The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAG RPTS 2003 1007 PC REG - 1Resolution No. PC- 2003 -452 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY - October 7, 2003 7:00 P.M. Moorpark Community Center 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. ROLL CALL: 799 Moorpark Avenue 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Regular Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2003. Any member of the public may address the Commission during the Public Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Discussion item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing or Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Discussion portion of the Agenda for that item. Speaker cards must be received by the Secretary for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of the meeting and for Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item of the Discussion portion of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing must be received prior to the beginning of the Public hearing. A limitation of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Hearing item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in lieu of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Discussion items. Copies of each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the Community Development Department /Planning and are available for public review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the Community Development Department at 517 -6233. \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2003 \03 1007 pca.doc Planning Commission Agenda October 7, 2003 Page No. 2 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. 2003 -452) A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0 -120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, - 145, -155, -165, -175, -1851 -195, -205, -215, -225, - 235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, - 145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0 -110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150- 185) Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing to begin accepting comments and continue the agenda item with the public hearing open to the October 21, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: A. October 21, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: • General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05; Zone Change No. 2001 -02 and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 (Continued from October 71 20031 public hearing open) • Conditional Use Permit No. 706; Major Modification No. 01 - National Ready Mix 11. ADJOURNMENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to review an agenda or participate in this meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Community Development Department at (805) 517 -6233. Upon request, the agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Any request for disability - related modification or accommodation should be made at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to assist the City staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104; ADA Title II). ITEM: 6.A. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Pacie 1 1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on 2 September 16, 2003, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic 3 Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021. 4 1. CALL TO ORDER: 5 Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. 6 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7 Barry Hogan, Community Development Director, led the Pledge 8 of Allegiance. 9 3. ROLL CALL: 10 Commissioner Pozza, Vice Chair DiCecco and Chair Landis 11 were present. Commissioners Lauletta and Peskay were 12 absent. 13 Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community 14 Development Director; Walter Brown, City Engineer; David 15 Bobardt, Planning Manager; Dana Privitt, BonTerra 16 Consulting; and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary. 17 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 18 None. 19 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 20 None. 21 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 22 A. Regular Meeting Minutes of August 19, 2003. 23 MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Vice Chair DiCecco 24 seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular 25 Meeting Minutes of August 19, 2003, be approved. (Unanimous 26 3:0 voice vote. Commissioners Lauletta and Peskay were 27 absent.) S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \03 0916 pcm.doc 0 CC`00'1 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 2 1 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 2 None. 3 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4 (next Resolution No. 2002 -452) 5 A. Consider a Public Hearing to Accept Oral Comments on 6 the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Specific 7 Plan No. 2001 -01: North Park Village and Nature 8 Preserve 9 Staff Recommendations: 1) Continue to accept public 10 testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Refer the 11 comments to staff for preparation of responses for the 12 Final Environmental Impact Report. (Continued from 13 August 19, 2003, public hearing open.) 14 Dave Bobardt presented a brief background on the Draft 15 Environmental Impact Report. 16 The Commission had no questions of staff. 17 Chair Landis opened the public hearing. 18 John Dyke, resident, stated that when Campus Hills was 19 developed there was not a lot of dust, that the 20 project will add an extra off -ramp and a lake, along 21 with some paddleboats, and will offer a nice 22 atmosphere. He commented that in Westlake Village you 23 cannot use the lake if you are not a member. He also 24 commented that it would be nice to have a fire 25 station, as there is not one in that area. He stated 26 that he is in favor of the retail shops, and of the 27 City providing affordable housing. 28 Chris Childrem, resident, stated that people are 29 afraid of growth, but the North Park development 30 offers a solution to the shortage of homes, yet offers 31 many amenities that everyone could enjoy. She 32 commented that the developer addressed many concerns, 33 but that the City should now take the vote to the 34 people. OC ID002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 3 Susie Jacobs, resident, stated that she had read the Draft EIR which was thorough and it had mitigated the impacts to the environment. She commented that the project would benefit her and others in the community by taking a thousand cars out of the area and serve the North Park Village community. She also commented that a sports park, gymnasium and school would improve her life, as well as, the children's lives. She stated that the fire station and helicopter helipad were nice, and that the Commission should take this project to the people for a vote. Pierce Verleur, business owner, stated that he had not made up his mind yet, and that the EIR was confusing. He commented that the traffic section had glaring deficiencies. He expressed concern about the intersections, and that the freeway interchange comes only after Phase A is completed, and he suggested that the developer be required to put money in escrow. He expressed his concern about economic conditions, the housing market taking a turn for the worse preventing the developer from finishing the project. He referenced that the project depends on adjacent, undeveloped land and plans for that development should be included in this Draft EIR, especially the wildlife movement corridor (Alamos Canyon). He commented further that the Draft EIR did not address possible endangered species, the unforeseen legal battles between environmentalists and developers, which could result in another Ahmanson Ranch fight. He commented on the financial plan, stating that it did not mention ranger costs, maintenance of the 52 -acre lake and the source and replacement of water for the lake. He concluded by requesting that the Draft EIR not be accepted, and that it be rewritten responsibly. Martyn Kents, business owner, stated there were several issues, and that he needed more time to review it. He commented that there was no discussion of groundwater contamination and overpumping, nor any discussion about the impact on the landfill in Simi Valley or increased enrollment at Moorpark High. He commented that there was no mention of the impact on biological resources, such as, gnatcatchers and 0C' 0043 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Pacae 4 1 raptors. He stated that there was incomplete 2 disclosure on the amount of grading, which is a 3 violation against the City's Hillside Ordinance, that 4 there were discrepancies between the electronic and 5 the paper version of the Draft EIR appendix, and that 6 the project is not in compliance with the City's OSCAR 7 element. He stated that his biggest concern would be 8 the negative impact the project would have on the 9 small town environment, with 2,400 homes already 10 approved to be built, which would bring 13,200 new 11 residents, an increase of over 400. He concluded that 12 unregulated growth is not necessarily progress, and 13 that our legacy will be a sea of stucco from Simi 14 Valley to Thousand Oaks. 15 Doug Wilson, resident, stated that he had problems 16 with the Draft EIR. He commented on the timing for the 17 grading and completion for Phases A. B and C. and the 18 necessary approvals before grading begins. He stated 19 that the Draft EIR was a "sales job" and he was not 20 sold. He commented that this project would erase the 21 slopes and asked about the Hillside Ordinance and 22 changes to the best view in town. He commented that 23 over pumping of groundwater in dry years would "morph" 24 Moorpark into a Simi Valley. He concluded that there 25 needs to be another Draft EIR brought forth to "sell" 26 the people. 27 Tom McKenzie, resident, stated that growth was 28 inevitable and the project has many amenities that are 29 positive, along with uncertainties. He commented that 30 the ambiguities needed to be addressed, that traffic, 31 first and foremost, is unbelievable, that there is a 32 lack of infrastructure, and another off -ramp to this 33 development (Phase A) would increase by ten times the 34 current 3,500 people using it, and that the 35 construction traffic during Phase A would last for 4 -6 36 years. He also commented on Phases B & C, clearing 37 the land, and groundwater. 38 Randy Griffith, resident, stated that he had 39 experience in environmental documents and with CEQA. 40 He stated that his main concern is groundwater and 41 commented that Ventura County Waterworks District may 0 I') () q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Pacre 5 need to rely on overpumping. He commented that the "Fox Canyon Agency" stated that overpumping has significant impacts which should be addressed and that the project impacts the Fox Canyon Outcrop. He also stated that water quality and hydrology have not been addressed sufficiently. He commented that there are two versions of Appendix G. He commented on the use of potable water and groundwater and stated the lake draws too much valuable water, and using potable water was not a good choice. He concluded by stating that the Draft EIR is deficient and should be redone and recirculated to the public because there is insufficient mitigation of wildlife. Tom Ristau, Assistant City Manager for Fillmore but representing himself as a resident of the area, stated he does not support SOAR, is in support of growth and his main concern was traffic mitigation and inconsistencies in the document. He commented that the Specific Plan references a nature preserve and questioned how this would be accomplished. He commented on the nature preserve and recommended a Greenbelt Ordinance by Moorpark's City Council. He commented that Campus Park Drive and Collins Road westbound already exceed the level of service based on a traffic study taken a year ago and this project would add more morning and afternoon traffic to the intersection. He commented that he would support the project and that Moorpark could use the amenities. He commented that the City should require a development agreement at a minimum and a performance and surety bond before work starts. He also commented on an inconsistency, wherein the Specific Plan states Phase 1 is 500 units in two parts and that the Plan hanging on the wall stated Phase A is multi - units. He concluded with a request that there be an interchange added. James Roller, resident, commented on the perils of unbridled expansion and urban sprawl, along with clean air, free travel, natural open space and wildlife, adding that not all of the residents will use the vernal pool nor watch the blue herons. He stated that he appreciates sunsets and hawks on streetlights, that 001 ")OOS Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Pacae 6 1 San Fernando and Simi Valley have lost those items and 2 those are things we all share and cherish. 3 Thomas Roller, resident, commented on the potential 4 traffic problems and that the City's concentration 5 should be on the 8,000 more cars on this road per day. 6 The Draft EIR does not address traffic on Collins 7 Drive and commented that Collins Drive has more 8 problems than could be handled and requested the 9 Commission take a closer look at the issue. 10 Dawn Mortara, resident, stated that the Draft EIR was 11 overwhelming, the Brown Act allows for open discussion 12 without the Planning Commission and that a review of 13 the negative comments should be included in another 14 revision of the Draft EIR and recirculated to the 15 public. She commented on the water situation, 16 overpumping of groundwater and other contradictions in 17 the Draft EIR with regards to grading, building, one 18 phase having to be complete before the interchange 19 would be built and stated that the negative impacts 20 should be mitigated. 21 Janet Murphy, resident, stated that she is one of the 22 study groups. She commented on biology, wildlife 23 resources, Phase A grading and development, the 24 wildlife corridor and targeting the animals, the 25 vernal pool, and safeguarding the natural resources. 26 She commented that if the developer goes bankrupt the 27 residents would be left with a dust bowl. 28 Marshall Chase, resident, stated that people are 29 selfish who do not want construction of new homes. He 30 commented that he has lived in eight different areas 31 and the City is developing one of the nicest with open 32 space, parks and schools, which will be a positive 33 addition to Moorpark. He stated we should not compare 34 this project to the San Fernando Valley, he would not 35 be in favor of development on farmland, most of the 36 items in the Draft EIR can be solved and he would love 37 to live in this project. 38 Scott Newell, resident, stated that his major concern 39 is traffic and commented on the development approved 00190 CO Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Pane 7 1 at Collins Drive and Campus Park which will increase 2 traffic. He stated that this project should not move 3 forward without an off -ramp first. 4 Linda Shishino -Cruz, resident, stated that traffic is 5 an issue and that the Draft EIR does not address the 6 issue. She commented that if Phase A is completed 7 without the interchange there is no guarantee that we 8 will ever get it. She stated that she had a record 9 from the Department of Fish and Game, which states the 10 area is a proposed habitat for the gnatcatcher, dated 11 April 2003, and it was not included in the Draft EIR. 12 She commented that if phase B & C are completed, and 13 the lake goes in and is filled with tap water, that 14 water rates will probably increase for the residents 15 and the Draft EIR does not address drought conditions. 16 She also commented that there are hazards for the 17 children if the sports park goes in based on traffic, 18 potential for oil seepage and other environmental 19 hazards. 20 John Shishino -Cruz, resident, stated he had a concern 21 with health & safety issues. He commented that the 22 proposed area is within an area adjacent to a Federal 23 super fund site, the Simi Valley Landfill, and any 24 building should be done toward the western edge of the 25 project area. He also commented that this is an oil 26 producing area which already has oil seepage and he is 27 unable to determine if the crude contains carcinogenic 28 and mutagenic substances. He stated that with land 29 movement, more seepages could occur, and asked if 30 there are active pumps on this site, and whether they 31 would be sealed or left active. He stated that parks 32 being built in this area should cause concern for the 33 parents. He continued his comments to include Valley 34 Fever, which he stated, results from disturbing 35 previously undisturbed soil. Mitigation in the Draft 36 EIR covers the workers but not the residents with 37 regards to the high winds. 38 Cheri Risley Bohnert, resident, commented on the use 39 of dirt bikes in the area. She stated this was how San 40 Fernando Valley got started, one little piece at a 41 time, and that the off -ramp would be completed when Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Pacte 8 1 the 500th home is sold. She also commented on the lake 2 being filled with recyclable water, not drinking 3 water. She stated that she would like to preserve 4 Campus Hills area and that she liked the security of 5 nearby shopping and other things. She stated concerns 6 that the off -ramp would not be built without a big 7 project, about Valley Fever and that she thought it 8 was a well -done project. 9 Lisa Leal, resident, stated that Moorpark never 10 offered to build an off -ramp. She commented that the 11 school and fire station give prestige to Moorpark and 12 the lake would be a place to go for fun, for a lot of 13 people. She commented that the developer is not 14 touching three - quarters of the wildlife, and is also 15 accommodating low income housing. She stated that she 16 would like the project to go to the people for a vote, 17 and keep the money in Moorpark. 18 Tim Rosevear, from San Fernando Valley. He commented 19 on traffic at Collins and Campus Park Drive, that 20 Phase A would destroy wildlife habitat and on the 21 thirteen private parks, that only three are open to 22 the public and ten are restricted to private 23 communities. He stated that the developer must put up 24 a bond to fund the project or the City could end up in 25 a predicament like Los Angeles County, which cannot 26 get funds. He asked how Caltrans would fund the 27 interchange improvements. 28 Five (5) written statement cards were received from: 29 Robert Frank, Dorene Reed, Eugene Reed, Denise Norman 30 and Vic Norman. Their statements will be included in 31 the record. 32 Chair Landis closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. 33 Mr. Bobardt stated that responses to the public 34 comments presented will be in the Final EIR. 35 The Commission asked Mr. Hogan if he would outline the 36 next few steps in the project. ®'1.31 0008 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 9 1 Mr. Hogan provided a brief overview of the process, 2 and stated there would be a review program established 3 with the Planning Commission at the October 7 t 4 workshop. 5 Mr. Bobardt explained that the consultant would 6 address the comments on the Draft EIR and the Planning 7 Commission would hold public hearings on the Final EIR 8 as well as the entitlements. 9 Mr. Hogan commented that the October 7, 2003 meeting 10 was open to the public. 11 MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Vice Chair 12 DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff 13 recommendations. 14 (Motion carried with a unanimous 3:0 voice vote. 15 Commissioners Lauletta and Peskay were absent.) 16 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 17 None. 18 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: 19 A. October 71 2003 Planning Commission Meeting 20 • Cancellation 21 B. October 21, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: 22 • Conditional Use Permit No. 706; Major Modification 23 No. 1 - National Ready Mix 24 • RPD 2003 -03; -04; -05; Minor Modification No. 1 (SP- 25 2; TR 5045); Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -01 26 - Pardee Homes 27 Mr. Hogan announced that the October 7, 2003 meeting would 28 be a public hearing to begin the review of the North Park 29 Specific Plan and Nature Preserve project and provided a 30 brief overview of future agenda items. 31 The Commission requested as a future agenda to invite the 32 Superintendent of Schools to discuss the School Master 33 Plan. 00111 009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 16, 2003 Paae 10 Mr. Hogan indicated that he would see if that could be arranged. 11. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner Pozza seconded a motion to adjourn (Motion carried with a Commissioners Lauletta and P The meeting was adjourned at 11 ATTEST: 12 13 14 moved and Vice Chair DiCecco the meeting. unanimous 3:0 voice vote. eskay were absent.) 8:42 p.m. Kipp A. Landis, Chair Barry K. Hogan Community Development Director 0 C °_I 03.0 ITEM: 8. A. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Direc Prepared by: David A. Bobardt, Planning Man to e I DATE: October 2, 2003 (PC Meeting of 10/07/2003) SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0- 120 -065; 500- 0 -170- 135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -145, -155, -165, -1751 -185, - 195, -2051, -215, -2251 -235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, - 175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -145, -195, -215), -225; 615- 0 -110- 205, -215; 615 -0- 150 -185) BACKGROUND On December 21, 2001, after entering a Memorandum of Understanding with the City, North Park Village filed applications for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and Zone Change to develop 1,500 houses and 150 apartment units on land immediately outside the City limits north of Moorpark College. These are the initial applications for this project which require review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Other major discretionary decisions that would be subsequently required for this project to be built include a Development Agreement between the applicant and the City, an affirmative vote by the Moorpark voters, approval of a reorganization (including Municipal Service Review, Sphere of Influence update, detachment from the unincorporated County and annexation to the City of Moorpark) by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and approval of a Tentative (and Final) Tract Map. This report focuses on the regulatory context for the processing of the three initial applications. A suggested schedule for the Planning Commission review of this project is also included. ®C?( Oil S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \031007 PC Report Honorable Planning Commission October 7, 2003 Page 2 DISCUSSION General Plan Amendment State law, Section 65300 of the Government Code, requires each County and City to "adopt a comprehensive, long -term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." State law also gives Cities and Counties broad authority in the consideration of adopting or amending General Plans. The adoption or amendment of a General Plan is considered a legislative act; other than certain mandatory components being required as part of a General Plan, the only required finding is that the adoption or amendment is in the public interest. Moorpark's General Plan, with minor exceptions (i.e. highway network, bikeway plan, equestrian trail plan and horizon lines), addresses land only within the City limits. It establishes the type, density and intensity of land uses, location and function of roads, and development goals and standards for the ultimate buildout of the City. The North Park project site, currently outside the City, is not addressed by the goals, policies, or objectives of the City's General Plan except by the aforementioned exceptions. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the City's General Plan that would include the North Park property and allow for its development as proposed. Inclusion in the General Plan is the first required step for any property that may be annexed by a City; the property must first fit in the City's long -term plan for physical development. The proposed amendments are included in Attachment 1. These proposed amendments would include changes to the Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Elements of the General Plan. Ultimately, if the North Park project site is included in the General Plan, exhibits in the Housing Element and Safety Element would also need to be amended for internal consistency; however, goals and policies in these elements could remain unchanged. Of note in the requested amendments to the General Plan for the North Park project is an amendment to the Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). The Moorpark CURB was added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan as a result of Measure "S ", adopted by Moorpark voters on January 12, 1999. The Moorpark CURB is a boundary beyond which, except for limited exceptions, urban services and urbanized uses of land could not be extended. The North Park project site is outside the Moorpark CURB; an extension of the CURB boundary to include the proposed development area of the North Park project site is requested. 000012 Honorable Planning Commission October 7, 2003 Page 3 Although most General Plan Amendment requests are decided by the City Council (after a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission), the process to extend the Moorpark CURB differs. The process to extend the Moorpark CURB for a project such as North Park, is set by Section 8.4 (E) of the Land Use Element. It only allows an amendment to extend the CURB after the City Council, through the public hearing process, places the amendment on the ballot, and it receives a majority vote (50o plus 1 of those voting) . Specific Plan Specific Plans provide for comprehensive planning and regulation of development within defined areas. Specific Plans are not required by State law, but may be prepared "for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan" (Section 65450 of Government Code) . If used by a local agency, a Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan and must, by requirement of state law, specify all of the following in detail: 1. The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. 2. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. 3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. 4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). Specific Plans are to be considered in the same manner as a General Plan, except that they may be adopted either by resolution or by ordinance. Like the adoption or amendment to a General Plan, the adoption or amendment to a Specific Plan is a legislative act. Specific Plans carry the same authority as a General Plan in that no local public works project, Tentative Map or Parcel Map, or Zoning Ordinance may be adopted or amended in an area covered by a Specific Plan, unless it is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. A proposed Specific Plan for the North Park project site has been submitted and was distributed with the Draft Environmental Impact Report. O C 01013 Honorable Planning Commission October 7, 2003 Page 4 Zone Change State law, Section 65850 of the Government Code allows Cities to establish Zoning Regulations to "regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, including agriculture, recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, use of natural resources, and other purposes." Except for some specifically defined exceptions, State law provides only a minimum of limitation in order that a City may exercise the maximum degree of control over local zoning matters. Zoning regulations must be consistent with the City's General Plan and any adopted Specific Plan. Since the North Park project site is outside Moorpark, the City may not enforce its zoning regulations on this land. It may, however, under State law, "prezone" this unincorporated territory to determine the zoning that would apply should it be annexed to the City. Such zoning becomes effective at the same time that the annexation becomes effective. In this project, the applicant is seeking prezoning for the project site to establish a "Specific Plan" zone for the entire project site. Moorpark's Zoning Ordinance defines the purpose of the Specific Plan zone as a zone to "be used for property that is subject to a specific plan (and) to provide the city with a zone that allows for development with a comprehensive set of plans, regulations, conditions and programs for guiding the orderly development of the specific plan area, consistent with the city's general plan; and that the specific plan shall serve as the zoning regulations." Other areas within the City that are zoned for and regulated by adopted specific plans include the Carlsberg Specific Plan and the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan. The Specific Plan proposed by the applicant includes development regulations that would supplement the regulations contained in Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The Draft EIR for the proposed North Park project was released for public review on July 11, 2003 and had its public comment period end on September 24, 2003. Staff is currently working with Bonterra Consulting on the analysis of written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR and the preparation of responses. Once the analysis and responses are completed, staff will review this information to determine if recirculation of any portion of the Draft EIR is warranted or if a Final EIR will be prepared. Staff proposes to update the Planning Commission on the EIR on a regular basis until a Final EIR is prepared for consideration. A Final EIR must be certified by the City Council before the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan or Zone Change could be 00( 01� Honorable Planning Commission October 7, 2003 Page 5 approved. Although State law allows the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on this project after only considering the Draft EIR, staff believes that whenever possible, the proposed Final EIR should be considered by the Planning Commission. This is particularly important for this project, due to its scale and complexity. A report presented to the City Council at its October 1, 2003, meeting is attached for background information on the next steps in the environmental review process. Review Process and Schedule The North Park project site encompasses 3,586.3 acres, an area roughly forty -five percent (450) of the existing land area in the City. Because of the scale of this project, staff recommends that the Planning Commission divide the discussion into issue areas over several meetings. A proposed schedule is recommended as a guide for Planning Commission review of this project. It should be noted that this should not be seen as a rigid schedule and issues may take more (or less) time to be adequately addressed. This schedule does not presume special meetings of the Planning Commission. It also provides two (2) weeks between each meeting, which is the minimum amount of time needed by staff to prepare additional information, if requested or directed by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission wishes to call for additional special meetings between its regular meetings, staff may not be able to provide any additional analysis within such a timeframe, if that is the purpose of the special meeting. Planning Commission Hearing Date Discussion Item October 7, 2003 Regulatory Context and Schedule for Review October 21, 2003 Brief Overview of Regulatory Context and Schedule for Review and Detailed Project Description November 4, 2003 General Plan Amendments November 18, 2003 Specific Plan and Zoning December 2, 2003 Environmental Impact Analysis December 16, 2003 Recommendation to City Council 000016 Honorable Planning Commission October 7, 2003 Page 6 STAFF RECO14MENDATION Open the public hearing to begin accepting comments and continue the agenda item with the public hearing open to the October 21, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: 1. Proposed Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element. 2. October 1, 2003 City Council Agenda Report. 000016 Attachment C General Plan Amendment Application Project Description: The subject property is outside of the City of Moorpark and therefore does not now have a Moorpark General Plan land use designation. The proposed general plan amendment would create an approximately 3,544 -acre Specific Plan area limited to the following uses: 2,544.4 acres of open space of which 2,121 -acres is a Nature Preserve (protected by the Current Urban Restriction Boundary); a 132 -acre recreation system, which is comprised of a 29.1 -acre Youth Sports Park, a 67.7 -acre lake (including 52 acres of lake surface and 15.7 acres of lake buffer); 35 acres of other park uses; 769.7 -acre residential area containing 1,500 single - family detached homes and 150 multi - family homes; 42.2 acres of community and public facility land; a 12 -acre school site; and a 5 -acre neighborhood center retail site. The proposed general plan amendment amends the Circulation Element to delete the easterly extension of Broadway Road, and to add a new SR 118 interchange one mile east of Collins Drive connecting the proposed specific plan area and Moorpark College to SR -118 via a new Four -Lane Collector Road. The proposed general plan amendment would amend the Land Use Element Current Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB line) to include the proposed Specific Plan development areas within the CURB line. The proposed general plan amendment would also require a vote of the Moorpark electorate to increase the number of homes authorized in the specific plan, increase density, decrease the open space buffer between new or existing homes, and reduce the size or configuration of the Nature Preserve or otherwise alter the CURB line. PC ATTACHMENT 1 00 01 *7 GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 1 Corrected List of North Park Village Assessors Parcel Numbers North Park Village 500 -0 -120 -065 500 -0- 170 -135 500 -0- 180 -125 500 -0- 180 -135 500 -0 -180 -145 500 -0- 180 -155 500 -0- 180 -165 500 -0- 180 -175 500 -0- 180 -185 500 -0- 180 -195 500 -0- 180 -205 500 -0- 180 -215 500 -0- 180 -225 500 -0- 180 -235 500 -0- 180 -245 500 -0- 180 -255 500 -0- 281 -165 599 -0- 281 -175 — Ventura County Community College District 500 -0- 292 -135 500 -0- 292 -145 — Ventura County Community College District 500 -0- 292 -195 — Unocal (listed as Moreland Investment Co.) 500 -0- 292 -215 500 -0- 292 -225 615 -0- 110 -205 615 -0 -110 -215 615 -0 -150 -185 .�s�U18 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS THE CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN IS HEREBY AMENDED AS SET FORTH BELOW. THE AMENDED TEXT TO BE INSERTED IN THE GENERAL PLAN IS INDICATED BY BOLD ITALICS AND TEXT TO BE DELETED IS SHOWN BY STRIKEOUT. THE TEXT SHOWN BELOW IN STANDARD TYPE CURRENTLY APPEARS IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND REMAINS UNCHANGED BY THIS INITIATIVE. OCCASIONALLY, ELLIPSES [ * * *] ARE INTRODUCED TO INDICATE BLOCKS OF TEXT THAT REMAIN UNCHANGED. LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: The Land Use Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan is amended to read as follows: SECTION 4.0 LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES: Page 11 of the General Plan, under the heading Growth and Population, Policy 2.1 is amended to read as follows: Growth and Population GOAL 1: Attain a balanced city growth pattern that includes a full mix of land uses. Policy 1.1: New development and redevelopment shall be orderly with respect to location, timing and density /intensity; consistent with the provision of local public services and facilities; and compatible with the overall suburban rural community character. Policy 1.2: Every five years the City's land use inventory shall be reviewed and, if necessary, the land use element shall be modified to ensure that general -plan policies are being adhered to and to provide an adequate up -to -date data base for continuing development considerations. Policy 1.3: New residential development shall be consistent with City- adopted growth ordinance policies. Policy 1.4: New development and redevelopment shall be coordinated so that the existing and planned capacity of public facilities and services shall not be adversely impacted. Policy 1.5: A comprehensive planning approach for undeveloped areas of the community shall be followed, to prevent disjointed, incremental expansion of development. GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 3 000019 GOAL 2: Establish a logical Sphere of Influence. Policy 2.1: The City shall strive to obtain and maintain sphere of influence boundaries consistent with the City Urban Restriction Boundary, as amended by vote of the electorate, or pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 8.4. SECTION 5.2 SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION — SP: Page 35 of the General Plan under the subtitle "Planning Area Outside City Limits" is amended to read as follows: Planning Area Outside City Limits Specific plan areas 4, 51 61 7 and 8 (proposed within the unincorporated planning area) were analyzed in conjunction with the updating of the Land Use Element but were found to be outside the sphere of influence and outside of the CURB (see, Section 8.0, et seq.) and accordingly not appropriate for urban development and were, therefore, not approved. Specific Plan 4 (Deleted) Specific Plan 5 (Deleted) Specific Plan 6 (Deleted) Specific Plan 7 (Deleted) Specific Plan 8 (Deleted) Specific Plan 11 Specific Plan 11 consists of approximately 3,544- acres, located north of State Route 118 (SR -118), northeast of downtown Moorpark and north of Moorpark College, The Specific Plan area lies entirely within the City of Moorpark 's area of interest. The North Park Village and Nature Preserve Specific Plan shall incorporate the following elements and policies; Required Plan Elements. • A 2,121 -acre Nature Preserve protected by the Current Urban Restriction Boundary, GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 4 000020 ■ A 423 -acre open space system. ■ A 29 -acre youth sports park. ■ A 1.5 -acre fire station site, and 1.5 -acre fire service helipad site. ■ A 67 -acre recreation lake area (including lake surface and lake buffer). • A 12 -acre school site offered for dedication to the Moorpark Unified School District. • A minimum 500 -foot open space buffer between existing homes and new homes. • A maximum of 1,500 single - family detached homes and 150 multi - family homes. ■ A new SR -118 interchange approximately one mile east of Collins Drive providing direct vehicular access from SR -118 to the Specific Plan area and Moorpark College. ■ A maximum of 70,000 square feet of local serving, lake oriented commercial uses. Required Plan Policies; • The number and density of homes or size of the Neighborhood Center permitted in the Specific Plan 11 may not be increased without approval of the Moorpark electorate. • The Nature Preserve and the Current Urban Restriction Boundary cannot be changed without approval of the Moorpark electorate. • Development within the Specific Plan area shall pay the Moorpark Unified School District's school impact fees as defined by state law. • The size of the 500 foot open space buffer may not be changed without approval of the Moorpark electorate. ■ All active farmland and land designated as prime agricultural land shall be preserved. ■ Seventy -five percent of hillside in the Specific Plan area with slopes greater than twenty -five percent shall be preserved. ■ At least eighty percent of the existing oak trees within the planning area subject to the Moorpark Tree Protection Ordinance shall be preserved and the remaining oak trees affected by the Specific Plan shall be either relocated or replaced so that the planning area ultimately contains a net increase in oak trees. GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 5 000021 SECTION 6.0 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY; Page 38, consisting of three paragraphs, is amended to read as follows: The following table (Land Use Plan - statistical summary, Table 3) summarizes the approximate acreage and the number of dwelling units resulting from each of the land use classifications designated on the Land Use Plan maps for the overall planning area (City Area - Exhibit 3, and Unincorporated Area - Exhibit 4). Dwelling unit n/c are based on an estimate of the density, which could occur for each residential land use classification based on the maximum density permitted. The actual number of dwelling units constructed and associated population amount will vary with the development conditions and constraints for each project (access, availability of services, geotechnical and natural resource constraints, etc.). In addition, a density increase above the maximum density could be approved, up to the designated density limit for each residential land use category, if public improvements, public services, and /or financial contributions are provided that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community, except that the overall number of homes in SP 11 (North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan) may not be changed without vote of the residents of the City of Moorpark. As identified on Table 3, a combined total of up to 12,511 14,011 dwelling units could be constructed in the overall City of Moorpark planning area, based on maximum density estimates. The resulting build -out population for the Moorpark planning area would be approximately 31,288 38,390 persons, based on the County's 2.74 population dwelling unit factor for the year 2010. Note, however, that the resulting build -out for the Moorpark planning area would be approximately (a) 411799 46,810 persons, based on the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit's "Ventura County Population and Housing Estimates" for Moorpark which average 3.341 persons per household for the year 1994 -1997 inclusive; or, (b) 481785 45,675 persons, based on the "VCOG 2020 population Per Dwelling Unit Ratio Forecast" for the City of Moorpark (3.26 persons per dwelling unit). The Table 3 build -out figures were calculated using the smaller county -wide ratios and are considered a conservative population estimate for the City. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this land use element and circulation element update of the Moorpark General Plan evaluates potential impacts on the service capabilities of relevant infrastructure systems (i.e., sewer, water, police, fire, etc.) associated with the land use designations proposed as a part of this update process. Environmental documents prepared for subsequent and proposed amendments to the General Plans evaluate the potential impacts of such amendments. SECTION 6.0 TABLE 3, LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY: Pages 39 -40 of the Moorpark General Plan, Table 3, is amended to add the North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan (SP 11) to the City's Land Use Designation, Unincorporated Area and Planning Area, to read as follows: GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 6 000022 TABLE 3 LAND USE PLAN — STATISTICAL SUMMARY CITY UNINCORPORATED TOTAL PLANNING LAND USE DESIGNATION AREA AREA AREA COMBINED RL RURAL LOW 1,668 ac 334 du - - -- - - -- 1,668 ac 334 du (1 du / 5 acres maximum) RH RURAL HIGH 208 ac 208 du - - -- - - -- 208 ac 208 du (1 du /acre maximum) L LOW DENSITY 168 ac 168 du - - -- - - -- 168 ac 168 du (1 du / acre maximum) ML MEDIUM LOW DENSITY 568 ac 1,136 du - - -- - - -- 568 ac 1,136 du (2 du / acre maximum) M MEDIUM DENSITY 1,174 ac 4,696 du - - -- - - -- 1,174 ac 4,696 du (4 du / acre maximum) H HIGH DENSITY 343 ac 2,401 du - - -- - - -- 343 ac 2,401 du (7 du /acre maximum) VH VERY HIGH DENSITY 161 ac 2,415 du - - -- - - -- 161 ac 2,415 du (15 du / acre Maximum) SP SPECIFIC PLAN* SP 1 LEVY 285 ac 415 du - - -- - - -- 285 ac 415 du SP 2 JBR 445 ac 475 du - - -- - - -- 445 ac 475 du SP9 MUSD 25 ac 80 du - - -- - - -- 25 ac 80 du SP 10 SCHLEVE 71 ac 154 du - - -- - - -- 71 ac 154 du Specific NORTH ____ 3,544 ac 1,650 du 3,544 ac 1,650 du Plan 11 PARK NEIGHBORHOOD C -1 COMMERCIAL 9 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 9 ac (.25 FAR) C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 194 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 194 ac (.25 FAR) I -1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 263 ac - --- - - -- - - -- 263 ac (.38 FAR) I -2 MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL 285 ac - --- - - -- -- -- 285 ac (.38 FAR) AG1 AGRICULTURE 1 45 ac 1 du - - -- - - -- 45 ac 1 du / 10 -40 acres) AG2 AGRICULTURE 2 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- (1 du / 40 acres OS1 OPEN SPACE 1 16 ac 1 du - - -- - - -- 16 ac 1 du / 10 -40 acres) OS2 OPEN SPACE 2 47 27 du - - -- - - -- 4i 27 du (1 du / 40 acres) 1,064 ac 1,064 ac S SCHOOL 357 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 357 ac P PARK 197 ac - - -- - - -- -- -- 197 ac U UTILITIES 47 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 47 ac PUB PUBLIC / INSTITUTIONAL 16 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 16 ac FRWY FREEWAY/ R/W RIGHT -OF -WAY 291 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 291 ac TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ** 12,511 (At Build -out — Year 2010) 12,511 du 1,650 du 14,161 u TOTAL POPULATION * ** 34,280 (At Build -out — Year 2010) 34,280 4,521 38,801 TOTAL CITY AREA ACRES (Approximate) 7,916 TOTAL UNINCORPORATED AREA ACRES (Approximate) A-aE 3,528 ac TOTAL PLANNING AREA COMBINED (Approximate) 11,444 ac Acreage for open space, schools, parks, commercial, highway right -of -way and any other appropriate land uses will be determined at time of specific plan approval. ** Residential Density calculations for specific plan areas are based on the maximum density. Section 5.2 of the Land Use Element allows the City Council to approve a density exceeding the maximum density up to an identified density limit, if public improvements, public services and /or financial contributions are provided that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community, except that the density of SP 11 (North Park Vi/ /age and Nature Preserve Plan) may not be changed without a vote of the electorate of the City of Moorpark. * ** Based on 2.74 persons per dwelling unit. GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 7 EXHIBIT 4, PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN MAP: Amended to add SP 11 as depicted in Exhibit A2. SECTION 8.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF CURB, SUBSECTION A: Amended to clarify the proper exhibit order and name, as follows: A. The City of Moorpark hereby establishes and adopts a Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (Moorpark CURB) line. The Moorpark CURB shall be established coterminous with and in the same location as the Sphere of Influence line established by the Local Agency Formation Commission as it exists as of January 1, 1998, or as altered or modified pursuant to the Amendment Procedures set forth below. 6+e Feffeseigtatien ef that line is shewn at Exhibit ""Atr. The Moorpark CURB line is depicted in General Plan Exhibit 5. SECTION 8.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF CURB: The Moorpark CURB line is amended to include the approximately 1,423 acre planned development portion, as depicted in Exhibit B2 (reflecting the amended Planning Area Land Use Plan Map, Exhibit 4, City of Moorpark General Plan) and clarifying the proper General Plan Land Use Element exhibit order. GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 8 0000214 CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: The Circulation Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan is amended as follows: FIGURES 2, 3 and 4 City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network, Biking Element and Equestrian Trail Network, pages 19, 22 and 24 respectively are amended to delete Broadway Road and to add a new separate roadway system comprised of a new interchange at SR 118 (Moorpark College Interchange) and a Four -Lane Collector connecting SR -118 to Moorpark College and to SP 11, including Residential Collector and local streets, as depicted in Exhibit C2. The bikeway exhibit is amended to reflect the new road system without altering the bikeway circulation plan, as depicted in Exhibit C2. The equestrian exhibit is amended to reflect the road system and move the north eastern-most equestrian trail eastward as depicted in Exhibit E2. SECTION 5.0 ROADWAY CIRCULATION PLAN, CIRCULATION SYSTEM. The last paragraph of page 20 of the Circulation Element of the Moorpark General Plan is amended to delete Broadway Road and to add a new roadway system providing direct access to Moorpark College, as read as follows: CIRCULATION SYSTEM The goals and policies included in the Circulation Element emphasize the need for a circulation system that is capable of serving both existing and future residents while preserving community values and character. The location, design and constituent modes of the circulation system have major impacts on air quality, noise, community appearance, and other elements of the environment. The highway network designated in the Circulation Element is illustrated in Figure 2, and indicates all of the designated freeways, six -lane arterials, four -lane arterials and rural collectors. In addition, a selected number of designated local collectors, which carry through traffic, are indicated on the map. Any permanent closure to through traffic or relocation of the designated arterials and collectors will require a General Plan Amendment. Highway facilities are shown within the current City limits as well as for the surrounding planning area that has been defined for the General Plan Update. Existing and potential future traffic signal locations within the City limits are also indicated on the highway network map, as are existing and potential at -grade and grade separated railroad crossing locations. Traffic signal warrants are satisfied for the locations shown here based on current traffic projections. Traffic signalization may be required at minor street and driveway locations not shown on the Circulation Element highway network map. A grade separated railroad crossing is shown only for the future SR-418 bypass arterial crossing. Grade separation is not considered feasible at the four existing railroad crossings (Gabbert Road, Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road and Los Angeles Avenue). The roadway network in the Circulation Element indicates a number of improvements with regard to the existing roadway system in the Moorpark planning area. The following are the more important improvements that will need to be implemented: GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 9 06902S • 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 west of Buttercreek Road, without a connection to Walnut Canyon Road, and recognition of a potential future SR -118 freeway extension west of the City limits. • Provision of a north /south SR -23 arterial bypass from the SR -23 /SR -118 connector to Broadway Road. • Extension of Spring Road north to the SR -23 arterial bypass. • Provision of a local collector system to serve circulation needs in the northwest portion of the City. Local collectors added to the existing circulation system include an extension of Casey Road to Gabbert Road, "C" Street between Grimes Canyon Road and the SR -23 arterial bypass and "D" Street between Princeton Avenue and the SR -23 arterial bypass. • Provision of a roadway system to serve circulation needs in the Carlsberg Specific Plan (Moorpark Highlands) area in the southeast portion of the City. Roadways added to the existing circulation system include an extension of Science Drive from New Los Angeles Avenue to Tierra Rejada Road, and an extension of Peach Hill Road to Science Drive. Provision of a separate roadway system comprised of an interchange at SR 118 (Moorpark College Interchange) and a Four -Lane Collector connecting SR -118 to Moorpark College and to the Specifc P /an 11 area, including Residential Collector and local streets. GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 10 060026 OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION AND RECREATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: The Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan is amended as follows: SECTION II OPEN SPACE, Subsection D: Existing Open Space Areas, Paragraph 2 Parks — Inventory of Existing and Proposed Facilities, page II -8 of the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of the Moorpark General Plan is amended to read as follows: 2. Parks - Inventory of Proposed and Existing Facilities North of City boundaries but 11.8 Type of Size Status Name -Facility in acres)_ Location April 4. 1986* Arroyo Vista _ Communes Park 69.0: 4550 Tierra Rejada Rd. Existing Buttercreek Neighborhood Park 13.01 South of L.A. Avenue Adjacent to. planned; Location Undecided Arroyo Simi--- -..... Campus Neighborhood Park 2.51 L.A. Av. at Hartford - Existing_ Campus_pnyon Park Nei hborhood Park 2.5 6400 Harvard Street Existing _ Communes Center Park 1 Neighborhood Park �_ _ .5 799 Moorpark Avenue . Existin - - - -.9 -- County Trail Park Neighborhood Park 8.0 11701 1/2 Mountain Trail _J Existing _ Glenwood +Neighborhood Park _ _ 4.5 Tierra Rejada at Harvester Rd. Pending Acceptance_by City Glenwood Park Neighborhood Park ! 4.5 11800 Harvester Street Existing- Greenbeft Agreem ent Area Open Space -- Within Tierra Rejada Valley i Existing _ Griffin Park Neighborhood Park _— 5.0! 15400 Campus Park Drive Existing _ _ _ Happy Camp Regional Park 3,700 ;North of the City Boundaries, but ' proposed Within Moorpark's Area of Interest Miller Park Neighborhood Park 6.5 4530 Miller Parkway : Existing Monte Vista Nature Park - - - i Nature Park S.0 Moorpark Rd. near Peach Hill Acce tance Pending -p--- --- — - -- -...._ Mo_o_rpark _ . __... _ i Community Center 4.5 : Moorpark Ave. at Charles St. - Existing Acres Currently Owned by City Mountain Meadows #4 Community Park South of Arroyo Simi at Liberty 69.0 i Rd. Bell ! and Leased for Farming; 30 Acres Proposed for Dedication, July 1986 Mountain Meadows N. Village Nevi hborhood Park _— 8.0 -North of Tierra Rejada Rd. - — ; Design Approved by City _ Mountain Meadows S. Village Neighborhood Park 8 0 ! South of extension of Tierra Rejada proposed Road Mountain Meadows W. Village Neighborhood Park & Retention Basin 8.0 West end of Peach Hill Drain Design Approved by City Private Lake with Public North of City boundaries but North Park Lake Access 52.0 within Moorpark's Area of. Proposed Interest ! North of City boundaries but. North Park Nature Preserve Nature Preserve 2,121.0 within Moorpark's Area of Proposed Interest North Park Northside Park Neighborhood Park North Park Youth Sports Park Community Park Paul E. Griffin Sr. Neighborhood Park Peach Hill Neighborhood Park Poindexter Park Neighborhood Park Tierra Rejada Lake Proposed Proposed Existing 10.0 s Peach Hill Rd. and Christian Barrett ! Design Phase 7.5 500 Poindexter Ave. Existing - - - - .. _.. - - -- --sti 9 . .. - South of Tierra Rejada Road and, Regional Recreation Area 250 -300 West of the Moorpark Freeway. proposed Outside of City Boundaries, but North of City boundaries but 11.8 within Mompark's Area of Tierra Rejada Park Interest 8.0 North of City boundaries but 19.0 within Moorpark's Area of 6.0 Interest 4.0 Campus Park Rd. at College View Proposed Proposed Existing 10.0 s Peach Hill Rd. and Christian Barrett ! Design Phase 7.5 500 Poindexter Ave. Existing - - - - .. _.. - - -- --sti 9 . .. - South of Tierra Rejada Road and, Regional Recreation Area 250 -300 West of the Moorpark Freeway. proposed Outside of City Boundaries, but GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 11 0 C'10 i2% within .Moorpark's Area of Interest Tierra Rejada Park Neighborhood Park 8.0 11900 Mountain Trail St. 1 Existing Tract 3963 Neighborhood Park 6.0 North of Campus Park Drive, West : Proposed of Moorpark_ College Villa Campesina Neighborhood Park .5 4704 Leta Yancy Road Existing _ Virginia _Colony_Park __ Neighborhood Park - - — 1.0 14507 Condor Drive Existing — - - - -- - - - - i st Total 6,419.3 * North Park Vi/ /age Parks status is as of 2003. GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 11 0 C'10 i2% SECTION II, OPEN SPACE, Figure 3, Parks and Open Space Areas: Figure 3, as amended, as shown on Exhibit F2, to remove the developable portions of SP I I (North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan) from the open space classifications as shown on Figure 3. , , .. GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 12 13 "� ') 0 0 MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN EXHIBITS Attached hereto are true and correct copies of the following exhibits /figures relating to the City of Moorpark General Plan: (a) Exhibit Al, (Existing Plan) Planning Area Land Use Map, City of Moorpark General Plan, Exhibit 4; (b) Exhibit A2, (Amendment) Planning Area Land Use Map, City of Moorpark General Plan; Exhibit 4; (c) Exhibit B1, (Existing Plan) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Line, City of Moorpark General Plan, (d) Exhibit B2, (Amendment) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Line, City of Moorpark General Plan, Exhibit 5; (e) Exhibit Cl, (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network, Figure 2; (f) Exhibit C2, (Amendment) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network, Figure 2; (g) Exhibit D1, (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element, Figure 3; (h) Exhibit D2, (Amendment) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element, Figure 3; (i) Exhibit E1, (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network; Figure 4; (j) Exhibit E2, (Amendment) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network; Figure 4; (k) Exhibit Fl, (Existing Plan) Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open Space Areas, City of Moorpark, and Figure 3; (1) Exhibit F2, (Amendment) Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open space Areas, City of Moorpark, Figure 3. GPA 2.3.03 Rev.doc Page 13 000,029 1600 1400 1200 North Park Nature Preserve & Village Plan Location 2200 2000 - 1600 - . '1 - I1800 1600 1400 ,1400 - North Park Village, LP " r 1 `000 1000 /rJ • \ Boo Ventura Community _ College District NORTH Collins - \� Drive .I• Moorpark College \\ 0 1250 2500 L Scale in feet Lr CaMp"S l _ '' `�J Moorpark )' College - C Interchange ,a SR-1' 8... LEGEND Project Boundary g Contours of Equal Elevation UU0O:�U • 2 r • 1 ■ ■ ■ Exhibit A -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Planning Area Land Use Map Exhibit 4 A Area of Interest •' ■ ■ s9 ■ 3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ - i ■ ■ eaoAOwAY AN WN ■ Current City Limits and Sphere of Influence City of Moorpark (Refer to Exhibit 3 ■ for City Area Land Use Plan) -� ■ f� ■ .�\ BYO' ■ ■ TIERRA ■ z==saw= o ommon LEGEND CURRENT CITY LIMITS AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ♦� AREA OF INTEREST VENTURA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS RURAL [�:] OPEN SPACE r7 AGRICULTURE j 5 ACRES MINIMUM 000031 ■ ■ ■ North ■ f. !ifN1 ?IMMI J■ CURRENT CITY LIMITS AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ♦� AREA OF INTEREST VENTURA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS RURAL [�:] OPEN SPACE r7 AGRICULTURE j 5 ACRES MINIMUM 000031 Exhibit A -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Planning Area Land Use Map Exhibit 4 ■ I� ♦ A • • • ■ ■ ' s Oka rr ►t WWWWOMWOMMOM LEGEND CURRENT CITY LIMITS AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ♦ ♦♦ AREA OF INTEREST VENTURA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS RURAL OPEN SPACE AGRICULTURE 1 5 ACRES MINIMUM Note: Please refer to the text of the Land Use Element for a description of the designated Specific Plan No. 11 area. ■ ■ ■ ■ Nodh 2-yX1 50k) ■ 5.�dkMh- 000032.. . Area of Interest •' ■ ■ SP #11 2,121 Acre Nature ; _ 1 Preserve ■ ■ '------ - -- - -- eROAM 423 Acres of Addilional Open Space , 64 Acres of Parks ' 93 Acres of Public / Community Service 1 769 Acre Village (1,650 homes) 67 Acre Lake Area /r � - Nom♦ /Current City Limits and Sphere of Influence City of Moorpark (Refer to Exhibit 3 ; ■ for City Area Land Use Plan) -� ■ ■ A TIERRA ■ ' s Oka rr ►t WWWWOMWOMMOM LEGEND CURRENT CITY LIMITS AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ♦ ♦♦ AREA OF INTEREST VENTURA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS RURAL OPEN SPACE AGRICULTURE 1 5 ACRES MINIMUM Note: Please refer to the text of the Land Use Element for a description of the designated Specific Plan No. 11 area. ■ ■ ■ ■ Nodh 2-yX1 50k) ■ 5.�dkMh- 000032.. . Exhibit B -1 (Existing Plan) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) City of Moorpark General Plan Exhibit 5 0()`J033 Area of Interest .•' ■ 2 ■ ■ ♦1 ■ A ■ ■ ■ ■ i� City Urban Restriction erroAcwAr Boundary (CURB ) • 1 �p0 City of Moorpark ,r T19T/1 ■ ;Val/ � ■ ■ - ........... .....1�.,�, LEGEND CURRENT CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY • ♦♦ AREA OF INTEREST 0()`J033 Exhibit B -2 (Proposed Amendment) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) City of Moorpark General Plan Exhibit 5 Area of interest •' ■ ■ s9 ■ City Urban Restriction ; = Boundary (CURB) ' f City of Moorpark ; 1� ■ ■ Yath . s ■ ■ / o ■ -- ' . /......... LEGEND CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY (CURB) LINE ♦ ♦♦ AREA OF INTEREST 000034 Exhibit C -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network Figure 2 BROADWAY BROADWAY CC STREET - - - - -- - -- -� / g' - - - -I Y of Moorpark CAMPUS ARK DR ) p aR its P t EL LIS - Od 44 \ W. LOS AMDE S , i MOUNTAIN RD. TRAIL NIL WALNUT NE�NO' CHRISTIAN � TERRA •� t l - BANRETT DR. L--- MOI1NTA1. MEADOW - --- -- ---= City Boundary --- --- CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY FREEWAY =� INTERCHANGE SIX -LANE ARTERIAL —� FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL R — RURAL COLLECTOR LEGEND Nor14 N 23M 5oou Sak m /[r! LOCAL COLLECTOR ■ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ❑ AT -GRADE RR CROSSING ® GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING _ _ = SR -118 FREEWAY CORRIDOR 0000035 Exhibit C -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network Figure 2 BROADWAY C STREET �- el ' Dow City of -- Moorpark CAMPUS PARK DR I DO E. L LES i W. LOS ANGELES -. P N RD.O► / SO � }`_+ I WALNUT r ,\ CREEK 7 CNRgTIAN 9 TIERRA sARRETT DR. 1 s Te 9 L.. - rauNTAIN MEADOW City Boundary 0 - -- ---- CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY FREEWAY INTERCHANGE SIX -LANE ARTERIAL FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL R — RURAL COLLECTOR LEGEND ,-7 s�R vA Yor14 $W. in ftR LOCAL COLLECTOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION O AT -GRADE RR CROSSING ® GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING - - = SR -118 FREEWAY CORRIDOR 000036 Exhibit D -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element Figure 3 9"o-WAY � \ q , X41--- ; - - - --- �•-�'� oorpar I • C PARK OR v.O '" l EIES i J w..uo�ANaEUE+ , i 1 OUT �. EEK s s cmmEn"oa1 • �- �� .. i _7 City Boundary LEGEND CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY 9 �•� SWIVALLEY iPoY CLASS I BIKEWAY (BIKE PATH) A facility designed for exclusive use by bicycles and physically separated from vehicular traffic by a barrier, grade separation or open space. Cross -flows by vehicles and pedestrians allowed but minimized No.l N tiGUr ,,, rrA — — — — — — CLASS II BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) A paved area of roadway designated for preferrential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and signage indicate the presence of a bike lane on the roadway. --------- CLASS III BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) A conventional street where bike routes are indicated by sign only. There are no special pavement walkways and bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motorized traffic. Only Class III facilities which connect the Moorpark sphere with the regional bikeway system are identified in the bikeway network. Roadways which are not designated with a Class II bikeway, but which serve as connections between Class II facilities or the regional bikeway system should be considered as Class III bikeways. OCIJ037 ,-� City of M k 9"o-WAY � \ q , X41--- ; - - - --- �•-�'� oorpar I • C PARK OR v.O '" l EIES i J w..uo�ANaEUE+ , i 1 OUT �. EEK s s cmmEn"oa1 • �- �� .. i _7 City Boundary LEGEND CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY 9 �•� SWIVALLEY iPoY CLASS I BIKEWAY (BIKE PATH) A facility designed for exclusive use by bicycles and physically separated from vehicular traffic by a barrier, grade separation or open space. Cross -flows by vehicles and pedestrians allowed but minimized No.l N tiGUr ,,, rrA — — — — — — CLASS II BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) A paved area of roadway designated for preferrential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and signage indicate the presence of a bike lane on the roadway. --------- CLASS III BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) A conventional street where bike routes are indicated by sign only. There are no special pavement walkways and bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motorized traffic. Only Class III facilities which connect the Moorpark sphere with the regional bikeway system are identified in the bikeway network. Roadways which are not designated with a Class II bikeway, but which serve as connections between Class II facilities or the regional bikeway system should be considered as Class III bikeways. OCIJ037 Exhibit D -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element Figure 3 is I CSTIMET i City of ;$ 1 -� Moorpark Cp�pM� •- _ i W. LOS AWWLES i _r i 1 ♦`p i � 1 EX r J I i L.. �moukT rE�now - City Boundary DR. LEGEND CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY a �I•J • t_r i i p �r cols li !A 111 . •• SMI VALIEY rWy North 1 I1 ?:Will iaiil w�lr r„ Wrf CLASS I BIKEWAY (BIKE PATH) A facility designed for exclusive use by bicycles and physically separated from vehicular traffic by a barrier, grade separation or open space. Cross -flows by vehicles and pedestrians allowed but minimized. — — — — — CLASS II BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) A paved area of roadway designated for preferrential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and signage indicate the presence of a bike lane on the roadway. --- - - - - -- CLASS III BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) A conventional street where bike routes are indicated by sign only. There are no special pavement walkways and bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motorized traffic. Only Class III facilities which connect the Moorpark sphere with the regional bikeway system are identified in the bikeway network. Roadways which are not designated with a Class II bikeway, but which serve as connections between Class II facilities or the regional bikeway system should be considered as Class III bikeways. - o0()0a8 Exhibit E -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network Figure 4 ,�a i•• • •- N •• S • • i • °�ACwAr �I • N• r• .t• --''' i �- ` • j : I - CAMPUS /ARKOR SRI, • • J i W. LOS ANGELES � 1 / �f SIP.� •1• MOUKTAM • �A� • N�• . ;�A ELIM i•• • •- N •• S • • i • °�ACwAr • .t• --''' i �- ` • - CAMPUS /ARKOR SRI, - -- '��•� -r `Y� /�• - �� SONVALIEYFWY E. LOS I'7u: ..7i ,yOO r • '01, ►EAGM HK RO. 9 i- -_, °AAREY7 OR \ ` J- ♦ MpUIlfAIR MEADOW .. — .. .. � - - Ciry Boundary `•, • o LEGEND ••••• EQUESTRIAN TRAILS CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY pt� TERRA - _ Norsk 00003EIP i7 • Clrc ci � /fitty . Q,� (A�' ° Mo pos crp �qr ark '4► t F �&n �n �'ra/ � L p/a fit% �Tr�1 • / • A Y � , f.fffM•f �/� •� ff s�flT `, ` CANYON RD '. �tlyj sty Of - -- r/ SR Sp its QV- j ... f'•A• Cif- ��STA�,gN T MiTQO C/NUg9Y z .. N.N� �•NNf� s � • ' ♦••NA'`'B `r �"l • y r •1r •v `,w �Y REJADA A a 0() O�0 4P. � YOIM_ TART TAAII :' • . , K '�Nf•r•f�'.._ - f • ` 4 •••• ti 9oU� a �` Tripe i ...'uy ♦ r f'•A• Cif- ��STA�,gN T MiTQO C/NUg9Y z .. N.N� �•NNf� s � • ' ♦••NA'`'B `r �"l • y r •1r •v `,w �Y REJADA A a 0() O�0 Exhibit F -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, p p Parks and Open Space Ar eas Figure 3 i A 0 J 0 ::: "w rz:. .•� I'd - 7 . I. (- Q••O•;a. LEGEND 0o Arroyo Simi AG -2 .'40+ acres /OU City Perk OS -1 10 -40 acres /DU Moorpark College OS -2 40 +acres /DU Regional Park - FRural Low - Density i,. ` ,D ay ... .r .0 nn. Area of Interest •••••• City Limits and Sphere of Influence 000041 AG -1 10 -40 acres /OU AG -2 .'40+ acres /OU OS -1 10 -40 acres /DU ..,• OS -2 40 +acres /DU i,. ` ,D ay ... .r .0 nn. Area of Interest •••••• City Limits and Sphere of Influence 000041 Exhibit F -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open Space Areas Exhibit 5 O 1 i M f i . 1• ' r RIP LEGEND AG -1 10 -40 acres /DU Arroyo Simi -oa City Park OS -1 10 -40 acres /DU Moorpark College OS -2 40+ acresiDU Regional Park • Nature Preserve (4 OU /Acres) Rural Low- Density ;s' >r AG -1 10 -40 acres /DU AG -2 140+ acres /DU OS -1 10 -40 acres /DU - • : OS -2 40+ acresiDU j Nature Preserve (4 OU /Acres) ti ti•� •464 f4j. W •l�IJ_r' K:i = • ow1� SIC �Q so 7i •- Area of Interest City Limits and Sphere of Influence OC 0042 MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Direc ;d�p Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Man DATE: September 24, 2003 (CC Meeting of 10/1/2003) SUBJECT: Consider the Public Review Opportunities for the North Park Specific Plan Project and Environmental Impact Report BACKGROUND This report is provided in response to a request by City Council on September 17, 2003, for information on public review opportunities for the North Park Specific Plan project and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). DISCUSSION Environmental Impact Report Process The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City's Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Procedures) provide direction on the public review process for both Draft EIRs and Final EIRs. The CEQA Guidelines are adopted by the California State Secretary for Resources, and the City's CEQA Procedures are adopted by Resolution of City Council. Draft EIR - The CEQA Guidelines acceptance of written comments provide guidance as follows: "The public review period less than 30 days nor longer circumstances." (Section 15105) do not mandate a time period for on a Draft EIR, but rather for a draft EIR should not be than 60 days except in unusual PC ATTACHMENT 2 ;- t 0 4 3 Honorable City Council October 1, 2003 Page 2 A minimum of forty -five (45) days to accept written public comments on a Draft EIR; however, is mandated for a project which requires State agency review. In the case of the North Park Specific Plan EIR, written comments were accepted from July 11, 2003 to September 24, 2003, a seventy -five (75) day review period, fifteen (15) days beyond the maximum suggested by the CEQA Guidelines. The City's CEQA Procedures also require the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the Draft EIR. Specific Language is as follows: "A public hearing shall be conducted on the draft EIR by the Planning Commission either in a separate proceeding or in conjunction with the other proceedings of the Planning Commission." A public hearing on a Draft EIR is not, however, required by State law. Nonetheless, it is fairly typical for public agencies throughout California to go above and beyond State requirements by affording the public the opportunity to present their comments on a Draft EIR orally as well as provide additional oral support to comments submitted in writing. Debate on the Draft EIR by the hearing body generally does not take place, since the document is just a draft. The Draft EIR then is revised in response to written comments received during the review period, as well as oral comments given during the public hearing, to become the Final EIR that will be used by the decision makers when considering the project. This is the process followed for the North Park Specific Plan project. A public hearing to accept oral comments was opened by the Planning Commission on August 19, 2003, and concluded on September 16, 2003. A total of twenty -eight speakers provided comments on the Draft EIR. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission referred the comments to staff for the preparation of responses. It should be noted that additional public hearings will be held on the North Park Final EIR by the Planning Commission once the Final EIR has been completed so that the Commission and the public can review the whole record and determine if the Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts. occ,044 Honorable City Council October 1, 2003 Page 3 Final EIR - The Final EIR must, by CEQA Guidelines and the City's CEQA Procedures, include and respond appropriately to all public comments submitted during the comment period. This includes any and all additional written comments received through the close of the public comment period on September 24, 2003, at 5:00 p.m., along with oral comments made at the Planning Commission hearing. The CEQA Guidelines and City's CEQA Procedures require that public agencies that have commented receive a written response to their comments at least ten (10) days before certification of the Final EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also allow for local agencies to provide for public review of the Final EIR, focusing on the responses to the comments received during the public comment period for the Draft EIR. The Final EIR for the North Park Specific Plan will include all comments, responses, and appropriate revisions to the Draft EIR. It is currently being prepared and will be presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration as part of the public hearing on the project prior to their recommendation on the project to City Council. Staff does not yet have a time estimate on when the Final EIR will be completed and when the hearings will take place, however, it will be publicly noticed to all commentators once complete. The Final EIR will also be placed on the City's website and copies will be made available for review at City Hall and at the Moorpark Library. As part of its review of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission could: 1) determine that it is adequate and recommend its certification; 2) recommend specific changes to the document needed for it to be certified as adequately assessing the project impacts or; 3) determine that it is inadequate and refer it back to staff for revisions, updates, or corrections. Depending upon the extent of the revisions, corrections or updates needed, the Final EIR may need to be recirculated to allow for additional public comment. The initial decision on recirculation would be made by the Community Development Director, although the Planning Commission or City Council could provide direction on the recirculation of the EIR. Ultimately, it is expected that the Planning Commission hearings would culminate in a recommendation to the City Council on the project and on adequacy of the Final EIR. It should be noted that neither State law nor the City's CEQA Procedures require a recommendation by the Planning Commission on the adequacy of the C s Honorable City Council October 1, 2003 Page H Final EIR. This extra step is included in the review of the North Park project due to its significance on the future growth of the City. The decision on the certification of the Final EIR will be made by the City Council also at a public hearing. Project Review Process On October 7, 2003, the Planning Commission will hold its first public hearing to begin the review process for the project. This will be a noticed public hearing with an 1 /8th page ad printed in the Ventura County Star, two 4' by 8' notices posted near the site and notice mailed to both adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the subject property and commentators on the Draft EIR. The project components to be considered by the Planning Commission include a General Plan Amendment (including CURB amendment), Zone Change (Pre- zoning), Specific Plan, and the Final EIR. It will be Staff's recommendation that the Commission discuss and review the aspects of the project, holding any discussion of the environmental record until the Final EIR has been prepared. We would anticipate discussion and approval of a Planning Commission review schedule at the October 7, 2003 meeting, and continuation of the public hearing to subsequent Commission meetings until the Planning Commission has comprehensively reviewed the project, including the Final EIR, once it becomes available. Once the Commission has made its recommendation, the City Council will hold public hearings on the project and the Final EIR. At some point in that process, if it appears that the Council is likely to `approve" the project (actual approval will come from a vote of the public), the Council will direct staff to advertise public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration of a pre- annexation Development Agreement. Once the Development Agreement public hearing has been set for the City Council, it will be joined by the public hearing on the project. Council would then take action on all items at the same City Council meeting, including a decision on whether or not (and how) to send the project to the voters. STAFF RECObMMATION Direct staff as deemed appropriate. OCC046