residential instead of general commercial. He suggested some goals and policies as follows: Expediting zone change applications for project in specific plans of the General Plan under a certain acreage. Exemption or priority given to the projects, as listed in item 1. Exemption or priority given to projects for targeted areas, such as downtown and redevelopment areas of the city. Exemption or priority given to projects furnishing special housing needs of the city. Gilbert S. Bahn, 4519 N. Ashtree Street, Moorpark, CA. Opposed. Monika Savic, 15576 Mallory Court, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Savic describe the City and the reason for relocating to Moorpark (open space, downtown shopping, public safety, yearly gatherings). She talked about Moorpark doubling it's size and the increase housing. That population is not the factor that enhances the quality of life. She requested that Moorpark remain as it now exists considering revitalization to the downtown area, expand the high school, provide the commuter train, provide more parks, and leave the hills and valleys as they are. Timothy F. Casey, 13176 Westport Street, Moorpark, CA. Uncommitted. Mr. Casey concluded that the expansion could permit control over the type of development proposed in this area. a: \91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -16- Bill Poleri, 6863 Trojan Court, Moorpark, CA A Campus Park resident who was concerned with emergency access in his area. He described how "D" street would provide a second access to the Campus Park development. He expressed his dissatisfaction in the agenda being reordered. Steve Bohnect, 15295 Monroe Avenue, Moorpark, CA Mr. Bohnect supported the expansion study to increase the Sphere of Influence, but opposed the General Plan Update. He described Moorpark as it now exists and said that he lives in Moorpark for the quality of life. That the General Plan Update as proposed is considering quantity. He questioned who the General Plan Update benefitted. Cheri Risley, 15295 Monroe Avenue, Moorpark, CA Ms. Risley supported the annexation in the Sphere of Influence. His concerns were traffic, keeping open space, providing housing in an effort to provide for our children in the future. David W. Moore, 15423 Braun Court, Moorpark, CA. Uncommitted. Tim McAteer, 15406 Doris Court, Moorpark, CA. Uncommitted. Roger Kahle, 4282 Granadilla Moorpark, CA. Mr. Kahle Is concerns were growth monitoring, air quality, storm run -off problems, infrastructure needed improvement, wastewater, vehicle trips added to the City of Moorpark. The Director commented that the Land Use Plan shows a proposed 5.4m gallons per days wastewater district by the 2010. Dominic Schmidt, 90 Fremont Street, Moorpark, CA. Tim Salivar, 15594 Mallory Court, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Salivar expressed his concerns with the impact of SP -7 & 8 areas. The Broadway /Alamo Road connector. He asked how this would put the circulation around the City and through Happy Camp and that the EIR did not address the impact and mitigation measures. He suggested that the Broadway /Alamo Road connector not lank to the SR -118 in order to preserve the north hillside areas. a: \91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Supported the expansion study for the purpose of City control over development and hillside grading. Except for SP -7 & 8 because it would be another secluded area added to the existing downtown, Peach Hill, and Campus Pard areas. He asked that the Commission consider to unite the City into one, and develop it properly to open uncluttered fill sites to the north and greenbelt to the west. Bob Braitman, LAFCO, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura. Mr. Braitman stated that the text documents were delivered to him on November 8 and would attempt to provide comments by the closing date of November 25, 1991. He said that the City's boundaries included all of the land planned for urban development in the Moorpark area except for Home Acres. When LAFCO adopted the Sphere in Influence the sphere followed exactly the City boundary because thee was no land planned outside the City. LAFCO also adopted a policy that included with the sphere map that said, 11 at such time as the City General Plan amended the Commission will consider changing the r Sphere of Influence." He made it clear that the City does not adopt a Sphere of Influence, the City adopts a General Plan and that under California State law Government Code Section 56000 "The adoption of the Sphere of Influence is a unilateral decision delegated legislatively to LAFCO.". The adoption of the General Plan is a decision delegated to the City Council through the Planning Commission process. He reference the General Plan saying that the City should adopt an amendment sphere of influence in cooperation with adjacent cities and counties and submit to LAFCO for approval. The Sphere of Influence is a plan for the probable final boundaries and service area of the city, an annexation plan. It is inconsistent to say that we would like to have the Sphere of Influence enlarge but not to the annexation, because the adoption of the Sphere of Influence is a plan for future annexation. He suggested that the City determine the General Plan designations prior to the proposed change in the Sphere of Influence. That expanding the Sphere as a way for the City controlling land use would not be the method. In 1967 and 1969 LAFCO divided the entire county into planning areas, and areas of interest preserving one for Moorpark. a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -18- That the City's ability to plan land use outside of it's boundary is not a constraint by the existence of the Sphere of Influence. The City General Plan that include the entire area within the Area of Interest as a way of influencing potential land use. That the City had no jurisdiction to approve or deny proposals. His next comment related to General Plan Exhibit 4 that referenced a table for each Specific Plan area should reference for comparison the existing designated acreage to propose designated acreage. That there was a qualitative difference regards to agricultural uses, Specific Plan 5 primarily flat prime agricultural use. That it was LAFCO intent to preserve agricultural land and would favor the expansion of a city boundary into non -prime agricultural areas. Teresa Schmidt, 90 Fremont Street, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Schmidt commented on the downtown area south of the SR -118 and north of the Arroyo Simi about the proposed designation of high density. She opposed this plan. That the expansion study could propose high density distribution within those areas. Janet Murphy, 15308 Seitz Court, Moorpark, CA. Concurred with the proposed expansion study, growth control, greenbelt areas, hillside preservation. Regarding SP -7 & 8 740 acres designated for open space but with the 4,537 dwelling units proposed would be too much. Wally Todd, P.O. Box 7, Moorpark, CA. Opposed. Dr. Clint Harper, 4044 Oak Glen Court, Moorpark, CA Chairman Wesner congratulated Mr. Harper on his recent election to the Moorpark Unified School District Board of Education. Mr. Harper commented on the adequacy of the EIR and a proposed change of 7,900 acres to 19,700 acres, population from 25,000 to 54,000 before increases granted in density bonuses, 166,000 ADT to 1/2 million at buildout, school enrollment of 5,500 to 14,000 at buildout or 2508 increase. a: \91 -11.18 I-- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -19- He said that the EIR was totally inadequate for the following reasons: Mass increase in the ADT; No detail analysis to impacts outside the study area; Violations of State law. How could an increase the size of the City 2 -1/2 times without considering the impact of SR -118 east and west portions of the City as a regional impact. School facilities and the increase of school population of 2- 1/2 times the EIR offers no workable mitigation measures. That buildout of the General Plan as proposed would require 11 million gallons per day water " inasmuch Water supply impacts are not addressed. Mr. Harper stated that the EIR now was un- certifiable and urged the Commission to draft the fundamental changes to the document before certification to the final draft. He commented on the increase in the Sphere of Influence. That cities do not annex to protect property but annex to develop property. That this plan was the first step in the development of the open space area in the City of Moorpark. That this should not concealed the purpose for annexation. He concluded that the more development allowed the more we will need. That the plan suggested more development to fix problems caused by previous development. Sean Sutton, 15411 Braun Court, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Sutton said that the purpose of the plan was to provide more development and suggested that a Saturday meeting. Chairman Wesner called for a break at 11:05 p.m. Christy Hempel, 576 Spring Road #71, Moorpark, CA. Opposed. Marlena Day, 15478 Doris Court, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Day gave her reasons to relocate in Moorpark along with the promise of limited growth, conservation of open space. She suggested continued work to find solutions for the issues address this evening. a:\91 -11.18 r Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 That although public opinion is for stronger protection of the environment including wilderness protection. Windy Hatton, 10718 Citrus Drive, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Hatton interests were helping to accomplish an equestrian trail network for the City of Moorpark. Joyce LeVegue, 12159 Arbor Hill Street, Moorpark, CA. Ms. LeVegue opposed to high density development. She also opposed the annexation for Specific Plans 4, 5, 6,7, and 8. Reno Lorenz, 13039 Williams Ranch Road, Moorpark, CA. Opposed. Peter Hadley, 4439 Cedar Branch Court, Moorpark, CA. Opposed. Dennis Hardgrave, 651 Via Alondra #714, Camarillo, CA 93021. Commented on the traffic element of the EIR. He identified SP -1 in relationship to the City limits and said that it was also compatible with the conceptual land use plan. Mr. Hardgrave spoke on SP -5 traffic concerns relating to generation factors. He said the goals and policies, implementation and mitigation listed it would not be as intense as the plan proposes. Kendall Elmer clarified trip generation to be within the City and study area only. Mr. Hardgrave identified zone 63 (Southern California Edison) that implicated the existing facility would be replaced with 4,050 sq.ft. of industrial space would increase trip generation. He said the 10 applicants requesting a General Plan Amendments are not requesting increases in density between the Arroyo Simi and Los Angeles Avenue or a Specific Plans bordered on the north and east of the City. The additional had been at the request of the Council as a directive to the Consultant. Phil Vein, 9061 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90069. Mr. Vein said that the EIR did not allow flexibility for mitigation measures for circulation. a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 That the proposed Circulation Element forced access to his property through the adjacent property. He requested to consider the original map design. Wally Todd, P.O. Box 7, Moorpark, CA. Opposed. Kurt Fasmer, 10811 Citrus Drive, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Fasmer commented that SP -4 did not identify the existing sewer plant. He spoke of waste problems that should be addressed and specifically named SP -5. Dave Anderson, 12453 Beechgrove Court, Moorpark, CA. Uncommitted. Roseann Mikos, 14371 E. Cambridge Street, Moorpark, CA. Opposed to the annexation. Her concerns were water shortage, infrastructure improvements, preservation of open space areas, traffic impacts to the Happy Camp area. Opposed especially to SP -21 4, 5, 7, and B. Gerold Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, CA. Uncommitted Mr. Goldstein addressed traffic congestion, Home Acre residents requesting exclusion from City boundaries, Beltramo water collection at Maureen Lane. Eddie Ramseyer, 1881 Knoll Drive, Ventura, CA. Mr. Ramseyer addressed his concerns on circulation and three door corridor identified in his letter. Sheldon Liber, 901 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 501 Monterrey Park, CA 91754. Uncommitted. Comments concluded at 12:14 a.m. Commissioner May thank the public for their input. Commissioner May asked how funding would be available for roadway circulation improvements. Mr. Elmer responded that it was addressed in the Circulation Element in the form of an implementation measure. The Director referenced UWC $3,000 buy out from the normally requested traffic mitigation fee that is typically a covenant against the property to not protest the formation of a citywide traffic mitigation assessment fee. r a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -22- Commissioner May asked Mr. Elmer to define page 4 -6 regarding Walnut Canyon between Casey Road and Broadway Road. Mr. Elmer said that in the proposed mitigation with the extension of SR- 23 bypass it would alienate the traffic demands on Walnut Canyon. Regarding Los Angeles Avenue between Spring Road and Nogales downgraded from 4 to 2 lane. Mr. Elmer was said that it was initiate by City staff, and with the SR -118 arterial bypass it was found that traffic demands in the year 2010 would allow it to be retained as a 2 lane. Commissioner Brodsky commented on the CMP mitigation measure provided as long as a LOS "C" is provided. He questioned what happens if the LOS drops to "D" level? The Director said that the CMP only determines a base for the County and that the City could have a higher standard without problems. That problems would arise only if the LOS was below the CMP base. Mr. Elmer said that the City has specified within their goals and policies to maintain a LOS of "C ". r Commissioner Brodsky questioned how the City would regulate a LOS for SR- 118/23? The Director responded that we would not be able to impose standards for SR- 118/23. Commissioner Brodsky asked where mitigation measures and priorities were for roads needing to be improved under the Alternatives suggested. Mr. Elmer said trip generation comparisons would be the factor. Commissioner Brodsky responded that there was no correlation between land use and circulation within the Alternative suggested. The Director said that the traffic analysis would be the mid- range occurring, and if the option were higher suggested it would be necessary to reconfigure. Once establishing the priorities, it would be accomplished by Capital Improvement Programs base on need over prescribe period of time. The City will need to determine the needs as it considers linkage, and if roads are missing whether it becomes the priority the City it can determine to provide this improvement through Capital Improvement Program. � a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Pave -23- Commissioner Brodsky questioned how will improvements to the corridors and bypasses at build -out effect the areas around the City. Mr. Elmer said that a Regional Growth Impact Analysis were prepared and addressed it by comparing how proposed land plan for the City compared with what is shown now on the County General Plan and identified that in both residential and future employment estimates the current plan was higher. Net difference is what is on the County Plan vs. Moorpark General Plan (shown on page 51). Commissioner Brodsky commented on the proposed linking of "D" street and was concern with cumulative traffic on Princeton Avenue. He question if any alternatives had been studied to avoid this. Mr. Elmer said that the main access would be onto Broadway Road and secondary access onto Campus Park at Princeton Avenue. No other feasible alternatives were found. r Motion: Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Torres second a motion to continue the General Plan Update hearing to November 21, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. 11. STAFF COMMENTS The Director said that the City Council requested that the Commission conclude their meetings on the General Plan Update by January 6, 1992. 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. a:\91 -11.18 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of November 18, 1991 Page -24- 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 14. None. There being no further business the meeting adjourned to November 21, 1991 at 7:00 p.m.. The time being 12:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted 02' by: Celia LaFleur, Recording Secretary Chairman: a � Mel- H. W sner Jr. a:\91 -11.18