Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AGENDA REPORT 1999 0915 CC REG ITEM 09E
To: From: Date: AGENDA REPORT City of Moorpark The Honorable City Council Paul Porter, Principal PlanneQp_ ITEM 1-L- CITY OF ?MOO'R P ARK, CALTFORNiA 01-y Council Nfeefing of )eatembeL& !Qg17 ACTION:ldji2hl2bldll t) at.k n_1111 .1l J rlhira 44,-no, BY: September 2, 1999 (City Council Meeting of 9- 15 -99) Subject: CONSIDER RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 98 -1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5133 (FAR WEST HOMES, LLC) RELATING TO PROPOSAL FOR 80 CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNITS AND THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AND THE CREATION OF 80 AIR SPACE CONDOMINIUMS ON APPROXIMATELY 9.21 GROSS ACRES LOCATED SOUTH LOS ANGELES AVENUE WEST OF FREEMONT STREET AND NORTH OF THE ARROYO SIMI (ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS.: 506 -0- 020 -48 and 51) BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission on August 30, 1999, reviewed this proposed condominium project and subdivision for 80 units on approximately 9.21 acres and referred the project to the City Council without a recommendation for approval or denial, but with a list of concerns. A representative of the Planning Commission will be present at the Council meeting to represent the Planning Commission's concerns. DISCUSSION: The Far West Homes, LLC project Planned Development Permit for residential condominium units and a three lot subdivision and creation o Project Description: Residential Planned Development 98 -1 This is a request for approval condominium dwelling units on 9.2 floor plans as follows: ■ 16 -Plan One at 1,562 square feet consists of a Residential the proposed 80 detached Tentative Tract Map for a f 80 airspace condominiums. to construct eighty (80) acres. There will be three 0000 I City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 2 • 24 -Plan Two at 1681 square feet • 40 -Plan Three at 1,770 square feet. A private street, "A" Street (which is contingent on acquiring land from the Redevelopment Agency), is proposed to be developed along the western boundary of the project in a north /south direction from Los Angeles Avenue (SR -118) southerly to Majestic Court and will serve as a local collector for the project. Majestic Court, an existing local street located at the project's west property line, will be extended through the project site to the east and will be provide connection to Moorpark Avenue to the west of the project location for this project and potential future developments to the east of this location. Additionally, five private streets, a recreation area with pool, spa and recreation building, landscaping and guest parking is proposed. Size of Private Yard Areas This proposed project has different private yard areas. The smallest lots are along the angles of the east -west "hammerhead" street. The smallest of these lots (Lot 5) which has the smaller rear yard than the others due to the 20' landscaping area at the front of the project has a lot area of approximately 2,348 sq. ft. The largest lot on the site appears to be lot 42 which borders the proposed Flood Control District right -of -way and is approximately 4,602 sq. ft. The majority of the lots on the site are approximately 2,571 sq. ft. Proposed Walls: The applicant has proposed a 6 -foot high slump stone block wall around all yard areas and on the west property line. Consistent with other recently approved residential projects and the Noise Study prepared for this project, staff would propose that a ten (10) foot high sound attenuation wall constructed of slump block or other decorative masonry material (as approved by the Director of Community Development) wall be constructed along the property frontage adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue, along the west property line adjacent to the Regal Park Condominiums and along the east property line where adjacent uses are single- family homes. It is also recommended that a six foot high fence consisting of the first three feet constructed of slump stone block or other decorative masonry material as approved by the Director of IWOR PRI_ SERV lhank_IMerslPPorterYMPD981TR1989 ft S� i City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 3 Community Development and the upper three feet of wrought iron be constructed along the southerly property line adjacent to the Arroyo Simi. This would provide a view corridor from the residences adjacent to the arroyo southerly across the Arroyo Simi. Tentative Tract Map No. 5133 This proposal is a subdivision of approximately 9.21 gross acres into three parcels of 4.96 acres, 2.26 acres and 1.48 acres net and the creation of 80 air space condominiums. Lots No. 1 and 2 will be used for condominium purposes, including recreational facilities, and Lot No. 3 will be dedicated to the Ventura County Flood Control District for the eventual expansion of the Arroyo Simi facilities abutting the project site. An adjoining parcel along the west property line of this project of approximately 1.3 acres owned by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency is planned to be incorporated into the project for circulation purposes ( "A" Street) and is included within the 9.21 acre area to be subdivided. This is contingent on the purchase of the land from the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. Ordinance Requirements Parking Chapter 17.32 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for parking. The parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 160 garage parking spaces and 40 visitor parking spaces for a total of 200 parking spaces for the project. The site plan as proposed provides for 160 parking spaces within two car garages, 25 guest parking spaces located between structures and at the recreation facility, and 33 parking spaces between driveways to individual dwellings (parallel on- street parking) along the private streets for a total of 218 parking spaces. However, the proposed parallel parking spaces located between driveways along the private roads are approximately 20.5 feet long from the top of each driveway curb -cut and approximately 24 1/2 feet long from the bottom of each curb -cut which could be consistent with Section 17.32.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires parallel parking spaces to have a minimum length 24.5 feet. In order to prevent automobiles from parking in front of garage doors, staff recommends inclusion of IWOR PRI_ SERVO= e_ folderslPPorterYMPD981TR191599 .cc.doc 000053 City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 4 a condition precluding the parking of automobiles in the driveway entrances. The dwelling front yard setbacks range from 5 feet to 10.5 feet, and as a result there appears to be no extra parking or outdoor area to temporarily park a car other than a guest space. Based upon the current design there will be no opportunity for extra parking, requiring residents to use their garage at all times. Additionally, because of the 5 foot and 10 foot garage setbacks the simple act of washing a car or temporarily parking in the driveway between errands will not be possible and enforcement of these limitations is likely to be difficult. Guest parking at the end of the private drives would result in a reduced setback to approximately 2 -1/2 feet between a parked automobile and the residence. Although the proposed landscape plan shows landscaping adjacent to the parking space, there would be insufficient room between the automobile and proposed landscaping to exit the vehicle. Staff would suggest that guest parking be limited to one at each of these locations, if the plan is acceptable to the Fire Department. Elimination of one parking space on each side would increase the available distance by nine (9) feet which could allow development of a pedestrian trail running parallel with the east property line connecting each of the hammerhead turnarounds to the recreation area. Setbacks Chapter 17.36 of the Municipal Code requires minimum setbacks unless modified by the City Council. This project does not meet minimum required setbacks, which are: ■ Second story with windows setback 10 feet from interior property line. • Setback from public street 10 feet (to right -of -way). • Average front yard setback of 20 feet (20 feet minimum required). Small lot projects such as this proposed air space condominium project seldom achieve the Ordinance criteria related to setbacks for typical subdivisions where larger lots are established. However, setback criteria for garage access from public streets should be adhered to. IWOR_PRI SERVOome _fakers"orteMWPD981TR1911559� oc City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 5 Planning Commission Review On August 30, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Tentative Tract Map and Residential Planned Development Permit. The Planning Commission did not take action to recommend approval or denial of the project as the project had several unresolved issues. In lieu of making a recommendation to the Council for approval or denial, the Planning Commission took action to forward a list of concerns to the City Council and have a representative from the Planning Commission at the Council hearing to express the Commission's concerns. Planning Commission concerns related to the following issues: Width of Proposed "A" Street Proposed vehicular access to the site would be from Los Angeles Avenue to "A" Street from the north and from Majestic Court connecting to Moorpark Avenue from the west. Although proposed as a private street with a 32 foot wide travel -way, the City Engineer has conditioned "A" Street to be a public street from Majestic Court northerly to Los Angeles Avenue with a 52 -foot wide right -of -way (36 feet curb to curb), since it will serve as a Collector Street for residences in this project and residential development to the west. As recommended by the City Engineer, the design of the intersection of "A" Street and Los Angeles Avenue will eliminate the opportunity for westbound traffic to turn left onto "A" Street and left turns from "A" Street onto Los Angeles Avenue would be precluded. The turning movements that will be allowed will include right turns onto Los Angeles Avenue for eastbound traffic and right turns into the project for eastbound Los Angeles Avenue traffic. All other traffic movements to or from this site will be required to use Majestic Court with connection to Moorpark Avenue and channel through the Moorpark Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue intersection. As proposed by the applicant, "A" Street (Majestic Court to Los Angeles Avenue) would be a private street designed with 32 feet of travel way, parking on the east side only, a five foot sidewalk on the east side and 16.5 feet of landscaping on the IWOR PRI_ SERVlhom e_f olderslPPorterURPD981TM91599 .cc.doc 0000 � City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 6 west side of the street. The total dimensional cross section for applicant's design is 53.5 feet. The Planning Commission did not select a width for "A" Street, but stated that having "A" Street as a public versus private street was a good idea to insure access and circulation to this portion of the City, including emergency and service vehicles. The Commission also indicated there was a need for additional landscaping along the western property line adjacent to the existing condominiums. As designed, the applicant's proposed private drive would serve as a public travelway, however, the requirement for maintenance and liability would belong to the Homeowners Association. Access to this portion of the City is not adequate currently. Although turning movements at "A" Street and Los Angeles Avenue will be restricted, circulation will none the less be improved. As located on the west property line "A" Street avoids the creation of a four way intersection on Los Angeles Avenue with Millard Street. Location of "A" Street at the west property line results in the limitation of turning movements described above. Reduced Setbacks of Residences Adjacent to "A" Street and Throughout the Project The residences with driveways along "A" Street have a front yard setback of approximately five (5) feet from the garage doors to the front property line. "A" Street will serve as a Collector Street, and is proposed as a 52 -foot public right -of -way. The Planning Commission indicated that the setbacks south of Majestic Court along "A" Street were acceptable, but that setbacks of residences north of Majestic Court should be increased to approximately 20 -feet which is consistent with the requirement of other developments throughout the City and would provide appropriate visibility for through traffic and residents taking vehicular access to this property. Staff suggests a redesign of the project so garages do not take access onto "A" Street (see attached Staff proposed Alternative "A" with 77 dwelling units). There was also a concern on the part of the Planning Commission that approval of an detached condominium project with reduced setbacks, is not allowed in the Zoning Ordinance and could set a precedent for future similar projects within the City. IWOR_PRI SERMome ioldersV "PorterWPD981TR191599.cc.dw 0 0 0® S VI City Council RPD 98 -1 and Page No. 7 Staff Report TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Detached versus Attached Condominium Units The Planning Commission indicated that having a detached condominium project such as the proposal was more desirable than an attached condominium project because it gave future homebuyers an opportunity to purchase a residential units that has similar attributes to a single family detached residence. In addition, the Commission indicated that this project would act as a transition project in that there are single family residences located to the east (Freemont Street) and attached condominiums on the west (Regal Park). Size and Amenities of Recreational Area The applicant has proposed a recreational area that is to contain a storage /bathroom structure, pool, spa and sundeck. The pool size has not been specified. The Planning Commission indicated that the recreational area, including a provision for parking and handicapped access be provided, but did not specify a specific size. The Commission indicated that a complex of this size to provide recreational opportunities for all age groups as the project could attract new homebuyers with young families and it was not advisable to have children play in the cul -de -sacs. In general, the Commission was concerned that the overall design of the project as proposed by this application does not reflect adequate Open Space and recreation areas to substitute for the small yards and reduced setbacks proposed. Staff would recommend that the increased to 12,000 square feet clubhouse, tot lot, wading pool, area of 1,000 sq. ft. size of the recreation area be and that the amenities include a and pool with a minimum surface Need for: Guest Parking, Adequate Sized Interior Garage Space and Requirement that Residences Park in Garages The Planning Commission was concerned that the project did not provide adequate guest parking and that residences along the private drives do not have 20 foot long driveways for vehicle parking. The concern is that residents generally use garages IIMOR_ PRI_ SERVlhome_fofdersWcderlMIRPD981 TR191599.cc.doc 00005'd' City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 8 for storage rather than vehicle parking which can further compound parking problems when adequate driveway aprons are not provided. Although the applicant indicated there was sufficient guest parking, the applicant counted parking along "A" Street toward guest parking as well as parking between driveway curb - cuts which did not meet ordinance criteria for parallel parking which is 24 1/2 feet long. Another concern was that in many garages, interior space intended for parking of automobiles is used with items such as water heaters, furnaces, washer dryers or other items. The Commission indicated the importance of having an unobstructed space of 20" by 20" for the exclusive use of automobile parking and that residences utilize garages for parking. A condition is recommended requiring all guest parking spaces to be posted for "guest parking only ". Safetv of School Children on Private Streets (need for sidewalk The Planning Commission had a concern that children walking to and from school along the private cul -de -sac streets creates a safety issue as the applicant proposes parking on both sides of the private drives and the garages are only five feet from the street. It was the consensus of the Commission that a sidewalk should be provided on one side along the length of each of the private drives. A condition has been included requiring a four (4) foot wide sidewalk on all private streets. Concern Regarding Ingress and Egress in Close Proximity to Regal Park Condominiums The Planning Commission was concerned the Regal Park Condominium project has an access directly in within close proximity to the ingress /egress of this project via "A" Street. The concern was that having two access within such close proximity to each other along Los Angeles Avenue could create a potential safety issue. Based on the proximity of proposed "A" Street to the Regal Park Homes access which is approximately 20 feet, creating a potential for vehicular conflicts between the two. The City Engineer has suggested a condition requiring a driveway access to be constructed from the Regal Park Homes property to the west through to "A" Street, north of Majestic Court. All costs IWOR_ PRI_ SERVlhome _fo)derslPPorteWRPD981 TR19 M5s City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 9 associated with the construction and removals are to be at the developer's expense. Affordable Housing The Commission indicated a consensus that all of the affordable housing for this project should be located on -site rather than off -site. Similar to Pacific Communities Project, staff would suggest the applicant have an approved Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map and that the developer pay a fee of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) per unit to the City (In -Lieu Fee) in lieu of construction of the Very Low Income Affordable Housing Units on -site. The applicant has proposed that all of the Low Income Units be provided off -site. Staff recommends that the following condition be added to the Tentative Tract Map addressing affordable housing: (1') Low Incrn Hai TIMOR PRI SERVlhome_ folderslPPorterWPD981TR191599 .cc.doc 0000 � City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 10 TIMOR TRI96Vft c .-I City Council RPD 98 -1 and Page No. 11 Staff Report TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) 3), Prepra'cin 'Fee. Need for Additional Architectural Elements including Multiple Elevations for Each Plan Type The Planning Commission indicated that the elevations as proposed did not have sufficient articulation on the zero lot line side of the elevations and that consideration of having multiple elevations for each of the plan types which would serve to soften and enhance the building design. This would also be in keeping with the architectural style of recently approved affordable housing projects within the City and at the same time provide some movement within the flat surfaces of the walls in order to provide additional interest. A condition has been included requiring additional architectural features including such items as additional insets and /or pop -outs, and /or dormers ®0W)i IWOR PRI_SERVlhomeJoldeis PPoRerIWPD981TR191599.cc.doc City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 12 which would serve to both break up the horizontal and vertical plane of the walls. A suggestion was made that another type of opaque glass treatment be utilized on the side elevations, as the block as proposed is not consistent with the architectural style of the structures. Landscaped Pedestrian Path to Recreational Areas Guest parking at the end of the private drives would result in a reduced setback to approximately 2 -1/2 feet between a parked automobile and the residence. Although the proposed landscape plan shows landscaping adjacent to the parking space, there would be insufficient room between the automobile and proposed landscaping to exit the vehicle. Staff would suggest that guest parking either not be allowed at the end of the cul -de -sac, or that the number of spaces be limited to one at each of these locations. Elimination of one parking space on each side would increase the available distance by nine (9) feet which could allow development of a pedestrian trail running parallel with the east property line connecting each of the hammerhead turnarounds to the recreation area. Affordable Housing /Community Development Committee The Affordable Housing /Community Development Committee (Mayor Hunter /Councilmember Evans) have reviewed this proposed project at several meetings with the applicant and have concluded that from a design perspective: • Parking for guests would be most appropriately provided on the street and with street widths of 36 feet (curb to curb). • Reduction in the depth of the rear yards and the side yards could be acceptable if the design including window placement provided justification. • On- street parking to serve the needs of the recreation facility was adequate. • Reduced front yard setbacks, including the distance from the garage door to the travelway was workable, if the design discouraged driveway parking when less than 20 feet in depth 000092 11MOR_ PRI _SERVlhome_foldersWorterlWPD981 TR191599.cc.doc City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 13 is provided and when this condition occurs on a private street. Staff Alternative Plans for 79 and 77 Dwellinq Units Staff has proposed two possible alternative Plans (Alternative "A" (77 dwelling units) and Alternative "B" (79 units) which address: • Setback on Los Angeles Avenue as the distance between the buildings (north and south) can be reduced. This would allow ten (10) feet of landscaping along Los Angeles Avenue south of the required 70 foot dedication to be achieved. • Increase in the size of the private recreation area. • Eliminates backing out of driveways to the proposed collector street ( "A" Street). • Allows "A" Street to be 36 feet wide curb -to -curb as parking near the east property line at the end of the hammerhead can be eliminated. Staff would recommend that the plans be revised pursuant to staff Alternative "A ", which would increase the recreation area to 12,000 sq.ft, reducing the number of dwelling units to 77 and would not have driveways taking direct access on "A" Street. Submitted Plans Don't Show Impact Proposed Landscaping Adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue During the course of the Planning Commission hearing, it was discovered and stated to the Planning Commission that the area required for dedication along Los Angeles Avenue for street widening was not completely shown. An existing dedication of 8- feet is noted however 19 -feet (11 -feet of additional dedication) to achieve 70 -feet of right -of -way for the south half of Los Angeles Avenue is required. The result of subtracting the additional 11 -feet of street dedication from the property dimensions as shown reduces the landscaped setback along Los Angeles Avenue. The design standard required for Pacific Communities where the right -of -way requirement was fulfilled and the sidewalk was placed on private property in an easement with approximately ten (10) feet of landscaping separating the south ()00093 IWOR_ PRI _SERVlhome_folderslPPorterWPD981 TR191599.cc.doc City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 14 edge of sidewalk from the project's sound attenuation wall should be the minimum acceptable deign on Los Angeles Avenue. The impacts that this street dedication requirement and landscape treatment will have on this project is not fully known. However, as designed, the conceptual landscape plan does not take into consideration the impact of the additional right - of -way dedication. Staff would suggest that along Los Angeles Avenue, the the street right -of -way plan provide a six (6) foot wide sidewalk and ten (10) foot parkway to be constructed along the Los Angeles Avenue property frontage. The parkway should be located adjacent to the curb on Los Angeles Avenue with the sidewalk lying south of the property line and the new parkway or as determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. Modifications to Conditions Since the Planning Commission report was prepared, the following conditions either been modified for purposes of clarity or added. Proposed revisions and or additions have been shown in legislative format: Tentative Tract Map No. 5133 Conditions 26 0000011 WWOR PRI_ SERM= e_ folderslPPorterMRPD98fTR191599 .x.doc City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 15 ( 1) I; ©w zrame Hang 0600 -3 IWOR PRI SERVlh ome_ bderslPPo rterWPD981TR191599.cc,doc City Council RPD 98 -1 and Page No. 16 Staff Report TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) (2) Very I;aw Iny�m ' Hou:s rig 42. All development areas and lots shall be designed and graded so that surface drainage is collected by the on -site storm drain system and pretreated by a device such as an 000090 IWOR_ PRI _SERVlhome_/olderslPPorteAWPD981 TRI91599.cc.doc City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 17 oil /water separator, sand '; off^ or City � ;VCF�t ap�sroved NF ©ES dev ce equal prior to discharging storm water onto 66. The developer shall submit for review and approval traffic counts /estimates for stacking of vehicles at the entrance of "A" Street during peak hours. The Developer shall justify that the design of the entrance of "A' Street is adequate for peak hour stacking of vehicles and truck turning radius movements to9t4��':. The Developer shall submit for review and approval traffic data to justify the design of deceleration and acceleration lanes on Los Angeles Avenue. 72. The developer shall submit for review and approval traffic counts /estimates for stacking of vehicles at the entrance of "A" Street during peak hours. The Developer shall justify that the design of the entrance of "A" Street is adequate for peak hour stacking of vehicles and truck turning radius movements (45 foot mxE t` }ii The Developer shall submit for review and approval traffic data to justify the design of deceleration and acceleration lanes on Los Angeles Avenue. 00001-1-1`2 IWOR PRI SERVlh o me_folderslPPorterWPD981TR191599 .cc.doc City Council RPD 98 -1 and Page No. 18 7' Staff Report TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Beveleper- the issuance of a Zoning Clearance running with the 92. The shall eiEeeute traffle a eevenant fee) the behalf land (er- pay a fflitigatien itself = Its hem -and an easement en &-f ass±gns agree±ng to and sueeessems, all landscaping and walls adjacent Los Angeles herdnane teehnique- nelding,, "A" Street, 'in the !event such �s:determned to t net limited —t-e, et- -ing the City ', at ' it's, s. , tle ''discretion. The Homeowners PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 125. If directed by the City, the Developer shall have repaired, overlayed or slurried that portion of Mooark =7venue, Majestic Court and /or Los Angeles Avenue adjacent to the development. The repairs, curb replacement, parkways, sidewalks, and overlay or slurry of the street, as a result of damage from construction work or utility trenching shall be along the entire length of the project including transitions unless otherwise approved and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Residential Planned Development Permit No. 98 -1 Conditions Submittal of Landscape Plans 26.(t)Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction and /or recordation of Tentative Tract Map No. 5133, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable offer of an easement to the City for the purpose of maintaining all landscaping and walls adjacent Los Angeles Avenue and "A" Street, 'in the !event such �s:determned to be necessary, by the City ', at ' it's, s. , tle ''discretion. The Homeowners 000098 TIMOR PRI SERVlhome_/ oldersWo rterWPD981TR191599.ocdoc City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 19 Association shall be responsible for maintenance of all common areas as determined by the City. Bermed landscaping consisting of trees, ground cover, flowers and shrubs shall be provided along the property frontage adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue. Revisions to Plans 33. The existing plans shall be revised by the applicant and approved by the Director of Community Development. The following revisions shall be made: a. The windows on all building elevations shall be provided with surrounds or other architectural features as approved by the Director of Community Development. b. All garage doors shall be of the roll -up sectional type and have automatic garage door openers. C. Additional garage door designs shall be provided. The design of the doors are subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development. d. The property line along the east and west property line and along the Los Angeles Avenue property frontage shall have an eight --(8 ) a °en', {. p) foot high wall (as measured on the project side). The project property line wall shall be constructed prior to issuance of building permits for dwelling construction. Interior and exterior walls separating yards shall be six (6) feet high and made of slump block brown in color (or as otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development). Front yard gates shall be Redwood. e. Prior to issuance of permits for dwelling construction, the proposed property line wall along the east and west property line portions of the project shall be constructed. The location of the wall shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 000009 IWOR_PR! SERMm) foldetsWPo ►fer1WPD981TR191599.cc.doc City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 20 f. The first row of residential structures proposed adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue shall be constructed with windows, walls and roofs with an STC rating of 30 or greater. The applicant's engineer shall certify that this criteria has been met. g. A six (6) foot high wall and gate (for future access to the Arroyo Simi) along the southerly property line shall be constructed. The bottom three (3) feet shall be constructed of slump block (or other material as approved by the Director of Community Development)and the top three (3) feet shall be wrought iron. h. A ten foot (10) wide dense landscaping buffer along the entire length of the southerly property line adjacent to the Arroyo Simi shall be provided. i. The guest parking spaces located at the end of the private streets shall be eliminated and replaced with a pedestrian path to the recreational area. The pedestrian path shall be landscaped on both sides with a variety of trees, shrubs and ground color. - - - -- -- - - -- - -- - - - - -- 1. Additional architectural features shall be incorporated into the design including such items as additional insets and /or pop -outs, and /or dormers which would serve to both break up the horizontal and 00011GO IIMOR PRI_SERVlhom a _folderslPPorteAMIRPD981TR191599 .cc.doc City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 21 vertical plane of the walls. Additionally, the use of exposed rafter tails, more elaborate surrounds on all windows, additional irregularly placed deep inset windows, lintels at window heads, and door surrounds should be considered. M. All bathroom windows on the second story shall be located a minimum of 516" above the floor level and have opaque glass. n. The project shall be redesigned to provide one half (1/2) parking space per dwelling unit with each space to be a minimum of 24 1/2 feet in length. q .' PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 000101 IWOR PRI_ SERVlho me_tolderslPPorterWPD981TR191599 .cc.doc City Council Staff Report RPD 98 -1 and TT 5133 (Far West Homes, LLC) Page No. 22 SUMMARY Based upon the deficiencies of the project and the concerns of the Planning Commission as expressed by the Planning Commission on August 30, 1999, staff is unable to recommend approval or denial of the project at this time. It is suggested that the Council consider requiring the applicant to modify the project to address the concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony. 2. Review, consider and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 3. Require the applicant to revise plans per Alternative "A" (77 units) and incorporating revisions as in the recommended conditions of approval. 4. Continue the public hearing to a date certain. Exhibits: 1. Zoning Map 2. General Plan Map 3. Planning Commission staff report dated August 30, 1999 and Addendum dated August 29, 1999 with attachments(without draft Resolution) 4. Draft Conditions of Approval 5. Project exhibits 6. Existing Plan, Staff Alternative "A" (77) units and Staff Alternative "B" (80) units INOR PRI SERVlhome foldersTPoReAWPD981TR191599 .cc.doc �11 CPD RPD- 16.2u ZONING MAP �. //% = FAA rold -�f WA maid, ST. HWY. 1. MAJESTIC —C-T RPD- 15U R-1 R-1 z 0 AVE. CPD lv,A RPD-1 2u R-E DA. os RONIT HE r EXHIBIT Ppn- Aii 1) 0 (4-C 4 GENERAL PLAN MAP "Sc H . ... ... ....... .. . . C-1 I '�" 0 0 L QnQf7D7Q FEW ST. HWY. 118 I ,-:I Z 0 2 o 1.s ■ Rim vH � 1K AVE. C-2 i_ -. �_�. -� . __ -, -:. � - iii •i; MU 1 DJ OS-2 -HE I G BONITA DR EXHIBIT i _ -i i 1 i I m I ,-:I Z 0 2 o 1.s ■ Rim vH � 1K AVE. C-2 i_ -. �_�. -� . __ -, -:. � - iii •i; MU 1 DJ OS-2 -HE I G BONITA DR EXHIBIT i _ -i i 1 i I City of Moorpark Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 30, 1999 ffm. 3. B. MOORPARK CALrORM Planft ►a ACTiON: BY !�%r� ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is subject to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and final action of the City Council. LOCATION: The site is generally bounded by Los Angeles Avenue on the north, the Arroyo Simi on the south, single family residences along Freemont Street on the east, and two story condominiums and apartments on the west. The project will be divided by an extension of Majestic Court. ! SITE MAP m RPD 98 -01 Residential Planned Development Permit and Tentative Tract TRACT 5133 Map to create a 3 lot subdivision and 80 air space • ••• ..'• condominium ownership's. Planning Commission action is a recommendation to the City Council who will take final j action. Applicant: FAR WEST HOMES, LLC. i CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration APN 506 -0- 020 -48 and 51 J4eL-6njkLAU Station ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is subject to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and final action of the City Council. LOCATION: The site is generally bounded by Los Angeles Avenue on the north, the Arroyo Simi on the south, single family residences along Freemont Street on the east, and two story condominiums and apartments on the west. The project will be divided by an extension of Majestic Court. ! SITE MAP m LIMES a - Community Center "' I 'I "' 1 cs �r Playground Arroyo Simi • ••• ..'• k strion Bridge "::::.•:.•::: • • • Library • 3 'r SPT CO RR Building and Safety • HIGH ST, Old Town Business District J4eL-6njkLAU Station POJNDEXTER AVE _ FIRST ST _• Trans DOROTHY AVE DIABLO I Poindexter Park t f'n p (Y AVE RlT1F1 AVE AVE ( Veterans v''•i SECOND �,iLOIAAR Memorial ® Chaparral W °g j T AVF AVE I Piddle School Q o ° FL1NN < " THIRD Si SAW AVE ! i Post Office e lASSEN 2 �, AVE Mission PoC Resource Q Bell • Ctr • c SUSAN AVE ROBERTS AVE 3 Plaza •Town Center O < Q1. Z 3 Chamber of � Flory ESTHER AVE CL- EVEREST AVE Commerce 4+ School - V) t� AVE ! Veterans SHERM4N AVE ::::::; • 440 Auto Centro UNIDOS AVE m LIMES a WEAK AV :: j VILLA N CAMPESJNA Arroyo Simi • ••• ..'• k strion Bridge "::::.•:.•::: • • • ........... Gateway mr—. r 23 . Plaza Plaza V CA Rom SI T E FAR COUNTRY' STAGECOACH jHFp RD 1(i " 9AGECUIC�H7 ......••••• .:,nSSP a DR SAjQ //�/n BIG TRAIL ' glv T !C STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. EXHIBIT 3 q� F 0104, fa Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ACTIONS: In 1988, BIBO, Incorporated applied for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 88 -2, LDM 88 -1 and Zone Change No. 88 -1 for a two lot subdivision; a Zone Change to RPD 20 units; and a Residential Planned Development Permit for construction of two, three story apartment buildings consisting of 117 one - bedroom units and six two bedroom units, for a total of 123 dwelling units. These applications were withdrawn by the applicant. On March 6, 1991, BIBO, Incorporated, applied for LDM 91 -2 for a subdivision of an 8.79 acre parcel into four lots consisting of 1.38 acres, 2.53 acres, 3.71 acres and 1.17 acres; Residential Planned Development Permit No. 91 -1 for construction of a multi - family apartment project, consisting of 12 structures with a total of 100 residential units consisting of 40 two bedroom units, 40- three bedroom units, and 20 -four bedroom units. The project was proposed as all affordable units. The City Council denied the applications on September 18, 1991, because approval of the project would have increased the concentration of lower income households in a neighborhood were a high number of lower income households already existed and the project did not provide sufficient on- site parking required by the City's Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the project was denied because it did not provide access through an extension of Millard Street to Los Angeles Avenue. Ordinances and Policies: The Subdivision Ordinance requires the filing and approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide land. Section 17.36.030 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Planned Development Permit and sets forth the criteria for Residential Planned Development applications, including setback requirements, maximum height requirements, etc. Chapter 17.32 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for parking. GENERAL PLAN /ZONING DESIGNATIONS: Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use Site: VH RPD12u Undeveloped North: M R -1 Single Family South: OS -2 OS Arroyo Simi East: M and C -2 R -1 and CPD Single Family West: VH RPD15u Apartments & Condos. Definitions: • M (Medium Density Residential -4 du /acre maximum) • H (High Density - 7 units /acre maximum) • VH (Very High Density - 15 units /acre maximum) • OS -2 (Open Space 2 - 1 du /40 acres) 000106 Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 3 • C -2 (General Commercial) • CPD (Commercial Planned Development) • RE (Rural Exclusive 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) , RPD -12u and 15u (Residential Planned Development 12 and 15 density units per acre) Application Status: Resubmitted Plans (Alternative "A") for RPD 98 -1 and Tentative Tract Map No. 5133: The project submitted by the applicant and evaluated by staff refers to plans dated July 7, 1999, which have been reviewed by other agencies, with comments and conditions provided. However, staff has attached both the reviewed plan dated July 7, 1999, and the Alternative "A" plan dated August 23, 1999, received by the City on August 24, 1999, which is not evaluated by this report and has not been submitted to other agencies for comment. Alternative "A" is a slight variation from the reviewed plan in that the hammerhead turnaround areas at the ends of the private drives are slightly larger to accommodate Fire Department required turn - around areas. Verification that the revised Alternative "A" is acceptable to the Fire Department has not been received as of the writing of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Residential Planned Development 98 -1: This is a request for approval to construct eighty (80) condominium dwelling units on 9.2 acres. There will be three floor plans as follows: ■ 16 -Plan One at 1,562 square feet ■ 24 -Plan Two at 1681 square feet ■ 40 -Plan Three at 1,770 square feet. A private street, "A" Street, is proposed to be developed along the western boundary of the project in a north /south direction from Los Angeles Avenue (SR -118) southerly to Majestic Court and will serve as a local collector for the project. Majestic Court, an existing local street located at the project's west property line, will be extended through the project site to the east and will be provide connection to Moorpark Avenue to the west of the project location for this project and potential future developments to the east of this location. Additionally, five private streets, a recreation area with pool, spa and recreation building, landscaping and guest parking is proposed. Tentative Tract Map No. 5133: This proposal is a subdivision of approximately 9.21 gross acres into three parcels of 4.96 acres, 2.26 acres and 1.48 acres net and the creation of 80 air space condominiums. Lots No. 1 and 2 will be used for 000101 � Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 4 condominium purposes, including recreational facilities, and Lot No. 3 will be dedicated to the Ventura County Flood Control District for the eventual expansion of the Arroyo Simi facilities abutting the project site. An adjoining parcel along the west property line of this project of approximately 1.3 acres owned by the City of Moorpark is planned to be incorporated into the project for circulation purposes ( "A" Street) and is included within the 9.21 acre area to be subdivided. DISCUSSION• Site Description: The proposed project site is long and narrow with a slight north -to -south slope and a five percent slope on that portion of the site located in the area of the County Flood Control Channel (Arroyo Simi), which borders the project site on the south. The site is relatively level with no hills, valleys, or other significant topographical features. Vegetation of this site is ruderal, and is composed of non - native grasses and weeds along with various exotic and native trees. Many of the trees appear to have been planted as ornamentals, such as juniper, Brazilian Pepper, Peruvian Pepper, Fremont Cottonwood, and Birch. Much of the site is open and grassy, and most likely supports a variety of rodents, providing limited foraging species for raptors. During a biological field survey conducted by Impact Sciences on January 12, 1998, bird species sighted during the field investigation included red - tailed hawk, Anna's Hummingbird, and Scrub Jay. The elevation of the site ranges from 500 feet above mean sea level at the southwest corner to 520 feet above mean sea level at the northeast corner of the site. The average topographic gradient of the site is approximately one (1) percent toward the southwest. Drainage of the site is directed as sheet flow to the southwest into the Arroyo Simi. Previously, the site was used primarily for agriculture involving citrus groves. The existing improvements associated with agricultural activity include concrete standpipes, and a well likely used for irrigation purposes. Concrete slabs associated with demolished structures are present within each parcel on the site. Abandoned water lines associated with some of the previous structures also exist. There is currently a residential dwelling on site, which will be demolished with development of this project. Parking: Chapter 17.32 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for parking. The parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 160 garage parking spaces and 40 visitor parking spaces for a total of 200 parking spaces for the project. The site plan as proposed provides for 160 parking spaces within two car 000108 Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 5 garages, 25 guest parking spaces located between structures and at the recreation facility, and 33 parking spaces between driveways to individual dwellings (parallel on- street parking) along the private streets for a total of 218 parking spaces. However, according to the Fire Department, the parking spaces located at the end of the private drives (19 total spaces) are not located consistent with Fire Department requirements. In addtion, the proposed parallel parking spaces located between driveways along the private roads are approximately 20 -1/2 feet long which is inconsistent with Section 17.32.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires parallel parking spaces to have a minimum length 24 feet. Guest parking at the end of the private drives would result in a reduced setback to approximately 2 -1/2 feet between a parked automobile and the residence. Although the proposed landscape plan shows landscaping adjacent to the parking space, there would be insufficient room between the automobile and proposed landscaping to exit the vehicle. Staff would suggest that guest parking either not be allowed at the end of the cul- de -sac (if precluded by the Fire Department) , or that the number of spaces be limited to one at each of these locations, if the plan is acceptable to the Fire Department. Elimination of one parking space on each side would increase the available distance by nine (9) feet which could allow development of a pedestrian trail running parallel with the east property line connecting each of the hammerhead turnarounds to the recreation area. Circulation and Pedestrian Access: Proposed vehicular access to the site would be from Los Angeles Avenue to "A" Street from the north and from Majestic Court connecting to Moorpark Avenue from the west. Although proposed as a private street with a 32 foot wide travel -way, the City Engineer has conditioned "A" Street to be a public street from Majestic Court northerly to Los Angeles Avenue with a 52 -foot wide right -of -way, since it will serve as a Collector Street for residences in this project and residential development to the west. As recommended by the City Engineer, the design of the intersection of "A" Street and Los Angeles Avenue will eliminate the opportunity for westbound traffic to turn left onto "A" Street and left turns from "A" Street onto Los Angeles Avenue would precluded. The turning movements that will be allowed will include right turns onto Los Angeles Avenue for eastbound traffic and right turns into the project for eastbound Los Angeles Avenue traffic. All other traffic movements to or from this site will be required to use Majestic Court with connection to Moorpark Avenue and channel through the Moorpark Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue intersection. As proposed by the applicant, "A" Street (Majestic Court to Los Angeles Avenue) would be a private street designed with 32 feet of travel way, parking on the east side only, a five foot sidewalk on the east side and 000109 Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 6 16.5 feet of landscaping on the west side of the street. The total dimensional cross section for applicant's design is 53.5 feet. ANALYSIS: Designation of "A" Street as a public right -of -way is critical to insure adequate access and circulation to this portion of the City, including emergency and service vehicles. As designed, the applicant's proposed private drive would serve as a public travelway, however, the requirement for maintenance and liability would belong to the Homeowners Association. Access to this portion of the City is not adequate currently. Although turning movements at "A" Street and Los Angeles Avenue will be restricted, circulation will non the less be improved. As located on the west property line "A" Street avoids the creation of a four way intersection on Los Angeles Avenue with Millard Street, which is not preferred because an additional intersection could cause further congestion and require additional expensive traffic management improvements on this east /west corridor. Location of "A" Street at the west property line results in the limitation of turning movements described above. Provisions of a public street with appropriate travel -way are necessary for circulation, traffic flow and emergency access. The proposed 52 -foot right -of -way is 1.5 feet less than the 53.5 -foot cross section proposed by the applicant for a private street. This 52 -foot right -of -way will provide a public street connection to Majestic Court and would have the following cross section: ■ 36 ft. curb to curb ■ 6 -ft. parkway on the west property line with Regal Park to accommodate an 8 -foot high property line wall and landscaping. No sidewalk would be required. ■ 10 ft. parkway on the east side of the street to include a four (4) foot wide sidewalk separated by a 4 -1/2 ft. parkway (landscaped) from curb. A 36 -ft. wide street could accommodate parking on both sides of the street; however, it is suggested that parking not be allowed on the west side (southbound lane) next to the landscaping and Regal Park. Consistent with previous Council action for RPD 96 -1 (Pacific Community Builders), staff would also recommend that a future pedestrian access to the Arroyo Simi be provided, but that it be kept locked, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City. Proposed Landscaping: Section 17.36.030 of the Municipal Code does not specify a requirement for a minimum landscaped setback. The applicant's proposal depicted in the conceptual landscape plan shows an approximately 16.5 feet wide ()001�0 Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 7 planted area along the western property line adjacent to "A" Street consisting of street trees, accent trees and grass. The applicant proposes no parkway on the east side of "A" Street, but proposes a street tree to be placed within the front yard of each unit. An entry monument wall within an 18 -inch high raised planter containing accent shrubs and ground cover is proposed at the entrance from Los Angeles Avenue. The applicant has not submitted the proposed monument sign for review. Additionally, sideyard landscaping for Unit No. 61, 62 and 80, adjacent to the Arroyo Simi has not been provided. Front yard landscaping for each of the homes, as proposed will include foundation shrubs, a front yard tree and street tree. Staff has conditioned the applicant to install required front yard landscaping prior to occupancy of each unit. Landscaping Analysis: It is recommended that a ten- (10) foot wide landscaped buffer adjacent to the Arroyo Simi be provided consisting of trees, ground cover and shrubs. Additionally, staff has conditioned that the landscaped buffer located along the west property line adjacent to the Regal Park Condominiums be landscaped with trees, ground cover and shrubs. A condition has been included requiring that 36 inch box trees be incorporated into the landscape scheme along the Arroyo Simi, "A" Street, and Los Angeles Avenue and in each front yard area. A Tree Appraisal (report) was prepared during January, 1998 by Paul Rogers (consulting Arborist) who estimated the total value of trees to be removed for this project at $130,324. Additional enhanced landscaping should be incorporated on -site to compensate for the trees to be removed as a result of this project and a condition has been included in the Planning Commission resolution to require this landscape upgrade. Enhanced landscaping could be provided along both sides of "A" Street, along Los Angeles Avenue, adjacent to the Arroyo Simi, at the proposed recreational area and at the entrances to this project to complement the design of the proposed dwellings. Proposed Walls: The applicant has proposed a 6 -foot high slump stone block wall around all yard areas and on the west property line. Consistent with other recently approved residential projects and the Noise Study prepared for this project, staff would propose that an 8 foot slump block or other decorative masonry material (as approved by the Director of Community Development) wall be constructed along the property frontage adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue, along the west property line adjacent to the Regal Park Condominiums and along the east property line where adjacent uses are single- family homes. It is also recommended that a six foot high fence consisting of the first three feet constructed of slump stone block or other decorative masonry Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 8 material as approved by the Director of Community Development and the upper three feet of wrought iron be constructed along the southerly property line adjacent to the Arroyo Simi. This would provide a view corridor from the residences adjacent to the arroyo southerly across the Arroyo Simi. Recreational Area: The applicant has proposed a recreational area that is to contain a storage /bathroom structure, pool, spa and sundeck. The pool size has not been specified. A project of this size will generate approximately 262 residents based on the average household size in the City, which is likely to generate significant demand for pool use, including a wading pool. This project has setbacks less than those normally imposed for marketplace residences. The project should provide additional amenities since private recreational yard space is reduced to a minimum to accommodate the 80 dwelling units proposed. Consideration should be given for a complex of this size to provide recreational opportunities for all age groups as the project could attract new homebuyers with young families. The usable yard area of this type of development is substantially small than conventional single - family dwellings due to reduced setbacks, and as such adequate space for recreational activities should be provided. This proposed project is in the Residential Planned Development Zone, which provides for flexibility in the regulatory procedure in order to encourage lower housing costs and create a more varied, attractive and energy- efficient living environment. There is also an opportunity to develop Open Space and recreation amenities to serve the future residents that is otherwise not possible in a residential setting. However, the overall design of the project as proposed by this application does not reflect adequate Open Space and recreation areas to substitute for the small yards and reduced setbacks proposed. A recreational area of sufficient size to accommodate a pool, spa, wading pool, tot lot, and club house with bathrooms and a meeting room would be appropriate for a development with reduced setbacks and minimal private yards. Staff would suggest including a condition requiring a larger recreational area with additional recreational amenities including a larger pool and recreation building. Under our typical recreation standards, five acres of parkland are required for each 1000 persons housed within a project. The applicant's proposal is based on a ratio of 1.31 acres of recreational Open Space per 100 persons, which although not substituting for the payment of park fees would appear to be a minimum amenity. Building Height: The criteria contained within the development standards in Section 17.36.030 limits the height of single family residential structures to no more than three stories and a maximum height of a single family 0001.12 Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 9 residence is limited to 25 feet, unless the sideyard is fifteen (15) feet or greater in which case the height can be up to thirty -five (35) feet. The two story residences have a maximum height of 23 feet, which is consistent with the Ordinance requirement. SETBACKS: General: Chapter 17.36 of the Municipal Code requires minimum setbacks unless modified by the City Council. This project does not meet minimum required setbacks, which are: ■ Second story with windows setback 10 feet from interior property line. • Setback from public street 10 feet (to right -of -way). • Average front yard setback of 20 feet (20 feet minimum required) Small lot projects such as this proposed air space condominium project seldom achieve the Ordinance criteria related to setbacks for typical subdivisions where larger lots are established. However, setback criteria for garage access from public streets should be adhered to. Second Story Residences with Windows: As proposed by this application, the second story has an opaque window located in the area of the stairwell (window) to provide for light on the side elevation. These openings include opaque glass block and do not directly face other windows of adjacent structures. In addition, no facing bathroom or bedroom windows on the second story have been proposed. Staff suggests that the glass block design be modified to carry the architectural theme along the side elevation of the structure. One way of accomplishing this would to pop -out the window and provide a window shape more in keeping with the window style on the front elevations. Narrow and tall opaque windows with lintels at window heads may serve this purpose. This would allow light into the stairway area, provide privacy and provide a softer elevation along the side of the residences. Setbacks Adlacent to "A" Street: The residences with driveways along "A" Street have a front yard setback of approximately five (5) feet from the garage doors to the front property line. "A" Street will serve as a Collector Street, and is proposed as a 52 -foot public right -of -way. As such the garage setback along this street should be increased to a minimum of 20 -feet. This setback criterion is consistent with the requirement of other developments throughout the City. The 20 -foot setback provides appropriate visibility for through traffic and residents taking vehicular access to this property. 0€3011 3 Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 10 Architectural Style: The elevations contain several features of Italian Country and Spanish Eclectic which when blended together provide a design which complements the condominium and apartment units to the west of the proposed project. The architectural style utilizes window shutters, brick and stone veneers, multi -paned windows, extended head trim at the top of windows, and concrete simulated barrel tile roofs. Six color palettes have been provided, all of which utilize various earthtone colors including various shades of brown, red, blue white and gray. The proposed project should incorporate additional articulation on the elevations which will soften and enhance the building design to be in keeping with the architectural style of recently approved affordable housing projects within the City and at the same time provide some movement within the flat surfaces of the walls in order to provide additional interest. For comparison purposes, pictures of a similar project within Wood Ranch in Simi Valley will be provided at the hearing on this item. Additional architectural features could be incorporated into the design such as additional insets and /or pop -outs, and /or additional wall features to break up the horizontal and vertical building elevations. A greater variation of garage doors designs is also recommended. Other suggested modifications could include exposed rafter tails, more elaborate surrounds on all windows, additional irregularly placed deep inset windows, lintels at window heads, and door surrounds. A condition has been included addressing additional architectural features. Project Trip Generation and Required Street Improvements: A traffic study was prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers in June 1998, which evaluated the traffic impacts from this proposed project. The study indicated that the proposed project would generate 854 daily trips, of which there would be 66 a.m. and 89 p.m. peak hour trips. According to this study the trip distribution will be: ■ East on Los Angeles Avenue 60% ■ West on Los Angeles Avenue 20% ■ North on Moorpark Avenue 20% The developer has been conditioned to dedicate "A" Street as a public street from the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue to an intersection point with Majestic Court. The total right -of -way recommended is 52 -feet with a width from curb face to curb face of 36 feet. A condition has also been included requiring dedication of additional right -of -way along the south side of Los Angeles Avenue to provide 70 feet of right -of -way from the centerline of the street to the project's north property line. The applicant will also be making a special contribution to the City 000114 Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 11 representing the projects pro -rate share of the cost of improvements at the following intersections: • New Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road • New Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue • Poindexter Avenue /Moorpark Avenue AIR QUALITY: According to the Air Pollution Control District, this proposed 80 unit residential development will add to cumulative air quality impacts in the air basin. A condition has been proposed for the project, consistent with the condition on the Residential Planned Development Permit for Pacific Communities that the applicant make a contribution to the Moorpark Traffic Systems Management Fund of $1,288.87 per unit to fund Traffic System Management programs or clean -fuel vehicles as determined by the City. NOISE: A Noise Report was prepared for this project by Impact Sciences during January 1998. The Noise Study concluded that the proposed residences adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue would be subject to roadway noise from Los Angeles Avenue, which can be mitigated by constructing a solid eight (8) foot high sound attenuation wall at the north side of the residential structures adjacent to the roadway. The study also concludes that the second story portions of the residences adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue should be constructed with windows, walls and roof with an STC rating of 30 or greater. A condition of approval has been included to implement these mitigation measures. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The proposed project is located within the City Redevelopment Area. All projects within the Redevelopment Area are required to provide 15 percent of housing units affordable to persons of Low to Moderate Income. The applicant is currently in the process of preparing an Affordable Housing Agreement for review by the City to address the required affordable housing criteria. OTHER AGENCY REVIEW: All conditions of Approval from Agencies and Departments that have reviewed the Tentative Tract Map and Residential Planned Development Permit have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 5133 and Residential Planned Development No. 98- 1. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The General Plan designation is Very High Density, which allows a maximum of fifteen (15) units per acre. The gross acreage of the parcel is 000115 Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 12 approximately 9.21 acres or approximately 8.7 units per gross acre. The 80 units are intended to be constructed on 7.22 net acres. This would be equivalent to 11 -du /acre. Therefore allowing construction of 80 dwelling units as requested is consistent with the density currently allowed by the General Plan which allows a maximum of 15 units per acre. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an evaluation has been conducted to determine if the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment, and based upon an Initial Study and analysis of available information, it was found that there is substantial evidence that the potential effects of the proposed project on the environment could be mitigated by requiring mitigation measures be imposed on the project. Potential environmental issues requiring mitigation are discussed in the attached Initial Study and mitigation measures have been identified. Conditions of approval to mitigate the environmental impacts on the environment have been recommended and a Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared. Assembly Bill no. 3180 was adopted by the State Legislature in 1988. This law requires the City to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects in conjunction with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration or in conjunction with the findings for an Environmental Impact Report. AFFORDABLE HOUSING /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: The Affordable Housing /Community Development Committee (Mayor Hunter/ Counc i lmember Evans) have reviewed this proposed project at several meetings with the applicant and have concluded that from a design perspective: • Parking for guests would be most appropriately provided on the street and with a street width of 36 feet (curb to curb). • Reduction in the depth of the rear yards and the side yards could be acceptable if the design including window placement provided justification. • On- street parking to serve the needs of the recreation facility was adequate. • Reduced front yard setbacks, including the distance from the garage door to the travelway was workable, if the design discouraged driveway parking when less than 20 feet in depth is provided and when this condition occurs on a private street. SUMMARY: Determination by the Planning Commission of the consistency of this project design with City ordinances, policy and parking criteria and 0 00.1► Planning Commission Staff Report August 30, 1999 Page 13 design features of previously approved projects is appropriate. Conclusion by the Planning Commission may concern recommendation No. 3 below. RECOMMENDATIONS• 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the requested entitlements prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. 3. Adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Residential Planned Development Permit No. 98 -1 and Tentative Tract Map No. 5133. ATTACHMENTS: 1. General Plan Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Draft Resolution with Conditions and Mitigation Monitoring Program S. Project Exhibits 6. Revised Exhibit "A" MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TRACT 5133 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RPD 98 -01 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA. 93021 APPLICANT: FAR WEST HOMES, LLC. 32524 SEACLIFF DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA. 90275 PREPARED: July 23, 1999 0001y1-9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract 5133 is a three lot subdivision intended for future development of 80 condominium units. Two lots will be used for the development of structures, including recreational facilities and one lot will be conveyed to the County Flood Control District for the eventual expansion of the Arroyo Simi facilities abutting the project site. The 9.2 acre project site currently exists as three parcels. Additionally, an adjoining parcel of approximately 1.3 acres owned by the City of Moorpark is planned to be incorporated to the proposed project for circulation purposes. A Residential Planned Development application, RPD 98 -01, will establish the design and control of the 80 freestanding condominium residential units planned for the site. Proposed units will be two story and consist of four floor plans between 1300 and 1750 square feet A new public street, "A" Street, will be developed along the western boundary of the project from New Los Angeles Avenue (SR -118) southerly to Majestic Court and will serve as a local collector for the project. Majestic Court, an existing local street located at the project's west property line, will be extended through the project site to the east and will provide connection to Moorpark Avenue to the west of the project location for this project and future development east of this location. Additionally, five private streets, a recreation area with pool, spa and recreation building, sound walls, landscaping and guest parking will be provided. An agreement for affordable housing participation agreement will be established between the applicants and the City. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is proposed on a narrow parcel located southerly of SR -118 easterly of Moorpark Avenue, westerly of Spring Road, and north of the Arroyo Simi in central Moorpark. (See Figure 1 for location) PROJECT PROPONENT: The project is being proposed by: Far West Homes, LLC 32524 Seacliff Drive Rancho Palos Verde, Ca. 90275 PURPOSE: The purpose of this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is to focus upon environmental impacts of the project identified by the Initial Study. Some impacts may require special mitigation to ensure that impacts to the community or the project area are reduced to a level of insignificance. Some impacts when individually considered FAR WEST HOMES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY 23, 1999 ®®011 9 may not create significant adverse impacts, but when taken cumulatively may be significant enough to warrant changes in the project design or implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level below significant. The City of Moorpark has the principal authority to approve the project as the lead agency for preparing and adopting this MND. The information contained in this document is intended to assist decision makers in reaching conclusions concerning the environmental impacts of this project. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES: This MND is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970 as amended (Public Resources Code 21000 et.seq.), the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Administrative Code 15000 et. seq.), and the City of Moorpark Rules to Implement CEQA (Resolution 92 -872). TECHNICAL STUDIES. The following technical studies were prepared for the project. 1. Phase 1 Archeological Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment of the Burnette Property, Moorpark, Ventura County, W &S Consultants, 1998. 2. Traffic and Circulation Study, Tentative Tract 5133, Associated Traffic Engineers, June 1998. 3. Traffic Impact Assessment of Tentative Tract 5133, Linscott Law and Greenspan, May 1999. 4. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development Burnette Property, Eberhart & Stone, October 1997. 5. Geotechnical Review of New Site Plan, Proposed Residential Development, Tentative Tract 5133 Bumette Project, City of Moorpark, Ventura County, California, Petra Geotechnical Inc., June 1998. 6. Biological Report, Burnette Property, Impact Sciences, January 1998. 7. Noise Report, Bumette Property, Impact Sciences, January 1998. 8. Moorpark Meadows Tree Report, Poly Associates, January 1998. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT: NO IMPACT Aesthetics: The project site does not involve scenic resources of the community. Agricultural Resources: The project occurs as an in -fill project in the urban core with no adjacent or abutting agricultural uses, and there are no agricultural uses on the site. Cultural Resources: Professional site investigations and literature reviews show no archeological or cultural resources exist or are likely to exist on the site, and no further work is required. FAR WEST HOMES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY 23, 1999 0001 ��1 Hazardous Materials: Mineral Resources: No hazardous materials have been identified on site and no hazardous sites are identified as affecting the site. No SMARA resources have been identified in association with the project site. Impacts to regional resources will not create an impact to the capacity of existing providers. Population and Housing: The project is consistent with General Plan build out and land use development for the project area. Recreation: The project will construct on -site facilities to serve the residences of the complex. Impacts to community parks and recreation can be mitigated through the payment of mitigation fees. EFFECTS FOUND TO HAVE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT: The following was found to have some impact, but the level of impact is less than significant due to requirements to meet mitigation criteria within an existing ordinance or adopted code. Biological resources: No suitable wildlife habitat was identified within the biological survey conducted for the site. No sensitive, threatened or endangered species were encountered. The only resource of concern is the existence of mature native and decorative, non - native species of trees currently within the site. The City tree ordinance requires additional on site mitigation for loss of trees based upon classification and maturity by replacement through a master landscape plan. Satisfaction of the ordinance provides mitigation. EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION: The following areas have been found to have impacts upon the project area or community and are considered significant adverse effects unless the mitigation measures provided are implemented and adhered to: Air Quality: The project will contribute incrementally to the reduction in air quality within the region and the community. While the direct impacts of an 80 unit project may be less than significant on its own, the cumulative effect of this project with other projects known to be in development or pending development create significant impacts for which mitigation is necessary. Mitigation Measures: FAR WEST HOMES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY 23, 1999 0 0011I 1. Prior to recordation of the final map for the project, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to provide an in -lieu fee for mitigation of air quality impacts generated by the project. The fee shall be as designated by any City policy or precedent for similar developments. 2. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, the fee prescribed for air quality mitigation shall be paid. 3. The applicant shall ensure that fixed source contributors to air impacts such as structures, heating equipment for project recreational pools or spas, and mechanical equipment venting provides the maximum reduction in expulsion of pollutants. 4. The applicant shall submit a dust control plan for the site acceptable to the City concurrent with any preliminary (rough) grading plan. The dust control plan shall address the method and frequency for the reduction of dust nuisances to adjoining property and shall include the periodic sweeping of public streets affected by the earth movement and construction phases of the project. Geology and Soils: The project lies within the area of the Arroyo Simi drainage. The area south of Los Angeles Avenue has a history of high ground water, with some locations experiencing water at depths less than 50 feet below the surface. Given the composition of the soils that underlie portions of the drainage area, there may be for susceptibility to liquefaction. The project site lies within 11/2 miles of the West Simi Valley Alquist Priolo Fault Zone located within the Tierra Rejada Valley southerly of the City, parallel to Tierra Rejada Road. This fault zone was designated under Alquist Priolo on May 1, 1999. Mapping and study of the fault was performed by the State Geologist prior to 1997, with preliminary data available in October, 1997. This fault is capable of producing surface rupture. The magnitude of events on this fault could be expected to be between 6.5 — 7.5. Intense ground shaking is likely from events involving the fault within adjacent City areas. A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation of the site was conducted by Eberhart and Stone in October of 1997. Several recommendations for grading and stability of the site were included in that report. In June of 1998, PETRA Geotechnical reviewed the previous soils report and determined that mitigation of unconsolidated fills on the site should be increased from a depth of 3 -5 feet for removal to a depth of 6 -8 feet for removal. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit a geotechnical soils engineer shall determine the extent and depth of soil removal and re- compaction that is necessary to be shown upon the grading plan. The grading plan shall reflect the areas of questionable stability and provide physical correction FAR WEST HOMES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY 23, 1999 0001 2 consistent with the geotechnical findings on file with the City Of Moorpark Community Development Department. 2. Drainage, grading, compaction, foundation and footing specifications and improvements shall be verified and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits for the project to address required mitigation of geotechnical issues identified for the site. 3. The recommendations contained within the Eberhart and Stone geotechnical study dated October 10, 1997 and the recommendations of PETRA Geotechnical in their letter, dated June 4, 1999, to Kaufman & Broad Home Corporation shall apply to all development upon the parcels or lots created by Tract 5133. 4. All water wells, cisterns or cesspools encountered during grading operations shall be terminated, capped, and or abandoned consistent with best management practices for these uses. The applicants soils engineer shall be responsible to ensure that appropriate actions subject to direction of the local agency having jurisdiction over such use is completed and documentation provided to the Community Development Department. Hydrology and Water Quality: The project will induce areas of impervious materials and will require re- routing of on -site water to approved drainage facilities. During and after construction, significant increase in pollution discharge is expected. Best management practices will be needed to ensure that the level of pollutant discharge is within the acceptable limits under the regional water quality control plan. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to submittal of a final tract map, the applicant shall design and receive approval by the City Engineer and the Ventura County Flood Control District, for a Stormwater Quality Management Plan for the project site. The Stormwater Management Plan shall incorporate the following mitigation measures as a minimum to control runoff quality into the Arroyo Simi: a. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan meeting State NPDES standards. b. Mitigation measures prescribed Quality Management Plan. C. Federal EPA/NOAA guidance source pollution, as applicable. d. Applicable measures from the Practices Manual (BMPs). by the Ventura County 208 Water measures for coastal nonpoint State Municipal Best Management e. Flood control facilities sensitive to surface water quality management issues. FAR WEST HOMES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY 23, 1999 0001w3 2. Design, construction and maintenance of on -site flood control and storm water systems not dedicated as a portion of the municipal or county district facilities. 3. Dedication of the southerly 1.48 acres to the County of Ventura Flood Control District to increase the Arroyo Simi. Noise: The proposed project will have portions of the residential units with rear yards abutting New Los Angeles Avenue. New Los Angeles Avenue is a regional State Highway connecting the State Route 23 on the east with State Routes 126 and 101 to the west of Moorpark. A noise study was conducted by Impact Sciences, an environmental consultant, dated January, 1998. The conclusion of the study was that the City adopted noise standards of an exterior CNEL of 65dB(A) and interior CNEL of 45dB(A) would be exceeded for any units within 222 feet of the centerline of New Los Angeles Avenue. Mitigation Measures: 1. Applicant shall design and construct a sound mitigation wall between the project residential units and New Los Angeles Avenue such that the attenuation produced by the wall shall reduce exterior and interior noise impacts to levels acceptable under the City's adopted noise regulations. The design and placement of the wall shall take into consideration the intersection visibility requirements at "A" Street and New Los Angeles Avenue and the need for landscape elements to improve aesthetics along the street face and in front of the wall. The wall design concept and materials choices shall be subject to review and consideration by the Director of Community Development as a part of the Residential Planned Development application or subdivision map application. Public Services and Utilities: Construction of the 80 unit project will place increased incremental demand upon police and fire services above the level currently required for the site. This increase is within the capability of the servicing agencies. It is anticipated that County Fire resources will be upgraded in the 1999 -2000 budget period to potentially include a new station within the downtown core area and inclusion of appropriate fire apparatus. Based upon projected population per dwelling this site will generate a need for increased parkland and services. Under the City's adopted standards, 5 acres of parkland are required for each 1000 persons. Accordingly, the proposed project generates a need for 1.29 acres of parkland based upon a population per household of 3.23 persons. On site recreation facilities are proposed, however the development of private facilities is not recognized as a mitigation impacts to parks /recreational facilities, therefore appropriate mitigation for park and recreational impacts are required. Mitigation Measures: 1. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of all on -site and off -site improvements necessary to provide utility services to the site FAR WEST HOMES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY 23, 1999 00 01...'1 consistent with the rules and regulations of the servicing utility and subject to any required encroachments permits. Improvements shall include but not be limited to, water and sewer, natural gas, telephone, television cable, and electrical. 3. Applicant shall design and construct on -site recreational facilities that provide active and passive recreational opportunities, such as pools, spas, and walking areas within the project. Project recreational facilities shall be a portion of the residential planned development permit plans. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permits the applicant shall pay any applicable police facility fees. Transportation and Traffic: Two traffic impact reports were prepared for the project. The first report was prepared by Associated Traffic Engineers (ATE) June, 1998. The second was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan (LLG) in May of 1999. Traffic generation for the project has been estimated at 854 trips per day with an A.M. peak hour level of 67 and a P.M. peak of 89. Circulation and access for the project is through connection of "A" Street with New Los Angeles Avenue westerly of Millard Avenue and southerly of Los Angeles Avenue. An extension of Majestic Court from Moorpark Avenue to the easterly property line of the project has been incorporated into the project design. Four intersections were identified as being affected by the distribution of traffic from the project and include 1)Moorpark Ave /High Street, 2) Los Angeles Ave. /Moorpark Ave., 3) Los Angeles Ave /Spring Road, and 4) Los Angeles Ave /Park Lane. Peak hour levels of service for 1998 for these intersections indicate that all operate within the City's adopted standards of LOS -C. 1998 intersection levels plus project traffic indicates that all intersections will continue to operate at an LOS -C level when certain appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. The ATE report considered the year 2005 traffic volumes based upon General Plan development and including estimated Specific Plan No.2 traffic application to the circulation system. In the 2005 without project scenario, two intersections would fall below the LOS -C standard. These are, Los Angeles Ave /Moorpark Ave P.M. peak with LOS -E, and, Los Angeles Ave. /Spring Road with an A.M. and P.M. peak LOS -E. The 2005 plus project scenario indicates that the LOS for the two cited intersections remain at LOS -E. Improvements recommended on page 13 of the study would return the LOS to the City standard LOS -C. ATE evaluated the impacts for the year 2015 for the previously referenced intersections. Only the Los Angeles Ave /Moorpark Ave. intersection would experience an LOS below the adopted City standard of LOS -C and would experience an LOS -D during P.M. peak hour traffic. Improvements referenced on page 17 of the ATE report would return this intersection to LOS -C. FAR WEST HOMES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY 23, 1999 0001a„i The LLG study was performed after a traffic analysis was prepared for the 312 unit Archstone Communities apartment complex development by Thomas Montgomery and Associates (TMA). The study concluded that previous mitigation measures prescribed by ATE and TMA for the respective intersections, and in particular the Los Angeles Ave and Moorpark Ave recommended alterations referenced by TMA in its study, would maintain an intersection LOS within acceptable limits for future traffic conditions including this project. Mitigation Measures: 1. The project shall contribute a fair share to the improvements and alterations to any intersections identified as impacted by the project traffic generation. The minimum off -site improvements cited by the traffic reports affecting the project shall be implemented subject to evaluation by the City Engineer. 2. "A" Street and Majestic Court within the project shall be dedicated as public streets and shall be developed with improvements as directed by the City Engineer to include sidewalks, curbs and gutter, street lighting, and parkway landscaping. CONCLUSIONS: Development of an 80 unit residential development project proposed by Far West Homes within the City of Moorpark can be accommodated. Expected impacts can be reduced to a level less than significant subject to the mitigation measures cited by this document. In addition to the specific mitigations referenced, the City development review process evaluates physical and aesthetic qualities of proposed developments . Conditions of approval for the project will insure compatibility of the proposed project with other expected developments and existing developments and City development guidelines. FAR WEST HOMES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY 23, 1999 0001*G CITY OF MOORPARK ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY 1. Project title: Tract 5133 and Planned Residential Development RPD 98 -01 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Ca. 93021 3. Contact person and phone number: John Libiez, Principal Planner (805)529 -6864 Ext. 236 4. Project location: South of New Los Angeles Avenue, east of Moorpark Avenue, west of Spring Road 5. Project sponsor's name, address, telephone: Far West Homes 32524 Seacliff Drive Ranch Palos Verde, Ca. 90275 (310)265 -0835 6. General Plan designation: VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -15 Dwelling units /acre 7. Zoning: RPD -12 8. Description of project: Develop 80 single family condominium units; subdivide a 9.2 acre parcel into three lots. Dedicate and develop two local streets to provide access and circulation needs in the project area. Install required storm drains and outlet devices. Provide necessary public utilities, including undergrounding of utilities as appropriate. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Single family residential South: Arroyo Simi Flood Control Channel East: Single Family residential and vacant land West: Multiple family residential- apartment units. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) M: \PPorter \M \RPD981TR \envir.det.doc 0001 `� CEQA Determination Tract 5133 /RPD 98 -05 Page 2 Ventura County Flood Control District Air Quality Management District Moorpark Unified School District Ventura County Sanitation District Ventura County Fire Department State of California Transportation Department (Caltrans) County of Ventura Water Works District 1 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. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Noise X Air Quality ❑ Population /Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation X Geology /Soils X Trans portation/Traffic ❑ Hazards /Hazardous Materials ❑ Utilities I Service Systems X HydrologyMater Quality ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Land Use /Planning DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. XX I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made and mitigation measures identified that will reduce impacts to below the level of significance. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0001 3 CEQA Determination Tract 5133 /RPD 98 -05 Page 3 ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could hi environment, all potentially significant effects (a) have bi earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measu proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Printed name: John Libiez Principal Planner ive a significant effect on the .en analyzed adequately in an applicable standards, and (b) earlier EIR or NEGATIVE -es that are imposed upon the Date: July 23, 1999 For: City of Moorpark 0001 9 CEQA Determination Tract 5133 /RPD 98 -05 Page 4 AESTHETICS: The project is an in -fill development surrounded by residential, commercial and flood relief facilities. The RPD plan indicates the use of landscape and fencing to reduce view impacts related to the project. Since the project is located on the valley floor no impacts will be created to visual resources identified by the General Plan. No mitigation is required. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: The project location and surrounding properties are totally within the urban core of the City. No agricultural use exists on the vacant site nor will be affected by its development. No mitigation is required. AIR QUALITY. • The project will contribute incrementally to degradation of regional air quality. While the direct impacts of the 80 unit project is not significant in and of itself, the impacts of the project cumulative with known projects in the area under development or pending development warrant requirement for mitigation consistent with adopted Air Quality Management District practices and City policy. Mitigation has been prescribed within the MND document. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: A biological survey of the project was conducted by Impact Sciences, an environmental consultant, in January, 1998. It was the conclusion of the report that the site was sufficiently disturbed by prior uses and weed abatement activities such that its value as habitat for any species of interest was marginal or non- existent. On site vegetation consists of mostly ornamental trees, non - native grasses, and weeds. No bird, mammal or plant species listed under Federal or State Endangered Species Acts were observed on the site. Several large ornamental trees will be removed. Tree removals require mitigation under the City's tree ordinance. Mitigation is provided through enhanced landscaping of individual projects. CULTURAL RESOURCES: W &S (Whitley and Simon) Consultants conducted an intensive Phase 1 archeological and cultural survey of the property in January,1998. No archeological or cultural resources were found upon the site. Further archeological /cultural work was not recommended. No mitigation is required. GEOLOGYAND SOILS: Petra Geotechnical, Inc. in June, 1998, evaluated a previous soils and geotechnical study performed by Eberhart and Stone, Inc. performed in 1997. Conclusions reached by Petra were that some soils stability concerns existed and mitigation through grading practices was necessary. The City's hazard maps reflect that liquefaction is a potential hazard in the area south of Los Angeles Avenue adjacent to the Arroyo Simi. Mitigation is prescribed within the MND document. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: No hazardous materials sites or issues have been identified on or near the site. No mitigation is required. 00010 CEQA Determination Tract 5133 /RPD 98 -05 Page 5 HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY: The project will require construction of storm drainage facilities and curb and gutter to direct flows to collection and disbursement facilities. An increase in the amount and velocity of runoff is expected due to the development of structures and hardscape areas. Increase in potential pollution flow can be expected from streets and roads. NPDES requirements will need to be provided to minimize pollutant entry to the Arroyo Simi. The project site is within a portion of the flood hazard area associated with the Arroyo Simi. Mitigation measures are provided within the MND document and include the requirement to dedicate additional right -of- way to the Arroyo Simi. MINERAL RESOURCES: No identified mineral resources exist within the project site. NOISE: A noise impact assessment was conducted by Impact Sciences in January, 1998. The assessment was conducted to determine the noise generation affects of the project and effects of existing noise generators upon the project. The greatest affects from noise are from the New Los Angeles Ave. corridor. Noise generated by traffic in this corridor exceeds the indoor and outdoor decibel ratings contained in the City's Noise Element and noise Ordinance for residential units which back to Los Angeles Ave. Mitigation measures are prescribed in the MND document. POPULATION AND HOUSING: The project will create an incremental increase to the population of the community upon occupancy. Based upon community average persons per dwelling unit, the 80 planned units would increase population by 258 persons. The proposed number of dwelling units and expected population are less than that anticipated from build out by General Plan and Zoning designation of the site. PUBLIC SERVICES: Construction of the 80 unit project will place increased incremental demand upon police and fire services above the level currently required for the site. This increase is within the capability of the servicing agencies. It is anticipated that County Fire resources will be upgraded in the 1999 -2000 budget period to potentially include a new station within the downtown core area and inclusion of different fire apparatus. Based upon population per dwelling unit figure of 3.23 persons per household, the site will generate a need for increased parkland and services. Under the City's adopted standards, 5 acres of parkland dedication are required for each 1000 persons within a project. Accordingly, the proposed project generates a need for 1.29 acres of parkland. On site recreation facilities are proposed, but at a substantially reduced level. Mitigation is prescribe within the MND document. RECREATION: The project proposes to provide a recreation building, pool and spa area to partially serve the recreational needs of the project area. Residents will utilize community provided facilities for organized sports and socio /cultural recreation programs. Impacts to community facilities are expected to be within the capacity and program capability of the current and proposed community facilities based upon satisfaction of mitigation including payment of park fees. 0001431 CEQA Determination Tract 5133 /RPD 98 -05 Page 6 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: The traffic impacts of the project were studied and reported in two separate reports in June, 1998, and May, 1999. The first report was performed by Associated Transportation Engineers. The second report was performed by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers. Conclusions of both reports are that the City adopted level of service for certain intersections will fall below the LOS -C condition adopted by the City as acceptable for traffic impacts to the circulation system at General Plan buildout. Discussion and mitigation measures for traffic impacts are contained within the MND document. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Development of the site will require the extension of public utility and communication services to the site. Storm drain and NPDES basin improvements will be required to protect the site and to minimize pollution outfall from the site. 00013 2 INITIAL STUDY CHECK LIST ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR SIgnIk'" 'S°"m'" Lou than "°"'a"` saw sq"n�a�c sw"n�c Impact with WqaWn AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ El ❑ X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, El El X but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or �/ quality of the site and its surroundings? El El El X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare F1 El El �/ X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or a 1:1 El �/ X Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or �/ a Williamson Act contract? 1:1 E] 1:1 X c)lnvolve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. 0 00133 Would the project? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase F1 of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1:1 number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly ❑ or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and wildlife Service? x ❑ X ❑ X AMIMM ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian F1 El El �/ X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ �/ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the 1:1 El X Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any �/ native migratory fish or wildlife species or with 11 F1 ❑ X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery 00013h ` sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances �/ protecting biological resources, such as a tree 1:1 El X El preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ v Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation 1:1 El X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:: a) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated El the most recent Aiquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ 000135 iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1:1 El El �/ X 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ �/ the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water 1:1 El X disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the �/ environment through the routine transport, use, or 1:1 El ❑ X disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the El El X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or �/ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste El El 11 X within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of �/ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to 1:1 El El X Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use El �/ X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use 0001%-,)G airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere �/ with an adopted emergency response plan or El 1:1 El X evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of �/ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including El E] El X where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste �/ discharge requirements? El El El X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ �/ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such 1:1 El X that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table levels (e.g. the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ �/ site or area, including through the alteration of the ❑ El X course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the �/ site or area, including through the alteration of the 1:1 El X El course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would �/ exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm ❑ X 11 El drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0®010'l f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ X g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area �/ as mapped on a Federal Hazard Boundary or Flood El X El El Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures �/ which would impede or redirect flood flows? El El El X i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ El X j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of �/ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including El El El X flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 1:1 El El �/ X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan [HCP] or �/ Natural Community Conservation Plan [NCCP]? El El El X MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 1:1 El El �/ X mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- El X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 00013 5 NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise El X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive El X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ �/ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in �/ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 1:1 El X El levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use El X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private El X airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, El X 1:1 either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 1:1 E] El �/ X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, El X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0001C PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse ❑ 11 El impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ X 0 Police protection? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Schools? El ❑ X 1:1 Parks? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ 0 X ❑ RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing �/ neighborhood and regional parks or other El El El X recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ �/ require the construction or expansion of recreational 1:1 El X facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in El X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 70007 0 0 0 1.(l (3 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ v service standard established by the county congestion 1:1 El X management agency for designated roads or highways? �( c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ X either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design 1:1 El El v X feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ v f)Result in adequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ v g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ v supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus 1:1 El X turnouts, bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the v applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? El El El X b) Require or result in the construction of new water 1:1 El El v X or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ v El drainage facilities or expansion of existing 1:1 X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve E] El El �/ X the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1:1 El r-1 V X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the 0d0g�1 provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ v capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste 1:1 El X disposal needs? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE P°"""''" `°"""" `°'°kan No sgrr�n�x sgMnwM sgn+�c kwad with WUpWn IncwPonmon a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ❑ v the quality of the environment, substantially reduce El X 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ v El limited, but cumulatively considerable? /� ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects �/ which will cause substantial adverse effects on El ED X human beings, either directly or indirectly? 00014 TO: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PAUL PORTER, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE: AUGUST 27, 1999 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT FOR RPD 98 -1 AND TRACT MAP NO. 5133 (FAR WEST HOMES, LLC) In the staff report for TT 5133 and RPD 98 -1, it was stated the Fire Department had not reviewed Alternative "A" which is a slight variation from the reviewed plan in that the hammerhead turnaround areas at the ends of the private drives are slightly larger to accommodate Fire Department required turn - around areas. On August 27, 1999, staff received Verification from the Fire Department that the revised Alternative "A" has an acceptable turnaround area at the ends of the private drives. For you information, an attached blow -up of the turnaround area is attached. Attachment: Turnaround area 0001"'3 FIL E u • 42 NG IMPROVEMENTS. TYPICAL C2 J8. 27.5' 11 1 59 ; 515.4 w C Its, ! YP.f r a' 513.7 T YD,, T TP. P:3 1 N or 17 �, a. l; µ.s• 20 1"515.1 16' ' 21 �.�• 514.8 t ; 514.8 % r S• 22.5' 514.6 I 14 ' s� ( 23 , 0 1 514.4 'J ; 514.4 ITEM 8.B. ADDENDUM Consider Residential Planned Development Permit No 98.01. A proposal to construct 80 single family airspace condominium dwelling units on the application of FAR WEST HOMES. TRAFFIC STUDY 00011's FIL E " " Its ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Ili 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • FAX (805) 682 -8509 • (805) 687 -4418 Maynard Keith Franklin, P.E.°0 Robert L. Faris, P.E. Y` Richard L. Pool. P.E. Scott A. Schell, AICP RECEIVED gY JUG! 22 1998 VTN WEST, INC. June 18, 1998 98066L02.LTR Mr. Eric Lieberman Kaufman & Broad of Southern California, Inc. 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 310 Woodland Hills, California 91367 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA This letter addresses the issue raised by City staff regarding the circulation and access for the area between the project site and Spring Road south of Los Angeles Avenue and north of Arroyo Simi. Majestic Court is a public street that currently extends from Moorpark Avenue on the west to the project site. It is our understanding that any extension of Majestic Court to the west would only be a short section to serve the parcel immediately west of Moorpark Avenue since the Unidos Avenue link has been deleted. In a draft of the City's Circulation Element the Majestic Court- Millard Avenue connection was shown, however, this connection is not shown in the adopted Circulation Element. Thus, Majestic Court would only serve as a parallel route to Los Angeles Avenue from Moorpark Avenue to Spring Road if it were constructed. The function of a Majestic Court extension to Spring Road would be a secondary access for the lands bounded by Moorpark Avenue on the west, Spring Road on the east, Los Angeles Avenue on the north and for access to the land south of Majestic Court and north of Arroyo Simi. As mentioned, Majestic Court is a public street that extends east from Moorpark Avenue to the project site. This existing segment provides access to the Le Club Condos and apartment units located west of the site. Access to the Le Club Condos is also provided via Los Angeles Avenue and both the Le Club Condos and the apartment project have access from Moorpark Avenue. The traffic volumes generated by the existing dwelling units and TT 5133 can be accommodated by the existing street system and the on -site circulation ( "A" Street along the western frontage and extending Majestic Court through the site as a public street). This system also provides for emergency access to TT 5133 as well as the existing development. Thus, the traffic volumes 00012 G Engineering - Planning - Parking • Signal Systems - Impact Reports - Bikeways - Transit Mr. Eric Lieberman Page 2 June 18, 1998 and circulation needs for the existing development and TT 5133 are met by the system as proposed. The next part of the discussion relates to the property east of the project site. An offer of dedication of the right -of -way for an extension of Majestic Court has been made by the church, thus Majestic Court could be extended to the east line of the church property. The area south of the church is zoned commercial, but potentially could be changed to residential use. As a residential use it is estimated that it would have 15 to 20 units. The extension of Majestic Court through TT 5133 and the church dedication would provide additional access to the church site and potentially Fremont Street could extend through the parking lot and provide additional access to the Fremont Street neighborhood. East of the church site and the Fremont neighborhood, the lands are zoned/used for light industrial/commercial and retail commercial uses. The extension of Majestic Court through these lands, most of which are likely to be re- developed in the future, would provide a connection to Spring Road. This segment would provide secondary access to those land to the north which would most likely have some access to Los Angeles Avenue via project driveways and/or a connections at Lorraine Avenue. Majestic Court would provide access to the property between Majestic Court and the Arroyo. The connection of Majestic Court to Spring Road would require the widening of the bridge over Arroyo Simi. It is our understanding that the City requested that the TT 5133 development consider the southerly extension of Millard Avenue from Los Angeles Avenue to Majestic Court through the site. It is ATE's opinion that this connection is not needed for traffic volume or for additional access. The policy need for the connection must have been addressed when the Circulation Element was adopted, since it was removed between the draft and the final. The existing Los Angeles Avenue/Millard Street intersection traffic volumes do not indicate that it meets even the peak hour warrant with the side street volume and there is minimal additional development that will occur in the area served by Millard Street. It is possible that if a traffic signal were to be installed that traffic would divert from the other intersections, but the additional delay on Los Angeles Avenue with the added traffic signal would minimize the time savings by these motorists. TT 5133 currently has planned for access to /from Los Angeles Avenue via "A" Street. This access and the access provided by Majestic Court would adequately serve the site. Thus, extending Millard Avenue from Los Angeles Avenue along the current Millard Avenue alignment is not be required for project access. The Millard Avenue extension would not be needed to provide additional access to the other lands bounded by Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road, Los Angeles Avenue and Arroyo Simi with Majestic Court extended to Spring Road. The land use for the area between TT 5133 and Spring Road could be changed to have a larger residential component, but there will always be some commercial. There also is a policy issue related to mixing residential and commercial traffic on a street, but since Majestic Court would 0001117 Mr. Eric Lieberman Page 3 June 18, 1998 primarily benefit the residential units (they wouldn't have to go onto Los Angeles Avenue to patronize the commercial uses along Majestic Court and Spring Road). Majestic Court would be a better route from the residential areas to the commercial uses along Majestic Court and Spring Road for bicyclists and pedestrians. This route could even make the transit and school bus routes more convenient. In ATE's opinion, the provision of a route from Moorpark Avenue to Spring Road has more benefit to the area than a connection between Los Angeles Avenue and Majestic Court. That is, there is more demand for lateral movement along the Los Angeles corridor than the north -south movement. Even when motorist travel north to Los Angeles Avenue, they mostly turn to the east. Associated Transportation Engineers 6 — y: Richard L. Pool, P.E. President DLD/RLP Cho ?, QRODESSIpN9`,,�; gyp ij1 r ` loo. 18,030 r. ctJ. CI V 11- i�of Ckj.1J�/ 0001" Is, ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS IIMF 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • FAX (805) 682 -8509 0 [8051687-4418 Maynard Keith Franklin, P.E. Robert L. Faris, P.E. Richard L. Pool, P.E. Scott A. Schell, AICP RECi:IVED gy JUN 2z 1998 VTIV WEST, INC. June 18, 1998 98066L02.LTR Mr. Eric Lieberman Kaufman & Broad of Southern California, Inc. 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 310 Woodland Hills, California 91367 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA This letter addresses the issue raised by City staff regarding the circulation and access for the area between the project site and Spring Road south of Los Angeles Avenue and north of Arroyo Simi. Majestic Court is a public street that currently extends from Moorpark Avenue on the west to the project site. It is our understanding that any extension of Majestic Court to the west would only be a short section to serve the parcel immediately west of Moorpark Avenue since the Unidos Avenue link has been deleted. In a draft of the City's Circulation Element the Majestic Court- Millard Avenue connection was shown, however, this connection is not shown in the adopted Circulation Element. Thus, Majcstic Court would only serve as a parallel route to Los Angeles Avenue from Moorpark Avenue to Spring Road if it were constructed. The function of a Majestic Court extension to Spring Road would be a secondary access for the lands bounded by Moorpark Avenue on the west, Spring Road on the east, Los Angeles Avenue on the north and for access to the land south of Majestic Court and north of Arroyo Simi. As mentioned, Majestic Court is a public street that extends east from Moorpark Avenue to the project site. This existing segment provides access to the Le Club Condos and apartment units located west of the site. Access to the Le Club Condos is also provided via Los Angeles Avenue and both the Le Club Condos and the apartment project have access from Moorpark Avenue. The traffic volumes generated by the existing dwelling units and TT 5133 can be accommodated by the existing street system and the on -site circulation ( "A" Street along the western frontage and extending Majestic Court through the site as a public street). This system also provides for emergency access to TT 5133 as well as the existing development. Thus, the traffic volumes 0001�1-9 Engineering . Planning -Parking -Signal Systems *Impact Reports . Bikeways *Transit Mr. Eric Lieberman Page 2 June 18, 1998 and circulation needs for the existing development and TT 5133 are met by the system as proposed. The next part of the discussion relates to the property east of the project site. An offer of dedication of the right -of -way for an extension of Majestic Court has been made by the church, thus Majestic Court could be extended to the east line of the church property. The area south of the church is zoned commercial, but potentially could be changed to residential use. As a residential use it is estimated that it would have 15 to 20 units. The extension of Majestic Court through TT 5133 and the church dedication would provide additional access to the church site and potentially Fremont Street could extend through the parking lot and provide additional access to the Fremont Street neighborhood. East of the church site and the Fremont neighborhood, the lands are zoned/used for light industrial/commercial and retail commercial uses. The extension of Majestic Court through these lands, most of which are likely to be re- developed in the future, would provide a connection to Spring Road. This segment would provide secondary access to those land to the north which would most likely have some access to Los Angeles Avenue via project driveways and/or a connections at Lorraine Avenue. Majestic Court would provide access to the property between Majestic Court and the Arroyo. The connection of Majestic Court to Spring Road would require the widening of the bridge over Arroyo Simi. It is our understanding that the City requested that the TT 5133 development consider the southerly extension of Millard Avenue from Los Angeles Avenue to Majestic Court through the site. It is ATE's opinion that this connection is not needed for traffic volume or for additional access. The policy need for the connection must have been addressed when the Circulation Element was adopted, since it was removed between the draft and the final. The existing Los Angeles Avenue/Millard Street intersection traffic volumes do not indicate that it meets even the peak hour warrant with the side street volume and there is minimal additional development that will occur in the area served by Millard Street. It is possible that if a traffic signal were to be installed that traffic would divert from the other intersections, but the additional delay on Los Angeles Avenue with the added traffic signal would minimize the time savings by these motorists. TT 5133 currently has planned for access to /from Los Angeles Avenue via "A" Street. This access and the access provided by Majestic Court would adequately serve the site. Thus, extending Millard Avenue from Los Angeles Avenue along the current Millard Avenue alignment is not be required for project access. The Millard Avenue extension would not be needed to provide additional access to the other lands bounded by Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road, Los Angeles Avenue and Arroyo Simi with Majestic Court extended to Spring Road. The land use for the area between TT 5133 and Spring Road could be changed to have a larger residential component, but there will always be some commercial. There also is a policy issue related to mixing residential and commercial traffic on a street, but since Majestic Court would 0001SO Mr. Eric Lieberman Page 3 June 18, 1998 primarily benefit the residential units (they wouldn't have to go onto Los Angeles Avenue to patronize the commercial uses along Majestic Court and Spring Road). Majestic Court would be a better route from the residential areas to the commercial uses along Majestic Court and Spring Road for bicyclists and pedestrians. This route could even make the transit and school bus routes more convenient. In ATE's opinion, the provision of a route from Moorpark Avenue to Spring Road has more benefit to the area than a connection between Los Angeles Avenue and Majestic Court. That is, there is more demand for lateral movement along the Los Angeles corridor than the north -south movement. Even when motorist travel north to Los Angeles Avenue, they mostly turn to the east. Associated Transportation Engineers 6; f� y: Richard L. Pool, P.E. President DLD/RLP �O QRp DESSIpN9`�,`, �c APR �. p Fy : O r. ... j1 1 .0. 18,03.0 1' `f.:SW,!/ L/po/a / J'J. CIV 1� VQ. 0001:31 " " ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS U 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • FAX (8051662-8509 • (8051687-4418 Maynard Keith Franklin, P.E. Robert L. Faris, P.E. Richard L. Pool. P.E. Scott A. Schell. ACP RECEIVED By JUN 221998 VTN WEST, INC. June 18, 1998 98066L02.LTR Mr. Eric Lieberman Kaufman & Broad of Southern California, Inc. 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 310 Woodland Hills, California 91367 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA This letter addresses the issue raised by City staff regarding the circulation and access for the area between the project site and Spring Road south of Los Angeles Avenue and north of Arroyo Simi. Majestic Court is a public street that currently extends from Moorpark Avenue on the west to the project site. It is our understanding that any extension of Majestic Court to the west would only be a short section to serve the parcel immediately west of Moorpark Avenue since the Unidos Avenue link has been deleted. In a draft of the City's Circulation Element the Majestic Court- Millard Avenue connection was shown, however, this connection is not shown in the adopted Circulation Element. Thus, Majestic Court would only serve as a parallel route to Los Angeles Avenue from Moorpark Avenue to Spring Road if it were constructed. The function of a Majestic Court extension to Spring Road would be a secondary access for the lands bounded by Moorpark Avenue on the west, Spring Road on the east, Los Angeles Avenue on the north and for access to the land south of Majestic Court and north of Arroyo Simi. As mentioned, Majestic Court is a public street that extends east from Moorpark Avenue to the project site. This existing segment provides access to the Le Club Condos and apartment units located west of the site. Access to the Le Club Condos is also provided via Los Angeles Avenue and both the Le Club Condos and the apartment project have access from Moorpark Avenue. The traffic volumes generated by the existing dwelling units and TT 5133 can be accommodated by the existing street system and the on -site circulation ( "A" Street along the western frontage and extending Majestic Court through the site as a public street). This system also provides for emergency access to TT 5133 as well as the existing development. Thus, the traffic volumes 000152 Engineering • Planning . Parking • Signal Systems . Impact Reports • Bikeways • Transit Mr. Eric Lieberman Page 2 June 18, 1998 and circulation needs for the existing development and TT 5133 are met by the system as proposed. The next part of the discussion relates to the property east of the project site. An offer of dedication of the right -of -way for an extension of Majestic Court has been made by the church, thus Majestic Court could be extended to the east line of the church property. The area south of the church is zoned commercial, but potentially could be changed to residential use. As a residential use it is estimated that it would have 15 to 20 units. The extension of Majestic Court through TT 5133 and the church dedication would provide additional access to the church site and potentially Fremont Street could extend through the parking lot and provide additional access to the Fremont Street neighborhood. East of the church site and the Fremont neighborhood, the lands are zoned/used for light industrial/commercial and retail commercial uses. The extension of Majestic Court through these lands, most of which are likely to be re- developed in the future, would provide a connection to Spring Road. This segment would provide secondary access to those land to the north which would most likely have some access to Los Angeles Avenue via project driveways and/or a connections at Lorraine Avenue. Majestic Court would provide access to the property between Majestic Court and the Arroyo. The connection of Majestic Court to Spring Road would require the widening of the bridge over Arroyo Simi. It is our understanding that the City requested that the TT 5133 development consider the southerly extension of Millard Avenue from Los Angeles Avenue to Majestic Court through the site. It is ATE's opinion that this connection is not needed for traffic volume or for additional access. The policy need for the connection must have been addressed when the Circulation Element was adopted, since it was removed between the draft and the final. The existing Los Angeles Avenue/Millard Street intersection traffic volumes do not indicate that it meets even the peak hour warrant with the side street volume and there is minimal additional development that will occur in the area served by Millard Street. It is possible that if a traffic signal were to be installed that traffic would divert from the other intersections, but the additional delay on Los Angeles Avenue with the added traffic signal would minimize the time savings by these motorists. TT 5133 currently has planned for access to /from Los Angeles Avenue via "A" Street. This access and the access provided by Majestic Court would adequately serve the site. Thus, extending Millard Avenue from Los Angeles Avenue along the current Millard Avenue alignment is not be required for project access. The Millard Avenue extension would not be needed to provide additional access to the other lands bounded by Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road, Los Angeles Avenue and Arroyo Simi with Majestic Court extended to Spring Road. The land use for the area between TT 5133 and Spring Road could be changed to have a larger residential component, but there will always be some commercial. There also is a policy issue related to mixing residential and commercial traffic on a street, but since Majestic Court would 000153 Mr. Eric Lieberman Page 3 June 18, 1998 primarily benefit the residential units (they wouldn't have to go onto Los Angeles Avenue to patronize the commercial uses along Majestic Court and Spring Road). Majestic Court would be a better route from the residential areas to the commercial uses along Majestic Court and Spring Road for bicyclists and pedestrians. This route could even make the transit and school bus routes more convenient. In ATE's opinion, the provision of a route from Moorpark Avenue to Spring Road has more benefit to the area than a connection between Los Angeles Avenue and Majestic Court. That is, there is more demand for lateral movement along the Los Angeles corridor than the north -south movement. Even when motorist travel north to Los Angeles Avenue, they mostly turn to the east. Associated Transportation Engineers y: Richard L. Pool, P. E. President DLD/RLP QVVESSIpN9�,, �C APR D [, p Fes. , i NO. 18,0;;0 sj► CIV 11. 00015- -f " " ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS III 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 0 FAX (805) 682 -8509 • (805) 687 -4418 Maynard Keith Franklin, P.E. Robert L. Faris, P.E. Richard L. Pool, P.E. Scott A. Schell, AICP RECEIVED By JUN 22 1998 VTN WEST, INC. June 18, 1998 Mr. Eric Lieberman Kaufman & Broad of Southern California, Inc. 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 310 Woodland Hills, California 91367 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 98066L02.LTR This letter addresses the issue raised by City staff regarding the circulation and access for the area between the project site and Spring Road south of Los Angeles Avenue and north of Arroyo Simi. Majestic Court is a public street that currently extends from Moorpark Avenue on the west to the project site. It is our understanding that any extension of Majestic Court to the west would only be a short section to serve the parcel immediately west of Moorpark Avenue since the Unidos Avenue link has been deleted. In a draft of the City's Circulation Element the Majestic Court- Millard Avenue connection was shown, however, this connection is not shown in the adopted Circulation Element. Thus, Majestic Court would only serve as a parallel route to Los Angeles Avenue from Moorpark Avenue to Spring Road if it were constructed. The function of a Majestic Court extension to Spring Road would be a secondary access for the lands bounded by Moorpark Avenue on the west, Spring Road on the east, Los Angeles Avenue on the north and for access to the land south of Majestic Court and north of Arroyo Simi. As mentioned, Majestic Court is a public street that extends east from Moorpark Avenue to the project site. This existing segment provides access to the Le Club Condos and apartment units located west of the site. Access to the Le Club Condos is also provided via Los Angeles Avenue and both the Le Club Condos and the apartment project have access from Moorpark Avenue. The traffic volumes generated by the existing dwelling units and TT 5133 can be accommodated by the existing street system and the on -site circulation ( "A" Street along the western frontage and extending Majestic Court through the site as a public street). This system also provides for emergency access to TT 5133 as well as the existing development. Thus, the traffic volumes 001 5 Engineering . Planning . Parking 9 Signal Systems . Impact Reports . Bikeways . Transit Mr. Eric Lieberman Page 2 June 18, 1998 and circulation needs for the existing development and TT 5133 are met by the system as proposed. The next part of the discussion relates to the property east of the project site. An offer of dedication of the right -of -way for an extension of Majestic Court has been made by the church, thus Majestic Court could be extended to the east line of the church property. The area south of the church is zoned commercial, but potentially could be changed to residential use. As a residential use it is estimated that it would have 15 to 20 units. The extension of Majestic Court through TT 5133 and the church dedication would provide additional access to the church site and potentially Fremont Street could extend through the parking lot and provide additional access to the Fremont Street neighborhood. East of the church site and the Fremont neighborhood, the lands are zoned/used for light industrial/commercial and retail commercial uses. The extension of Majestic Court through these lands, most of which are likely to be re- developed in the future, would provide a connection to Spring Road. This segment would provide secondary access to those land to the north which would most likely have some access to Los Angeles Avenue via project driveways and/or a connections at Lorraine Avenue. Majestic Court would provide access to the property between Majestic Court and the Arroyo. The connection of Majestic Court to Spring Road would require the widening of the bridge over Arroyo Simi. It is our understanding that the City requested that the TT 5133 development consider the southerly extension of Millard Avenue from Los Angeles Avenue to Majestic Court through the site. It is ATE's opinion that this connection is not needed for traffic volume or for additional access. The policy need for the connection must have been addressed when the Circulation Element was adopted, since it was removed between the draft and the final. The existing Los Angeles Avenue/Millard Street intersection traffic volumes do not indicate that it meets even the peak hour warrant with the side street volume and there is minimal additional development that will occur in the area served by Millard Street. It is possible that if a traffic signal were to be installed that traffic would divert from the other intersections, but the additional delay on Los Angeles Avenue with the added traffic signal would minimize the time savings by these motorists. TT 5133 currently has planned for access to /from Los Angeles Avenue via "A" Street. This access and the access provided by Majestic Court would adequately serve the site. Thus, extending Millard Avenue from Los Angeles Avenue along the current Millard Avenue alignment is not be required for project access. The Millard Avenue extension would not be needed to provide additional access to the other lands bounded by Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road, Los Angeles Avenue and Arroyo Simi with Majestic Court extended to Spring Road. The land use for the area between TT 5133 and Spring Road could be changed to have a larger residential component, but there will always be some commercial. There also is a policy issue related to mixing residential and commercial traffic on a street, but since Majestic Court would 0001: -G Mr. Eric Lieberman Page 3 June 18, 1998 primarily benefit the residential units ,(they wouldn't have to go onto Los Angeles Avenue to patronize the commercial uses along Majestic Court and Spring Road). Majestic Court would be a better route from the residential areas to the commercial uses along Majestic Court and Spring Road for bicyclists and pedestrians. This route could even make the transit and school bus routes more convenient. In ATE's opinion, the provision of a route from Moorpark Avenue to Spring Road has more benefit to the area than a connection between Los Angeles Avenue and Majestic Court. That is, there is more demand for lateral movement along the Los Angeles corridor than the north -south movement. Even when motorist travel north to Los Angeles Avenue, they mostly turn to the east. Associated Transportation Engineers y: Richard L. Pool, P.E. President DLD/RLP DESS/ '0 y r r. 1-�O. 18,0 ;0 L/Pa✓d / JJ. C/V 11- \'. _�F CA1.1F�� 0001.;;7 M TENTATIVE T T 5133 MOORPARK, ALIFOR A TRAFFIC AND CIR CATION STUDY ATE Project #98066 June 15, 1998 Prepared For: Kaufman & Broad of Southern California 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 310 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Prepared By: Richard L. Pool, P.E. Virginia Colony e 0"T .'EN 7JSl No. 18,030 c u cfJ• CIVIL a " u ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Ul= 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 -1686 • (805) 687 -4418 • FAX (805) 682 -8509 00010 ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS III 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • FAX (805) 682 -8509 • (805) 687 -4418 Maynard Keith Franklin, P.E. Robert L. Faris, P.E. Richard L. Pool, P.E. Scott A. Schell, AICP June 15, 1998 ATE #98066 Mr. Eric Lieberman Kaufman & Broad of Southern California, Inc. 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 310 Woodland Hills, California 91367 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA Associated Transportation Engineers is pleased to submit this Traffic and Circulation Study for Tentative Tract 5133 located in the City of Moorpark. The report was prepared to assist the City in the processing of the project application. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. Associated Transportation Engineers By: Richard L. Pool, P.E. President RLP /wp Engineering .Planning .Parking .Signal Systems .Impact Reports . Bikeways . Tr040159 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tentative Tract 5133 is for the construction of a condominium project consisting of 81 separate townhouse dwelling units on approximately 8.1 acres. Approximately 1.3 acres of the site will be reserved for future Ventura County Flood Control District right -of -way expansion along Arroyo Simi. Access to the project is proposed from Majestic Court via Moorpark Avenue and from a right -turn only driveway( "A" Street) on the west side of the site. This driveway also provides access to City property that is adjacent to Arroyo Simi west of the project site. There will be sidewalks on Majestic Court and on "A" Street. Access to most of the units is from cul de sacs extended from either Majestic Court or "A" Street. The analysis of the 1998 traffic conditions found that all of the study -area intersections currently operate within the LOS A -C range. The 1998 + Project traffic condition showed small changes in the ICU and the LOS at Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue went from B to C. All intersections are within the limits established by the City of Moorpark. The Year 2005 and Year 2015 scenarios were analyzed using the Moorpark Traffic Analysis Model (MTAM) that was used for Specific Plan #2 and adding the traffic from Tract 5133. The Year 2005 traffic model is based upon the expected development during the period along with the circulation system modifications that will be constructed as part of the expected projects. The Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road and Los Angeles Avenue\Moorpark Avenue intersections are forecasted to be at LOS E with Year 2005 traffic volumes. The other two intersections will operate in the LOS B or C range with Year 2005 volumes. The following improvement would be required to maintain the City's LOS C performance objective for the Year 2005 Project traffic condition at Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue and at Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road. Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Road. Add a third through lane for eastbound and westbound traffic and change the striping southbound to provide two left -turn lanes and a through +right -turn lane. Los Angeles Avenue / Spring Road. Add a third through lane for eastbound and westbound traffic and add a southbound left -turn lane. With these modifications, Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road would be at LOS C and Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue would be at LOS B. The project added traffic changes the LOS at Los Angles Avenue/Park Lane from B to C (a 0.01 change in ICU) the LOS at the other intersections remain the same as Year 2005 with improvements. The Year 2015 analysis showed all intersections in the LOS A - C range. Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark has an ICU of 0.79. When the project traffic is added to the Year 2015 traffic volumes, Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue reaches ICU 0.82/ LOS D. A second 0001x.:23 westbound left -turn lane will accommodate the traffic volumes and provide 0.75/C operation. The project impact analysis did not identify any project specific impacts for 1998 and for Year 2005. For Year 2015, the project added volume at Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue changed the ICU /LOS from 0.79/C to 0.82 D. Thus, the project does contribute to the cumulative traffic. Mitigation of the cumulative affect of project traffic is payment of fees for the Area of Contribution for the Los Angeles Avenue corridor based upon the percentage the project traffic is of the projected added traffic from 1998 to Year 2015. The project analysis concluded that the project 'complies with the Ventura County Congestion Management Plan, since the City of Moorpark's objective of LOS C is better than the CMP requirements. The project site plan was reviewed with respect to pedestrian, bicycle and transit access and service. There will be sidewalks on "A" Street and Majestic Court that will allow pedestrians (particularly school age) adequate access to Los Angeles Avenue and the crossing at Moorpark Avenue. Since there will be no parking on the cul de sac drives, there will be sufficient area on the drive for pedestrians and bicycles. There is a transit stop located on Los Angeles Avenue west of the adjacent condominium driveway. Thus there is reasonable access to transit service. It was noted that curb ramps should be provided opposite the cul de sac drives on "A" Street to accommodate handicapped persons. The parking was noted as two spaces on each driveway, since there will be a 20 foot setback from the drive in addition to the garage spaces. It is ATE's understanding that some additional parking will be designated on the site, but it is not shown at this time. 0001GI TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................ ............................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........... ............................... 1 EXISTING STREET NETWORK ....... ............................... 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE .................. 5 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 6 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 8 YEAR 2005 ANALYSIS Levels of Service 8 ..................... Required Improvements 13 ...... ............................... 13 YEAR 2015 ANALYSIS ....... ............................... Levels of Service 14 ........... ............................... 14 MITIGATION MEASURES .......... ............................... 17 VENTURA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ............. 17 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION .. ............................... Vehicle Access 17 ....... ............................... Pedestrian Bicycle 18 and Access .............................. Transit Service and Access 18 ..... ............................... 19 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED ............................ 20 0001G.v List of Tables Table 1 1998 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ................. 6 Table 2 Project Trip Generation Estimates .......................... 6 Table 3 1998 + Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ......... 8 Table 4 Year 2005 and Year 2005 + Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service............. ............................... 13 Table 5 Year 2005 and Year 2005 + Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service With Improvements .............................. 14 Table 6 Year 2015 and Year 2015 + Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ............. ............................... 14 Table 7 Year 2015 - Project Percent Contributions .................... 17 List of Figures Figure 1 - Project Site Location ...... ............................... 2 Figure 2 - Project Site Plan ......... ............................... 3 Figure 3 - 1998 Traffic Volumes ...... ............................... 7 Figure 4 - Project Added Traffic Volumes .............................. 9 Figure 5 - 1998 + Project Traffic Volumes ............................. 10 Figure 6 - Year 2005 Traffic Volumes .. ............................... 11 Figure 7 - Year 2005 + Project Traffic Volumes .......................... 12 Figure 8 - Year 2015 Traffic Volumes .. ............................... 15 Figure 9 - Year 2015 + Project Traffic Volumes .......................... 16 iv 000163 INTRODUCTION This report contains the analysis of the traffic and circulation impacts associated with Tentative Tract 5133 condiminium project. Illustrated on Figure 1 (Project Site Location) is the general location of the project site in the City of Moorpark. It is understood by ATE that information contained in this report will be used by the City of Moorpark in the processing of the application. This report contains an analysis of traffic conditions for two "horizon years "; Year 2005 and Year 2015 (General Plan buildout). The Year 2005 scenario is based on estimates of potential development projects (and related circulation improvements) that would be constructed by the Year 2005. The Year 2015 scenario is based upon the development of the remaining General Plan land uses and the circulation system required to efficiently move people and goods. The traffic volume forecasts used were from the Moorpark Traffic Area Model (MTAM) analysis for Specific Plan #2. An issue was raised by City staff regarding the circulation and access for the area between the project site and Spring Road south of Los Angeles Avenue and north of Arroyo Simi. This issue will be addressed separately if needed. PROIECT DESCRIPTION Tentative Tract 5133 is for the development of a condominium project consisting of 81 separate townhouse dwelling units on approximately 8.1 acres. Approximately 1.3 acres of the site will be reserved for future Ventura County Flood Control District right -of -way expansion along Arroyo Simi. Access to the project is proposed from Majestic Court via Moorpark Avenue and from a right -turn only driveway on the west side of the site. This driveway also provides access to City property that is adjacent to Arroyo Simi west of the project site. The Project Site Plan is shown on Figure 2. EXISTING STREET NETWORK The circulation system serving the project site is comprised of two State Highways, major arterial and local collector streets. The primary components of the study street system are discussed in the following text. State Route 118 (SR 118): This State Highway extends from the Santa Paula Freeway (State Route 126) in the eastern portion of the City of Ventura to the Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210) near the City of San Fernando. The following text describes the various segments of SR 118 in the project study area. North of the New Los Angeles Avenue Interchange, SR 118 is a four -to -six lane freeway. Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study j June 15, 1998 0001G11 N W E S ASSOCIATED FIGURE 2 T RANSPORTATION PROJECT SITE PLAN E NCINEERS 3 FTATE MOM 114 m�mm� m u�lli�5i ri�� nn pp I■�m�liE�ma ■F&dl '� ■tag � .�� A. ■gig �a� ■� �- ASSOCIATED FIGURE 2 T RANSPORTATION PROJECT SITE PLAN E NCINEERS 3 Between the New Los Angeles Avenue Interchange and Springy, SR 118 (concurrent with SR 23) continues on a westerly alignment along New Los Angeles Avenue. New Los Angeles Avenue is a major east -west arterial within the City of Moorpark. This arterial has four travel lanes with traffic signals at Science Drive and Spring Road. Between Spring Road and Tierra Rejada Road, SR 118 continues along Los Angeles Avenue. Los Angeles Avenue in this portion of the City of Moorpark is four lanes with median left -turn lane. Los Angeles Avenue is signalized at Spring Road, Moorpark Avenue, Park Lane, Liberty Bell Road and Tierra Rejada Road. West of Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road, SR 118 continues west along Los Angeles Avenue as a four -lane facility to Mira Sol. West of Mira Sol, there is one westbound lane. West of Butter Creek Road, S.R. 118 is a two -lane arterial. _ State Route 23 (SR 23), This State Highway facility extends north from U.S. Highway 101 to SR 118, at the New Los Angeles Avenue interchange. The following text describes the various segments of SR 23 in the project study area. South of the New Los Angeles Avenue Interchange, SR 23 is a four -to -six lane freeway. Between the New Los Angeles Avenue interchange and Spring Road, SR 23 continues on a westerly alignment along New Los Angeles Avenue. New Los Angeles Avenue is a major east -west arterial with four travel lanes with turn lanes at the intersections. There are traffic signals at Science Drive and at Spring Road. Between Spring Road and Moorpark Avenue, SR 23 (concurrent with SR 118) continues westerly along Los Angeles Avenue. This segment of Los Angeles Avenue has four travel lanes and a median area/turn lane. Between Los Angeles Avenue and High Street, S.R. 23 continues on a northerly alignment along Moorpark Avenue. Moorpark Avenue is a major north -south arterial with one northbound travel lane, a median left -turn lane and two southbound travel lanes between Los Angeles Avenue and just south of Second Street. North of Second Street, Moorpark Avenue transitions to one travel lane each direction with a median lane to just south of Third Street. From just south of Third Street to High Street, Moorpark Avenue is a two -lane facility. Moorpark Avenue is signalized at Los Angeles Avenue, Poindexter Avenue -First Street and High Street. Between High Street and Broadway, SR 23 continues on a northerly alignment along Walnut Canyon Road. This section of S.R. 23 has two travel lanes and a median two -way left -turn lane from High Street to 0.2 miles north of Casey Road. From this point to Broadway S.R. 23 has two 13' travel lanes, with gravel shoulders and serves as the primary north -south route between the Cities of Moorpark and Fillmore. The Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 4 June 15, 1998 ®'OOIGI1 Moorpark Unified School District is planning on installing a traffic signal at Casey Road this fall. Between Walnut Canyon Road and Grimes Canyon Road SR 23 continues on a westerly alignment along Broadway. This section of SR 23 has two 13' travel lanes, with gravel shoulders. North of Broadway, SR 23 continues on a northerly alignment along Grimes Canyon Road. This section of SR 23 has two 13' travel lanes, with gravel shoulders. Spring Road is a north -south arterial extending from Tierra Rejada Road on the south to its current terminus north of the High Street -Los Angles Avenue intersection. Between High Street -Los Angles Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue -New Los Angeles Avenue, Spring Road has four travel lanes and a median left -turn lane. South of Los Angeles Avenue -New Los Angeles Avenue, Spring Road narrows to two travel lanes and continues to Tierra Rejada Road. At the Peach Hill Road intersection right- and left -turn lanes are provided on both the north and southbound approaches. Spring Road is signalized at High Street -Los Angeles Avenue, Los Angeles Avenue -New Los Angeles Avenue, Peach Hill Road and Tierra Rejada Road. Moorpark Avenue is a major north -south arterial with one northbound travel lane, a median left -turn lane and two southbound travel lanes between Los Angeles Avenue and just south of Second Street. North of Second Street, Moorpark Avenue transitions to one travel lane each direction with a median lane to just south of Third Street. From just south of Third Street to High Street, Moorpark Avenue is a two -lane facility. Moorpark Avenue is signalized at Los Angeles Avenue, Poindexter Avenue -First Street and High Street. High Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road (opposite Los Angeles Avenue) is a two lane east -west collector street with on- street parking. Commercial vehicles over 3 tons are prohibited on this local collector street. High Street is signalized at Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE Daily Traffic Volumes. Average daily traffic (ADT) volume data for the study -area surface streets were obtained from the "1996 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways ", Caltrans, division of Traffic Operations, June 1997. Illustrated on Figure 3 are the Existing ADT Volumes for the study street segments. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service. Traffic flow on roadway network is most restricted at intersections, thus, a detailed traffic flow analysis must examine the operating conditions of critical intersections during peak periods. In analyzing the existing and future operational characteristics of intersections, "Levels of Service" (LOS) grades "A" through "F" are used, with LOS A indicating very good operations and LOS F indicating poor operations (more complete definitions of the levels of service grades are contained in the Appendix. Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 5 June 15, 1998 0001G3 City of Moorpark General Plan Policies state that LOS C is the system performance objective. The City of Moorpark significance criteria (City of Moorpark, "Guidelines for Preparing Traffic and Circulation Studies ") states if a level of service degradation of one level of service or greater is attributable to a project it will be considered significant enough to require mitigation measures. The City's criteria also states that a level of service degradation of less than one level of service may also be considered significant, depending on circumstances. As a design constraint, it is intended that a Level of Service of C or better be maintained. Illustrated on Figure 3 are the 1998 A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes at the study intersections. The data presented in Table 1 indicate that all of the study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. This conclusion is based on the City's system performance objective of LOS C. Field observations conducted by ATE personnel confirmed that the study intersections currently operate at their respective levels of service. Table 1 1998 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection Control Type ICU Ratio - LOS A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Moorpark Ave / High St Signal 0.50 - A 0.59 - A Los Angeles Ave / Moorpark Ave Signal 0.63 - B 0.69 - B Los Angeles Ave / Spring Rd Signal 0.75 - C 0.76 - C Los Angeles Ave / Park Lane Signal 0.51 - A 0.63 - B PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Table 2 illustrates the trip generation projection for Tentative Tract 5133 Project. This projection was made using the trip generation rates contained in Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation report'. The data in Table 2 indicate that 854 daily, 66 A.M. and 89 P.M. peak hour driveway trips would be generated by the project. Table 2 Project Trip Generation Estimates Study Scenario /Land Use Vehicle Trip Ends Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out 81 SFDU (Low Density) 854 67 17 50 89 57 32 TrtI ;Vu�- ' Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition, 1997. Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 6 June 15, 1998 ®001G9 �N PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Project trip distribution: After reviewing the traffic volumes at Moorpark Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue both before and after the A.M./P.M. station was constructed it appears that the trip distribution for this residential project should be as follows: East on Los Angeles Avenue 60% West on Los Angeles Avenue 20% North on Moorpark Avenue 20% We are evaluating one signalized intersection each side of Moorpark Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue intersection. With respect to Route 23, we will assign 30% in each direction. The project added A.M. and P.M. peak hour and daily trips are shown on Figure 4. The 1998 + Project A.M. and P.M. peak hour and daily volumes are illustrated on Figure 5. The ICU/LOS for each of the study intersections for 1998 and 1998 + Project are shown in Table 3. The LOS at Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue in the P.M. peak hour changes from B to C. The LOS meets the City's desired performance standard with project added traffic. Table 3 1998 + Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection 1998 ICU /LOS 1998 + Project ICUILOS A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Moorpark Ave / High St 0.50 - A 0.59 - A 0.50 - A 0.60 - A Los Angeles Ave / Moorpark Ave 0.63 - B 0.69 - B 0.63 - B 0.72 - C Los Angeles Ave / Spring Rd 0.75 - C 0.76 - C 0.76 - C 0.77 - C Los Angeles Ave / Park Lane 0.51 - A 0.63 - B 0.51 -A 0.64 - B YEAR 2005 ANALYSIS The Year 2005 traffic scenario considers developments projected to occur and the related street and intersection improvements that would be in place at that time. The trip generation for the Year 2005 scenario were developed based on land use projections used for the analysis prepared for Specific Plan #2. The MTAM was used to distribute and assigned the Year 2005 traffic onto the Moorpark street system. The project traffic was added to the Year 2005 volumes for the Year 2005 + Project scenario. The Year 2005 A.M., P.M Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes are illustrated on Figure 6. The Year 2005 + Project A.M., P.M. Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes are illustrated on Figure 7. Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 8 June 15, 1998 ®001":' 10 N W E S 00 rn o t 0 C) (120)240 0 - vv +- (10)10 .J 1 L. (240)240 HIGH ST. 10(10)-1 `1 t r- 10(10)- o 0 0 10(10) ^ °o o rn r` h N h N t - CD co MAJESTIC CT. LEGEND PROJECT AaT SITE Signolized Intersection (A.M.)P.ki. Peak Hour Volume NOT TO SCALE ASSOCIATED FIGURE C6 TRANSPORTATION YEAR 2005 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 0001 v E NGINEERS 11 Uj Q CD C O Ct: y O � Q � L6 Z Z r m m w w 0 Q Q- Z O O t t/1 J � � Y U Uj Q Q Q a 0 o o t t- (90)270 D C. L (170)290 " " N "' L L (1,000)1,060 v D o n L (1,000)1,080 C CO ° ( (230)410 �0 .J j L. r r (80) 50 j j r r (80)240 1 I L- r (90)220 3 135.0001 -J I r ( 40(40)-J t t f 1 130(120)-1 - -1 t (- L LOS ANG L LES AVE. 190(130)) ' 'i t r' 1,220(1,120) --- G G o v 1 1,230(1,050) -- c c I I 1 1,070(1,250) 20(30) N N 9 90(20) o o o I 4 400(200) oo o N oo° - CD co MAJESTIC CT. LEGEND PROJECT AaT SITE Signolized Intersection (A.M.)P.ki. Peak Hour Volume NOT TO SCALE ASSOCIATED FIGURE C6 TRANSPORTATION YEAR 2005 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 0001 v E NGINEERS 11 N W E S � o �o W 0 t- v ° (120)240 ^ � Z-2&' (10)10 ..1 ! L- x(241)244 HIGH ST. lo(10)-1 -1 t f 10(10) --► g 10(10)- N o � 1,235(1,054)-► rn ° °o � N z J Y Q W Q Y CC 0- Cr 0 0 m r- C ) Cy- CIS! C7 � Z CL V) W 0 t- v ° (90)270 o (1,010)1,066 rn v� (170)290 �- (1,000)1,080 % 0 .J j L- V(80)50 'J j L. j- (90)274 40(40)-t '1 t r- g 'l t f 1,232(1,124) o � 1,235(1,054)-► rn ° °o 20(30)- ° 96(20)- �o o (1.037)1,207 35 500 -� 1 �— N r- C ) Cy- CIS! C7 � Z CL V) I MAJESTIC CT. LEGEND PROJECT AST SITE J1 Signalized / • Intersection (A.M.)P,M. �-- Peak Hour Volume I NOT TO SCALE I dell ASSOCIATED FIGUREC7 TRANSPORTATION YEAR 2005 + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES E NCINEERS " "1114 "e 12 W Q O g o10N o o t- (230)410 ao O O (1.037)1,207 35 500 -� 1 �— r (90)220 3 LOS ANGI LES AVE. 192(132)-J t r- 1,085(1,275)— O O 403(203)- n n N I MAJESTIC CT. LEGEND PROJECT AST SITE J1 Signalized / • Intersection (A.M.)P,M. �-- Peak Hour Volume I NOT TO SCALE I dell ASSOCIATED FIGUREC7 TRANSPORTATION YEAR 2005 + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES E NCINEERS " "1114 "e 12 Levels of Service The intersection levels of service were calculated using the Year 2005 peak hour traffic volumes. The results of this analysis are displayed on Table 4, with the level of service worksheets contained in the Appendix. There are two intersections that exceed LOS C with 2005 volumes. The project added traffic increases the ICU value at both intersections in the P.M. peak hour period. Table 4 Year 2005 and Year 2005 + Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection 2005 ICUAOS 2005 + Project ICU /LOS A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Moorpark Ave / High St 0.58 - A 0.73 - C 0.59 - A 0.73 - C Los Angeles Ave / Moorpark Ave 0.70 - B 0.97 - E 0.71 - C 1.00 - E Los Angeles Ave / Spring Rd 0.94 - E 0.97 - E 0.94 - E 0.97 - E Los Angeles Ave / Park Lane 0.58 - A 1 0.70 - B 1 0.58 - A 0.71 - C Required Improvements The following improvement would be required to maintain the City's LOS C performance objective for the Year 2005 Project traffic condition at Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue and at Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road. Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Road. Add a third through lane for eastbound and westbound traffic and change the striping southbound to provide two left -turn lanes and a through +right -turn lane. Los Angeles Avenue / Spring Road. Add a third through lane for eastbound and westbound traffic and add a southbound left -turn lane. The resulting LOS's with the improvements are illustrated on Table 5 for Year 2005 and Year 2005 + Project. The LOS at the two intersections meets the City's desired goal of LOS C or better. Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 13 June 15, 1998 00016 G Table 5 Year 2005 and Year 2005 + Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service With Improvements YEAR 2015 ANALYSIS Year 2015 traffic scenario considers General Plan buildout with current zoning and without the Project. The Year 2015 traffic scenario considers developments projected to occur and the related street and intersection improvements that would be in place at that time. The trip generation for the Year 2015 scenario traffic volumes were taken from the projections used for the analysis of Specific Plan #2. The MTAM was used to distribute and assigned the Year 2015 traffic onto the Moorpark street system. The project traffic was added to the Year 2015 volumes for the Year 2015 + Project scenario. The Year 2015 A.M., P.M Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes are illustrated on Figure 8. The Year 2015 + Project A.M., P.M. Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes are illustrated on Figure 9. Levels of Service The A.M. and P.M. peak hour levels of service were calculated using the Year 2015 and Year 2015 + Project traffic volumes. The improvements identified for the Year 2005 Scenario were assumed to be in place for Year 2015. Thus, should any improvements be need that would be in addition to those identified for Year 2005. The results of the level of service analysis are displayed on Table 6 , with the level of service worksheets contained in the Appendix. Table 6 Year 2015 and Year 2015 + Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection 2015 ICU /LOS 2005 + Project A.M. Peak 2005 ICUAOS ICU /LOS Study Intersection A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Los Angeles Ave / Moorpark Ave 0.53 - A 0.65 - B 0.54 - A 0.67 - B Los Angeles Ave / Spring Rd 0.69 - B 0.77 - C 1 0.70 - B 0.77 - C YEAR 2015 ANALYSIS Year 2015 traffic scenario considers General Plan buildout with current zoning and without the Project. The Year 2015 traffic scenario considers developments projected to occur and the related street and intersection improvements that would be in place at that time. The trip generation for the Year 2015 scenario traffic volumes were taken from the projections used for the analysis of Specific Plan #2. The MTAM was used to distribute and assigned the Year 2015 traffic onto the Moorpark street system. The project traffic was added to the Year 2015 volumes for the Year 2015 + Project scenario. The Year 2015 A.M., P.M Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes are illustrated on Figure 8. The Year 2015 + Project A.M., P.M. Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes are illustrated on Figure 9. Levels of Service The A.M. and P.M. peak hour levels of service were calculated using the Year 2015 and Year 2015 + Project traffic volumes. The improvements identified for the Year 2005 Scenario were assumed to be in place for Year 2015. Thus, should any improvements be need that would be in addition to those identified for Year 2005. The results of the level of service analysis are displayed on Table 6 , with the level of service worksheets contained in the Appendix. Table 6 Year 2015 and Year 2015 + Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection 2015 ICU /LOS 2015 + Project ICUILOS A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Moorpark Ave / High St 0.62 - B 0.67 - B 0.62 - B 0.67 - B Los Angeles Ave / Moorpark Ave 0.55 - A 0.79 - C 0.56 - A 0.82 - D Los Angeles Ave / Spring Rd 0.57 - A 0.74 - C 0.58 - A 0.75 - C Los Angeles Ave / Park Lane 0.60 - A 0.78 - C 0.60 - A 0.79 - C Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 14 June 15, 1998 0001 O o N OD L (90) 100 °n (110)420 o a°o - vv (10)10 rn ° v (100)220 HIGH ST. 10(10) 'l t r' 0(10) — ° N 10(10) -1 O ° o 0 190(80) --t '1 t r- 1,350(1.150)— r� r N Z J Y Of Q CL Lj a Y CC Q CL O O m 0 � N N L (90) 100 0 o O 7 o L (230)230 v ° •-- (1,000)1,380 rn ° v - (1,000)1,410 J0 '� l L. x(80)90 .j j r- (80)270 50(40) '1 1 F' 190(80) --t '1 t r- 1,350(1.150)— o 1,360(1,050) a ° o 20(30) N o 90(20) --1 a 0 0 ,o n MAJESTIC CT. NOT TO SCALE W Q O EC J LOS PROJECT SITE V / 0 CD x O ca 0 Z C1_ N O o AOT 0 0 o L (140)530 -- (850)1,570 146.5 .J 1 L. x (30)180 ES AVE. 130(150)-1 -1 t r 1,430(1,290) --► Peak Hour 440(250) Volume O °o 00 In N LEGEND ASSOCIATEO FIGURE g TRANSPORTATION YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES I w ENGINEERS 0001 1-i's 15 AOT • Signalized Intersection (A.M.)P.M. �--- Peak Hour Volume ASSOCIATEO FIGURE g TRANSPORTATION YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES I w ENGINEERS 0001 1-i's 15 r` o t- co L ""I cN 5" Lo = S N (110)420 vv —(10)10 _j j L. j- (101)224 HIGH ST. 10(10) -? `1 f f 10(10) -+ ° N o 10(10) o n N 1,362(1,154) — N r g C N z J Y Q W Q Y Q a cr- 0 0 m In CD t- Ln o L ""I cN 5" Lo = S N (90)100 .-- (1,010)1,386 AVE. 132(152)-IT-11, (230)230 (1,000)1,410 7 0 _I j L_ x(80)90 .J j L. (90)304 50(40) --t `1 f 190(80) f I- 1,362(1,154) — 1,365(1,054) g 20(30) -1 o N 96(20) Ln z , o n MAJESTIC CT. NOT TO SCALE W Q _J LOS iPROJECT SITE V / C) Of CN u c� Q, z a to 0 0 o o L (140)530 m -'v (857)1,587 000 ..J j L, x(30)180 i AVE. 132(152)-IT-11, f 1,445(1,315) CN 4 443(253) Peak Hour Volume v; C5 co n N LEGEND �n A SSOCLATEO FIGURE ( q TRANSPORTATION YEAR 2015 + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 00011.-f,9 x� E NGINEERS 0 16 AoT 5gnoli:ee Intersection (A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume �n A SSOCLATEO FIGURE ( q TRANSPORTATION YEAR 2015 + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 00011.-f,9 x� E NGINEERS 0 16 The Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue intersection is projected to reach LOS D with Year 2015 + Project P.M. peak hour traffic volumes. The traffic projections indicate that the westbound left -turn volumes will reach 300 +. This volume would require a second westbound left -turn lane. The resulting LOS with the dual westbound left -turn lanes would be 0.75/C for Year 2015 and 0.76/C for Year 2015 + Project. MITIGATION MEASURES The project impact analysis did not identify any project specific impacts for 1998 and for Year 2005. For Year 2015, the project added volume at Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue changed the ICU /LOS from 0.79/C to 0.82 D. Thus, the project does contribute to the cumulative traffic. There is an Area of Contribution for the Los Angeles Avenue corridor and the project will have to pay the fee based upon the projected traffic. The percentage the project traffic is of the total added traffic from 1998 to Year 2015 on roadways and at intersections is shown on Table 7. Table 7 Year 2015 - Project Percent Contributions Study Intersection Project Percent Contribution ( %) Moorpark Avenue /High Street 14 Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue 4 Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road 3 Los Angeles Avenue /Park Lane 1 SR 23, Los Angeles Avenue to High Street (a) 3 SR 118, Spring Road to Moorpark Avenue (a) 5 SR 118, Moorpark Avenue to Tierra Rejada (a) 3 (a) Percent contribution based on ADT. VENTURA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM In meeting the City of Moorpark's objective of maintaining LOS C at all intersections, the Year 2005 and Year 2015 minimum circulation systems with the respective improvements for the Project scenarios will comply with the Ventura County Congestion Management Program. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Access to the site is provided from Moorpark Avenue by an extension of Majestic Court, as a public street, from its present terminus on the east line of Tract 3537 -3 (west side of Tract 5133) through the project to its east boundary. It is ATE's understanding that there is a Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 17 June 15, 1998 0001ST dedication for the section of Majestic Court east of Tract 5133 to the east side of the Catholic Church property. Along the west boundary of Tract 5133 there is a 25 foot wide driveway ( "A" Street) that will connect to Los Angeles Avenue. The access is proposed to be restricted to right -turn only. The access pattern is shown on Figure 2, the Project Site Plan. Vehicle Access The towne house units are served from cul de sac driveways (25 feet wide) that connect to either "A" Street or from Majestic Court. There are seven units north of Majestic Court that have access directly from "A" Street and there are 10 units that have access directly from "A" Street south of Majestic Court. It is ATE's understanding that parking will be prohibited on "A" Street and on all of the cul de sac's. The garages are set back 20 feet from the driveway or street, thus there will be two spaces in addition to the garage spaces. It is ATE's understanding that there will be some visitor parking provided on the site, but it was not shown on the site plan. ATE was assured by the Project Engineer that the turn around at the end of each cul de sac meets the requirement for fire and police services. There is no indication on the plan as to where the trash collection points will be, thus we cannot comment on the sufficiency of the site to accommodate the trash pickup. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access The typical section for Majestic Court and "A" Street shown on the site plan indicates that there will be 5 foot sidewalks on each side of both streets. There are no sidewalks shown on any of the cul de sacs. The primary pedestrian concern is school age children. ATE staff contacted Moorpark Unified School District staff to gather information on this topic. (personal communication Jane Lavallee, Transportation Director). The present school program is for the K -3 students to be picked up by bus on Majestic Court or Moorpark Avenue. Ms. Lavallee indicated that the District might consider coming into the project with the bus if there was an adequate turn around. The 4-12 students walk to Flory School and are then transported to the appropriate school. The adjacent apartment and condominium complexes student population is 77 K -3 and 112 4 -12. Information as to the total number of units was not obtained, thus student density was not determined. If there is 1 student per unit in the project that would yield 81 students. The ratio is approximately 40% K -3 and 60% 4 -12. This indicates that the project can expect 32 K -3 and 49 4 -12 students. The pedestrian route to the Flory School would along "A" Street to Los Angeles Avenue and west on Los Angeles Avenue to Moorpark Avenue. There is a school crossing guard at the Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue intersection. Thus, except from the unit to "A" Street most of the route has sidewalk that will accommodate the pedestrian traffic. The project site plan will provide adequate facilities for pedestrians. Bicycles will be required to share the project street with vehicles, but since there is no parking on the streets this will be adequate. Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 18 June 15, 1998 00151 Transit Service and Access There is a transit/bus stop on Los Angeles Avenue west of the adjacent condominium driveway. The sidewalks within the project will provide an adequate pedestrian route from the units to the bus stop. With respect to handicapped access, it would be prudent to provide curb ramps opposite each of the cul de sac locations along "A" Street and the City will require curb ramps on the intersections along Majestic Court. With the provision of curb ramps, the project site plan will provide adequate facilities for pedestrians and transit access. Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 19 June 15, 1998 0001 52 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED 1. LIST OF REFERENCES: Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1994. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition, 1997 Moorpark General Plan EIR, PBR, October 1991. 1996 Traffic Volumes, Caltrans, June 1997. Moorpark Traffic Analysis Model, Austin -Foust Associates, June 1994. 2. LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED: John Whitman, Traffic Engineer, City of Moorpark David Grantham, Assistant Engineer, City of Moorpark Wayne Loftus, Supervising Planner, City of Moorpark Paul Porter, Project Planner, City of Moorpark Kendall Elmer, Austin -Foust Associates Bob Houle, Traffic Section, Caltrans, Ventura Satellite Office Eric Taylor, Project Engineer, VTN West, Inc. Eric Lieberman, Project Manager, Kaufman & Broad Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 20 June 15, 1998 000153 TECHNICAL APPENDIX CONTENTS: LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION PROCEDURES LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS Reference 1 - Moorpark Avenue/High Street ' Reference 2 - Moorpark Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue Reference 3 - Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road Reference 4 - Los Angeles Avenue/Park Lane Tentative Tract 5133 Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic & Circulation Study 21 June 15, 1998 000184 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS 0001S5 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic volumes, "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. More complete level of service definitions are: LOS V/C Range Delay(a) Definition Low volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is low and A 0.00 -0.60 < 5.0 vehicles can freely maneuver within traffic stream. Drivers can maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. Stable flow with potential for some restriction of operating B 0.61 -0.70 5.1 -15.0 speeds due to traffic conditions. Maneuvering is only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and drivers are not subject to appreciable tension. Stable operations, however the ability to maneuver is more C 0.71 -0.80 15.1 -25.0 restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory operating speeds prevail but adverse signed coordination or longer queues cause delays. Approaching unstable traffic flow where small increases in D 0.81 -0.90 25.1 -40.0 volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in their ability to maneuver and their selection of travel speeds. Comfort and convenience are low but tolerable. Operations characterized by significant approach delays and E 0.91 -1.00 40.1 -60.0 average travel speeds of one -half to one -third the free flow speed. Flow is unstable and potential for stoppages of brief duration. High signal density, extensive queuing, or signal progression/timing are the typical causes of delays. Forced flow operations with high approach delays at critical F > 1.01 > 60.0 signalized intersections. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of downstream congestion. (a) Average stop delay at intersections. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS I OO N. Hole Avenue. Since 4. Santa Balbala. CA 931,10 • (805)687.441 B LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION PROCEDURES 00015 . DISCUSSION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to as capacity. The capacity is usually greater between intersections and less at intersections because traffic flows continuously between them and only during the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is best defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green. If capacity is 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour of green, and if the green phase is 50 percent of the cycle and there are three lanes, then the capacity is 1,600 times 50 percent times 3 lanes, or 2,400 vehicles per hour. The technique used to compare the volumes and capacity of an intersection is known as intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). ICU or volume -to- capacity ratio, usually expressed as a percent, is the proportion of an hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. If an intersection is operating at 80 percent of capacity, then 20 percent of the signal cycle is not used. The signal could show red on all indications 20 {percent of the time and the signal would just accommodate approaching traffic. ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement of traffic, (b) summing the times for the movements, and (c) comparing the total time required to the total time available. For example, if for north -south traffic the northbound traffic is 1,600 vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is 1,200 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either direction is 3,200 vehicles per hour, then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1,60013,200 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for the east -west traffic 30 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 30, or 80 percent. When left -turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. The critical movements are usually the heavy left -turn movements and the opposing through movements. The ICU calculation assumes that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized intersection is invalid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected volumes. It is possible to have an ICU well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur if one or more movements is not getting sufficient time to satisfy its demand, and excess time exists on other movements. This is an operational problem which should be remedied. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS (� `l 100 N. Hop t Hope Avenue. Su,te 4. Santa Barbara. CA 939 10 • [SOS) E87-441 8 ll ® v LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS Reference 1 - Moorpark Avenue /High Street Reference 2 - Moorpark Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue Reference 3 - Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road Reference 4 - Los Angeles Avenue /Park Lane 0®0159 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET 01 , 0 5 5 REF. lit TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 10 10 - - - N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE NET 1 1600 165 171 E/W STREET: HIGH STREET 176 300 306 0.106 • 0.110 • 0.113* TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:00 - 8:OOAM, 6/2/98) 0,194' 0.198 • NBR 1 TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with E/W Split -phase 121 125 220 224 220 224 0.081 TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY 0.147 0.149 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R 0.179' 0.179• 0.193' 0.193• 0.233' 0.233' SET (A) 1998: 5 165 121 268 250 1 0 6 8 164 1 117 (B) 1998 (w/ PROD.): 5 171 125 268 252 1 0 6 8 165 1 117 (C) 2005 (w/o PROD.): 10 170 220 290 250 10 10 10 10 240 10 120 ID) 2005 (w/ PROJ.): 10 176 224 290 252 10 10 10 10 241 10 120 (E) 2015 (w /o PROJ.): 10 300 220 350 480 10 10 10 10 100 10 110 (F) 2015(w /PROJ.): 10 306 224 350 482 10 10 10 10 101 10 110 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: LT R L TR 6 LTR LT R 10, MOVE- # OF 0.009' SCENARIO VOLUMES 0.019. 0.019. SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEIL 01 , 0 5 5 10 10 10 10 - - - NET 1 1600 165 171 170 176 300 306 0.106 • 0.110 • 0.113* 0.116 • 0,194' 0.198 • NBR 1 1500 121 125 220 224 220 224 0.081 0.083 0.147 0.149 0.147 0.149 SBL 1 1500 268 268 290 290 350 350 0.179' 0.179• 0.193' 0.193• 0.233' 0.233' SET 1 1600 250 252 250 252 480 482 0.157 ;0.158 0.163 0.164 0.306 0.308 SBR 0 0 1 1 10 10 10 10 - EBL 0' 0 0 0 10 10 10 10' EBT 1 1600 6 6 10 10 10 10, 0.009'' 0.009' 0.019. 0.019. 0.019. 0.019 EBR 01 0 8 8 10 10 10 101 WEIL 0! 0 164 165 240 241 100 101; WBT 1 1600 1 1 10 10 10 10. 0.103. 0.104 • 0.156' 0.157' 0.069 • 0.069 • WBR 1; , 1500 I 117 117 120 120 110 110'0.078 1 0.078 0.080 ,0.080 0.073 0.073 YELLOW CLEARANCE: 0.10.1 0.10— 0.10-1 0.10' 0.10 • 0.10 • TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.50 1 0.50 0.58 1 0.59 0.62 0.62 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A B B SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES. 00OV"o INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET 0 0 10 10 REF. X11 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 10 10 - N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE NBT 1 1600 271 275 E/W STREET: HIGH STREET 394 450 454 0.176 • 0.178' 0.250' TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR (4:30 - 5:30PM, 6/2/98) 0.290 NBA 1 1500 TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with E/W Split -phase 359 270 272 210 212 0.238 0.239 TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY 0.181 0.140 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R 0.200. 0.200. 0.120. 0.120 " SBT 1; 1600 (A) 1998: 10 271 357 150 236 7 4 8 10 315 5 317 (B) 1998(w /PROJJ: 10 275 359 150 243 7 4 8 10 319 5 317 (C) 2005 (w /o PROJ.): 10 390 270 300 290 10 10 10 10 240 10 240 (D) 2005 (w/ PROJ.): 10 394 272 300 297 10 10 10 10 244 10 240 (E) 2015 (w /o PROJ.): 10 450 210 180 520 10 10 10 10 220 10 420 (F) 2015 (w/ PROJ.): 10 454 212 180 527 10 10 10 10 224 10 420 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: LT R L TR 10 LTR LT R MOVE - # OF 0.019• SCENARIO VOLUMES EBR 0 SCENARIO VIC RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 - - WBL Oi NBL 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 - NBT 1 1600 271 275 390 394 450 454 0.176 • 0.178' 0.250' 0.253 • 0.288 • 0.290 NBA 1 1500 357 359 270 272 210 212 0.238 0.239 0.180 0.181 0.140 0.141 SBL 1', 1500 150 150 300 300 180 180 0.100. 0.100. 0.200. 0.200. 0.120. 0.120 " SBT 1; 1600 236 243 290 297 520 527'0.152 0.156 0.188 0.192 0.331 0.336 SBR 0 0 7 7 10 10 10 10: - - - - - ESL 0, 0 4 4 10 10 10 10i EBT 1 1600 8 8 10 10 10 10,0.014. 0.014•,0.019. 0.019• 0.019• 0.019• EBR 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 - - - WBL Oi 0 315 319 240 244 220 224 WST 1 ; 1600 5 5 10 10 10 100.200* 0.203.1 0.156. 0.159 • 0.144 • 0.146*' WBR 11 1500 317 ! 317 240 240 420 4200.211 I 0.211 10.160 0.160 0.280 0.280 i YELLOW CLEARANCE: 0.10•; 0.10•' 0.10• 0.10•' 0.10' 0.10• i TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.59 0.60 0.73 0.73 0.67 0.67 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A ! C C B B i SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES. 00011-1) 1- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET 1 1500 80 90 80 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 80 i 90 0.053 • . 0.060 • 0.053. 0.060 • 0.053 • 0.060 NBT 1 REF. #2 N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE 40 40 50 40 50 0.019 0.025 0.025 0.031 0.025 0.031 E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE 1 1500 244 244 200 200 TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:15 - 8:15AM, 4123/98) 200 0.163 '0.163 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133 SBL 1 TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with N/S Split -phase 180 180 230 230 360 360 0.120 • 0.120 • 0.153. 0.153 • 0.240. 0.240 TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY 1 1600 NORTHBOUND CONDITION SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WEST BOUND L T R L T R L T R L T R 90 90 90 90 0.051 0.051 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 EBL 1, (A) 1998: 80 30 244 180 26 77 77 838 17 50 963 204 (B) 1998 (w/ PROD.): 90 40 244 180 29 77 77 842 17 60 963 204 (C) 2005 (w /o PROJ.): 80 40 200 230 50 90 120 1050 20 80 1000 170 (D) 2005 (w/ PROJ.): 90 50 200 230 53 90 120 1056 20 80 1000 170 (E) 2015 (w/o PROJJ: 80 40 200 360 50 90 80 1050 20 80 1000 230 (F) 2015(w /PROD.): 90 50 200 360 53 90 80 1056 20 80 1000 230 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: L LT R L LT R 11, L TT R 204 L TT R MOVE- # OF 230 SCENARIO VOLUMES 0.153 0.153 SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 NBL 1 1500 80 90 80 90 80 i 90 0.053 • . 0.060 • 0.053. 0.060 • 0.053 • 0.060 NBT 1 1600 30 40 40 50 40 50 0.019 0.025 0.025 0.031 0.025 0.031 NBR 1 1500 244 244 200 200 200 200 0.163 '0.163 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133 SBL 1 1500 180 180 230 230 360 360 0.120 • 0.120 • 0.153. 0.153 • 0.240. 0.240 SET 1 1600 26 29 50 53 50 53 0.016 0.018 0.031 0.033 0.031 0.033 SBR 1 1500 77 77 90 90 90 90 0.051 0.051 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 EBL 1, 1500 77 77 120 120 80 80 0.051. 0.051. 0.080••0.080. 0.053 0.053 EBT 2', 3200 838 842 1050 1056 1050 1056 0.262 0.263 0.328 0.330 0.328. 0.330• EBR 1 1500 17 17 20 20 20 20 0.011 0.011 ,0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 WBL 1', 1500 50 60 80 80 80 8010.033 0.040 ,0.053 ,'0.053 0.053. 0.053• WET 21 3200 963 963 1000 1000 1000 1000 0.301. 0.301. 0.313•'0.313. 0.313 0.313 WBR 11, 1500 204 204 170 170 230 230 0.136 0.136 0.113 0.113 0.153 0.153 YELLOW CLEARANCE: 0.10 • I 0.10 • 0.10.1 0.10 • 0.10 ' 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.63 i 0.63 0.70 0.71 0.77 0.78 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B B B C C C SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES. 0 0019 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET REF. #21 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR (5:00 - 6:OOPM, 4/23198) TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with N/S Split -phase TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND CONDITION L T R L T _R L T R L T R (A) 1998: 59 39 131 223 84 171 114 1110 31 84 939 151 (B) 1998 (w/ PROJ.): 65 45 131 228 90 171 114 1115 37 118 939 151 (C) 2005 (w/o PROJ.): 110 90 210 380 110 170 130 1230 90 240 1080 290 (D) 2005(w /PROD.): 116 96 210 385 116 170 130 1235 96 274 1080 290 (E) 20151w/o PROJ.): 110 140 360 370 150 140 190 1360 90 270 1410 230 (F) 2015(w /PROJ.): 116 146 360 375 156 140 190 1365 96 304 1410 230 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: L LT R .0.114 0.113 .0.113 L LT R 0.093 0.093 L TT R C E L TT R F MOVE- #OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 5 6_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 NBL 1 1500 59 65 110 116 110 116 0.039 • 0.043 • 0.073. 0.077 • 0.073 • 0.077 •' NBT 1 1600 39 45 90 96 140 146 0.024 0.028 0.056 0.060 0.088 0.091 NBR 1 1500 131 131 210 210 360 360 0.087 0.087 0.140 0.140 0.240 0.240 SSL 1 1500 223 228 380 385 370 375 0.149. 0.152. 0.253. 0.257. 0.247. 0.250• SBT 1 1600 84 90 110 116 150 156 0.053 ,0.056 0.069 0.073 0.094 0.098 SBR 1 1500 171 171 170 170 140 140 0.114 .0.114 0.113 .0.113 0.093 0.093 EBL 1 1500 114 114 130 130 190 190 0.076 0.076 0.087 0.087 0.127 0.127 EBT 2 3200 1110 1115 1230 1235 1360 1365 0.347 • 0.348. 0.384. 0.386 • 0.425 • 0.427 EBR 1 1500 31 37 90 96 90 96 0.021 0.025 0.060 0.064 0.060 0.064 WEIL 1 1500 84 118 240 274 270 304 0.056 • 0.079 • 0.160. 0.183 •' 0.180 • 0.203 WBT 2: 3200 939 939 1080 1080 1410 14100.293 0.293 0.338 ,0.338 0.441 0.441 WEIR 1 1500 151 151 290 290 230 230 0.101 0.101 0.193 0.193 0.153 0.153 YELLOW CLEARANCE: 0.10 • 0.10 • 0.10 •i I 0.10.1 0.10 • i 0.10-1 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.69 0.72 ! 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.06 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: B C E E F i F SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES. 0 0®1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET 1 REF. #2' TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 90 80 90 NIS STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE 90 0.053 • 0.060 • E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE 0.060 • 0.053. 0.060*: TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:15 - 8:15AM, 4123198) 1600 30 TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with NIS Split -phase Mitigation -Add EB & WB through lanes & SB left -turn 50 TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R 1 1500 244 244 (A) 1998: 80 30 244 180 26 77 77 838 17 50 963 204 (B) 1998 (w/ PROJ.): 90 40 244 180 29 77 77 842 17 60 963 204 (C) 2005 (w/o PROJ.): 80 40 200 230 50 90 120 1050 20 80 1000 170 ID) 2005(w /PROJ.): 90 50 200 230 53 90 120 1056 20 80 1000 170 (E) 2015 (w /o PROJ.): 80 40 200 360 50 90 80 1050 20 80 1000 230 (9 2015 (w/ PROJ.): 90 50 200 360 53 90 80 1056 20 80 1000 230 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: L LT R LL TR L TT TR L TT TR MOVE - # OF I SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 5 6: 2 3 4 5 6 NSL 1 1500 80 90 80 90 80 90 0.053 • 0.060 • 0.053. 0.060 • 0.053. 0.060*: NBT 1 1600 30 40 40 50 40 50 0.019 0.025 ,0.025 i 0.10 • 0.031 0.025 0.031 NBR 1 1500 244 244 200 200 200 200 0.163 0.163 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133 SBL 2' 2600 180 180 230 230 360 360 0.069 • 0.069 • 0.088 • 0.088 • 0.138 • 0.138 SST 1 1600 26 29 50 53 50 53 0.064 0.066 0.088 0.089 0.088 0.089 SBR 0 0 77 77 90 90 90 90' - - - EBL 11 1500 77 77 120 120 80 80 0.051. 0.051. 0.080. 0.080. 0.053. 0.053• EBT 31 4800 838 842 1050 1056 1050 1056'0.175 ,0.175 0.219 0.220 0.219 0.220 EBR 01 0 17 17 20 20 20 20! WBL 1; 1500 50 60 80 80 80 8010.033 0.040 10.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 WBT 3i 4800 963 963 1000 1000 1000 1000 0.201. 0. 201•',0.208•',0.208. 0.208. 0.208•' WBR 01 0 204 204 170 170 230 I 230 - - YELLOW CLEARANCE: i 0.10 • I 0.10 • I 0.10 • 0.10 • 0.10 • 0.10 •' TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.47 0.48 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A I A A A A i SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES. 000i�_11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET REF. #2 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE j E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR (5:00 - 6:OOPM, 4/23/98) TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with N/S Split -phase Mitigation - Add EB & WB through lanes & SB left -turn TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) 1998: 59 39 131 223 84 171 114 1110 31 84 939 151 (B) 1998 (w/ PROD.): 65 45 131 228 90 171 114 1115 37 118 939 151 (C) 2005 (w/o PROJ.): 110 90 210 380 110 170 130 1230 90 240 1080 290 (D) 2005(w /PROJ.): 116 96 210 385 116 170 130 1235 96 274 1080 290 IE) 2015 (w/o PROJ.): 110 140 360 370 150 140 190 1360 90 270 1410 230 (F) 2015(w /PROJ.): 96 146 360 375 156 140 190 1365 96 304 1410 230 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND 170 EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: L LT R 0.113 0.093 LL TR EBL 1', L TT TR 114 114 L TT TR MOVE- # OF 190 0.076 ,0.076 0.087 0.087 SCENARIO VOLUMES 0.127 EBT 3' SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1115 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 NBL 1 1500 59 65 110 116 110 96 i 0.039 ;0.043 0.073 0.077 0.073 0.064 NET 1 1600 39 45 90 96 140 146 0.024 • 0.028 • 0.056 • 0.060 • 0.088 • 0.091 NBR 1 1500 131 131 210 210 360 360 0.087 .0.087 0.140 0.140 0.240 0.240 SBL 2 2600 223 228 380 385 370 375 0.086 ',0.088. 0.146' 0.148. 0.142. 0.144• SBT 1 1600 84 90 110 116 150 156 0.053 0.056 0.069 0.073 0.094 0.098 SBR 1 1500 171 171 170 170 140 140 0.114 0.114 0.113 0.113 0.093 0.093 EBL 1', 1500 114 114 130 130 190 190 0.076 ,0.076 0.087 0.087 0.127 0.127 EBT 3' 4800 1 110 1115 1230 1235 1360 1365 0.231 • 0.232 • 0.256 • 0.257 • 0.283' 0.284 EBR 0 0 31 37 90 96 90 96 I - WEIL 1 1500 84 118 240 274 270 304 0.056 • 0.079 • 0.160 •, 0.183 • 0.180 • 0.203- WBT 3' 4800 939 939 1080 1080 1410 1410 0.196 0.196 ,0.225 '0.225 0.294 0.294 WBR 01 0 151 151 290 290 230 230; YELLOW CLEARANCE: 0.10.1 1 0.10 • � 0.10-1 1 I I 0.10 • 0.10 • 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.50 0.53 0.72 0.75 0.79 0.82 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A I A i C i 1 C C D SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES IE) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES: 0 001;, INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET REF. #2 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR (5:00 - 6:OOPM, 4/23198) TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with N/S Split -phase Mitigation - Add EB & WB thru lanes & WB & SB left -turns TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) 1998: 59 39 131 223 84 171 114 1110 31 84 939 151 (8) 1998 (w/ PROD.): 65 45 131 228 90 171 114 1115 37 118 939 151 (C) 2005 (w/o PROJ.): 110 90 210 380 110 170 130 1230 90 240 1080 290 (D) 20051w /PROJ.): 116 96 210 385 116 170 130 1235 96 274 1080 290 (E) 2015 (w /o PROJ.): 110 140 360 370 150 140 190 1360 90 270 1410 230 (F) 2015 (w/ PROD.): 96 146 360 375 156 140 190 1365 96 304 1410 230 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: L LT R 0.113 0.113 LL TR 0.093 EBL L TT TR 1500 114 LL TT TR MOVE- # OF 190 190 0.076 0.076 0.087 SCENARIO VOLUMES 0.127. 0.127• EBT SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1110 1 2 3 4 5 6 _1 0.232. 2 3 4 5 6 NBL 1 1500 59 65 110 116 110 96 0.039 0.043 0.073 0.077 0.073 0.064 NBT 1 1600 39 45 90 96 140 146 0.024. 0.028. 0.056. 0.060. 0.088. 0.091• NBR 1 1500 131 131 210 210 360 360 0.087 0.087 0.140 0.140 0.240 0.240 SBL 2 2600 223 228 380 385 370 375 0.086. 0.088. 0.146' 0.148' 0.142. 0.144• SBT 1 1600 84 90 110 116 150 156 0.053 0.056 0.069 0.073 0.094 0.098 SBR 1 1500 171 171 170 170 140 140 0.114 0.114 0.113 0.113 0.093 0.093 EBL 1 1500 114 114 130 130 190 190 0.076 0.076 0.087 0.087 0.127. 0.127• EBT 3 4800 1110 1115 1230 1235 1360 1365 0.231. 0.232. 0.256. 0.257. 0.283 0.284 EBR 0 0 31 37 90 96 90 96 - - WBL 2 2600 84 118 240 274 270 304 0.032 • 0.045' 0.092. 0.105 • 0.104 0.117 WET 3 4800 939 939 1080 1080 1410 1410 0.196 0.196 0.225 0.225 0.294. 0.294• WBR 0 0 151 151 290 290 230 230 - YELLOW CLEARANCE: 0.10 • 0.10*. 0.10 •' 0.10. 0.10 • 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.47 0.49 0.65 0.67 0.75 0.76 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A 8 B C C SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES. 0001f% INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET 0.10-1 0.10 • 0.10 •, REF. #3 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 0.10 , TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.75 I 0.76 0.94 0.94 0.74 N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD C C E E C C E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:45 - 8:45AM, 4/23/98) TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with E/W Lead /Lag left -turn phasing TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R j(A) 1998: 232 192 84 225 199 183 63 1033 139 91 773 163 (B) 1998 (w/ PROJ.): 234 192 84 225 199 184 65 1058 142 91 780 163 (C) 2005 (w/o PROJ.): 230 190 210 400 200 180 130 1250 200 90 1030 230 (D) 2005(w /PROJ.): 232 190 210 400 200 181 130 1275 203 90 1037 230 (E) 2015 (w/o PROJ.): 270 130 150 210 130 80 150 1290 250 30 850 140 (F) 2015 (wl PROJ.): 272 130 200 210 130 81 152 1315 253 30 857 140 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: LL T R L T R LL TT R L TT R MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 5 6'. 1 2 3 4 5 6 NBL 2 2600 232 234 230 232 270 272 0.089 .0.090 0.088 0.089 0.104 0.105 NBT 1 1600 192 192 190 190 130 1301 0.120 • 0.120 • 0.119. 0.1 19 • 0.081 • 0.081 NBR 1 1500 84 84 210 210 150 200, 0.056 :0.056 i 0.140 0.140 0.100 0.133 SBL 1 1500 225 225 400 400 210 210:0.150•,0.150. 0.267. 0.267. 0.140. 0.140• SBT 1' 1600 199 199 200 200 130 730;0.124 0.124 0.725 0.725 0.081 0.081 SBR 1 1500 183 184 180 181 80 8110.122 0.123 0.120 0.121 0.053 0.054 EBL 2 2600 63 65 130 130 150 152'0.024 0.025 0.050 0.050 0.058 0.058 EST 2 3200 1033 1058 1250 1275 1290 1315 0.323 • 0.331 • 0.391 • 0.398 • 0.403 • 0.411 EBR 1: 1500 139 142 200 203 250 25310.093 0.095 I 0.133 0.735 0.167 0.169 WBL 1 ! 1500 91 91 90 90 30 30 0.061 • 0.061 • 0.060. 0.060 • 0.020 • 0.020 WBT 21 3200 773 780 1030 1037 850 857;0.242 0.244 0.322 .0.324 0.266 0.268 WBR 1i 1500 163 163 230 230 140 14010.109 0.109 0.153 0.153 0.093 0.093 YELLOW CLEARANCE: 0.10-1 0.10 • 0.10 •, 0.10 • 0.10., .10 • 0.10 , TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.75 I 0.76 0.94 0.94 0.74 0.75 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: C C E E C C SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES: 0001 012 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET REF. #3i TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR (5:00 - 6:OOPM, 4/23/98) TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with E/W Lead /Lag left -turn phasing TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R !(A) 1998: 370 266 129 224 174 103 119 976 273 63 658 265 (B) 1998 (w/ PROJ.): 381 266 129 224 174 109 121 991 276 63 675 265 (C) 2005 (w/o PROJJ: 360 280 150 320 260 200 190 1070 400 220 1190 410 (D) 2005(w /PROJ.): 371 280 150 320 260 206 192 1085 403 220 1207 410 (E) 2015 (w/o PROJ.): 340 200 80 260 170 280 130 1430 440 180 1570 530 (F) 2015 (w/ PROD.): 351 200 80 260 170 286 132 1445 443 180 1587 530 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: LL T R 400 403 L T R 443'0.182 LL TT R 0.267 L TT R MOVE - # OF 0.295 WSL 1 1500 63 SCENARIO VOLUMES 220 220 SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 0.042 • 1 2 3 4 5 6! 1 2 3 4 5 6 675 1190 1207 1570 1587 0.206 ,0.211 .0.372 10.377 10.491 0.496 NBL 2, 2600 1500 370 381 360 371 340 351 0.142 0.147 0.138 0.143 10.131 0.135 NBT 1 1600 0.353 266 266 280 280 200 200 0.166 • 0.166 • 0.175. 0.175. 0.125 • 0.125 NBR 1 1500 0.10-1 0.10 • 129 129 150 150 80 80 0.086 '0.086 0.100 0.100 0.053 0.053 SBL 1 1500 224 224 320 320 260 260 0.149•'0.149. 0.213. 0.213•'0.173. 0.173 SET 1 1600 174 174 260 260 170 170 0.109 0.109 0.163 0.163 '0.106 0.106 SBR 1 1500 103 109 200 206 280 286'0.069 '0.073 0.133 0.137 0.187 0.191 EBL 2 2600 119 121 190 192 130 132 0.046 0.047 0.073 0.074 ;0.050 0.051 EBT 21 3200 976 991 1070 1085 1430 1445 0.305. 0.310. 0.334. 0.339. 0.447. 0.452• EBR 1i 1500 273 276 400 403 440 443'0.182 0.184 0.267 ,0.269 0.293 0.295 WSL 1 1500 63 63 220 220 180 180', 0.042 • 0.042 • 0.147 •.0.147 • 0.120 • 0.120 •' WBT 2 3200 658 675 1190 1207 1570 1587 0.206 ,0.211 .0.372 10.377 10.491 0.496 WBR 1; 1500 265 265 410 410 530 5300.177 0.177 0.273 0.273 '0.353 0.353 YELLOW CLEARANCE: 0.10 •, 0.10 •' 0.10.1 0.10-1 0.10 • 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.76 0.77 0.97 0.97 0.97 j 0.97 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: C C - E E E I i E SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES IA) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES. V001-C!"s INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET REF. #3 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:45 - 8:45AM, 4/23/98) TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with E1W Lead /Lag left -turn phasing Mitigation - Add E & W thru and SB left -turn lanes TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) 1998: 232 192 84 225 199 183 63 1033 139 91 773 163 (B) 1998(w /PROJ.): 234 192 84 225 199 184 65 1058 142 91 780 163 (C) 2005 (w /o PROJ.): 230 190 210 400 200 180 130 1250 200 90 1030 230 (D) 2005(w /PROJ.): 232 190 210 400 200 181 130 1275 203 90 1037 230 (E) 2015 (w /o PROJ.): 270 130 150 210 130 80 150 1290 250 30 850 140 (F) 2015 1w/ PROJ.): 272 130 200 210 130 81 152 1315 253 30 857 140 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: LL T R LL T R LL TTT R L TTT R MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEIL 2 2600 232 234 230 232 270 272 0.089•'0.090. 0.088 0.089 0.104. 0.105• NEIT 1 1600 192 192 190 190 130 130 0.120 0.120 0.119. 0.119•;0.081 0.081 NBR 1 1500 84 84 210 210 150 200 0.056 0.056 0.140 0.140 0.100 0.133 SBL 2 2600 225 225 400 400 210 210'0.087 '0.087 0.154. 0.154. 0.081 0.081 SBT 1' 1600 199 199 200 200 130 130 0.124. 0.124. 0.125 10.125 0.081. 0.081• SBR 1 1500 183 184 180 181 80 810.122 0.123 0.120 0.121 0.053 0.054 I EBL 3 1500 63 65 130 130 750 152 0.042 '0.043 0.087 0.087 0.100 0.101 EBT 3 4800 1033 1058 1250 1275 1290 1315;0.215•',0.220. 0.260. 0.266. 0.269. 0.274• EBR 1 1500 139 142 200 203 250 253,0.093 0.095 0.133 10.135 0.167 0.169 WEIL 1 1500 91 91 90 90 30 30; 0.061 • 0.061 • 0.060. 0.060 • 0.020 • 0.020 WBT 3' 4800 773 780 1030 1037 850 857'0. 161 0.163 0.215 0.216 0.177 0.179 WEIR 1 1500 163 163 230 230 140 140: 0.109 0.109 0.153 0.153 0.093 0.093 YELLOW CLEARANCE: I j 0.10' j 0.10'; I 0.10 • 0.10 • 0.10 • 0.10 TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.59 0.60 0.69 0.70 0.57 0.58 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A I B B A A SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES. 00'010:9 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET REF. #3' TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 N/S STREET: SPRING ROAD E/W STREET: LOS ANGELES AVENUE TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR (5:00 - 6:OOPM, 4/23/98) I j TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal with E/W Lead /Lag left -turn phasing Mitigation - add E & W through and SB left lanes TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) 1998: 370 266 129 224 174 103 119 976 273 63 658 265 (B) 1998 (w/ PROD.): 381 266 129 224 174 109 121 991 276 63 675 265 (C) 2005 (w/o PROJ.): 360 280 150 320 260 200 190 1070 400 220 1190 410 (D) 2005(w /PROJ.): 371 280 150 320 260 206 192 1085 403 220 1207 410 (E) 2015 (w/o PROJ.): 340 200 80 260 170 280 130 1430 440 180 1570 530 (F) 2015(w/ PROD.): 351 200 80 260 170 286 132 1445 443 180 1587 530 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: LL T R 0.10 • 0.10 •' LL T R 0.10 • ! 0.10-, LL TTT R L TTT R MOVE- # OF i 0.60 0.77 0.77 j 0.74 � 0.75 SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY A 1 2 3 4 5 6' 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEIL 2 2600 370 381 360 371 340 351 0.142 0.147 0.138 0.143 0.131 0.135 NBT 1 1600 266 266 280 280 200 200 0.166 0.166 • 0.175' 0.175' 0.125 • 0.125 •' NBR 1' 1500 129 129 150 150 80 80 0.086 0.086 0.100 0.100 0.053 0.053 SBL 2' 2600 224 224 320 320 260 260 0.086' 0.086 • 0.123. 0.123 • 0.100 • 0.100 SET 1. 1600 174 174 260 260 170 170'0.109 0.109 0.163 0.163 0.106 0.106 SBR 1 1500 103 109 200 206 280 286.0.069 0.073 0.133 0.137 '0.187 0.191 EBL 1 1500 119 121 190 192 130 132 0.079 0.081 0.127 0.128 .0.087 0.088 EST 3 4800 976 991 1070 1085 1430 1445 0.203' 0.206' 0.223. 0.226•'0.298. 0.301• EBR 1 1500 273 276 400 403 440 443 0.182 0.184 0.267 0.269 0.293 0.295 WBL 1: 1500 63 63 220 220 180 180; *'0.042 • 0.147. 0.147 • 0.120 • 0.120 WBT 3 4800 658 675 1190 1207 1570 1587 0.137 0.141 0.248 0.251 0.327 0.331 WBR 1 1500 - 265 265 410 410 530 53010.177 ,0.177 1 0.273 ,0.273 .0.353 I 0.353 YELLOW CLEARANCE: 0.10 • ! 0.10 • 0.10 •' 0.10 • 0.10 • ! 0.10-, TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.60 i 0.60 0.77 0.77 j 0.74 � 0.75 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A C C C C i i SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES: 0002.1c -0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET REF. #4 TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - #98066 N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE E/W STREET: PARK LANE TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:15 - 8:15AM, 6/02/98) TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal - Single phase north and south TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EASTBOUND WEST BOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) 1998: 33 4 47 70 5 17 35 972 15 60 944 81 (B) 1998 (w/ PROJ.): 33 4 47 70 5 17 35 976 15 60 954 81 (C) 2005 (w /o PROJ.): 40 5 55 80 5 20 40 1120 30 80 1000 90 (D) 2005(w /PROD.): 40 5 55 80 5 20 40 1124 30 80 1010 90 (E) 2015 (w/o PROD.): 45 10 60 85 10 25 40 1150 30 80 1000 90 (F) 2015 (w/ PROJ.): 45 10 60 85 10 25 40 1154 30 80 1010 90 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: L TR LT R L TT R L TT TR MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 NBL 1 1500 33 33 40 40 45 45 0.022 • 0.022 • 0.027. 0.027 • 0.030 • 0.030 • NET 1 1600 4 4 5 5 10 10 0.032 0.032 0.038 0.038 0.044 0.044 NBR 0 0 47 47 55 55 60 60 - - - - - SBL 0 0 70 70 80 80 85 85 - - - - SBT 1 1600 5 5 5 5 10 10 0.047. 0.047. 0.053' 0.053. 0.059. 0.059• SBR 1 1500 17 17 20 20 25 25 0.011 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.017 0.017 EBL 1 1500 35 35 40 40 40 40 0.023 0.023 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 EBT 2 3200 972 976 1120 1124 1150 1154 0.304' 0.305• 0.350. 0.351 0.359. 0.361 • EBR 1 1500 15 15 30 30 30 30 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 WBL 1 1500 60 60 80 80 80 80 0.040 • 0.040 • 0.053. 0.053 • 0.053 • 0.053 • WBT 3 4800 944 954 1000 1010 1000 1010 0.214 0.216 0.227 0.229 0.227 0.229 WBR 0 0 81 81 90 90 90 90, - - - - YELLOW CLEARANCE: 0.10 •' 0.10- 0.10 • 0.10 • 0.10 • 0.10 • TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.51 0.51 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.60 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A A A SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES IC) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES: 000,ca'i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET 1 1500 REF. 114! TENTATIVE TRACT 5133 - 7198066 45 45 50 50 0.025 • 0.025 • N/S STREET: MOORPARK AVENUE 0.030 • 0.033 • 0.033 NBT E/W STREET: PARK LANE 1600 14 14 20 TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR (4:45 - 5:45PM, 6/02/98) 25 0.034 0.034 0.044 0.044 TYPE OF CONTROL: Signal - Single phase north and south 0.053 NBR i 0 TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY 40 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND CONDITION L T R L T R L T R L T R (A) 1998: 37 14 40 224 10 25 34 1050 20 49 1049 259 (B) 1998(w /PROD.): 37 14 40 224 10 25 34 1061 20 49 1055 259 (C) 2005 (w/o PROD.): 45 20 50 240 15 20 40 1220 20 50 1060 270 (D) 2005 (w/ PROJ.): 45 20 50 240 15 20 40 1231 20 50 1066 270 (E) 2015 (w/o PROJ.): 50 25 60 250 20 35 50 1350 20 90 1380 100 (F) 2015(w /PROJ.): 50 25 60 250 20 35 50 1361 20 90 1386 100 EXISTING 1998 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND GEOMETRICS: L TR LT R L TT R 0.023 L TT TR MOVE- A OF SCENARIO VOLUMES 34 SCENARIO V/C RATIOS MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 5 6' 1 2 3 4 5 6 NBL 1 1500 1 37 37 45 45 50 50 0.025 • 0.025 • 0.030. 0.030 • 0.033 • 0.033 NBT 1, 1600 14 14 20 20 25 25 0.034 0.034 0.044 0.044 ,0.053 0.053 NBR O, 0 40 40 50 50 60 60 - SBL i, 0i 0 224 224 240 240 250 250 SBT 1 1600 10 10 15 15 20 20 0.146 • '. 0.146. 0.159. 0.159 • i 0.169 • 0.169 SBR 11 1500 25 25 20 20 35 35 0.017 '0.017 0.013 0.013 .0.023 0.023 EBL 11 1500 34 34 40 40 50 50 0.023 '0.023 0.027 0.027 .0.033 0.033 EBT 2 3200 1050 1061 1220 1231 1350 1361 0.328. 0.332 • 0.381 • 0.385 • 0.422 • 0.425 EBR 1 1500 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.013 .0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 WBL 1 1500 49 49 50 50 90 90 0.033. 0.033 • 0.033. 0.033 • I • 0.060 • 0.060 WBT 3 4800 1049 1055 1060 1066 1380 1386;0.273 0.274 0.277 0.278 0.308 0.310 WBR 0 0 259 259 270 270 100 1001 i I YELLOW CLEARANCE: TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: SCENARIO 1 = 1998 VOLUMES (A) SCENARIO 2 = 1998 + PROJECT VOLUMES (B) SCENARIO 3 = YEAR 2005 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (C) SCENARIO 4 = YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (D) SCENARIO 5 = YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES (E) SCENARIO 6 = YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT VOLUMES (F) NOTES. 0.10.1 0.100 0.10.1 0.10•! 0.10•', 0.10• I 0.63 0.64 0.70 0.71 0.78 0.79 B B B C C C 000202 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5133: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Application of City Ordinances /Policies 1. The conditions of approval of this Tentative Tract Map and all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, City of Moorpark Ordinance and adopted City policies supersede all conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, typical sections and the like which may be shown on said map. Acceptance of Conditions 2. Recordation of this subdivision shall be deemed to be acceptance by the subdivider and his heirs, assigns, and successors of the conditions of this Map. A notation which references conditions of approval shall be included on the Final Map in a format acceptable to the Director of Community Development. Expiration of Map 3. This Tentative Tract Map shall expire three years from the date of its approval. The Director of Community Development may, at his discretion, grant up to two (2) additional one (1) year extensions for map recordation, if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if applicant can document that he has diligently worked towards map recordation during the initial period of time. The request for extension of this entitlement shall be made in writing, at least 30 -days prior to the expiration date of the permit. Image Conversion 4. Prior to recordation, the builder shall provide to the City an image conversion of building, landscape, public improvement and site plans into an optical format acceptable to the City Clerk. Hold Harmless 5. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval by the City or any of its agencies, EXHIBIT 4 000203 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 2 departments, commissions, agents, officers, or employees concerning the subdivision, which claim, action or proceeding is brought within the time period provided therefore in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding, and, if the City should fail to do so or should fail to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents, officers and employees pursuant to this condition. The City may, within its unlimited discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding if both of the following occur: The City bears its own attorney fees and costs; The City defends the claim, action or proceeding in good faith. The subdivider shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by the subdivider. The subdivider's obligations under this condition shall apply regardless of whether a final map or parcel map is ultimately recorded with respect to the subdivision. Title Report 6. The subdivider shall submit to the Department of Community Development and the City Engineer for review a current title report which clearly states all interested parties and lenders included within the limits of the subdivision as well as any easements that affect the subdivision. Calleguas Release 7. Prior to approval of a Final Map, the subdivider shall demonstrate by possession of a District Release from the Calleguas Municipal Water District that arrangements for payment of the Construction Charge applicable to the proposed subdivision have been made. The subdivider shall comply with Ventura County Waterworks Rules and Regulations, including payment of all applicable fees. 000204 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 3 Unconditional Availabilitv Letter 8. Prior to approval of a Final Map, an unconditional availability letter shall be obtained from the County Waterworks District No. 1 for sewer and water service for each lot. Said letter shall be filed with the Department of Community Development or, if said Unconditional Availability Letter in a form satisfactory to the City cannot be obtained from the County Waterworks District No. 1, the developer shall execute a Subdivision Sewer Agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. Said agreement shall permit deferral of unconditional guarantee for sewer and water service until issuance of a building permit for each lot in the subdivision. Said agreement shall include language holding the City harmless against damages in the event of the ultimate lack of adequate water or sewer service. Cross Connection Control Devices 9. At the time water service connection is made, cross connection control devices shall be installed on the water system in a manner approved by the County Waterworks District No. 1. Suretv Bond for Utilities 10. Prior to approval of a final map, the subdivider shall post sufficient surety bond to assure that all proposed utility lines within and immediately adjacent to the project site shall be placed underground to the nearest off -site utility pole. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the last house in the tract, all existing utilities shall also be undergrounded to the nearest off -site utility pole with the exception of 69 KVA or larger power lines. This requirement for undergrounding includes all above - ground power poles on the project site as well as those along the frontage roads of the site. All utility lines either existing or proposed that must connect across Los Angeles Avenue to provide service to this site shall be placed underground via an underground conduit. FEES, CONTRIBUTIONS AND DEPOSITS: 11. The Map shall be submitted in accordance with County Ordinance No. 3982 entitled "An Ordinance of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors Requiring New Subdivision 00020S Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 4 Records to be Included in the County's Computer -Aided Mapping System and Establishing Related Fees" Fees In -Lieu of Park Dedication 12. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the subdivider shall pay fees in accordance with Section 8297 -4 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Parks and Recreation Facilities). Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee 13. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall pay a Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee of $3,000 for each of the residential units. CC &R and Landscaping Easement Requirement 14. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) establishing a Homeowners' Association for the proposed subdivision shall be prepared and shall identify the maintenance responsibilities of the Homeowners' Association including, but not limited to; all walls and landscaping. In addition, the applicant shall provide all landscaping easements across private property as determined by the City for the purpose of providing such maintenance. The CC &R's shall address the maintenance of all walls and landscaped areas, private streets, and other facilities as required by the City to be maintained. Should the Homeowner's Association fail to maintain the Maintenance Areas, or any portion thereof, in a satisfactory manner, the Maintenance Areas, or portion thereof, shall be annexed, at the City's option, to a City Assessment District. The total cost of the maintenance provided by the Assessment District shall be borne by the lot owners within Tract 5133. Prior to approval of the Final Map, an easement covering the Maintenance Areas shall be irrevocably offered to the City for maintenance purposes. 15. The CC &R's shall include all Tentative Map conditions of approval which have been identified for inclusion in the CC &R's, and shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development and City Attorney for review and approval prior to Final Map approval by the City Council. Tentative Map conditions of approval shall be highlighted in the copies of the CC &R's submitted for City review. Prior to sale of any units, the CC &R's shall be approved by the State Department of Real Estate and then recorded. 00020E Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 5 16. The applicant shall be required to pay all costs associated with City Attorney review of the project CC &R's prior to final map approval. 17. The Homeowners' Association may modify the CC &R's only to the extent that they do not conflict with the terms of approval of the Tentative Map. Further, the Homeowners' Association shall enforce the CC &R's. 18. The CC &R's shall include a requirement that any future residential units constructed or modifications to existing units in the subdivision shall comply with Chapter 2 -53 of Part 2 and Chapter 4 -10 of Part 4, of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 19. The CC &R's shall include a requirement that ultra -low water consumption plumbing fixtures shall be installed consistent with City Ordinance No. 132. The CC &R's shall also include a requirement for the following energy saving devices or construction features: a. Stoves, ovens, and ranges, when gas fueled, shall not have continuous burning pilot lights. b. All thermostats connected to the main space heating source shall have night setback features. C. Kitchen ventilation system shall have automatic dampers to ensure closure when not in use. d. For attenuation of interior noise levels of the homes built on Lots abutting Los Angeles Avenue, all window openings facing Los Angeles Avenue shall be equipped with acoustical windows rated at STC -30 or better and shall be installed consistent with manufacturer directions and to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Additionally, an appropriately sized forced ventilation system shall be installed and fresh air or discharge openings for such a system shall be located on the side of the dwelling opposite Los Angeles Avenue. 20. A fencing, perimeter, gate, and privacy barrier wall plan (complete with related landscaping details) identifying the materials to be used and proposed wall heights and locations shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development. The approved fencing and barrier wall plan shall be incorporated into the CC &R's. 000202 � Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 6 All fencing and barrier walls along lot boundaries shall be in place prior to occupancy. Where applicable prior to approval of the final wall and fence plan, the Director of Community Development shall approve the connection of the west property line wall with existing fences and or walls on the adjacent residential lots. 21. The CC &R's shall include language to insure that no sheet flow of drainage occurs between lots located within or adjacent to the project. 22. The CC &R's shall include language prohibiting use of roofing material made of wood or asphalt shingles and requiring tile roofs as determined by the City as roofing materials for residential structures. 23. All units shall comply with all pertinent Title 24 and Uniform Building Code conditions regarding handicapped access and facilities. 24. CC &Rs shall include language that discourages excessive noise generating activities in garages consistent with adopted community noise standards. Garages shall remain permanently available for the purpose of automobile parking. 25. The CC &R's shall require the remove any graffiti within notification by the City of removal shall be accomplished City. Homeowner's Association to five (5) days from written Moorpark. All such graffiti to the satisfaction of the 27. The Tentative Map shall be revised to eliminate Lot 1 which is the area to be dedicated for flood control purposes to show this area as dedication in fee simple to the Ventura County Flood Control District. 28. The applicant shall pay all outstanding case processing (Planning and Engineering), and all City legal service fees prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance. The applicant, permittee, or successors in interest, shall also submit to 000203 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 7 the Department of Community Development a fee to cover costs incurred by the City for Condition Compliance review of the RPD. Dedication of Access Rights 29. The applicant shall dedicate to the City all access rights on "A" Street, Majestic Court and all private streets within the project site in order to provide access for all governmental agencies providing Municipal Code compliance, public safety, health and welfare services. 30. The developer shall dedicate vehicular access rights to the City of Moorpark along "A" Street and Majestic Court. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 32. Applicant shall execute the purchase agreement for those portions of "A" Street owned by the Redevelopment Agency immediately upon presentation of Agencies agreement to purchase. 33. Prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map the applicant shall complete the acquisition of all property included in the purchase agreement with the Redevelopment Agency and convey all access easements on or across said property to be purchased, to the City of Moorpark in a form and width as determined by the City to provide access to its property adjacent to the Arroyo Simi. 34 (l ) Low Iriebme Housing OOOZG 9 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 8 000:.`,',.0 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 9 00OZ1 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 10 CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS: PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: General: 35. The Developer shall demonstrate legal access to the parcel to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 36. The Developer shall provide an access easement in a form and width as required to provide legal access from the southwest segment of Majestic Court southerly along Private Street "A" to property owned by the City located adjacent and north of the Arroyo Simi. Grading: 37. The Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a rough grading plan, consistent with the approved Tentative Tract Map, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete public improvements and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of all improvements. 38. Concurrent with submittal of the rough grading plan an erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer. The design shall include measures for hydroseeding on all graded areas within 30 days of completion of grading unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Reclaimed water shall be used for dust control during grading, if available from Waterworks District No. 1 at the time of grading permit approval. 39. Unanticipated off -site import /export operations requiring an excess of 100 total truck loads shall require Council approval prior to the commencement of hauling or staged grading operations. A haul route is to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Additional surety for the cleaning and /or repair of the streets may be required as directed by the City Engineer. 40. Temporary irrigation, hydroseeding and erosion control measures acceptable to the City shall be implemented on all temporary grading. Temporary grading is defined to be any grading partially completed and any disturbance of existing 0002 1 '; Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 11 natural conditions due to construction activity. These measures will apply to temporary grading activity that remains or is anticipated to remain unfinished or undisturbed in its altered condition for a period of time greater than thirty (30) days or the beginning of the rainy season whichever comes first. 41. The maximum gradient for any slope shall not exceed a 2:1 slope inclination except where special circumstances exist. In the case of special circumstances where steeper slopes are warranted, plans will be reviewed by a certified soils engineer and their recommendations will be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. 42. All graded slopes shall be planted in a timely manner meeting the approval of the Director of Community Development with groundcover, trees and shrubs that will stabilize slopes and minimize erosion. 44. Grading and construction operations shall not interfere with peak traffic flow of nearby properties. Geotechnical /Geology Review: 45. The Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, detailed Geotechnical Engineering Report certified by a California Registered Civil Engineer. The geotechnical engineering report shall include an investigation with regard to liquefaction, expansive soils, and seismic safety. In addition, the report shall discuss the contents of the soils as to the presence or absence of any hazardous waste or other contaminants in the soils. A. Note: Review of the geotechnical engineering report, by the City's Geotechnical Engineer, may be required. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs including the City's administrative fee for this review. 0002-1113 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 12 46. All recommendations included in the approved geotechnical engineering report shall be implemented during project design, grading, and construction in accordance with the approved project. The City's geotechnical consultant shall review all plans for conformance with the soils engineer's recommendations. Prior to the commencement of grading plan check, the Developer's geotechnical engineer shall sign the plans confirming that the grading plans incorporate the recommendations of the approved soils report(s). Storm Water Runoff and Flood Control Planning: 47. The Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, drainage plans, hydrologic and hydraulic calculations prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer; shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete public improvements and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of all improvements. The plans shall depict all on -site and off -site drainage structures required by the City. The drainage plans and calculations shall indicate the following conditions before and after development: a. Quantities of water, water flow rates, major water courses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps, sump locations, detention facilities, and drainage courses. Hydrology shall be per the current Ventura County Standards except as follows: b. All storm drains shall carry a 10 -year frequency storm; C. All catch basins shall carry a 10 -year storm; d. All catch basins in a sump condition shall be sized such that depth of water at intake shall equal the depth of the approach flows; e. All culverts shall carry a 100 -year frequency storm; f. Drainage facilities shall be provided such that surface flows are intercepted and contained in a storm drain 000214 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 13 Eeaewa-t&. All drainage structures shall be designed to meet BMPs and to accommodate NPDES approved devices. g. Under a 10 -year frequency storm, local, residential and private streets shall have one dry travel lane available on interior residential streets. Collector streets shall have a minimum of one dry travel lane in each direction; h. Drainage to adjacent parcels shall not be increased or concentrated by this development. All drainage measures necessary to mitigate storm water flows shall be provided by the Developer; i. All drainage grates shall be designed and constructed with provisions to provide adequate bicycle safety to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; j. If the land to be occupied is in an area of special flood hazard, the Developer shall notify all potential buyers in writing of this hazard condition. The grading plan shall also show contours indicating the 50- and 100 -year flood levels. k. All flows from ribbon gutters and similar devices shall be deposited into the storm drain system prior to entering streets. If necessary, the storm drain system shall be extended beyond the public right -of- way through easements to eliminate surface flow between parcels. Both storm drain and easements outside the right -of -way are to be maintained by the owners unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 1. Concrete drainage structures shall be tan colored concrete, as approved by the Director of Community Development, and to the extent possible shall incorporate natural structure and landscape to reduce their visibility. M. Drainage for the development shall be designed and installed with all necessary appurtenances to safely contain and convey storm flows to their final point of discharge, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. n. A hydraulic /hydrology study shall be prepared which analyzes the hydraulic capacity of the drainage system, with and without the storm drain system for 0002:15 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 14 Q the proposed development. The Developer downstream improvements, required by Flood Control and the City of Moorpark, proposed development. shall make any Ventura County to support the Improvements shall be constructed to detain drainage on -site or discharged ' o. lnt 3. a's annroVad ,bu --VCFrD_ shall be the diffexnce between the ten -year and fifty -year storm event. A rainfall intensity zone K shall be utilized in the design unless an alternate design intensity is approved by the City Engineer. p. The Developer shall demonstrate that surface drainage from the site shall not drain over the sidewalk or driveways. q. The Developer shall demonstrate for each building pad within the development area that the following restrictions and protections can be put in place to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: r. Adequate protection from a 100 -year frequency storm; and S. Feasible access during a 50 -year frequency storm. t. Hydrology calculations shall be per current Ventura County Standards. 48. All structures proposed within the 100 -year flood zone shall be elevated at least one foot above the 100 -year flood level. 49. The Developer shall provide for all necessary on -site and off -site storm drain facilities required by the City to accommodate upstream and on -site flows. Facilities, as shown on existing drainage studies and approved by the City, shall be delineated on the final drainage plans. Either on -site retention basins or storm water acceptance deeds from off -site property owners must be specified. These facilities (if applicable) must also be acceptable to the Ventura County Flood Control District. 50. The proposed future Ventura County Flood Control District Facility Expansion right -of -way at the south end of the property is an integral part of the overall drainage ®®021; Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 15 pattern that affects this map. The right -of -way dimensions for this future facility expansion shall be approved by the Ventura County Flood Control District. Existing easements and any revisions shall be shown on the Final Map. 51. The following requirements shall be included in the CC &R's: 52. All property areas shall be maintained free of litter /debris. 53. All on -site storm drains shall be cleared at least twice a year, once immediately prior to October 15 (the rainy season) and once in January. Additional cleaning may be required by the City Engineer. 54. Private roads and parking lots /drive - throughs shall be maintained free of litter /debris. Sidewalks, parking lots and drive - throughs shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. When swept or washed, debris must be trapped and collected to prevent entry to the storm drain system. No cleaning agent may be discharged to the storm drain. If any cleaning agent or degreaser is used, washwater shall not discharge to the storm drains; washwater should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the wastewater treatment plant receiving the discharge. 55. All exterior metal building surfaces, including roofing, shall be coated and sealed with rust inhibitive paint to prevent corrosion and release of metal contaminants into the storm drain system. 56. Landscaping shall be properly maintained with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff and promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides which can contribute to urban runoff pollution. 57. Trash enclosures and /or recycling area(s) shall be covered. All litter /waste material shall be kept in leak proof containers. Area shall be paved with impermeable material. No other area shall drain onto these areas. There shall be no drain connected from the trash enclosure area to either the storm drain system or the sanitary sewer. However, the enclosure shall be designed and constructed with provision for future connection to the sanitary sewer. 0002:1`Y Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 16 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES): 58. Prior to the issuance of any construction /grading permit and /or the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, the Developer shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan ( SWPCP), on the form provided by the City for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 59. The SWPCP shall be developed and implemented in accordance with requirements of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, NPDES Permit No. CAS063339. 60. The SWPCP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to stormwater and shall include the design and placement of recommended. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants from the construction site into the storm drain system during construction. 61. Improvement plans shall note that the contractor shall comply to the "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks" 62. The Developer shall obtain a permit from the State Water Resources Control Board for "All storm water discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation results in land disturbances of five or more acres." The Developer shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the city Engineers office as proof of permit application. I f required, prior to the issuance of any construction /grading permit and /or the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, the Developer shall also submit the Notice of Intent to the California State Water Resources Control Board, Storm Water Permit Unit in accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit No. CASQ00002: Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities. The Developer shall comply with all additional requirements of this General Permit including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). 63. The Developer shall also comply with NPDES objectives as outlined in the " Stormwater Pollution Control Guidelines for Construction Sites ". This handout is available at the City Engineer's office and a copy will be attached to the approved grading permit. 00023 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 17 64. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with conditions and requirements of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, NPDES Permit No. CAS063339. 65. The project construction plans shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to the development for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 66. All onsite storm drain inlets, whether newly constructed or existing, shall be labeled "Don't Dump - Drains to Arroyo." 67. City Ordinance No. 100 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), require updating of the National Flood Insurance Program maps for affected areas whenever any alteration of the watercourse is made. All materials required by FEMA for a map revision shall be provided to the City Engineer's office. This material will demonstrate the revised flood plain locations following development. This information will be forwarded by the City Engineer to the FEMA for review and updating of the National Flood Insurance Program maps. If updates to the flood zone have been made, a conditional letter of map revision shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of a zone clearance for occupancy of the first residential unit. The Developer will be responsible for all costs charged by the FEMA and City' administrative costs. Street Improvement Requirements: 68. The Developer shall verify that all street improvements are consistent with City of Moorpark policy and Ventura County road standards. The Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of the improvements. Street improvements, median, and parkway landscaping shall not be accepted by the City for maintenance until completion, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. 69. The Developer shall apply for and pay required fees associated with a City of Moorpark encroachment permit. An encroachment permit is required for any work within the City Right of Way. 70. Publicly dedicated streets shall conform to the design requirements of the Ventura County Road Standards (most 0002 -19 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 18 recent revision), unless these requirements are modified by a specific condition. 71. The street labeled as "A" Street shall be a publicly dedicated street at a minimum from its intersection with Los Angeles Avenue to a point on the south side of Majestic Court. The developer shall provide a total right of way width of 52 feet. The developer shall construct a street with a width from curb face to curb face of 36 feet having an 8 feet high slump block wall at the west property line and a 4 feet sidewalk behind a 416" parkway on the east side of the street. a. The entrance at "A" Street shall be designed to include: 72. Traffic control devices acceptable to Caltrans and the City Engineer that prohibit left turn movements onto Los Angeles Avenue from "A" Street and onto "A" Street from Los Angeles Avenue. 73. The developer shall submit for review and approval traffic counts /estimates for stacking of vehicles at the entrance of "A" Street during peak hours. The Developer shall justify that the design of the entrance of "A" Street is adequate for peak hour stacking of vehicles and truck turning radius movements X95 fgot,zxiriimum }'. The Developer shall submit for review and approval traffic data to justify the design of deceleration and acceleration lanes on Los Angeles Avenue. 75. The developer Caltrans along provide 70 feet City, from the property line. shall dedicate additional right -of -way to the south side of Los Angeles Avenue to of right -of -way or less, if approved by the centerline of the street to the south 0 ®U2 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 19 76. The street improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter, parkways, street lights, and signing, striping, interim striping and traffic control, paving, and any necessary transitions, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All driveway locations shall be approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. All streetlights shall be designed so as not to reflect light unto adjacent residential property. The Developer shall dedicate any additional right -of -way necessary to make all of the required improvements. 77. The Developer shall provide slope easements for road maintenance purposes only along all roads where the top of cut plus 5 feet or the toe of fill plus 5 feet is beyond the dedicated right -of -way. Said slope easements shall include the area covered by the cut slope plus 5 feet and fill slope plus 5 feet. 78. Street lights shall be provided on the improvement plans per Ventura County Standards and as approved by the City Engineer. The Subdivider /Developer shall pay all energy costs associated with public street lighting for a period of one year from the acceptance of the street improvements. 79. Above ground obstructions (utility cabinets, mailboxes, etc.) are to be placed within the right -of -way landscaping areas whenever possible. When above ground obstructions are to be placed within the sidewalk, a minimum five (5) foot clear sidewalk width must be provided around the obstruction. 80. Additional surety shall be provided for resurfacing and /or repair of the full width portion of Majestic Court and /or Los Angeles Avenue located adjacent to the project. The surety shall be used to secure the curb replacement and overlay or slurry of the street, as a result of damage from construction work or utility trenching. The City may require restoration of the street before occupancy of the building. Surety will be returned upon the City Engineer accepting the condition of the street. Other: 81. The Developer shall indicate in writing to the City the disposition of any wells that may exist within the project. If any wells are proposed to be abandoned, or if they are abandoned and have not been properly sealed, they must be destroyed or abandoned per Ventura County Ordinance No. 0002�l Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 20 2372 or Ordinance No. 3991 and per Division of Oil and Gas requirements. Permits for any well reuse (if applicable) shall conform with Reuse Permit procedures administered by the County Water Resources Development Department. 82. The Developer shall comply with all pertinent County of Ventura Public Works Department water and sewer connection regulations. These measures shall be implemented by the County of Ventura Public Works Department (Waterworks District No. 1) 83. All existing and proposed utilities shall be undergrounded as approved by the City Engineer. All power lines less than 66KV shall be undergrounded. 84. The final design and location of all walls and fences, streetscape elements, urban landscaping are subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 85. In accordance with Business and Professions Code 8771 the street improvement plans shall, provide for a surveyors statement on the plans, certifying that all recorded monuments in the construction area have been located and tied out or will be protected in place during construction. 86. Any right -of -way necessary to complete the required improvements shall be acquired by the Developer at their expense. 87. If any of the improvements which the Developer is required to construct or install is to be constructed or installed upon land in which the Developer does not have title or interest sufficient for such purposes, the Developer shall do all of the following at least 60 days prior to the filling of the final or parcel map for approval pursuant to Governmental Code Section 66457. a. Notify the City of Moorpark in writing that the Developer wishes the City to acquire an interest in the land which is sufficient for the purposes as provided in Governmental Code Section 66462.5. b. Supply the City with (I) a legal description of the interest to be acquired, (ii) a map or diagram of the interest to be acquired sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (e) of Section 1250.310 of the Code of Civil procedure, (iii) a current appraisal report prepared by an 0002202 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 21 appraiser approved by the City which expresses an opinion as to the fair market value of the interest to be acquired, and (iv) a current Litigation Guarantee Report. C. Enter into an agreement with the City, guaranteed by such cash deposits or other security as the City may require, pursuant to which the Developer will pay all of the City's cost (including, without limitation, attorney's fees and overhead expenses) of acquiring such an interest in the land. 88. The Developer shall submit wall and landscaping plans showing that provisions have been taken to provide for and maintain proper sight distances. All fences, walls and other structures over six (6) feet high are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development. 89. The Developer shall offer to dedicate access easements to the City of Moorpark over all private streets to provide access for all governmental agencies providing public safety, health and welfare. 90. The Developer shall offer to dedicate to the City of Moorpark, public use, all right -of -way easements for public streets. 91. The Developer shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion of all site improvements within the development and other offsite improvements required by the conditions as described herein (i.e., grading, street improvements, storm drain improvements, landscaping, fencing, bridges, etc.) or which require removal (i.e., access ways, temporary debris basins, etc.) in a form acceptable to the City. 92. The developer shall construct all masonry perimeter walls prior to rough grading of the overall site. leper th-e 93. The Deve- shall: exeeute tan traf a eevenant L i fee-) running �i}ZT1 the behalf- (e r- pay a Itself Its e FRt=ga heirs, e n en to and -- sueeessers,, the — len and assigns— &gimmeeing — district partielpate —in —€ finaneing-- teehnique ineluding, ef an assessment ems but , mimed t -, ether fees, et the Gity te fund whieh may traffi Implement er adept, publie street and Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 22 . p-r-evements Ei!r-eetly eIC indifee 1l a-ffeeted --4 by the 94. Any special street intersection treatments shall be approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. 95. The Developer shall make a special contribution to the City representing the Developer's pro -rata share of the cost of improvements at the following intersections: a. Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road ($165,000) b. Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue ($65,000) C. Poindexter Avenue /Moorpark Avenue ($120,000) The actual contribution (pro -rata share) shall be based upon the additional traffic added to the intersection. The Developer's traffic engineer shall provide the City Engineer an estimate of the projected numbers for calculation of the pro -rata share. DURING GRADING, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY: 96. Grading may occur during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15th subject to installation of debris and erosion control facilities. Erosion control measures shall be in place and functional between October 15th and April 15th. 97. Prior to any work being conducted within the State, County, or City right of way, the Developer shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits from the appropriate Agencies. 98. During site preparation and construction, the contractor shall minimize disturbance of natural groundcover on the project site until such activity is required for grading and construction purposes. 99. During clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation operations, dust shall be controlled by regular watering. In addition the following measures shall apply: 100. Water all site access roads and material excavated or graded on or off -site to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur a minimum of at least two times daily, preferably in the late morning and after the completion of 0 00: 11 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 23 work for the day. Additional watering for dust control shall occur as directed by the City. The grading plan shall indicate the number of water trucks, which will be available for dust control at each phase of grading. 101. Cease all clearir operations during mph averaged over contact with the meteorologist for speeds. �g, grading, earth moving, or excavation periods of high winds (greater than 20 one hour) . The contractor shall maintain Air Pollution Control District (APCD) current information about average wind 102. Water or securely cover all material transported off -site and on -site to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 103. Keep all grading and construction equipment on or near the site, until these activities are completed. 104. Face masks shall be used by all employees involved in grading or excavation operations during dry periods to reduce inhalation of dust, which may contain the fungus, which causes San Joaquin Valley Fever. 105. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive dust generation. 106. Wash off heavy -duty construction vehicles before they leave the site. 107. After clearing grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, and during construction activities, fugitive dust emissions should be controlled using the following procedures: 108. Apply non - hazardous chemical stabilizers to all inactive portions of the construction site. When appropriate, seed exposed surfaces with a fast - growing, soil - binding plant to reduce wind erosion and its contribution to local particulate levels. 109. Periodically, or as directed by the City Engineer, sweep public streets in the vicinity of the site to remove silt (i.e., fine earth material transported from the site by wind, vehicular activities, water runoff, etc.) which may have accumulated from construction activities. 000225 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 24 110. All diesel engines used in construction equipment shall use reformulated diesel fuel. 111. During smog season (May- October) the City shall order that construction cease during Stage III alerts to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating, lower ozone levels and protect equipment operators from excessive smog levels. The City, at its discretion, may also limit construction during Stage II alerts. 112. Construction activities shall be limited to between the following hours: a) 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and b) 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday. Construction work on Saturdays will require payment of a premium for City inspection services, and may be further restricted or prohibited should the City receive complaints from adjacent property owners. No construction work is to be done on Sundays, pursuant to Section 15.26.010 of the Municipal Code. 113. Truck noise from hauling operations shall be minimized through establishing hauling routes, which avoid residential areas, and requiring that "Exhaust Brakes" not be used along the haul route within the City. The hauling plan must be identified as part of the grading plan and shall be approved by the City Engineer. 114. The Developer shall ensure that construction equipment is fitted with modern sound - reduction equipment. 115. Equipment not in use for more than ten minutes shall be turned off. 116. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Sheriff's Department, and the City Construction Observer shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. 117. The Developer shall utilize all prudent and reasonable measures (including installation of a 6 -foot high chain link fence around the construction sites or provision of a full time licensed security guard) to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the work site at any time and to protect the public from accidents and injury. 0®0226 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 25 118. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as set forth in manufacturer's specifications. 119. Backfill of any pipe or conduit shall be in 4" fully compacted layers unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 120. Soil testing for trench compaction is to be performed on all trenches for pipe or conduit placement. The interval of testing shall be less than once every 4 feet of lift and 100 lineal feet of trench excavated. This note shall also be placed on applicable plans associated with site development. 121. Observe a 15 mile per hour speed limit for the construction area. 122. During site preparation and construction, construct temporary storm water diversion structures per City of Moorpark standards. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A ZONING CLEARANCE FOR A BUILDING PERMIT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 123. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall pay to the City the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (AOC) Fee, which shall be the dollar amount in effect at the time the fee is paid. If previous payment of this contribution can be demonstrated, to the City's satisfaction upon concurrence of the City Manager, the Developer would not have to pay the AOC fee. 124. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all habitable structures shall be designed to current UBC requirements or the City approved geotechnical report requirements for the project, whichever standard is most restrictive. 125. An As- Graded geotechnical report and rough grading certification shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer. 000220 ,� Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 26 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 126. If directed by the City, the Developer shall have repaired, overlayed or slurried that portion of M ''p " Avenue, Majestic Court and /or Los Angeles Avenue adjacent to the development. The repairs, curb replacement, parkways, sidewalks, and overlay or slurry of the street, as a result of damage from construction work or utility trenching shall be along the entire length of the project including transitions unless otherwise approved and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 127. A copy of the recorded Map(s) shall be forwarded to the City Engineer for filing. 128. A final grading certification shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND BOND REDUCTION AND /OR EXONERATION, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 129. Reproducible centerline tie sheets shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office. 130. Sufficient surety in a form and in the City guaranteeing the public provided, and shall remain in place acceptance by the City. Any surety years after final map approval or building permit shall be increased greater than the consumers price Beach SMSA) for a period since or surety and shall be increased in thereafter. an amount acceptable to improvements shall be for one year following that is in effect three issuance of the first an amount equal to or index (Los Angeles /Long iginal issuance of the like manner each year 131. If necessary, the applicant shall file for a time extension with the City Engineer's office at least six weeks in advance of expiration of the agreement to construct subdivision improvements. The fees required will be in conformance with the applicable ordinance section. 132. Original "as built" plans will be certified by the Developer's Registered Civil Engineer and submitted with two sets of blue prints to the City Engineer's office. Although grading plans may have been submitted for checking and construction on sheets larger than 22" X 36 ", they must be resubmitted as "record drawings" in a series of 22" X 00020,8 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 27 36" mylars (made with proper overlaps) with a title block on each sheet. Submission of "as built" plans is required before a final inspection will be scheduled. 133. The Developer shall demonstrate that a maintenance agreement is in place for the purpose of servicing all on- site NPDES devices. Offer of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement 134. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable offer of an easement and execute a "Maintenance Agreement" between Caltrans and the City subject to approval of Caltrans and the City, to ensure maintenance of the landscaping within the Caltrans right - of -way to the City and execute for the purpose of maintaining all landscaping along Los Angeles Avenue. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable offer of an easement to the City for the purpose of maintaining all landscaping of the site adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue. The area referred to shall be all landscaped portions of the required setback area adjacent to the public right -of -way along the street frontages. The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of the aforementioned area as well as the landscaping within the public right -of -way adjacent to the project. If the City, at its sole discretion, determines the landscape maintenance to be unsatisfactory in any of the aforementioned areas, the City may invoke the offer of dedication and assume responsibility at the owner's expense for any or all of the aforementioned areas. The total cost of maintenance for the areas noted above shall be borne by the applicant. The City may, at its sole discretion, place the aforementioned areas in a landscape maintenance assessment district. The applicant shall record a covenant to this effect. The applicant shall maintain the right to protest the amount of spread of any proposed assessment, but not the formation of, or annexation to a maintenance assessment district. COUNTY OF VENTURA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONDITION: 135. All water impoundment (s) shall be maintained in a manner which will not create mosquito breeding sources. 0 002�9 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 28 136. Prior to issuance of a building permit pertaining to the project, the applicant shall obtain plan check approval of the proposed swimming pool (s) from the County of Ventura Environmental Health Division. COUNTY OF VENTURA WATERWORKS DISTRICT CONDITIONS: 137. Provide Ventura County Waterworks District the following: 138. Water and sewer improvement plans. A sample format is available at the District upon request. 139. Hydraulic analysis by a registered Civil Engineer to determine the adequacy of the proposed and existing water and sewer lines. 140. Copy of approval of fire hydrant locations by County of Ventura Fire Protection District. 141. Copy of Release from Calleguas Municipal Water District. 142. Cost estimates for water and sewer improvements. 143. Fees: Plan check, construction inspection, capital improvement charge, sewer connection fee and water meter charge. 144. Signed Contract to Install, and Surety Bond. MOORPARK POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS: 145. The applicant is required to adhere to applicable Police Department Requirements. VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CONDITION: 146. Prior to Final Map Approval, the applicant is required to dedicate to the Ventura County Flood Control District the area required by the District for the proposed future improvements to the Arroyo Simi. Verification of dedication of the area from the Flood Control District shall be given to the Department of Community Development prior to Final Map Approval. 147. No direct storm drain connections to Ventura County Flood Control District facilities will be allowed without appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) for compliance with Ventura Countywide Stormwater Program. 0002'0 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 29 VENTURA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT CONDITIONS: 148. Access roads shall be installed with an all weather surface, suitable for access by Fire Department apparatus. A minimum clear street width of 36 feet shall be provided. 149. The access roadway (s) shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. Where the access roadway cannot be provided, approved fire protection system or systems shall be installed as required and acceptable to the Fire District. 150. All driveways shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches (13'6 "). 151. Approved turnaround areas for fire apparatus shall be provided where the access road is 150 feet or farther from the main thoroughfare. 152. The access road (s) /driveway (s) shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer as having an all weather surface in conformance with public Works standards. This certification shall be submitted to the Fire District prior to combustible construction. 153. Any gates used to control vehicle access shall be designed as required by the Fire Department Gate Guidelines. Design criteria includes, stacking method of gate control, clear widths, and Knox systems for secured gates. Gate plan details shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Division for review and approval prior to recordation. 154. Prior to recordation of street names, proposed names shall be submitted to the Fire District's Communications Center for review and approval. 155. Street name signs shall be installed in conjunction with the road improvements. The type of sign shall be in accordance with Plate F -4 of the Ventura County Road Standards. 156. Address numbers, a minimum of 4 inches (4 ") high, shall be installed prior to occupancy, shall be of contrasting color to the background, and shall be readily visible at night. Where structures are set back more than 150 feet (150') from the street, larger numbers will be required so they are distinguishable from the street. In the event the structure (s) is not visible from the street, the address 00023,1 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 30 number (s) shall be posted adjacent to the driveway entrance. 157. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans to the Fire District for review and approval of the location of hydrants. On Plans, show existing hydrants within 500 feet of the development. 158. Fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to combustible construction and shall conform to the minimum standard of the Moorpark Water Works manual. 159. Each hydrant shall be a 6 inch wet barrel design and s hall have (1) 4 inch and (1) 2 1/2 inch outlet(s). 160. The required fire flow shall be achieved at no less than 20 psi residual pressure. 161. Fire hydrants shall be spaced 300 feet on center and so located that no structure will be farther than 150 feet from any one hydrant. 162. Fire hydrants shall be set back in from the curb face 24 inches on center. 163. A minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi shall be provided at this location. The applicant shall verify that the water purveyor can provide the required volume at the project. 164. Prior to recordation, the applicant shall provide to the Fire District verification from the water purveyor that the purveyor can provide the required fire flow for the project. 165. The building plans of public assembly areas which have occupant load of 50 or more, shall be submitted to the Fire District for review. 166. Portions of this development may be in a high fire hazard area and those structures shall meet hazardous fire area building code requirements. 167. All grass or brush exposing and structure (s) to fire hazards shall be cleared for a distance of 100 feet prior to framing, according to the Ventura County Fire Protection Ordinance. 00020". Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 31 168. An approved spark arrestor shall be installed on the chimney of any structure (s). 169. Applicant shall obtain and comply with the provisions of VCFD No. 126 "Requirements For Construction" prior to obtaining a building permit for any new structures or additions to existing structures. APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 98 -1 SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Note: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall have recorded Tract Map 5133. The conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map shall apply to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 98 -1. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Permitted Uses 1. The permit is granted for the land and project as identified on the entitlement application form and as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations. The location and design of all site improvements shall be as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations except or unless indicated otherwise herein in the following conditions. Any change from the submitted product mix shall require approval of a modification to the Residential Planned Development Permit. Requirement for Affordable Housing Agreement 2. Approval of the Residential Planned Development Permit is conditioned upon execution of an Affordable Housing Agreement between the City of Moorpark and the applicant or developer. Compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall address affordable housing provisions. The Agreement is subject to approval of the City Council, and if compliance of the Agreement is not achieved, the City Council may initiate a Reversion to Acreage or other procedure, and nullify the Residential Planned Development Permit. Use Inauguration 3. Unless the project is inaugurated (building foundation slab in place and substantial work in progress) not later than 0002 033 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 32 three years after this permit is granted, this permit shall automatically expire on that date. The Director of Community Development may, at his discretion, grant up to two (2) one (1) year extensions for project inauguration if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if applicant can document that he has diligently worked towards inauguration of the project during the initial two year period and the applicant has concurrently requested a time extension to the tentative tract map. The request for extension of this entitlement shall be made at least 30- days prior to the expiration date of the permit. Modification to Permit 4. All facilities and uses other than those specifically requested in the application are prohibited unless an application for a modification has been approved by the City of Moorpark. Any minor changes to this permit shall require the submittal of an application for a Minor Modification and any major changes to this permit shall require the submittal of a Major Modification as determined by the Director of Community Development. Other Regulations 5. The design, maintenance, and operation of the permit area and facilities thereon shall comply with all applicable regulations of the RPD zone and all requirements and enactments of Federal, State, County, and City authorities, and all such requirements and enactments shall, by reference, become conditions of this permit. Graffiti Removal 6. The applicant or his successors and assigns, or the Homeowners Association shall remove any graffiti within five (5) days from written notification from the City of Moorpark. All graffiti removal shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Phasing 7. Any phasing shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. The Director shall avoid to the extent possible any impacts to existing residential areas from construction traffic. 000234 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 33 Effect of Conditions 8. No conditions of this entitlement shall be interpreted as permitting or requiring any violation of law or any unlawful rules or regulations or orders of an authorized governmental agency. In instances where more than one set of rules apply, the stricter ones shall take precedence. Severability 9. If any of the conditions or limitations of this permit are held to be invalid, that holding shall not invalidate any of the remaining conditions or limitations set forth. Permittee Defense Costs 10. The permittee agrees as a condition of issuance and use of this permit to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City because of issuance (or renewal) of this permit or in the alternative to relinquish this permit. Permittee will reimburse the City for any court costs and /or attorney's fees which the City may be required by the court to pay as a result of any such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve permittee of his obligation under this condition. Acceptance of Conditions 11. The permittee's acceptance commencement of construction permit shall be deemed to be of this permit. Surety for Utilities of this permit and /or and/ or operations under this acceptance of all conditions 12. Prior to approval of a final map, the subdivider shall post sufficient surety to assure that all proposed utility lines within and immediately adjacent to the project site shall be placed undergrounded to the nearest off -site utility pole. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the last house in the tract, all existing utilities shall also be undergrounded to the nearest off -site utility pole with the exception of 69 KVA or larger power lines. This requirement for undergrounding includes all above - ground power poles on the project site as well as those along the frontage roads of the site. All utility lines that must 000235 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 34 connect across Los Angeles Avenue underground via an underground conduit. Rain Gutters and Downspouts 13. Rain gutters and of the structure roof flow. Water in non - corrosive Engineer. Roof Mounted Equipment shall be placed downspout shall be provided on all sides for all units where there is a directional shall be conveyed to the street or drives devices as determined by the City 14. No roof mounted equipment (other than required vents) shall be permitted. Exceptions to this limitation must be approved by the Director of Community Development. Exterior Lighting 15. Exterior front yard lighting within the development shall be limited to illumination of entryways and address identification. Excessively bright and /or unshielded front door lighting shall be prohibited. Dedication of Access Riahts 16. The applicant shall dedicate to the City all access rights on "A" Street, Majestic Court and all private streets within the project site in order to provide access for all governmental agencies providing Municipal Code compliance, public safety, health and welfare services. 17. The developer shall dedicate vehicular access rights to the City of Moorpark along "A" Street and Majestic Court. Energy Saving Devices 18. That all residential units shall be constructed employing energy saving devices. These devices are to include, but are not limited to the following: a. Ultra low flush toilets (to not exceed 1.6 gallons); b. Low water use shower controllers as required by Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code shall be placed on all shower facilities; 0 002�G Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 35 c. Natural gas fueled stoves, ovens and ranges shall not have continuous burning pilot lights; d. All thermostats connected to the main space heating source shall have night set back features; e. To ensure closure when not in use kitchen ventilation systems shall have automatic dampers; and f. Hot water solar panel stub -outs shall be provided. Maintenance of Permit Area 19. The continued maintenance of the permit area and facilities shall be subject to periodic inspection by the City. The permittee or owner shall be required to remedy any defects in ground maintenance, as indicated by the Code Enforcement Officer within five (5) days after notification. Archaeoloaical or Historical Finds 20. If any archaeological or historical finds are uncovered during excavation operations, all grading or excavation shall cease in the immediate area, and the find left untouched. The permittee shall assure the preservation of the site; shall obtain the services of a qualified paleontologist or archaeologist, whichever is appropriate to recommend disposition of the site; and shall obtain the Director of Community Development's written concurrence of the recommended disposition before resuming development. The developer shall be liable for the costs associated with the professional investigation. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: 21. The applicant shall indicate where the export of dirt from the site will be taken. If import dirt is to be brought to the site, the applicant shall state the number of cubic yards and location of the borrow site. The City shall approve the haul routes. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A ZONING CLEARANCE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee 22. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction for each unit, the applicant shall pay a 0002 3,2 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 36 Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee of $3,000 for each of the residential units, except for the Affordable units which shall be paid prior to Final Inspection. Lighting Plan 23. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for Construction, the applicant shall submit to the Department of Community Development a lighting plan for review and approval consistent with Section 17.30.060. Traffic System Management Contribution 24. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, the permittee shall make a total contribution to the Moorpark Traffic Systems Management Fund (TSM) of $1,288.87 per unit to fund TSM programs or clean -fuel vehicles programs as determined by the City. Tree Report and Removal Permit 25. As a condition of removal of the trees on -site, the applicant shall provide an additional $130,324.00 worth of trees and other enhanced landscaping which is the amount of the value of existing trees to be removed from the site. The additional landscaping is in addition to the landscaping normally required for the project is in additional to what would normally be required normal required landscaping. This amount may be reduced by the amount of the value of any trees to remain. Submittal of Landscape Plans 26. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, a complete landscape plan, together with specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development. The plans shall conform to the following: a. Three sets of plans shall be submitted for each plan check. b. Each sheet of the plans shall be wet stamped and signed by the project landscape architect. The project landscape architect shall be licensed by the State of California. 0002 S Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 37 C. The plans shall include the following landscape components as appropriate: demolition, construction, irrigation, planting, details and specifications. d. Unless otherwise specified in these project conditions, the plans shall be prepared in general conformance with the Submittal Requirements and Landscape Standards described in the Ventura County Landscape Design Criteria. e. A separate Maintenance Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Approval/ Installation Verification standards described in the Ventura County Landscape Design Criteria. f. Unless otherwise specified in these project conditions, the plans shall be prepared in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual plans for the project. g. The applicant shall bear the full cost of landscape plan reviews, installation and inspections as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. h. Prior to initial review of the landscape plans, the applicant shall deposit funds for plan review in an amount specified by the Director of Community Development. The applicant shall deposit additional funds upon request as needed to cover all landscape plan check and inspection fees. Any deposit balance remaining following final approval of the installation shall be refunded to the applicant. i. The following notes shall be included on the plans and shall be project conditions: i. All plant material shall conform to the current issue of the American Standard for Nursery Stock published by the American Association of Nurserymen. ii. Prior to final inspection by the City of Moorpark, the applicant's landscape architect shall provide written certification to the City, stating that the installation is in substantial conformance with the approved landscape plans. 000229 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 38 iii. Prior to final inspection by the City of Moorpark, the applicant shall provide a written certification for the operation of the backflow device. j. A ten foot (10) wide dense landscaping buffer along the entire length of the southerly property line adjacent to the Arroyo Simi shall be provided. k. Thirty six (36) inch box trees shall be provided along the east, west and southerly property lines, one for each front yard area and within the parkway on the east side of "A" Street. 1. The planting plan shall indicate the proposed locations of light standards. The lighting and tree locations shall be designed to avoid conflicts. M. All backflow preventers, transformers, and other above -grade utilities shall be appropriately screened with walls and /or plantings. n. The planting and irrigation design shall comply with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. o. Prior to occupancy, the landscape installation shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. This approval shall be based upon written certification of the landscape installation by the City Landscape Consultant. p. Subsequent to occupancy, the landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Maintenance Plan. q. The landscape plan shall include planting and irrigation specifications for manufactured slopes and all common areas. r. Ground cover, trees, and shrubs shall be provided on Lots 43 and 71 and shall be designed so as to function as a decorative entryway to the project. S. The landscape plan shall include planting and irrigation specifications for manufactured slopes over three (3) feet in height, front yard landscaping for all residences and all common areas to be maintained 0002'r10 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 39 by the homeowners association including the parkways located along Los Angeles Avenue and "A" Street. Front Yard landscaping shall be installed on all lots in this project and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to final inspection and release of utilities. t. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction and /or recordation of Tentative Tract Map No. 5133, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable offer of an easement to the City for the purpose of maintaining all landscaping and walls adjacent Los Angeles Avenue and "A" Street', sn::: the event.; such is diolbretion. The Homeowners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of all common areas as determined by the City. Bermed landscaping consisting of trees, ground cover, flowers and shrubs shall be provided along the property frontage adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue. U. In the area of future buildings not under construction, turf and irrigation shall be installed. V. The final landscape plans shall include landscaping specifications, planting details, and design specifications consistent with the following requirements: i. The landscape plan shall include the final design of all sidewalks, barrier walls, streetscape elements, urban landscaping and pedestrian paths within the project limits. ii. All plant species utilized shall not exceed the irrigation Water Allowance, as discussed in the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. iii. Landscaping at site entrances and exits and any intersection within the parking lot shall not block or screen the view of a seated driver from another moving vehicle or pedestrian. iv. The plans shall include landscaping in the for all front yards, landscaping adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue, the ten foot landscaping buffer along the Arroyo Simi and all other landscaping area with the exception of the private rear yard 0002,11. Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 40 areas of the residences. Applicant shall install front yard landscaping as approved on the landscape plans. Front yard and common landscaping shall be completed for each lot prior to it's occupancy. V. Landscaping shall be designed so as to not obstruct the view of any exterior door or window from the street. vi. Backflow preventers, transformers, or other exposed above grade utilities shall be shown on the landscape plan(s) and shall be screened with landscaping and /or a wall. vii. A coordinated tree planting program shall be developed which will provide a dominant theme tree within the components of the proposed development. viii. Irrigation shall be provided for all permanent landscaping, as identified in the approved landscape plan. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the irrigation system and all landscaping. The applicant shall replace any dead plants and make any necessary repairs to the irrigation system consistent with the landscape plan approved for the development. ix. Exotic plants which are known to spread beyond their original plantings and invade native habitats such as Pampus Grass, Spanish Broom, and Tamarisk shall not be used. X. The applicant shall install purple pipe in all common areas for the purpose of using reclaimed water when available. Private Recreational Facilities 27. All private recreational facilities and tot lots, including the type of play equipment shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. A six (6) foot high wrought iron fence with pilasters shall be provided around the swimming pool area. All fences and walls shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. The height of the walls around the perimeter of the project shall be in substantial conformance with ®oO2iyz Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 41 perimeter walls or fence details included in the project landscape plans. Sound attenuation referenced in any acoustical report prepared for the project shall be taken into account as necessary. All wall heights shall be in substantial conformance with preliminary architectural and landscape plans; the final wall design shall be prepared in consultation with the Director of Community Development. Landscaping berms and other planting techniques shall be employed to minimize the visual dominance around the development. 28. Solar panels for heating any swimming pool constructed within the development shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction. All solar panels shall be designed so as to be part of the overall design of the structure supporting it. Locked Gated Access to Flood Control Channel 29. Any gated access to the flood control channel shall be locked at all times to prevent permanent access unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City. Construction Access Plan 30. The applicant shall submit a construction access plan to the Department of Community Development for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. Zoning Clearance 31. Prior to submittal of construction plans for plan check or initiation of any construction activity, a Zoning Clearance shall be obtained from the Department of Community Development. If an applicant desires, construction plans may be submitted to the Building and Safety Department with a City approved Hold Harmless Agreement. Zoning Clearance shall be obtained prior to initiation of any grading or construction activity. If the applicant desires, grading may be initiated upon obtaining a grading permit and providing a City approved "Hold Harmless Agreement ". Submittal of Construction Drawings 32. All final construction working drawings, grading and drainage plans, plot plans, final map (if requested by the Director of Community Development), sign programs, and 0002,13 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 42 landscaping and irrigation plans (three full sets) shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. Revisions to Plans 33. The existing plans shall be revised by the applicant and approved by the Director of Community Development. The following revisions shall be made: a. The windows on all building elevations shall be provided with surrounds or other architectural features as approved by the Director of Community Development. b. All garage doors shall be of the roll -up sectional type and have automatic garage door openers. C. Additional garage door designs shall be provided. The design of the doors are subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development. d. The property line along the east and west property line and along the Los Angeles Avenue property frontage shall have an eight (8-) _< <ten (1,0) foot high wall (as measured on the project side) . The project property line wall shall be constructed prior to issuance of building permits for dwelling construction. Interior and exterior walls separating yards shall be six (6) feet high and made of slump block brown in color (or as otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development). Front yard gates shall be Redwood. e. Prior to issuance of permits for dwelling construction, the proposed property line wall along the east and west property line portions of the project shall be constructed. The location of the wall shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. f. The first row of residential structures proposed adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue shall be constructed with windows, walls and roofs with an STC rating of 30 or greater. The applicant's engineer shall certify that this criteria has been met. 0002,14 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 43 g. A six (6) foot high wall and gate (for future access to the Arroyo Simi) along the southerly property line shall be constructed. The bottom three (3) feet shall be constructed of slump block (or other material as approved by the Director of Community Development)and the top three (3) feet shall be wrought iron. h. A ten foot (10) wide dense landscaping buffer along the entire length of the southerly property line adjacent to the Arroyo Simi shall be provided. i. The guest parking spaces located at the end of the private streets shall be eliminated and replaced with a pedestrian path to the recreational area. The pedestrian path shall be landscaped on both sides with a variety of trees, shrubs and ground color. k. The size of the recreational area shall be increased to 12,.D010; sq. eft. and shall contain a pool (minimum �—� 'mm nimIiim surface a'rea of 1, °, 000 sq'. ! ft.) , spa, wading pool, deck area, tot lot and building containing restrooms and a meeting room. The equipment in the tot lot shall be as approved by the Director of Community Development. 1. Additional architectural features shall be incorporated into the design including such items as additional insets and /or pop -outs, and /or dormers which would serve to both break up the horizontal and vertical plane of the walls. Additionally, the use of exposed rafter tails, more elaborate surrounds on all windows, additional irregularly placed deep inset windows, lintels at window heads, and door surrounds should be considered. M. All bathroom windows on the second story shall be located a minimum of 5'6" above the floor level and have opaque glass. 0002-11-5 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 44 n. The project shall be redesigned to provide one half (1/2) parking space per dwelling unit with each space to be a minimum of 24 1/2 feet in length. o. All guest parking space8','shal1 be posteel for "guest Outstandina Case Processina Fees 34. The applicant shall pay all outstanding case processing (Planning and Engineering), and all City legal service fees prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance. The applicant, permittee, or successors in interest, shall also submit to the Department of Community Development a fee to cover costs incurred by the City for Condition Compliance review of the RPD. Performance Bond 35. No Zoning Clearance may be issued for construction until all on -site improvements specified in this permit have been provided or the Director of Community Development approves the acceptance of a Certificate of Deposit (CD) to guarantee the construction and maintenance of exterior improvements including, but not limited to perimeter tract walls (including stucco treatment), fences, slope planting or other landscape improvements not related to grading, private recreational facilities, etc. Said on -site improvements shall be completed within 60 days of issuance 0002AIG Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 45 of a Certificate of Occupancy within a phase. In case of failure to comply with any term or provision of this condition, the City Council may by resolution declare the surety forfeited. Upon completion of the required improvements to the satisfaction of the City, the City Council may reduce the amount of the deposit; however, the Certificate of Deposit must be kept in full effect for one year after the last occupancy to guarantee that items such as perimeter tract walls, including stucco treatment; landscaping; fences; slope planting or other landscape improvements not related to grading; private recreational facilities, etc. are maintained. Vents and Metal Flashing 36. All roof vents and metal flashing shall be painted to match the roof color. All deck drains shall drain to the side and not facing the private street. 37. Solar panels for heating any swimming pool constructed within the development shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction. All solar panels shall be designed so as to be part of the overall design of the structure supporting it. Garaae Size 38. Individual garages shall maintain minimum unobstructed inside dimensions of 20 feet in length and 20 feet in width with a minimum interior height of 8 feet. Adlacent Property Walls and Fences 39. All property line garden walls or wrought iron fences shall be no further than one inch from the property line. Provision for Imaae Conversion of Plans into Optical Format 40. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the builder shall provide to the City an image conversion of building, landscape, public improvement and site plans into an optical format acceptable to the City Clerk. Cable Service 41. Television cable service shall be provided to all residential units consistent with existing cable system 0002,57 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 46 requirements. Undergrounding of cable wires is required and no lines shall be allowed to be extended along the exterior walls of the residential buildings. Color of Exterior Building Materials 42. All exterior building materials and paint colors shall be those approved by the Redevelopment Agency. Asbestos 43. No asbestos pipe or construction materials shall be used. Public Nuisance 44. The Director of Community Development may declare a development project that is not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval or for some other just cause, a "public nuisance ". The applicant shall be liable to the City for any and all costs and expenses to the City involved in thereafter abating the nuisance and in obtaining compliance with the conditions of approval or applicable codes. If the applicant fails to pay all City costs related to this action, the City may enact special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land upon which the nuisance existed. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: Will Serve Letter 45. An "Unconditional Will Serve Letter" for water and sewer service shall be obtained from the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: Enfbrcement�, of Vehicle Codes 46 0002/1-8 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 47 Payment of E'ee f©r. Crosiajig Guaxd 47 Completion of Common and Front Yard Landscaping 48. The applicant shall install front yard landscaping as approved on the landscape plans. Front yard and common landscaping shall be completed for each lot prior to it's occupancy. Acceptance of On -Site Improvements 49. No Final Inspection approval shall be granted prior to acceptance of site improvements such as perimeter and retaining walls, landscaping, fences, slopes, private recreation areas, and other improvements not related to grading, etc., or the applicant has provided sufficient security as approved by the Director of Community Development to guarantee completion of the improvements. Said on -site improvements shall be completed within 60 days of issuance of Final Inspection approval. In case of failure to comply with any term or provision of this agreement, the City Council may by resolution declare the surety forfeited. Upon completion of the required improvements to satisfaction of the City, the City Council may reduce the amount of the surety. However, the surety must be kept in full effect for one year after initial occupancy to guarantee the items such as perimeter and retaining walls, landscaping, fences, slopes, private recreation areas, and other improvements not related to grading, etc. are maintained. 50. All related perimeter and garden walls shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for occupancy. 00029 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 48 CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 51. The applicant shall have recorded Tract Map 5133. The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map shall apply to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 98 -1. MOORPARK POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT: 52. The applicant is required to adhere to applicable Police Department Requirements. WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO 1 CONDITION: 53. The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 5133 shall apply to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 98 -1 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 54. The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 5133 shall apply to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 98 -1. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT CONDITIONS: 55. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 miles per hour averaged over one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of fugitive dust. 56. All trucks that will haul excavated or graded material off - site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114 (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. 57. All unpaved on -site roads shall be periodically watered or treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 58. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of fugitive dust. 0002SO Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 49 59. All active portions of the site shall be either periodically watered or treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 60. On -site vehicle speeds shall not exceed 15 miles per hour. 61. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers specifications. MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CONDITION; 62. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits for construction, the applicant shall pay applicable school fees. 000251 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 50 MITIGATION /MONITORING PROGRAM TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5133 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 98 -1 Geology and Soils Mitigation and Monitoring Mitigations 1. The applicant shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a rough grading plan, consistent with the approved tentative map, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete the improvements; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion. The soils engineer as part of the grading permit will determine the extent and depth of soil removal and re- compaction necessary. 2. Concurrent with submittal of the rough grading plan an erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer. Along with these erosion control measures, hydroseeding and temporary irrigation shall be provided on all graded slopes within 30 days of completion of grading on those slopes. 3. The applicant shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, detailed Soils and Geology Reports certified by a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California. The geotechnical report shall include an investigation with regard to liquefaction, expansive soils, and seismic safety. In addition, the soils report shall discuss the contents of the soils as to the presence or absence of any hazardous waste or other contaminants in the soils. 4. All recommendations included in the geotechnical and geology reports shall be implemented during project design, grading, and construction. Monitorin Prior to issuance of Permits, the City Engineer will review and approve plans which incorporate measures which adequately reduce geotechnical concerns. Inspections will be made at various 0®0211 -1 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 51 stages of the building process to ensure building codes and engineering conditions have been satisfactorily addressed. Water Mitigation and Monitoring Mitigation Storm Water Runoff and Flood Control Planning 1. The Subdivider /Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, drainage plans, hydrologic and hydraulic calculations prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer; shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete public improvements and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of all improvements. 2. The plans shall depict all on -site and off -site drainage structures required by the City. 3. The drainage plans and calculations shall demonstrate that the following conditions will be satisfied before and after development. 4. Quantities of water, water flow rates, major water courses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps, sump locations, detention facilities, and drainage courses. Hydrology shall be per the current Ventura County Standards except as follows: 5. All storm drains shall carry a 10 -year frequency storm; 6. All catch basins shall carry a 10 -year storm; 7. All catch basins in a sump condition shall be sized such that depth of water at intake shall equal the depth of the approach flows; 8. All culverts shall carry a 100 -year frequency storm; 9. Drainage facilities shall be provided such that surface flows are intercepted and contained in an underground storm drain prior to entering collector or secondary roadways; 10. Under a 10 -year frequency storm, local, residential and private streets shall have one dry travel lane available on 000253 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 52 interior residential streets. Collector street shall have a minimum of one dry travel lane in each direction. 11. Drainage to adjacent parcels shall not be increased or concentrated by this development. All drainage measures necessary to mitigate storm water flows shall be provided by the Developer; 12. All drainage grates shall be designed and constructed with provisions to provide adequate bicycle safety to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 13. If the land to be occupied is in an area of special flood hazard, the Developer shall notify all potential buyers in writing of this hazard condition. The grading plan shall also show contours indicating the 50- and 100 -year flood levels. 14. All flows from brow ditches, ribbon gutters and similar devices shall be deposited into the storm drain system prior to entering streets. If necessary, the storm drain shall be extended beyond the public right -of -way through easements to eliminate surface flow between parcels. Both storm drain and easements outside the right -of -way are to be maintained by the owner unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 15. Concrete drainage structures shall be tan colored concrete, as approved by the Director of Community Development, and to the extent possible shall incorporate natural structure and landscape to reduce their visibility. 16. Drainage for the development shall be designed and installed with all necessary appurtenances to safely contain and convey storm flows to their final point of discharge, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 17. The Subdivider /Developer shall demonstrate for each building pad within the Tentative Map area that the following restrictions and protections can be put in place to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: 18. Adequate protection from a 100 -year frequency storm 19. Feasible access during a 50 -year frequency storm. 000254 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 53 20. Hydrology calculations shall be per current Ventura County Standards. 21. The Subdivider /Developer shall demonstrate that, upon occurrence of the failure of the storm drain system at the intersection of West Street and South Street, the storm overflow will pass to Arroyo Simi without flooding adjacent housing. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) 1. Prior to the issuance of any construction /grading permit and /or the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, the applicant /owner shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Control Plan ( SWPCP), on the form provided by the City for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. The SWPCP shall be developed and implemented in accordance with requirements of the Ventura Countywide Storm Water Quality Management Program, NPDES Permit No. CAS063339. 3. The SWPCP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to storm water and shall include the design and placement of recommended. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants from the construction site into the storm drain system during construction. 4. Prior to the issuance of any construction /grading permit and /or the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, the applicant /owner shall also submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the California State Water Resources Control Board, Storm Water Permit Unit in accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit (No. CASQ00002): Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities). The applicant /owner shall comply with all additional requirements of this General Permit including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) 5. The Subdivider /Developer shall obtain a permit from the State Water Resources Control Board for "All storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation results in land disturbances of five or more acres." The developer shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the City Engineers office as proof of permit application. 000255 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 54 6. Improvement plans shall note that the contractor shall comply to the "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks" 7. The Subdivider /Developer shall also comply with NPDES objectives as outlined in the "Storm Water Pollution Control Guidelines for Construction Sites ". This handout is available at the City Engineer's office and a copy will be attached to the approved grading permit. 8. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with conditions and requirements of the Ventura Countrywide Storm Water Quality Management Program, NPDES Permit No. CAS063339. 9. The project construction plans shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to the development for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. All on -site storm drain inlets, whether newly constructed or existing, shall be labeled "Don't Dump - Drains to Arroyo ". 11. Landscaped areas shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff and promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides which can contribute to urban runoff pollution. 12. Parking and associated drive areas with 5 or more spaces shall be designed to minimize degradation of storm water quality. Best Management Practices, such as oil /water separators, sand filters, landscaped areas for infiltration, basins or approved equals, shall be installed to intercept and effectively prohibit pollutants from discharging to the storm drain system. The design must be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. City Ordinance No. 100 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), require updating of the National Flood Insurance Program maps for affected areas whenever any alteration of the watercourse is made. All materials required by FEMA for a map revision shall be provided to the City Engineer's office. This material will demonstrate the revised flood plain locations following development. This information will be forwarded by the City Engineer to 00025G Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 55 the FEMA for review and updating of the National Flood Insurance Program maps. If updates to the flood zone have been made a conditional letter of map revision shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of a zone clearance for occupancy of the first residential unit. The Developer will be responsible for all costs charged by the FEMA and the City's administrative costs. 14. All structures proposed within the 100 -year flood zone shall be elevated at least one foot above the 100 -year flood level. 15. The Developer shall provide for all necessary on -site and off -site storm drain facilities required by the City to accommodate upstream and on -site flows. Facilities, as conceptually approved by the City, shall be delineated on the final drainage plans. Either on -site retention basins or storm water acceptance deeds from off -site property owners must be specified. Monitoring All plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits for construction. Periodic inspections will be made during construction to insure compliance with required conditions and City standards. Street Improvements Mitigation STREET IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS: 16. The Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of the improvements. Street improvements shall not be accepted by the City for maintenance until completion, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. Parking and wall maintenance shall be carried out by the Homeowners' Association. 17. Publicly dedicated streets shall conform to the design requirements of the Ventura County Road Standards (most recent revision), or as modified per City Resolution. 18. The street improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter, parkways, street lights, and signing, striping, interim striping and traffic control, paving, and any necessary transitions, to the satisfaction of the City 000257 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 56 Engineer. All driveway locations shall be approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. The Developer shall dedicate any additional right -of -way necessary to make all of the required improvements. 19. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction for each unit, the applicant shall pay a Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee for each of the residential units, except for the Affordable units which shall be paid prior to Final Inspection. Monitoring The City Engineer will review and approve all plans prior to issuance of building permits. Periodic inspections will be made at various stages during the building process to ensure that required conditions and requirements have been satisfied. Noise Mitigation 1. The first row of residential structures proposed adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue shall be constructed with windows, walls and roofs with an STC rating of 30 or greater. The applicant's engineer shall certify that this criteria has been met. A Ten (10) foot sound wall shall be constructed on the property line adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue. Monitoring Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant's engineer shall certify that this requirement has been satisfied. Transportation and Traffic 1. The entrance at "A" Street shall be designed to include traffic control devices acceptable to Caltrans and the City Engineer that prohibit left turn movements onto Los Angeles Avenue from "A" Street and onto "A" Street from Los Angeles Avenue. 2. The developer shall submit for review and approval traffic counts /estimates for stacking of vehicles at the entrance of "A" Street during peak hours. The Developer shall justify that the design of the entrance of "A" Street is 000258 Conditions RPD 98 -1, TT 5133 Page 57 adequate for peak hour stacking of vehicles and truck turning radius movements. The Developer shall submit for review and approval traffic data to justify the design of deceleration and acceleration lanes on Los Angeles Avenue. 3. The Developer shall make a special contribution to the City representing the Developer's pro -rata share of the cost of improvements at the following intersections: New Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road ($165,000) New Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue ($65,000) Poindexter Avenue /Moorpark Avenue ($120,000) The actual contribution (pro -rata share) shall be based upon the additional traffic added to the intersection. The Developer's traffic engineer shall provide the City Engineer an estimate of the projected numbers for calculation of the pro -rata share. Monitoring Prior to recordation of the final map, the City Engineer will insure that these requirements have been satisfied. 000259 IL L, Ntf. iX,WO 14 b !- I J � I I AN 50-On -r wu � L 1 �f ! 41. f .� 1 i it �• »- r t mum M� JUL 3 -- -- 7 1 ----- - - - - -- - - -PROPOSED ! ' ; I - �- LOT 1 PARCEL 1 1.96 .AC. 7. - IN -32 AF« 50- 1. I - 1, t- It i Ij -- a�--- -- -- LOT PROPMED �L_i LOT 2 2.26 AC. J� �PROP©SE4. LO- 3 t` -- 7- T - =. -_ t N I I ._,.....�-- -���� —'- --� I � TRACT 3537-3, � M.R. 26/2r= f� r I T�IA�T 353 3.99 M.R. 26/27 =_L y . �,. ......4m:-=r3rrsre:�r :tL .. $C:ts:s. LaGt�� PARCEL t .rw•.� •.•.• �+k� seef �ottt U7 .... ........ pre- `w=w mum comma: comrom •rlil4Tii�a.. . _ -..::« �'� �.:r�•t: �..= •.:r_-�ar:.s�.�.•a••�uw.. 3:a_•,cr,.. .g±�u .•rrr.- r�rr+r.�.r.« r!l j11 :r•• -irw:r �i. sr w iafr• � •�.. •rr. rrr•aw •rr•Ywr •.rYrrYr�- r.F.•r Y�wr. `•+•-•.emu.. `r Yeww wrar� rr.rrrrrr run � ... r. •w WIN "' i�wiY +:«.. •: �:, . fir. - 1 I .� •�srs�atrsl.essltra r,...r..rY.r�.,.� OF- �llirlraisao�s��• -- ..r. �w._r_...Y,...w CeiA ..�,= :ot,e- c.->:� =� :. "•~fw,:t w, 0 •�1•!! • • ---- _....,.rte..,....,... �;;�• -c� ,.:r►.-- n. -s:x, �m �m � r,., w�•YYr��r.• O.rw.w..rrr�w"i+i.ww. ."...°� fir• lleiaof/:a�'ii1Y'r r. r •� .r. r �. u �r +�� •1♦�Sl4�a`• -r -`- '• -r • ..�.:i w'�-. �• � d OTY OF MOORPARK •i�nlenrrrrr.•rw•.rr... ww....r.�rr.-rw 1RIHT�EG11411 rr• ..�r�w.r_.._ • -•« 1t _ VESTING FM CON TRAM�'0. 6133 . .�...�Y•.wr.�. rte. -xs- OATk .rrr r.r. rs.r r r r Y�Yww :w. �irrrr rw C C b J I) l raT¢ ray urr woc ti.r� •ti Yra =w. Avn 506. 020.31 APM sa -= -u \ \ WLW o it. Vol,; mvNw CRY OF AN)GWNK 'Z. raw Sm PLAN vwnmG MMA— 1MCf NO. !1 3 r.r :t I •I I I I I � I I �I 'I yI L t VI i 11 \ D 1 1 J A 1 1 1 \ 0 MR: Mu M MM .M1,ornNala wo wMnsnMieluME � f'MaMMMt• �+- „�, � MM) MWi 10 CWMMi N AML DOW KiM — l- '�? •,' �•` GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN VB1M1G flWA M Ma NO. 5123 —. -M I I 1- -- 11 1 I I� 1\ I - —I. , I .. _1 t VI i 11 \ D 1 1 J A 1 1 1 \ 0 MR: Mu M MM .M1,ornNala wo wMnsnMieluME � f'MaMMMt• �+- „�, � MM) MWi 10 CWMMi N AML DOW KiM — l- '�? •,' �•` GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN VB1M1G flWA M Ma NO. 5123 —. -M MLLMV A yp� k J Z TYWeti MINT YARD nm►nWr f•M - - I ° I I I I 11 1 L---J F-I YM YW.Ir� HIV AVL MIO a�amaar� AP 5I6 -030 -32 w -�•w O LANDSCAM PLAN nL _ un Sao sr m m """, . '° _ vow nt m =T Q C C C.2 ' oww.or.•o - - ---------- J �I 1 1 �. WEST ELEVATION .rx. w•.r -r EAST ELEVATION .�. w•.rs NORTH ELEVATION .uru . w•.ro wrrew• cor.rr. SOUTH ELEVATION rxa . w•.r-0• noon v:z u �.t CF E`.i e° J° •jj mil• O ` A fillW g� 8 I� A -1 PLAN ONE FRONT ELEVq - 1562 SQ. FT. f,-o O O Ly 0 - PLAN TWO _S_ PLANE THREE - 1770 SQ. FT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BV ME Cnyop MOORPARK FAR WEST HOMES , LLC (poRMERLYXDtXH0 &ASSOCZATF4 LLC) O all RIGHT ELEVATION �C�l� . VI..1'.O• LEFT ELEVATION _ KX TYI. NYfLe Leo" T .YO IIOY � YOLV —/ > W TK EMI s v � •h. • I; a�� REAR ELEVATION �C.IL� . VI••f -O' FRONT ELEVATION �C.W YI•.1'O fail ut:ij w �g C C C i� ti RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ,C,,, V,. r�r REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION -.W.,.,, 111 c' J ` � 3 r ° Q � . V C F RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION rxi . w•.r -y REAR ELEVATION �CY� • w••YO• FRONT ELEVATION cNa w•.r4 D no W e� �LL 692:000 PROPOSED PLAN ONE - ,642 8F. D MOORPARK PROJECT Roger H. Lindeman, A rchstoec FAWWE3T HOMES, LLC M .......u- r c7 �- XI s- I" MCI Ann i. r_ PROPOSED PLAN ONE - ,642 8F. D MOORPARK PROJECT Roger H. Lindeman, A rchstoec FAWWE3T HOMES, LLC M .......u- r SECOND FLOOR 996 SQ. FT. C` FIRST FLOOR 685 SQ. FT mt W J aW i 0 x If a Q °NJ SECOND FLOOR 1174 SQ. FT FIRST FLOOR 596 SQ. FT I Jull non Lnl _ � MZ4� P9G)� .i - -co Zm �� coo -i EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE 5 &m ' co Z w~ �� mm / �m �� _^ ~. ----__-___---_-__--_--�-_- - &o ^ - < �� «� K� — -- -- -- --' �---- --�- —~-- -- --- -- -- -- -- �� =� �� -_-_----___-___- w* �� �� E0GnwO PARKING STR(|(ll' X . MEMO MINIM EMOK main ONE EWEN &m ' co Z w~ �� mm / �m �� _^ ~. ----__-___---_-__--_--�-_- - &o ^ - < �� «� K� — -- -- -- --' �---- --�- —~-- -- --- -- -- -- -- �� =� �� -_-_----___-___- w* �� �� E0GnwO PARKING STR(|(ll' X . G) coZD o � 9D G) c: M-- z � Co /� EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE i