Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2022 0706 CCSA REG ITEM 11A SUPPLEMENTALMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Doug Spondello, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director DATE: 07/06/2022 Regular Meeting SUBJECT: Consider Second Reading of Ordinance No. 502, Approving Zone Change No. 2019-01 and Development Agreement No. 2019-01 for the Proposed Tract, Master Planning and Development of 755 Residential Units, Approximately 29 Acres of Open Space, a 7-Acre Public Park and 7-Acre Passive Park, as well as Roadways, Stormwater and Detention Facilities, and Associated Improvements on 277 Acres of Property Generally Located North of Poindexter Avenue, West of Casey Road, and Extending Approximately 1,700 feet West of Gabbert Road on the Application of Harriet Rapista on Behalf of Comstock Homes CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED Subsequent to the publication of the agenda, the attached correspondence was received for the City Council. Attachment: Correspondence (2) dated July 6, 2022 Item: 11.A. SUPPLEMENTAL 1 Roseann Mikos, Ph.D. 14371 E. Cambridge Street  Moorpark, CA 93021  805-529-4828 or 805-878-3300 July 6, 2022 Honorable City Council and Planning Commission City Manager, Troy Brown Doug Spondello, Deputy Community Development Director and other relevant staff Consultants/applicant(s) re: the Hitch Ranch proposed entitlements and its documentation City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Follow-up Comments on Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements that were the subject of the May 24, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting held on June 15, 2022, for consideration at 2nd Reading on July 6, 2022 Ladies and Gentlemen, Upon reflecting on your discussion and votes on June 15, 2022 about the above referenced project, I was clearly disappointed that you did not debate the issues any further than you did and chose to vote on everything in one night. Many of the items I brought up in my 9-page letter to you, you did not address or even discuss to say why you decided to ignore my comments. I will speak to some of those now since you had the chance if you had passed the development agreement “subject to final language of the city manager and city attorney” HOWEVER I did not see that you used such language in the approval language, which if had been used, would allow some corrections at 2 nd reading, if there were mistakes in some language, as I pointed out there were. In fact, the various attachments are hard to find since they are not identified by name in the downloadable links. In the future, it would be more wise to not just say “1 of 6,” “2 of 6” etc. but to include which docs are in which downloadable link online to make it easier for the public to find the right document to review, when they want to see a certain document. Contribution to Gabbert Railroad Crossing Imrovements. While the developer, that night on June 15th (during a break, per City Manager’s comments that night) offered to pay $500,000 toward improving the Gabbert Railroad crossing, some day, after 200 homes are built, this kind of negotiation about a “fair share” amount should not have happened in the thick of the public hearing. It should have happened between June 15 and July 6 so that a carefully thought out negotiation about what IS a “fair share” could have been analyzed and negotiated, rather than accepting was seemed like the first offer. I take issue with the statements that railroad improvements will only cost $1M-2M. It seems more likely that it could be closer to $5M (or more) based on comments made years ago before there was a more clear Hitch Ranch project to consider like there is now. While I agree that something is better than nothing, I do not think that this amount will move the improvements to that crossing any closer, because it is not enough money. HOWEVER, There is another way to get more money: Why build two full lanes on each side of the North Hills Parkway (for four travel lanes) at the beginning of the project when it was stated that there was not enough traffic to fix the RR crossing? Well if there is not enough traffic to fix the RR crossing, then there is not enough traffic to need the full four lanes on North Hills Parkway either, at least, not at THIS time. You could only grade and improve one lane in each direction (keeping the full right of way for future Caltrans work to do more lanes if the road ever goes anywhere other than from Spring Rd or Walnut Canyon Road to Gabbert. The city will have to maintain four lanes instead of ATTACHMENT 2 To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and Consultants Page 2 of 4 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: July 3, 2022 RE: Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements: Concerns and Suggestions for your Deliberation two when the money saved if only two were initially built, could be directed to improving the RR crossing, which is acknowledged to be dangerous. See the attached chart showing comparing dwelling units for the approximate numbers that would use North Hills Parkway vs that use Tierra Rejada Road (a road that actually goes somewhere). You will see that 5277 dwelling units have reason to use Tierra Rejada Rd regularly. But for North Hills Parkway, only 2989 have reason to use it regularly. This is a little over half of what uses Tierra Rejada Rd. Hence, it would seem that consideration for building only one lane in each direction should have been at least considered (of course keeping the dedication of ROW as large as you now have….just not building so many lanes at the “get-go.” Since the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) did not even discuss road circulation at all until AFTER the city council’s June 15th meeting (on June 23rd), this begs the question of WHY did they not discuss this road and what size it ought to be BEFORE the city council voted? That makes no sense. Nevertheless, one wonders who did have discussions about how many lanes to build upfront or to wait till later and let Caltrans build other ones? Will there be a chance to revisit this discussion at all if you see some value in redirecting some of the funds from probably too wide a road for now, so that the RR crossing might have more chance to be made safer sooner? While I have no illusions that you might consider this, you could, if you wanted to. Development Agreement Discrepancies and Suggested Revisions for Clarity In my June 11, 2022 letter to the City Council, I identified section 6.3 (Traffic Mitigation Requirements), section 6.8 (Arroyo Vista Park Improvements/Park Fees), section 6.10 (Art in Public Places Fee), Sectio 6.14 (Densities Allowed for Development oand Affordable Housing) and Section 6.15 (Conveyance of City Site to City) as all having some confusing and perhaps conflicting provisions that would have benefited from edits as I had suggested. With the exception of of adding only the extra $500K toward the rail road crossing improvements, none of the others were addressed at the meeting OR appear to have changed at all in the Development Agreement shown in the July 6th agenda report. Many could have been fixed if you had wanted to make things clearer. Or, if you thought they all had no merit, I would have expected that someone would have tried to discuss at least briefly to explain why the suggestions had no merit. I am not suggesting that every one of my suggested edits had to be made, but I would have expected that they would have been more openly considered. They appear not to have been considered at all. Inconsistent References to Park A and Park B On page 8 of 9 in my June 11 letter, this was mentioned and I see no adjustments to clarify what to me was unclear, per my comments. And there was not discussion of any of this at the June 15 th meeting. Native Plants vs. Invasive Plants. As I mentioned on page 8-9 of my June 11, 2022 letter, there is a serious discrepancy between the guidelines on prohibited plants noted by the fire department in the documentation provided for the proposed Hitch Ranch project vs. in the city’s own landscape guidelines; and, in the California Native Plant websites recommended by the Water Agencies who have paid rebates to residents and businesses throughout the region to eliminate water-hogging turf (grass) in favor of drought tolerant Native CA Plant gardens in their yards or properties instead, using low water drip irrigation systems. 3 To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and Consultants Page 3 of 4 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: July 3, 2022 RE: Proposed Hitch Ranch Entitlements: Concerns and Suggestions for your Deliberation If you were not going to try to get that fixed now, you still could have acknowledged the problem and directed staff to work on this in the future so that we eventually have guidelines that allow us to save water AND to help prevent fire. It IS possible to safely do both and we have to work together to find out how, rather than forever prohibiting native plants that are largely more helpful, than they are harmful, if done in a carefully planned way. I presented more detail on this in my June 11th letter but it is going to be a serious problem in the future without fixing those fire department guidelines so that there is not so much conflicting information that will cause the destruction of habitat that would be unwarranted. I hope you will address this somehow. Next Steps If you agree that at least for the Development Agreement, more edits should be made for clarity in the areas I named, or other areas the city council or staff might notice, you could direct staff to make those edits and come back with the clarifications at a future meeting. You are not obligated to vote YES for 2nd reading on July 6th. You might have to renotice a first reading and then another second reading but you could clear up some of the confusion if you chose to do so. Perhaps Staff has a suggestion on how to efficiently do that, at least in some instances. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Roseann Mikos, Ph.D. Former Moorpark City Councilmember Enclosures (1): (Comparing Dwelling Units to use North Hills Parkway vs. Tierra Rejada Rd) 4 Comparing # of Dwelling Units to use North Hills Parkway vs. Tierra Rejada Rd. Location Estimated # units Location Estimated # units South Side of Town (that likely to use TR Rd) North Side of Town (that likely to use NrtHills Pkwy) All Mountain Meadows homes and condos (~2500)2500 Basic Hitch Ranch Project 755 Peach Hill/Steeple Hill etc. (~2100 - the 534 serenata homes)1566 Donation Parcel next to Hitch for affordable 468 Serenata 534 Gabbert Canyon homes (approx)45 Old Buttercreek and some newer homes next to it but all west of TR and north of Arroyo (~220+90); counted 311 on map so ok 310 North Ranch/Rasmussen/ Moorpark 67 139 Mira Sol (~24) &Maureen Lane (~28)52 Meridian Hills 248 Heather Glen 191 Affordables by Walnut Cyn Rd done as part of Meridian Hills 18 Probably Beltramo Rnch (proposed)47 walnut canyon older homes only counting relatively small lots on map)55 Oakmont Senior Living (skewed # units since elderly not with many cars????)77 rural property by Peters and behind the above, etc ? Moorpark Highlands Proper (450+102)552 Not sure Pacific Communities will use TRR as much as LA and Fwy? Should we include here? (I think not.) Added houses on defunct school site in MPH 128 Canyon Crest 21 City Ventures (Vistas)110 Everett St. Terraces 60 Mansi/Aldersgate (skewed # units since elderly not with many cars???)390 A/B Properties Industrial (17 lots not know about cars; approved in late 1990's with little or no action since ??? 5277 2989 5277 is ___times bigger than 2989? 1.77 0.566420315 (almost twice as big)It is about 50% the number of TR units for NHP side NOTE: NHP doesn't really go anywhere, as compared to TR Rd that takes you to 23 Fwy, SV, and LA ave. Caltrans by prohibiting a reasonable Princeton link, kaboshed that. I 5 Mayor Parvin and Councilmen: Castro, Enegren, Groff, and Pollock: I am disappointed and concerned to see that the Development Agreement shows no changes to the intersection of the North Hills Parkway with Gabbert Road nor describes how the bottleneck with the narrow 2 lane road crossing the railroad track will be mitigated. The only reference to any proposed mitigation is a mention of a $500,000 contribution after inspection of the 200 th dwelling unit. Since the North Hills Parkway is still shown flowing, unfettered by any signal light, onto Gabbert, I fear the present residents will unlikely be able to evacuate in a timely manner when the need arises. The documents included in your Preferred General Plan 2050 clearly state what is very likely to occur with the climate changes predicted for this area. The Santa Ana Winds, the major driver of wildfires in our area, will increase in both velocity and frequency of occurrence. We will, overall, have less rainfall and experience higher day and night temperatures. This leads to a prediction of more frequent and intense wildfires. The Fire Marshall stated the North Hills intersection with Gabbert gives the Gabbert Canyon residents more options. That is true on a good day, not necessarily true in an evacuation situation since most fires will be driven from the NE to the SW and other community residents will be evacuating to the SW as well. Defensible space is helpful but fire is capricious. Mr. Groff mentioned that Paradise homes with good defensible space didn’t burn. We had a redwood lawn chair in our yard next to trees that totally burned and it still remained untouched by fire. A can of gasoline, used for our brush cutting equipment did not burn while the adjacent equipment did. The “Railroad”, according to Mr. Brown and the traffic consultant, did not flag the intersection as needing improvement. AT&T technicians have told me they can’t even get permission to run new lines under the tracks. I don’t really think the railroad is concerned with anything other than their tracks and equipment. Does that mean there really is no fix to this problem? Gabbert Canyon currently has approximately 45 vulnerable residences. In addition, we have several large horse boarding operations, a tenant with horse-roping competitions (I counted 35 trucks and trailers at one event), a Chabad with regular weekly community meetings and a summer day camp with up to 75 campers, all adding a significant amount of traffic, especially in the event of a needed evacuation. I doubt the VMTs included those statistics. I fear that the safety of the Gabbert Canyon residents and those using the area due to permitted uses will be in extreme jeopardy unless the fix to the North Hills Parkway- Gabbert- Railroad crossing intersection is spelled out before the agreement with the developer is finalized since what is in the agreement appears to be “in concrete”. If the City of Moorpark is choosing to fix this intersection with capital improvement funds, the changes should have been clearly shown in the circulation portion of the agreement. Doris Miller 6395 Gabbert Rd., Moorpark 6