Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1991 1206 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 The adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 6, 1991 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.. Chairman Michael H. Wesner Jr. presiding. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance led by Abe Guny, 7250 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, CA.. 3. ROLL ALL Present: Steve Brodsky, Christina May, John Torres; and Chairman Michael Wesner Jr. Absent: Barton Miller (excused). Other City Officials and Employees present: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Kathleen Mallory Phipps, Associate Planner; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. Ken Ryan, PBR 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA No items added or reordered in the agenda. a: \91 -12.6 1- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 Page -2- APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Abe Guny, 7250 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Guny commented on his concerns related to the designation as it relates to the matrix of the Land Use Element text. That the RL had no corresponding general plan zoning designation. The Director commented that Mr. Guny's concern had been noted by the consulting firm of PBR and would be corrected. Mr. Guny's other interest related to the west side of Walnut Canyon and the consideration of changing the land use designation on property under his ownership. The Director commented that the property identified by Mr. Guny is not a part of any consideration of the General Plan Update. John Newton, 4410 Summer Glen Court, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Newton commented that he had nothing further to comment on, but that he was available to the Commission for questions. Dennis Hardgrave, 651, Via Alondra, #714, Camarillo, CA. Mr. Hardgrave representing Development Planning Services representing the Levy Company. Mr. Hardgrave submitted information to the Commission, and staff. The information identified concerns related to 118 bypass arterial roadway short term construction analysis (1992 - 2001). Mr. Hardgrave provided the following information: Completion of the 118 bypass arterial roadway as shown in the PBR /Austin -Foust Traffic Analysis could be accomplished through a combination of citywide traffic mitigation fees on all new development or construction of the actual roadway improvements within the boundaries of future developments along the route of the new roadway. The traffic mitigation fee would be based on a Capital Improvement Budget to fund the - a:\91 -12.6 I,- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 Page -3- 118 bypass arterial roadway, and calculated on a "per vehicle trip" basis for all residential, commercial and industrial development within the City of Moorpark. Actual costs of 118 bypass arterial roadway improvements constructed within a project would be credited against the fee otherwise due from that project. The roadway would initially be built as a four lane roadway from the western terminus of the bypass (850 feet west of Buttercreek Road at Los Angeles Avenue) to the eastern boundary of the JBR project. A two lane connection would be constructed at the Princeton Avenue interchange with the 118 Freeway ( "D" Street in the earlier versions of the Draft Circulation Plan). Elements of the Project (see Circulation Exhibit; 1. Signalized intersection at Los Angeles Avenue and west boundary of Bugle Boy industrial parcel (850 feet west of Buttercreek Road). 2. At -grade railroad crossing (overpass or bypass extension a: \91 -12.6 to be built with future outside funding). 3. Signalized intersection at 118 bypass and Gabbert Road. 4. 118 bypass overpass /bridge over Walnut Canyon Road north of existing residential area. 5. Signalized intersection at 118 bypass and Spring Road extension. 6. Construct "D" Street to Princeton Avenue. Project Feasibility under each EIR Alternative (see page 125 of Draft EIR) Proiect: Austin Foust traffic analysis recommends 6 lane 'bypass roadway if Specific Plans 4 through 8 are developed. Specific Plans 4 though 8 add 148,013 Average Daily Trips to the City. a: \91 -12.6 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 Page -4- Alternative 1: Bypass roadway would not be financially feasible under this alternative as Specific Plan 1 would be zoned agriculture and not be allowed to develop, and Specific Plan 2 would be developed at a Rural Low density. Land acquisition by the City without development of these areas would increase the cost of the roadway and decrease the funding base. Alternative 2: Development of Specific Plans 1 and 2 at this density would not be financially feasible, resulting in the same effect as Alternative 1. Alternative 3: At minimum, a six lane roadway would be required. Cost of the roadway and the traffic mitigation fee base would increase. Alternative 4: Development Planning Services analysis suggests that a four lane roadway would be adequate to handle traffic generated, as long as the development of Specific Plans outside of the current incorporated area (with additional 148,013 average daily trips and 5,015 homes) did not occur. No Project: This alternative would not provide for a bypass roadway. All existing local traffic as well as the increasing future regional "pass through" traffic on Highway 118 would continue to travel across the City on Los Angeles Avenue for an indefinite number of years. Commissioner May inquired of Mr. Hardgrave as to the response from Caltrans. Mr. Hardgrave said that there has been no response regarding the Levy right -of -way design for buildout. That the areas identified as 2, 3, and 5 would provide an additional cost of $10,000 per home. The Director identified that Caltrans position is that it will wait for the City to complete the General Plan Update process and that all interest are predicated on the General Plan. � a: \91 -12.6 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 8. CONSENT CALENDAR No items for Consent Calendar. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 industrial development. Also, a Sphere of Influence Expansion Study which proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having a total of approximately 5597 dwelling units and 9 acres of Commercial. There are additional land use changes to include agricultural, open space, park, utilities, and public /institution land uses. The public review period for the Draft EIR was 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. CONTINUED FROM MONDAY NOVEMBER 25, 1991 Chairman Wesner informed the public that the public hearing is closed to receiving any new comments on the related General Plan Update. That the current process before the Commission this evening was to evaluate and the preparation for technical review for the Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council. Chairman Wesner read the introduction portion of the Circulation Element. I,— a: \91 -12.6 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 Page -6- Commissioner May recommended to rephrase page 3 of the Circulation Element - Transit System to read as follows: "The City currently has iaeks a public transportation system...................... The Director said that this text should remain and that it identifies the circulation issues and will be identified within the policies portion of the document. The Commission continued to page 5 - 3.0 Goals and Policies. The Commission concurred with the goal and policies listed on page 5 - there were no modifications. Commissioner Brodsky questioned the County Congestion Management Plan and their requirement of providing a Level of Service at "D" and how it reflects to the City's level of service requirement of "C ". The Director said that this was a standard design only, and that the design and implementation measures are not affected in the City's requirement to provide a Level of Service of C Commissioner Torres referenced page 6 Policy 2.7 and recommended a revision that would indicate direct control by the City. The Commission concurred to recommend modification of 2.7 to read: "Require traffic signal or stop sign installation at intersections that the City directly Controls which, based on..................... Commissioner May inquired whether City funding could provide signalization on Caltrans right -of -way. The Director said that an example of this signalization could compare to the Poindexter /Moorpark Avenue signalization. Although Caltrans was the ultimate decision maker in the process. Commissioner Torres referenced page 6 Goal 2 - Policy 2.7 a: \91 -12.6 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 Pave -7- It was the general consensus of the Commission to revise, delete, or modify the following: Circulation Element - Goals and Policies: Policy 5.3: Where appropriate, require proposed residential, commercial, and industrial developments to include bicycle paths or lanes in their street improvement plans and to construct the bicycle paths or lanes as a condition of project approval. Chairman referenced page 11 item no. 8 related to a transportation improvement fee program which will enable circulation improvements to be funded by new development and in conjunction with the city's capital improvement program, will determine estimated dates for construction. The Director stated that item no. 8 refers to traffic improvement fee a city -wide assessment fee. That the collection of fees support transportation demand management program of which one is to begin circulation linkage. Along with van - pooling, employers allowing flex hours, staggered work 'hours, reduced trips. Also that the Traffic Model will be used to evaluate transportation improvement fee program. The Commission went on to discuss page 13 - Level of Service and Circulation System. No comments on this portion of the review of the Circulation Element. Commissioner May commented that the Circulation Element as proposed already includes SR -23. Without "D" Street the map would only indicated SR -118 accessing SR -23. "D" Street would provide access to SR -23 and could be conditioned at a later time. Commissioner May question Caltrans consideration of and time frame for the completion of SR -23. Chairman Wesner replied the year 2025 -2045 Chairman Wesner inquired why "B" Street was a minimal length. Staff said it was because of the City limits. 1-_ a: \91 -12.6 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 Commissioner Brodsky question the City Engineer whether Buttercreek and Bugle Boy intersections were too close for signalization. Commissioner May opposed the alignment to Buttercreek intersection due to the adjacent residential area. The Director stated that related improvements may not be may unless it is address by the Circulation Element. The Commission called Dennis Hardgrave to the podium to speak on Specific Plan No. 1 and to discuss the SR -23 connection. Mr. Hardgrave talked of Walnut Canyon bridge, and visibility of the roadway from the Valley Floor. The Commission call Eddie Ramseyer to the dias to discuss and identify, roadways in the JBR property by use of the topographical map. Mr. Ramseyer identified the SR -23 road extension through the JBR property. - Commissioner Brodsky recommended that the SR -23 bypass be incorporated to border the JBR property to eventually have the County provide a connector to Broadway Road. He also indicated that he concurred with the JBR applicant. The Director stated that the City will need to determine at the time of entitlement processing if the circulation is consistent with the General Plan Element (Circulation Element). The Commission discussed the deletion of "C" Street. The Director said that the distance one would have to travel to transfer from Walnut Canyon to Grimes Canyon (a north south corridor) and because of the topographic situation the SR -118 bypass begins to go southerly before the potential connection to Grimes Canyon. The other opportunity would be Broadway Road without having "C" Street. That the area between "C" Street and the SR -118 bypass had already been approved by the City without an east west connector which was the portion refereed to as the JBH tract which was half way to Grimes Canyon and the other portion is the Colmer TR -4081 further south. The Director identified the location on the overhead projector. a: \91 -12.6 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 Page -9- Commissioner May commented that the EIR circulation system location of Los Angeles Avenue - Spring Road - Princeton Avenue that it be identified that these main thoroughfares not be downgraded. Commissioner Brodsky questioned the purpose and need for Alamos Canyon. The Director commented that SP -8 supported this would be used as a support roadway and provide a secondary egress /ingress to Happy Camp. Commissioner Brodsky requested of the Chair to table the matter of Alamos Canyon to later in the agenda. Commissioner May questioned if it was necessary to identify Walnut Canyon as 4 lanes within the EIR text. Commissioner Brodsky commented that 4 lanes on Walnut Canyon would delete the purpose of the SR -23. Commissioner Brodsky commended Bob Braitman, LAFCO on his presentation and information relating to annexation process and considerations to the adoption of specific plans. He said that the information provided by Mr. Braitman was exactly what the community residents needed to know. Commissioner Torres identified Alternative 4 as the major alternative for reducing average daily trips, 40,000 estimated population. He commented that specific plans within the City limits should be studied and even consider SP -4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 for the interest of the City beyond the city limits. Commissioner May commented that the concern with specific plans outside the city limits would be that the adoption of the land use designations. Chairman Wesner inquired how often the General Plan Update, particularly Land Use does the State law require that it be completed. The Director said there is no State law provision dealing with the Land Use or Circulation Element. The General Plan Guidelines by the State recommend that a review and consideration for an update every five years. That the Housing Element is the only element of the General Plan that has a specific mandated update review period on a five year cycle. — a: \91 -12.6 r Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 Page -10- Chairman Wesner commented that his concerns related to the type of development and management of the specific areas address outside the city limits. That the adoption of Sphere of Influence should not necessarily indicated to developers that the City is waiting to develop. He said that the City is now and with some growth looking to address and make necessary improvements within the city limits. He reinstated concurrence of Alternative 4 and to exclude to a later date SP -4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. It was the consensus of the Commission to select Alternative 4 and SP -1, 2, and 3, and to exclude to a later date SP -4, 5, 61 7, and 8. Commissioner Brodsky recommended that Alamos Canyon be deleted from the Circulation Element. It was the consensus of the Commission to delete Alamos Canyon from the Circulation Element. Chairman Wesner requested of the Commission to hold SP -1, 2, and 3 for discussion until the return of Commissioner Miller. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. 11. STAFF COMMENTS The Director informed the Commission of their December 20, 1991 meeting and gave them a brief outline on matters for consideration. 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Brodsky requested that staff provide the Commission with an outline on the matters which still need to be addressed as part of the General Plan Update process. j a: \91 -12.6 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 6, 1991 Page -11- Commissioner Torres inquired of staff as to the status of the hotel project (MV Smith) . Staff indicated that the hotel portion of the project had been approved and that staff is currently working towards and affordable housing program for the remainder of the apartment project. The Commission asked the status of the Draft Hillside Ordinance. Staff said that once the General Plan Update process is completed the Draft Hillside Ordinance will commence for final completion. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No new items for future agenda preparation. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items for discussion the meeting adjourned to December 20, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. the time being 11:00 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED --i� BY:�j Celia LaFleur, Secretary a: \91 -12.6 CHAIRMAN