Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2004 0406 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on April 6, 2004, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Pozza called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Lauletta led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Commissioners DiCecco, Landis and Peskay, Vice Chair Lauletta and Chair Pozza were present. Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; Walter Brown, Assistant City Engineer; Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analyst; Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner, Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner; Steven Valdez, Planning Technician; and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: Commissioner Peskay commented on an article in the Los Angeles Times regarding an upcoming conference ( "House Divided ") on regional planning and housing issues in Ventura County. 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Regular Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2004. MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2004, be approved. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406_pcm.doc 7 No Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. 2004 -455) A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone Change No. 2003 -02, Vesting Tentative Tract No 5425, and Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 2003- 02, a Request to Subdivide Approximately 15 Acres for Condominium Purposes to Develop 102 Duplex-Style and Detached Condominium Dwellings and a Recreation Facility, Located at the Terminus of Fremont Street, South of Los Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118) and East of Majestic Court, on the Application of Shea Homes, Inc.; (506 -0- 020 -23, 506 -0- 020 -31, 506 -0- 020 -32, 506- 0- 020 -33, 506 -0- 020 -34) (Continued from March 16, 2004 Meeting) Staff Recommendation: 1) Accept public testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditional approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone Change No. 2003 -03, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5425, and Residential Planned Development No. 2003 -03. Joseph Fiss presented the agenda report. The Commission questioned staff on Millard Street and conditions relating to fence heights. Jeff Palmer, with Shea Homes, applicant, stated that the applicant concurred with the conditions of approval and that he was available to answer questions. Ro Hawkinson, resident, representing the Fremont Street homeowner's group, commented on the wall height around the property and requested that it be a minimum of eight feet high. The Commission confirmed with staff that the conditions would cover Mr. Hawkinson's concern on the height of the wall. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406 — pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paqe 3 One statement card was submitted which was neutral on the project. The statement will be included in the record. Chair Pozza closed the public hearing. The Commission questioned staff on the ingress /egress to Los Angeles Avenue, the private recreation area located at the end of Fremont Street, installation of a gate that separates the Arroyo from the project, front yard landscaping prior to occupancy, established time limits in the conditions on the back yard landscaping, side yard clearances of not less than three (3') feet, adjusting the minimum yard setbacks (add 3 feet) to pads 63 and 64 by reducing the backyard setbacks on pads 67 through 70 to the 13 foot minimum, and extension of Majestic Avenue to connect with Moorpark Avenue. MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) B. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02, 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 March 16, 2004 Meeting) Staff Recommendation: 1) Continue to accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Accept the requested change to the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 with revisions, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 4 David Bobardt gave the staff presentation. Mr. Bobardt discussed a proposed change to the Specific Plan relating to a future western access, adding Condition Number 21 to stamp page 120 in the packet. He commented on revisions to timing of certain roadway improvements proposed by the applicant. He also discussed a proposed change to the Mitigation Monitoring Program related to Section 3.4 Air Quality. He recommended that Condition a) 2. be changed to reflect cessation of grading activities at wind speeds greater than fifteen (15) miles per hour rather than twenty -five (25) miles per hour. Walter Brown, Assistant City Engineer, provided a synopsis of dust suppression measures. Kim Kilkenny, applicant, commented on the draft EIR and Specific Plan process and provided a review of the benefits of the plan, including: the fact that seventy -five percent of the plan is set aside for open space, nature preserve and parks; that the plan provides a permanent open space buffer between Moorpark and Simi Valley; that the plan preserves over seventy -five percent of regulated hillsides; preservation of major wildlife corridors and eighty - two percent of mature trees; and the project amenities, the 52 -acre recreational lake, lakeside trail, expanded lakeside park, fire and safety service, expanded school site. He stated that the applicant was committed to construct improvements at Campus Park Drive and Collins Drive and a new interchange. He discussed status of groundwater and water runoff issues. Lynn Shackleford, resident, spoke in support of the proposal, commenting that he was sure that there were a number of people outside the area as well as people in Moorpark would like to see the project built. He stated that if the project does not get built that he would consider moving outside of Moorpark. James Carpenter, resident, spoke in support of the proposal, commenting that he and a group of people in the Villa Del Arroyo Mobile Home Park would like to see this project move forward; and that North Park had worked hard with staff to offer satisfaction to the S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 5 public; and that the project would be beneficial to the residents and people outside of the city, He stated the public's concerns had been addressed and he would like to see it on the ballot. Robert Hamburg, resident, not in support of the proposal, commented that traffic was only going to increase, that current highway improvements had been put on hold and the project would bring people to the parks, increasing traffic. He commented on the current lack of service in the area, causing people to drive to obtain services. He also commented on the impact of the recent fires in October and access problems. James Roller, resident, not in support of the proposal, commented on the effects of valley fever and the impact from construction activities disturbing the soil and concerns that CALOSHA would not adequately address the issue and effect on residents in the surrounding community. He stated that a Phase 2 environmental study was necessary to adequately address the issue. Randy Griffith, resident, not in favor of the proposal, commented on what he considered several discrepancies with the ground water analysis report, including: basin plan water quality table, Table 5 - groundwater data, treated storm water, lake water quality and lake - source water quality. He stated that the report had not been adequately reviewed. He expressed concern about the project moving forward until the issues were addressed. Martyn Keats, resident, not in support of the proposal, commented that the project is a threat to the rural nature of this city. He stated the western entrance is not part of the EIR and had not been proposed, studied or discussed. He commented on property rights and zoning, freeway interchange and open space issues. Lisa Leal, resident, in favor of this proposal, commented on the wildlife and nature preserve, alternatives to the project such as piecemeal development, and North Park's dedication to the City of a large portion of the property. She stated if S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 6 private ownership occurs, the amenities will not be offered. North Parks offers solutions, relaxation, industry and jobs. She suggested that people should look at the website. Twelve written statement cards were submitted and all twelve were in favor of the project. The statements will be included in the record. Mr. Bobardt responded to questions related to the report on groundwater, stating that Kennedy Jenks worked very closely with the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, which had accepted the report. Chair Pozza questioned Mr. Keats' reference to EIR implications regarding a potential for a western access. Mr. Bobardt responded that staff considered whether such an access road would have any growth- inducing implications. He noted that due to the use and zoning of surrounding land as agriculture and open space, and the fact that the property is outside the City, Sphere of Influence, and CURB Boundary, growth - inducement would be speculative and the issue would appropriately be dealt with if development plans are ever submitted for the property to the west, which is currently outside the City boundary and Sphere of Influence. Chair Pozza closed the public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation, as amended. Chair Pozza invited discussion on the Motion. Commissioner Peskay's comments included the following items for consideration: • commendation to staff on work done and Mr. Bobardt's portioning of issues • the benefit of public input to the project • satisfaction that cleanup related to petroleum issues has been sufficiently addressed • satisfaction that water quality and quantity has been reconciled S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 7 • satisfaction that construction of the freeway interchange is guaranteed and applicant will collateralize the property for the guarantee • concern with the projected impact on the 118 and 23 freeways • the pressure in California to build homes, which will create the traffic congestion with or without the proposed project and that the issue needs to be addressed as a regional problem • recommendation for east /west access to the project • concern that the EIR did not offer an analysis of the fiscal and financial impact of this project on the City and his understanding that the previous developer could not offer a positive net revenue versus expenditure analysis. Commissioner DiCecco's comments included the following items for consideration: • a detailed discussion of population trends, regional and local housing needs, the effect on existing families in Moorpark and quality of life issues • the general public's negative perception of developers and the relationship to housing demands, economic considerations and profit margins • constructive public input and comments versus criticism without benefit of alternative suggestions or recommendations other than "do nothing" • Commission's role in the review process including diversity of backgrounds and expertise, commitment to Moorpark and the importance of public input in the process • the current urban nature of Moorpark and issues relating to property owner development rights • sensitive design should focus the "built" environment in as compact an area as possible, leaving balance in a natural state S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Final \04_0406_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 8 • the need for regional solutions to traffic issues, and better utilization of underutilized transit system, Metrolink, or work in Moorpark and avoid the commute • although the developer followed the city's direction on housing mix and density, and has committed not to alter the housing mix which has the potential to confuse the voters, Commissioner DiCecco stated that he was in favor of a variety of housing types, including multi - family, smaller lots or cluster detached single family and especially mixed use. • Commissioner DiCecco encouraged that affordable housing be located in multiple places both on -site and offsite, if necessary; and stressed that the affordable housing should be built, not replaced by in -lieu fees. • letters and comments received rarely mentioned 2,100 acres of open space and included a suggestion from one speaker that the State purchase the property like it did for Ahmanson Ranch, which depleted $150 Million of a $180 Million fund setup for purchase of parkland statewide • the proposed open space also creates a buffer for Moorpark from Simi Valley, allows for wildlife corridors, and prevents the San Fernando Valley - ization of the area • approval of this project would allow Moorpark control and planning for the area rather than piece meal and spot zoning development that could occur if the builder not voluntarily decided to come to the City. The builder has demonstrated showed good faith, professionalism and fortitude • the EIR addressed important impacts of the project Vice Chair Lauletta's comments included the following items for consideration: • the Planning Commission's role in making recommendations to City Council S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Final \04 0406 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 9 • Key issues include the 21 modifications to the Specific Plan (Exhibit C) and changes to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan • Staff identification of major /macro issues: ✓ maintenance of suburban rural character ✓ preserving natural features ✓ agricultural areas and hillsides ✓ residential product mix ✓ availability of public services ✓ buffer area and preservation of vegetation ✓ traffic impacts ✓ public transportation ✓ hazard mitigation ✓ noise compatible • Items for City Council consideration include: ✓ need for extensive "state of the art mitigation efforts to avoid oil abandonment problems both during and after construction, and to avoid the potential for exposure to the developer and the City ✓ habitat maintenance plan should have a monitoring and reporting program to ensure that it is functioning the way it was intended ✓ east /west connector makes sense ✓ provide as specific a description of the project as possible when it goes to the voters, including additional detail on proposed park and recreation facilities to let the voters know what they will be getting, and put the developer on notice as to what is expected ✓ concern with school district going to maximum capacity, and suggests that a supplemental site be considered to allow for an future high school site. ✓ concern that potential hazards to public or S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Final \04_0406_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 10 private facilities that are below the lake level has not been sufficiently addressed ✓ phasing could be critical to success and the need to identify performance requirements and penalties through a Development Agreement ✓ supports 1,650 units, however expressed concern that the project was out of balance with too many high -end single family units ✓ process is governed by CEQA and any new issues will need to be addressed through additional environmental documentation ✓ the project provides an opportunity for infrastructure and natural preserve Commissioner Landis' comments included the following items for consideration: • discussed Hillside Ordinance, developers response to staff, Commission and public comments /concerns environmental impacts, urban sprawl issues versus land use issues, core issue does the city want a project of this magnitude • Questioned whether the project would change the nature of Moorpark, but the final decision is left to the voters. Commissioner Landis identified the key issues as: ✓ the lake to be public ✓ the 29 -acre park ✓ the fire station ✓ the 18 -acre school site ✓ the necessity of a western street extension ✓ this project's key highlight is the 52 -acre lake which is better than Westlake ✓ all impacts in the EIR have been addressed ✓ the benefit in varied lot sizes, allowance of larger estate lots, opportunity for mixed use ✓ recommendation the that City Council consider the use of gated communities as a traffic calming S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 11 device, not necessarily to keep people out, and consider other security measures that may be effective Chair Pozza's comments included the following items for consideration: • discussion of the two part decision facing the Commission: CEQA and General Plan • quantitative piece relating to the environmental process was followed by the Commission, resulting in revised Draft EIR with mitigation measures that are adequate and reasonable • need to address best practices available for monitoring of oil production areas • supports a recommendation for City Council to certify EIR • concerns remaining for Specific Plan and Zone Change: ✓ traffic: Collins Drive intersection and two freeways ✓ regional traffic solutions inadequate concerning improvements to freeways and there is a need to demand regional solutions to support growth now ✓ concern for adequate funding for schools because of growth in general; and although the developer has offered to fully mitigate impact on schools for the North Park project, a school in that area is only needed if North Park is constructed ✓ concern with extreme growth rate increase of 600 over short period of time if North Park Village is added to the General Plan and regardless of intrinsic project benefits, the quality of everyday life in Moorpark will be degraded for quite some time ✓ character of our City will be impacted by the shear size of the project • support for City Council certification of EIR, but not General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 12 • projects like North Park are the reason the SOAR initiative passed • supports moving the project forward to City Council, because if the project receives support from the City Council, then residents of Moorpark will have the final word, but they should be well informed of the issues (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) At this point in the meeting, the Commission recessed at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. C. Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03, a Request for a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on an Existing Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility Tower, with Proposed Underground Equipment, Located South of Tierra Rejada Road and Southwest of Brookhurst Court. Applicant: Wireless Facilities, Inc for Cingular Wireless. (APN: 506 -0- 010 -615) Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03, subject to conditions. Steven Valdez presented the staff report. Commissioner Peskay questioned staff whether this project was the same proposal that staff presented last year, whether equipment was underground, and whether the area was screened with fencing and landscaping. He also suggested that any chain link fencing be painted black. Staff responded that it was a new proposal in the vicinity of the prior application and that the proposal included fending and landscaping. Chair Pozza opened the public hearing. Rob Perez, applicant's representative, stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Landis questioned the applicant whether there were any changes regarding safety issues or new S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406 _pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 13 studies on health effects of the type of facility proposed. The applicant's representative replied that no new information was available to his knowledge. Commissioner DiCecco questioned the number of antennas per arm and why they were needed. Mr. Perez responded that they provided coverage needs and represented new technology. Chair Pozza questioned whether microwave dishes were required on previous applications submitted. Staff responded that some previous applications had included microwave antennas. Denise Jacobs, resident, not in support of the proposal, commented on the previous approval and the impact of the current proposal. She questioned whether the proposal meets setback requirement per the ordinance, and requested information on exposure to RF radiation. Rose Brown, resident, not in support of the proposal, commented she was unaware that there was a previous approval for AT &T to install facilities and if the project was approved then another vendor would come, and in several years and there would be additional facilities. Chair Pozza closed the public hearing. Three written statements cards were submitted and two were opposed and one was neutral on the project. The statements will be included in the record. Mr. Hogan advised the Commission that they were precluded by federal law from considering health aspects of the proposal, advised that the proposal was considered a minor facility under the City's wireless ordinance, and that the SCE towers were a location where this type of facility was determined to be an appropriate. The Commission discussed adding the statement, "to the extent allowed by Federal law" to paragraph E on stamp page 140 of the resolution, and questioned the height of the facility. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Page 14 MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Vice Chair Lauletta seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation as amended. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Consider Recommendation to City Council on Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines. By consensus, the Commission continued Item 9.A. to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of April 20, 2004. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.) A. April 20, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting: • Residential Planned Development Permit Nos. 2002 -03, -04 & -05, (Specific Plan 2, Pardee) Mr. Hogan briefly discussed future agenda items. 11. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. cott Pozza, JZhair ATTEST: JB rry Ho n Community Development Director S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0406_pcm.doc