HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2004 0120 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 20, 2004
Page 1
The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
January 20, 2004, 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 7:02 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Pozza 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, Assistant City
Engineer; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; Laura Stringer,
Senior Management Analyst; and Gail Rice, Administrative
Secretary.
Also attending the meeting were Dana Privitt from BonTerra
Consulting and Kendall Elmer and Cathy Lawrence from
Austin -Foust Associates.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
A. Consider Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
Mark DiCecco
Kipp Landis
David Lauletta
Robert Peskay
Scott Pozza
Commissioner Peskay nominated Commissioner Pozza for
Chair. There being no other nominations, Commissioner
Peskay moved that nominations be closed, Commissioner
DiCecco seconded the nomination, motion passed with a
unanimous voice vote.
Commissioner Pozza was selected as Chair by a
unanimous voice vote.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04 0120 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, Californ -a
Minutes of January 20, 2004
Paae 2
Commissioner DiCecco nominated Commissioner Landis for
Vice Chair, which Commissioner Landis declined. The
nomination died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Landis nominated Commissioner Lauletta
for Vice Chair. There being no other nominations,
Commissioner Landis moved that nominations be closed,
Commissioner Peskay seconded the nomination, motion
passed with a unanimous voice vote.
Commissioner Lauletta was selected as Vice Chair by a
unanimous voice vote.
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
Mr. Hogan requested that Item 9.A. be heard prior to Item
Nos. 8.A. and 8.B. Mr. Bobardt requested that Item Nos.
8.A. and 8.B. be heard together by the Commission.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2004.
MOTION: Vice Chair Lauletta moved and Commissioner Landis
seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular
Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2004, be approved. (Motion
carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Consider Recommendation to City Council on Desi
Guidelines for Solar Enerav Svstems
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004-
recommending to the City Council adoption of
Design Guidelines for Solar Energy Systems.
Scott Wolfe presented the staff report.
The Commission questioned the impact of these guidelines on
older systems. The Commission also recommended changes to
Section 2 to provide clarification and revision to item 9
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0120_pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 20, 2004
Paae 3
to address systems that become architectural elements of a
building.
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Vice Chair Lauletta
seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation and adopt
Resolution no. PC- 2004 -453, as amended.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2004 -453)
A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone
Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for
1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally
North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land
Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal
Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN:
500 -0 -120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -
145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, -
235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0- 110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
185) (Continued from January 6, 2004 Meeting)
Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public
comments and continue the agenda item with the public
hearing open to the February 3, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting.
David Bobardt gave a brief introduction of Items 8.A.
and 8.B and stated that staff would address ground
water and oil well issues at the February 3, 2004
regular Planning Commission meeting.
Dana Privitt of BonTerra Consultants and Kendall Elmer
of Austin Foust Associates presented the staff report
for Item 8.A.
At this point in the meeting, the Commission, by
consensus, determined that Items 8A and 8B should be
presented separately.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2009 Fina1\09 0120 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 20, 2004
Paae 4
The Commission questioned staff on Collins Drive and
Campus Park Drive alternatives and peak traffic
volumes.
Kim Kilkenny, applicant, commented on access road and
interchange issues, the swimming pool (swim lagoon)
adjacent to the lake, and an updated matrix comparing
the position of the applicant with that of staff on
various issues. He stated that he was still working
with staff on answers to the oil and ground water
issues.
The Commission questioned the applicant on
construction traffic and the size and capacity of the
swim lagoon.
Steve Nardi, resident, not in support of the proposal,
commented on freeway traffic issues, pollution and
declining quality of life, the amount of fill, and the
affect of construction traffic on the wetlands. He
stated that he preferred the extension of Campus Park
East.
Suzanne Wilson, resident, not in support of the
proposal, commented on the proposed retail aspects of
the project and provided comparison to Kohl's.
Thomas Duck, resident, not in support of the proposal,
questioned the benefit of million dollar homes, and
commented on traffic, tax burden and water issues,
including concerns about the impact on the aquifer
from "overpumping."
Cheri Risley Bohnert, resident, spoke in support of
the proposal, the proposed intersection improvements,
the retail component of the project at the size
originally proposed and the swim lagoon.
Diane Bentz, Simi Valley resident, not in support of
the proposal, stated that she represented Save Open
Space in Santa Susana Mountains. She commented that
the proposed North Park Village project is in the core
habitat of the Santa Susana Mountains and would
endanger the California gnatcatcher, and that she
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04 0120 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 20, 2004
Paae 5
supported two state agencies (Santa Monica Mountain
Conservancy and Fox Canyon Groundwater Management
Agency) that had requested additional information and
recirculation of the EIR.
Martyn Keats, resident, not in support of the
proposal, questioned the response to comments on the
traffic issues. He also commented on impacts to
federal funding for the widening of SR 23 and 118. He
noted a comparison of this project to the previously
proposed Ahmanson Ranch project. He stated that the
negative impacts far outweigh the positive.
Janet Murphy, resident, not in support of the
proposal, commented on ground water and oil well
issues, and the necessity of a study of the Fox Canyon
aquifer. She commented that there should be
coordination of the traffic impact studies for
Moorpark College and North Park Village.
James Roller, resident, not in support of the
proposal, stated that the developer's presentation
showed a continued policy of inadequacy and commented
on previous the developer's performance. He
referenced the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management
Agency representative's comments. He commented on the
adequacy of the traffic study, parks, schools and the
need for a Phase II study on the quality of the soil.
Tim Saivar, resident, not in support of the proposal,
provided a comparison to the Ahmanson Ranch project
and discussed access concerns. He commented on traffic
mitigation proposals and peak hour trips.
Robert Haff, resident, spoke in support of the
proposal, commenting on proposed amenities and
relationship to the City's growth.
Lisa Leal, resident, spoke in support of the proposal,
opposed a second access road, and supported the
proposed swim lagoon, school, fire station, new homes
and low income housing.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0120_pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 20, 2004
Paae 6
Judith A. Roller, resident, not in support of the
proposal, commented on Collins Drive traffic, and a
Los Angeles Times article regarding a reduction in
traffic funds. She expressed concerns for emergency
vehicle access during peak traffic. She commented that
she would like to see approval of the freeway
interchange before the development is approved.
Toni Solano, resident, not in support of the proposal,
commented on the Specific Plan's stated goals, the
traffic consultant's use of old reference data, and
concerns with traffic counts and calculations.
Dorothy Ventimiglio, resident, not in support of the
proposal, commented on concerns with traffic at the
Collins Drive and Campus Park intersection and the M &M
project. She commented that contamination of the
ground had not been addressed, concern for testing of
water and soil and proximity of the project to the
landfill.
Jim Swing, resident, stated his concerns regarding the
City's attitude in addressing the issues raised by the
speakers.
Two (2) written statement cards were submitted and
both were in favor of the project. The statements will
be included in the record.
Mr. Hogan reminded the public that they could speak on
a matter, or submit a written statement card, not
both.
The Commission questioned the applicant on buildout
figures, clarification on improvements on Collins Road
and Campus Park Drive, timing of improvements,
improvements in relation to traffic, first occupancy,
and issues related to the college.
The Commission questioned staff on the levels and
hours of traffic, the intersection in the year 2020,
ground water and oil issues, and strategizing and
consolidating issues raised at previous meetings.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0120_pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 20, 2004
Page 7
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Vice -Chair
Lauletta seconded a motion to approve staff
recommendation for Item 8.A.
(Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
B. Consider a Public Hearing to Accept Oral Comments on
Chapter 3.3b (Freeway Traffic) of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No.
2001 -01: North Park Village and Nature Preserve
Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, accept
public testimony on Chapter 3.3b of the Revised Draft
EIR (Freeway Traffic), close the public hearing and
refer the comments to staff for preparation of
responses.
Kendall Elmer, Austin -Foust Associates, presented the
staff report for Item 8.B. and provided highlights of
the mainline freeway analysis prepared at the request
of Caltrans.
The Commission questioned staff on the supplemental
freeway impact analysis, growth projections for other
Ventura County cities, buildout in the year 2020,
impacted freeway segments, assessments based on level
of service, planning and operational analyses, 2007
projections, and the role of the Southern California
Association of Governments in regional transportation
planning and funding.
Chair Pozza opened the public hearing.
Kim Kilkenny, applicant, commented on the analysis
done on private projects was requested by Caltrans.
The Commission questioned applicant on population
growth in market demand.
Toni Solano, resident, commented on concerns of the
impact of freeway traffic backing up to surface
streets and her observations of existing traffic
patterns due to Moorpark College.
Judith Roller, was unavailable to speak.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0120 _pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 20, 2004
Paae 8
Chair Pozza closed the public hearing.
The Commission had no discussion.
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner
DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff
recommendation.
(Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
8. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None.
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
(Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to continuation.)
A. February 3, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting:
• General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change No.
2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 (North Park)
B. February 17, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting:
• Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2003 -02,
General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone Change No.
2003 -02 and Tentative Tract Map No. 5425 (Shea
Homes, Inc.)
Barry Hogan discussed future agenda items and noted
that responses to comments on Item 8.B. will be
included with response to comments in the EIR.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04 0120 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of January 20, 2004
PaQe 9
10. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Vice Chair Lauletta
seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting.
(Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m.
Scott Po hair
ATTEST:
B rry n Hog n
C mm ty D opment Director
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0120 _pcm.doc