The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2004 0616 CC REG ITEM 08ATO: FROM: DATE: MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Honorable City Council ITEM a• A • 7-,91_a0*5t Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager June 3, 2004 (CC Meeting of 06/16/2004) SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02, for 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0- 120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, - 145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, - 235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, - 145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0- 110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150- 185) BACKGROUND On May 19, 2004, the City Council established a tentative review schedule for the North Park Village and Nature Preserve Specific Plan project. The June 16, 2004, Council meeting was set for review of the regulatory context, project description, and the EIR review process. DISCUSSION Regulatory Context Entitlement decisions to be made by the City Council at this time include consideration of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), a Specific Plan, and a Zone Change. Prior to Council action on the GPA, Specific Plan and Zone Change, direction may be given for the Planning Commission to consider and make a recommendation on a Development Agreement for Council review and action. The City Council will also need to consider setting this matter before the voters under Measure "S" (Moorpark SOAR 000001L Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 2 Ordinance). This consideration not only includes whether or not the project should be placed on the ballot, but what decisions associated with the project should be placed on the ballot. General Plan Amendment State law, Section 65300 of the Government Code, requires each County and City to "adopt a comprehensive, long -term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." State law also gives cities and counties broad authority in the consideration of adopting or amending General Plans. The adoption or amendment of a General Plan is considered a legislative act; other than certain mandatory components being required as part of a General Plan, the only required finding is that the adoption or amendment is in the public interest. Moorpark's General Plan, with minor exceptions (i.e. highway network, bikeway plan, equestrian trail plan and horizon lines), addresses land only within the City limits. It establishes the type, density and intensity of land uses, location and function of roads, and development goals and standards for the ultimate buildout of the City. The North Park project site, currently outside the City, is not addressed by the goals, policies, or objectives of the City's General Plan except by the aforementioned exceptions. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the City's General Plan that would include the North Park property and allow for its development as proposed. Inclusion in the General Plan is the first required step for any property that may be annexed by a City; the property must first fit in the City's long -term plan for physical development. The proposed amendments are included in Attachment 1. These proposed amendments would include changes to the Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Elements of the General Plan. Ultimately, if the North Park project site is included in the General Plan, exhibits in the Housing Element and Safety Element would also need to be amended for internal consistency; however, goals and policies in these elements could remain unchanged. Of note in the requested amendments to the General Plan for the North Park project is an amendment to the Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). This issue is discussed later in this report. 000002 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 3 Specific Plan Specific Plans provide for comprehensive planning and regulation of development within defined areas. Specific Plans are not required by State law, but may be prepared "for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan." If used by a local agency, a Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan and must, by requirement of state law, specify all of the following in detail: 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 the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. 3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. 4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). Specific Plans are to be considered in the same manner as a General Plan, except that they may be adopted either by resolution or by ordinance. Like the adoption or amendment to a General Plan, the adoption or amendment to a Specific Plan is a legislative act. Specific Plans carry the same authority as a General Plan in that no local public works project, Tentative Map or Parcel Map, or Zoning Ordinance may be adopted or amended in an area covered by a Specific Plan, unless it is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. A proposed Specific Plan for the North Park project site has been submitted and was distributed with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . The applicant is currently working on amendments to this Specific Plan to address recommendations of the Planning Commission. Zone Change State law, Section 65850 of the Government Code allows cities to establish Zoning Regulations to "regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, 000003 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 4 open space, including agriculture, recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, use of natural resources, and other purposes." Except for some specifically defined exceptions, State law provides only a minimum of limitation in order that a city may exercise the maximum degree of control over local zoning matters. Zoning regulations must be consistent with a city's General Plan and any adopted Specific Plan. Since the North Park project site is outside Moorpark, the City may not enforce its zoning regulations on this land. It may, however, under State law, "prezone" this unincorporated territory to determine the zoning that would apply should it be annexed to the City. Such zoning becomes effective at the same time that the annexation becomes effective. In this project, the applicant is seeking prezoning for the project site to establish a "Specific Plan" zone for the entire project site. Moorpark's Zoning Ordinance defines the purpose of the Specific Plan zone as a zone to "be used for property that is subject to a specific plan (and) to provide the city with a zone that allows for development with a comprehensive set of plans, regulations, conditions and programs for guiding the orderly development of the specific plan area, consistent with the city's general plan; and that the specific plan shall serve as the zoning regulations." Other areas within the City that are zoned for and regulated by adopted specific plans include the Carlsberg Specific Plan, the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan, and the Downtown Specific Plan. A Specific Plan has also been proposed for the 285 -acre Hitch Ranch property; this Specific Plan is currently going through environmental review. The Specific Plan proposed by the North Park applicant includes development regulations that would supplement the regulations contained in Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code. Development Agreement State law allows cities to enter into agreements with property owners to provide assurances to both parties on development regulations and improvements. Development agreements must specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of the use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. Development agreements may contain conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, and conditions on the commencement and completion of construction. Development agreements may also contain terms and 000004 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 5 conditions related to applicant financing of necessary public facilities and subsequent reimbursement over time. A development agreement requires review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. It must be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. A development agreement approved for property outside the City would not become effective unless that property is annexed. The North Park applicant has prepared a draft Development Agreement that is currently being reviewed by the North Park Ad -Hoc Committee (Mayor Hunter and Councilmember Harper). The tentative review schedule for this project calls for City Council discussion on the development agreement on October 20, 2004. Measure "S" Vote The Moorpark CURB was added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan as a result of Measure "S ", adopted by Moorpark voters on January 12, 1999. The Moorpark CURB is a boundary beyond which, except for limited exceptions, urban services and urbanized uses of land could not be extended. The North Park project site is outside the Moorpark CURB; an extension of the CURB boundary to include the proposed development area of the North Park project site is requested. Although most General Plan Amendment requests are decided by the City Council (after a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission) , the process to extend the Moorpark CURB differs. The process to extend the Moorpark CURB for a project such as North Park, is set by Section 8.4 (E) of the Land Use Element. It only allows an amendment to extend the CURB after the City Council, through the public hearing process, places the amendment on the ballot, and it receives a majority vote (50o plus 1 of those voting). Council consideration of ballot issues is tentatively schedule for discussion on October 20, 2004. Other Review Actions If the project is sent to the Moorpark voters for approval and a majority vote is cast, future considerations of the City Council would include whether or not the City should request a Sphere of Influence Update and Municipal Reorganization from the Ventura County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) . If the City requests such actions for the North Park project and LAFCO approves the City's applications, the property would be annexed to the City, and the Specific Plan, Zoning, and Development Agreement would take effect, allowing the applicant to request subdivision and planned development approvals from the City. 000005 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 6 These are potential future actions and are not a part of the current entitlement requests. Project Description Existing Site Conditions The project site for the proposed Specific Plan is approximately 3,544 acres (5.54 square miles), located generally north of Moorpark College outside the City limits and Sphere of Influence in unincorporated territory of the County of Ventura. The project site is also outside the Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) as established in the Land Use Element through the SOAR Initiative that was adopted by the public in 1999. An additional 42.3 acres within the City of Moorpark are proposed for off -site improvements including a new freeway interchange on State Route 118 approximately, one (1) mile east of Collins Drive and an access road from this interchange to the project site. The specific plan site is primarily owned in fee or option by North Park L.P., although a small portion of the site adjacent to Moorpark College is owned by the Ventura County Community College District. The proposed interchange is on land owned by the State of California (CALTRANS Right -of -way) and the access road from the interchange to the project site is on land owned by Unocal. Topography on the project site ranges from approximately 650 feet above mean sea level in the southeastern portion of the site to over 2,200 feet above mean sea level in the northeastern portion of the site. Site topographic maps and aerial photographs are included in the EIR, previously transmitted to the City Council. The topography of northern portion of the site includes mostly very steep terrain composing the prominent ridgelines of Big Mountain. The topography of the southern portion of the project site includes a southward sloping plateau divided by several steep - walled canyons that trend north to south. Table 1 shows the acreage of land in various slope ranges. TABLE 1 ACREAGE OF SITE BY SLOPE 000006 SLOPE CATEGORIES 0 -20% 20 -35% 35 -50% Over 50% Total TOTAL ACRES 919 802 677 1,147 3,544 % OF SITE 25.90 22.6% 19.10 32.40 1000 000006 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 7 Vegetation communities on the project site include coastal sage scrub, chaparral, native and potential native grassland, non- native grassland, riparian habitat, coast live oak woodland, vernal pool, and ruderal (disturbed) areas. Table 2 breaks down the vegetation communities on the project site, including the area for off -site improvements. The locations of the various vegetation communities are shown in Exhibit 3.6 -1 of the Revised Draft EIR, following Page 3.6 -4. Of the 3,586.3 acres on the project site (including area for off -site improvements), approximately 1,139.2 acres (31.80 of the site) are in the area of the proposed development. TABLE 2 VEGETATION TYPES ON THE NORTH PARK PROJECT SITE VEGETATION TYPE TOTAL ACRES ACRES IN DEVELOPMENT AREA Coastal Sage Scrub 1,053.5 342.6 Chaparral 1,021.6 65.1 Potential Native Grassland 103.0 34.6 Non - Native Grassland 1,130.8 617.2 Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest 150.8 46.3 Mule Fat Scrub 1.0 0.2 Coast Live Oak Woodland 59.8 5.6 Vernal Pool 0.4 0.0 Potential Vernal Pool 0.9 0.0 Ruderal (Disturbed) 64.5 27.6 F� TOTAL 3,586.3 1,139.2 Current uses on the project site include limited oil extraction activities and cattle grazing. One caretaker residence is located on the project site. Limited infrastructure to support the cattle grazing and oil extraction includes dirt and semi - paved roads, corrals, fences and watering facilities. 00000'7 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 8 Previous Applications The 1992 Land Use Element of the General Plan included Specific Plan Area 8, an area of approximately 4,200 acres including the project site. The policy of the Land Use Element was for the site to be developed comprehensively through a specific plan including up to 2,400 dwelling units (or up to 3,221 units if the developer agreed to provide public improvements, public services, and /or financial contributions that the City Council determined to be of substantial public benefit to the community). In 1993, a specific plan application, known as Hidden Creek Ranch, was filed for the 4,200 acres by the Messenger Investment Company. The Specific Plan was approved by the City in 1998, along with zoning designations and regulations for the site to allow for the development of 3,221 dwelling units, among other uses. Also in 1998, the City Council submitted an application to the Ventura County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to approve an extension to the City's Sphere of Influence and to include the Hidden Creek Ranch property in the City's corporate boundaries. This annexation application was approved, although it was later rescinded in accord with a decision of the Superior Court. In January 1999, Moorpark voters adopted Measure "S ", also known as the SOAR Ordinance, which, among other things removed Specific Plan Area 8 from the City's Land Use Element. The City Council withdrew the application for annexation in 2001. In 2002, the City rescinded the zoning designations and regulations previously adopted for the Hidden Creek Ranch property. Only City policies for land outside the City limits, Sphere of Influence, and CURB currently apply to the project site. General Plan and Zoning Consistenc A General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and Zone Change are sought to change the planned land use for the site from open space (County designation) in order to allow for the development of the proposed project. Table 3 includes information on existing planning and zoning for the project site and surrounding uses. 111l1: Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 9 Table 3 General Plan / Zoning DIR. GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Site Open Space (County) Agricultural Exclusive Cattle Grazing, (County) Oil Extraction North Open Space (County) Rur. Agricultural -5Ac Open Space / (Co.) Recreation Medium -Low Density Residential Planned Single- Family Residential (City), Development -2.5U (City), Residential, South Schools (City), Rur. Exclusive -lAc (City), Moorpark College, Cattle Grazing, Open -Space 2 (City) Open Space (City) Oil Extraction Agricultural Exclusive Cattle Grazing, East Open Space (County) (County) Oil Extraction Agricultural Exclusive (County), Cattle Grazing, West Open Space (County) Orchards, Open Rur. Agricultural -5Ac Space / Recreation (Co.) Based upon the current County zoning, without benefit of a particular subdivision design the applicant would be allowed to have up to 89 lots, each at a minimum of 40 acres in size. Up to 177 lots, each with a minimum of 20 acres in size would be considered non -urban under the City's SOAR initiative. It should be noted that under the County General Plan the property could be zoned for 10 acre minimum lot sizes which would allow up to 354 lots. Project Proposal Entitlement Applications - The applications currently under consideration include a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and Zone Change. Specific lot and building designs and landscaping plans have not been submitted for review. If the General Plan Amendment (including Moorpark CURB Amendment), Specific Plan, Zone Change, along with a Development Agreement, Sphere of Influence Amendment, and Municipal Reorganization are approved, the applicant will need to prepare and submit Tentative Tract Map and Residential Planned Development Permit applications for review. The proposed Specific Plan contains Design Guidelines and Zoning Regulations, including a land use map that would direct the ultimate design of the project. Design Features of the Specific Plan are summarized below, with details provided in the proposed Specific Plan document 000009 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 10 previously transmitted. This document is being updated by the applicant to reflect revisions to the proposal as a result of the Planning Commission review process (discussed later in this report). Land Uses - Primary uses proposed in the Specific Plan (as revised by the applicant in response to Planning Commission review) include 1,500 single- family residences, 150 affordable apartment units, a 2,121 -acre nature preserve, 3 public parks and 10 private parks, a 52 -acre lake, an 18 -acre school site, a 1.5 -acre fire station site and a 5 -acre neighborhood commercial center site. Table 4 includes a summary of the proposed land uses. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LAND USES LAND USE ACRES SIZE /UNITS $ OF SITE Single- Family Residential 761.4 1,500 Units 21.50 Multi - Family Residential 8.3 150 Units 0.20 Nature Preserve 2,121.0 - 59.8% Public Parks 38.3 3 Parks 1.1% Private Parks 25.3 10 Parks 0.70 Lake and Buffer 67.7 52.0 Ac. Lake 1.9% Neighborhood Center 5.0 70,000 Sq. Ft. 0.1% School 18.0 - 0.5% Fire Station 1.5 - <0.1% Roads 38.9 - 1.1% Open Space, Utilities and Other 458.9 - 12.9% TOTAL 3,544.3 - 100% Project Phasing - Development of the project is proposed in three (3) phases, focused primarily around the provision of infrastructure for the proposed project. Five - hundred (500) houses are proposed for each phase, with the first phase preceding a proposed new freeway interchange and access road to the project site. 000010 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 11 Circulation - The first five - hundred (500) houses are proposed to be built with access to the site from a point just east of the terminus of Collins Drive and the existing Moorpark College overflow parking lot. Secondary access is proposed approximately 350 feet west of this location, approximately at the location of the existing Moorpark College overflow parking lot. Internal circulation would be provided by a four (4) -lane collector from the new freeway interchange (for phases B and C) and three (3) two (2) -lane private community parkways that would reach into the residential areas of the project. Gated entries are proposed at the beginnings of these community parkways to control access to the residential areas. Utilities - Although details for utilities are normally determined as part of the Tentative Tract Map process, information known about necessary utility service improvements is often included in Specific Plans. Potable Water for additional and 1180') and 1,380 feet. - This proposed Specific Plan indicates the need reservoirs at two existing pressure zones (944' the creation of an additional pressure zone at Recycled Water - In addition to domestic (potable) water, a recycled water system is proposed to irrigate common landscaped areas and slopes. This system would involve the purchase of recycled water from the Simi Valley Water Quality Control Plant. The applicant would be responsible for the arrangements for the Calleguas Municipal Water District to purchase the recycled water, sell it to Waterworks District #1, who would then provide it to the site. The City of Simi Valley has provided a letter to the applicant indicating the willingness to supply recycled water to the project. Wastewater - Sewer service would require a connection to an existing pipeline that flows to the Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Plant. Lot Sizes - Proposed minimum lot sizes for the single- family residential areas are 7,000 square feet. Given the relatively low densities proposed in each planning area, it is expected that many of the lots will be considerably larger. Architecture - The proposed Specific Plan includes design guidelines that call for seven (7) different architectural styles in the residential areas: Craftsman, Monterey, European Cottage, European Estate, Italianate, Spanish Revival, and Old Santa Barbara. In response to the Planning Commission review, 000011 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 12 an additional style, Ranch, will be provided in the design guidelines. Non - residential architectural style is focused on an "Old Santa Barbara" theme. Setbacks - The Specific Plan proposes using the standards for the Residential Planned Development zone (Section 17.36.03(B)(3 &4) to establish setbacks and heights for the residential area. These standards generally include a twenty - foot (20') front setback, five -foot (51) side setback, and a twenty -foot (20')rear setback, with a maximum height of twenty - five feet (25') for the residence (may be increased to thirty - five feet (35') when side yards are at least fifteen feet (15') and a maximum height of fifteen feet (151) for accessory structures. Landscaping - A landscape concept is proposed as part of the Specific Plan for the area of development. It includes general concepts for the landscaping of entries, parkways, parks, the lake edge, the neighborhood center, fuel modification zones, and naturalized planting areas. Specific landscape plans would be submitted for review as part of the Tentative Tract Map review process. Applicant Proposed Modifications - In response to the Planning Commission review, the applicant is proposing a number of modifications to the Specific Plan proposal and is in the process of incorporating these modifications, along with Planning Commission recommendations (discussed later in this report), into a revised Specific Plan document. A table showing the issues, applicant proposed revisions, staff recommendation, and Planning Commission recommendation is included as Attachment 2. Analysis of Project Applications Staff reports to the Planning Commission were previously provided to the City Council. General Plan Amendment Application - The Planning Commission and staff discussed 11 key issues related to consistency of the proposed North Park Specific Plan with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, mostly related to the Land Use and Circulation Elements. These issues are discussed below: Maintaining the Suburban / Rural Character of the City - The proposed North Park Specific Plan calls for the development of 1,500 single - family houses on 761.4 acres of the project site. At a density of just under 2.0 units per acre, this density 000012 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 13 would be among the lowest in the City if the project is approved. Its density is comparable to the development in the northern end of the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan project (Pardee) at 1.9 units per acre, and slightly higher than Country Club Estates (Toll Brothers) at 1.5 units per acre. Preservation of Important Natural Features, Agricultural Areas, and Visually Prominent Hillside Areas; Integration of the Proposed Development with the Natural Features; and Consistency with the Hillside Management Ordinance - The proposed North Park Specific Plan focuses its development in the southern, less visually prominent portion of the project site, with the development area of approximately 1,140 acres taking up approximately one -third of the project site. There are no prime farmlands or farmlands of statewide importance on the project site; however, it is used for cattle grazing. The Specific Plan proposes mass grading on the development area, cutting the smaller ridges and filling the smaller canyons on each plateau, while preserving the canyons that separate the plateaus along with approximately two - thirds of the site, primarily in the steeper, most visible, northern portions of the site. This approach also minimizes the number of manufactured slopes needed in the development areas. The plan is not consistent with the restrictions of the Hillside Management Ordinance that prohibit grading or construction on portions of the site with 50% or greater slopes, with limited exceptions. Plans submitted by the applicant indicate that of approximately 1,148 acres of the property in this slope category, 195.6 acres, or 17.0 %, would be graded. The Hillside Management Ordinance allows for a Development Agreement to specifically exempt properties from its restrictions. Community Development staff finds that the approach proposed to developing the North Park site is sensitive to its natural features by preserving the most visually prominent features on the site. The applicant is seeking a Development Agreement for this project. Variation of Residential Product Types (Including Mixed Use and Affordable Housing - The proposed North Park Specific Plan offers essentially one type of market -rate housing product type: large -lot single family housing. Densities within individual planning areas on the site range from 1.4 to 2.6 units per acre. Some variety is provided with the affordable housing, which is proposed at 18.1 units per acre. 000013 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 14 The relocation of 33 lots from the groundwater recharge area to Planning Area 31 (residential area around the lake) brings the density of this residential area up to 2.9 units per acre. The increase of density around the lake and commercial center is consistent with General Plan policies to have the highest densities closest to arterials and shopping areas. Planning Area 31 could even support higher densities to create a higher level of activity around the lake and commercial center and allow for more walking opportunities to the lake, community park, school site, and commercial center. Activity around the lake and commercial center could be further enhanced by the development of the commercial center as a mixed - use residential and commercial center. Market -rate apartments with views and within walking distance of the core of the development would provide for a greater variety of housing product types in the City, supporting Housing Element goals. At the present time, apartments and condominiums of five or more units make up 10.10 of Moorpark's housing stock, compared to 14.1 % countywide. Such a mixed -use development could also include some of the affordable units in order to reduce the concentration of these units in one location. The Planning Commission has recommended that the Specific Plan be amended to include mixed commercial /residential uses at the neighborhood center and either higher densities or narrower lots around the lakefront. Availability of Public Services and Facilities (Including Schools) - Key services for consideration include the provision of water, parks, and schools. WATER - Potable water is proposed for the lake, and recycled water is proposed to irrigate common landscaped areas. Water issues are addressed in detail in the Revised Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. A report on the water supply to satisfy Senate Bill 610 (Costa) was prepared for the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 and adopted by the District Board. This report documents the availability of water to serve the project. PARKS - With 38.3 acres of public parks (6.63 acres /1,000 residents) and 26.1 acres of private parks (4.52 acres /1,000 residents), the North Park project exceeds the City's standard of 5.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. The applicant has also proposed that Planning Area (PA) -38, a 5.1- acre private park, be combined with PA -37, a 4.7 -acre public park, to create a 9.8 -acre public park. This would increase the 000014 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 15 public park acreage to 43.3 acres, or 7.52 acres /1,000 residents, with private park acreage decreasing to 21.0 acres, or 3.63 acres /1,000 residents. Public access to the parks could be improved by switching locations of PA -10, the 29.1 acre community park, with PA -21, the school site. This would allow for a road undercrossing or overcrossing between the community park and the lakefront park if desired by the City, potentially expanding their utility. The applicant opposes this suggested modification. The Planning Commission is recommending that these two Planning Areas be combined to allow for greater flexibility in future design of the park and school facilities. SCHOOLS - In its comments on the Draft EIR for the North Park project, the Moorpark Unified School District has requested a site not less than 18 acres to accommodate the students estimated from the project. The applicant has agreed to modify the plan to provide an 18 -acre school site. Dr. Frank DePasquale, Superintendent, addressed the Planning Commission on the School District's planning and needs at its December 2, 2003 meeting. Dr. DePasquale mentioned that plans for the use of the site have not yet been made, but that it would likely be either an elementary school or a Kindergarten through 8th Grade school. On June 2, 2004, the City received a copy of a letter from the School District indicating its concern with the acceptability of the proposed school site due to its location below the surface level of the lake. The concern was relative to what could happen to a school if there were a failure in the lake containment. It has been noted that the concerns were based upon an erroneous 440,000 acre feet, when the true number is 440 acre feet, 1000 times less. The applicant has assured the District that it will prove that the site is safe and will meet state standards. Expansion of Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB); Buffer Area between Moorpark and Simi Valley; and Buildout of Moorpark CURB EXPANSION - The North Park Specific Plan site is on land between the Cities of Moorpark and Simi Valley. It is outside the Moorpark's Corporate Boundary, its Sphere of Influence and the Moorpark CURB. It is in the City's Area of Interest. The project involves consideration of an expansion of the Moorpark CURB to place the area proposed for development (exclusive of the Nature Preserve) within the Moorpark CURB. The proposed General Plan Amendment would involve consideration by the Moorpark voters, consistent with Measure "S ". 000015 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 16 BUFFER AREA - The North Park project proposes a buffer from development a minimum of 600 feet in width and an average of over 1,000 feet in width along its eastern property line. At the present time the area north of the SR -118 freeway is largely undeveloped between Moorpark College and Madera Road, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles. The buffer proposed by North Park would maintain a visual separation from existing development in Simi Valley, particularly since the eastern portion of the North Park project site is not visible from the freeway. The SR -118 interchange proposed as part of the North Park project would be the most visible feature in this area, approximately one mile east of the Collins Drive interchange and one mile west of the future Alamos Canyon interchange. The latest proposal for the Canyons project site (Unocal), which abuts the North Park project site to the east in Simi Valley's Sphere of Influence, includes two proposed residential villages at its western edge, separated from development proposed on the North Park project site by the eastern portion of the North Park Nature Preserve. The applicant for the Canyons project has indicated that a revised plan is being designed; it is not yet available for review. BUILDOUT OF CITY - The question of the expansion of the growth boundary of the City touches on issues related to maintaining a suburban /rural identity, appropriate buffers from development planned in Simi Valley, open space issues, continued use of the site for cattle grazing, wildlife corridors and the ultimate size of the City when built out under the General Plan. The City of Moorpark is currently forecast to have a population of approximately 44,300 at build out; this would increase to approximately 50,100 (13% increase) if the North Park Specific Plan is approved. Table 5 shows an estimate of population and housing, with and without the North Park project under buildout of the General Plan. A relatively small number of jobs would be created by the proposed neighborhood center. TABLE 5 POPULATION AND HOUSING FORECASTS 000016 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 17 Preservation of Significant Vegetation and Environmentally Sensitive Habitats - With the development area covering approximately 1,140 acres of the Specific Plan site, potential native grassland, coastal sage scrub, oak woodland and riparian habitats are all affected. Although much of the site was burned in the October 25 -26, 2003 fire, the habitat is expected to recover. Mitigation for loss of the habitat is addressed in the Revised Draft EIR. It should be noted that the conclusion of the EIR is that the loss of approximately 703.4 acres of native grassland and non - native grassland is an unavoidable significant impact that contributes substantially to an ongoing regional and local loss of foraging habitat for special status raptor species, particularly the white - tailed kite, northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, merlin, prairie falcon, short - eared owl, long -eared owl, and burrowing owl. Approval of the project would require City Council findings that the benefits of the project override its significant environmental effects. Mitigation of Traffic Impacts and Phasing of Traffic Improvements with Development - The most impacted intersection in the project vicinity, the intersection of Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive, is currently functioning below City standards during morning and afternoon peak hours. Improvements to this intersection are proposed as part of the Specific Plan. These improvements would be required prior to the issuance of building permits under the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program. Under the present proposal, all project traffic not using the freeway interchange (and all traffic from Phase "A ") would use Collins Drive for access. Turn movements to and from Campus Road would be prohibited. Circulation would be improved if Campus Road could be used as a second means of access. Campus Road, however, is a private driveway of Moorpark College, and not a public street. It would need to be acquired and improved to public street standards if utilized as a through way. An alternative to the use of Campus Road is the development of an 000017 EXISTING BUILDOUT UNDER BUILDOUT IF (2004) APPROVED PROJECTS NORTH PARK ESTIMATES AND CURRENT PROJECT IS GENERAL PLAN APPROVED POPULATION 34,887 44,310 50,068 HOUSING 9,964 12,698 14,348 UNITS Preservation of Significant Vegetation and Environmentally Sensitive Habitats - With the development area covering approximately 1,140 acres of the Specific Plan site, potential native grassland, coastal sage scrub, oak woodland and riparian habitats are all affected. Although much of the site was burned in the October 25 -26, 2003 fire, the habitat is expected to recover. Mitigation for loss of the habitat is addressed in the Revised Draft EIR. It should be noted that the conclusion of the EIR is that the loss of approximately 703.4 acres of native grassland and non - native grassland is an unavoidable significant impact that contributes substantially to an ongoing regional and local loss of foraging habitat for special status raptor species, particularly the white - tailed kite, northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, merlin, prairie falcon, short - eared owl, long -eared owl, and burrowing owl. Approval of the project would require City Council findings that the benefits of the project override its significant environmental effects. Mitigation of Traffic Impacts and Phasing of Traffic Improvements with Development - The most impacted intersection in the project vicinity, the intersection of Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive, is currently functioning below City standards during morning and afternoon peak hours. Improvements to this intersection are proposed as part of the Specific Plan. These improvements would be required prior to the issuance of building permits under the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program. Under the present proposal, all project traffic not using the freeway interchange (and all traffic from Phase "A ") would use Collins Drive for access. Turn movements to and from Campus Road would be prohibited. Circulation would be improved if Campus Road could be used as a second means of access. Campus Road, however, is a private driveway of Moorpark College, and not a public street. It would need to be acquired and improved to public street standards if utilized as a through way. An alternative to the use of Campus Road is the development of an 000017 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 18 extension of Campus Park Drive as analyzed in the Alternatives chapter of the Revised Draft EIR. Both the Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive routes from the project site would end up in the same location, the intersection of Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive, however, the provision-of an additional route helps spread the impact of the traffic and it allows college students access to parking lots along Campus Road from the new interchange without having to circle around the college. The Planning Commission has recommended that the eastern terminus of Campus Park Drive be extended onto the project site as a construction road and for permanent emergency access. Another key issue for consideration is the timing of proposed new freeway interchange with the development of the proposed project. The construction of this interchange and the access road from the interchange to the project site (and Moorpark College) is a key public benefit. It would accommodate much of the Moorpark College traffic that comes from the east. The Moorpark College Master Plan estimates that approximately forty percent (400) of college students come from the east. Mitigation in the EIR does not allow development of Phases B and C until the interchange and roadway are complete. As indicated in Chapter 3.3b of the Revised Draft EIR, the project would add to traffic on the SR -118 and SR -23 freeways, which would exceed design capacity with or without the project. Timelines for improvements to the freeway vary due to the uncertainty of funding these improvements. The proposed Specific Plan includes land for a neighborhood center which, with convenience retail, could help reduce project freeway traffic. The shopping center approved at Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive would also help reduce freeway traffic from the North Park project. Other than through local land use policy, which promotes trip demand reduction measures incorporated into the project design, policy and spending issues for freeways need to be addressed at a regional level. Extension of Broadway - The current Highway Network Plan of the Circulation Element shows an extension of Broadway from its eastern terminus to the SR -118 freeway at Alamos Canyon Road as a Rural Collector. This Rural Collector was identified in the 1992 Circulation Element "to serve circulation needs of potential future development in the portion of the planning area northeast of the City limits." Specific Plan Area No. 8 was planned for this area, to have a development of up to 3,221 dwelling units, provided that the City Council determined 000018 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 19 substantial public benefit from the amenities and /or financial contributions. The SOAR Ordinance, Measure "S ", amended the land use element by establishing an urban service boundary that did not include Specific Plan Area No. 8. It deleted all planning for development of Specific Plan Area No. 8 and also amended the Circulation Element by amending the purpose of the planned extension of Broadway to be for "potential agricultural, open - space, or recreational uses in the portion of the planning area northeast of the City limits." The proposed North Park Specific Plan, as currently designed, does not include a road connection between Alamos Canyon Road and Broadway. The traffic study contained in the Revised Draft EIR does not indicate the need for such a road to provide for traffic demand from the project. The traffic study projected that only one percent (1 %) of project trips would travel north on Walnut Canyon Road, potentially to Broadway (some may turn at Championship Drive). A higher number, forty -eight percent (48 %) of project trips, are projected to travel east of the City on the SR -118 freeway. With the proposed new interchange, an additional connection at Alamos Canyon Road would be redundant. While regional benefit may be gained by a connection of Broadway to Alamos Canyon Road, such a purpose for a regional connection was not contemplated in the City's general plan, both before and after the approval of Measure "S" by the Moorpark voters. Additionally, in order to allow for future circulation options, should the City ever wish to connect the road system in the North Park development with land to the west, the Planning Commission has recommended that a western road connection be provided on the Specific Plan. Provision of Public Transportation and Trails - The Circulation Element does not address bikeways on the project site but does include an equestrian trail connection through the site. An extension of planned trails to be consistent with the goal for a citywide system of safe, efficient and attractive bicycle and pedestrian routes is a critical issue for consideration, given the size of the project site. A multi -use trail connection to the Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park accessible to the public from the lakefront park has been proposed by the applicant to be included in the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission is recommending that transit stops be designated on the Specific Plan for the neighborhood center and community park. 000019 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 20 Avoidance of Hazards - Issues related to geologic hazards, flooding, and existing oil extraction activities are addressed in the Revised Draft EIR, Comments, and Responses to Comments. Mitigation is included to ensure proper abandonment of existing oil wells within the development footprint. Noise Compatibility - Traffic noise and noise compatibility of the proposed park site are addressed in the Revised Draft EIR, Comments, and Responses to Comments. Traffic noise from the project is both individually and cumulatively less than significant. Future activities at the proposed Community Park (identified in draft Specific Plan as Youth Sports Park) are not known at this time and would ultimately depend upon consideration of a park improvement plan by the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. Such a plan would address the issue of noise, as well as, night lighting and expected nighttime activities. Specific Plan and Zone Change Application - As the applications under consideration only include a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Zone Change, conditions of approval normally developed for consideration of Tentative Tract Maps and Planned Development Permits were not recommended or reviewed by the Planning Commission. Rather, the Planning Commission recommended twenty -one amendments to the Specific Plan document. There amendments are as follows: 1. The size of the school site should be increased from 12 acres to 18 net usable acres. 2. The size of the day care site should be decreased from 1.6 acres to 0.5 acres to allow for an increased school size. 3. One water tank should be relocated to avoid impacts to the vernal pool watershed. 4. The alignment of Moorpark College Road should be modified and /or the adjacent slope should include the use of walls to prohibit encroachment of grading into the vernal pool watershed. 5. A second wildlife crossing should be added under Moorpark College Road. 6. A canyon crossing for Phase A should be relocated to preserve additional trees based on a re- evaluation of the number of living oak trees in the impact area. 000020 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 21 7. The middle and western entry cottages should be moved further into the community; the park in PA -11 should be in front of the entry cottage, and the western entry cottage should be moved west to be less visible from public areas. 8. Planning Areas 37 and 38 should be consolidated into one planning area to create a 9.8 -acre publicly accessible lakeside park with a public swim area, restroom and changing facilities, and a public boat rental operation. 9. The Lakeside Neighborhood Center (Planning Area 50) should be moved to the west of the Lakeside Park (Planning Areas 37 and 38 as noted above). 10. Public parking for the Nature Park (Planning Area 11) should be included as a permitted use. 11. The public trail system should be extended to completely loop around the lake as presented to the Planning Commission by the applicant on March 2, 2004, as Option B, with the lakeside alternative on the north side of the lake, using paseos where the trail is not immediately adjacent to the lake. In addition, this lakeside trail should connect to the Planning Area 44 trail head. 12. Mixed uses (residential and commercial) should be provided on Planning Area 50 to shift some of the required affordable housing from Planning Area 9 and allow for market -rate housing opportunities in conjunction with commercial uses. The commercial component of Planning Area 50 should be reduced to a maximum of 45,000 square feet to allow for residential development. 13. Exhibits or references to Planning Area 10 as a Youth Sports Park should be eliminated, with reference only to a Community Park site in the Specific Plan Document and Planning Area 10 should be combined with Planning Area 21, as one Planning Area, to include a minimum of 29.1 usable acres for a Community Park and 18.0 usable acres for a School site. 14. Night lighting, other than security lighting, should not be included as part of the Community Park description in the Specific Plan. Should the City wish to include lighting for nighttime use as part of the park design, this could be addressed at the time of the park design. 15. The Implementation Section should include the establishment of a non - wasting endowment or landscape management district 000021 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 22 for the ongoing management costs of the Nature Preserve. The Land Use, Grading, and Circulation section should identify Interpretive Facilities to be provided as part of the Nature Preserve. 16. The 33 residential lots in the East Las Posas Groundwater Basin outcrop area should be relocated to Planning Area 31. Planning Area 31 should be designed with either a density higher than 2.9 units per acre, or narrower lots around the lake front in order to provide for a greater variety of housing types in the Specific Plan area. 17. The four -lane access road from the new freeway interchange should be developed as a four -lane arterial with a 14 -foot wide median. 18. A ranch -style home should be included as an architectural style in the Design Guidelines. 19. The existing canyon road through the Unocal site should be available for use during construction activities and be ultimately improved for permanent emergency access. 20. Transit stop locations should be added as part of the improvements to the community park and neighborhood commercial areas. 21. The Specific Plan should include a road connection to the western property line as shown in Attachment 1 to the Planning Commission Agenda Report of April 6, 2004, with full access rights given to the City to allow for an option of a roadway connection should the City ever consider the future development of the land west of this Specific Plan project. EIR Review Process Bonterra Consulting had been retained by the City to prepare an EIR for the proposed North Park Village and Nature Preserve Specific Plan. All material prepared by Bonterra Consulting had been reviewed by City staff before it was publicly released. On July 11, 2003, a Draft EIR on the project was released for public review. The period for accepting written comments was from July 11, 2003 to September 24, 2003. Oral comments on the EIR were also accepted by the Planning Commission on August 19, 2003 and on September 16, 2003. Responses to Comments and a Revised Draft EIR were then prepared by Bonterra Consulting under the supervision of City staff. During the course of preparation of Responses to Comments, new information on 000022 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 23 significant impacts of the project related to traffic on the SR- 23 and SR -118 freeways was identified. This information was added as a new chapter (Chapter 3.3b) in the Revised Draft EIR and circulated for a 45 -day comment period between December 16, 2003 and January 30, 2004. An additional hearing to accept oral comments was held by the Planning Commission on January 20, 2004. Responses to Comments received during the additional comment period were then prepared, reviewed by staff, and submitted to the Planning Commission as part of a package of documents that would constitute a Final EIR. Under CEQA, the Final EIR must contain 1) the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft, 2) comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary, 3) a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, 4) the responses of the City to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, and 5) any other information added by the City. For this project, the documents submitted for consideration as the Final EIR consist of the following: 1. The Revised Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Volume VI of the environmental record. 2. Technical Appendices A -J of the Draft and Revised Draft EIR, Volumes II, III, and VII of the environmental record. 3. Comments and Responses to Comments on both the Draft EIR and Chapter 3.3(b) of the Revised Draft EIR, Volumes IV, V, and VIII of the environmental record. Combined, these documents, previously transmitted to Council, satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for a Final EIR. The Final EIR for the North Park Specific Plan must be certified by the City Council before the project can be approved. Certification implies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that the Final EIR has been reviewed and considered by the Council before approving the project, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. As part of its recommendation on the North Park project, the Planning Commission has recommended certification of the Final EIR. If the North Park project is to be approved, findings are required for each significant effect identified in the Final EIR. A draft set of findings was previously distributed. In addition, a mitigation monitoring or reporting program (also previously distributed) is required to show that the mitigation 000023 Honorable City Council June 16, 2004 Page 24 measures are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. These documents would only be considered by the City Council after certification of the Final EIR if the project is to be approved. Finally, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for this project since several impacts can not be mitigated to a less -than significant level. Such a statement would indicate that the unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable in light of the project benefits. A draft Statement of Overriding Considerations will be developed during Council hearings, if warranted, to reflect Council direction on the project. STAFF RECONMNDATION Continue to take testimony in the open public hearing, and continue the agenda item with the hearing open to July 21, 2004. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed General Plan Amendments 2. Proposed Modifications to Specific Plan Application 000024 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 4 of 30 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001 -05 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: The Land Use Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan is amended to read as follows: SECTION 4.0 LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES: Page 11 of the General Plan, under the heading Growth and Population, Policy 2.1 is amended to read as follows: Growth and Population GOAL 1: Attain a balanced city growth pattern that includes a full mix of land uses. Policy 1.1: New development and redevelopment shall be orderly with respect to location, timing and density /intensity; consistent with the provision of local public services and facilities; and compatible with the overall suburban rural community character. Policy 1.2: Every five years the City's land use inventory shall be reviewed and, if necessary, the land use element shall be modified to ensure that general -plan policies are being adhered to and to provide an adequate up -to -date data base for continuing development considerations. Policy 1.3: New residential development shall be consistent with City- adopted growth ordinance policies. Policy 1.4: New development and redevelopment shall be coordinated so that the existing and planned capacity of public facilities and services shall not be adversely impacted. Policy 1.5: A comprehensive planning approach for undeveloped areas of the community shall be followed, to prevent disjointed, incremental expansion of development. CC ATTACHMENT 1 000025 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 5 of 30 GOAL 2: Establish a logical Sphere of Influence. Policy 2.1: The City shall strive to obtain and maintain sphere of influence boundaries consistent with the City Urban Restriction Boundary, as amended by vote of the electorate, or pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 8.4. SECTION 5.2 SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION - SP: Page 35 of the General Plan under the subtitle "Planning Area Outside City Limits" is amended to read as follows: Planning Area Outside City Limits Specific plan areas 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (proposed within the unincorporated planning area) were analyzed in conjunction with the updating of the Land Use Element but were found to be outside the sphere of influence and outside of the CURB (see, Section 8.0, et seq.) and accordingly not appropriate for urban development and were, therefore, not approved. Specific Plan 4 (Deleted) Specific Plan 5 (Deleted) Specific Plan 6 (Deleted) Specific Plan 7 (Deleted) Specific Plan 8 (Deleted) Specific Plan 11 Specific Plan 11 consists of approximately 3,544- acres, located north of State Route 118 (SR -118), northeast of downtown Moorpark and north of Moorpark College. The Specific Plan area lies entirely within the Citv of Moorpark's area of interest. 000026 Resolution No. PC -2004 -456 Page 6 of 30 The North Park Village and Nature Preserve Specific Plan shall incorporate the following elements and policies: Required Plan Elements: ■ A 2,121 -acre Nature Preserve protected by the Current Urban Restriction Boundarv. ■ A 423 -acre open space system. ■ A 29 -acre communitv park. ■ A 1.5 -acre fire station site, and ley -acre fire service helispot site. ■ A 67 -acre recreation lake area (including lake surface and lake buffer) . ■ An 18 -acre school site offered for dedication to the Moorpark Unified School District. ■ A minimum 500 -foot open space buffer between exist homes and new homes. ■ A maximum of 1,500 single - family detached homes and 150 affordable homes. ■ A new SR -118 interchange approximately one mile east of Collins Drive providing direct vehicular access from SR -118 to the Specific Plan area and Moorpark College. ■ A maximum of 45,000 square feet of local serving, lake oriented commercial uses. Reauired Plan Policies: ■ The number and density of homes or size of the Neighborhood Center permitted in the Specific Plan 11 may not be increased without approval of the Moorpark electorate. ■ The Nature Preserve and the City Urban Restriction Boundary cannot be changed without approval of the Moorpark electorate. 000027 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 7 of 30 ■ Development within the Specific Plan area shall pay the Moorpark Unified School District's school impact fees as defined by state law. ■ The size of the 500 foot open space buffer may not be changed without approval of the Moorpark electorate. ■ Seventy -five percent of hillside in the Specific Plan area with slopes greater than twenty -five percent shall be preserved. ■ At least eighty percent of the existing oak trees within the planning area subject to the Moorpark Tree Protection Ordinance shall be preserved and the remaining oak trees affected by the Specific Plan shall be either relocated or replaced so that the plannina area ultimatelv contains a net increase in oak trees. SECTION 6.0 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUM6DLRY; Page 38, consisting of three paragraphs, is amended to read as follows: The following table (Land Use Plan - statistical summary, Table 3) summarizes the approximate acreage and the number of dwelling units resulting from each of the land use classifications designated on the Land Use Plan maps for the overall planning area (City Area - Exhibit 3, and Unincorporated Area - Exhibit 4). Dwelling unit n/c is based on an estimate of the density, which could occur for each residential land use classification based on the maximum density permitted. The actual number of dwelling units constructed and associated population amount will vary with the development conditions and constraints for each project (access, availability of services, geotechnical and natural resource constraints, etc.). In addition, a density increase above the maximum density could be approved, up to the designated density limit for each residential land use category, if public improvements, public services, and /or financial contributions are provided that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community, except that the overall number of homes in SP 11 (North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan) may not be changed without vote of the residents of the Citv of Moorpark. Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 8 of 30 As identified on Table 3, a combined total of up to 12,611 14,161 dwelling units could be constructed in the overall City of Moorpark planning area, based on maximum density estimates. The resulting build -out population for the Moorpark planning area would be approximately 34,280 38,801 persons, based on the County's 2.74 population dwelling unit factor for the year 2010. Note, however, that the resulting build -out for the Moorpark planning area would be approximately (a) 41,:799 47,312 persons, based on the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit's "Ventura County Population and Housing Estimates" for Moorpark which average 3.341 persons per household for the year 1994 -1997 inclusive; or, (b) 4 9,:78 5 46,165 persons, based on the "VCOG 2020 population Per Dwelling Unit Ratio Forecast" for the City of Moorpark (3.26 persons per dwelling unit). The Table 3 build -out figures were calculated using the smaller county -wide ratios and are considered a conservative population estimate for the City. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this land use element and circulation element update of the Moorpark General Plan evaluates potential impacts on the service capabilities of relevant infrastructure systems (i.e., sewer, water, police, fire, etc.) associated with the land use designations proposed as a part of this update process. Environmental documents prepared for subsequent and proposed amendments to the General Plans evaluate the potential impacts of such amendments. SECTION 6.0 TABLE 3, LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY: Pages 39 -40 of the Moorpark General Plan, Table 3, are amended to add the North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan (SP 11) to the City's Land Use Designation, Unincorporated Area and Planning Area, to read as follows: 000029 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 9 of 30 , TABLE 3 LAND USE PLAN — STATISTICAL SUMMARY LAND USE DESIGNATION CITY UNINCORPORATED TOTAL PLANNING AREA AREA AREA COMBINED RL RURAL LOW (1 du / 5 acres maximum) 1,668 ac 334 du - - -- - " "" 1,668 ac 334 du RH RURAL HIGH (1 du /acre maximum) 208 ac 208 du -- -- - - -- 208 ac 208 du L LOW DENSITY (1 du / acre maximum) 168 ac 168 du - 168 ac 168 du ML MEDIUM LOW DENSITY (2 du / acre maximum) 568 ac 1,136 du - - -- - - -- 568 ac 1,136 du M MEDIUM DENSITY (4 du / acre maximum) 1,174 ac 4,696 du - - -- - - -- 1,174 ac 4,696 du H HIGH DENSITY (7 du /acre maximum) 343 ac — 2,401 du - -- - - -- 343 ac 2,401 du VH VERY HIGH DENSITY (15 du / acre Maximum) 161 ac 2,415 du - - -- - - -- 161 ac 2,415 du SP SPECIFIC PLAN* SP 1 LEVY 285 ac 415 du - - -- - - -- 285 ac 415 du SP 2 JBR 445 ac 475 du - - -- - - -- 445 ac 475 du SP9 MUSD 25 ac 80 du - - -- - - -- 25 ac 80 du SP 10 SCHLEVE 71 ac 154 du - - -- - - -- 71 ac 154 du SP 11 NORTH PARK - - -- 3.544 a 1,650 du 3.544 ac 1.650 du NEIGHBORHOOD 1 9 ac - - -- 9 ac COMMERCIAL (.25 FAR) C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 194 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 194 ac (.25 FAR) I -1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 263 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 263 (.38 FAR) ac I -2 MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL 285 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 285 ac (.38 FAR) AG1 AGRICULTURE 1 1 du / 10 -40 acres) 45 ac 1 du - - -- - - -- 45 ac AG2 AGRICULTURE 2 - - -- - - -- - - -- (1 du / 40 acres ---- - - -- OS1 OPEN SPACE 1 1 du / 10 -40 acres) 16 ac 1 du - - -- - - -- 16 ac OS2 OPEN SPACE 2 (1 du / 40 acres) 1;989 1.064 ac 27 du - - -- - - -- 4-1080 1.064 ac 27 du S SCHOOL 357 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 357 ac P PARK 197 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 197 ac U UTILITIES 47 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 47 ac PUB PUBLIC / INSTITUTIONAL 16 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 16 ac FRWY FREEWAY/ R/W RIGHT -OF -WAY 291 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 291 ac TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ** 12,511 du (At Build -out — Year 2010) 12,511 du 1.650 du 14.161 du TOTAL POPULATION * ** 34 At Build -out — Year 2010 34,280 4 521 38.801 TOTAL CITY AREA ACRES (Approximate) 7,916 TOTAL UNINCORPORATED AREA ACRES (Approximate) 0-ae 3.528 ac TOTAL PLANNING AREA COMBINED (Approximate) 7 114.44 ac Acreage for open space, schools, parks, commercial, highway right -of -way and any other appropriate land uses will be determined at time of specific plan approval. ** Residential Density calculations for specific plan areas are based on the maximum density. Section 5.2 of the Land Use Element allows the City Council to approve a density exceeding the maximum density up to an identified density limit, if public improvements, public services and /or financial contributions are provided that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community, except that the density of SP 11 (North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan) may not be changed without a vote of the electorate of the City of Moorpark. * ** Based on 2.74 persons per dwelling unit. Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 10 EXHIBIT 4, PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN MAP: Amended to add SP 11 as depicted in Exhibit A2. SECTION 8.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF CURB, SUBSECTION A: Amended to clarify the proper exhibit order and name, as follows- A. The City of Moorpark hereby establishes and adopts a Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (Moorpark CURB) line. The Moorpark CURB shall be established coterminous with and in the same location as the Sphere of Influence line established by the Local Agency Formation Commission as it exists as of January 1, 1998, or as altered or modified pursuant to the Amendment Procedures set forth- below. Giaphie— represent-atien –ef that line hewn at- EiEhibit "All. The Moorpark CURB line is depicted in General Plan Exhibit 5. SECTION 8.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF CURB: The Moorpark CURB line is amended to include the approximately 1,423 acre planned development portion, as depicted in Exhibit B2 (reflecting the amended Planning Area Land Use Plan Map, Exhibit 4, City of Moorpark General Plan) and clarifying the proper General Plan Land Use Element exhibit order. CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: The Circulation Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan is amended as follows: FIGURES 2, 3 and 4 City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network, Biking Element and Equestrian Trail Network, pages 19, 22 and 24 respectively are amended to delete Broadway Road and to add a new separate roadway system comprised of a new interchange at SR 118 (Moorpark College Interchange) and a Four -Lane Collector connecting SR -118 to Moorpark College and to SP 11, including Residential Collector and local streets, as depicted in Exhibit C2. The bikeway exhibit is amended to reflect the new road system without altering the bikeway circulation plan, as depicted in Exhibit C2. The equestrian exhibit is amended to reflect the road system and move the north eastern -most equestrian trail eastward as depicted in Exhibit E2. SECTION 5.0 ROADWAY CIRCULATION PLAN, CIRCULATION SYSTEM: The last paragraph of page 20 of the Circulation Element of the Moorpark General Plan is amended to delete Broadway Road and to add a new roadway system providing direct access to Moorpark College, as read as follows: 000031 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 11 CIRCULATION SYSTEM The goals and policies included in the Circulation Element emphasize the need for a circulation system that is capable of serving both existing and future residents while preserving community values and character. The location, design and constituent modes of the circulation system have major impacts on air quality, noise, community appearance, and other elements of the environment. The highway network designated in the Circulation Element is illustrated in Figure 2, and indicates all of the designated freeways, six -lane arterials, four -lane arterials and rural collectors. In addition, a selected number of designated local collectors, which carry through traffic, are indicated on the map. Any permanent closure to through traffic or relocation of the designated arterials and collectors will require a General Plan Amendment. Highway facilities are shown within the current City limits as well as for the surrounding planning area that has been defined for the General Plan Update. Existing and potential future traffic signal locations within the City limits are also indicated on the highway network map, as are existing and potential at -grade and grade separated railroad crossing locations. Traffic signal warrants are satisfied for the locations shown here based on current traffic projections. Traffic signalization may be required at minor street and driveway locations not shown on the Circulation Element highway network map. A grade separated railroad crossing is shown only for the future SR -118 bypass arterial crossing. Grade separation is not considered feasible at the four existing railroad crossings (Gabbert Road, Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road and Los Angeles Avenue). The roadway network in the Circulation Element indicates a number of improvements with regard to the existing roadway system in the Moorpark planning area. The following are the more important improvements that will need to be implemented: • Connection of the SR -118 and SR -23 freeways with new interchanges at Collins Drive and Princeton Avenue. 000032 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 12 • Provision of an east /west SR -118 arterial bypass from the SR -23 /SR -118 connector to Los Angeles Avenue west of Buttercreek 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. • S R 118 freeway t e serve ; Y v,, t ; e n needs —e f pet-e n t i al agri ,, t•,r -a, , epee spaee er Deereatie'rxu u yes in the p eit t e n e f -- the planning —area n e rt- breast —e f the eit y lifftitT Provision of a separate roadway system comprised of an interchange at SR -118 (Moorpark College Interchange) and a Four -Lane Arterial with raised median connecting SR -118 to Moorpark College and to the Specific Plan 11 area, including residential collector and local streets. OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION AND RECREATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: The Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan is amended as follows: SECTION II OPEN SPACE, Subsection D: Existing Open Space Areas, Paragraph 2 Parks - Inventory of Existing and Proposed Facilities, page II -8 of the Open Space, Conservation and 000033 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 13 Recreation Element of the Moorpark General Plan is amended to read as follows: 2. Parks - Inventory of Proposed and Existing Facilities N Type of Facility ! Size (in acres) Status i n I April 4 1986* Arro __ yo Vista Community Park 69.0 4550 Tierra Rejada Rd. Existing Buttercreek Neighborhood Park g 13.0 South of L.A. Avenue Adjacent to' Arroyo Simi Planned; Location Undecided Av. at Hartford TExistinng____ Harvard Street Existing_ —_ Cam p us Campus Canyon Park Neighborhood Park I Neighborhood Park 2.5.A. —2.5 16400 Community Center Park Park _. �_ _ .5 , 799 Mir ark Avenue_,___ __1Existin County Trail Park _ Neighborhood Park 8.0 ; 11701 1/2 Mountain Traii Existin�c _- Glenwood i Neighborhood Park 4.5 Tierra Rejada at Harvester Rd. Acceptance by_Cit_y Glenwood Park Neighborhood Park 4.51 11800 Harvester Street Existing Greenbelt �� Agreement Area Open en Space Within Tierra Re ada Valle j y Existing Griffin Park Neighborhood Park 5.0 15400 Campus Park Drive Existing Happy Camp Regional Park 3,700 I North of the City Boundaries but within Moor ark's Area of Interest proposed Miller Park _ Neighborhood Park 6.5 11 4530 Miller Parkway Existing Monte Vista Nature Park mature Park 5.0 1 Moorpark Rd. near Peach Hill Acceptance Pending Moorpark Community Center 4.5 Moorpark Ave. at Charles St. Existing Mountain Meadows #4 Community Park 69.0 -_ South of Arroyo Simi at Liberty Bell 1 39 Acres Currently Owned by City Rd and Leased for Farming; 30 Acres Proposed for Dedication JuY1986 Mountain Meadows N. Villa a Neighborhood Park 8.ONorth of Tierra Rejada Rd. Desi n Approved by City Mountain Meadows S. Village Neighborhood Park 8.0 South of extension of Tierra Rejada 'proposed Road Mountain Meadows W. Village Neighborhood Park & Retention Basin 8.0 1 West end of Peach Hill Drain Design Approved by City North Park Lake Private Lake with Public Access North of Citv boundaries but within ! Mooroark's Area of Interest North Park Nature Preserve —Q Nature Preserve 2,121.0 j North of City boundaries but within Moorparks Area f Interest Proposed North Park Northside Park Neighborhood Park 31.$ North of City boundaries but within Moor ark's Ara of In r Proposed — North Park Community Park r - - - - -- Community Par 29.0 North of City boundaries but within - -- - -- — Pr M or ark' Ar Int r Paul E. Griffin Sr. Neighborhood Park 4.0 Campus Park Rd. at College View Existing Peach Hill _ Neighborhood Park _ 10.0 I Peach Hill Rd. and Christian Barrett ]Design Phase Poindexter Park Neighborhood Park 7.5 j� 00 Poindexter Ave. _ Tierra Rejada Lake Regional Recreation Area 250 -300 South of Tierra Rejada Road na West of the Moorpark Freeway.: . Outside of City Boundaries, but within Moor ark's Area of Interest l Proposed Tierra Rpjada Park________ '; Neighborhood Park--- 8.0 11900 Mountain Trail St. _�' Existing___ —_ ________ Tract 3963 Neighborhood Park 6.01 North of Campus Park Drive, West l Proposed of Moorpark College Villa Cam esina Nei hborhood Park St4704 Leta Yancy Road E g Vir inia_Colony Park_ . Total Neighborhood Park 1.0 — ! 14507 Condor Drive -- r 423 j 6,419.3 is as of 2004. * North Park Villaae Parks status SECTION II, OPEN SPACE, Figure 3, Parks and Open Space Areas: Figure 3, as amended, as shown on Exhibit F2, to remove the developable portions of SP 11 (North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan) from the open space classifications as shown on Figure 3. 000034 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 14 MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN EXHIBITS Attached hereto are true and correct copies of the following exhibits /figures relating to the City of Moorpark General Plana (a) Exhibit Al, (Existing Plan) Planning Area Land Use Map, City of Moorpark General Plan, Exhibit 4; (b) Exhibit A2, (Amendment) Planning Area Land Use Map, City of Moorpark General Plan; Exhibit 4; (c) Exhibit B1, (Existing Plan) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Line, City of Moorpark General Plan; (d) Exhibit B2, (Amendment) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Line, City of Moorpark General Plan, Exhibit 5; (e) Exhibit Cl, (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network, Figure 2; (f) Exhibit C2, (Amendment) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network, Figure 2 (Note: this exhibit should be modified to show the Moorpark College access road designated as a 4 -lane arterial); (g) Exhibit D1, (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element, Figure 3; (h) Exhibit D2, (Amendment) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element, Figure 3; (i) Exhibit E1, (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network; Figure 4; (j) Exhibit E2, (Amendment) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network; Figure 4; (k) Exhibit Fl, (Existing Plan) Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open Space Areas, City of Moorpark, and Figure 3; (1) Exhibit F2, (Amendment) Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open space Areas, City of Moorpark, Figure 3. 000035 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 15 r- Exhibit A -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Planning Area Land Use Map Exhibit 4 LEGEND CURRENT CITY LIMITS AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE f AREA OF INTEREST VENTURA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS RURAL OPEN SPACE AGRICULTURE j 5 ACRES MINIMUM Note: Please refer to the test of the Land Use Element for a description of the designated Specific Plan No. ! area. 000036 Area of Interest .• ' ' r • ol Current City Limits and —: I -= Sphere of Influence — — J r , r City of Moorpark j (Refer to Exhibit 3 • for City Area Land Use Plan) LEGEND CURRENT CITY LIMITS AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE f AREA OF INTEREST VENTURA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS RURAL OPEN SPACE AGRICULTURE j 5 ACRES MINIMUM Note: Please refer to the test of the Land Use Element for a description of the designated Specific Plan No. ! area. 000036 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 16 Exhibit A -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Planning Area Land Use Map Exhibit 4 ■ t i • • • • • • • ■ • ■ ■ Area of Interest ..........f ..........................•'• ■ / a / s j SP 111 : 423 aeoi of Opel Space . 64 ACNS d Park$ ;. 93 Ad.a d Peak I _ - 769 Arn V.apa (1.650 aom.sl ' 67 acre Lake Ma f _ J Current City Limits and Sphere of Influence City of Moorpark j Poe / r - -., - -..•. • ....................1 LEGEND CURRENT CITY LIMITS AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AREA OF INTEREST VENTURA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS 0 RURAL OPEN SPACE AGRICULTURE 1 5 ACRES MINIMUM Note: Please refer to the text of the Land Use Element for description of the designated Specific Plan No. to area. 00003'7 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 17 Exhibit B -1 (Existing Plan) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) City of Moorpark General Plan Exhibit 5 ■ Area of Interest ••''' ..r...■ noon • ■ 1 dl� ■ ■ ■ ■ •; City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) City of Moorpark •.... noon ■ Nr�4 ■ •• � //j Gry Bo�xWary � 1 ■ - / =—W— <:—Li ■ a tsae soon i........... n........ LEGEND .40 CURRENT CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY ♦ ♦♦ AREA OF INTEREST Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 18 Exhibit B -2 (Proposed Amendment) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) City of Moorpark General Plan Exhibit 5 Area of Interest ■ •'- ■ -•'' a -;>� Project Site Boundary ; ■ ■ ■ City Urban Restriction ; Boundary (CURB) ; (proposed) V% J ■ f r ■j / City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) (existing) City f Moorpark oorpark ■ ■ r ---1 ,� / it ■ Novi ■ i �• ,j. ; it Gyeounoary ■ 1 / .ice " aao em •■+ -- e'•'i.y•r- - --� ■ r LEGEND / CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY (CURB) LINE - EXISTING J* * CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY (CURB) LINE - PROPOSED • AREA OF INTEREST 000039 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 19 Exhibit C -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network Figure 2 tit& LEGEND -- — - CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY LOCAL COLLECTOR FREEWAY ■ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION INTERCHANGE p AT -GRADE RR CROSSING SIX -LANE ARTERIAL ® GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL = _ = SR -118 FREEWAY CORRIDOR — R — RURAL COLLECTOR 000040 R ��•D'M•_ r` ENONOw•V ~I N .__..— ..- -_� —_• t Cdr.• --i \ I,,� CSTpEEt s1 \ /'�� CpaMY�u � �• City of M Moorpark " on smile i — NtGtt = L . t POINDEXTER L0f ' name PARK • - • • J 'J �� , LOS •YOELES CREEK YO�WITIIN WALNUT O ►EACH NEL MEEK �n 1tTKrW CHMMN QARRETT Y ' dI TP•t 1ul �YOUNi11M Ey�� 9 �J� KEl ►O• ?� North - City Boundary L $ U _LW lam S. k w /rtv LEGEND -- — - CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY LOCAL COLLECTOR FREEWAY ■ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION INTERCHANGE p AT -GRADE RR CROSSING SIX -LANE ARTERIAL ® GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL = _ = SR -118 FREEWAY CORRIDOR — R — RURAL COLLECTOR 000040 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 20 Exhibit C -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network Figure 2 s9� '1C s�Z i� iNOAOWAT — .. ;I —� y,. City of Moorpark `A°"'='" "K°" Sails _� .OWOEETER ♦ I . J m ►ARIt RourE - � I W71E1% cos ARCncs AO jCA EEK ♦O YOUNTAW \ 1 111AL p ACNNLL AU K \n T CRER a CHRISTIAN 10y 7 ( 2 EARRETT O0. Y� ITA�M 7RA i d0 \ �% W7uNTAW -� E +4A \�1 REIAOA 1 ME.00w `Gry Boundary— ---- - CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY FREEWAY ===C)= INTERCHANGE SIX -LANE ARTERIAL FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL R — RURAL COLLECTOR LEGEND i a I; .'t9 Eq TAUT r7T7, Nato 0 two ;Opp S.k nHl- LOCAL COLLECTOR ■ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION C] AT -GRADE RR CROSSING ® GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING _ _ = SR -11 B FREEWAY CORRIDOR 000041 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 21 Exhibit D -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element Figure 3 sq : )Y = e O 7 �,- - R City of r/ .1 ._�.__.� Of Moorpark ' w";,° -i-�' a l 1• LEGEND — - - — CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY I� 9 ..J l �J NartF 1� Iy } U Ism sum a ,o sn4'. k. --- - - - - -- CLASS I BIKEWAY (BIKE PATH) A facility designed for exclusive use by bicycles and physically separated from vehicular traffic by a barrier, grade separation or open space. Cross -flows by vehicles and pedestrians allowed but minimized. - - - - - - CLASS II BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) A paved area of roadway designated for preferrential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and signage indicate the presence of a bike lane on the roadway. CLASS III BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) A conventional street where bike routes are indicated by sign only. There are no special pavement walkways and bicycle traffic: shares the roadway with motorized traffic. Only Class III facilities which connect the Moorpark sphere with the regional bikeway system are identified in the bikeway network. Roadways which are not designated with a Class II bikeway, but which serve as connections between Class II facilities or the regional bikeway system should be considered as Class III bikeways. 000042 i6�gf11T AOIfTE ►MK 4NE 4 ' • �. •' 1 Hof iuN:EU[f EYTTEN t ♦ ♦, C MOUNTAIN TA4E WALPW �e EK i t��\ D. V4 ,� \ GANNETT OIL E'SMOUNTA1141% ` MEADOW `City Boundary LEGEND — - - — CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY I� 9 ..J l �J NartF 1� Iy } U Ism sum a ,o sn4'. k. --- - - - - -- CLASS I BIKEWAY (BIKE PATH) A facility designed for exclusive use by bicycles and physically separated from vehicular traffic by a barrier, grade separation or open space. Cross -flows by vehicles and pedestrians allowed but minimized. - - - - - - CLASS II BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) A paved area of roadway designated for preferrential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and signage indicate the presence of a bike lane on the roadway. CLASS III BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) A conventional street where bike routes are indicated by sign only. There are no special pavement walkways and bicycle traffic: shares the roadway with motorized traffic. Only Class III facilities which connect the Moorpark sphere with the regional bikeway system are identified in the bikeway network. Roadways which are not designated with a Class II bikeway, but which serve as connections between Class II facilities or the regional bikeway system should be considered as Class III bikeways. 000042 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 22 Exhibit D -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element Figure 3 �bC�o 1� 1i€ LEGEND CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY CLASS I BIKEWAY (BIKE PATH) A facility designed for exclusive use by bicycles and physically separated from vehicular traffic by a barrier, grade separation or open space. Cross -flows by vehicles and pedestrians allowed but minimized - - - - -- CLASS II BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) A paved area of roadway designated for preferrential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and signage indicate the presence of a bike lane on the roadway. CLASS III BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) A conventional street where bike routes are indicated by sign only. There are no special pavement walkways and bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motorized traffic. Only Class 111 facilities which connect the Moorpark sphere with the regional bikeway system are identified in the bikeway network. Roadways which are not designated with a Class II bikeway, but which serve as connections between Class 11 facilities or the regional bikeway system should be considered as Class III bikeways. 000043 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 23 Exhibit E -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network Figure 4 -b •. • 0000000000009 0 a. .0..0 I� • • • I • • Ft • •' • i ••••• : i i • N •19 •T� e�•• 0. / ate.. � • • I •..J'I /! /�• . • City Of -- • ad•nis.uuoN 1 •• • • Moorpark . r' Ii i � 1 \ i sw ns • A 0�� N1PM • L. •! EVEN nr— • • I lO •ie! � �•pNj lE PARK la i • too '` P -_! LAW 333 • _ r —•- — _ . J •+ 1 ' LOS ANGELES • • ''°' • 1 •p•�j♦ `i11A_1L wLLNVf a PEAC.. - NO- w _ CHNSTIAN V•Y- • S: /DINNER O& ' "0101 41 • I MEADOW ��'� ✓ ',�NFJ�o'-_ �' 9dJ Na111 �._._.._`CO;gZndary ._ —.._. .1 1 • u non won ••• sr nh, LEGEND • • • • • EQUESTRIAN TRAILS — - - CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY 000044 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -456 Page 24 Exhibit E -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network Figure 4 :• 0000,► 00.0•... 0000.• so see r. •�. Spa j - - -r —3. ...........�.;. • OADWAT .WAT ' •I IS % 0000 as • • , •• 0000000 ii ♦1. '.I - -• �..� �.J -' /`! : • City of ;� l .• MOOrparic �` .`I �CAMP"PA= K.Rr�;. •• (�: -�..ee /I • • /` 1 ` ' [Rile / so __••t�... •� IOINOE[TER ;� • I tps ••... • t! Y O ART uNE I6 • . C PARA -_��_ ,a • r •i � ', � ws ANGELES - -- • • • j .•. . + --- -- • .�rER .. •. • b c ��a • CREEK 0 . • eg1a1TAN . • • • •. . : �.•0,40 �1IAIL MA "T ►EACNNLL RD. 'A I ' _00___00..__ 46 OAS �� CHEEK AV fy �' z1 .ARR[TT OR. • �D ••• l o U L/b 1W 0000, soi n fRl LEGEND 0000• EQUESTRIAN TRAILS - - CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY 000045 Resolution No, PC-2004-456 Page 25 Exhibit F-1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open Space Areas Figure 3 JA LEGEND EqArroyo Simi t Park Moorpark College Aegfonal Park - Rural Low-Density 77,— - - .. 1% 7 Area of interest City Limits and Sphere of Influence 000046 AG-1 10-40 aCrea[DU OS -1 10-40 acres/DU OS-2 4 0 + acres/DU 77,— - - .. 1% 7 Area of interest City Limits and Sphere of Influence 000046 Resolution N,,--). PC-2004-456 Page 26 Exhibit F-2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Oper, Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open Space Areas Exhibit 5 OOCJB. ij LEGEND aArroyo Simi IECity Park OS-1 10-40 acretIOU Moorpark i OS-2 4 0 + acres/DU Regional Park Nature Preserve (0 DU/Acres) Rural Low — Density 0 - .Ly- Area of Interest City Limits and Sphere of Influence 000047 AG-1 10-40 acres /DU AG-2 'a0+ acres/DU OS-1 10-40 acretIOU OS-2 4 0 + acres/DU L] Nature Preserve (0 DU/Acres) 0 - .Ly- Area of Interest City Limits and Sphere of Influence 000047 I North Park Village and Nature Preserve Specific Plan Proposed Modifications to Specific Plan Application And Planning Commission Recommendations No. Applicant Staff Planning! Commission Issue /Project Proposal Option Recommendation Discussion Recommendations 1 School Site Size (PA -10): Increase the school site to 18 net Increase the school site to 18 net Agreement. Supports staff 12 -acre school site. usable acres to satisfy a request usable acres to satisfy a request recommendation. from the Moorpark Unified from the Moorpark Unified School School District. District. 2 Day Care Site Size (PA- Reduce the size of the day care Reduce the size of the day care Agreement. Supports staff 22): 1.6 acre day care site to .5 acres to allow for an site to .5 acres to allow for an recommendation. Prefers site. increased school site size. increased school site size. day care located adjacent to school. 3 Vernal Pool Preservation Relocate the water tank to avoid Relocate the water tank to avoid Agreement. Supports staff — Water Tank (PA -54): the impacts to the vernal pool the impacts to the vernal pool recommendation. Water tank encroaches watershed. watershed. into a vernal pool's watershed. 4 Vernal Pool Preservation- Modify the alignment of Modify the alignment of Moorpark Agreement. Supports staff Moorpark College Road Moorpark College Road and /or College Road and /or require the recommendation. Alignment: Moorpark require the adjacent slope to be adjacent slope to be returned College Road encroaches returned through the use of walls through the use of walls to prohibit into the pool's watershed. to prohibit encroachment into the encroachment into the vernal pool vernal pool watershed. watershed. 5 Wildlife Movement: Modify the North Park land plan Modify the North Park land plan to Agreement. Supports staff Moorpark College Road to add a second wildlife crossing add a second wildlife crossing on recommendation. contains one wildlife on Moorpark College Road. Moorpark College Road. (Included crossing as Mitigation in the Revised Draft EIR CC ATTACHMENT 2 - 1 - C FP No. Applicant Staff Planning Commission Issue/Project Proposal Option Recommendation Discussion Recommendations 6 Canyon Crossino: Road Modify the Land Plan to relocate Re- evaluate the number of living The applicant Supports staff crossing impacts mature a canyon crossing to minimize oak trees in the impact area (as a supports the staff recommendation. trees. impacts to trees. Alternative 1 result of the October 25 -26, 2003 recommendation. Preference is to replace on- would preserve an additional 49 fire) and develop a crossing to site, rather than compensate trees. Alternative 2 would preserve as many as possible for trees lost. preserve an additional 64 trees without the need for a sewer but would require a wider canyon pumping facility. Trees to be crossing and installation of a removed would require sewer pumping facility. replacement or compensation consistent with City Ordinance. 7 Gated Entry Locations: Relocate the middle and western Relocate the middle and western Agreement. Supports staff The middle and western entry cottages further into the entry cottages further into the recommendation. entry cottages are community. community. PA -11 should be in immediately adjacent to front of any entry gate and the public areas. The western entry gate should be proposed public Nature moved west to be less visible from Park (PA -11) is behind a the public areas. ated entrance. 8 Separation of Lakeside Consolidate PA -37 and PA -38 Consolidate PA -37 and PA -38 into The applicant Supports staff Parks (PA -37 and PA -38): into a single 9.8 -acre public a single 9.8 -acre public accessible supports the recommendation. Public and private park accessible lakeside park on the lakeside park. Create a separate Staff separated by north side of public swim area in the lake Recommendatio commercial center. the Neighborhood Center. This adjacent to this park with restroom n. re- configuration also widens the and changing facilities, and provide end of the lake to increase its a public boat rental operation with recreational value. concession building and docks. Incorporate timing language to tie permit issuance to completion of this amenity. 9 Lakeside Neighborhood Move the Lakeside Move the Lakeside Neighborhood Agreement, Supports staff Center (P -50): Currently Neighborhood Center (P -50) to Center (P -50) to the east or west. move the recommendation with the between a public and the east or west. Neighborhood Neighborhood Center be private park. Center (P -50) to located on the western side the west. of the larger park. - 2 - O O O C Ul 0 No. Applicant Staff Planning Commission Issue /Project Proposal O' tion Recommendation Discussion Recommendations 10 Parking for Nature Park: Clarify that public parking at the Clarify that public parking at the Agreement. Supports staff The park is placed behind Nature Park is a permitted use. Nature Park is a permitted use. recommendation. the entry cottage and parking is not shown on the plan. 11 Length of Public Access Extend the lakeside public trail to Include at least 75% of the lake The applicant Recommends that public on Lakeside Trail: The connect the revised 9.8 acre perimeter as publicly accessible by supports revising trail system completely loops proposed plan calls for a lakeside public park to the a pedestrian trail. Provide for a the plan to around lake, with paseos public trail on a portion of trailhead location in PA -44. public pocket park at the mid - point. connect the where trail is not the south lake shore from Connect the revised 9.8 acre Lakeside trail to immediately adjacent to the commercial center to a lakeside public park to the trailhead the PA -44 trail lake. pocket park (PA -41). location in PA -44 as part of this head. The Public access to the trail. applicant does Nature Preserve is not support indicated but not clearly modifying the defined. plan so that at least 75% of the lake perimeter is accessible by the Lakeside Trail. 12 Mixed Use (Residential Modify the plan to permit all or a Include both market -rate and The applicant Recommends mixed use at and Commercial: No portion of the affordable housing affordable housing units as part of supports the neighborhood center mixed -use development is requirement be satisfied as a a mixed -use (horizontal and /or reducing mixed with some of the required proposed. mixed -use component within the vertical) development in PA -50. us in PA -50 and affordable housing shifted to Neighborhood Center PA -50. Reduce the size of the commercial reducing the this site, allowance for component to allow for housing on neighborhood market -rate housing, and the this site. Possibly increase the size commercial from commercial component of PA -50 with a reduction to the 70,000 sq ft to reduced to 45,000 sq. ft. size of PA -31 to accommodate a 45,000 sq ft. The mixed -use development. applicant does not support reducing the size of PA -31. The applicant does not support market rate mixed use residential. - 3 - O 0 C 0 No. Applicant Staff Planning; Commission Issue /Project Proposal Option Recommendation Discussion Recommendations 13 Public /Quasi - Public Uses Designate PA -9 for Public /Quasi- Provide several locations, possibly The applicant Recommends mixed use at on PA -9: The Specific Public Uses. both on and off the project site for seeks to work the neighborhood center Plan now locates 150 the provision of affordable housing with the city to with some of the required affordable housing units units mixed with market -rate units develop an affordable housing shifted to on PA -9. to avoid a concentration of affordable this site. affordable units in a single location. housing plan and resolve related land use and intensity issues. (relates to items 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22 and 23 ) . 14 Night Lighting at the Prohibit night lighting at the park Eliminate any exhibits or The applicant Supports staff Community Park (PA -10): (PA -10). references to this site as a Youth supports the staff recommendation. The DEIR analyzed the Sports Park. Designate the site a recommendation. impacts of night lighting of Community Park and follow the the park. normal City process of park and facility design through recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission and approval by the City Council. 15 Nature Preserve Enact a condition to require the Mitigation in the Revised Draft EIR The applicant Supports staff Maintenance Fundinq establishment of an ongoing provides that a non - wasting supports the staff recommendation and funding program for the endowment or landscape recommendation recommends that maintenance of the preserve in management district be established and indicated interpretive center be the amount requested by SMMC. to provide for ongoing management that Interpretive identified in Specific Plan costs of the Nature Preserve. Facilities would be proposed as part of the management plan. 16 Groundwater Recharge Remove development from the Remove development from the Agreement. Supports staff Outcrop: The Specific outcrop and relocate 33 outcrop and relocate 33 residential recommendation. Plan development residential lots into PA 31. lots into PA 31. footprint encroaches into about 15 acres of the Fox Canyon Outcrop. 17 Street Widths: The Modify the plan to apply narrower Leave the Street Standards as Supports staff proposed Specific Plan streets standards. shown in the Specific Plan and recommendation. applies County Road consistent with the City of Standards. Moorpark adopted standards. - 4 - O 0 CA N No. Applicant I Staff Planning Commission Issue/Project Proposal O" tion Recommendation Discussion Recommendations 18 Moorpark College Road Modify Moorpark College Road Modify Moorpark College Road to Agreement. Supports staff Design: The proposed to become a four -lane collector become a four -lane collector with a recommendation. Specific Plan establishes with a 13 -foot wide median. 14 -foot wide median. Moorpark College Road as four -lane collector without a median. 19 Architectural Style: The Modify the Specific Plan to delete Add a ranch home as an The applicant Supports staff proposed Specific Plan the 'Italianate House" style and architectural style. supports the recommendation. identifies a series of add a ranch -style theme. Staff architectural styles, Recommendatio generally categorized as n. "California Heritage ", including 'Italianate House" style but not including a ranch -style theme. 20 Guarantee Lake Impose a requirement that as a Impose a requirement that as a The applicant Supports staff Maintenance and Access: conditional of approval the conditional of approval the project's supports the recommendation. The proposed Specific project's CC &Rs provide that the CC &Rs provide that the Staff Plan identifies states that Homeowner's Association Homeowner's Association maintain Recommendatio the proposed lake will be maintain the lake to prescribed the lake to City of Moorpark n. accessible to the public. standards, and be obligated to prescribed standards, and be continue public access to the obligated to continue public access lake; and that these restrictions to the lake; and that these cannot be modified without a restrictions cannot be modified unanimous vote of all members without a unanimous vote of all of the Homeowners Association. members of the Homeowners Additionally, require the applicant Association and approval of the to provide an easement be City of Moorpark. Additionally, granted to the City assuring require the applicant to provide an public access to the lake. easement be granted to the City assuring continuous public access to the lake. 21 Collins Road Impose a requirement that as a Include the improvement of the The applicant Supports staff Improvements: The conditional of approval of the Collins Road /SR -118 and Campus supports the recommendation, however, proposed Specific Plan project's the applicant Park intersection as part of the Staff would like to see requires that the applicant immediately and diligently pursue Specific Plan, with timing for Recommendatio Development Agreement complete the Collins Road the Collins Road improvements improvements to be completed n. provide assurances that improvements prior to the upon project approval by the prior to the issuance of any improvements will be issuance of the first electorate and annexation of construction permits. installed quickly. building permit. North Park Village into the City. - 5 - 0 cn No. - Applicant ' Staff Planning 'Commission Issue/Project Proposal O" tion Recommendation Discussion Recommendations 22 Densi : The proposed Provide for a greater variety of Other than re- Recommends option to Specific Plan contains residential densities, with the locating units either increase density 1,500 single - family highest densities around the lake from the outcrop around lake, or decrease lot detached home sites and commercial center. Any area to PA -31, width for more lakefront generally on larger lots. increase in overall density of the the applicant houses. development area should result in opposes any an increase in the size of the increases in nature preserve. density. 23 School /Community Park Switch the locations of PA -10 The applicant Combine planning areas for Locations: The proposed (Community Park) with PA -21 opposes the school site and the Specific Plan places the (School) to allow for a road switching the community park site in the school site adjacent to the undercrossing or overcrossing Community Park Specific Plan, so that the town center and the between the 29.1 acre Community and School sites. locations could be resolved community park near the Park and Lakefront Park if desired later. community college. by the City. (1/6/04 Staff Report Recommendation D) 24 Park Detail: The proposed Delete schematic diagrams and The applicant Recommends that details on Specific Plan contains discussion of improvements or supports the staff the physical design and conceptual plans for the programming of public parks. recommendation. intended uses of the park be park sites Parks should be referred to by developed through the names designated in the Open normal park design process Space, Conservation, and before the project is Recreation Element based on their submitted to Moorpark size and service area. The design voters. and programming of public parks should take place through the established City practice. The Specific Plan should identify appropriate funding mechanisms for park improvement and maintenance. 25 Campus Road /Campus Provide a full -time road connection The applicant Recommends that the Park Drive Extension: The to the site (in addition to Collins opposes Campus Park Drive access proposed Specific Plan Drive) either through the conversion of to the site be used for anticipates that primary conversion of Campus Road to a Campus Road to construction vehicle access access to the Phase A of public street or through the a public street or and that a permanent the community would be extension of Campus Park Drive. extending emergency access road be on Collins Drive. Campus Park developed as part of the Drive. project from Campus Park Drive. - 6 - C C C�1 No. Issue /Project Proposal Applicant O' tion staff Recommendation Discussion Planning Commission Recommendations 26 Transit Stop: The Include language in the Specific The applicant Supports staff proposed Specific Plan Plan that transit stop locations shall supports the staff recommendation. does not identify a precise be provided for the commercial recommendation. location for a public transit center and Community Park, if stop. desired by the City. 27 Road Connection at Add a road connection at the Western Property Line: western property line for The proposed Specific potential future use. Plan does not include any road connections to the west. - 7 -