Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2003 0819 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 19, 2003 Paae 1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on August 19, 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 7:05 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Peskay led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Lauletta, Peskay and Pozza, Vice Chair DiCecco and Chair Landis were present. Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community Development Director; Walter Brown, City Engineer; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner; Dana Privitt, BonTerra Consulting; and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: Mr. Hogan stated the comment will be extended for another 24, 2003. Oral comments will if they fill out a speaker record; and with Commission later in this agenda will be September 16, 2003 meeting. period for the North Park EIR thirty (30) days to September still be heard from the public card their name will go on approval, the public hearing continued to the Commission's 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Regular Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2003. MOTION: Vice Chair DiCecco moved and Commissioner Lauletta seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2003, be approved. (Unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \030819 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 19, 2003 Paae 2 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. 2002 -451) A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 98 -01, Zone Change No. 98 -01, Tentative Tract Map No. 5130, and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 98 -02, Located on the East Side of Walnut Canyon Road, South of and Immediately Adjacent to the Ventura County Waterworks District Facilities, and Rescission of Resolution Nos. PC- 2001 -408, 409 and 410, on the Application of Moorpark 150 LLC (SunCal Companies) (APN - 512 -0- 010 -01, 05 & 06; 512 -0- 020 -01 & 03; 512- 0- 030 -01 & 02; 512 -0- 040 -03, 04, 07, 13, 14 & 24; 512- 0- 050 -14 & 35) Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2003- recommending to the City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; approval of General Plan Amendment 1998- 01, Zone Change 1998 -01, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 1998 -02 and Tentative Tract Map No. 5130 with recommended Conditions of Approval; and rescission of Resolution No. PC- 2001 -408, Resolution No. PC- 2001 -409, Resolution No. PC- 2001 -410 in their entirety. Scott Wolfe presented the staff report. The Commission questioned staff regarding the initial study, 118 bypass, extension of Spring Road, Walnut Canyon Road, number of architectural designs, berm requirement, topography, tree removal, mitigation fee, property line wall, sidewalk improvements, turn pockets, time table for construction, project entrance, improvements at High Street, impact fees for schools, and access. Chair Landis opened the public hearing. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \030819 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 19, 2003 Paae 3 Ed Pickett, (Moorpark 150 LLC; SunCal Companies), Applicant. Discussed the Commissions concerns on public service fees. He spoke on participation in Walnut Canyon Road and Spring Road improvements, easements for sidewalks, homes on the ridgeline, architectural elevation mix, thirty -six (36') foot wide entry and access to the project. The Commission also questioned the applicant regarding timetables, MUSD fees and access. David Dauch, resident, had questions regarding drainage and a bike path connection to Valley Road. Mr. Brown addressed the questions regarding drainage and Mr. Hogan stated there would not be a bike path connection. Chair Landis closed the public hearing. The Commission's discussion project, timing for completion, of Spring Road, improvement b Canyon Road, design styles, boundary homes to 2 -story and allow parking on both sides. included; access to the financing for and extension onds, entrance from Walnut berms, converting eastern 36 foot wide entrance to MOTION: Chair DiCecco moved and Commissioner Peskay seconded a motion to approve staff recommendations and adopt Resolution No. PC- 2003 -451, with amendments to Condition 4.g "to allow two -story houses styles on the eastern and western boundaries of the project." (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) At this point in the meeting, the Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. B. 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 ID rACArva Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and refer the comments to staff for preparation of responses for the Final S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \030819 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 19, 2003 Paue 4 Environmental Impact Report; and 2) Continue the item, public hearing open, to September 16, 2003, for acceptance of additional public testimony during the extended public review period. Dave Bobardt presented the staff report and introduced Dana Privitt from BonTerra Consulting who gave a detailed presentation. She discussed environmental impacts, design alternatives, unmitigatable impacts, and loss of grazing land. The Commission questioned staff regarding three phases referenced in the Specific Plan, as only Phase A and "build -out" are mentioned in the EIR. Chair Landis opened the public hearing. Thomas Duck, resident, stated that his text had been written prior to being informed of extension of the public review and comment period. He commented on the Messenger project of 3,500 homes and compared North Park Village with that project. He commented regarding the DEIR review, that the public's feelings could not be expressed with the 6 -week time allotted, and that the timing was suspicious. He commented that North Park Village was in the project for the money. He also stated that he had traffic and construction concerns. Comments were also submitted to staff in writing. Dawn Mortara, resident, thanked the Commission for extending the comment period. She stated that she had many issues and some were the same issues that were raised for the Hidden Creek project. She stated that her other concerns were about the animal corridors and wildlife impacts which are significant and that the EIR admits this. She commented that the mitigation is inadequate for the wildlife and stated that if wildlife mitigation fails, there is no "Plan B." She stated that Alamos Canyon is a haven, and that Simi Valley is considering a project there, too. She stated that she does not see the greenbelts being preserved and asked about the guidelines for orderly development. Her closing comment was against annexing this land to Moorpark and that she would like to see S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \030819 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 19, 2003 Pacae 5 more infill projects, rather than this type of project. Doug Wilson, resident, asked whether the 3,500 trees to be preserved would be preserved in place or moved out and replaced. He also stated his concern about equal access to the site and behind the gates. Jim Crawford, resident, stated that he teaches at Moorpark College. He expressed his concern about pollution, which was missing from the DEIR. He stated that there will be light pollution affecting the astronomy observatory and that that accidents will definitely increase at Collins and Campus Park Drive because there is too much traffic already. His final comment was that the project is ridiculous. John Roberts, resident, stated the key to the public's concerns is addressing the traffic, which is an unacceptable impact; and regarding freeway access, he asked if a new offramp is guaranteed. He asked if the applicant has provided a bond. He stated when Griffin Homes went bankrupt, there were 80 lots sitting abandoned and dust continually kept blowing. He asked if the City was going to start eminent domain proceedings with Unocal. He stated that he would like a guarantee before anyone starts building anything. He further stated that the intersection of Collins and Campus Park Drive is failing now and needs to be upgraded and that 500 homes and a recreation area will produce too much traffic. Jeffrey Brown, resident, discussed traffic concerns, construction, the impact of grading, dust, and the negative impact to sight lines around his home. He commented on the sports field being lit up at night. He asked if there are procedures for filing grievances in place, and if there was a bond for the freeway in case a decision is made further into the project that it cannot be completed. He stated that there were drainage issues with the property and that he would like to see more explanations and specific explanations of everything. He commented that the project needed a much larger buffer zone. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \030819 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 19, 2003 Pacae 6 Tom Collin, relinquished his opportunity to speak. Mary Roberts, resident, stated that 15,000 students equal 30,000 trips and that she would follow -up with a letter that would include her concerns. She stated that the sports park will create traffic and that the beautiful valley (ravine) will be filled with dirt. She stated that she is against the grass fields versus the existing valleys. She commented that the offramp needs to go in before 500 homes are built and the City should be sure this is not considered at the end of the process. She asked if the developer will be able to negotiate with Unocal and concluded by asking the Planning Commission if eminent domain would become a part of the project. Tim Saivar, resident, agreed with the extension of the environmental review period. He questioned the 2007 LOS analysis for Collins and Campus Park. He stated that he is concentrating on the traffic report and is also concerned about the volume of grading. He said that the rest of the citizens of Moorpark should be allowed to consider this project, and that he City needs a better study. He said that his short range concern is Campus Park Drive and Collins Avenue, which is a big concern. He stated that the morning traffic level of service, including Phase A shows that this intersection is not big enough. He asked the Commission what they were planning to do about the issue. He commented that the intersection at Collins and Campus Park is at a Level E. He stated that the traffic report has inconsistencies and compared this project to Hidden Creek. He asked when the studies were done and stated that he felt they were done in the summer. Five (5) written statement Suzanne Wilson, Kerry Wilson and Charles R. Brinkman, IV. included in the record. cards were received from: Tim Saivar, Tim Rosevear Mr. Hogan stated that if the comments, they may send the via e -mail, regular mail, Their statements will be public wishes to submit m to him or Dave Bobardt or they may attend the S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \030819 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 19, 2003 Pacte 7 Planning Commission meeting on September 16, 2003, and all comments will be addressed and /or responded to as part of the Final EIR. The Commission questioned staff, if the public is not able to attend the September 16 meeting, would there also be a September 2, meeting. Mr. Hogan commented that it was up to the Commission if they would like to continue the public hearing for comments to the DEIR to September 2 or September 16, 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Commissioner Lauletta seconded a motion to approve staff recommendations to continue the public hearing open to September 16, 2003. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: A. September 2, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting a. National Ready Mix Conditional Use Permit b. SP -2, Pardee Homes Residential Planned Development Permit Applications Mr. Hogan advised the Commission that the one item continued, Item 8.B. would be heard at the September 16, 2003 meeting, and provided a brief overview of future agenda items. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \030819 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 19, 2003 Paae 8 11. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Commissioner Peskay seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ATE' E IS T : B rry .' Hog a mmu 'ty De el pment Director S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \030819 pcm.doc