HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0122 CC SPC ITEM 06AMOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
. ,yCvunc;lM�._,.:�
°f 199-1
ACTION:
���X-
By
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development Kn.(-P'fig r
DATE: January 17, 1992 (CC meeting of 1/22/92) PS12�
SUBJECT: General Plan Update Land Use and Circulation Elements,
Sphere of Influence Expansion Study, and Environmental
Impact Report (GPA-89-1 and ZC-89-1)
I. Backaround
Over the past 3 months, the Planning Commission has held six (6)
public hearings to discuss the proposed Update to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements, Sphere of Influence Expansion Study, and
Environmental Impacts identified within the EIR.
Below is a list of public hearings conducted and a list of topics
which were discussed at the Commission's public hearings:
Meeting Date
Discussion:
November 4, 1991 Discussed the Update to Land Use and
Circulation Elements; Reviewed the EIR
impacts and Sphere of Influence Expansion
Study.
November 18, 1991 Meeting was primarily dedicated to public
testimony regarding the EIR, Update to
the Land Use and Circulation Elements and
Sphere of Influence Expansion Study.
November 21, 1991 Reviewed Specific Plan requests;
discussed development alternatives as
identified within the EIR; Circulation
levels of service; reviewed the
definition and exhibits of Ridgelines and
Valley Floor; Reviewed the documents to
insure consistency throughout each of the
elements.
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR.
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
The Honorable City Council
January 15, 1992
Page -2-
Meeting Date: Discussion:
November 25, 1991 Reviewed the Land Use Policies within the
document.
December 6, 1991 Reviewed Specific Plan requests; reviewed
Circulation Element Goals and Policies;
identified Circulation concerns; Reviewed
Bikeway and Equestrian Plan; Land Use
Concerns identified; reviewed
Compatibility matrix for consistency;
discussed alternatives to the Sphere of
Influence Expansion Study.
December 20, 1991 Consideration of the Sphere of Influence
Expansion Study; Circulation and Land Use
considerations; review of General Plan
Participants Land Use requests.
January 6, 1992
Approval of Resolution No. PC-92-253.
Throughout the public hearing process, public concerns have
centered around: The quality of life that Moorpark would like to
maintain; Existing traffic levels; infrastructure services; Land
Use density levels; and acceptable levels of growth.
Copies of all of the minutes from the Planning Commission meetings
are include within this Staff Report, seen as Attachment 1.
On January 6, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended
Certification of the EIR and that the City Council not consider the
inclusion of the Sphere of Influence Expansion Study Area as part
of this General Plan Update. The Planning Commission also made
specific recommendations related to the Land Use and Circulation
Elements and proposed Land Use changes for various properties
within the City (Attachment 2).
II. Discussion:
A. Environmental Impact Report:
Staff recommends that by the close of the January 22, 1992
public hearing, the City Council reach concurrence on
certification or revision of the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
Please note the following regarding the EIR Document:
CRL-01-15-92(2:55pm)a:\WP51\GPU-1-22.CC
The Honorable City Council
January 15, 1992
Page -3-
1. Land Use and Circulation amendment decisions will
be required to remain within the limits of the
basis of the EIR's evaluation. Should the Council
desire to consider Land Use or Circulation changes,
which were not analyzed within the EIR, additions
to the EIR would be required.
2. The certification of this EIR does not preclude the
need for further environmental analysis for
development entitlements on properties included in
the Update.
3. If the Council decides that the EIR has adequately
addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed
amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements
and an expansion of a Sphere of Influence boundary;
the Council should certify the EIR.
Comments Regarding the Environmental Impact Report:
a. The Council should carefully review all of the
mitigation measures proposed for "the project"
within the Environmental Impact Report.
b. Certification of the EIR will require
development of a methodology to implement the
required capital improvements as recommended
by the Circulation Element that are not the
total responsibility of fronting properties
subject to future development entitlements.
B. Land Use and Circulation Elements:
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
not consider the Sphere of Influence Expansion Study Area
a this time. Additionally, the Planning Commission made
recommendations to revise the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the Updated General Plan (Attachment 2).
1. Land Use:
The Planning Commission recommended the following land
use mix for the General Plan Participants listed below:
CRL-01-15-92(2:55pm)a:\WP5I\GPU-1-22.CC
The Honorable City Council
January 15, 1992
Page -4-
GP
Participant
(within existing
Current
Planning Commission
City limits)
Acreage
GP Zoning
Proposed GP Zoning
1.
Moorpark Unified 26.1
S
H, VH
School District
2.
Estes
34.53
AG1
H
3.
Guny
64.75
OS1
RL
4.
Kavli
29.93
RH
I-1
5.
Schleve
70.59
RL
RH, OS-2,
VH, Park, M
6.
A & A Dev. Co.
3.86
VH
C-2
7.
Scaroni
1.75
ML
C-2 (delete C-2 and
replace with H)
8.
JBR Dev. Co.
445.00
OS1, RL
ML, M, R, H,
C-1, P, OS, C-2
(removed RH,
added H and M)
9.
Levy Co.
285.00
AG1
C-2, M, P,
L, RH, H,
added VH
Staff's Comments
GP Participant: Comment:
1. Moorpark Unified a. Future traffic circulation impacts.
School District
b. Land Use changes may not be compatible
with and create interface problems
between existing land uses.
CRL-01-15-92(2:55pm)a:\WP51\GPU-1-22.CC
The Honorable City Council
January 15, 1992
Page -5-
2. Estes a. The proposed location for development
lacks integration with existing
developments, and is located away from
existing services.
b. Appears to be "spot" zoning.
C. The site has limited access potential.
3. Guny a. Changes in Land Use may cause land use
interface problems between adjacent
properties not currently changed by
the General Plan Action.
4. Kavli a. No current public access.
5. Schleve a. Potential traffic impacts related to
very high density designation adjacent
to Walnut Canyon Road.
b. As presently proposed, development of
this site would lead to spot zoning
and may create compatibility and
interface problems between existing
land uses.
6. A & A Dev. Co. a. None
7. Scaroni a. The proposed land use change for the
site appears to promote spot zoning.
b. Possibly precedent setting for the
area and adjacent property owners may
ask for a higher residential density.
8. JBR Dev. Co. a. Density of the development proposed
for this site may be unacceptable
based upon the terrain of the site.
b. Complete development of this site may
create traffic problems within the
immediate area (Campus Park Area).
9. Levy Co. a. The density proposed will require
significant traffic circulation
linkage which may be beyond the Scope
of the property owner to provide.
CRL-01-15-92(2:55pm)a:\WP5I\GPU-1-12.CC
The Honorable City Council
January 15, 1992
Page -6-
b. Density of development proposed for
this site may not be appropriate based
upon the terrain of the site.
C. Development of the site, as proposed,
may not be compatible with and create
interface problems between existing
land uses.
C. Circulation Element:
After review of the Circulation Element, the Planning Commission
had several concerns and recommendations regarding the following
matters (see Attachment 2a):
1. Concerns and questions regarding the equestrian trail
routes as to their practical function based upon
comments made at the public hearings.
2. The City needs to immediately begin a program to
support capital improvements as recommended within the
Circulation Element.
3. Because it is the Commission's recommendation to move
the Northern and Southern By-pass between the Bugle
Boy and Jemco properties, "B" Street should be
eliminated from the Circulation Element Plan, Figure
2.
4. The Northerly extension of Liberty Bell Road from Los
Angeles Avenue to Poindexter (Figure 2) should be
removed because of potential impacts to surrounding
land uses.
5. "D" Street should be extended from the 118-Fwy. to
Princeton, (as proposed by JBR Development Company).
6. Alamos Canyon should be eliminated on the Circulation
Element Highway Network, (Figure 2).
III. Summary:
A. State Law Requirements:
State Law requires that General Plans and Elements thereof must
be integrated, and internally consistent. After the adoption of
the Updated Land Use and Circulation Elements, revisions to the
remaining General Plan Elements, (Housing, Noise, Safety, and
CRL-01-15-92(2:55pm)a:\WP51\GPU-1-22.CC
The Honorable City Council
January 15, 1992
Page -7-
Open Space Conservation and Recreation Elements) will need to
occur. State Law specifies that a City has up to 1 year to make
all of its General Plan Elements internally consistent.
Additionally, after adoption of the Updated Land Use and
Circulation Elements, the City will need to update its Zoning
Ordinance, and revise and create other ordinances referenced
within the Updated Elements, such as a Hillside Ordinance. Staff
would like to note that the aforementioned examples of changes
to existing policies, and updating of existing elements are by
no means all inclusive of the amount of staff effort that may be
needed in order to update the remaining elements.
B. Public Participation:
As the City's General Plan specifies the type, and intensity of
development to occur within the City, public input is essential.
Staff has attempted to solicit public input by placing public
notices into the local newspaper; submitting press releases to
five (5) daily newspapers and one (1) weekly newspaper; placing
public notification on Channel 8 and 10; sending informational
flyers to: the president of all Homeowners Associations within
the City, the Rotary Club, Kiwanis and the Chamber of Commerce
as well as church groups within the City. The City also inserted
flyers into the local newspaper; and had flyers regarding the
General Plan Update inserted into shopping bags at Hughes
Market.
Continues Public Hearings will be held on January 29, 1992 and
February 1, 1992. Appropriate public notification will continue
for these meetings.
C. General Plan Participants Requests:
General Plan participants have been informed that they may make
a 5 minute presentation at the City Council meeting (Attachment
5), identifying the scope of their proposed development
(Attachment 4).
D. Revisions to the Land Use and Circulation Elements:
Staff has amended and modified the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the Updated document (Attachment 6). Revisions can
be found throughout the document. To delineate staff's
recommended wording, staff has used the strike out method (line
through existing wording) to modify existing language within the
document and replaced it with staffs recommended language,
which are delineated by the shaded areas. Suggested new policies
are bolded.
CRL-01-15-92(2:55pm)a:\WP51\GPU-1-22.CC
The Honorable City Council
January 15, 1992
Page -8-
IV. Recommendations:
A. That the City Council open the Public Hearing, take
testimony regarding the Update to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the General Plan and Sphere of
Influence Expansion Study.;
B. Review the EIR regarding certification or require revisions
of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Attachments:
1. November 4, 18, 21, 25, 1991, December 6 and 20, 1991 Planning
Commission Minutes.
2. Planning Commissions Resolution No. PC-92-253 (Recommended Land
Use and Circulation Elements text changes).
3. Errata dated January 15, 1992.
4. General Plan Participants Exhibits.
5. PBR Outline & Agenda.
6. Staff's proposed changes to the Land Use (6A) and Circulation
Elements (6B) of the Updated General Plan.
7. Public Comment submitted.
8. 2 Letters from Dennis Hardgrave, DPS re: The Levy Company
(January 15, 1992).
A:GPU1-22.CC
CRL-01 -15-92 (2:55pm) a: \WP51\GPU-1 -22. CC
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 20,
1991 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting called to order at 7:13 p.m.. Michael H. Wesner
Jr presiding.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Barton Miller.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Steve Brodsky, Christina May, Barton Miller, John
Torres; and Chairman Michael Wesner Jr.
Absent: None.
Other City Officials and Employees present:
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community
Development; Kathleen M. Phipps, Associate Planner;
Charles Abbott, City Engineer; and Celia LaFleur,
Administrative Secretary; Ken Ryan, PBR.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL -PRESENTATIONS
a
None.
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
No items added or reordered.
a:\91A-12.20
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California 0
Minutes of December 20, 1991
Page -2-
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes for review or approval.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Wesner announced that the public hearings portion of
the General Plan Update was closed. That public comments
should remain general in nature.
Gary Austin, Representing Messenger Investment Company, 17512
Von Karman,'Irvine, CA 92714'. Mr. Austin was concerned with
the Planning Commission concurrence not to include Specific
Plan 8. That the City's opportunity to acquire over 2,000
acres of Open Space which would be contiguous to the Happy
Camp Regional Park area. He stated that the study area needed
to be looked at in the long range perspective. That Specific
Plan 8 allowed for an opportunity to provide a bypass to
access the SR-118 open space, parks, etc. That the Planning
Commission consider making basic circulation designations as
recommended within the text documents. That Specific Plan 8
not be abandoned.
Abe Guny, 7250 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, CA 93021. Mr.
Guny referenced his 49 acre parcel on the west side of Walnut
Canyon Road and requested that the Planning Commission
consider recommending to the City Council that his property
have the same zoning designation as his. adjacent neighbors
(Levy, JBR Development). Mr. Guny stated that he would be
willing to donate 5 acres of his property so that the City
could designatc'it as.a greenbelt_ area..
Dennis Hardgrave, Representing Levy Company, Development
Planning Services, 651 Via Alondra, Camarillo, CA. Mr.
Hardgrave presented the Commission with material related to
"Typical Cross Section Valley Floor - 118 By -Pass."
The Director addressed the Chair saying that any new
information submitted would require a majority of four -fifths
vote to accept the new material referencing Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC-91-252 Policy and Procedures.
a:\91A-12.20
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
Page -3-
Motion: Moved by Chairman Wesner, second by Commissioner
Torres to accept the additional material submitted
from Mr. Hardgrave.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
Mr. Hardgrave commented and clarified the issues on a by-pass
roadway, preferred roadbed section, and ridgeline view of the
Levy site from Los Angeles Avenue & Liberty Bell and the view
to the north of a park site and high density area from
Poindexter Avenue.
John Newton, Representing. JBR Development Co., 4410 Summer
Glen Court,- Moorpark, CA. 93021. Mr. Newton had no further.
comments to add to previous .statements related to the JBR
property. He said he was available to answer any questions.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
No items for consent.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. General Plan Amendment No. GPA-89-1, Zone Change No. Z-
89-1, and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study
City initiated Update to the C.ity's General Plan Land Use and
Circulation Elements and associated rezoning within the
existing' City limits which proposes a (year. 20.10) land use
plan having approximately 14,12.7 dwelling units, an estimated
204 acres of Commercial and an anticipated 561 acres of
industrial development. Also, a Sphere of Influence Expansion
Study which proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having a
total of approximately 5597 dwelling units and 9 acres of
Commercial. There are additional land use changes to include
agricultural, open space, park, utilities, and
public/institution land uses.
The public review period for the Draft EIR was from October 11
to November 25, 1991.
a:\91A-12.20
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
Page -4-
The proposed planning area for the Land Use and Circulation
Element Update includes the existing City limits and
approximately 11,793 acres of unincorporated land surrounding
the City. CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 6, 1991
The Director of Community Development gave an overview of the
General Plan Update process to date. The Director updated the
Commission as to the accomplishments that have already been
made and identified the remainder items still needing to be
addressed by the Commission.
The .Director also for the record identified a letter dated
December 20, 199.1 from Thomas .Berg, .Director of. Resource
Management Agency; County of.. Ventura..- Mr. Berg's letter
requested that comments regarding the EIR be addressed prior
to the finalization of the EIR.
Mr. Ryan, PBR stated where the process was relative to the
EIR. That PBR had responded to the County comments, drafted
EIR, public review had been completed, have responded to all
comments submitted. That the document is certifiable and
adequate in terms of meeting all of the CEQA requirements.
Commissioner Miller said that the Commission's prior
recommendation for approval of Alternative 4, continued study
of Specific Plan Nos. 1, 2 and 3 indicated all traffic
deposited onto the SR-118. That further consideration should
be given to Specific Plan Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for east/west,
north/south roadways which are not supported by Specific Plan
Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
Commissioner May said that she would be in favor of
incorporated the- Sphere -of Inf.liience.,' but the problem, is to
incorporate with the specific plans in place. She questioned
whether there way a way to incorporate the sphere of influence
without the specific plans.
Mr. Ryan answered "yes." Other land planning designations
for these areas outside the city boundaries could be placed.
That site specific issues could be dealt with at the Specific
Plan level and not at the General Plan level. The purpose of
designations is for evaluation and for the general
understanding of what type of improvements are needed.
a:\91A-12.20
1!>
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
Page -5-
Commissioner Brodsky commented that previous approved Specific
Plans which have come before the Commission seemed to have
been linked to an approval.
Commissioner Miller went on to say that he could not support
allowing County Government to make decisions for Moorpark's
future. That the City Council was more suitable in making
decisions for Moorpark future.
Chairman Wesner inquired what the City could do if the City
does not adopt the Sphere of Influence to prevent the County
from an undesirable development? The Director replied that
County property is County jurisdiction.and the City can only.
have an opinion, but no legal right to determination.of land
use designations.
The Commission call Mr. Austin to the podium to give some
background information regarding Specific Plan No. 8.
Mr. Austin commented that 20 years ago the Messenger property
was zoned in the County with a variety of zones from
agricultural to high density. At the time the property owners
were having financial difficulties and requested that the
property be put into the agricultural preserve zone. And the
reason for that was that the property owners would not have to
pay the taxes that were related to the zoning that was there.
At the time the County approved the agricultural designation
they changed the zoning to reflect the land conservation act
designation. That historically that property in the County's
opinion was to be urbanized. -
That the County Guideline for. Orderly Growth has designated
areas where growth was to occur and the Moorpark area has :
always been an area where urbanization has expected to occur
and that the Messenger property would be part of the Moorpark
area.
That if Moorpark has decided that there is no urbanization to
occur, the County and LAFCO could eery well allow for
urbanization on it's own.
Mr. Ryan commented that the Commission could certify and
select one of the Alternatives, however this may need to be
waived with the fact that all mitigation measures are relative
to traffic for the Circulation plan that has been prepared
which relates to the preferred project as is. That revisions
a:\91A-12.20
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
Page -6-
at this time would require a major revisions to the current
land use element.
Motion: Commissioner Brodsky moved and Commissioner Torres
second the motion to recommend to the City Council
approval of Alternative No. 4:
"Buildout of the Updated Land Use Plan as proposed
for the city area and the existing county general
plan for the proposed sphere expansion area;"
and further consideration of Specific Plan Nos. 1,
2, and 3.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Brodsky: Yes
Commissioner May: Yes
Commissioner Miller: No
Commissioner Torres: Yes
Chairman Wesner: Yes
The Director referenced a staff report prepared for the
Commission which outlined matters of discussion to be covered
at this General Plan Update meeting.
The following was the general consensus of the Planning
Commission.
Circulation Discussions:
The Commission concluded all recommendations regarding the
Circulation Element, Figure 2.
A. Does B Street need to be included on the proposed
Circulation Element.
The Commission's recommendation was NO.
B. Should the future SR 118 intersect at Buttercreek Road
and Los Angeles Avenue?
The Commission recommended that it be moved further
west (between the Bugle Boy/Jemco property line)
a:\91A-12.20
If
1!50",
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
Page -7-
C. Should Spring Road be shown as a 4-lane arterial or only
a 2-lane local collector?
Commission recommended a 4 lane collector on Spring
Road.
D. Does the bikeway network meet anticipated bikeway needs?
- Commission recommended a Class 1 Bikeway (bikeway
path), or Class 2 Bikeway (bikeway path) where
appropriate - on Science Drive, Peach Hill from
Science to Spring Road. The Commission also
concurred to remove. Liberty Bell from the
Circulation Element'-. between Los Angeles Avenue
and Poindexter Avenue.
The Director identified that within the Housing Element there
were needs to provide for additional housing opportunities,
which currently only 2 remaining high density areas. One is
at the rear of the Mission Bell Plaza, and the other is the
Bibo property area.
The following was the general consensus of the Planning
Commission.
Land Use Discussions
1. Evaluate changes in land use designations not proposed by
applicants see Exhibit 1;
The Commission concurred to change the land use
identified as commercial to high density on those
properties (currently identified as C-2 property). north,
of the Arroyo, south of Los Angeles Avenue, and west of
Moorpark Avenue and adjacent to the Westland Company
project.
2. Evaluate the proposed densities and land uses for the
Specific Plans within the City:
The Planning Commission recommended that the following
land use designations for a., b. and c. remain as
follows:
a. Specific Plan Area #1 has a gross density of 2.9
units per acre.
a:\91A-12.20
/G
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
Page -8-
b. Specific Plan Area #2 has a gross density of 1.6
units per acre.
C. Specific Plan Area #3 has a gross density of .66
units per acre.
3. Review Appendix A (pg. 48-49) Is the evaluation criteria
for Specific Plan areas acceptable?
The Commission concurred that the Evaluation Criteria
remain as currently presented for Specific Plan areas.
.4. Is the.. determination of the Valley Floor (Exhibit 1.)
appropriate
The Commission called Mrs. Brown to the podium to explain the
draft hillside ordinance.
Mrs. Brown reminded the Commission of the Draft Hillside
Ordinance in that it states " land that is viewed from the
valley floor" which would not include the highest point of
Tierra Rejada Road as a valley floor.
The Commission concurred that the Valley Floor - Exhibit
1 of the Land Use Element remain as presented.
5. Is the Commission in agreement with the Horizon lines as
specified within Exhibit 5?
The Commission concurred that the Horizon Lines - Exhibit
5 of the Land Use Element remain as presented.
6. It was .originally anticipated that.. the C-I (Commercial
Industrial) zone would be used as a land use designation
for the downtown area. Inasmuch as by mid-1992 a Commuter
Rail facility will be coming into the downtown area, is
the C-I land use category appropriate? Staff recommends
a land use overlay zone for the area adjacent to the
Commuter Rail facilities. An overlay zone, perhaps C-1
(R.R.), will allow the creation of a balanced mixture of
retail service uses which will reinforce the downtown
area as a place of commerce, culture, recreation, and
transportation center.
The Commission concurred and found it appropriate to
delete the C-I land use designation.
a:\91A-12.20
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
Page -9-
Commissioner May referenced page 30 of the Land Use
Element, 3rd paragraph "...and its relationship to the
SR-23 freeway - should be corrected to read ".........and
its relationship to the SR-118 freeway."
7. The Commission agreed with the land use requests made by
the following General Plan participants:
Participant Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
1. Moorpark Unified 26.1 S H, VH
School District
2. Estes 34.53 AG1- H
3. Guny 64.75 OS1 RL
4. Ravli 29.93 RH I-1
- The Commission concurred to modify the land use requests
made by the following General Plan participants:
5. Schleve 70.59 RL RH,OS-2,
VH, PARR, M.
(requestedOS-1)
The Commission concurred to approve the applicants
request. Commissioner Miller in opposition stated that
the circulation as it currently exist generates high
volumes of traffic. Commissioner Miller could not concur
with the applicants land use request.
The Commission concurred to modify the following
e proposals (modifications reflected in bold print).
6. Levy Company 285.0 AG1 C-2, M, P,
L, RH, H add
VH
The Director identified that the maximum dwelling units allow
for Levy Company would be 831 dwelling units.
7. JBR Development Co. 445.0 OS1, RL ML, RH,
C-1, P, OS
remove RH,
add H and M
a:\91A-12.20
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
8. A & A Development Co. 3.86 VH
(Anderson)
9. Scaroni
1.75 ML
Page -10-
C-2
C-2
(requested CO)
add H
Commissioner May referenced page IV-6 of DEIR, second
paragraph, last sentence: "It should also be noted that the
level of traffic proposed on Walnut Canyon Road between Casey
Road and Broadway Road under both existing and proposed
General Plan conditions would require a four -lane roadway
(Walnut Canyon Road is a two -Lane roadway in ..the .existing
General Plan).
The Director stated that it was a determination that Walnut
Canyon Road remain as a two-lane road.
Mr. Ryan stated that he would check with consultant and
believed that all the analysis was prepared under a two-lane
road and that the language. Mr. Ryan referenced page V-2
where there was no reference to Walnut Canyon as a four -lane
road.
Chairman Wesner shared the Commission's concurrence that the
Circulation Element should be amended to reflect Walnut Canyon
as a two-lane road.
The Commission called Mr. Newton to the podium to give
background information regarding the Estes proposal.
Mr. Newton commented that when the Levy Company dedicates a
portion of their property west of Gabbert Road to the City as
a park then the Estes property will be conditioned to develop
the access road from Gabbert Road to the park.
The Commission concurred to direct staff to revise the
Residential Land Use Designations on page 20 to reflect
the items of land use designation as previously
addressed.
- The Commission concurred to modify the General
Plan/Zoning Compatibility Matrix as follows:
1. Delete Rural Low (1/du minimum 5 acres) -
under AGRICULTURE-AE and OS.
a:\91A-12.20
i9
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
Page -11-
Place Rural Low (1/du minimum 5 acres) - under
RESIDENTIAL -RE
2. Delete Rural High (1/du minimum 1 acre) -
under AGRICULTURE-AE and OS.
Place Rural High (1/du minimum 1 acre) - under
RESIDENTIAL -RE
Chairman Wesner with the concurrence of the Commission
directed staff to prepare a resolution approving the General
Plan Update. with the specific recommendations address at
public hearings. of November 4, 18, 21, 25, December 6, 2.0,
1991. That this resolution return on the Planning Commission
Agenda of January 6, 1992 on Consent Calendar.
Chairman Wesner thanked his Commissioners, participants, staff
and consultants for their input, dedication and time spent in
the General Plan Update process.
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
11. STAFF COMMENTS
The Director reminded the Commission of their recent request
to reserve the Council Chambers for a possible meeting on
Friday January 10, 1992 commencing at 6:00 p.m.
6 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chairman Wesner stated that if there is litigation or
potential litigation it should not color what has been done
and will depend on staff to guide the Commission and stay
within a narrow range and lean toward being conservative and
let the Council address the matters of concern.
Commissioner Brodsky question and commented on the December
20, 1991 letter received by the County requesting that their
comments be addressed prior to the Final Environmental Impact
Report being prepared.
a:\91A-12.20
9
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 20, 1991
Page -12-
Commissioner Torres welcomed Commissioner Miller back to the
Planning Commission. Also, that all have a happy and safe
holiday season.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
14.
None.
There being no further business the Planning Commission
meeting adjourned at 11:57 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BY:
Celia LaFleur, Secretary
a:\91A-12.20
CHAIRMAN
Michael H. Wesner Jr.
Ipl
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
The adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission held on December
6, 1991 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark
Avenue, Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.. Chairman Michael H.
Wesner Jr. presiding.
e
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance led by Abe Guny, 7250 Walnut Canyon
Road, Moorpark, CA..
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Steve Brodsky, Christina May, John Torres; and
Chairman Michael Wesner Jr.
Absent: Barton Miller (excused).
Other City Officials and Employees present:
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community
Development; Charles .Abbott, City Engineer;.. Dirk
Lovett,'. -Assistant City Engineer-; Kathleen.. Mallory
Phipps, Associate Planner; and Celia LaFleur.,
Administrative Secretary.
Ken Ryan, PBR
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None.
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
No items added or reordered in the agenda.
a:\91-12.6
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
Page -2-
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Abe Guny,. 7250 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, CA.. Mr. Guny
commented on his -concerns related to the designation as it
relates to the matrix of the Land Use Element text. That the
RL had no corresponding general plan zoning designation.
The Director commented that Mr. Guny's concern had been noted
by the consulting firm of PBR and would be corrected.
Mr. Guny's other interest related to the west side of Walnut
Canyon and the consideration of changing the land use
designation on property under his ownership.
The Director commented that the property identified by Mr.
Guny is not a part of any consideration of the General Plan
Update.
John Newton, 4410 Summer Glen Court, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Newton
commented that he had nothing further to comment on, but that
he was available to the Commission for questions.
Dennis Hardgrave, 651, Via Alondra, #714,-Camarillo, CA:' Mr.
Hardgrave representing Development Planning, Services
representing the Levy Company. Mr. Hardgrave submitted
information to the Commission, and staff. The information
identified concerns related to 118 bypass arterial roadway
short term construction analysis (1992-2001).
Mr. Hardgrave provided the following information:
Completion of the 118 bypass arterial roadway as shown in the
PBR/Austin-Foust Traffic Analysis could be accomplished
through a combination of citywide traffic mitigation fees on
all new development or construction of the actual roadway
improvements within the boundaries of future developments
along the route of the new roadway. The traffic mitigation
fee would be based on a Capital Improvement Budget to fund the
a:\91-12.6
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
Page -3-
118 bypass arterial roadway, and calculated on a "per vehicle
trip" basis for all residential, commercial and industrial
development within the City of Moorpark.
Actual costs of 118 bypass arterial roadway improvements
constructed within a project would be credited against the fee
otherwise due from that project.
The roadway would initially be built as a four lane roadway
from the western terminus of the bypass (850 feet west of
Buttercreek Road at Los Angeles, Avenue) to the eastern -
boundary of the JBR project. A two lane connection would be
constructed at the Princeton Avenue interchange with the 118
Freeway ("D" Street in the earlier versions of the Draft
Circulation Plan).
Elements of the Project (see Circulation Exhibit);
1. Signalized intersection at Los Angeles Avenue and west
boundary of Bugle Boy industrial parcel (850 feet west of
Buttercreek Road).
2. At -grade railroad crossing (overpass or bypass extension
to be built with future outside funding).
3. Signalized intersection at 118 bypass and Gabbert Road.
4. 118 bypass overpass/bridge over Walnut Canyon Road north
of existing residential area.
5. Signalized intersection at .118 bypass and Spring Road
extension.
6. Construct "D" Street to Princeton Avenue.
Proiect Feasibility under each EIR Alternative (see paste 125
of Draft EIR)
Project: Austin Foust traffic analysis recommends 6 lane
`bypass roadway if Specific Plans 4 through 8 are
developed. Specific Plans 4 though 8 add 148,013
Average Daily Trips to the City.
a:\91-12.6
;?V
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
Page -4-
Alternative 1: Bypass roadway would not be financially
feasible under this alternative as Specific
Plan 1 would be zoned agriculture and not be
allowed to develop, and Specific Plan 2 would
be developed at a Rural Low density. Land
acquisition by the City without development of
these areas would increase the cost of the
roadway and decrease the funding base.
Alternative 2: Development of Specific. Plans 1 and.2 at this.
density would not be financially feasible,
resulting in the same effect as Alternative 1.
Alternative 3: At minimum, a six lane roadway would be
required. Cost of the roadway and the traffic
mitigation fee base would increase.
Alternative 4: Development Planning Services analysis
suggests that a four lane roadway would be
adequate to handle traffic generated, as long
as the development of Specific Plans outside
of the current incorporated area (with
additional 148,013 average daily trips and
5,015 homes) did not occur.
No Project: This alternative would not provide for a
bypass roadway. All existing local traffic as
well as the increasing future regional "pass
through" traffic on Highway. 118 would continue
to travel- across the City on. Los Angeles
Avenue for an indefinite number of years.
Commissioner May inquired of Mr. Hardgrave as to the response
from Caltrans. Mr. Hardgrave said that there has been no
response regarding the Levy right-of-way design for buildout.
That the areas identified as 2, 3, and 5 would provide an
additional cost of $10,000 per home.
The Director identified that Caltrans position is that it will
wait for the City to complete the General Plan Update process
and that all interest are predicated on the General Plan.
a:\91-12.6
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
Page -5-
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
No items for Consent Calendar.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. General Plan Amendment No. GPA-89-1, Zone Change No. Z-
89-1, and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study (continued
from November 4, 1991
A City initiated Update to the City's General Plan Land Use
and Circulation Elements and associated rezoning within the
existing City limits which proposes a (year 2010) land use
plan having approximately 14,127 dwelling units, an estimated
204 acres of Commercial and an anticipated 561 acres of
industrial development. Also, a Sphere of Influence Expansion
Study which proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having a
total of approximately 5597 dwelling units and 9 acres of
Commercial. There are additional land use changes to include
agricultural, open space, park, utilities, and
public/institution land uses.
The public review period for the Draft EIR was from October 11
to November 25, 1991.
The proposed planning area for the Land .Use. and Circulation
Element Update,. includes the existing City. limits and.
approximately 11,793 acres of unincorporated land. surrounding
the City. CONTINUED FROM MONDAY NOVEMBER 25, 1991
Chairman Wesner informed the public that the public hearing is
closed to receiving any new comments on the related General
Plan Update.
That the current process before the Commission this evening
was to evaluate and the preparation for technical review for
the Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council.
Chairman Wesner read
Circulation Element.
a:\91-12.6
the introduction portion of the
a4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
Page -6-
Commissioner May recommended to rephrase page 3 of the
Circulation Element - Transit System to read as follows:
"The City currently has laelee a public transportation
system....................I'
The Director said that this text should remain and that it
identifies the circulation issues and will be identified
within the policies portion of the document.
The'Commission continued to page 5 - 3.0'Goals and -Policies:
The Commission concurred with the goal and policies listed on
page-5 - there were no modifications.
Commissioner Brodsky questioned the County Congestion
Management Plan and their requirement of providing a Level of
Service at "D" and how it reflects to the City's level of
service requirement of "C".
The Director said that this was a standard design only, and
that the design and implementation measures are not affected
in the City's requirement to provide a Level of Service of
licit.
Commissioner Torres referenced page 6 Policy 2.7 and
recommended a revision that would indicate direct control by
the City.
The Coinmis s ion -concurred to, recommend .modification of 2.7 to
read:
"Require traffic signal or stop sign installation at
intersections that the City directly controls which, based
on....................."
Commissioner May inquired whether City funding could provide
signalization on Caltrans right-of-way. The Director said
that an example of this signalization could compare to the
Poindexter/Moorpark Avenue signalization. Although Caltrans
was the ultimate decision maker in the process.
Commissioner Torres referenced page 6 Goal 2 - Policy 2.7
a:\91-12.6
2,7
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
Page -7-
It was the general consensus of the Commission to revise,
delete, or modify the following:
Circulation Element - Goals and Policies:
Policy 5.3: Where appropriate, require proposed
residential, commercial, and industrial
developments adjaeent to pre
to include
bicycle paths or lanes in .their street
improvement plans and to construct the bicycle
paths or lanes as a condition of project
approval.
Chairman referenced page 11 item no. 8 related to a
transportation improvement fee program which will enable
circulation improvements to be funded by new development and
in conjunction with the city's capital improvement program,
will determine estimated dates for construction.
The Director stated that item no. 8 refers to traffic
improvement fee a city-wide assessment fee. That the
collection of fees support transportation demand management
program of which one is to begin circulation linkage. Along
with van -pooling, employers allowing flex hours, staggered
work hours, reduced trips. Also that the Traffic Model will
be used to evaluate transportation improvement fee program.
The Commission went on to discuss page 13 - Level of Service
and Circulation System. No comments on this portion.,of the.
review of the.Circulation Elemment...
Commissioner May commented that the Circulation Element as
proposed already includes SR-23. Without "D" Street the map
would only indicated SR-118 accessing SR-23. "D" Street would
provide access to SR-23 and could be conditioned at a later
time.
Commissioner May question Caltrans consideration of and time
frame for the completion of SR-23. Chairman Wesner replied
the year 2025-2045
Chairman Wesner inquired why "B" Street was a minimal length.
Staff said it was because of the City limits.
a:\91-12.6
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
Page -8-
Commissioner Brodsky question the City Engineer whether
Buttercreek and Bugle Boy intersections were too close for
signalization.
Commissioner May opposed the alignment to Buttercreek
intersection due to the adjacent residential area. The
Director stated that related improvements may not be may
unless it is address by the Circulation Element.
V
The Commission called Dennis Hardgrave to the podium to speak
on Specific P1an'No. 1 and to discuss the SR-23 connection.
Mr. Hardgrave talked of Walnut Canyon bridge, and visibility
of the roadway from the Valley Floor.
The Commission call Eddie Ramseyer to the dias to discuss and
identify roadways in the JBR property by use of the
topographical map. Mr. Ramseyer identified the SR-23 road
extension through the JBR property.
Commissioner Brodsky recommended that the SR-23 bypass be
incorporated to border the JBR property to eventually have the
County provide a connector to Broadway Road.
He also indicated that he concurred with the JBR applicant.
The Director stated that the City will need to determine at
the time of entitlement processing if the circulation is
consistent with the General Plan Element (Circulation
Element)..
The Commission discussed the deletion of "C Street. The
Director said that the distance one would have to travel to
transfer from Walnut Canyon to Grimes Canyon (a north south
corridor) and because of the topographic situation the SR-118
bypass begins to go southerly before the potential connection
to Grimes Canyon. The other opportunity would be Broadway
Road without having "C" Street. That the area between "C"
Street and the SR-118 bypass had already been approved by the
City without an east west connector which was the portion
refereed to as the JBH tract which was half way to Grimes
Canyon and the other portion is the Colmer TR-4081 further
south. The Director identified the location on the overhead
projector.
a:\91-12.6
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
Commissioner May commented that the EIR circulation system
location of Los Angeles Avenue - Spring Road - Princeton
Avenue that it be identified that these main thoroughfares not
be downgraded.
Commissioner Brodsky questioned the purpose and need for
Alamos Canyon. The Director commented that SP-8 supported
this would be used as a support roadway and provide a
secondary egress/ingress to Happy Camp.
Commissioner Brodsky requested of the Chair to table the
matter of Alamos Canyon to later in the agenda.
Commissioner May questioned if it was necessary to identify
Walnut Canyon as 4 lanes within the EIR text. Commissioner
Brodsky commented that 4 lanes on Walnut Canyon would delete
the purpose of the SR-23.
Commissioner Brodsky commended Bob Braitman, LAFCO on his
presentation and information relating to annexation process
and considerations to the adoption of specific plans. He said
that the information provided by Mr. Braitman was exactly what
the community residents needed to know.
Commissioner Torres identified Alternative 4 as the major
alternative for reducing average daily trips, 40,000 estimated
population. He commented that specific plans within the City
limits should be studied and even consider SP-4, 5, 6, 7, and
8 for.the interest of the City beyond the.city'limits.
Commissioner May commented that" the concern with specific
plans outside the city limits would be that the adoption of
the land use designations.
Chairman Wesner inquired how often the General Plan Update,
particularly Land Use does the State law require that it be
completed. The Director said there is no State law provision
dealing with the Land Use or Circulation Element. The General
Plan Guidelines by the State recommend that a review and
consideration for an update every five years. That the
Housing Element is the only element of the General Plan that
has a specific mandated update review period on a five year
cycle.
a:\91-12.6
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
Paae -10-
Chairman Wesner commented that his concerns related to the
type of development and management of the specific areas
address outside the city limits. That the adoption of Sphere
of Influence should not necessarily indicated to developers
that the City is waiting to develop. He said that the City is
now and with some growth looking to address and make necessary
improvements within the city limits. He reinstated
concurrence of Alternative 4 and to exclude to a later date
SP-4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. °
It was the consensus of the Commission to select Alternative
4 and SP-1, 2, and 3, and to exclude to a later date SP-4, 5,
6, 7, and 8.
Commissioner Brodsky recommended that Alamos Canyon be deleted
from the Circulation Element. It was the consensus of the
Commission to delete Alamos Canyon from the Circulation
Element.
Chairman Wesner requested of the Commission to hold SP-1, 2,
and 3 for discussion until the return of Commissioner Miller.
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
11. STAFF COMMENTS
The Director informed the Commission of their December 20,
1991 meeting and gave them a brief outline on matters for
consideration.
12. COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Brodsky requested that staff provide the
Commission with an outline on the matters which still need to
be addressed as part of the General Plan Update process.
a:\91-12.6
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 6, 1991
Page -11-
3(
Commissioner Torres inquired of staff as to the status of the
hotel project (MV Smith). Staff indicated that the hotel
portion of the project had been approved and that staff is
currently working towards and affordable housing program for
the remainder of the apartment project.
The Commission asked the status of the Draft Hillside
Ordinance. Staff said that once the General Plan Update
process is completed the Draft Hillside Ordinance will
commence for final completion.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
No new items for future agenda preparation.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further items for discussion the meeting
adjourned to December 20, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. the time being
11:00 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
- -%-BY:
&Z'�L 4,-�&Z'eltJ
Celia LaFleur, Secretary
a:\91-12.6
CHAIRMAN
Michael H. Wesner Jr.
e
3 2.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 2,
1991 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting called to order at 7:10 p.m.. Chairman Michael H.
Wesner Jr. presiding.
c
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance led by Chairman Michael H. Wesner
Jr..
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Steve Brodsky, Christina May, Barton Miller, John
Torres; and Chairman Michael Wesner Jr.
Absent: None.
Other City Officials and Employees present:
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community
Development; Kathleen Mallory Phipps, Associate
Planner; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Dirk
Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; and Celia
LaFleur, Administrative Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, CONNEIR)ATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
Motion: Commissioner Torres moved and Commissioner May
second a motion to nominate Commissioner Michael
Wesner as Chairman to the Planning Commission.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
a:\91-12.2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
e -2-
543
Motion: Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner Wesner
second a motion to nominate John Torres as Vice
Chairman to the Planning Commission.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
The Director informed the Commission of a letter received
dated December 2, 1991 from (C.T.) Carlsberg Financial
requesting to continue their public hearing -item to December
16, 1991.
Commissioner Brodsky inquired as to the reason for the request
to continue the public hearing item. The Director replied
that the applicant was requesting continuance for additional
review of staff's report and conditions.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was the general consensus of the Commission to defer the
minutes of November 4, 18, 21, and 25, 1991 to December 6,
1991 with a request that these minutes be provided to the
Commission on Wednesday December 4, 1991.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
No items for consent calendar.
a:\91-12.2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -3-
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ENTITLEMENT: RPD 91-2
ZC 91-1
Tentative Tract Map No. 4792
APPLICANT: Urban West Communities
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a zone change
(ZC) from Planned Community (PC) to
Residential Planned Development (RPD) for
Tentative Tract Map No. 4792 which
represents the final phase of PC-3,
Planned Community 3. This subdivision,
known as the Villas at West Ranch, is to
construct 196 residential multi -family
townhouse units on approximately 11.64
acres (507,038 sq. ft.).
LOCATION: The proposed development is located 'on
the Northeast corner of Countryhill Road
and Mountain Trail Street.
ASSESSOR
PARCEL NUMBER: 505-012-40
Associate Planner Kathleen Mallory Phipps gave the
presentation on the proposed development. Ms. Phipps
identified the issues of concern from the November 18, 1991
Planning Commission meeting. They were as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
a:\91-12.2
The use of wood fencing on all individual patio units;
The number and phasing of homeowner associations within
the tract;
To resolve condition language regarding the road
connection over the Peach Hill Water Course;
To verify the type of internal drainage on the project
site.
3y
R
35
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -4-
Chairman Wesner opened the meeting for public testimony:
Maury Froman, representing Urban West Communities, 520
Broadway, Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA. Mr. Froman identified
Vesting Tentative Tract 4792 RPD 91-2 and ZC 91-1 as being
consistent with approved Planned Community No. 3, General Plan
and Specific Plan, EIR, and subsequent studies and updates.
That the number ,of units requested are below the .allowable
units proposed.
Mr. Froman read from a letter dated December 2, 1991 - Issue
Summary Sheet which identified -Staff Item ('of concern), UWC
Position, and UWC Recommended Action. They were as follows:
Wood Fencing - adequate for private interior space as show in
the conceptual landscape plan and request the
conceptual landscape plan be approved.
Homeowner
Association - the applicant is not interested in combining
the individual associations into one and
request that it remain as proposed.
RPD-91-2
Condition
No. 49
a:\91-12.2
- Regarding the Peach Hill Water Course. UWC is
ready, willing and able to construct County
Hill as soon as an approval and permit given.
Although a maintenance agreement between the
City and County is still needed the applicant
can not comply with Condition No. 49 and
requested that the language stated as follows:
"Developer shall commence construction of the
northeastern extension of Countryhill Road
within 30 days of the City and the County of.
Ventura having entered into a maintenance
agreement for the Peach Hill Watercourse and
related facilities, and having issued
necessary permits."
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Internal
Page -5-
Drainage - The same principle as the ribbon gutter design
will be implemented in this project to
facilitate drainage except that concrete is
being used on this tract instead of asphalt.
Tentative
Map Condition
No: 20 - In. -agreement with .staff,,s.proposal.
RPD -
Condition
No 52 - In agreement with staff's proposal.
RPD -
Condition
No. 80 and
81 - In agreement with staff's proposal.
Map
Condition
No. 28 &
RPD Condition
No. 25 -
a:\91-12.2
UWC does not agree to with staff r4
charge of $3,000 per unit at fina
did agree to the covenant as long
passed on to future homeowners,
condition which is consistent
tracts in Planned Community No. 3
following language be adopted:
�garding the
1 map. UWC
is it is not
the basic
with other
. That the
"The applicant shall execute a covenant
running with the land on behalf of itself and
its successors, heirs, and assigns agreeing to
participate in the formation of an assessment
district or other financing technique
including, but not limited to, the payment of
traffic mitigation fees, which the City may
implement or adopt, to fund public street and
traffic improvements directly or indirectly
affected by the development. Tentative
mitigation fees shall be used for projects
such as, but not limited to New Los Angeles
Avenue. Crossing
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -6-
Guard - Since the EIR and traffic studies do not
warrant a crossing guard it is the opinion
that it is not the responsibility of the
applicant and that the condition be deleted.
Map
Condition
No. 23 - This condition would require that future
homeowners be required to participate.. in a
landscape assessment district for Mountain
Trail and Countryhill. UWC did not agree that
it was necessary because the CC&R'-s requires
the maintenance along the collectors adjacent
to the tract. Request that the condition be
deleted.
In summary Mr. Froman repeated that Vesting Tentative Tract
4792 RPD 91-2 and ZC 91-1 as being consistent with approved
Planned Community No. 3, General Plan and Specific Plan, EIR,
and subsequent studies and updates. That the number of units
requested are below the allowable units proposed.
Chairman Wesner reopened the public hearing. Testimony
received by the following:
Janet Gauger, 4015 Winterwood Court, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Gauger
said that last Wednesday evening she first became aware of UWC
intent to change the size and price of the proposed townhouse.
Ms. Gauger informed the Commission of many residents in
opposition to the proposal and identified 50 homeowners who
have responded in writing. Ms. Gauger read from a prepared
announcement.
"We would like to express our concern and displeasure of
proposed reduction in size of the townhomes to be built
by UWC. We realize that these are tough times for
developers, I would like to see UWC build homes that they
could sell but not if those homes have a negative impact
on the existing neighborhood.
We are a family oriented neighborhood of .home of 2,000 -
3,800 sq. ft. 1,100 sq.ft. townhomes are merely apartment
size. These small units will most likely be purchased by
singles or couples without children. Couples who have
a:\91-12.2
37
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Paae -7-
children soon will move to seek more room for their
growing families. Leaving the units open to renters. We
want a family neighborhood like out own, if UWC must
reduce the size of the units to sell them try making each
unit slightly larger, 1,500 - 2,000 sq.ft. and pricing
them from $180,000 - 200,000. This would be more in
keeping with the surrounding neighborhood while still
making the units affordable. Having a singles couples
located between the high school, elementary school and
shopping center is not a smart idea. This type of
complex can cause safety and drug problems for our
children. Larger family size units are definitely more
desirable. We would prefer a less dense complex, traffic
on Mountain Trail is greatly increased due to the opening
of Arroyo West School. The new shopping center will soon
add to this. It is very difficult to make a right hand
turn and nearly impossible to make a left hand turn from
Mountain Meadow Drive onto Mountain Trail during the
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:45 p.m. to 3:15
p.m. School children, bicycles, buses, and parents all
using the same road. 200 more units and 400 more cars
will be an additional unwanted burden. Stop signs or
stop lights will need to be installed at Mountain Meadows
and Cedar Springs intersections of Mountain Trail.
As homeowners we were aware that townhomes would be built
on this parcel and have no objection to townhomes. We
were assured that both townhome projects would be an
asset to our neighborhood. 1100 sq. ft. will not enhance
our neighborhood. Lets compromise, slightly larger units
1,500 to 2,000 sq.ft. will more likely be purchased by
families and provide a safer development source so near
our schools. Please keep Mountain Meadows a family
development."
Commissioner Torres
provided a disclosure
Meadows area, and if
proposal to provide
location which is no
was an implication
townhomes.
a:\91-12.2
w
inquired of Ms. Gauger whether UWC
regarding the townhomes in the Mountain
she had previous knowledge to a previous
multi -family homes at the Sunny Glen
single family homes.Also whether there
as to the size cost of the proposed
3q
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -8-
Ms. Gauger replied that UWC had met with some residents and
proposed a larger and high market price than currently
proposed.
Ann Merlino, 3994 Quailwood Street, Moorpark, CA. Ms.
Merlino stated that UWC new proposal would have a great impact
on the community, speaking as a real estate agent.
Ms.-Merlino read a letter saying:
"It looks like we all made some mistakes in believing
that our homes were an investment. We homeowners have to
live with our wrong predictions of our economy, well UWC
should have to live with the same reality. We simply
must not let them change their commitment to build larger
homes in the vacant area near the Quail Ridge and
Buttercreek Homes. If the market is not their at this
time, simply postpone the building of the promised homes
or do what other business have done to be more economical
in the building. They should not have .the luxury of
having the Planning Commission rectify their over-
estimation of the economy."
Another letter read:
"We were horrified to read that UWC would even consider
building low-cost apartment -type townhomes in the middle
of the expensive homes that were purchased and have spent
many dollars on upgrading.
If there was an incline that they would not be honorable
that they would build deluxe homes as they promised we
would not have purchased a Buttercreek home from them.
We know that apartment size homes as we would like to have it
rented but is proposed in an area were it is not justified. -
not in Moorpark. The fact that townhomes were built prior and
all knew exactly what they were buying. For the Planning
Commission to consider the change in plans, and that Moorpark
does not need any investment type rentals, and is exactly what
the proposed units would become."
Commissioner Torres inquired of Ms. Merlino UWC provided a
disclosure regarding the townhomes in the Mountain Meadows
a:\91-12.2
a
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -9-
area, and if she had previous knowledge to a previous proposal
to provide multi -family homes. Ms. Merlino said she had prior
information and documentation regarding the townhomes and only
aware of the South Village proposal.
Susan Laury, 4008 Winter wood Court, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Laury
opposed to the proposal, and in agreement with the previous
speakers. She went on to read a letter of opposition.
"To Whom It May Concern, I will -be unable to attend the
meeting on 2 December 1991, but I am strongly opposed to
a high density development. in this area. It is on a
principal access road to three schools and is heavily
traveled by children. I have personally witness two near
accidents involving youngsters on bicycle on Mountain
Trail. I am convinced that high density housing of this
nature describe wall attract many new residents more
typical impaction and incentive to children, i.e. younger
couples and single people without children who are
unaware that the extra caution that may be exercised to
protect them. I believe that this development on the
scale indicated on this site is a prescription for
tragedy. It can not in due conscience be allowed.
Signed by: Douglas I. Homes Jr."
Another letter:
"Moorpark Planning Commission, I don't must have children
in school that are on the Planning Commission. I have
had enough of this building in Moorpark. Everything but
store or shops. I have to go to Simi or Thousand Oaks
almost to get everything. If this goes through my house
is up for sale. That was the whole reason we moved out
here from Los Angeles. I had problems with UWC before
and it wasn't hard to believe that their trying to break
their promise. Signed by: Michael Masd
Commissioner Torres inquired of Ms. Laury if UWC provided a
disclosure regarding the townhomes in the Mountain Meadows
area, and if she had previous knowledge to a previous proposal
to provide multi -family homes. Ms. Laury said she had prior
information of homes behind the fire station and implied
townhomes as equally nice as home across the way.
Commissioner Torres asked what were the ideas of the up coming
a:\91-12.2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -10-
proposal for 254 multi -family units. Ms. Laury said if they
are the quality and size originally stated then there was
agreement in the proposed development.
Patti Smith, 12686 Countrymeadow Street, Moorpark, CA Ms.
Smith referenced the letter that was received by the
Commission at their November 18, 1991 meeting. Ms. Smith
stated that the initial concern of the proposed plan was that s
it.. was. not consistent. .with. UWC verbal. .commitment to the
existing homeowners.
UWC told of the project being similar to the development of
the Mountain Trail townhomes and that the intent was that some
of the property owners of both projects to share some of the
recreation facilities.
The West Villas as currently proposed has substantially
smaller units and greater density, increase traffic problems,
and further complicated by the South Meadows Park, shopping
center, West Ranch Park, and 250 townhomes already approved on
the other side of Mountain Trail, remaining homes to be built
to the west and east, fire station.
Currently the only access is Mountain Trail and Countryhill
are exits to the proposed project and is a potential for an
extreme and unwarranted congestion in this area of the City.
She requested that the Planning Commission address the design,
size and number of units.
Other concerns related to on -site guest parking and since the
units are small residents would tend to use the garage space
for storage or a extra room and would use the guest parking
for their own purpose and there is no provision for
overflow.The traffic exiting on Mountain Trail will be
potentially dangerous. Considerations should be made to a 4
way traffic signal for the benefit of all. The light at
Tierra Rejada would not help negotiate and additional 200
units and shopping center traffic.
That right turn only movement should be considered for the
exit on this project onto Countryhill, because of it's
proximity to the school exit.
The issue of wood fencing has been an issue, especially with
a:\91-12.2
4z
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -11-
the Willows HOA. The wood siding deteriorates sooner and need
repair. Regarding inter streets they are proposed to be very
narrow.
UWC provided the HOA a presentation of the current proposal on
November 11, 1991 one week prior to public hearing and they
indicated that the price range would be $160,000 to $190,000
selling price range. Upon an inquiry to the sales office of
UWC,... price. range .was quoted at $130, 000-- to . $150, 000. and
available in 10 months and would*- offer government, loans,
specifically FHA insured.
Ms. Smith agreed with the developers concept of making money,
but that it was not a good business practice to mislead the
people who helped make it for the developer along the way.
Many homeowners who did receive the public hearing notice and
that were not present are assuming that UWC would built the
same quality product that had been previously promised said
Ms. Smith.
Commissioner Torres inquired of Ms. Smith how the proposed
information was provided to her. She responded, at the
November 11, 1991 meeting.
William Marlatt, Winterwood Court, Moorpark, CA. Opposed to
the multi -family townhomes for the following reasons:
1. Traffic congestion problems that already exist without
the completion of approved development;
2. Emergency vehicle traffic circulation;
3. Will devaluate the existing single family homes;
4. Crime related to high density;
5. Settling problems which currently exist and have not been
remedied;
Karen L. Douglas, 11733 Chestnut Ridge Street, Moorpark, CA.
Ms. Douglas explained to the Commission that she was not an
original homeowner in the area and has been unaware of the
current and existing proposals of UWC.
a:\91-12.2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
-12-
+3
She addressed her concerns to traffic, children safety,
bicyclist and those who disregard or are irresponsible with
their driving.
That childless couples who are not going to be concerned about
in the area and consider it just a place where they reside.
The project as proposed is not even large enough to start a
family.
Her concern was the type of people that would be attracted to
the development because of the pricing, she predicted a drug
problem because of the potential impact of schools. This
proposal would be a disruption of her family life, she said.
H. Russel Douglas, 11733 Chestnut Ridge Street, Moorpark, CA.
Mr. Douglas stated that the appeals of the residents that
spoke, were emotional appeals to the Commission. He asked of
the Commission what is the criteria to repeal the current plan
proposed. Chairman Wesner said that the current method of
residents addressing the decision making bodies was proper.
Commissioner Torres stated that the current and existing
proposals were all a part of the conception of Planned
Community No. 3. Mr. Douglas was unclear whether by proposing
the current multi -family development and keeping within the
requirements of the City whether any changes could be made to
the proposal as it exist.
Chairman Wesner explained to Mr. Douglas that there is a
factual plan and staff and the land owner have been working
towards the completion of Planned Community No. 3. However it
is required that public hearing be held to receive comments
whether factual or emotional it will have position on the
proposal. Chairman Wesner confirmed the comments receive and
the issues relating to traffic and safety.
Rick Predmore, 11764 Chestnut Ridge Street, Moorpark, CA. Mr.
Predmore's concerns related to property values. That $250,000
townhomes on the adjacent properties were implied during
purchase.
His point was that high density was inappropriate for traffic
as it exist.
a:\91-12.2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Paae -13-
Commissioner Torres inquired of Mr. Predmore, what kind of
implications were perceived during the time of purchase. Mr.
Predmore responded simply that the proposed townhomes would be
in the price range as South Village.
Randolph M. Riley, 1176 Chestnut Ridge Street, Moorpark, CA.
Mr. Riley explained his reasons for moving into the Mountain
Meadows area. By the response of adjacent property owners, it
was a family. oriented. community. Mr. Riley talked of the
relationship between high density and single, college student,
renters, decreases property values, and attracts those who are
not concerned with family styles. Strongly opposed and said
it was inconsistent with the existing single family units.
Commissioner May commented that the comments received by
residents expressed an existing problem of traffic circulation
problems. Mr. Riley confirmed Commissioner May's statement by
saying that this problem exist without the recently approved
townhomes and commercial area approved.
Commissioner Torres informed Mr. Riley of the intention to
condition the applicant to provide crossing guards at
Countryhill Road and a stop light at Mountain Trail and Tierra
Rejada Road.
Kristy Predmore, 11764 Chestnut Ridge, Moorpark, CA. Ms.
Predmore confirmed the traffic problems that currently exist.
Opposed to the one bedroom proposal. She was concerned with
crime, the safety of school age children, property values, the
quality of people attracted.
Commissioner Torres inquired if Ms. Predmore was informed of
the proposal during the time of purchase. She responded, "not
really".
Janis Isaac, 11691 Chestnut Ridge Street, Moorpark, CA. Ms.
Isaac -confirmed the statement that the townhomes would be a
certain size in order to maintain the value of the
neighborhood. Other concern related to safety, children and
crossing guards. She explained that she talked with Ken who
replied there was no need for a crossing guard at Mountain
Trail and Mountain Meadows.
a:\91-12.2
45
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -14-
Other concerns related to the value of the existing homes in
10 months; emergency access; parking; and asked whether the
decision had already been made on the proposed project.
Chairman Wesner explained the development process of a Planned
Community. The Chair also inquired of Ms. Isaac whether she
had examined or the site plan to determine recreational
facilities.
Commissioner Torres confirmed Ms. Isaac statement from UWC -as
to the quality and size of the townhomes compared to a
Huntington Beach development. Ms. Isaac and Commissioner
Torres discussed the proposal in relation to design,
circulation, size and property values.
David Layland, 11520 Flowerwood Court, Moorpark, CA. Mr.
Layland expressed the same traffic concerns and mention that
he had previously talked with the traffic engineer on the
project. That the recommendation of the Traffic Engineer was
not to put a stop sign at Mountain Trail because traffic would
back up. Mr. Layland concern was the safety of the children.
Mr. Layland expressed his concern with the number of units and
not the intended proposal.
Haldum Arin, 11678 Chestnut Ridge Street, Moorpark, CA. Mr.
Arin confirmed his opposition to the proposed development. He
answered Commissioner Torres question, "how do reconcile
quality with size". Mr. Arins answer was price, "What do you
get for $130,000 these days?"
Mr. Arin referenced the City Seal and said that with all the
development projects coming before the decision makers it may
be appropriate to reflect what it has brought to Moorpark
(i.e.
development, smog, traffic congestion etc.) in the City Seal.
Mr. Arin echoed the same concerns as the previous single
family home owners. He requested staff to explain what
Planned Community changed to Residential Planned Development.
The Director proceeded to explain that a PC referred to
Planned Community and that it was nothing more than a holding
designation, no entitlement, no grant to do anything
commercial, industrial or residential.
a:\91-12.2
4(c
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -15-
The PD refers to Planned Development and is before the
Commission and specifies number of dwelling units, where,
type, landscaping. In order to proceed the project is zoned
to the specific density, "dwelling units per acre". It is a
process that starts with a holding -zoning and later determined
and changed to a specific zoning.
Commissioner Torres questioned Mr. Arin of how he became aware
of the townhome development. Mr. Arin said, "Johnny and
Sheri" provided him with the information.
Keith F. Millhouse, 12417 Willow Grove Court, Moorpark, CA.
Mr. Millhouse informed the Commission that although he was not
directly affected, however he stated that he was very
concerned about the type of development.
Mr. Millhouse stated that although many of the residents were
aware of the multi -family units being proposed but were
unclear of the size, type, design and dollar amount. That
even though there had been a mass of confusion he felt that
UWC has been a respective and reputable builder in the area.
He suggested that UWC compromise and consider the concerns
reflected by the existing homeowners and how it will be
reflected in the coming years from now.
Don Sobel, 4035 Winter Wood Court, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Sobel
reiterated the information received by the sales people of
UWC. In reference to wood fences he said that after 2 years
it has deteriorated.
Regarding the safety issues expressed earlier Mr. Sobel said
that because of the existing traffic problems he has rerouted
his traffic pattern when he leaves Moorpark.
Mr. Sobel requested the Commission confirm that no matter what
decision the Planning Commission determines on the proposal
the City Council could overturn their decision. Chairman
Wesner responded by saying that the Planning Commission role
is to make recommendation to the City Council.
The Director affirmed the Chairman statement and said that a
Planning Commission resolution would go before the Council
with the Commission's specific recommendations as addressed
before them at this hearing.
a:\91-12.2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -16-
47
Bill Bustamante, 3900 Timberview, Moorpark, CA. Mr.
Bustamante question if the dollar value of the proposed
development is put in the approved plan? Chairman Wesner
replied that there is no control to determine how the dwelling
units are priced. Mr. Bustamante asked whether governmental
agencies have any input to the value of the structures being
built. Chairman Wesner said, "only if the government agency
is controlling the financing or there is a interest on the
land"..
Commissioner Torres question if Mr. Bustamante was informed of
the multi -family units. Mr. Bustamante replied Johnny and
Sheri.
Judith M. Pierce, 11912 Silvercrest Street, Moorpark, CA. Ms.
Pierce shared some of home owner experiences as a home owner
and townhome owner. Referencing the San Fernando.Valley high
density, traffic circulation, and air quality.
Ms. Pierce talked of the Palmdale area and a low cost
development -which has deteriorated
Rath McCunney, Representing Valcon Engineering, 72 Moody
Court, Thousand Oaks, CA.
The Chairman requested that the public speakers provide their
petitions to the Recording Secretary.
Public hearing closed and recess was called at 9:14 p.m. The
Commission reconvened at 9:30 p.m.Mr. Froman restated the
multi -family proposal. He referenced a Mountain Meadows
disclosure and said that each of the property owners are
requested to initial and sign a Mountain Meadows disclosure.
He read the disclosure to say:
"As originally conceived community is divided into three
villages and each of those are several different types,
i.e. single family, townhouse, and apartments.
The developer reserves the right to build different
housing types within the density and other restrictions
imposed by local zoning and development ordinance and
codes."
a:\91-12.2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Paae -17-
Commissioner Torres questioned Mr. Froman, "What was the
reason for North Meadows Village change from multi family to
single family units?" Mr. Froman replied that it was a
project that was thought to be right at the time but UWC
reversed their decision, an economic decision.
Commissioner Miller asked if UWC staff questioned their sales
people regarding the property owners statements. Mr. Froman
said yes, that the had.met regarding.the first plan..
Commissioner May reaffirmed that the density level in South
Village and West Village is the. same. Mr. Froman said that it
was a combination of the "C" density and the "D" density, both
densities exist within each other.
Commissioner Brodsky commented for the record that 7 Homeowner
Associates for one residential multifamily development was
ridicules.
Commissioner May asked if there was any consideration to a
street between the shopping center and the proposed use. Mr.
Froman said that the project is better served as proposed and
that there was no interest in the reconfiguration. The
Director commented that if a street was proposed it would have
3 intersections in the area.
Commissioner's Brodsky and Wesner discussed the on -site
driveways as proposed. The Director said that it was common
among the design in townhomes.
Commissioner Brodsky commented that the project as proposed
could not be considered without the surrounding property
owners statements previously made.
Commissioner Torres commented that the South Village concept
be applied to the West Village multifamily proposal to provide
135 dwelling units, and eliminate the one bedroom units.
By general consensus of the Commission staff was directed to
meet with the Urban West Communities on the following
concerns:
1. That one homeowners association be provided for the
entire proposal.
a:\91-12.2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
NUB
2. That wood fences be eliminated and replaced with
wrought iron.
3. That a crossing guard be provided by the applicant.
4. That RPD Condition No. 25 and Tract Condition No.
28 remain as recommended by staff.
5. That Condition No. 49 remain as recommended by
staff.
That staff also prepare a resolution recommending approval
based on the recommended modifications. That staff also
prepare a resolution of denial based on the unmitigated
concerns addressed.
Motion: Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner Torres
second a motion to continue the matter to the
Planning Commission meeting of December 16, 1991.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
B. ENTITLEMENT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.
4785 and 4786
APPLICANT: C. T. Financial, a General
Partnership by Carlsberg Financial
Corporation
PROPOSAL: The proposed tentative Tract Maps
are for large lot subdivisions which
correspond to the approved land use
designations of the Carlsberg
Specific Plan. Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 4785, which consists
of the northern portion of the
Specific Plan, contains
approximately 206.49 acres. This
subdivision contains the following
lots:
a:\91-12.2
liq
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -19-
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4785
Lot No.
Acres
Land Use Zoning
Lot 1
28.0
Sub -Reg. Commercial
CPD
Lot 2
25.0
Business Park
M-1
Lot 3
2.5
Commercial Restaurant
CPD
Lot 4
11.0
Sub. Reg. Commercial
CPD
Lot 5
23.0
Residential
RPD-2u
Lot 6
23.0
Residential
RPD-3u
Lot 7
6.5
Park
O-S
Four Open
Space Lots
Open Space
O-S
Vesting Tentative
Tract
Map No. 4786, which consists of
the southern portion of the Carlsberg Specific
Plan,
contains
approximately
287.56 acres. This subdivision
contains
the following
lots:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4786
Lot
No.
Acres
Land Use
Zoning
Lot
1,
25.0
Residential
RPD-5u
Lot
2
21.5
Residential
RPD-3u
Lot
3
4.0
Institutional
RA
Lot
4
3.0
Institutional
RA
Lot
5
20.6
Proposed School
RPD-3u
Lot
6
55.0
Residential
RPD-lu
Five
Open
Space Lots
Open Space
O-S
LOCATION: The proposed subdivisions project site is
located on approximately 497 acres of
land in the southeastern portion of the
City of Moorpark.
The cities of Thousand Oaks to the south
and Simi to the east are located
approximately six miles from the project
site. The site is bounded by New Los
Angeles Avenue and Arroyo Simi to the
north, Spring Road to the west, Tierra
Rejada to the south, and the Moorpark
Freeway (State Highway 23) to the
east.
a:\91-12.2
S1
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -20-
ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL
NO(s).: VTT4785: 500-35-15, 500-35-33, 512-15-
60, and 513-05-11. VTT4786: 500-35-034
and 500-35-041
This item was continued to December 16, 1991.
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
11. STAFF COMMENTS
None.
12. COMMISSION COMMENTS
None.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.
a:\91-12.2
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 2, 1991
Page -21-
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the Planning Commission
meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
%-,), - /( - 9 / BY:
Celia LaFleur, Recording
Secretary
Chairman:
Michael H. Wesner Jr.
a:\91-12.2
a
SBO
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 25, 1991
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 25,
1991 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting called to order at 7:12 p.m.. Chairman Michael H.
Wesner Jr. presiding.
e
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance led by Kathleen Mallory Phipps,
Associate Planner.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Steve Brodsky, Christina D. May,
Barton Miller, John Torres, Michael H. Wesner Jr.
Absent: Commissioner Barton Miller joined the meeting at
7:20 p.m.
Other City Officials and Employees present:
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community
Development; Kathleen Mallory Phipps, Associate
Planner; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Dirk
Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; and Celia LaFleur,
Administrative Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None.
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
No items were added or reordered.
a:\91-11.25
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 25, 1991
Paae -2-
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
S74
.Eloise Brown, 1.3193 Annette, Moorpark, CA. Ms... Brown spoke of .
various people and their comments related to development and
expansion for the City of Moorpark. Saying that the
Commission has heard from.some .long time residents in Moorpark
some who require changes and some who would welcome changes.
Some who have land and show their interest. People who have
land here and have an interest, people who have lived in
Moorpark a short time and want Moorpark to remain the same
even though they to have changed it by coming. .Some small
farmers that are having difficulties surviving and who like to
think of other uses for their land. A majority who have said
that they prefer to remain separate from Moorpark, although
the speak to the City regarding their concerns with land uses.
Ms. Brown went on to say that California is a State in
financial crises. One company in four looks to leave the
State.
Moorpark would not remain exempt from this and the Planning
Commission has a responsibility to minimize the effect of the
recession. Unfortunately there is no definitive financial
analysis for the City's future, perhaps not available or
perhaps not been asked for.
Ms. Brown concluded her comments in saying not to bind the
City to a General Plan so severely structured that it is non-
functional and irreversible.
Commissioner Brodsky questioned Ms. Brown about recession and
asked her to give her thoughts on the matter. Ms. Brown
replied that by the actions of the Commission, Council, and
staff it can encourage or discourage business from coming to
Moorpark. If businesses are coming to Moorpark and conform to
AQMP requirements you will need to have housing for middle
income people, if commercial businesses are encouraged you
will need people to stay within the City and shop.
a:\91-11.25
SS
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 25, 1991
Page -3-
Ms. Brown referenced signage regulations and said "businesses
can not operate invisibly".
Ms. Brown commented that she was opposed to very high density
in the center of the City. California's have cars, bus
services that could be expanded. And if the City is going to
follow State guidelines which would require service to cover
entire area and provide high density, a true housing mix.
Ms. Brown said that ten.year residents have called for new
services and referenced the new high school in Mountain
Meadows and how it came to be developed because a developed
built and provided funds for the development.
Abe Guny, 7250 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Guny
requested that the Commission consider including the 49 acres
adjacent to the Levy property within the General Plan Update
process.
8. Consent Calendar
No items presented for consent.
9. Public Hearings
A. General Plan Amendment No. GPA-89-1, Zone Change No. Z-
89-1, and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study
City initiated Update to the City's General Plan Land Use and
Circulation Elements and associated rezoning within the
existing City limits which proposes a (year 2010) land use
plan having approximately 14,127 dwelling units, an estimated
204 acres of Commercial and an anticipated 561 acres of
industrial development. Also, a Sphere of Influence Expansion
Study which -proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having a
total of approximately 5597 dwelling units and 9 acres of
Commercial. There are additional land use changes to include
agricultural, open space, park, utilities, and
public/institution land uses.
a:\91-11.25
14
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 25, 1991
The public review period for the Draft EIR is from October 11
to November 25, 1991.
The proposed planning area for the Land Use and Circulation
Element Update includes the existing City limits and
approximately 11,793 acres of unincorporated land surrounding
the City.
Chairman Wesner closed the public hearing regarding the EIR
and proceeded.:to.review the Land Use Goals and Policies...
Commissioner Brodsky commented that the policies within the
EIR were provided for. ultimate bui:ldout.of the sphere -of
influence and he wanted to see a change to provide
compatibility for all alternatives whether or not this
included the expansion study area.
It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission to
revise, delete, or modify the following:
Land Use Goals and Policies - GROWTH AND POPULATION page 10
Policy 2.3: Based upon study of the planning area shall
have the ability to adopt an amended sphere of
influence for the City of Moorpark, in
cooperation with adjacent cities and the
County of Ventura, and submit to the Local
Agency Formation Commission for approval.
Policy 3.1: Provide a mix of residential densities,
affordable as well as low income which
accommodates the housing needs of all members
of the community.
Policy 4.3:
Policy 4.4:
Policy 4.5:
a:\91-11.25
Provide for the protection and preservation of
existing neighborhoods in order to maintain
their small-scale character.
To avoid displacement of existing conforming
uses and population.
Encourage use of government funding and
redevelopment when available for existing
development.
L
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 25, 1991
S07
Page -5-
Policy 5.1 Encourage dispersal development of multiple -
family dwellings throughout the city which are
in proximity to employment opportunities,
shopping areas, public parks, and transit
lines, with careful consideration of the
proximity to and compatibility with single-
family neighborhoods.
Policy 5.3: Must encourage the use of greenbelt areas
c
around and within.residential projects.
Policy 5.4% Encourage development of multi -family
development . throughout the community in
accordance with Policy 5.1.
Policy 6.2: The ultimate land uses, design guidelines,
development standards, infrastructure and
phasing requirements adopted for any given
Specific Plan shall be consistent with the
General Plan Coals and text discussion (see
Section 5.2) of the type, location and
intensity of use determined appropriate for
each Specific Plan are.
Planning Commission concurred to table Policy 3.1 and 6.4 and
directed staff to review and provide a recommendation to the
Commission at their meeting of December 6, 1991.
Policy 7.2: Encourage the clustering of commercial
development in compact areas, along major
trafficway in consolidated centers and
encourage pedestrian links to residential
areas. (renumber existing policies)
Policy 7.4: Encourage the compatible neighborhood
convenience center planning concept while
avoiding strip commercial development.
Policy-9.2: Maintain the low rise scale of the cityyIs
commercial core, low rise scale being defined
as no more than two story in height for the
downtown area.
Policy 9.3 Shall promote the establishment of a community
meeting/marketplace in the downtown core.
a:\91-11.25
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 25, 1991
Paae -6-
Policy 9.4:
Encourage the comprehensive planning of the
rail yard district to provide new commercial
infill areas, park and recreational
opportunities, public parking, and a potential
multimodal transportation center within the
downtown core.
Policy 9.7:
Encourage the use of an integrated
architectural theme in the redevelopment of
existing or development of new commercial
buildings in the downtown area.
Policy 10.4:
Encourage those industries which meet local,
regional and state air and water pollution
control goals and standards with priority to
those minimum mitigation measures.
Policy 12.5:
Maintain the city's current standard of five
acres of parkland per 1,000 population
consistent with the city's Open Space and
Recreation Element to ensure that adequate
passive/active parkland is provided in
conjunction with future inf ill, redevelopment,
and new development projects and/or 25% Open
Space of entire land.
Policy
13.4 under Policy 12.7
Policy 12.7%
Provide for the planning and financing of
future public facilities capital improvements
and infrastructure maintenance for the city.
Policy 13.4:
Provide an adequate program and opportunity
for competitive economic development.
Policy 14.6
Encourage the conservation of significant
aquifer recharge areas. (IDENTIFY AQUIFER
RECHARGE AREAS)
Policy 15.3 PROVIDE AS A NEW GOAL
GOAL Preserve natural and cultural resources having
educational, scientific, scenic, recreational
or social value.
a:\91-11.25
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 25, 1991
51
Page -7-
Policy 15.4:
Shall encourage the maintenance and
enhancement of air quality for the health and
well-being of city residential by encouraging
development which will not result in a
negative impact on air quality.
Policy 15.8%
Provide 25% Open Space in all Specific Plans.
Policy 16.4:
Shall require all new residential development
which complements the overall community
character of the city in accordance with
Policy 17.1 and 17.2 while establishing a
sense of place and ensures compatibility with
important existing local community identities.
Policy 17.4:
Encourage a design concept for special
treatment areas, such as the downtown
districts, which may include guidelines for
architecture, landscape architecture, signage,
streetscape, and infrastructure.
Policy 17.10
Limit residential and commercial construction
to two story and commercial and industrial to
three-story heights compatible with
surrounding uses.
Policy 18.4 Consider the creation of both residential and
commercial historic districts, and encourage
the upgrading of historic structures.
Motion: Chairman Wesner moved and Commissioner Miller
second a motion to closed the public hearing and
continue the discussions of the General Plan Update
to December 6, 1991.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS
No items for discussion.
a:\91-11.25
MA
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 25, 1991
Paae -8-
11. STAFF COMMENTS
None.
12. COMMISSION COMMENTS
The Commission inquired of the time frame for the development
of the Hillside Ordinance, update to the noise and lighting
plans and requirements.
Consideration towards the relationship of the recession and
future housing.
Commissioner Brodsky requested that staff consider the re-
formating of page 43 Implementation portion of the Land Use
and Circulation Element to be reflected in the same form as
Goals and Policies.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:45
p.m.
RESP CTF�iULLY SUBMITTED
102 7 BY:
Celia LaFleur, Secretary
Chairman
Michael H. Wesner Jr
a:\91-11.25
a
ec
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 18,
1991 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting called to order at 7:25 p.m.. Chairman Michael H.
Wesner presiding.
Gi
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance led by Ken Ryan, PBR.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Steve Brodsky, Christina D. May,
Barton Miller, John Torres, Michael H. Wesner Jr.
Absent: None.
Other City Officials and Employees present:
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community
Development; Kathleen Mallory Phipps, Associate
Planner; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; Dirk
Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Ken Ryan, PBR;
Kendall Elmer, Austin Foust Associates; and Celia
LaFleur, Administrative Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None.
a:\91-11.18
6Z
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Motion: Moved by Commissioner May and second by
Commissioner Brodsky to reorder the Agenda and open
the public hearing for Item 9.B RPD-91-2, ZC-91-1
and Tentative Tract No. 4792 Urban West Communities
prior to Item 9.A General Plan Update, Land Use &
Circulation Element, and Proposed Expansion of the
Sphere of Influence.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES e
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by
Commissioner. Torres to defer - the .minutes . of
November 4, 1991 to the next regular meeting of the
Planning Commission.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments presented.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. RESOLUTION NO. PC-91-252
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND RELATED FUNCTIONS AND
ACTIVITIES.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Torres and second by
Commissioner May to approve the Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC-252 Rules of Procedure for,
Commission Meetings and Related Functions and
Activities.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Paare -3-
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
m
Agenda reordered to present Item 9.B RPD-91-2, ZC-91-1 and
Tentative Tract No. 4792 prior to Item 9.A General Plan
Update, Land Use & Circulation Element, and Proposed Expansion
of the Sphere of Influence.
.Chairman Wesner informed the public of the Commission's intent �
of the public hearing and procedures on such -meeting.
A. Entitlement: RPD 91-2
ZC 91-1
Tentative Tract Map No. 4792
Applicant: Urban West Communities
Proposal: The applicant is requesting a zone change
(ZC) from Planned Community (PC) to
Residential Planned Development (RPD) for
Tentative Tract Map No. 4792 which
represents the final phase' of PC-3,
Planned Community 3. This subdivision,
known as the Villas at West Ranch, is to
construct 196 residential multi -family
townhouse units on approximately 11.64
acres (507,038 sq. ft.).
Location: The proposed development is located on
the Northeast corner of Countryhill Road
and Mountain Trail Street.
Presented by Kathleen Mallory Phipps, Associate Planner.
Reference: Staff Report dated November 18, 1991.
Testimony received by the following:
Tom Zanic, Urban West Communities, 520 Broadway, Suite 100,
Santa Monica, CA 90401. Mr. Zanic gave an overview of the
proposal before the Commission and the existing surrounding
development. He explained part of the Specific Plan and the
housing mix proposed.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Paae -4-
Mr. Zanic identified that a written disclosure was provided to
all home buyers within the Planning Community at the time of
sale describing the nature and the range of housing types
expected.
He explained the project land use and density and how it had
been a part of the Specific Plan for the last 10 years and
totally integrated to the master infrastructure planning for
the Mountain Meadows. That roads, circulation, water and
sewer, drainage and schools. He went*on'to identify that each
dwelling unit included two covered parking areas, a total of
96 guest parking spaces, and two on -site tot lots were
included. Recreation areas are off -site and within walking
distance. plus every unit had its own private outdoor space
for bar-b-ques and lawn furniture. That exterior walls would
be compatible with the rest of West Ranch, rough iron/stucco.
That the private spaces viewed within the development would
be provided with wood fencing. Mr. Zanic went on to say that
this was a market rate project and that and no density bonuses
were included. Mr. Zanic introduced the project architect,
Manny Gonzalez.
Mr. Zanic then went on to identify his concerns addressed in
his letter of November 18, 1991 regarding condition numbers
RPD-Condition No. 49, Tract Map -Condition No. 20, Tract Map=
Condition No. 28, RPD-Condition No. 25, Tract Map -Condition
No. 23, RPD-Condition No. 80 and 80.
RPD-Condition No. 49 - MODIFY:
"Prior to any occupancy, the northeastern extension of
Countryhill Road shall be in place provided the City and the
County of Ventura Have entered into a maintenance agreement
for the Peach Hill Watercourse and related facilities, and
have issued necessary permits at least 120 days prior to
occupancy".
Tract Map -Condition No. 20 - MODIFY:
"The applicant shall deposit with the City of Moorpark a
contribution for the Spring Road/Tierra Rejada Road
Improvement Area of Contribution.
a:\91-11.18
d#+
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
v.�
The actual deposit shall be then current Spring Road/Tierra
Rejada Road Improvement Area of Contribution applicable rate
at the time of issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a Building
Permit."
Tract Map -Condition No. 28 - MODIFY
"The applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land
on behalf of itself. and its successors, heirs, and assigns
agreeing to participate in the 'formation of an assessment
district or other financing technique including, but not
limited to, the payment of traffic mitigation fees., which the
City may implement or adopt, to fund public street and traffic
improvements directly or indirectly affected by the
development. Tentative mitigation fees shall be used for
projects such as, but not limited to New Los Angeles Avenue.
(This condition shall not apply to future homeowners.)
RPD-Condition No. 25 - MODIFY SAME AS RPD-Condition No. 28
Tract Map Condition No. 23— DELETE THE CONDITION
RPD-Condition Nos. 80 & 81 - Clarify department
responsibility.
Manny Gonzalez, Van Tilburg & Partners Architect, 225 Arizona
Avenue, Santa Monica, CA. Mr. Gonzalez said that a great of
amount of time and detail was provided in the architecture of
the development. Part of the uniqueness of the units were
private entry, private patio area, arches, window treatment,
elevations, and most of all consideration for the single
family element.
Gregory J. Barker, Representing Mountain Meadows Neighborhood
Council, 12453 Hillside Drive, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Barker was
concerned with additional traffic generated by the UWC
proposal within the specific areas of Countryhill Drive,
Mountain Trail, and the close proximity of the grade school.
His second concern was the on -site guest parking for the
proposed 196 multi -family units, and 96 guest parking space
within the development. Also that the more than one Home
Owners Association is proposed for the new development.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Paae -6-
44
Commissioner Torres asked if Urban West Communities had
previously met with the surrounding homeowners to address
their concerns. Mr. Barker replied yes and but that the
developer was unaware of the items listed in the Homeowners
Association letter dated November 12, 1991.
Mr. Zanic addressed the letter of the Homeowners Association
dated November 12, 1991, in saying the parking standards for
the City of Moorpark are much.higher than most.other cities:
and UWC has complied with the City's requirements Regarding
the traffic on Mountain Trail, staff's City Engineer, and UWC
Traffic Engineer's have reviewed. this and -concluded that a
four way stop sign will be provided at Mountain Trail and
Mountain Meadow. Regarding the wood fencing for the proposed
project will be used within the private space and not exterior
or public edges. His comment to selling only to owner
occupancy was that these homes will be offered in the same
manner that single detached units are sold.
The Director said that those conditions identified by Mr.
Zanic are not supported for change on staff's behalf. That
staff's opinion is to require masonry stucco fencing as in
previously proposed developments.
Commissioner Brodsky commented that because UWC considered 196
multi -family units as "not a high end market rate," this would
not justify reasons for wood fencing. Even though that the
individual dwelling units have their own patio area in each
unit, this should not be considered as recreation areas, it is
part of the private property. Also that recreation facilities
reflected in the project identified for adult or minor
children uses, and consider recreational facilities such as
basketball or tennis courts?
Mr. Zanic replied that recreation amenities matched up to the
South Village development and the idea of attracting the
retired market buyer, or young single adults.
Commissioner Brodsky discussed the proposed elevations and how
sliding glass doors would be visible from rear yards. Mr.
Zanic commented that the top story would be visible.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -7-
(z7
Commissioner Brodsky asked of the level of service for
Mountain Trail Road. Chairman Wesner replied level of service
identified is "B".
The phasing plan was also discussed. Mr. Zanic gave
information about the phasing plan, models first, additional
units, recreation areas.
Commissioner Brodsky. question. how it could be possible that
i the proximity of '8 garage doors -are within 3 feet of the
street and how will cars exiting from the garage area? Mr.
Zanic said. that both UWC and City. Engineer had met and .
addressed the design pattern.
Lee Ward, Linscott, Law & Greenspan-, Engineers, 106 South
Mentor Avenue, Suite #100, Pasadena, CA 91106. Mr. Ward
responded to Commissioner Brodsky's comment and said that the
location of the garage doors face is where alleys have been
provided, and usually traffic patterns would be coming from
neighboring residents. That the sight distance is adequate at
the 15 mile per hour speed limit. Guest parking concerns
would be regulated by vehicle code enforcement, speed limit
signs, stop signs at each alley.
Commissioner Torres commented on the recreation pool and how
would it accommodate 196 multi -family dwelling units. Mr.
Zanic said that the pool size is 25 feet x 60 feet.
Commissioner Torres questioned Mr. Zanic whether the issue of
wood fencing opposed to stucco fencing was negotiable. Mr.
Zanic stated that the wood fencing would not be visible from
the street and that the interior edges of the project would
display wood fencing.
Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Zanic the price range of such
units. Mr. Zanic said the range considered is $135,000 to
$165, 000 and that an income of $40, 000 to $50, 000 may qualify.
Color scheme and materials also discussed.
Commissioner May stated that Condition No. 28 was appropriate
under the request of mitigation fees, but not necessarily
under the general fund.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -8-
Chairman Wesner question Mr. Zanic of Mr. Barkers concern
regarding Homeowners Association's. Mr. Zanic replied that a
two tier system would be setup, a master association would be
responsible for main common areas (recreation), and exterior
(landscaping), and a separate HOA for each phase and their
attention would be primarily maintenance. Chairman Wesner
said "essentially there would be 7 HOA".Chairman Wesner asked
Mr. Zanic his intent of requesting clarification of Condition a
Nos. 80 and 81. Mr. Zanic..said that conditions 80 and 81 are
fire department requirements and concerned that the City
intent of requiring fire conditions may extend the processing
of this project..
The Director spoke on several issues related to the
development. He said that the applicant has addressed City
requirements, and that the engineering department had met on
the concerns of parking, circulation and traffic signage. In
addition the City could restrict curb parking by enforcement.
Commissioner May questioned staff if Condition No. 49 could be
modify or change wording to "no occupancy permit". The
Director said that this would become a problem because once
the units were built the buyer is ready and waiting to occupy
the unit and to hold this process generally means the buyer
has the hardship.
Mr. Zanic responded to staffs comment of RPD-Condition No. 49
requiring the City and the County to enter into a maintenance
agreement for the Peach Hill Watercourse area prior to
issuance of building permits ................" His suggestion
was to modify the wording to "that the applicant be required
to begin construction to that road 30 days the two agencies
reaching agreement".
The Director informed the Commission that this matter also
relates to circulation requiring a high density project, and
that the project will require as much circulation as possible
before it gets to far along, and the connection of roadways
must be considered.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -9-
Motion: Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Miller
second a motion to continue this item to the
Planning Commission meeting of December 2, 1991 and
direct staff and the applicant meet to discuss the
points of concern and the basis related to
Condition No. 28.
Amended by Commissioner Brodsky.to include staff's
concerns on wood fencing.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
A. General Plan Amendment No. GPA-89-1, Zone Change No. Z-89-1,
and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study (continued from
November 4, 1991
City initiated Update to the City's General Plan Land Use and
Circulation Elements and associated rezoning within the
existing City limits that proposes a (year 2010) land use plan
having approximately 14,127 dwelling units, an estimated 204
acres of Commercial and an anticipated 561 acres of industrial
development. Also, a Sphere of Influence Expansion Study that
proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having a total of
approximately 5597 dwelling units and 9 acres of Commercial.
There are additional land use changes to include agricultural,
open space,. park, utilities, and public/institution land uses.
The public review period for the Draft EIR is from October 11
to November 25, 1991.
The proposed planning area for the Land Use and Circulation
Element Update includes the existing City limits and
approximately 11,793 acres of unincorporated land surrounding
the City.
(8:54 p.m.)
Chairman Wesner discussed the outline and provisions of
concluding comments on the Draft EIR of General Plan Update.
He requested that speakers focus on comments specifically
related to the EIR.
a:\91-11.18
a
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -10-
?U
Chairman Wesner quoted CEQA EIR Guidelines section, along with
Greenbound vs the City of Los Angels, California appalled
court 1984.
Mr. Ryan gave 10 minute overview of the General Plan Update
process and explained to the public attending how the City and
consultants had come to this matter of the Draft EIR. He then
introduced Kendell Elmer, Traffic Engineer.
Mr. Elmer's discussion was primarily on the road -way system
prepared for the Circulation Element. He identified the
.traffic model and purpose, and plots of existing and future
(year 2010) traffic volumes. From this came the comprehensive
traffic analysis study of the EIR process. Key facilities
recognize as part of the Circulation plan were SR-118, SR-23
now under construction, interchanges at Princeton Avenue and
Collins Drive, SR-118 bypass arterial extending from the SR-23
SR-118 connector to Los -Angeles Avenue, with a grade
separation crossing at Walnut Canyon Road. Part of the plan
included SR-23 bypass arterial from freeway connector north to
Broadway and an extension of Spring Road north to the SR-23
bypass is included.
In the southwest portion a local collector "B" Street. will
serve the area by the railroad and Los Angeles Avenue and the
Southern California Edison on the east side. Local collectors
shown south of Los Angeles Avenue serving areas between Spring
Street and Goldman. Local collectors shown in the northern
portion of the City identified as Gabbert extension to Grimes
Canyon Road, an extension of Casey Road over to Gabbert Road
and a connection of "A" Street between SR-118 bypass arterial.
Local roadway shown in the Moorpark Highland's area to be the
extension of Science Avenue from New Los Angeles Avenue to
Tierra Rejada Road and the extension of Peach Hill Road to
Science Avenue extension.
The center of town includes a connection of Liberty Bell Road
between Los Angles Avenue and Poindexter Avenue. Major
facilities identified outside of the city limits is the
extension of Broadway connecting to the SR-118 that primarily
serves SP-8.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -11-
1(
The Circulation plan also identified one grade separated
railroad crossing with at present four others that were not
grade separated and several existing and proposed tract
signals locations, now shown to warrant signals under the
circulation analysis.
Mr. Ryan stated that the Land Use Element was prepared to
designate proposed general distribution and general locations
of intensity of land use designations.. The approach to this
utilities the General -Plan Update EIR as supporting
documentation for the Land Use Elements that contains goals
policies and the land use plan in order to conform with
California State law. Mr. Ryan then identified each Specific
Plan requested land use.
Testimony received by the following:
William LaPerch, 7200 Walnut Canyon, Moorpark, CA. Mr.
LaPerch said that the current decisions made would affect the
future of the City of Moorpark for the next 100 years. That
this was the first set in the potential destruction of -the
city. As a former Planning Commissioner, Chairman he
requested that the Commission to examine the risk benefit
ratio and finding solutions in advance, which the EIR does not
address or meet the requirements. Mitigation measures show to
be uncertain and non-specific, and. recommended that when
problems arise the City will then take measures to correct the
problem.
Mr. LaPerch said that corrective actions should be in place
before the problem. Partially mitigated - a contradiction in
terms. Previous recommendations to permit approval have
included air quality deterioration solutions to be van
pooling, staggered work hours, flex hours have not been
implemented.
Mr. LaPerch then spoke of water shortages, and the EIR
suggesting solutions by way of low flush toilets, and drought
resistent plants. That currently there was no hillside
grading ordinance and the EIR identified that some time in
future the City should adopt a hillside grading ordinance, and
the potential 20% grading regulation.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -12-
7;k
Mr. LaPerch urged the adoption of alternative number one. He
said that under 45 days and a couple of meetings he though it
was impossible to approve an increase of 10,500 homes by
reference of the specific plans proposed.
John Beley, 7343 Griffith Lane, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Beley spoke
of his reasons for moving to Moorpark. He further stated that
he could support the expansion of .the Sphere of Influence only
to observe the hillsides and canyons.
His biggest concerns related to Specific Plan No.8 and the
extension of Broadway and the current 50% slope areas within
the canyon and exiting at Alamos Canyon.. He described it to
be unjust to the area for development. Mr. Beley suggested a
parkland designation, along with supporting equestrian trails.
Another concern Mr. Beley had was that the Campus Park
residential area was separate from downtown Moorpark, west of
the City on bike trails. He requested consideration of bike
trails to the western portion of the City.
Jacques Varin, 4365 Hitch Blvd., Moorpark, CA. Mr. Varin said
that consideration should be given to those who provided the
expansion study and the foresight to the study. Mr. Varin
expressed his concerns with traffic circulation problems, but
suggested that perhaps we need to look ahead at new roads,
although improvements may be a long time away.
He referenced Santa Rosa Valley and the 20 acre parcels that
are now under the County jurisdiction. He suggested that
Moorpark would have better control over the use of the Santa
Rosa Valley 20 acre parcels. Mr. Varin was unclear of the
General Plan text about whether a General Plan was general
and not specific plan for the City of Moorpark.
His final statement talked of Moorpark for the future of our -
children, being too restrictive with development, and the
high cost of housing.
Sam McIntyre, 5895
McIntyre requested
study, and how he
fire and police.
a:\91-11.18
Grimes Canyon Road, Moorpark, CA. Mr.
that the Commission support the expansion
now enjoys partial City services such as
e
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California 7 3
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -13-
Nicholas Hollander, 3835 Hitch Blvd., Moorpark, CA. Mr.
Hollander a previous east coast resident described his search
for a small town atmosphere. He spoke of his experience with
congestion, oppressed intercity, vacant stores, and concluded
by saying "what is wrong with being small." He requested that
Moorpark find a way to solve the problems that now exist.
James Nelesen, Pastor, 6648 Bernal, Simi Valley, CA. Mr.
Nelesen did not comment on the EIR for Moorpark because he was
not a resident of the community. He asked that' the Commission
honor the commitment made under Goal 6 To include space for
religious institutions in specific plans as they come before
the Commission. Also that under other uses in the General
Plan there was no reference to Goal 6 on page 31 where other
uses are suggested. He requested that the Commission consider
that there is a place in all specific plans to include
religious institution hat come before the Commission
Margaret Rirnig, 10725 Citrus Drive, Moorpark, CA Ms. Rirnig
talked of the City's prior conduct on Measure F, 2 story homes
adjacent to Home Acres that are separated by a buffer zone.
Ms. Rirnig suggested that the City survey residents requesting
their preference for development. That the EIR needed a
regional map to reference the proximity of Simi Valley and
Thousand Oaks, landfill, state water resources, etc.
She spoke regarding equestrian/bike trails and transit systems
and asked that they be more than recommendations. That AQMP
weather permitting air quality is making progress although
slowly. That the population projection of 54,000 was
inconsistent with the proposed by AQMP.
Eloise Brown, 131 Annette, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Brown spoke of
the Commission reordering the Agenda. That their were people
who left their name and address and said they felt no reason
to be present because the same concerns being address at this
meeting were concerns addressed at previous workshops. She
request the public be provided with a copy of a map showing
the current changes within the City.
She strongly encouraged tree planting within hillside
development.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -14-
74
Dawn Mortara, 136 Bear Valley Road, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Mortara
read from a prepared statement as follows:
"The priority is land use and traffic circulation and that it
was important to keep Moorpark's suburban rural character.
Maintain open space between Moorpark and it's neighbors.
Ventura County has committed to the idea of open space and
believe Moorpark should commit to the same policy as well. We +
should not develop up to our City limits, but leave an
undeveloped area to separate Moorpark from adjacent cities to
keep from becoming like the San Fernando Valley. Regarding
the environment I would like to see the Happy Camp area spared
as little as possible and resulting air and noise pollution.
That road proposals would consider avoiding the park,
especially the wilderness area that is impacted by the truck
traffic.
Traffic is an issue that road construction has not caught up
with. Houses continue to be built in the City that will
increase traffic in the future and will continue to
deteriorate."
Regarding mitigation measures on page 7 the report suggest
that circulation improvements be funded by new development.
Which development does this reference? This seems to be a
never ending circumstance, "you need roads so you build houses
so you need more roads so you build more houses.
Ms. Martara questioned the following:
Page 6 suggest that Moorpark can maintain a level C of
service. She question if it were possible.
Mitigation section regarding "mitigated to a level of
insignificance." Whether these mitigation measures will work
and how will they be monitored.
Ms. Martara said there are no mitigation solutions within the
EIR to create the health, safe and beautiful environment that
we all choose to live in.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -1.5-
is
James or Lynnette Scaroni, 5740 W. Greentree Drive, Moorpark,
CA. Mr. Scaroni read from his letter dated November 18, 1991
requesting that the General Plan Update include his property
for zoning of very high density residential instead of general
commercial.
He suggested some goals and policies as follows:
c
Expediting zone.change:applications for.project in specific..
plans of the General Plan under a certain.acreage.
Exemption or priority given to the projects., as listed in item
1.
Exemption or priority given to projects for targeted areas,
such as downtown and redevelopment areas of the city.
Exemption or priority given to projects furnishing special
housing needs of the city.
Gilbert S. Bahn; 4519 N. Ashtree Street, Moorpark, CA.
Opposed.
Monika Savic, 15576 Mallory Court, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Savic
describe the City and the reason for relocating to Moorpark
(open space, downtown shopping, public safety, yearly
gatherings). She talked about Moorpark doubling it's size and
the increase housing. That population is not the factor that
enhances the quality of life.
She requested that Moorpark remain as it now exists
considering revitalization to the downtown area, expand the
high school, provide the commuter train, provide more parks,
and leave the hills and valleys as they are.
Timothy F. Casey, 13176 Westport Street, Moorpark, CA.
Uncommitted. Mr. Casey concluded that the expansion could
permit control over the type of development proposed in this
area.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -16-
1(a
Bill Poleri, 6863 Trojan Court, Moorpark, CA A Campus Park
resident who was concerned with emergency access in his area.
He described how "D" street would provide a second access to
the Campus Park development. He expressed his dissatisfaction
in the agenda being reordered.
Steve Bohnect, 15295 Monroe Avenue, Moorpark, CA Mr. Bohnect
supported the expansion study to increase the Sphere of
Influence, but opposed the General Plan.Update. He described
Moorpark as'it now exists and said that-he*lives in Moorpark
for the quality of life. That the General Plan Update as
proposed is -considering quantity. . He, questioned who..the .
General Plan Update benefitted.
Cheri Risley, 15295 Monroe Avenue, Moorpark, CA Ms. Risley
supported the annexation in the Sphere of Influence. His
concerns were traffic, keeping open space, providing housing
in an effort to provide for our children in the future.
David W. Moore, 15423 Braun Court, Moorpark, CA. Uncommitted.
Tim McAteer, 15406 Doris Court, Moorpark, CA. Uncommitted.
Roger Kahle, 4282 Granadilla Moorpark, CA. Mr. Kahle's
concerns were growth monitoring, air quality, storm run-off
problems, infrastructure needed improvement, wastewater,
vehicle trips added to the City of Moorpark.
The Director commented that the Land Use Plan shows a proposed
5.4m gallons per days wastewater district by the 2010.
Dominic Schmidt, 90 Fremont Street, Moorpark, CA.
Tim Salivar, 15594 Mallory Court, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Salivar
expressed his concerns with the impact of SP-7 & 8 areas. The
Broadway/Alamo Road connector. He asked how this would put
the circulation around the City and through Happy Camp and
that the EIR did not address the impact and mitigation
measures. He suggested that the Broadway/Alamo Road connector
not link to the SR-118 in order to preserve the north hillside
areas.
a:\91-11.18
c
17
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
aae -17-
Supported the expansion study for the purpose of City control
over development and hillside grading. Except for SP-7 & 8
because it would be another secluded area added to the
existing downtown, Peach Hill, and Campus Pard areas. He
asked that the Commission consider to unite the City into one,
and develop it properly to open uncluttered fill sites to the
north and greenbelt to the west.
Bob Braitman,.LAFCO, 800 South. Vic toria. Avenue, Ventura. Mr.
Braitman'stated that the text documents were delivered to him
on November 8 and would attempt to provide comments by the
closing date of-.November.25, 1991. He said that the City's
boundaries included all of the land planned for urban
development in the Moorpark area except for Home Acres. When
LAFCO adopted the Sphere in Influence the sphere followed
exactly the City boundary because thee was no land planned
outside the City. LAFCO also adopted a policy that included
with the sphere map that said, " at such time as the City
General Plan amended the Commission will consider changing the
Sphere of Influence." He made it clear that the City does not
adopt a Sphere of Influence, the City adopts a General Plan
and that under California State law Government Code Section
56000 "The adoption of the Sphere of Influence is a unilateral
decision delegated legislatively to LAFCO.". The adoption of
the General Plan is a decision delegated to the City Council
through the Planning Commission process.
He reference the General Plan saying that the City should
adopt an amendment sphere of influence in cooperation with
adjacent cities and counties and submit to LAFCO for approval.
The Sphere of Influence is a plan for the probable final
boundaries and service area of the city, an annexation plan.
It is inconsistent to say that we would like to have the
Sphere of Influence enlarge but not to the annexation, because
the adoption of the Sphere of Influence is a plan for future
annexation.
He suggested that the City determine the General Plan
designations prior to the proposed change in the Sphere of
Influence. That expanding the Sphere as a way for the City
controlling land use would not be the method. In 1967 and
1969 LAFCO divided the entire county into planning areas, and
areas of interest preserving one for Moorpark.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -18-
6 vpl
'A'A
That the City's ability to plan land use outside of it's
boundary is not a constraint by the existence of the Sphere of
Influence. The City General Plan that include the entire area
within the Area of Interest as a way of influencing potential
land use. That the City had no jurisdiction to approve or
deny proposals.
His next comment related to General Plan Exhibit 4 that.
..referenced a. -table for each Specific Plan area should
reference for comparison the existing designated acreage 'to
propose designated acreage.
That there was a qualitative difference regards to
agricultural uses, Specific Plan 5 primarily flat prime
agricultural use. That it was LAFCO intent to preserve
agricultural land and would favor the expansion of a city
boundary into non -prime agricultural areas.
Teresa Schmidt, 90 Fremont Street, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Schmidt
commented on the downtown area south of the SR-118 and north
of the Arroyo Simi about the proposed 'designation of high
density. She opposed this plan. That the expansion study
could propose high density distribution within those areas.
Janet Murphy, 15308 Seitz Court, Moorpark, CA. Concurred with
the proposed expansion study, growth control, greenbelt areas,
hillside preservation. Regarding SP-7 & 8 740 acres
designated for open space but with the 4,537 dwelling units
proposed would be too much.
Wally Todd, P.O. Box 7, Moorpark, CA. Opposed.
Dr. Clint Harper, 4044 Oak Glen Court, Moorpark, CA Chairman
Wesner congratulated Mr. Harper on his recent election to the
Moorpark Unified School District Board of Education.
Mr. Harper commented on the adequacy of the EIR and a proposed
change of 7,900 acres to 19,700 acres, population from 25,000
to 54,000 before increases granted in density bonuses, 166,000
ADT to 1/2 million at buildout, school enrollment of 5,500 to
14,000 at buildout or 250% increase.
a:\91-11.18
I
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -19-
He said that the EIR was totally inadequate for the following
reasons:
Mass increase in the ADT;
No detail analysis to impacts outside the study area;
Violations of State law. How could an increase the size of
the City 2-1/2 times without considering the impact.of.SR-118..
east and west portions of the City as a regional impact.
School facilities and the.increase of school population of 2-
1/2 times the EIR offers no workable mitigation measures.
That buildout of the General Plan as proposed would require 11
million gallons per day water " inasmuch Water supply impacts
are not addressed.
Mr. Harper stated that the EIR now was un-certifiable and
urged the Commission to draft the fundamental changes to the
document before certification to the final draft.
He commented on the increase in the Sphere of Influence. That
cities do not annex to protect property but annex to develop
property. That this plan was the first step in the
development of the open space area in the City of Moorpark.
That this should not concealed the purpose for annexation.
He concluded that the more development allowed the more we
will need. That the plan suggested more development to fix
problems caused by previous development.
Sean Sutton, 15411 Braun Court, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Sutton said
that the purpose of the plan was to provide more development
and suggested that a Saturday meeting. Chairman Wesner called
for a break at 11:05 p.m.
Christy Hempel, 576 Spring Road #71, Moorpark, CA. Opposed.
Marlene Day, 15478 Doris Court, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Day gave
her reasons to relocate in Moorpark along with the promise of
limited growth, conservation of open space. She suggested
continued work to find solutions for the issues address this
evening.
a:\91-11.18
1•
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -20-
That although public opinion is for stronger protection of the
environment including wilderness protection.
Windy Hatton, 10718 Citrus Drive, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Hatton
interests were helping to accomplish an equestrian trail
network for the City of Moorpark.
Joyce LeVegue, 12159 Arbor Hill Street, Moorpark, CA. Ms. r
LeVegue opposed to. high density development.. She also opposed
the annexation for Specific Plans 4,'5, 6,7, and 8.
Reno Lorenz, 13039 Williams Ranch Road, Moorpark, CA.
Opposed.
Peter Hadley, 4439 Cedar Branch Court, Moorpark, CA. Opposed.
Dennis Hardgrave, 651 Via Alondra #714, Camarillo, CA 93021.
Commented on the traffic element of the EIR. He identified
SP-1 in relationship to the City limits and said that it was
also compatible with the conceptual land use plan.
Mr. Hardgrave spoke on SP-5 traffic concerns relating to
generation factors. He said the goals and policies,
implementation and mitigation listed it would not be as
intense as the plan proposes.
Kendall Elmer clarified trip generation to be within the City
and study area only.
Mr. Hardgrave identified zone 63 (Southern California Edison)
that implicated the existing facility would be replaced with
4,050 sq.ft. of industrial space would increase trip
generation.
He said the 10 applicants requesting a General Plan Amendments
are not requesting increases in density between the Arroyo
Simi and Los Angeles Avenue or a Specific Plans bordered on
the north and east of the City. The additional had been at
the request of the Council as a directive to the Consultant.
Phil Vein, 9061 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90069.
Mr. Vein said that the EIR did not allow flexibility for
mitigation measures for circulation.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
-21-
That the proposed Circulation Element forced access to his
property through the adjacent property. He requested to
consider the original map design.
Wally Todd, P.O. Box 7, Moorpark, CA. Opposed.
Kurt Fasmer, 10811 Citrus Drive, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Fasmer
commented that SP-4 did not identify the existing sewer plant.
He spoke of waste problems that should be addressed and
specifically named SP-S.
Dave Anderson, 12453 Beechgrove Court,- Moorpark, CA.
Uncommitted.
Roseann Mikos, 14371 E. Cambridge Street, Moorpark, CA.
Opposed to the annexation. Her concerns were water shortage,
infrastructure improvements, preservation of open space areas,
traffic impacts to the Happy Camp area. Opposed especially to
SP-2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
Gerold Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, CA.
Uncommitted Mr. Goldstein addressed traffic congestion, Home
Acre residents requesting exclusion from City boundaries,
Beltramo water collection at Maureen Lane.
Eddie Ramseyer, 1881 Knoll Drive, Ventura, CA. Mr. Ramseyer
addressed his concerns on circulation and three door corridor
identified in his letter.
Sheldon Liber, 901 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 501 Monterrey
Park, CA 91754. Uncommitted.
Comments concluded at 12:14 a.m.
Commissioner May thank the public for their input.
Commissioner May asked how funding would be available for
roadway circulation improvements. Mr. Elmer responded that it
was addressed in the Circulation Element in the form of an
implementation measure.
The Director referenced UWC $3,000 buy out from the normally
requested traffic mitigation fee that is typically a covenant
against the property to not protest the formation of a
citywide traffic mitigation assessment fee.
a:\91-11.18
e
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Paae -22-
9;t
Commissioner May asked Mr. Elmer to define page 4-6 regarding
Walnut Canyon between Casey Road and Broadway Road. Mr. Elmer
said that in the proposed mitigation with the extension of SR-
23 bypass it would alienate the traffic demands on Walnut
Canyon.
Regarding Los Angeles Avenue between Spring Road and Nogales
downgraded from 4 to 2 lane. Mr. Elmer was said that it was
initiate by.City staff, and with the SR-118 arterial bypass it
was found that traffic demands in the.year 2010 would allow it
to be retained as a 2 lane.
Commissioner Brodsky commented on the CMP mitigation measure
provided as long as a LOS "C" is provided. He questioned what
happens if the LOS drops to "D" level? The Director said that
the CMP only determines a base for the County and that the
City could have a higher standard without problems. That
problems would arise only if the LOS was below the CMP base.
Mr. Elmer said that the City has specified within their goals
and policies to maintain a LOS of "C".
Commissioner Brodsky questioned how the City would regulate a
LOS for SR-118/23? The Director responded that we would not
be able to impose standards for SR-118/23.
Commissioner Brodsky asked where mitigation measures and
priorities were for roads needing to be improved under the
Alternatives suggested. Mr. Elmer said trip generation
comparisons would be the factor. Commissioner Brodsky
responded that there was no correlation between land use and
circulation within the Alternative suggested.
The Director said that the traffic analysis would be the mid-
range occurring, and if the option were higher suggested it
would be necessary to reconfigure. Once establishing the
priorities, it would be accomplished by Capital Improvement
Programs base on need over prescribe period of time.
The City will need to determine the needs as it considers
linkage, and if roads are missing whether it becomes the
priority the City it can determine to provide this improvement
through Capital Improvement Program.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -23-
S50
Commissioner Brodsky questioned how will improvements to the
corridors and bypasses at build -out effect the areas around
the City. Mr. Elmer said that a Regional Growth Impact
Analysis were prepared and addressed it by comparing how
proposed land plan for the City compared with what is shown
now on the County General Plan and identified that in both
residential and future employment estimates the current plan
was higher. Net difference is what is on the County Plan vs.
Moorpark General Plan (shown on page 51).
Commissioner Brodsky commented on the proposed linking of "D"
street and was concern with cumulative traffic on Princeton
Avenue. He question if any alternatives had been studied to
avoid this.
Mr. Elmer said that the main access would be onto Broadway
Road and secondary access onto Campus Park at Princeton
Avenue. No other feasible alternatives were found.
Motion: Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Torres
second a motion to continue the General Plan Update
hearing to November 21, 1991 at 7:00 p.m.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
11. STAFF COMMENTS
The Director said that the City Council requested that the
Commission conclude their meetings on the General Plan Update
by January 6, 1992.
12. COMMISSION COMMENTS
None.
a:\91-11.18
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 18, 1991
Page -24-
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned to
November 21, 1991 at 7:00 p.m.. The time being 12:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted
q by:
Celia LaFleur, Recording
Secretary
Chairman:
Michael H. Wesner Jr.
a:\91-11.18
QS
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 4,
1991 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting called to order at 7:07. Chairman Michael H.
Wesner presiding.
I.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Tina May.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Steve Brodsky, Christina D. May,
Barton Miller, Michael H. Wesner.
Absent: Commissioner John Torres
Other City Officials and Employees present:
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community
Development; Kathleen Mallory Phipps; Charles
Abbott, City Engineer; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City
Engineer; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Ken Ryan,
PBR, Cheri Phelps, PBR and Celia LaFleur,
Administrative Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
No items added or reordered.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Page-2-
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Wesner
second a motion to postpone the approval the
minutes of October 7, 1991 with an amendment to
reflect Commissioner May's October 7th statement
that "Conejo Ready Mix is an adjoining property
owner and .declared no conflict, of interest
regarding Conejo.Ready Mix since her appointment to
the Planning Commission".
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote,
Motion: Commissioner Brodsky moved and Commissioner Miller
second a motion to excused the General Plan Traf f is
Consultant, Austin Foust and requested that they be
present for the Planning Commission meeting of
November 18, 1991.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
No items for Consent Calendar.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. General Plan Amendment No. GPA-89-1, Zone Change No. Z-
89-1, and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study
City initiated Update to the City's General Plan Land Use and
Circulation Elements and associated rezoning within the
existing City limits which proposes a (year 2010) land use
plan having approximately 14,127 dwelling units, an estimated
204 acres of Commercial and an anticipated 561 acres of
a:\91-11.4
c
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
�1J
Pacte-3-
industrial development. Also, a Sphere of Influence Expansion
Study which proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having a
total of approximately 5597 dwelling units and 9 acres of
Commercial. There are additional land use changes to include
agricultural, open space, park, utilities, and
public/institution land uses.
The public review period for the Draft EIR is from October 11
to November 25, 1991.
The proposed planning area for the Land Use and 'Circulation
Element Update includes the existing City limits and
approximately 11,793 acres of unincorporated land surrounding
the City.
Chairman Wesner stated the purpose for the public hearing
which was to allow PBR to make their presentation regarding
the General Plan Update and it's related EIR, and the Sphere
of Influence Study. Then follow with the Commission and staff
comments. He requested that speakers who wished to comment,
complete a Speaker Card and provided it to the Recording
Secretary. ' That speakers would be called on to approach the
podium in the order that their Speaker Cards were received.
That speakers limit their comments to three minutes and at
10:30 p.m. the Commission would break to evaluate the
proceedings of the General Plan Update in order that they
conclude their meeting at 11:30.
The Director gave a brief overview of the General Plan Update
creation process. He requested that the Commission consider
the number of future meetings to be held and that November 25,
1991 would be the closing date to receive comments on the
adequacy of the General Plan Update and Sphere of Influence
Study. And that the next regular scheduled Planning
Commission meeting would be on November 18, 1991.
The Director advised the Commission of a recent staff report
to the Council which outlined meeting dates and requested that
the City Council provide direction to staff and the Planning
Commission on the General Plan Update scheduling.
The Director introduced Ken Ryan, Project Manger, Phillips
Brandt Reddick. Mr. Ryan referenced his staff report dated
November 4, 1991 to the Planning Commission.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
aae-4-
This report was the General Plan Land Use and Circulation
Element overview summary which highlighted primary topics.
Mr. Ryan also provided staff and the Commission with a Land
Use and Circulation summary of impacts taken from the Draft
EIR, and a two page handout on "What an EIR Is". Mr. Ryan
proceeded to give an outline of how the EIR process currently
stands. He said that the flow chart indicated that the
Planning. Commission had started the public hearing process and
review. His request of the Commission was that they propose
and provide. their comments on the General Plan .Update Land Use
and Circulation Elements, open the public hearing, receive
comments, questions and provide discussion in preparation for
the final EIR.
Mr. Ryan continued to outline the purpose of the General Plan
Update as it related to the State of California Planning and
Zoning Laws. That the Land Use Element was prepared as part
of the General Plan intended to designate the general
distribution, location, and the extent of uses within the
planning area. That it also included a statement of
population intensity and building intensity associated with
that element. ' That the Circulation Element indicated the
general location, and proposed major thoroughfares,
transportation routes, terminals and public facilities.
Mr. Ryan identified the General Plan Amendments as follows:
A) VH to C2
B) AG 1 HD
C) GUNY OS1 RL
D) JBR OS1 RL TO SP-2
E) RH TO IND 1
F) AG 1 TO SP-1 G
G) ML TO H VH
H) SCH DIS PROP H TO VH
I) ML TO CO
J) RL TO RH, VH, RS1 & PARK.
He requested that all comments, oral and written be available
to PBR so that they could respond to the final comments. That
the Planning Commission provide their recommendation on
certification and adequacy and that they find that the EIR
adequate in terms of addressing all impacts and reducing
impacts to an adequate level and make a recommendation to
approve the Land Use and Circulation Elements.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Paae-
Mr. Ryan explained the project process of the General Plan
Update, it's purpose, the role of the participants, and
existing data evaluation which consisted of baseline data
report and traffic analysis. He identified how staff had
prepared for the community participation program and the
identifying related topics of:
a. Existing Conditions
b. Key Issues/Opportunities and Constraint r
c. Community Goals and Policies
d. Alternative Concept Plans
e. Preferred Planning Alternatives
f. Draft Circulation Element-
9- Draft Land Use Element
h. Draft EIR
Mr. Ryan identified Major Impacts to be:
a. Land Use - Conversion of existing nonurbanized lands
to urbanized uses.
Partially mitigated by the City's
implementation of policies and programs which
preserve open space, viable agricultural
lands, significant natural features, etc.
b. Air Quality - Increase in total emissions.
Partially mitigated by incorporating all
possible transportation control measures into
individual projects.
C. Acoustics - Significant noise level increases due to
increase traffic.
Partially initiated by the City's
implementation of Noise Element policies which
involve provisions for appropriate site
planning and design, city review of proposed
projects, community Noise Ordinance
enforcement, and additional acoustical
analysis/ mitigation from future project
applicants.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
MA
Page-6-
d. Aesthetics - Conversion of existing nonurbanized,
rural lands to urbanized uses.
Mr. Ryan referenced the five alternatives:
a. No project - mandated by CEQA
b. Buildout per existing City and County General Plans for
the overall study area. Environmental inferior primarily i
or the safety aspects of. an improved circulation system
would not be addressed.
C. Buildout of a less intense alternative for the overall
study area. Viewed superior to the project because of
the few trips, reduction of impacts on public services.
This alternative did not achieve the level of housing, or
additional employment and additional circulation
improvements proposed primary within the Sphere of
Influence areas would not be implemented.
d. Buildout of a more intense alternative for the overall
study area within the City. Not preferable to the
proposed project due to greater impacts.
e. Buildout of the Updated Land Use Plan as proposed for the
City are and the existing County General Plan for the
proposed sphere of influence expansion area. Viewed as
slightly superior to the project from an environmental
because impacts would be reduced.
Mr. Ryan identified the purpose of the Circulation Element
which was to designate a safe and efficient circulation system
for the City. The approach identified was goals, policies,
implementation measures and Circulation Element maps prepared
in order to address identified circulation issues including
Regional Transportation Corridors; City Street System; Future
Growth; Transit System; Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian
Facilities; and Transportation Demand Management.
The Roadway Circulation Plan was also identified in the
following roadway systems improvements that will need to be
implemented:
a. Connection of the SR-118 and SR-23 freeways and new
interchanges at Collins Drive and Princeton Avenue.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Page-7-
b. Provision of an east/west SR-118 arterial bypass.
c. Provision of a north/south SR-23 arterial bypass from the
SR-23/SR-118.
d. Extension of Spring Road north to the SR-23.
e. Provision of a "B" Street local collector road which Q
accesses.Los Angeles Avenue and the SR-118 bypass.
f. Provision of a local collector system to serve
circulation needs in the area bounded by the Los Angeles,
Arroyo Simi, east of Tierra Rejada Road and west of
Spring Road.
g. Revision of a local collector system to serve circulation
needs in the northwest portion of the City with "C"
Street between extension of Gabbert Road and components.
h. Provision of a roadway system to serve circulation needs
in the Carlsberg Specific Plan area.
i. Provision of a north/south local collector connection
(Liberty Bell Road) between Los Angles Avenue and
Poindexter Avenue.
j. Revision of an eastern extension of Broadway Road
potentially connecting with Alamos Canyon Road.
In terms of the Circulation Element Impact summary, buildout
of the General Plan would result in traffic volumes exceeding
roadway capacities at several intersection without adequate
mitigation measures.
Future development planned for the City and the proposed
sphere of influence as well as changes recommended in the
Circulation Element Update will require major new roadway
development and improvements.
Mitigation summary for impacts are identified by the
following:
a. City to develop a program to monitor traffic volumes to
insure a level of "C" would be provided throughout the
planning area.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
io
Page-8-
b. City to implement all roadway addition, upgrades,
downgrades, and deletions as identified within the
circulation section of the Draft EIR
c. City to adopt roadway design standards and transportation
design criteria.
d. City to adopt a transportation improvement fee program e
e.. City to adopt a specific offsite.roadway/traffic signal
improvement fee.
That the Land Use Element approach to the General Plan Update
EIR acts as supporting document for the Land Use Element.
Goals, policies, implementation measures and Land Use Plan
maps have been prepared in order to address identified land
use issues including Land Use designations; Redevelopment;
Natural features: Public Services and Regional Plans.
The Land Use Plan had been prepared in accordance with the
State General Plan Guidelines which designates the amount,
location, 'distribution, density and intensity of each land use
proposed. The following are significant land use changes
included within the proposed Land Use Element:
a. Specific Plan designation for three large areas within
the present City boundaries, primarily existing as
nonurbanized land.
b. Specific Plan Designation for five large areas within the
proposed sphere of influence area which currently exists
as nonurbanized land and rural uses.
C. Incorporation of nine pending General Plan Amendment
requests.
d. Designation of VH/H land uses adjacent to the Arroyo Simi
south of New Los Angeles Avenue.
e. Inclusion of all current plans for the City area south of
the Arroyo Simi.
f. Designation of the Arroyo Simi Floodway identified on
FEMA maps.
a:\91-11.4
619
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Page-9-
Land Use Element Impact:
a. Buildout of the General Plan resulting in conversion of
existing nonurbanized land uses to the urbanized uses of
the Updated Land Use Plan.
b. The project at buildout does not conform with the
County's population forecasts, the county will updated
its population criteria based on 1990 census data.
c.. Adoption of the Land Use Element Update will influence
the need for updating and revising other existing
elements of the General Plan.
7:45 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Chairman Wesner reminded the public that whether the public
supports or opposes the issues brought forward at this public
hearing to please limit their comments to three minutes.
Testimony received from the following:
Charles Schwabauer, Leavens Ranch Manager, 12681 Broadway,
Moorpark, CA. Mr. Schwabauer identified SP-7 and the Mineral
Resource Zone that exists. His comment was that further
consideration be given to the circulation pattern near and
within SP-7 due to the high volume of truck traffic that
currently exists.
Eddie Ramseyer, Ramseyer & Associates, 1881 Knoll Drive,
Ventura, CA. Mr. Ramseyer identified his letter to the
Planning Commission dated October 28, 1991. Mr. Ramseyer
requested that there be some consideration made to 1) linking
Princeton Avenue to SR-2 3/Spring Street intersection; 2) Shift
SR-23, from Spring Road intersection to Broadway, easterly;
and that 3) "C" Street be shifted northerly.
Mr. Ramseyer also requested that the Commission and staff
consider a change to the Table on page 28 for SP-2 and on
Exhibit 3 - that the residential land use be identified with
the following designations (underlined). The requested
changes used target densities shown in Table 2, Page 20, to
make dwelling unit calculations conform to the Residential
Land Use densities, making data consistent within the exhibit
and tables.
a:\91-11.4
IT4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Page -10-
Land Use Mix
Total acres
445
Total dwelling units
712
du
Rural High
2
du
Medium Low
78
du
Medium
432
du
High
200
du
Commissioner May stated that she had no concern with the
proposed change in high density, but inquired whether the low
density would allow for equestrian type housing. Commissioner
May was concerned whether the proposed change would preclude
the estate dwelling units from development.
John Newton, Representative for JBR and Estes, 4410 Summer
Glen, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Newton's comments related to the JBR
property only. Mr. Newton reiterated Mr. Ramseyer's comments
pertaining the overall density of the JBR proposal and that
the Parkside Estates master plan property be treated as
originally proposed with no additional development to the open
space areas. Mr. Newton restated and concurred with Mr.
Ramseyer's statements to the Circulation Element.
Commissioner May inquired of Mr. Newton whether the Princeton
Avenue SR-23 off ramp would be provided by CALTRANS in the
current project. Mr. Newton replied yes, but the new "D"
Street would not be provided by CALTRANS.
Chairman Wesner inquired of the Director whether the public
testimony was beyond the scope of the EIR by hearing specific
plans? The Director said that staff preferred direct comments
which relate to the adequacy of the EIR document to help the
consultant respond to public comments.
Robert Warren, Ramseyer & Associates, 1881 Knoll Drive,
Ventura, CA. Mr. Warren spoke of the inadequacy of the
present SR-118 alignment without the proposed bridges. His
major concern was traffic from a quarry through town and that
there was no access to the freeway. That the Princeton Avenue
ramps could be the method to access truck traffic onto the
freeway.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
is
Page -11-
Commissioner Brodsky inquired about the proposed intersection
Princeton Avenue to Collins Avenue as shown in figure 1 of the
Ramseyer Associates letter dated October 28, 1991.
Ken Ryan addressed the Commission by saying relative to the
Princeton Avenue connection in terms of General Plan buildout
that the connection would not be needed, and that the critical
issue is phasing. That in terms of the interim it would be
critical, but in terms of buildout of the General Plan it is
not critical.
That regarding the SR-23 north/south connector, it was more
critical that the link is made and that the precise alignment
was not critical in terms of impact to the EIR. That "C"
Street further north and looking at the alignment the response
to grade adaption, design solution would not matter as long as
the link is made.
In terms of the density changes, Ken Ryan explained that PBR's
numbers are based on the total dwelling units and that since
the total dwelling units did not change it would not make a
significant change in terms of the overall environmental
analysis. That the traffic engineer did use the numbers
because densities are being changed per those request and that
the findings would be very similar and in some cases you have
a high density, and as long as the number does not change, the
higher density is a reduction in trips for that particular
use.
Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette, Moorpark, CA. (No audio
available.)
Carmela Vignocchi, Assistant Superintendent - Moorpark Unified
School District, 30 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, CA Ms. Vignocchi
thank the City and the Planning Commission for the opportunity
to speak on the EIR. Ms. Vignocchi address three comments as
she read from the Moorpark Unified School District letter
dated November 4, 1991 to be considered as follows:
1. School Facilities Mitigation - Inclusion of appropriate
mitigation measures to adequately address impacts upon
public school facilities and related capital outlay
requirements resulting from community growth and
development generated by the a land Use and Circulation
Element Update and the Sphere of Influence Expansion.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California 7
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Wa
2. Land Use - Inclusion of adequate set -asides of land use
designations for school purposes, including bus turn -outs
and joint -use potential for recreational facilities, both
within the City and the Sphere area.
3. School District Application for General Plan Amendment -
Uniform application of planning guidelines and criteria
that are consistent with standards established in the
Land Use and Circulation Element Update in determining
land use recommendations for the School District General
Plan Amendment application.
In conclusion, Ms. Carmela Vignocch said that they are looking
forward to the continuing working relationship with the City
of Moorpark and its consultants on the General Plan Update.
If there are any questions please contact Mr. Duffy, District
Superintendent.
Abe Guny, 7250 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Guny
commented on his property which is designated by the Land Use
& Circulation Element as RL, also how does this relate to the
current the zoning?
Ken Ryan said that there are a number of circumstances that do
not have a category that corresponds with the General Plan
Land Use Plan and one of the mitigation measures is to update
the zoning to respond to a preferred land plan category and
that was one of the recommendations to update the zoning code
and zoning map to respond to new land use designations. It is
a mitigation measure to correcting the zoning code to
correspond to the current zoning categories.
Mr. Guny was concerned that he have a clear understanding of
the land use designation for his property and inquired of Ken
Ryan if this issue would be address prior to the completion of
the EIR documents.
Ken Ryan said the general plan process will result with a one
dwelling unit per five acre minimum on the Guny property. As
a General Plan designation with a recommended mitigation
measure and implementation measures that requires zoning to
respond to that.
The Director said it is the intent of the City that the zoning
and General Plan be consistent at the time of final change.
a:\91-11.4
c
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
47
Page -13-
That even if the City utilized the existing zoning designation
of Rural Exclusive it would have the RE-5 acre minimum lot
size to be consistent.
Chairman Wesner summarized by saying it was an issue of
consistency and mitigation that will get the designation of 1-
5 acres per dwelling unit.
Mr. Guny second request was that the City amend the General a
Plan and Zoning to allow medium density (3.1 - du/acre ) on his
property west of Walnut Canyon Road. That the medium density
category would be consistent with the approved Tentative Map
No. 4652 on the south parcel and would be the same as the
existing land uses to be decided for the Levy property.
Mr. Guny said based on the 42 acre area the maximum number of
dwelling units which could be built in this area would be 65
homes.
Chairman Wesner call for a break at 8:40 p.m. and requested to
reconvene at 8:50 p.m.
Testimony continued:
Harvey Wolchuck, land owner, 10838 Broadway, Moorpark, CA.
Mr. Walchuck identified on the Land Use Map the area extending
north of the City to south of the City; the Los Posas Area of
Interest. He question why the western portion of the
expansion area was an irregular boundary line.
Ken Ryan stated that the boundary that was reflected in the
draft EIR and Land Use & Circulation Element was the study
area that was determine initially by the City to be the
appropriate planning area to be analyzed as part of the
General Plan Update. That it had been modified over the
original boundary which went into the Los Posas Area of
Interest. That adjustments were made to insure the City was
not within other areas of interest boundary, and therefore the
boundary had been pulled back. That the City provided a
boundary that followed Grimes Canyon Road.
The Director concluded by saying that Grimes Canyon Road was
a physical feature and identifiable and the primary reason for
the limitation on study area. That the boundary primarily
followed Waterworks District No. 1.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California 1 2
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Page -14-
Chairman Wesner called John Newton to the podium. John Newton
was absent from the audience.
Phil Vein, Representing Jemco Properties, P.O. Box 233,
Moorpark, CA. Mr. Vein referenced the January 1991 General
Plan Update Workshop in saying that the SR-118 bypass was
indicated on the westerly boarder of town. That in the most
recent EIR, the SR-118 is shown as a dotted line beyond the
property which was shown on the westerly boarder next to
American ..Products . development and curves southerly.
approximately at the Buttercreek intersection. That a map was
submitted in June 1991 and that the EIR seemed to be forcing
the property to enter the adjacent. property. That the.map
indicated access off of Los Angeles Avenue, but an optimum.
situation pursuant to Policy 2.5 and 2.6. Mr. Vein provided
the Commission with a line drawing with the previously access
alignment and the current alignment.
John Newton, Representative for JBR and Estes, 4410 Summer
Glen, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Newton addressed the Estes GP-89-1B,
concurred with Phil Vein and his comments that indicated a
westerly freeway connection at Gabbert Road, and suggested a
four lane arterial between the Southern California Edison and
the industrial area and connect to an improved intersection
with four lanes. That the preferred alternative seemed to
address a way in which it could be considered an improvement.
Mr. Newton addressed item A17 regarding potential for spot
zoning and some other concerns, access etc. for the mobilehome
park designation that the Estes Trust has proposed. That the
property showed as high density on the new land use
designation map, and what is needed is 7 du to the acre that
exceed the target of 5 in that high density range, however
there are provisions for exceeding that density and we are
able to address this. He identified the Estes property on the
map he submitted to the Commission. He talked of the benefits
of mobilehome property being isolated (i.e. Villa del Arroyo),
Fillmore and Santa Paula, although considered spot zoning the
notion was to provide an important type of housing for this
community.
Regarding C-29 preferred Gabbert Road, that it was a logical
connection that can be built within that corridor.
Another subject was A-C Construction. Mr. Newton asked the
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Page -15-
Commission to refer to the letter dated November 4, 1991 which
states that the exhibit in the EIR figure 3 (existing General
Plan Map) was incorrect, that it was shown as medium density
residential, that it was a graphic error.
His final comment was on Ravlico 89-1E, that there was nothing
negative or positive. That access would come from below and
that all were in agreement to that.
Regarding Anderson 89-1A; that it had. removed from the GP
process and processing on it's own under the guidance of
McDonald's.
The Director address the Chair and said that the Anderson 89-
1A had not technically been removed from the GP Update and
that it would be proceed separately as part of the GP Update.
Elaine Freeman, Urban Strategies, 2509 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.,
Thousands Oaks, CA Ms. Freeman address Specific Plan 8 (page
37) refers to 4500 acres and pointed out that a portion of the
property - the Open Space portion, that the area to the west
surrounding the Open Space property of approximately 240
within the SP-8 boundary and that it was under separate
ownership. Ms. Freeman requested that the document reflect
the two different ownerships.
Secondly, Ms. Freeman said that the Specific Plan proposal
called for 231 du and that Specific Plan also recommended 25%
Open Space within the boundaries of the Specific Plans. That
the property owner for the record be designated for, or get a
portion of the proposed Specific Plan units. Also that they
be allowed to process separately if they chose to do so and
not as a part of the Specific Plan. Ms. Freeman identified
the surrounding properties of SP-8.
Commissioner May inquired if SP-8 was one property owner. Ms.
Freeman replied no.
Dennis Hardgrave, Representing Levy Co., Development Planning
Services, 651 Via Alondra #714, Camarillo, CA 93012 Mr.
Hardgrave identified the Levy Company as being a group of
private investors on the property and not to be confused with
the Bank of A. Levy.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California 100
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Page -16-
His comments were on the 285 acre parcel referred to as
Specific Plan #1. He commented on the extension of High
Street coming across the Levy property to service the Estes
property and that it was the intent to leave the entire parcel
westerly in an Open Space configuration. That there was no
intention to create a four way intersection crossing Gabbert
Road at that location to provide any access to any other uses
is the Park District takes the property it would be for their
use. .
e
Mr. Hardgrave addressed the Commission stating that in the EIR
there were 7900 dwelling units as of December 1990 built in
the City of Moorpark, and that the City area .existing General
Plan at buildout was 8981 dwelling units. That the General
Plan at buildout and the proposed City area do not to include
the Specific Plans 4-8 which is proposing a total dwelling
units of 14,127, and increase of approximately 5,150 units.
Mr. Hardgrave questioned the information related to existing
and proposed dwelling units and could only justify 3850 (in
comparison to the 5146 proposed) additional units added by the
General Plan Update. His concern was that there may be an
inflated environmental impact figures as it may relate to air
quality, traffic, etc.
Mr. Hardgrave requested the Commission to consider a
recommendation that the 25% Open Space acreage within Specific
Plans be dedicated to the City, the Park District or a current
method used by Thousand Oaks called Conejo Open Space
Conservation Agency. That this could insure maintenance and
permanent preservation of these Open Spaces.
Mr. Hardgrave referenced page 5 - restricted grading on
slopes. That the previous Council and Commission had
discussions in providing an ordinance like the Simi Valley
Hillside Ordinance. To consider the ability to allow
flexibility in Specific Plan area when the benefits would
outweigh the impacts.
He said that another item covered briefly was fiscal impacts
of the General Plan. That the fiscal impacts of the City in
having new development oppose to rehab development in the
redevelopment district was significant in terms to the
property tax revenues to the district and to the City. His
estimation was that there would be at buildout, an increase of
over $700,000 per year to the City redevelopment district.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
)61
Page -17-
He requested that the term to restrict grading be amended
throughout the General Plan and that the EIR read "to
minimize grading on slopes of 20% or grader", which would also
provide staff, Council, and Commission a case by case
decisions on slope preservation.
Page 6 under Transportation Circulation Measures - amend "all
roadway additions upgrades downgrades within development
project boundaries" recommended in Section 3.2 shall be
implement as development occurs to accommodate the proposed
General Plan Land Use Plan. The intent to *clarify the
responsibility of future development to build all on -site
improvement proposed in the Circulation Plan.
Page 12 under Aesthetics Mitigation Measures - delete
"hillside development ordinance" and amend to "the City shall
employ a mechanism such a viewshed preservation criteria in
order to protect the visually significant horizon lines in the
community".
Page 32 the first paragraph of the text implies that portions
of Specific Plan 1 are classified as either Prime or Statewide
significant agricultural lands. Exhibit 6 of the EIR shows
that neither Prime or Statewide agricultural land is located
within Specific Plan 1. He requested that the text be amended
to correct the discrepancy.
Page 89-90 under Land Use Element and the EIR reflect the
redevelopment district as a mitigation tool to encourage and
fund development of affordable housing units. Also thought
the incentives available to the City and developers within the
district it would be likely that more affordable housing units
can be provide in a variety of densities.
Mr. Hardgrave other comments related to Page 93, 115, and 125
as stated in his letter dated November 4, 1991.
Deborah Menard, Representing Regal Park HOA, 150-802 Majestic
Court, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Menard reminded the Commission of a
recent action in the arguments related to high density
proposed between Los Angeles Avenue and the Arroyo Simi. Ms.
Menard was concerned with the high density still proposed
between Los Angeles Avenue and the Arroyo Simi.
a:\91-11.4
a
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Page -18-
That there should also be consideration of providing high
density throughout the community, that condensing high density
in one area would turn downtown into a downtown Los Angeles.
Another concern was that there was not any consideration to
the amount of park and recreation space for lower density
areas, and was not proportionate to park and recreation that
is on the map in the high density areas. That there was no
recreation area in the high density areas. Ms. Menard asked
that the Commission remember the issues brought up with the
proposed Bibo development.
Ms. Menard requested that the General Plan and the area that
is designated high density be changed so that the same
concerns do not have to be addressed each time that a new high
density project is proposed between Los Angeles Avenue and the
Arroyo Simi.
Sheldon D. Liber, Representing Bolling, Gill, Allen &
MacDonald Architects, 901 Corporate Center Drive, #501,
Monterey Park, CA 91754. Mr. Liber stated an intersection at
Buttercreek Road could circumvent future intersection at SP-5
and that the potential of having access from SP-5 to Los
Angeles Avenue should be taken into consideration. That a
study be provided for a Gabbert Road connection.
Patty Waters, 10865 Broadway Road, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Waters
spoke on specific parts of the land use and the General Plan
related to agricultural section Goal 11 and requested that
the same goal remain and in the original agricultural section
of goals and policies.
Specifically the criteria of "land use and compatibility".
That equestrian property of 2 or 3 acre parcels adjacent to
farm uses create problems inasmuch as crop disease, running
sprinklers and causing drought and stress to the trees.
Ms. Waters commented on the expansion study and requested the
Commission consider the importance of policies relating to
land use and compatibility as they relate to suburban rural
and farming, and the preservation of agricultural use.
Comments closed at 9:45 p.m.
a:\91-11.4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Page -19-
The Director reminded the Commission of the need to schedule
the General Plan Update for specific meeting dates other than
their regular meeting dates of the first and third Mondays of
each month.
Commissioner Brodsky questioned staff as to the availability
of the Traffic Engineer. The Director said this is subject to
contractual agreement.
Mr. .Ryan commented that. the current contract agreement
requires that the draft response to comments be submitted to
City staff on December 9 and in order to adhere to the
schedule all comments will need to be completed on November
25, 1991.
Mr. Ryan commented that in adhering to the EIR schedule final
EIR submitted to the City is on December 23, 1991, and
response to comments on December 9, City staff comments back
to PBR on December 16, and in to the City on December 23, this
would not be a problem as long as there are not any major
revisions or substantial changes that would affect the EIR
documentation.
Commissioner Brodsky questioned the Chair at what point do the
Commissioners address their goals and policies and the
adequacy of the EIR. Chairman Wesner responded at the close
of public testimony unless there were specific questions
needed to be addressed.
The Director reinstated the deadline for comments to be
received no later than November 25, 1991.
Motion: Chairman Wesner moved and Commissioner Miller
second a motion to continue the Planning Commission
meeting regarding the General Plan Update public
hearing to November 18, 1991.
Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
a:\91-11.4
R
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
Page -20-
10. Discussion Items
Commissioner Brodsky inquired of staff as to the status of
fire sprinklers, and the issue of residential addresses within
multi -family development in relation to emergency service.
11. Staff Comments
None.
12. Commission Comments
Chairman Wesner commented that the Council had recently
adopted a resolution regarding the rules and procedures for
meetings and requested that staff provide this information to
the Planning Commission.
13. Future Agenda Items
None.
a:\91-11.4
MAI
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 4, 1991
14. Adjournment
IOS
Page -21-
There being no further business the Planning Commission
meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectf lly submitted
/� -/6 - �/ by:
Celia LaFleur, Recording
Secretary
Chairman
Michael H. Wesner Jr
a:\91-11.4
R
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC-92-253
A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK RECOMMENDING ADOPTING THE
CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND
CIRCULATION ELEMENTS AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THEREFORE, CASE
NO. 89-1
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on
November 4, 1991, November.18, 1991,. November 21, 1991, November
25, 1991, December 6, 1991, December 20, 1991, the Planning
Commission considered a draft Land Use and Circulation Element and
related Lnvironmental"-Imp act Report (EIR) were prepared for the
City by the City' s-consultant, PBR (Phillips, Brandt and Reddick);
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR, Land Use and Circulation Elements
were circulated to over 45 agencies and interested persons and
parties;
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements and
related EIR were reviewed by the Planning Commission, after review
and public testimony, the Planning Commission made the following
recommendations (Attachment A);-
NOW;. THEREFORE; BE. -IT. RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS:
Section 1. That the Planning Commission hereby
recommends certification of Final EIR and identifies that the Final
EIR is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Planning Commission testifies that they reviewed information
contained within the Final EIR prior to approving the City of
Moorpark Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General
Plan.
Section 2. That the Planning Commission of the City
of Moorpark hereby recommends certification of the EIR.
Section 3. That the Planning Commission of the City
of Moorpark hereby recommends approval of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the City General Plan based upon the
following changes specified within Attachment A (Planning
Commission Recommendations).
Section 4. That the Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council not consider a Sphere of Influence expansion
at this time.
CRL-01-14-92(1:46p )C:\NP51\RES0S\153
ion
Resolution No. PC-92-253
Page -2-
Section 5. That the adoption of the City of
Moorpark's Land Use and Circulation Elements and EIR is based upon
numerous factors, including but not limited to the following:
1. The EIR and Land Use and Circulation Elements fully
comply with all requirements of State law.
2. The documents represent the desires of the
Community.
3. The document provides for the long-range a
development of the ultimate. City in a manner that
is sensitive -to the existing terrain, as well. as
serving the need of the ultimate residents of the
City.
4. The General Plan establishes major policy direction
for the coordination of private and public
development that is compatible with the existing
community, while fully providing for the health,
safety and general welfare of the residents.
5. The adoption of the General Plan is the culmination
( of extensive citizen participation which -included.
s.ix- (6) public workshops,. -over 2 1/2 years- _of_ work
by the consultant and -City staff, and extensive
public hearings before the Planning Commission.
Section 6. That the adoption of this Environmental
Impact Report, Land Use and Circulation Elements are for the sole
purpose of updating the General Plan. These documents shall not
preclude the City from requiring additional studies, EIR's,
Mitigated Negative Declarations or monitoring policies for these
projects when deemed necessary by the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6 DAY OF January,
1992, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner's
NOES: Miller
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Brodsky, Torres, May, Wesner
Chairman:
Michael H. Wesner Jr.
CPL-01-14-92(1:96pm)C.\WP51\RES0S\253
Resolution No. PC-92-253
Page -3-
ATTEST:
Celia LaF eur, Secretary:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
SS
COUNTY OF VENTURA )
I, Celia LaFleur, do hereby certify that I am the secretary of the
Planning Commission of the City -of Moorpark, California and that
the.. foregoing .resolution . was -duly.:- adopted at. a . r- egular meeting
thereof held on -January 6, J992 -by the -following vote: `
Ayes: Commissioner's Wesner, Brodsky, May,
Torres;
Noes: Miller.
Absent: None.
ATTEST:
Celia LaFleur, Secretary
CRL-01-14-92(1:46pm)C:\WP51\RES0S\253
Resolution No. PC-92-253
Page -4-
ATTACHMENT A
1b9
I. Land Use Goals and Policies Planning Commissions
Recommendations
A. Proposed Alternative:
In a 4:5 vote (NO:Miller) the Planning Commission recommended
Alternative 4 which supports buildout of the Updated Land Use
Plan as proposed for the city area and the existing County
General Plan for the proposed Sphere of Influence expansion
area.*
B. Land Use Goals and Policies - Policy Revisions
Proposed Planning Commission teat changes are shaded. New
text recommended by the Planning Commission is indicated in
bold.
Policy 1.6:
Promote a comprehensive planning approach for
undeveloped areas of the community, which allows
for the incremental expansion of development which
includes infrastructure and pubic services, and
which promotes -continued .aesthetic; : -economic --_and _
social viability of- existing ment_
�
�.
develop4'isti{.v
•
v..4...........: :..:^i}:. :_. !....r___. _.x_s: lzvy-`tic:P _+a!a: ::: 'i-,C?aS:!!:::}:y:::-!:•!Y..: .....}}.{: ry!_.yv-.!!;.;• - -
YY}}
.... ___ .. ail nry: r4��-
�.} -::e•_..}~iirv'-:'•?+-_- ':?:r_ �+w f•.K... p.l�F
cempa __..{.vi-��C�,���vii:::?:::::��.-L.'r.':v_�-.-`�+-�--.T--i_-_-lLia.-..---•.
_ _
.............v...................x.__s.v.___s::vi:\ i^C-''✓.itil{i_Yi
Policy 2.3:
Based upon the study of the planning area
a>ta= to adopt an amended��
of influence--- for the City of Moorpark, in
cooperation with adjacent cities and the County of
Ventura, and submit to the Local Agency Formation
Commission for approval.
Policy 3.1:
Provide a mix ofr residential densities,ft !i
which accommociae t"ie
fiousngx`needs of- aY ers of the community.
denab
Policy 4.3:
Provide for the protection and preservation of
existing neighborhoods in order to maintain their
small-scale character and to aveid-displaeemen
existing eeafeEming uses.
Policy 4.4%
The City shall avoid displacement of existing
confor ing uses and population.
Policy 4.5:
When available, ssnae the use of govern.'
undzg andedev+lopmen funds fog etng
.
deveia nt.
_ :.. Pam..::.
110
Resolution No. PC-92-253
Page -5-
Policy 5.1 Encourage dispersed development of multi -family
dwellings throughout the; city cahch are r#
proximity to einploymerit opportunities; shopping
areas, public parks, and transit lines, with
careful consideration of the proximity to and
compatibility with single-family neighborhoods.
cx
Policy 5.3: encourage the use of greenbelt areas
arou--Aha"'w thin residential projects.
Policy 5.41 Encourage development of multi -family development
throughout the community in accordance with. Policy
Policy 6.2: The ultimate land uses, design guidelines,
development standards, infrastructure and phasing
requirements adopted for any given Specific Plan
shall be consistent with the General Plan and
text discussion ( see Section 5.2) of tie} -type,
location and intensity of use determined
appropriate for each Specific Plan area.
Policy 6.4: Encourage decreased density as distance from
arterials and -commercial .shopping areas increases
'"7wv:};e=�—_Si=�—:;-�:`�:'p)S�?c.•w>»:act:•�'+i.?c;.b-h::..r:is?:<`•:^::i:`.<:?.•ri•:"'•:-2; _;.•.-^M::..;<:E.v.
„i-}:??:iv:Jvii:-•}}isin�fn:+b,sssSrcitu}}}}}\\nM4MV v,.:m \: n. n...F .\,m nn ..:.mA \.}...h n...v}.:3:4..:..--}_: Jl`.':v.:x.:4$:
Policy 7.2: Encourage the clustering of commercial development
Policy7.4 : Encourage':"<:`'"::_ nei hborhood
center planning concept while avoiding' strip
commercial development.
Policy 9.2: Maintain the low rise scale of the city's
commercial core,<.'f#,`iA
Policy 9.3 !i#{ promote the establishment of a
community meeting/marketplace in the downtown core
area.
4
Resolution No. PC-92-253
Page -6-
Policy 9.4: Encourage the comprehensive planning of the rail
yard district to provide new commercial infill
areas, park and/or recreational opportunities,
public parking, and a potential multi -modal
transportation center within the downtown core.
Policy 9.7: Encourage the use of an integrated architectural
theme in the redevelopment of existing or
a;r:.
development of new commercial buildings k>
d ; ii talea ..........
Policy 10,4: Encourage those industries. which meet..-
local,
p
regional and state air.and-water_ollution control
= :'v
Qoals and Standards
Policy 12.5: Maintain the city's current standard of five acres
of parkland per 1,000 population consistent with
the city's Open Space and Recreation Element to
ensure that adequate passive/active parkland is
provided in conjunction with future infill,
redevelopment, and new development projects
OVA
:
Place Policy:`13.4 under Policy.12.7
Place Policy 13.3 under Policy 12.8
Policy 14.6 Encourage the conservation of significant aquifer
recharge areas <:. - <> <.?AS
:.::::.-::::::..:•ii'--i ::� ::::::.:::........: :' :iF•rikn ::t::i:$i::}jiiii :: J:iii£J::R:i: i�2'six: h-uia::: iiJ;r:-:iv::{;i;yrh�c:3i.:•:i iY::;4:i io': ]tx.CY,::L:-..-..
Policy 15.4: R'he C =shall: encourage the maintenance and
::.;:::::::.......:.::::::...........
enfiaridement of ,air quality for the health and well-
being of city residential by encouraging
development which will not result in a negative
impact on air quality.
11200
Resolution No. PC-92-253
Page -7-
Polic 16 .4 : The>:::>;><<C:.:::;::=>;ha:>:fal
>1 new residents
f :::::
development to complement:tfie overall community
r.._ry ?- :.`:i:..::::'f.-ii:i.J:_::'.:
character of the city,>:>Cc7ne:_wa►<=ay
... .
......................... while estab`Y-fishing a sense of place
and ensures compatibility with important existing
local community identities.
- e
Policy .17.4: Encourage . - - .. a design concept to
. for special treatment areas,
"s`uch" as the downtown districts, which may include
guidelines for architecture, landscape
architecture, signage, streetscape, and
infrastructure.
Policy 17.10 Limit residential construction to two
commercial and industrial to three-story
C. Land Use Classifications:
The Residential Land Use Designations, Table 2, does not have
a zoning designation of RH and RL. The RH zoning designation
should be added to this Table and a "compatible" dot placed
under the R-E zone for the RL and RH Land Use designations and
removed under the AE and OS.
D. Evaluation Criteria for Specific Plans
Appendix A (pg. 48-49) shall add "Natural Resource/Topographic
Considerations. Preservation shall be included in the Natural
Resource/Topographicevaluation Criteria.
E. Specific Plan Areas/Land Use Requests Within City Limits:
The two parcels north of the Arroyo Simi, South of Los Angeles
Avenue, West of Moorpark Avenue and adjacent to the Westland
project are recommended to be changed from General Commercial
to High Density.
113
Resolution No. PC-92-253
Page -8-
Specific Plan Area No. 1
The Commission recommends approval of the land use
classification of VH (Very High Residential) provided that
development on the Levy Company site does not exceed 831
dwelling units. The Land Use designation for the site will now
include: C-2, M, Park, RH, L, High, and Very High density
residential.
Specific Plan Area No. 2
e
The. Commission - recommends including the land. use
classification of High and :Medium High density on the proposed
site. Land Use designations will now include: C-1, P, OS, ML,
M and H provided the 1.6 dwellings per acre density is not
exceeded.
Specific Plan Area No. 3
The proposed land use and density is recommended to be as
suggested for SP 3 (Density shall not exceed .66 dwelling
units per acre).
GPA 89-1 (A) Anderson:
The Commission recommends` a change from High Density:.
General Commercial for this site.
GPA 89-1 (B) Estes Trust:
The Commission recommends a change from Agriculture to High
Density residential Land Use.
GPA 89-1 (C) Abe Guny:
The Commission recommends a change from Open Space -1 to Rural
Low (5 Acre Minimum) Land Use designation.
GPA 89-1 (E) Fred Ravli:
The Commission recommends a change from Rural High residential
to Light Industrial Land Use designation.
GPA 89-1 (H) Moorpark Unified School District
The Commission recommends a change from Institutional (school)
to Very High and High residential Land Use designation.
GPA 89-1 (I) Scaroni:
The Commission recommends approval of a High Density (H)
residential on this site.
114
Resolution No. PC-92-253
Page -9-
GPA 89-1 (J) Schleve:
Recommend Very High Density Residential on the proposed
development site. Land Uses shall be composed of: RH, OS-2,
VH, Park, and Medium density.
F. Land Use Designations:
The C-I (Commercial Industrial) land use designation for the
downtown Moorpark area should be deleted.
0
G. Land Use Matrix (Exhibit 6):
The Planning Commission recommends that the Land Use Matrix be
further modified after adoption of the General Plan Update to
correct any inconsistencies within the Land Use Matrix.
H. The Need for a Glossary:
A comprehensive Glossary should be included in this document.
Throughout the document, the use of specific terns are
confusing or vague to readers without a Glossary.
II. -CIRCULATION ELEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION RE CO IDATIONS
A.- Circulation Issues:
1. The City of Moorpark does have a bus system, so page 3 of the
Circulation Element should be modified to read:
Transit System: "The City currently laek-e a public
transportation system which serves the
needs of persons living in and/or working�in t�ommunity.-
2. "B" Street should be eliminated from the Circulation Element
Plan Figure 2. The proposed location for the 118 by-pass
should be moved to the west between the Bugle Boy Property and
Jemco property.
3. On the Circulation Plan (Figure 2), Spring Road should be
shown as a 4-lane arterial; Figure 2 within the Circulation
Element should be modified.
4. Poindexter to Liberty Bell Road should be shown as A Class 2
bikeway.
5. Science Drive and Peach Hill Drive should have the bike lane
designation of Class II.
6. If the roadway can support a Class III bikeway, Peach Hill
Road from Science Drive to Tierra Rejada Road should be
dedicated as a Class III bikeway.
L
115
Resolution No. PC-92-253
Page -10-
7. On the Circulation Plan (Figure 2), the Northerly extension of
Liberty Bell Road should be removed (majority vote).
8. "D" Street should be included in the Circulation Plan (Figure
2). "D" Street should extend from Princeton Avenue to the SR-
23.
9. The Eastern extension of Broadway to Alamos Canyon should be
eliminated on the Circulation Element Highway Network (Figure
2). Alamos Canyon Road should not be connected to Broadway.
10. The Goals and Policies of the EIR identifies Walnut Canyon as
a 4-lane arterial. However, the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the General Plan identifies the roadway as a 2-
lane local collector.
11. "C" Street should follow the natural topography and avoid
bisecting significant landforms.
12. As Gabbert Road curves and extend to the North, it is not
identified by title. The Gabbert Road street identification
should extend Northerly until Gabbert Road connects with
Grimes Canyon Road.
13. Add Los Angeles Avenue, Spring Road to Princeton Avenue- to the
General Plan Circulation Element, Figure No. 2, as a 4-lane
Rural Collector and remove it from the down grading chart on
page V-6 of the EIR circulation analysis.
B. Goals and Policies:
..:
Policy 2.7 : --= s -t- _ s: _ =: ; o' <. is € t # w=vim:
require traffic signal" "or stop sign
installation at intersections which, based on
individual study, are shown to satisfy traffic
signal or stop sign warrants.
Policy 5.3: Where appropriate, .require proposed
residential, commercial, and industrial
,:�,...:...�-+•:.•�: cv... <• Ka:`C,py`�t,,:!curt•:.:.,::•>r•:,ti:.,:.::•.:...-:x: �, f..;.. development r .::,:.a tt;`nr:.;:
or lanes in eir street uaprovement
lanshand to construct the bicycle paths or
P --• � Y
lanes as a condition of project approval.
C. Circulation Concerns:
1. Traffic on Walnut Canyon may become a serious problem with the
final development of all of the Specific Plan Areas within the
City.
-- - -- - -- ----- --- in
a
SENT BY:Xerox Tetecopier 7020 ; 1-14-92 ; 18:32 ; 7142612128-4 18055296270;# 2
IANATTACHMENT 3
January 14, 1992
Kathleen Mallory Phipps
Associate Planner
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
RE: Moorpark Land Use and Circulation Element
Update Final EIR Errata
Dear Kathleen:
The following Final EIR Errata is provided in response to your letter of January 7, 1992
(see attached letter) in which you requested correction and additional information pertaining
to eight specific items of concern in order to make the Final EIR certifiable. The following
additional information is hereby incorporated into the Moorpark Land Use and Circulation
Element Update and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study Final EIR--
1. A duplicate page for Responses 3-3 to 3-5 occurred in reproducing the documents;
please remove the duplicate page to prevent any confusion.
2. The following response is hereby added to the Final EIR:
Response 6-12
The comments relative to the consistency of General Plan policies are noted.
However, any policy statement, being"a general objective, cannot be definitive to
specific situations and the City shall apply policies, and interpret any specific conflicts
among policies, as projects are reviewed The assumed inconsistency is speculative,
premature and is not a comment on the Draft EIR.
The recommendation to revise the wording from "restrict" to "discourage" is noted.
but not accepted. Policy 16.2 is retained and will be applied on a case by case basis
during project review, in conjunction with all other applicable policies relevant to a
specific project on a site specific basis.
3. Comments 9-2 to 10-4 are hereby added to the Final EIR.
4. Duplicate pages for Comments 10-5 to 114 occurred during reproducing the Final
F.IR; please remove two of the duplicate pages to prevent any confusion.
PLANNING - URBAN DESIGN . ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION . MARKET & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS • ENTITLEMENT
18M2 SKY PARK CIR. 9 IRVINE, CA92714 - 714/281-8820 FAX: 714/281-2128 0 IRVINE a SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 1-14-92 ; 18:32 ; 7142612128-+ 18055298270;# 3
III
5. In Letter 22, in the Public Cammentg on Draft EIR section of the Final EIR, the last
paragraph of page 1 of the Resources Agency of California correspondence is hereby
labeled; "22.3" (Comment 22-3). The index was inadvertently omitted.
6. In pages 2,3 of Letter 25, in the Publls Comments on Draft EI"R section of the Final
EIR, the last paragraph of page 2, which continues on page 3, is hereby labeled; "25-
5" (Comment 25-5). The index was inadvertently omitted.
7. Responses 38-22 to 39-2 are hereby added to the Final EIR.
8. The comment that the District "will question the following specific elements when it
is reviewed" is noted. However, the remaining material (items 1 - 3) in the
comments do not pertain to specific General Flan policies. Item 1 apparently alludes
to disagreements with LAFCO actions and provision for water services to a specific
property. The District is encouraged to pursue resolving its disagreement with
LAFCO. Item 2 continues the discussion regarding disagreements with LAFCO and
VCWD1. Item 3 speculates on potential unnamed engineering concerns regarding
VCWD1 services. None of the three items addresses issues of adequacy within the
Draft EIR.
S cerely,
L A'QM,
Kenneth J. Ryan
Director
Attachments:
KJR:lc
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
January 7, 1992
Mr. Ken Ryan
PBR
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, CA 92714
RECEIVED - 9 1992
Subject: Final EIR, Response to Comments
(via fax, original forthcoming)
Dear Ken:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on January 6, 1992 below
please find a listing of the errors staff has identified within the
Final Response to Comments, Final EIR:
1. There are two copied pages of Comments No. 3-3, 3-4 and 3-5;
2. Comment No. 6-12 needs a response. The letter from the
Messenger Investment Company has the standard section
numbering to the right of the question within the text of the
letter but not respone is made;
3. Thank you for faxing the missing page of Comment No. 9-2
through 10-4;
4. There are three copied pages of Comments No. 10-5 through
11-4;
5. Comment No. 22-3 has a response. However, it is difficult to
identify the question asked because it does not have the
standard section numbering to the right of the question within
the text of the letter;
6. The same is true for Comment No. 25-5. No section numbering to
the right of the question is identified within the letter;
7. Thank you for faxing the missing page of Comments No. 38-22
through 39-2;
8. Comment No. 40-5 has a standard section number next to the
question within the letter (from the Camrosa Water District).
However, this question does not have a response.
Based upon my review, the above errors should be corrected.
8
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR.
JOHN E. WOZNIAK
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
BERNARDO M. PEREZ
ROY E. TALLEY JR.
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tern
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
f
IICI
Mr. Ken Ryan, Final EIR
January 7, 1992
Page 2
As I mentioned during our phone conversation yesterday, please
carefully review the Final EIR in order to eliminate any future
errors.
Please advise us of how you are proposing to correct these errors
in order to make the Final EIR certifiable.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
a
Kathleen Mallory Phipps
Associate Planner
cc: The Honorable City Council
Steve Kueny, City Manager
Chery Phelps, Vice President PBR
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
Case File
A:FEIRPROB.ltr
ATTACHMENT 4
W
r..4
Q
v
T
co
a
0
►ao
z
O
v1
A
A
o
N
O
r►/
E-
�
A
W
w
_
c
j r,
Z
LL!
0
Z-
LJ
a
z
Q
a
J
0 cr-
UJ
> Z
W
J C`3
T
U
a
a n
LO
m J O
W p
CO �D
T
T" J
W
O
J
w
ui
� Q
O w
O o F-
LL -T W
W J Z_
J LtJ O
J a
Q
44
Z
� _a
E" m
CU
w co
N T
♦+w■ T
Y / ,
Occ
c O
v0
♦Q LL
V
J
Q
jai
A
GPA-89- 1 (F)C
VIEV TO NORTH OF PARK SITE & HIGH DENSITY
From Poindexter :k,.enue
vT_W
p
Jop
T� 6
AL�
V
lll'\l OF SITU
Froin Lw, An�.ele" A\elluc & 1,11)t!rl\ Bell
0 S'
•
O i
110 i moo- Z cN �
����•� L
to �
Cd
AID
t a } •' E.
_ � 1
_ • •�\ 1� lam: J ,� �h �_ , --�� 1.. i �C• ,i: �_ •\ '.��'.���i: -� ..
• p. `__.on-�:'-_ �TJ+/-+(a^, ,� - _-�:J-fi-��__....• '�;`��'_+'J�.\_G�\ :�� �•��'/`�.<�J �, � ��•iY �'�. O
!�
L
F`�A
S `` � . fit; /. ^n`1- r . ,� i j � � • � i.
0 co IC
`�.,� : •-• oA � �- i_ , \ • >\ - o~ '.r{ t''�� ~/ = = % � 1 � ()i•�� Y T C }=-� -tea (\) - •) r��"1•
_ LQ \� . ., ::- '• :•. • O .`�.. .`��- f(- `{.: '-�.; /� � /Ci- +� 7C' ' "..i�J o• •. i iO � (L j ee
m GInS�C o
\ \ IT •i 1 43
�� •��'-:ri��:,{ 1�1 .� cci J 1�;. ��� /i- �,1 o = - - cA0 1 �J
10 - ........ .... :.
}
1 1 •`�"�• '�•��� r_. �/-�� _��_ Gar _. !ram
0.
'1 �o;."` U�( 1 o /��`•/``moo\ ;• ' O�J_1�� c�_/ Z."' c o
\. _�•�r . ' . . �_ � / ', l` r . ` 'ii/' �j ` �2 der �- . �, C/-'./� �'�.�./__�/i_
0
�IIP _
�� L _
_1
�r
RA117SEYER AND ASSOCIATES
NOVEMBER 13, 1991
GPA-89-1(D)B)2q
-PRELII,IINARY COST ESTIMATE
FOR
SIZ23 - 118 FREENVAY EXTENSIONS
TO
EAST BOUNDARY OF SPECIFIC PLAN #2
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
GRADING 1,000,000 Cy $ 2.00/CY $ 2,000,000
BRIDGES 6 Structures JOB 14,000.000
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS --- JOB 4,000,000
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ------ JOB 11000,000
SUB TOTAL $21,000,000
ENGINEERING 10% $ 2,100,000
CONTINGENCIES 15% $ 3,150,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR FREEWAY EXTENSIONS $26,250,000
W.O. 935
FIA
i_I
a
'
` I
zQ--
O
U
w
0� Z
` Z
F— O
_mU
xw
ww
0-0
(jli o .•.
Z:*"
Tall
•ItE M.T[
L AMD YfE
tCCEtt 10
C.YI CA,t OY
OY(LLIM
J[♦ w,t•
1NM.
KwotltL tt,a
MO►OSEO sY
a[♦ SO—S
O•HRH
_
L..�• c�KrL
f�
K�� •
-
,Olal ..• r,t
i.
CO,YECTIOY
-.
io c,E(Yait
O O R R 1 D O R
RH
- ESTATES
�[••ac lo,
Soros
n, O[t[LO.W COY[.,.
t DU
( L c.a,o.
twt `Y 409 90
ttt,,
t,tlatt-tltt
,a Ytl�[, •os •ttOCNiI•
,tt, a,OLL OMaI
•l„lY•. G{LY OaaW G N:
Nt�tN-,tM
LAND USE At0
DEVELOPMT KAM
PARKSIDE
ESTATES «
jot DEVELOFWKT COtl AI(V
•yt,Af. ,...
NOVENBER 11, 1991
ARnADwA7
AvaPic
LTlTRANCL
GPA-89-
Ume,n
���RAC: BOH
ACCX33 r
VISTA Poi
RI[L TRAI
00000 C()krj::rTRI
.... — 10(.4lNC/
CXfA C79L COVRSC/)OCIGINO
ri
(�WEHNabgH PD Han
happy camp canyon
rcgional park
T 1.
CAMMrS rARL
DRfvr ORRAN¢
FIGURE Q-13
1
O
O
1
N
N
Z
Z
O
O
to
O
F-
Q
w
¢
F-
U
W
F- ^
¢
.0
Q'
l�
N �
J
2
O
O
ccJ
F-
O
F-
W U
Of I
f
F-
O
Z
to L�
Z
p
o
¢o
W
W
F-
F-
I
N
U
th Z
W
LJ
W
N
tY
=3
Z Vf
p
F
O
Z d
W Q
to
W
OE
F-C
C'
y'
O
U
Z
W'
QW
O
in W
Q
O W
N
V
O
cd
�; s
m
pa
d
UOC
(�a0�1
OP
of
V
OG
�
<
9
<
II � I
I
I ■
❑
❑
I
�
����
I
•
z
1 ;n
1 9 M-
T-
co
3�
R
,
1 ♦
•i.
�ru
ATE Ilw wup M.ca rYw p.waa. Iwc'coc alKnerw l.w I.ewc
roan.•.. rke c....m —6 cat C. .w moorp.r% pwhtc
W-64 Depanwnw ar.l Ctmmm r.I)c.ck.pw o Dcpatu.cM
Irw addw.ar wW,wwwt.
I F Nn
1 RITWAY
IN r1.1401AN(d
1IX-IANI: ANTII(IAI.
14MIR•IAN1' AXIMAS
A
RI:HAI. ('()1 I VIM
I II('AI. t7N 11 ('14IR
S
WaNAI.ILU) INII Nil(-I&(IN
❑
AI GRADI. RN CNt )»ING
❑
<.N AI)1 �I 1'ANAII!> NN (NI h�IN<.
�•�•�-�•�•
t IlY I1%111 IIIMINDARY
JEMCO PROPERTIES
Figure 1
CIRCULATION ELEME04T
HIGHWAY NETWORK
Moorparr Clrruia(1011 EJcmcnl
A--, -Ft--!u Acinr'ule-s Inc
Y
fSTNI-tT ••••.1 ••••
. . •fit. _ _ ._..
i ••
• •
- • A
1 • '
tµ 1 •/l
1. •
1• Y• r.W �' � <
•• • �• IIK � \4fF11'S 7
•
♦141 �` •1 ••• �111
WINDY HATTON
LEGEND
i •--•—•—• CITY Ll%ill' II(IUNI)ARY
utation Llcmcnt
q�D
3
i
4�,-/ I
J Figure 3
�� rL
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
EQUESTRIAN TRAIL NETWORK
Alisiiti-Foust Az.octatcs. try
13d+
ATTACHMENT 5
CITY OF MOORPARK
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE
AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OVERVIEW
City Council
Public Hearing
January 22, 1992 e
Outlined below is a brief overview of the City of Moorpark- General Plan Land Use
Element and Circulation Element Update preparation process followed by an overview of
the Draft EIR and a summary of the more significant Circulation and Land Use Element
changes.
I. PROJECT PROCESS
A. Purpose of General Plan Update
Legal requirements
General Plan Amendment requests
Subsequent actions necessary
B. Role of the Participants
- General Plan committee
- City Council
- Planning Commission
- Consultant team
- Interested participants
PLANNING - URBAN DESIGN - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - MARKET & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - ENTITLEMENT
18012 SKY PARK CIR - IRVINE. CA 92714 - 714 261-8820 FAX 714/261-2128 - IRVINE - SAN DIEGO - SAN FRANCISCO
I%S
C. Existing Data Evaluation
Staff and consultant team collected and evaluated data and presented
the following:
Baseline Data Report
Baseline Traffic Analysis
D. Community Participation Program
Staff and the consultant team prepared, distributed for public review, held
public workshops .. and solicited public and decision -maker input on : the
following sequential topics:
- Existing Conditions
- Key Issues/Opportunities and Constraints
- Community Goals and Policies
- Alternative Concept Plans
- Preferred Planning Alternative
Draft Circulation Element
Draft Land Use Element
Draft EIR
II. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
A. Summary of Impacts
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency
(City of Moorpark) to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if
there is the probability that any aspect of a proposed modification to a
General Plan could lead to a significant effect on the environment. The
purpose of an EIR is to evaluate the environmental setting of the project,
evaluate the probable impacts of the project on the environment and
recommend ways in which those impacts may be eliminated or mitigated. As
indicated in Section 15146(b) of the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, "an EIR
13C.
or a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning
ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that
can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment but the EIR need
not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might
follow". This Draft EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA to
evaluate the environmental effects of 1) the implementation of the updated
Moorpark General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and 2) the
proposed expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence boundary.
a
The attached summary of impacts (Attachment A) taken from Section 1.4 of
the Draft EIR provides a brief synopsis of the expected environmental impacts
and recommended mitigation measures resulting from the implementation of
its General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and the expansion of the
sphere of influence.
B. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts (Cumulative project -related impacts which are
considered to be unavoidable, adverse in nature and will continue to be
significant even after mitigation measures are accomplished).
1. Land Use
Impacts: Conversion of existing nonurbanized lands (including some
existing agricultural uses) to urbanized uses.
Level of Significance after Mitigation: Partially mitigated by the City's
implementation of policies and programs which preserve open space,
viable agricultural lands, significant natural features, etc.
)S7
2. Air Quality
Impacts: Increase in total emissions are considered significant on a
subregional basis.
Level of Significance after Mitigation: Partially mitigated by incorpo-
rating all possible transportation control measures into individual
projects.
B
3. Acoustics
Impacts: Significant noise level increases will occur at some locations
due to increased traffic.
Level of Significance after Mitigation: Partially mitigated by the City's
implementation of Noise Element policies which involve provisions for
appropriate site planning, design, city review of proposed projects,
community Noise Ordinance enforcement, and additional acoustical
analysis/mitigation from future project applicants.
4. Aesthetics
Impacts: Conversion of existing nonurbanized, rural lands to urban-
ized uses.
Level of Significance after Mitigation: Partially mitigated by the City's
Implementation of Policies and Programs which preserve significant
visual resources and encourage sensitive hillside development.
138
C. Alternatives
The Draft EIR examines five alternatives which are briefly summarized
below:
No Project:
No further development of property occurs within the City.
Represents the "environmentally superior" alternative but is not
considered viable since it would prevent the City from responding
appropriately to regional growth pressures, restrict -the 'CiWs ability to
accommodate adequate housing needs, restrict increased employment
opportunities and prevent private property owners from exercising their
options to develop their properties.
Alternative 1:
- Buildout per existing City and County General Plans for the overall
study area.
This alternative is considered to be environmentally slightly inferior to
the project because the public safety aspects of an improved circulation
system as identified in the Draft Circulation Element are not addressed
in the currently adopted City and County General Plans.
Alternative 2:
Buildout of a less intense alternative for the overall study area
From an environmental standpoint, viewed as slightly superior to the
project because of the fewer trips generated daily and the reduction in
impacts upon public services. However, this alternative does not
achieve the level of housing opportunities and additional employment
opportunities as the project. Additionally, circulation improvements
proposed in the proposed sphere of influence expansion area for the
project would be less likely to be implemented.
131
Alternative 3:
Buildout of a more intense alternative for the overall study area
Not preferable to the proposed project from an environmental
standpoint due to higher impacts in all environmental categories.
Alternative 4:
Buildout of the Updated Land Use Plan as proposed for the City area
and the existing County General Plan for the proposed sphere of
influence expansion area.
This alternative -is viewed as slightly superior to the proposed project
primarily because the biological and aesthetic impacts would be
significantly reduced. However, the circulationimprovements proposed
for the project outside the City's present boundaries would likely not
be realized.
III. LAND USE ELEMENT AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
A. Circulation Element
1. Purpose
Prepared in order to designate a safe and efficient circulation
system for the City of Moorpark.
2. Approach
The General Plan Traffic Analysis Technical Report and the
General Plan Update EIR Circulation Analysis act as support-
ing documents for the Circulation Element.
Goals, policies, implementation measures and Circulation
Element maps have been prepared in order to address identi-
e
140
fied circulation issues including Regional Transportation
Corridors; City Street System; Future Growth; Transit System;
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Facilities; and Transporta-
tion Demand Management.
3. Roadway Circulation Plan
A draft Roadway Circulation Plan has been prepared that
meets the requirements for safe and convenient movement at
the development intensity anticipated inthe Land Use Element.
Roadway Facility Designations, Level of Service standards and
Circulation System improvements are identified. The following
are the more significant roadway system improvements identi-
fied in the draft Circulation Element which will need to be
implemented:
Connection of the SR-118 and SR-23 freeways with new
interchanges at Collins Drive and Princeton Avenue.
Provision of an east/west SR-118 arterial bypass from
the SR-23/SR-118 connector to Los Angeles Avenue at
Butter Creek Road without a connection to Walnut
Canyon Road, and recognition of a potential future SR-
118 freeway extension west of the City limits.
Provision of a north/south SR-23 arterial bypass from
the SR-23/SR-118 connector to Broadway Road.
Extension of Spring Road north to the SR-23 arterial
bypass.
)II
Provision of a 'B" Street local collector road which
accesses Los Angeles Avenue and the SR-118 bypass
arterial and which serves circulation needs in the area
bounded by the SPRR, Los Angeles Avenue, the SCE
substation and DP-302.
Provision of a local collector system to serve circulation
needs in the area bounded by Los Angeles Avenue,
Arroyo Simi, east of Tierra Rejada Road and west of
Spring Road.- "
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 Gabbert Road to Grimes
Canyon Road, an extension of Casey Road to Gabbert
Road, "A" Street between Casey Road and the SR-118
arterial bypass, and "C" Street between Grimes Canyon
Road and the SR-23 arterial bypass.
Provision of a roadway system to serve circulation needs
in the Carlsberg Specific Plan (Moorpark Highlands)
area in the southeast portion of the City. Roadways
added to the existing circulation system include an
extension of Science Drive from New Los Angeles
Avenue to Tierra Rejada Road, and an extension of
Peach Hill Road to Science Drive.
Provision of a north/south local collector connection
(Liberty Bell Road) between Los Angeles Avenue and
Poindexter Avenue.
14z
Provision of an eastern extension of Broadway Road
potentially connecting with Alamos Canyon Road and
the SR-118 freeway to serve circulation needs of poten-
tial future development in the portion of the planning
area northeast of the city limits.
B. Land Use Element
1. . Purpose: e
Prepared in order to designate the proposed general distribution and
general location and intensity of land uses within the overall planning
area.
2. Approach:
The General Plan Update EIR acts as supporting document for
the Land Use Element.
Goals, policies, implementation measures and Land Use Plan
maps have been prepared in order to address identified land
use issues including Land Use designations; Redevelopment;
Natural Features; Public Services; and Regional Plans.
3. Land Use Plan:
A draft land use plan has been prepared in accordance with the
State General Plan Guidelines which designates the amount,
location, distribution, density and intensity of each land use
proposed. The following are the more significant land use
changes that are included within the proposed Land Use
Element:
I I
Specific Plan designation for three large areas within the
present City boundaries currently existing primarily as
nonurbanized land.
Specific Plan designation for five large areas within the
proposed sphere of influence area which currently exist
as nonurbanized land and rural uses.
Incorporation of ten pending General Plan Amendment
requests.
Designation of VH/H (Very High and High Residential)
land uses adjacent to the Arroyo Simi south of New Los
Angeles.
Inclusion of all current plans for the City area south of
the Arroyo Simi.
Designation of the Arroyo Simi Floodway as identified
on Federal Emergency Management Agency maps.
WHAT IS AN EIR? )44
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires agencies which are considering
approving a project to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), to distribute the
Draft EIR for public review, and to respond to written comments on the Draft EIR prior
to project approval. The purpose of an environmental impact report is to evaluate the
environmental setting of the project, evaluate the probable impact of the project on the
environment and recommend ways in which those impacts may be eliminated or minimized.
e
Environmental analysis focuses on the physical setting of the project. Impacts of the project
are considered significant if a substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions
within the project area are affected by the project. This may include land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic or cultural significance. An
economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the
environment.
Copies of the completed Draft EIR are distributed to state and local agencies, the local
library and surrounding jurisdictions. Copies are also available for review or purchase at
the city hall.
A Draft EIR is circulated for public review for 45 days. The public is encouraged to provide
written comments on the Draft EIR to the city. The review of a Draft EIR should focus on
the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts of the
project on the environment and ways in which the significant effects may be avoided or
reduced. A written response to comments is provided in the Final EIR.
The public is also encouraged to participate in the public hearings before the city.
Opportunities to provide oral testimony are provided and the city must consider all written
and oral comments prior to concluding that the environmental documentation is adequate.
If the decisionmaking body of the city (eg., City Council) considers that the environmental
documentation is sufficient and adequate, they will certify (approve) the Final EIR. The
project cannot be approved unless an environmental document is certified by the city.
TYPICAL CEQA PROCESS-EIR
O MAIL OUT NOTICE
OF PREPARATION
O BEGIN PREPARATION OF
SCREENCHECK EIR
O PUBLIC SCOPING (OPTIONAL:
DRAFT EIR SUBMITTAL AND
O DISTRIBUTION FOR PUBLIC
REVIEW (FILE NOTICE
OF COMPLETION)
O END PUBLIC REVIEW
O FINAL EIR/RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS SUBMITTAL
O LEAD AGENCY CERTIFIES FINAL EIR
(FILES NOTICE OF DETERMINATION)
0
5
Q
2
z
OR�
Its
a
I
Land Use
ATTACHMENT I
MOORPARK LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
ELEMENT UPDATE DRAFT EIR
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFIC CE
MPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION
Buildout of the Updated Land The conversion of existing rural
Use Plan will result in the con- land uses to urban uses is only
version of existing unurbanized partially mitigated to a level of
land and rural uses (including insignificance. Any loss of
agricultural) to the urbanizing agricultural uses may be consid-
uses of the Updated Land Use ered significant by some agen-
Plan cies.
The project at buildout does
not conform with the county's
population forecasts for Moor-
park's growth and nongrowth
areas and thus is inconsistent
with the planning components
of the Countywide Planning
Program. However, the county
will be updating its population
criteria for all community
growth and nongrowth areas in
1992 based on the 1990 census
data. The City of Moorpark is
a participant in the Countywide
Planning Program and it would
be appropriate for the county
to consider Moorpark's updated
long-range community plans
during the update process.
Due to the broad scope of the
Land Use Element's goals and
policies, adoption of the Land
Use Element Update will influ-
ence the need for updating and
revising other existing elements
of the general plan. The spe-
cific areas where revisions are
recommended are identified in
the implementation section of
the Land Use Element Update
and summarized below.
The city shall implement the
policies and programs of the
Land Use Element Update on
an ongoing basis to require that
specific plans provide a mini-
mum of 25 percent open space
acreage, to restrict grading on
slopes of 20 percent or greater,
and to ensure that viable Prime
and Statewide Significance
farmlands are preserved.
The city shall participate in the
county's update of the growth
and nongrowth area boundaries
and population forecasts cur-
rently planned to begin in late
1991.
The city shall adopt policies
and mechanisms to monitor
growth in order to ensure con-
sistency with the county updat-
ed population forecasts for the
designated growth and non -
growth areas of Moorpark.
The city shall update and revise
other elements of the general
plan after adopting the Land
Use Element and Circulation
Element updates to ensure
consistency as recommended in
the implementation section of
the Land Use Element and
identified below.
Noise Element
Revise noise contours and
identify future areas of noise
sensitivity based on updated
circulation data and pro-
posed circulation improve-
ments.
The city's participation in the
county's regional planning up-
date process and monitoring of
community growth to ensure
consistency with county updated
population forecasts will miti-
gate this impact to a level of
insignificance.
City implementation of the
recommended updates and
revisions to other general plan
elements will mitigate this im-
pact to a level of insignificance.
IMPACTS
Transportation /Circulation
Buildout of the General Plan
will result in an increase of
average daily trips from 166,300
to an estimated 452,500 by the
year 2010. This will result in
traffic volumes exceeding road-
way capacities at several inter-
sections.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Open Space and Conservation
Element
- Update Locations of open
space areas and park loca-
tions to reflect updated land
use plan.
- Revise policies and element
text . to include language
which restricts development
on slopes of 20 percent or
greater.
- Revise park acreage re-
quired at buildout to reflect
Updated Land Use Plan
buildout projections.
Housing Element
- Update Housing Element to
include policies and stan-
dards for providing afford-
able housing consistent with
the density bonus provisions
of the Land Use Element
and state law.
Safety Element
Update identification of
potential hazard areas
within the city (flood -
ways, fire, landslide,
etc.) based on current
conditions.
The city shall develop a pro-
gram to monitor traffic volumes
and levels of service on Moor-
park roadways to facilitate the
maintenance of the minimum
levels of service "C" as a system
performance standard for traffic
volumes on the roadway system.
All roadway additions, up-
grades, downgrades and dele-
tions recommended in Section
32 shall be implemented as
development occurs to accom-
modate the proposed General
Plan Land Use Plan.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
IMPACTS
Future development planned
for the City of Moorpark and
the proposed sphere of influ-
ence as well as changes recom-
mended in the Circulation Ele-
ment update will require major
new roadway development and
improvements.
Short-term impacts of develop-
ment include construction -relat-
ed exhaust emissions and fugi-
tive dust emissions.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The city shall adopt roadway
design standards and transpor-
tation design criteria as recom-
mended in the Circulation Ele-
ment and require that all new
facilities be implemented in
conformance with those stan-
dards.
The city shall adopt a transpor-
tation improvement fee pro-
gram which will enable circula
Lion improvements to be -funded,
by new development and, in
conjunction with the city's five-
year capital improvement pro-
gram, will determine estimated
dates for construction. A phas-
ing/improvement plan shall be
included that identifies project
specific improvement responsi-
bilities and requires far share
funding for cumulative circula-
tion improvements. Roadway .
improvement requirements
related to spec project im-
pacts shall be constructed or
funded by the individual project
applicant.
The city shall adopt a specific
offshe roadway/traffic signal
improvement fee as future
development occurs to provide
an additional source of local
funds to finance new construc-
tion and upgrading of roadway
facilities included in the Circu-
lation Element.
During clearing, grading, earth
moving or excavation opera-
tions, fugitive dust emissions
should be controlled by regular
watering, paving construction
roads and other dust prevention
measures. The applicant shall
submit a fugitive dust control
14V
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
IMPACTS
Long-term air contaminant
emissions in the project area
will occur from both stationary
and mobile emissions sources.
The primary source of station-
ary emissions in the project
area will be the combustion of
natural gas for water heating
and space heating in buildings.
Mobile source emissions in-
clude pollutants released by
increased vehicular traffic.
Based on the forecasted year
2010 buildout population of the
updated Land Use Plan
(53,923), the updated plan will
exceed the year 2010 AQMP
population projection (47,080)
MITIGATION MEASURES
plan, acceptable to the city,
concurrently with submittal of
the mass (as opposed to the
precise) grading plan.
During smog season (May -
October) . the city shall order
that construction cease during
Stage III alerts to minimize the
number of vehicles and equip-
ment operating, lower ozone
levels and protect equipment
operators from excessive- smog
levels. The city, at its discre-
tion, may also limit construction
during Stage H.
Employers of 50 or more em-
ployees shall implement pro-
grams such as flex -time, stag-
gered work hours and/or com-
pressed work weeks. The im-
plementing criteria shall be
components.of a transportation
strategies management plan.
Employers of 50 or more and
home builders of projects of 50
or more units shall provide
employees and new homeown-
ers information on Commuter
Computer to encourage ride -
sharing.
All employers of 100 or more
shall develop a parking man-
agement program acceptable to
County of Ventura Air Pollu-
tion Control District and the
city prior to occupancy. The
plan may include preferential
carpool, vanpool parking, and
other ridesharing incentives.
The city shall adopt policies
and mechanisms to monitor
growth in order to ensure con-
sistency with the county updat-
ed population forecasts for the
144g_
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Partially mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Partially mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
IMPACTS
and therefore is potentially
inconsistent with the AQMP.
Acoustic Environment
Short-term impacts will occur
during construction of the vari-
ous projects which are adjacent
to noise sensitive land uses due
to truck/equipment operations
and various construction activi-
ties.
Long-term acoustic impacts
related to General Plan build -
out will occur due to increased
vehicular traffic on area road-
ways, which will result in signif-
icant noise impacts at two of
the five locations modeled.
A portion of the proposed
development area is within a
FEMA designated 100-year
flood zone.
MITIGATION MEASURES
designated growth and non -
growth areas of Moorpark.
Adopt a city Noise Ordinance
and specify time limits for con-
struction activities in this ordi-
nance. Truck noise from haul-
ing operations shall be mini-
mized through establishing
hauling routes that avoid resi-
dential areas. ' The hauling plan
must be approved by the Plan-
ning Department.
The city shall implement the
policies established in the Noise
Element of the general plan
within one year of adopting the
updated Land Use and Circula-
tion Elements to ensure the
continuedcompatibilitybetween
Moorpark's noise -sensitive land
uses and noise levels in the city.
These policies involve provi-
sions for appropriate site plan-
ning, design, and city review of
proposed projects, and the
enforcement of a Community
Noise Ordinance.
Additional acoustical analysis
acceptable to the city shall be
submitted by project applicants
concurrently with submittal of
tentative maps. Dwelling units
or other sensitive land uses
shall be located in areas outside
of the projected 65 CNEL, or
appropriate acoustical mitiga-
tion shall be provided.
Projects proposed within a
FEMA-designated 100-year
flood zone shall be evaluated
for consistency with the Flood
Damage Prevention Chapter of
the Moorpark Municipal Code.
)SO
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
Partially mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
IMPACTS
Urban development will result
in an increase in impermeable
surfaces which will increase the
amount of stormwater runoff to
the Arroyo Simi leading to
possible erosion and/or flood-
ing problems.
Downstream areas may experi-
ence increased sediment depo-
sition and urban pollutants
which can affect water quality.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The city shall require the sub-
mittal of information prepared
by a qualified civil or hydrologi-
cal engineer which certifies
compliance with development
standards established for 100-
year flood zones on a project
by project basis.
The city shall implement the
recommendations of the March
1987 Master Drainage Study.
Individual projects - shall be
evaluated by the VCFCD to
determine if existing drainage
facilities are adequate to ac-
commodate additional develop-
ment.
The city shall preserve open
space areas as designated in the
general plan and specific plans
wherever possible as a measure
to minimize impermeable sur-
faces throughout the city.
The city shall require the incor-
poration of adequate erosion
control measures into develop-
ment projects that may other-
wise impact water resources
adversely. Such measures shall
include sandbagging of newly
graded slopes, prompt planting
of disturbed areas, phasing of
grading and construction activi-
ties to minimize exposed areas
susceptible to erosion, and the
routing of runoff flows through
desilting basins prior to dis-
charge into any watercourse.
Such provisions shall be includ-
ed in a grading ordinance.
The city shall implement a
periodic street sweeping pro-
gram in all areas of new devel-
opment to minimize the urban
pollutant load which enters the
city's drainage system.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
IMPACTS
Soils /Seismicity
Buildout of the updated Land
Use Plan will result in the loss
of farmlands classified "Prime"
and of "Statewide Significance"
listed on the Federal Important
Farmlands Inventory Map.
Buildout of the General Plan
will expose' additional people
and buildings to potentially
significant impacts due to seis-
mic activity.
Socioeconomics
A goal of the city's Housing
Element is to provide 959 resi-
dential units in the low- to very -
low income category which may
not be achieved if proper in-
centives are not implemented.
Aesthetics
Existing unurbanized rural
lands contribute to the scenic
qualities of Moorpark, there-
fore the urbanization associated
with buildout of the Updated
Land Use Plan and the subse-
quent loss of significant
amounts of open land is consid-
MITIGATION MEASURES
The city shall implement the
policies and programs of the
Land Use Element Update on
an ongoing basis to ensure that
viable Prime and Statewide
Significance farmlands are
preserved.
A comprehensive soils and
geotechnical investigation shall
be performed for each individu-
al building site to develop pre-
liminary soils engineering and
design data to be reviewed and
approved by the city.
All structures will be developed
in accordance with the seismic
design provisions of the Uni-
form Building Code and moni-
tored by the city during the
plan check process.
In areas of high seismic poten-
tial, the applicant shall submit a
seismic evaluation with project
applications.
The goals and policies of the
Housing Element and the re-
vised Land Use Element which
encourage development of
affordable housing units shall
be implemented on an ongoing
basis.
The city shall implement the
goals, policies, and programs in
the Land Use Element Update
on an ongoing basis regarding
hillside preservation, restricting
grading on slopes over 20 per-
cent, establishing land use pat-
terns that are compatible with
scenic and natural resources,
1 S2
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Partially mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
Although significant visual
resources will be maintained
through the city's implementa-
tion of speed policies, losses
of existing unurbanized land
will nevertheless occur at gen-
eral plan buildout, and there-
fore, aesthetic impacts are only
partially mitigated.
IMPACTS
ered a significant adverse im-
pact.
The city's implementation of
policies contained within the
Land Use Element Update to
"promote the revitalization of
the downtown commercial
core," and to "conserve and
enhance the Arroyo Simi
Floodway as an important sce-
nic feature" will provide aes-
thetic benefit to the existing
community.
Bioloeical Resources
Plant and wildlife habitats may
be removed or altered as a
result of construction and urban
development.
MITIGATION MEASURES
and promoting revitalization of
the visually degraded areas of
the community.
The city shall employ a mecha-
nism such as a hillside develop-
ment ordinance or viewshed
preservation criteria in order to
protect visually prominent hori-
zon lines and other scenic view -
sheds in the community.
The city shall implement the
redevelopment plan, which will
restore and revitalize blighted
areas within the city.
The city shall adhere to and
implement the policies of the
Updated Land Use Element to
ensure the protection of sensi-
tive biological resources. Each
individual development propos-
al shall be required to include
complete environmental docu-
mentation pursuant to CEQA
to ensure that potential site
specific impacts upon sensitive
biological resources are identi-
fied and that adequate mitiga-
tion measures are provided (ie.,
selective preservation, replant-
ing, and/or sensitive site plan-
ning techniques as appropriate).
Any proposed alteration of
riparian areas found along
designated United States Geo-
logical Survey blue -line streams
and major drainage courses will
be subject to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers permitting
process under Section 404 of
the Federal Clean Water Act.
Alteration of USGA-designated
blue -line stream channels is
also subject to permitting by
the California Department of
IS3
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Beneficial project impact.
Although all possible measures
to preserve sensitive biological
resources will be implemented
as development occurs, some
wildlife habitat may nonetheless
be converted to urban uses and
will be only partially mitigated
to a level of insignificance by
policies in the Land Use Elc-
ment.
IMPACTS
Public Services
Schools
Buildout of the Updated Land
Use Plan will generate approxi-
mately 13,776 total students and
will necessitate the construction
of additional schools and the
expansion of existing facilities
at all grade levels.
Electricity
The Southern California Edison
Company has indicated that
future growth in the city and
proposed unincorporated plan-
ning areas can be handled with
its existing and planned facili-
ties.
Solid Waste
MITIGATION MEASURES
Fish and Game under Section
1601-1603 of the California Fish
and Game Code and the
CEQA Guidelines. The city
shall comply with 1601-1603
and Section 404 procedures in
the project review and approval
process.
Prior to approval of specific
plans and development propos-
als, the city and the school
districts shall ensure that ade-
quate provisions for school
facilities are provided. Consis-
tent with applicable state laws
and regulations, the city shall
consider requiring dedication of
land and/or improvements by
project applicants to provide
school facilities.
Within each Specific Plan, con-
sistent with applicable state
laws and regulations school
sites shall be dedicated accord-
ing to the acreage designated
on the Updated Land Use Plan
unless otherwise determined by
the city.
No mitigation measures are
required.
1s4
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
These mitigation measures will
ensure that adequate facilities
are prodded as development
occurs and at future buildouts.
No project impact anticipated.
Buildout of the Land Use Ele- The city shall implement a Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
ment is estimated to generate waste reduction program to cance.
approximately 112 tons of solid achieve a 25 percent diversion
waste per day. This exceeds of solid waste to landfills (con-
IMPACTS
the county's threshold criteria
of 50 tons per day and is con-
sidered as a significant adverse
impact.
Natural Gas
Southern California Gas Com-
pany has indicated that its exist-
ing master plan has been antici-
pating future development in
the area for up to 50 years. No
MITIGATION MEASURES
sistent with AB 939). This
program shall consist of drop-
off, source or co -mingled recy-
cling programs, composting
programs, and cardboard recy-
cling for industrial and com-
mercial uses or any other waste
diversion program consistent
with the county's adopted
guidelines.
Other recommended mitigation
measures include:
- Literature about composting
shall be distributed to home-
owners in new subdivisions.
Contractors shall be re-
quired to use at least 15
percent recycled materials in
all discretionary construction
projects.
Developers of industrial and
commercial facilities shall
incorporate storage collec-
tion points for recyclables.
Commercial and industrial
facilities of 10,000 square
feet and larger shall be re-
quired to provide a mini-
mum of 100 square feet for
recycling facilities for the
first 10,000 square feet and
five square feet for each
additional 1,000 square feet
of developed area.
Green wastes from public
parks and open space areas
shall be composted and
reused.
Individual developments should
consult with Southern Califor-
nia Gas Company to incorpo-
rate energy conserving systems
ass
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
No project impact anticipated.
IMPACTS
project -related impacts on the
current service levels are antici-
pated.
Wastewater
Project buildout (year 2010)
will generate approximately 5.4
million gallons of wastewater
per day which exceeds the pro-
posed 4.5 million gallons per
day capacity for the Moorpark
Wastewater Treatment Plant
for year 2010.
Water
Buildout of the Updated Land
Use Plan will generate a de-
mand for approximately eleven
million gallons per day of water
usage (204 gallons per capita)
and could be considered a
significant impact if system
water supply did not meet the
anticipated demand. However,
the water district's current
position is that based on the
approval of the Land Use Ele-
ment Update, the district will
design and construct the need-
ed water system improvements
to meet the needs of future
customers.
MITIGATION MEASURES
and design features into their
projects.
All new development shall
comply with standards in Title
24 of the California Administra-
tive Code.
Efforts should be made by
individual development, projects
m cooperation with the County
of Ventura Waterworks District
No. 1 to reduce flows to the
Moorpark Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant in order to ensure
set discharge limits for bio-
chemical oxygen demand and
suspended solids are not ex-
ceeded.
The city will require any devel-
oper to pay for any wastewater
improvements required to pre-
vent significant adverse impacts
on the existing system. Devel-
opment projects shall not be
approved if sewage treatment
plant capacity is not available.
All new development should
incorporate plumbing fixtures
to reduce water usage and loss
(ie., low -volume toilet tanks,
flow control devices for faucets,
etc.) into project design in
accordance with Title 24 of the
California Administrative Code.
Drought -tolerant plants should
be incorporated into project
design whenever possible, and
landscaping irrigation systems
should be controlled automati-
cally to ensure watering during
early morning and evening
hours to reduce evaporation
losses.
IS`
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Potentially significant impacts
are fully mitigated.
After mitigation, potential ad-
verse impacts are mitigated to a
level of insignificance.
IMPACTS
O-
The need for additional officers
and facilities will occur as de-
velopment increases in the
planning area. Buildout of the
Updated Land Use Plan will
result in a need of 54 officers
to maintain the optimal one
officer per 1,000 population
ratio.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The city shall aid Ventura
County Water District No. 1 in
implementing its master plan
within the city.
The city will require any devel-
oper to pay for any water im-
provements required to prevent
significant adverse impacts on
the existing system.
Security and design measures
which employ defensible space
concepts shall be utilized to the
maximum extent possible dur-
ing the formulation of detailed
development plans. Such mea-
sures involve the design and
placement of doors, windows,
security landscape, public
accessways, bike trails, parks,
open spaces, utili-
ty/maintenance roads, lighting,
and parking areas and struc-
tures. The police department
shall review all plans and pro-
vide recommendations for con-
ditions of approval.
Prior to approval of a develop-
ment project, the developer,
city and the Ventura County
Sheriff Department shall agree
upon the procedures required
to provide adequate police
service to the project, including
the provision of mitigation fees,
if necessary.
The city shall periodically eval-
uate the level of police service
being provided in relationship
to delivery and cost of service
to determine how service will
be provided, how service will be
funded, and what alternatives
are available to the city in pro-
viding service.
IS7
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Project impacts are mitigated to
a level of insignificance.
IMPACTS
BM
Buildout of the Updated Land
Use Plan will increase the ur-
ban area of the city and in-
crease service demands for fire
protection services.
Parks and Recreation
The population associated with
buildout of the General Plan
will create a demand for addi-
tional parkland.
Cultural Resources
Buildout of the General Plan
could result in significant im-
pacts to archeological and his-
torical resources.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Prior to issuance of building
permits, the Fire Department
shall ensure that each project
meets its standard requirements
for fire hydrants, water mains,
fire flow, access and design, and
that development has been bunt
in accordance with fire hazard
standards.
The city shall periodically eval-
uate the level of fire protection
service being provided in rela-
tionship to delivery and cost of
service to determine how ser-
vice will be provided, how ser-
vice will be funded, and what
alternatives are available to the
city in providing service.
City parkland acquisition and
development shall be accom-
plished in part through develop-
ment agreements and utilization
of the Quimby Act Ordinance
to provide for parkland dedica-
tion in accordance with city
standards.
All specific plans shall include
local parkland as specified in
the city's parkland ordinance.
Although an extensive record
search has been completed for
the project area, the city shall
require that each individual
development proposal be evalu-
ated at a greater level of detail
in accordance with CEQA
requirements. Where potential-
ly significant adverse impacts
are identified, the city shall
require appropriate mitigation
measures as defined by Appen-
)S47
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Project impacts are mitigated to
a level of insignificance.
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
IMPACTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
MMGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION
dix K of the CEQA Guidelines
(which requires work to be
suspended in any area where
archaeological remains are
uncovered, pending a survey by
a recognized specialist).
The city shall implement poli-
cies and programs of the Land
Use Element Update regarding t
the preservation of important
cultural resources on an ongo-
ing basis.
140
ATTACHMENT 6A
CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN
DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT
Prepared for:
CITY OF MOORPARK
Prepared by:
PBR
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, California 92714
October 1991
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City Council
Mayor Paul W. Lawrason, Jr.
Mayor Pro Tem. Bernardo Perez
Council Member Scott Montgomery
Council Member John E. Wozniak
Council Member Roy Talley, Jr.
Former Council Member Eloise Brown
Former Council Member Clinton Harper
Planning Commission
Chairman Michael Wesner, Jr.
Vice Chairman John Torres
Commissioner Barton Miller
Commissioner Steve Brodsky
Commissioner Christina May
Former Commissioner Glen Schmidt
Former Commissioner Bill Lanahan
Former Commissioner Michael Scullin
City Staff
Steven Kueny, City Manager
Pat Richards, Director of Community Development
Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior Planner
Craig Malin, Assistant Planner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statutory Requirements
1.2 Overview
2.0
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Existing Land Use (City Area)
2.2 Existing Land Use (Unincorporated Area)
3.0
COMMUNITY ISSUES
4.0
GOALS AND POLICIES
5.0
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS/DESIGNATIONS
5.1 Land Use Classifications
5.2 Specific Plan Designation
6.0
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY
7.0
IMPLEMENTATION
APPENDIX A
Ira
Page No.
3
3
5
6
9
241,
2.&.-l-"'
245,
4-3.4.
i
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Follows
Exhibit No. Title Page No.
1 Valley Floor
2 Downtown and Town Center
3 Land Use Plan (City Area)
4 Planning Area Land Use Plan (Unincorporated Area)*
5 Visual Horizon Lines
General Plan/Zoning Compatibility Matrix
* All exhibits are located in the back of this document
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title
1 City of Moorpark Land Use Inventory
2 Residential Land Use Designations
3 Land Use Plan - Statistical Summary
1G4
Ego No.
3
2
4472
iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
kols
State of California Planning and Zoning Law requires that a land
use element be prepared as part of a general plan as follows:
Government Code Section 65302(a): A land use element which
designates the proposed general distribution and general
location and extent of the uses of the land for housing,
business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural
resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty,
education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid
waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and
private uses of land. The land use element shall include a
statement of the standards of population density and building
intensity recommended for the various districts and other
territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall
also identify areas covered by the plan which are subject to
flooding and shall be reviewed annually with respect to such
areas.
Effectively, the land use element has the broadest scope of the
elements required by the state. Since it regulates how land is to
be utilized, it integrates and synthesizes most of the issues and
policies contained in all other plan elements.
Throughout the General Plan Update process, the City of Moorpark
held a series of regularly scheduled public workshops to provide
public input in identifying the specific issues and goals of the
community for the city's overall planning area which includes the
area within existing city limits and the area of unincorporated
land immediately surrounding the city. Land use designations for
the overall planning area are identified on the two Land Use Plan
maps included in the back of this document. Exhibit 3 indicates
land use designations within existing city limits and Exhibit 4
indicates land use designations for the unincorporated areas
immediately surrounding the city.
1.2 OVERVIEW
The Moorpark community was notable originally for its agriculture
and historical character. However, as a function of regional
growth trends, low land costs, and Moorpark's proximity to
employment centers in the Los Angeles area, recent development
pressure has resulted in the urbanization of much of the city's
large open space area and agricultural lands. While under
urbanizing pressure, the city has maintained a low -profile suburban
rural character by continuing a pattern of low density, single
family housing in a setting of surrounding rolling hillsides.
The majority of the city's development has occurred in the low-
lying valley floor areas generally surrounding the Arroyo Simi.
The valley floor area is illustrated in Exhibit 1.
11
Moorpark's town center is concentrated along Moorpark Avenue, north
of High Street and consists of community uses such as city office
buildings, the civic center, the library, park areas, etc. Along
High Street, Moorpark's older downtown area is comprised of a
variety of commercial -serving uses characterized by a conglomerate
of styles, character, and images that are historically based. The
specific location of Moorpark's town center and downtown area are
shown in Exhibit 2. Most of the hillside areas surrounding the
urbanized areas of the city and in the unincorporated planning
area, remain primarily in agricultural and open space use.
Generally, Moorpark is characterized as a bedroom community with
the majority of Moorpark residents employed outside of Ventura
County.
E
_ 167
2.0 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 EXISTING LAND USE (CITY AREA)
An Existing Conditions report was prepared for the City of Moorpark
in May 1990 in order to identify land use trends, potential land
use incompatibilities and conflicts, community planning opportuni-
ties, and to serve as a basis for projecting future growth and
change within the city. The report indicates that for January
1990, there were approximately 7,797 residential dwelling units
with a total city population of 26,054.1 A comprehensive survey
of city land uses was completed in November 1989 and is summarized
in Table 1.
Table 1
City of Moorpark LAND USE INVENTORY
December 13, 1989
Land Uses
Low Density
High Density
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Public/Quasi
Park
Agriculture
Vacant*
Right -of -Way
Approximate
Percent of
Acres Total Acres
Residential 1,700
21.3
Residential 144
2.0
54
.6
12
.1
349
4.4
Public 297
4.0
52
.6
45
.7
4,934
62.2
329
4.1
TOTAL 7,920 100.0
*Note: The vacant land use category includes approxi-
mately 858 acres which are approved for devel-
opment, but have not necessarily been con-
structed.
Residential uses comprise the major urbanized land use within the
city (23 percent). Moorpark has been in the midst of a major home
construction boom since the late 1970s which accelerated after the
city's incorporation in 1983. From 1985 to 1990, Moorpark has been
one of the fastest growing cities in Ventura County, with a 61
percent population growth rate. This rate exceeds that of
surrounding cities, including Ventura, Thousand Oaks
1 State Department of Finance, 1990 Population and Housing estimates.
3
and Simi Valley. However, Moorpark's growth rate is expected to be
reduced considerably in the 1990s due to the implementation of the
city's Measure F growth control ordinance, adopted in 1986. This
ordinance limits residential development to 270 units per year
between the years 1989-1994.
Commercial, office and industrial uses combined, on the other hand,
comprise less than six percent of city land uses. Demand is
limited for these uses due to locational factors such as the lack
of a major commercial corridor in the city, lack of freeway
frontage/access and the need for regional accessibility.
Agricultural lands occupy less than one percent of the city's land
use and consist mostly of row crops and orchards. These lands are
surrounded by developed areas and are predominantly planned for
urban uses.
Approximately 142.5 acres within the city are neighborhood and
community park lands. Forty-five of these dedicated acres are
improved recreation areas. Some school facilities also serve
community recreation needs. Existing and proposed regional
facilities in the surrounding area contribute to community
recreation opportunities and include Happy Camp Park, and Oak Park.
The majority of land within the city falls in the vacant category
(62%); however, much of this acreage has been approved for
development or is currently under construction. Pressure to
urbanize the remaining undeveloped areas is likely to continue,
underscoring the need for cohesive city policies and logical
planning principles to direct future growth.
A redevelopment plan has also been adopted for the city which
identifies a redevelopment project area that includes approximately
16 percent of the total city area. The primary objectives of this
plan are to prevent the spread of urban blight, increase sales tax
revenues, create employment opportunities, improve infrastructure
and provide greater levels of social and economic viability.
Moorpark's central business district is included within the city's
redevelopment project area. Recent urbanization, has degraded much
of the central business district's historical sense of place and
concentration of uses. However, city studies have indicated the
opportunity to restore and enhance the utility of this area through
revitalization of existing open space and historical buildings.
Many public services in the city are provided by Ventura County
agencies, ie., water, wastewater, library, and fire. Solid waste
collection service is provided by a private contractor. Generally,
the current level of service provided for water, wastewater and
solid waste collection is considered adequate for the existing
community.
4
2.2 EXISTING LAND USE (UNINCORPORATED AREA)
Outside of the city limits, within the city's overall planning
area, land uses are primarily rural in nature and include agricul-
ture, grazing, mineral extraction, regional park uses, and some
residential estate lots. A description of the existing land uses
for the unincorporated lands surrounding the city is provided
below:
Happy Camp Regional Park is located immediately north of the city
limits. Approximately 290 acres of this facility are located
within the city's unincorporated planning area. North of the city
limits and west of Happy Camp Regional Park the terrain is
primarily rolling hillsides occupied by citrus and avocado groves
with some livestock grazing uses and large residential lots. A
sand and gravel quarry operation is also located in the northern-
most reaches of the study area boundary.
To the west of the city limits and north of Los Angeles Avenue, the
terrain varies from level areas of the valley floor to rolling
hillsides. These areas are primarily occupied by agricultural and
livestock grazing land uses. South of Los Angeles Avenue, the
terrain includes flatlands (on the valley floor adjacent to the
Arroyo Simi), and gently sloping hillside areas. Most of the area
is occupied by agricultural row crop uses. Adjacent and southwest
of the city limits are the residential uses within Moorpark Home
Acres, which are not included as a part of the city's overall
planning area.
Immediately south of the city limits, rolling hillsides form a
backdrop to the community. Some residential estates exist in this
area, but are generally not visible from the Moorpark community.
The Tierra Rejada Greenbelt, an area preserved for agricultural and
open space uses, is located south and southeast of the city limits.
East of the city limits and north of Tierra Rejada Road, the
terrain varies from dominant hillsides and steeply sloping
topography, to flatter areas adjacent to portions of the Arroyo
Simi. A number of oak tree stands exist in the drainage courses of
the hillside areas. The hillsides of this area represent a
visually prominent landform, visible from various points within the
community.
North of the city and east of Happy Camp Regional Park, the terrain
is characterized by prominent hillsides, steeply sloping areas and
some oak tree stands. Current uses include scattered agriculture
and some livestock grazing uses.
The future development of lands surrounding the city boundary
require that adequate public services and infrastructure be
extended to these areas in conjunction with or prior to approval of
any development proposals.
rJ
5
3.0 COMMUNITY ISSUES
"Issues" are defined as important community matters or problems
that have been identified in the General Plan Update process and
are addressed within the goals, policies and implementation
measures of this document.
Land Use Mix
Moorpark is characterized as primarily a bedroom community with a
large number of commuter residents. Achieving a more balanced
Moorpark community growth pattern relies on land use diversity
which includes greater amounts of industrial, office and commercial
uses. Intermixing of land uses has resulted in some compatibility
issues primarily related to residential uses located adjacent to
industrial, agricultural and public facility uses in the community.
Related issues include:
Limited commercial and office demand due to Moorpark's
location away from major urban centers, and lack of major
commercial corridor and freeway frontage.
Increasing the community employment base and thereby
increasing the community jobs/housing ratio.
Maintaining the community's suburban rural character as
growth occurs.
Entryways to the community and its commercial areas are
congested and disoriented.
Existing residential uses adjacent to industrial uses.
Redevelopment
Recently, the community's primary focus of the 1,217 acre redevel-
opment project area has been Moorpark's older central business
district. The city seeks to recapture and promote the downtown's
small town character while maintaining its existing historical
elements. Specific issues include:
Attracting new businesses and customers to downtown
Moorpark.
Coordinated development with Southern Pacific Railroad
Company.
Rehabilitation/protection of existing residential
neighborhood and historical elements in the downtown.
Undergrounding of public utility lines.
Natural Features
As development continues in the outlying areas of the community,
more of the natural resources are endangered by pressure to
urbanize. These resources include agricultural lands, visually
prominent horizon lines and hillside areas, oak tree groves,
floodways, drainages and rock quarry uses. Specific issues
include:
Appropriate development standards for steeply sloping
hillsides and visually prominent horizon lines.
Developing a stricter ordinance which provides more
protection for mature trees as well as sensitive species
of trees.
Identifying appropriate uses and improvement areas for
the Arroyo Simi Floodway.
Open space maintenance, improvements and liability costs.
Public Services
Generally, public service issues involve maintaining adequate
levels of service in the community as growth occurs. Continued
development will create significant demands for both new infra-
structure and improvements to existing service systems. Specific
issues involve:
Ensuring public service/infrastructure improvements such as
water and sewer line extensions, wastewater treatment plant
capacity, utility and flood control improvements; increasing
solid waste.
School, police, fire, and traffic control services to support
new individual projects and projected community growth.
Minimizing public service/infrastructure costs due to frag-
mented and over -extended development patterns.
Coordinating the development of public service master plans
with the updated Moorpark Land Use Plan.
Regional Plans
Regional planning issues are addressed in the County of Ventura's
various regional planning programs such as the Air Quality
Management Plan, the 208 Areawide Water Management Plan and the
Subregional Transportation Plan. These planning programs have been
developed and updated in coordination with the Countywide Planning
Program (CPP), an advisory committee comprised of approximately 70
members including representatives of county and city planning
staff, environmental interest groups, building interests, utilities
agencies, and numerous other interest groups.
Specific issues involve:
Monitoring community growth rates to maintain consistency with
county adopted population forecasts for Moorpark's growth and
non -growth areas.
Maintaining consistency with components of Countywide Planning
Program including the Air Quality Management Plan, the 208
Areawide Water Management Plan and the Subregional Transporta-
tion Plan.
7
Coordinating future updates and revisions of the Countywide
Planning Program components with the Updated Moorpark Land Use
Plan.
4.0 LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals and policies of the General Plan function as a hierarchy
and provide the basis for decision making regarding the city's
long-term physical development. The distinction between goals and
policies and the purpose of each within the City of Moorpark
General Plan is discussed below.
Goals
Policies
A policy is an action -oriented statement designed to achieve a
specific state. A policy is a clear and unambiguous statement that
guides day-to-day decision making regarding future development.
Policies are effectuated by implementation measures or programs
which are included in Section 7.0 of this document.
The following Goals and Policies have been formulated in order to
respond to several criteria, including:
community issues: important community matters that have
been identified in the General Plan Update process.
opportunities and constraints: identification of
community planning policy opportunities and constraints
serving as a basis for projecting future growth and
change within the city.
relevant plans/data collection: research and review of
pertinent data and related community plans and documenta-
tion, ie., existing General Plan, Downtown Study,
Redevelopment Plan, Regional Plans.
With the above criteria serving as the framework for establishing
planning policy, the Land Use Element Goals and Policies focus on
the following primary concerns:
balanced community growth patterns
land use compatibility
maintaining suburban rural community character
revitalization of the downtown area
preservation of important natural features and visually
prominent hillside areas
overall intensity and density of land use decreases away
from the valley floor/town center area
GROWTH AND POPULATION
Goal 1: Attain a balanced city growth pattern which in-
cludes a full mix of land uses.
Policy Encourage New development and redevelopment whieh
jg
I<a orderly with respect to location,
timing, and' ... dens ity/intensity; -k& consistent with
the provision of local public services and
facilities; and -k& compatible with the overall
suburban rural community character.
Policy Pie a comprehensive planning approach for
undeveloped areas of the community
3'<
ca€ sr _, allows for the incrementaY
..............................
expansion of development, which includes infra-
structure and public services, and Leh pr faetes
"-' ' ""�a Cr rah 4� � aesthetic economic and
social viability o existing development.
GOAL 2: Premetethe Establishment --of a logical planning
area.
Pelrey 2-.-1
Plan fer the ultimate
Pellet' 2-..4
physlea-l- beundarl-es �a
Reduee—eenfliat-s—aweerg—
re idential, and-3g-rrcultaral
immediately
industrial, eemmereia ,
land --uses --within -and
,
10
Policy 2.4
>... suffix: t c ;>::;acy
.:: :...:..::.::.
........... ....:....: .....:..:
ar is t t s���.... ::LA 0£;::::>:fs�r an amended s here
of influence for the City o.f Moorpark,
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
GOAL 3: Provide a variety of housing types and opportuni-
ties for all economic segments of the community.
Policy 3.1: Previde A mix of residential densities sale
:� which accommodates the housing needs of
all members of the community.
Policy 3.2 : eemmunity wide R'd:a::::> ::c:<: �: ::::s11a:1:
.;................ I variation of residential .... product types, lot
sizes, and designs.
GOAL 4: Promote upgrading and maintenance of existing
housing.
..........................
GOAL 5: g new residential develepment
cftYst which is compatible with the character of
existing individual neighborhoods and minimizes
land use incompatibility.
11
Polio 5.2 • Re - ^==--
y �=n Existing residential neighborhoods --
nazethe Use
Yd; a�
are compatible with the Seale and eharaeter ef tie
.......::.....
Policy 5.3: Greenbelt areas ........... €
e#ade around and within residential Droiects
SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS
GOAL 6: Encourage the use of Specific Plans in the undevel-
oped areas of the community.
Policy 6.1: Encourage the utilization of Specific Plans as an
effective tool for implementation of General Plan
policies and priorities for larger land areas. The
intent of each Specific Plan is to achieve a long-
term cohesive development program which is respon-
sive to the physical and economic opportunities and
constraints of each individual Specific Plan area.
Policy 6.2: The ultimate land uses, design guidelines, develop-
ment standards, infrastructure and phasing require-
ments adopted for any given Specific Plan shall be
consistent with the General Plan text discussion
(see Section 5.2) of the type, location and inten-
sity of use determined appropriate for each Specif-
ic Plan area.
Policy 6.3: Where the City finds it appropriate to consider
development permit requests for individual parcels
within "multiple ownership" Specific Plan areas
prior to the adoption of a Specific Plan, the
permit request shall be based upon the General Plan
overlay designation as shown on the land use plan.
The overlay designation is intended to reflect a
level of intensity and types of uses that are
appropriate to occur in the absence of an overall
Specific Plan. Said individual requests shall be
consistent with the General Plan text (see Section
5.1) discussion of the type, location and intensity
of use determined appropriate for the General Plan
overlay designation assigned to each multiple
ownership Specific Plan area. Areas within the
city's proposed sphere of influence that are pro-
posed to be annexed into the city limits shall not
be exempted from a Specific Plan requirement.
12
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
7
GOAL 7: Provide for a variety of commercial facilities
which serve community residents and meet regional
needs.
Pol
icy 7 . 4:::' .
y ... c merc al tse be can ist nt
With the neighborhood village7town ..............nter planning
concept.
mew
Policy 7.§:: Eneeurage Internal cross -connections between com-
mercial uses 6d� `r v' dz d so as to reduce the
.;:;;;;;..;:.::.:::;:::.::.. .
number of curb cuts grid number of vehicle trips on
adjacent roadways.
GOAL 8: Provide—€er New commercial development which is.
kia'e compatible with surrounding land uses.
Policy 8.1: Eneeurage New commercial uses ta ':la be of com-
patible scale and character with al adjacent uses.
Policy 8.2: Require - that Commercial development € a incorpo-
rate design features such as serreen walls, land-
scaping and setbacks, and include height and light-
ing restrictions so as to minimize adverse impacts
to adjacent uses.
Policy 8.3: Require that Automobile and truck access to commer-
cial properties E; be located so as to minimize
......:............
impacts to adjacent sensitive uses.
13
Policy
9.4:
Policy 9.5:
Bneeurag
>th comprehen-
s ive planning
tee... ea�acs�' rail
yard district to provide new commercial infill
areas, park or recreational opportunities, public
parking, and a potential multimodal transportation
center within the downtown core.
....
Maintain ;....civic center si<<at�
F
d ,tr :::: area to -� ..... >`e;<;<;the
revitalization or downtown.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
GOAL 10: Encourage a diversity of industrial uses which are
located and designed in a compatible manner with
surrounding land uses.
Policy 10.1: Previde-€er the e usteiF n-- e-f New industrial devel-
opment �t>>i»ra C d adjacent
p ....................... to existing
industriaY uses aria aYorig major transportation
corridors.
Policy 10.2: Require that Industrial uses Y 1 incorporate
design features, such as screen waYls, landscaping
and setbacks, and include height, and lighting
restrictions so as to minimize adverse impacts to
adjacent areas.
14
Policy 10.3: Eneearage upgrading of vistial eharaeter of all-
.........................
'1*: .... hh" I S. r a s
industr-ial areas as needed-. u
Policy 10.4: Encourage those industries which fn..................
eet local,
RAC.R.R:i1i
regional and state air and water polluEion ... ... control
t
goals and standards ... 0::V ..
AGRICULTURE
GOAL 11:
Identify and encourage the preservation of viable
agricultural resources in the community and its
logical planning area.
Policy 11.1:
Retain the continuance of b
.......... .......
:A . . 0: .......
viable Prime an wide d Statewide at e Importance
within . i-Ehin the city's unincorporated planning
area.
Policy 11.2:
When new residential development is prepesed adja-
cent to existing agricultural uses, establish
setbaek eriterla_+200-foot minimum width+ to mini-
mize compatibility conflicts.
Policy 11.2:
When new residential development is adjacent to
existing..... agricultural uses, A. 200-foot minimum
width ...............o minimize compat
ibility cn icts.
Policy 11.3:
Eneear-age, Agricultural uses in buffer areas between
Moorpark and adjacent communities "i"..
...............
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
GOAL 12:
Ensure that a full range of public facilities and
services are provided to meet the needs of the
community.
Policy 12.2-1:
15
Policy 12 .42 : re__; deq
��� �;<���;� an efficient and equitable deliv-
ery of urban services by developing master plans
for urban services g 'a"I. ;:;::: b :::;:>:;;`pre re 3 which 1)
identify existing and � future (general plan
buildout) needs; 2) establish a phasing plan for
providing new urban services commensurate with
needs generated by existing and future development;
3) assure that financing is available to provide
adequate necessary facilities and services prior to
approval of any project which would exceed the
capacity or significantly reduce the quality of
existing services.
Policy 12.5: Maintain The city's current standard of five acres
of parkland per 1, 000 p pesz�i
a; nt:s':x± consistent with the cty's Open Space
and Recreation Element to ensure that adequate
passive/active parkland is provided in conjunction
with future infill, redevelopment, and new develop-
ment projects.
Policy 12.6 Eneeurage T e' '' shared use ro rams be-
tween tween public .and private service and facility
..1...............rou
Providers 3...............r..::>::>::d<::>:.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
GOAL 13: Aehieve A well-balanced and diversified economy
within the city which provides a variety of econom-
ic and employment opportunities.
Policy 13.1: Werk tew s A balanced job/housing ratio c>
.........
Policy 13.2: I l .. encourage new commercial and indus-
...............
trial uses which will generate long-term employment
opportunities and diversify the community's employ-
ment base.
Policy 13.3: n_s_ire that An proposed project e <be<re' ec
o'. contribute its fair share of the cost of provid-
ing adequate city public services and facilities.
Policy 13.4: Previde fethe -planning andfin�e.rg e4=future
ie f , • t . es , eapital —.tg eve tend —infra
s--ruet-a-we maintenanee—€ems and its sphere
16
rAZZ)ZnVIVXIUiV Ur- BVV1nU1VM.ZN'XAL WUALITY
GOAL 14: Establish land use patterns and densities which are
compatible with scenic and natural resources and
which are sensitive to environmental hazards.
..............................
Policy 14.1: Eneeu�e New development whieh is located
.............................
..............................
and designed to minimize adverse visual and/or
environmental impacts to the community.
..................
Policy 14.2: �e Developments =� Y1 respect, work
with, and complement the natural features of the
land.
Policy 14.3: Regulate New development se that it dees 1� 1 not
contribute to or cause hazardous conditions.
Policy 14.4:
..............................
�`v'e X? and enhance the area adjacent to
Arroyo Simi floodway as an important natural and
scenic feature of the community.
Policy 14.5:
��e Compatible open s ace/recreational uses of
P
.:...:..........:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.
the Arroyo Simi floodway h U.lei::< t�i �°'€�� which
are consistent with the provisions of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for floodway uses.
Policy 14.6 :<3
d fd< s
:.:u >[]-
;'si .nificanta aquifer recharge
....::::.oed...
.......................
......................
.......................
......................
GOAL 15:
Maintain a high quality environment that contrib-
utes to and enhances the quality of life and pro-
tects public health, safety and welfare.
Poli c 1 5.1:
y
T
P,cxl�l.e;:.;:�:.;:<E�.�.va.t�:::.:�� :��.t�:::
:::::::::::::::.;:.:...
::.ri.
f.:;
s:l scant ve etationc:a n:a:zd
g
:.::.;:.;..
::::::»::::... pr+eted, including riparian and oak woodland
vew etatiodn an.;:d....::::<:Pr..o.:.t:ect mature trees '�'.�
' City Code:'
...-....�. :
Policy 15.2:
Ecologically sensitive habi-
tatsah 1 :preetelarpeserved .
e
17
Policy 15.5: Any proposed hazardous waste facility
s ! be consistent with the County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan siting criteria.
Policy 15.6 Require Commercial, industrial and manufacturing
uses to implement recycling programs.
Policy15.7:
>> encourage efficient
::......:::g /effective
siting, operation and maintenance of sanitation
facilities to minimize offensive odors and dis-
charges from the sanitation plant.
COMMUNITY APPEARANCE
GOAL 16:
Enhance and maintain the suburban/rural identity of
the community.
Policy 16.1:
Maintain and/e=—enha=ee the ehar-aezeref stable
.::!:
�seltptha.lbe compatible with the scale and
visuaY character o the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy 16.2:
Establish Hillside development standards x � k
c`tC€ip which "restrict" grading on slopes greater
than0 percent and which encourage the preserva-
tion of visual horizon lines and significant hill-
sides as prominent visual features. (Conceptual
Horizon Lines are shown on Exhibit 5, located at
the back of this document.)
Policy 16.3:
Require that Tile. overall density and intensity of
.;..:............
developmentdl decrease as the slope increases
on slopes greater than twenty zt percent.
Policy 16.4:
Eneeurage New residential development whieh 'd
complements the overall community character of the
city while establishing a sense of place and
ensureeing compatibility with important existing
local community identities.
hazard areas, whieh ea net be Faitigated witheut-
s rgn-ifie antadveEe envirenmental e f f ee t s.
GOAL 17: Enhance the physical and visual image of the commu-
nity.
Policy 17.1: identify fer eaeh existing-neighber-#eed-the a,'
themes—and—ehar-aeter that-sheuld be a-rota-ined
enhaneed—and develep speelal design g ide in
Policy 17.2:
Identifiable entryways for
the overall community, and unique or principal
business/commercial districts of the city (ie.,
city core. and transportation corridors) skzOs.'
.........................::::.::.....
Policy17.3:
.} �., ; .�
Design standards>esta..... d g
for city entryways on the south (Moorpark Freeway),
east (SR-118 freeway), north (Walnut Canyon Road
and future SR-23 extension), and west (Los Angeles
Avenue), ear a'1 encourage landscape setbacks,
i monumentaton and other special design treat-
ments to enhance gateways to the city.
Policy 17.4: image —the—^ tent--ef Design concepts
as<tbbed for the overall community and
for.special treatment areas, such as the downtown
district, which may include guidelines for archi-
tecture, landscape architecture, signage,
streetscape, and infrastructure.
Pol c i 1 . 7 5•
Y e:.:.apen shQ1.:::;rc?r.>::>
,tat a variety of landscape architecture themes
and techniques to help organize and delineate land
uses and to enhance the overall visual quality of
the city.
Policy 17 .6 : Eneerte Enhanced landscaping iG t # around
residential, commercial and industrial buildings
and parking areas as well as along easements of
flood control channels, roadways, railroad right-
of-ways, and other public and private areas To
soften the urban environment and enhance views:,.,.
roadways and surrounding uses.
Policy 17.7: Eneeurage design selutiens and establish
.::.......;:.:
and ediees—lea-cede—€ems T` "O
s
e visual relief an
d separiation'
d€d between land uses of conflicting charac=
ter.
Policy 17 .8 :Undergrounding of utilities
c in conjunction with development projects
whenever feasible.
19
j?q
Policy 17. 10 : Residential construction' to
two-story and commercial and industrial to t..ree-
story heights.
Policy 18.3: Utilize The established redevelopment authority
k a € }� ' : to provide for the revitalization of
the downtown area.
Policy 18.4: Pi=efaete The creation of both residential and com-
mercial historic districts, and �� the
- -= Vie......::.;:::::...:.
upgrading of historic structures cue-
. __..._ ..
Policy 18.5: New development in
the downtown area :__h_e >.:Q s'
the careful use of compatible or similar construc-
tion materials and architectural style, so as not
to detract from the integrity of historical fea-
tures.
Policy 18.6: ';::;;'c encourage the
g use of creative
programs in resolving the parking problems of
commercial uses on High Street and Moorpark Avenue.
20
5.0 LAND USE PLAN ASSUMPTIONS/DESIGNATIONS
5.1 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
In accordance with the State General Plan Guidelines, the Land Use
Element designates the amount, location, distribution density, and
intensity of each land use proposed. The following section
describes the intent of each of the land use categories identified
for the city's entire planning area and shown on Exhibits 3 and 4.
Residential Density Ranges
Residential density ranges are provided for five of the seven
residential land use categories as shown in Table 2 below. Each of
the residential land use classifications indicates an allowable
range of development density. Emeept fer speeialeireumstaneeT
The maximum allowable development density permitted within
residential land use categories is the target density as identified
in Table 2 below. A'`>1�i.1i ....#1L"t^E?A4F ;CxV6... hea>.nhMt�r�uri:aa :.rnc�mi
Table 2
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Residential Designation Densitv Ranae Taraet Densitv*
L
Low Density
1.0-1.9
DU/Acre
1.0
DU/Acre
ML
Medium Low Density
2.0-2.9
DU/Acre
2.0
DU/Acre
M
Medium Density
3.0-4.9
DU/Acre
3.0
DU/Acre
H
High Density
5.0-9.9
DU/Acre
5.0
DU/Acre
VH
Very High Density
10.0-20
DU/Acre
10.0
DU/Acre
* Maximum allowable development density tinder- ner-mal:
"t" .." 11%tiAS:... a ..;3e:1"t .4.
Density tl benuses te-allew-deyelepment
thetargetdensity
are
of residential
densitie
s ab
eve
e ens i s tentt-with state
law sueh
a-prejeet
as-.
preyides
amenicresr
and levee=znee-►e
heueehelds;
the needs
ef sc-nier
eitizelks -.1d the
handleapped;
and
21
240
The types ef le-after=es previded--by a p=ejeetsheald vary
with the size and- leeatien ethe -preyeel- and -with the speeifie
wide-after=ces inelude, but are net lifflited-tey
Generally, a density benus be
to
may
develepment eh eiEeeeds- the
awarded alle r-residential
density
-tar-get
density ef-eaeh residential
-dens ty up the aver -age
Where-emeeptienal
ea-tegery.
amenities and/eraf ferdable-heus ing
pub3ie
is by
density benus-may be te
previded a-prej ee-t-, a
develepmentwhieh
granted a=lew
average densto th density-allewed
emeeeds the
fer
p i
eategeryr-
a-partieular
LAND USE CATEGORIES
RL - Rural Low Residential (1 dwelling unit per 5-acre minimum)
This designation is intended to allow limited development of
residential estate lots on minimum five -acre lots or using
clustering techniques for areas characterized by significant site
constraints, (rugged topography, steep slopes, lack of services,
limited access, etc.), or areas of important visual and natural
resources.
RH - Rural High Residential (1 dwelling unit per 1-acre minimum)
This designation is intended for residential development in areas
containing some development constraint features such as, rugged
topography, significant natural or visual resources, limited
access, etc. Residential uses are characterized by rural large
estate lots or clustered single family homes, with significant
permanent open space area, consistent with the constraints of the
land.
L - Low Density Residential (1.0 - 1.9 dwelling units per acre)
This designation is intended for residential development character-
ized by either single family homes on half acre lots or larger, or
by clustered single family homes which are responsible to the
natural terrain and minimize grading requirements.
ML - Medium Low Density Residential (2.0 - 2.9 dwelling units per
acre)
This designation is intended for single family residential
development either in standard subdivision form or using clustering
techniques to minimize grading and to conserve slopes of twenty
percent or greater.
22
M - Medium Density Residential (3.0 - 4.9 dwelling units per acre)
This designation is intended for residential development character-
ized by single family homes in standard subdivision form or
innovative designs which utilize clustering, zero lot line, or
planned development features. This designation covers a signifi-
cant portion of the residential acreages in the city and usually
occupies areas of generally level topography.
H - High Density Residential (5.0 - 9.9 dwelling units per acre)
This designation is intended for a wide range of residential
development types including attached and detached single family
units at the lower end of the density range and multiple family
attached units at the higher end of the density range. Areas
developed under this designation should exhibit adequate and
convenient access to local collector streets and be conveniently
serviced by neighborhood commercial and recreational facilities.
VH - Very High Density Residential (10. 0 - 20 dwelling units per
acre)
This designation is intended for residential development character-
ized at the lower end of the density range by multiple family
attached units and at the upper end of the density range by
apartment and condominium buildings. It is intended that this
category utilize innovative site planning, provide onsite recre-
ational amenities and be located in close proximity to major
community facilities, business centers and major arterials.
SP - Specific Plan
This designation allows for the preparation of a specific plan as
described in detail in subsequent sections of this document (pages
24 to 39).
C-1 - Neighborhood Commercial (.25 FAR)2
This designation includes neighborhood shopping centers (approxi-
mately 1-5 acres) which provide a limited range of retail goods and
services required by residents in the immediate vicinity. It
encourages consolidated shopping opportunities including, personal
services, convenience stores, eating and drinking establishments,
gas stations, banks and other neighborhood serving uses.
C-2 - General Commercial (.25 FAR)
This designation provides for commercial areas with a wide range of
retail and service activities (6-20 acres). Intended uses include
community shopping centers, department stores, restaurants,
automotive uses, office and professional services, and business
support services. This designation encourages the grouping of
commercial outlets into consolidated centers with direct access to
major roads, arterials and/or freeways.
2 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the maximum percentage of buildable area defined by the ratio of gross
floor area (not including parking structures) within a structure to the total project site.
23
This designatien has been established te r-efleet the mix ef uses
which eee•-M in the nerth of the —Sems. rn Paeirre
Railread an.dal • {�cir—e --11- gh Street. Existing -e-a! and
G-1--designatren. Hewever, empa-nsien of existing industrial uses
to eentigueus pareels is-pre#iited-- Existing -inaustria may
be--reh3bnz'-cQc industrial uses ceiifezzirl-ng-cethe -x--z
land use designatien but may net be expanded.
I-1 - Light Industrial (.38 FAR)
This designation is intended to provide for a variety of industrial
uses within the city. Suitable uses include light industrial
service, technical research and business office use in a business
ark context eensiste with the M-1 limited industrial€' zoning
P r i .r.
as identified ::::I.:::>:<:::<;:<:;::>:::;:::> .::<::<:.<:;::;::>:; ::::;::::;>::
ied in the city s Zoning Ordinance' ;:;:::4 .:::. ns: : ; h
»:1x _.
I-2 - Medium Industrial (.38 FAR)
This designation is intended to provide for intensive industrial
uses including light manufacturing, processing, fabrication and
other non -hazardous industrial uses:::::::ee ste with the M-2
Medium Industrial::* Zone of the city's Zoning Ordinance;>;;XX
AGl - Agriculture 1 (1 dwelling unit per 10-40 acre minimum)
This designation applies to viable agriculture uses located near
urban growth areas of the city.
AG2 - Agriculture 2 (1 dwelling unit per 40-acre minimum)
This designation is intended for large parcels of agricultural use
located in rural areas, with appropriate buffers in proximity to
adjacent urban areas.
OS1 - Open Space 1 (1 dwelling unit per 10-40 acre minimum)
This designation identifies those open space lands which contain
various development constraints such as slope gradient, soil and
geotechnical hazards, plus other environmental concerns, access,
and availability of public services. A mineral resource production
overlay designation is provided for significant mineral resource
deposits as identified by the California Department of Conservation
Division of Mines and Geology.
OS2 - Open Space 2 (1 dwelling unit per 40-acre minimum)
This designation identifies permanent open space areas which
function to preserve visual resources and natural areas, buffer
communities and provide relief from noise and crowding of urban
development, maintain environmentally hazardous areas, etc.
24
P - Park
This designation identifies neighborhood, community and regional
park facilities in the community. Implementation of the city's
park development standards provide for balanced recreational
facilities throughout the community.
S - Schools
Public school sites of all levels, elementary through high school,
as well as the Moorpark College facility are all identified by this
classification.
U - Utility
This designation identifies major public utility facilities.
PUB - Public/Institutional
This designation identifies public facilities, including:
government buildings, libraries, fire stations, and community
service centers but excludes jail facilities.
FLDWY - Floodwav
This designation identifies the floodway of the Arroyo Simi as
identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Habitable structures are prohibited.
FRWY-R/W - Freeway Right -of -Way
This designation identifies the existing and portions of future
right-of-way for the SR-118 and SR-23 freeways.
5.2 SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION - SP
The specific plan designation has been provided in the Land Use
Element to address large-scale projects in the city and proposed
sphere of influence study area. Pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65450-65457, specific plans are intended as a tool for the
systematic implementation of the general plan and shall include
text and diagrams indicating:
The distribution, location and extent of land uses and the
circulation system proposed within the specific plan area
The proposed distribution, location, extent and intensity of
major transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste
disposal, energy and other essential support facilities within
the specific plan area
Developed standards and regulations, and standards and
criteria for the preservation of natural resources
An implementation program ensuring the fulfillment of the
items above
25
Appendix A, located in the back of this Land Use Element, contains
further requirements for specific plan contents and identifies the
evaluation criteria city staff will consider in determining whether
a plan is appropriate for the area concerned. These criteria
include natural features and topographic constraints, cultural
constraints, environmental effects, land use considerations, etc.
A major goal for the specific planning process is to ensure that
development occurs in an orderly fashion, with due regard to
environmental factors. All Land Use Element goals and policies
shall be applicable to designated specific plan areas. The actual
acreages and locations of development which occur within each
specific plan will be based on the evaluation criteria city staff
will consider in determining whether a plan is appropriate for the
area concerned. Based upon the city's implementation of the Land
Use Element Goals and Policies, specific plan areas containing
significant constraints may result in reduced development intensity
and greater amounts of open space from that proposed on the Land
Use Plan.
Exhibits 3 and 4 of this document identify the location and the
proposed land use mix of each of the eight specific plan areas in
the city's planning area (five in the unincorporated area outside
the city limits and three within the existing city limits). These
specific plan areas have been delineated based on ownership,
landform and circulation considerations. Specific plan areas with
adjoining boundaries may be combined to allow for a consolidated
planning effort where all issues are addressed in a comprehensive
manner as required by Government Code Sections 65450-65457. A
detailed description of the issues for each of the specific plan
areas is provided in the following subsections.
Planning Area Within City Limits
As noted in the Land Use Plan, three specific plan areas have been
designated within the undeveloped areas of the existing City of
Moorpark limits (specific plan numbers 1-3). These specific plans
have been designated to address comprehensively a variety of land
use issues including topography, viewshed and circulation. Each
specific plan area includes 25 percent of the total acreage for
open space. The landusesperm=e plan nufftbers-1
adjusted frem the -applie nt's e- .gIna! prepesal te a Fftinifaufa ef 25
The land uses proposed
within specific plan 3 include residential uses at an overall
density range of 0-2 dwelling units per acre. For analysis
purposes, a mid -range maximum of one dwelling unit per gross
residential acre for this specific plan is assumed. As noted
earlier, residential densities exceeding the Mid- range
taut could be granted at the discretion of the Moorpark City
Council for projects that are consistent with the density bonus
provisions identified in Section 5.1 of this document. pie
plan 3 alse includes sehee�gark and qpub! S ..I�TCTC�ZrT. STC rent
r
with the Faim of uses designated fer ethersFeclie planareas
leeated in the u ed- area and empatibl-- t'- surreunding
ti s =--
26
in addtren Specific
overlay designation:;
types -e € € c l
absence of ari overall
Specific Plan 1
lan areas within the ci
na uses a
specific plan.
are assigned an
to reflect the
mete eeeur- in
Specific Plan 1 consists of 285 acres under one owner, located in
the western section of the city, north of Poindexter Avenue and the
Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Gabbert Road crosses the
westernmost portion of the site. Generally, the site is
characterized by rolling hillsides which are currently used for
grazing purposes.
Opportunities and Constraints
Site planning issues to be addressed during specific plan
preparation and subsequent review will include:
Topography - An evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils, seismic
faults, and other geotechnical constraints within the hillside
areas of development will be considered during the develop-
ment/review of this specific plan. Consistent with city policy,
grading is discouraged on slopes greater than 20 percent and
development discouraged in areas where potential hazards cannot be
fully mitigated.
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development/review of this specific
plan.
Viewshed - The visual importance of hillside horizon
lines/prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from
surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and
review of this specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should
be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and
natural resources.
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (ie., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation. The preservation of any resources
determined to be significant shall be encouraged through onsite
preservation, habitat enhancement or replacement.
Archaeology - The project site will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur onsite and their potential
significance.
Public Services/Infrastructure - Water, sewer, gas and electric
service to the project site will be provided through service
extensions from existing transmission lines in the surrounding
area.
I 1
27
I;L
Circulation - The project circulation network will require
consideration for topographical constraints, viewshed issues, the
adjacent Southern Pacific railroad tracks, and shall provide
protection for the conceptual alignment of the future SR-118
freeway corridor. The project shall ensure that roadway rights -of -
way are protected for the planned roadway upgrades, improvements,
and additions as identified in the city's updated circulation plan.
Proposed Land Uses
The following land use table indicates the proposed land use mix
for this specific plan.
Specific Plan 1
Land Use Mix
Total Acres
Total Dwelling Units
Rural High
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
General Commercial
Park
Open Space
OVERLAY DESIGNATION
Agriculture 1
Specific Plan 2
285 acres
831 dwelling units
13 dwelling units
116 dwelling units
372 dwelling units
330 dwelling units
3 acres
13 acres
71 acres
Specific Plan 2 consists of 445 acres under single ownership. It
is located northerly of the city, east of Walnut Canyon Road and
west of College Heights Drive. Generally, the majority of this
site is characterized as a gently sloping plateau with prominent
hillsides in the northern section. The site is currently vacant
and used for seasonal grazing.
Opportunities and Constraints
Site planning issues will be addressed during specific plan
preparation and subsequent review, and include:
Topography - Existing steep hillsides onsite require a complete
evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils, and other potential
geotechnical constraints of the project area during the develop-
ment/review of this specific plan. Consistent with city policy,
grading is discouraged on slopes greater than 20 percent and
development discouraged in areas where potential hazards cannot be
fully mitigated.
3
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development/review of this specific
plan.
Viewshed - The importance and visibility of hillside horizon lines
and prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from
surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and
review of the specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should
be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and
natural resources/hazard areas.
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (ie., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation and review. The preservation of any
resources determined to be significant shall be encouraged through
onsite preservation, habitat enhancement or replacement.
Archaeology - The project site will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur onsite and their potential
significance.
Public Services/Infrastructure - Water, sewer, gas and electric
service to the project site will be provided through service
extensions from existing transmission lines in the surrounding
area.
Circulation - Project circulation network will require
consideration for topography, viewshed, and for its integration
with both the conceptual future freeway alignments for SR-118 and
SR-23, and the future Broadway extension. The project shall ensure
that roadway right-of-ways are protected for the planned roadway
upgrades, improvements and additions as identified in the city's
updated circulation plan.
Proposed Land Uses
The following land use table indicates the proposed land use mix
for this specific plan.
Specific Plan 2
Land Use Mix
Total Acres
445
acres
Total Dwelling Units
712
dwelling
units
Rural High
2
dwelling
units
Low Density
220
dwelling
units
Medium Density
490
dwelling
units
Neighborhood Commercial 6 acres
29
OVERLAY DESIGNATION
Open Space 1
Rural Low
Specific Plan 3
............................
-- ..ate
............................
`
Specific Plan 3 consists of 273 acres under one owner, located in
the easternmost section of the city, north of the SR-23 freeway and
east of Moorpark College. Generally, the site is vacant open
space, characterized by rolling and steep hillsides and some flat
terrain adjacent to the SR-23 freeway and in the northern portions
of the site.
Opportunities and Constraints
Site planning issues will be addressed during specific plan
preparation and subsequent review, and include:
Topography - An evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils and
other geotechnical constraints within the hillside areas of
development will be conducted during the development/review of this
plan. Consistent with city policy, grading is discouraged on
slopes greater than 20 percent and development discouraged in areas
where potential hazards cannot be fully mitigated.
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development/review of this specific
plan.
Viewshed - The importance and visibility of hillside horizon lines
and prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from
surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and
review of the specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should
be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and
natural resources/hazard areas.
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (ie., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation and review. The preservation of any
resources determined to be significant shall be encouraged through
onsite preservation, habitat enhancement or replacement.
30
<:
its
Archaeology - The project site will be evaluated to determin
whether archaeological resources occur onsite and their potential
significance.
Public Services/Infrastructure - Water, sewer, gas and electric
service to the project site will be provided through service
extensions from existing transmission lines in the surrounding
area.
Circulation - The project's circulation network will require
consideration for its relationship to topographical constraints,
viewshed issues, and its relationship to the SR-23 freeway. The
project shall ensure that roadway right-of-ways are protected for
the planned roadway upgrades, improvements and additions as
identified in the city's updated circulation plan.
Proposed Land Uses
The following land use table indicates the proposed land use mix
for this specific plan.
Specific Plan 3
Land Use Mix
Total Acres 273 acres
Total dwelling units 181 dwelling units
(0-2 du/acre at 1 du/acre mid -range maximum)
Open Space 68 acres
Schools 20 acres
Parks 4 acres
Public/Institutional to be determined
OVERLAY DESIGNATION
Open Space 2
.......................
......................
.......................
......................
Planning Area Outside City Limits
31
A standard range and mix of land uses has been developed for each
specific plan area designation outside of the city limits (specific
plan numbers 4-8). An overall residential density range of 0-2
dwelling units per acre applies to each specific plan area except
where prime or statewide agricultural lands have been identified
within the specific plan area. These agricultural lands remain
designated at one dwelling unit per 40 acres, consistent with the
Ventura County General Plan agricultural designation. For analysis
purposes, a mid -range maximum of one dwelling unit per gross
residential acre for each specific plan is assumed. At the
discretion of the Moorpark City Council, densities exceeding the
mid -range maximum could be granted for projects that provide
exceptional public benefits, such as:
Inclusion of affordable housing for lower income house-
holds;
Provision of extensive amounts of open space over and
above 25 percent of the total project site;
Provision of exceptional public recreation amenities;
and,
Provision of public services and/or infrastructure over
and above the normal requirements.
A more complete discussion of the types of public amenities
required to exceed the mid -range maximum for any residential land
use category is provided in Section 5.1.
Each specific plan area includes a minimum 25 percent open space
requirement, a 20-acre school site and park acreage based on a
standard of five acres per 1,000 population. Actual school acreage
provided with each specific plan area may vary based on school
district review and needs at the time of project review. A three -
acre neighborhood commercial center has also been included in the
specific plan numbers 7 and 8. Populations projected for specific
plans 4, 5 and 6 do not justify individual neighborhood commercial
requirements; therefore, a three -acre site is proposed in Specific
Plan 6, to serve these three planning areas. A description of the
existing land uses, potential planning issues (opportunities and
constraints), and the proposed land use mix for each specific plan
area in the unincorporated planning area is provided below.
Specific Plan 4
Specific Plan 4 consists of 700 acres under combined ownership,
located southwest of the city limits, west of the Moorpark Home
Acres community and south of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks.
The topography of this site varies from flat terrain adjacent to
the Arroyo Las Posas (an extension of the Arroyo Simi), to steeply
sloping hillsides. The majority of the flatter areas of the
project site are currently occupied by agricultural uses.
32
upportunities ana constraints
Site planning issues to be addressed during specific plan
preparation and subsequent review will include:
Topography - Potential geotechnical constraints associated with the
hillside areas of development will be evaluated during the
development/review of this specific plan. Consistent with city
policy, grading is discouraged on slopes greater than 20 percent
and development discouraged in areas where potential hazards cannot
be fully mitigated.
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development/review of this specific
plan.
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (ie., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation. The preservation of any resources
determined to be significant shall be encouraged through onsite
preservation, habitat enhancement or replacement.
Archaeology - The project site will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur onsite and their potential
significance.
Agriculture - This specific plan will address the viability and
maintenance of "Prime" and "Statewide Significance" farmlands
which occur onsite.
Public Services - Water, gas and electric service to the project
site will be provided through service extensions from existing
transmission lines in the surrounding area. Sewer service is not
currently available and would need to be provided for all urban
uses.
Circulation - The project circulation network shall provide
consideration for its relationship to hillside areas, the Arroyo
Las Posas, the Southern Pacific railroad tracks, and shall provide
protection for the future SR-118 freeway right-of-way.
Floodway - Because the Arroyo Las Posas
appropriate flood control measures shall be
development and review of this specific plan.
bisects the site,
considered in the
97
33
Proposed Land Uses
The following land use table indicates the proposed land use mix
for this specific plan.
Specific Plan 4
Land Use Mix
Total acres 700 acres
Total dwelling units 321 dwelling units
(0-2 du/acre at 1 du/acre mid -range maximum and
40-acre minimum for viable agricultural land)
Agriculture 250 acres
(Statewide and prime agricultural land)
Open Space 112 acres
Schools 20 acres
Parks 6 acres
Public/Institutional To be determined
Specific Plan 5
Specific Plan 5 consists of 390 acres under combined ownership
located immediately west of the city limits, north of the Arroyo
Simi, an south of Los Angeles Avenue. This specific plan area
terrain consists of flatlands currently occupied by agricultural
uses.
Opportunities and Constraints
Site planning issues to be addressed during specific plan
preparation and subsequent review will include:
Topography - Geotechnical constraints to development are
anticipated to be minimal given the flat terrain of this specific
plan.
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development/review of this specific
plan.
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (ie., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation. The preservation of any resources
determined to be significant shall be encouraged through onsite
preservation, habitat enhancement or replacement.
Archaeology - The project site will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur onsite and their potential
significance.
34
Agriculture - This specific plan will address the viability and
),11
maintenance of "Prime" and "Statewide Significance" farmlands which
occur onsite. Urban development onsite is anticipated to be
concentrated in the areas immediately adjacent to existing
surrounding urban uses. Transitional land uses and buffer areas
(minimum 200 feet) will need to be provided for areas between
agricultural and residential uses.
Public Services - Water, gas and electricity service to the project
site will be provided through onsite improvements and service
extensions from transmission lines in the surrounding area. Sewer
service is not currently available and would need to be provided
for all urban uses.
Circulation - The project circulation network shall provide
consideration for its relationship to and integration with the
existing arterials located within the site and the adjacent
Southern Pacific railroad tracks. The project shall ensure that
roadway right-of-ways are protected for the planned roadway
upgrades, improvements and additions as identified in the city's
updated circulation plan.
Floodway - Due to the proximity of this specific plan to the Arroyo
Simi, appropriate flood control measures shall be considered in the
development and review of this specific plan.
Proposed Land Uses
The following land use table indicates the proposed land use mix
for this specific plan.
Specific Plan 5
Land Use Mix
Total acres 390 acres
Total dwelling units 269 dwelling units
(0-2 du/acre at 1 du/acre mid -range maximum)
Agriculture To be determined
Open Space 98 acres
Schools 20 acres
Parks 5 acres
Public/Institutional To be determined
Specific Plan 6
Specific Plan 6 consists of 815 acres under combined ownership
located west of the city limits, immediately north of Los Angeles
Avenue and east of Grimes Canyon Road. The site terrain varies
from rolling hillsides to flatter areas on the valley floor. The
majority of this specific plan area is currently occupied by
agricultural uses.
35
Opportunities and Constraints
Site planning issues to be addressed during specific plan
preparation and subsequent review will include:
Topography - An evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils, and
other geotechnical constraints within the hillside areas of
development will be conducted during the development/review of this
specific plan. Consistent with city policy, grading is discouraged
on slopes greater than 20 percent and development discouraged in
areas where potential hazards cannot be fully mitigated.
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development/review of this specific
plan.
Viewshed - The importance and visibility of hillside horizon lines
within this specific plan area from surrounding areas will be
evaluated during the preparation and review of the specific plan.
Clustering of dwelling units should be considered where appropriate
to conserve important visual and natural resources/hazard areas.
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (ie., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation. The preservation of any resources
determined to be significant shall be encouraged through onsite
preservation, habitat enhancement or replacement.
Archaeology - The project site will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur onsite and their potential
significance.
Agriculture - This specific plan shall address the viability and
maintenance of "Prime" and "Statewide Significance" farmlands which
occur on site.
Public Services - Water and electricity services are currently
provided within portions of this specific plan area. Sewer service
is not currently available and would need to be provided for all
urban uses. Gas services will be extended from surrounding
transmission facilities.
Circulation - The project circulation network will require
consideration for the adjacent Southern Pacific Railroad tracks,
and for the conceptual alignment and protection of right-of-way for
the future SR-118 freeway corridor.
36
Proposed Land Uses
of
The following land use table indicates the proposed land use mix
for this specific plan.
Specific Plan 6
Land Use Mix
Total acres 815 acres
Total dwelling units 351 dwelling units
(0-2 du/acre at 1 du/acre mid -range maximum and
40-acre minimum for viable agricultural land)
Neighborhood Commercial 3 acres
Agriculture 322 acres
(Statewide and prime agricultural land)
Open Space 123 acres
Schools 20 acres
Parks 7 acres
Public/Institutional to be determined
Specific Plan 7
Specific Plan 7 consists of 2,190 acres under combined ownership,
located north of the city limits, west of Happy Camp Regional Park.
Walnut Canyon Road and Grimes Canyon Road run north -south and
Broadway extends east -west through the site. The site is generally
characterized by rolling hills with some prominent ridgelines and
steep terrain. Existing uses onsite include agricultural uses,
grazing lands, and vacant land.
Opportunities and Constraints
Site planning issues to be addressed during specific plan
preparation and subsequent review will include:
Topography - An evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils,
potentially active faults, and other geotechnical constraints
within the hillsides areas of development will be conducted during
the development/review of this specific plan. Consistent with city
policy, grading is discouraged on slopes greater than 20 percent
and development discouraged in areas where potential hazards cannot
be fully mitigated.
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development/review of this specific
plan.
Viewshed - The importance and visibility of hillside horizon lines
and prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from
surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and
review of the specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should
be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and
natural resources/hazard areas.
37
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (ie., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation. The preservation of any resources
determined to be significant shall be encouraged through onsite
preservation, habitat enhancement or replacement.
Archaeology - The project site will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur onsite and their potential
significance.
Agriculture - This specific plan shall address the viability and
maintenance of "Prime" and "Statewide Significance" farmlands which
occur on site.
Mineral Resources - The specific plan shall evaluate the potential
for maintaining significant mineral resource deposits for mineral
extraction purposes, and encourage compatible land uses in
proximity to mineral resource extraction areas.
Public Services - Water and electricity services are currently
provided within portions of this specific plan area. Sewer service
is not currently available and would need to be provided for all
urban uses. Gas services will be extended from surrounding
transmission facilities.
Circulation - The project circulation network shall provide
consideration for topography, viewshed, and its relationship to and
integration with the existing arterials located within the site.
The project shall ensure that roadway right-of-ways are protected
for the planned roadway upgrades, improvements and additions as
identified in the city's updated circulation plan.
Proposed Land Uses
The following land use table indicates the proposed land use mix
for this specific plan.
Specific Plan 7
Land Use Mix
Total acres 2,372 acres
Total dwelling units 1,316 dwelling units
(0-2 du/acre at 1 du/acre mid -range maximum and
40-acre minimum for viable agricultural land)
Neighborhood Commercial
Agriculture
(Statewide and prime
Open Space
Schools
Parks
Public/Institutional
agricultural land)
3 acres
590 acres
445 acres
20 acres
22 acres
to be determined
:J
Specific Plan 8
Specific Plan 8 consists of approximately 4,500 acres, under one
owner, located northerly of the eastern portion of the city limits,
east of Happy Camp Regional Park. Generally, this specific plan
area is vacant open space, characterized by steep hillside terrain
currently designated as open space.
Opportunities and Constraints
Site planning issues to be addressed during specific plan
preparation and subsequent review will include:
Topography - Existing steep hillsides onsite require a complete
evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils, and other potential
geotechnical constraints of the project area during the develop-
ment/review of this specific plan. Consistent with city policy,
grading is discouraged on slopes greater than 20 percent and
development discouraged in areas where potential hazards cannot be
fully mitigated.
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development/review of this specific
plan.
Viewshed - The visual importance of hillside horizon
lines/prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from
surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and
review of this specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should
be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and
natural resources.
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (ie., oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation and review. The preservation of any
resources determined to be significant shall be encouraged through
onsite preservation, habitat enhancement or replacement.
Archaeology - The project site will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur onsite and their potential
significance.
Agriculture - This specific plan will address the viability and
maintenance of the limited "Prime" and "Statewide Significance"
farmlands which occur onsite.
Public Services - Water, gas and electric service to the project
site will be provided through onsite improvements and service
extensions from existing transmission lines in the surrounding
area. Sewer service is not currently available and would need to
be provided for all urban uses.
39
Circulation - The project circulation network shall provide
consideration for its relationship to topographical constraints and
viewshed issues and consideration for connection of the SR-118 and
SR-23 freeways as well as the Broadway extension. The project
shall ensure that roadway right-of-ways are protected for the
planned roadway upgrades, improvements and additions as identified
in the city's updated circulation plan.
Proposed Land Uses
The following land use table indicates the proposed land use mix
for this specific plan.
Specific Plan 8
Land Use Mix
Total acres 4,500 acres
Total dwelling units 3,221 dwelling units
(0-2 du/acre at 1 du/acre mid -range maximum and
40-acre minimum for viable agricultural land)
Neighborhood Commercial
Agriculture
(Statewide and prime agricultural land)
Open Space
Schools
Parks
Public/Institutional
3 acres
136 acres
1,091 acres
20 acres
60 acres
to be determined
40
6.0 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY
The following table (Land Use Plan - Statistical Summary, Table 3)
summarizes the approximate acreages and the number of dwelling
units resulting from each of the land use classifications designat-
ed on the Land Use Plan maps for the overall planning area (City
Area - Exhibit 3, and Unincorporated Area - Exhibit 4). Generally
dwelling unit estimates are based on the fit% ' density
range identified for each residential land use classification. 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.). Using the
estimates below, the land use designations would allow for a
combined total of up to 19,680 dwelling units to be constructed in
the overall planning area. Based on the County's 2.74 population
per dwelling unit factor for year 2010, the resulting buildout
population for the Moorpark planning area would be approximately
53,923 persons. The required environmental documentation for
future projects shall provide a more detailed level of population
per dwelling unit analysis based on the square footage of each
dwelling unit and the type of land use for residential subdivi-
sions.
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 capabili-
ties of relevant infrastructure systems (ie., sewer, water, police,
fire, etc.) associated with the land use designation proposed as a
part of this update process.
41
1
Table 3
LAND USE PLAN — STATISTICAL SUMMARY
City Unincorporated Total Planning
Land Use Designation Area Area Area Combined
RL RURAL LOW 1,668 ac 332 du -- 154 du* 560 du
(1 du/minimwn 5 acres)
RH RURAL HIGH 453 ac 453 du 5,399 ac 5,399 du 5,852 du
(1 du/minimum acre)
L LOW DENSITY 343 ac 547 du -- -- 547 du
(1.1-2 du/acre)
ML MEDIUM LOW DENSITY 568 ac 1,457 du -- -- 1,457 du
(2.1-3 du/acre)
M MEDIUM DENSITY 1,387 ac 5,547 du -- -- 5,547 du
(3.1-5 du/acre)
H HIGH DENSITY 436 ac 3,062 du -- -- 3,062 du
(5.1-10 du/acre)
VH VERY HIGH DENSITY 180 ac 2,729 du -- -- 2,729 du
(10.1-20 du/acre)
SP SPECIFIC PLAN** -- -- -- --
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS
(At Buildout)
TOTAL POPULATION***
(At Buildout)
14,127 du
38,587
5,553 du 19,680 du
15,336 53,923
C-1
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
15 ac
9 ac 24 ac
(.25 FAR)
C-2
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
189 ac
- 189 ac
(.25 FAR)
C-I
COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL
13 ac
- 13 ac
(.38 FAR)
I-1
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
263 ac
- 263 ac
(.38 FAR)
I-2
MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL
285 ac
- 285 ac
(.38 FAR)
AG1
AGRICULTURE 1
10 ac
- 10 ac
(1 du/10-40 acres)
AG2
AGRICULTURE 2
-
1,298 ac 1,298 ac
(1 du/40 acres)
OS1
OPEN SPACE 1
40 ac
166 ac 206 ac
(1 du/10-40 acres)
42
,*,,,.: '. -, -*- - ,*,.,...,.,,-,..,,., , , ., : : . : : : :.. .. '... - e 61
City Unincorporated
Total Planning
Land Use Desiamation Area Area
Area Combined
OS2 OPEN SPACE 2 1,111 ac 4,423 ac
5,534 ac
(1 du/40 acres)
S SCHOOL 386 ac 100 ac
486 ac
P PARK 219 ac 395 ac
614 ac
U UTILITIES 47 ac
47 ac
PUB PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL 10 ac ****
10 ac
FRWY FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY 297 ac --
297 ac
R/W
TOTAL CITY AREA ACRES (Approximate)
7,920 acres
TOTAL UNINCORPORATED AREA ACRES (Approximate)
11,790 acres
TOTAL PLANNING AREA COMBINED
19,710 acres
* Includes dwelling units within Open Space and Agriculture designated areas.
** Specific plan uses are distributed by land use classification within the
matrix.
*** Based on 2.74 persons per dwelling unit.
* * * * Public/Institutional acreages within the overall planning area will be determined through
implementation of specific plans.
43
.. .. .... .
.... . ...
..............
...........
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION
The City of Moorpark has several implementation measures available
to carry out its adopted goals. Within the Land Use Element
itself, policies have been developed which call for specific
implementing actions to be taken by the city. Other policies are
set forth which call for subsequent programs and actions to be
taken which will implement the provisions of the general plan.
Defined as an action, procedure, program or technique that carries
out general plan policy, the Implementation Measures contained in
this section are intended to assist the city in realizing the goals
and policies of the Land Use Element and ensure that required
mitigation measures are accomplished.
In addition to the measures established in the general plan itself,
other implementation measures are derived from the city's corporate
and police powers granted by state law. The adoption of a zoning
ordinance is the city's principal instrument for implementing the
general plan and is derived from the police power given to the
city. This ordinance regulates land use by dividing the city into
zones and specifying permitted uses, allowable development
intensities, minimum lot size, building height and setback limits,
and other development parameters within each land use zone. Zoning
designations which are compatible with the Land Use classifications
of the General Plan are illustrated on the General Plan/Zoning
Compatibility Matrix (Exhibit 6).
Other implementation measures derived from the city's police power
include the city's power to regulate subdivisions, to adopt
specific plans, to enforce building housing codes, to establish
park dedication requirements, and to utilize environmental and
design review procedures when considering development proposals.
Implementation measures derived from the city's corporate powers
include the construction of streets, water, and sewer facilities,
the acquisition and development of parkland, the acquisition of
sites for low income housing, and the acquisition of open space,
conservation, or scenic easements.
Because the general plan is based on community values and an
understanding of existing and projected conditions and needs (which
continually change), it is important to monitor and review the
general plan regularly. As indicated in the State of California
General Plan Guidelines, components of the plan that have a short-
term focus, such as the implementation program, should be reviewed
annually and revised as necessary to reflect the availability of
new implementation tools, changes in funding sources, and the
results of monitoring the effectiveness of past decisions. At
least every five (5) years this element shall be evaluated
regarding its consistency with other General Plan elements and
community goals.
44
Implementation Measures
1. The Land Use Map E�X§Wo## shall be used to promote a balanced
city growth pattern, land use compatibility, maintenance of
the city's suburban/rural character, revitalization of the
downtown area, preservation of important natural features and
overall intensity and density of land use decreasing away from
the valley floor.
2. Implement provisions of, review and revise as necessary the
other elements of the city's general plan, including the
following:
Update Open Space Element to ensure consistency of open
space policies and designations with the Land Use
Element.
Update Noise Element to reflect the city's planned
circulation system a -Rd as identified in the updated
Circulation Element.
Update Safety Element to reflect potential hazard areas
in relation to proposed land uses as identified in the
updated land use plan.
Housing Element
3. Consider preparation of additional elements of the general
plan (such as Community Design, Economic Development, Public
Services, Air Quality) in order to encourage further implemen-
tation of provisions contained within the Land Use Element.
4. The eity shall review annually and update the eityl-
e der to ensue eensisteney with the
General Plan Land Use Map-.
5. The city shall utilize the State Subdivision Map Act to
regulate the design and improvement of subdivisions within the
city.
6. The city shall utilize Development Agreements in order to
assist in attaining public objectives and implementing general
plan goals and policies. All development agreements and/or
affordable housing agreements shall be approved prior to any
entitlement being approved.
7. Review, update and expand the city's Capital Improvement
Program in order to project annual expenditures for acquisi-
tion, construction rehabilitation and replacement of public
buildings and facilities.
45
io
8. Utilize the city's adopted Building and Housing Codes in order
to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public and to
further implement the goals and policies of the Land Use
Element.
10. Utilize land acquisition methods in order to acquire land
designated for public use and for public purposes such as
urban redevelopment.
11. Utilize preferential assessments sueh as conservation, open
space and scenic easements as a means of conserving open space
in accordance with the Land Use Plan Map and to further
implement the goals and policies of the Land Use Element.
12. Utilize a variety of methods to finance the facilities and
services needed to implement the Land Use Element goals and
policies. Primary local funding sources include taxes,
exactions, fees and assessments. State and federal funding
sources include a broad range of grant and loan programs which
the city should use to finance the implementation of the
general plan. Funding sources may include loans, grants,
bonds and other financial assistance programs available for
housing, energy, historic preservation, noise mitigation,
parks, recreation and open space, solid waste management, and
transportation issues.
13. The city shall base all official regulatory land use and
development control decisions on consistency with the General
Plan Land Use Element. Periodic review of all implementation
measures shall be made in order to ensure consistency with the
General Plan Land Use Map.
14. The city shall coordinate with the county of Ventura in order
to promote consistency with the countywide planning program
(CPP) so as to update countywide growth/non-growth boundaries
and population projections to reflect the city's updated
general plan Land Use and Circulation Elements.
15. Utilize the city's adopted growth management ordinance in
order to achieve a steady rate of residential growth while
providing for adequate public services and facilities.
16. Prepare an application for submittal to the Ventura County
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to amend the city's
sphere of influence boundary for proper planning of the
probable, ultimate physical boundaries and service area of the
city.
Eft
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
17. Utilize specific plans in the undeveloped areas of the
community as a tool for the systematic implementation of the
general plan and in order to achieve a long-term cohesive
development program which is responsive to the physical and
economic opportunities and constraints of each individual
Specific Plan Area. General standards for specific plan
preparation and evaluation are outlined in Appendix A.
18. The specific plan process shall be utilized to ensure that
adequate buffering exists between viable agricultural resourc-
es and residential areas.
19. Coordinate with the county of Ventura in order to update and
identify areas of viable prime agricultural land.
20. Utilize the city's Redevelopment Plan in order to eliminate
and prevent the spread of blight in the Redevelopment Plan
Project Area and to encourage the revitalization of the
downtown commercial core area.
21. Utilize the goals and recommendations outlined within the
city's adopted Downtown Study to guide the revitalization of
downtown Moorpark, recapture and promote the downtown's small
town concept, and maintain downtown existing historical
elements.
22. Prepare a specific plan for the downtown study area in order
to promote the revitalization of the downtown commercial core.
23. Coordinate with other public agencies and adopt updated master
plans for sewer, water, utility, flood control and solid waste
services.
24. Coordinate with other public agencies to minimize public
service/infrastructure costs and to maintain adequate levels
of service.
25. Prepare a hillside development ordinance in order to ensure
sensitive hillside development to restrict grading on slopes
greater than 20 percent, to protect visually prominent horizon
lines within hillside areas and to protect environmentally
sensitive areas.
26. Utilize the city's mature tree ordinance in order to implement
preservation guidelines for mature oaks and other mature
trees.
27. Prepare a master community design plan for the city which
includes a design concept plan for special treatment areas
within the community and identifies overall community concepts
for landscape architecture, architecture, signage,
streetscapes, identifiable entryways, and community gateway
areas.
47
. viz
APPENDIX A
SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
A major goal of the specific plan process is to ensure that
development occurs in an orderly fashion, with due regard to
environmental factors. In addition to the potential planning
issues identified for each individual specific plan within Section
V.2. of the Land Use Element, outlined below is a summary of those
items which should be included or discussed in a specific plan
document. The Community Development Department may require from an
applicant such other information as deemed necessary in evaluating
a proposed project.
SPECIFIC PLAN CONTENTS
Land Use Plan: A detailed land use plan will be prepared
indicating specific land use locations,
type, intensities, and other site charac-
teristics and describing residential
areas, commercial areas, recreation ar-
eas, open space areas, agricultural ar-
eas, community facilities and any other
proposed uses consistent with the stan-
dard range and mix of land uses assigned
to each Specific Plan Area. The actual
acreages and locations of development
which occur within each specific plan
will be based on evaluation criteria
(included within this appendix) the city
will consider in determining whether a
plan is appropriate for the area con-
cerned. Based upon the city's implemen-
tation of the Land Use Element Goals and
Policies, specific plan areas containing
significant constraints may result in
reduced development intensity and greater
amounts of open space from that proposed
on the Land Use Plan. Project statisti-
cal analysis shall also be included which
tabulates and summarizes land uses,
acreages, and square footage.
Circulation Plan: Circulation components of the land use
plan (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and
equestrian) will be prepared addressing
hierarchy, required improvements and
development standards.
Infrastructure Plan: Infrastructure systems necessary to sup-
port the Land Use Plan will be prepared
to address improvement requirements for
water facilities, wastewater facilities,
drainage facilities, and other utilities.
M
13
Community Design Plan: A community design plan will be prepared
to illustrate the techniques proposed to
enhance the overall community character.
Community design plan components will
include a conceptual landscape plan,
architectural design guidelines (includ-
ing architectural style, materials, col-
ors, fencing, and walls, etc.) and a
conceptual mass grading plan.
Implementation Plan: An implementation plan will be prepared
which identifies site development stan-
dards (including permitted uses,
setbacks, height limitations, etc.),
administrative procedures for plan modi-
fications and fiscal impact analysis.
Phasing Plan: A phasing plan will be prepared which
identifies development stages and major
infrastructure improvements required to
service the stages of development and
landscape improvement timing.
Conformance A determination of consistency analysis
with General Plan: between the general plan elements and
proposed development activities will be
prepared.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Subsequent to completion of any draft specific plan, the Community
Development Department will review the plan and shall consider a
number of factors in determining whether the plan is appropriate
for the area under consideration. These criteria include, but are
not limited to, the following:
A. Land use considerations
1. Compatibility of development with surrounding area and
land uses
2. Conformance with all adopted general plan elements
3. Relationship of land uses within the development
4. Circulation, utilities and other infrastructure and
public service needs
B. Natural resource/topographic considerations
1. Slopes
2. Soil characteristics
3. Drainage patterns
4. Watersheds, and floodplains
5. Faults, landslides and liquefaction
6. Shallow groundwater
7. Viewshed considerations
49
I I
C. Environmental considerations
1. Air quality
2. Water quality
3. Noise
4. Effect on vegetation
5. Effect on wildlife
6. Aesthetics (including community design and scenic areas)
7. Historic/cultural areas (including those of archaeologi-
cal/paleontological importance)
8. Grading
D. Economic considerations
1. Effect on tax base
2. Effect on employment
3. Demographic effects
4. Effect on community facilities and services
5. Market need
50
M.P
ATTACHMENT 6B
DRAFT
CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Prepared for:
CITY OF MOORPARK
Prepared by:
AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES
2020 North Tustin Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92701
October 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Form and Scope of this Element
2.0 CIRCULATION ISSUES
Regional Transportation Corridors
City Street System
Future Growth
Transit System
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Facilities
Transportation Demand Management
3.0 GOALS AND POLICIES
General
Level of Service
Roadway Standards
Transit System
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Equestrian Facilities
Transportation Demand Management
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION
5.0 ROADWAY CIRCULATION PLAN
Roadway Facility Designations
Level of Service
Circulation System
6.0 BIKEWAY PLAN
7.0 EQUESTRIAN FACILITY PLAN
Page
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
12
12
13
13
i
e')17
LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES
Follows
Page No.
Exhibit No. Title
1 Roadway Classifications 12
2 Circulation Element Highway Network 14
3 Circulation Element Bikeway Network 17
4 Circulation Element Equestrian Trail Network 18
Table No. Title
1 Standards for Roadway Levels of Service 14
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
a►$
The main purpose of this element is to designate a safe and
efficient circulation system which promotes the movement of people
and goods in and around the city. The Circulation Element is also
concerned with establishing policies and programs which will ensure
that all components of the system will meet the future transporta-
tion needs of the city. The General Plan Traffic Analysis
technical report and the General Plan Update EIR Circulation
Analysis prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. provide
background information and act as supporting documents for the
Circulation Element. Included as part of the General Plan update
circulation analysis was the development of the Moorpark Traffic
Analysis Model (MTAM), a computerized citywide model designed to
estimate future demands on the City of Moorpark circulation system.
Continued use of the traffic forecasting model in future circula-
tion system impact analyses, and as the technical basis in the
establishment of a citywide transportation improvement fee program
is specified within the implementation program portion of this
Element.
As part of the General Plan update, a special study of land use and
circulation issues in the city limits as well as in the unincorpo-
rated area surrounding the city was undertaken. A general area of
interest was delineated for the unincorporated area surrounding the
city for the purposes of the land use and circulation analyses.
The current incorporated city area combined with the general area
of interest are referred to as the "planning area" throughout this
element.
As stated in Section 65302(b) of the Government Code, the Circula-
tion Element indicates the "general location and extent of existing
and proposed major thoroughfares, transporta-tion routes, terminals
and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the
Land Use Element of the general plan". Items of particular concern
to the City of Moorpark include:
• Streets, highways and freeways;
0 Truck traffic;
• Public transit;
• Bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian facilities;
0 Transportation demand management (e.g. carpooling,
vanpooling).
The Circulation Element addresses the circulation facilities needed
to provide adequate roadway capacity, mass transit services, and
opportunities for other modes of transportation.
FORM AND SCOPE OF THIS ELEMENT
This element contains goals and policies designed to improve
overall circulation in the City of Moorpark and to address
circulation issues that concern the city at the present time. In
order to assist in realizing the defined goals and policies,
implementation measures are outlined together with a description of
the physical attributes of the element. For highway
1
transportation, the physical attributes involve a network Pf )I
existing and future roadways defined according to designated
roadway types, each with specific design standards. Other modes
are defined by appropriate physical attributes (i.e., bicycle
trails and equestrian trails).
2
2.0 CIRCULATION ISSUES
The following circulation issues have been identified in the
General Plan Update process and are addressed within the goals,
policies, implementation measures and Circulation Element maps
contained in this document.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
State Routes 23 and 118 currently pass through the City of Moorpark
as conventional highways. While a connection of the existing SR-23
and SR-118 freeways is planned for the near future, north -south and
east -west regional traffic will continue to pass through the city
on the same arterial routes being used today. Since these regional
facilities are projected to carry high volumes of truck traffic,
issues of safety, congestion and noise with respect to future
traffic demands are of concern. Potential alternative transporta-
tion corridors for the two State Routes would serve to alleviate
adverse conditions projected for the future.
CITY STREET SYSTEM
The existing street system in Moorpark is a combination of fully
and partially improved roadways. Portions of the street system
were originally designed and constructed prior to the city's
incorporation and were originally designed to perform at a lower
capacity, typical of a rural community. As Moorpark continues to
grow, the interface of a developing urban area with rural street
capacities is resulting in traffic bottlenecks and reduced levels
of service, particularly during peak hour periods. Adverse
conditions are compounded with the growth of regional pass -through
traffic on the conventional highway facilities within the existing
street system.
There are various physical factors which influence the safe and
efficient flow of traffic on the city's street system. Among these
factors are street width, on -street parking, frequency of drive-
ways, railroad crossings, intersection location and intersection
configuration. The city's traffic signal network is without
adequate interconnection and a system to monitor and maintain
signal operation.
FUTURE GROWTH
Projections based on buildout of the proposed General Plan Update
Land Use Element indicate significant increases in traffic within
the city limits and the surrounding planning area. A planned
system of roadways is needed to serve currently undeveloped areas
which are planned for development both within the city and in
outlying regions. Continuity of facilities connecting future
development with existing development is a key objective in the
design of a planned network of roadways.
TRANSIT SYSTEM
The city currently lacks a public transportation system which
adequately serves the needs of persons living in and/or working in
the community.
3
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN AND EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES 4;At
The citywide network of bicycle and pedestrian routes for commuter,
school and recreational use is only partially established. The
lack of a continuous bikeway system inhibits the bicycle from
becoming an attractive means of transportation in the city. The
city's recreational equestrian trail system is only partially
established.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The city currently lacks a comprehensive and coordinated program
for implementing Transportation Demand Management strategies.
4
3.0 GOALS AND POLICIES
n0M**A*0nL
The following goals and policies form the basis for providing a
circulation system which adequately serves the development
intensity anticipated in the Land Use Element and which represents
the desires of the community for adequate mobility and accessibili-
ty. The Circulation Element policies are intended to guide the
city so that both governmental and private activities contribute to
meeting the goals of the Circulation Element.
GENERAL
Goal 1: Provide a transportation system that supports the
land use plan in the General Plan and provides for
the safe and efficient movement of people, goods,
and services within, into, out of, and through the
City of Moorpark.
Policy 1.1: Actively promote the completion of the ultimate
circulation system through the improvement of sub-
standard roadway segments and intersections, and
the construction of missing roadway links and
related facilities.
Policy 1.2: Continue to support the expeditious construction of
the State Route 23 and 118 freeway connector, local
freeway improvements, and the arterial or freeway
extensions of State Routes 23 and 118 by requiring
development projects to dedicate right-of-way, pay
a development impact fee, and/or construct certain
improvements as determined necessary to avoid
significant traffic/circulation impacts.
re a ten g s:::..;:
-=.w a
yc -PoliCY 1.3 =�--== that a Caltrans
denf-per
As ef 'Ehe future
freeway systefft wh=eh will bbe--visible ir-ems
residential areas —and —that special landscape
treatments be }aeluded in the design of freeway
sections which will be visible from residential
< <'>'
.�s. L
e�ld: n,��areas `>tha
Policy 1.4: Avoid geometric designs for local street improve-
ment plans which encourage through vehicular traf-
fic within residential developments.
..................................
Policy 1.5: provide-€RS-r €tt3 the improvement and modifica-
tion of traQ rail transportation facilities in
order to promote safety and to minimize impacts on
local circulation and on noise sensitive land uses.
Policy 1.6: Bverry five years Evaluate and update the city's
buildout circulation plan and make recommendations
for needed revisions to the Circulation Element of
Ventura County as it relates to the needs of the
............................................................
City of Moorpark a' .
5
Policy 1.7. Re uil. roadways, pedestrian areas, walks,
street name signs and utilities in applicable
outlying areas sheuld be designed to convey a rural
appearance while providing for low maintenance
costs and safe passage of vehicles, pedestrians,
equestrians, and bicycles.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Goal 2: Provide a circulation system which supports exist-
ing, approved and planned land uses throughout the
city while maintaining a desired level of service
on all streets and at all intersections.
Policy 2.1: Strive to achieve and maintain level of service "C"
as a system performance standard for traffic vol-
umes on the circulation system.
................................................................................
Policy2.2 : Geer ; fla Project phasing [sh Vie::::::;:<i r c c n 'tc
J P g
with the construction of on=site"'and off -site
circulation improvements to maintain the specified
performance standards.
...................
Policy 2.3: Require New development projects t-e 'h 11 mitigate
off -site traffic impacts to the maximum extent
feasible.
Policy 2.4:
Maintain
],1... develoment Thal l part:
transportation improvement fee progra
-.� enables circulation improvements
by new development in a manner that
specified performance standards.
maintains the
Policy 2.5: Require that Driveway access points onto arterial
roadways tY be limited in number and location in
order to ensure the smooth and safe flow of vehi-
cles and bicycles.
Policy 2.6: Where feasible, require secondary side street
access for major projects located in the middle of
a block adjacent to a limited -access arterial.
Policy 2.7: Require traffic signal or stop sign installation at
intersections which, based on individual study, are
shown to satisfy traffic signal or stop sign war-
rants.
Policy 2.8: Implement a program of traffic signal interconnec-
tion and computerization to improve traffic pro-
gression and the monitoring and maintenance of the
city's traffic signals.
Policy 2.9: Require that the guidelines for the determination
of appropriate intersection sight distance for
future intersection locations follow accepted
traffic engineering practice.
M.
Policy 2.10
q
Policy 2.11: Provide adequate off-street parking in all new or
expanded projects as part of construction.
ROADWAY STANDARDS
Goal 3: Adopt and maintain a set of roadway standards and
transportation system design criteria which sup-
ports and maintains the desired character of the
City of Moorpark.
Policy 3.1: Adopt and maintain a set of design roadway stan-
dards which specify right-of-way, roadway cross -
sections, and other design criteria according to
designated arterial classifications.
Policy 3.2:
Eneea a Planting and substantial landscaping
l<t�a along major arterials seas to mitigate
visual' impacts and erosion problems.
Policy 3.3:
Require roadways in hillside areas t AM:..1
r;t the natural contours of the land, mini-
..................
mize grading requirements, and minimize the per-
centage of land devoted to streets. Aver Harsh
cut slopes which may not heal into
P y
natural appearing surfaces:
Policy 3.4:
Require collector streets in hillside areas to have
graded shoulders and prohibit on -street parking as
necessary in order to provide extra safety.
Policy 3.5:
Require private streets to be improved to public
street standards prior to dedication to the city.
Policy 3.6:
Encourage the use of landscaped medians on arterial
streets in an effort to preserve the rural/open
space image of the community.
Policy 3.7:
..........................
bov rural and hillside road standards sheu a be,....
ve epe , including standards for landscaping,
levels of service, and road widths.
TRANSIT SYSTEM
Goal 4: Provide a public transportation system which serves
the needs of persons living in and/or working in
the City of Moorpark.
7
Policy .: Develop o av's
1 p or maintain participation in a public
transit system that provides a means of intra-city
and inter -city transportation as a logical alterna-
tive to automobile transportation.
..................
Policy 4.2: a Proposed developments e aYa'1 include
.................
...................
transit facilities, such as bus benches,""shelters,
pads or turn -outs, where appropriate, in their
improvement plans, or as needed in proximity to
their development.
Policy 4.3: Implement and expand wherever feasible, programs
aimed at enhancing the mobility of senior citizens
and the handicapped.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Goal 5: Provide a citywide system of safe, efficient and
attractive bicycle and pedestrian routes for commu-
ter, school, and recreational use.
Policy 5.1: Construct safe, separate, and convenient paths for
bicycles and pedestrians so as to encourage these
alternate forms of non-polluting transportation.
Policy 5.2: Require plans for bicycle and pedestrian facilities
to give priority to providing continuity and clos-
ing gaps in the bikeway and sidewalk network.
Policy 5.3: Where appropriate, require proposed residential,
commercial, and industrial developments adjacent to
proposed bikeway routes to include bicycle paths or
lanes in their street improvement plans and to
construct the bicycle paths or lanes as a condition
of project approval.
Policy 5.4: Require area of benefit or similar contributions
from developers to be allocated for bike path
construction in a manner similar to the allocation
of funds for roadway projects.
Policy 5.5: Encourage the provision and maintenance of off-
street bicycle paths.
Policy 5.6: Encourage bicycle racks and storage facilities at
public buildings, commercial buildings, and indus-
trial building sites with a large work force.
Policy 5.7: Require the installation of sidewalks with all new
roadway construction and significant reconstruction
of existing roadways with the exception of hillside
areas where significant grading impacts would
result.
Policy 5.8: Consider the use of meandering sidewalks along
arterials and collectors where appropriate, partic-
ularly commercial and industrial areas.
"Q�p
Policy 5.9: Requirethat The guidelines for the design of
unobstructed sidewalks when included as part of
..................
roadway improvement plans st follow accepted
.................
...................
traffic engineering practice.
Policy 5.10: Require the installation of handicapped ramp curb -
cuts, where appropriate, with all new roadway
construction and significant reconstruction of
existing roadways.
EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES
Goal 6: Provide equestrian trails for recreational use.
Policy 6.1: Encourage the development of equestrian trail
linkages to regional parks.
Policy 6.2: Wherever feasible, major new developments shall be
encouraged to provide equestrian paths.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Goal 7: Develop and encourage a transportation demand
management system to assist in mitigating traffic
impacts and in maintaining a desired level of
service on the circulation system.
Pol ic
y y 7.1•
... az,.:z.t..:::::::::du+ ....... Rr
employment generating developments t-e Al provide
...................
incentives to employees to utilize alternatives to
the conventional automobile, specifically walking,
bicycles, carpools, vanpools, buses, and commuter
rail
nelse pellutlen, and air .
Policy 7.2: Encourage industry to use flex time, staggered
working hours and other means to lessen commuter
traffic.
Policy 7.3: Attempt to provide alternate forms of public and
private transit giving routing, scheduling and
planning priority to the work force, youth, handi-
capped, senior citizens and shoppers.
Policy 7.4: Encourage the use of multiple -occupancy vehicle
programs for shopping, business and other uses to
reduce vehicle -miles traveled.
Policy 7.5: Continue to support state and national legislation
directed at encouraging the use of carpools and
vanpools.
Police 7.6: Continue to support the Ventura County Air Pollu-
tion Control District in its effort to implement
transportation demand management strategies.
0]
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION
aa7
Within the Circulation Element, policies have been developed which
call for specific implementing actions to be taken by the city.
Other policies are set forth which call for subsequent programs and
actions to be taken which will implement the provisions of the
General Plan. Defined as an action, procedure, program or
technique that carries out General Plan policy, the following
implementation measures are intended to assist the city in
realizing the goals and policies of the Circulation Element.
1. The City Engineer's office and Community Development Depart-
ment shall monitor the existing and proposed street systems on
a regular basis to identify current and potential problem
areas and to develop solutions.
2. The City Engineer's office and the Community Development
Department shall utilize the citywide traffic forecasting
model to determine immediate and cumulative impacts of
proposed developments on the city's transportation system.
The traffic model database shall be monitored, and periodic
model update and recalibration shall be carried out as
warranted by base and future year land use and circulation
database revisions.
3. Every five years the City Engineer's office and the Community
Development Department shall evaluate and update the city's
buildout circulation plan and make recommendations for needed
revisions to the Ventura County Circulation Element as it
relates to the needs of the City of Moorpark.
4. The City Engineer's office shall prepare and maintain a
circulation facility design manual containing roadway stan-
dards which specify right-of-way, number of lanes, typical
cross -sections and parking restrictions according to designat-
ed arterial classifications. Included will be design guide-
lines for driveway placement, intersection site distance, stop
sign installation, medians, landscaping, bike lanes, bike
paths, sidewalks, and equestrian trails. Rural and hillside
road standards for road widths, grading, pathways, pedestrian
areas, walks, landscaping, street name signs, and utilities
shall also be included.
5. The development review process carried out by the City
Engineer's office and the Community Development Department
shall ensure that the design of local street improvement plans
will not encourage through traffic within residential develop-
ments.
10
6. The development review process carried out by the Cit 13
Engineer's office and the Community Development Department
shall ensure that new or expanded development projects
mitigate off -site traffic impacts to the maximum extent
feasible, coordinate project phasing with the construction of
on -site and off -site circulation improvements which maintain
the specific level of service performance standard, provide
adequate off-street parking, and where feasible, provide
secondary side street access for projects located in the
middle of a block adjacent to a limited access arterial.
7. A program of traffic signal interconnection and
computerization shall be implemented by the City Engineer's
office and the Public Works Department to improve traffic
progression and the monitoring and maintenance of the city's
traffic signals.
8. The City Council shall adopt a transportation improvement fee
program which will enable circulation improvements to be
funded by new development and, in conjunction with the city's
capital improvement program, will determine estimated dates
for construction. A phasing/improvement plan shall be
included that identifies project specific improvement respon-
sibilities and requires fair share funding for cumulative
circulation improvements. Improvements which mitigate
specific project related impacts shall be constructed or
funded by the individual project applicant. Project appli-
cants shall also be required to participate in the fair share
funding program. The traffic forecasting model shall be used
to evaluate specific project impacts and shall serve as the
traffic share technical basis in establishing the transporta-
tion improvement fee program.
9. The city shall continue to work toward the implementation of
improved transit services as a logical alternative to automo-
bile transportation.
10. The development review process carried out by the City
Engineer's office and the Community Development Department
shall ensure that, where appropriate, proposed developments
shall be required to include bicycle paths or lanes and
equestrian paths in their street improvement plans.
11. The Community Development Department shall develop and the
City Council shall adopt a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) ordinance to encourage new and existing employers to
participate in TDM programs, and shall develop a program for
implementing TDM strategies.
11
5.0 ROADWAY CIRCULATION PLAN
=9
This section of the Circulation Element defines a roadway plan that
meets the requirements for safe and convenient movement at the
development intensity anticipated in the Land Use Element. It
includes a classification system that applies to all roadways that
serve the city, and identifies specific improvements that will be
required to implement this plan.
ROADWAY FACILITY DESIGNATIONS
The future roadway system in the Moorpark planning area is defined
using a classification system which describes a hierarchy of
facility types. The categories included in this classification
system differentiate the size, function and capacity for each type
of roadway. There are five basic categories in the hierarchy,
ranging from "freeway" with the highest capacity to "local
collector" with the lowest capacity. These five categories of
roadways can be summarized as follows:
• Freeway - A four- to ten -lane divided roadway with full
access control, grade separations at all intersections
and a typical right-of-way width in excess of 150 feet,
designed and maintained by the State Department of
Transportation.
• Six -Lane Arterial - A six -lane roadway with no on -street
parking, a typical right-of-way width of 110-120 feet and
curb to curb pavement width of 90-104 feet, and which may
have controlled access.
• Four -Lane Arterial - A four -lane roadway with a typical
right-of-way width of 80-100 feet and a curb to curb
pavement width of 60-80 feet, and which may have
controlled access and restricted parking.
• Rural Collector - A two- to four -lane roadway with a
typical right-of-way of 70-90 feet and a curb to curb
pavement width of 54-64 feet. An upgrade from two to
four lanes is to be determined as development occurs in
rural areas within the city sphere.
• Local Collector - A two-lane roadway with a typical
right-of-way width of 50-70 feet and a curb to curb
pavement width of 36-54 feet. Industrial areas would
require the wider dimension to allow for a center turn
lane and to provide more space for truck maneuvering. In
hillside areas, the minimum dimension may be allowed, but
graded shoulders are required and on -street parking is
prohibited in order to provide extra safety.
12
Schematic cross sections of each category of arterial roadway are
provided in Figure 1. Variation in right-of-way width and specific
road improvements will occur within each of the roadway classifica-
tions, based on existing conditions and other factors. In
particular, the median width in six -lane and four -lane roadways
will vary according to the area being served and the available
right-of-way. Also, any of the arterial classifications listed
above may deviate from the standards where physical constraints
exist or where preservation of community character dictates special
treatment.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A roadway's ability to handle existing and future projected traffic
loads can be described in terms of level of service, or LOS. The
LOS is a measure of traffic operating conditions as outlined in
Table 1, and is based on prevailing traffic volumes in relation to
roadway capacity. The following table lists representative ADT
capacities for the various types of arterial roadways considered in
the Circulation Element.
CLASSIFICATION
ROADWAY
WIDTH
RIGHT-
OF -WAY
LEVEL OF SERVICE*
C D E
Six -Lane Arterial
90'-104'
110'-120'
42,000
48,000
52,000
Four -Lane Arterial
60'-80'
80'-100,
26,000
29,000
32,000
Four -Lane Rural Collector
54'-64'
70'-90'
22,000
25,000
28,000
Two -Lane Local Collector
30'-54'
50'-70'
10,000
12,000
14,000
* Capacities listed represent threshold capacities for entry into the next lower level of service.
These capacities represent the general level of daily traffic that
each roadway type can carry and should be used as general design
guidelines only. Level of service for the circulation system is
more precisely determined by examining peak hour intersection
volumes, and therefore the Circulation Element uses peak hour
volumes as a basis for determining appropriate capacity needs.
One of the policies included in this Element states that the city
will attempt to achieve and maintain level of service "C" as a
system performance standard for traffic volumes on the roadway
system and as a basic design guideline for roadways in the city.
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.
13
The highway network designated in the Circulation Element iA31
s
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 are indicated on the map. Any permanent ...... c.l-q--sur-e ...... t-o
................................................
..... . ...
through traffic or relocation of the designated leeal-.r I 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.
14
,3:�
Table 1
STANDARDS FOR ROADWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE*
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 consid-
ered 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.
• Provision of an east/west SR-118 arterial
bypass from the SR-23/SR-118 connector to Los
Angeles Avenue at Butter Creek Road without a
connection to Walnut Canyon Road, and
recognition of a potential future SR-118
freeway extension west of the city limits.
• Provision of a north/south SR-23 arterial
bypass from the SR-23/SR-118 connector to
Broadway Road.
• Extension of Spring Road north to the SR-23
arterial bypass.
• Provision of a "B" Street local collector road which
accesses Los Angeles Avenue and the SR-118 bypass
arterial and which serves circulation needs in the area
bounded by the SPRR, Los Angeles Avenue, the SCE sub-
station and DP-302.
• Provision of a local collector system to serve
circulation needs in the area bounded by Los
Angeles Avenue, Arroyo Simi, east of Tierra
Rejada Road and west of Spring Road.
15
&I
• 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 Gabbert Road to Grimes Canyon
Road, an extension of Casey Road to Gabbert Road, "A"
Street between Casey Road and the SR-118 arterial bypass,
and "C" Street between Grimes Canyon Road and the SR-23
arterial bypass.
• Provision of a roadway system to serve
circulation needs in the Carlsberg Specific
Plan (Moorpark Highlands) area in the
southeast portion of the city. Roadways added
to the existing circulation system include an
extension of Science Drive from New Los
Angeles Avenue to Tierra Rejada Road, and an
extension of Peach Hill Road to Science Drive.
• Provision of a north/south local collector
connection (Liberty Bell Road) between Los
Angeles Avenue and Poindexter Avenue.
• Provision of an eastern extension of Broadway
Road potentially connecting with Alamos Canyon
Road and the SR-118 freeway to serve
circulation needs of potential future
development in the portion of the planning
area northeast of the city limits.
16
6.0 BIKEWAY PLAN
A31
The bikeway network designated in the Circulation Element is
illustrated in Figure 3. Bikeways are shown within the current
city limits as well as for the surrounding planning area that has
been defined for the General Plan Update. The bikeway system will
consist of three types of facilities as follows:
Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): This is a special type of
facility that is designed for exclusive use by bicy-
clists. A bike path may be located adjacent to a roadway
though it is physically separated from vehicular traffic
by a barrier, grade separation or open space. Cross
flows by vehicles and pedestrians are allowed but mini-
mized. The minimum paved width for a two-way bike path
shall be 8 feet. The minimum paved width for a one-way
bike path shall be five feet. A minimum two -foot wide
graded area shall be provided adjacent to the pavement.
Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): A bike lane consists of a
paved area for preferential use of bicycles and is
located between the travel lane closest to the curb and
the curb. Pavement markings and signage indicate the
presence of a bike lane on the roadway. Per the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual, the Class II bike lane width is
four feet on a street without curbs and gutters with
parking off the pavement, five feet on curbed streets
with marked parking (bike lanes are located between the
parking area and the traffic lanes) and on curbed streets
where parking is prohibited, and 11 to 12 feet on curbed
streets with parking permitted, but without marked
parking areas.
Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): This type of bicycle
facility refers to a conventional street where bike
routes are indicated by sign only. There are no special-
ly paved bikeways 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.
M
7.0 EQUESTRIAN FACILITY PLAN
07,35
The equestrian trail network designated in the Circulation Element
is illustrated in Figure 4. Equestrian trail are shown within the
current city limits as well as for the surrounding planning area
that has been defined for the General Plan Update. The designated
development criteria for the design of an equestrian facility is as
follows:
• Trails can be unimproved paths.
• Trails shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width.
• Equestrian and hiking trails are compatible
uses and can be shared.
• Equestrian trails and hiking trails are not
compatible with bike paths.
• With Fire Department approval, trails shall be
developed along existing fire roads.
• Wherever possible, trails shall serve as
connectors to the region. The equestrian
trail map included as part of the Circulation
Element shall be used as a reference.
FIGURE 4 - MING PREPARED Z(a
19