HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2003 0618 CC REG ITEM 09FITEM q, V.
E 1.2003
AFT_ rove-A
RGo 2- _oo3 - 2101
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Hugh R. Riley, Assistant City Manage
DATE: June 10, 2003 (City Council Meeting of 6/18/03)
SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Fee
Title by Eminent Domain Certain Real property
Owned by Benjamin Duarte Located at 296 Charles
Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
City staff has been pursuing acquisition of property that
would be suitable as a site for the development of a small
park (the "Project ")in the downtown area and in the
vicinity of Charles Street and Bard, Magnolia or Walnut
Streets.
Benjamin Duarte is the owner of 296 Charles Street, a lot
located at the southwest corner of Charles Street and
Magnolia Avenue (APN 512 -0- 093 -080) . The lot is currently
vacant except for an abandoned residential garage that is
in poor condition and is a neighborhood eyesore. This 5,000
square foot parcel is suited for the development of a small
park.
The City had an appraisal made of the property by John
McNamara & Associates. The appraised value of the property
was determined to be fifty -five thousand dollars ($55,000).
On April 24, 2003, the City sent a written offer to
purchase the property for the appraised market value of
$55,000. On May 6, 2003 the City received a letter from Mr.
Duarte stating that he had no desire to sell the property.
The City Council is asked to consider proceeding with fee
title acquisition of the property by eminent domain and to
City Council Agenda Report
June 18, 2003
Page 2
adopt a Resolution of Necessity to acquire the property
pursuant to Section 19, Article 1 of the California
Constitution, Sections 1240.010 through 1240.050 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure and Section 40501(b) of
the Government Code.
An Initial Study of the project has been made in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a
Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was
published on May 19, 2003. The comment period for the
notice expired on June 9, 2003.
In considering the adoption of the proposed Resolution of
Necessity the City Council must make certain findings as to
the need for the project and that the public interest is
served through the City's acquisition of the property.
These findings are as follows:
1. That the public interest and necessity require
the construction of a park at this location ( "the
Project "). There is currently a lack of park
facilities in this neighborhood of the City's
downtown area.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the Open
Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of
Moorpark General Plan which calls for the
development of mini parks in the downtown area.
3. That the above described Project is planned and
located in the manner that will be most
compatible with the greatest public good and the
least private injury. This property is suited to
address the current lack of park facilities in
this neighborhood and the property being acquired
is vacant;
4. That the above described real property is
necessary for the proposed project. The property
is centrally located in the neighborhood;
5. That the offer to purchase the above described
property has been made to the owner of record of
the property, as required by California
Government Code Section 7267.2 and said offer has
City Council Agenda Report
June 18, 2003
Page 3
not been accepted by said
was sent on April 24, 200 3
sent a written rejection
2003.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
owner. An offer letter
and the property owner
of the offer on May 2,
Staff recommends that the City Council 1) make the findings
of public necessity as described in the staff report and 2)
Adopt Resolution 2003 - . Including the adoption of the
Negative Declaration for the Project as prepared. (4 /5th's
ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED)
Attachments: April 24, 2003 Offer to Purchase
Correction to 4/24/03 Offer to Purchase
Letter from Mr. Duarte
Notice of Hearing
Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 2003-
MOORPARK
1 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517 -6200
April 25, 2003
Mr. Benjamin Duarte
3101 G. Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
Re: OFFER TO PURCHASE INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY:
296 Charles Street, Moorpark, CA - APN 512 -0- 093 -080
Dear Mr. Duarte:
With reference to our letter of April 23, 2003, the correct
address of the property is 296 Charles Street. We apologize for
any inconvenience this error may have caused. Please respond to
the April 23, 2003 offer to purchase the property by May 6,
2003.
Sincerely,
Hug R Riley
Assistant City Manager
cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager
Joseph M. Montes, City Attorney
A� .Ca A l
��LS
0
PATRICK HUNTER KEITH F. MILLHOUSE CLINT HARPER ROSEANN MIKOS JANICE S. PARVIN
Mavnr new.,.,. 0— T.— Cn inrilmamhar Cn inrilmomL e. i^ n�;b. en tie.
MOORPARK
' 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517 -6200
April 24, 2003
Mr. Benjamin Duarte
3101 G. Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
Re: OFFER TO PURCHASE INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY:
296-H44j1a.Street, Moorpark, CA - APN 512 -0- 093 -080
C h.hrL""� ( \
Dear Mr. Duarte:
The City of Moorpark hereby offers to purchase your property
located at 296 High Street, Moorpark, CA, (APN 512 -0- 093 -080)
more particularly described on Exhibit "B attached hereto
( "Property ").
With regard to the Property, the City of Moorpark hereby offers
to purchase the fee simple interest in and to the Property for
the appraised market value of FIFTY -FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS,
($55,000.00).
An independent appraisal of value was made of the Property to be
acquired. The City of Moorpark has determined this amount to be
the fair market value of the property. The basis for that
determination is explained in the Appraisal Summary attached
hereto as Exhibit "A," which is incorporated herein by this
reference. A Market Data Summary of comparable commercial sales
is also attached.
This offer is subject to:
1. City Council ratification
2. Your ability to convey acceptable marketable title,
including elimination of liens and encumbrances on the
Property.
A n'o ►-r
0
PATRICK HUNTER KEITH F. MILLHOUSE CLINT HARPER ROSEANN MIKOS JANICE S. PARVIN
Benjamin Duarte
April 24, 2003
Page 2
3. An environmental inspection and approval by the City.
The purpose of this process would be to attempt to
determine whether there is hazardous contamination
within, adjacent to, or coming from your property.
The environmental inspection and approval process may
include physical inspections and environmental
assessments as deemed necessary or advisable by the
City as well as other testing or inspection should a
preliminary review indicate it advisable. In the
event the City determines that corrective or remedial
action may be necessary, the City reserves the right
to reduce the amount offered to reflect these costs,
or to withdraw this offer. Any such inspections would
be conducted at City expense.
It is the City's hope that this price will be acceptable to you.
Please respond to the terms of this offer in writing no later
than May 9, 2003.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, the acquisition
or the Appraisal Summary, please contact me at 805 - 517 -6215.
Sincerely,
Hug R. Riley
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Exhibits A and B
Market Data Summary
Valuation Analysis
CC: Steven Kueny, City Manager
Joseph M. Montes, City Attorney
A n'O '1t•
`✓ v x.Y�l)
Benjamin Duarte
April 24, 2003
Page 3
Exhibit "A"
Appraisal Sununary
PROPERTY APPRAISED Residential land at 296 Charles Street,
Moorpark, California.
OWNER OF RECORD Benjamin Duarte, et. al.
DATE OF VALUATION April 11, 2003
APPRAISAL PURPOSE To estimate the Market Value of the
subject property.
LAND AREA 5,000 square feet
IMPROVEMENTS Older residential garage, considered to
add no value to the land value.
ZONING R -1
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 512 - 093 -080
NUMBER
HIGHEST AND BEST USE Single- family residence
VALUE INDICATION $55,000
.� v v
Benjamin Duarte
April 24, 2003
Page 4
Exhibit "B"
Property Description
The northerly 100 feet of Lot 16, Block E, Townsite Moorpark,
County of Ventura, State of California, as per Map recorded in
Book 5, Page 5, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of
Ventura County.
C�
�y
MARKET DATA SUMMARY
RESIDENTIAL LAND
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Sale
No.
Date of
Sale
Indicated
Sales Price
Zoning
Land Area
Sq. Ft.
Impv'ts.
Sq. Ft.
Land
$ / Sq. Ft.
Comments
1
3 -2 -00
$48,000
SP -RPD
7,500
0
$6.40
Located on Ist. Street
2
12 -21 -00
$40,500
SP -RPD
6,075
0
$6.75
Has upslope on back of lot
3
2 -27 -01
$85,000
R1
33,125
0
$2.56
Grantor purchased property
on 4 -14 -00 for $80,000
4
2 -13 -02
$100,000
RE -1 AC
90,605
0
$1.10
Hilltop property. Has view
$50,000 per property site.
5
6 -18 -02
$126,000
RPD -15
14,100
0
$8.94
Zoned 15 D. U. /acre. Could
develop up to 4 acres.
6
9 -11 -02
$56,000
RI -6
6,190
0
$9.05
Located on paper street.
MCNAMARA & AsSOCIATEs 25602 Alicia Parkway, Suite 409, Laguna Hills, California 92653 Tel. (949) 643 -3556 FAX (949) 643 -5019
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
VALUATION
The Market Data Approach produces an estimate of the value of a property by comparing
it with similar properties of the same type which have recently sold or are currently offered for
sale in the same or a competing area. The Comparative process utilized in determining the
degree of comparability between the two properties involves the appraiser's judgment as to their
similarity with respect to many value factors such as: time of sale; property location: type, age,
size, quality, utility, and condition of improvements: possible plottage: available land for future
expansion, etc.
For the subject property, the Market Data Approach will be used to estimate its value as
vacant land.
Market Data Approach - Land
The sales comparison method is the most common way of developing an estimate of the
Market Value of the land. In this approach, sales of vacant land, which, may be considered to be
comparable to the subject property are gathered and analyzed and adjustments made for various
factors in order to increase the comparability between the sales and the subject. The sales prices
are adjusted for factors such as: time of sale or market conditions and the changes in value
between the date of the sale and the date of valuation; location; utility of the property; access;
land size and shape; zoning; topography; etc. The adjusted prices are reduced to some common
unit of comparison such as price per acre, or price per square foot. The appraiser analyzes this
information and derives a unit value applicable to the subject property. When applied to the
appropriate unit measure, this value results in an estimate of the Market Value of the subject land
as if vacant and available for development to its Highest and Best Use.
A search for sales of vacant land with a utility comparable to the subject's was made of
the older sections of Moorpark. From this search a number of sales were investigated, of which
a total of six were selected for inclusion in this report. These sales, number 1 through 6, are
detailed in the Addenda on Supporting Data Pages, and are shown located, relative to the subject,
on the Sales Map, also in the Addenda.
These sales occurred between March 2000 and the date of valuation. All of the sales
were for vacant land, and four of the six are located in the Downtown Specific Plan Area, while
the other two are located just outside of this area, in older areas of town. These sales contained
land areas between 6,075 and 90,605 square feet. They reflected pro -rata land values in a range
between $1.10 and $9.05 per square foot for land.
Sale number 1 is the March 2000 sale of a property on First Street, east of Moorpark
Avenue two blocks southwesterly from the subject. The former improvements on this lot have
been cleared, and the sales price of $48,000 reflected a pro -rata value of $6.40 per square foot for
the 7,500 square foot lot. This property is zoned SP -RPD, 7 to 14 units per acre. The subject is
superior to this sale in location and market conditions, while the sale is superior in zoning, land
size, and utility. The two properties are about equal in most other factors. On a pro -rata basis,
this sale is considered to be superior to the subject.
(10)
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
Sale number 2 is the December 2000 sale of a parcel on Charles Street, across the street
from the subject. This is a vacant parcel with a land area of 6,075 square feet, and the
topography is level at the front of the parcel, with an upslope toward the back. This property is
zoned for up to 15 units per acre. The sales price of $40,500 reflected a pro -rata value of $6.67
per square foot for land. The subject is superior to this sale in corner location, topography, and
market conditions, while the sale is superior in land size, zoning, and utility. The two properties
are about equal in location, access, and most other factors. On a pro -rata basis, this sale is
considered to be superior to the subject.
Sale number 3 is the April 2000 sale of a vacant property on Charles Street, one block
east of the subject. This is a mostly level site that has an upslope on its westerly side. The land
area is 33,125 square feet, and the sales price of $85,000 reflected a pro -rata value of $2.56 per
square foot for land. The grantor had purchased this property on April 14, 2002, for $80,000.
This property is zoned R -1. The subject is much smaller than this sale, and is superior in market
conditions, zoning, and comer location. The two properties are about equal in location, access,
and most other factors. On a pro -rata basis, the subject is considered to be superior to this sale.
Sale number 4 is the February 2002 sale of two parcels located on Wicks Road, two
blocks northwest from the subject. The property is on a hillside above the old town area, and
there is a very good view from this property. The topography is a down slope from the street.
The total land area is 90,605 square feet, and the zoning, is RE -1 acre per dwelling. The sales
price of $100,000 reflected a pro -rata value of $1.10 per square foot or $50,000 per parcel or
building site. The subject is superior to this sale in market conditions, corner location, zoning,
access, and topography, while the sale is superior in land size, view, and utility. On a pro -rata
basis, the subject is considered to be superior to this sale.
Sale number 5 is the June 2002 sale of a parcel located on Charles Street, one block east,
of the subject. This is a double lot with an area of 14,100 square feet. It is zoned RPD -15 units
per acre. This zoning would allow up to 4 dwelling units on this property. The sales price of
$126,000 reflected a pro -rata value of $8.94 per square foot, or $31,500 per dwelling unit. The
topography is a down slope from the street. The subject is superior to this sale in market
conditions, corner location, and topography, while the sale is superior in land size, zoning, and
utility of the property. The two properties are about equal in location and most other factors. On
a pro -rata basis, this sale is considered to be superior to the subject, while on a per dwelling
basis, the subject is considered to be superior.
Sale number 6 is the September 2002 sale of a parcel located in an older neighborhood,
toward the easterly end of Moorpark, in the southeast quadrant of the Route 23 -118 Freeway.
This property is located on a paper street, near an improved street. This is a level parcel with
6,190 square feet, and the sales price of $56,000 reflected a pro -rata value of $9.05 per square
foot for land. The subject is superior to this sale in market conditions, location, corner location,
street improvements, access, and shape, while the sale is superior in land size. On an overall
basis, the subject is considered to be superior to this sale.
(11)
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
Each of these sales, in addition to other data, have been analyzed and compared with the
subject property, and adjustments made for a number of factors in order to increase the
comparability between the sales and the subject. Adjustments were made for such factors as:
market conditions, or the time of the sale and the trends in values between the date of sale and
the date of valuation; size and shape of the land; zoning; access; corner location; amount of street
frontage; adjoining and nearby developments; utility of the property; circumstances of the sale;
entitlements; location of the property; topography; offsite improvements needed for
development, etc.
After completing this study and analysis and making those adjustments considered
necessary in order to increase the comparability between the subject and the sales, the subject
land, considering it as if it were vacant and available for development to its highest and best use,
is estimated to have a market value of approximately $55,000. For the subject with its land area
of 5,000 square feet, the pro -rata land value is as shown below:
$55,00015,000 square feet = $11.00 per square foot
(12) 0n
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
FINAL OPINION OF VALUE
The one appraisal approach considered to be appropriate for use in this appraisal resulted
in the following indication of value:
Market Data Approach -Land Value $55,000
The land value is based on the assumption that the subject land is vacant and available for
development to its Highest and Best Use, and is based on sales of comparable and competing
land parcels, through the use of the Market Data or Comparable Sales Approach.
Use of the Cost and the Income Approaches was not considered to be appropriate for this
appraisal.
Based upon this study and analysis, it is our opinion that the Market Value of this
property, as of April 11, 2003, is in the amount of:
FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($55,000)
( 13) () 0 35
May 2, 2003
Mr. Hugh R. Riley
Assistant City Manager
City of Moorpark, California
Received
O � 20B
s,�t�'��Iana�ersOffic�
RE: OFFER TO PURCHASE INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY:
2% Charles Street, Moorpark, CA. (Corner of Magnolia and Charles Streets).
Mr. Riley,
Please remind the Moorpark City Council, that the previous offer received from your
office, on March e, 2003, for $125,000.00 was not accepted-
Please convey to Moorpark City officials, that their current offer on April 23, 2003, of
$55,000.00 is also not being accepted, for the reasons stated in previous letter sent to your
office dated March 7, 2003.
Si erely. .
'amin Duarte
cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager
Joseph M. Montes, City Attorney
Benjamin Duarte, 3101 South "G' Street, Oxnard, California 93033
March 7, 2003
Mr. Hugh R. Riley MAR 10 2003
Assistant City Manager
City of Moorpark, California AAMAO- iaNedtke
RE: OFFER TO PURCHASE INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY:
296 Charles Street, Moorpark, CA. (Corner of Magnolia and Charles Streets).
We are not interested in selling this property. It is our desire to replace our former home
with another that will re- invigorate our relationship with the city and its residents. Our
family history has endured over a century in Moorpark, and we would like to continue
this tradition and culture.
It is our desire to begin plans immediately; we are currently in the process of securing an
architect and builder. We hope that we can work together in beatifying and rebuilding
our portion of Old Moorpark. We look forward to working with you and the City of
Moorpark.
Sincere ,
Benjamin Duarte
cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager, Moorpark, California
`./ V r./ i
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF
NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF 296 CHARLES STREET;
APN 512 -0- 093 -080; AS THE SAME IS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHED.
TO: Benjamin Duarte
3101 G Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010
et. seq., that the City of Moorpark intends to consider a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition
by eminent domain of the fee title to certain real property ( "Property "), for the development of a
public park (the "Project "). The Property is located at 296 Charles Street; APN 512 -0- 093 -080;
as the same is described in Exhibit "A" Attached.
The hearing will be held on June 18, 2003 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City of
Moorpark City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Moorpark City Council Chambers,
located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021.
You, as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property, are hereby notified
that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The
issues which will be considered are set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section
1240.030, and include:
Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project;
2. Whether or not the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most
compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury;
3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project.
If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST,
indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this
notice by filing or delivering that written request to the City of Moorpark, City Manager at 799
Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021.
You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of Moorpark
Redevelopment Agency of your intent and desire to be heard. Your failure to timely file a
written request to appear and be heard may result in a waiver of your right to be heard.
NOTICE OF HEARING, Page 2
For further information, contact Hugh Riley at (805) 517 -6215.
Hugh R. _ y
Assistant City Manager
Gn4-1� -0�
-
�NY N.J
NOTICE OF HEARING, Page 3
REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY [296 Charles Street].
Name j� , Telephone
'T
Address-
Date
NOTICE OF HEARING, Page 4
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL
The northerly 100
County of Ventura,
Book 5, Page 5, of
Ventura County.
feet of Lot 16, Block
State of California,
Maps, in the Office of
E, Townsite Moorpark,
as per Map recorded in
the Gounty Recorder of
GIC�: 10 1-
PPK C4,,� NEGATIVE DECLARATION
. CITY OF MOORPARK
o, 799 MOORPARK AVENUE
Zo MOORPARK, CA 93021
9, 9grEO (805) 517 -6200
The following Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures of the City of
Moorpark.
Public Review Period: May 19, 2003 to June 9, 2003
Project Title /Case No.: Charles Street Mini -Park
Project Location: 296 Charles Street, Moorpark, Ventura County. (Location Map Attached)
Project Description: The acquisition of a 5,000 square -foot lot in the R -1 Single - Family Residential
Zone at 296 Charles Street for the development of a mini -park. Expected
facilities would include shade trees, turf, children's play equipment, benches,
and picnic tables.
Project Type: _ Private Project X Public Project
Project Applicant: City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021
Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above - referenced project, it is found that
there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of
Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(Initial Study Attached)
Responsible Agencies: None.
Trustee Agencies: None.
Attachments: Location Map
Initial Study
Contact Person: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California, 93021
(805) 517 -6281
nnt1 -q
11.10 v_ ti
Project Title: Charles Street Mini -Park
Charles St. Mini -Park
CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
Case No.: n/a
Contact Person and Phone No.: Hugh R. Riley (805) 517 -6215
Name of Applicant: City of Moorpark
Address and Phone No.: 799 Moorpark Ave, Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6215
Project Location: 296 Charles Street
General Plan Designation: Downtown Specific Plan Zoning: R -1 Single - Family Residential
Project Description: The acquisition of a 5,000 square -foot lot for the development of a mini -park.
Expected facilities would include shade trees, turf, children's play equipment, benches, and picnic tables.
A detached garage structure currently occupies the site and will be demolished.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: Single - Family Residences
South: Fire Station Site (under construction)
East: Senior Apartments
West: Single - Family Residences
Responsible and Trustee Agencies: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially
Si nificant Impact" or 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated, "as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use /Planning
Mineral Resources Noise Population /Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportationfrraffic
Utilities /Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance x None
DETERMINATION: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment,
and that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Prepared by: > -'Z eviewed by:
Date: _ j - Date: 5 3
G nlx 4- () 3
Charles St. Mini -Park
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant Less Than
With Significant No
Mitigation Impact Impact
A. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
X
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Response: The proposed mini -park will not be lit for nighttime use. Low -level security lighting may be
installed.
Sources: Project description
Mitigation: None identified.
B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, the City of Moorpark 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:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
agency, to non - agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
3) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X
due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
Response: This project does not affect agricultural resources.
Sources: Project description, location map.
Mitigation: None required.
C. AIR QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X
air quality plan?
2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
2 G .10
Charles St. Mini -Park
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any x
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)?
4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant x
concentrations?
5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number x
of people?
Response: The proposed mini -park will serve existing residences within walking distance and is not
expected to generate vehicle traffic, except for routine park maintenance.
Sources: Project description, Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element, Ventura County Air
Quality Assessment Guidelines of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District November
2000.
Mitigation: None required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
x
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?
r
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
x
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?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
x
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
x
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
x
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
x
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation Ian?
Response: This project, in an urbanized location, does not affect natural biological resources.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
Charles St. Mini -Park
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historic resource as defined in §15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Response: This project involves the grading and landscaping of the site for a park. The land has previously
been cleared and graded, leaving a remote possibility of cultural resources existing on site. A
detached garage structure on the site will be demolished, however, it has not been identified as a
historic resource and has known historical significance as it has unremarkable architecture and is
not known to be associated with any person or event significant to Moorpark's history.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
1) 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 X
most recent Alquist- 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? x
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? x
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or x
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?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B x
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Charles St. Mini -Park
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
f')
Response: This project does not include the construction of any buildings. Soil erosion is not expected,
since the site will be landscaped.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the x
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 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?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are mtermixea wren wuaianas r
Response: No known hazardous materials exist on the project site. Prior to demolition of the detached
garage structure, an investigation will be conducted to determine if the structure contains
asbestos or lead. Removal and disposal of such materials, if identified, will take place in
compliance with all local and State regulations.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
Charles St. Mini -Park
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 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?
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the 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?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving i) flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
ii) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Response: This project involves the installation of landscaping and hardscape for a mini -park. Proper
NPDES Best Management Practices will be employed during demolition and construction.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established community?
2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
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?
X
X
J A
Charles St. Mini -Park
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural community conservation plan?
Response: The development of a mini -park in the downtown area is consistent with the Moorpark Parks
and Recreation Master Plan and the Open Space Conservation and Recreation Element.
The site is not specifically identified as a mini -park site in the Downtown Specific Plan,
however, a park is a permitted use in the R -1 Zone.
Sources: City of Moorpark General Plan, Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
Moorpark Parks and Recreation Master Plan, project description.
Miticlation: None required.
J. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Response: This project does not affect mineral resources.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
K. NOISE — Would the project result in:
1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
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?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
7 �
X3.():3
Charles St. Mini -Park
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Response: Construction noise will be limited per the requirements of the Moorpark Municipal Code;
therefore, this impact will be less -than significant.
Sources: City of Moorpark General Plan, Moorpark Municipal Code.
Mitigation: None required.
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X
directly ( for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly ( for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Response: The mini -park will serve existing residents and will not lead to additional growth. The site is
currently unoccupied, containing only a detached garage.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
X
Response: A minor amount of additional park maintenance will be required with this facility.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
0
s
e
i
N. RECREATION
1) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Charles St. Mini -Park
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
X
2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Response: This project will provide additional recreational opportunities.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:
1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation X
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)?
2) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
4) substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
5) Result in inadequate emergency access? x
6) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Response: This project will serve the existing neighborhood within walking distance. Additional vehicle
traffic is expected to be limited to routine maintenance.
Sources: City of Moorpark General Plan, project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
Charles St. Mini -Park
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
2) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the projects projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
6) Be served by the landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Response: This project does not involve any land uses that would affect wastewater, or solid waste.
Water use would be minimal due to the limited size of the park.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history of prehistory?
2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effect of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and effects of probable future projects)?
3) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Response: This project involves the development of a mini -park to serve an existing neighborhood. The
area of work is fully urbanized.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
10 ate,
Charles St. Mini -Park
Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study
None
Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study
One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and
are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, CA 93021.
1. The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended.
2. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended.
3. Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan, October 1, 1998,
4. Moorpark Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Boring Study: 284 Charles Street, 661 Magnolia
Street, 297 High Street & 285 High Street, AGI Geotechnical, Inc., April 18, 2000.
6. Appraisal Report: 296 High Street, McNamara & Associates, April 11, 2003
7. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 92 -872.
8. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. & California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section
15000 et. seq.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE
ACQUISITION FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
PURPOSES OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS
296 CHARLES STREET; APN 512 -0- 093 -080, AS THE
SAME IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBITS
"A" and "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED
HEREWITH
WHEREAS, the City of Moorpark ( "City ") intends to acquire
the property located at 296 Charles Street; APN 512 -0- 093 -080
( "the Property ") in order to develop a neighborhood park; and
WHEREAS, the City made an offer to Benjamin Duarte ("Owner")
on April 24, 2003 to purchase property for $55,000; and
WHEREAS, said offer of $55,000 represents the full amount
determined to be just compensation for the property and
improvements; and
WHEREAS, said offer is not less than the City's approved
appraisal of the fair market value of the property; and
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to acquire the property
by eminent domain as provided in Government Code section
40501(b) and the required notice of hearing to consider this
resolution was given.
WHEREAS, the proposed use of the property for a public park
is consistent with the Open Space Conservation and Recreation
Element of the Moorpark General Plan and the Downtown Specific
Plan.
SECTION 1. The City of Moorpark (hereafter "City "), after
consideration of the staff report, staff presentation,
discussion, oral testimony and evidence presented at the June
18, 2003 meeting of the City Council hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
1. That the public interest and necessity require the
construction of a park at this location.
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 2
2. That the above described Project is planned and
located in the manner that will be most compatible
with the greatest public good and the least private
injury;
3. That the above described real property is necessary
for the proposed project;
4. That the proposed project is consistent with the Open
Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of the
City's General Plan;
5. That the offer to purchase the above described
property has been made to the owner of record of the
property, as required by California Government Code
Section 7267.2.
6. All conditions and statutory requirements necessary to
exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the
property described herein have been complied with by
the City.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A. The City Council has received and considered the
information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to
acting on the proposed project and has found that this document
adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed
project.
B. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 of the Public Resources
Code of the State of California, beginning at Section 21000),
The City Council has determined that the Negative Declaration
prepared for this project has been completed in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, reflects the
independent judgment of the of the City Council of the City of
Moorpark, and is hereby adopted as prepared.
SECTION 3. The real property that is the subject of this
resolution and is to be taken by the City of Moorpark is located
at 296 Charles Street (APN: 512 -0- 093 -080) and as described in
Exhibit `A' (Legal Description) which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein, and as more particularly depicted on
Exhibit `B' (Map of Parcel) which is also attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
'ter �!' ..►. J
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 3
SECTION 4. The public use for which the above - described
property is to be taken is the development of a park and the
City of Moorpark is authorized to acquire the above described
property by eminent domain pursuant to Section 19, Article 1 of
the California Constitution, Sections 1240.010 through 1240.050
of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable
law.
SECTION S. If any of the above described property has been
previously appropriated to some public use, the public use for
which it is taken under this proceeding is a compatible public
use pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1240.510 or, in the
alternative, a more necessary public use pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure 1240.610.
SECTION 6. The City's Attorney and the firm of Burke,
Williams and Sorensen are hereby authorized and directed to
prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City of
Moorpark such proceedings in the court having jurisdiction
thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of the above
described property.
SECTION 7. This resolution shall be effective immediately
upon its adoption.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution, by a vote of not less than four - fifths (4/5) of
all of the members of the City Council, and shall cause a
certified resolution to be filed in the book of original
Resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of June 2003.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
City Clerk
IC��.��
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 4
Attachments: Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
G4 n ,q A "
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL
The northerly 100
County of Ventura,
Book 5, Page 5, of
Ventura County.
feet of Lot 16, Block E, Townsite Moorpark,
State of California, as per Map recorded in
Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of
-2- ....
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 6
EXHIBIT B
MAP OF PARCEL ATTACHED
0 ', `;) I-IL 9
10066 EXHIBIT B
10039
10. 19996- o
10038 0Z 1..: 07
Q �
STREET CHARLES STREET
so
ti ,^
w VI
h
w
O
LA . m
sa
?+
(,�
10
11
12
13
146
X15„
B
IG�
pI�
bO
ci
Jim
093
(a
19
0.
" 8
7 I G
5"' 4
3
2
1, in
I�
VI
ti F
Q
..J
O
Z
0
Q
201
'_ loo
FAIN EaK. Plat Map c �.�0