HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 1987 154 1005�- RESOLUTION NO. PC -87 -154
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA,
DETERMINING THAT THE PLANNED COMMUNITY NO. 3 (MOUNTAIN MEADOWS) EIR DOES NOT
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE SUBJECT PROJECT, AND RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 2816, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT PERMIT NO.4341, AND
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.1071 ON APPLICATION OF URBAN WEST
COMMUNITIES.
WHEREAS, at duly notice public hearing on September 28, 1987, the
Moorpark Planning Commission considered the subject application for the rezoning of
a 81.7 acre parcel from the "P -C" (Planned Community) to the RPD -2.45 (Residential
Planned Development, 2.45 Units to the Acre) zone; the subdivision of the subject
parcel into 155 lots; and a Residential Planned Development permit to construct 154
single family dwellings and one neighborhood recreation complex as part of the
Mountain Meadow (PC-3) development on Peach Hill.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That this body after review and consideration of the
Environmental Impact Report prepared for Planned Community No. 3 (Mountain Meadows),
finds that the environmental effects of these proposed projects are not similar
enough to warrant the same treatment in the EIR, and does not recommend that the
Planned Community No. 3 EIR adequately covers the impacts of these projects pursuant
to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This body has reviewed and
considered the information contained therein and finds that the environmental impact
report is not adequate and that a subsequent focused EIR needs to be prepared for
the following reasons:
The information received during the public hearing regarding existing
drainage problems renders the adequacy of existing hydraulic studies
suspect. Also, there is a need to consider drainage impacts to future
park and school sites; and
2. The traffic study prepared for these entitlement requests shows that
traffic signal warrants are currently met and further studies are needed
to understand cumulative traffic effects.
3. The project, as proposed, does not mitigate the interface between a
highly urban area and a rural residential area.
SECTION 2. That this Planning Commission does not adopt
the findings contained in the staff report dated September 28, 1987.
SECTION 3. That the proposed zone change is not
consistent with the public convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice.
SECTION 4. That the proposed subdivision is not compatible with the
objectives, policies, and programs specified in the General Plan. That the site is
not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. That the
design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage.
-1- Reso.154
Revised 10/5
SECTION 5. That the planned development does not assure
compatibility of property uses within the zone and general area. That the proposed
density will become detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience,
or general welfare of the community. That the proposed planned development does not
protect the integrity, character, utility and value of property in an adjacent zone.
SECTION 6. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council denial without prejudice of Zone Change No. 2816.
SECTION 7. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council denial without prejudice of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 4341.
SECTION 8. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council denial without prejudice of Residential Planned Development Permit No. 1071.
SECTION 9. That at its meeting of September 28, 1987, the Planning
Commission took action to direct staff to prepare a resolution; said resolution to
be presented for Consent Calendar action at the next regular scheduled meeting. the
action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Holland, Wozniak, Butcher,
Montgomery and Lawrason;
NOES: None.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October,
1987.
ATTEST:
Celia La Fleur
Acting Secretary
AS TO
trick J: Rnc iarUs
rector of Ummunity Development
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, California, at a regular
meeting held on the 10th day of October, the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Butcher, Lawrason, Montgomery and Wozniak;
NOES: None;
ABSENT: Chairman Douglas Holland
ATTES
Celia La Fleur
Acting Secretary
-2- Reso.154
Revised 10/5