The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 1996 0311 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 11, 1996 Page 1 The Planning Commission held their regular meeting on March 11, 1996, in the City Council Chambers, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Torres called the meeting to order at 7:16 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF A..LLECIANCE Chairperson Torres led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. r wontRi-L-J John Torres - Chairperson Tina May - Vice Chairperson Barton Miller Theodore H. Martens Ernesto J. Acosta Staff and Consultants attending the meeting included the Deputy City Manager, Richard Hare; City Engineer, Charles Abbott; Assistant City Engineer, Dirk Lovett; Traffic Engineer, John Whitman; Associated Transportation Engineers, Traffic Engineer, Richard Pool; Michael Brandman Associates, A.I.C.P. Project Manager, Dana C. Privitt- Arita; Senior Planner, Debbie Traffenstedt; and Administrative Secretary, Celia LaFleur. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None 5. REORDERING OF THE AGENDA None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Commissioner Miller moved and Chairperson Torres seconded a motion to approve the minutes of December 13, 1995, February 26, 1996, and the March 4, 1996, with a revision to page four that reads: ". . .that the City Council review the Planning Commission's prior recommendations to the Development Agreement; grading; and equestrian trail." City of Moorpark, 789 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA (805) 528.8864, Fact. 228, Fax 529 -8270 c:10ELU1%6PCMRfPC9W31iycm 1MAorOW10:33 am S Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 11, 1996 Page 2 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS None None PUBLIC. I a. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued from February 12, 1996) At this point in the meeting, Commissioner Martens indicated a possible conflict of interest regarding Specific Plan No. 8, and said he would not participate in the discussions this evening. Entitlement: Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 8 /SP- 93 -1), General Plan Amendment No. 93 -1, Zone Change No. 93 -3 ( Prezone). 3) Applicant: Hidden Creek Ranch Partners Proposal: The Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan is intended to provide for the systematic implementation of the City's General Plan, within the framework of a comprehensive regulatory plan. The City's General Plan allows for a dwelling unit range between 2,400 and 3,221, and other appropriate land uses, for the Specific Plan site. A General Plan Amendment has been requested to reflect the final approved Specific Plan land use designations, circulation system, and environmental setting information on the City General Plan exhibits. A Zone Change has been requested to prezone the Specific Plan site. The proposed Specific Plan provides for up to 3,221 residential units located within four villages, which would be concentrated in the southern portion of the 4,323 -acre site and separated by open space. Village centers, schools, parks, and other public facilities will define the four villages. Other related and supporting uses would include a 18 -hole golf course with a 10.5 -acre City of Moorpark, 788 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA (805) 529 -8864, F_xt 228, Fax 529 -8270 CIZELIAMMMWCBe0311.PCM 1aMoAd10:33 am Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 11, 1996 clubhouse area, an equestrian center, and 29.2 acres of commercial uses. Approximately 10% of the residential units are proposed to be developed as affordable housing. The draft land use plan proposal is for 2,700 acres of the site to be designated as open space, of which 1,800 acres in the northerly portion of the site is proposed to be retained as natural open space. A Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation approval from the Ventura County Local Agency Formation Commission would be required before the City could formally approve zoning, subdivision maps, and permits for Specific Plan development. Location: Within the Moorpark Area of Interest in Ventura County, directly north of the City jurisdictional boundary near Moorpark College and the Campus Park and Varsity Park residential areas, and east and south of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Assessor Parcel No(s): 500 -0- 120 -035, -55, -065; 500 -0- 170 -135, -205, -255, -285, -295, -305, -315, -325, -335, -345, -355, -365, -375; 500 -0- 180 -045, -055, -075, -105, -115; 500 -0 -281 -035, -045, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215; 500 -0- 292 -065, -135, -145; 615 -0- 110 -205, -215; and 615 -0- 150 -185. Staff Recommendation: 1. Accept testimony from Traffic Study Preparer and discuss traffic and circulation issues; 2. Continue to accept public testimony on the Specific Plan and related entitlement; 3. Discuss additional mitigation opportunities and affordable housing implementation; 4. Continue the public hearing to March 25, 1996, to allow additional opportunity for public comments on the Specific Plan. The Public Hearing opened at 7:22 p.m. Richard Pool, Associated Transportation Engineers, 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 -1686. Mr. Pool summarized his evaluation of alternatives not included, as part of the Year 2010 minimum circulation system, but could provide additional capacity at selected intersections along the New Los Angeles Avenue -Los Angeles Avenue corridor. He described the options proposed. Option 1: Signal Phasing Modification would modify the City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA (805) 529 -6864, Ext. 228, Fax 529 -8270 C:10ELLAUMC INFCY00311.PCM 10brW10;33 am Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 11, 1996 4 existing signal phasing at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection to provide a left -turn phase on each approach and a northbound right -turn green arrow overlay with the westbound left -turn signal phase. Evaluations of the intersection operations during the critical A.M. peak hours suggest that the modified signal operation would improve the ICU ratio, but would not attain the LOS C objective. Option 2: Spring Road Extension would construct a circulation route of Spring Road from its present terminus through the adjacent specific plan area into the project site in the 2000 scenario instead of the Year 2010 scenario. (It does not have to be a direct link, but a collector /minor arterial route that will conveniently allow for traffic flow). It is estimated that this circulation link would divert approximately 20 percent of the project traffic from the Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive corridor. This option provides a more direct route into the downtown area. This option would lower the ICU ratio, but would not achieve the LOS C objective. However, this option combined with the signal phasing modification option would lower the ICU ratio to achieve the LOS C objective during the critical A.M. peak hour period. Option 3: Intersection Geometric Improvements consists of the standard intersection improvement (roadway widening and lane additions) at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection. To achieve LOS C during the A.M. time periods, the existing northbound right -turn lane converted to a free - flowing right -turn lane, the optional northbound through -right lane converted to a northbound through lane and a second westbound left -turn lane would need to be constructed. The northbound lane conversion would require that the existing south curb -line on Campus Park Drive, between Collins Drive and College View Avenue be relocated to the south to provide an eastbound acceleration lane for the northbound right -turn vehicles. This option combined with the signal phasing modification would lower the ICU ratio and achieve LOS B during the critical A.M. peak hour period. Option 4: Campus Park Drive (West) Extension would connect Campus Park Drive (west) to the project street system. It is estimated that this circulation link would divert approximately 15 percent of the project traffic from the Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive corridor to the Campus Park Drive (west) /Princeton Avenue corridor. This City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA (805) 529.6864, Ext. 228, Fax 529 -8270 csceuAa rrwc l I.Pom 1eMar962:47 pm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 11, 1996 Page 5 option would lower the ICU ratio, but would not achieve the LOS C objective. However, combined with the signal phasing modification option would lower the ICU ratio and achieve the LOS C objective during the critical A.M. peak hour period. Option 5: Campus Park Drive (West) and Spring Road Extensions is a combination of Option 2 and 4. It is estimated that these two links would divert approximately 35 percent of the project traffic from the Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive corridor, and lower ICU ratio, but would not achieve the LOS C objective. Combining this option with the signal phasing modification option would lower the ICU ratio and achieve the LOS C objective during the critical A.M. peak hour, and provide good circulation to the City. Option 6: Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive Roundabout is a reconstruction of the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection to provide a roundabout (an intersection control alternative). This option would be very compatible with the existing neighborhood land uses and traffic patterns. The primary design principle of a roundabout is to allow traffic to proceed at 20 to 25 miles per hour into an intersection with the entering traffic yielding to the circulation traffic, thus reducing average vehicle delays. This design would easily accommodate the Year 2000 and project peak hour traffic volumes, with average vehicle delays and within the LOS A range during the critical A.M. peak hour periods. Option 7: Lagoon /SR 118 Interchange is proposed as part of the project, development proposed for the project site by the Year 2000 would not require the construction of this freeway interchange by the Year 2000. The Lagoon insertion option would only benefit Specific Plan 8 and would not require the roundabout option, He suggested that the City negotiate for funds from the Lagoon option. Mr. Pool said because the Circulation Element was never evaluated during the General Plan Update process the City would have to decide what portion of the Circulation Element needed phasing. David Anderson, 12453 Beechgrove Court, addressed the Commission by saying that the proposed project was an urban sprawl prior to the City projects being completed. He said that currently the City does not have managed Cky of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA (805) 529-8884, EM. 228, Fax 529 -8270 CACEL1A%96PCh4N PC9B03tt.vcM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 11, 1996 Page 6 growth control and should avoid the mistake by placing this project in the urban growth preserve. The Broadway extension being considered conflicts with the County because of traffic impacts, and the Spring Road extension does not evaluate the traffic impacts. The Lagoon option does not discuss the impacts or environmental issues. He suggested that the City reference off -site road construction impacts, coordinate those impacts, and establish the timing for other projects to develop. Tim Kelly, 14357 E. Cambridge Street, addressed the Commission with his concerns of urban sprawls, and the loss of open space land use designations. The lack of an established trail system, too many proposed golf courses, and the impacts to wildlife. He suggested that Specific Plan 8 remain as an open space. Don Smith, 6997 Hastings Street, addressed the Commission on the proposed traffic circulation options. He opposed the Campus Park Drive West Extension. He suggested building the Lagoon extension to keep SP8 traffic circulation on their own roads. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Smith about the Spring Road option. Mr. Smith said that option would also impact local residences and opposed Spring Road crossing over the Happy Camp Canyon. Roseann Mikos, 14371 Cambridge Street, addressed the Commission on the options proposed for traffic circulation. The options proposed are inadequate she said, and nothing can be done to improve access to SP8. She said that Alamos Canyon was a better proposal, but unable to be built until Year 2010. She said that Caltrans needed further studies to be done. An interchange requires one mile between each interchange, and that would affect the Lagoon option and impact the lower portion of the project. Ms. Mikos suggested that Happy Camp Park be evaluated for impacts to the park. Ms. Mikos asked for Chairperson Torres thoughts about the project proposed. Chairperson Torres responded by saying that the project would not benefit Moorpark if it developed without it incorporating to Moorpark. His example was Home Acres. Ms. Mikos responded that Moorpark has control and if they denied the project, the County would also deny the City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA (805) 528-8884, Ext. 228, Fax 529 -8270 CACeunwBPCNNVCNMll.pCM ION4 033 a Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 11, 1996 Page 7 project. Commissioner Acosta restated Ms. Mikos comment. Ms. Mikos said the Cortez Knox Act provides guidelines which do not allow development where there are existing communities. Commissioner Acosta restated Ms. Mikos comment ". . . if Moorpark denies the project the County must also deny ?" Yes, Ms. Mikos replied. Bill Poler, 6863 Trojan Court, addressed the Commission about his opposition to the Campus Park Drive West extension. He said it was the developers cost saving effort at the sacrifice of the neighborhood and later passing the impacts onto the surrounding residents. Tim Saviar, A.I.A, 15594 Mallory Court, addressed the Commission. He said traffic impacts were not present during the General Plan Update process. He said the College and Campus Canyon School already impact the Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive intersection. He suggested that the developer be conditioned not to use the Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive intersection between the hours of seven and nine a.m.; and more control during the grading process, especially during high winds. He questioned how the sewer facilities would be impacted. He opposed the Lagoon access option. David Raskin, 6894 Chapman Place, addressed the Commission. A fifteen -year resident coming from the San Fernando Valley, contested the proposed development. He said that the Commission was responsible for traffic impacts and should protect the open space land use designations. Commissioner Miller said he has lived in Moorpark for forty -six years and the Campus Park homes where Mr. Raskin lives would have never been built if everyone felt like Mr. Raskin. Commissioner Acosta summarized his contentment in living in Moorpark. He suggested that Mr. Raskin and those who oppose this development purchase the land have it remain as an open space land use designation. Mr. Raskin said he could not understand how the Planning Commission could ever consider the project proposed. Chairperson Torres explained that the land owner has the right to develop his property and the Planning Commission provides public hearings to protect the rights of Moorpark. City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA (805) 529-8864, Ext. 228, Fax 529 -8270 C MLIAWBPWROPCO M11RCM 11^ Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 11, 1996 0 Gary Austin, 17512 Von Karman, Irvine. Mr. Austin addressed the Commission by summarizing the proposed options for accessing the project. He spoke about affordable housing and outline the possibilities of providing affordable housing as 1) two story rental units; 2) Granny Flats (on estate lots) ; 3) providing affordable housing in other areas of the City. Senior Planner, Debbie Traffenstedt said we're unable to prohibit but we can regulate it. Commissioner Miller asked that Ms. Traffenstedt define her reason. She said by State law, affordable housing requires very low, low, moderate, and high income categories. Mr. Austin described Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive intersection as bad engineering and the situation should be fixed to improve traffic flows. Commissioner May asked which option Caltrans preferred. Mr. Austin replied Alamos before the Lagoon access, along with environmental studies of the wetlands. The interchange would be built by an agreement between Caltrans and Unocal. However, Unocal opposes SP8 unless the Lagoon access is built. Commissioner May asked if SP8 connected to Alamos Canyon. Mr. Austin said yes, and questioned what SP3 has planned for access, and TR4565 is required to develop an interchange prior to their development. Commissioner May responded that a topographical map would be the key element to reviewing the proposed access options. Mr. Austin explained the difficulties in preparing a topo map. Commissioner May suggested that staff and the developer share the costs. Mr. Hare said, although it is within the Commission's rights to request additional exhibits, cost sharing is not the policy. The Planning Commission might consider other methods for providing exhibits. Commissioner May asked to receive as much information as possible. Chairperson Torres addressed Mr. Austin to provide the exhibits outlined in the a memorandum to Joan Kellly dated February 21, 1996. Senior Planner, Debbie Traffenstedt said Simi Valley's FEIR comments opposed the Alamos connector, unless the Lagoon option is also developed. City of Moorpark, 798 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA (805) 529.8884, EA 228, Fax 529 -8270 Q CELIAMMMKONPCOMI I.PCM 78Mnaa10:33 am Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 11, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Hare responded that the Traffic Engineer and Public Works had evaluated traffic at Collins Drive and Caltrans wants to turn it over to the City, but has not yet agreed to one of two options. Commissioner Miller asked about the financial impact report and when it will be ready for review. Debbie Traffenstedt said it is expected to proceed this week. CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the public hearing to March 25, 1996. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS None Ikira - �� The Planning Commission concurred to adjourned the meeting, the time being 9:15 p.m. ATTEST: Celia LaFleur, Secretary to the Planning Commission Chairman: Uro gnTorrm:e��s� City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA (805) 5298864, Ext. 228, Fax 529.8270 Q=UA%96PCA4NJKV=11.vcM 1eM.r9eno:33 m