Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1999 0331 CC SPC JNT PC ITEM 05CITEM 50-C CITY OF MO{)RP€ A *P.K, C,kL,IFORNL4, City Cnunex; -%leeving of ACT O':: 0 k t +1 CITY OF MOORPARK(; AGENDA REPORT BY: TO: Honorable City Council Planning Commission FROM: Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of Community Development ete Prepared By: John Libiez, Principal Planner�oL DATE: March 12, 1999 (For Joint Meeting of March 31, 1999) SUBJECT: CONSIDER LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 (HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN) BACKGROUND: This matter was scheduled for City Council consideration at the February 17, 1999, meeting. After brief discussion, City Council requested that this matter be scheduled as a joint workshop agenda item due to the nature of the project and issues raised for discussion. DISCUSSION: The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan project has had several preliminary reviews from staff since its inception in 1993, and has received informal consideration and guidance from City Council at previous meetings. The consultant has prepared a revised land plan and circulation plan which reflects a design alternative and designation of uses not previously considered by either the Planning Commission or City Council. An analysis of these changes and discussion of issues is contained within the City Council agenda report dated February 17, 1999, which has been included for reference and guidance of the workshop discussion for this meeting (Attachment A) . At the February 17 City Council meeting, Dennis Hardgrave of Development Planning Services (DPS) , the applicants' consultant, expressed a desire that the City Council and Planning Commission be able to provide comments and a decision on the new plan, and authorize the applicant to complete the final corrections to the Initial Study, develop the project draft EIR and draft specific plan documents, and allow staff to issue a Notice of Preparation, 0000113 Specific Plan No.1 Report (Hitch Ranch Specific Plan) Joint City Council /Planning Commission Meeting March 31, 1999 Page 2 which is the first formal step in the environmental review process. STAFF RECOMMNDATION: This item was requested by City Council to be returned to their meeting of April 21, 1999. ATTACHMENT: A. City Council Agenda Report, 2/17/99 M:\ JLibiez \M \SP- 1 \33199PCCCjntmtgrpt.doc �4,y�,'� CITY OF MOORPARK AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development Prepared by: John Libiez, Principal Planner, DATE: February 4, 1999(For Meeting of February 17,1999) SUBJECT: CONSIDER LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES FOR ANALYSIS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 (HITCH RANCH) SUMMARY This staff report provides information related to a revised draft land use and circulation plan proposal for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, SP -1. It identifies the proposed land use and circulation plan, proposed alternatives, and issues and concerns for City Council consideration in providing authorization to proceed with analysis of this proposal and alternatives. BACKGROUND The first submittal for consideration of the Specific Plan No. 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, was received in June of 1993. The proposal was amended and resubmitted in October of 1993. Two previous Initial Studies were completed for the project and reviewed in 1994 and 1995. A third Initial Study was completed in November of 1998. The 1994 and 1995 studies were followed by Notices to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)but did not proceed. The applicant is currently ready to pursue the preparation of an EIR to assess the current project proposal. Staff has had several meetings and discussions with the project managers and EIR consultant since considerations on the project commenced. Council had previously granted approval for the applicant and their consultants to prepare the preliminary draft Specific Plan and EIR documents. A copy of staff's synopsis of the latest meeting with the applicants on January 5, 1999, is M:\ JLibiez \M \SP- 1 \SPICCRPT21799.doc ATTACHMENT: A City Council Agenda Report Specific Plan No. 1 February 17,1999 Page 2 attached, and conveys issues, concerns and suggestions to them for use in developing the EIR and Specific Plan document. Discussion: Development Planning Services (DPS) has requested that City Council consider the latest proposed land plan design and circulation design and alternatives for SP -1. Following receipt of Council considerations Impact Sciences, the environmental and specific plan consultant, will begin to prepare the preliminary draft EIR and Specific Plan documents. City Council consideration is requested because the land plan contains uses not previously discussed with City Council, and because Council's recent direction concerning General Plan Amendment No. 97 -02 and Zone Change No. 97 -6 (A & B Properties and California Edison Company) on the property located to the west of the SP -1 property has suggested revision to the circulation plan of the Hitch Ranch Plan. Attachments 1, 2, and 3 provide information on current and proposed General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site. Attachment 4 provides narrative information extracted from the General Plan Land Use Element, 1992, which provides issues that the Specific Plan must address. Attachment 5 provides an extract from the General Plan Circulation Element, 1992, which identifies circulation system components, some of which affect the Hitch Ranch proposal. Project description. The General Plan permits a total of 415 dwelling units, unless the specific plan land owner agrees 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 case the number of units shall not exceed 620. This provides a range in density between 1.46 dwelling units per acre and 2.17 dwelling units per acre. Applicant's proposal is for 605 dwelling units at an overall density of 2.12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project contains four single family residential development areas with lots ranging in size from 4000 SF to 7000 0000IG City Council Agenda Report Specific Plan No. 1 February 17,1999 Page 3 SF, and an affordable housing component consisting of one high density residential area of 10.56 acres with 100 dwelling units proposed. The residential units are clustered within the central portion of the property between the proposed SR118 corridor and the proposed extension of Casey Road. The larger lots are proposed north of the SR118 corridor. Clustering will not alter the need for grading within areas of the project where grades exceed 20o but may reduce the extent of visual impact in some areas. The area north of the SR118 alignment is bordered by large lot developments in the West Pointe and Toll Brothers subdivisions and by the ranchettes off of Gabbert Road at the northwest corner of the property. Access to the site is planned from Gabbert Road at the southwestern corner of the project location, and from Casey Road via its extension from Walnut Canyon Road. The upper portion of the project would be served by at least one collector street that would cross over the SR118 Bypass, which bisects the property from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. An intersection is proposed at the Gabbert Road and SR 118. Crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks is proposed at grade on Gabbert Road. The westerly most parcel of the project, west of Gabbert Road, would be served by extension of the industrial collector road within the A &B Properties site to the Hitch Ranch site, with emergency only access provided to Gabbert Road from the westerly parcel. Flood control detention basins, consistent with preliminary studies for the Walnut Canyon /Gabbert Canyon Channel Deficiencies Study, are incorporated to the project land plan. A three acre public institutional site is reserved at the northeast corner of Gabbert Road and Casey Road. Proposed Developments Applicant has submitted two scenarios that depict options for development of the project site. The following is a brief discussion of each submitted proposal. Preferred Option. Applicant's preferred option is to create 605 dwelling units within five residential neighborhoods. Area 1 would contain 90 units on 7000 square foot lots upon the 71 acres OM(31V City Council Agenda Report Specific Plan No. 1 February 17,1999 Page 4 located above the SR118 alignment reservation. A 600 foot buffer area would be provided to the ranchettes to the northwest of the site, and the hills at the north property line area would be left in open space. Two access roads are proposed to connect the southern and northern portions of the project. There are concerns that at grade intersections to the SR118 may not be preferred or would be approved for these roadways, which in turn would require that bridge structures be constructed to insure access. Area 2 proposes 266 units on 5000 square foot lots on 62.7 acres. Area 3 proposes 96 units on 6000 square foot lots on 42.2 acres. Area 4 proposes 53 units on 4000 square foot lots on 14.5 acres. Area 5, which would constitute the affordable housing component, proposes 100 units on 10.5 acres. Area 6 would be developed with 3.5 acres of public institutional land use. Area 7 would be developed with 32 acres of light industrial use similar to that approved to the west of the site. Access to the project is provided by the extension of Casey Road, as a local collector, from Walnut Canyon Road to Gabbert Road. As noted later in the staff report, the intersection of Casey Road and Gabbert Road may not be far enough north of the railroad crossing to accommodate traffic turning movements and stacking. Gabbert Road is proposed as a four lane arterial from Poindexter Avenue to the SR118 Bypass. The SR118 Bypass reservation would permit development of a four -six lane arterial, and will connect with that portion required for development of GPA 97 -02 (A &B Properties and Southern California Edison). This project scenario would provide 121 acres of open space, 43% of the project area, in the form of slope areas, perimeter buffer areas, visual components such as hill features, and flood control facilities. Alternative Plan Applicant's alternative plan reduces total dwelling units to a maximum of 415. This is the base General Plan Land Use scenario. Area 1, above the SR118 corridor proposes a reduction of total lots to 40, with lot sizes increased to 20,000 square feet. Area 2 would retain 5000 square foot lots but would reduce the number to 175. Area 3 would reduce total units to 82 and would reduce lot sizes from OOCIUV City Council Agenda Report Specific Plan No. 1 February 17,1999 Page 5 6000sf to 5000sf. Area 4 is unchanged. Area 5 would reduce the number of affordable units from 100 to 65. Areas 6 and 7 are still proposed to develop as institutional and industrial uses. Total open space is increased by approximately 16 acres, but much of the open space is retained within the boundaries of private lots in Area 1 while physical features in the southerly portion remain generally the same. Circulation design and concerns remain the same as the applicant's preferred scenario. Prior Guidance and Communication Staff furnished the applicant a letter dated January 13, 1999, to clarify issues, concerns, and alternatives to be addressed in the project design and environmental analysis. Concerns expressed in that letter included: 1) the need to obtain City Council direction of land uses not previously discussed or proposed; 2) addressment of nine key circulation issues; 3) grading impact reduction; 4) types of open space provision and the fiscal and physical development and maintenance of those spaces; and, 5) six distinct scenarios to be addressed within the EIR for the site. Issues For Council Consideration A discussion of the issues for Council consideration follows: Density How should the portion of the project above the SR118 Bypass be designed given access, grading, and visual concerns? Staff is concerned that the area above the SR118 is served only by a connection across the bypass alignment. Topographically and aesthetically, fewer units may be more desirable at the upper end of the project. A density range of between one dwelling unit per two acres to one dwelling unit per acre may be more appropriate, with clustering permitted to reduce grading and visual impacts. Such a range could permit development of lots and building pads similar in size to the Bollinger project with additional open space, (A)CO1 City Council Agenda Report Specific Plan No. 1 February 17,1999 Page 6 or similar to the existing one acre zoned ranchettes off of Gabbert Road, which are required to have one acre minimum lot size but many of which are larger. Open Space How and what level of open space, other than flood control facilities, should be provided and managed within the project? Clustering of units, as depicted by the land plan, permits the project to establish 121 acres of open space lands, 42.5% of the total site, 17.5% in excess of the 25% required by the General Plan. Twenty -one acres of the open space is intended for detention basin usage. The remaining 100 acres is meant to provide aesthetic and natural open areas and some planted slope areas. Development of larger estate lots north of the SR 118 would allow open space areas to be incorporated within the lots. The proposed clustering would leave large open space areas to the preservation and maintenance by a homeowners association or other suitable mechanism. Open space areas in the development below SR 118 would need to be the responsibility of a homeowners association. Poindexter Park is located directly across the railroad tracks and Poindexter Avenue from the project. Due to the proximity of Poindexter Park and concerns regarding development and maintenance of additional parkland, no park areas were included within the current project design. The General Plan narrative identifies that this issue is to be determined during the development of the Specific Plan. Current guidelines require the parkland dedication or payment of in -lieu fees for recreation facilities to be based upon a formula of five acres of land for every 1000 population in the proposed development project. Based on an average of 3.13 persons per dwelling (1995 AQMP E -95 factor) estimated resident population would be in the range between 1299 persons and 1894 persons. This would require park 0 () C 0 23 City Council Agenda Report Specific Plan No. 1 February 17,1999 Page 7 land dedication or fees based upon 6.5 acres or 9.47 acres. T,a nnl (ISP Is the land use mix proposed by the applicant acceptable, and are the uses appropriately positioned? The current plan proposes to develop 505 single family lots, 100 units of high density residential affordable housing, 25.61 acres of public roadways, 20.5 acres of flood control facilities, 3.45 acres of institutional use, and 32.42 acres of light industrial use. The project proposes to create 32.42 acres of industrial development westerly of Gabbert Road. This land use would abut the A &B Properties project west of Gabbert Road. The applicant has shown primary access to this area via an extension of the new street to be developed from the west of A &B Properties to the location within the Hitch Ranch plan. No access would occur between the industrial site and Gabbert Road, except for an emergency access roadway. This industrial use was not previously considered by City Council. This portion of the Hitch Ranch is separated from the portion of the Ranch easterly of Gabbert Road. Properties located northerly of the proposed SR118 bypass are provided visual screening from most of the proposed industrial site by the natural topographic feature of the hill immediately west of Gabbert Road. Creation of the emergency access point appears to be consistent with Council's previous decisions regarding General Plan Amendment No. 97 -02 and Zone Change No. 97 -6 (A & B Properties and California Edison Company). The project plan proposes to place 3.45 acres of public institutional use at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gabbert Road and Casey Road within the project. City Council Agenda Report Specific Plan No. 1 February 17,1999 Page 8 Circulation Is the proposed circulation plan consistent with the desired circulation system affecting the Gabbert Road connections and Casey Road extension? As currently depicted, Casey Road seems to follow the connection and extension design Council has previously considered. Applicant proposes to make the Walnut Canyon Road connection, previously selected by Council, rather than extending High Street. Casey Road would be developed along the southerly project area parallel to Poindexter Ave north of the railroad tracks. The intersection distance from the railroad tracks to Casey Road is minimal and may not offer adequate stacking distance for incorporation of proper turn lanes for vehicles between the intersection and the railroad crossing. Moving Casey road more to the north will affect the institutional land use parcel size. Gabbert Road would be extended as a four lane arterial street from Poindexter Ave. to the SR118 bypass. if an interchange is designed at the Gabbert Road connection to the SR118, the four lanes would need to be extended to the northern most on and off ramps. Casey Road would "T" into Gabbert Road north of the railroad tracks. An emergency access (entry /exit) to the westerly most parcel is proposed coincident to the "T" intersection and appears to follow Council guidance when the A &B Property development was approved. Access from the project to Poindexter Park and Chaparral Middle School on the south side of Poindexter Avenue needs to be developed. For the protection and safety of school children and handicap accessibility, some form of overpass structure which allows travel from Casey Road over the train tracks to Poindexter Ave needs to be studied and incorporated to the project. MCI( � City Council Agenda Report Specific Plan No. 1 February 17,1999 Page 9 The applicant's consultants will make adjustments to the land use and circulation plan based upon Council direction. The consultants would then make final revisions to the project Initial Study, after which the consultants could begin to draft the Specific Plan document and develop environmental studies for the EIR. A Notice of Preparation for the EIR and project would be issued subsequently. ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES SUbMRY The Staff Report and attachments has identified issues for consideration relating to density, open space, land use, and circulation, and has identified six alternatives for analysis as briefly outlined below: 1. Preferred Plan. This is the applicant's primary plan for 605 dwelling units, open space, institutional use, and industrial use. 2. Alternative 1. This is the applicant's alternative plan which considers 415 dwelling units, open space, institutional use, and industrial use. 3. No Project. This alternative would consider development of the property pursuant to existing General Plan and Zoning designations, including an institutional use area. 4. Modified General Plan Alternative. This alternative would consider development of 415 dwelling units, institutional use, and would limit lots above the SR118 corridor to estate type lots of 2 -5 acres in size. 5. Low Density Alternative. This alternative would permit 415 dwelling units, neighborhood commercial use at the bypass intersection, institutional use, a very high density housing component, open space; lots north of the SR118 corridor would be permitted up to two acres in size or equivalent density, up to a maximum of 40 units. Clustering to be considered if visibility from the valley floor is minimized. (A)GO43 City Council Agenda Report Specific Plan No. 1 February 17,1999 Page 10 6. Modified Preferred Alternative. This alternative modifies the applicant's preferred alternative. 605 dwelling units, institutional use, industrial use, neighborhood commercial use, a high density housing component and open space areas would be provided. Lots above the SR118 corridor would be limited to 2 acres in size or equivalent density, up to a maximum of 40 lots. Clustering would be considered if visibility from the valley floor was minimized. STAFF RECOMKENDATION Authorize the preparation of a draft specific plan based upon the proposed preferred land use plan and analysis in the EIR of the alternatives identified in the staff report. Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Existing General Plan Existing Zoning Proposed General Plan and Zoning Extract of General Plan Land Use Element Extract of General Plan Circulation Element Applicant Letter, January 20, 1999 with Land Plan Diagrams Staff Letter January 13,1999 to DPS Previous proposed land use and circulation plan tq rA H L� to n H H H pi H Q n c� ro 0 ro H c n z H H 11"� 1 IC P� NO • 1 SpE,C T ST-114G ZONING S �o ro 00- ►x-+ d bI H 0 b� w t� Specific Plan 1 Specific Plan 1 consists of 285 acres under single ownership, located in the western section of the City, north of Poindexter Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Gabbert Road crosses the westerly portion of the specific plan area. Generally, the specific plan area is characterized by rolling hillsides which are currently used for grazing purposes. opportunities and Constraints Specific plan area development issues to be addressed during specific plan preparation and subsequent review will includes Topography - An evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils, seismic faults, and other geotechnical constraints within the hillside areas of development will be considered during the development/ review of this specific plan. Consistent with City policy, grading is restricted on slopes greater than 20 percent and development prohibited in areas where potential hazards cannot be fully mitigated. Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints will be conducted during the development/ review of this specific plan. Viewshed - The visual importance of hillside horizon lines /prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and review of this specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and natural resources. Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources which may occur onsite (i.e., oak trees, threatened, rare, endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during specific plan preparation. The preservation of any resources determined to be significant shall be encouraged through habitat preservation, enhancement, or replacement. Archaeology - The specific plan area will be evaluated to determine whether archaeological resources occur within the overall plan area and their potential significance. Public Services /Infrastructure - Water, sewer, gas and electric service to the specific plan area will be provided through service extensions from existing transmission lines in the surrounding area. An evaluation will be conducted during the development of this specific plan regarding required land use set- asides and financing for schools and community services such as fire stations and libraries. 29 Q 0el(1) 'S ATTACHMENT 4 Parks - An evaluation will be conducted during the development of this specific plan to identify required park land dedication consistent with the City Municipal Code and General Plan requirements. Circulation - The specific plan area circulation network will require consideration for topographical constraints, viewshed issues, and the adjacent Southern Pacific railroad tracks; shall provide protection for the conceptual alignment of the future SR- 118 freeway corridor; and shall ensure that roadway rights -of -way are protected for the planned roadway upgrades, improvements, and additions as identified in the City's circulation plan. Proposed Land Uses The number of dwelling units shall not exceed 415, unless the specific plan area property owner agrees 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 620. A minimum of 3 acres of land shall be designated as Public Institutional within this specific plan area. The appropriate amount of land to be designated as Open Space, Park, School, or any other appropriate land use designation, will be determined at the time of specific plan preparation or approval. Overlay Designation - Agriculture 1 (285 acres) 30 01 () C()2- .v::::.\ Ain4' r :i!C�v`>,`it "::C.v;n�M�}�K:�..: .:.�•.:.�.:: .:..v...,':::. .. .: .. .::.nv vv. \ < uww +vw..+..v.w:w.W.�J4.+4/:..w.I • Provision of an east /west SR -118 arterial bypass from the SR -23 /SR -118 connector to Los Angeles Avenue west of Butter Creek Road, without a connection to Walnut Canyon Road, and recognition of a potential future SR -118 freeway extension west of the City limits. • Provision of a north /south SR -23 arterial bypass from the SR -23 /SR -118 connector to Broadway Road. • Extension of Spring Road north to the SR -23 arterial bypass. • Provision of a local collector system to serve circulation needs in the northwest portion of the City. Local collectors added to the existing circulation system include an extension of Casey Road to Gabbert Road, "C" Street between Grimes Canyon Road and the SR- 23 arterial bypass, and "D" Street between Princeton Avenue and the SR -23 arterial bypass. • Provision of a roadway system to serve circulation needs in the Carlsberg Specific Plan (Moorpark Highlands) area in the southeast portion of the City. Roadways added to the existing circulation system include an extension of Science Drive from New Los Angeles Avenue to Tierra Rejada Road, and an extension of Peach Hill Road to Science Drive. • Provision of an eastern extension of Broadway Road potentially connecting with Alamos Canyon Road and the SR -118 freeway to serve circulation needs of potential future development in the portion of the planning area northeast of the City limits. 20 000(1) %L!tIj ATTACHMENT 5 fills DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES 651 Via Alondra, Suite 714 Camarillo, CA 93012 (805) 484 -8303 • Fax: 484 -8993 January 20, 1999 Mr. John Libiez City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mr. Libiez: On behalf of Specific Plan Number 1, Hitch Ranch, attached please find ten copies each of the most recent revision of the preferred land use plan (605 units) and Alternative (415 units) for your use in updating the City Council on the status of this project. Please note that the revisions reflect the recently approved access concept for the A -B and SCE industrial properties to the west of Hitch Ranch. This access concept assumes that the railroad underpass connection to Los Angeles Avenue by way of the Bugle Boy property will be constructed. The ultimate plan provides for a fire gate access only for any future development west of Gabbert Canyon Road, north of the railroad tracks and Poindexter Avenue. Further, both plans have eliminated Neighborhood Commercial use from the Gabbert Road area. The parcel at the intersection of Casey Road and Gabbert Road has now been indicated for Public/ Institutional uses. This location could provide for a permanent worship or institutional use at a site easily accessible from the entire city and outside of industrial or commercial zones. The low intensity of traffic and other impacts make this an appropriate use south of the 118 Bypass. I look forward to addressing the City Council at the earliest possible date regarding these changes and our intent to complete the Specific Plan and EIR documents. Thank you for your attention to this matter. cc: Hitch Ranch Steve Kueny, City Manager Sincerely, Dennis Hardgrave RECEIVED -- JAN 2 0 1999 Public Agency Entitlement • Planning Design • Project Management ATTACHMENT 6 vo PF Nil 7 #Moe Aef lot W-011PIMA"ASCOV; W14 v rip 4f V v t;7 ....... ... .... 'ILL. Of til .r ��..::. Q) Of '� 7• ~P m ��►a,g%#�I YROV 10, 11/,3 All iZ � ` + ' . x�" �.�4'��io��e. II�t', � jIW_, `��.. � Iq, �`aJ` ' ;V r � •.. � � ,.y, ►w a. N . .91 MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 January 13, 1999 Mr. Dennis Hardgrave Development Planning Services, 651 Via Alondra, Suite 714 Camarillo, Ca. 93012 Subject: Synopsis of January 5, 1999 Meeting Related to Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, Specific Plan No. 1. Dear Dennis, This letter is provided to clarify staff's presentation of the issues discussed at our January 5th meeting: A. RBF Fiscal Study. Staff will provide a second transmittal of the agreement and information to DPS for action by client related to the Walnut Canyon /Gabbert Canyon Drainage Deficiency fiscal analysis to be prepared by RBF. Participation by Hitch Ranch anticipated to be approved by client. B. Hitch Ranch Specific Plan preliminary diagrams will be revised to reflect land use and circulation proposals to be pursued. Because of the decision related to A &B Properties development, which affects the SP -1 land use proposals west of Gabbert Road, the designation of land uses and the circulation system needs to be reconsidered. C. Hitch Ranch Specific Plan preliminary plans have reflected industrial and commercial land uses not previously contained in preliminary plans presented to the City Council. Inclusion of these uses and related circulation considerations should be presented to the City Council prior to issuance of a Notice of Preparation for the project EIR and drafting of the Specific Plan document. D. Circulation issues which must be addressed by the project include: 1. 2. PATRICK HUNTER Mayor Extension of Casey Road between Walnut Canyon Road and Gabbert Road. Casey Road and Walnut Canyon Road intersection. CHRISTOPHER EVANS CLINT D. HARPER DEBBIE RODGERS JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember ATTACHMENT 7 Specific Plan No.l Meeting Summary January 12, 1999 Page 2 3. Intersection improvements and roadway improvements at Gabbert Road and Poindexter Ave. 4. Gabbert Road and the Union Pacific Railroad Crossing improvements. 5. Gabbert Road and Casey Road improvements and intersection. Since Casey Road west of Gabbert is not proposed to extend westerly as a full street, emergency access to the western properties, including A &B, needs analysis. 6. Bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian trails within the plan need to be provided with connection to other city -wide trail components. 7. Access between the southerly portion of the development and the northerly portion, across the SR118 Bypass, needs to be incorporated into the revised land use and circulation plan and any proposed alternatives. Since the bypass is anticipated to be suppressed at this location, this connection would appear to be accomplished by bridging the bypass. 8. A pedestrian connection between Poindexter Ave. and Casey Road needs to be provided by the project. This may require an overpass or underpass, subject to U.P. approval. Such a facility must provide for public safety and security, as well as meet accessibility requirements. 9. Emergency access connections for the project through an adjacent property to a public street need to be evaluated. E. Concerns regarding grading issues and the relationship of project grading to the City adopted hillside management regulations needs to be carefully examined. The specific plan and environmental documents need to consider slope profiles, soil stability, grading in areas with 20% or greater slopes, faulting and liquefaction potentials. Geotechnical issues should be addressed so that the information gathered may assist in the amending of the City Safety Element. Explore the use of engineered foundations and split pad grading within the area north of the proposed SR118 to limit grading impacts to that needed for roadway and or driveway access. ooc Specific Plan No.l Meeting Summary January 12, 1999 Page 3 F_ Open space areas and their uses need defined. The method of long term maintenance for these areas needs to be addressed. G. Project aesthetics are important. View -shed issues from properties above and below the site as well as from the hills on the south side of the valley must be addressed. Preservation of ridgeline views needs to be clearly demonstrated. H. Alternatives analysis for the EIR needs to consider viable options to the preferred plan and first alternative presented by the applicant. Suggested scenarios for possible analysis in the EIR are: 1. Preferred Plan 2. Alternative No.l 3. No project 4. General Plan project of 415 dwellings with open space and institutional use with estate sized lots (2 -5 acres) north of the proposed SR118. 5. 415 large lot dwelling units, neighborhood commercial, institutional use, very high density housing area, open space areas; lots north of the SR118 to be 2 acres in size or equivalent density, up to a maximum of 40 units. Clustering may be considered if visibility from the valley floor is minimized. 6. 605 units, institutional use, industrial use, neighborhood commercial use, high density housing area, open space areas, with lots to the north being 2 acres in size or equivalent density, up to a maximum of 40 units. Clustering may be considered if visibility from the valley floor is minimized. I. The Initial Study will be revised by Impact Sciences based upon the revisions to design plans that DPS prepares for City Council review. Revised maps and information need to be forwarded to staff so that we can prepare a report to the City Council. This item is tentatively scheduled for February 3. Based upon this date, plans and information packets need to come to staff prior to January 20th' 00(1033:1 Specific Plan No.l Meeting Summary January 12, 1999 Page 4 Dennis, it a related matter, that of Mike Sanders Pre -App, you were having prepared an area wide development map and supporting data. It would be helpful to have these for inclusion with the SP -1 materials in the City Council report package, if at all possible. Sincerely yours, � o Jo n L. Libiez 1 Principal Planner C: Steve Kueny, City Manager Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager File Chroni MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner :5 DATE: March 14, 1996 SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLANS TO BE ANALYZED IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 PROJECT (HITCH RANCH) For your information, attached are three alternative plans for Specific Plan No. 1. Staff's opinion is that the attached Plans are consistent with the direction given by the City Council at a meeting on February 15, 1995, regarding land use and circulation alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR. Work on the Draft EIR was delayed, approximately one year, due to reorganization of the Levy Company. The applicant's representative, Development Planning Services (DPS), has indicated that they are now proceeding with preparation of the Draft EIR (reference attached letter). If the City Council has any comments on the attached alternative plans, please contact me, and I will either schedule an item on a Council agenda (if requested), or will forward any comments received to DPS. Attachments: Letter from DPS dated 3 -1 -96 and Alternative Plans cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENT 8 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES 651 Via Alondra, Suite 714 Camarillo, CA 93012 (80S) 484 -8303 • Fax: 484 -8993 Ms. Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Debbie: March 1, 1996 RFrFWF0 MAR 0 4 1996 City of Ivivurpark Attached please find eight sets of the three Specific Plan #1 Alternatives prepared on 11" x 17" color xerox. These three plans substantially reflect in a generalized illustrative manner the detailed development and grading concepts which we reviewed with you this past week. As we discussed, Hitch Ranch is ready to proceed with preparation of the Draft EIR by Impact Sciences as soon as possible, but only after staff has provided these three Specific Plan #1 Alternatives to the City Council on an informational and comment basis. Thank you for your input and responses to our planning designs to date. Please feel free to call me at any time with any further direction or information. attachment: 8 sets of 3 color reduction plans cc: Rick Hambleton Public Agency Entitlement • Planning nP�ia„ . Sincerely, Dennis Hardgrav �%f ,�• ,;.► man %o. i He(hiced Grading Alternative (No By Pass) mum LCNV i 64 30 do 00 MEDIUM -1 MEDIUM -2 i _ .� A. \-V rte• ��� ci: `� .I I� PARK 10.00 7 00 2 19 19.00 NA OL T. SPACE 65.50 .•i ��i y- L� , J / s. ; CASEY All. 5 60 GAIIIIERT RD. 1 60 TOW 285.00 522.00 1.83 137.28 16.26 163.35 ��� a�//� ,�d I V • ale II ,�I i. .� „_ ��� \. \` �`T�`^^7�•VT.•!�• _ 1 ~ - , a �; � `,1t \ \ R/ hr �riT , ±kklr �VIr Wr � l TT” •i 'i ', �f,.l 1.: J - .� -fir ,��� bti t �� -" - °.- ': \�• � -_ a`,// �r� 1,',• �� ;`\ _ �,fi ii (� - • .Y i � �� t C • ,t � ✓ n l /ice � i � t.. 1� \ �•�. :.. i� r f7 �/, —a-j- 141, fit���.7 � �' �~ r � }��+��1 "'i �.� 'rr t•=' � It � �I � l ": � rs;i',� �! e 1 L 1 \\��., , /`n l I . L 17 We- z r, 111. i�' Vi lil . . 17W V, i ;j'N' "'t poll- 4-6 pw 10 l A jM1 Ar iy w Fi Al 9s- Lj. it \\V!