Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 0902 CC REG ITEM 09AITEM . A • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of `)-2.-IS' TO: The Honorable City Council ACTION: ArproVed off recvmm. Gon nkcd tL ll Ilo q $ FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community eve opine Prepared by Paul Porter, Principal P BaYnner. •cdll . DATE: August 14, 1998 (City Council Meeting of September 2, 1998) SUBJECT: CONSIDER REQUEST BY A -B PROPERTIES AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97 -2 TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON 43.32 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET WEST OF GABBERT ROAD AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS (APN. 500 -34 -22 AND -23) FROM "AG -I" (AGRICULTURAL 1DU. /10 -40 ACRES) TO "I -2" (MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL) AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 97 -7 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY FROM AE (AGRICULTURAL EXCLUSIVE) TO M -2 (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL) Summary: On March 9, 1998, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and indicated that the requirements imposed as part of an Industrial Planned Development Permit and a subdivision map would be adequate to deal with issues related to landscaping, circulation, preservation of the Highway 118 Bypass corridor and area wide drainage issues, in lieu of requiring a Specific Plan to address these issues. Staff had previously recommended that a Specific Plan be processed to insure a comprehensive approach to these issues. BACKGROUND On April 16, 1997, the City Council authorized the applicant to initiate and staff to process an application for an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and to concurrently process a request for a change in zoning on the subject property. The property on which the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is requested consists of approximately 43.32 acres of land northerly and contiguous to the railroad tracks approximately 1,300 feet west of Gabbert Road. The proposed C: \M \PRE96.10 \51898.CC (you C.ol GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties and Southern California Edison Company City Council Staff Report September 2, 1998 Page No. 2 project is bounded by property in the unincorporated portion of the County to the west, property with a General Plan Designation of RL (Rural Low 1DU /5 acres) on the north and Specific Plan No. 1 on the east, where specific land uses have not yet been determined. The property has a General Plan Land Use Designation of AG -1 and AE Zoning. The property is zoned for agricultural uses and is designated as "Grazing" on the 1996 Ventura County Important Farmland Map prepared by the State Department of Conservation. The property in question consists of two properties (APN. No. 500 -0- 340 -220) owned by A -C Construction Inc. /Paul and Lisa Burns and APN. No. 500 -0- 340 -235 owned by Southern California Edison Company. Each of the applicant's have submitted separate applications. Although staff is processing this as one General Plan Amendment as they are contiguous and have the same issues, the Council has the option of acting on each of the applications separately. The initial application had been filed jointly, however, Southern California Edison subsequently elected to file a separate application. At the March 9, 1998 Commission hearing on this proposed General Plan Amendment and zoning change, three persons spoke concerning this request. They included: John Newton (represented A -B Properties), Dennis Hardgrave (representing Specific Plan No. 1 and the Southern California Edison Company) and James McGrath (adjacent property owner). Mr. Newton had a concern regarding the requirement to have a Specific Plan indicating that infrastructure and other issues could be resolved through the application and review process for Development permits and /or a subdivision map. He also indicated that A -B Properties is aware of the responsibility to provide sufficient access to the property to accommodate industrial development and to complete any required infrastructure improvements as a requirement of any subdivision map or Industrial Planned Development Permit. Dennis Hardgave supported the concept of approving the General C: \M \PRE96.10 \51898.CC GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties and Southern California Edison Company City Council Staff Report September 2, 1998 Page No. 3 Plan Amendment and Zone Change on the site, indicating that providing additional industrial land made sense both as a compatible land use and as a means to share costs in providing needed infrastructure improvements in the area such as those required for construction of the Gabbert and Walnut Canyon drainage channels, the Highway 118 Bypass, the north /south road connecting the 118 Bypass to Los Angeles Avenue, the extension of Casey Road and other pertinent infrastructure improvements. James McGrath of McGrath farms wanted to ensure that any proposed development would not impact his farming operation located to the west of the subject property above the flood control channel and the proposed north /south road which would connect Los Angeles Avenue to the Hwy. No. 118 Bypass. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council: a. That the northerly 100 feet of subject property remain with the General Plan designation of Open -Space and zoning designation of AG -1. This area has been identified as a future transportation corridor for the Hwy. 118 Bypass and will require a width of 200 feet, and as such should remain free of development. The Community Development Department recommendation was for a 200 foot corridor all south of the northerly property line, which if utilized for the Hwy. 118 Bypass would avoid the Gabbert Canyon debris basin and spillway which are currently located just north of the subject property. Locating the 200 foot corridor with 100 feet on each side of the subject property line will require relocation of the Gabbert Canyon drainage facilities. b. Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and indicated that the requirements imposed as part of an Industrial Planned Development Permit and a subdivision map would be adequate to deal with issues related to landscaping, circulation, the Highway 118 Bypass and drainage, in lieu of requiring a Specific Plan to address these development issues. C: \M \PRE96.10 \51898.CC GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties and Southern California Edison Company City Council Staff Report September 2, 1998 Page No. 4 Industrial development opportunities are currently very limited in the City of Moorpark and this site is well located for industrial development with access to Los Angeles Avenue and the State Route 118 Bypass when it is constructed. The adjacent residential and agricultural uses are somewhat separated and buffered by topographic features and the existing Gabbert Canyon Drainage Channel and debris basin. The likely site grading that will occur to create construction pads should minimize visual impacts through on -site dirt balance where high graded slopes should not be necessary to create development sites and because the land has fairly gentle terrain. The exact grading approach is not known, however, only approximately 29 acres of the site is currently level. Adjacent proposed land uses that include the Bugle Boy industrial park (site south of railroad tracks and abutting Edison transformer station on the west) together with other industrial properties creates the opportunity to add significantly to the City's inventory of industrial land use opportunities. The proponents for Specific Plan No. 1 (pending future circulation of a Draft EIR and Specific Plan) which is located adjacent to the east property line of this site have discussed with staff the potential for industrial business park zoning on the portion of the Specific Plan No. 1 located in the area bounded by the 118 By -pass, Gabbert Road, the Southern Pacific Railroad easement and the subject property. An industrial designation would provide expansion of limited industrial land located within the City and provide opportunities to improve jobs- housing balance as well as positive impacts to the City. As the Land Use Element of the General Plan does not provide for SP -1 to have industrial uses, any proposed change to industrial land use would require an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. If the C: \M \PRE96.10 \51898.CC GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties and Southern California Edison Company City Council Staff Report September 2, 1998 Page No. 5 industrial business park uses are ultimately approved by the Council, the uses would be compatible with this proposed project. However, while the future can be very positive for jobs creation, enhancement of the industrial base and implementation of the Route 118 Bypass, many of the details of the how these issues can be resolved as a coordinated, focused effort will need to be determined with any development proposal for these areas. Due to constraints on the property relating to the existing flood control channel, the grade separation with properties to the north and west, the Southern Pacific Railroad to the south, high voltage Edison power lines located to the south and east, requirement for the 118 Bypass and a north /south arterial road, and lack of sufficient legal access to accommodate industrial development at this time; a mechanism is needed to address these concerns and zoning issues. Both a Development Agreement and a Specific Plan provide such a mechanism. A Development Agreement can establish the type and level of commitment between the jurisdiction and the applicant concerning infrastructure and transportation improvements, their timing and any cost sharing. Other issues of use and compatibility can also be Development Agreement topics. The Specific Plan process previously recommended by staff to deal with a development proposal in an area without improvements such as this request would have included a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: 1. The distribution, location and extent of the uses of the land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. 2. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. 3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, C: \M \PRE96.10 \51898.CC GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties and Southern California Edison Company City Council Staff Report September 2, 1998 Page No. 6 development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. 4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs 1,2, and 3. Staff had previously recommended that a Specific Plan be considered to address the unique constraints of the property including infrastructure requirements and ownership of the property by more than one entity. However, at this time it is suggested that a Development Agreement can serve to achieve the same end result with the site and issues involved. The Circulation Element of the General Plan shows the State Route 118 Bypass crossing the subject property in an east -west direction and a north -south arterial connecting the Bypass to Los Angeles Avenue west of Gabbert Road. This north /south arterial connection would serve as an interim link to the 118 Bypass until State Route 118 is ultimately extended beyond the City limits. The proposed rights -of -way described above (see Attachment No. 6 - Circulation Element) will affect the type of development to occur, including grading and site design. There is the potential that a transition from the 118 Bypass from east -west to north -south could create a radius which would result in a remnant area located on the northwest side of the 118 (see Attachment No. 7). The potential remnant would be located in the area of the future extension of the HWY. 118. The construction of a road network that would include a connection to Los Angeles Avenue may be further complicated because of the requirement for a grade separated crossing of the railroad tracks. The project applicant does not currently possess public access rights across the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way. New railroad crossings require grade separation under current Public Utility Commission Policy. C: \M \PRE96.10 \51898.CC GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties and Southern California Edison Company City Council Staff Report September 2, 1998 Page No. 7 Efforts to secure funding for this grade separated crossing have been linked to the potential industrial development and jobs creation that would occur if abutting industrial zoned land is developed. It may be difficult however, to define a separate relationship for these adjacent properties, since adequate circulation to allow development involves linkage between Los Angeles Avenue, Casey Road extension and Gabbert Road. The proposed property is located within the Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Flood Control Deficiency Study area. The study dated March, 1997 presented a comprehensive engineering investigation of the deficiencies associated with the flood control management system. The selected drainage system to be constructed which will cost approximately 9.5 million dollars to construct. Because this proposed project lies within the Study Area and, as part of the project review process, the applicant should be required to address improvements and costs needed to implement the recommendations of this study. The costs of funding the sub - regional drainage system improvements that would be applied to remaining undeveloped property in the City could result in an additional assessment, the amount of which has not yet been determined. The proposed project will add to cumulative Citywide traffic and as a result will be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation fee which will include a contribution towards construction costs for the 118 Bypass. At the current time the applicants have agreed to leave the existing agricultural designation on a portion of the area for the future State Route 118 Bypass and designate the balance of the property for industrial use, with the understanding that access issues would be addressed prior to applications for development. The applicants have agreed to a line 100 foot wide south of the north property line as the new zoning boundary which C: \M \PRE96.10 \51898.CC GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties and Southern California Edison Company City Council Staff Report September 2, 1998 Page No. 8 was supported by the Planning Commission. However, a 200 foot wide right -of -way for the Route 118 Bypass is preferred to be located south of the property line due to the location of the spillway and improvements related to the Gabbert Canyon debris basin which will have to be relocated if a 100 foot wide corridor is maintained on each side of the northerly property line of subject property. The alignment and width of a north /south connector to Los Angeles Avenue is also a potential issue which needs consideration. If this property is rezoned for Industrial Uses, certain types of uses such as those with significant outdoor storage, including construction contractor storage and recreational vehicle storage facilities may not be considered appropriate because of the properties location which would be visible from two major arterial roads. In consideration of the rezoning of the property for industrial uses, the Council may wish to restrict the property to certain types of uses that would be considered compatible with the area. This requirement could be made as part of either a Specific Plan or Development Agreement. At the meeting of August 19, 1998, the City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee of Councilmembers Evans and Perez to consider a Draft Development Agreement for the project. Therefore, the Council may wish to accept public testimony and refer this proposal to the Ad Hoc Committee for further consideration and recommendations. 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and continue to September 16, or October 7, 1998. 2. Refer these items to Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate with A -B Properties and Southern California Edison to prepare a Draft Development Agreement that addresses infrastructure and C: \M \PRE96.10 \51898.CC GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties and Southern California Edison Company City Council Staff Report September 2, 1998 Page No. 9 transportation needs, area wide drainage needs, and design and land use criteria for this site as well as other matters germane to the project that should be included in a Development Agreement. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. General Plan and Zoning Maps 3. Circulation Element Map 4. Proposed sweeping roadway connection plan 5. Planning Commission staff report with attachments 6. Applicant's exhibits C: \M \PRE96.10 \51898.CC RESOLUTION NO. PC -98- 352 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97 -2 TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON 43.32 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET WEST OF GABBERT ROAD AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS (APN. 500 -34 -22 AND -23) FROM "AG -I" (AGRICULTURAL 1DU. /10 -40 ACRES) TO 11I -2" (MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL) AND ZONE CHANGE NO 97 -7 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY FROM AE (AGRICULTURAL EXCLUSIVE) TO M -2 (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL) ON THE APPLICATION OF A -B PROPERTIES AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on March 9,1998, the Planning Commission considered the application filed by A -B Properties and Southern California Edison Company for approval of the following: General Plan Amendment No. 97 -2 - request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from "AG -1" (Agricultural ldu. /10 -40 acres) to "I -2" (Medium Industrial) Zone Change No. 97 -7 - request to change the zoning from AE (Agricultural Exclusive) to M -2 (Limited Industrial) WHEREAS, at its meeting of March 9, 1998, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and closed the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS: 1. That any potential adverse impacts have been mitigated to an insignificant level. 2. The Negative Declaration /Initial Study for the project is complete and has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and City policy. 3. The contents in the Negative Declaration/ Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on the proposed entitlement request. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff report dated March 9, 1998 and testimony, has made a decision on this matter. ATTACHMENT 1`�'?` �" NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission determined that the impacts for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would not have a significant effect upon the environment. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council: 1. Approval of a change in Land Use Designation to "I -2" (Medium Industrial) with the exception of an area 100 foot wide located along the northerly boundary designated as a future transportation corridor which shall remain "AG -1 ". 2. Approval of a change in zoning designation on the property from AE( Agricultural Exclusive) to M -2 (Limited Industrial) with the exception of an area 100 foot wide located along the northerly boundary designated as a future transportation corridor which shall remain "AE" (Agricultural Exclusive). 3. The applicant not be required to submit a Specific Plan. The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acosta, Miller, DiCecco, Millhouse and Lowenberg. NOES: PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY, -4F AP L, 1998 L� Ga Lowe erg, Chairman ATTEST: Celia LaFleur, Secretary to the Planning Commission ,1 pm / 1 + 1i I • I - I SITE AE 1 I 1 I At ti 1 � 1 I 1 I At I i I � r, s SITE AG-- -. ' 4 z LL SITE AG-- -. CUTE I F >r �I D =FREEWAY �. DITERCHANGE SIX -L"E ARTERIAL FOUR-LANE ARTERIAL —R— RURALCOLLECfOR LOCAL COME-CTOR 3 SIGNAUZEOINTERSECTION AT-GRADE RR CROSSING GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING "— '—' —•�• CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY •������■ SR -118 FREEWAY CORRIDOR fl„r m.p .f.c. nrrr pnnr.r M«ut n.p�m<nu fn f.�.rt C, w M.ar.f..r. p,n4t .a "'" (><p• ^�.r .w la+am�wfr Dr.rnW.e nr Dcwnm.m FIGURE 2 CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLATT CIRCULATION ELEMENT HIGHWAY NETWORK May 13. 1992 W 0 �6 NEER" PROPERTY LINE 1\ �SCA! / '-4 ATTACHMENT 4 j Aj c .jL +-e -ell '-4 ATTACHMENT 4 j Aj c .jL Item 9.A. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: The Planning Commission FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development Prepared by Paul Porter, Principal Plann DATE: February 3,1998 (Planning Commission Meeting of March 9, 1998) SUBJECT: CONSIDER REQUEST BY A -B PROPERTIES AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97 -2 TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON 43.32 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET WEST OF GABBERT ROAD AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS (APN. 500 -34 -22 AND -23) FROM "AG -I" (AGRICULTURAL 1DU. /10 -40 ACRES) TO 11I -2" (MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL) AND ZONE CHANGE NO 97 -7 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY FROM AE (AGRICULTURAL EXCLUSIVE) TO M -2 (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL) On April 16, 1997, the City Council authorized the applicant to initiate and staff to process an application for an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and to concurrently process a request for a change in zoning on the subject property. Staff recommended that a Specific Plan be included as part of the authorization to submit and process the General Plan Amendment request; however, City Council deleted the Specific Plan requirement but preserved it as an option to be considered when the General Plan Amendment and rezoning were heard by Council. The property consists of approximately 43.32 acres of land northerly and contiguous to the railroad tracks with approximately 1,350 feet of frontage along the railroad right -of -way. The proposed project is bounded by property in the unincorporated portion of the County to the west, property with a General Plan Designation of RL (Rural Low 1DU /5 acres) on the north and Specific Plan No 1 on the east, where specific land uses have not yet been determined. The property has a General Plan Land Use Designation of AG -1 and AE Zoning. The property is zoned for agricultural uses and is designated as "Grazing" on the C:\M\PRE96.10\30998.PC !!r t:" _ q 4 D: \lm \PC- minutes \98ocmin'•,,9?IT�Ild"'y4,�2: j ?; ATTACHMENT 5 FILE COPY GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties Planning Commission Staff Report 3/9/98 Page No. 2 1996 Ventura County Important Farmland Map prepared by the State Department of Conservation . Prop. Owner$ The subject property consists of A 22 owned by A -B Properties and 500 California Edison Company. Each c submitted separate applications. this as one General Plan Amendment have the same issues. ssessor's Parcel No. 500- 0 -340- -0- 340 -23 owned by the Southern f the applicant's have However, staff is processing as they are contiguous and The State Government Code limits the frequency of amendments to a mandatory element of the General Plan (Land Use is mandatory) to -- no more than four times during any calendar year. There are currently six General Plan Amendment applications on file, as well as two previous applications for amendment screening and several other potential applications. Following is a list of the pending and potential General Plan Amendments: Applications in Process 1. Specific Plan No. 1, Hitch Ranch (Land Use Element amendment to reflect final approved plan) 2. Specific Plan No. 2, Morrison - Fountainwood- Agoura (Land Use and Circulation Element amendments to reflect final approved plan) 3. Specific Plan No. 8, Hidden Creek Ranch (Land Use and Circulation Element amendments to reflect final approved plan) 4. General Plan Amendment No. 96 -2 (Pacific Communities Builders, Inc.) for a residential project (Land Use Element amendment to revise density S. Downtown Specific Plan (Land Use Element amendment to reflect revisions to land uses and densities) 6. General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3 (Security Pacific Capital Trust) for the property located approximately 450 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue on the west side of Moorpark Avenue and adjacent to the Arroyo Simi - to revise the land use designation from General Commercial to Very High Density residential. C: \M \PRE96.10 \30998.PC GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties Planning Commission Staff Report 3/9/98 Page No. 3 7. General Plan Amendment 96 -3 (Related to Tract 4928, Bollinger) pending Council review for reversion of property to previous General Plan designations. Pre - Application in Process 1. Pre - Application for Specific Plan No. 9, (Braemar Homes and Moorpark Unified School District) for a change in density for the former High School site. 2. Pre - Application No. 97 -1 (West Pointe Homes) for the former Tentative Tract 3217 (Rasmussen) property on the west side of Walnut Canyon Road, south of Tentative Tract 4928 (Bollinger) - for a possible Land Use Element Amendment for increased density) Additionally, there are several potential General Plan amendments that may be filed or considered, which include: 1. Sphere of Influence Study (Land Use Element Amendment would be needed to address any areas proposed to be added to the Sphere of Influence) 2. The Gisler Field site on Poindexter Avenue which is owned by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. (Possible Land Use Element amendment to reduce the density consistent with the maximum number of units directed by the Agency Board and City Council) A comprehensive update of the General Plan has not been budgeted as part of the work program for the Planning Division. The last update of the General Plan, adopted in 1992, was primarily funded by developers and landowners requesting changes in Land Use designations. However, a new comprehensive update to the General Plan has been discussed as a possibility in consideration of Pre - Application No. 97 -1 (West Pointe Homes). C: \M \PRE96.10 \30998.PC xy_ GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties Planning Commission Staff Report 3/9/98 Page No. 4 DISCUSSION CQnsi- steri-r-y —wi-th_City-Council Guide neSf4s- -amore, inc�o_f_General Plan-Amendments The following criteria found in City Council Resolution No. 94- 1055 are used to determine the appropriateness of processing General Plan Amendments and may also be appropriate to guide decisions concerning proposed land use and zoning changes: 1. The proposed amendment request is consistent with or has a potential for consistency with the City's General Plan, including applicable goals and policies. 2. The proposed amendment request is compatible with or has a potential for compatibility with either existing or planned., uses for the surrounding properties. 3. The proposed amendment request has the potential for conformity with other City Council adopted policies. 4. The proposed amendment request has the potential to provide, through the project approval process, public improvements, public services, public amenities, and /or financial contributions that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community. The request for a I -2 (Medium Industrial) Land Use Designation would be consistent with the existing land use designation of I -2 to the south of the SPRR right -of -way. Development of industrial uses on this site could occur in a manner that achieves compatibility with the adjacent low density residential properties to the north, the Agricultural property to the west, and Specific Plan No.l located to the east and the industrial zoned property located south of the railroad. All of these properties are at a higher elevation than the subject site, except the industrial site to the south. This elevation difference between less intensive and residential uses creates an opportunity to design a project which minimizes visual and noise impacts. Development of the property for industrial uses could C: \M \PRE96.10 \30998.PC 006013 GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties Planning Commission Staff Report 3/9/98 Page No. 5 provide public improvements in the form of an arterial road to serve surrounding potential industrial uses which would link Los Angeles Avenue to the future State Route 118 bypass as depicted on the attached Circulation Element map of the General Plan (Attachment 3). The State Route 118 By -Pass could also serve to divide the industrial from the adjacent residential land uses. Future roadway improvements could be required as part of discretionary permit approvals needed for industrial development of the subject property. Tr-af_f is Austin -Faust Associates, Inc. prepared a traffic analysis for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change based on year 2015 (General Plan build -out) traffic forecasts with and without the proposed project. The City's forecasting model, including the 118 Bypass was used to prepare the 2015 levels of service for the two scenarios. Consistent with the City's guidelines for conducting traffic impact analyses, operating conditions on the roadway system in the vicinity of the site were assessed based on AM and PM peak hour traffic levels at key intersections. Intersection capacity, based on intersection turn volume projections and buildout intersection design, were utilized to determine operating Levels of Service (LOS). The City has adopted LOS "C" as the peak hour operating standard for intersections. The intersections studied were: Moorpark and High, Tierra Rejada and Los Angeles, Moorpark and Los Angeles, Gabbert and SR -118 Bypass, Gabbert and'Casey, Walnut Canyon and Casey, Gabbert and Poindexter, and SR -118 and Los Angeles. The analysis produced values that resulted in relatively minor volume increases and acceptable levels of service, LOS "C" or lower, that would be maintained at each of the eight intersections studied. It was concluded that no change to the City's General Plan Circulation Element would be required in order to adequately accommodate the A-B Properties proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Although, the Circulation Element identifies the opportunity for a north -south roadway connection to the SR 118- Bypass at this location, implementation may be difficult because of a required railroad crossing and a drainage channel at Los Angeles Avenue. Access C: \M \PRE96.10 \30998.PC 0000ZO GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties Planning Commission Staff Report 3/9/98 Page No. 6 from the east (connection to Gabbert by extending Casey Road) may be achievable, however the right -of -way does not currently exist. A more comprehensive traffic analysis will be required at the time either, a Specific Plan is required or the applicant applies for a development permit. Specific Mitigation Measures to address all relevant traffic issues are proposed under this application, to be deferred to the processing of a subdivision map or other specific development proposal. Regair-ement—f,or Sufficient I.L-egal_Access The property was subject of a previous request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 89 -1). An issue at that time was the lack of adequate access to the property to accommodate a more intense land use. At the present time, subject property has permission to cross the property to the east which comprises Specific Plan No. 1. Access is available to Gabbert Road via a "temporary easement ", that requires a yearly renewal at the option of the owner (Hitch Ranch). This easement lacks a specific width and alignment and is used for access to the agricultural use and open storage currently occurring on the site, and would not be appropriate to serve more intense uses or be recognized as permanent legal access. The Southern California Edison parcel (part of this application) abuts the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way which should not cause an issue of incompatibility, however aesthetic issues related to future structures will be important. Approval of a Medium Industrial land use will increase traffic in the area and the applicant should demonstrate that there is sufficient legal access to the site to accommodate future circulation needs. Unless sufficient legal access can be shown or guaranteed, development of the site to a more intense use would seem inappropriate. In recognition of the deficient public access to this site, the applicant has submitted a letter dated February 25,1998 in which the applicant accepts responsibility for the establishment of adequate, legal access to the property as well as responsibility for necessary improvements. C: \M \PRE96.10 \30998.PC GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties Planning Commission Staff Report 3/9/98 Page No. 7 Requirement_flour_- -Lane_Ar_t -erial- througb- -Rr�operty_ The Circulation Element of the General Plan shows the State Route 118 Bypass crossing the subject property in an east -west direction and a north -south arterial connecting the Bypass to Los Angeles Avenue west of Gabbert Road. This north -south arterial connection would serve as an interim link to the 118 Bypass until State Route 118 is ultimately extended beyond the City limits. The proposed rights -of -way described above (see Attachment 3 - Circulation Element) will affect the type of development to occur, including grading and site design. The construction of a road network that would include a connection to Los Angeles Avenue may be further complicated because of the requirement for a grade separated crossing. The project applicant does not currently possess public access rights across the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way. New railroad crossings require grade separation under current Public Utility Commission Policy. Efforts to secure funding for this grade separated crossing has been linked to the potential industrial development and jobs creation that would occur if abutting industrial zoned land is developed. It may be difficult however, to define a separate relationship for these adjacent properties, since adequate circulation to allow development involves linkage between Los Angeles Avenue, Casey Road extension and Gabbert Road. Per -inept _D-eyelopment Issues The potential for future industrial development on the subject property is good. The site is well located for access to Los Angeles Avenue and the State Route 118 By -Pass when it is constructed. The adjacent residential and agricultural uses are somewhat separated and buffered by topographic features and the existing Gabbert Canyon Drainage Channel and debris basin. The likely site grading that will occur to create construction pads should minimize visual impacts through on -site dirt balance where high graded slopes should not be necessary to create development sites. The exact grading approach is not known however only C: \M \PRE96.10 \30998.PC 000022 GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties Planning Commission Staff Report 3/9/98 Page No. 8 approximately 29 acres of the site is currently level. Adjacent proposed land uses that include the Bugle Boy industrial park (site south of railroad tracks and abutting Edison transformer station on the west) together with other industrial properties creates the opportunity to add significantly to the City's inventory of industrial land use opportunities. Specific Plan No. 1 located adjacent to the east property line of this site has been evaluated for a potential industrial business park uses in the quadrant bounded by the 118 By -Pass, Gabbert Road, the Southern Pacific Railroad easement and the subject property. If the industrial business park uses are ultimately approved by the Council, the uses would be compatible with this proposed project. However, while the future can be very positive for jobs creation, enhancement of the industrial base and implementation of the Route 118 By -Pass, many of the details of the how these issues can be resolved as a coordinated, focused effort will need to be presented with any development proposal for these areas. Due to constraints on the property relating to the existing flood control channel, the grade separation with properties to the north and west, the Southern Pacific Railroad to the south, high voltage Edison power lines located to the south and east, requirement for the 118 Bypass and a north -south arterial road, and lack of sufficient legal access to accommodate industrial traffic; a mechanism is needed to address these concerns and zoning issues. A Specific Plan provides such a mechanism. A Specific Plan includes a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: 1. The distribution, location and extent of the uses of the land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. 2. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. C: \M \PRE96.10 \30998.PC 0060 GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties Planning Commission Staff Report 3/9/98 Page No. 9 3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. 4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs 1,2, and 3. In addition, a Specific Plan must include a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan. A Specific Plan is not just limited to multi -use projects such as the Carlsberg Specific Plan, but can be used for unique uses on specific property such as the one being addressed in this report. Staff had previously recommended that a Specific Plan be considered to address the unique constraints of the property and address infrastructure requirements. Other items can be required as part of the Specific Plan such as: * Provision of public improvements, public services and /or financial contributions that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community; * Provide for the coordination of uses and design features at the "gateway" to the City. F.Vqff - - - . . - - . - • f In discussions with the applicants, another alternative has been suggested to essentially leave the existing agricultural designation on the area for the potential State Route 118 By -Pass and designate the balance of the properties industrial, with the understanding that access issues would be addressed prior to applications for development (See letters dated February 12 and 15, 1998 - Attachments 5 and 6). The applicants have suggested a 100 foot area south of the property line be the new zoning boundary. However, if a 200 foot wide right -of -way for a Route 118 By -Pass is desired, this boundary may be more appropriately C: \M \PRE96.10 \30998.PC 0060 %4 GPA 97 -2 and ZC 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties Planning Commission Staff Report 3/9/98 Page No. 10 200 feet south of the property line due to the location of the spillway and improvements related to the Gabbert Canyon debris basin. - •14-11 -r•- .- Provide direction to staff on Planning Commission recommendations regarding alternative land use designations and direct staff to prepare a Resolution to the City Council with Planning Commission recommendations regarding the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Attachments: 1. Initial Study and Environmental Document 2. General Plan and Zoning Map 3. Circulation Element Map 4. Applicant letter dated February 12, 1998 5. Applicant letter dated February 25, 1998 6. Applicant's General Plan and Zone Change and Conceptual Site Plan Exhibits C: \M \PRE96.10 \30998.PC 00002zi I. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. II CITY OF MOORPARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 _X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PRaJECT_DESCRIPT-T-ON: Entitlement: General Plan Amendment No. 97 -2 and Zone Change No. 97 -7 Applicant: A -B Properties 4875 Spring Road Moorpark, CA 93021 Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 4757 10080 Telegraph Road Ventura, CA 93007 Proposal: General Plan Amendment No. 97 -2 is a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan on approximately 43.32 acres of undeveloped land from "AG -1" (Agricultural ldu. /10 -40 acres) to 11I -2" (Medium Industrial) and Zone Change No. 97 -7 to change the zoning on the property from AE (Agricultural Exclusive) to M -2 (Limited Industrial) Location The property is located west of Gabbert Road and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the City of Moorpark ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S): 500 -34 -22 and 23 Reap.=s i.b le Agenr-y : None ,STATEMENT OF._ENVTRONMENTAL— EI.NDIDLGS : An initial study was conducted by the Community Development Department to evaluate the potential effects of this project Page 1 C:AM \95 \MPK -1S.95 ATTACHMENT 1 00(im G upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained in the attached initial study, it has been determined that this project would not have a significant effect upon the environment. III. PUBLIC REYTRW: 1. Public Notice: Publication of a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area. 2. Document Posting Period: February 3 to February 24, 1998 3. Mailing of notices to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site. Initially Prepared on Prepared by: Paul Porter, Principal Planner February 3, 1998 Page 2 C: \M \95 \MPK -IS.95 000027 INITIAL STUDY PROJECT TITLE AND CASE NO(S): General Plan Amendment No. 97 -2 and Zone Change No. 97 -7 AGENCY CONTACT: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 PROJECT APPLICANT NAME AND ADDRESS: A -B Properties 4875 Spring Road Moorpark, CA 93021 Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 4757 10080 Telegraph Road Ventura, CA 93007 PROJECT LOCATION: The property is located west of Gabbert Road and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the City of Moorpark ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S): 500 -34 -22 and 23 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: AG1 (Agricultural 10 -40 acres) ZONING: AE (Agricultural Exclusive) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 97 -2 is a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan on approximately 43.32 acres of undeveloped land from "AG -1" (Agricultural ldu. /10 -40 acres) to "I -2" (Medium Industrial) and Zone Change No. 97 -7 to change the zoning on the property from AE (Agricultural Exclusive) to M -2 (Limited Industrial) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE: The exiting site has is presently being farmed and primarily flat with existing drainage traveling in a southerly direction. The Ventura County Flood Control channels are located at the south west boundary with a debris /desilting basin located northwest of the property and SPRR Page 3 C: \M \95 \MPK -1S.95 000M8 located at the southern boundary. There are existing slopes located to the north, east and west of the property. There is a significant elevation change on the property westerly of the flood control channel. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: North: Gabbert debris basin and rural residential properties South: Southern California high power lines, SPRR and industrial zoned property East: Specific Plan No. 1 (Hitch Ranch) and nursery West: Citrus ranching at approximately 60 -80 foot higher elevation. OTHER RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC AGENCIES: None IS THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH: Moorpark General Plan Applicable Specific Plan: Moorpark Municipal Code Yes No –X— N/A Yes No N/A X Yes No N/A X ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. O Land Use & Planning X O Public Services O rJ Biological Resources O Geological Problems O O Aesthetics O O Hazards O O Air Quality O O Recreation p Transportation /Circulation Population & Housing Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources Water Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance ARE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING STUDIES REQUIRED: Page 4 C:\M\95 \MPK -[5.95 00002 Noise Study Yes NO _X_ N/A Tree Study Yes No _X_ N/A Archaeological Report Yes NO _X_ N/A Biology Report Yes NO _X_ N/A Geotechnical Report Yes No —X— N/A Soil borings and assessment for liquefaction potential Yes No _X_ N/A Traffic Study Yes—X— No N/A Other: (identify below) DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: • I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant, effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. February 3, 1998 Paul Porter, Principal Planner EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (CHECKLIST): Page 5 C: \M \95\MPK -IS.95 0000 -30 Issues (and Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant impact Significant Unless Significant Impact Sources): Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. rR c. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Be incompatible with existing or planned land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑ x d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g..' impacts to soils or farmlands), convert agricultural land to nonagricultural use, and /or result in an inadequate buffer between incompatible land uses? ❑ ❑ X O e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? ❑ ❑ ❑ x Response: If the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is granted, any development permits submitted on the site will be evaluated for consistency with both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements and building standards. The proposed change in land use would be considered consistent with the properties to the south, would be buffered by elevation differences (lower) from the agricultural and low density residential uses to the north and west and would be at a lower elevation than property to the east (Hitch Ranch) . Although currently zoned for agriculture and presently being farmed, this property is considered grazing land on Page 6 C: \M \95 \MPK -1S,95 00004"_ „ the 1996 Ventura County Important Farmland Map prepared by the State Department of Conservation . II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ X ❑ C. Displace existing residents or housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Response: The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone change will not have a significant effect on the need for increased housing. There are no residential structures located on the property at this time, so there will be no impact on existing residences on the property. Any additional impacts related to housing impacts will be evaluated as a part of the Industrial Planned Development Permits. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a. Fault rupture? (Sources: Moorpark General Plan) ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Seismic ground shaking? (Sources: Moorpark General Plan) ❑ ❑ ❑ X Page 7 C:\M \95 \MPK -1S.95 000032 C. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: Moorpark General Plan) ❑ ❑ ❑ X d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Sources: Moorpark General Plan) ❑ ❑ ❑ X e. Landslides or mudflows? (Sources: Moorpark General Plan) ❑ ❑ ❑ X f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, and /or fill? (Sources: Moorpark General Plan) ❑ ❑ ❑ X g. Subsidence of the land? (Sources: Moorpark General Plan) ❑ ❑ ❑ X h. Expansive soils? (Sources: Moorpark General Plan) ❑ ❑ ❑ X i. Unique geologic or physical features? (Sources: Moorpark General Plan) ❑ ❑ ❑ X Response: These issues will be evaluated in detail when development permits for the specific uses are submitted to the City. Specific studies addressing these issues will be submitted at that time. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not have an impact on geologic resources as at this time no structures are proposed. Page 8 C: \M \95 \MPK -IS.95 000033 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ❑ ❑ ❑ X C. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ O X e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ ❑ ❑ X f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ❑ ❑ ❑ X g. Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? ❑ ❑ ❑ X h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Page 9 C: \M \95 \MPK -1S.95 VQCV4 *. i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ X j. Location of project within a 100 -year flood hazard area as identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Moorpark? (Source: Federal Emergency Floodway Flood Boundary and Floodway Map) ❑ ❑ X ❑ Response: Although portions of the property are within the 100 year flood plain, and minor changes in drainage patterns, absorption, rate and amount of runoff will occur, improvements that would be required as part of conditions of approval for development permits would mitigate any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not have an effect on these resources. V. AIR QUALITY. would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ❑ x b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ X C. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d. Create objectionable odors ?. ❑ ❑ ❑ X Page 10 C`. \M \95 \MPK -1S.95 000035r e. Result in a significant adverse air quality impact (based on the estimated date of project completion), as identified in the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District's Guidelines for__the__Prefaara_ ion of__Air Quality Impact Analy_s -_e? O D O x f. Result in a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact based on inconsistency with the V_enturaCounty._Air Quality Management Plan? o a o x Response: A General Plan and Zone change will not directly affect the air quality. Air quality issues will be addressed with the submittal of any Industrial Planned Development Permits when specific uses and their operational characteristics will be identified. VI. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source: A -B Properties Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.) O O x O b. An intersection level of service less than the City's system performance objective? D O O x C. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? O O O x Page 11 C: \M \95 \MPK -[5.95 000030 d. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X O O O e. Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? O O O X f. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? O O 71 X g. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? O D X O h. Rail traffic impacts? O O O X Response: The analysis prepared by Austin Faust Associates, Inc. indicates the proposed zone change will result in acceptable levels of service maintained at each of the intersections studied and that no change in the City's General Plan Circulation Element would be required in order to adequately accommodate development that would result based upon the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Issues such as adequate legal access will be addressed through either a Specific Plan or the development permit review process. In addition, a detailed analysis of internal circulation patterns will be analyzed as part of an application for an Industrial Planned Development permit. At this time there is access through Hitch ranch which lies north and abuts the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way and abuts Gabbert Road. The permitted access applies to the existing farm road access across the southern edge of the Hitch Ranch and within approximately 50 feet of the southern rail line. This access is not permanent and is granted on a yearly basis at the option of the adjacent property owner. A Specific Plan would further address this issue. The property is adjacent to the SPRR an electric transformer station and high voltage transmission lines located contiguous and to the south of the property, none of which would be negatively impacted by the Page 12 C: \M \95 \MPK -1S.95 00007 establishment of industrial uses on the site. Therefore, industrial uses would be considered a compatible use. The City is currently pursuing funding to create a grade separated crossing of the existing SPRR tracts to provide additional access to the south to establish an intersection on Los Angeles Avenue to which if achieved would be consistent with the Circulation Element and policies relating to two points of access for development to provide some adequate fire suppression capability. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to. a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak woodland, riparian woodland, coastal sage scrub, etc.)? ❑ ❑ ❑ X C. Wetland habitat (e.g. riparian woodland or vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Response: The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not have an effect on biological resources. The property has been disturbed over the years through farming activity and would not be considered as viable habitat because of the long term disturbances. Any additional analysis related to biological resources will be evaluated as part of either the Specific Plan process or when individual development permits are reviewed. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Page 13 C: \M \95 \MPK -IS.95 000038 a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ❑ ❑ ❑ X C. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be future value to the region and the residents of the State? ❑ ❑ ❑ x Response: The General pan and Zone Change will have no effect on energy or mineral resources. In addition, there are no known energy or mineral resources located on the site. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ❑ ❑ ❑ x b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ x C. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Page 14 C: \M \95\MPK -IS.95 000033 e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ❑ ❑ ❑ X f. Project located within or adjacent to a high fire hazard area as defined by the Ventura County Fire Protection District? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Response: The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would not have the potential for creating a health hazard. Any potential for future health, safety or fire hazards would be addressed as part of the review process for individual development permits. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Exposure of people to conditionally acceptable or unacceptable noise levels based on the City's Noise Element? Response: The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would not have an effect on existing noise levels. Any future industrial development would be adequately conditioned as part of the development permit process to mitigate any potential noise impacts and would be required to comply with provisions of the Noise Element and implementation policies and standards. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ❑ O ❑ X b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Page 15 CAM \95WPK -1S.95 (i)Cl3 i.V C. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ x d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ x e. Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ x Response: The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would have no impact on public services. As part of the review process for development permits, public service agencies would be contacted to address any potential impacts as a result of a proposed industrial development. Conditions of Approval would be imposed to reduce any potential impacts to a level of insignificance at that time. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ x b. Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ X C. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ x d. Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ x e. Storm water drainage? Page 16 C: \M \95 \MPK -15.95 000041 ❑ ❑ ❑ x f. Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ x g. Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Response: The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would have no impact on the above captioned services. As part of the review process for development permits, public service agencies would be contacted to address any potential impacts as a result of a proposed industrial development. Conditions of Approval would be imposed to reduce any potential impacts to a level of insignificant at that time. XIII. AESTHETICS. would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ x b. Result in the loss, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ x C. Result in hillside grading that is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the City's Hillside Management regulations contained in Chapter 17.38 of the Zoning Code? ❑ ❑ ❑ x d. Create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Page 17 CAM1951MPK -1S.95 00001 l,2 e. Result in the loss of a distinctive historic or landmark tree or stand of mature trees? ❑ ❑ ❑ X f. Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Response: The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not affect the aesthetics of the area. As part of the development permit process, the applicant will be required to submit landscape plans, architectural drawing and will be conditioned to submit formal landscape plans for review and approval of the City. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ x b. Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ X C. Affect historical resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d. Have the potential to cause a physical or aesthetic change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ❑ ❑ x e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Response: The property has been continually disturbed as a result of farming activities. In addition, changing the land use Page 18 C: \M \95\MPK -IS.95 00004.3 designation on the property will have no effect on any potential cultural resources. XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Sources: ) ❑ ❑ ❑ X Response: The change in land use designation and Zone Change will not effect the recreational sources within the City. As a condition of approval of any future development permit, the project will be required to pay to the City a contribution for the maintenance of parks. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short - term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? ❑ ❑ O X C. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable? Means that he incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other Page 19 CAM \95 \MPK -[S.95 GOG04 current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) O O O x d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? O O O x XVIII. REFERENCE LIST: The references used in responding to this questionnaire include the following: St-andard References 1. EIR_fnrMoorpark. Land_ U-ae -- and Ci cilla-tion_Element._Update and Sphere of -_nf luencP Expansion Study (1992). 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060712 0005 A, September 29, 1986 and revision dated August 24, 1990. 3. GerLe-r-alPl_an__of the (Zity of _Moorpark. 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Tr_ipGen_eration, 1987. 5. Moorpark Municinal_C-ode, including Title 17, Zoning. 6. moorpark-_____Traf is Anal veis—__Mode1 —XodaL_I2es-cription_ and Validat_iQn, June 1994. 7. Technical Appendices for —the_— General Plan Noise Element, November 1994. 8. U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle Maps for Moorpark. 9. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Guidelines f_or the Preparation of —Ai_r Quality Impa_c_t_Analy_s.ee, 1989. Page 20 C: \M \95 \MPK -1S.95 000045 10. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura-County Air - QualLL, - Managemeatt_PLan, 1995. 11. A- 13-_PrQper_t es- Traffic Impact Analysis _prepared_ by- Austin Faust_Asaociat-e-s_,___Inc. dated January-2-Q,-_L99 -8 Page 21 C: \M \95 \MPK -IS.95 IOQG.i General Plan Map Abbreviations �. RL - Rural Low (1 du./ 5 acres maximum) AG -1 - Agriculture 1 (1 du./ 10 -40 acres) I -2 - Medium Industrial (.38 Far) U - Utilities C -2 - General Commercial (.25 Far) RL *Far - Floor Area Ratio - the maximum percentage of buildable area defined by the ratio of gross floor area (not including parking structures) within a structure to the total project site. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-24 ZONE CHANGE 97-7—+ . �. co H n _ AG 1 FS I TE H H H � CK 26 S R5 79 m co G Gy� a 2 37 RS ` 26 RS 79 w :CoA m m 43 PM 76 1 R 5 72 Q C -2 w 00 + WALNUT LOS ANGELES AVENUE 3 M 0,_ _ T. ° a N N [� Zoning Map Abbreviations CPD - Commercial Planned Development M -2 - Limited Industrial A -E - Agricultural Exclusive GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -2-+ ZONE CHANGE 97 -74 t/2 H H H H U A2 G .• 3� RS w: O 43 PM 76 Q 1 RS 72 � O =0 . • �' T *=SITE AE w m 26 RS 79 s' wUww- 0---0. 26 RS 79 ..Co w ..•. m .. . WA L NU T CPD CO - LOS ANGELES AVENUE Q 3 M 0 T. M ti M N O � I Ad C ,uTE i F rI ND FREEWAY i� SIX4 ANE ARTERIAL FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL —R— RURAL COLLECTOR LOCAL COLLECTOR 3 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ❑ AT -GRADE RR CROSSING GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING — '— '—'�'�• CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY ■rmrammu■ . SR -118 FREEWAY CORRIDOR Our mr0 .Mrrr nor Prrrr�l prrut Wprm<wu la Iwrwrr 14wrr ranrW . w rnr C., W Ng hrr f.nyr 'an u (h p.nmrwr rry lowwurr.n Pn'tnpmr Dsp+ne.enr fur rW.,w.n�r u.r.rnnar.w FIGURE 2 C= OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT" ATTACHMENT 3 HIGHWAY NETWORK May 13. 1992 000045 r Attachment 4 4875 SprringTRoad Moorpark, California 93021 805/529 -3220 February 12, 1998 Nelson Miller Director Department of Community Development 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: GPA 97 -2 ZC 97 -6 A -B Properties 34 Acres W /Gabbert, N /SPRR "M -2" Medium Industrial Dear Nelson: Our representative, John Newton, has advised us of your discussion with him concerning long range circulation planning in the vicinity of our property, particularly the future 118 Bypass corridor. You will recall that with your input, along with that of the Public Works Director and City Engineer, John directed our engineer to provide a conceptual site plan and a conceptual circulation plan, for the area, per your request. On both plans we have proposed to accomodate the westerly extension of the 118 Bypass as currently conceived in the Caltrans 118 Corridor Study. Additionally, we provided a collector circulation proposal, including the City desired "interim" connection to Los Angeles Avenue west of the Edison Substation. Elevations providing for an underpass of the S.P. Railroad were also provided. We believe that in conjunction with approved, in process and proposed projects in the immediate area (Country Club Estates, Hitch Ranch SP -1, Bugle Boy), and other properties in the vicinity; our proposed 34 acre "M -2" medium industrial park is a key, linking parcel which will help facilitate needed public works and traffic facility improvements. It is our intention to proceed with an Industrial Planned Development Permit application immediately following rezoning (the City's current procedural requirement). We both have grading and public works infrastruc- ture construction backgrounds, and intend to develop the property into finished industrial lots, or complete the site improvements for a single, large industrial user if one should be identified prior to our industrial subdivision process.* RECEIVED C: \lm \PC- minutes \98pcmin \97ITEM4.wpd!2:93 A:: FEB 121998 004 V ;Q City of Moorpark Community Development Department Nelson Miller February 12, 1998 Page 2 In specific response to your inquiry of John regarding assistance in avoiding a potential increase in public cost of condemnation, should something unforseen prevent our proceeding to development prior to establishment of a 118 Bypass project, we suggest that the northerly zoning boundary be approximately 100' south of our property line as depicted on our map exhibits. Again, we plan to proceed to industrial site development as quickly as possible under current City policy, and therefore expect to dedicate the subject future 118 ROW 100' strip as part of that process. This routine process would also address your concerns. However, in the spirit of cooper- ation, and to further encourage expeditious processing of our application, please advise the Planning Commission, City Council and City Manager that we have no objection to the reduced zoning area, as a means of reducing potential ROW acquisition costs for the City in the unlikely event this is required in the future. Sincerely, A -B operties i R y Stephen R. Anderson Par e Paul D. Burns Partner o0 0051 A -B PROPERTIES 4875 Spring Road Moorpark, California 93021 805/529 -3220 Wayne Loftus Planning Manager 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: Our February 12, 1998 Letter GPA 97 -2, ZC 97 -6 34 Acres W /Gabbert, N /SPRR "M -2" Medium Industrial Dear Wayne: Attachment 5 RECEIVED FEB 2 6 1998 Cit'v Ot %loorpark Cc7 m uriry Deve�opr-;ent De;,artmer,; February 25, 1998 Following our conversation this morning and your follow up discussion with John Newton, please accept this letter as further clarification of A -B Properties'responsibilities. Also, I will be signing this letter on behalf of the partnership. Paul Burns is a regional emergency contractor for Caltrans, and is completely unavailable to me due to current storm - related emergency roadway repair work. A -B Properties understands and accepts responsibility for the establish ment of adequate, legal access to the subject property and, accepts responsi bility for the necessary improvements required to facilitate our proposed industrial project. We understand that these are A -B Properties' responsi- bilities even if other projects in the area (Hitch Ranch, SP -1 -Bugle Boy, etc.) are not ready to proceed when we are. It would be our responsibility to establish any cost - sharing arrangement with other property owners benefitting from the improvements, if other projects are not proceeding and participating in their own share of improvement costs and, if no other methoc of cost allocation has been established (benefit assessment district, etc.) by the time we wish to proceed. Further, we understand that proceeding on our own will be at no cost to the City, and we accept that as well. Hopefully, this focuses upon and clarifies this element of our February 12, 1998 letter. Thank you Wayne. Sincerely, A -B Properties D: \1M -mi es \ min \9 Stephen R. Partner 000052 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Current Planning 1. Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 95 -1 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 5001 - Major Mod No. 1, Conditional Use Permit 98 -1 (Marketplace Partners): Kindercare and Rite Aid are currently under construction. An application for a Minor Modification was received on July 27, 1998, for adoption of a sign program, which exceeds the sizes allowed by the Code. A staff report has been completed referring the decision to the City Council with a recommendation for denial due to the excess sign area. This item will be scheduled for review by the City Council on September 2, 1998. The applicant has obtained a Zoning Clearance for the site improvements which includes the property line wall. 2. Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 96 -3, Tentative Parcel Map No 5036 and Conditional Use Permit No. 96 -2 (DeeWayne Jones): This proposed, mixed -use commercial development is located west of Mission Bell - Phase H. The applicant's architect is currently making changes to the building elevations which appear to have similar features to those found at the Promenade shopping center located on Westlake Boulevard in Westlake. Once elevations to the site plan and elevations have been completed, the applicant will be filing for a modification to the existing permit. 3. Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 97 -01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -2 (Ahmad Eddie Gharabaghi): A gasoline station with 14 vehicle fueling positions and a 4,000 square foot mini -mart, car wash and quick -lube facility planned for the southwest corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Liberty Bell Road. The applicant plans to begin construction during September, 1998. Staff met with the applicant on August 19, 1998 to review the sign regulations imposed by the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of approval in preparation for the applicant's submission of a revised sign program. A Zoning Clearance for grading of the site has been approved by the Department of Community Development. 4. General Plan Amendment No. 96 -01, Zone Change No. 96 -2, Residential Planned Development Permit 96 -1, Tentative Tract Map 5053 and Development Agreement No. 98 -23 (Pacific Communities): A proposed single family residential project of 305 dwellings on the South side of Los Angeles Avenue west of Liberty Bell Road (formerly the Westland project) next to the Arroyo Simi. On June 8, 1998, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the project to the City Council. The Draft Development Agreement has been revised to reflect the format of the Messenger Development Agreement (Specific Plan 8). Following review by the Ad Hoc Committee (Councilmembers Perez and Teasley), it will be scheduled for preliminary review by the City Council, possibly in September with subsequent public hearing required by Planning Commission and City Council. C: I" ONTHLY .RP71824.98//25Aug98//11:33 am 's 00GO55 5. General Plan Amendment No. 97 -03, Zone Change No. 97 -3 and Residential Planned Development No. 97 -1 (Security Capital Pacific Trust): This current proposed project a 312 -unit apartment complex on property located west of the LeClub Apartments and south of the existing Arco Station. On June 3, 1998, the City Council authorized the applicant to continue processing the project and apply for variances from Ordinance requirements. The applicant is currently completing additional revisions to the site plan and building elevations. The applicant will be resubmitting application materials to the Department of Community Development on August 26, 1998. C: U" ONTHLY ..RP71824.98//25Aug98//11:33 am ()()(;()Z;4 6. Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 95 -02 (Special Devices, Incorporated): Staff has been informed that the building will be ready to occupy by mid to late November 1998. The applicant has delivered a schedule for construction of the interchange improvements to the Department of Community Development which projects completion of the ramps by the end of November. The applicant's landscape architect has met with the City's consultant to finalize issues relating to the Oak Tree Replacement Program. 7. Industrial Planned Development Permit Numbers 98 -1, 98 -2, and 98 -3 (Jerrold S. Felsenthal): Applications have been in process since January 1998 for three Industrial Planned Development Permits for tilt -up industrial buildings totaling 59,150 square feet on approximately 2.9 acres on the Northeast corner of Condor Drive and Los Angeles Avenue. The applicant's architect will be scheduling a meeting with the Principal Planner within the during September to discuss condition compliance issues. 8. Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 96 -1 and -2- (West America Construction and Gibb's and Associates): This project is located on the West side of Science Drive north of New Los Angeles Avenue. The Gibb's and Associates building is under construction, while the other buildings have been completed. 9. Industrial Planned Development 98 -4/5 (SPAR Investment): Revised applications were received for construction of two industrial buildings, totaling 30,582 sq. ft. in size on Bonsai and Kazuko Courts. On August 24, 1998, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council conditional approval of the two industrial buildings. These projects will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing in September, 1998. 10. Industrial Planned Development 97 -3 (Kavlico /Sunbelt Properties): Construction of the latest addition of a 42,146 square foot building is currently underway on Los Angeles Avenue at Highway 118 and Condor Drive. 11. Industrial Planned Development 95 -1 (West America Construction): This project includes three industrial buildings located on Endeavor Court south of Poindexter Avenue totaling 137,896 square feet. The applicant has commenced construction on the two buildings adjacent to Poindexter Avenue. 12. Residential Planned Development No. 98 -01 and Tentative Tract Map No. 5133 (Kaufmann and Broad): An application proposing a development of 76 single family homes on a 9.2 acre parcel located on the South side of Los Angeles Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet east of Moorpark Avenue between the Regal Park Condominiums and Fremont Street. A Second incompleteness letter was sent to the applicant on July 28, 1998. 13. Specific Plan No. 92 -1 (Carlsberg/Lennar): The Carlsberg Specific Plan is located on approximately 488 acres south of Los Angeles Avenue east of Spring Road, north of Tierra Rejada Road, south of Los Angeles Avenue and west of the 23 Freeway and has C: U" ONTHLY. ..RP71824.981125Aug98//11:33 am 000055 been approved for 552 single family homes in addition to industrial and commercial development, open space and a park. Staff held a meeting with Mr. Laycook on August 11, 1998. On July 7, 1998, an application was received for temporary use (six months) of a rock crusher to provide rock base material to be used as a base material for the streets within the Specific Plan area. The City Council approved Resolution No. 98 -1493 on July 15, 1998 approving the temporary use. The applicant has filed a performance bond with the City and is in the process of filing a bond agreement. 14. Tentative Tract 5115 (C.T. Financial): This is a proposed subdivision of 33.9 acres located within the Carlsberg Specific Plan to be developed with industrial uses and is generally located south of New Los Angeles Avenue and east of Science Drive. Meetings with the applicant and staff were held on June 16, 24, and August 12, 1998 to discuss submittal requirements for Industrial Planned Development Permits related to the Tract. The applicant is in the process of preparing submittal information for Industrial Planned Development Permits. 15. General Plan Amendment No. 97 -02 and Zone Change No. 97 -6 (A -B Properties): An application for a General Plan Amendment requesting a change in the Land Use designation from "AG -1" (Agricultural 1DU /10 -40 Acres) to "I -2" (Medium Industrial) and a Zone Change from AE (Agricultural Exclusive) to M -2 (Limited Industrial) located approximately 1300 feet west of Gabbert Road and north of the railroad tracks. This project was heard by the Planning Commission on March 9, 1998, and a resolution recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment to the City Council was adopted on April 13, 1998. This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 2, 1998. 16. Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 90 -2 Minor Modification No. 6 (Moorpark Partners): An application was received on July 27, 1998 for approval of the elevations for construction of pad building `B" located at the corner of Tierra Rejada Road and Mountain Trail Street. C: t " ONTHLY ..RP71824.98 //25Aug98//11: 33 am WR tIR;