HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 1213 CC SPC JNT PC ITEM 03B ITS •
AGENDA REPORT
C I T Y OF M O O R P A R K
TO: Honorable City Council
The Planning Commission
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Developmeot�
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner
DATE: November 20, 1995 (CC/PC Joint Meeting on 12-13-95)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DRAFT ALTERNATIVE LAND USE CONCEPT PLANS AND
DRAFT ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION PLANS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
2 PROJECT AT JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 1995 a City Council/Planning Commission joint meeting
was held to consider circulation alternatives for the Specific Plan
No. 2 project. On August 23, 1995 the City entered into a
professional services agreement with EDAW, Inc. , for the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, Specific Plan, and
Related Services for the Specific Plan NO. 2 project. EDAW
presented the results of their Opportunity/Constraints Analysis,
the Draft Alternative Concept Plans (three total) , and the
Alternative Circulation Plans (four total) to the Community
Development Committee on November 6, 1995 .
At the City Council's November 13, 1995 meeting, the Council
authorized staff to schedule a joint workshop with the Planning
Commission for the purposes of allowing preliminary public and
CC/PC input to be received on the draft alternative concept and
circulation plans for the Specific Plan No. 2 project. A goal of
the workshop is to assist the applicant, Morrison-Fountainwood-
Agoura, in selecting a preferred conceptual land use and
circulation plan to be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) as the "Project."
DISCUSSION
The December 13, 1995 workshop is the first in a series of meetings
and public hearings that will be held for the Specific Plan No. 2
project. The workshop is intended to assist in educating the
public and receiving public input about the proposed project. EDAW
has provided several exhibits for the workshop including:
Honorable City Council
The Planning Commission
November 20, 1995
Page 2
1. Aerial Photo of Project
2 . Environmental Constraint Layer Maps (four total)
3. Open Space Concept Plans (two total)
4 . Alternative Land Use Concept Plans (three total)
5 . Alternative Circulation Plans (four total)
6 . Alternative Summaries (three total)
7 . Typical Roadway Sections (three total)
Reduced copies of the referenced exhibits are attached to this
report.
A brief description of the workshop program and summary of
environmental constraints and open space concepts, draft land use
and circulation alternatives, acid project and alternatives
selection process are provided below.
Workshop Program
I. Introductions (Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community
Development)
II. Project Overview (Jaime Aguilera and EDAW, Inc. )
III. Environmental Constraints Study and Open Space Concepts (EDAW,
Inc . )
IV. Alternative Land Use Plans (EDAW, Inc. )
V. Alternative Circulation Plans and Roadway Sections (EDAW,
Inc . )
VI . City Council/Planning Commission Question and Answer Period
VII . Public Questions and Answer Period
Environmental Constraints Study and Open Space Concept
Over the past two months, the City's consultant, EDAW, along with
technical subconsultants, conducted an opportunity and constraints
analysis of the 445-acre project site. The analysis included, but
was not limited to: 1) a biological survey; 2) a tree survey; 3) a
cultural resources survey (archaeology, paleontology, and
historic) ; 4) geological surveys; 5) review of FEMA zones; 6) slope
analysis; and 7) preliminary viewshed " horizon line" analysis. A
series of reports and AutoCad mapping summarizing the results of
the analysis have been prepared and will be discussed in detail
within the EIR.
Honorable City Council
The Planning Commission
November 20, 1995
Page 3
The purpose of the constraints study was to identify major
constraints which may preclude future development. These major
constraints are summarized in Attachment 2 - Topography Layer,
Preliminary Geology/Slope Layer; Freeway Layer and Vegetation/
Biology Layer. Based on the location and analysis of constraints,
EDAW developed Open Space concepts (Attachment 3) for the Specific
Plan No. 2 project. The Open Space concepts include both active
and passive open space and sensitive natural areas . The concepts
incorporate a system of multi-use trails to provide pedestrian
circulation on and off the site.
Draft Land Use and Circulation Alternatives
Included as Attachments 4, 5, and 6 to this report, are land use
and circulation alternative concept plans (three total) and summary
tables (three total) that were prepared by EDAW. The summaries
include a brief statement on the concept(s) , statistical breakdown
by acres of use, a unit summary breakdown and a discussion of
advantages and disadvantages of the alternative(s) . Typical
roadway sections that correspond to the circulation concept plans
for project roadways are included as Attachment 7 .
An excerpt from the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan,
identifying the requirements and limitations for Specific Plan No.
2 is provided with this report as Attachment 8. Please note that
under Proposed Land Uses, the number of dwelling units is
restricted to a "maximum" density of 475 dwelling units and a
"density limit" of 712 dwelling units. The attached land use
alternative concept plans allow for a density limit of 534, 647,
and 583 units, respectively. The City Council would need to
ultimately determine whether the concept plans have provided public
improvements, public services and/or financial contributions that
are of substantial public benefit to the community in order for the
number of dwelling units to exceed 475 (the maximum density) .
In a separate section of the Land Use Element, each Specific Plan
area is required to include a minimum of 25 percent of the total
plan area as open space. The attached alternative concept plans
all exceed this requirement. The City's Subdivision Ordinance
requires that 5 acres/1,000 persons be dedicated for park and
recreation under the Quimby Act. The Subdivision Ordinance also
requires an assumption of 3.22 persons per household for Single-
Family Detached dwellings . Based on these requirements,
Alternative Concept A requires 8 .5 acres of Quimby dedication,
Alternative Concept B requires 10.4 acres, and Alternative Concept
C requires 9 .3 acres. The provision of active open space by the
Alternative Concepts are consistent with the Quimby requirement.
For Specific Plan No. 2, a minimum of seven acres of land is also
required to be designated as Public Institutional and the attached
Honorable City Council
The Planning Commission
November 20, 1995
Page 4
alternative plans are consistent with this requirement. Each plan
includes a 20-acre school site and *Plan C" includes a seven-acre
church site in addition to the school site.
In regard to circulation, the attached land use alternatives
include right of way dedication for the possible future extensions
of State Route (SR) 23 and State Route (SR) 118, consistent with
Figure 2 of the City' s Circulation Element. No precise alignment
for future roadways is specified by the City's Circulation Element.
Recent preliminary alignment plans that the City has received from
Caltrans have confirmed that the most feasible alignments for
future SR-23 and SR-118 are through the Specific Plan No. 2
project. Both the Circulation and Land Use Elements include
language which requires that the Specific Plan provide right of way
protection for the future SR-23 and SR-118 freeway corridors. The
attached land use alternatives also show the extension of Spring
Road through the site as the primary entry for the project. The
plans also provide for possible regional connections via Spring
Road west to Walnut Canyon and * C* Street as depicted in Figure 2
of the Circulation Element. The second connection would be from
Spring Road east to the Specific Plan No. 8 project and potentially
Campus Park.
The four Circulation Alternatives (Attachment 5) depict variations
in the hierarchy of intersections for the possible connections to
Spring Road. These are as follows :
Alternative 1
Primary circulation (arterial) extends Spring Road through the
site, continuing across Happy Camp Regional Park, and ultimately
connecting to Specific Plan No. 8 at its most westerly boundary. A
secondary connection is provided to the west to Walnut Canyon Road.
The project itself (residential) is served by two looping
neighborhood collectors.
Alternative 2
The focus or hierarchy of the circulation concept is altered,
having Spring Road continue north, then west connecting to Walnut
Canyon. A secondary collector, primarily serving Specific Plan No.
2, also connects Specific Plan No. 8 across Happy Camp.
Alternative 3
This concept is only a slight revision to Alternative 2 . Rather
than continuing across Happy Camp and ultimately to Specific Plan
N0. 8, the secondary collector terminates at the east end of the
future SR-23 corridor.
Honorable City Council
The Planning Commission
November 20, 1995
Page 5
Alternative 4
This concept is virtually the same as Alternative 1 circulation.
The primary direction of flow extends Spring Road through the
project as an arterial, and ultimately allows for a connection to
Specific Plan No. 8 across Happy Camp. The secondary access to
Walnut Canyon changes in its alignment, in an effort to accommodate
adjacent properties, as well as preserve the knoll located at the
western boundary of the site, in its current form.
Each alternative land use plan could accommodate any of the above
circulation alternatives with minor refinements.
Project and Alternatives Selection Process
A goal of the workshop is to assist the applicant, Morrison-
Fountainwood-Agoura, in selecting a preferred land use and
circulation plan that will be analyzed in the EIR as the "Project. "
The preferred Project may be one of the concept land use and
circulation plans attached to this report, or may be a new concept
plan that is derived from a combination of features from the
attached plans .
The alternatives that will be analyzed in the EIR will most likely
consist of several of the concept plans attached to this report;
however, typically the City's practice has been to confirm the EIR
alternatives, following the distribution of a Notice of Preparation
of a Draft EIR to responsible and trustee agencies and receipt of
any comments . Pursuant to the contract with EDAW, it is staff's
intent to schedule City Council consideration of the alternatives
to be analyzed in the Draft EIR, following distribution of the
Notice of Preparation and receipt of comments. The tentative
schedule is that an Initial Study will be prepared in January 1996
and distributed with the Notice of Preparation in early February
1996 . Upon receipt of the Notice of Preparation, agencies have 30
days to submit comments .
RECOMMENDATION
1. City Council and Planning Commission provide comments on the
alternative land use and circulation concept plans to assist
the applicant in the selection of a `preferred" plan.
2. City Council authorizes staff to prepare an Initial Study and
distribute the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR; and
3. City Council directs staff to schedule a subsequent meeting
before the Council for discussion of project alternatives to
be analyzed in the EIR after the Notice of Preparation process
has been completed.
Honorable City Council
The Planning Commission
November 20, 1995
Page 6
Attachments:
1. Aerial Photo of Project
2 . Environmental Constraint Layer Maps (three total)
3 . Open Space Concept Plans (two total)
4. Alternative Land Use Concept Plans (three total)
5 . Alternative Circulation Plans (four total)
6 . Alternatives Summaries (three total)
7 . Typical Roadway Sections
8. Pages 30, 31, and 32 from the Land Use Element
1<
A • J e
s -
OL
raw
Ir
IN
• �. F T
_♦. — pry� V.1 II�� (�
mi•
'A
�8
�sY
e
lk
s�
.k�. ,r .,.d» ✓ i°, d` _ ,(r �> Y e�, s �;. - '• .44
r
-t�� ill ,��<� w� r t .� it �:._ _ ` �� �' � �( •
/
�f x�� ;: � .d l�� ���.f�E$f a �� � +� Z^2 � �.'r y, �� v6_�� �k�.�•'�u� �'! .�
ly
�,[ 'wy ' 'Tx '' "• * `� " , i7�- „' �� _ �� 4� skA�q. -ly.Y' •:rev. `6`�r'rw"'_...�J ...w�" '. ' •� �
0 low
IL
��„�� a.y1J ,CI►�a�� � 'dk`b,• �`�` .r'_�"..+� � ..sewn.. �"` 3}�i-
` x v •�S �' t.v ���Ems" ..,,� a\�E �.•4��-.�
ly^ \ '
J'm
loom
rf � �' ti�` �!
RM
�l,� ww �`,\.\�„ rJJe l' �,�! tip, ��. .-;- • + - -'!
\ \. P' III `J r�`�j - �\�. 4i� / `t •r'^
has ��►� y„�,,\�• � '+,
sm
NN""• ` ` vii:: Y�. 1
•f� ti •
�.
if
�� f1 ...
j1 ;�.' ,� ! .
OF w
AER
�A i ''
Ff
i Nq �� ,mac►,w ,,,, a
FEW
MM
J�,� gig nG
i
_ IiOA 1 x, r��s/%� •
�s
f
.I
1�,, �.� _ �: ri �!�� 1�./7 `�1 �_ r- •� .781 �'e'�a�.xIMF ty�'.iy�,
� w
i;
i
I
4.6`� �I
T �IIT�C �^ 0 O O❑ Imo\ •
��Ill
- I '
'►T
�4 0
ILP
LIWA
FAM
SR•f`R� 'yam � �M
\ 1,,y
AIR
• ��i
I,' ,� ■�\ � � � �`'`- `� � •� ;• �+ =yam: �
'� i�'�_ _ v I'! , � �•' ate. .� �' `�''rr/— ,A ♦.
4t�- `` •, -- ` � dab
Aov Avole AO
7t7� rT nvv/dENOCLS,ffA7F/.a^c-
I-� _ :• I - GQ�NeonaTYwrTr+ urrcaAV(51 irl'
�gr/x,I�dp-7r•M4S77*v n'aM tr`OAV7v
t.i• r ++ N /NCO/IMuN/]yff.^TUeG3-WL' 'popes,
�. 5/IVCE-YGTGua
7A",ADO✓H/rzj—6—f)'� �
-M t(5� A"7
M �
I VOL?E
/-�vEr os'co?
My-
-. i �� � •'� �R99/b6 U560PE.✓SPfK�-CM��
• r--'I PAS�ve uaa creN,sP.,�e-,'+�'�
F-1 r h7r/M
vAnve�,e'eWi,
OV
f �� Or�NMK6MY7,,U4t��TTNLS)
C 'Yvcr^vu�d nv�)
�: �� � (vim//riGld�j/�fnvyrAS,.RUn6
o0o Equesnv� n s
/,in/T
i.
OPEN SPACE CONCEPT - ALTERNATIVE A
E D A W
MOORPARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2
CITY OF MOORPARK
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
. T
010000� 'a
1
fc=l -
' - -
�
.. - '1. � r---+C-I�M�P�as,yWCCCa�ys, pirc�Gy*acts
(y�..0 7MS otr✓ro�c+►w°1%��71�u�i7T'N�s)
14
'r
�! • py�NUT�eN/oiNr
4D
OPEN SPACE CONCEPT - ALTERNATIVE C
E D A W
MOORPARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2
CITY OF MOORPARK
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
0 �
�\ PAO 1
' 1 �
h X
• s 1
V
�vs
CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN - ALTERNATIVE A E D A W
MOORPARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2 M _
CITY OF MOORPARK
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
j \ I
� I
I �
\\
j
4
7 F \\ I
CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN - ALTERNATIVE B
E D A W
MOORPARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2
CITY OF MOORPARK
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
ilk 9
7"
7• ' 4
CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN - ALTERNATIVE C
E D A W
MOORPARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2
CITY OF MOORPARK
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
w,� •;7 `.�eJr?'mil,•,t�"..:. � .ti 1 t�d4� nau Pn /��111u117� � Z-- / ���
_ i�io 1�`C�..�,, '���� � � ktll� Fw—f -Y� �. •y = '�i�wnU � 1
- F•I ,C" i �"4 Still/ �°_
a►�i.
F-PAWF
All
AM-
fro
BI��ii•is. r ,s �,
iai!It!�'�wl�nitlttli:'1��� a �,.� •
1,
qj
19m,11
��
wiv
.�
1
1
::C � _1 ��! t� -=�� .. f �Tr. -1.1 ��.• .r � �,( l/ , i
IS
ow
if
rx
ON
RIO
qr,�;.��
����?�`��.�. '� � !. _ / �������> �`� 1 � I per.:• �
r & `) .. ,�, - !�� .{V. _ ,ice- �� r�uvrr =_iv. •1 I
Of
'� l
�lIIIQ r l ,1„ -vLq n rvrn: r
lA 1 CJ 1 tom. t+ �;I r l4 r; ' • = rL' J ='� 1 7
�. .p,. � ` � .t• ll � t�,A 0/' q�c � r � I \ � � � _��1"(7�` .I.Ir+urtr' ♦7
v.� �!-L�: �r� Z1�� i��.d ' �-� 'I, � ��.�.1�•tifk �,� a'�iI �� .�:r ii>fr
I ,�'i�rlr
.r �iMI �t �I .ice►I��' � �� t1►`v r 1 ` Y:. '3� -
r
4m Aw�
;sm
WRAP
V4 • ;4"
_ _� � �� ����,C� � �q �/ �� 1 111 1� � I 1 � �„ , _��p�
Iloilo
OR rA
P 7Y1,P �vm WRIX
NO
r5l
ly, It_eta �;'ire�Iiltll �I��I L'
WOW
IA IPW
gf,'M
All,
o. k1
U
( 4�
• I
mo
1
�/ + OR/Vl LANG OF/Vr LANr O/JVf LANE Of/vr Anr
as� Rf t/P rN 7/A•[.
anfras.�y �^ E lo' Ir'FIINI nfH
tnNt .' to
i/
e• Y PAAWSr y 61Kf/WAIF LnNO SL/tK 4• crfN nc/
/!aY/Df/VrIAL IO'MN/nrM S' G D I A N S T 0. 6 D T // y r N 6
a•aliN 31NCf GANOSGr1/C WAC/I. /AAKWA�/ 5 T P- E C T ��r . /' —O••
AP-C /
/�/ej6R/RL SEAT/Q'J
hLT6Pl✓R'T/VE 8'
27'95
c
CM
t
e � • L � r
D a
m a
I 1
/�G/µr Dia�Vf LANr oNVL LANG r.IVr LAn•r pL/v6/LANE R/•''f/k/e Io'I'+ Iln�hf l�lzlDlN71AL Pl
% S' M O / A N S T 6 6 T ►A0.1�WAy WALL
01-aN fPnCS L_PW.pr
Y [ IA MINMrw
5 T R E or 7
cram sp f LANP_M NALK
IAR/cWA�/
/ sONr
j ONG
ARTEfaA(L SEGT/GV
ALTNQ4VAT/VE "+
7a-,XpRp_1e_ Co.orw
Sb-LZ
/N V O 3 y'�>/d77Gi7W
�d �N1vNa�1'1y
Noz /�r+l�/xve �+lvin met ie vlD7nv)
adv>;ONV'Y �1 .�vix'rs rd 1 3 � l' 1 9
A"N
a3avo� 37am0 J-9-d!--3aJJr+d�BN`�13n
J�ntf011f if fN YLLro/1 1. 1 9 J lI 1 S 'y'1V,�1 7+% !'�MO,�fY
Sf,yv/i ff .i I{ n£ I ,i .Yi 59/Yv
J `
i,
,05
ALTERNATIVE A
SPECIFIC PLAN NO.2
CITY OF MOORPARK
CONCEPT SUMMARY
Finely textured residential neighborhoods each with a pocket park feature which provides a focal
element, linked to the overall community via an extensive trails and open space system. A clear
hierarchy of roadways and open space with an emphasis on the preservation and enhancement of
sensitive natural open space. Small scale neighborhoods that fit within the context of Moorpark,
exclusively Single Family Detached Homes with an average lot size in excess of 7,200 S.F., and
a Master Plan which accommodates current and future transportation needs of the region.
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
SFD Residential 151.6 AC. 34.1%
Streets (Arterial/Collectors) 34.6 AC. 7.8%
School Site 20.0 AC. 4.5%
Active Open Space 9.4 AC. 2.1
Passive Open Space 38.9 AC. 8.7%
Natural Open Space 153.0 AC. 34.4%
Transportation Corridors 37.5 AC. 8_4%
Total 445.0 AC. 100%
UNIT SUMMARY
Parcel Min.Lot Size AC's DU's Density
1 50' by 100' 12.4 63 5.1 DU/AC
2 60' by 110' 17.6 69 3.9 DU/AC
3 50' by 100' 17.1 67 3.9 DU/AC
4 60' by 110' 11.4 43 3.8 DU/AC
5 50' by 100' 7.0 25 3.6 DU/AC
6 60' by 110' 10.7 36 3.4 DU/AC
7 65' by 115' 21.5 67 3.2 DU/AC
8 65' by 115' 8.4 27 3.2 DU/AC
9 65' by 115' 14.5 45 3.1 DU/AC
10 75' by 120' 18.0 54 3.0 DU/AC
11 75' by 120' 13.0 38 2.9 DU/AC
Total 151.6 534
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
191 AC.of Open Space(42.92%) • Does not contribute to Affordable Housing Goals
Accommodates Freeway Corridors • Does not provide for Church Site
• Provision of 20 AC. School Site
Provides Public Multi-Use Trails
• Exceeds Quimby Requirements
P:\1 99515 N 12801 VN OO RPAR K.DOC
ALTERNATIVE B
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2
CITY OF MOORPARK
CONCEPT SUMMARY
Alternative B maintains the overall master plan concept (open space relationships, roadways,
etc.). Additionally,the concept addresses the affordable housing component and subsequently
increases the overall project density.
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Multi-Family 8.0 AC. 1.8%
SFD Residential Units 151.6 AC. 34.1%
Streets (Arterial/Collectors) 34.6 AC. 7.6%
School Site 20.0 AC. 4.4%
Active Open Space 13.0 AC. 2.9%
Passive Open Space 28.9 AC. 6.4%
Natural Open Space 151.4 AC. 33.4%
Transportation Corridors 37.5 AC. 8.3%
Total 445.0 AC. 100%
UNIT SUMMARY
Parcel Min.Lot Size AC's DU's Density
1 50' by 100' 12.4 63 5.1 DU/AC
2 60' by 110' 17.6 70 4.0 DU/AC
3 50' by 100' 17.1 67 3.9 DU/AC
4 60' by 110' 11.4 46 4.0 DU/AC
5 50' by 100' 7.0 25 3.6 DU/AC
6 60' by 110' 10.7 43 4.0 DU/AC
7 65' by 115' 21.5 75 3.5 DU/AC
8 65' by 115' 8.4 29 3.5 DU/AC
9 65' by 115' 14.5 51 3.5 DU/AC
10 75' by 120' 18.0 54 3.0 DU/AC
11 75' by 120' 13.0 38 2.9 DU/AC
12 Multi-Family 8_0 80 10.0 DU/AC
Total 159.6 647
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
179 AC.of Open Space(40.22%) • Average Lot Size±5,700 S.F.
Provides Affordable Housing • Reduced Diversity in SFD
Component to Assist in Meeting • Significant Grading on Major Knoll
Affordable Goals • Increased Visual"Horizon Line",Traffic,Air,
Accommodates Freeway Corridors and Noise Impacts
Provision of 20 AC.School Site • Increased Adjacent Land Use Compatibility Impacts
Provides Public Multi-Use Trails 0 Does not provide for Church Site.
Provides Significant Active Open
Space
PA1995\5N 12801 WOORPARK.IOC
ALTERNATIVE C
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2
CITY OF MOORPARK
CONCEPT SUMMARY
Alternative C provides opportunities for an additional public institutional use in the southern
portion of the property. Also, affordable housing is accommodated along with the added park
areas. The distribution of density and lot sizes is similar to Alternative B.
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Multi-Family 8.0 AC. 1.8%
SFD Residential Units 137.6 AC. 30.9%
Streets (Arterial/Collectors) 34.6 AC. 7.8%
School Site 20.0 AC. 4.5%
Active Open Space 13.5 AC. 3.0%
Passive Open Space 29.9 AC. 6.7%
Natural Open Space 156.9 AC. 35.2%
Public Institutional 7.0 AC. 1.6%
Transportation Corridors 37.5 AC. 8.6%
Total 445.0 AC. 100%
UNIT SUMMARY
Parcel
Min.Lot Size AC's DUN Density
1 50' by 100' 15.6 78 5.0 DU/AC
2 60' by 110' 21.8 87 4.0 DU/AC
3 50' by 100' 15.3 61 4.0 DU/AC
4 60' by 110' 14.5 51 3.5 DU/AC
5 50' by 100' 8.0 32 4.0 DU/AC
6 60' by 110' 9.2 32 3.5 DU/AC
7 Multi-Family 8.0 71 8.9 DU/AC
g 65' by 115" 7.7 27 3.5 DU/AC
9 65' by 115" 14.5 51 3.5 DU/AC
10 75' by 120" 18.0 54 3.0 DU/AC
11 75' by 120" 13.0 39 3.0 DU/AC
Total 145.6 583
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
185 AC.of Open Space(41.57%) • Average Lot Size±5,700 S.F.
• Provides Affordable Housing Component • Reduced Diversity in SFD
to Assist in Meeting Affordable Goals • Significant Gading on Major Knoll
• Provides for Church Site • Increased Visual"Horizon Line",Traffic,Air,
• Accommodates Freeway Corridors and Noise Impacts
• Provision of 20 AC. School Site • Increased Adjacent Land Use Compatibility
• Provides Public Multi-Use Trails Impacts
• Provides Significant Active Open Space
P A 1995\5 N 12801\M 00RPARK.DOC
.::.. ..,.:•. :-... ......
x.;N'.r.:;o>rc. ^,:>:::.:y.::;:••:•:.:i;x::"s::;<:;s;:�;:,`,:,'•
:;"x f,:S..C`w'v:•'.:7:+::#i,.?iiJ:Sii:G'Cz>%,w?:zn=::; 1E
} •.r... : ::,rba:.:<u+:+:r:fii�cy?'•%c'P.
Parks - An evaluation will be conducted during the development of
this specific plan to identify required park land dedication
consistent with the City Municipal Code and General Plan
requirements.
Circulation - The specific plan area circulation network will
require consideration for topographical constraints, viewshed
issues, and the adjacent Southern Pacific railroad tracks; shall
provide protection for the conceptual alignmefit of the future SR-
118 freeway corridor; and shall ensure that roadway rights-of-way
are protected for the planned roadway upgrades, improvements, and
additions as identified in the City's circulation plan.
Proposed Land Uses
The number of dwelling units shall not exceed 415, unless the
specific plan area property owner agrees to provide public
improvements, public services and/or financial contributions that
the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to
the community, in which event, the number of dwelling units shall
not exceed 620. A minimum of 3 acres of land shall be designated
as Public Institutional within this specific plan area. The
appropriate amount of land to be designated as Open Space, Park,
School, or any other appropriate land use designation, will be
determined at the time of specific plan preparation or approval.
Overlay Designation - Agriculture 1 (285 acres)
Specific Plan 2
Specific Plan 2 consists of 445 acres under single ownership. It
is located northerly of the City, east of Walnut Canyon Road and
west of College Heights Drive. Generally, the majority of this
specific plan area is characterized as a gently sloping plateau
with prominent hillsides in the northern section, and is currently
vacant and used for seasonal grazing.
Opportunities and Constraints
Specific plan area development issues will be addressed during
specific plan preparation and subsequent review, and include:
Topography - Existing steep hillsides within the specific plan area
require a complete evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils, and
other potential geotechnical constraints during the development/
review of this specific plan. Consistent with City policy, grading
is restricted on slopes greater than 20 percent and development
prohibited in areas where potential hazards cannot be fully
mitigated.
30
;;riY•�T.;rir>.J">.` `iii vK a.Ucv.:Ma::::....
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development/review of this specific
plan.
Viewshed - The importance and visibility of hillside horizon lines
and prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from
surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and
review of the specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should
be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and
natural resources/hazard areas.
Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources
which may occur onsite (i.e. , oak trees, threatened, rare,
endangered plants and animals, etc. ) shall be determined during
specific plan preparation and review. The preservation of any
resources
reservaton t enhancement, encouraged through
habitat preservation, or replacement
Archaeology - The specific plan area will be evaluated to determine
whether archaeological resources occur within the overall plan area
and their potential significance.
Public Services/Infrastructure - Water, sewer, gas and electric
service to the specific plan area will be provided through service
extensions from existing transmission lines in the surrounding
area. An evaluation will be conducted during the development of
this specific for schools and community t ervicesdsuch as fire set-asides
tations
financing
and libraries.
Parks - An evaluation will be conducted during the development of
this specific plan to identify required park land dedication
consistent with the City Municipal Code and General Plan
requirements.
Circulation - The specific plan area circulation network will
require consideration for topography, viewshed, and for its
integration with both the conceptual future freeway alignments for
SR-118 and SR-23, and the future Broadway extension. The specific
plan shall ensure that roadway right-of-ways are protected for the
planned roadway upgrades, improvements and additions as identified
in the City's circulation plan.
Proposed Land Uses
The number of dwelling units shall not exceed 475, unless the
specific plan area property owner agrees to provide public
improvements, public services and/or financial contributions that
the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to
the community, in which event, the number of dwelling units shall
not exceed 712 . A minimum of 7 acres of land shall be designated
31
$ ,+,. "+...::.:•:::•,p;++..;... p;:•t ko•+ h' o--Y+'%:� �+�.:..•.aiL,w;:,,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,..'4,,,:.::;:S.,w'`..w'yf+•x.x�.,.r.
as Public Institutional within this specific plan area. The
appropriate amount of land to be designated as Open Space, Park,
School, or any other appropriate land use designation, will be
determined at the time of specific plan preparation or approval.
Overlay Designation - Open Space 1 (300 acres)
Rural Low ( 145 acres)
Specific Plan 3 (Deleted)
Specific Plan 9
Specific Plan 9 consists of approximately 24.8 acres under one
ownership, located in the western section of the City, north of
High Street, west of Walnut Canyon Road, and south of Casey Road.
This specific plan area consists of the City's former high school
site and contains the playing fields and classroom buildings. The
area formerly a part of the high school site, that was purchased by
the Moorpark Boys and Girls Club, is not part of this specific plan
area.
Opportunities and Constraints
Specific plan area development issues will be addressed during
specific plan preparation and subsequent review, and include:
Topography - An evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils and
other geotechnical constraints within the hillside areas of
development will be conducted during the development/review of this
plan. Consistent with City policy, grading is restricted on slopes
greater than 20 percent and development prohibited in areas where
potential hazards cannot be fully mitigated.
Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the development/review of this specific '
plan.
Viewshed - The importance and visibility of hillside horizon lines
and any prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from
surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and
review of the specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should
be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and
natural resources/hazard areas.
32