Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2000 1018 CC REG ITEM 09AITEM q.A* CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFOILNIA City Council Meeting of !6 /!8/0ooc7 ACTION: APPROUEO RnoPory o r RESC . kavi: EP• JM opuGE� �e0 2fdq Con MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL , /-45-2,0-50, E AGENDA REPORT �_ --- - - ---- -- TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Acting Director of Community Development .� J-F Prepared by Paul Porter, Principal Planne96. DATE: October 10, 2000 (CC Meeting of 10/18/2000) SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment (GPA) 99 -2 to Change the Land Use Designation From C -2 to VH and OS -2; GPA 99 -5 to Change the Land Use Designation From C -2 to I- 2; Zone Change 99 -4 to Change the Zoning Designation From CPD to RPD -7.6 AND OS; and Zone Change 99 -5 to Change the Zoning Designation From CPD to M -2 on the Application of Pacific Community Builders (GPA 99 -2 and ZC 99 -4) and Triliad Development Inc. (GPA 99 -5 and ZC 99 -5) BACKGROUND Pacific Community Builders Project General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2: This General Plan Amendment is a request to change the land use designation on approximately 4.87 acres of land from C -2 (General Commercial) to VH (Very High Density, 15 units per acre maximum) with the exception of an area along the southerly portion of the property required to be dedicated to the Ventura County Flood Control District, and is recommended for a Land Use designation of Open Space 2 (OS- 2). The VH land use designation has been requested, because the maximum density for the High land use designation is 7 dwelling units per acre, and the proposed density is 7.6 dwelling units per acre. Zone Change No. 99 -4: This Zone Change is a request for a change in the zoning designation on approximately 4.87 acres of land from CPD (Commercial Planned Development) to RPD -7.6 (Residential Planned Development Permit, 7.6 dwelling units per acre) with the exception of the area along the southern portion of the property required to be dedicated to the Ventura County C. G 01 Honorable City Council October 10, 2000 Page 2 Flood Control District which designation of OS (Open Space). Location: This General Plan located on a 4.87 acre parcel Liberty Bell Road adjacent to and Triliad Development, Inc. Project is recommended for a zoning Amendment and Zone Change is located on the east side of north of the Arroyo Simi. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5: This General Plan Amendment is a request to change the Land Use designation on approximately 10.75 acres of a 32.65 acre parcel from C -2 (General Commercial) to I -2 (Medium Industrial) . The remainder of the property is designated I -2 (Medium Industrial). Zone Change No. 99 -5: This Zone Change is a request to change the zoning designation on approximately 10.75 acres of a 32.65 acre parcel of land from CPD (Commercial Planned Development) to M -2 (Limited Industrial). The remainder of the property is currently designated M -2. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 and Zone Change No. 99 -4 are located on the west side of Liberty Bell Road, adjacent to, and north of the Arroyo Simi. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 and Zone Change No. 99 -5 are located on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue west of Gabbert Road and the Southern California Edison substation, and northwest of the intersection of Butter Creek Road and Los Angeles Avenue. Location: This General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is located on approximately 10.75 acres located on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue north of the intersection of Butter Creek Road and Los Angeles Avenue. Planning Commission Action On September 11, 2000, a pubic hearing was held before the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened, testimony received on both General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes and the opened public hearing was continued to September 25, 2000, to allow time for the applicant to place the public hearing sign on the subject property along the Liberty Bell Road frontage. At the hearing of September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission &ICommunity DevelopmentlEveryonelCity Council Agenda Reportslcc- 001018 PecCommTriliad staff report doc C v 10100ti Honorable City Council October 10, 2000 Page 3 recommended to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes because of the reduced traffic as a result of the changes in land use and the compatibility of allowable uses with adjacent properties. PRIOR ACTIONS Pacific Community Builders Project General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 and Zone Change No. 99 -4: On March 17, 1999, the City Council agreed to consider a General Plan Amendment on this commercially designated parcel of land to permit a residential land use designation of either Medium or High density residential with consistent accompanying residential zoning. The City received an application for Residential Planned Development Permit 99 -04 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5204 on April 2, 1999 for 37 single - family residences. The submittal is consistent with Residential Planned Development Permit No. 96 -01 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5053 approved by the City Council on June 16, 1999 for 247 single - family dwellings on an adjacent site to the west. This current project will be part of the adjacent development (RPD 96 -1) through access and circulation and as part of the Homeowners Association. A Development Agreement between the City and the applicant was also executed on June 16, 1999 and provides for Affordable Housing and other items for the City's benefit such as financial contributions and infrastructure improvements. The requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are needed to insure compatibility of the two adjoining projects. Triliad Development, Inc. Project General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 and Zone Change No. 99 -5: This property was the subject of a General Plan Amendment from a land use designation of I -2 to C -2 and a change in zoning from M -2 to CPD in 1992, as a result of a request from the then property owner, Bugle Boy Industries. The reason for this change on approximately 10.75 of the total 32.65 acres was to accommodate future retail sales of on -site manufactured products. The site S:ICommunity DevelopmentlEveryonelCity Council Agenda Reportslcc- 001018 PacCommTdliad staff report.doc CC(11 03 Honorable City Council October 10, 2000 Page 4 has since been sold to a developer who intends to utilize the entire site for industrial purposes. On December 29, 1999, Planned Development industrial buildings and Tentative Tract industrial subdivisio DISCUSSION an application was received for Industrial Permit Nos. 99 -05 through 99 -10 for totaling approximately 586,000 square feet Map No. 5217, a proposal for a six -lot n. It has been deemed incomplete. Pacific Community Builders Project General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 and Zone Change No. 99 -4: This request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone change would allow for similar residential uses as approved for RPD 96 -1, which is an approved 247 unit residential project located contiguous and west of the project site. The proposed residential project will provide an east -west link to Liberty Bell Road for the residential project to the west. Residential uses for the proposed project area are also compatible with the existing single family residences located on the east -side of Liberty Bell Road. A gas station /car wash and mini - market facility is located to the north of the site on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue. This residential project as proposed, will have an eight (8) foot high wall as a buffer from the existing car wash along its northerly property line. The change in land use designation to allow a Very High density residential land use is consistent with the Land Use and Housing Elements of the City's General Plan in that affordable housing for moderate - income households will be provided on this site, which will contribute to the Land Use Element goal of providing a variety of housing types and opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Triliad Development Inc. Project General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 and Zone Change No. 99 -5: The proposed change in land use and zoning designation to allow industrial uses is consistent with the existing General Plan S:ICommunity DevelopmenAEveryone1Ciry Council Agenda Reports1cc- 001018 PacCommTdliad staff report.doc C v V 0 0 4 Honorable City Council October 10, 2000 Page 5 Land Use designation of I -2 General Plan designation and M -2 zoning designations of the properties located to the north, east and west of the site. The proposed change in land use is also consistent with the Land Use Element, as it will provide additional industrial land located adjacent to other industrial zoned land along the north side of a six -lane arterial (State Route 118) . Approval of the General Plan Amendment to allow industrial uses on the site through the project approval process and as such, will require public improvements and financial contributions. If the requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are approved, an Industrial Planned Development Permit would be required for any specific development project proposed for the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Consider the Negative Declaration prepared for the requested General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes prior to making a decision on the General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2000- approving General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 and 99 -5. 4. Introduce Ordinance No. approving Zone Change No. 99 -4 and Ordinance No. approving Zone Change No. 99 -5 for first reading. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution fo: 2. Draft Ordinance for 3. Draft Ordinance for 4. Planning Commission 5. Planning Commission with attachments r GPA 99 -2 and GPA 99 -5 ZC 99 -4 ZC 99 -5 Resolutions Staff Report, dated September 11, 2000, S.Zommunity Deve)opmenf EveryonelCity Council Agenda Reportslcc- 001018 PacCommTdliad staff report.doc CCCOOS RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 99 -2 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM C -2 TO VH AND OS -2 ON AN APPROXIMATELY 4.8 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND (APN 506 -0- 050 -505), ON THE APPLICATION OF PACIFIC COMMUNITIES; AND GPA 99 -5 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM C -2 TO I -2 ON AN APPROXIMATELY 10.75 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND (APN 500 -0 -340 -080) ON THE APPLICATION OF TRILIAD DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing on October 18, 2000, the City Council considered the following General Plan Amendments: A. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 filed by Pacific Community Builders for a change in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan from General Commercial (C -2) to Very High Density Residential (VH) (15DU /Acre Maximum) and Open Space (OS -2), 1 dwelling unit /40acres, for an approximately 4.8 acre site located on the west side of Liberty Bell Road adjacent to and north of the Arroyo Simi (APN No. 506 -0- 050 -505); and B. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 filed by Triliad Development, Inc. for a change in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan from General Commercial (C -2) to Medium Industrial (I -2) on approximately 10.75 acres of land, located on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue west of Gabbert Road and the Southern California Edison substation, and northwest of the intersection of Butter Creek Road and Los Angeles Avenue (APN No. portion of 500 -0- 340 -08); and WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 18, 2000, the City Council opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and closed the public hearing; and S: \Community Development \Everyone \City Council Agenda Reports \cc - 001018 gpacc.res for both gpa's.doc ATTACHMENT c� "o06 City Council Resolution General Plan Amendment No.99 -2 and 99 -5 Page No. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for each General Plan Amendment are complete, have been prepared in compliance with CEQA and City policy, and that the contents in each Negative Declaration and Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on the proposed General Plan Amendment requests; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff reports and testimony, has made a decision in the matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES RESOLVE HEREBY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council determines that the Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for each component of the General Plan Amendment are complete, have been prepared in compliance in CEQA, and City policy, and that the contents in each Negative Declaration and Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions for the General Plan Amendments. SECTION 2. Declarations base proposed General adverse effect on The City Council adopts the Negative d upon the conclusion that the impacts for the Plan Amendments will not have a significant the environment. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves: A. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 filed by Pacific Community Builders for a change in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan from General Commercial (C -2) to Very High Density Residential (VH) (15DU /Acre Maximum) and Open Space (OS -2), 1 dwelling unit /40acres, for an approximately 4.8 acre site located on the west side of Liberty Bell Road adjacent to and north of the Arroyo Simi (APN No. 506 -0- 050 -505); and B. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 filed by Triliad Development, Inc. for a change in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan from General Commercial (C -2) to Medium City Council Resolution General Plan Amendment No.99 -2 and 99 -5 Page No. 3 Industrial (I -2) on approximately 10.75 acres of land, located on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue west of Gabbert Road and the Southern California Edison substation, and northwest of the intersection of Butter Creek Road and Los Angeles Avenue (APN No. portion of 500 -0- 340 -08). SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of October, 2000. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk Exhibit A: General Plan Exhibit Maps RESOLUTION NO. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 99 -2 w W 0 r 1 AVE. I n c A C -2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO VH (VERY HIGH) WITH EXCEPTION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND WILL BE DESIGNATED AS OS -2 (OPEN SPACE 2) A 4.86 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF: 1 1QPD'ry ncr r ROAD EXHIBIT RESOLUTION. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 99 -5 C -2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO 1 -2 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) 10.75 ACRES OF A 32.85 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON LOS ANGELES AVENUE LOCATED WEST OF THE EDISON SUBSTATION ASSESSOR PARCEL NO, 500 -0- 340 -08 Cl -000�0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO.99 -4 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON UNDEVELOPED LAND LOCATED EAST OF LIBERTY BELL ROAD ADJACENT TO AND NORTH OF THE ARROYO SIMI (APN. 506 -0- 050 -505) FROM COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPD) 7.6 UNITS PER ACRE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AREA ALONG THE SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT WHICH SHALL BE REZONED TO OPEN SPACE (OS) ON THE APPLICATION OF PACIFIC COMMUNITY BUILDERS WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on October 18, 2000, the City Council considered the application filed by Pacific Community Builders for approval of Zone Change No. 99 -4 for a change in the zoning designation on the property from Commercial Planned Development Permit (CPD) to Residential Planned Development (RPD) 7.6 units per acre and Open Space (OS); and WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 18, 2000, the City Council opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and closed the public hearing on October 18, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff reports and testimony, has made a decision in the matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has determined that the Negative Declaration /Initial Study for the Zone Change is complete, has been prepared in compliance in CEQA and City policy, and the contents in the Negative Declaration /Initial Study have been considered in the decisions on the proposed Zone Change. SECTION 2. The City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. SECTION 3. The City Council has determined that the impacts for the proposed Zone Change would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Zone Change will be in conformance with the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby finds that approval of this Zone Change request is in accord with public necessity, ATTACHMENT, C.v001- 1 Ordinance for Zone Change No. 99 -4 Page No. 2 convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice and that for those reasons it is appropriate to reclassify the subject property to RPD 7.6 dwelling units per acre and OS as the site would provide a suitable location for single- family residential dwellings. SECTION 6. The 99 -4 changing the Commercial Planned Development 7.6 (RPD land to be dedicated which is rezoned to City Council hereby approves Zone Change No. zoning designation on the property from Development (CPD) to Residential Planned 7.6 units per acre) with the exception of the to the Ventura County Flood Control District Open Space (OS) . SECTION 7. The City Council hereby directs staff to amend the City Zoning Map to reflect the approved Zone Change consistent with attached Exhibit "A ". SECTION 8. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 9. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city; shall make a minute order of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published once in the Moorpark Star, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government Code, for the City of Moorpark, and which is hereby designated for that purpose. eC0012 Ordinance for Zone Change No. 99 -4 Page No. 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2000. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A C00 ©13 ZONE CHANGE NO. 99-4 rl AVE. LOS A CPD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) TO RPD 7.6 (RESIDENTIAL -! PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 7.6 UNITS PER ACRE) WITH EXCEPTION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND WILL BE DESIGNATED AS OS-40 (OPEN SPACE 40 ACRE MINIMUM) A 4.86 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LIBERTY BELL ROAD f iT EXH B C 11".10 0 14 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO.99 -5 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 10.75 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF BUTTER CREEK ROAD AND LOS ANGELES AVENUE (APN. 500 -0- 340 -080) FROM COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD) TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (M -2) ON THE APPLICATION OF TRILIAD DEVELOPMENT INC. WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on October 18, 2000, the City Council considered the application filed by Triliad Development Inc. for approval of Zone Change No. 99 -5 for a change in the zoning designation on the property from Commercial Planned Development Permit (CPD) to Limited Industrial (M -2); and WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 18, 2000, the City Council opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and closed the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff reports and testimony, has made a decision in the matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has determined that the Negative Declaration /Initial Study for the Zone Change is complete, has been prepared in compliance in CEQA and City policy, and the contents in the Negative Declaration /Initial Study have been considered in the decisions on the proposed Zone Change. SECTION 2. The City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. SECTION 3. The City Council has determined that the impacts for the proposed Zone Change would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Zone Change will be in conformance with the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby finds that approval of this Zone Change request is in accord with public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice and that for those reasons it is appropriate to reclassify the subject property \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \Everyone \City Council Agenda Reports \cc - 001018 zone Change 99 -5 Ord.doc ATTACHMENT Ordinance for Zone Change No. 99 -5 Page No. 2 to M -2 as the site would provide a suitable location for industrial uses. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change No. 99 -4 changing the zoning designation on the property of approximately 10.75 acres from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to Limited Industrial (M -2). SECTION 7. The City Council hereby directs staff to amend the City Zoning Map to reflect the approved Zone Change consistent with attached Exhibit "A ". SECTION 8. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 9. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city; shall make a minute order of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published once in the Moorpark Star, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government Code, for the City of Moorpark, and which is hereby designated for that purpose. \ \MOR PRZ SERV \City Share \Community Development \Everyone \City Council Agenda Reports \cc - 001018 Zone Change 99 -5 Ord.doc C OX1 A G Ordinance for Zone Change No. 99 -5 Page No. 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2000. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A \ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \Everyone \City Council Agenda Reports \cc - 001018 Zone Change 99 -5 Ord.doc CCC017 ZONE CHANGE NO. 99 -5 r r r + t. - 1 CPD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) TO M -2 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) --- 10.75 ACRES OF A 32.65 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON LOS ANGELES AVENUE WEST OF THE EDISON SUBSTATION EXHIBIT 018 RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2000 -393 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 99 -2 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM C -2 TO VH AND OS -2 ON APPROXIMATELY A 4.8 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND (APN 506 -0- 050 -505), ON THE APPLICATION OF PACIFIC COMMUNITIES; AND, GPA 99 -5 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM C -2 TO I -2 ON APPROXIMATELY 10.75 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND (APN 500 -0- 340 -080) ON APPLICATION OF TRILIAD DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing on September 11, 2000, and September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the following General Plan Amendments: A. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 filed by Pacific Community Builders for a change in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan from General Commercial (C -2) to Very High Density Residential (VH) (15DU /Acre Maximum) and Open Space (OS -2) (1 dwelling unit /40acres) located on the west side of Liberty Bell Road adjacent to and north of the Arroyo Simi (APN No. 506 -0- 050 -505); and B. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 filed by Triliad Development Inc. for a change in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan on approximately 10.75 acres of land, (a portion of Assessor Parcel No. 500 - 340 -080) from General Commercial (C -2) to Medium Industrial (I -2) located on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue west of Gabbert Road and the Southern California Edison substation, and northwest of the intersection of Butter Creek Road and Los Angeles Avenue (APN No. portion of 500 -0- 340 -08); and WHEREAS, at its meeting of September 11, 2000, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and continued the public hearing to September 25, 2000; and S: \Community Developmer.t \Everyone \Resolutions and Conditions \pc - 000925 Triliad and Pac Comm GPA's reso.doc ATTACHMENT CC0019 Resolution No. PC- 2000 -393 GPA 99 -2 & 99 -5 Page No. 2 WHEREAS, on September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for each General Plan Amendment is complete, has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and City policy, and that the contents in each Negative Declaration and Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on the proposed General Plan Amendment requests; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff reports and testimony, has made a decision in the matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planninc Commission determines that the Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for each component of the General Plan Amendment is complete, has been prepared in ccmpliance in CEQA, and City policy, and that the cor;terits in each Negative Declaration and Initial Study has been considered in the various decisions for the General Plan Amendment. apprcximate' y 9 . & , - .c,res SECTION 2. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council. adopt.Jon of the Negative Declaration based upor the cor:ciiusi on t17a7 tree impacts for the proposed General Plan �rrcr:drrlcnts ;; :: no'. have a significant adverse effect on t:`Ze er':vironmer:t. The Planning Commiss.ior. recommends to the City U P_ar. T�mendment -2 - or a chance in La::,: Use C-r. —al Comme -cial ;C- -o Very l:ic', D —si -.y Re e n t .', : i F v, i t. h the exceoti on of the area a' or:c lie t'.;.ri :' p %;r`.= -'n cf the propert..- reauire.d to be dedicated t:) tt,e C'or.troI Di:.`rict wt;i.ch is to have a iar'. use C. l O :r: .:pace 2 . _ E -2) , on apprcximate' y 9 . & , - .c,res e'iSt of L,iberty Bell Rcad and bordered b'-,- tie C �00 AZ" 0 Resolution No. PC- 2000 -393 GPA 99 -2 & 99 -5 Page No. 3 flood control channel to the south (APN. 506 -0- 050 -505) on the application of Pacific Community Builders. B. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 for a change in Land Use Designation from General Commercial (C -2) to Medium Industrial (I -2) on approximately 10.75 acres of land located on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue northwest of the intersection of Batter Creek Road and Los Angeles Avenue (APN. 500 -0- 340 -080) on the application of Triliad Development Inc. The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DiCecco, Parvin, Otto, Landis, and Haller NOES. ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED TEIS 25TH, DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2000 h7a�,c 1Cecc Chair A'i' TEST . iia LaFleur, Secretary t:' e Plarini P.g Comrr.i ssic_, t A: General P :. ;n Exhibit aps C k1j,0ZI RESOLUTION NO. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 99 -2 w w 0 AVE. LOS A C -2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO VH (VERY HIGH) WITH EXCEPTION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND WILL BE DESIGNATED AS OS -2 (OPEN SPACE 2) A 4.86 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE C» I Iii =QTV Dal ROAD EXHIBIT A CC RESOLUTION. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 99 -5 C -2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO 1 -2 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) 10.75 ACRES OF A 32.65 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON LOS ANGELES AVENUE LOCATED WEST OF THE EDISON SUBSTATION ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 500 -0- 340 -08 CC0023 RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2000 -394 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 99 -4 FOR A CHANGE IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CPD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)TO RPD 7.6 (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 7.6 UNITS PER ACRE), WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AREA ALONG THE SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT WHICH IS TO HAVE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF OS (OPEN SPACE), ON APPROXIMATELY 4.87 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF LIBERTY BELL ROAD ADJACENT TO AND NORTH OF THE ARROYO SIMI (APN. 506 -0- 050 -505) ON THE APPLICATION OF PACIFIC COMMUNITY BUILDERS WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the application filed by Paciric Community Builders nor approval of Zone Change No. 99 -4 for a change in zhe Zoning Designation from CPD (Commercial Planned, Development) td, RPD 7.6 (Residential Planned Development 7.6 uni-:�s per acre) with the exception e-f the land to be dedicated: to the Flood Control District which will be zoned OS (Open Space); and W.'E-=S, t its meeting of September 11., 2000, the Planning Commiss_cn opened t:re public hearing, ::ook testimony from all hosc? ;fishing to testi._y, and cor.tinueci the public hearing ;.o `eptern�= r 25, 2060; and f- ?EAS, :)n September 2`;, 200O3 the Planning CGI ":T.1SS1.On 01.10_1c :.ea, inq; and ._:r,r._ -._ - 1 �: �. :. \Ev�•r•, .Res:,lc�i :�n' �rrrl_`_..�. 1��:: ",.._ [,;c re::_...� . �o �� Resolution No. PC- 2000 -394 ZC No. 99 -4 Page No. 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the Negative Declaration and Initial Study is complete, has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and City policy, and the contents of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on the proposed Zone Change; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff reports and testimony, has made a decision in this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVERS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission determines that the Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for the Zone Change is complete, has been prepared in compliance in CEQA, and City policy, and that the contents in the Negative Declaration and Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on the proposed Zone Change. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission determined that the impacts for the proposes: Zone Charge would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. SECTI -CON 3. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration. SECTIC 4. The Planning Commission recom -mends to the City Council approval of a change i.r. :-.he Zoning designation to RPD 7.6 (Residential Planned Development Permit 7.6 units per acre), with the excnptl .. "1 cf tln2 area n . ong `he soatheriy portion of t h:' pro_>e, ty recuired t.o he dedica ed t_o tte Ventura County Flood :.on::rol Dis-r_m which is to have v Zone des.i_gna7 ion of OS (Open :pa7e) on approx matoly 4.97 ......cs of land located east Of T :ber:v BelL Road and birder::: -.he flood ccntrol channel -o the _.out.. AFN. 516-5-050-507 . ;.. the opplicanion of Pacir =.. Commurity 3 i1ders. Resolution No. PC- 2000 -394 ZC No. 99 -4 Page No. 3 The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner's Haller. DiCecco.Otto. Landis. and Parvin NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH, DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2000 Ma DiC.ec o, Chair ATTEST: re1ia La Fleur, Secretary `_o r_hCe Planninc Commission Exhibit A: Zone Change Map ZONE CHANGE NO. 99-4 w w 0 AVE. LOS A CPD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) TO RPD 7.6 (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 7.6 UNITS PER ACRE) WITH EXCEPTION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND WILL BE DESIGNATED AS OS-40 (OPEN SPACE 40 ACRE MINIMUM) A 4.86 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LIBERTY BELL ROAD A e ' UO2,7 EXHIBIT RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2000 -395 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 99 -5 FOR A CHANGE IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CPD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) TO M -2 (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL), ON APPROXIMATELY 10.75 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE NORTHWEST OF BUTTER CREEK ROAD AND LOS ANGELES AVENUE, (APN. 500 -0- 340 -080) ON TEE APPLICATION OF TRILIAD DEVELOPMENT INC. WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing on September 11 and 25, 2000, the Pl anning Commission considered the application filed by Triliad Development Inc. for approval of Zone Change No. 99 -5 for a change in the "Zoning Designation on approximately 10.75 acres of land, (a portion of Assessor Parcel No. 500 -340- 180) from CPD (Commercial Pla=ed Development) to M -2 (Limited Industrial); and WHEREAS, at its meeting of September 11, 2000, the Planning Commission opened the pud is fearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and continued the public hearing to September 25, 2000; and WHEREAS, on `'epLemoer 25, 2000, the Planning Commission closed the public Knaring; ar.d WHEREAS, ' Ke Planning Commission has determined that the Naga L ve Declaratior. and _.._•..i vl. Study has been prepared in m : :a: ce wi h C'Q -. and 7iLy pclicy, and the conten s of zhe ;JyQh i o Declaration and iriLia! S.__.dy has been considered -r: 'Au 7arious decisic7s an fee pr, _71ised Zone Change; and ,...-;. EAS, 10, _ l ann i (:or. ni ssil", after review and _'(:gin adoration of zhe lnf ., rma -_on contained in the s'aff report nW .,- MOn.y, has made a _,.. ._.._ :on in the matter. C00028 Resolution No. PC- 2000 -395 ZC No. 99 -5 Page No. 2 MOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission determines that the Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for the Zone Change is complete, has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and City policy, and the contents in the Negative Declaration and Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on the proposed Zone Change. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission determined that the impacts for the proposed Zone Change would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Co:incil adoption of the Negative Declaration. SECTION 4 . The Planning Commission recommends to the City Counc-;l approval of a charge in zoning designation from CPD (Commercial Planned Development; to M -2 (Limited Industrial) on aonroximately 10.75 acres of land located on the north side of Los i-igeles Avenue northwest of the intersection of Butter Creek PC "a and Los Angeles Avenue (%:PN. 500 -0- 340 -080) on the of Triliad Develoome:l` :,c. i'}: a,-tion of the foregci -g d i.rec-,.ion was approved by the f i :o:.ing roll call vote: Commissioner's Otto. Parvin. Landis. Haller and DiCecco AND ADOPTED T;! I-' `'1'.H, D ?'.Y OF SEPTEM3ER, 2030 1,1 a" k D LCecco, Chair L. .. 0 2 Resolution No. PC- 2000 -395 ZC No. 99 -5 Page No. 3 ATTEST: Celia LaFleur, ecretary to the Planning Commission Exhibit A: Zone Change Map C "O e". 0 ZONE CHANGE NO. 99 -5 1 1 Hou-YG I ! T. r-LQ2 PYGLEN CT. CPD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) TO M -2 (LIGHT i INDUSTRIAL) 10.75 ACRES OF A 32.65 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON LOS ANGELES AVENUE WEST OF THE EDISON SUBSTATION EXHIBIT (1 Cc0o'-.;g F11 9. A. B. City of Moorpark Community Development Department Staff Report Planning Commission Meeting Date: September 11, 2000 GPA 99 -2 General Plan Amendment (GPA) 99 -2 to change the Land Use designation from C -2 to VH and and 99 -5; OS -2; GPA 99 -5 to change the land use ZC 99 -4 designation from C -2 to I -2; Zone Change 99 -4 and 99 -5 to change the zoning designation from CPD to RPD -7.6; and Zone Change 99 -5 to change the zoning designation from CPD to M -2. GPA 99 -2, ZC 99 -4: 506 -0- 050 -505 APN GPA 99 -5, ZC 99 -5: 500 -0- 340 -08 (portion) CEQA Negative Declaration, both projects Applicants: Pacific Community Builders (GPA 99 -2 and ZC 99 -4) & Triliad Development, Inc. (GPA 99 -5 AND ZC 99 -5) REQUEST: General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 is a request to change the land Use designation on approximately 4.87 acres of land from C -2 (General Commercial) to VH (Very High Density 15 units per acre maximum) with the exception of area along the southerly portion of the property required to be dedicated to the Ventura County Flood Control District which is recommended for a Land Use designation of Open Space 2 (OS -2). Zone Change No. 99 -4 is a request for a change in the zoning designation on approximately 4.87 acres of land from CPD (Commercial Planned Development) to RPD -7.6 (Residential Planned Development Permit 7.6 dwelling units per acre) with the exception of the area along the southern portion of the property required to be dedicated to the Ventura County Flood Control District which is recommended for a zoning designation of OS (Open Space). General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 is a request to change the Land Use designation on approximately 10.75 acres of land of a 32.65 acre parcel from C -2 (General Commercial) to I -2 (Medium Industrial). The remainder of the property is designated I -2. Zone Change No. 99 -5 is a request to change the zoning designation on approximately 10.75 acres of a 32.65 acre parcel of land from CPD (Commercial Planned Development) to M -2 (Limited Industrial). The remainder of the property is designated M -2. Planning Commission action on these two General Plan Amendments and accompanying Zone Changes will form a recommendation to the City Council who will take final action. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A separate Negative Declaration has been prepared for both General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes. ATTACHMENT-5 Cv��0 3 2 Planning Commission Staff Report September 11,2000 Page No. 3 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ACTIONS: General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 and Zone Change No. 99 -4 This property was the subject of a General Plan Amendment from a land use designation of I -2 to C -2 and a change in zoning from M -2 to CPD in 1992, as a result of a request from the then property owner, Bugle Boy Industries. The reason for this change on approximately 10.75 of the total 32.65 acres was to accommodate future retail sales of on -site manufactured products. The site has since been sold to a developer who intends to utilize the entire site for industrial purposes. On December 29, 1999, an application was received for Industrial Planned Development Permit Nos. 99 -05 through 99 -10 for industrial buildings totaling approximately 586,000 square feet and Tentative Tract Map No. 5217, a proposal for a six lot industrial subdivision. This industrial project will be scheduled for a subsequent Planning Commission Public Hearing in October, 2000. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 and Zone Change No. 99 -5 On March 17, 1999, the City Council agreed to consider a General Plan Amendment on this commercially designated parcel of land to permit a residential land use designation of either Medium or High density residential with consistent accompanying residential zoning. The City received an application for Residential Planned Development Permit 99 -04 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5204 on April 2, 1999 for 37 single family residences on compact lots. The submittal is consistent with Residential Planned Development Permit No. 96 -01 and Tentative Tract Map 5053 approved by the City Council on June 16, 1999 for 247 single - family dwellings on compact lots on an adjacent site to the west. This project will be part of the adjacent development (RPD 96 -1) through access and circulation and as part of the Homeowners Association. A Development Agreement between the City and the applicant was also executed on June 16, 1999 and provides for Affordable Housing and other items for the City's benefit such as financial contributions and infrastructure improvements. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is needed to insure compatibility of the two adjoining projects. APPLICATION COMPLETENESS /APPROVAL DATES: As General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are legislative decisions, they do not have statutory time frames for approval or denial. C�0 ©33 Planning Commission Staff Report September 11,2000 Page No. 4 GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING AND USES: GPA 99 -2 and ZC 99 -4 Direction General Plan Land Use Zoning Site C -2 Undeveloped CPD North C -2 Car Wash and Undeveloped CPD South OS Flood Control Channel OS East VH Residential RPD West VH & OS -2 Future Residential RPD & OS GPA 99 -5 and ZC 99 -5 Direction General Plan Land Use Zoning Site C -2 Undeveloped CPD North I -2 Undeveloped M -2 South M Undeveloped R -1 East I -2 Edison Substation M -2 West I -2 Undeveloped M -2 Explanation: C -Z (General Commercial) OS (Open Space) VH (Residential - Very High Density - 15 du /acre) M (Residential - Medium Density - 4 du /acre) CPD (Commercial Planned Development) RPD (Residential Planned Development Permit) I -2 (Medium Industrial) M -2 (Limited Industrial) ORDINANCE AND POLICIES: In reaching a decision for approval of a General Plan Amendment /Zone Change, the following criteria for reviewing requests has been utilized for making determinations for approval: • Request provides potential for compatibility with existing and planned uses in the area. • Request facilitates a significant contribution to the provision of affordable housing. • Proposed amendment has the potential to provide through the project approval process, public improvements, public services, public amenities, and /or financial contributions that the City Council determines to be of substantial benefit to the community. • Request demonstrates conformity with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the adopted General Plan. e,AO034 Planning Commission Staff Report September 11,2000 Page No. 5 ANALYSIS: General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 and Zone Change No. 99 -4 (Pacific Communitv Builders) This request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone change would allow for similar residential uses as approved for RPD 96 -1 which is an approved 247 unit residential project located contiguous and west of the project site. The proposed residential project will provide an east west link to Liberty Bell Road for the residential project to the west. Residential uses for this project area would also be compatible with the existing single family residences located on the east side of Liberty Bell Road. A gas station /car wash and mini - market facility is located to the north of the site on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue. The residential project will have an eight (8) foot high wall as a buffer from the existing car wash along its northerly property line. This request is compatible with existing and planned uses to the west and east. Approval of a residential development project will require a contribution to affordable housing (15% of unit total) because of the location within the Redevelopment Project Area. Additionally, the Pacific Communities Development Agreement that applies to this site and applicant's project to the west states that any approval of a change in the land use designation to Medium or High residential density on this property requires approval of a Residential Planned Development Permit and Tract Map. Additionally, the affordable housing units are designated for families at the moderate income level. The Development Agreement also includes provisions for infrastructure improvements and financial contributions to the City such as in lieu park land use fees, a development fee and traffic mitigation fees. The change in land use designation to allow a high density residential land use is consistent with the Land Use and Housing Elements of the City's General Plan in that affordable housing for moderate income households will be provided on this site which will contribute to the Land Use Element goal of providing a variety of housing types and opportunities for all economic segments of the community. General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 and Zone Change No. 99 -5 (Triliad Development Inc.) The proposed change in land use and zoning designation to allow industrial uses is consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use designation of I -2 General Plan designation and M -2 zoning designations of the properties located to the north, east and west of the site of which the proposal is a part. The proposed change in land use is also consistent with the Land Use Element as it will provide additional industrial land located adjacent to other industrial zoned land along the north side of a major corridor (LQ^()03 5 Angeles Avenue). Approval of the General Plan Amendment to allow Planning Commission Staff Report September 11,2000 Page No. 6 industrial uses on the site is also consistent with the Land Use Element goal of authorizing land use which through the project approval process would allow for public improvements, and financial contributions of substantial benefit to the community which will occur through the Industrial Planned Development Permit process. Trip Generation General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 and Zone Change No. 99- (Triliad) The vehicle trips generated by commercial land uses are generally significantly greater than vehicle trips generated by industrial uses. Both land uses generate vehicle trips for employees, suppliers and product transportation. The most significant difference is that industrial land uses do not attract vehicle trips for the final product user as does commercial. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th edition, and assuming that shopping center land use represents CPD zoning, the average vehicle trips generated is 43 trips per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. Assuming that the site coverage will be 35 percent, the trips per acre for commercial land use is 650 trips per acre or a total of 6,990 trips per day for the 10.75 acre site. If the assumption is that Industrial Park land use represents M -2 zoning, the average trip generated per acre is approximately 63 trips per acre per day. The total trips that would be generated for the site for M -2 zoning would be 677 trips per day. Therefore, the change in land use designation from commercial to industrial uses would result in a reduction from 6,990 to 677 trips or by a factor of 10. General Plan Amendment 99 -2 and Zone Change 99 -4 5 (Pacific Community Builders) The vehicle trips generated by residential land uses are less than trips generated by commercial land uses. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, and assuming that the shopping center land use represents CPD zoning, the average trips generated per day are 43 trips per 1,000 square feet. Assuming the site coverage would be 35 percent, the expected total trips generated for the site could be as high as 3,192 vehicle trips per day. The current proposed residential configuration is 37 single family homes. The ITE Manual identifies a trip generation rate of 9.57 trips for detached single family homes resulting in a potential of 354.09 vehicle trips per day for the site. Therefore, the total vehicle trips for the site are reduced by almost 2,838 trips per day by changing the land use designation from commercial to residential. CC0036 Planning Commission Staff Report September 11,2000 Page No. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , an evaluation has been conducted for each of the sites proposed for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to determine potential significant effects on the environment. Based upon an Initial Study and analysis of available information, it has been determined that there is no available substantial evidence that there will be a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a separate Negative Declaration has been prepared for each project site in compliance with CEQA. RECObMNDATIONS: 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Consider the Negative Declaration prepared for the requested General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. 3. Adopt Resolution Nos. recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 and 99 -5 and Zone Change Nos. 99 -4 and 99 -5. ATTACHMENTS: 1. General Plan Maps 2. Zoning Maps 3. Negative Declarations 4. Draft Resolution for GPA 99 -2 and GPA 99 -5 5. Draft Resolution for ZC 99 -4 6. Draft Resolution for ZC 99 -5 000037 w 0 r_ ��s T AH _2 -, - - i J r SITE 1 OS -2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 99 -5 r i�- -, - - i J r SITE 1 OS -2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 99 -5 r It �I .. r �0 OIL PAM rl '0% 7 I I W- ��� Jf . n U to IMM HE Al 0� lri-�� .� an aw Lim dim ' fit ill � 1 ■ftft {_- . w w � t �4�. 7� i11_.. � � �♦ r� �t� 1 ►� �; .._ �t ,. is ; I��'i1'. +;;• ! ���a� � T � �: ±r11 %,1�i/����� 9���J•`,,� �� ill .don: a %,yl f9 t�•� NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 ZONE CHANGE NO. 99-4 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA. 93021 APPLICANT: General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 and Zone Change 99 -4 Pacific Community Builders 1000 Dove Street Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 PREPARED: APRIL 27, 2000 ATTACHMENT 3 {;nU042 Page No. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 - A change in the land use designation on 4.87 acres of property from C -2 .(General Commercial) to VH (Very High Density 15 units per acre maximum) with the exception of the area along the southerly portion of the property required to be dedicated to the Ventura County Flood Control District which is to have a Land Use Designation of Open Space 2 (OS -2). Zone Change No. 99 -4 - A change in the zoning designation on the property from CPD (Commercial Planned Development) to RPD -7.6 (Residential Planned Development 7.6 units per acre) with the exception of the area along the southern portion of the property• required to be dedicated to the Ventura County Flood Control District which is to have a Zoning designation of OS (Open Space). PROJECT LOCATION: General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 and Zone Change No. 99 -4 includes a 4.87 acre parcel located on the west side of Liberty Bell Road adjacent to and north of the Arroyo Simi. Assessor Parcel No.: 506 -0 -050 -505 PROJECT PROPONENT: The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is being proposed by: Pacific Community Builders 1000 Dove Street Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 PURPOSE: The purpose of this Negative Declaration (ND) is to focus upon environmental impacts of the project identified by the Initial Study. A separate environmental analysis and conditions of approval will be required at the time of approval of a development project to ensure that any impacts to the community or the project area are reduced to a level below significant. Some impacts when individually considered may not create significant adverse impacts, but when taken cumulatively may be significant enough to warrant changes in the project design or General Plan Amendment Nos. 99 -2 and Zone Change Nos. 99 -4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION June 30, 2000 CCG043 Page No. 3 implementation of standard conditions to reduce impacts to a level below significant. The City of Moorpark has the principal authority to approve the project and is the Lead Agency for preparing and adopting this Negative Declaration. 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 Negative Declaral Environmental Quality Resources Code 21000 Implementation of CEQA seq.), and the City (Resolution 92 -872). TECHNICAL STUDIES. :ion is consistent with the California Act (CEQA) 1970 as amended (Public et.seq.), the State Guidelines for (California Administrative Code 15000 et. of Moorpark Rules to Implement CEQA 1. Traffic Impact Study, RKJK & Associates 2. Geotechnical Engineering Report, G.A. Nicoll & Associates, Inc. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT: NO IWACT Aesthetics: The site does not involve scenic resources of the community. Agricultural Resources: The site is an infill project within the urban core with no adjacent or abutting agricultural zoned land. Cultural Resources: No archeological or cultural resources are known to exist or are likely to exist on the site, and no further work is required. Hazardous Materials: No hazardous materials have been identified on site and no hazardous sites are identified. General Plan Amendment Nos. 99 -2 and Zone Change Nos. 99 -4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION June 30, 2000 Cr 044 Page No. 4 Mineral Resources: 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 site is consistent with existing and proposed land use development of surrounding properties and will increase housing opportunities including provisions for affordable housing. Recreation: GPA 99 -2 and ZC 99 -4 is for development of a phased residential project consisting of 37 homes. The previous phases contain 247 residential units with recreational facilities contained within the development for the residents which will be utilized by the future residents of this site. In addition, Quimby fees will be assessed on any future residential subdivision. 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 project boundary. No sensitive, threatened or endangered species were expected due to the previous disturbances to the site and the surrounding developments in the area. EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH STANDARD CONDITIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT: The following have been found to have potential significant impacts upon the project area or community and are considered mitigated to less than significant with implementation of standard conditions of approval. Any potential impacts will be evaluated as part of a development project and will receive a separate environmental document prior to approval. Air Quality: Once development permits are issued for the project, the project will contribute incrementally to the J General Plan Amendment Nos. 99 -2 and Zone Change Nos. 99 -4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION June 30, 2000 CCC04S Page No. 5 reduction in air quality within the region and the community. While the direct impacts of the residential project as a result of the issuance of an industrial development permit 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 may create significant impacts for which mitigation is necessary. The applicant will pay a Transportation Management Fee as an in -lieu fee for air quality impacts generated by the project prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction. The applicant will also 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: Recommendations are contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report for the project site. As a condition of issuance of building permits for subsequent projects, each developer will be required to adhere to the recommendations contained within the report. 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. 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. Each applicant's 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. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Environmental Health records indicate that the proposed development may be on or a part of the formal disposal site identified as "S.K. Egg City," SWISS #56 -CR -0040. In accordance with Title 27, Section, 211904 California Code of Regulations, all proposed post - closure land uses, other than non - irrigated open space, shall be submitted for review to the LEA, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Local Air District, and the local land use agency. Further, no remedial action, construction of structures within 1,000 feet of the solid waste disposal site, or removal of solid waste are to be conducted at this site until the proposed post - closure land use is approved by the LEA. General Plan Amendment Nos. 99 -2 and Zone Change Nos. 99 -4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION June 30, 2000 C x0,046 Page No. 6 Hydrology and Water Quality: Residential projects through development induce areas of impervious materials and -will require re- routing of on -site water to approved drainage facilities. During and after construction, a significant increase in pollution discharge is expected. Best management practices will be required as a standard requirement through the permitting and development approval process to ensure that the level of pollutant discharge is within the acceptable limits under the regional water quality control plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction, each property will be required to receive approval from the City Engineer and the Ventura County Flood Control District, for a Stormwater Quality Management Plan. The Stormwater Management Plan shall. incorporate measures as a minimum to control runoff quality into the Arroyo Simi. As part of a development permit, the applicant will be required to dedicate additional land to the Ventura County Flood Control District to accommodate the Flood Control District's future expansion needs. Public Services and Utilities: Construction of residential buildings as a result of this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will place increased incremental demand upon police and fire services above the level currently required for each respective site. This increase is within the capability of the servicing agencies. As a condition of issuance of a building permit, the developer shall be responsible for the construction of all on -site and off -site improvements necessary to provide utility services to the site consistent with the rules and regulations of the servicing utility and subject to any required encroachments permits. Improvements for development permits will include but not be limited to, water and sewer, natural gas, telephone, and electrical. In addition, prior to issuance of any building permits, each developer will be required to pay any applicable police facility fees and other appropriate public services and utility fees. Transportation and Traffic: Pursuant to the traffic study prepared for this site, it was concluded that the additional traffic generated by the project would not adversely effect traffic operations on the street system serving the study site areas now or in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Changing the land use designation for this General Plan f Amendment and Zone Change request can be accommodated within the General Plan Amendment Nos. 99 -2 and Zone Change Nos. 99 -4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION June 30, 2000 Page No. 7 community. Expected impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant subject to the standard development conditions of approval that would be imposed as a result of the Planned Development review process. K General Plan Amendment Nos. 99 -2 and Zone Change Nos. 99 -4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION June 30, 2000 k" 0 048 INITIAL STUDY CHECK LIST GPA 99-2 AND ZC 99-4 pow"N Law ton Lawton ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR„ . ►� WWI gag AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? El El 1:1 v b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, v but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic El x buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or v quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ v which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in x the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia 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 v Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as El X 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 v a Williamson Act contract? x c)Involve other changes in the existing environment v 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. C C 01049 Would the project? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ❑ x c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ 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 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial El 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x �I ❑ x X X 0 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian v habitat or other sensitive natural community X identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ v protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the El 0 X Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any a �/ native migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery Page No. 2 C 005 sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances v X protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat a v X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the Q significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the a 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 on 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? Page No. 3 ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x El ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ o x ❑ C'nt)05 . iv) Landslides? 1:1 11 ❑ v b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of a ❑ v X topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is v unstable, or that would become unstable as a result X 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 ❑ ❑ v 18- 1 -B D X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ v the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water 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 v El through the routine transport, use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the El 1:1 11 v 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 v acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste X within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of D ❑ a v hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to 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 ❑ v plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, /� �y. within two miles of a public airport or public use Page No. 4 li �1 l;v0 52 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 v airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for J� people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere a v with an adopted emergency response plan or X evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of v loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including 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 11 v X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or v interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such ❑ 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 after the existing drainage pattern of the D a v /� a site or area, including through the alteration of the 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 X 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 drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Page No. 5 ❑ ❑ x ❑ C� 0 S 3 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1:1 ❑ 0 v g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area Boundary Flood a v X ❑ as mapped on a Federal Hazard or Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures El v X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1:1 ❑ El v j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of v X loss, injury or death involving flooding, including 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? 13 13 13 v b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or El 1:1 ❑ v 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 v Natural Community Conservation Plan [NCCP]? 13 0 rl X MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known v mineral resource that would be of value to the region X and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ �/ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Page No. 6 r L NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise v levels in excess of standards established in the local X general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ J� v groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1:1 a v X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in D El v X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ 1:1 ❑ v 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 El v 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, v either directly (for example, by proposing new homes X and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ v necessitating the construction of replacement El X housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Page No. 7 C'��055 PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of El 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? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? RECREATION - ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ a) Would the project increase the use of existing 1:1 a v X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ v require the construction or expansion of recreational 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 ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the El 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)? Page No. 8 El X C. vt3056 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ v service standard established by the county congestion ❑ 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 E] El X feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ El El X f)Result in adequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ v g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ El X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ El El v X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ v or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of 11 ❑ X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm El v X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ El 1:1 �/ X the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ 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 Page No. 9 provider's existing commitments? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted a v X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE , Low won 9 YM wP.o„ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade a El v X the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually M ❑ v 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 a E] 1:1 v X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page No. 10 NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99 -5 ZONE CHANGE NO. 99-5 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA. 93021 APPLICANT: General Plan Amendment 99 -5 and Zone Change 99 -5 Triliad Development Inc. 270 Conejo Ridge Avenue (Suite 200) Thousand Oaks, Ca 91361 PREPARED: APRIL 27, 2000 C^0059 Page No. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 - A change in the land use designation on the property from C -2 (General Commercial) to I -2 (Medium Industrial) Zone Change No. 99 -5 - A change in the zoning designation on a 10.75 acre property from CPO (Commercial Planned Development) to M -2 (Limited Industrial). PROJECT LOCATION: General Plan Amendment No. 99 -5 and Zone Change No. 99 -5 is located on approximately 10.75 acres located on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue west of Gabbert Road and Southern California Edison substation north of the intersection of Butter Creek Road and Los Angeles Avenue. Assessor Parcel No.: 500 -0 -340 -080 (portion) PROJECT PROPONENT: Triliad Development Inc. 270 Conejo Ridge Avenue (Suite 200) Thousand Oaks, Ca 91361 PURPOSE: The purpose of this Negative Declaration (ND) is to focus upon environmental impacts of the project identified by the Initial Study. A separate environmental analysis and conditions of approval will be required at the time of approval of a development project to ensure that any impacts to the community or the project area are reduced to a level below significant. Some impacts when individually considered may not create significant adverse impacts, but when taken cumulatively may be significant enough to warrant changes in the project design or implementation of standard conditions to reduce impacts to a level below significant. The City of Moorpark has the principal authority to approve the project and is the Lead Agency for preparing and adopting this Negative Declaration. The information contained in this document is intended to assist decision makers in reaching f' 1!i General Plan Amendment Nos. 99 -5 and Zone Change Nos. 99 -5 NEGATIVE DECLARATION June 30, 2000 C. 0.060 Page No. 5 The applicant will also 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: Recommendations are contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report for the site. As a condition of issuance of a building permit for subsequent project, the developer will be required to adhere to the recommendations contained within the specific report. 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. 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 applicant's 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: Industrial projects through development induce areas of impervious materials and will require re- routing of on -site water to approved drainage facilities. During and after construction, a significant increase in pollution discharge is expected. Best management practices will be required as a standard requirement through the permitting and development approval process. to ensure that the level of pollutant discharge is within the acceptable limits under the regional water quality control plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction, this property will be required to receive approval from the City Engineer and the Ventura County Flood Control District, for a Stormwater Quality Management Plan. The Stormwater Management Plan shall incorporate measures as a minimum to control runoff quality into the Arroyo Simi. A portion of this site is currently subject to flooding hazards associated with flows from the adjacent Walnut Canyon channel and the Gabbert Canyon flood control channel. The existing concrete rectangular channel has a limited hydraulic capacity resulting in flood protection deficiency allowing flows to General Plan Amendment Nos. 99 -5 and Zone Change Nos. 99 -5 NEGATIVE DECLARATION June 30, 2000 C f1j" 0. 0 GI Page No. 6 overtop the channel and partially inundating the property. Results of the Flood Protection Investigation Report prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates dated September, '1998 indicates that the 50 -year and 100 -yeqr discharges overtop the channel banks with overbank flow depths of 2 feet and 3 feet for the 50 -year and the 100 -year storm respectively. The future Development project will be required to provide alternatives which may include a detention basin upstream, raised site pad to mitigate this problem to a level of insignificance. Public Services and Utilities: Construction of industrial buildings as a result the this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change 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. As a condition of issuance of a building permit, the developer shall be responsible for the construction of all on- site and off -site improvements necessary to provide utility services to the site consistent with the rules and regulations of the servicing utility and subject to any required encroachments permits. Improvements for development permits will include but not be limited to, water and sewer, natural gas, telephone, and electrical. In addition, prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer will be required to pay any applicable police facility fees and other appropriate public services and utility fees. Transportation and Traffic: Pursuant to the traffic study prepared for this site, it was concluded that the additional traffic generated by the project would not adversely effect traffic operations on the street system serving the study site area now or in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Amending the land use designation of the General Plan and the change of zoning in Moorpark can be accommodated within the community. Expected impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant subject to the standard development conditions of approval that would be imposed as a result of the Planned Development review process. General Plan Amendment Nos. 99 -5 and Zone Change Nos. 99 -5 NEGATIVE DECLARATION June 30, 2000 �•�0002 INITIAL STUDY CHECK LIST GPA 99-5 AND ZC 99-5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR w "°'^ ,f, Maw- " F. N' AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ 11 El v b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 11 a v X but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or v quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare v which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in a X 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 v Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as X 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 v a Williamson Act contract? X c)lnvolve other changes in the existing environment v which, due to their location or nature, could result in El 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. e�U0C3 Would the project? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ -X 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 of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is El 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 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ' 1:1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly El 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 X O b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian 1:1 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 v protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the 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 ❑ v native migratory fish or wildlife species or with X El established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery �'- 11 Page No. 2 C"CT064 sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances v protecting biological resources, such as a tree El X preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat D v Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation 1:1 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 El 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 a on 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? Page No. 3 ❑ El x El ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x El El x El ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ G�0065 iv) Landslides? El ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 13 1:1 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 ❑ 13 El v X 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ v X the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water 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 ❑ ❑ v environment through the routine transport, use, or El X disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ v environment through reasonably foreseeable upset 1:1 X and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 11 El ❑ X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter m0e of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of El 1:1 1:1 v X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to 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 13 13 1:1 v X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use Page No. 4 C^006G 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 E] 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 evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including ID 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 1:1 discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such El 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)? El q M M MPM X X X X X c) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the X site or area, including through the alteration of the 0 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 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 1:1 X El drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Page No. 5 O C-1101061-11 a f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 11 ❑ ❑ v g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Hazard Boundary or Flood F1 v X Would the project: Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation a) Physically divide an established community? map? El X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or a h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? F1 v X i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a 0 13 v j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including 13 a v X flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? environmental effect? LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? D El X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or a v 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 El 11 0 X Natural Community Conservation Plan [NCCP]? MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 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- a important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Page No. 6 C C 11fl68 1. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ v levels in excess of standards established in the local X general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive El v X groundbome vibration or groundbome 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 levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, 13 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? ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x f) For a project within the vicinity of a private a airstrip, would the project expose people residing or El X working in the project area to excessive noise levels? POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, El 1:1 v X 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 v X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, a a v X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Page No. 7 CC"0069 r PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse a physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmental 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? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? RECREATION - ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑. ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ v neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or M v require the construction or expansion of recreational 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ 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)? Page No. 8 c�00:o b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ v service standard established by the county congestion 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 ED 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 El 13 El supporting altern ative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would ft project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑ v applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? /� b) Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ 1:1 El 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 ❑ El El v X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ v the project from existing entiriements and resources, 1:1 X or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater El 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 Page No. 9 C (1) 071 t providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted a ❑ v capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE „ � ,W a) Does the project have the potential to degrade v the quality of the environment, substantially reduce a 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 ❑ 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 a 0 El v X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Pepe No. 10 C,"0072