HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2004 0721 CC REG ITEM 08AITEM $. A.
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
Of
ACTION:
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL ��i ✓� �4t.,,,„� 9�SaA7s�
AGENDA REPORT BY:��
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Man er
DATE: July 7, 2004 (CC Meeting of 07/21/2004)
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 -1251 -135, -
145, -155, -1651 -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -2251, -
235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
145, -1951, -215, -225; 615 -0- 110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
185)
BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2004, after hearing testimony and asking a number of
questions, the City Council continued the North Park Village
Specific Plan item with the hearing open to July 21, 2004. This
continuance is consistent with the tentative review schedule set
on May 19, 2004. The July 21, 2004, Council meeting was set for
review of traffic, public facilities and services, and other EIR
topics not specifically identified for discussion at other
meetings.
DISCUSSION
Responses to Questions
Project Description
1. Does the project comply with the City's Hillside
Management Ordinance, and if it doesn't, is there a
project that could be designed without violating the
hillside ordinance? - The Hillside Management Ordinance
000001
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 2
(Chapter 17.38 of the Municipal Code) defines hillside
areas as areas with a twenty percent (200) or greater
slope. The main restriction of the Hillside Management
Ordinance is the placement of open space dedication
requirements on hillside areas. Development of areas from
twenty percent (200) to thirty -five percent (350) slope
requires dedication of thirty -five percent (350) of the
land in that slope range as open space. Development of
areas between thirty -five percent (350) and fifty percent
(500) slope requires dedication of fifty percent (500) of
the land in that slope range as open space. Development
of land exceeding fifty percent (500) slope is restricted
to isolated peninsula- shaped fingers, small ravines or
drainage courses not shown on the U. S. G. S. maps and not a
significant biological area, and road construction on
isolated landforms. The Hillside Management Ordinance
allows an exemption from its provisions for properties
having development agreements that specifically exempt
them.
The North Park Specific Plan shows sufficient land
dedication in for the slopes below fifty percent (500).
However, the plan is not consistent with the restrictions
of the Hillside Management Ordinance that prohibit grading
or construction on portions of the site with 50a or
greater slopes, with limited exceptions as stated above.
Original plans submitted by the applicant indicate that of
approximately 1,148 acres of the property in the proposed
Specific Plan area exceeding 50o slope, 195.6 acres, or
17.0 %, would be graded. More recent plans show the
affected area of land over fifty percent (500) slope at
188.9 acres. A slope analysis exhibit, transmitted under
separate cover, shows the areas within the proposed
development footprint that exceed a fifty percent (500)
slope. The applicant is seeking a Development Agreement
for this project that would exempt it from the Hillside
Management Ordinance provisions.
Community Development staff finds that the approach
proposed to developing the North Park site, although not
complying with the Hillside Management Ordinance, is
sensitive to its natural features by preserving the most
visually prominent features on the site as Nature
Preserve. An alternative development scheme could be
developed that focuses design efforts on reducing grading
000002
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 3
in areas exceeding fifty percent (500) slope. However, it
could have greater visual impacts than the proposed
project, since much of the highly visible land north of
the current proposed development footprint is less than
fifty percent (500) slope.
2. Would the lake be drained as part of its maintenance? -
According to J. Harlan Glenn, author of the Lake
Management Plan for the North Park Specific Plan, none of
the freshwater lakes that he has been involved with in
creating management plans (dating to the 1970's) have
required periodic partial draining to reduce salts or
other contaminants. The salts that enter the water basin
through the tap water tend to be diluted by percolation
through the clay liner and by rain water. Although the
salts in the lake water increase above initial levels, his
experience is that they tend to stabilize at a level that
is not harmful to the ecosystem created in the lake,
between one and one -half (1-�) and two (2) times initial
levels.
3. How does the proposed shopping center compare in size to
other shopping centers in the City? - The following table
compares the size of the proposed 45,000 square -foot North
Park neighborhood shopping center with existing and
approved shopping centers in Moorpark.
SHOPPING CENTER NAME
ADDRESS
YR
BLT
SIZE
(SQ FT)
Varsity Park Plaza (Handiest Food Mart, et al.)
6251 Princeton Ave.
1980
22,000
Mission Bell Plaza (Albertson's, Mavericks et al.)
397 W. Los Angeles Ave.
1995
265,000
Moorpark Town Center (Ralph's, Longs, et al.)
5 W. Los Angeles Ave.
1985
141,000
LA Spring Shopping Ctr. (Blockbuster, McDonald s)
501 New L. A. Ave.
1997
32,000*
Village Retail Auto Ctr. (Goodwill, Transition et al.)
476 W. Los Angeles Ave.
1988
27,000
Park Lane Plaza (Ameci Pizza, Pollo Charro, et al.)
300 W. Los Angeles Ave.
1986
9,000
Gateway Plaza (Troop R.E., Two Guys, et al.)
484 E. Los Angeles Ave.
1989
28,000
Moorpark Plaza (Wood Ranch, 7/11, et al.)
Moorpark Marketplace (Target, Kohl's, et al.)
Mountain Meadows Plaza (Von's, et al.)
Rite Aid and Kindercare
Campus Plaza (approved)
* Inrluriac 77 nnn 4:-
510 New L. A. Ave.
800 New L. A. Ave.
4241 Tierra Rejada Rd.
3941 Spring Road
Campus Park @ Collins
1986
2003
1996
1998
n
60,000
357,000 **
122,000 **
28,000
72,000 * **
r ,3LIucu )fI uy vreeneway uevelopment.
** Not all entitled space has been constructed.
* ** Approved, not built or under construction.
000003
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 4
4. What kind of development proposal might be anticipated
west of the project site if this project is approved? - No
application has been submitted to the City for development
on the land west of the North Park project site. It would
be speculative to assume any development beyond the
existing open space and agricultural zoning that the
County has established for this property. However, since
the North Park project is smaller in land area that the
previous Hidden Creek project, development of 790 acres to
the west of the project site that was in the Hidden Creek
proposal but is not in the North Park proposal is shown
below as if development on this property were proposed at
the same density of the North Park project. As seen in
the table, such a project would contain approximately 334
market -rate homes and 33 affordable homes.
FLAND USES
NORTH PARK
ACREAGE
% OF NPV
LAND
WEST AREA
ACREAGE
Total
3,544
100%
790.0
Nature Preserve
2,121
60%
472.8
Open Space
436
12%
97.2
Parks and Lake
132
4%
29.4
Residential
740
21%
165.0
NORTH PARK
UNITS
UNITS /AC
WEST AREA
UNITS
Total
1,650
367
Market -Rate
1,500
2.03
334
Affordable
150
33
It should be noted that the 790 acres is comprised on 15
separate legal parcels, held by at least 10 different
owners. Comprehensive planning of the entire 790 acre
would require the cooperation and consensus of all the
owners. In addition, the 790 -acre area contains 146.9
acres of designated Prime Farmland, 18.6 acres of Farmland
of Statewide Importance, and 175.2 acres of Unique
Farmlands. This large amount of quality farmland would be
a consideration in any future planning of this area, as a
General Plan Land Use Element policy calls for the
preservation of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide
Importance.
000004
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 5
Traffic
5. What plans were developed by Caltrans in the past for an
interchange at the location proposed by North Park? -
Attached under separate cover is an excerpt of a State
Route 118 freeway agreement between Caltrans and the
County of Ventura dated 1971 showing a "Lagoon Road"
interchange at the same location of the interchange
proposed by North Park. Caltrans has already acquired all
the property needed for the construction of an
interchange. The access road from the interchange to the
project site, however, is proposed primarily on property
owned by Unocal.
6. What subsequent environmental document would be required
by Caltrans for the interchange? - The North Park Specific
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as a Program EIR
(further discussed in answer to Question No. 14),
evaluated the impacts of the construction of the
interchange to the extent known at this time. Caltrans
would use the North Park Specific Plan EIR in its
assessment of a more detailed design of the interchange.
Caltrans would only need to conduct further analysis on
those aspects of the interchange project not known and
addressed in this Program EIR. The subsequent document
could range from an Addendum (which is prepared for minor
amendments to an EIR when no new impacts are discovered)
to a Subsequent EIR (which is prepared when new impacts
not addressed in the Program EIR are expected).
7. How could regional traffic concerns be solved as part of
this project? - The findings of the supplemental freeway
analysis (Chapter 3.3b of the Revised Draft EIR) indicate
that the project will significantly impact the SR -23 and
SR -118 Freeways in the vicinity of the project site. The
1,650 residential dwelling units proposed in North Park
Village constitute five percent of the approximately
32,800 future dwelling units planned in Moorpark, Simi
Valley and Thousand Oaks, and the 45,000 square feet of
retail development proposed in North Park Village
constitute less than one percent of the approximately 6.5
million square feet of future retail development planned
in the three city area. Approximately 27.3 million square
0®®®x)5
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 6
feet of future office /industrial development is also
planned in the three city area.
The impacts of the project on the SR -23 Freeway can be
mitigated by the SR -23 freeway widening project that is
currently listed as Project #1 in the Ventura County
Transportation Commission (VCTC) Recommended Priority
Project List for the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) . Timing is uncertain given current State
cash -flow and budgetary considerations. The estimated
earliest /latest start of construction is 2006/2009.
The impacts of the project on the SR -118 Freeway are
forecast to be significant and unavoidable with or without
the SR -118 freeway widening projects that are currently
listed in the VCTC Recommended Priority Project List for
the STIP. Timing for the SR -118 improvements is uncertain
given current State cash -flow and budgetary
considerations. The widening of the SR -118 Freeway from
the Los Angeles County Line to Tapo Canyon Road is listed
as Project #2 on the VCTC Recommended Priority Project
List, and the estimated earliest /latest start of
construction for that project is 2008/2018. The widening
of the SR -118 Freeway from the Tapo Canyon Road to New Los
Angeles Avenue is listed as Project #4 on the VCTC
Recommended Priority Project List, and the estimated
earliest /latest start of construction for that project is
2021/2040. Implementation of project mitigation measures
beyond the freeway improvements already planned is beyond
the ability of any individual development project.
8. When was local traffic counted, and was it before or after
the ramp metering lights were installed? - A citywide
traffic count collection program was conducted for use in
the traffic model update and in the project traffic
analysis over a three -week period in late May 2002 through
early June 2002. During that period, counts were
collected only from Tuesday through Thursday (i.e., May 21
through May 23, May 28 through May 30, and June 4 through
June 7. Because Moorpark College had completed its Spring
session before these dates, the count data collected at
that time for roadways in close proximity to the college
was not applied in the traffic model or the project
traffic analysis and is considered informational only. A
supplemental count program was conducted for roadways and
intersections in close proximity to the college shortly
000006
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 7
after the opening of the Moorpark College Fall session.
That count program was conducted over a two -week period in
early September 2002, also with counts being collected
only from Tuesday through Thursday (i.e., September 10
through September 12, and September 17 through September
19). The September 2002 counts were applied in the
existing conditions section of the project traffic
analysis and also in the traffic model update.
The counts were collected before any ramp meters were
installed at the Princeton Avenue and Collins Drive
interchanges at SR -118. The analysis of existing traffic
conditions at the freeway ramps, which is based on the
traffic counts, therefore did not assume ramp metering.
Ramp metering was however assumed in the analysis of
future short -range (2007) and long -range (2025) traffic
conditions.
9• What improvements to the Collins Drive /Campus Park
Drive /SR -118 Interchange will be made by the Campus Plaza
developers, and what improvements will be made by the
North Park developers? - The improvements that are
proposed to be constructed as part of the North Park
Village project are as follows. A map showing the
improvements is attached under separate cover.
Collins Drive /Campus Park Road Intersection:
Convert northbound right -turn lane to a free right -turn
lane.
Add second westbound left -turn lane.
Convert second eastbound through lane to an eastbound
right -turn lane.
Modify traffic signal to provide eastbound right -turn
green -arrow overlap with the adjacent northbound left -turn
movement.
Collins Drive /SR -118 Westbound Ramp Intersection:
Convert westbound right -turn lane to a free right -turn
lane.
Collins Drive /SR -118 Eastbound Ramp - Los Angeles Avenue
Intersection:
Signalize.
Convert westbound through lane to shared through /second
right -turn lane.
000007
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 8
The Campus Plaza developers are responsible for
installation of a raised median on Collins Drive to
prevent left turns into the center and for restriping
westbound Campus Park Drive to provide for two left turn
lanes at Collins Drive.
Other Issues
10. Who would pay for the observatory relocation? - The
applicant has offered to pay for the full cost of the
Moorpark College Observatory relocation.
11. How would the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the new fire station be funded? - According to the VCFPD,
two main funding sources exist for the district. One is a
fire protection facilities fee for capital improvements,
and the other is the collection of a portion of the
County's property tax mostly used for ongoing operations.
The fire protection facilities fee currently is $232.51
per single - family dwelling, $170.95 for multiple - family
dwelling, and $0.11 per square foot of commercial uses.
This fee is collected by the City of Moorpark at building
permit issuance. This fee goes directly to the VCFPD, and
is put into a trust account to be used for capital
improvement projects in the East County (East of
Camarillo). Recently the fund money was used to construct
the fire station on High Street in Moorpark. The next
capital improvement project is marked for the construction
of a fire station in the vicinity of the east end of
Moorpark. North Park Village would generate $379,358.00
under the current fees from its residences and the
commercial center. It is estimated that construction of a
3- person fire station is $3 million. The construction
cost of the new Station 42 on High Street was
approximately $2.3 million. A number of other residential
and commercial development projects will be contributing
to this fund.
The Ventura County Fire Protection District receives 15.1
percent of the one percent property tax for ongoing
operations. This money is used district -wide for
equipment and operations. If the average home at North
Park is assessed on a $750,000 value, North Park Village
will generate approximately $1,868,625 per year in
property taxes specifically for the Fire Protection
District. This does not include property tax revenue from
the commercial center. The VCFPD has reported that a
000008
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 9
typical 3- person engine fire station costs approximately
$1,700,000 to $1,800,000 per year to operate.
12. How would library services be impacted? - The project will
generate an incremental demand for library services that
would be funded by additional revenues. Library services,
like fire protection are funded by two sources: Library
facilities fees for capital improvements and books and
property taxes for ongoing operations. Library facilities
fees generated by the issuance of building permits for the
North Park project would provide approximately $1.49
million at current rates. Annual property tax revenues
for library services, based on an average assessed
valuation of $750,000 per unit, would be approximately
$207,000, not including property tax revenue from the
commercial center.
Review Process
13. Please provide a table
the
showing the approvals required and
agencies /decision - making bodies
involved. - The
following
table has
been prepared
to show the main
approvals required, decision
making bodies, and timing.
PERMIT
AGENCY
DECISION-
TIMING
MAKING BODY
Certification of Final EIR
City of Moorpark
City Council
After Closing of
General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan Adoption,
City of Moorpark
City Council*
Hearing
After Certification o JFinal
Pre - zoning, Pre -
EIR
Annexation Development
Agreement, Placing of
CURB Amendment (or
Alternative) on Ballot
CURB Amendment
-
Moorpark Electorate
After Decision to Place
Request to Update Sphere
of Influence (Sol)
City of Moorpark
City Council
on Ballot
After Affirmative Vote is
and
Application for Municipal
Cast
Reorganization
Update of SOI and
Municipal Reorganization
Ventura County Local LAFCO Board
Agency Formation
After receiving request
Commission
from City of Moorpark
( LAFCO)
000009
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 10
F PERMIT
AGENCY
DECISION-
TIMING
(CONTINUED)
MAKING BODY
Subdivision and City of Moorpark
Residential Planned
City Council
After annexation is
Development Permits
approved
Stormwater Permit Regional Water
(NPDES)
Authorized Staff
Prior to issuance of a
Quality Control Board
Grading Permit
State Wetlands Permit CA Department of
Authorized Staff
Prior to issuance of a
Fish and Game
Grading Permit
Waters of the S Permit US Army Corps of
Authorized Staff
Prior to issuance of a
Engineers
Grading Permit
Endangered Species Act US Dep't of Interior,
Incidental Take Permit Fish
Authorized Staff
Prior to issuance of a
and Wildlife
(Potentially Needed) Service
Grading Permit
Grading Permit (Phase A) City of Moorpark
City Engineer
After obtaining all
Building Permits (Phase A) City of Moorpark
Building Official
necessary permits above
After completion of
grading for Phase A
Freeway Interchange Caltrans
District Head
After completion of any
necessary environmental
documentation
Grading Permits (Phases City of Moorpark
B &C)
City Engineer
After freeway interchange
is approved, funded, 50%
complete, and not more
than
12 months from
completion
Building Permits (Phases City of Moorpark
B &C)
Building Official
After completion of
The Citv Cnunnil max/ ci ihmit _ —IF;
freeway
interchange
taking a vote itself other than to refer the decisions to the electorate1f1e ivioorparK tiectorate without
14. What is a Program EIR as opposed to other kinds of EIRs? —
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines a
Program EIR as now which may be prepared on a series of
actions that can be characterized as one large project and
are related either geographically, as logical parts in a
chain of contemplated actions, in connection with issuance
of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to
govern the conduct of a continuing program, or as
individual activities carried out under the same
authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having
generally similar environmental effects which can be
mitigated in similar ways. Given the size, timeframe, and
number and type of permits required for the North Park
000010
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 11
Specific Plan, staff found that the Program EIR would be
the proper approach to address this proposed Specific
Plan. Like all other kinds of EIRs, Program EIRs must
meet the content requirements prescribed in Article 9 of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
As a Program EIR, the North Park Specific Plan EIR is
intended to serve as the primary environmental document
for all future entitlements associated with the proposed
project, including all discretionary approvals requested
or required to implement the project by the City as well
as by other agencies. A Certified Final Program EIR is
like a Project EIR in that the City and other agencies can
approve subsequent project actions without additional
environmental documentation unless otherwise required by
CEQA. Subsequent activities with effects not examined in
the Program EIR would require the preparation of an
Initial Study to determine if an EIR or Negative
Declaration will be required. Pages 1 -1 and 1 -2 of the
Revised Draft EIR provide additional detail on the use of
a Program EIR.
15. Would there be an ability to reduce the scope of the
project through subsequent environmental review? - To the
extent that a new activity has effects not examined in the
Program EIR and requires additional environmental
documentation, the activity may be subject (by the City or
any other agency with discretionary authority) to further
mitigation that reduces the scope of the project.
Traffi c
Traffic concerns are discussed in Chapter 3.3 and 3.3b of the
Revised Draft EIR as well as in the comment letters and
responses to comments. Mr. Kendall Elmer from Austin Foust
Associates, preparer of the City's traffic model and the
analysis contained in the EIR, has been asked to present a
summary of this analysis at the City Council meeting on July 21,
2004.
Public Facilities and Services
Concerns related to Fire Protection, Law Enforcement, Water
Supply, Wastewater, Solid Waste Disposal, Energy, and Schools
are discussed in Chapter 3.10 of the Revised Draft EIR as well
as in the comment letters and responses to comments. The City
Council meeting of September 15, 2004 has been tentatively
scheduled for the discussion of Water Supply, among other
000011
Honorable City Council
July 21, 2004
Page 12
topics. In addition, Dr. Frank DePasquale, Superintendent of the
Moorpark Unified School District, has offered to attend the
September 15, 2004 City Council meeting to discuss school
issues.
Other EIR Topics
Other project concerns discussed in the EIR that have not been
tentatively scheduled for discussion at future City Council
meetings include:
• Land Use and Related Planning Programs (Chapter 3.1)
• Aesthetics and Visual Resources (Chapter 3.2)
• Air Quality (Chapter 3.4)
• Noise (Chapter 3.5)
• Geology and Soils (Chapter 3.7)
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources (Chapter 3.9)
• Public Health and Safety (Chapter 3.11)
• Alternatives
• Long Term Project Implications
Staff and the EIR Consultant will be present at the City Council
meetings to respond to any questions on the EIR topic areas.
September 15, 2004 Meeting
The tentative review schedule has called for the consideration
of biology, water supply, water quality, groundwater, and oil
well issues associated with the project. In addition, as noted
above, school issues will be addressed as the School
Superintendent is expected to be available to address the City
Council at that meeting.
STAFF RECOMMNDATION
Continue to take testimony in the open public hearing, and
continue the agenda item with the hearing open to September 15,
2004.
ATTACHMENTS (under separate cover)
1. Slope Analysis Exhibit
2. Freeway Agreement
3. Collins /Campus Park /SR -118 Interchange Improvements
000012