HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 1990 219 0716RESOLUTION NO. PC -90 -219
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DENIAL OF COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NOS. 89-
1 &89 -2, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP LDM -89 -2, RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89 -1, AND A RECOMMENDATION
FOR NON - CERTIFICATION ON THE ASSOCIATED FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE
APPLICATION OF VENTURA PACIFIC CAPITAL CORPORATION AND
MACLEOD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (i.e., THE MISSION BELL
PLAZA AND GREENLEAF APARTMENT PROJECTS).
Whereas, at duly noticed public hearings on June 4, June
11. and July 2, the Planning Commission considered the application
filed by the Ventura Pacific Capital Corporation and Macleod
Construction Company requesting the approval of 227 apartment unit
complex, a three -lot subdivision, and a 252,492 sq.ft. retail
commercial center located between Poindexter Avenue and Los Angeles
Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue and east of Sierra Avenue: and west
of Park Lane.
Whereas, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered
the contents of the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and has
reached its decision on the matter; and
Whereas, a study and investigation was made, a staff
report was prepared and recommendations were submitted to the
Planning Commission; and
Whereas, pursuant to the requirements of Article 5 of
Chapter 3 of title 7 (beginning at Section 65300) of the Government
Code of the State of California (The Planning and Zoning Law), the
City of Moorpark has adopted a General Plan.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of
Moorpark resolves as follows:
Section 1. This Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
Commercial Planned Development Permits 89 -1 & 89 -2, Residential
Planned Development Permit No. 89 -1, and Tentative Parcel Map LDM-
89-2 not be certified for the following reasons:
a. The EIR does not adequately address traffic
safety issues for roadways and intersections
surrounding the proposed project and the
traffic studies do indicate that intersections
will significantly, negatively, and permanently
be affected by the proposed project.
-1-
r-
b. The EIR does not fully address alternatives to
the project that would eliminate the negative
noise impacts the project may have on the
adjacent single family residences located
between the project site and western project
boundary.
C. The Commission is concerned that grading
quantities identified by the applicant have
been under estimated and that the correct
quantities would result in additional
environmental impacts.
d. The Commission finds that the EIR did not
provide sufficient mitigation to offset the
significant adverse project impacts identified
in the EIR.
Section 2. This Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council that Commercial Planned
Development Permits 89 -1 & 89 -2,
Residential Planned Development Permit No.
89 -1, and Tentative Parcel Map LDM -89 -2
a. The project, unless disapproved or approved
/' with selected design modifications, would have
the following specific, adverse impacts upon
the public health, safety and general welfare:
(1) The proposed commercial development would
negatively impact adjacent existing single
family residential uses because it would
cause a significant increase in noise
particularly from truck loading and
unloading activities.
(2) The project would result in significant
traffic volume and create traffic safety
impacts, The creation of an offset
intersection at Los Angeles Avenue and
Liberty Bell Road, would result in the
unacceptable curved radius design of
Mission Bell Road on the project site, and
traffic safety impacts in the vicinity of
the propose day -care center.
(3) The location of the commercial component
adjacent to the western project boundary
would result in a significant adverse
visual impact on the adjacent residential
1� rev.7 /17/90 neighborhood.
-2-
(4) The gas station /car wash facility proposed
as part of this project is inappropriately
sited and should be relocated or removed
as part of the plan.
(5) There are no feasible methods to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
impacts identified above, other than
disapproving the project or significantly
modifying the projects design.
Section 3. This Commission has rejected the findings
for approval contained in the staff report dated June 11, 1990,
for the reason identified above.
Section 4. That at its meeting of July 2, 1990, the
Commission took action and recommended to the City Council denial
of Commercial Planned Development Permits 89 -1 & 89 -2, Residential
Planned Development Permit No. 89 -1, and Tentative Parcel Map LDM-
89-2 and directed staff to prepare a resolution to be presented for
Consent Calendar action at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the
following role call vote.
Ayes: Commissioner's Lanahan, Talley, Schmidt;
Noes: Commissioner Scullin;
Absent: Commissioner John Wozniak.
Passed, Approved and Adopted this 16th day of July 1990
Attest:%%%%�'� CIZI yy
�.liGGIC��7E�
Celia LaFleur, Secretary
-3-
Chairman presiding
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS
COUNTY OF VENTURA
I, Celia LaFleur, do hereby certify that I am the secretary of the
Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, California and that
the foregoing Resolution No. PC -90 -219 was duly adopted at a
regular meeting thereof held on July 16, 1990 by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes: Commissioner Lanahan, Schmidt,
Scullin, Talley;
Abstain: Commissioner Wozniak.
ATTEST:
Celia LaFleur, Secretary