The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 0520 CC REG ITEM 09Agra,4('�i ITEM q • A . CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting AGENDA REPORT of G• a O- g S_ CITY OF MOORPARK ACTION: j) u b 1 i G k e a r i n q Closed. Lon +rnueo! 1-o _ TO: The Honorable City Council 5 a 7 $ wiee} i ri FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developme DATE: May 12,1998 (For the City Council Meeting of May 20, 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 (Continued from May 6, 1998) DISCUSSION It was a consensus of the City Council at the meeting of May 6, 1998, to schedule one additional meeting to accept public testimony and then for the City Council to commence their deliberations. A list of issues for potential City Council discussion was included with the staff report prepared for May 6, 1998, and were further described in the staff report for March 25, 1998. A preliminary draft of the Development Agreement relating to this project was circulated to Council with the reports for the meeting of May 6. A revised draft proposed for referral to the Planning Commission is also scheduled for the meeting of May 20, 1998. Due to the changes which have been described in previous staff reports which have already been recommended by the Planning Commission and staff and modifications to the land use plan in response to Planning Commission concerns, the Specific Plan document will need several revisions, if City Council concurs with these recommendations and also to address other changes which may be directed by the City Council. It is anticipated it may take four weeks, or more, to prepare the changes to the Specific Plan document and exhibits and have the necessary number of copies printed and distributed prior to final adoption of a Specific Plan. City Council may wish to commence their deliberations and continue this item for further Council review to a meeting on May 27, 1998, to provide direction regarding the proposed Specific Plan and related applications. RECOMMENDATION 1. Accept public testimony. 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Discuss the Specific Plan and related applications. 4. Continue the hearing to a special or adjourned meeting to further discuss the project. C: \OFFICE \WPWIN \WPDOCS\ CASES \SP8 \CC52098.RPT 113May98/12:52 pm 000001 71a . L1(3) May 20, 1998 John Wozniak Councilmember City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Dear Councilmember Wozniak: The City of Moorpark General Plan limits the Specific Plan to 2,400 dwelling units unless the developer agrees to provide public services and/or financial contributions that the City determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community. Instead, as shown in the attached letter entitled "18 Reasons to Reject the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan", the liabilities of this project greatly outway any public benefits to a point where, not only can't the full build-out of the project(3,221 versus 2,400 units) be justified, but it does not make any sense to build the Specific Plan itself. I plan to be at the May 20, 1998 hearing to answer any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Don Ulmer, Ph.D. 14851 Marquette Circle Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 529-1601 (home) (818) 586-1337 (work) cc: Mayor Hunter Councilmember Evans Councilmember Perez Environmental Coalition-Moorpark Branch r 18 Reasons to Reject the Proposed Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan The City of Moorpark General Plan limits the Specific Plan to 2,400 dwelling units unless the developer agrees to provide public services and/or financial contributions that the City determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community. Instead, as shown below, the liabilities of this project greatly outway any public benefits to a point where, not only can't the full build-out of the project (3,221 versus 2,400 units) be justified, but it does not make any sense to build the Specific Plan site itself EARTH RESOURCES 1) Grading would affect about 740 acres of slopes in excess of 20 percent gradient (and 720 acres of slopes under 20 percent). This would violate Moorpark's hillside ordinance and go against the mitigation monitoring plan approved when the City of Moorpark's General Plan was updated to include Specific Plan#8. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2) Development of the Specific Plan site would result in the loss of up to 19 acres of coast live oak woodland, including up to 1,789 coast live oak trees 3) Development of the Specific Plan site would result in the loss of 291 acres of Venturan coastal sage scrub, the habitat for the California gnatcatcher. 4) Development of the Specific Plan site would result in the loss of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat currently supporting numerous wildlife species. Is building this project worth the permanent loss of these sensitive biological resources? LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING PROGRAMS 5) The project is inconsistent with Moorpark's land use Goal#11 which encourages the preservation of viable agricultural operations. Development of the Specific Plan site would result in the loss of 118 acres of active prime farmland. 6) Development of the Specific Plan site would result in a permanent loss of approx. 2000 acres of open space. The public open space offered in return is undevelopable land with extremely steep slopes. For a project this massive, the dedication of open space should be modeled after the Ahmanson Ranch Specific Project, in which significant public open space was donated outside the Specific Plan site. 7) The Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan is not consistent with the mitigation monitoring program adopted with the most recent updating.of the City of Moorpark's General Plan which required that another growth management ordinance be put in place before approval of any new development projects. AESTHETICS 8) The project would result in unavoidable impacts from the irreversible loss of the visual resource of the undeveloped site, development in a scenic viewshed, and unmitigable project impacts from at least two viewpoints and unmitigable cumulative impacts from at least five viewpoints. 9) Development of the Specific Plan site would result increase in light and glare and significantly degrade the nighttime operations of the Moorpark College Observatory. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1) Using the supplemental traffic data for the Collins.Drive/Campus Park Drive intersection,collected in the Fall '97, it can be shown that the peak a.m. traffic at the Collins/Campus Park intersection with the proposed Project cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level of service. This conflicts with the City of Moorpark goal of achieving a level of service of LOS C or better. 2) A significant impact on traffic would result if the City does not develop and fund a Capital Improvement Program(CIP) for the Year 2010, including the construction of the SR-118 bypass. 3) A significant impact on traffic would result if the City does not develop a reciprocal agreement with the County to collect traffic impact fees from the developer to mitigate impacts to the county road system, specifically the SR-118 east of Erringer, where the project would contribute more than 10 percent of the total trips generated by the project. AIR QUALITY 4) The increased traffic generated by the proposed Specific Plan site would contribute significantly to the overall degradation of air quality in Moorpark. 5) For the two criteria pollutants measured by the VCAPCD, the projects emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) would exceed the districts thresholds by 624 pounds per day and would exceed the thresholds for reactive organic compounds (ROC) by 751 pounds per day. 6) Dust suppression mitigation measures will not reduce the risk of exposure to San Joaquin Valley Fever to a level considered less than significant. Is this project worth risking the health of the residents of the City of Moorpark? PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 7) There are no guarantees that there will be enough water to supply the full population build out of the Specific Plan site. It's not worth the chance of a major water shortage the next time a drought cycle comes around. 8) There is not enough solid waste disposal capacity to support the new population that will be generated by the Specific Plan site. 9) The proposed project would add over 2,000 new students to an already overburdened Moorpark Unified School District.