Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 0325 CC SPC ITEM 05AAGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK CITY OF MOORPARY, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of March 25 199 8 ACTION: �onl-►�ued fiD BY: TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developmen -fir— DATE: March 18, 1998 (For the Special City Council Meeting of March 25, 1998) SUBJECT: Consider Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 8 /SP 93 -1), General Plan Amendment No. 93 -1, and Zone Change 93 -3 (Prezoning), Applicant: Hidden Creek Ranch Partners City Council commenced public hearings on this proposed project on October 1, 1997, and subsequently accepted additional public testimony on October 8 and 22, November 12, and December 3, 1997. The public hearing was closed on December 3, 1997, with City Council continuing discussion of this project on December 10, 1997, January 7 and 21, 1998. At the meeting of January 21, 1998, City Council took action to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and also directed that additional hearings be scheduled on the Specific Plan. �f.Y�11LY.y [�)►1 Public Hearing Notices Public hearing notices have been mailed, posted, and advertised for another public hearing scheduled for the Special City Council meeting on March 25, 1998. Significant Issues Attached is the Staff Report for the City Council meeting of October 1, 1997. Pages 2 - 4 of that report provide an executive summary of the significant issues with respect to the consideration of the proposed Specific Plan. A more detailed discussion of each of these issues is provided on pages 10 - 19 of that report, with further information provided on these issues in the Planning Commission report of August 7, 1996, which is also attached to the report of October 1, 1997. Additional information was provided regarding these and other issues raised during the previous public hearings in the staff reports for each of the preceding meetings and in the Final Environmental Impact Report. However, the issues identified in the Staff Report for the City Council meeting of October 1, 1997, appear to generally encompass the significant issues which have been discussed during the public hearings. With respect to one other issue, a number of additional mitigation C: \OFFICE\ W P W MWPDOCS \CCRPTS\SPS -3358. RPT 000001 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan March 25, 1998 Page 2 measures were incorporated into the adopted mitigation measures relating to the potential impacts upon the Moorpark College observatory. Discussions between the College and Hidden Creek Ranch Partners have also continued regarding the possibility of dedication of a site for a potential future viewing location. The Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee, comprised of Council members Perez and Wozniak, have also held a number of meetings to discuss a possible Development Agreement and related issues. On November 10, 1997, the City Manager provided City Council with a memorandum regarding the proposed Development Agreement which outlined a number of points which had been discussed. A copy of this memorandum is also attached. The Ad Hoc Committee is wrapping up their discussions and will have additional information for the next City Council meeting scheduled for this project. One of the discussions at the Ad Hoc Committee has been the use of a Transferrable Development Rights Process to provide an incentive for the transfer of development potential from the properties which are currently in agricultural use to other portions of the proposed project so that the prime agricultural lands could be preserved. The properties which have a designation of prime agricultural land, or are currently in agricultural use, are primarily owned by property owners other than Hidden Creek Ranch Partners, the applicant for the proposed Specific Plan. AdditionaLHearing Dates After receiving additional testimony regarding the Specific Plan City Council may wish to continue this item to another meeting. The regular City Council meeting agenda of April 1, 1998, presently appears to be relatively light, or City Council may wish to schedule additional special meetings for Wednesday, April 8 (however, this is would coincide with Easter break and the Director of Community Development would be on vacation), April 22 or 29. Continue the public hearing to specific date. Attachments: Staff Report for Meeting of October 1, 1997 Memorandum dated November 10, 1997 C:\OFFICE\WPWIMWPDOCS\CCRPTS\SP8-3258.RPT AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developm t Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Principal Planner DATE: September 24, 1997 (CC Meeting of 10/1/97) SUBJECT: CONSIDER HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8 /SPECIFIC PLAN NO. SP -93 -1, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA -93 -1, AND ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC- 93 -3), APPLICANT: HIDDEN CREEK RANCH PARTNERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description The Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project is intended to provide for the systematic implementation of the City's General Plan. The applicant is Hidden Creek Ranch Partners (also known as Messenger Investment Company). The three applications currently under consideration are as follows: 1) a General Plan Amendment to reflect the final approved Specific Plan land use designations and circulation system (roadways and trails) on the City General Plan Land Use Element and Circulation Element exhibits; 2)a Zone Change to prezone the Specific Plan site; and 3) a Specific Plan. As identified in the Background section of this report, a preliminary application for a Development Agreement has also been received; however, the City Council has not yet authorized the acceptance of a formal application. A Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation approval from the Ventura County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would be required before the City could formally approve zoning, subdivision maps, and permits for Specific Plan development. Implementation of the Specific Plan, as proposed, would include adoption of an ordinance to revise Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code to include new zoning standards, a list of permitted uses, and to revise the City Zoning Map for the Specific Plan area. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project, and a certification decision on the Final EIR is required prior to a decision on the requested Project. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 +J Oou oa Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 2 The proposed Specific Plan provides for up to 3,221 residential units located within four Villages, which would be concentrated in the southern portion of the 4,323 -acre site and separated by open space. Other related and supporting uses would include schools, parks, two golf course areas, an equestrian center, and a 21.5 -acre community center commercial area. Approximately 2,159 acres of the site are proposed to be retained as natural open space. Attachment 1 is a summary prepared by BonTerra Consulting, the EIR preparer, which compares the Specific Plan Project (land use and circulation plan), originally considered in the 1995 Draft EIR, to the current Specific Plan proposal and includes conclusions regarding why project revisions do not currently require recirculation of the Final EIR prior to certification. Attachment 1 includes reductions of the original and revised land use plan for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan, a revised grading plan, a revised phasing plan, and land use plan and phasing plan comparison tables. A full scale copy of the revised land use plan has also been provided to the City Council with the staff report. Attachment 2 was submitted by the applicant, and describes the project revisions that they have voluntarily made to further mitigate or avoid an adverse environmental effect. Issues Issues that should be discussed by the City Council are briefly summarized below, and further explanation is provided in the Discussion section of this report. Revised Phasing Plan - A revised phasing plan has been proposed by the applicant that delays the westerly extension of a new roadway across Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Other owners of property in the westerly portion of the Specific Plan area have requested changes to the revised phasing plan to allow earlier development of westerly properties. Also, the timing of the infrastructure and facilities should be reviewed in relation to the revised phasing. Westerly Specific Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning - Other owners of property in the westerly portion of the Specific Plan area have requested changes to the proposed land use plan to allow additional density. The potential for the location of an active earthquake fault that may trend through the westerly Specific Plan area was raised after the Planning Commission public hearings, and further geological investigation is currently underway. There are also agricultural land DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 000004 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 3 use preservation issues relating to the westerly Specific Plan area. Any further revisions to the Specific Plan land use plan that are made prior to certification of the Final EIR will need to be analyzed to determine whether recirculation is required (as discussed on page 8 of this staff report). Any revisions made to Specific Plan land use plan after certification of the Final EIR, will need to be analyzed to determine whether an Addendum to the EIR, Supplemental EIR, Subsequent EIR, or other environmental clearance is required, prior to approval of the revised project. Open Space Preservation and Clustering - The portion of Planning Unit 45 to be permanently preserved as natural open space and the elimination of proposed residential development within Planning Unit 19B are also issues for consideration. Circulation - The applicant has requested that Hidden Creek Drive not be required to be constructed south of the extension of Campus Park Drive to connect to the State Route (SR) 118 Freeway (Lagoon Interchange), and that a roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park be substituted for the previously proposed Broadway extension. Language needs to be added to the Specific Plan clarifying the phasing, ownership, and maintenance responsibilities for trails. The planned circulation system requires City Council discussion and will require an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Affordable Housing - Concerns were expressed by staff at the Planning Commission hearings regarding the lack of details for the Specific Plan affordable housing program. The applicant has revised the proposed affordable housing program for the Specific Plan, and affordable housing issues are proposed to be discussed at the Council's October 29 public hearing, and may also be discussed in conjunction with the required Planning Commission and City Council public hearings for a Development Agreement. Fiscal Impact - The purpose of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Report was to ensure that there will not be an adverse financial impact to the City from annexation and planned development. The Planning Commission and the City Council will have the opportunity to review any Development Agreement at a noticed public hearing, and the potential financial benefit or impact to the City can be discussed at that time. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 4 Schools - The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised to include two 12 -acre elementary school sites and a 43 -acre high school site. Both proposed elementary school sites are located adjacent to planned park sites. Staff is not aware of any remaining issues regarding the size and number of school sites; however, confirmation from the Moorpark Unified School District is needed. The planned access to the high school site, at the west end of the Specific Plan area, should be discussed. Oil Drilling and Production - The mineral rights for most of the properties within the Specific Plan area are owned by an oil development company that also has a variety of oil drilling sites reserved throughout the project area. Concerns regarding these existing oil drilling sites and the potential for future drilling sites have been raised. Parks - The planned number of park sites has been reduced from five to four, although the total park acreage has only been reduced three acres (from 66.5 to 63.5 acres). These revisions were proposed by the applicant in response to concerns, to provide for larger areas, potentially suitable for ballfields and other active uses, as well as to reduce operation and maintenance costs. Planning Unit 42B totaling 2.5 acres should also be deleted. Flexibility should be maintained regarding the location of parks. Another issue pertaining to parks is how operation and maintenance costs will be funded. BACKGROUND Processing Time Limits The Project application was submitted in November 1993. The provisions of Chapter 4.5 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, Section 65920 et sea., are inapplicable, including but not limited to processing time limits, because the Project requires legislative, rather than adjudicatory actions by the City. The City and the applicant did agree on a time limit for an EIR certification decision; however, that date has been extended due to late payment by the applicant for EIR related costs, which resulted in EIR processing suspensions. The original agreed upon date for an EIR certification decision was October 18, 1995. Technically, that date has been extended 826 days to January 23, 1998. Consistent with the Agreement between the City and the applicant, the City Council will need to reach an EIR certification decision on or before January 23, 1998. DST c: \1- m \sp- 6 \cc- prjrpt.1 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 5 Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project (SP -93 -1, GPA -93 -1, and ZC -93 -1) on August 26, 1996 (Attachment 3). The background on the Planning Commission public hearings on the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project follows. The public review period for Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan No. 8 Draft EIR began on September 12, 1995, and was extended through November 27, 1995. The Planning Commission held the first public hearing on the Draft on October 9, 1995, and a continued public hearing on October 30, 1995. The first public hearing for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project was held on January 29, 1996, and continued public hearings were held on February 12, March 11, and March 25, 1996. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing from March 25 to April 22, 1996; however, the public hearing was further continued from April 22 to June 17 and then to July 22, without further public or Planning Commission discussion, to allow completion of the Final EIR and Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis Report, which were completed and distributed in July 1996. At the Planning Commission's public hearing on July 22, 1996, the Commission discussed the draft Final EIR and the Fiscal Impact Report, heard additional public testimony, and then continued the hearing until August 12, 1996. The Commission closed the Project public hearing on August 12 and adopted a resolution recommending certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Project. The Planning Commission's resolution includes a list of recommended Specific Plan revisions, some of which have now been incorporated into the Project, as explained below. Protect Revisions Following the final Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant filed a preliminary application for a Development Agreement, and over the past year has been meeting with staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Development Agreement Committee. Pursuant to Section 15.40.040 of the City's Municipal Code, no application for a development agreement shall be filed with the Director of Community Development, unless the City Council has decided, after a preliminary review, to proceed with consideration of the proposal (and a formal application filing is authorized). The City Council has not yet received a recommendation from the Ad Hoc Development Agreement Committee, and the filing of a formal Development Agreement application has not been authorized. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 6 Subsequent to the final Planning Commission meeting on the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project, the applicant has continued to work with staff and the EIR consultant to resolve issues that are addressed in the Planning Commission's resolution and discussed in the following section of this report. Attachment 1 is a summary of Project revisions that was prepared by BonTerra Consulting, the EIR consultant, for the Project record. BonTerra Consulting has concluded that these changes do not result in any new significant information that would require recirculation of the EIR, and that the intent of changes that occurred to the project subsequent to the circulation of the draft EIR would not result in any new significant environmental impacts, increase the severity of identified significant impacts, result in any mitigation measures or alternatives that the project applicant has declined to adopt, or result in the identification of deficiencies in the draft EIR. Attachment 2 is a submittal from the applicant also identifying revisions made to the draft land use plan and circulation system to mitigate or avoid impacts identified in the EIR. Staff received the most recent revised phasing plan on September 19, 1997, and the most recent land use plan and grading plan on September 22, 1997, and has not had an adequate opportunity to fully analyze the revised plans. Environmental Impact Report The public review period for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR began on September 12, 1995, and ended on November 27, 1995. The Final EIR was distributed in July 1996. The City Council has previously received all five EIR volumes: Draft EIR (Volume I), Appendices (Volumes II and III), Responses to Comments Received on the Draft EIR (Volume IV), and Final EIR (Volume V). (Staff can provide an additional copy of any of the documents referenced in this report to the Council upon request.) Scheduled City Council Public Hearings Staff has scheduled a series of City Council public hearings for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project, as summarized below: October 1, 1997 Introductory presentation to describe Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project and Environmental Impact Report. October 8, 1997 Specific Plan draft land use and circulation plans, phasing, and access and traffic'impact issues. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 7 October 22, 1997 Specific Plan open space, clustering of development, and park related issues. October 29, 1997 Specific Plan affordable housing, school sites, agricultural land, various property ownerships, and other issues. The public notice includes an explanation that the focus of each scheduled public hearing will be on the issues identified, and that it is requested that public testimony focus on these issues at each hearing, although testimony will be accepted on any issues relating to the proposed project at each hearing. DISCUSSION Final EIR Summary Responses to comments on all environmental issues raised during the 75- day public review period for the draft EIR have been responded to in writing in the Final EIR Volume IV, Responses to Comments. Where any comments raised required clarifications, deletions, and /or additions to the EIR, the text of the EIR was revised and has been highlighted through "strikeout" representing text deletions and "redline" representing text additions. The revised environmental document is referred to as the Final EIR, Volume V. Responses to Comments are provided in EIR Volume IV regarding "significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process" (consistent with State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15132(d)). Comment letters were received from one federal agency, seven state agencies, six county agencies/ departments, one municipal agency, five special districts, two institutions, and 40 individuals /groups. Prior to a final City Council decision on the requested entitlements, the Council will need to make a certification decision on the EIR, including approval of a Mitigation Monitoring Program and adoption of the EIR Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The draft Mitigation Monitoring Program, draft EIR Findings, and draft Statement of Overriding Considerations will be distributed to the City Council at a continued meeting following the October 29 public hearing. The comments on the Draft EIR focused on several issues including, but not limited to, the loss of biological resources; the need for and timing of the project; increases in traffic and provisions for additional DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt,1 000() W� Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 8 circulation infrastructure; adequacy of services and utilities to serve the project and existing development; and requests for retention of additional natural open space. Comments submitted on the Draft EIR included questions regarding conclusions identified in the draft EIR; findings and methodology for preparation of technical analyses; position statements for /against the project; and comments about community issues and issues of a broader regional context. Volume IV provides responses to those comments regarding significant environmental points, including a description of the disposition of environmental issues, explanations of the EIR analysis, further information supporting EIR conclusions, and new information or clarification, as appropriate. As identified in the Final EIR Volume V, the proposed project would result in significant environmental impacts, not all of which can be fully mitigated. To summarize, project environmental impacts with significant residual effects (not fully mitigated) are as follows: biological resources (loss of wildlife habitat, and the feasibility for implementing coast live oak and Venturan coastal sage scrub mitigation); land use and related planning programs (loss of Prime Farmlands); aesthetics (changes to the site's visual resources, development in a scenic viewshed, substantial viewshed alterations from a variety of viewpoints, and an increase in light and glare); air quality (project exceeds local CO standards and results in a cumulative contribution to the degradation of air quality); water (a potentially significant impact may occur if project development increases population growth within the water service area at a faster rate than the General Plan assumes); and solid waste (increase in the cumulative loss of disposal capacity). To further address project environmental impacts with significant residual effects, the project applicant, at the request of the City of Moorpark, reviewed the proposed project to determine if there were additional mitigation opportunities that could lessen the environmental impacts associated with the project. These additional mitigation measures, as currently proposed by the applicant for consideration by the City, require revisions to the proposed Specific Plan land uses and circulation system and are discussed in Attachment 2. The environmental benefits from these additional mitigation measures are the retention of additional natural open space and biological habitat, preservation of oak trees, and less mass grading by phase. A lead agency is required by the California Environmental Quality Act to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review but before certification. The term "information" can DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 V0 Jele Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 9 include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. The applicant, staff, and the environmental consultant have worked cooperatively to propose further mitigation of open space, circulation, biological, and grading related impacts. The revisions to the Specific Plan project that are described in Attachments 1 and 2 do represent new information that would need to be added to the Final EIR. In order to avoid recirculation, the City Council will need to be able to conclude that the public has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a new substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project applicant has declined to implement. The EIR preparer, BonTerra Consulting, has concluded (see Attachment 1 and EIR Volume IV) that the revised land use plan and circulation system do not result in a new substantial adverse environmental effect, and that the revisions can be considered feasible mitigation and impact avoidance that the applicant has agreed to implement. Staff does, however, have further recommendations for mitigation/ avoidance of biological impacts, preservation of open space, and infrastructure phasing, as explained in the following discussion of open space preservation, clustering, and phasing issues. Further information on proposed revisions to specific mitigation measures will be provided for subsequent City Council meetings. The City Council should consider that revisions made to the Specific Plan Project prior to certification of the EIR require analysis to determine whether the EIR must be recirculation for public review prior to certification. Any revisions made to the Specific Plan Project after Final EIR certification will require analysis to determine the appropriate environmental clearance that is required prior to approval of the revised Project. The type of environmental clearance would depend upon whether or not the Project changes are substantial or minor. For example, a minor technical change would require an EIR Addendum, and other types of changes could require a Subsequent EIR or Supplement to DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 oboll Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 10 an EIR, both of which require the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR. As previously identified in this report, the City Council has an agreed upon EIR certification decision date of January 23, 1998, for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan. Prior to the City Council's January 7, 1998 meeting, staff will review the applicant's recommended Project changes along with any City Council recommended changes and will provide the Council with a recommendation on recirculation. If Project changes are determined to not require recirculation, then the Council could consider adoption of a resolution certifying the Final EIR and approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program. If Project changes are determined to require recirculation, then the Council's action for the January 7 meeting could include adoption of a resolution documenting the reasons for not certifying the EIR and requiring recirculation. Summary of Major Issues for Discussion This staff report is intended to provide a summary of major issues for discussion. The attached Planning Commission staff report for the August 7, 1996 meeting (Attachment 4) should be referenced for a summary of circulation options /alternatives and potential traffic impacts, and clarification regarding the Fiscal Impact Report. Significant issues are summarized below. Some issues are considered by staff to now be resolved, as identified in the following discussion. Identified issues are not listed in any particular order of importance. The City Council may wish to add other issues or concerns, which staff can respond to at a subsequent City Council meeting. Revised Phasing Plan 1. After circulation of the Draft EIR and Specific Plan for public review, the phasing plan was revised by the applicant, and the revised phasing plan that was reviewed by and supported by the Planning Commission is attached to the Commission's resolution (Attachment 3). The applicant has made further modification to the proposed phasing, as discussed in Attachment 1 (which includes a revised phasing plan exhibit). The Planning Commission concurred with the proposal to revise the proposed phasing so that development would generally proceed from east to west. The revised phasing also places increased emphasis on the connection to Collins Drive as the secondary access until such time that Hidden Creek Drive is extended westerly to connect to a roadway across Happy Camp Canyon Regional DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 0V (1012 Hidden Creek Ranch To: Honorable City September 24, 1997 Page 11 Specific Plan Project Council Park. Staff has not had an opportunity to fully evaluate the revised phasing plan received on September 19, 1997, and will provide additional comments in the Council's staff report for the October 8 meeting. Westerly Specific Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning 2. The owners of properties on the west side of the Specific Plan area, who did not participate in funding of the Specific Plan, want the opportunity for earlier development and additional density (refer to Attachment 5). An Assessment District has been discussed to fund earlier completion of roads and infrastructure to the west, and a preliminary cost distribution was prepared by the City Engineer in September 1996. Changes proposed by several of the westerly property owners to density, access, and infrastructure have not been addressed in the Specific Plan EIR. Another concern is that the potential for the location of an active earthquake fault that may trend through the northwest portion of the Specific Plan area was raised after the Planning Commission public hearings. Two faults have been located within the Specific Plan No. 2 area to the west of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. A geotechnical and environmental engineering consultant has been hired to prepare an addendum report to evaluate potential fault presence in the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan. The addendum geotechnical report will be available for the Council's October 29 meeting. Staff cannot conclude at this time whether new significant information will need to be added to the EIR, as a result of the addendum geotechnical report, that would require recirculation of the EIR. There are also agricultural land use preservation issues that should be considered for the westerly Specific Plan area. LAFCO policies encourage preservation of agricultural land, and conversion of agricultural lands is likely to be an issue at LAFCO hearings for the required sphere of influence amendment and annexation. Discussion of issues related to the various property ownerships, including agricultural land and the Addendum Fault Evaluation Report, is scheduled for the October 29 meeting. Open Space Preservation and Clustering 3. In the draft Specific Plan that was circulated for public review, Planning Unit 45, totaling 690 acres, is shown as "Private Open DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 12 Space," which is described as allowing various uses, including a golf course with approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant has always proposed a golf course within a portion of Planning Unit 45; however, staff had expressed concerns to the Planning Commission, because the potential permitted uses in the proposed Private Open Space Zone were not entirely consistent with the grading plan included in the Specific Plan and Draft EIR (which shows no grading of Planning Unit 45). Staff recommended to the Planning Commission a Golf Course Zone for a portion of Planning Unit 45, versus a Private Open Space Zone, because the Golf Course Zone is actually more restrictive and is consistent with what is proposed for the other planned golf course in the central portion of the Specific Plan area. In addition, at the time of the Planning Commission public hearings, a tree survey, and Phase II Archaeological Investigation had not been completed for Planning Unit 45, because no grading was originally assumed. The Planning Commission supported staff's recommendations for Planning Unit 45, and the applicant subsequently revised the planned land use and zoning for Planning Unit 45 to show 450 acres as Open Space /Golf Course and the remainder 240 acres as natural Open Space. This is a new land use designation and corresponding zone district that would need to be described in the Specific Plan document. The intent is to plan a golf course that would preserve a minimum of 250 acres as natural open space, with a golf course use on a maximum of 200 acres, and also provide development controls to achieve a golf course which would be more sensitive to grading, preservation and enhancement of natural vegetation, and the provision of a natural open space buffer along the easterly boundary of the Specific Plan area. The new zone district that would be created is proposed to still require a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a golf course use. Additional environmental analysis has now been completed to address the revised land use, which is considered environmentally preferable to the original Private Open Space proposal, and the City Council will be provided with an Addendum Report to the Final EIR for the. October 29 meeting, including a complete list of mitigation measures proposed to mitigate potential environmental impacts for a combined golf course and open space use in Planning Unit 45. 4. Planning Units 1, 19A and B, and 36 are proposed for densities of 1 dwelling unit per two acres (and the total number of dwelling units would be 70). These areas are the furthest north and also at DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 13 the highest elevations proposed for development. If these Planning Areas are not developed, 130.5 additional acres would be left undisturbed and could be preserved as natural open space. However, eliminating development in Planning Units 1, 19, and 36 would also eliminate a larger lot size housing type and density from the Plan. The applicant also would want to reallocate the planned 70 dwelling units into other Planning Units, to maintain the overall number of units in the Plan, thereby increasing densities in other Planning Units. Based on evaluation of the biological habitat values of Planning Units 1, 19A and B, and 36, staff is recommending that residential units shown within Planning Unit 19B be relocated to another planning unit or units. This revision to the land use plan would result in an additional 22.3 acres of natural open space. Planning Unit 19B contains both Chaparral and Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub habitats. Planning Units 1, 19A, and 36 contain non - native grassland, and based on the existing topography and existing access rights for oil drilling operations, have little value for wildlife movement purposes. The applicant has verbally agreed to staff's recommendation for Planning Unit 19B as an additional biological mitigation and impact avoidance measure. Staff's recommendation to retain Planning Units 1, 19A, and 36 for residential development is contingent upon the applicant's agreement to comply with the International Fire Code Institute Urban - Wildland Interface recommendations and for Planning Unit 19A provide secondary access or comply with other alternative requirements of the Ventura County Fire Protection District, such as the provision of an interior fire sprinkler system for each dwelling unit. Circulation S. The applicant has requested that Hidden Creek Drive not be required to be constructed south of the extension of Campus Park Drive to connect to the State Route (SR) 118 Freeway (Lagoon Interchange) . The Traffic Study did not identify a need for this connection, if other proposed mitigation measures are adopted (such as improvements to the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection) . In the Planning Commission's resolution, the Commission included a recommendation that by the tenth year following initiation of construction, a connector roadway to either a new interchange at Lagoon and State Route 118 or a new interchange at Alamos Canyon and State Route 118 shall be constructed, if determined by the City Council to be warranted, based on an updated traffic study and required California Environmental Quality Act clearance. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 10000 IL 1711 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 14 The applicant has suggested that if the City Council desires an easterly connection to Simi Valley, other than by means of the Collins and Princeton interchanges, a road to Alamos Canyon can be considered across the property owned by Unocal within the City limits (that is east of Moorpark College and south of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan area) . Questions regarding the need for a roadway connection to the State Route 118 freeway at either a Lagoon or an Alamos Canyon interchange can be discussed at the Council's October 8 meeting. The Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Study preparer will be in attendance. 6. In July 1996, the EIR consultant completed a more detailed environmental evaluation of a road across the lower end of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, connecting to Spring Road, as a potential alternative to the construction of a northerly connection across the Park at Broadway. The July 1996 Spring Road Connection Study Report was previously provided to the City Council. Three conceptual roadway alignments were assessed. The alternative alignments studied in that report were located from approximately 200 to 240 feet north of the closest residential lots on Hastings and Lafayette Streets, and from approximately 600 to 800 feet north of the closest residential lot on East Cambridge Street (depending on the alignment selected) . The referenced Study Report concluded that potentially significant impacts can be mitigated, and feasible mitigation measures were identified. The Planning Commission concluded that the roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park was preferable to a Broadway extension, and recommended that the alignment be shifted further to the north to minimize impacts on existing residents. Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation, a roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park is now shown on the revised land use plan, and the alignment of that roadway is now shown approximately 800 feet north of the closest residential lots on Hastings and Lafayette Streets and approximately 1,000 feet north of the closest residential lot on East Cambridge Street, as shown on the revised land use plan. 7. The proposed phasing and responsible entity for construction and ownership of all trails identified on the Trails Plan should be included in the Specific Plan. The mechanism for funding the maintenance of the trails should also be identified. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 00001 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 15 Affordable Housing 8. Concerns were expressed by staff at the Planning Commission hearings regarding the ratio of rental to for -sale affordable housing, no provision of units affordable to very low income households, no indication of the targeted household income level for the for -sale units, and the inclusion of second dwelling units as part of the total affordable units to be provided. The Planning Commission agreed with staff's concerns. The applicant subsequently revised the affordable housing proposal, as identified in Attachment 6. The applicant has been discussing the details of a revised affordable housing program with the Ad Hoc Development Agreement Committee. Affordable housing issues are proposed to be discussed at the Council's October 29 public hearing, and would also be discussed in conjunction with the Development Agreement public hearing(s) . Fiscal Impact 9. The purpose of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Report was to provide information to staff and the decision makers that could be used to negotiate an acceptable tax revenue with the County of Ventura for the area to be annexed, as well as to negotiate with the applicant, and any other Specific Plan area property owners, through the Development Agreement process. The Fiscal Impact Report dated July 1996 analyzes two tax revenue scenarios (3.23 percent and 7.89 percent), along with several different commercial buildout scenarios. With the lower tax revenue scenario, the City would be impacted financially by the proposed Specific Plan development. Several potential property tax and sales tax revenue scenarios are analyzed to clearly define and demonstrate the precise impacts of possible scenarios, which allows the City Council to understand the potential fiscal impacts of different scenarios. The goal of the land planning, as well as tax revenue and Development Agreement negotiation efforts, should be to ensure that the City will not be adversely impacted from annexation and development of the Specific Plan area. The Planning Commission and the City Council will have the opportunity to review any Development Agreement at a noticed public hearing, and the potential financial benefit or impact to the City can be discussed at that time: DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 ODU 4' Hidden Creek Ranch To: Honorable City September 24, 1997 Page 16 Schools Specific Plan Project Council 10. The Final EIR identifies that, based on the Moorpark Unified School District's student generation rates, two elementary schools, 71 percent of a middle school, and 31 percent of a high school are required. The applicant subsequently hired a school facilities consultant that concluded that at buildout the specific plan area would generate the need for two elementary schools, one -half of a middle school, and approximately 20 percent of a high school. The applicant's consultant met with School District representatives and it staff's understanding that tentative agreement was reached regarding number, size and location of school sites. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised to include two 12- acre elementary school sites and a 43 -acre high school site. The eastern elementary school site has been relocated to the west side of Planning Unit 42A to make it more accessible. Both proposed elementary school sites are located adjacent to planned park sites. A high school site is now planned for the west end of the Specific Plan area (Planning Unit 39C), and would probably need access from the west end of Campus Park Drive, as well as from a roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park and from Hidden Creek Drive. The high school site access could be discussed at the special meeting planned for October 29, pertaining to school issues. Staff is not aware of any remaining issues regarding the number of school sites and size. Given that the Specific Plan No. 2 preliminary land use plan includes a site large enough to accommodate a middle school, a middle school site will probably not be needed within the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan. No formal letter has been received from the Moorpark School District documenting concurrence with the revised land use plan. A copy of the public notice, that identifies the scheduled public hearing dates, has been sent to the School District Superintendent. Oil Drilling and Production 11. Concerns regarding existing oil drilling sites and the potential for future drilling sites have been raised. The applicant is in negotiations with the oil company that owns the mineral rights to reduce potential impacts resulting from drilling and production of oil within the Specific Plan area. Progress regarding negotiations will be reported at a future meeting. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 00CIDIS, Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 17 Parks 12. Since the Draft EIR and Specific Plan were circulated for public review, the planned number of park sites has been reduced from five to four. The total park acreage is similar to the original land use plan (63.5 acres versus 66.5 acres) . These revisions were proposed by the applicant in response to concerns, to provide for larger areas, potentially suitable for ballfields and other active uses, as well as to reduce operation and maintenance costs. The largest park site, Planning Unit 42A, has sufficient area (38 acres) to include little league diamonds, softball diamonds, and soccer fields. The smallest park site currently proposed, Planning Unit 42B totaling 2.5 acres, should be deleted. The applicant's concept for 422 is that it would function as a trail corridor leading to the school site, Planning Unit 39A. The kind of trail envisioned would need to be maintained by a master homeowners association or assessment district, and staff would recommend that the proposed trail be included on the Trails Plan as a multi -use trail /Class 1 bike path and Planning Unit 42A should be designated as open space. The Park Concept Plans included as Exhibits 33 to 37 in the Draft Specific Plan require revision to match the consolidated park concept. Flexibility needs to be maintained regarding park siting, to allow for additional park consolidation if required. Another issue pertaining to parks is how operation and maintenance costs will be funded, as a result of the passage of Proposition 218. This issue probably can't be fully discussed until after the November 1997 election, and a decision is made regarding a special tax to fund park operation and maintenance costs. Specific Plan Revisions Recommendations for revisions to the draft Specific Plan are discussed in the preceding pages of this staff report and are also included Section 4 of the Planning Commission's resolution (Attachment 3). Additional recommendations for Specific Plan revisions are identified below. Staff is recommending that the Specific Plan should be organized in such a manner so as to clearly distinguish between policy statements, guidelines, and zoning regulations. Policy statements and guidelines would typically be adopted by resolution and zoning regulations and design standards should be adopted by ordinance. Currently the Specific Plan makes reference that the entire document would be adopted by ordinance, which is not recommended. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8\cc- prjrpt.1 0(1101 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 18 Adding the Specific Plan development regulations as a new chapter in Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code, is preferred. After reviewing the Draft Specific Plan, we are recommending that the proposed development regulations will need to be written so as to be consistent with Title 17 format (including numbering) , so as to allow for easy insertion. The current draft Specific Plan describes new zone districts that would have the same title as the proposed land use designations. For example, instead of a Residential Planned Development Zone, the Specific Plan includes Rural High, Low Density, Medium -Low Density, Medium, High, Very High -1 and Very High -2 Zones. Staff's preference would be to not cause confusion by creating new names for residential zones. All residential areas should be zoned Residential Planned Development (RPD) and the number of planned dwelling units per acre should be identified (for example, a Medium Density Residential designation would be equivalent to the RPD -4 dwelling units per acre Zone) . Another comment on the development regulations is that private recreation area requirements should be specifically addressed. The requirement should be imposed for single - family residential development with a lot size below 7,000 square feet, as well as for the planned multi- family residential development to offset greater densities. The specific plan should also detail the minimum size of the private recreation area and the types of recreational amenities that should be included (e.g., swimming pool, meeting room, barbecue /picnic area, etc.) . Portions of the Design Guidelines, Chapter 6, will need to be adopted as zoning regulations as currently proposed. For example, the Design Review Submittal Process, Section 6.11, would need to be codified. However, staff's opinion is that the Specific Plan preparer has proposed a redundant design review process that can be streamlined by revising the conceptual design review process to occur as a staff function prior to a determination of application completeness for a planned development or conditional use permit, consistent with the way other projects are currently processed. A separate public hearing is unnecessary. The final design review would occur following approval of a development permit and prior to approval of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit. Staff recommends that Section 6.11 be completely rewritten to be consistent with the existing Planned Development Permit process set forth in Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code. The only new procedure that should be required is to ensure that there is a comprehensive design theme and landscape plan for each identified Village DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.l 0MV31w ' Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 19 (four are described in the Specific Plan), prior to the processing of individual planned development permits within each of the Village areas. Portions of the current Implementation Section, beginning on Page 7 -1, will need to be adopted as zoning regulations, such as Sections 7.7 through 7.12, which pertain to development permit processing. The Implementation discussion pertaining to Tentative Maps and RPD Permits should clearly identify that a RPD Permit shall be processed concurrently with a Tentative Map, with the exception of a Master Tentative Map, which would create legal parcels or lots for strictly financing and conveyance purposes. Timing for Specific Plan Document Revisions Staff recommends that the City Council should require that the Draft Specific Plan be revised to incorporate all recommended Specific Plan revisions, prior to any determination by the City Council regarding approval or denial of the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change. Any direction by the City Council on the issues addressed in this report could have an effect on both the text and exhibits contained in the draft Specific Plan. General Plan Consistencv The Final EIR Volume V (pages 3.4 -3 to 3.4 -11) and the Draft Specific Plan (pages 8 -1 to 8 -24) should be referenced for General Plan consistency related discussion. Findings A preliminary draft of the EIR Findings; Statement of Overriding Considerations; and General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Specific Plan Findings will be submitted to the City Council for review at a continued meeting following the scheduled October 29 public hearing, to allow incorporation of information from the public hearings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing, accept project description testimony from the applicant, and continue the public hearing to a scheduled special City Council meeting on October 8, 1997, for focused discussion of Specific Plan draft land use and circulation plans, phasing, and access and traffic impact issues, including public testimony. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 000021 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project To: Honorable City Council September 24, 1997 Page 20 Attachments: 1. Summary of Project Modifications (includes original and revised land use plans, revised grading plan, and revised phasing plan) 2. Explanation of Mitigation Measures Incorporated into Revised Draft Specific Plan 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC -96 -325 4. Planning Commission Staff Report for 8 -12 -96 Meeting 5. Letter from Urban Strategies dated July 17, 1997 6. Revised Hidden Creek Ranch Affordable Housing Implementation Plan 7. Full Scale Revised Land Use Plan Documents Previously Provided to City Council: 1. Draft Specific Plan dated June 1995 2. Volumes I through V - Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan EIR 3. Draft Spring Road Connection Study Report dated August 1996 4. Final Fiscal Impact Analysis Report dated July 1996 (Staff can provide an additional copy of any of the documents referenced in this report to the Council upon request.) DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- prjrpt.1 , '02Z ATTACHMENT_ Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan CITY OF MOORPARK HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8 PROJECT SUMMARY REQUESTED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A. CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The project requires the acceptance of an environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the state CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Moorpark CEQA Procedures, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on the project. General Plan Amendment (GPA -93 -1) A General Plan Amendment (GPA) is required to reflect the final approved specific plan land use designations, circulation system, and environmental setting information on the Moorpark General Plan exhibits. Specific Plan (SP -93 -1) The City of Moorpark's General Plan requires the use of specific plans to systematically implement General Plan policies and priorities and identifies that the intent of a specific plan is to achieve a long -term cohesive development program which is responsive to the physical and economic opportunities and constraints of the specific plan area. Prezone (Z -93 -3) The project requires a change of zone. This is a prezone prior to the annexation of the site from the County of Ventura into the City of Moorpark. Subsequent Actions Subsequent actions on the project will include but are not limited to the following: Consideration by the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of a Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation. MoorparkJ001 1 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan City of Moorpark The City of Moorpark, as lead agency, can approve subsequent actions without additional environmental documentation, unless as otherwise required by Public Resources Code Section 21166, state CEQA Guidelines Section 15160 et seq. The following is a list of subsequent actions that are anticipated to be required by the city to allow for project implementation: • Development Agreement • Adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 17 of Moorpark Municipal Code to address new zone districts and standards • Master tentative tract map • Other tentative and final tract maps and parcel maps • Conditional use permits • Residential and commercial planned development permits • Grading permits • Haul route approval • Building permits • Acquisition of easements and right -of -way and construction of roads and accessways • Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act district formation • Community Facilities District Formation • Tree removal permit • Encroachment permits • Miscellaneous permits B. EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS General Plan: Existing County of Ventura Open Space City of Moorpark Specific Plan No. 8. The General Plan notes that number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2,400 unless the specific plan area property owners agree to provide public improvements, public services, and /or financial contributions that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community, in which event, the number of dwelling units shall not exceed 3,221. General Plan: Proposed City of Moorpark The amount and locations of land to be designated Residential, Open Space, etc. will be determined at the time of specific plan deliberation by the City Council. Land Use Element: Amend Land Use Element Exhibit No, 3 and Table 3 to reflect the Specific Plan land uses. MoorparkJ001 2 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Circulation Element: Amend Circulation Element Exhibit No. 2 (Highway Network), No. 3 (Bikeway Element), and No. 4 (Equestrian Trail Network) to reflect Specific Plan vehicular and non - vehicular circulation plans. Zoning: Existing County of Ventura Agricultural Exclusive (A -E) City of Moorpark None established Zoning: Proposed City of Moorpark Amend the city zoning map by ordinance to prezone the Specific Plan site consistent with the proposed land uses. Amend the City Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning, by ordinance to establish controlling development regulations for the site. MoorparkJ001 3 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) PROJECT HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The purpose of this background information is to document for the reader revisions that have been made to the proposed project in order to reduce or avoid environmental effects associated with project implementation. These changes do not result in any new significant information that would require recirculation of the draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[e]). The intent of changes that occurred to the project subsequent to the circulation of the draft EIR would not result in any new significant environmental impacts, increase the severity of identified significant impacts, result in any mitigation measures or alternatives that the project applicant has declined to adopt, or result in the identification of deficiencies in the draft EIR. Rather, changes and modifications that have been made prior and subsequent to the circulation of the draft EIR have been to reduce /avoid these significant environmental effects. A. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF DRAFT EIR Drainage After discussions with the County of Ventura Flood Control District, the project's flood control plan was altered incorporating a detention basin to retain water onsite and minimize the downstream peak flows from the site. Biological Resources Upon completion of biological surveys, the primary arterial through the Specific Plan site - Hidden Creek Drive- was relocated to avoid significant habitat areas. Development Boundaries During the environmental analysis process, there were several boundary adjustments between development areas (planning units) and areas proposed for permanent open space dedication to minimize /reduce significant environmental impacts. Aesthetics /Grading Upon completion of line -of -site exhibits, the grading plan was revised to minimize /reduce the project's visibility from offsite land uses. MoorparkJ001 4 Project Summary f rp 13s> ,.t- "gib Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Pian Archaeological Resources Due to the number of archaeological sites found on the easternmost portion-of the Specific Plan area (noted as Planning Unit 45), the planned residential units were removed (approximately 215 dwelling units) by the applicant. For the draft EIR analysis, the designation was changed to Private Open Space; no grading or development was assumed. The draft EIR notes that "a second golf course may be proposed in the future for the eastern portion of the site; it is not a part of this project and will require subsequent environmental review and discretionary action approvals." Transportation Improvements After completion of the traffic analysis and other environmental surveys used in preparation of the draft EIR, it was determined that the Lagoon interchange with State Route 118 (SR -118) was not required for the project, because it does not provide substantial traffic benefits, and because other less costly circulation /mitigation options were identified. Therefore, the traffic analysis in the draft EIR does not assume the Lagoon interchange as a project design feature. Implementation of the Lagoon interchange and roadway connection with the Specific Plan site would have significant environmental impacts including the loss of 114± oak trees associated with the grading of the alignment through steep terrain. B. PROJECT AS SET FORTH IN THE DRAFT EIR Project Land Uses As Set Forth in the Draft EIR The project, as addressed in the draft EIR, is as follows in Table 1 and Exhibit 1. Project Phasing As Set Forth in the Draft EIR Buildout of the Specific Plan site was proposed to occur over 11 or more years. The overall phasing plan for the project, as addressed in the draft EIR, is depicted in Table 2. Exhibit 2 shows the revised phasing proposal. MoorparkJ001 5 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan TABLE 1 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN ANALYZED IN DRAFT EIR Planning Units Land Use Gross Acres Dwelling Units Rural-High-Density, Residentiat (0 - 0.6 DU /AC Density) 1 Single - Family Detached 139.1 35 19 Single - Family Detached 94.5 20 36 Single - Family Detached 45.3 15 Subtotal 278.9 70 Low- Density Residential (0.5 =1.0 DU /AC Density) > 20 Single - Family Detached 54.4 36 30 Single - Family Detached 33.7 20 32 Single - Family Detached 67.4 48 35 Single - Family Detached 53.6 35 Subtotal 209.1 139 Medium -Love- Density Residential. (1.0 -2A DU/AC Density) 10 Single - Family Detached 47.5 61 11 Single - Family Detached 23.7 32 21 Single - Family Detached 46.5 60 26 Single - Family Detached 26.7 44 29 Single - Family Detached 48.1 62 33 Single - Family Detached 31.5 27 34 Single - Family Detached 17.2 22 Subtotal 241.2 308 Medium-Density Residential (10 -4A DU/AC Densi 2 Single - Family Detached 73.3 250 3 Single - Family Detached 25.8 90 4 Single - Family Detached 42.3 132 12 Single - Family Detached 10 39 13 Single - Family Detached 26.6 100 15 Single - Family Detached 39 120 16 Single - Family Detached 30.5 113 23 Single - Family Detached 25 93 24 1 Single-Family Detached 1 24 1 89 MoorparkJ001 6 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Planning Units Land Use Gross Acres Dweliing Units 25 Single - Family Detached 27.9 104 27 Single - Family Detached 53.3 70 28 Single - Family Detached 29.2 100 31 Single - Family Detached 52 70 Subtotal 458.9 1,370 High- Density Residential (4.0 - 7.0 DUTAC Density) 5 Single - Family Detached or Attached 18.5 84 14 Single - Family Detached 30.2 155 17 1 Single - Family Detached or Attached 23.7 138 Subtotal 72.4 377 Very-High-Density Residential -1 (7.0 -10.0 DU /AC Density 6 Single - Family Detached or Attached 13.5 132 7 Single - Family Detached or Attached 17.2 170 8 Single- Family Detached or Attached 10 100 18 Single - Family Detached or Attached 11.5 113 22 Single - Family Detached or Attached 34.2 335 Subtotal 86.4 850 Very-High-Density Residential:- 2 (10.0 -15.0 DU /AC Densi ) 9 Single - Family Detached or Attached 12.5 107 Subtotal 12.5 107 Residential Totals 1,359.4 AC 3,221 DU Planning Unit Land use Gross AcreslSquare t=eet° Community Center Area - CID -1 37 Community Commercial Center 17.51190 575 Neighborhood Centers - CPD -2 38 Neighborhood: (38A -7.2 ac.) Commercial: (386 -4.5 ac.) 7.2/78,408 4.5/49,005 Public and Institutional 39 Schools (39A, 3913, 39C) 30 ac. Golf Course 40 Golf Course 174.9/N.A. 41 Golf Clubhouse 10.5/114,345 MoorparkJ001 7 Project Summary 4)000 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan MoorparkJ001 8 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan `� -14 *A HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PHASING PLAN ANALYZED IN DRAFT EIR Year Planning Unit Category ,' Density /Gross Acre Dwelling Units-1 Percent of Phase 1 15 Medium 2.0- 4.0 145 36 16 Medium 2.0- 4.0 113 28 18 Very High -1 7.0-10.0 113 28 31 Medium 2.0- 4.0 28 8 West Detention Basin Subtotal 399 100 2 17 High 4.0 -7.0 138 34 14 High 4.0- 7.0 112 28 25 Medium 2.0-4.0 104 26 26 Medium Low 1.0-2.0 34 9 29 Medium Low 1.0-2.0 13 3 40/41 Golf Course (9 holes)/Temporary Clubhouse; Central Detention Basin; Zone R -1 Reservoir Subtotal 401 100 3 22 Very High -1 7.0-10.0 168 56 12 Medium 2.0- 4.0 39 13 23 Medium 2.0- 4.0 93 31 40 Golf Course (9 holes); Zone R -2 Reservoir Subtotal 300 100 4 29 Medium Low 1.0- 2.0 44 14 24 Medium 2.0- 4.0 89 1 30 22 Very High -1 7.0-10.0 167 56 37 Community Commercial Center (50 percent complete); Zone A Reservoir Subtotal 300 1 100 Moorpark,1001 10 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Year Planning Unit Category, Density /Gross Acre Dwelling Units Percent' of Phase 5 13 Medium 2.0- 4.0 100 33 10 Medium Low 1.0- 2.0 61 20 11 Medium Low 1.0- 2.0 32 11 20 Low 0.5- 1.0 26 9 21 Medium Low 1.0- 2.0 60 20 33 Medium Low 1.0- 2.0 21 7 41 Permanent Golf Course Club House 37 Community Commercial Center (remainder) 39B, 42C, 42D Park Site (PU 42C); School /Park Site (PUs 39B & 42D) Subtotal 300 100 6 9 Very High -2 10.0-12.0 107 36 4 Medium 2.0- 4.0 159 53 19 Rural High 0.0- 0.5 10 3 32 Low 0.5- 1.0 24 8 Second Zone B Reservoir; Zone C Reservoir Residential Subtotal 300 100 Total Dwellings Through Year 6 2,000 7 (To be Determined) Residential Subtotal 300 8 (To be Determined) Residential Subtotal 300 9 (To be Determined) Residential Subtotal 300 10 (To be Determined) Residential Subtotal 300 11 (To be Determined) Residential Subtotal 21 Total Dwelling Units 63,221 Source: Messenger Investment Company, Inc. 1995. MoorparkJ001 11 Project Summary 000,033 i_--r PHASING LEGEND PHASE "A" — -- PHASE'S" -- PHASE nC11 .............. PHASE "D" — — — — — — — 1 K 1 L, f _J N f _J 'b n AL LAND USE DATA PL.WNINO P-m onoss OwEEUNc UNITS usE ...CBEs UNf7s tt a RURII MIOH RESIOErrtMEH- L (O - 0.3 W/K OEMIh') LOW DCNSITY RCSIDENTPl (O .S - 1.0 W /.0 OcN ) ..a. �!_i r uEDUU LOr DE Sin (1.0 - 2.0 W/A DEMRv • rEODU OEIIS- RFSIOEN L (1.0 - ..0 W/- OENM -� • n�G1 OEHS- RMDEM (4.0 - 7.0 DO /7t 0[x lRY O \� Nr �1 vERY "WH RMDEH7 - 1 (7.0 - 10.0 DU /.G DE- i ._ n yFRY HiON RCSIDENIHL - 3 1].O -x0.0 OU •C DCf•Si R ESIDFMHL mrf f 1221.7 A(;. Jul O.� HON- R[SiOFMML USF9 a PVPV wr�HO 1.w0 USE all "-^ I V E w vnweCT TOOTALS �OEMMLUU AC. .131 D.1 SEP 1-9, 1997 HIDDEN CREEK RANC - iiy or muorpark SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF YOORPARK. CA - PROPOSED LAND USE IJ�� rREV.Rm er: �yJj -_ �`�, EEUIwND�R�VP�QIw. '\ SEPIErBER. 1997 SHEET 10( 1 ELI 'b n AL LAND USE DATA PL.WNINO P-m onoss OwEEUNc UNITS usE ...CBEs UNf7s tt a RURII MIOH RESIOErrtMEH- L (O - 0.3 W/K OEMIh') LOW DCNSITY RCSIDENTPl (O .S - 1.0 W /.0 OcN ) ..a. �!_i r uEDUU LOr DE Sin (1.0 - 2.0 W/A DEMRv • rEODU OEIIS- RFSIOEN L (1.0 - ..0 W/- OENM -� • n�G1 OEHS- RMDEM (4.0 - 7.0 DO /7t 0[x lRY O \� Nr �1 vERY "WH RMDEH7 - 1 (7.0 - 10.0 DU /.G DE- i ._ n yFRY HiON RCSIDENIHL - 3 1].O -x0.0 OU •C DCf•Si R ESIDFMHL mrf f 1221.7 A(;. Jul O.� HON- R[SiOFMML USF9 a PVPV wr�HO 1.w0 USE all "-^ I V E w vnweCT TOOTALS �OEMMLUU AC. .131 D.1 SEP 1-9, 1997 HIDDEN CREEK RANC - iiy or muorpark SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF YOORPARK. CA - PROPOSED LAND USE IJ�� rREV.Rm er: �yJj -_ �`�, EEUIwND�R�VP�QIw. '\ SEPIErBER. 1997 SHEET 10( 1 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan While market conditions were assumed to ultimately dictate phasing, prior to the occupancy of any dwelling units, infrastructure improvements would be required to accommodate the onsite development. Primary improvements for the initial phases of the project, as identified in the draft EIR, are as follows: • Extension of Campus Park Drive into the Specific Plan site. • Partial construction of Hidden Creek Drive from the existing easterly terminus of Campus Park Drive west to Broadway. The full right -of -way would be graded; two lanes would be paved. • Construction of the easterly storm water detention site adjacent to the community commercial center, and site drainage improvements (i.e., debris basins as required by project drainage studies. • Provision of offsite sewer and water extensions to the Specific Plan site. • Construction of one Zone B water reservoir. The estimated construction period for these infrastructure improvements was 1 -1/2 to 2 years. C. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS SUBSEQUENT TO COMPLETION OF THE DRAFT EIR: MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BY THE PROJECT APPLICANT In response to public and agency comments received on the draft EIR regarding the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (SP No. 8), the City of Moorpark requested the project applicant to consider additional modifications. The purpose of the modifications would be to: 1) lessen the environmental effects associated with the project and 2) increase the public benefit of the project to justify the requested increase in residential dwelling units from 2,400 to 3,221; the later is the density limit allowed for the Specific Plan site under the city's General Plan. The applicant presented several modifications /mitigations for consideration. Several of these modifications /mitigations were recommended by the City of Moorpark Planning Commission to the Moorpark City Council for incorporation into the project. The project applicant's recommended revised land use plan is included as Table 3 and Exhibit 3. The resulting modifications to the project are also identified in the revised land use summary for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan project as Table 3. A revised grading plan is included as Exhibit 4A and 4B. MoorparkJ001 13 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan TABLE 3 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN REVISED LAND USE PLAN Planning Units Land Use Gross Acres Dwelling Units Rural- Hlgh -Density Residential (0 - 0.5 dulac density) 1 Single - Family Detached 43.8 15 19A Single - Family Detached 39.0 25 19B Single- Family Detached 22.3 15 36 Single- Family Detached 25.5 15 Subtotal 130.6 70 Low - Density Residential (0.5 -1.0 dufac density) ,. 30A Single- Family Detached 21.3 13 30B Single - Family Detached 11.4 8 31 Single - Family Detached 24.0 21 35A, B, and C Single - Family Detached 68.1 57 37A and 37B Single - Family Detached 12.0 10 Subtotal 136.8 109 Medium- Low -Density Residential (1.0:- 2.0 dulae dens' ) 21 Single - Family Detached 20.7 40 27 Single - Family Detached 21.0 23 28 Single- Family Detached 24.0 20 29A and 29B Single- Family Detached 61.0 41 32 Single - Family Detached 33.5 24 33 Single - Family Detached 36.2 24 34A and 34B Single - Family Detached 1 25.8 22 Subtotal 222.2 194 Medlurrt- Denslty Residential'(2A - 4.G dutac density) 2 Single-Family Detached 105.1 360 3 Single - Family Detached 29.5 97 4 Single - Family Detached 32.4 120 10 Single - Family Detached 70.0 190 11 Single-Family Detached 24.0 65 13 Single - Family Detached 27.4 70 15 1 Single-Family Detached 1 20.7 1 60 MoorparkJ001 14 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Planning Units Land Use Gross Acres Dwelling Units 16 Single - Family Detached 39.0 135 17 Single - Family Detached 23.7 85 20 Single - Family Detached 34.7 95 24 Single - Family Detached 31.3 120 26 Single - Family Detached 29.5 101 5 Single - Family Detached 43.8 105 Subtotal 511.1 1,603 High;-Density Residential (4.0 7.0 dt,lac density 6 Single - Family Detached or Attached 43.8 105 12 Single - Family Detached or Attached 7.5 45 14 and 18 Single - Family Detached or Attached 27.5 135 23 Single - Family Detached or Attached 23.0 95 25 Single - Family Detached or Attached 20.0 90 Subtotal 121.8 470 Very4ilgh-Density Residential - 1>(7.0 -10.0 du /ac dens' 7 Single - Family Detached or Attached 9.5 90 8 Single - Family Detached or Attached 9.3 90 16 Single- Family Detached or Attached 10.0 75 22 Single - Family Detached or Attached 34.7 1 340 Subtotal 63.5 595 Very- High - Density Residential - 2`(10.0 -15.0 dulac density) 9 Single - Family Detached or Attached 9.3 180 Subtotal 9.3 180 Residential Totals 1,195.3 3,221 Nan - Residential Uses Planning Unit land Use Gross Acres/Square Feet Community Center 38A Commercial 19.0 ac. 38B Commercial 2.5 ac. Schools 39A Elementary School (K -6) 12.0 ac. 39B Elementary School (K -6) 12.0 ac. MoorparkJ001 15 Project SummaryF, Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Non- Residential Uses Planning Unit Land Use: Gross Acres/Square Feet' 39C High School 43 ac. Golf Course 40 Golf Course 223.1 ac. /N.A. 45 East Mesa Golf Course 450 ac./ N.A. Open Space 38C Open Space 1.5 ac. /N.A. 41 Oak Woodlands Open Space 67.0 ac. /N.A. Remainder of Specific Plan No. 8 Natural Open Space 2,270.7 ac. /N.A. Parks 42A Park 38.0 ac. /N.A. 42B Park 2.5 ac. /N.A. 42C Park 9.0 ac./ N.A. 42D Park 13.5 ac. /N.A. Equestrian Center 43 Equestrian Center 9.6 ac. P u bl icli n s tituf ion all 44B Public/institutional 24.2 ac. Non - Residential Total 2,962.6 ac. Residential Total 3,221 d.u./1,195.3 ac. Total Acres 4,322 ac. a Assumes a 0.25 floor area ratio. Assessor parcel records indicate the site is 4,322.58 acres; for planning purposes, the acreage figure is rounded to 4,322 acres. Source: Messenger Investment Company, Inc. 1997 and Planning Commission Recommendations to the City Council, 1996. MoorparkJ001 16 Project Summary (A)UO3E L- LANE) USE [DATA GAOSS O-ELL� 10 LAND .5C �ACS ---TS -L HIGH RESIDE— 2 (20 - 4.Q W/� DENWrY) W 'HE 13 NON-ftESIDCNT� TOTALS 3126.7 K. PROjECT TOTALS .3= AC. �' o... RECEIVED �T EP 2 2 1997 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH City of Moorpark SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF MOORPARK, CA PROPOSED LAND USE I " \ _- Y.. ! �.. L I.E—D 8r �LAND GROUP. INC. §,§ENNX comyR% NT ANY SEPTEMBER. 1997 SHEET I OF I P I• ° r� 101 St f F .e NiYu r. X.- � 't' T •� Styr, �,t ." � .. � � 4� �>� .;, .s V. Fr 1 M; -� —' � sal • � ,� C x. � Y 0 .�� I 9 i "j t %j• T yS OS, 111 Os ( t 1.,. ., � '�,- X79 �... ,_- _.i r�a,a• r\,-�• t r Pfr•1 � Rtip r 3+ � � �� O0 ucrtis�•�4 i°oo .. � I ' � `� V"' -'i.,� } . 7 �� I N` ,: ,� � l 1 34B r,., \ � "!�� � , Xr � r �.A _�f %' lam— � •�. \ _ -, 5 t H10�H /SCHf1r7 PU U'a°fs. 32 N••�� OnW 1 � �� . (,.,1 r ITS 1 � �1�� i 1 �:: \ f ♦y'� 0 1000 2000 r`o HIDDEN' CRY` ai HVY- - - - -AV -- -SPE6]r FEET Crrr OF MOO"AM CA ' RECEIVED „� MESSENGER CONCEPT" GRADING PLAN SEP 2 21997 City of Moorpark��` EXHIBIT 4A MAINTAN l a �7l•. • � � f " ,J f {,4, y�KYi y�' {yeny'�i 1 os- :- y.�`!<M1YD h r�1 C .. N 3 /�} ♦ � �'� C l .�'. �1 �� ,t.7 � 4 / �i Y �. / . loF ti,. Ke r 4' „ _ / � 'E� t✓. �� t�`"_',` .1 ,..; �f � '`'H4`ss' W , l '"�' i� r- , �' / /A�'� ''M+1,;\ w y f I:f: r°- i f ';mil ✓ ' " \'Y ` ' � b ou 4 �/ , ' r 1 r I �?{ �/%. � - i4r1 �� ` I• .. r �,\ � .rte \ i � 4 ?.. "'..'Z �)q .. ' W �1f �.f / , - awAQ r +.`ii >,`•� //�',.�''�� �/ r.(i,\� ' ' \ 1/ l'� 1" • �. %flit.�.'.ii \ I 4r.i r t�r' -,' /. t'�i i j �7"� // /'l'�'Y �k% r f OS 39+4. r QS 37 �r 11�LT M1iom fT'� �I1T, P Aft- ,...- 1- HIDDE CREEK RANCH .? IFIC PLAN �` Y .1 `\ � /j' 2K I � �r ,,r r.•. ,, r ---c 1 OP 1[OORAARY, CA rl GER RADING PLAN .i :lam r /%` .-F •� , - err r cf ',. K ll� 6 \yf� � .0 1000 2000 '.vAllm rac Ms T, Eico ar f x' FEET E.�IBIT 4B Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Planning Units 1, 19, and 36 The draft EIR analyzes these planning units as residential development sites at a density category of rural -low- density (0 - 0.5 du /ac). These planning units are in the northernmost portion of the development area, at the highest elevations proposed for development. The project applicant indicated his willingness to remove one or a combination of these three planning units from the Specific Plan by redistributing the allowable dwelling units (up to 70 units) to other planning units. Eliminating development from these planning units would retain an additional 279 acres in natural open space, but would also eliminate this housing type /rural density from the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council was to retain Planning Units 1, 19, and 36 as originally proposed in the Specific Plan. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's actions on the project, the project applicant reduced the acreage of these planning units to lessen environmental impacts associated with development in these areas of the site. Planning Unit 1 decreased in acreage from 139.1 acres to 43.8 acres with a reduction of dwelling units from 35 to 15. Planning Unit 19 decreased in acreage from 94.5 acres to 61.3 acres. Planning Unit 36 decreased in acreage from 45.3 acres to 25.5 acres. The applicant had proposed a density of 1 dwelling unit per two acres or less with no massing grading except to provide an access road to the area. Based on the revisions to these three planning units, Planning Unit 1 would still be in the density range for Rural -High- Density Residential (0 - 0.5 du /ac); the other two planning areas would exceed the density for this zoning designation. Based on evaluation of the biological habitat values of Planning Units 1, 19A and B, and 36, staffs recommendation is that the residential units shown within Planning Unit 19B be relocated to another planning unit or units. This revision to the land use plan would result in an additional 22.3 acres of natural open space. Planning Unit 19B contains both Chaparral and Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub habitats. Planning Units 1, 19A, and 36 contain non - native grassland, and based on the existing topography and existing access rights for oil drilling operations, have little value for wildlife movement purposes. The applicant has verbally agreed to staffs recommendation for Planning Unit 19B as an additional biological mitigation and impact avoidance measure. MoorparkJ001 20 Project Summary 0 0Q�2 4�-) Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Planning Units 4 and 41 The project applicant suggested to the Planning Commission that 33 acres of the 42.3 -acre Planning Unit 4 could be used as a natural open space park. The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council was to include this additional park or open space area in the Specific Plan project for the following reasons: • Fewer acres of grading • Increased parkland /open space within the Specific Plan site • Retention of biological resources including approximately 618 oak trees • Reductions in grading result in less short-term (grading - related) air emissions To incorporate this use, the applicant has modified the land use plan such that Hidden Creek Drive would be relocated to the west (rather than the east) side of the commercial center and very- high - density residential planning units (originally depicted as Planning Units 37, 7, and 8; revised land use plan are depicted as Planning Units 7, 8, and 9). This open space use would occur in an area of Planning Unit 4 originally proposed for medium - density - residential development. This portion of the specific plan site has been modified such that Planning Unit 4 contains 120 medium - density residences on 32.4 acres; Planning Unit 41 (previously part of Planning Unit 4) is 67 acres of natural open space "oak woodlands open space." Oak Trees The number of oak trees affected by project implementation are directly related to the number of trees displaced through grading and construction activities and indirectly impacted through potential improper /inadequate long -term maintenance. The EIR notes that the number of oak trees that may be directly impacted through project implementation represents a worst -case scenario with an assumption of no oak trees preserved /avoided because of mass grading the entire planning unit. However, it is possible and feasible that many oak trees can be preserved within a planning unit by avoidance. At this stage in the planning process, the applicant is requesting the approval of a Specific Plan. Subsequent approvals for the site will be required as more definitive development plans within individual planning units are submitted for city consideration. Detailed information regarding lot placement, etc., required for a tentative map, is not required for a Specific Plan; therefore, worst -case assumptions were made in the draft EIR. It is possible and feasible for oak trees to be avoided through the following methods: • As more detailed planning is conducted for the Specific Plan project. • New Planning Unit 41 (previously a part of Planning Unit 4), is located east of the Community Center commercial area, and is proposed to be a natural open space MoorparkJ001 21 Project Summary �� Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan area instead of residential development. Approximately 618 oak trees that would have been removed to allow for the construction of residences will now be retained. • Should the Lagoon Interchange and access road not be constructed, approximately 114 oak trees would be retained. Although oak trees may be impacted should the Almos Interchange and access road (or another interchange and access road) be constructed, it is not believed that the same density of trees occur in these alternative locations. The Planning Commission's resolution includes a recommendation to the City Council that a second easterly access be constructed by project year 10, if additional traffic analysis determines that this access is needed, subject to CEQA evaluation. Project Phasing The draft EIR identified the project's phasing plan as commencing in the first year with the development of Planning Units 15, 16, 18, and 31, which are noncontiguous and generally located in the central portion of the project. The project applicant recommended to the Planning Commission that modifications to the phasing plan occur such that development would generally proceed from east to west. Development is now proposed to occur in four phase areas (A through D) as depicted in Exhibit 4. These phases indicate the general sequence for the development of major land use areas. It should be noted that all development within a phase would not necessarily be constructed before development of the next phase commences. Several factors including the arterial road system, public services, and economic/marketing conditions could affect the buildout schedule and sequence of development. The project applicant has anticipated that buildout of the project would be approximately 15 years. For each development phase, a Master Tract Map for the area within the phase is proposed to be recorded. These Master Tract Maps would create parcels sized for sale to builders which correspond to the individual planning units or portions thereof so that tract maps and related land use permits can be processed for individual development projects. In addition to the Master Tract Maps, there will be grading and infrastructure plans. It is intended by the project applicant to submit these grading and infrastructure plans concurrent with the Master Tract Maps as grading and commencement of the backbone infrastructure is expected to impact areas outside of the Master Tract boundaries. A new mitigation measure could be adopted to require that individual development projects could proceed as long as necessary public service infrastructure and services are available, as documented in grading and infrastructure plans submitted with any master tentative map application. For each development phase, a Master Tract Map for the area within each phase should be required. In the first development phase (Area A), residential Planning Units 2 through 9 would be constructed. Buildout of residences within the planning units would be subject to market MoorparkJ001 22 Project Summary ,000044 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan conditions but is expected to take at least five years. The applicant has indicated that this schedule assumes that necessary infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, utilities, an elementary school, and an improved park (Planning Unit 42A]) will be in place as specified by the expected conditions of approval for the proposed project, development agreement, and master tentative map. Commencement of Area B will require the improvement of Hidden Creek Drive to either a point on the east side of Specific Plan No. 2 ( "C" Street through Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park), or to another road connection that meets the approval of the Fire District. The effects of modifying the phasing plan are as follows: • Less mass grading would occur at the start of project implementation. For example, the original phasing plan would result in approximately 133 acres of grading within the planning units in year 1, plus grading for Hidden Creek Drive from Campus Park Drive (east) extending westerly to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park by year 1 -1/2. • Less grading can minimize the potential for erosion and lessen short-term (grading - and construction - related) air emissions. Eliminate the need for a western roadway extension through Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park early in the site's development. The "C" Street connection to Spring Road through lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park is proposed by the applicant to occur when Specific Plan No. 2 has built the internal road system between Spring Road and the east side of its site adjacent to the park. Until then, Hidden Creek Ranch would use an interim connection to Campus Park Drive or other suitable connection providing fire, circulation, and public safety requirements. Transportation Improvements /Phasing As a part of the modified project, the following roadways will be provided. It is noted below in parentheses as to whether these roadway improvements are changes from the original proposal in the draft EIR. MoorparkJ001 An extension of Campus Park Drive (east) into the Specific Plan site would be constructed in year 1. (No change) Hidden Creek Drive as an east -west arterial through the site would serve as the primary roadway through the project site. The roadway would be accessed from the extension of Campus Park Drive (east) into the project site where it would become Hidden Creek Drive on the eastern side of the Specific Plan site. Hidden Creek Drive would transverse the site east to west with access from the west via a roadway connecting to an extension of Spring Road ( "C" Street) through Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Hidden Creek Drive would be constructed in phases as development is implemented east to west through the Specific Plan site. (Changey 23 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan The Specific Plan originally showed the Broadway Road connection through Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. The "C" Street connection is proposed to pass through the park and would occur south of the originally proposed Broadway connection. Hidden Creek Drive through the Specific Plan site has been relocated adjacent to Planning Units 37A, 37B, and 39C to allow for the Spring Road connection. (Change) The "C" Street connection through Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park would be constructed through the park extending into the Specific Plan No. 2 site immediately west and into the Specific Plan No. 8 site (becoming Hidden Creek Drive). The roadway would be constructed as a two -lane Village Collector. (Change) Residential collector road from Collins Drive /Campus Road would run east to the commercial center in Planning Unit 38A. This road is intended to serve as a secondary access into the site until determined by the City that a permanent secondary access is required. Project - related traffic would increase on Collins Drive and Campus Road associated with vehicles using this residential collector road. (Change) As previously discussed, the traffic analysis determined that the Lagoon Interchange with SR -118 (a secondary easterly access) was not needed subject to other traffic improvements. However, the Planning Commission recommended that a second easterly access point to the site via SR -118 be constructed by the 10th year, if the City Council determines the need for an additional connection to SR -118, based upon additional traffic analysis. It is expected that this second site access would be provided by either the construction of the Lagoon Interchange or the Alamos Canyon Interchange with an associated access road into the Specific Plan site. Consideration of an interchange at Lagoon or a new roadway connecting to an interchange at Alamos Canyon would be subject to environmental review. Planning Unit 45 The land use plan, as depicted in the draft EIR, identifies Planning Unit 45 as a 690 -acre natural open space area with no active land uses proposed as a part of the project. The draft EIR does disclose the applicant's desire to develop a golf course in Planning Unit 45 in the future,,subject to additional environmental documentation. The zoning was previously proposed to permit various open space uses for Planning Unit 45, including construction of a golf course with approval of a conditional use permit. Planning Unit 45 is now shown as only 450 acres, and the project applicant is requesting the city's consideration of modifications to the site plan to zone 450 acres of the Specific Plan site (Planning Unit 45) for Open Space /Golf Course (OS /GC); no development is proposed as a part of the project. The applicant has indicated that only approximately 175 to 200 of the 450 acres is anticipated to be needed for a future golf course, and that the remainder (250 to 275 acres) would be retained as natural open space. The other 240 acres that were originally a part of Planning Unit 45 are now shown as a part of the permanent open space area of the Specific Plan site. MoorparkJ001 24 Project Summary 011 0 040 -1 k Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan City staff previously indicated to the project applicant that if all required environmental studies are completed for Planning Unit 45, prior to City Council action on the Specific Plan, if no new significant adverse environmental impacts are identified, and if the northerly 240 acres of the original Planning Unit 45 are designated as natural open space, staff could recommend a zoning designation for the southerly portion of Planning Unit 45 that would permit a golf course. The project applicant, at the direction of city staff, has prepared and submitted to the city a tree report and archaeological assessment of Planning Unit 45 to support the rezone of the planning unit to OS /GC. Additional environmental analysis has now been completed to address the revised land use, which is considered environmentally preferable to the original Private Open Space proposal. New mitigation measures are proposed to ensure mitigation /avoidance of potential environmental impacts for a combined golf course and open use in Planning Unit 45. These measures will be incorporated into the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Transportation Improvements: Lagoon Interchange Modifications to the project's circulation system with respect to the Lagoon interchange are discussed above. Transportation Improvements: Western Roadway Connection Through Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park As a part of the project, and consistent with the Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element assumptions, the project applicant proposed the extension of "C" Street through Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park connecting to Hidden Creek Drive through the Specific Plan site. The traffic analysis prepared for the draft EIR indicates that a small percentage of the vehicular trips expected from the proposed project were expected to use Broadway, and would provide limited benefit to the city with respect to subregional transportation improvements. At the same time, the entitlement process for the Specific Plan No. 2 project, located west of the Specific Plan No. 8 site and the regional park, commenced. The Specific Plan No. 2 site plan depicted a roadway connection through its site which would facilitate a vehicular access through lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park via Spring Road. Traffic projections suggested that a Spring Road connection to serve both specific plan sites would provide better traffic distribution than the Broadway connection. A Spring Road Study was prepared for Planning Commission evaluation to determine if a Spring Road connection would result in any new significant environmental effects that would not occur with the Broadway Road extension or that could not be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. The Spring Road study noted that a connection would not result in any new significant impacts that could not be mitigated. The Planning Commission recorrlmended MoorparkJ001 25 Project Summary i3 �; .-0 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan approval of the Hidden Creek Specific Plan project to the City Council with the Spring Road connection. The Planning Commission indicated that the alignment of this roadway should be moved further north of the existing residences on Hastings, Lafayette, and East Cambridge streets. Subsequent to Planning Commission actions, the Spring Road Study was revised to address an alignment approximately 800 feet north of the nearest residence (an increase in distance of approximately 600 feet to the north). At the west end of the revised alignment (at Specific Plan No. 2), the roadway would be approximately 1,000 feet north of the southwest corner of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. The point of connection at Specific Plan No. 8 to the east remains the same. Transportation Improvements: Hidden Creek Drive East The project applicant has realigned and shifted Hidden Creek Drive through the site to the west (in the eastern portion of the specific plan site). This realignment will preserve additional oak trees (approximately 100 trees) identified in the draft EIR as being displaced associated with the roadway. The realigned road will also provide access to Planning Unit 38A, a commercial center in the southeastern portion of the site, from the east and west. Utilities: Sewer Treatment Options for the provision of sewer treatment for the Specific Plan land uses are addressed in the draft EIR. These options are an onsite sewer treatment facility and use of the county's facilities. Waterworks District No. 1 believes the benefits of tying into the existing sewer treatment plant outweigh those of providing a treatment plant on the project site. Schools The project as addressed in the draft EIR identified three elementary school sites in Planning Units 39A, 398, and 39C. Each site would be 10 acres. The Moorpark Unified School District subsequently updated their student generation factors and capacity projections, and determined that three elementary schools would not best meet the district's projected needs. Based on the district's student generation factors, the Specific Plan project is expected to generate the need (at full buildout of 3,221 units) for two elementary schools, 71 percent of a middle school, and 31 percent of a high school. It should be noted that the projection for new students is a conservative factor, because 10 percent of the 3,221 units are proposed to be developed as senior housing. The School District has now requested that two elementary school sites and nnoorparkJ001 26 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan one high school site be identified within the Specific Plan site. Therefore, a 12 -acre elementary school site is shown in Planning Unit 39A, a 12 -acre elementary school site is shown in Planning Unit 396, and a 43 -acre high school site is shown in Planning Unit 39C. .A middle school site has been identified within proposed Specific Plan No. 2, west of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park (source: Specific Plan No. 2 draft site plan dated September 9, 1997). Other Modifications In the central portion of the site, Planning Unit 18 is shifted north of Hidden Creek Drive to facilitate better access into this planning unit. The golf course, originally identified as Planning Units 40 and 41, has been consolidated into one planning unit, Planning Unit 40. Planning units on the west side of the Specific Plan site, not owned or controlled by the project applicant, have been reconfigured such that each parcel under separate ownership has its own planning unit. The reconfigured planning units include Planning Units 27 through 35. Each of these planning units has a zoning density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre or greater. The equestrian center has been relocated to Planning Unit 43, a location considered by the applicant to be more accessible to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park and open space areas. The amount of acreage for commercial/retail uses has been decreased from 29.2 acres to 21.5 acres. This would reduce the expected square footage by approximately 84,000 square feet. Table 5 compares the original project to the revised project. MoorparkJ001 27 Project Summary r`h Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF EXISTING TO REVISED LAND USE PLAN Dwelling Original /Revised Gross Acres g U ' nits Planning Units Land Use Original Revised Change Original! Revised Change Rural -Hi h-D nsity Residential 0 - 0.5 DU /AC Density) 1 Single - Family Detached 139.1 43.8 <95.3> 35 15 <20> 19/19A Single- Family Detached 94.5 39.0 <55.5> 20 25 +5 20/196 I Single - Family Detached 0 22.3 +22.3 0 15 +15 36 1 Single - Family Detached 45.3 25.5 <19.8> 15 15 0 Subtotal 278.9 130.6 <148.3> 70 70 0 Low- Density Residential (0.5- 1.0 DU /AC Density) 20 Single - Family Detached 54.4 0 <54.4> 36 0 <36> 30/30A Single - Family Detached 33.7 21.3 <12.4> 20 13 <7> 33A/30B Single - Family Detached 0 11.4 +11.4 0 8 +8 31/31 and 39C Single - Family Detached 0 24.0 +24.0 0 21 +21 32 Single - Family Detached 67.4 0 <67.4> 48 0 <48> 35/35A and 35B Single - Family Detached 53.6 50.6 <3.0> 35 45 +10 38A/37A Single- Family Detached 0 7.0 +7,0 0 6 +6 3313/3713 Single - Family Detached 0 5.0 +5 0 4 +4 34/35C I Single - Family Detached 0 17.5 +17.5 0 12 +12 Subtotal 1 209.1 136.8 <72.3> 139 109 <30> c ` Medium-Low-Density Residential 10 - 2.0 DU /AC Density) 10 Single - Family Detached 47.5 0 <47.5> 61 0 <61> 11 Single-Family Detached 23.7 0 <23.7> 32 0 <32> MoomarkJ001 28 Project Summary fill Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Original /Revised Planning Units Viand Use Gross Acres Dwelling Units Original Revised, Change Original Revised Change 21 Single - Family Detached 46.5 20.7 <25.8> 60 40 <20> 26 Single - Family Detached 26.7 0 <26.7> 44 0 <44> 27 Single - Family Detached 0 21.0 +21.0 0 23 +23 30/28 Single - Family Detached 0 24.0 +24.0 0 20 +20 29/29A and 29B Single - Family Detached 48.1 61.0 +12.9 62 41 <21> 32 Single- Family Detached 0 33.5 +33.5 0 24 +24 32/33 Single-Family Detached 31.5 36.2 +4.7 27 24 <3> 34 Single - Family Detached 17.2 0 <17.2> 22 0 <22> 27/34A and 34B Single - Family Detached 0 25.8 +25.8 0 22 +22 Subtotal 241.2 222.2 <19.0> 308 194 <114> Medium- Dan sit Residential (2.0.4.0 DU /AC Density) 2 Single - Family Detached 73.3 105.1 +31.8 250 360 +110 3 Single - Family Detached 25.8 29.5 +3.7 90 97 +7 4 Single - Family Detached 42.3 32.4 <9.9> 132 120 <12> 10 Single - Family Detached 0 70.0 +70.0 0 190 +190 11 Single - Family Detached 0 24.0 +24.0 0 65 +65 12 Single - Family Detached 10.0 0 <10.0> 39 0 <39> 13 Single-Family Detached 26.6 27.4 +0.8 100 70 <30> 15 Single - Family Detached 39.0 20.7 <18.3> 120 60 <60> 16 Single- Family Detached 30.5 39.0 +8.5 113 135 +22 17 Single - Family Detached 0 23.7 +23.7 1 0 1 85 1 +85 20 Single-Family Detached 0 34.7 +34.7 1 0 1 95 +95 Moorpark,1001 29 Project Summary y✓ Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Original /Revised Planning Units Land Use, Gross Acres Dwelling Units g Original Revised Change Original Revised Change 23 Single - Family Detached 25.0 0 <25> 93 0 <93> 24 Single - Family Detached 24.0 31.3 +7.3 89 120 <93> 25 Single - Family Detached 27.9 0 <27.9> 104 0 <104> 26 Single - Family Detached 0 29.5 +29.5 0 101 +101 27 Single - Family Detached 53.3 0 <53.3> 70 0 <70> 28 Single - Family Detached 29.2 0 <29.2> 100 0 <100> 31 Single - Family Detached 52.0 0 <52.0> 70 0 <70.0> 5/39A Single - Family Detached 0 43.8 +43.8 0 105 +105 Subtotal 458.9 511.1 +52.2 1,370 1,603 +233 High- Density Residential (4.0 - 7.0 DULAC Density) 5 Single - Family Detached or Attached 18.5 0 <18.5> 84 0 <84> 6/7 Single - Family Detached or Attached 0 43.8 +43.8 0 105 +105 12 Single - Family Detached or Attached 0 7.5 +7,5 0 45 +45 14/14 and 18 Single- Family Detached or Attached 30.2 27.5 <2.7> 155 135 <20> 17 Single - Family Detached or Attached 23.7 0 <23.7> 138 0 <138> 23 1 Single-Family Detached or Attached 0 23.0 +23.0 0 95 +95 25 Single- Family Detached or Attached 0 20.0 +20.0 0 90 +90 Subtotal 72.4 121.8 +49.4 377 470 +93 Ve1y- High-Donsity Residential - 1 (7.0. %0 DU AC Density) 6 Single - Family Detached or Attached 13.5 0 <13.5> 132 0 <132> 7/8 y'- 8/6 Single - Family Detached or Attached Single-Family Detached or Attached 17.2 10.0 1 9.5 9.3 <7.7> <0.7> 170 100 90 90 <80> <10> MoorparkJ001 30 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Subtotal 39.7 ac. 21.5 + golf course <18.2 ac.> Schools ; Gross Acres/S uare Feet° Elementary School (K -6) Origginal /IRevised 12.0 ac. +2.0 ac. 39B Elementary School (K -6) 10.0 ac. 10.0 ac. +2.0 ac. 39C Planrtiilg Unit 10.0 ac. (Elementary) Land'Use +33.0 ac. Original 30.0 ac. Revised +37.0 ac_ Change Commercial 37/38A and 38B Community Commercial Center 17.5 ac./190,575 sq.ft. 21.5 ac. +4.0 ac. 38A/37A Neighborhood (Village) Commercial 7.2 ac. /78,408 sq.ft. 0 <7.2 ac.> 38B/29B Neighborhood (Village) Commercial 4.5 ac./49,005 sq.ft. 0 <4.5 ac.> 41/40 Golf Course Clubhouse 10.5 ac./114,345 sq.ft. Inclusive of acreage <10.5 ac.> for Golf Course (PU Subtotal 39.7 ac. 21.5 + golf course <18.2 ac.> Schools ; 39A Elementary School (K -6) 10.0 ac. 12.0 ac. +2.0 ac. 39B Elementary School (K -6) 10.0 ac. 10.0 ac. +2.0 ac. 39C Elementary School /High School 10.0 ac. (Elementary) 43.0 ac. (High School) +33.0 ac. _. Subtotal 30.0 ac. 67.0 ac. +37.0 ac_ Moorpark,1001 31 Project Summary Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Golf Course 40 Golf Course 174.9 ac. 223.1 ac. +48.2 ac. 45 East Mesa Golf Course` 0 450.0 ac. +450.0 ac. Subtotal 174.9 ac. 673.10 ac. +498.2 ac. Parks 42A Community Park 22.4 ac. 38.0 ac. +15.6 ac. 42B Neighborhood Park 7.0 ac. 2.5 ac. <4.5 ac.> 42C Neighborhood Park 13.5 ac. 9.0 ac. <4.5 ac.> 42D Neighborhood Park 8.4 ac. 13.5 ac. +5.10 ac. 42E Neighborhood Park 15.2 ac. 0 <15.2 ac.> Subtotal 66.4 ac. 63.O ac. <3.4 ac.> Equestrian Center 42E/43 Equestrian 0 9.6 ac. +9.6 ac. Infrastructu roll nstitutional. 44144B Moorpark College Parcel, wastewater treatment plant site, detention /retention basins 24.2 ac. 24.2 ac. 0 Major Roads 102.3 ac. 108.5 ac. +6.2 ac. Subtotal 126.58 ac. 135.7 ac. +6.2 ac. O err S ace OS -2A Remainder of Specific Plan No. 8 Site Natural Open Space 1,824.4 ac. 2.159.8 ac. +335.4 ac. Open Space (06-2B) . 45 Open Space East Mesa - 690 ac. (Private Open Space) 690.0 ac. 0 (Acreage is redistributed between "East Mesa Golf Course" and "Remainder of SP No. <690.0 ac.> YW I R `- Mooroark,1001 32 Project Summary C ti Non - Residential Totals Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan .6 ac/432,333 scl ft 1 0 a Assumes a 0.25 floor area ratio. Assessor parcel records indicate the site is 4,322.58 acres; for planning purposes, the acreage figure is rounded to 4,322 acres. For zoning purposes only; implementation of a golf course in this location would be subject to subsequent environmental review. Source: Messenger Investment Company, Inc. 1997. Moorpark401 33 Project Summary <690.0 ac.> ATTACHMENT_!— MESSENGER I N V E S T M E N T C O M P A N Y September 15, 1997 S t F 16 1997 Mr. Nelson Miller City ur iviuurpark Director of Community Development CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Explanation of Mitigation Measures Incorporated into Revised Draft Specific Plan Dear Nelson: The enclosed pages describe the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the revised draft Specific Plan No. 8 by Hidden Creek Ranch Partners. The primary purpose behind the changes was to respond to specific comments and suggestions made by city staff and its consultants, the planning commission, comments from the public, and county representatives. None of these changes increases the environmental impacts of the project. On the contrary, all of these changes reduce the impacts or else simplify the administration of the specific plan. If you have any questions regarding any of the information contained in this letter and attachment, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, HIDD N CREEK RANCH PARTNERS Gary Austi Vice President Enclosure cc: Dana Privitt, BonTerra 959 SOUTH COAST DRIVE, SUITE 490 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 (714) 546 -1300 / FAX (714) 546 -1050 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (Specific Plan No. 8) Summary of Mitigation Measures to Revised Draft Land Use Plan The following information summarizes the improvements and modifications incorporated into the revised draft Land Use Plan to Specific Plan No. 8 (dated September 1997). Each revision or modification mitigates impacts previously identified in the draft EIR or else improves the administration of the plan. 1) Hidden Creek Drive West -- The west end of the main arterial (Hidden Creek Drive) now crosses Happy Camp Park at the south end of the park and connects to Specific Plan No. 2 approximately 1000 feet north of the southwest corner of Happy Camp Park. This was the result of the EIR traffic study that showed 1) virtually no demand for a "Broadway connection "; 2) significant improvement in the Campus Park Drive traffic counts with a road connection to Specific Plan No. 2, and 3) a benefit to the east end of the City by construction of an arterial road connecting to the City's retail commercial area. A pre- screening application to the County was filed by HCR to determine if the County supported the alternative road alignment. The County Board of Supervisors approved the pre- screening application and directed HCR to bring the County General Plan Amendment application forward once the City had completed its consideration of the Hidden Creek Ranch specific plan. 2) Hidden Creek Drive East -- The east end of Hidden Creek Drive has been realigned and shifted to the west in the eastern area of development. This shift in the alignment will save a significant number of existing trees from being impacted. The revised circulation pattern also provides access to the retail commercial area from both the east and the west, thereby reducing the traffic impacts in the vicinity of the future retail area. 3) Lagoon Road Interchange -- The "Lagoon Road" interchange connection has been eliminated from the plan because of the EIR traffic study's conclusion that it was not necessary from a traffic mitigation standpoint and also would be neither financially, environmentally or politically feasible. Various road connections to the ranch were studied which showed that an upgraded Collins Road /Campus Park Drive intersection was capable of handling the traffic at build -out at a level of service C. If, at some point in the future, the City of Moorpark desires an easterly connection to Simi Valley other than by means of the Collins and Princeton interchanges, a road to Alamos Canyon can be considered across Specific Plan No. 3. This potential was studied by HCR's civil engineers and found to be feasible from an engineering standpoint, although the environmental consequences are problematic. OW05 7 4) Possible Second Golf Course -- HCR has always proposed a second golf course within a portion of Planning Unit 45. That is why planning unit 45 was originally designated "private open space." The revised land use plan has now modified planning unit 45 by removing 240 acres from the planning unit and re- designating those acres as "public open space." The remaining 450 acres within planning unit 45 have been designated "open space /golf course." When the 200 acres of the course itself are designed at some point in the future, that will result in an additional 250 acres of permanent open space. The result is to create approximately 490 acres of open space and a future second golf course of approximately 200 acres in this area: This designation has been made possible by the-completion of the tree survey and the archaeological survey in this planning unit. Prior to approval of the second golf course, the City of Moorpark will require additional environmental analysis. This may take the form of a focused EIR or other mechanism in compliance with CEQA. However the environmental analysis conducted to date allow such a land use designation in the specific plan. 5) Minor Reconfiguration of Planning Units -- The eastern portion of the land use plan has been slightly reconfigured and shifted in a northerly direction in order to save a significant number of existing trees. This reconfiguration is expected to save well over 600 existing trees. This mitigation, along with the deletion of the Lagoon Interchange connection and the westerly relocation of "Hidden Creek Parkway" could save well over 1000 trees. A final tally of the impacted existing trees will be determined at the time that Tentative Tract Maps are submitted for approval. In the central area, planning unit 18 has been shifted north of Hidden Creek Drive which will allow better road access to this planning unit. The planning units within the first golf course (old PUs 40 and 41) have been incorporated into one planning unit (PU 40), simplifying the portrayal of the location of the golf course and its facilities. Planning units on the west side of the ranch, not owned or controlled by HCR, have been re -drawn so that each separately owned parcel has its own planning unit designation. This simplified the portrayal of the densities and dwelling units allocated to these individual parcels. These re- configured planning units include numbers 27 through 35. Each of these planning units has been assigned at least .5 DU /acre, in conformance with the base density of Specific Plan No. 8 in the City's General Plan. HCR owned or controlled property has been allocated a higher overall density, approaching .75 DU /acre, because of the significant public benefits that will be provided by HCR. The planning units along the northern boundary of the proposed development area (1, 19 and 36), have been reduced in size to more accurately reflect the environmental - -2 -- OOCOSS impact of these planning units. These concept for these areas is to create multi -acre lots where owners can build custom homes on a building pad located within the lot. Since the building pad (driveway, front yard, home and rear yard) will be much smaller than the lot itself, and since there will be a limitation placed on the lot in terms of the amount that can be disturbed, and since grading would only occur along the access roads and the individual building pads, the actual impact to the land in this area would be quite limited. One of the benefits of this reconfiguration is the creation of additional public open space. Locations and density designations of some of the other planning units have been slightly modified or moved to take advantage of the relocation of Hidden Creek Drive. Finally, the equestrian center has been relocated onto property that is more accessible to Happy Camp Park and the public open space to be provided by Hidden Creek Ranch. 6) Parks -- Parks have been reduced from five to four although the total park acreage has only dropped 3 acres (from 66.5 to 63.5). This was done in part to reflect the operations and maintenance costs created by multiple parks, and the unknown consequences to the City of Proposition 218. The park area designated PU 42A is envisioned to include little league diamonds, softball diamonds and soccer fields, for structured recreation activities. softball). An enlarged (67 acre) open space area designated planning unit 41 has been created, along with added open space to the south of planning unit 41. This open space, in addition to that mentioned in paragraph 5 above, has created a total of approximately 2,130 acres of public open space. The total acres devoted to parks, golf courses and public open space are approximately 2,870 acres, or 66% of the total specific plan area. This is an increase from the original specific plan of approximately 100 acres. 7) Schools -- The eastern elementary school site has been relocated to the west side of the park (PU 42A) to make it more accessible to other residential areas of Hidden Creek Ranch. At the request of the District Superintendent, HCR has allocated 12 acres to each of the elementary school sites rather than the more traditional 10 acres. The area designated planning unit 31 on the original plan is now designated as a future high school site (PU 39C). These land use allocations are based on the student generation study prepared by HCR's school facilities consultant that concluded that at build -out, the ranch would generate the need for two elementary schools, one -half a middle school and approximately 20% of a high school. The District hopes to build a middle school on Specific Plan No. 2 and consequently has requested HCR to provide two elementary school sites and a future high school site. 8) Affordable Housing -- The highest density now shown for a planning unit is 20 DUs /acre, reflecting the affordable homes planned for PU 9. This product is envisioned to be approximately 180 rental apartments. Additional affordable homes are planned to be located within planning units 7, 8, 18 and 22. Some affordable units may also be built off -site, with the Council's approval. HCR intends to build and /or provide 365 affordable -- 3 -- 1�CII �E, homes (one -half to serve "very low" income families, and one -half for "low" income families). 9) Retail /Commercial -- The retail /commercial category has- been reduced by eliminating the commercial areas on the west and central locations previously shown on the plan. The total for this land use designation has gone from 29.2 acres to 21.5 acres. This reduction was requested by staff who felt that the original commercial designations on the west side of the project (old PUs 38A and 3813) might not be viable. This reduction of approximately eight acres with the corresponding reduction of around 84,000 square feet of retail space results in a reduction of approximately 4,200 trips (Average Daily Traffic -- approximately 10 %). It has never been HCR's intent to compete with retail services in the downtown area of Moorpark. Rather, our planning approach was to provide only services that would be desired by both existing residents, the college, and the future residents of the ranch. Second, HCR is willing to provide a "store front" facility within the main retail commercial area (PU 38A) for a police satellite facility, if desired. 10) Mass Grading -- No mass grading is contemplated on the west side of the specific plan, on properties not owned or controlled by MIC. The only grading proposed would be for the local road system shown on the revised plan. In essence, that means that the mass grading footprint for the specific plan would not go beyond the western edge of the golf course and planning units 22 and 24. The mass graded area of the specific plan proposed by HCR is approximately 1,550 acres (less than 40% of the specific plan area). This means that the development, at build -out will be clustered on less than half of the specific plan area. In summary, HCR has incorporated many mitigation measures to the plan which, taken as a whole, significantly lessen the environmental impacts, reduce mass grading, cluster the development onto a smaller area, enhance the recreational component of the project, and improve the overall planning of the development. WIM ATTACHMENT_ RESOLUTION NO. PC -96 -325 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93 -1, ZONE CHANGE NO. 93 -3, AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93 -1, HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8), ON THE APPLICATION OF HIDDEN CREEK RANCH PARTNERS WHEREAS, public notice having been given in time, form, and manner as required by law, the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark held public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project on October 9 and 30, 1995, and held public hearings on General Plan Amendment 93 -1, Zone Change No. 93- 3, and Specific Plan No. 93 -1, on January 29, February 12, March 11, March 25, April 22, July 22, and August 12, 1996, for a 4,322.58 -acre site located within the Moorpark Area of Interest in Ventura County, directly north of the City jurisdictional boundary near Moorpark College and the Campus Park and Varsity Park residential areas, and east and south of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, Assessor Parcel No(s): 500 -0- 120 -035, -55, -065; 500 -0- 170 -135, -205, -255, -285, -295, -305, -315, -325, -335, -345, -355, -365, -375; 500 -0- 180 -045, -055, -075, -105, - 115; 500 -0 -281 -035, -045, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215; 500- 0 -292- 065, -135, -145; 615 -0- 110 -205, -215; and 615 -0- 150 -185 ; and WHEREAS, the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project is more specifically described as follows: General Plan Amendment No. 93 -1 - Amendment the General Plan Land Use Element Exhibit No. 3 to reflect the Specific Plan land uses, as shown on Specific Plan Exhibit No. 7, Land Use Plan, and amendment of the General Plan Circulation Element Figure No. 2 (Highway Network), No. 3 (Bikeway Element), and No. 4 (Equestrian Trail Network) , to reflect the Specific Plan Exhibit No. 26, Circulation Plan, and Specific Plan Exhibit No. 9, Trail Plan, except as revised by the recommendations included in Section 4 of this resolution; Zone Change No. 95 -3 - Amendment of the City Zoning Map to prezone the Specific Plan site, consistent with Specific Plan Exhibit No. 7, except as revised by the recommendations included in Section 4 of this resolution, and amendment of Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code through adoption of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan by ordinance to establish controlling development regulations for the Specific Plan site. c: \1- m \sp- 8 \pc- res.sp- 8 -21 -96 0000CAL Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 2 Specific Plan No. 93 -1 - Adoption of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan in compliance with California Government Code Section 65450 et. seq. and the requirements of the City of Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element, which designates the project site as Specific Plan Area No. 8; and WHEREAS, at its public hearings on the Draft EIR and Project, the Planning Commission took testimony from all those wishing to testify on the project, closed the public hearing on the Draft EIR on October 30, 1995, closed the public hearing on the project on August 12, 1996, and reached its decision on the matter on August 12, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based upon the project information presented to the Planning Commission, including but not limited to, the Draft EIR and technical appendices, Final EIR, Spring Road Connector Report, Fiscal Impact Report, staff reports, and staff and public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings 1. The Final EIR for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Moorpark, as lead agency. 2. The Final EIR for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California) and the City's CEQA Procedures. 3. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making any recommendation decision for the proposed Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project and has found that the Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed project. c:_ \1- m \sp -8 \pc- res.sp 8 -21 -96 0000 V Z Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 3 General Plan Amendment Finding The approval of General Plan Amendment No. 93 -1 is consistent with the City's General Plan subject to incorporation of revisions recommended in Section 4, herein, imposition of Final EIR mitigation measures, and imposition of Final EIR mitigation measures. Zone Change Finding The approval of Zone Change No. 93 -3 is consistent with the City's General Plan, subject to approval of General Plan Amendment No. 93- 1, incorporation of revisions recommended in Section 4, herein, and imposition of Final EIR mitigation measures. Specific Plan Findings 1. The proposed Specific Plan, with incorporation of revisions recommended in Section 4, herein, is consistent with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65450 et. seq. 2. The proposed Specific Plan, with incorporation of revisions recommended in Section 4, herein, and imposition of Final EIR mitigation measures, is consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 93 -1. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 93 -1, to amend the General Plan Land Use Element Exhibit No. 3 to reflect the Specific Plan land uses, as shown on Specific Plan Exhibit No. 7, Land Use Plan, and amend of the General Plan Circulation Element Figure No. 2 (Highway Network), No. 3 (Bikeway Element), and No. 4 (Equestrian Trail Network), to reflect the Specific Plan Exhibit No. 26, Circulation Plan, and Specific Plan Exhibit No. 9, Trail Plan, except as revised by the recommendations included in Section 4 of this resolution; SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of an ordinance to amend the City Zoning Map to prezone the Specific Plan site, consistent with Specific Plan Exhibit No. 7, except as revised by the recommendations included in Section 4 of this resolution, and amend Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code through adoption and adoption of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan by ordinance to establish controlling development regulations for the Specific Plan site; c: \1- m \sp- 8 \pc- res.sp 8 -21 -96 Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 4 SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council conditionally approve the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 93 -1 /Specific Plan No. 8), subject to compliance with all of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporation of the following list of revisions into the Specific Plan document: Page I -1, Purpose and Intent - In paragraph 1, line 2, delete word "update." Page 1 -1, Introduction - In paragraph 1, line 3, delete last word, "Canyon." Page 1 -3, Authority and Scope, No. 4 - The text should be amended to clearly indicate that the Implementation Section of the Specific Plan includes discussion of financing measures, as identified in Attachment 1. Page 1 -21, Policy, No. A. - In line 1, following "Locate public buildings ", add "and recreation areas Page 1 -23, Definitions, No. 1, Affordable Housing - In line 3, delete word "the" before Ventura County. Page 1 -24, Definitions, No. 15, Development Agreement - Definition should be revised to not limit the Development Agreement to Messenger Investment Company (there are eight other property owners) . Page 1 -25, Definitions, No. 24, Natural Open Space - Definition would need to be revised to have the acreage match the applicant's proposed mitigation to now designate 240 acres of Planning Unit 45 as public Natural Open Space and 450 acres as Private Open Space or Golf Course, if all required environmental studies, as determined by the City, are completed prior to City Council action on the Specific Plan. If required environmental studies are not completed, the entire Planning Unit 45 should be designated as Natural Open Space. Page 1 -26, Definitions, No. 31, Pre - Annexation Development Agreement - Definition should be revised so as to not limit the Development Agreement to Messenger Investment Company (there are eight other property owners) . Page 1 -26, Definitions, No. 32, Private Open Space - Definition would need to be revised to have the acreage match the applicant's proposed mitigation to now designate 240 acres of Planning Unit 45 as public c: \1- m \sp- 8 \pc- res.sp 8 -21 -96 '4 ,r ; i Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 5 Natural Open Space, or definition would need to be deleted if Private open space designation is deleted (see Page 1 -25 recommended revisions) . Page 2 -12, Surrounding Land Uses - Discussion should be moved, so as to not separate descriptions of land use designations. Page 2 -4, Land Use Plan - This exhibit should be revised to reflect change to Planning Unit 45, addition of a park site or additional open space area (Attachment 2), and revisions to circulation system (consistent with Page 2 -59, Exhibit 26, recommendations). In addition, prior to final City Council approval action on the Specific Plan, the Land Use Plan should be revised to reflect the agreed upon school sites, which may include the three elementary school sites currently shown on the plan and a change in land use for Planning Unit 31 to show a 50 -acre high school site). Pages 2 -5 to 2 -8, Table 1, Land Use Summary - Revisions to planning unit numbers, size of planning units, number of dwelling units, addition of a park site, change in open space, and any changes to school sites, as discussed above for Page 2 -4, Land Use Plan, would also need to be reflected in this table. Attachment 3, which contains information on property ownership and number of dwelling units allocated to each property owner per Planning Unit, should be incorporated into the land use summary. Page 2 -13, Housing /Population - Discussion should be moved, so as to not separate descriptions of land use designations. Combined heading of Housing/ Population should be deleted. Population should be discussed first with the most recently adopted Ventura County Association of Governments (VCOG) population factor for persons per household for the year 2010 inserted. The Housing section needs to be retitled Affordable Housing Program, rewritten to incorporate the affordable housing requirements determined by the Development Agreement process, and relocated so as to not separate descriptions of land use designations. The Planning Commission specifically recommends that affordable housing units should consist of at least 50 percent rentals and 50 percent for -sale housing and that second dwelling units should not be counted for the total number of affordable housing units to be provided. Page 2 -14, Commercial Land Uses - Need headings for each described commercial land use (e.g., Community Center, Neighborhood Commercial, etc.) c: \1- m \sp- 8 \pc- res.sp 8 -21 -96 000061 Z.1 Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 6 Page 2 -15, Parks, Recreation and Open Space Land Uses -'Need headings, and each planned land use must be clearly and separately described. Open Space 1 and Open Space 2 land use designations are not appropriate, since the description of these designations in the Specific Plan does not match the General Plan Land Use Element Open Space 1 and 2 land use designation descriptions. Since the Specific Plan proposes to create new land use designations such as Golf Course and Equestrian Center, creating new open space designations would also be appropriate, such as Natural Open Space. If the Private Open Space designation is to be deleted or the acreage of Natural Open Space versus Private Open Space is revised, as previously discussed, then the text in this section should be revised, accordingly. Page 2 -19, Exhibit 8, Parks /Recreation /Open Space Concept Plan - Any changes to add a park site or revise open space areas (see Attachment 2 and discussion regarding Planning Unit 45), or revise the location of planned roadways would need to be reflected on this exhibit. Page 2 -20, Exhibit 9, Trail Plan - Any changes to the circulation system would need to be reflected on this exhibit. Page 2 -22, Recreational Land Uses - Discussion on Private Recreation Facilities and Multi -Use Trail System has been mixed in with land use designation descriptions. Land use designation descriptions should not be separated by other miscellaneous discussion. Text should be reorganized. Page 2 -35, The Pepper /Citrus Village Area - Pepper trees should not be used in close proximity to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park and portions of the Specific Plan site intended to remain natural (because such trees are highly invasive). Page 2 -48, Exhibit 17, Grading Plan - Any changes to the circulation system would need to be reflected on this exhibit. Page 2 -50, Exhibit 18, Cross Section Key Map - Any changes to the circulation system would need to be reflected on this exhibit. Page 2 -58, Circulation Plan, Community Arterial - Description of Community Arterial would need to be revised to be consistent with revised Circulation Plan, as discussed for Page 2 -59. Page 2 -59, Exhibit 26, Circulation Plan - Revise exhibit consistent with Attachment 4, to delete the Broadway connection, and to add a Village Collector connecting from Hidden Creek Drive, across lower Happy Camp c: \1- m \sp- 8 \pc- res.sp 8 -21 -96 It 'obat_jt Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 7 Canyon Regional Park, to a Spring Road extension. Hidden Creek Drive should also be relocated adjacent to Planning Units 7, 8, and 37, as shown on Attachment 4. The Village Collector across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park should be located as far north from the nearest residential units, as is feasible, based on topography and the County's use plans for lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Page 2 -61, Collectors - Revise Village Collectors description to delete reference to parking lanes and to include description of bikelanes, consistent with Exhibit 28, Cross Sections. Pages 2 -63 and 2 -64, Exhibits 28 and 29, Cross Sections - Revise cross sections to show a minimum width of five (5) feet for sidewalks. Pages 2 -72 to 2 -79, Phasing Plan - Revise the phasing plan discussion on Pages 2 -72 to 2 -78 and Exhibit No. 32 to be consistent with revised Phasing Plan (Attachment 5) and include a requirement in the text discussion that by Year 10, a connector roadway to either a new interchange at Lagoon and State Route 118 or to a new interchange at Alamos Canyon and State Route 118 shall be constructed, if determined by the City Council to be warranted, based on an updated traffic study and required California Environmental Quality Act clearance. The phasing plan discussion and Exhibit No. 32 should also be revised to reflect that schools should be built when determined by the School District to be warranted, and that all infrastructure necessary to allow construction of the first elementary school in Planning Unit 39A shall be completed in Phase 1. Page 3 -1, Section 3.1.1, Schools - The Specific Plan text should be revised to identify the agreed upon number and type of school sites to be provided, and language should be added that the Developer cannot develop any of the designated school sites with other uses unless the School District determines that a school site or sites are not needed and the City amends the Specific Plan to allow a substitute use. Page 3 -1, Section 3.1.2, Parks and Recreation - The Specific Plan text would need to be revised if the applicant suggested mitigation measure is approved and the additional park site (see Attachment 2) is created. Page 3 -9, Section 3.1.3, Fire Protection - Any additional Fire Protection District requirements for the revised phasing plan, including but not limited to requirements for second access, should be incorporated into the Specific Plan prior to adoption. c: \1- m \sp- 8 \pc- res.sp - 8 -21 -96 Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 8 Page 3 -24, Exhibit 39, Proposed Wastewater System - Any revision to the circulation system would need to be reflected on this exhibit. Page 3 -30, Exhibit 40, Proposed Reclaimed Water System - Any revision to the circulation system would need to be reflected on this exhibit. Pages 3 -38 and 3 -39, Exhibits 43 and 44, Hydrology Maps Post - Development - Any revision to the circulation system would need to be reflected on these exhibits. Page 5 -5, Permitted Land Uses - Reference to Section 12.20.030 of City Zoning Code is incorrect and should be changed to 17.20.030. Pages 5 -5 to 5 -8, Table 11, Permitted Uses in Parks, Open Space and Residential Zones - Table 11 includes reference to Golf Course (GC), Open Space 1 (OS -1), and Open Space 2 (OS -2); however, the corresponding discussion is incorrectly located, beginning on Page 5 -49. The Golf Course and Open Space zoning descriptions should be relocated to precede Residential Development Regulations on Page 5 -4, to be consistent with the arrangement in Table 11. The OS -1 and OS -2 zoning descriptions should not be used, as these are the same titles as given to open space land use designations in the General Plan; however, the intended land use is not the same. A suggestion for the open space zoning titles is Open Space - Natural and Open Space- Recreation (if the intent is to maintain a separate open space designation /zoning for Planning Unit 45), or the OS -2 Private Open Space zoning description should be deleted and a portion of Planning Unit 45 should be zoned as Golf Course, subject to further environmental clearance, as discussed for Page 1 -25. A footnote should be added for all uses shown as being permitted by a Zoning Clearance in the Open Space zone(s) that would clearly identify that a Zoning Clearance can only be permitted if the applicant can provide evidence to the Director of Community Development that there'will not be a significant impact to recorded archaeological sites, sensitive biological habitat, mature trees, and all native oak trees. If the OS -2, Private Open Space, designation /zoning is to be deleted, then Table 11 and the OS -2 zoning discussion should be revised, accordingly. Page 5 -23, No. 7, Parking - Reference to Title 17, Chapter 17.20, should be changed to Chapter 17.32. Page 5 -28, No. 9, Parking - Reference to Title 17.32 should be changed to Chapter 17.32. c: \1- m \sp- 8 \pc- res.sp 8 -21 -96 000006S Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 9 Page 5 -31, No. 8, Parking - Reference to Title 17 should'be deleted. Page 5 -33, Permitted Land Uses - Reference to Section 12.20.030 of City Zoning Code is incorrect and should be changed to 17.20.030. Page 5 -37, No. 3, Structure height - Reference to Title 17, Section 17.44 should be changed to Section 17.24.020, Table 17.24.020B. Page 5 -37, No. 5, Off - street Parking - Reference to Title 17, Chapter 17.32 should be changed to Chapter 17.32, and the proposed revision to the parking standard for restaurants should be deleted (there is no justification to require less parking spaces than the current Zoning Code) . Page 5 -38, No. 7, Loading - Reference to Title 17, Chapter 17.32.100 should be changed to Section 17.32.090. Page 5 -39, No. 9c, Screening - References to Title 17, Chapter 17.36.040 and 17.24.090 should be changed to Section 17.24.090.D (Sight Triangle) and Section 17.24.090.E (Sight Distance). Page 5 -39, No. 1, Landscape Coverage - Reference to Title 17.32.100 should be changed to Section 17.32.100. Page 5 -40, No. 3, Structure height - Reference to Title 17, Chapter 17.44 should be changed to Section 17.24.020, Table 17.24.0203. Page 5 -40, No. 5, Off - street parking - Reference to Title 17, Chapter 32 should be changed to Chapter 17.32, and the proposed revision to the parking standard for restaurants should be deleted (there is no justification to require less parking spaces than the current Zoning Code) . Page 5 -41, No. 7, Loading - Reference to Title 17, Chapter 17.32 should be changed to Section 17.32.090. Page 5 -42, No. 9c, Screening - References to Title 17, Chapter 17.36.040 and 17.24.090 should be changed to Section 17.24.090.D (Sight Triangle) and Section 17.24.090.E (Sight Distance). Page 5 -43, No. 1, Landscape Coverage - Reference to Title 17, Chapter 17.32.100 should be changed to Section 17.32.100. c: \1- m \sp- 8 \pc- res.sp 8 -21 -96 Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 10 Page 5 -44, No. 3, Structure height - Reference to Title 17,- Chapter 17.44 should be changed to Section 17.24.020, Table 17.24.020B. Page 5 -44, No. 5, Off- street parking - Reference to Title 17 should be deleted. Page 5 -45, No. 3, Structure height - Last line, "pursuant to Moorpark Zoning Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.4411, should be deleted, since there is no height standard for an equestrian center in the Zoning Code (the proposed height limitation is acceptable). Page 5 -46, No. 5, Off- street parking - Reference to Title 17 should be deleted. Page 5 -47, No. 2, Structure height - Last line, "pursuant to Moorpark Zoning Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.4411, should be deleted, since there is no specific height standard for a golf course building in the Zoning Code, and allowed commercial building heights vary between 25 to 35 feet, with an increase to 60 feet allowed with Planning Commission conditional use permit approval (the proposed height limitation of 35 feet, or 45 feet with a Planning Commission Planned Development Permit, is acceptable). Page 5 -48, No. 4, Off - street parking - Reference to Title 17 should be deleted. Page 5 -49, Section 5.8.3, Open Space 1 - As previously discussed, the Open Space 1 title should be revised. Also, No. 2, Structure height, should be deleted (an increase in structure height above the current Zoning Code limitation is not supported). Page 5 -50, No. 4, Off - street parking - Reference to Title 17 should be deleted. Page 5 -51, Section 5.8.3, East Mesa Private Open Space (OS -2) - As previously discussed, the Open Space 2 title should be revised or deleted. Page 5 -52, No. 2, Structure height - Delete as previously discussed for Open Space 1. Also, No. 4, Off - street parking, should be revised to delete reference to Title 17. Page 5 -53, Sections 5.8 and 5.8.1, Sign Regulations - Reference to Title 17, Chapter 17.20, should be changed to Chapter 17.40. c: \1- m \sp- 8 \pc- res.sp B -21 -96 Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 11 Page 5 -56, No. C, General Requirements, and No. D, Master Sign Programs - Reference to Title 17 should be deleted. Page 5 -57, Section 5.9, Parking Regulations - Reference to Title 17 should be deleted. Page 5 -58, Section 5.10, Historic, Native Oak and Mature Trees - Reference to golf course in eastern portion of the Ranch may need to be revised. Page 6 -11, Exhibit 49, Landscape Design Concept - As previously discussed, Pepper trees may not be appropriate adjacent to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park and natural open space areas. Also, any revision to the planned parkways would require revisions to this exhibit. Page 6 -16, The Pepper /Citrus Village Area - Refer to previous comment regarding Pepper trees. Page 6 -21, Walls and Fences and Page 6 -23, Exhibit 53, Community Walls and Fences - Brick and stone walls should also be encouraged, in addition to stucco walls. Exclusive use of stucco walls is not acceptable, due to the potential for cracking, discoloration, and graffiti, and the difficulty in achieving complete coverage with vines and other landscaping. Pages 6 -33 through 6 -43, Residential Uses - All reference to wood roofs should be deleted (the Fire Protection District does not support the use of any wood roofs within the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan area) . Page 6 -61, Section 6.8.R, Grading - Revise the third sentence to read as follows: "The selected geogrids or other stabilizing methods should meet the requirements of the City of Moorpark and may only be utilized if approved by the City Geologist /Geotechnical Engineer and City Engineer." Page 7 -1, Implementation - First paragraph should be revised to discuss compliance with the State Government Code requirements for "a program of implementation measures" to be included for specific Plan implementation. Also, the Implementation Section must be revised to include financing measures necessary to carry out: 1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan; 2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by c: \1- m \sp -8 \pc- res.sp 8 -21 -96 0(fi�kv X71 Resolution No. PC -96 -325 Page 12 the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan; and 3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. The applicant has submitted supplemental financing information (Attachment 1) to be inserted into the Specific Plan. Section 9, or Appendix - All adopted mitigation measures should be incorporated into the Specific Plan. SECTION 5. The Planning. Commission also recommends to the City Council the following: The City Council should require the Specific Plan applicant to work with the School District to build schools, when needed, with reimbursement by the School District when school funding is available. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission recommends approval of a Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation approval from the Ventura County Local Agency Formation Commission. The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Torres, Commissioner May, Commissioner Miller NOES: Commissioner Acosta ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Norcross PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 26Th DAY OF AUGUST, 1996. Torres, Chairman ATTEST: Celia La Fleur Secretary Attachments: 1. Financing Information 2. Exhibit Showing Potential 3. Dwelling Units Allocated 4. Revised Circulation Plan 5. Revised Phasing Plan c: \1- m \sp -8 \pc- res.sp Park Site or Open Space Area per Property Ownership 8 -21 -96 0OWT)7Z ATTACHMENT HIDDEN CREEK RANCH MEMORANDUM HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Financing Responsibilities for the Specific Plan Infrastructure Background: The draft Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (SP No. 8) contains a description of the proposed land uses, circulation and infrastructure systems, and public facilities proposed for the project. This memorandum provides relimin inf regarding the financing responsibilities of the public and private facilities required for on this project. Backbone Infrastructure Systems: Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of .the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan describe the land uses, circulation, backbone infrastructure systems and phasing of the project, where they will be located, and how they will connect with existing infrastructure. The construction and funding responsibility for these systems, including backbone transportation /circulation system, potable water system, reclaimed iliti water system, sanitary sewer system, flood control /drainage system, and ut es (natural gas, electricity, phone and cable systems), will be borne by the Master Developer. For purposes of this memorandum, Hidden Creek Ranch Partners (HCR) or its successors are the entity referred to as the Master Developer. At such time as the backbone system is in place, Merchant Builders who have obtained the required permits for individual subdivisions within SP Bu 8 will assume responsibility for completion of the systems within their in tracts, and other facilities and services as specified under the conditions of approval of the Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. Once accepted for dedication by the responsible agency, P g cy, on -going maintenance and administration of all infrastructure systems, other than utilities, will be the responsibility of a public governing agency for each system, unless otherwise noted. Utilities will be maintained by certain private utility companies as otherwise defined and will be regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The various off -site improvements and their maintenance shall be governed by the governing jurisdiction in which the improvement is located, unless otherwise specified. Financing: The Master Developer will be responsible for the financing and construction of the backbone infrastructure systems, in accordance with the conditions of SP No. 8, Development Agreement and applicable Master Tract Map. Any other on- or off -site improvements required as a condition will be provided for by means of fees and /or specified contributions paid to the governing jurisdiction in which improvements are to 00007: be constructed. The specifics of the operation and management of the fund improvements will be set forth in the Development Agreement. The Masters for said will contribute to the designated jurisdictions by means of fees and /or other Developer satisfying the particular requirement. methods of The financing and construction of the improvements necessary to support th development proposed within each phase of the project shall be theresponsibility Master Developer, and be provided prior to or concurrent with the recordation f of the Tract Map. Satisfaction of the requirements may be accomplished b const of each dedication, or as applicable, by providing surety for such dedication and/or ruction and of all or a portion of the required improvements. / construction If approved by the appropriate governing agency, public financing facility district financing may be used for construction of portions oand/or the oruty systems, infrastructure In certain cases, Merchant Builders may also be required to contribute to certain improvements and shall make appropriate contributions to one or more jurisdictions the same manner as the Master Developer. The timing of the required contribution in funds shall be set forth in the Development Agreement. of Public Community Facilities: The public community facilities to be provided project have not been finalized. Nevertheless, construction and funding responsibilities, for the and on -going maintenance and administration responsibilities can be described terms. These facilities will include the public parks and trails, public schools and general public facilities and services. other Pursuant to the conditions of approval, the Master Developer will dedicate and co or provide surety for such dedication and construction of required public facilities struct Where an offer of dedication of a site or sites is a part of the conditions of such dedication will be determined b the a approval, with the recordation of the appropri to tract map. phasing plan and made concurrently Where allowed under the conditions of approval, the Master Developer provide an in -lieu fee equivalent to the construction cost of certain publliic facilities. o amourit of the Facility In -Lieu Fee for anThe mutually agreed upon and documented t e Development Agreement. cility shall be School Facilities: The Master Developer shall be responsible for satisfying the requirements of the Moorpark Unified School District for this project Determinati the number, nature, size and phasing of these school facilities will be the res on of the Moorpark Unified School District and shall be documented in the Development lity of pm Agreement. pment -2- Financing for school facilities will be provided in part through school d The school development fees shall be paid prior to or concurrent) with development fees. building permit for a- residential unit. The school fees shall be established h the issuance of a the terms of a separate agreement between the School District and th pursuant p to If approved by the School District, aster Developer. financing may be used for construction of portions and/or community' facility district infrastructure systems Private community facilities, such as churches, synagogues, and individual community recreation facilities are not addressed herein. Project -3- J0 Q ) *" HIDDEN CREEK RANCH Public Facilities & Services Infrastructure Summary Backbone Master TransportatloN Circulation Developer Master Developer Merchant City of Moorpark (MD) (MD) Builder (COM) (MB) Potable Water System MD MD MB WWD #1 Reclaimed Water System MD MD MB WWD #1 Sanitary Sewer System MD MD MB 1NWD #1 Flood Control Drainage: Backbone MD MD MD In Tract VCFCD Utilities: MD MD MB COM Pub.Wks. Natural Gas N/A MD /So.Cal. MB /So. Cal. Electricity N/A Gas Co. G as Co. So.Cai. Gas Co. MD /SCE MB /SCE SCE Telephone N/A MD1Pac8eil MB /PacBell Cable T.V. PacBell N/A MD /Cable Co. MB/Cable Co. to be determined Public Parks and Trails N/A Public Schools MD MD /MPRD M ?RD N/A MUSD MUSD Other Public MUSD Services MD MD MD as applicable 0()C, d ". It f 1 1 nn . • . �I �1 �J �'I !O VH -1 8 l'H-2 37 CC ATTACHMENT H MEET 2 I I H `j OS-1 44C FFLEGENDwhere 33 +/• acre could be located PARK 2 • 39A� M .. ./ SCHOOL /�• C MAP REF 0 EFt&.Up ISTRATHEARN F LUNDQUIST G WATERS H MAHAN SCRIBNER K NAVARRO L VENTURA PAQ IC M O'BRIEN N VENTURA PAQFlC O NAMBA NON MESSENGER (HCR) OW"'ED OR CONTROLLED PARCELS WITHIN SP-8 UNIT 23 24 25 NIA 28 30 30 33-A 35 -B 35 -A 34 27 31 26 27 N/A 27 27 31 32 32 Uri Dounts are aWoximabe given � °Pft Pleuming units/property Imes. l� f LOTS LAND USE ACRES DESIGNAM 45.90 M 15 M 28 M N/A GC 41.30 M 8 L 45.99 L 17 -� L 88.95 L 15 L 22 M -L 42.48 M 8 M 44.99 M -L 14 M N/A GC 40.76 M 40.3.2 M 10 M 40.64 L 40.24 L 471.57 322 UNIT 23 24 25 NIA 28 30 30 33-A 35 -B 35 -A 34 27 31 26 27 N/A 27 27 31 32 32 Uri Dounts are aWoximabe given � °Pft Pleuming units/property Imes. l� f LOTS TOTAL LOTS PER PLAANjuG UW PER p 21 15 28 N/A 64 16 8 24 12 17 29 20 15 22 57 16 8 24 12 14 N/A 26 28 28 12 10 22 26 26 22 22 322 322 I 1.39 0.58 0.63 0.58 0.69 J164 AVG) C� tt _i = ;;1'1.:�.. �c'..•/L�f��� (_ ir�f�( l•`- -;:�t:,!p.l .�' r �IL.� ��, ,� . 1 �h � �: .:;, ,_ %' l� L/'."il Li/'t'-:- Jt / ..v% �i i r! • l' i�b` .�.Z .i .x . ✓� :.;::.. +'ll illl ua' .+��� . _ -w L y -a_: r• �. r —r J•: :; r �� fir•. % �.., t Iv:' ,( I t ♦ .� -�'v' �� � : N��• . v� - r.. L a �j•,/ � (,� • >r , 1' �= R'y... I t �} / ,�ra' ; -s . .. � r � /� � i% ��C :.ice.•, .�,� -:i4 '�l111i.C1 Ilfe: %�.'. w..fi� �Jhr= o,,:��` fit l� MESS E N G E R 'I INVCSTMINT C014PANY � �8+ CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE -SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8 HIDDEN. CREEK RANCI SPECIFIC PLAN ,•(,M`• .CITY Of YOORPARK, CA I�, GROUP r ArrAcHmEn--Li_ AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Planning Commission FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developm Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner r-D151- DATE: August 7, 1996 (PC Meeting of August 12, 1996) SUBJECT: CONSIDER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8), APPLICANT: HIDDEN CREEK RANCH PARTNERS BACKGROUND The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan on October 9, 1995, and a continued public hearing on October 30, 1995. The first public hearing for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project was held on January 29, 1996, and continued public hearings were held on February 12, March 11, and March 25, 1996. The focus of the March 11 meeting was on traffic and circulation, but also included discussion of the applicant's preliminary affordable housing proposal for the Specific Plan. At the March 25 meeting, there was discussion regarding additional mitigation opportunities, as described in the applicant's letter dated January 24, 1996 (provided with the January 29 meeting staff report). The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until April 22, 1996, and directed staff to provide additional traffic impact information, the fiscal impact report, recommendations regarding the specific plan, and clarification regarding when the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be available. The public hearing was further continued from April 22 to June 17 and then to July 22, without further public or Planning Commission discussion, to allow completion of the Final EIR and Draft Fiscal Impact Report, and due to other staff work priorities. At the July 22 public hearing the Planning Commission discussed the draft Final EIR and the Fiscal Impact Report, heard additional public testimony, and then continued the hearing until August 12. The Planning Commission requested the draft report summarizing the environmental impacts from a Spring Road connection alternative, a staff summary of the circulation issues /traffic impacts of the proposed project and alternatives, and clarification regarding the Fiscal Impact Report conclusions. 0J0Z-1S-1 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 2 DISCUSSION A copy of the draft report on the Spring Road connection alternative has been distributed to the Planning Commission under separate cover. This staff report is intended to 1) reiterate a summary of major issues for discussion; 2) provide additional discussion of circulation options /alternatives and potential traffic impacts; 3) provide clarification regarding the Fiscal Impact Report, and 4) provide additional discussion regarding phasing. (The previous staff report for the July 22 Planning Commission meeting should be referenced for a summary of the Final EIR, updated discussion on issues identified in the January 29, 1996, staff report; and a list of staff recommended Specific Plan revisions that should be incorporated, along with any other Planning Commission recommendations, into the Planning Commission's resolution as conditions of approval for the Specific Plan.) Summary of Major Issues for Discussion Significant, unresolved issues were identified in the staff report for the July 22 meeting for discussion purposes, and are repeated below for the convenience of the Planning Commission. Additional information is provided for circulation and phasing issues within this staff report and all of the issues identified below are also discussed in the staff report for the July 22 meeting, with references to additional information in previous staff reports, the Specific Plan, Final EIR, and Responses to Comments Document. These issues are not listed in any particular order of importance, and the Planning Commission may wish to add other issues. Phasing and Amendments 1. The revised phasing plan (Attachment 2 to July 22 staff report) proposes development from east to west and delays the construction of Hidden Creek Drive to connect to existing roads to the west of the project to Phase 5. Is this acceptable? The revised phasing also places increased emphasis on the connection to Collins Drive and relocates Hidden Creek Drive to the west side of the commercial and very high density planning areas (Planning Areas 7, 8, and 37). 2. The owners of properties on the west side of the Specific Plan area, who did not participate in funding of the. Specific Plan, want the opportunity for earlier development. An Assessment District has been discussed to fund earlier completion of roads and infrastructure to the west. These owners also want 00b00S4 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 3 additional density. However these issues have not been fully explored. Should we proceed with consideration of the existing proposals and direct these owners to pursue an amendment to the Specific Plan and a Supplemental EIR? Circulation 3. The applicant has requested that Hidden Creek Drive not be required to be constructed south of the extension of Campus Park Drive to connect to the State Route (SR) 118 Freeway (Lagoon Interchange). 4. MBA, the EIR consultant, has completed the evaluation of a road across the lower end of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, as a potential alternative to the construction of a connection across the Park at a more northerly location to connect- to Broadway. This report has been provided to the Planning Commission. The new roadway would be located approximately 200 to 240 feet north of the closest residential lots on Hastings and Lafayette Streets, and would be located approximately 600 to 800 feet north of the closest residential lot on East Cambridge Street (depending on the alignment selected). The Spring Road Connector Alternative Report, prepared by MBA, concludes that potentially significant impacts can be mitigated. Recommended mitigation measures are included in the MBA report. Open Space and Clustering 5. Applicant has requested a "Private Open Space" designation for 450 acres in Planning Unit 45. This is to allow for future construction of a golf course. However, environmental studies have not been completed for this area, because no grading was assumed. 6. Planning Units 1, 19, and 36 are proposed for densities of 1 dwelling unit per two acres and Planning Unit 20 has been proposed for 1 dwelling unit per 1 to two acres. These areas are the furthest north and also at the highest elevations proposed for development. If these Planning Areas were not developed, approximately 333 additional acres would be left undisturbed and could be preserved as Natural Open Space. However, eliminating development in Planning Units 1, 19, 20, and 36 would also eliminate this housing type and density from Ojoals� Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 4 the Plan. The applicant also would want to reallocate this density into other Planning Units, to maintain the overall number of units in the Plan, thereby increasing densities in other Planning Units. Planning Unit 1 involves the largest acreage of the Planning Units under consideration for additional open space (139.1 acres), and is adjacent to Planning Unit 45. Preservation of Planning Unit 1 as natural open space may be interrelated to any decision made for Planning Unit 45. For example, potential impacts from development of a golf course in the lower 450 acres Planning Unit 45 could be partially offset by preservation of Planning Unit 1. Affordable Housing 7. Concerns have been expressed regarding the ratio of rental-to for -sale affordable housing, no provision of units affordable to very low income households, no indication of the targeted household income level for the for -sale units, and the inclusion of second dwelling units as part of the total affordable units to be provided. Schools 8• The Planning Commission has received a copy of a letter dated July 12, 1996, from Thomas Duffy, District Superintendent of the Moorpark Unified School District. In that letter Mr. Duffy requests consideration of generally identifying three elementary school sites with a symbolic designation. Staff does not recommend a floating school site designation. Some type of land use designation would need to be assigned to the Planning Units now planned for elementary schools. If designated as residential, units would then need to be deleted from other Planning Units so as to not exceed the General Plan density limit for the Specific Plan. If a higher density zoned site is later selected for a school site, then a Specific Plan amendment would be required and the District would be faced with a higher appraised value for the land that it needs to acquire for a school. Staff recommends that the only revision that should be made at this time for the school sites would be to revise Planning Units 39 and 31 to create a 50 -acre high school site (Planning Unit 39C totaling 10 acres would be required plus 40 acres from Planning Unit 31) If the high school site is provided, the elementary school originally ,< J �; � .: Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 5 planned for Planning Unit 39C is proposed to be deleted) . The Final EIR identifies that, based on the Moorpark Unified School District's student generation rates, two elementary schools, 71 percent of a middle school, and 31 percent of a high school are required. Given that the Specific Plan No. 2 preliminary land use plan includes a site large enough to accommodate a middle school, staff concurs with the applicant that a middle school will probably not be needed within Specific Plan No. 8, and if required, one of the elementary school sites can be enlarged or the school site relocated. The issues regarding the appropriateness of symbolic designations for elementary school sites and the need for three elementary school sites versus two should be discussed. Circulation ORt ions /Alter at ves and I ,act Required Year 2010 Circulation System Circulation design and potential traffic impacts are key issues that need to be resolved in order for the City to approve the proposed Specific Plan. The General Plan Circulation Element shows that the Specific Plan No. 8 area would be served by a new Rural Collector (two to four lanes) that would extend from Broadway to State Route (SR) 118. Therefore, the draft Specific Plan shows an extension of Broadway connecting to a new SR -118 interchange. The General Plan Circulation Element Highway Network exhibit is included as Attachment 1 to this staff report. Prior to adoption of the Circulation Element in 1992, the City Council directed staff to delete any specific SR -118 intersection name reference on the Highway Network exhibit so as to allow interpretation of either a Lagoon or Alamos Canyon connection, as determined appropriate after further study. One of the requested entitlements for the Hidden Creek Ranch Project is a General Plan amendment, so as to allow for corrections such as to the Circulation Element Highway Network exhibit. In the Traffic Study for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan, the traffic impacts of the proposed project at both Year 2000 and Year 2010 were analyzed (the Year 2010 was assumed to be General Plan buildout and the worst case traffic scenario). Attachment 2 to this staff report is a table that shows the Year 2010 plus the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Proposed Project) traffic compared to the Year 2010 No Project condition. It is important to note that the adequate level of service (LOS) shown in Attachment 2 for both Year 2010 No Project and Proposed Project scenarios is based on assumptions regarding the Year 2010 minimum Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 6 circulation system. The required Year 2010 circulation system is described in the Traffic Study as consisting of the following improvements (based on Year 2000 and Year 2010 required improvements) : 1. Construction of Hidden Creek Drive from Broadway to the east end of Campus Park Drive 2. Reconfiguration of the Happy Camp Road /Walnut Canyon Road /Broadway intersection to a conventional intersection 3. Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection improvements (which are described below and in Attachment 3 as mitigation options lA and 1C) 4. Widening of the Collins Drive /SR -118 westbound ramps to provide two right -turn lanes, the westbound approach at this intersection would need to be striped for a left -turn lane and two'right -turn lanes, and the east curb -line on Collins Drive north of the off -ramp would need to be relocated to the east to align with the northbound right - turn curb -line at the Campus Park Drive intersection. S. A six -lane roadway section along New Los Angeles Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue with associated intersection improvements (as shown on Attachment 4 to this report) 6. Extension of Science Drive from New Los Angeles Avenue to Tierra Rejada Road 7. Extension of Casey Road to Gabbert Road 8. Construction of "C" Street from Grimes Canyon Road to an extension of Spring Road 9. Spring Road extension to Hidden Creek Drive or Broadway 10. Extension of State Route (SR) 118 west from the SR- 118/SR -23 freeway connection to Los Angeles Avenue (east -west traffic flow only) as a four -lane expressway with "at grade" intersections at Spring Road, Walnut Canyon Road, and Gabbert Road. (The Traffic Study also identifies that the Walnut Canyon intersection may have to be a grade separation due to the terrain.) It is the above list of assumed improvements that result in acceptable LOS at roadway intersections, as shown in Attachment 2. The first three listed improvements would need to be provided by the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project. The other identified improvements were assumed to be provided by other development projects (including but not limited to the following: Science Drive and widening of south side of New Los Angeles Avenue - Carlsberg Specific Plan; the Spring Road extension to "C" Street and "C" Street between Spring Road and Walnut Canyon Road - Specific Plan No. 2; Casey Road - Specific Plan No. 1; and segment of "C" Street between Grimes Canyon Road and Walnut Canyon Road - Moorpark Country Club Estates) , and by a Citywide Traffic Mitigation Capital Improvement Program that would provide for the construction of the SR -118 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 7 arterial bypass and potentially some of the New Los Angeles Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue widening and intersection improvements. If the Spring Road connector roadway is required to be constructed as a condition of Specific Plan approval, a requirement for funding and construction to existing Spring Road would also need to be imposed. Mitigation measures have been proposed in the Final EIR that would require the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan development to pay a fair - share of required intersection improvements and any adopted Citywide Traffic Mitigation fee. A mitigation measure has also been included that requires that no development project can be approved until a Citywide Capital Improvement Program has been approved by the City, which will include a list of planned major infrastructure improvements, a tentative schedule for implementation, and a cost for the improvement, as well as the mechanisms or methods for collecting fees and funding the improvement. The Traffic Study concluded that approximately 20 percent of the remaining City of Moorpark General Plan buildout could be accommodated by expansion of New Los Angeles Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue to six lanes and associated improved intersection geometrics, and that additional east -west roadway capacity was required to allow full buildout (includes Hidden Creek Ranch) . Based on the City's adopted Circulation Element, the planned additional east -west roadway capacity is the extension of SR- 118 as a six -lane arterial bypass facility. It is also important to note that the Traffic Study concluded that a Spring Road extension (connecting to Broadway or Hidden Creek Drive) was required in order to delete "D" Street from the Circulation Element and defer construction of a SR -23 bypass arterial (the Spring Road extension relieves congestion on Walnut Canyon Road /Moorpark Avenue). As the Planning Commission is aware, "D" Street was originally planned to provide access to the Specific Plan No. 2 site from Princeton Avenue; however, when the new freeway ramps were built, there was insufficient room to locate a new roadway north of the freeway on -ramp and south of the residences along Westwood Street. The City's Circulation Element also shows a four -lane SR -23 bypass arterial to be constructed by General Plan buildout; however, cost estimates prepared subsequent to adoption of the Circulation Element have identified that construction of both the SR -118 and SR -23 extensions by the Year 2010 is financially infeasible. Mitigation Options for the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive Intersection Because the primary direct traffic impact of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project would be on the Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 8 interchange, the Traffic Study and the Transportation and Circulation section of the EIR identify seven mitigation options that singularly or combined would achieve mitigation of traffic impacts at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection. These options are briefly described below, and are described in more detail in Attachment 3 to this staff report (pages 3.6 -26 through 3.6 -29 of the Final EIR) : Option lA Signal Phasing Modification - Modification of the existing signal phasing at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection to provide a left -turn phase on each approach and a northbound right -turn green arrow overlap with the westbound left -turn signal phase. Option 1B Spring Road Extension - Extension of Spring Road from its present terminus through the adjacent specific plan area into the project site. This does not have to be a direct link, but a collector /minor arterial route that will conveniently allow for traffic flow. - Option 1C Intersection Geometries Improvements - Roadway widening and lane additions at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection, as illustrated in Attachment 3. Option 1D. Campus Park West Extension - Connection of Campus Park Drive, at the west end, to the Project street system. Option 1E. Campus Park Drive West and Spring Road Extensions - Includes both Option 2 (Spring Road extension) and Option 4 (Campus Park Drive west extension) . Option 1F. Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive Roundabout - Reconstruction of the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection to provide a roundabout (an intersection control alternative) as illustrated in Attachment 3. Option 1G. Lagoon /SR -118 Interchange - Construction of a new Lagoon /SR- 118 interchange with a connector road to proposed Hidden Creek Drive. Attachment 5 is a table that describes the levels of service for the Year 2000 that would result from implementation of the options described above, and Attachment 6 is a table that shows the LOS for the Year 2010 traffic with mitigation options. For example, implementation of mitigation option No. 1A, signal phasing, in addition to Option 1C, intersection improvements, would result in acceptable LOS C during the a.m. peak hours (worst case condition) at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection. Option 1B, the Spring Road extension, in combination 1�C 1�11S�111 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 9 with Option 1A, signal phasing, would not result in an acceptable LOS during the a.m. peak hours. Option 1B, in combination with Options 1A, and 1C, would achieve an acceptable LOS at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection, would be significantly less expensive than the new Lagoon interchange, and would provide a more direct route into the downtown area. As previously discussed, Option 1B also provides additional traffic benefit to Walnut Canyon Road /Moorpark Avenue. The Traffic Study and EIR also address other circulation system alternatives /options that are not included in the Year 2010 minimum circulation system, that was determined to be required in order to accommodate projected traffic. These alternatives /options include a SR- 23 Freeway Connection to SR -118, A SR -23 Four -Lane Bypass Arterial to the Broadway Extension, a SR -118 Six -Lane Arterial Extension, and an Alamos Canyon Roadway Connection. The SR -23 Freeway Connection to SR -118 was estimated as costing in excess of $10 million, with a SR -23 Bypass Arterial estimated as costing approximately $5.7 million. Given that an acceptable LOS can be achieved without either of these high -cost alternatives, the Traffic Study did not recommend either alternative as a mitigation option. The SR -118 Six -Lane Arterial Extension was recommended as required for the minimum Year 2010 circulation system, in order to accommodate projected traffic and provide acceptable LOS at New Los Angeles Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue intersections. The Final EIR identifies that even with intersection improvements along Los Angeles Avenue, only approximately 20 percent of projected General Plan buildout between the Year 2000 and the Year 2010 can be accommodated. Key intersections along Los Angeles Avenue will operate at the LOS F range, for the General Plan buildout, if the SR -118 bypass arterial is not constructed. For the Alamos Canyon Connection, the Traffic Study and Final EIR identify that this roadway connection would not improve the operation of any of the intersections along New Los Angeles /Los Angeles Avenue and would increase the traffic volumes at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection, in comparison to a new Lagoon interchange. The Alamos Canyon Connection would also encourage sales tax leakage to Simi Valley, which would result in a negative financial impact on the City. Preferred Circulation System It is staff's opinion that a Spring Road extension and connector roadway across lower Happy Canyon Regional Park is preferred for several reasons: "D" Street must be deleted from the Circulation Element and a comparable linkage is still required, directly extending SR -23 north as either a four -lane bypass arterial or new freeway by the Year 2010 is financially infeasible, and the recently prepared environmental report for the Spring OU9S9 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 10 Road Connector Alternative identifies that all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated. Staff also concurs with the applicant that the construction of the Lagoon intersection does not provide high benefit in comparison to the cost. The Traffic Study identifies that signal phasing and intersection improvements at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection would provide an acceptable LOS at substantially less cost, in comparison to a new Lagoon /SR -118 interchange. Staff is, therefore, recommending a circulation system that consists of a Spring Road extension and connector roadway (two to four lanes) across lower Happy Canyon Regional Park (Mitigation Option 1B) that would connect to Hidden Creek Drive, a planned four -lane roadway that would then extend east to connect to the east end of Campus Park Drive. Near Planning Units 7, 8, and 37, Hidden Creek Drive should be relocated so as to preserve oak trees and create a new park or oepn space area, as discussed in the July 22 staff report. This new roadway system, in combination with signal phasing (Mitigation Option 1A) and intersection improvements- for the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection (Mitigation Option 1C) , and other required Year 2010 circulation system components would result in acceptable LOS at all identified intersections. Attachment 7 to this report illustrates the conceptually preferred circulation system for the Hidden Creek Ranch Project. As previously discussed, the Final EIR includes a mitigation measure requiring that prior to approval of any Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan development project, a Citywide Capital Improvement Program shall be approved by the City, which will include a list of planned major infrastructure improvements, a tentative schedule for implementation, and a cost for the improvement, as well as the mechanisms or methods for collecting fees and funding the improvement. Fiscal Impacts The purpose of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Report was to provide information to staff and the decision makers that could then be used to negotiate an acceptable tax revenue with the County of Ventura for the area to be annexed, as well as to negotiate with the applicant, and any other Specific Plan area property owners, through the Development Agreement process. The Fiscal Impact Report, previously distributed to the Planning Commission for the July 22 meeting, analyzes two tax revenue scenarios (3.23 percent and 7.89 percent), along with several different commercial buildout scenarios. At the July 22 meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern that the Fiscal Impact Report identifies that with the T ) 0 4 .s Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 11 lower tax revenue scenario, the City would be impacted financially by the proposed Specific Plan development. As identified above, the Fiscal Impact Report analyzes several potential property tax and sales tax revenue scenarios to clearly define and demonstrate the precise impacts of possible scenarios, which then allow the City to negotiate with knowledge of the potential fiscal impacts of different scenarios. The goal of tax revenue and Development Agreement negotiation efforts will be to ensure that the City will not be adversely impacted from annexation and development of this area. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review any Development Agreement at a noticed public hearing, and the potential financial benefit or impact to the City should be discussed at that time. Phasing A detailed discussion of a revised phasing plan was presented in the previous July staff report. This discussion is intended to supplement the prior discussion. Phase 1 development is no longer proposed to include the partial construction of Hidden Creek Drive (full graded right of way with construction of one -half paving improvements) from the east terminus of Campus Park Drive to the eastern terminus of Broadway. With the revised phasing plan, the secondary access for Phases 1 through 4 (1,401 dwelling units) is proposed to be provided with a roadway connection above Moorpark College, connecting to Campus Road (a private roadway owned by Moorpark College) and then to Collins Drive. In order to access a portion of Campus Road, the applicant would need to acquire an easement from the College. The Final EIR concludes that this secondary access would not result in any significant impacts; however, there would be increased traffic on Collins Drive, which would result in increased traffic noise and other nuisance impacts to residential neighborhoods adjacent to Collins Drive. The Project Traffic Engineer has estimated that the additional a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips on Collins Drive, as a result of the secondary access road, would not exceed approximately 50 trips. The first elementary school is not shown as being constructed until Phase 6. Approximately 1,702 to 1,987 dwelling units are planned prior to construction of the first elementary school. The School District will obviously make any decisions regarding when the first school is required. The roadway adjacent to the school site (Planning Unit No. 39A) and other associated infrastructure improvements are planned for Phase 1, so that the school can be built when determined required. Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: The Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Page 12 Verbal comments received from the County Fire Protection District on the revised phasing plan is that it is acceptable, although future subdivision maps would need to be conditioned to ensure adequate roadway width for the planned second access. Staff's opinion is that the Planning Commission should allow the City Council to determine the appropriate phasing plan after information on an assessment district study is completed (that is being done to determine whether a Spring Road extension and roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park could be financed during the early phases of development) . Any Planning Commission objections to the revised phasing plan should be included in the resolution containing the Commission's recommendations on the Specific Plan. Specific Plan Revisions In addition to the recommendations contained in the July 22 staff report, the City Engineer has requested revisions /clarifications to street sections as identified in Attachment 8 to this report. "!;l � i • 1 1. Discuss identified major issues and provide recommendations (a straw vote on a recommendation for each major issue may be appropriate to ensure adequate direction is provided). 2. Provide staff with comments on staff recommendations for conditions to be included in a Planning Commission resolution, and /or provide additional recommendations to be included. 3. Close the public hearing and direct staff to prepare a draft resolution for the Planning Commission's August 26, 1996, meeting. Attachments: 1. Circulati4 2. Final EIR 3. Final EIR 4. Final EIR 5. Final EIR 6. Final EIR Dn Element Highway Network Table 3.6 -8 Pages 3.6 -26 to 3.6 -28 and Exhibit 3.6 -15 Table 3.6 -11 Table 3.6 -9 7. Exhibit Showing Preferred Circulation System 8. Memorandum dated 7 -29 -96 from Assistant City Engineer Figure 2 Exhibits 3.6 -19 and 3.6 -20 '(ITV. LELEUD FREEWAY 049ERCHANGE ENMIIIIW� SIX-LANE ARTERIAL FOUR•LAHE ARTERIAL -R- RURAL COLLECTOR LOCAL COIlXCTOR SIGNAUZED INTERSECTION AT -GRADE RR CROSSING GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING �'� �• CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY ammusum• SR -118 FREEWAY CORRIDOR i\1. m.0 P..— WP «.b Ih hew. Can .wavu� IrOYt u Octrn «m .ro Cwob,wn o•"�■+a... Oeo.•. «,w FIGURE 2 CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL, PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT HIGHWAY NETWORK May 13, 1992 19 000 -1 ATTACMMM Z i Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Final E Project scenario minimum circulation system. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3.6 -8; Ithe year 2010 No Project scenario levels of service are included for comparison. TABLE 3.6-8 YEAR 2010 PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ICU Ratio •Los A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Year 2010 Year-2010 Year 2010 Year 2010 Stu Intersection No Pro' Proposed Pro' No Propose y Delfen St. /Campus Park Dr. Pro a Pr°. Collins Dr. /Campus Park Dr. (see Table 3.6-9) 0.53 - A 0.55 - A 0.24 - A 0.42 - A Collins Dr. /SR -118 WB Ramps 0.79 - C (f) 068 - B (� Collins Dr. /SR -118 EB Ramps/Los Angeles Ave.' 0.69 - B 0.68-8 0.41 - A O.S2 - A Princeton Ave. /Campus Park Dr.b 0.76 - C 0.77 - C 0.48 - A 0.59 - A i Princeton Ave. /Los Angeles AveJSR -118 WB Ramps N/A - A N/A - A N/A - A N/A - A Los Angeles AveJSR -118 EB Ramps 0'29 ' A 0.31 - A 0.33 - A 0.33 - A Los Angeles AveJCondor Dr.' 0'29 - A 0.30 - A 0.42 - A 0.43 - A Spring Rd./High SL Los Angeles Ave. '! 0.17 - A 0.18 • A 0.22 - A 0.23 - A Happy ' ' Camp Canyon Rd. /Broadway 0.26 - A 0.31 - A 0.54 - A 0,58 Moorpark AveJHigh St. 0.39 - A 49 0. - A 0.63 - B 0.62 - j Moorpark Ave. /Poindexter Ave. /Fuse St. 0.39 • A 0.38 - A 0.62-8 0.63-8 New Los Angeles Ave. /Science Dr. O.SI - A O.S2 -A 0.74 -C 0.75•C Los Angeles AveJSpring Rd. 0.43 - A O.S8 - A 0.76 - C 0.77 - C Los Angeles Ave./Moorpark Ave. 0.61-8 0.65-9 0.78 - C 0.80 • C Los Angeles AveJTiem Rejada Rd. 0.50 -A 0.49 -A 0.71 -C 0.75 -C Tierra Rejada Rd. /SR -23 NB Ramps 0.60 - A 0.60 - A 0.69 - B 0.70-8 ' "B .. Tierra Rejada Rd./SR-23 SB Ramps 0.50 -A 0.51 -A 0. 70 -B , 0.70-B Tierra Rejada Rd. /Moorpark Rd, 0.48 ' A O.SO - A 0.68 - B .� 0:69 - B "k( Tierra Re' RdJS 1�+ pring Rd. 0.78 - C 0.79 - C 0.74 - C 0.75 - C SR -118 Extension/Walnut Canyon Rd.' 0.56 - A 0.58 - A 0.50 - A 0.51 - A jj SR -118 Extension/Spring Rd.' 0.64-8 0.69 - B 0.78 - C S l ' LOS based on capacity of a 3 -way stop sign - controlled intersection. 0.56 -A 0.65 -8 0.54 -A 0.74 -C e j LOS based on estimated vehicle delays. !� a Should be studied; appears that traffic signal is no longer needed. `l( Year 2010 + project LOS based on reconfigured intersection and signal New intersection created by the SR -118 control. extension, assumed signalized. Eli 'See Table 3.6-9 for the 2010 Proposed year Project LOS values. W18/02261kTC8.3 -6 3.6 -20 ? Transportation and Circulation arTAcrr -3 1 Specific Plan Final EIR _ shall provide varying degrees of mitigation. The project applicant shall participate in a city program to implement Options 1B, 1C, 1D, or lE in combination with Option IA to achieve the City of Moorpark LOS C or better performance criteria. The project applicant shall be required to contribute the appropriate percentage of the cost associated with implementation of the selected option or complete the required improvement as a development project condition of approval. (F) IA. Signal Phasing Modification Modify the existing signal phasing at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection to provide a left -turn phase on each approach and a northbound right - turn green arrow overlap with the westbound left -turn signal phase. Level of Significance After Mitigation: The modified signal operation would improve the ICU ratio to 0.82 (LOS D) but would not attain the City of Moorpark, LOS C or better objective. I B. Spring Road Extension Extend Spring Road from its terminus in the adjacent Specific Plan area into the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan in site the year 2000 scenario in lieu of the Year 2010 scenario, ('This does not have to be a direct link, but a collector /minor arterial route that will conveniently allow for traffic flow). Level of Significance After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 1 B provides a more direct route into the downtown area. It would lower the ICU ratio to 0.88 (LOS D) but would not achieve the City of Moorpark LOS C or better objective. However, Mitigation Measure 1B combined with Mitigation Measure IA would lower the ICU ratio to 0.77 (LOS C) and achieve the City of Moorpark LOS C or better objective during the critical a.rw peak hour time period. Implementation of this mitigation measure could result in the following potential secondary impacts: increased noise levels at existing residential uses (i.e., Charles Street), increases in air emissions at new intersections, impacts to biological resources, incompatibilities with plans for development of the southern portion of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park within County jurisdiction, and pedestrian/vehicular conflicts within Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park should it not be developed for active recreational uses. 1C. Intersection Geometric Improvements Implement intersection improvements (i.e., roadway widening and lane additions) at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection. In order to achieve LOS C or better during the a.m. peak hour, the existing northbound right -turn lane shall be converted to a free - flowing right -turn lane; the optional northbound through -right lane shall be converted to a northbound through lane; and a second westbound left -turn lane shall be constructed. The northbound lane conversion will require that the existing south curb -line on Campus Park Drive between Collins Drive and College View Avenue be relocated to the south to provide an W1E 10226RTC8.3 -6 3.6-26 Transportation and Circul r Hidden Creek Ranch S ecific Plan F�nzl E1R eastbound acceleration lane for the northbound right -turn vehicles. A conceptual design of these intersection geometric improvements is depicted in Exhibit 3.6 -19. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure IC when combined with Mitigation Measure IA would lower the ICU ratio to 0.69 (LOS B) and achieve the City of Moorpark LOS B or better objective during the a.m. peak hour period. 1D. Campus Park Drive (West) Extension IsConnect Campus Park Drive (west) to the project streets system. that this circulation link would divert approximate) 15 y m. It is estimated Ittraffic from the Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive corridor to the Campus Park Drive (west) /Princeton Avenue corridor. . Is Level of Significance After Mitigation: This option would lower the ICU ratio of 0.89, but would not achieve the LOS C objective. However, in combination with the signal Phasing modification (IA), the ICU ratio would be lowered to 0.79 and achieve the LOS C objective during the critical a.m. peak hour time period. In addition to the improved intersection levels of service along Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive corridor, this would result in a loop circulation system for this portion of the City, thus providing good access for emergency vehicles, schoolbus routes, etc. The shorter travel distances would reduce the auto emissions, thus reducing air quality impacts. Implementation of this mitigation measure could result to the following potential secondary impacts: increases in noise levels to residential uses along Campus Park Drive, increases in air emissions at new intersections, increases in traffic volumes and changes to the character of Campus Park Drive, biological impacLs to undisturbed areas within Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. creating demand for staging/parking areas in the southerly portion of Happy Camp Regional Paik for pack users, and potential conflicts with land use plans within Count jurisdiction. IE. Campus Park Drive (West) and Spring Road Extensions Combine both 1 B (Spring Road extension) and ID (Campus Park Drive extension).. It is estimated that the addition these of two links would divert approximately 35 percent of the project traffic from the Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive corridor, and would lower the ICU ratio to 0.85, but would not achieve the LOS C objective. However, in combination with the signal phasing modification (IA), the ICU ratio would be lowered to 0.74 and achieve the LOS C objective during the critical a.m. peak hour, and provide good circulation for this area of the City. Implementation of this mitigation measure could result in potential secondary impacts described for both options 10 and I D above. wJR/0226RTCE.3 -6 3.6 -27 Transportation and Circulation Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1F. Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive Roundabout Reconfigure the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection to provide a roundabout (an intersection control alternative). A conceptual design for a roundabout at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection is depicted in Exhibit 3.6 -20. Level of Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of a roundabout would result in some encroachment into Paul Griffin Park and Moorpark College. This design would accommodate the year 2000 Proposed Project scenario peak hour traffic volumes, with average vehicle delays within the LOS A range during the a.m. peak hour time period which achieves the City of Moorpark LOS C or better objective. The use of roundabouts as a system design circulation alternative is discussed in Appendix E of this EIR. 1G. Lagoon/SR -118 Interchange Although the Lagoon/SR -118 interchange was originally proposed as- part of the project, the level of development proposed for the Specific Plan site by the year 2000 would not necessitate the construction of this freeway interchange by the year 2000. However, the interchange is a mitigation measure option. Implementation of this mitigation would result in biological and other physical impacts addressed within Section 3 of this EIR. In summary, these include, but are not limited to: potential grading and geologic impacts, biological impacts including impacting a vernal pool and 114 oak trees, potentially impacting several archaeological sites, and aesthetic /visual impacts of the new interchange and roadway. Table 3.6-11 shows that the mitigation measure options IB through IF (with signal modification -IA) would improve the levels of service for the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection during the critical a.m. peak hour, and achieve the City's performance objective of LOS C. In order to determine the Specific Plan fair -share portion of the required improvements to the year 2000 circulation system to mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed project to a level of no significance, the project percent contribution was calculated using the existing and year 2000 Proposed Project scenario a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes. These calculations were performed for the Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road and Los Angeles AvenueMerra Rejada Road intersections, as well as for the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection, where a deficiency was identified. 2. The project applicant shall be required to contribute the appropriate percentage of the cost associated with implementation of the Los Angeles Avenue/Tierra Rejada Road intersection improvement to achieve the City of Moorpark LOS C or better performance WIB 10226RTC8.3 -6 3.6 -28 Transporza ion and Circulation ��_ i r i I j r ■ r ■ r 1 I � 1 1 � 1 � EXISTING HOMES I � CAMPUS ! PARK DR. Ze J' Ov I V PAUL GRIFFIN / PARK /LEGEND Existing (;urb Proposed Curb "( „� „� 3.6 -19 NNS —S 01 low Campus Park Drivel MichadBmndmanrisuxims Collins Drive Intersection Improvements 02260008• iorW HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 8) EIR SOURCE: Assoaaled iranso"tion Engnesrs. I i I Z t � EXISTING HOMES MOORPARK COLLEGE . -Z-� CAMPUS PARK f DRIVE o _ o — _ -- _ - -_ -- ©NOS APE — — AREA ©o — — - ---- ©© o ! / / ©� PAUL GRIFFIN PARK V / / / E � �xl,�t „� 3. NNNN ,ate so. o• 6-2C Z1 ` i � Campus Park Drive /Collins Drivf Achael Dnndman Auocu,es Conceptual Roundabout Adiernativ( 022600u. 10/U HIOOEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 8) El SOURCE: Pww*4 & Srtr,n E ��,,.,,,l,m,�.,� R GABBERT RD. L L. A. AVE. J I TIERRA REJADA RD. MOORPARK AVE. guano NNW on SPRING RD. SCIENCE DR. J IL r- f -- -J 1 ...1 guano NNW on SPRING RD. SCIENCE DR. t (_- NEW L. A. AVE. u f LEGEtj 0 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS -- YEAR •2010 IMPROVED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS _ 3.6 -15 .•�lulut r� ai.I,.cl111-indminr1i, oAio Year 2010 No Project Los Angeles Avenue Required Inrersecrion Improvements 022'tA"d • ta•9t HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 8' 9 SOURCE. Assocualed Tianoponahon Eirp, 1 ...1 t (_- NEW L. A. AVE. u f LEGEtj 0 YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS -- YEAR •2010 IMPROVED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS _ 3.6 -15 .•�lulut r� ai.I,.cl111-indminr1i, oAio Year 2010 No Project Los Angeles Avenue Required Inrersecrion Improvements 022'tA"d • ta•9t HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 8' 9 SOURCE. Assocualed Tianoponahon Eirp, 0 ■ r ■ r K M ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 Specific Plan Final EIR criteria, consisting of the addition of a second westbound left -turn lane (which could be implemented by restriping the east and westbound approaches of this intersection). (F) 3. The project applicant shall be required to complete and submit to the City of Moorpark a traffic signal warrant analysis for the Happy Camp Road /Walnut Canyon Road /Broadway intersection, and appropriate intersection geometric design per city standards to allow the intersection to operate at LOS C or better for the year 2000 traffic scenario; the project applicant shall be required to complete the traffic signal warrant analysis, and contribute the cost of such intersection improvement based on determination of the proposed project contribution of traffic utilizing the intersection, when directed by the City, as indicated by traffic conditions. (F) TABLE 3.6-11 MITIGATED YEAR 2000 PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE (A.M. PEAK HOUR AT COLLINS DRTVEICANIPUS PARK DRIVE) Project Circulation Mitigation Measure Option:? ICU Ratio - LOS Without Si I Mod. With Si I Mod. IA - Modified Signal Operation NA 0.82 - D 1B - Spring Rd. Extension 0.88 - D 0.77 - C 1C - Intersection Improvements NA 0.69 - B 1 D - Campus Drive Extension 0.89 - D 0.79 - C 1 E - Campus Park Drive and Spring Road Extension 0.85 - D 0.74 - C IF - Roundabout Construction' NA - A NA - A 1G - Lagoon/SR-1 18 Interchange •► Not Needed Not Needed ` This option would include the removal of the existing traffic signal. Source: Associated Transportation Engineers 1995. The year 2010 Proposed Project scenario traffic impact analysis identified a circulation deficiency at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection, the implementation of Mitigation Measure No. I Option IC, ID, or IE in year 2000 would achieve the City of Moorpark performance objective of LOS C or better at all intersections for year 2010. However, there are a number of improvements that need to be added to the year 2000 circulation system to establish the year 2010 minimum circulation system. In order to determine the Specific Plan fair -share portion of the required improvements to mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed project to level of no significance, the proposed project percent contribution was calculated using the existing and 2010 Proposed Project scenario a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes. These w11V0226RTC8.3 -6 3.6 -29 Trarlsporration and Circulation 01 110 1 9 C r ATTA Hidden Creek stanch Specific Plan Final EIR To assess the effects of the Specific Plan project at the Collins Drive /Campus Park .Drive intersection, the levels of service were calculated assuming the mitigation measures related to the year 2000 Proposed Project scenario discussed in Section 3.6.3. This analysis assumes that the year 2010 Proposed Project scenario will not be developed without the completion of the year 2000 Proposed Project scenario, thus requiring the implementation of one or more of the project circulation options. The results of this intersection analysis are presented in Table 3.6 -9, with the level of service worksheets contained in Appendix E. TABLE 3.6-9 YEAR 2010 PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE (COLLINS DRIVE /CAMPUS PARK DRIVE) ICU Ratio - LOS Project Year 2000 Mitigation Measure 0 tione A.M. Peak P.M. Peak IC - Intersection Im rovements 0.78 - C 0.66 - B IE - Campus Park Drive and Spring Road Extension IF - Roundabout Construction° 1.00-E NA - A 0.79 - C NA - A 1G - Lagoon/SR-1_18 Interchange 0.68 - B 0.64 g ' LOS calculations for Options IC, IE, and lG include Option IA (Signal Phasing). mitigation measure options are discussed in detail in Section 3.6.3. This option will include the removal of the existing traffic signal. Source: Associated Transportation Engineers 1995. - Project Circulation Deficiencies -Year 2010 Proposed Project The data presented in Table 3.6 -8 indicate that all intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service under the year 2010 Proposed Project scenario traffic conditions. This conclusion is based on the intersections operating within the City of Moorpark performance objective of LOS C or better. The data presented in Table 3.6-9 indicate that under Mitigation Option I E, which assumes the extensions of Campus Park Drive and Spring Road, the intersection of Campus Park Drive and Collins Drive would operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour even with the signal phasing modifications (Option IA) assumed to be implemented in conjunction with Option IE. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure Options 1C, IF, and 1G, in conjunction with Option IA, would result in acceptable improved intersection operations and achieve the City's performance objective of LOS C. wJ8/0226RTC8.3 -6 3.6 -21 Transportation and Circulation.. r® W V�%or- 0 t p �l k I jilt' �•:i`•� !4 pr Wr ot El ff, Ark Jill I �l � ii' -:��� ''!►f•;. ��; 1!' -?',1� fT..ryi1�e.1�" • '!'� % «'I: i w MESSE Gf ER INV!■TMBNT COMPANY+ „ m CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. E HIDDEN CREEK RANCII SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF MOORPARK, CA ®arm oaf tk00'I i r® W V�%or- 0 t p �l k I jilt' �•:i`•� !4 pr Wr ot El ff, Ark Jill I �l � ii' -:��� ''!►f•;. ��; 1!' -?',1� fT..ryi1�e.1�" • '!'� % «'I: i w MESSE Gf ER INV!■TMBNT COMPANY+ „ m CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. E HIDDEN CREEK RANCII SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF MOORPARK, CA ®arm oaf tk00'I 8 MEMORANDUM To: Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior Planner From: Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer Date: July 29, 1996 Subject: Specific Plan No. 8 Circulation Element I have reviewed Specific Plan No. 8 with respect to my previous comments of April 8,1995. The majority of my comments and questions have been addressed but there remain a few items that should be clarified • Section B of Exhibit 28 (page 2 -63) shows a Village Collector with two -eight foot bikelanes. Paragraph 2.a. on page 2 -61 states that the Village Collector will have 2 parking lanes. It is not clear as to what is intended. Is it to be a parking lane or a bikelane? Combined parking /bikelanes require a minimum twelve foot width. • All sidewalks should be a minimum width of 5 feet (see exhibits 28 and 29). • Slope gradients in excess of 2:1 on cut slopes and 3:1 on fill slopes are not recommended (see 6.8R.) cc: chron 84.541 `.� 0F0!. ATTACHMENT__ a5) I FILE COPY Urban strategies 2509 E. THOUSAND OAKS BLVD. • THOUSAND OAKS CA 91362 • (805) 494 -1336 July 17, 1997 Nelson Miller, Planning Director City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: Specific Plan 8 - Harvest Hills Dear Nelson: -- RECEIVED — J u L 1 7 1997 CITY OF MOORPARK As you may recall, Harvest Hills consists of four properties owned by Ventura Pacific Capital Company, (2 parcels), The Sunshine Ranch and William O'Brian - Marianne Trust (one parcel each). The total acreage of the four properties is 162 and is contiguous on the south to a developed residential project. In the summer of 1996 there were a series of meetings with representatives of Messenger / Specific Plan 8 and the other property owners within the Specific Plan boundary. In addition, at the recommendation of the City, Ventura Pacific hosted a meeting with the other property owners exclusive of Messenger. The purpose was to come to a consensus on an integrated development plan which could be constructed concurrently with the Messenger project rather than as the last phases of Specific Plan 8. The three property owners identified as Harvest Hills have come to an agreement and wish to proceed with this direction. It is the desire and intention of the Harvest Hills property owners to achieve the following objectives: 1. Effect a change in phasing schedule in Specific Plan No. 8 to allow development of the Harvest Hills acreage prior to or concurrent with the phasing schedule of the Hidden Creek/Messenger properties. (The reason is that we understand the Hidden Creek phasing has been altered from the one proposed in the Specific Plan to provide for development phasing to proceed from east to west.) Harvest Hills is located on the southwest comer of the Hidden Creek Specific Plan. By allowing it to develop as soon as possible, the western side of the street connections would be completed providing for a more orderly and logical development of the central portion of the Hidden Creek/Messenger properties with no negative impact on the Hidden Creek developers, and !ess of an impact on the surrounding, }, exictinr] com. *!ur 4y. 2. Adjustment of the density on the Harvest Hills properties from an artificially low 56 dwelling units to 1.32 dwelling units per acre as is on the balance of the Specific Plan No. 8 area, and 3. Establishment of a separate assessment district for the construction of infrastructure improvements because the Harvest Hills property has existing rights of access and utilities not currently available to the remainder of the Hidden Creek Specific Plan area. In exchange for an adjustment to the proposed Specific Plan meeting those objectives, the City of Moorpark and its citizens would benefit by: 1. The completion of the connector road between the extension of Spring Street and the Specific Plan boundary far in advance of the proposed Specif ic Plan phasing would otherwise provide; C."` C �C9ul4C� /�/ht�sefZQ� C/ //� oir, o! �J J - Y Nlayjvr SY'c� / I I. Nelson Miller /City of Moorpark July 17, 1997 Page 2. 2. Providing for a more orderly development of that area of the City, and 3. Providing the City with the assurance of an appropriate development by means of a development agreement which would, among the usual terms and conditions, include a $7,000 per unit fee in addition to the existing standard City of Moorpark fees. The $7,000.00 per unit fee would be applicable to the total number of units on the Harvest Hills property, not just to the increased density requested. That money can be used by the City in any number of ways, but is intended to offset the fact that the Harvest Hills property does not have the extensive open space areas to dedicate to the City that the remainder of the Hidden Creek Specific Plan area has available. This proposal will substantially benefit the City and its citizens in the ways mentioned above. The increase in density of approximately 124 units will not come from the 2310 already allocated to the balance of the Hidden Creek Specific Plan area but rather from the 821 additional units available under the Specif ic Plan proposal and studied by the Environmental Impact Report, leaving a substantial number of bonus units available to the developers of the remainder of the Hidden Creek Specific Plan area. It is our understanding that the first City Council hearing is anticipated in September of this year. Representatives of Harvest Hills will be attending, but we would appreciate a meeting with you and, if appropriate, the Community Development/Affordable Housing Committee in advance of the public hearings. As has been discussed, the property owners are willing to submit an application as may be needed to further their objectives. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look forward to hearing from you. .man cc: Mitch Kahn Ventura Pacific Capital Mr. William O'Brian 000 0' k ATTACHMENT__ RECFIVED HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SEF 1 I ' ' Affordable Housing Implementation Plan City or lvluurpark (to be inserted into Development Agreement) The City of Moorpark and HCR agree that providing 'Affordable Housing" (as defined by certain Federal, State and local agencies) qualifies as a significant public benefit. Of the expected 3,221 total residential units designated within Specific Plan #8. NCR hereby agrees to construct 365 (three hundred and sixty -file) Affordable Dwelling units, representing 1196 of the total units within the Specific Plan. It Is noted that HCR's ownership Is approximately 2,988 units, while 233 units are allocated to parcels owned by others within the Specific Plan area. HCR is obligated to construct the affordable units within the Specific Plan #8 area, and other ownerships are relieved from any obligation to construct affordable units. The 365 affordable housing units to be constructed on HCR property shall command rental rates and /or purchase prices dictated by those certain 'income limits' as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ('HUD7 and designated by its memorandum of 12/27/96 referencing income limits for January, 1997 in Ventura County. The 365 dwelling units that will be designated as affordable will be divided into the following categories: Product TW)a DUs - Rental units 250 • Rental units (senior) 25 - For sale units 70 For sale units (senior) 20 Total affordable dwelling units 365 The 250 affordable rental units will be attached two and /or three story apartment units located in planning units with VH-1 and VH -2 denslry categories. Flay percent of the rental units will be available to families qualifying as a 'Very low income' family and 509E will be available to families qualifying as 'lower Income' families as defined by HUD. HCR assumes that an average of four (4) persons per family will be used for these calculations. The 25 affordable rental units designed for senlo will be located In the senior housing component of the project. and made available on the same 50% very low and 50% lower Income designations. Affordable rental units, as defined herein, will be included In various planning units within the projects but NOT comprise over 50% of the units within a particular planning unit. The 70 affordable for sal homes will be either single family detached (e.g. courtyard homes) or multi- family structures. The City will cooperate with the builder by allowing these homes to be constructed with new construction technology methods, Including manufactured housing. These homes will be located In any of the M, H and /or VH -1 density categories. Fifty percent of the for sale units will be available to families qualifying as a'very low income' family and 50% will be available to families qualifying as 'lower Income" families as defined by HUD. The 20 affordable for sale units designed for seniors will be located In the senior housing component of the project as shown on the land use plan, and made available on the same 50% very low and 50% lower income designations. HCR and the City agree that Affordable Housing as contemplated herein constitutes certain amounts of unrecoverable costs to HCR, (most notably land and land improvement costs). HCR may be able to reduce the amount of unrecoverable costs by providing a portion of the Affordable Housing In a location other than within the project, yet within the boundaries of the City. City agrees that HCR may provide a maximum of 100 units of the 365 units (either for sale or rental units). In an area of the City to be designated by the City Council or its designated representative. Similar to the on -site program detailed above. 50% of these units x)00 07 SEP 19 197 10:15 714 546 1050 PAGE.02 Sep -19 -97 10:04A messenger investmentco. 714 546 -1050 DRAFT Affordable Housing Implementation Plan September 19, 1997 Page 2 will be available to families qualifying as a very low Income family and 50% will be available to families qualifying as "lower Income" families. Should HCR elect to construct a portion of the Affordable units offshe. HCR agrees to Increase the= number of affordable units by 1 unit for every 5 affordable units constructed offsU. (For example, should HCR desire to locate 100 of the units offsKe, the total affordable units required of HCR per this agreement would be increased by 20 units to 385 from 365). In any event, the total number of units designated within the Speclflc Plan shall remain 3,221 units. HCR agrees to construct the affordable units on the following timetable: Prior to the Issuance of the 1.001st building permit, at least 100 affordable units as described herein will have received Notics(s) of Completion. Prior to the issuance of the 2,001 st building permit, at least 225 affordable units as described herein will have received Notice(s) of Completion. Prior to the issuance of the 3,001 st building permit, all 365 affordable units (or greater amount as determined by other provisions herein) will have received Notices) of Completion. The City of Moorpark agrees to appoint an Affordable Housing staff person to oversee the implementation of this plan. The responsibilities of the staff person will Include, but not be limited to, assisting with the planning, permitting and construction of the units, together with the responsibility of qualifying those families that wish to rent or purchase units that are a component of this program. P.03 SEP 19 '97 10 15 714 546 1050 PAGE. 03 - RECEIVED - NOV 1 0 1997 CITY OF NlOORPftRK CITY OF MOORPARK OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Steven Kueny, City Manager, on behalf of the Hidden Creek Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee (Councilmembers Perez and Wozniak) DATE: November 10, 1997 SUBJECT: Proposed Development Agreement The Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) has met several times with representatives of Messenger Investment Corporation (Messenger) to develop the considerations to be provided by each party to the other party. While several details remain to be worked out, the following points have been agreed to be presented to the City Council as part of the consideration of a draft Development Agreement (Agreement): 1. Developer Considerations: A. Payment of a $7,000.00 fee per residential unit. The fee for any commercial and institutional acreage while not yet determined would probably be based on being equivalent to a specified number of dwelling units per acre. This fee would increase annually by the CPI, commencing two years after execution of the Agreement. B. Payment of $4,800.00 per residential unit to offset the lower property tax rate expected for this project. The actual rate must be negotiated with Ventura County. The County currently has an established policy for areas annexed to cities. This would result in the rate being about one -half of that provided for in the City today. The proposed fee for institutional and commercial acreage has not yet been determined. C. Payment of a citywide traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $4,000.00 per residential unit. The proposed fee for institutional and commercial acreage has not The Honorable City Council Re: The Hidden Creek Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee Page 2 November 10, 1997 yet been determined. The fee would increase annually based on increases to a construction cost index. D. The City would be deeded without any Quimby consequence the park land that would be approved in the Specific Plan. Improvements comparable to existing City parks as determined by the City in its sole discretion would be provided (similar language to Carlsberg Settlement Agreement). E. Provide 365 affordable dwelling units (about 11 percent of the proposed 3,221 DU) within the Specific Plan area. All units would be for low and very low income families. The City would receive the income from any of.the "for sale" units removed from the program as part of second trust deeds and equity sharing provisions. The proposed program is further described in the staff report for the November 12, 1997, hearing. F. All appropriate mitigation measures would be incorporated into the Agreement, including Messenger obligations for backbone infrastructure financing and construction. G. The natural open space areas can be dedicated or sold; however, they will contain a conservation easement and dedication of development rights in favor of the City and other controls to insure they are never developed. H. Provide recycled water to all HOA and publicly owned and maintained areas at same time as such is provided to the first golf course. I. The Ad Hoc Committee has been working to limit the number of oil drilling sites. As discussed in the Public Hearings, no specific number has been agreed upon because discussions are ongoing between Messenger and the owner of the drilling rights (Nuevo). The Honorable City Council Re: The Hidden Creek Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee Page 3 November 10, 1997 J. Guaranteed use of the golf course for City recreational and public school instructional /competitive programs and free use for a limited number (two) of City - sponsored events. K. Provide a dedicated site for a fire station, if requested by Fire District, and if necessary, advance fees against future payment obligations to insure the fire station can be constructed in Phase I. L. Limit on number of homes that can be built prior to construction of second permanent access (road through Happy Camp Park for connection to Spring Road). The precise number has not been determined. M. Reimburse City for 1992 General Plan update and Sphere Study costs not funded by others. 2. City Considerations: A. Project is exempt from Hillside Ordinance. B. Whenever possible, concurrent processing of entitlements and expedited processing of tentative and final maps and planned development permits and plan checking of grading and public improvements. C. Early grading permit to be authorized by City Manager. D. Project shall be exempt from any growth management ordinance enacted after Development Agreement is executed. E. An extended period for use inauguration of the initial tracts and planned development permits. F. Work with Messenger to maximize any tax advantages for sale or dedication of permanent natural open space areas. The Honorable City Council Re: The Hidden Creek Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee Page 4 November 10, 1997 G. Sell at fair market value a portion of Griffin Park needed for street widening. 3. The Agreement is to reference the agreement in principle between Messenger and Moorpark Unified School District (MUSD) concerning the provision of school sites, timing of school site delivery, related improvements, and payment of school fees as a recital in the Agreement. Messenger agrees to deed restrict and /or transfer development rights, or provide another means acceptable to the City to insure that the sites are not developed with a use other than public schools. This is included because of the General Plan limit on the number of dwelling units (3,221) for Specific Plan No. 8 and the concern with the additional potential impacts, such as traffic and air quality, that were not considered as part of the EIR. In addition, Messenger will insure that the City approves the grading, drainage, and off -site public improvements for each site prior to transfer of the property to Moorpark Unified School District. The standard provisions contained in the Bollinger Agreement will be used with some minor language changes. The Ad Hoc Committee and Messenger are continuing to meet to resolve other issues and further clarify others so that precise draft language can be prepared. The Committee is scheduled to meet with Messenger on November 12 and is targeting December 17 to present a draft Development Agreement to the City Council. SK:db CC: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development c: \citymgr \msngr11.97 'o 1.4