Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 1022 CC SPC ITEM 05A712 .N(6) CITY OF MOORPAR& CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of % Z2, 199 ACTION: - //12 `l AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: Honorable City Council �,� FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developme 4"' Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Principal Planner 1:D -- DATE: October 17, 1997 (CC Meeting of 10/22/97) SUBJECT: CONSIDER CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8 /SPECIFIC PLAN NO. SP -93 -1, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA -93 -1, AND ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC- 93 -3), APPLICANT: HIDDEN CREEK RANCH PARTNERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council's public hearing on October 22, 1997, is intended to focus on open space, clustering of development, and park related issues for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project. In addition, at the Council's October 8 meeting, the Council requested that staff provide responses to questions pertaining to transportation and circulation, grading, growth management, oil wells /drilling, phasing, fire protection, Guidelines for Orderly Development, schools, and processing time limits. The Council's questions are listed in the Discussion section of this report, and responses are partially addressed in this report, including attachments. Some of the questions required research that could not be completed for the October 22 meeting staff report, and will be addressed in a staff report for a subsequent meeting. BACKGROUND The first public hearing for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project was held on October 1, 1997, and the second hearing was held on October 8, 1997. Based on the noticed public hearing schedule, the focused topics for the October 22 meeting are open space, clustering of development, and park related issues. In addition to those topics, staff was requested by City Council at the October 8 meeting to provide a response to Council questions pertaining to transportation and circulation, grading, growth management, oil wells /drilling, phasing, fire protection, Guidelines for Orderly Development, schools, and processing time limits. The Council's questions are listed in the following Discussion section of this report, and responses are partially addressed in this report, including attachments. Some of the questions DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 2 required research that could not be completed for the October 22 meeting staff report, and will be addressed in a staff report for a subsequent meeting as identified below. Because several of the Council's questions were related to the various access alternatives for the Specific Plan site, staff is preparing a matrix to compare the different access alternatives, and the matrix will be provided for a subsequent meeting. DISCUSSION The staff report for the October 1 meeting provided a summary of issues that were suggested for discussion, including open space, clustering of development, and park related issues. Please refer to the staff report for the October 1 meeting for that summary. No new information is presented in this staff report pertaining to those topics. The following discussion is in response to the questions asked by Council at the October 8 meeting. Similar or related questions are grouped together. The response follows each question, or the report identifies that the response is in an attachment or will be provided in a subsequent staff report. Staff has also included further discussion in this report pertaining to the California Environmental Quality Act requirements for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) recirculation. City Council Questions from October 8, 1997, Meeting Transportation and Circulation 1. Provide background and history on the City Council's decision to not allow future extension of Campus Park Drive to the west. Identify any policy decision. Response: Staff has researched past City Council's actions pertaining to Campus Park Drive west of Princeton Avenue. In 1983, the City Council considered approval of Phases III, IV, and V of the U.S. Condominium Project, along the north side of Campus Park Drive, that had previously been approved by the County of Ventura. Excerpts from the minutes of the October 19, 1983 meeting are attached (Attachment 1) that identify discussion regarding the reduction from four -lane to two -lane right of way on Campus Park Drive west of Princeton Avenue. The determination was that a two - lane road would provide adequate access for the anticipated usage of Happy Camp Park. Resolution No. 83 -54 for the U.S. Condominium Project was adopted on November 16, 1983, and conditioned to require a major modification and a new subdivision map prior to the issuance DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 3 of any zone clearance within Phase V (located at the west end of the U.S. Condominium development). The new subdivision map was approved on February 3, 1986, and Attachment 1 includes excerpts from the conditions of approval that identify the construction requirements for Campus Park Drive west of Princeton Avenue. The full width improvements were required to be tapered down to 34 feet of paving on 43.5 feet of right of way at a point approximately 450 feet west of the Loyola Street centerline. Subsequent Council actions regarding the west end of Campus Park Drive were related to precluding the use of that roadway as an access to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Staff has provided to the City Council under separate cover additional City Council minutes and correspondence dating back to 1987 that address the Council's decision to preclude the use of Campus Park Drive for Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park access, with the exception of emergency vehicle access to Park. To summarize the City Council actions since 1987, the minutes and correspondence indicate that the Council was concerned that the County was planning park uses that would result in traffic impacts on City roadways, including Campus Park Drive and Walnut Canyon Road. The County was encouraged to participate in the development of alternative access to the Park. There is no current project being processed by the County for the lower area of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. A lease option was approved by the County in 1995 for a golf course project consisting of two 18 -hole courses; however, that option was not pursued, primarily due to issues pertaining to water availability and access. 2. Clarify the discrepancy in the total number of vehicles between the January 1997 and August /September 1997 traffic counts for the Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive intersection. Provide the Council with the full traffic count study for August /September 1997. Also explain how intersection level of service will still be "'C" (72 percent) after development is built. Response: Attachment 2 to this report provides a response to the above questions. 3. Provide information on enrollment projections (5, 10, 15 years) for Moorpark College and explain how College traffic affects the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection. What enrollment projection was used in the Traffic Study? DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 4 Response: Attachment 2 to this report provides a response to the above questions regarding traffic. Attachment 3 includes enrollment projections for Moorpark College through 1999 (no projections after 1999 are available). For the General Plan buildout scenario in the Traffic Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a projection of 17,000 was used. The highest enrollment projection on the attachment is 12,131 for Fall 1998. 4. what is County's plan regarding roadway access into Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park? What does the County General Plan Circulation Element show for roadway access? What is the amount of land (in acres) that would be impacted by the planned roadway across the Park? Where is the roadway now proposed to be located in relationship to the residential neighborhood to the south? Response: The County General Plan Year 2010 Regional Road Network, Public Facilities Appendix Figure 4.2.3, does not show any new roadways or new roadway extensions providing access to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Messenger Investment Company did file a General Plan Amendment Pre - Screening application with the County of Ventura in 1995 requesting that the County General Plan Public Facilities and 2010 Regional and Road Network Maps be amended to show one or more new roads ( an extension of Broadway, a road across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, and an extension of Campus Park Drive) . The applicant's stated reason for filing the request was to allow the project to proceed in a timely manner if and when the City of Moorpark decided that the Specific Plan should be approved and which circulation plan was appropriate to the project. The County Board of Supervisors's action was to allow a General Plan amendment application to be filed for processing to revise the 2010 Regional Road Network Map, following the City Council's action on the Specific Plan. Access to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park has been previously discussed in Response No. 1, pertaining to Campus Park Drive west of Princeton Avenue. The type of access required for the Park is dependent upon the proposed uses. The most recent proposal for lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park was two 18 -hole golf courses. If the Spring Road extension and "C" Street within Specific Plan No. 2 are constructed as four -lane arterials, the traffic from Specific Plan No. 2, Specific Plan No. 8, and a golf course project in the Park can be accommodated. The Traffic Study preparer for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Associated Transportation Engineers) has concluded that only two lanes are needed across the Park, based on DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 5 projected traffic for Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan buildout. The area of the Park that would be impacted by a new roadway is approximately 5 to 6 acres, depending upon right -of -way requirements. Attachments 2 and 3 to this report provide further responses to the above questions. Attachment 2 includes the discussion regarding the current proposed location of the roadway in lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Attachment 3 is the applicant's response describing their pre- screening application filed with the County. Attachment 4 is a letter from the County General Services Agency that provides further clarification of their comments on the Draft EIR regarding access to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park as follows: "The selection of a single access point to traverse the park, such as Broadway, or Spring Road would minimize the impact on park uses, and so is preferable. Certain combinations, properly designed and implemented, might be acceptable as well." 5. Identify whether the Spring Road /High Street intersection will be impacted by the proposal to provide westerly access to the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan from a Spring Road extension and roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Response: Attachment 2 to this report provides the response to the above question. 6. Describe the need for the roadway connecting to Collins Drive north of Moorpark College and clarify the location. Response: Attachment 3 to this report provides the applicant's response to the above question. The applicant originally proposed a roadway north of Moorpark College that would serve primarily as a driveway entrance into the community center (commercial) area of the Specific Plan. As described in Attachment 3, the community center area was relocated further to the east, which changed the length and function of the roadway north of the College. In addition, the phasing plan was revised. Originally the phasing plan that was analyzed in the Draft EIR included the full construction of Hidden Creek Drive, connecting to Broadway, in Phase 1. With the revised phasing plan, the applicant has requested to be allowed to develop the site from east to west, with the roadway north of the College serving as the secondary access for Phase A development. The applicant has recently suggested that a gate could be installed to limit the use of the road north of Moorpark College for DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 6 emergencies only. The Fire Protection District's preliminary opinion regarding the installation of a gate on this roadway is addressed in Response No. 16 in this staff report. 7. Describe why the new State Route 118 interchange at Lagoon was dropped from the project description, and where this is addressed. Response: The revision of the project description to delete a previously planned intersection at State Route 118 and Lagoon was the decision of the applicant, based on the Traffic Study, as discussed in Attachment 3 and in Volume 5 of the EIR, pages 3.6 -19, 3.6 -28, and 4 -32. The General Plan Circulation Element shows that the Specific Plan No. 8 area would be served by a new Rural Collector that would extend from Broadway to State Route 118 (reference Attachment 5). The State Route 118 interchange location on the Circulation Element exhibit is shown outside of the City limits, which is consistent with an Alamos Canyon interchange. At the conclusion of the Circulation Element update in 1992, staff was directed by Council to not include an interchange name on the Circulation Element exhibit, so as to allow consideration of either a Lagoon or an Alamos Canyon interchange. The revised land use plan /circulation system for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan no longer includes a Broadway extension and a State Route 118 interchange. Instead, westerly access is proposed from a Spring Road extension and roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, and easterly access is proposed from the east end of Campus Park Drive. These revisions would require an amendment of the General Plan Circulation Element. The Broadway extension was deleted by the applicant, because the Traffic Study prepared for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan found that there would be minimal traffic benefit from a roadway connecting to Broadway at the north end of the City. The Lagoon /State Route 118 interchange was also deleted by the applicant for similar reasons. To summarize the Traffic Study, the Lagoon /State Route 118 interchange would improve the level of service at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection. The Lagoon /State Route 118 interchange (or an Alamos Canyon connection) would not improve the level of service at other intersections in the City, such as along the New Los Angeles Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue corridor. Because the Traffic Study preparer determined that DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 7 signal operation modification and intersection improvements for the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection (such as roadway widening and lane additions) would achieve an adequate level of service of "C" or better, a new State Route interchange was identified as not required. The Lagoon /State Route 118 interchange was, however, identified as a mitigation option. In order to maintain a level of service of "C" or better along the New Los Angeles Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue corridor for the General Plan buildout traffic scenario, the Traffic Study concludes that an extension of State Route 118 as a bypass arterial west from the State Route 118 and State Route 23 freeway connection to Los Angeles Avenue west of Gabbert Road is required. This new bypass arterial will be very expensive to construct, which is the reason why the need for the bypass arterial was emphasized and a new State Route 118 interchange at Lagoon was identified as not required. 8. Identify the total vehicle trips at buildout of the Specific Plan and what happens over time (such as trips per phase). Response: Refer to the Austin -Foust response in Attachment 2. Also, page 3.6 -19 of Volume 5 of the EIR identifies that the full project buildout will generate 47,206 daily, 2,933 a.m. and 3,790 p.m. peak - hour trips. On Page 3.6 -12 of Volume 5 of the EIR is a table showing the proposed project trip generation estimates. Please note that the estimates given in the EIR are based on the land use plan at the time of Draft EIR circulation. 9. Stop sign controls are proposed for major streets. When are signals warranted? Response: Refer to the Austin -Foust response in Attachment 2 regarding traffic volumes that would typically indicate the need for a traffic signal. Also, please note that the Traffic Study identifies that Hidden Creek Drive will be designated as a through street with all side streets and the Campus Park Drive /Campus Road intersection initially being stop -sign controlled, and that the specific requirements for the internal circulation network will need to be evaluated when more detailed project plans are available. This is similar to how Tierra Rejada Road was constructed. Stop signs were initially installed at several intersections in the Mountain Meadows area that were later converted to signal controlled intersections. The Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan EIR did not include a requirement for subsequent evaluation of the appropriate DST c: \1- m \Sp- 8 \cc- Sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 8 traffic control method for all Hidden Creek Drive intersections. A mitigation measure should be added to require a traffic study, including a traffic signal warrant analysis, to be submitted with the master tentative tract map application for each phase, including intersection geometric design per City standards, to ensure that all required intersection improvements are funded in association with development project approval. A requirement for a traffic study may also need to be imposed for individual development projects within the Specific Plan, such as for the community center commercial site. 10. Provide more information on regional traffic issues. Clarify traffic impacts of the Project on State Routes 23 and 118 and what was studied in the Environmental Impact Report. Identify any planned future widening projects and whether there are any funds committed. Response: Austin -Foust has provided a partial response in Attachment 2. Additional information will be provided in the staff report for the Council's November 12 meeting. Grading 11. How much grading is required of greater than 20 percent slopes, and how much grading of less than 20 percent slopes is required? Provide an exhibit showing the different slope ranges for the area to be graded. Response: Attachment 3 provides a response to the above question /request for additional information, and the exhibit showing slopes affected by grading is included as the last page in Attachment 3 (a colored slope map will be provided along with the staff report to the City Council). Growth Management 12. Provide an update on the status of the Growth Management Ordinance and quality of life thresholds. Response: At the City Council's meeting on May 15, 1996, the Council discussed quality of life thresholds and determined which thresholds would remain as part of a growth management ordinance, which thresholds would be deleted, and which would require a new development fee to support the maintenance of the threshold. Funds were requested to be budgeted for a development impact fee study to allow the consideration of the quality of life threshold fees. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 9 Money was budgeted for fiscal year 1997 -1998, especially to address the citywide traffic impact fee; however, the fee study has not yet been initiated. A draft Request for Proposals is under preparation and will be scheduled for City Council review and then circulated to qualified consultants. The intent is to complete the fee study and adopt any associated ordinance and fee resolution prior to approval of specific plans such as Specific Plans 1, 2, 8, and 10. Resources have not yet been allocated for other aspects of a Growth Management Program. 13. Identify the total number of dwelling units constructed in the city per year and historically how the City has been affected in regard to property values? Response: Attachment 6 shows the progressive increase in the total number of dwelling units in the City since incorporation in 1983. As an example of property values, the 1989 General Plan Housing Element identifies that the cost of new detached single - family housing in Moorpark increased by 120 percent between the first quarter of 1985 and the fourth quarter of 1988. During those years of high increases in property values, there is a significant increase in the number of dwelling units constructed. The number of new dwelling units built and the price are both related to market demand. For the time period between 1985 and 1988, both production and prices were high; however, in 1991 there was a significant reduction in the number of dwelling units constructed (reference Attachment 6) and home prices were also lower during the early 1990's. The reduction in dwelling units constructed and the home prices in the early 1990's were both related to the recession. Oil Wells /Drilling 14. Provide an update on existing oil wells, drilling rights, and contamination (existing, potential, and how to mitigate) for November 12 meeting. For tank area, identify any oil contamination clean -up that has occurred and whether there have been any major spills. Response: See Attachment 3 for applicant's partial response. Further information will be provided for the Council's November 12 meeting. Representatives from Leighton and Associates will be in attendance at the November 12 meeting to respond to questions regarding potential contamination and remediation measures that would be required, as well as to update the Council regarding the DST c: \1- m \sP- 8 \cc- sP8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 10 potential for earthquake faults in the westerly area of the Specific Plan site. The Geotechnical and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report prepared by Leighton and Associates for the Draft EIR is included as Appendix B in Volume 2 of the EIR. Environmental constraints are addressed in that report beginning on page 41, and the conclusion is that localized staining of soils with crude oil can be mitigated. Phasing 15. Explain how the phasing schedule for Specific Plan No. 8 will be consistent with the phasing of development and construction of arterial roadways (such as Spring Road) within Specific Plan No. 2. Response: There is no guarantee that the phasing schedule for Specific Plan No. 2 and Specific Plan No. 8 will be consistent. If the Council concurs with the substitution of the roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park that connects to "C" Street and an extension of Spring Road, versus the Broadway extension, then an additional mitigation measure would be required to ensure that construction of improvements occurs regardless of the phasing for Specific Plan No. 2. The additional mitigation measure should require the applicant to construct the westerly access across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park and through Specific Plan No. 2 to connect to High Street and Spring Road. If the Specific Plan No. 2 applicant has already constructed the Spring Road extension and a portion of "C" Street, then the Specific Plan No. 8 applicant(s) should be required to pay a fair share of the Spring Road extension and "C" Street costs, and to pay for a fair share of all upgrades needed to those roadways to accommodate Specific Plan No. 8 traffic (such as installation of traffic signals). Fire Protection 16. Explain the Fire Protection District's involvement in review of the Specific Plan. How will residents be evacuated in an emergency? Response: Ventura County Fire Protection District comments have been sought throughout the planning process, including at a scoping meeting prior to Draft EIR preparation, during the Draft EIR and Specific Plan public review period, and following amendment of the phasing plan at the time of the Planning Commission public hearings. The DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 11 Fire Protection District has not yet had an opportunity to review the latest phasing plan submitted in September 1997; however, a copy of the plan has been provided to the District reviewer for comments. The circulation system is the same as was shown on the revised phasing plan reviewed by the Planning Commission in August 1996, including the roadway north of Moorpark College as the secondary access. Staff has received preliminary confirmation that Shonna Perry, with the Fire Protection District, will attend the Council's November 12 meeting. Ms. Perry has explained to staff that under the right conditions a gate could potentially be approved for the second access. The type of gate, locking mechanism (Knox system), and location, and the width of both the primary and secondary access, would all need to be approved by the Fire Protection District. If a gate were approved in conjunction with the Master Tentative Map for Phase A of the Specific Plan, the Council would probably want to reevaluate the appropriateness of a gate at such time that another secondary access was provided. A gate would also restrict access to the community center commercial area, which is intended to serve all of the residential areas surrounding Moorpark College. Potential fire protection impacts and mitigation measures are addressed on pages 3.10 -1 through 3.10 -7 in the Final EIR for Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Volume 5) . All of the revisions requested by the Ventura County Fire Protection District have been incorporated into the Final EIR. As stated in the Final EIR on page 3.10 -5, the applicant has identified a potential one -acre fire station site in the southern area of Planning Unit 15. Currently, however, the site that is favored by the Fire Protection District is located east of Paul Griffin Sr. Park, and is dependent upon the abandonment of the College View Avenue right of way. Guidelines for Orderly Development 17. Identify any written County position regarding the processing of the proposed project in the County. Can the applicant go to the County and request approval if City denies the Project? Response: The written position would be the Guidelines for Orderly Development. In December 1996, the County Board of Supervisors adopted revised Guidelines for Orderly Development. Attachment 7 includes the Council's resolution adopting the revised Guidelines, the Council's staff report, and the staff report for the Board of DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 12 Supervisor's December 10, 1996 meeting, which describes the history of the Guidelines, as well as the revisions that were adopted in 1996. For the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan site, the Policies Within Areas of Interest Where a City Exists (policies 9 through 12) would be applicable. Policy 11 states that urban development should be allowed only within Existing Communities as designated on the County General Plan. Since Hidden Creek Ranch is not an "Existing Community," a consistency determination with the Guidelines for Orderly Development would preclude the County from approving "urban development" within the designated Specific Plan area. The County could approve rural development, which would not require the establishment of new community sewer systems or the significant expansion of existing community sewer systems, would not result in the creation of residential lots less than two acres in area, and would not result in the establishment of commercial or industrial uses which are neither agriculturally related nor related to the production of mineral resources. The Guidelines for Orderly Development do not address second dwelling units on rural lots, and second dwelling units are allowed by the County Zoning Code. The Guidelines also do not address the many uses permitted in the County Open Space Zone, such as a golf course. 18. Discuss the relationship between this project and the Guidelines for Orderly Development, and provide information on a court case that was filed in response to a denial of a project by the County because it was not in compliance with the Guidelines for Orderly Development. Response: In 1989, Long Beach Equities, owner of property northeast of Simi Valley, commonly referred to as Marr Ranch, had a General Plan Amendment pre- screening request denied by the County of Ventura Board of Supervisors. Their application was found to be inconsistent with the Guidelines for Orderly Development, since their property was located within the Simi Valley Sphere of Influence, and consistency with the Guidelines required that the project be pursued through the City of Simi Valley. Long Beach Equities had requested to be allowed to process a County General Plan amendment to allow 249 dwelling units on approximately 133 acres, with 179 of the units on lots that would be a minimum of 8,500 square feet and 70 of the units on lots that would be a minimum of 20,000 square feet. The project was determined by the DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 13 County to be urban, because it required urban services and the lot sizes were smaller than one acre. In 1993, Long Beach Equities withdrew a second General Plan Amendment screening application, the day before the County Board of Supervisors scheduled public hearing. The second application consisted of 110 minimum one -acre lots on 214 acres; however, County staff had still recommended denial based on the location of the project site within the Simi Valley Sphere of Influence and the need for urban services (reference Attachment 7 Guidelines for Orderly Development Policies Within Spheres of Influence). Marr Ranch is not directly comparable to Hidden Creek Ranch, since the Long Beach Equities property was within the Simi Valley Sphere of Influence, and the Guidelines for Orderly Development Policies Within Spheres of Influence were applicable. The Hidden Creek Ranch property is not within the Moorpark Sphere of Influence (which does not currently extend beyond the City limits). The Guidelines for Orderly Development policies which do apply are the Policies Within Areas of Interest Where a City Exists, as described in the preceding Response No. 17. The Marr Ranch Development Agreement, approved by the City of Simi Valley in November 1994, identifies that the City of Simi Valley and Long Beach Equities were involved in extensive litigation, in which the owner challenged, among other things, the City's adoption of the Residential Building Permit Allocation System and its application to the property. The Development Agreement also identifies that the California Court of Appeal for the Second District, in Long Beach Equities, Inc. V. City of Simi Valley, 231 Cal. App.3d1016 (1991), dismissed the Long Beach Equities lawsuit on the ground that it was not ripe for adjudication. (In other words, Long Beach Equities had not pursued all of the property owner's administrative options, such as processing an application through the City of Simi Valley.) The City of Simi Valley subsequently approved a Marr Ranch Project, including a Development Agreement, as previously referenced. Schools 19. Describe high school need; ask the School District to respond. Response: A letter has been sent to the School District requesting that the District Superintendent attend the November 12 Council meeting or prepare a written response. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 14 Processing Time Limits 20. Identify any time constraints on taking action on the Specific Plan. Response: In the Third Addendum to the Agreement between Hidden Creek Ranch Partners L.P. and the City of Moorpark for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Provision of Related Services for Specific Plan No. 8 Project and Related Entitlements, the City and the applicant acknowledged that the provisions of Chapter 4.5 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code (Section 65920 et sec.) are inapplicable, because approval of the subject project requires legislative, rather than adjudicatory actions by the City Council. That Third Addendum did, however, establish a time period for Environmental Impact Report Certification. The original time period was October 18, 1995, with the exception that for every one day that the applicant was late in submitting payment to the City for invoices, the time period was extended by two days. Delayed payment for invoices resulted in an extension of the time limit for an EIR certification decision to January 23, 1998. The July 1997 EIR Agreement between the applicant and the City, to allow BonTerra Consulting to complete the Final EIR, also includes the same language as the Third Addendum to the original EIR Agreement relative to an EIR Certification decision and the fact that the project requires legislative actions by the City. Recirculation of Environmental Impact Report In the preceding questions, the City Council has requested that information be obtained from various agencies that would typically be achieved through the public review period for the Draft EIR and Specific Plan. Staff has attempted to provide the information requested by Council from various sources; however, there was insufficient time available to obtain written comments from agencies. Staff from the Ventura County Fire Protection District and the Moorpark Unified School District have been requested to attend the Council's November 12, 1997 meeting. If the City Council desires additional written responses, staff can continue to pursue these issues, or the Council may direct recirculation of the EIR to allow responsible agencies such as Caltrans, Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) , County of Ventura, Moorpark Unified School District, and Ventura County Fire Protection District to provide additional written comments on the revised project. A decision to recirculate the EIR would need to be discussed with the applicant to reach agreement on a new date for EIR certification. Currently the Agreement between the City and the applicant for EIR DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 15 preparation requires a certification decision by January 23, 1998; however, the Agreement also clarifies that the City is not required to certify the environmental impact report. Attachment 8 is an excerpt from the 1996 State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15088.5, pertaining to when recirculation of an EIR is required prior to certification. The prior staff reports also provided information regarding EIR recirculation, and the staff report for the October 1 meeting included discussion regarding what type of environmental clearance document would typically be prepared for a project revised after certification of an EIR (examples include Addendum to an EIR, Supplement to an EIR, and Subsequent EIR). A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review but before certification. New information can include changes in the project and is considered significant if the public is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project's proponents have declined to implement (reference Attachment 8). As stated in Section 15088.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, a decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. RECOMMENDATION Accept public testimony and continue the public hearing to a scheduled special City Council meeting on November 12, 1997, for focused discussion of Specific Plan affordable housing, school sites, agricultural land, various property ownerships, and other issues. Attachments: 1. Correspondence and City Council Minutes pertaining to width of Campus Park Drive west of Princeton Avenue 2. Responses from BonTerra Consulting and Austin - Foust, Inc., dated October 15, 1997 3. Letter from Gary Austin, Messenger Investment Company, dated October 15, 1997, and including exhibit from Haaland Group showing slopes under and over 20 percent slopes 4. Letter from County General Services Agency dated October 13, 1997 5. City General Plan Circulation Element Figure 2, Highway Network 6. Table showing Moorpark population and dwelling units for January 1 of each year from 1980 through 1997 DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council October 17, 1997 Page 16 7. City Council Resolution No. 96 -1262, City Council Staff Report (for December 18, 1996 meeting), and County Staff Report (for December 10, 1996 meeting) pertaining to Revised Guidelines for Orderly Development 8. Section 15088.5 of CEQA Guidelines pertaining to recirculation of an EIR 9. Reduced copy of revised Hidden Creek Ranch Land Use Plan dated September 1997 DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.3 ATTACHMENT 1 �e it�ar mee�►n 0-� ICI $ CI- Cpunci l on �c o�7c�r 3 YJ"$J�% u.cJ. Conc�om�niu The Mayor then declared the hearing to be opened, and the following persons addressed the Council regarding the subject matter: Ed Bodnar, 6830 N. Westwood Street, Moorpark, speaking for himself and also for Mike Fleming, of the Homeowners Association; in favor of project. Marci Butler, 6425 E. Westwood, Moorpark, urging up- grading of building standards in the project. Mr. Vein, in rebuttal, stated that the project is designed for and will be built to above minimum standards. There being no further business, the public hearing was closed by unanimous consent. .- There was discussion regarding the reduction from 4 -lane to 2 -lane right-of-way on Campus Park Drive past Princeton Avenue, with the City Manager reporting that he had discussed the matter with the County Public Works Agency representatives and had been informed that the 4 -lane condition was imposed before the present General Plan was adopted; that it has now been determined that a 2 -lane road will provide adequate access for the anticipated usage of Happy Camp Park, which is located at the terminus of Campus Park Drive. After discussion it was moved by Councilmember Beaulieu that the City Manager and the City Attorney be directed to prepare a reso- lution of approval with all of the conditions as negotiated with Mr. Vein, for presentation to the City Council at its next regular meeting, November 2, 1983, and to appear on the agenda for consid- eration after the presentation on roofing materials to be made by Building Industries Association representatives. The Mayor called for a second to the motion, and there being none she handed her gavel to Councilmember Harper (who then presided over the meeting) and seconded the motion made by Councilmember Beaulieu. The motion was then carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmember Beaulieu, Mayor Yancy- Sutton and Councilmember Harper; NOES: Councilmember Straughan; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: Councilmember Prieto. Councilmember Harper returned the gavel to the Mayor, who then presided over the meeting. 7.C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Adoption of General Plan: 1. Land Use Element 2. Circulation Element N CONDITIONS FOR: Tract 4170 DATE: February 3, 1986 CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS APPLICANT: U. S. Condominium PAGE: 3 22. All public roads within the tract, including Campus Park Drive, shall be dedicated on the tract map as required, and improved to include concrete curb and gutter, street lights, sidewalks, traffic signs and striping, and paving according to City and applicable standards. Prior to recordation, the developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete the improvements, and shall post bonds in the amount to be approved by the City Engineer guaranteeing construction of improvements. The applicable City of Moorpark standard plates are as follows: Plate B -4A: Marymount Street, Loyola Street. Plate B -4B : Queens Court, Luther Court, Trojan Court, Wheaten Court. Campus Park Drive shall be constructed as follows (refer to Exhibit "A" for conceptual sketch) : East of the Princeton Avenue ECR, Campus Park Drive has been constructed per Plate B -2B. West of the Princeton Avenue ECR, the street shall be constructed such that the full width improvements taper down to 34 feet of paving on 43.5 feet of right -of -way at a point approximately 450 feet west of the Loyola Street centerline. Lane -drop signing and striping shall be installed per CalTrans standards east of Princeton Avenue. Smooth transitions between Princeton Avenue and Loyola Street shall provide the following: At Loyola Street, a 5 -foot bike lane eastbound, a 12 -foot travel lane eastbound, a 10 -foot left turn pocket westbound, a 12 -foot travel lane westbound, and a 5 -foot bike lane westbound; at Princeton Avenue, an 8 -foot bike lane eastbound, two 12 -foot travel lanes eastbound, a 10 -foot t striped median lane, a 22 -foot ± travel lane westbound, and an 8 -foot bike lane westbound. An 8 -foot sidewalk shall be constructed on the north side of Campus Park Drive east of Loyola Street. The right -of -way lane on the north side of Campus Park Drive between Loyola Street and Princeton Avenue shall be at the back of sidewalk. Smooth transitions west of Loyola Street shall provide the following: At Loyola Street, a 5-foot-bike lane eastbound, a 12 -foot travel lane easbound, a 10 -foot left turn- pocket eastbound, a 12 -foot travel lane westbound-, and 9-- 5- font- -dike lane westbound; at a_ - point approximately 450 feet west of Loyola Street centerline, a CONDITIONS FOR: Tract 4170 DATE: February 3, 1986 APPLICANT: U. S. Condominium PAGE: 4 5 -foot bike lane eastbound, a 12 -foot travel lane eastbound, a 12 -foot travel lane westbound, and a 5 -foot bike lane westbound. The right -of -way line on the north side of Campus Park Drive west of Loyola Street shall be 1.5 feet behind face of curb or behind the flood control drainage structure, whichever is appropriate as determined by the City Engineer. 23. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Cityof Moorpark a contribution for the Los Angeles Avenue Improvement Area of Contribution. The actual deposit shall be the current Los Angeles Area of Contribution applicable rate at the time the building permit is issued. 24. In conjunction with recordation, the developer shall dedicate to the City on the final map the access rights adjacent to Campus Park Drive along the entire frontage of the property, except for approved access roads as delineated on the approved tentative map. 25. Prior to recordation, grading plans and hydraulic calculations shall be sub- mitted to the City Engineer for approval. So that building pads, street rights -of -way and streets are protected from 100 -, 50 -, and 10 -year storms, respectively, drainage plans and calculations shall indicate the following conditions before and after development: Quantities of water, rates of flow, major water courses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems and drainage course. 26. Prior to recordation of each phase of development, developer shall submit improvement plans for water and sewer facilities prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall enter into an agreement with the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 to complete the improvements, shall obtain water and sewer "Unconditional Will Serve" letters, and shall post a bond in an amount approved by the District guaranteeing construction of improvements. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any dwelling unit in the tract the developer shall pay Moorpark County Sanitation District necessary fees for sewage treatment purposes precedent to receiving sewage treatment capacity, shall enter into an appropriate agreement, and shall obtain an "Unconditional Will Serve" letter from Waterworks District No. 1, agent for Moorpark County Sanitation District. 28. Ornamental streetlight standards shall be installed; and all energy charges shall be paid by developer until the area appears on service area tax rolls and for the first year thereafter, over and above anticipated tax revenue. 29. Cut and fill slopes shall be maximum-2:1, except for minor slopes -less than five (5) feet in height and approved by the- City- Engineer and the — -- -Developer's Soils Engineer. ATTACHMENT 2 20'30dd SS29 ZSS PTL 82:02 L6, ST 190 Attachment 2 2. Clarify the discrepancy in the total number of vehicles between the 4anuary 1997 and August/September traffic counts for the Campus Park DrivefCollins Drive intersection. Provide the Council with full traffic sti.ldy for August/September 1997. Also explain how Intersection level of sere will still be "C" (72 percent) after development is built. See response provided by Austin -Foust Associates. 3. Provide information on enrollment projections (5, 10, 15 years) for Moorpark College and explain how College traffic affects the Collins Drive /Camp s Park Drive intersection. What enrollment projection was used in the traffic: study? Enrollment projections provided by Moorpark College are attached. These projections are through spring 1999. These student growth projections assume development of the Dos Vientos project in Newbury Park and the Hidde p Creek project in Moorpark. In summary, Fall 1996 student enrollment wa.,: 11,661 students; Fall 1997 enrollment is projected at 11,865; Fall 1998 enrol ment is projected at 12,131. The college indicates that from 1996/1997 to 199711 c 8 year - round enrollment growth is projected increase by 1.8 percent; from 199 8998 to 1998/1999, enrollment growth is projected to increase by 2.3 percent. Traffic assumptions for Moorpark College used in the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan traffic analysis are identified in the attached response provided b,i Austin - Foust Associates. a. What is the County's plan regarding roadway access into Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park? What does the County General Plan Circulation Element show for roadway access? What is the amount of land (in acmes) that would be impacted by the planned roadway acres the park? Where is toe road now proposed to be located In relationship to the residential neighljorhood to the south? As addressed in the draft EIR and responses to comments on the draft SIR, the proposed Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan project originally propaped the extension of Broadway Road through Happy Camp Canyon Regional Piirk. The City of Moorpark General Plan depicts an east -west roadway extension thrijugh the park. The traffic analysis prepared for the Hidden Creek Ranch project indicated that there would be limited traffic benefit with the Broadway Road connection (low traffic volumes). Based on further discussions between city staff, the is project applicant, and the project applicant for Specific Plan No. 2 (located west of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park), the city Planning Commission was requ sted to RE4EIVED 20'39dd 9929 TSS bTL 62:0T L6, ST la0 consider the extension of a road to Spring Road through the lower portii�n of the park. The extension of Broadway through Happy Camp Canyon Regional ! Park is assumed in the City of Moorpark General Plan but not in the County of Ventura General Plan. To allow for the extension of a roadway (either Spring Road or Broadway Road) through the park will require the county to approve an county General Plan amendment to include this roadway on the Public Facilities Map and II 2010 Regional Road Network Map of the General Plan. The project applillant has submitted a screening application to the county for this necessary General Plan amendment. Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park has a county General Plan designation of "Open Space" and a zoning designation of "O-S-160 ac.'il Public roadways are exempt from the county's Zoning Ordinance and are, consi�quently, consistent with open space uses if a roadway is found to be consistent with the policies of the county General Plan, The City of Moorpark believes ghat the extension of Broadway Road or Spring Road is consistent with these policies. At the time the draft EIR for the Hidden Creek Ranch project was being lrepared and released for public review, the County of Ventura had entered into a two -year option with a developer to develop two golf courses on the lower 700 picres of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. The proposal, had it been developev, would have allowed two 18 -hole regulation golf courses, a driving range, clubh?use/pro shop and ancillary golf course uses, a public trail system, and parking an(I staging areas. The golf course proposal included access into the park from Broadway with the potential for emergency access from Campus Park Drive (west). Although this developer's option for development of the project in Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park expired, as noted in this proposal vehicular access into the park was tanned by the county. A Spring Road Study (August 1996) was prepared for Planning Corlmission evaluation to determine if a Spring Road connection would result in any new significant environmental effects that would not occur with the Broadway Road extension or that could not be mitigated to a level that is considered I,4ss than significant. The Spring Road study noted that a connection would result qny new significant impacts that could not be mitigated. Three conceptual alignments were assessed. Alignments A, B, and C extend from the western to eastern bo 4ndaries of lower Happy Camp Canyon. Alignments A and B (from east to we #t) were located approximately 200 feet north of the southern boundary of the Fork and terminated approximately 1,600 feet north of the southern boundary of t$e park. Alignment C (from east to west) was located approximately 300 feet north of the park's southern boundary and terminated approximately 1,600 feet nort: of the parks southern boundary. For all three alignments, the Spring Road cone ction's 2 b0'30Ud SS29 ZSS VTL 0b:0t 2,6, ST 100 ingress /egress at the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan site would occ I r in the same location. For Alignment A and B, the ingress /egress point at the Spec fic Plan No. 2 site would have occurred either 200 feet or 300 feet north of Wr park's southern boundary. Alignment A curved northeasterly for its entire alignment within Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Park acreage south of Alignment A was approximatlely 34.5 acres. Alignment B ran generally parallel in a east -west direction to the ; putherly boundary to the park, then curved northeasterly to connect to the Hidde r Creek Ranch Specific Plan site. Park acreage south of Alignment B was apprc imately 25.7 acres. The curvature of Alignment C was similar to Alignment A and �esulted in approximately 32.7 acres south of the roadway. i All three conceptual alignments would have allowed for a four -lane roadway within a 94-foot-wide right -of -way. This right -of -way would permit two 16- foot -wide travel lanes and one 8 -foot -wide landscape /sidewalk area on either side of a 14 -foot -wide landscape median. However, the expected traffic volumes on the Spring Road connection would only require a two -lane roadway, as addressed in th(� Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan EIR. Identification of the roadway connection s,� a four - lane roadway was provided in this study report as a worst -case ana sis. A pedestrian /equestrian undercrossing would be provided where Happ Camp Canyon Road, an existing private paved access road through the park, cro,sed the proposed Spring Road connection. An at -grade crossing with stop signs . t Happy Camp Canyon Road would be provided. Happy Camp Canyon Road (Camp us Park Drive [west]) would not be improved nor was it proposed to provide acre s to the proposed Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan project. No other improvements to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park were proposed as part of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan project. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Hidden Creek Specific Plan project to the City Council with the Spring Road connection. The lanning Commission indicated that the alignment of this roadway should be move further north of the existing residences on Hastings, Lafayette, and East Cipbridge Streets. A revised conceptual alignment of the Spring Road connection'through lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park extending from Specific Plan P. 8 to Specific Plan No. 2 was identified. The alignment is, at the west (at its connection to Specific Plan No. 2) approximately 800 feet north of existing residences. This is an increased distanced of approximately 500 to 600 feet (when compared to the previous Alignments A, B, and C). This revised alignment woulcil impact approximately 5.94 acres of the park; approximately 48.6 acres would be located between the edge of the road alignment and the park's southern boundary. This proposed revised alignment would not result in any new significant envirc mental impacts that were not identified in the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan JEIR. �M nn-_i S0'39dd SS29 TSS btL TV:OT L6, ST la0 5. Identify whether the Spring Road/High Street intersection will be imp!; ted by the proposal to provide westerly access to the Hidden Creek Ranch pacific Plan from a Spring Road extension and roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Please refer to the response provided by Austin -Foust Associates. 8. Identify the total vehicle trips at buildout of the Specific Plan aild what happens over time (such as trips per phase). Please refer to the response provided by Austin -Foust Associates. 9. Stop sign controls are proposed for major streets. When are signals warranted? Please refer to the response provided by Austin -Foust Associates. 10. Provide more Information on regional traffic Issues. Clarify traffic im0acts of the project on State Route 23 and 118 and what was studiecll in the Environmental Impact Report. Identify any planned widening projelcts and whether there are any funds committed. Se a Ak► *tirr - F06A!>+ ree'po ns e . 15. Explain how the phasing schedule for Specific Plan No. 8 will be coTsistent with the phasing of development and construction of arterial roadways (such as Spring Road) within Specific Plan No. 2. As previously addressed in the response to question 8 regarding the phasing of infrastructure improvements for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plaril (No. 8) project, the buildout of the site is expected to occur over several years (pro"bly 10 to 15 years)_ While market conditions may ultimately dictate phasing, necessary infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate the onsite development will need to be in place prior to the occupancy of these dwelling units. Infra %ructure improvements will be phased with development. Construction of the Sprilg Road extension through Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park and its connection to the Specific Plan No, 2 site would not be needed at the initiation of the Hiddeh Creek Ranch project as development is proposed to occur in an east to west direction. It is expected that development of Specific Plan No. 2 site would be underwi�y at the time that the extension of Spring Road would be needed for both Specific Plan projects. However, as noted above, development of the Hidden Creek"i Ranch Project will be conditioned to provide the necessary infrastructure improvements to a rn nn- i rr cn_Trr. T, cc nT IrrT YrT inT 90'3EJdd SS29 TSS PTL TV:OT L6, ST lac I I i continue ongoing development of the site regardless of the timing of the ;)specific Plan No. 2 site. i 5 QGI - 4nI!I.d CCCQ— TCC —bT/ PP :MT /G.G.T /CT IGIT HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Responses to Transportation and Circulation Issues Raised at October 8, 1997 Council Hearing Prepared for: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 RECEIVED OCT 15 1997 amity of Moorpark October 15, 1997 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Responses to Transportation and Circulation Issues Raised at October 8, 1997 Council Hearing The following are responses to transportation and circulation questions and issues raised during the October 8, 1997 public hearing regarding the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan project. The responses are numbered according to the draft October 13, 1997 Agenda Report that was prepared by The City. QUESTION 2 - COLLINS /CAMPUS PARK INTERSECTION AFA prepared a "Before- After" evaluation of the re- phasing of the traffic signal at Collins and Campus Park Drives which revealed that a substantial improvement in the traffic flow had been achieved. When this information was presented to the City Council, a question arose since the "After" traffic volumes appeared to have dropped, whereas the school population was increasing. This apparent inconsistency is addressed here. Secondly, the City Council raised a question of how LOS "C" would be maintained at this same intersection after Hidden Creek Ranch added so much traffic. This issue is also examined. Issue 1 - Before -After Analysis Hourly traffic for the "Before" condition (January 1997), compared to the "After" condition (August- September 1997) are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 is traffic northbound on Collins Drive (south of Campus Park Drive), while Figure 2 shows traffic exiting Moorpark College. This comparison shows that the current traffic volume is practically unchanged. However, the "problem" with the peak hour comparison is that the peak hour occurs at different times. On Mondays and Wednesdays the peak hour begins at 7:00 AM, whereas on Tuesdays and Thursdays the peak hour begins at 8:00 AM. Unfortunately the peak hour data used in the 'Before- After" report compares the same "hour" in the After as the Before condition. This, in fact, does result in a shifting of the peak hour which distorts a true comparison of the peak traffic condition. To remove the effect of this shifting of peak hours on different days a second evaluation has been prepared. This analysis compares the peak 30 minutes before with the peak 30 minutes after period, Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Responses to Transportation and Circulation Issues 380016.tn regardless of the actual start time of those periods. A 30 minute period was chosen since the peak traffic really occurs during a half hour period and use of a one hour period also distorts the comparison in favor of the "after" condition. These results continue to show a marked improvement on LOS (0.92 to 0.70) while the peak volumes remain essentially unchanged. BEFORE /AFTER LOS COMPARISON* (Peak 30 minute period) INTERSECTION Before After Collins at Campus Park AM PM AM PM 0.92 0.50 0.70 0.42 Issue 2 - How Can the Intersection of Collins and Campus Park Drive Remain LOS 1101 After the Project is Built? The project will add both a significant increase in traffic and capacity to the existing intersection. Figures 3.6 -13 and 3.6 -14 in the EIR show year 2010 peak hour volumes without Hidden Creek Ranch while Figures 3.6 -17 and 3.6 -18 show the same, with traffic from Hidden Ranch. Comparison of these figures show Hidden Creek Ranch adds considerable traffic to the intersection but in a direction that is in the reverse of the existing flow. In other words, in the morning while traffic flows into Moorpark College, it flows out of Hidden Creek Ranch. For example, during the AM peak hour approximately two- thirds of the Hidden Creek Ranch traffic flows outbound while external traffic flows into Moorpark College. This allows Hidden Creek Ranch to take advantage of existing but unused intersection capacity in the outbound direction in the morning peak period. A similar situation occurs in the afternoon but to a lesser degree, when 60 percent of project traffic flows back in while Moorpark College is exiting. However, taking advantage of surplus off - directional capacity is not the main reason an LOS "C" will be maintained. The project will add capacity in the form of a new "free" northbound right -turn lane and a second westbound left -turn lane. The "free" northbound lane will accommodate the heavy inbound Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Responses to Transportation and Circulation Issues 380016.tn flow (i.e., destined for Moorpark College in the AM and Hidden Creek Ranch in the PM) while the added capacity afforded by a second left -turn lane will accommodate the outbound flow. In a sense, Hidden Creek Ranch is providing an additional inbound and outbound lane at the Collins- Campus Park Drive intersection to accommodate its traffic. QUESTION 3 - COLLEGE ENROLLMENT Moorpark College indicates they expect only an increase of 470 students (2.3 percent) through year 1999. The traffic model, calibrated for 1994, assumed an increase of 2,660 students from year 1994 to year 2000. This is a 26.6 percent increase. The traffic model assumes even more aggressive growth, up to 17,000 trips by year 2010 (i.e., a 70 percent increase over the 1994 base year). A comparison of the traffic model's assumed growth, with Moorpark College's projections, indicates the traffic model is very conservative. For example, the traffic model's assumed growth up to year 2000 is significantly greater than Moorpark College's actual projections. This is not meant to cast suspicion on the model, but merely to report the conservative nature of the growth assumptions regarding Moorpark College enrollment. Moorpark College affects the Collins- Campus Park Drive intersection in precisely the reverse order of Hidden Creek Ranch. That is, when Moorpark College students arise Hidden Creek Ranch residents are leaving and vice versa. These "compatible" traffic patterns take maximum advantage of available roadway capacity. QUESTION 5 - SPRING /HIGH INTERSECTION IMPACTS In 1996 a supplemental traffic analysis was conducted by Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) to examine the impacts associated with the potential extension of Spring Road through Happy Camp Regional Park. The results, which were summarized in a technical report that was presented to the Moorpark Planning Commission in August 1996, indicate that acceptable levels of service would be maintained at the intersection of High Street and Spring Road in both the near -term (year 2000) and long - range (year 2015) if a Spring Road extension were to access the Hidden Creek Ranch development. QUESTION 8 - PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Responses to Transportation and Circulation Issues 380016.tn Upon buildout of the project a total of about 47,000 daily trips can be expected to be generated. This general statement, while true, severely overstates any increase in trips particularly on the surrounding circulation system, particularly the freeway system. Over 16,000 of the 47,000 trips are commercial retail trips generated by the neighborhood shopping center(s). These types of trips generally do not use the freeway. For example, how many times do you get on a freeway to go to the grocery store? Similarly, retail trips involve what is known in the traffic industry as "double counting." A trip is defined as either an origin or destination. Therefore, a single shopping trip originating anywhere within the specific plan area and ending at the shopping center is counted as two trips. Yes, that is right, two trips! One trip is the origin, at home, the other is the destination, at the shopping center. However, these two trips did not leave the specific plan area. Therefore, simply using the project's overall trip generation to forecast increased traffic on the freeways results in a gross exaggeration. The City's traffic model does deal with this issue of double counting and trips that remain within the specific plan area that do not impact the regional transportation system. With that explanation of overall trip generation and caution in interpretation of these figures, it is accurate to report that the project anticipates generating roughly 42 percent of its total traffic (i.e., 20,000 ADT out of a total buildout of 47,000 ADT) by year 2000 and the traffic study has been prepared with such a phasing plan in mind. QUESTION 9 - SIGNALIZATION Generally speaking, an arterial street such as Hidden Creek Ranch Road, can be anticipated to function satisfactorily with a four -way stop (or all -way stop) control up to a volume of 10,000 ADT. When the traffic exceeds about 10,000 then delays during peak hours will start to become noticeable and the minimum warrants indicating the need for signals will be exceeded at the higher volume side street intersections. The minimum warrant for signals occurs when the volume exceeds 8,000 to 9,000 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Responses to Transportation and Circulation Issues 380016.tn ADT on Hidden Creek Ranch Drive but actual need, as evidenced by delay, etc. generally occurs when volumes exceed 10,000 ADT. QUESTION 10 - REGIONAL IMPACTS (partial response) The traffic study utilized the Moorpark Traffic Model which anticipated that implementation of regional transportation improvements would be tied closely to their need. For example, Route 23 improvements (i.e., widening to six lanes) are included in the model, but will this improvement really occur? About all that can be stated at this point is that Route 23 is a regionally identified CMP deficiency whose widening is being actively pursued for inclusion in the RTIP by all agencies involved. Is this a guarantee? No, of course not, but nevertheless it is a strong indication that something is likely to be done, and its assumption for inclusion in the traffic model a realistic one. The traffic model basically balances development with transportation capacity and, while providing no assurance, the interrelationship and necessity of one with the other does tend to validate the reasonableness of such an assumption. Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan 5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Responses to Transportation and Circulation Issues 380016.tn 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 0 1,000 800 600 400 200 COLLINS S/O CAMPUS PARK - NB HOURLY VOLUME VF OCT' v 7:00 am 3:00 pm JANUARY 1997 DAY — — — — WED AUG 97 — — — — THUR AUG 97 MON AUG 97 TUES AUG 97 - -- - - - FRI AUG 97 z W a W U x - --w 1,200 1,000 M 600 M 200 0- 7:00 am EV, OCT 6.1991 COLLINS S/O CAMPUS PARK - SB HOURLY VOLUME �' / ` r •• el P- 0100, -1 / •• �� `/- • V 3:00 pm DAY JANUARX 1997 - - - - ' WED AUG 97 — — — THUR AUG 97 - - - - - - FRI AUG 97 �'6E/Ze6 — MON AUG 97 — - — TUES AUG 97 ATTACHMENT 3 Oct -15 -97 03:04P messenger investmentco. 714 546 -1050 P.02 j/t MESSENGER October 15, 1997 Mr. Nelson Miller Director of Community Development CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Responses to Comments at the October 8 Specific Plan No. 8 Public Hearing Dear Nelson: The purpose of this letter and attachments is to respond to comments by Council members and the public at the October 8 public hearing. If you have any questions regarding any of the information contained in this letter and attachments, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, HIDDEN CREEK RANCH PARTNERS � in Gary Austin Vice President Enclosures cc: Dana Privitt, BonTerra 959 SOUTH COAST DRIVE, SUITE 490 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 (714) 546.1300 / FAX (714) 546 -1050 OCT 15 '97 15:12 714 546 1050 PAGE.02 Oct -15 -97 03:04P messenger investmentco_ 714 546 -1050 P_03 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN HCR Responses To Public Comments October 8 Public Hearing 10/15/97 The following questions were raised at the October 8th City Council public hearing on the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (SP No. 8). City staff asked Hidden Creek Ranch Partners ( "HCR ") to review these questions and respond where we have information that may be helpful to Council. Our responses to Council's questions are as follows: 1. 0. Provide background and history on City Council's decision to not allow future extension of Campus Park Drive. Identify any policy decision. R. Most of Campus Park Drive was constructed as a four lane "arterial." No homes front on to the street. However, in 1986 the Council decided to reduce the width of paving of the portion of Campus Park Drive northwest of East Loyola Street. This decision served to 1) discourage the future use of Campus Park Drive as a primary access road to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park (Happy Camp), and 2) discourage future urban growth north of the existing City boundary. In 1992, the General Plan Update assigned specific plan designations to Hidden Creek Ranch (SP No. 8) and the JBR property (SP No. 2) and also added a road between Broadway and the 118 Freeway that crossed Happy Camp and SP No. 8. Because of these specific plan designations, it seems both appropriate and necessary for Council to review its past circulation assumptions and policies as they relate to the 1992 revised General Plan and information provided in the Draft EIR traffic studies for SP No. 8. Some of the traffic related issues needing Council's consideration are listed below: • First, the EIR traffic studies for SP No. 8 show that project traffic impacts will be mitigated if multiple connections to SP No. 8 are provided. For example, if Campus Park Drive (west) is extended and the Spring Road connection is made through SP No. 2, peak A.M. and P.M. traffic impacts to the Collins- Campus Park Drive intersection are reduced by approximately 35 %. • Second, all 15 parcels totalling over 790 acres on the west side of SP No. 8 include a 64 foot road access easement from the end of Campus Park Drive (west) through Happy Camp to the parcels. This easement is currently an improved asphalt road and is used daily by the property owners and their employees. Until a suitable access alternative is provided, these property owners have the right to use this road. In other words, this road must be allowed to connect to Campus Park Drive (west) for a number of years. • Third, if the Moorpark Unified School District desires a second high school site located within SP No. 8, multiple access roads into the project would make it easier for both existing and future residents to reach the high school site. OCT 15 '97 15:13 714 546 1050 PAGE.03 Oct -15 -97 03:04P messenger investmentco. 714 546 -1050 P.04 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Responses to Comments October 15, 1997 • Fourth, the County Board of Supervisors has approved a General Plan Amendment Screening Application to consider a change to its General Plan Circulation Element to consider one or more public roads within Happy Camp, but only after the City has completed its deliberations on SP No. 8. 2. Q. Provide information on enrollment projections (5, 10, 15 years) for Moorpark College and how College traffic affects the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection. What enrollment projection was used in the Traffic Study? R. The attached memorandum from the Office of the President of Moorpark College provides a description of their enrollment projections. Their growth projections are to some degree dependent in part on the availability of adequate student parking to accomodate their proposed growth in student enrollments. 3. 0. what is County's plan regarding roadway access into Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park? What does the County General Plan Circulation Element show for roadway access? What is the amount of land (in acres) that would be impacted by the planned roadway across the Park? Where is the roadway now proposed to be located in relationship to the residential neighborhood to the south? R. The amount of the 3,700 acre Happy Camp Park land that would be impacted by the proposed roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park ( "Happy Camp ") is approximately 5 -6 acres, depending on the right -of -way requirements specified by the City. Currently the County has no roads shown on its General Plan Circulation Element impacting Happy Camp. The County does have plans to develop recreational facilities, preferably one or more golf courses, in lower Happy Camp. (For a historical discussion of the County's park development plans, see Draft EIR, volume II, Scoping Meeting Minutes of 03/02/94.) County GSA has a memorandum commenting on the proposed plan in the draft EIR (letter #8). Other letters from County agencies include a memorandum from the Planning Division (letter #9) and a letter from County Planning Director Keith Turner (letter #10). The attached memo dated 10/13/97 from County GSA - Recreation Services updates their earlier memo and indicates that either a Broadway or Spring Road connection would be acceptable as well as certain road combinations, properly designed and implemented. --2-- OCT 15 '9? 15:13 ?14 54F IASA Par,F as Oct -15 -97 03:04P messenger investmentco. 714 546 -1050 P.05 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Responses to Comments October 15, 1997 The Board of Supervisors also agreed in February, 1996, to consider an amendment to its General Plan Circulation Element concerning one or more roads to be located in Happy Camp Park after the City completes its deliberations on SP No. 8. 4. Q. How much grading is required of greater than 20 percent slopes, and how much grading of less than 20 percent slopes is required? Provide an exhibit showing the different slope ranges for the area to be graded. R. The exhibit provided by Haaland Group (under separate cover) shows the revised total acres of the areas less than and more than 20% natural slopes resulting from the revised land use plan. The total acres "more than 20%" impacted by the revised land use plan has been reduced by approximately 30 acres. This is because the Lagoon Road connection is no longer proposed and because less grading is proposed on the west side of the specific plan area. 5. Q. Provide an update on the status of the Growth Management Ordinance and quality of life thresholds. R. Information will be provided by City staff. 6. 0. Provide more information on regional traffic issues_ Clarify traffic impacts of project on State Routes 23 and 118 and what was studied. Identify any planned future widening projects (Caltrans plans). R. Information will be provided by Austin -Foust Associates. 7. 0. Provide an update on existing oil wells, drilling rights, and contamination (existing, potential, and how to mitigate) for November 12 meeting. For tank area, identify any oil contamination clean -up that has occurred and whether there have been any major spills. R. All mineral rights under the properties included in SP No. 8 are owned by Nuevo Energy Company (Nuevo). They purchased the mineral rights from Unocal approximately one year ago. HCR has no ownership interest or direct control over these mineral rights. -- 3 - OCT i5 19? 15:14 71 A ';AA 1 aSA Pof:p MCI- Oct -15 -97 03:05P messenger investmen-t.co. 714 546 -1050 P.06 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Responses to Comments October 15, 1997 The active oil extraction activities within the boundaries of SP No. 8 involve approximately eight wells on the southeastern boundary of fee land owned by HCR. There is also a "tank farm" facility that serves to separate the crude oil from the formation water that is recovered with the crude oil when it is extracted. The crude oil is conveyed from the tank farm by pipelines to buyers. The formation water is re- injected back into the oil bearing strata by means of one of the non - producing wells. None of the eight wells or the tank farm are within the area proposed for development by HCR. This area is designated "Open Space" on HCR's proposed land use plan. The existing oil wells are part of the "Oak Park Field ", which was developed by Unocal over the last 40 years. Historical records indicate that each of these wells produces between 2 and 10 barrels per day). Nuevo operates under the authority granted by County Conditional Use Permit No. 23 issued in 1948. This permit has no "sunset' provision and very few restrictions on oil extraction activities. If the City were to annex Hidden Creek Ranch, Nuevo would still have the right to extract oil under County CUP No. 23. Nuevo also owns two blanket easements on the east side of SP No. 8 and approximately 31 drilling island easements distributed across the SP No. 8 area. (Three additional drilling island easements are located within the Griffin tract /Campus Hills area). So far, none of the drilling island easements within the SP No. 8 area have been used for exploration purposes, according to State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas. A °Geotechnical and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment" of the property owned by HCR was conducted by Leighton & Associates dated 5/8/95 (See Draft EIR, Volume 2). The report stated that localized staining of soils with crude oil was observed on site. The report mentions no major oil contamination or major clean up efforts taken on site. It also described the procedures to be followed when oil wells are abandoned or when the area containing the oil wells is proposed for development. HCR does not propose to develop the area of their property where the eight Oak Park Field wells are located and have kept the area of proposed development well away from the existing oil extraction facilities and wells. Construction of the main east side access road (Hidden Creek Drive) from the eastern terminus of Campus Park Drive to the Phase A development area may impact one existing oil well (not on HCR property). Abandonment of this well, if required, will be accomplished in compliance with state and federal regulations and other relevant state and federal requirements. Any other oil exploration, recovery or abandonment plans would be decided by Nuevo, not HCR. (For additional information on the subject and on land use planning in urban oil producing areas, -- 4 -- OCT 15 '97 15:14 714 546 1050 PAGE.06 Oct -15 -97 03:05P messenger investmentco. 714 546 -1050 P.07 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Responses to Comments October 15, 1997 see the Department of Conservation letter dated 3/16/94 and other information in Appendices A and B of the Draft EIR.) 8. Q. Clarify the discrepancy in the total number of vehicles between the January 1997 and August /September 1997 traffic counts for the Campus Park Drive /Collins Drive intersection. Provide the Council with the full traffic count study for August /September 1997. Also explain how intersection level of service will still be "C" (72 percent) after development is built. R. This information will be provided by Austin -Foust Associates. 9. 0. Explain how the phasing schedule for Specific Plan No. 8 will be consistent with the phasing of development and construction of arterial roadways (such as Spring Road) within Specific Plan No. 2. R. There has been no attempt to connect the phasing of SP No. 8 with SP No. 2. If there is no Spring Road extension to connect to in SP No. 2 when HCR is ready to extend Hidden Creek Drive west of the Phase A area, a suitable road connection satisfactory to the Ventura County Fire Protection District and the City will be a required condition of the SP No. 8 Master Tentative Maps. If no adequate road connection can be provided, the City will not allow the project to proceed. 10. Q. Explain the Fire Protection District's involvement in review of the Specific Plan. How will residents be evacuated in an emergency? R. The Ventura County Fire Protection District has been involved in the proposed project by 1) commenting in the draft EIR (letter #17), and by responding both verbally and in writing to questions and inquiries by City staff and HCR. The District has no objections to the proposed project so long as their requirements are incorporated into the conditions of approval and are adhered to. Emergency evacuation of this area of the City would mainly utilize the 118 freeway by means of the Princeton Avenue and Collins Drive freeway interchanges, Los Angeles Avenue, and the Spring Road extension to the downtown area. Farm roads also connect the west side of SP No. 8 to Broadway across lower Happy Camp Park. -5 OCT 15 '97 15:15 714 546 1050 PAGE.07 Oct -15 -97 03:05P messenger, investmentco_ 714 546 -1050 P_08 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Responses to Comments October 15, 1997 11. Q. Identify whether the Spring Road /High Street intersection will be impacted by the proposal to provide westerly access to the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan from a Spring Road extension and roadway across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. R_ This information is in the Draft EIR (Volume III Appendix E) and will also be provided by Austin -Foust Associates. 12. Q. Describe the need for the roadway connecting to Collins Drive north of Moorpark College and clarity the location. R. HCR originally proposed this roadway as an access road from Collins Drive north of the college into the parking lot of the SP No. 8 proposed retail commercial area, thereby serving the local shopping needs of existing residents in the Campus Hills area. This idea was originally received from public comments at the early project workshops. Subsequent realignment of Hidden Creek Drive to mitigate environmental impacts (primarily to avoid existing trees) changed this proposed roadway to a two way, two -lane public street. However, if the Council concludes that a two -lane, public road connecting upper Collins Drive to Hidden Creek Drive in the vicinity of the retail center will adversely impacts Collins Drive, HCR will agree for this roadway to be designated as an emergency egress road for SP No. 8, Phase A (with a gate or other blocking mechanism that meets the approval of the City and the Ventura County Fire Protection District). 13. O. Identify any written County position regarding the processing of the proposed project in the County. Can the applicant go to the County and request approval if City denies? R. This issue was debated during the public hearings for the City's General Plan Update in 1992. Since completion of the General Plan Update, HCR has been involved in the preparation and submission of information required by the City for an approved Specific Plan. Thousands of pages of documents, reports, studies and information have been prepared and submitted for review in support of our specific plan application. To date, HCR has paid approximately $900,000 in fees to the City of Moorpark and has no plans to request approval of the proposed am OCT 15 '97 15:15 714 546 1050 PAGE.0e Oct -15 -97 03:05P messenger investmentco. 714 546 -1050 P.09 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Responses to Comments October 15, 1997 project from the County. Since 1992, HCR has consistently stated its intention to seek Specific Plan approval and annexation of HCR's property into the City of Moorpark. 14. O. Describe why the new State Route 118 interchange at Lagoon was dropped from the project description, and where this is addressed. R. HCR's revised land use and circulation plan does not include a Lagoon Road connection, for the following reasons: a. The EIR traffic study indicated that a Lagoon Road connection was not warranted or needed because improvements could be made to existing roads within the City that eliminate the need for an eastern road connection to the project. b. The Lagoon Road connection impacts over 600 trees, a significant environmental impact that can be avoided by utilizing other circulation alternatives. c. Caltrans has indicated it is not willing to approve an interchange in the Lagoon location until the Alamos Canyon Interchange is completed. d. Unocal, the property owners of the land the Lagoon Road connection would traverse have stated unequivocally their opposition to said road because of the economic damage that would result to their property. e. The Lagoon Road connection would cost millions of dollars that could otherwise be used for other, more beneficial improvements within the City. f. The Lagoon Road connection would primarily benefit Hidden Creek Ranch, but not the City's overall circulation system, and would also facilitate further economic leakage out of the City, 15. 0. Identify the total vehicle trips at buildout of the Specific Plan and what happens over time (such as trips per phase). R. This information will be provided by Austin -Foust Associates. -- 7 -- OCT 15 '97 15:15 714 546 1050 PAGE.09 Oct -15 -97 03:06P messenger investmentco_ 714 546 -1050 P.10 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Responses to Comments October 15, 1997 16. Q. What are the total number of dwelling units constructed in the city per year and historically how has the City been affected in regard to property values? R. This question is addressed by City staff. 17. Q. Stop sign controls are proposed for major streets. When are signals warranted? R. This question is addressed by City staff and its traffic consultant, Austin -Foust Associates. 18. 4. Discuss the relationship between this project and the Guidelines for Orderly Development, and provide information on a court case that was filed in response to a denial of a project by the County because it was not in compliance with the Guidelines for Orderly Development. R. The court case in question probably refers to the Long Beach Equities litigation over the Marr Ranch entitlements. City staff is addressing this question. One of the significant differences between Marr Ranch and Hidden Creek Ranch however is that Marr Ranch was already in the City of Simi Valley's sphere of influence. Hidden Creek Ranch is not in Moorpark's sphere of influence but is in the City's area of interest. The "Guidelines" indicate that property owners with property in a city's area of interest are allowed to seek entitlements from the County. The County, in turn, is obliged to refer any proposal to the city for comment. In any event, HCR is not seeking entitlements from the County. 20. 0. Describe high school need. Ask the School District to respond. R. After reviewing and revising HCR's student generation study, the District Superintendent requested that the SP No. 8 land use plan include two elementary school sites and one high school site. No middle school site was requested because a site has already been agreed to by the owners of SP No. 2. To our knowledge, no decision has been made by the Moorpark Unified School District when they will begin development of a second high school. Attachments BLAM OCT 15 '9? 15:16 ?14 546 1050 PAGE.10 Oct -15 -97 03:06P messenger -invicestmentco. 714 546 -1050 10 -15 -1997 2:33PM FROM MC PRESIDENT'S OFC. 805 378 1581 MOORPARK COLLEGE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT MEMORANDUM DATE; Septennbcr 16, 1996 TO: Chancellor Phil Westin FROM: ' ' )im Walker SUBJECT: Enrollment Projections - Moorpark College 1996 - 1999 — Pursuant to your request, I submit the following enrollment projection for Moorpark College based on the following assumptions: • The enrollment fee remains constant at $13 /unit and no new fees are i=osed • The Ventura County economy continues to grow at the current pace • Employment in Ventura County remains constant • The two large housing developments in Newbury Park (Dos Vientos) and Moorpark (Hidden Creek) remain on schedule_ Enrollment 'WSCH Fall '96 11,661 135,543 Spring'97 (Fall'96 -8%) 10,728 123;373 SS '97 (SS '96 x 1.75%) .155� 5-4-fa 26,945 313,542 Fall '97 (Fall '96 x 1.75 %) 11,865 136,448 Spring '98 (Fall '97 -8%) 10,915 125,522 SS '98 (SS '97 x 2.25%) 4.658 55.856 27,438 317,826 Fall '98 (Fall '97 x 2.25 %) 12,131 139,506 Spring'99 (Fall '98 -8%) 11,161 128.352 SS '99 (SS '98 x 2.75%) 4.786 57.365 28,078 325,243 n(-T 1 S 'q7 1 S: 1F, 71d Sdr, 9Rga PC= 11 P.11 P. 2 Oct -15 -97 03:06P messenger investmentco- 714 546 -1050 P.12 10 -15 -1997 2 : j3P►•1 FROM MC PRES I DENT ' S Ur C;. ISM 3 / ti 1=01 Chancellor Phil Westin Emollmcnt Projections - Moorpark College 1996 - 1999 September 16, 1996 Page 2 1996 - 1997 to 1997 - 1998 = 1.8% enrollment growth, 1,4% WSCH growth I997 - 1998 to 1998 - 1999 = 2.3% enrollment growth, 2.3% WSCH growth ' For Fall and Spring, WSCH = Enrollment x 11.5 For Summer, WSCH - Enrollment x 11.99 OCT 15 '97 15:16 714 546 1050 PAGF_12 Co�or�c� Il�� x 17n 11 L n aP. OCT ? 6 1997 G(iy Of Muui Pat (< t Less Than 20% Slopes Affected by Grading �tj. e '.1► 1' _ �- .r °` \ ry -- Greater Than 20% Slopes '� \r Affected by Grading _ n ✓� ;;; lL� — -- Areas Within Planning Units Sub(ecled to Potential Grading Not A Part of Grading. ading. Grad ng to be S te— 7f o 6 'J Speclfk: Occuring At Time of Individual Build —Out. CUR r r Gu delines De Imposed.ent .,� i�`�i� SLOPE AREA GADIN ANALYI S R S AREAS AREAS LESS THAN GREATER THAN 20% SLOPE 20% SLOPE EAST PLANNING AREA 167.2 204.3 }}i t ✓ ,� _ �,' CENTRAL PLANNING AREA 169.8 237.6 WEST PLANNING AREA 215.6 264.2 - / r OFF —SITE AREA 20.6 3.9 EJ / TOTAL ACRES 573.2 710.0 F SLOPES AFFECTED BY GRADING HIDDEN CREEK RANCH �'� `. SPECIFIC PLAN a� CITY OF MOORPARK, CA A° PROPOSED LAND USE aRES'nkEO BY • rxErurco tors: � �.JI „ IIAALANll GROUP INC. AL MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY SEPTEMBER, 1497 SHEET I OF I ATTACHMENT 4 Oct -14 -97 02:12P P -01 ±z nbj & venimt'a Peter it Pedroff Director r o GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY ?� a Recreation Services o $9 County Government Center Administration Building, L 111030 ' 800 South Victoria Avenue <1F.0 Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654 -3963 Fax (805) 654 -3684 October 13, 1997 Deborah Traffenstedt City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Post -it° Fax Note 7671 Date �o �4 1#01 pages 1, f 70 T7_EEC7i From 7- L L'B/ /t/ CoMeptG C NCGf't' 'K Co. P gA!,t5 Phone M Phone N Fax s J'GS s� -J�7-2-70 Fax I SUBJECT: Hidden Creek Ranch Circulation Plan, Happy Camp Canyon RWonal Park Area Dear Ms. Traffenstedt: Our comments responding to the Hidden Creek Ranch, Specific Plan No. 8 Draft EIR, were forwarded to the Resource Management Agency on November 20, 1995. These comments addressed the proposed circulation plan with respect to the Happy Camp Regional Park area. The circulation plan identified three different points of access to the Hidden Creek Ranch project which traverse the Happy Camp Park property. These consist of the Broadway, Spring Road and Campus Park Drive (West) extensions. If all or certain combinations of these road segments are extended through the park, they could have a prohibitive effect on current or proposed park uses by dividing and segmenting the Iower portion of the park property. The Parks Department is primarily concerned with the potential segmenting of the park that would occur if all the extensions or certain combinations are attempted. The selection of a single access point to traverse the park, such as Broadway, or Spring Road would minimize the impact on park uses, and so is preferable. Certain combinations, properly designed and implemented, might be acceptable as well. If you have any questions concerning the above issue or wish to discuss this further, I can be reached by phone at (805) 654 -3968. Sincerely, THERESA LUBIN Program Administrator PMW on Recycw P*W OCT 14 '97 15:5? PAGE.01 ATTACHMENT 5 a NOTE N FREEWAY 19 FIGURE 2 CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT HIGHWAY NETWORK May 13. 1992 INTERCHANGE SIX-LANE ARTERIAL FOUR-LANE ARTERIAL —R— RURAL COLLECTOR LOCAL COLLECTOR y' SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AT-GRADE RR CROSSING ❑ GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING — •— • —• —• —• CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY •rmmumu■ SR•118 FREEWAY CORRIDOR r7us m p ,:«, na porn. Precise LLvi nu for Nt-, Pkue —Wr .nn lne Gry oc ma k Pvbbc µ(11l1 Deplf{IpCM •IIQ COIOID D—lopl a Dept , lyr •�Ipnl1 inlurtnllnn. 19 FIGURE 2 CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT HIGHWAY NETWORK May 13. 1992 ATTACHMENT 6 CITY OF MOORPARK YEAR UNITS POPULATION PERSONS PER UNIT 1980 7,798+ 1981 2,746* 1982 3,128* 1983 3,265* 1984 3,662 11,853 N/A 1985 4,337 14,034 3.423 1986 4,813 15,716 3.402 1987 5,386 17,561 3.404 1988 6,835 22,579 3.375 1989 7,484 24,998 3.406 1990 7,797 25,252 ++ 3.342 1991 8,033 25,824 3.330 1992 8,073 26,294 3.369 1993 8,165 26,687 3.386 1994 8,280 27,202 3.401 1995 8,452 27,099 3.387 1996 8,652 27,752 3.328 1997 8,913 28,351 3.304 Unit and Population totals are for January 1 of each year. * Totals from the County of Ventura prior to incorporation. Dwellings outside the current City limits are included (inc. Home Acres) + April 1, 1980 ++ 1990 Census adjusted total.1990 population decrease represents an adjustment by the Department of Finance due to the 1990 Census correction. ATTACHMENT 7 RESOLUTION NO. -12 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK ADOPTING VENTURA COUNTY REVISED GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Moorpark as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the proposed revisions to the County Guidelines as approved by the County Board of Supervisors on December 10, 1996. SECTION 2: The City Council finds that the.proposed revisions clarify applications of the Guidelines and are consistent with the basic intent of the existing Guidelines. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby endorses the revisions to the County Guidelines for orderly Development. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of DECEMBEJ�996. ATT T: Lillian Hare City Clerk MOORPARK 1 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) SS. CITY OF MOORPARK ) I, Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 96 -1262 Was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 18th day of DECEMBER 1996, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS EVANS, PEREZ, RODGERS TEASLEY, WOZNIAK AND MAYOR HUNTER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 23rd Day of DECEMBER , 19 96 &116ian E. Hare, CMC City Clerk PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ CHRISTOPHER EVANS DEBBIE RODGERS TEASLEY JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember C oiinnilmamh- AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development /� � DATE: December 11, 1996 (For the City Council Meeting of December 18, 1990) X4' ^ SUBJECT: Ventura County Revised Guidelines for Orderly Development At their meeting of December 10, 1996, the County Board of Supervisors approved the Revised Guidelines for orderly Development as recommended by County staff. A copy of the County staff report is attached, which includes a copy to the revised guidelines in legislative format. Moorpark was the only City in the County which had not adopted a resolution approving the revised guidelines. Mayor Hunter and Community Development Director Nelson Miller spoke to the Board of Supervisors regarding Moorpark's concerns relating to the Guidelines. Council Member Evans also attended the hearing. The Board acknowledged the City's concerns received at the hearing and previously delivered in writing, but indicated they did not perceive that Moorpark should be treated differently than the rest of the County and did not want to change the standard for the entire County. At the meeting, Supervisor Judy Mikels indicated that the guidelines were strictly for process, as a general guideline, and defined who was responsible, not what is considered an appropriate land use. She further indicated that the guidelines were not a General Plan or zoning tool. She also requested that Moorpark reconsider adoption of the Guidelines and work with the County. County planning staff indicated that if Moorpark did not adopt the old standard with one acre minimum lot sizes would apply in the Moorpark Area of Interest. Supervisor Mikels also suggested Moorpark may want to re- initiate its Sphere of Influence proposal as a means to address some of the issues it has raised. City Council may wish to the attached resolution for adoption of the Revised Guidelines for Orderly Development, or provide alternative direction to staff. The attached resolution, in Section 2, does identify an issue with the definitions regarding the establishment of commercial and industrial uses. This issue has been raised regarding the two proposed driving ranges. However, a qualification of this type may raise concerns with the County regarding the application of the guidelines. Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Attachments: Resolution County Staff Report C:\ OFFI CE \WPWIMWPDOCSICCRPTS \GUIDORDE. WPD ro -- . /�Le1`►�t_/�Jil�%jc✓ F`°mSfcvG __ ... . c°'4�l" CdrtM It' d�' (%vtfLi�'it — i"(�hF1rkG,� uxaeon DeK t7.'.—.— ....... *C'aNne/ll-- _........_. _. o Y.? YS_.7... - - - -- -- . -- - - - 1•----- �S.�B�t� ..sue ✓.�,•s a�ru.C,� � /ur•sd�, �r?o`o,N,t, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY ���� Planning Division mu Keith A. Tumor Director December 10, 1996 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Subject: Revised Guidelines for Orderly Development RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. That your Board find that there is no possibility that the proposed revisions to the Guidelines for Orderly Development could have a significant effect on the environment and that the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the General Rule for exemptions, Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and 2. That your Board approve the attached resolution adopting revisions to the Guidelines for Orderly Development as recommended by the Task Force on the Guidelines (the resolution is included as Attachment 1, and the revised Guidelines are included as Attachment 2). STATEMENT OF MATTER FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION- Since 1969, the cities, the County, and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) have been engaged in a cooperative effort to guide the future growth and development of Ventura County. This effort has resuhed in the creation of the Guidelines for Orderly Development, a set of policies which maintain the theme that urban development should be located within incorporated cities whenever or wherever practical. The Guidelines were first adopted in 1969 and have been amended twice, in 1976 and 1985. On October 17, 1995, at the request of the Ventura Council of Governments and the Ventura County Association of Cities, your Board of Supervisors formed a Task Force to review the Guidelines and, if necessary, to recommend changes. This Task Force was comprised of one representative from each city council, two representatives from your Board, and one representative from LAFCO. The Task Force met four times and recommended several changes to the Guidelines (presented in legislative format in Attachment 2). These changes were approved ® 800 South Victoria Avenue, L #1740, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654 -2481 FAX 18051 654.2509 Pli nfew " reeycrtt Pop& - DEC 03 '% 15 35 805 654 2509 PAGE -0t --- c�c.i� r- December 10, 1996 (Agenda) Board of S% vkm Page 2 conceptually by your Board on July 9, 1996. A technical discussion of the proposed changes is included as Attachment 3. Following your Board's action on July 9, the revised Guidelines were transmitted to the city councils of each of the ten cities. With one exception, all city councils have adopted the Guidelines as proposed by the Task Force. The Moorpark City Council disagreed with the Task Force's recommendation that the definition of "urban development" apply to developments where parcels would be under two acres in area Instead, the Moorpark City Council recommended that the definition should be amended to apply to developments where parcels would be under Erne acres in area (see Attachment 4). As indicated in the resolution, the Moorpark City Council further recommends that if a five -acre threshold is not adopted Countywide, this threshold should at least be adopted in the Moorpark Area of Interest. Based on these recommendations from the Moorpark City Council, your Board has three Options. These options and a brief analysis follow: A Adopt a Countywide five -acre threshold One of the main focuses of Task Force discussions was on what the appropriate threshold should be. During those discussions, individual members of the Task Force expressed an initial preference for a wide range of thresholds, from one acre to ten acres. To attempt to reach a consensus, several members of the Task Force modified their initial preferences. Task Force members were concerned that if not all jurisdictions could agree on the same threshold, adoption of a new set of Guidelines could be jeopardized. Under such circumstances, the previous (1985) Guidelines, which have no lot size threshold, would remain in effect. Ultimately, seven Task Force members supported two acres; John Womiak of the City of Moorpark supported ten acres; and Jaime Zukowsld and Janis McCormick of LAFCO supported five acres. One other Task Force member, Linda Brewster of Fdhnore, was not present at the meeting, but submitted a letter stating that she could not support a threshold lower than five acres. If your Board were to change the Countywide threshold from two acres to five acres, you would need to direct staff to prepare the necessary amendments to the County General Plan to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Guidelines (such amendments would have to be brought back at a subsequent hearing). The primary amendments would be to change the "urban" and "rural" definitions to incorporate a five -acre threshold and to amend the General Plan Map to include all Rural- designated parcels which are less than five acres in area in Existing Communities. In addition, this change to the Guidelines would have to be resubmitted to each of the city councils for their approval. nor az 3 cc December lo, 1996 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors Page 3 As stated earlier, this option is inconsistent with the recommendation of the Task Force. B. Adopt a five -acne threshold in the Moorpark Area of Interest. To implement this option, your Board, the cities, and LAFCO would either have to modify the basic Guidelines or adopt an addendum to the Guidelines to include different definitions or thresholds for various Areas of Interest. In addition, your Board would have to amend the County General Plan to incorporate a variable threshold definition of urban and rural development, depending on which Area of Interest a property may be located in. Implementation of this option poses several basic problems: 1. Adopting di$erert lot size thresholds in different Areas of Interest would be difficult to justify in the Countywide General Plan alone. 2. Implementation of this option might be justified through an Area plan preparation process, based on unique local circumstances. However, there do not appear to be any unique circumstances in the Moorpark Area of Interest warranting a larger parcel size threshold in this area relative to other areas of the County. Preparation of a Moorpark Area Plan is not currently budgeted, nor would it be warranted because there are no Rural- designated parcels in the Moorpark Area of Interest which would be affected by the adoption of a five -acre threshold. 3. Establishing variable definitions or thresholds for various Areas of Interest would set a precedent whereby other cities could request different urban/rural definitions for their Areas of Interest. Implementing such requests could cause confusion, engender legal challenges, and be time- consuming. C. Adopt the proposed Guidelines with two-acre threshold. The third option is to simply adopt the Guidelines as recommended by the Task Force, with a two -acre threshold. The specific General Plan amendments which would be needed to ensure consistency between the Guidelines and the General Plan have been prepared and are on your Board's agenda for this same meeting (December 10, 1996) under a separate item number. This third option is County staffs recommended action, based on your Board's conceptual approval of the Guidelines on July 9, 1996, and the subsequent approval by nine of the ten cities. nFf aZ 9 ac , iz • -zc Deoember 10, 1996 (Ag,, --- a) Board of Supervisors Page 4 The Local Ager y Formation Commission has tentatively scheduled consideration of this item for their January meeting. LTj The proposed revisions to the Guidelines for Orderly Development have been reviewed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and have been found to be exempt from CEQA under the General Rule, Section 15061(bx3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption is attached (Attachment 5). If you have questions regarding this transmittal, please contact Bruce Smith, Manager, General Plan Section, at 654 - 2497,, or Steve Wood, Project Planner, at 654 -2457. Keith A Tumer, Director Planning Division Attachments Der_ Al l as i cz. Zc Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO, December 10, 1996 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTING REVISIONS TO THE VENTURA COUNTY GUMELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has mviewod and considered the proposed revisions to the County Guidelines as recommended by the Guidelines Task Force, comprised of epresentativea fiom the sty councils of the ten tides in Ventura County, from the Local Agency Formation Commission, and firm the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has made the necessary changes to the Countywide General Plan on December 10, 1996, to ensure consistency between the General phm and the revised Guidelines and WHEREAS, the Board Ends that there is no possrbrTrty that the proposed revisions to the Guidelines could have a signifi= effect on the eavironnw= and that the exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental mow p�J 't,3 General Rule, Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CE A (u QTY Ant (CEQA) under the Q defines; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the proposed revisions clarify the application of the Guidelines and are consistent with the basic intent of the c dsting Guidelines. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the county of Ventura hereby adopts the revised Guidelines for Orderly Development as presented in the transmittal letter to the Board dated December 10, 1996. Upon motion of Supervisor and seconded by Supervisor and duly of December, 1996 . carried, the foregoing resohrtion is approved on this 10th day ATTEST: RICHARD D. DEAN, County Cleric County of Ventura, State of California and Ex-Officio Cleric of the Board of Supervisors thereof BY. Deputy Chair, Board of Supervisors DEC 03 196 1537 aAS 9Se Ocrao Attachment 2 —rte I_ 996 Guidelines for Orderly Development P (Draft) Preface: In a wopera w effort to guide fume growth and development, the cldes, Ca=y and Local Agency �rm� uon Commission have partiapated in the amen of these "Guidelines for Orderly - 1 'ice s cow of the gWdeliers which were originally adopted in 1969 and development should be located within incorporated cities whenever or wherever practical. �mtant of dsave8ut cbm is to clarify the reladonship between the cities and the County+ with re to farSlitate a betty rmdaspiadiag tegart3ing develoPment and fens, and idcm* the Tbew � appropriate go 0°'� �7' raP�sible for ma3®; determinations on land use m the �i�l responsibility of Comny gover to occur within Men, and to enhance These VMddMW faot7itate We orderly ptnmog and devdOpctmt of Vera County by o Providing a frame-Wk for coverao'. iaterhovernmemal relations. • Allowing for urbanization in a manner that will accowuna to tht individual cmmmaities, vA& eonurvtg the urea of Ventnra CoMY. 8� of the • Promoting effic'm and effective delivery of commwnty aerv= for dosggg and ii;Nte n deals. o Id=dfyiag in a termer understandable to the gesterai Public the respoa4rbilitm of local PCB CW mce g°`" Pig urban services within Vc�ttra County. General Policies: Urban developmr= &hook occur. whenever and wha,MW P=c4cal, within which exist to pravido a full ragge of m nicgW &ervica gad are 'n°°�°r't°d Land U Planning. rapaaable for urban lard rue The time& and rite County ahnnld strive to proa 8� plus. ordinances and policies which will fulfill theca gttideliaca. Policies Within spheres of Influence: TIM foll LAP Oowtg policies shall apply within City Spbem of Muena (Spheres of Infltt = are crew{ by m9uined by State law, to identify the probable boundaries of cities and r�i dw &Poem rely be amended from time to tone as co ditioos wa�): special districts, 3. ApPGcants for land use permits or entidements for urban uses shall be encouraged City to achieve their developo=a goals and to apply to the discouraged from aPPlYing to the Courrty. 4. The City is ptnnarily responsible for local land use Planning and for Ping mtmicipa! services. 5 • Prior to both developed for urban purpose& or to annexed to the City. reodvmg nnmicipal wrvwcs, land should be 6. Annexation to the City is prefetable to the formation of new or service areas. trcpaasioa o! existing County 7. Land uses which are allowed by the County without annexation should be oqual to or more restrictive than land uses allowed by the City. 8. 13eveloP14eut standards and capital improvntteru requirements imposed by the County tar new or _ expanding deveopme= should not be less than those that would be imposed by the City. DEC 03 ' 96 15 : 37 905 EzSe xac onr_c 1996 GkLdejbs for ordoy Devdopmew (Draft) PW2 Policies Within Areas of Interest Where a City Exists; na fouowiag policies aP1)1Y within Arras of Imcrest Inihreaoe (Areas of interest are created �Weo a City al are but ammn the Gigs Sphere of which there will be no more than one city): I.AFCO to rdenti(y logical areas of iatereyt within try): 9. Applications for &WgM= W use permits or eotitkrocau shall be review and cattur�em. Ths County shall resnnnd t ttfeer!Gd to the City far o all a�rlarinlr. n, -•..: 10. 'Ike Cautay is priMI responsible for kcal lead use plates consistent with the general land M Bawls and objectives of the City. 11. Urban development should be allowed only within e_ Cauatyr General Plan°g eSrcmmitio as designated ore the 12. should financ"i1Y support CO1aQY stared urban services which are those urban servivos Provided by Cities. comparable to Policies Within Areas o Interest Where No QUy F.xiats; in •1l! ! MUM ..its. of Egnz Commun� lwazed tll• -• L'1�thJ •.bf•_ . rll 7P' I. ^ • L . 1 _ l• � 1 • ' 1 1.'1.1 .�� _. •..� "!'.7r •• '_ ' � ..!•tJ! .: ,1,! � an 1 •..1. • U •.•1l�.-` i+ 1 � •.•..• .151 • , I '11.•. •.1 .,. DEC 03 1% 15:38 aQa «A 1996 l�luit joy Orloty DerdcPowo�t (Drab) P�e3 "unincorporated Urban Center n oratW Urban Center is a o nwof*he Co�mty Genera] Plan which rrft M to an eAStinu or planned urban Cotturr y which loraied m an Arra of whetz no '�}+ ca�cr. rte. Unmcorooratod Urbaa Center rcc=mts the �r renter for community and p r,++tn 'tivitie9 within the Area of Interact and Av-e a candidate for future i_�+�- M*�oratioa DEC 03 '96 1538 Allachment 3 SM ::mary of Proposed Changes to the Guidelines for Orderly Development A. Proposed changes within Areas of Interen where a city exists; Areas of I'== ace geographic arms created by LAFCO to ideacfy logical areas of common interest within which there will be no more than one city. An Area of laterest map is provided at the end of this mummary. Three changes arc pfd for this section of the Guidelines: Clmrfrcwim of section title - The section title would be amended to more clearly indicate that the policies included in this section ody apply Wwain Areas of httec3t where s city assts. A separate sec of am policies would be adopted for Areas of Interest where no city ,rusts (see Section B), '"Ovanmewd coop -ntlwr - Policy 9 would be amended to requite the m� to provide a response w ca ngeents received from cities cos projects nt corporated areas. This Policy is already being followed by the County. C&rPwdm of OUcift - Policy 12 would be =needed to clarify that the 'umnom'Porated urbanized areas" referred to to this policy are wEustteg Communities" as identified in the Camay General per. The pfd amendment to Policy 12 would simply provide co,;,teny of language with Policy 11. Polity 11, which only allows urban as designated oat the Co mry General n� changed. However; a definiuce of Exisamg Coaatmmipes would be added to fiat,,, clarify the tartar Of Policy I I and to ,aerie that the County General Plan policies on Existing Coreem= es tine incorporated alto the Guidelmm (see Section D). B Proposed new policies in Areas of Interco where no city ,mule: In addition to Areas of lnterrst whM a city assts. there are also Areas of Interest where rein city exists. Such areas have been identified by LAFCO as logical areas of cottm0n Wiest where a cdy could most. Currently, there are four such areas: Piro, Oak Padre, Ahmans ell Canyon, and the Let Polar Valley (see map at end of this may). The proposed »cur policies would be u follows: L rMORsibX& - Policy 13 would indicate that the County is responsible for local land use planting and for providing municipal services. Thus Policy is the counterpart to Policy 4, which indicates that inside city Spheres of Influence, cities are responsible for local land use planning and for providing municipal ten+ M. R'10'kdons on urbaN devdoPirarr - Policy 14 would only alloy, urban development in Unincorporated Urban Centers or Existing amities. These two gwgsaphic areas would be defined in the proposed revisions (see Sections D and E). Unincorporated Urban Centers exist (or have been approved) in tee Piru, Oak Park, and ,4hmanson/Bcll Ranch Ass of Interest, but not in the Las Posas Valley. The Guidelines would not reyrdre that an Unincorporated Urban Center be located in each of these Arras of Interest, they would simply allow no =rc than cue such cemtrr per Area of Interest. Requirana t forArea Plan - Before urban development can occur to Unincorporated Urban Centers, Policy 15 would require that an Area Plan be adopted by the County. Area Plans have been adopted in the Piru, Oak Park, - - and Ahn mwn/Bell Ranch Areas of Interest, but not in the Ins Posas Valley. DEC 03 1 % SS :39 RPS AcZA 0�,Ma Grua..C%~S made, Puss C Proposed definition of "urban development" The current Guideline do Dot define urban development, The proposed Gwdd,= would include a new definition, based on three cmeia (if arty of these criteria are met, the definition would apply): ne developmarr would nquise the establt L-.d of new oftwWwity sewer ryaem or the sign f-- t O pmudon of =sang WWWnky sewer sysrerrts By classifying pmjem which require new or significardY cgxmd ed community sewer service systems as 'urban," the definition would such prq=m to develop within cities, LJnincotpormed Urban Centers or EAvtmg Contmmrmitim where treatment plant facilities and a pipeline nawork arc (or should be) available. The kdew of this a tmim is to direct developmeut whiny Mquirea ubaa4ype services to locate in urban areas, which in turn promotes the e$timt and cffccdw delivery of OMMI+ IUnity services. This is one of the objatives included in the Preface to the Guidelines. It should be noted that the proposed defimtion world not MaOima6canY define all project: that require eoa mumity $ewer Mvices as 'turban." Under the p dcfmrhoq sears systems would an atea�� as -urban community of , sewer rY=m evamons are . ze would be based an the County $corer ply, whir b includes a fmmula that pow 'the Cost of counecting to the public sewer system witb the cost od'iasta ring a private wwW &POW system. The Sewer Policy would require communtty, sewer oonsxctioD, when a public sewer system i, Wdhm a half mtle of the Kged um and wbm the cost of connecting to the system falls below the threshold specified in the abovemeatiooed fo=I& Under such the sewer comrectim would not be consi&W gignificM ZU dtvdapmerst would resale m the venue~ of read -zdd lea less than ewo RI acres In area The current County General Plan de5nca %rban' as any davdopmm which would result is the atution of residential IM kss than one acne m area (acept in areas governed by the Ojai Valley Area plan, wbm the threshold is 2 acres). The proposed Guidelines ctimrioo would establish a uniform 2 -acne threshold throughout unincorporated areas of the County. If this 2-8=e threshold is adoptod, my new developer in unhrpora>bd areas which would result in the creation of lots smaller than the thra t (i.e., smaller than 2 acres) would have to be located in an Unincorporated Urban Canter or an Ex sting Community lire developmew would result in the estabCs,4"m t of commff l err indu -'&W uses which are neither a�•iardtara!/y (dated nor related to the production of nrmeral resources The inclusion of this criterion would not change current County policies oontained in the County General Plan and Zoning Ordi , Tb= policies direct uses which are now allowed only in commercial and industrial zones to Exisemg Communities or Unincorporaed Urban Centers. For reference, all cmn —rctal and industrial uses which are listed in Article S, Section g 105 -5 of the Cormty, Zoning Ordinance, entitled Permitted ^°^n°rcial nri DA!91 al ?arses. and which are not listed in Article S. Section 8105 -4. � •'1111 � I •.!� • 1�� :- �'�I�l�J •.411!•"!'%:a�• :411' MR DEC 03 196 15:39 805 654 75G1Q 04118"m �nsmm•� D Noposed definition of "Ming Communities" The Proposed definition is reflective of the definition amently contained in the County General Plan. The definition would remct urban development to Ousting developed arras, in order to prevent the atation of new Emsting Coaununitm. It would also Pr's'= the further Niansm of Evgmg Co®snmities which have already been established by limiting building inftsitics and land um to prMously-estabbsbed kvds. The inclusion of this definition waK withut the Guidelim, clarify and reru&m Policies already being followed by the County. Proposed de, finkfon of "Unincorporated Urban Centers" Tho Proposed d4midou is rc&cdve of the definition now comaioed in the County General Plan. 719 inclusicrt of this definition would, within the Guideli m, cLuify and Mmforoe Polities alr emly being followed by the Candy. DEC 03 ' % 15:40 Qaa «, Attachment 4 RESOLUT -'CN , 0. 96- 1227 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPJI(, CEVISI OF v�1T' -�►. STATE OF CAL:FOR.VIA, RECORDING REVISIONS TO THE VENZVRA COUNTY DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR CROERLY DEVELOPMENT SE IT RESOLVED by the City Council f ollows; of the City Moorpark, as SECTION 1, The Cie C the proposed revisions y Council has reviewed and considered conceptually by the County Board ofos Cy Guidelines as approved Supervisors on July 9, 1996; SECTION 2. The City Council reC Of Urban Development be changed null thaocichds that the definition fiVe (5) acres or lees be considered Urban a creation of lots c: Moorpark Area of Interest; Development within the SECTION 3, The City Council hereby since a consensus was not reached b further recommends that 1SSUe of lot size, that lot Size C re or mnda ions Fbe efurther on the considered, or if this definition is not to be used COunC d then the creation of residential lots of five (5) acres or less be considered Urban, at leaaC, within the MOOrpark Area of Interest. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of SEPTElIDEA 1996. r ayor Paul w, rawrason J ATTEST. 1 7/ DEC 03 '% 15:40 805 654 2509 aoMr ,� +a16 9V a P%%aL.rn ..11 ��� Planning Division Keith A. Turner Manager NOTICE OF EXEMPTION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION• 1. XON' Adoption of 1996 Watura County Guideline for Orderly Development, 2. APPL.TGA»I: County of Vennua 3. LOCATION• County of Vamua 4. PROJECT' DESCRIPTIONd Adopt of the revised 19% Ventura County Gvidtdioa Orderly Developmean The Guidelines include teco amwoded policies to: improve or Planning and scrviac responsibilities f urban city odt� of mutual n; �r the Provision of mtmicipal senv =; and encourage � may' �� for developmout to accYtr within cities. The proposed revisions include a new dc5nition for urban devc1upmeat and new Policies governing whore urban developtneat can occur m uruncorporated arft3. B. CONTACTS• 1. EN KY APPROVING : Ventura County Board of Supervisors 2. CONTACT PERSON: Steve Wood, Ventura County Planning Division 3• TELEPHONE pMg- (gOS) 654.2457 C- ' STATUS* X General Rule ExemPdm [Section 15061(bx3)] D. DLO[+ N TO SIT AT t: vrM01F FINDING Adoption ofthe revised Guidelines would incarporato several policies now contained in the Coouty GWCW Platt regrading urban &W*n�aet in unUmmPo� areas by limiting such devdopment to areas defined as "Existing Camoumitiw" and "UnincarporsLod Urban Centers." 'ibe proposed Mvwoas would also require Area Plans for any urban development m any Unincorporated Urban Ccatcrs and would define any development which creates lob smaller thaw two acm as • urban" Now of the proposed revisions would reduce, relax, or eliminate any of the standards contained in the current Guidelines for orderly Developnov, which were adopted in 1985. Therdore, it can be seen with certamy that there is no possibility that the Proposed rMsions could have a significant effect on the environvnent DATE OF PROJECT APPROVAL: December 10, 1996 PREPARED BY: Steve Wood, Cam Planner Turner, Manager Plaaoing Division Attachment S 300 So..tn •jYt7r:a a.e��a, :ant re. Ca 93009 DEC 03 196 15:40 �Y ^^ _- TOTAL P.13 ATTACHMENT 8 CEQA: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Gallegos v. California Board of Forestry (1978) 76 Cal. App. 3d 945, Twain Harte Homeowners Associa- tion, Inc. v. Tuolumne (1982) 138 Cal. App. 3d 664, and Cleary v. Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 348, stated that the lead agency must respond to all significant environmental comments in a level of detail commensurate to that of the comment. Further, while there is no legal requirement for an agency to respond in writing to comments submitted after the expiration of the comment period, an agency's failure to evaluate the substance of the comment and to respond appropriately to substantive comments in the proceedings may place the agency at risk, in the event of legal challenge. Recirculation 15088.5. (a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the of an EIR Prior EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but to Certification before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure show- ing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation mea- sure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation mea- sures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaning- ful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043) (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. (c) If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified. (d) Recirculation of an EIR requires notice pursuant to Section 15087, and consultation pursuant to Sec- tion 15086. (e) A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Note: Authority cited. Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087; Reference: Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112. Discussion: The purpose of this section is to provide guidance in applying Public Resources Code sec- tion 21092.1. It codifies the interpretation of that section made by the state Supreme Court in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112. Recirculation applies only to EIRs which have been made available for review, but which have not been certified. Once an EIR has been certified then the procedures established under sections 15162, 15163, and 15164 apply to the question of whether or not a subsequent EIR, supplement to an EIR, or addendum must be prepared. Circulating a subsequent EIR or supplement to an EIR is not "recirculation" as described under section 15088.5. Preparation of 15089. (a) The Lead Agency shall prepare a final EIR before approving the project. The contents of a final EIR Final EIR are specified in Section 15132 of these Guidelines. (b) Lead Agencies may provide an opportunity for review of the final EIR by the public or by comment- ing agencies before approving the project. The review of a final EIR should focus on the responses to comments on the draft EIR. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21100, 21105, and 21151, Public Resources Code; City of Carmel -by- the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors, (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 84. 74 • GUIDELINES ATTACHMENT 9 NLNI _ a�j __— �P _� ,! RECEIVED _� _J` x` SEP 221997 \� City of Moorpark II PREPARED. MESSENGER, _ INVESTMENT COMPANY` L,6h,ND USE DATA UNIT$ LAND use ACRES UlIT RURAL HIGH RESIDENTIAL (0 - 0.5 DU/AC DENS" LOW DENS— RESIDENTIAL (0.5 - 1,0 DU/AC DENSITY 3f:T7. i:13.7i1R'iF� NED— DENE- RESIDENTIAL (2.0 - 4.0 DU/AC DENS 11 IE 11�2111 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ._ R-I VERY HIGH iL�afa � - �E♦.��ilFS RESIDENTIAL ��1 T�i�')E' �Z• iL _L VER� HIGH .ti :T.RS-IF�iI.T•� RESIDENTIAL TO'FALS 1125.3 AC. 3221 D. NON-RESIDENTIA- USES -�� NON - RESIDENTIAL TOTAL5 3123.1 AC, PROJECT TOTALS 4322 AC. 3221 D.D. HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF MOORPARK, CA PROPOSED LAND USE PREPARED RY " I'rols ALAND GROU�PNCn SEPTEMBER. 1997 SHEET I OF I