HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2011 0503 PC SPC MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Moorpark, California May 3, 2011
A Special Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark was held on May
3, 2011, in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Vice Chair Di Cecco led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: Planning Commissioners Gould, Groff, Hamous, Vice Chair
Di Cecco, and Chair Landis.
Staff Present: David Bobardt, Planning Director; Joseph Fiss, Principal
Planner; Dave Klotzle, City Engineer/Public Works Director;
Ron Nelson, Captain Moorpark Police Department; and
Joyce Figueroa, Administrative Assistant.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
6. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
None.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND REPORTS ON
MEETINGS/CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY THE COMMISSION:
(Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.)
None.
Minutes of the Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 2 May 3, 2011
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. PC-2011-563)
A. Consider Resolution Recommending to the City Council Adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Approval of General Plan Amendment No.
2009-01, Zone Change No. 2009-01, Industrial Planned Development No.
2009-01, Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-01, and Development
Agreement No. 2009-02 between City of Moorpark and Los Angeles
Avenue LLC to Allow a Motion Picture Studio Complex With 12
Soundstages, Support Buildings, and Surface Parking on a 44.467 Acre
Site Located on the North Side of Los Angeles Avenue, West of Gabbert
Road, on the Application of Triliad Development, Inc. for Los Angeles
Avenue LLC. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept
public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No.
PC-2011-563 recommending to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2009-01,
Zone Change No. 2009-01, Industrial Planned Development No. 2009-01,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-01, and Development Agreement No.
2009-02. (Staff: Joseph Fiss)
Mr. Bobardt made editorial corrections to the Site Drainage and
Stormwater Quality on stamped page 10 of the agenda report to delete
"detention" from the eighth sentence and correct it to read "conveyance"
and delete "hydrologic" from the ninth sentence and correct it to read
"hydraulic."
Mr. Fiss gave the staff report.
Mr. Bobardt discussed sections 6 and 7 of the Development Agreement.
Mr. Bobardt stated he had received a letter from a Poppy Glen Court
resident that expressed concern regarding traffic issues and also received
a letter from Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LafCo)
regarding the issue whether the project requires an amendment to the
curb line in the City's SOAR Ordinance.
A discussion followed among Commissioners and staff regarding: 1)
Development Agreement regarding the landowners; 2) 118 Expansion
how it's affected by SOAR; 3) The potential to adjust the alignment of Los
Angeles Avenue; 4) How far down to the west is the potential truck scale
to this project and has the site been identified; 5) Parking regulation plan;
6) Ingress and egress from the Buttercreek development and how it is
going to be affected in the future by this project; 7) MND project site
extents; 8) Access to the project site for trucks and other vehicles entering
the site; 9) Emergency gate; 10) Signalization at North Hills Parkway;
11) Whether Mira Sol have a westbound turn lane; 12) Stormwater
purification at the site; 13) Whether the open water run off that goes to the
Minutes of the Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 3 May 3, 2011
east side of project and the south side of the project remain open; 14)
Whether the Los Angeles Avenue telephone poles will go underground;
15) Traffic and circulation peak hour trips; 16) By widening the road, this
mitigate the traffic; 17) Lighting plan; 18) North Hills parkway initial access;
19) The developer's participation in North Hills Parkway assessment
district improvement costs; 20) Security for the northbound North Hills
Parkway improvements; 21) Number of daily trips on Los Angeles Avenue;
22) The City's protection if the applicant defaults and whether anything
built wherein they have to bond the project; and 23) Mitigation/Circulation
issues regarding signalization.
AT THIS POINT in the meeting, a recess was declared. The time was 7:58 p.m.
The Planning Commission meeting reconvened with continued discussion of Item 8.A.at
8:03 p.m. with. Chair Landis absent. Vice Chair Di Cecco chaired the meeting.
Vice Chair Di Cecco opened the public hearing.
Valerie Draeger, Triliad Development Inc., discussed the project and
presented an animation video.
Brian Poliquin, AIA, PK Architecture, discussed the architectural design of
the project; landscape, lighting, security fencing, and water conservation.
The following issues were discussed by the Commission and Mr. Poliquin:
1) Financing in place for Phase I; 2) Parking; 3) How the remote site is
going to be secured; 4) Putting a parking structure on North Hills parkway;
5) Phasing plan; 6) Security Fence on Union Pacific Railroad wall; and 7)
Graffiti.
Weston Munselle, Munselle Inc., Consultant discussed the operation of
the project and stated that studio facilities make good neighbors.
The following issues were discussed by the Commission and Mr.
Munselle: 1) Southeast entrance for trucks and the size of trucks; and 2)
Whether there will be motorhomes at the site for anticipated shoots.
Jonas Smith, Pacific Advance Civil Engineering, discussed the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater
detention/retention system and the flood plain verses where the parking
should go.
Joe Gibson, Impact Sciences, discussed the water and waste water
comments raised in the letter of May 3, 2011 from Ventura Local Agency
Formation Commission (LafCo).
Minutes of the Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page4 May 3, 2011
Harvey Plaks, Mira Sol resident, residing adjacent to the site, stated he is
not opposed to the project, however, expressed concerns regarding traffic;
noise level; heavy trucks; vibration; decibel rates; and suggested that a
sign be posted that reads `No Jake Braking.'
Francis Okyere, Western Alliance Insurance, specializing in entertainment
insurance, spoke in favor of the project.
Raymond Hebei, Hollyglen Court resident, residing adjacent to the site
spoke in opposition of the project and expressed concerns regarding:
semi-truck decibel levels; vibration; and the need to provide a sound wall
on Los Angeles Avenue.
Elaine Penprase, Buttercreek resident, residing adjacent to the site spoke
in opposition of the project and expressed concerns regarding noise,
glare, light, aesthetics, and traffic.
Jim McGrath, J.D. McGrath Farms Davis Ranch, residing adjacent to the
site welcomes the studio and stated that he would like the project to have
a fence installed that would run along the south side of the railroad, and
expressed concern about there not being a pedestrian fence along the
channel, and the amount of theft of his crops and graffiti.
Mark Taillon, Aspen Hills Drive resident, residing adjacent to the site
spoke in favor of the project and that is a great economic benefit to the
city.
Patrick Ellis, Moorpark Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the
project and that it would rejuvenate the economy of Moorpark, bring jobs
to the community, and would benefit the community on an overall basis.
Scott Gould, Holly Glen Court resident, residing adjacent to the site spoke
in opposition of the project and expressed concerns regarding traffic,
vibration, noise, and placement of the traffic light.
Linda Plaks, Mira Sol resident, residing adjacent to the site spoke in favor
of the project and thanked the applicant for having meetings to discuss the
project and mitigate problems. If noise can be taken care of, the project
has an A+ for what it can do for the community of Moorpark.
Sue Lang, Holly Glen Court resident, residing adjacent to the site spoke in
opposition of the project and expressed concerns regarding traffic, left
hand turn to Buttercreek, property values going down, truck deliveries,
filming hours, special effects, construction noise, lighting, number of
employees, amount of parking, and crime rate.
Minutes of the Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 5 May 3, 2011
Bill Brinkmeyer, IBEW Local 40, spoke in favor of the project and asked
the Commission to consider the project.
In response to Vice Chair Di Cecco, Mr. Bobardt summarized three
Written Statement cards in favor of the proposal and one neither in favor
or opposition of the proposal.
At the request of Vice Chair Di Cecco, Bob Matson, RBF Consulting,
stepped forward to the lectern and responded to questions from the
Commission regarding: traffic, stacking with trucks waiting at the signal at
North Hills Parkway, stacking back towards Buttercreek, and noise
reduction with rubberized asphalt.
At the request of Vice Chair Di Cecco, Mr. Gibson, Impact Sciences,
stepped forward to the lectern and responded to questions from the
Commission regarding sound walls, paving surface, rubberized asphalt,
truck noise, and growth of traffic.
AT THIS POINT in the meeting Chair Landis returned to the dais at 9:46 p.m.
The following issues were discussed by the Commission and Mr. Gibson:
1) Deceleration of trucks; 2) Potential decrease in noise level based on the
fact that the trucks are not going to be accelerating or decelerating with
the new traffic signals and increase of capacity of the new traffic lanes; 3)
Potential for sound walls; and 4) Study regarding decibel levels.
In response to the Commission, Mr. Bobardt discussed whether Caltrans
would be responsible for the sound wall since this is already an
unacceptable level of noise.
Mr. Bobardt summarized one additional Written Statement card,
expressing neutrality on the project.
Chair Landis closed the public hearing.
The following issues were discussed by the Commission and staff: 1)
Lighting; 2) Noise; 3) Staging for trucks; 4) Sound wall issues; 5)
Concerns addressed by Mr. Grath regarding fencing along the back wall
by the railroad tracks; 6) Truck vibration; 7) Widening of Los Angeles
Avenue; 8) Amount of land the project is taking for parking; 9) Alternative
for a parking structure; 10) Pedestrian walk ways; and 11) Safety.
The Commission commended the applicant and staff in doing an excellent
job in the presentation of the project and stated this is a positive impact for
Moorpark and will provide economic benefits to the community.
Minutes of the Planning Commission
Moorpark, California Page 6 May 3, 2011
MOTION: Vice Chair Di Cecco moved and Commissioner Gould seconded a
motion to approve staff recommendation, including adoption of Resolution No.
PC 2011-563. The motion carried by roll call vote 4-0, Chair Landis Abstaining.
The City Council has final approval authority for this project.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR:
MOTION: Commissioner Gould and Vice Chair Di Cecco seconded a motion to
approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
A. Consider Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2011.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes.
B. Consider Approval of the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council
and Planning Commission Meeting of March 29, 2011. Staff
Recommendation: Approve the minutes.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Commissioner Hamous moved and Commissioner Groff seconded a
motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was
10:24 p.m.
Kipp La •i , Ch.Or
avid A. Bobardt, Co unity Development Director