HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0601 CC REG ITEM 11KA G E N D A R E P O R T
C I T Y O F M O O R P A R K
TO: The Honorable City Council
ITEM /
r „< r ,
vY /
*ACTION; t
a
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Development —
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner �1-
DATE: May 27, 1994 (City Council Meeting of June 1, 1994)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 8, INCLUDING LAND USE AND CIRCULATION PLAN CHANGES,
AND DETERMINE THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TO BE ANALYZED IN
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
BACKGROUND
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for the
proposed Specific Plan No. 8 project by Michael Brandman
Associates, under contract to the City of Moorpark. The California
Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA) requires that the EIR analyze a
range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location
of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of
the project. The discussion of alternatives in the EIR is supposed
to focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant
adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of
insignificance, even if those alternatives would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more
costly. The range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR is
governed by "rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth
only those alternatives necessary lo permit a reasoned choice.
The City Council previously directed staff to obtain Council
concurrence on the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR
following the completion of the Notice of Preparation of a Draft
EIR process. A Revised Notice of Preparation for the Specific Plan
No. 8 project was distributed in March 1994 to all responsible and
trustee agencies, and the comment �:)eriod concluded in April 1994.
The Community Development Committee met on May 23, 1994, and
discussed the land use and circulation alternatives to be analyzed
in the EIR for the Specific Plan No. 8 project. Staff has
incorporated the Committee's suggestions into the description of
staff recommended alternatives that are discussed in the following
section of this report. Staff is now requesting direction from the
City Council regarding the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft
EIR, in order that the alternati.veF analysis can be conducted.
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Following is a discussion of the project, as currently proposed,
and a range of alternatives for the Council's consideration.
Project Description
The project applicant has proposed revisions to the project
description which include changes to planned land use and
circulation for the Specific Plan area. Attached to this report is
the revised draft land use plan (Attachment 1), land use summary
table (Attachment 2) and circulation plan (Attachment 3).
Following is a summary of the revised project description:
Land Use Plan
The proposed Specific Plan No. 8 project would allow for up to
3,221 residential units located within four distinct residential
villages concentrated in the southern portion of the site. The
four residential villages would be defined by village centers,
schools, parks, and other public facilities. Open space areas set
aside to preserve natural features would separate the villages.
Other related and supporting uses would include an 18 -hole golf
course, an equestrian center, commercial uses, schools, and public
parks.
Various housing types are proposed ranging from multi - family units
for sale or rent to large lot single - family homes. Approximately
10 to 15 percent of the units would be developed as affordable
housing. Approximately 10 percent of the units are being
considered for senior housing.
The Land Use Plan includes four commercial areas, including one 20-
acre community center and three village centers totaling 22.30
acres. The fiscal analysis study, that will be prepared for the
project, will analyze the feasibility of these planned commercial
areas.
Of the approximately 4,325 acres in the Specific Plan area, over
2,800 acres would be retained in open space uses (natural and
recreational), with approximately 1,700 acres in the northern
portions of the site preserved as natural open space. The
remaining open space (approximately 1,100 acres) would consist of
the proposed golf course, public parks, and public and private open
space.
The changes that were made to the draft land use plan, since
distribution of the Notice of Preparation, include the deletion of
residential, school, and park development in the east end of the
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 3
Specific Plan area (previously referred to as Village 3). An Open
Space 2 (OS -2) designation is now shown for that area, and the
density of several single - family residential development areas have
been increased to transfer the density that was previously shown in
the easterly portion of the Specific Plan area. There are several
reasons for this change to the land use plan, including the
difficulty of providing a second access road to the easterly area
that would satisfy Fire Department requirements, and the
potentially significant environmental impacts that would occur.
The easterly portion of the Specific Plan area is considered
sensitive in regard to potential archaeological, biological, and
mature tree impacts.
The project applicant has requested that the land use designation
for the easterly portion of the Specific Plan area be Open Space 2
(OS -2), and that the zoning permit active recreational uses, such
as a golf course, in that portion of the site. The scope of work
for the EIR, that is currently under preparation, does not include
the funds necessary to fully study the environmental impacts of a
second golf course. For example, Phase II archaeological testing
would be required for approximately 16 archaeology sites located in
that area. A golf course could also result in more significant
biological and mature tree impacts that would not otherwise be
analyzed for an area proposed to be maintained as natural open
space. The need for secondary access for the easterly Specific
Plan area would also need to be studied if a golf course were to be
proposed.
It is staff's intention to require that Specific Plan No. 8 include
a new zone district designation for open space that would severely
restrict the allowed uses within that zone. The intent would be to
ensure that certain open space areas are preserved, with minimal or
no disturbance to the natural terrain or sensitive habitat areas.
In your review of the draft Specific Plan, the City Council will
need to determine whether the eastern portion of the Specific Plan
area should have an OS -2 land use designation and Open Space zone
district designation, or whether the land use designation and /or
zoning should be more restrictive, to maintain that area as natural
open space. It is staff's opinion that the easterly area should
not be given a less restrictive open space land use or zone
designation, unless the potential environmental impacts are studied
now, in conjunction with the preparation of the Draft EIR for the
Specific Plan. This is an area of disagreement with the applicant.
The applicant does concur that the northerly portion of the
Specific Plan area should be preserved as natural open space due to
the topography of that hillside area and its proximity to Happy
Camp Canyon Regional Park.
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 4
Hillside grading is an issue that must be addressed in Specific
Plan No. 8. The draft land use plan, as currently proposed, would
require grading of 20 percent and greater slope areas. Staff is
requesting direction from the City Council regarding the basis for
analysis in the EIR for determining hillside grading impacts. If
acceptable to the City Council, staff is proposing that the draft
hillside ordinance be used.
It is the applicant's intent to have the Specific Plan include
zoning standards for the entire Specific Plan area that, in some
cases, differ from the City's adopted Zoning Ordinance
requirements. The applicant has submitted draft development
standards for preliminary staff review. Various lot sizes are
proposed. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not mandate minimum or
average lot sizes for the Residential Planned Development (RPD)
Zone. Lot sizes for the RPD Zone are as established by the RPD
Permit; however, the overall density per acre is limited by the
designated number of dwelling units permitted per acre. Although
no minimum or average lot size for the RPD Zone is specified in the
City Zoning ordinance, the minimum lot size permitted for detached
single - family homes in existing tracts has been approximately 4,000
square feet (s.f.), and the minimum lot size permitted for
attached single - family homes has peen approximately 3,200 s.f.
Following is a summary of the applicant's proposed lot sizes for
residential zones and staff's preliminary recommendations. These
recommendations are considered to be preliminary, because staff has
not yet reviewed any plans that; would indicate the type of units
proposed to be .located in the different residential development
areas.
LOT SIZE DEVELOpMKmp STREDARDS PROPOSED
FOR SPECIFIC
AND PRELDCUUM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
PLAN HO. 8
Zoning
Applicant Lot Size Pro �
minimum �1'
Staff Lot Size RBCp�gndation_
Average
Minims
Average
RPD -.5U/ Acres
]. Acre
Acres
1 Acre
2 Acres
RPD -lU /1 Acre
20,000 s.f. 1
acre-
20,000 s.f.
1 Acre
RPD -2U /1 Acre
10,000 S. f. 0,i00 s ".
15,000 s.f.
RPD -4U /1 Acre
21,780 s.f.
4,000 s.f. 7 00 s.f.
7,000 s.f.
10,890 s.f.
RPD- 7U- SF(D) /l Acre
3,000 s.f. 3 00
RPD- 7U- SF(A) /l Acre
s.
2,600 s.f.
4,000 s.f.
6,223 s.f.
3,000 s.f.
RPD-10U-SF(D)/l Acre
3,000 s.f. 3
RPD- lOU- SF(A) /l Acre
00 9.
2,600 s.f.
4,000 s.f.
4,356 s.f.
3,000 s.f.
RPD-12U-SF(A)/l Acre
2,600 s.f.
RPD- 12U-MF /1 Acre
2,000 s.f. (site ar�ra /du)
Do not permit at this density
2,000 s.f.
(site area /du)
*SF-(D) = Single - family Detached SP-(A) ) = Si 91e- family Attached MF = Multi - family
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 5
Circulation Plan
The Specific Plan will include the phased construction of required
circulation improvements. Recommendations regarding the timing and
sequence of construction of these roadways would be determined
based on the traffic analysis completed as part of the
environmental impact report (EIR). The proposed Circulation Plan
is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report. Figure 2 from
the Circulation Element is included as Attachment 4 for comparison
purposes.
The first phase of traffic improvements proposed by the project
applicant would include a connection to Campus Park Drive at the
east end of the roadway. This improvement would require an
amendment to the City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element.
The road width required for a northeasterly extension of Campus
Park Drive, onto the project site, would be determined based on the
findings of the traffic report.
The Community Development Committee had reviewed an earlier draft
Circulation Plan for the project that showed a westerly extension
of Campus Park Drive for initial secondary access purposes. Since
incorporation, the City has consistently rejected any proposal put
forth by the County to allow vehicles to access Happy Camp Canyon
Regional Park from the west end of Campus Park Drive. The
applicant was, therefore, requested to redesign the secondary
access proposed for the initial phase(s) of construction. The
attached Circulation Plan includes a different secondary access
proposal, which does not require any westerly extension of Campus
Park Drive.
Circulation improvements that are proposed by the project applicant
to be phased throughout project development include the following:
1. Initial primary site access is proposed to be provided from
the existing Collins Drive /State Route (SR) 118 interchange to
Campus Park Drive. Initial secondary access to the Specific
Plan development is proposed to be provided from a new access
road linking the Broadway extension (shown on the draft
Circulation Plan as Hidden Creek Drive) with Campus Road to
Collins Drive. Campus Road is currently a private street
maintained by Moorpark College, and it forms a loop road
system that connects Collins Drive with Campus Park Drive.
Because the proposed secondary access could increase trips on
the segment of Campus Road connecting to Campus Park Drive,
the Draft EIR will analyze the potential for traffic impacts
and propose appropriate mitigati-on for project impacts.
As can be seen on the draft land use plan, the proposed
secondary access road would be located in the vicinity of the
planned community center. When another secondary access, such
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 6
as the Broadway extension (Hidden Creek Drive), becomes
available through buildout of the Specific Plan area, the
initial secondary access road could be designed so as to
terminate into the parking lot for the community center or
could be abandoned all together. The EIR will analyze the
suitability of primary and secondary access for all planned
phases of construction.
2. Buildout of the internal roadway system. The primary roadway,
which is shown as "Hidden Creek Drive" on the attached
Circulation Plan ( and as the Broadway extension on Figure 2 of
the Circulation Element), would be constructed as a Community
Arterial. The Community Arterial is proposed as a four -lane
roadway with a minimum 124 -foot right -of -way, two on- street
parking lanes (one on each side), minimum 20 -foot landscaped
median, bike lanes (on each side), sidewalks, and landscaped
parkways on each side (average 20- foot).
3. Onsite secondary roadways would be constructed as Village
Collectors and Residential Collectors. Village Collectors are
proposed to be four -lane roadways within a 92 -foot right -of-
way. Residential Collectors have two travel lanes and
sidewalks in a 60 -foot right -of -way.
4. An extension of Broadway is proposed through Happy Camp Canyon
Regional Park and the Specific Plan area as a loop road
connecting Walnut Canyon Road to SR -118 at a new "Lagoon"
interchange. The roadway width of the extension of Broadway
would be determined based on the findings of the EIR traffic
report. The applicant has identified that this roadway would
meet or exceed the standards set. forth in the City's
Circulation Element.
The Circulation Element identifies that access to Specific Plan No.
8 would be facilitated by new SR -23 and SR -118 bypass facilities
that were assumed to be constructed by General Plan buildout (year
2010). Direct access to the Specific Plan site is identified on
Figure 2 in the Circulation Element (see Attachment 4) by an
extension of Broadway from the SR -23 bypass arterial to SR -118.
The circulation plan as proposed by the applicant shows Broadway
connecting directly to Walnut Canyon Road and assumes no need for
either an extension of SR -23 or SR -118 before General Plan buildout
in 2010. The EIR for the project will analyze whether any level of
service impacts would occur if the project is built out prior to
the construction of both the SR -23 and SR -118 bypass facilities as
shown in the Circulation Element.
The alternatives analysis process for the Specific Plan No. 8
project can assist in the development of the City's priorities for
construction and funding of transportation improvements. At this
time, all options should be pursued, including continued
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 7
coordination with Caltrans and the Ventura Council of Governments
(VCOG) to ensure that the future extensions of both SR's 23 and 118
are included on any priority list for funding. Staff has included
a recommendation related to staff coordination with Caltrans and
VCOG to preserve all options.
EIR Alternatives
Staff and the EIR consultant have held scoping meetings with
various responsible and trustee agencies to supplement the Notice
of Preparation process. Suggestions were provided by the Ventura
County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the County of
Ventura Planning Division, regarding alternatives to be addressed
in the EIR, as summarized below.
Alternative Proposed by Ventura County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO)
Land use alternative that would not convert agricultural land
to urban land uses.
Alternatives Proposed by the County of Ventura Planning Division
1. Land use alternative that provides better jobs -to- housing
balance. As proposed by the County, this alternative could
have more onsite commercial /industrial acreage, and an
adjustment to the affordability of the proposed onsite
residential development and /or residential development in the
City of Moorpark (to closely match jobs generated onsite).
2. Possible reduction in the number of residential dwelling units
to mitigate potential traffic impacts..
3. Clustered development to provide for a north -south wildlife
movement corridor in the eastern portion of the site. (The
revised project already achieves this objective.)
4. Proposed project with and without the extension of Broadway
through Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park.
Alternatives Proposed by Staff
The following alternatives are recommended by staff for inclusion
in the Draft EIR:
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 8
1. No Project Alternatives. CEQA requires that a No Project
Alternative be studied. Two No Project scenarios are proposed
to be analyzed in the Draft EIR: maintenance of existing
environmental conditions, with no further development of the
site; and future buildout of the site under the existing
County of Ventura General Plan.
2. Environmentally Superior Alternative - CEQA mandates that the
environmentally superior alternative be identified, and that
if the "no project" alternative is the environmentally
superior alternative, that the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other
alternatives. Staff will work with the EIR consultant to
determine the environmentally superior alternative. This
determination is usually made when all project impact
information is available for both the project and the other
proposed alternatives.
3. Decreased Residential Development Alternatives. Two decreased
residential development alternatives are proposed to be
analyzed. One alternative would assume a maximum of 2,400
residential dwelling units consistent with the "maximum
density" identified in the Land Use Element of the City's
General Plan. Another alternative would assume a mid -range of
approximately 2,800 dwelling units, The density of the
residential development areas shown on the proposed project
land use plan would be reduced with both of these
alternatives. Changes to proposed infrastructure, schools,
parks, and commercial areas may also be required based on the
decrease in dwelling units. These alternatives would be
consistent with the County's :request for an alternative to be
analyzed which reduces the number of dwelling units and
thereby reduces the number of project related trips.
4. Jobs /Housing Balance Alternative. The project site is located
in the SCAG (1989) Growth Management Plan Simi /Thousand Oaks
Subregion. This subregion is characterized as having a
greater number of housing units than employment opportunities.
The objective of SCAG for this and all subregional areas is to
achieve a balance between jobs and housing. SCAG has
identified that this subregion :is expected to have an improved
balance by the year 2010.
One of the objectives of SCAG in achieving a balance between
jobs and housing is to minimize vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
and thereby improve air quali..ty. The Jobs /Housing Balance
Alternative for this project would explore ways to help
achieve this objective. These methods could include enhanced
pedestrian and bicycle tr.ai.ls, day care centers, and
employment centers. The County suggested that this
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 9
alternative could include more onsite commercial /industrial
acreage; however, increasing the amount of commercial acreage
is probably not feasible, and including industrial uses in the
Specific Plan area would not be consistent with the Land Use
Element. Staff intends to have the EIR consultant analyze the
overall jobs /housing balance for the project area as well as
for a larger area that includes the West -end Industrial Park
in the City of Simi Valley, due to its close proximity to the
project site.
5. Design Alternatives
a. Preservation of Agricultural Lands. This alternative
would eliminate proposed development in areas of
agricultural activity and soils designated "prime, ",
"unique," and "lands of statewide importance." This
alternative is proposed in response to a request by LAFCO
staff at a scoping meeting.,
b. Clustered Development. The EIR would look at a design
alternative that provided clustering of development. The
purpose of this alternative would be to analyze whether
further clustering of development is necessary to
minimize disturbance of the site and avoid significant
environmental impacts. For example, avoidance of
significant tree groupings, sensitive habitat areas, and
archaeological sites, and increased buffer areas adjacent
to open space areas may be environmentally preferable to
the proposed project to minimize significant impacts.
This alternative could include a reduction in density in
some areas or a relocation of planned land uses.
6. Circulation Alternatives. Because the circulation plan
proposed by the applicant is dependent upon approvals from
Caltrans, the County of Ventura, and the City, and affects
private properties located outside of the Specific Plan area,
staff is suggesting that a number of circulation alternatives
be analyzed. Some of these alternatives might impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives (for example,
a direct project access from SR -118). However, given the
limited source of funds for transportation projects and the
high cost of such improvements, the City Council must consider
whether other interim improvements could be funded by the
project that would best serve the overall circulation needs of
the City. The City's recently updated traffic model will be
used to analyze the impacts to the overall circulation system
based on the different circulation system alternatives
studied. The following alternative descriptions are
considered preliminary, and minor val7iations may be proposed
during the alternatives analysis process to achieve a more
feasible alternative.
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 10
a. Extension of the SR -118 freeway west from its current
terminus to a partial interchange at Walnut Canyon Road.
This alternative is not consistent with the Circulation
Element, which does not show any SR -118 ramps at Walnut
Canyon Road. This alternative would allow SR -118 ingress
and egress at Walnut Canyon Road, and could reduce the
number of sand and gravel trucks that must now travel
through the center of town to enter onto SR's 23 and 118.
The assumption is that this alternative would not include
any new bridge structure to allow vehicles to enter onto
SR -118 at Walnut Canyon Road and then go south onto SR-
23, due to the expensive bridge structure that would be
required. This alternative would, however, facilitate
east -west traffic movements on SR -118 and would eliminate
any need for trucks to use the Broadway extension (Hidden
Creek Drive) through the Specific Plan No. 8 area. Two
scenarios will be analyzed in regard to the Lagoon
interchange, one will assume that the Broadway extension
(Hidden Creek Drive) connects with a Lagoon interchange;
the other will assume that Collins Drive provides the
easterly Specific Plan access onto SR -118.
b. An extension of Spring Road north to Broadway (through
the Specific Plan No. 2 area). This alternative is not
consistent with the Circulation Element, which shows the
Spring Road extension connecting to a future "D" Street
extension just north of SR -118. Two design variations of
this alternative are proposed to be analyzed:
One design variation would include a collector road
connection from Spring Road across the lower
portion of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, and
connecting to the Specific Plan No. 8 circulation
system, and would include the Broadway extension
(Hidden Creek Drive) similar to project proposal.
Two scenarios for the easterly Specific Plan access
onto SR -118 will. be analyzed - -one will assume a
Lagoon interchange with SR -118 and the other will
assume that Collins Drive provides the easterly
access onto SR- 111.8.
The second design variation would include a
collector road connection from Spring Road across
the lower portion of Happy Camp Canyon Regional
Park, and connecting to the Specific Plan No. 8
circulation system, but would not include the
Broadway extension (Hidden Creek Drive) across the
Park. Two scenarios for the easterly Specific Plan
access onto SR -118 will be analyzed - -one will
assume a Lagoon interchange with SR -118 and the
other will assume that Collins Drive provides the
easterly access ontc::: SR -118. This alternative will
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 11
satisfy the County's request for an alternative
that does not require an extension of Broadway
across Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park.
C. Construction of the SR -23 bypass as a two -lane roadway
connecting SR -118 to Broadway, without the construction
of a full bridge configuration that would allow
continuous north and south travel on SR -23. The intent
of this alternative would be to reduce traffic on Walnut
Canyon Road by providing a connection to SR -118 for
vehicles heading east, and also a connection allowing
westbound traffic on SR -118 to go north to Broadway.
This alternative would include a Broadway extension
(Hidden Creek Drive) into the Specific Plan No. 8 area.
Two scenarios for the easterly Specific Plan access onto
SR -118 will be analyzed--one will assume a Lagoon
interchange with SR -118 and the other will assume that
Collins Drive provides the easterly access onto SR -118.
With this alternative, the westerly access onto SR -118
from the Specific Plan area would be from the Broadway
extension (Hidden Creek Dr:i.ve), to the SR -23 bypass, to
SR -118.
d. As an alternative to the proposed Lagoon interchange at
SR -118, an east -west connector road will be analyzed that
provides access from the Broadway extension (Hidden Creek
Drive) to a proposed interchange at Alamos Canyon, in the
City of Simi Valley. Another scenario to be analyzed
will include both the Lagoon and the Alamos Canyon
interchanges, and the east-west connector road.
RECOMONDATION
1. Provide comments and directions to staff regarding refinement
and selection of the land use and circulation alternatives to
be analyzed in the Draft EIR.
2. Authorize the environmental consultant to complete the
alternatives analysis study for inclusion in the Draft EIR.
3. Provide direction to staff regarding analysis of hillside
grading impacts in the Draft FIR.
4. Provide direction to staff regarding staff's intent to create
a new open space zone designation for the Specific Plan that
would restrict allowed development in public open space areas,
and concur with staff's proposal to not allow a less
restrictive open space zone designation for the easterly
Specific Plan area, unless the applicant agrees to an
amendment of the EIR contract and scope of work to address the
impacts of the second golf course proposal.
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 12
5. Direct staff to continue coordination with Caltrans and VCOG
regarding the City's interest in the extensions of SR -23, SR-
118 and Broadway (Hidden Creek Drive), including construction
of the Lagoon interchange.
Attachments:
1. Revised Draft Land Use Plan
2. Land Use Summary Table
3. Revised Draft Circulation Plan
4. Figure 2 from Circulation Element
1� AY 11 1 94
Land Use
RH
L
ML
M
Sub -Total
HIDDEN CREE1� RANCII
I,AND USI S�111�T�1Rl'
Average (i s
Du /Ac \ res
1- T
0.5
1.0 - 5 1")
2.0 ( 4 i0
4.0 1��i0
198.'o ff
of
Total
6.0
9.0
7.0
6.0
28.0
May 10, 1994
RNM Job No. 93037A
Units
123
375
609
1085
2192
H 7.0 3 0 0.7 211
VH -1 10.0 6 . ,0 1.5 683
VH -2 12.0 0.3 135
11
Sub- Total 109.�,U 2.5 1029
General Commercial -
Community Center
Neighborhood Commercial -
Village Centers
Public - Institutional
Schools
Major Roads
Golf Course
Parks
Equestrian Center
Public Open Space OS -2
Sub -Total
TOTAL
2' 58.5
h 16.74 1 69.5
% of
Total
3.0
12.0
19.0
34.0
68.0
7.0
21.0
4.0
32.0
4,,'24.74T 100.0 3221.0 100.0
ATTACHMENT 2
i
i
ffI- - - -8
--
0.-)
0.7
I-
2.4
.
4.4
.U)
2.2
0. 2
2' 58.5
h 16.74 1 69.5
% of
Total
3.0
12.0
19.0
34.0
68.0
7.0
21.0
4.0
32.0
4,,'24.74T 100.0 3221.0 100.0
ATTACHMENT 2
...........
0�
7F R FLA
Z
---------------------------------- —
LEGEND
FREEWAY
I.MRCTtANGE
SIX LANE ARTERIAL-
FOUR-LANE ARTERIAL
R-
RURAL COLT -LC70P
LOCAL C0111-CTOR
SIGNALIZED INTER',[ CT [ON
\r GRADE RR CROSSING
GRADE. SFP-NRAT71 RR I FZO',SIN(,
( MY L.,.MFT HOUND NRY
■"Nommu■
SR 118 REEWA't ()RRIDOR
--
----------
-------------------------------
-
C STREET
.
... ...........
......
"AM PIA PARK
SR Ile
SINJI VALLEY FRFFw,, IA.
...so
...........
0�
7F R FLA
Z
---------------------------------- —
LEGEND
FREEWAY
I.MRCTtANGE
SIX LANE ARTERIAL-
FOUR-LANE ARTERIAL
R-
RURAL COLT -LC70P
LOCAL C0111-CTOR
SIGNALIZED INTER',[ CT [ON
\r GRADE RR CROSSING
GRADE. SFP-NRAT71 RR I FZO',SIN(,
( MY L.,.MFT HOUND NRY
■"Nommu■
SR 118 REEWA't ()RRIDOR
FIGURE 2
CITY OF MOORPARK
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
HIGHWAY NETWORK
May 13.1992
ATTACHMENT
HIDDEN CREEK RANCH PRO [ECT MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Jim Aguilera, Director of mrnunity Development
City of Moorpark
FROM: Gary Austin, Messenger Investriwili ( ornpany
DATE1: June 1, 1994
RE: Comments to 5/27/94 Staff Repo art - Specific Plan #8 EIR
The purpose of this memo is for Messenger Investment Company (MIC) to offer our
comments concerning the City of Moorpark 'agenda Report of May 27, "CONSIDER
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8, INCLUDING LAND
USE AND CIRCULATION PLAN CHAN(ES. AND DETERMINE THE PROJECT
ALTERNATIVESTO BE ANAI -YZED IN TI-ll - I y 1/IPo )NMI NhAI IMPACT REPORT
(EIR)'
First, MIC is hopeful that the City Council will rct on staff's recommendations this evening
if at all possible in order to allow the prepamlon of the Draft EIR proceed. MIC is in
basic agreement with staff's recommendations •xcept as follows:
Agenda Report Recommendation No.1 --
- We request that any reference to propr "ed minimum and average lot sizes not be
acted upon at this time
Reference: Page 4, last paragraph and allowing table.
Justification: MIC has not specifically p oposed any lot size minimums or averages
at this time as it is too premature to do so. We do not see any benefit to
establishing these lot size standards until the over -all land use and circulation issues
are evaluated in the Draft EIR. MIC hay used the General Plan residential land use
designations in its proposed project desc iptirrn, �k iich should be a satisfactory level
of detail at this point in the planning m cess
- We strongly believe that staff should in,_irfde in the traffic analysis portion of the
Draft EIR the potential impacts of a ( �nnectior to) the project from the western
terminus of Campus Park Drive.
Reference: Page 5, third paragraph
Justification: First, although the city h,Ls consistently rejected proposals to allow
vehicular access to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, there is in fact a recorded
road easement on the deeds of the 16 parcels located on the west end of SP #8,
which property owners have used as primary access to their parcels even prior to
Happy Camp Park being given to the cou rty fly ignoring this right of ownership, the
June 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
Moorpark Agenda Report dated 5%27/94
Page 2
adequacy of the EIR could be challenged by any of these property owners. Second,
emergency access to the project area would be significantly enhanced by this
connection. Third, the road could he gated or otherwise controlled so as to sustain
the city's policy while still providing some form of access to the proposed project.
Including this connection as one element of the traffic analysis of the Draft EIR does
not in any way undermine the city's polcy regarding vehicular access to the park.
Agenda Report Recommendation No. 2
- Acceptable as proposed.
Agenda Report Recommendation No. 3
- Acceptable as proposed.
Agenda Report Recommendation No. 4
- MIC requests that the this recommendai ion be set aside and re- considered after the
Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated
Reference: Page 3, second and third p.xragr;rphs
Justification: This proposal has to do with zoning, not General Plan or Specific Plan
issues, and is neither relevant nor appr( rpriate for consideration at this point in the
planning process. In fact, this recommendation appears to be somewhat punative in
that MIC had previously proposed residential development on this area, but, upon
noting the cost of mitigating the archeological studies, chose to mitigate the situation
by agreeing to transfer the dwelling uni�s to ether areas. Nevertheless MIC wishes
to have the right to pursue reasonable recreational development options available to
open space areas (both under the county s and the city's land use criteria). Proposing
a new zone designation at this point in the process is not necessary since the
Planning Commission and the City Cr LVicil Nkill certainly consider this matters after
the Draft EIR has been circulated.
If this proposal is not set aside or postponed, MIC will have no other choice than to
proceed with the Phase II archeological i nvestigations at this time, costing somewhere
between $100,000 and $300,000. MIC espectfully requests reconsideration of this
recommendation.
Agenda Report Recommendation No. 5
Acceptable as proposed.
EI RSTAFF.001