Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2003 0916 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on September 16, 2003, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director, led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Pozza, Vice Chair DiCecco and Chair Landis were present. Commissioners Lauletta and Peskay were absent. Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community Development Director; Walter Brown, City Engineer; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; Dana Privitt, BonTerra Consulting; and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Regular Meeting Minutes of August 19, 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Vice Chair DiCecco seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of August 19, 2003, be approved. (Unanimous 3:0 voice vote. Commissioners Lauletta and Peskay were absent.) S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \03 0916 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 2 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. 2002 -452) A. Consider a Public Hearing to Accept Oral Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 2001 -01: North Park Village and Nature PrP.Prvr- Staff Recommendations: 1) Continue to accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Refer the comments to staff for preparation of responses for the Final Environmental Impact Report. (Continued from August 19, 2003, public hearing open.) Dave Bobardt presented a brief background on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Commission had no questions of staff. Chair Landis opened the public hearing. John Dyke, resident, stated that when Campus Hills was developed there was not a lot of dust, that the project will add an extra off -ramp and a lake, along with some paddleboats, and will offer a nice atmosphere. He commented that in Westlake Village you cannot use the lake if you are not a member. He also commented that it would be nice to have a fire station, as there is not one in that area. He stated that he is in favor of the retail shops, and of the City providing affordable housing. Chris Childrem, resident, stated that people are afraid of growth, but the North Park development offers a solution to the shortage of homes, yet offers many amenities that everyone could enjoy. She commented that the developer addressed many concerns, but that the City should now take the vote to the people. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 3 Susie Jacobs, resident, stated that she had read the Draft EIR which was thorough and it had mitigated the impacts to the environment. She commented that the project would benefit her and others in the community by taking a thousand cars out of the area and serve the North Park Village community. She also commented that a sports park, gymnasium and school would improve her life, as well as, the children's lives. She stated that the fire station and helicopter helipad were nice, and that the Commission should take this project to the people for a vote. Pierce Verleur, business owner, stated that he had not made up his mind yet, and that the EIR was confusing. He commented that the traffic section had glaring deficiencies. He expressed concern about the intersections, and that the freeway interchange comes only after Phase A is completed, and he suggested that the developer be required to put money in escrow. He expressed his concern about economic conditions, the housing market taking a turn for the worse preventing the developer from finishing the project. He referenced that the project depends on adjacent, undeveloped land and plans for that development should be included in this Draft EIR, especially the wildlife movement corridor (Alamos Canyon). He commented further that the Draft EIR did not address possible endangered species, the unforeseen legal battles between environmentalists and developers, which could result in another Ahmanson Ranch fight. He commented on the financial plan, stating that it did not mention ranger costs, maintenance of the 52 -acre lake and the source and replacement of water for the lake. He concluded by requesting that the Draft EIR not be accepted, and that it be rewritten responsibly. Martyn Kents, business owner, stated there were several issues, and that he needed more time to review it. He commented that there was no discussion of groundwater contamination and overpumping, nor any discussion about the impact on the landfill in Simi Valley or increased enrollment at Moorpark High. He commented that there was no mention of the impact on biological resources, such as, gnatcatchers and Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 4 raptors. He stated that there was incomplete disclosure on the amount of grading, which is a violation against the City's Hillside Ordinance, that there were discrepancies between the electronic and the paper version of the Draft EIR appendix, and that the project is not in compliance with the City's OSCAR element. He stated that his biggest concern would be the negative impact the project would have on the small town environment, with 2,400 homes already approved to be built, which would bring 13,200 new residents, an increase of over 400. He concluded that unregulated growth is not necessarily progress, and that our legacy will be a sea of stucco from Simi Valley to Thousand Oaks. Doug Wilson, resident, stated that he had problems with the Draft EIR. He commented on the timing for the grading and completion for Phases A, B and C, and the necessary approvals before grading begins. He stated that the Draft EIR was a "sales job" and he was not sold. He commented that this project would erase the slopes and asked about the Hillside Ordinance and changes to the best view in town. He commented that over pumping of groundwater in dry years would "morph" Moorpark into a Simi Valley. He concluded that there needs to be another Draft EIR brought forth to "sell" the people. Tom McKenzie, resident, stated that growth was inevitable and the project has many amenities that are positive, along with uncertainties. He commented that the ambiguities needed to be addressed, that traffic, first and foremost, is unbelievable, that there is a lack of infrastructure, and another off -ramp to this development (Phase A) would increase by ten times the current 3,500 people using it, and that the construction traffic during Phase A would last for 4 -6 years. He also commented on Phases B & C, clearing the land, and groundwater. Randy Griffith, resident, stated that he had experience in environmental documents and with CEQA. He stated that his main concern is groundwater and commented that Ventura County Waterworks District may Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 5 need to rely on overpumping. He commented that the "Fox Canyon Agency" stated that overpumping has significant impacts which should be addressed and that the project impacts the Fox Canyon Outcrop. He also stated that water quality and hydrology have not been addressed sufficiently. He commented that there are two versions of Appendix G. He commented on the use of potable water and groundwater and stated the lake draws too much valuable water, and using potable water was not a good choice. He concluded by stating that the Draft EIR is deficient and should be redone and recirculated to the public because there is insufficient mitigation of wildlife. Tom Ristau, Assistant City Manager for Fillmore but representing himself as a resident of the area, stated he does not support SOAR, is in support of growth and his main concern was traffic mitigation and inconsistencies in the document. He commented that the Specific Plan references a nature preserve and questioned how this would be accomplished. He commented on the nature preserve and recommended a Greenbelt Ordinance by Moorpark's City Council. He commented that Campus Park Drive and Collins Road westbound already exceed the level of service based on a traffic study taken a year ago and this project would add more morning and afternoon traffic to the intersection. He commented that he would support the project and that Moorpark could use the amenities. He commented that the City should require a development agreement at a minimum and a performance and surety bond before work starts. He also commented on an inconsistency, wherein the Specific Plan states Phase 1 is 500 units in two parts and that the Plan hanging on the wall stated Phase A is multi - units. He concluded with a request that there be an interchange added. James Roller, resident, commented on the perils of unbridled expansion and urban sprawl, along with clean air, free travel, natural open space and wildlife, adding that not all of the residents will use the vernal pool nor watch the blue herons. He stated that he appreciates sunsets and hawks on streetlights, that Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 6 San Fernando and Simi Valley have lost those items and those are things we all share and cherish. Thomas Roller, resident, commented on the potential traffic problems and that the City's concentration should be on the 8,000 more cars on this road per day. The Draft EIR does not address traffic on Collins Drive and commented that Collins Drive has more problems than could be handled and requested the Commission take a closer look at the issue. Dawn Mortara, resident, stated that the Draft EIR was overwhelming, the Brown Act allows for open discussion without the Planning Commission and that a review of the negative comments should be included in another revision of the Draft EIR and recirculated to the public. She commented on the water situation, overpumping of groundwater and other contradictions in the Draft EIR with regards to grading, building, one phase having to be complete before the interchange would be built and stated that the negative impacts should be mitigated. Janet Murphy, resident, stated that she is one of the study groups. She commented on biology, wildlife resources, Phase A grading and development, the wildlife corridor and targeting the animals, the vernal pool, and safeguarding the natural resources. She commented that if the developer goes bankrupt the residents would be left with a dust bowl. Marshall Chase, resident, stated that people are selfish who do not want construction of new homes. He commented that he has lived in eight different areas and the City is developing one of the nicest with open space, parks and schools, which will be a positive addition to Moorpark. He stated we should not compare this project to the San Fernando Valley, he would not be in favor of development on farmland, most of the items in the Draft EIR can be solved and he would love to live in this project. Scott Newell, resident, stated that his major concern is traffic and commented on the development approved Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 7 at Collins Drive and Campus Park which will increase traffic. He stated that this project should not move forward without an off -ramp first. Linda Shishino -Cruz, resident, stated that traffic is an issue and that the Draft EIR does not address the issue. She commented that if Phase A is completed without the interchange there is no guarantee that we will ever get it. She stated that she had a record from the Department of Fish and Game, which states the area is a proposed habitat for the gnatcatcher, dated April 2003, and it was not included in the Draft EIR. She commented that if phase B & C are completed, and the lake goes in and is filled with tap water, that water rates will probably increase for the residents and the Draft EIR does not address drought conditions. She also commented that there are hazards for the children if the sports park goes in based on traffic, potential for oil seepage and other environmental hazards. John Shishino -Cruz, resident, stated he had a concern with health & safety issues. He commented that the proposed area is within an area adjacent to a Federal super fund site, the Simi Valley Landfill, and any building should be done toward the western edge of the project area. He also commented that this is an oil producing area which already has oil seepage and he is unable to determine if the crude contains carcinogenic and mutagenic substances. He stated that with land movement, more seepages could occur, and asked if there are active pumps on this site, and whether they would be sealed or left active. He stated that parks being built in this area should cause concern for the parents. He continued his comments to include Valley Fever, which he stated, results from disturbing previously undisturbed soil. Mitigation in the Draft EIR covers the workers but not the residents with regards to the high winds. Cheri Risley Bohnert, resident, commented on the use of dirt bikes in the area. She stated this was how San Fernando Valley got started, one little piece at a time, and that the off -ramp would be completed when Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 8 the 500th home is sold. She also commented on the lake being filled with recyclable water, not drinking water. She stated that she would like to preserve Campus Hills area and that she liked the security of nearby shopping and other things. She stated concerns that the off -ramp would not be built without a big project, about Valley Fever and that she thought it was a well -done project. Lisa Leal, resident, stated that Moorpark never offered to build an off -ramp. She commented that the school and fire station give prestige to Moorpark and the lake would be a place to go for fun, for a lot of people. She commented that the developer is not touching three - quarters of the wildlife, and is also accommodating low income housing. She stated that she would like the project to go to the people for a vote, and keep the money in Moorpark. Tim Rosevear, from San Fernando Valley. He commented on traffic at Collins and Campus Park Drive, that Phase A would destroy wildlife habitat and on the thirteen private parks, that only three are open to the public and ten are restricted to private communities. He stated that the developer must put up a bond to fund the project or the City could end up in a predicament like Los Angeles County, which cannot get funds. He asked how Caltrans would fund the interchange improvements. Five (5) written statement cards were Robert Frank, Dorene Reed, Eugene Reed, and Vic Norman. Their statements will the record. received from: Denise Norman be included in Chair Landis closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. Mr. Bobardt stated that responses to the public comments presented will be in the Final EIR. The Commission asked Mr. Hogan if he would outline the next few steps in the project. a Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Pacre 9 Mr. Hogan provided a brief overview of the process, and stated there would be a review program established with the Planning Commission at the October 7th workshop. Mr. Bobardt explained that the consultant would address the comments on the Draft EIR and the Planning Commission would hold public hearings on the Final EIR as well as the entitlements. Mr. Hogan commented that the October 7, 2003 meeting was open to the public. MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Vice Chair DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff recommendations. (Motion carried with a unanimous 3:0 voice vote. Commissioners Lauletta and Peskay were absent.) DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: A. October 7, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting • Cancellation B. October 21, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: • Conditional Use Permit No. 706; Major Modification No. 1 - National Ready Mix • RPD 2003 -03; -04; -05; Minor Modification No. 1 (SP- 2; TR 5045) ; Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -01 - Pardee Homes Mr. Hogan announced that the October 7, 2003 meeting would be a public hearing to begin the review of the North Park Specific Plan and Nature Preserve project and provided a brief overview of future agenda items. The Commission requested as a future agenda to invite the Superintendent of Schools to discuss the School Master Plan. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 10 Mr. Hogan indicated that he would see if that could be arranged. 11. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner Pozza seconded a motion to adjourn (Motion carried with a Commissioners Lauletta and P The meeting was adjourned at A EST: arry Ho n omm ty ev opment Director moved and Vice Chair DiCecco the meeting. unanimous 3:0 voice vote. sskay were absent.) 8:42 p.m.