HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2003 0917 CC REG ITEM 09CMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
ITEM 'I , G
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Services
DATE: September 5, 2003 (City Council Meeting of 9/17)
SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Fee
Title by Eminent Domain to Certain Real Property
Owned by the Margaret Irene Gisler Cullen Trust
Located at 412 Poindexter Avenue
BACKGROUND
At the direction of the City Council, staff has been
pursuing the acquisition of the property at 412 Poindexter
Avenue with the goal of expanding Poindexter Park (known as
the Project). The property is directly adjacent to the
northern property line of the park and would allow the City
to expand public park and recreation amenities in the
downtown area of the City where additional park and
recreation amenities are most needed.
The Margaret Irene Gisler Cullen Trust owns the property.
The trustee is Marie Neal and her father, Richard White,
manages the trust on her behalf. The property is situated
at the southeast corner of Poindexter Avenue and Gisler
Road (APN 511 -0- 090 -340) and it is comprised of 2.02 acres.
Currently, the property is a parcel of unimproved land. It
is rectangular in shape and the former structural
improvements (a residence and garage) have been removed.
The only improvements remaining are fencing, trees, and
bushes. It is adjoining Chaparral Middle School to the east
and Poindexter Park to the south. To the west, across
Gisler Road, is the new single family affordable home tract
known as Mountain View. To the north, across Poindexter
Avenue, lay railroad tracks.
00002
City Council Agenda Report
August 20, 2003
Page 2
The property is zoned RPD -15, Residential Planned
Development with a density of up to 15 dwelling units per
acre on the site. Since the property is 2.02 acres, the
maximum total number of dwelling units that could be
developed is 30. This zone allows a wide variety of
residential uses, with development standards based on City
approval of the specific project. The property is located
within the Moorpark Redevelopment Area and any residential
project would be required to build a percentage of the
dwellings as affordable units. State law and the City's
policy require that 15 percent of the total number of units
be affordable, and that 40 percent of the affordable units
be for very low - income people.
On June 6, 2002, the City had an appraisal prepared on the
412 Poindexter property by Ventura Appraisal Consulting
Corporation. The appraisal price was determined to be
$616,000. The appraisal did not take into consideration the
affordable housing requirement.
On March 30, 2003, the City sent Mr. White a written offer
to purchase the property for the appraised market value of
$616,000. Following receipt of the City's letter, Mr. White
contacted staff by telephone. He stated his concern about
the fact that the appraisal was almost a year old and
therefore not reliable. He also stated that he was
negotiating with a commercial developer who was interested
in the property. Mr. White was informed that he could
either counter the City's offer or choose not to respond to
the offer, which would then expire. Mr. White chose not to
respond.
A new appraisal was ordered. The appraisal was completed on
April 11, 2003, and this time the appraisal considered the
affordable housing requirement. The new appraisal was
prepared by McNamara & Associates, which determined the
market value to be $535,000.
On May 14, 2003, the City sent a new written offer letter
to Mr. White (Attachment B). Again, Mr. White did not
respond to the offer letter.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
(Attachment D) for the project was prepared in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and
M: \MLindley \PARKS \Poindexter Property Purchase \Poindexter Property
acquisition ccagd.doc 000 013
City Council Agenda Report
August 20, 2003
Page 3
on June 27, 2003, a Public Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the
newspaper. The comment period was June 27, 2003, through
July 16, 2003. The City did not receive any comments.
On July 30, 2003, the City sent Mr. White a Notice of
Hearing (Attachment C) notifying him that the City Council
would be considering a Resolution of Necessity for
acquisition by eminent domain of the fee title to the
property at 412 Poindexter Avenue, pursuant to Section 19,
Article 1 of the California Constitution, Sections 1240.010
through 1240.050 of the California Code of Civil Procedure
and Sections 37350.5, 38010, and 40401 of the Government
Code and Section 5303 of the Public Resources Code. Mr.
White has the right to be heard by the City Council pending
the receipt by the City of his written request within 15
days of the mailing of said notice (August 14, 2003).
It was the City's intent to schedule the Resolution of
Necessity for Council consideration on August 20, 2003.
However, the City received a written request from Mr. White
(attachment E) asking that consideration be delayed until
after September 15, 2003, because he would be out of town
until that date. The City granted his request in writing
(attachment F) and notified him that the new hearing date
would be September 17, 2003. A new Notice of Hearing was
prepared and mailed to reflect the new date.
DISCUSSION
Over the past several years, the City has expressed an
interest in the property at 412 Poindexter Avenue. The
property represents the only undeveloped, vacant parcel
adjacent to an existing park and public school. Poindexter
Park is the only public park in the downtown area and it is
very popular and heavily used, primarily by residents and
businesses that are located in the downtown area. Moorpark
Little League is based at Poindexter Park and neighboring
Chaparral Middle School, and has long expressed the need
for additional baseball fields. The City is not able to
accommodate all of the current youth and adult sports needs
because of a lack of park facilities. As new residential
housing is built, the deficit of parkland and park and
recreation amenities will increase. The Parks and
Recreation Commission has identified the need for a site in
M: \MLindley \PARKS \Poindexter Property Purchase \Poindexter Property
acquisition ccagd.doc 000014
City Council Agenda Report
August 20, 2003
Page 4
the downtown area to locate a future skatepark as being a
high priority. In addition to the park and recreation
acreage needs, acquiring property that fronts Poindexter
Avenue would give the park greater visibility and would
enhance the park's general access and safety.
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. The
recommended findings are as follows:
1. The public interest and necessity require
additional pubic parkland and park and recreation
amenities because there is a shortage of such
land and amenities, particularly in the downtown
area of the City (This is consistent with the
findings adopted by the City Council on June 18,
2003, regarding the 296 Charles Street property);
2. 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 because the property is
vacant and undeveloped, and it is adjacent to an
existing park and middle school (This property is
ideally suited to address the current lack of
park facilities in this neighborhood and the
property being acquired is vacant);
3. The above described real property is necessary
for the proposed project because it is the only
undeveloped and unoccupied parcel adjacent to
Poindexter Park that would allow the park's
expansion;
4. The proposed Project is consistent with the
City's General Plan; and
5. 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 Sections 7267.2, and said offer
has not been accepted by said owner. An offer
M: \MLindley \PARKS \Poindexter Property Purchase \Poindexter Property
acquisition ccagd.doc 000 015
City Council Agenda Report
August 20, 2003
Page 5
letter was sent on May 14,
property owner did not respond.
STAFF RECOMNIENDATION
2003, and the
Accept and consider public testimony and adopt Resolution
No. 2003 - (Attachment A), adopting the findings of public
necessity to acquire Fee Title by eminent domain for
property at 412 Poindexter Avenue as described in the
Agenda Report. (4/5 th, s Roll Call Vote Required)
Attachments: A - Resolution
B - Letter to Mr. White
C - Hearing Notice
D - Mitigated Negative Declaration
E - Letter from Mr. White
F - Letter to Mr. White
M: \MLindley \PARKS \Poindexter Property Purchase \Poindexter Property
acquisition ccagd.doc 000016
Attachment A
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
412 POINDEXTER AVENUE; APN 511 -0- 090 -340, 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 412 Poindexter Avenue; APN 511 -0- 090 -340
( "the Property ") in order to expand Poindexter Park; and
WHEREAS, the City made an offer to Richard White (declared
Representative of "Owner ") on May 14, 2003 to purchase property
for $535,000; and
WHEREAS, said offer of $535,000 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 Sections
37350.5, 38010, 40401 and in the Public Resources Code Section
5303, and the required notice of hearing to consider this
resolution was given.
WHEREAS, the proposed use of the property for the expansion
of a public park is consistent with the Open Space Conservation
and Recreation Element of the Moorpark General 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 August
20, 2003, meeting of the City Council hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
000017
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 2
1. That the public interest and necessity require
construction of addition public parkland and park and
recreation amenities (Project) because there is a
shortage of such land and amenities, particularly in
the downtown area of the City.
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 because the property is vacant and undeveloped
and it is adjacent to an existing public park and
middle school;
3. That the above described real property is necessary
for the proposed project because it is the only
undeveloped and unoccupied parcel adjacent to
Poindexter Park that would allow the park's expansion;
4. That the proposed project is consistent with the Open
Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of the
City's General Plan; and
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.
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 Station of California, beginning at Section 21000),
the City Council has determined that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for this project has been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
��9r_;11
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 3
reflects the independent judgment 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 412 Poindexter Avenue (APN: 511 -0- 090 -340) and as described
on Exhibit `A' which is attached hereto and incorporated herein,
and as more particularly depicted on Exhibit `B' which is also
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION 4. The public use for which the above - described
property is to be taken is the development of a neighborhood
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 5. 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 Sorenson 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.
000019
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of September, 2003.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
000020
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
MAP
MAP OF PARCEL ATTACHED
000021
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 6
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL
The portion of Lot P, Tract L, Rancho Simi, in the City of
Moorpark, county of Ventura, State of California, according to
the Map recorded in Book 5, Page 5, of Miscellaneous records of
said County.
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of the land described in
deed recorded in Book 511 of Official records, at Page 215,
Records of Ventura County; thence Westerly along the Southerly
line of said land North 89 -57 -29 West, 380.00 feet; thence North
0 -4 -41 East South 89 -57 -29 East along said Southerly line of
Poindexter Avenue, a distance of 382.00 feet to the Easterly
line of the land described in said deed; thence Southerly along
said line, 249.70 feet to the point of beginning.
000022
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 6
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL
The portion of Lot P, Tract L, Rancho Simi, in the City- of
Moorpark, county of Ventura, State of California, according to
the Map recorded in Book 5, Page 5, of Miscellaneous records of
said County.
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of the land described in
deed recorded in Book 511 of Official records, at Page 215,
Records of Ventura County; thence Westerly along the Southerly
line of said land North 89 -57 -29 West, 380.00 feet; thence North
0 -4 -41 East South 89 -57 -29 East along said Southerly line of
Poindexter Avenue, a distance of 382.00 feet to the Easterly
line of the land described in said deed; thence Southerly along
said line, 249.70 feet to the point of beginning.
000024
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517 -6200
May 14, 2003, 2003
Richard White
Margaret Irene Gisler Cullen Trust
P.O. Box 321 (Via Certified Mail)
Aguanga, CA 92536
Re: Offer to Purchase Interests in Real Property: 412 Poindexter Avenue,
Moorpark, CA, - APN 511 -0 -090 -250
Dear Mr. White:
The City sent you an initial Offer to Purchase letter datediVlarch 30, 2003, for the .
property at 412 Poindexter Avenue. The offer was for $616,000 and you had until
April 14, 2003, to respond. You and I. had a phone conversation dpring which you
noted that the appraisal was over a year old and stated that you felt the offer was
low. I reported that the City would be conducting a new appraisal and that you
had the option of responding to the initial offer or not responding, in which case it
would lapse. The City did not receive a response from you regarding its initial
offer.
A new appraisal was performed and the City of Moorpark hereby presents a new
offer to purchase the fee simple interest in and to the Property for the appraised
market value of five hundred thirty -five thousand dollars ($535,000.00).
An independent appraisal of value was made of the Property to'-be acquired. The
amount of the above offer is the amount the City has determined to be the fair
market value based on the highest and best use, and applicable zoning for the
property as explained in the Appraisal attached hereto as Exhibit "A,° which is
incorporated herein by this reference.
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; and
1111 J
PATRICK HUNTER KEITH F. MILLHOUSE CLINT HARPER ROSEANN MIK, 3. IA;wurF PARVIN
Richard White, Letter
March 20i 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 June 6, 2003.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, the acqutisition or the Appraisal,
please contact me at 805 - 517 -6216.
Sincerely,.
Mary . Lindley
Director of Community Services
cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager
Attachments: Exhibit A - Appraisal
M:\IYILindley\Administration \Gisler Trust Purchase Offer 2 ltr.doc -000026
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
International Valuation Consultants
25602 Alicia Parkway, Suite 409
Laguna Hills, California 92653
Telephone (949) 643 -3556
Fax (949) 643 -5019
April 16, 2003
Ms. Mary Lindley,
Director of Community Services
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Dear Ms. Lindley: g
In accor,lance with your request, we have made an investigation and appraisal of the real
property described as and located at:
Multi- family Residential Land
Southeast corner of
Poindexter Avenue and Gisler Road
Moorpark, California
This appraisal is being prepared in order to estimate the Market Value of this property for
its possible acquisition by the City of Moorpark.
After completing our investigation and appraisal, it is our opinion that the Market Value
of this property, as of April 11, 2003, is in the amount of
FIVE HUNDRED THIRY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($535,000)
000027
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
This estimate of value assumes that there is no contaminated soil present on the subject
property. If contamination was found to be present on this property, the value conclusions stated
herein would no longer be valid.
This is a Summary Appraisal Report, prepared under U.S.P.A.P. Standards Rule 2 -2(b).
Descriptions of the appraised property and explanations of appraisal procedures are
contained in this report. The field notes and a copy of this report are retained in our files and are
available for your reference if required.
We certify that our employment and fee in this matter is in no way contingent upon our
estimates of value, and that we have no present or contemplated interest in this property.
M
Richard K. Faulkner
Senior Associate
Appraisal and Report by:
Richard K. Faulkner
Senior Real Estate Appraiser
Respectfully submitted,
MCNAMARA AND ASSOCIATES
zal-
John N III
Managing irecto
(ii) 000028
Property Appraised:
Owner of Record:
Appraisal Date:
Appraisal Purpose
Land Area:
Improvements
Zoning
Assessor's Parcel Number
Highest and Best Use
Value Indication
r
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Multi - family residential land on southeast corner, of
Poindexter Avenue and Gisler Road, Moorpark, California.
Marie Neal, Trustee of The Margaret Irene Gisler Cullen
Trust, created June 3, 1991.
April 11, 2003
To estimate the Market Value of the subject property
2.02 acres
Miscellaneous landscaping and fencing remaining from
formerly improved residential property
RPD -15 Units
512- 090 -34
Multi - family residential development
$535,000
(iv)
000029
!kV
A
■ ■
ou
4
rya
=nP
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
SITE DATA
Location and General Description of the Property
The property being appraised is a parcel of unimproved land located on the southeast
corner of Poindexter Avenue and Gisler Road, in the City of Moorpark, Ventura County,
California. The land is rectangular shaped, and the former structural improvements have been
removed. The only improvements are land improvements consisting of fencing, trees and other
landscaping. The property was formerly improved with a single - family residence. The yard
improvements are considered to add no value to the land value.
Address of the property is:
412 Poindexter Avenue
Moorpark, California
Adjoining on the east side of the subject is Chaparral Middle School, while on the south
is a public park. To the west, across Gisler Road, is a new tract of detached, single family homes
which were constructed as "affordable homes." To the North across Poindexter Avenue, are the
railroad tracks, with undeveloped land north of the tracks that is currently zoned for agricultural
uses.
Legal Description
The property being appraised may be described as follows:
That portion of Lot P, Tract L, Rancho Simi, in the
City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of
California, according to the Map recorded in Book
5, Page 5 of Miscellaneous records of said County,
described as follows:
(7)
000031
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of the land
described in deed recorded in Book 511 of Official
records, at Page 215, Records of Ventura County;
thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said land
North 89 -57 -29 West, 382.00 feet; thence North 0 -04 -41 East
South 89 -57 -29 East along said Southerly line of Poindexter
Avenue, a distance of 382.00 feet to the Easterly line of the
land described in said deed; thence Southerly along said
line, 249.70 feet to the point of beginning.
Record Ownership
Ventura County records indicate that this property is vested as follows:
Margaret Irene Gisler Cullen, Trustee of the Margaret Irene
Gisler Trust, created June 3, 1991.
History of the Property
The subject property has been owned by the Gisler Family for at least the last ten years.
Land Size and Area
The subject land is rectangular in shape and is located on the southeast corner of
Poindexter Avenue and Gisler Road. It has an effective frontage of about 368.60 feet along the
south side of Poindexter Avenue, and an effective frontage of 239.70 feet along the east side of
Gisler Road. The southerly property line, adjacent to the park, is 368.60 feet long and the
easterly property line, adjacent to the school, is 239.70 feet long. Excluded from the northwest
corner of the property is a street corner radius, with a radius of 25 feet, and a length of 39.25 feet.
The surface of the land is level and is at grade with the streets and the adjoining land. The area
has been calculated to be a net area of about 88,219 square feet, or 2.02 acres.
The subject land is shown outlined in yellow on the Plat Map, located in the Addenda to
this report.
(8) 000032
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
Utilities
All normal public utilities are available to the subject property. Telephone service is
provided by Pacific Bell, electricity by Southern California Edison company, natural gas by
Southern California Gas Company, and water by Ventura County Water Works.
Streets and Access
Poindexter Avenue runs westerly from Moorpark Avenue. It has a right of way width of
60 feet and is developed with one driving lane in each direction. No parking is allowed.
Improvements include asphalt paving, street lights, and concretee curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
Gisler Road runs south from Poindexter Avenue for a distance of about one block where
it ends at the south end of the park. It has a 50 foot right of way width, and is developed with
one driving lane and one parking lane in each direction. It is improved with asphalt paving,
street lights, and concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
Access to the area is via Moorpark Avenue (Highway 23), which provides access to the
south to Los Angeles. Avenue, which runs easterly to the Route 23 -118 Freeway and westerly to
the Ventura area. To the north, Moorpark Avenue runs through the hills to Fillmore and the
Route 126 Freeway.
Hazardous Materials and Waste
In the past, this site has apparently been used for residential and agricultural purposes,
which has been the general historical use for this area.
No hazardous materials or wastes were observed on the site. Only a qualified
environmental engineer would be qualified to assess any potential problems due to hazardous
materials or substances that might affect the property. This appraisal assumes that there are no
such problems. If problems were to be found which affects the site, the value conclusions stated
herein would no longer be valid.
(9) 000033
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
Zoning
The Land is zoned RPD -15, Residential Planned Development, by the City of Moorpark.
Allowed are up to 15 dwelling units per acre. "The purpose of this zone is to provide areas for
communities which will be developed utilizing modern land planning and unified design
techniques; this zone provides a flexible regulatory procedure in order to encourage:
1. Coordinated neighborhood design and compatibility with existing or potential
development of surrounding areas;
r 2. An efficient use of land particularly through the clustering of dwelling units and the
preservation of the natural features of sites;
3. Variety and innovation in site design, density, and housing unit options, including
garden apartments, townhouses, and single - family dwellings;
4. Lower housing costs through the reduction of street and utility networks; and
5. A more vaned, attractive and energy - efficient living environment as well as greater
opportunities for recreation than would be possible under other zone classifications."
This zone allows a wide variety. of residential uses, with most development standards
based on City approval of the specific project. The only basic development standard is a
maximum building height of 35 feet.
This property is located within the Moorpark Redevelopment Project, a project which
covers most of the older sections of Moorpark. On the Redevelopment Plan, General Plan- Land
Use Map, the subject property is shown as being designated VH, Residential, Very High Density.
The density is 10.1 to 20 dwelling units, per acre, with a 15 dwelling units per acre average.
The Health and Safety Code has the following requirements for projects in
redevelopments areas. "At least 15% of all new and substantially rehabilitated dwelling units
developed within a project area under the jurisdiction of an agency by public or private entities
or persons other than the agency shall be available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied
by, persons and families of low or moderate income. Not less than 40% of the dwelling units
required to be available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families of
(10 ) 000034
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
low or moderate income shall be available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very
low income households.
Assessed Valuation and Taxes
Assessed valuation and real property taxes for fiscal year 2001 -2002 are as follows:
Parcel
Land
Improvements
Total
511 -090 -340
$19,850
$50,425
$70,275
The improvement value shown on this tax roll includes the residence that has been
demolished. The real property taxes, including the residence, are $1,073.52.
Improvements
The subject land contains no structural improvements. Yard improvements are those
apparently remaining from the former use as a site for a single - family residence, and include
chain link perimeter fencing, trees, bushes, and plants. These improvements are considered to
add no value to the land value.
Present Use
At the present time the property is unimproved, and is not being used. It was formerly
improved with a residence, but the structural improvements have been cleared from the site.
Highest and Best Use
Highest and Best Use is defined by The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal (Edition,
1984) as follows:
The reasonable probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is
physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest
(11) 000035
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
value. The four criteria the Highest and Best Use must meet are legal permissibility, physical
possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum profitability.
It is to be recognized that in cases where a site has existing improvements on it, the
Highest and Best Use as if Vacant may well be different from the existing use. The existing use
will continue however, unless and until land value in its Highest and Best Use exceeds the total
value of the property in its existing use, including demolition and cleanup costs.
Implied within these definitions is recognition of the contribution of that specific use to
community environment goals and to community development in addition to wealth
4; maximization. Also implied is that the determination of Highest and Best Use results from the
appraisers judgment and analytical skill, and that the use determined from analysis represents an
opinion, not a fact to be found. In appraisal practice, the concept of Highest and Best Use
represents the premise upon which value is based. In context of investment value, an alternative
form would be the most profitable use.
In estimating the Highest and Best Use of the subject property, we have considered those
uses that are legally permissible, physically possible, economically feasible,'reasonable probable,
and which would result in a positive return to the land. We also considered the surrounding land
uses and the demand for property in the local real estate market.
In analyzing the subject site as vacant, including its potential and justifiability for
particular type of building improvement, we have reviewed the permitted uses under the zoning
classification.
As Vacant
The subject land is zoned RPD -15, Residential Planned Development, with a density of
up to 15 dwelling units per acre on the site. The subject is considered to be unimproved, and
with an area of 2.02 acres, up to a total of 30 dwelling units could be developed. This property is
located within a redevelopment area and it would be required to provide some of the dwellings as
affordable units. The city would require that 15% of the total number of units be affordable, and
that 40% of the affordable units be for very low- income people. This would require that of the
30 potential units on the site, 5 would be affordable, and of this five, 40% or 2 would be for very
low- income people. Thus, out of a potential development of 30 units, 25 could be market rate or
market priced units, 3 would be affordable for lower income people or for people at 80% of the
( 12) 000036
MCNAMARA & ,ASSOCIATES
median income, and 2 would be for very low income people or for people at 50% of the area's
median income. Thus it is our opinion that the Highest and Best Use for the subject land would
be to develop a multiple family dwelling project with a total of 30 units, which would include 5
affordable units.
I&
( 13) 000037
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
VALUATION
There are three recognized approaches to the valuation of real property. These are the
Reproduction Cost, Income. and Market Data Approaches. The use of all three approaches,
while desirable, is not always appropriate for all appraisal problems.
The Reproduction Cost Approach develops an estimate of market value by adding the
estimated land value, valued as if it were vacant and available for development, to the
depreciated reproduction or replacement cost of the improvements. The reproduction cost new
is first estimated; then this is reduced by the estimated amount of accrued depreciation to
indicate the inplace. value of the improvements. Accrued depreciation is composed of three
types which include: (1) Physical deterioration; (2) functional obsolescence; when compared to
new properties with the same function; (3) economic obsolescence or a .loss of value from
causes outside the property itself. The land value is estimated by comparing the subject site
with similar parcels which have recently sold or are Concurrently offered for sale.
o-
The Income Approach is concerned with estimating the present, value of the future
potential income stream generated by the subject property. This is usually measured as the net
income which it is justified in assuming the property will produce during its remaining useful
economic life. After a comparison with investments of similar and different types, and the
selection of an appropriate capitalization rate, the net income is then capitalized into an
indication of market value.
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.
From these three approaches to value, or if all three were not appropriate, those which
were used are correlated and a final estimate of Market Value is made. For this appraisal, the
Market Data Approach will be used to estimate the value of the subject property a vacant land.
(14) 000038
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
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 or competing with 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; frontage; site prominence and
- visibility; 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.
The subject land is located on the southeast corner of Poindexter Avenue and Gisler
Road. The land has an area of 2.02 acres, and the zoning would allow up to�0 dwelling units on
the site. Of the 30 units, 5 would be required to be affordable units. This property is located
across the street from the railroad tracks, on its east side is an intermediate school, and on its
south side is a public park.
A search for sales of vacant land with a utility comparable to the subject's was made of
the Moorpark and Simi Valley area. There is only a relatively small amount of multi - family
zoned land in Moorpark, so it was necessary to go into the adjoining areas for comparable sales.
From this search a number of sales were investigated, of which a total of five were selected for
inclusion in this report. These sales, numbers 1 through 5, 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. Of these 5 sales, 3 are located in Moorpark, and 2 are located in Simi Valley.
These sales occurred between March 2000 and the date of valuation. These sales
contained land areas between 3.74 acres and 9.48 acres, and the zonings varied between three
zoned, multi - family residential, with allowed densities of 7, 12, and 13.5 dwelling units per acre,
and two zoned CPD, Commercial Planned Development, which are going to be developed with
residential dwellings. One of these sites has been approved for 20 dwelling units per acre, while
the other has not been approved for development, although the adjoining land, owned by the
same developer, is approved with detached homes on "compact lots."
t 15 000039
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
Sale number 1 is the March 2000 sale of a 4.86 -acre parcel located on Leta Yancy Road,
south of Los Angeles Avenue. This is two blocks west of Moorpark Avenue in a developing
area of smaller single- family residences, multi- family residences, with some commercial along
Los Angeles Avenue. This property is zoned CPD, but may be developed with the adjoining
land with smaller residences on "compact lots." The sales price of $850,000 reflected a pro -rata
value of $174,897 per acre, or $4.01 per square foot for land. The subject is superior to this sale
in time of sale or market conditions, and corner location, while the sale is larger in size, and is
superior in zoning, and utility. The two properties are about equal in land shape, topography,
and most other factors. On a pro -rata or per square foot basis, the subject is considered to be a
little superior to this sale:
Sale number 2 is the April 2000 sale of a property on the northeast corner of Alamo
Street and Fairbanks Avenue, in the central portion of the City of Simi Valley. This is a few
blocks north of the Ronald Regan Freeway. This sale is a 5.23 -acre property zoned for Multiple
Family Residences with a density of 13.5 dwelling units per acre. The zoning would allow up to
70 units on the site. The sales price of $1,500,000 reflected pro -rata values of $286,807 per acre
or $6.58 per square foot for land. On a per -unit basis, this sale reflected a value of $21,429 per
unit. The subject is superior to this sale in market conditions and zoning, while the sale is larger
in size, and is superior in location, and utility. The two properties are about equal in corner
location, land shape, and most other factors. On a per unit basis, this sale is considered to be a
little superior to the subject.
Sale number 3 is the July 2001 sale of a property on Kuehner Drive, at the easterly end of
Simi Valley. This property is irregular in shape, and it runs from the east. side of Kuehner Drive
to the southerly side of the Ronald Regan Freeway. The land is zoned RM -7, multi - family
residential, with a density of 7 dwelling units per acre. This site could be developed with up to
26 units. The sales price of $875,000 reflected pro -rata values of $233,957 per acre and $5.37
per square foot for land. The cost on a per dwelling unit basis, is $33,654 per unit allowed. The
subject is superior to this sale in market conditions, corner location, land shape, zoning,
topography, and utility, while the sale is superior in location, access, and is larger in size. On a
per unit basis, this sale is considered to be superior to the subject.
Sale number 4 is the July 2001 sale and concurrent resale of a parcel on the south side of
Los Angeles Avenue, one block east of Moorpark Avenue, in the City of Moorpark. This is a
relatively long and narrow parcel with 9.25 acres, and it is zoned RPD -12 Units. The City has
(16 ) 000040
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
approved a development of 79 condominiums on the site. The purchase price of $3,450,000
reflected pro -rata values of $372,973 per acre and $9.55 per square foot for land, and $43,670
per unit allowed. This property has an approved density of 8.54 dwelling units per acre. The
subject is superior to this sale in market conditions, land shape, and corner location, while the
sale is larger in size, and is superior in location, access, and utility. The two properties are about
equal in zoning, topography, and most other factors.. On pro -rata and per unit basis, this sale is
considered to be superior to the subject.
Sale number 5 is the September 2002 sale of a 9.48 -acre parcel located one block south
of Los Angeles Avenue, and one block west of Moorpark Avenue. The property is zoned CPD,
and is located next to a large apartment complex. This area would not be an appropriate area for
commercial development. The parcel has been approved for a 190 -unit senior citizen apartment
development. This amounts to a density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The sales price of
$1,379,000 reflected pro -rata values of $145,464 per acre and $3.33 per square foot for land.
The sale reflected a value of $7,258 per unit on a per unit basis. T. he subject is superior to this
sale in market conditions and corner location, while the sale is larger in size, and is superior in
location, access, utility, zoning, and use density. The two properties are about equal in
topography, land shape, and most other factors. On a pro -rata and per unif basis, the subject is
considered to be superior to this sale.
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; access; use density;
circumstances of the sale; entitlements; location of the property; topography; offsite
improvements needed for development, etc.
After competing 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 $18,000 per Market Rate unit, with
adjustments necessary for the number of below market or affordable units required since this
property is in a redevelopment project area. For the subject with its total of 30 units, of which
25 may be market rate units, 3 must be priced for people with an income at 80% of the median
(17) 000041
MCNAMARA & ASSOCIATES
income in the area, and 2 must be priced for people a
The estimated value of the property is as follows:
25 units @ $ 18,000 per unit
3 units @ 80 % of $25,000 or $20,000
2 units @ 50% of $25,000 or $12,500
Total Market Value
t 50% of the median income for the area.
$450,000
_ $ 60,000
_ $ 25,000
$535,000
ft
18 ) 000042
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 $535,000
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:
FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($535,000)
( 19) 000043
A-R-cc�i men} C
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF 412 POINDEXTER AVENUE; APN 511- 0 -090-
340; AS THE SAME IS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED.
TO: Richard White (On Behalf of Marie Neal, Trustee)
The Margaret Irene Gisler Cullen Trust
P.O. Box 321
Aguanga, CA 92536
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 412 Poindexter Avenue; APN 511 -0- 090 -340 (previously APN
551 -0- 090 -250); as the same is described in Exhibit "A" Attached.
The hearing will be held on September 17, 2003 at 7:00 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;
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 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.
For further information, contact Mary Lindley at (805) 517 -6216.
Mary K. L' dtramity Director f CJSeces
NOTICE OF HEARING, Page 2
Name
Address
Date
REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY [412 Poindexter Avenue].
Telephone
Signature
i�rr•
NOTICE OF HEARING, Page 3
The portion of
Moorpark, county
the Map recorded
said County.
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL
Lot P, Tract L, Rancho Simi, in the City of
of Ventura, State of California, according to
in Book 5, Page 5, of Miscellaneous records of
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of the land described in
deed recorded in Book 511 of Official records, at Page 215,
Records of Ventura County; thence Westerly along the Southerly
line of said land North 89 -57 -29 West, 380.00 feet; thence North
0 -4 -41 East South 89 -57 -29 East along said Southerly line of
Poindexter Avenue, a distance of 382.00 feet to the Easterly line
of the land described in said deed; thence Southerly along said
line, 249.70 feet to the point of beginning.
NOTICE OF HEARING, Page 3
The portion of
Moorpark, county
the Map recorded
said County.
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL
Lot P, Tract L, Rancho Simi, in the City of
of Ventura, State of California, according to
in Book 5, Page 5, of Miscellaneous records of
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of the land described in
deed recorded in Book 511 of Official records, at Page 215,
Records of Ventura County; thence Westerly along the Southerly
line of said land North 89 -57 -29 West, 380.00 feet; thence North
0 -4 -41 East South 89 -57 -29 East along said Southerly line of
Poindexter Avenue, a distance of 382.00 feet to the Easterly line
of the land described in said deed; thence Southerly along said
line, 249.70 feet to the point of beginning.
1111•;
iw yywri '
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
The following Mitigated 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: June 27, 2003 to July 16, 2003
Project Title /Case No.: Poindexter Park Expansion
Project Location: 412 Poindexter Avenue, Moorpark, Ventura County. (Location Map Attached)
Project Description: The acquisition of a 2.02 acre lot in the RPD -15 Residential Planned
Development Zone at 412 Poindexter Avenue for the development of
parkland. Expected facilities could include shade trees, turf, Skatepark,
children's play equipment, sports fields, 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, revisions
have been made by the City consistent with the mitigation measures identified
in the Initial Study. With these revisions, 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
tllt�•
Poindexter Park Expansion
CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
Project Title: Poindexter Park Expansion Case No.: n/a
Contact Person and Phone No.: Mary Lindley (805) 517 -6215
Name of Applicant: City of Moorpark
Address and Phone No.: 799 Moorpark Ave, Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6216
Project Location: 412 Poindexter Avenue
General Plan Designation: Downtown Specific Plan Zoning RPD -15, Residential Planned Dev
Project Description: The acquisition of a 2.02 acre lot for the expansion of a neighborhood park.
Expected facilities could include shade trees, turf, children's play equipment, Skatepark, benches, and picnic
tables.
Existing building foundation would be demolished.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: Railroad Track
South: Developed parkland
East: Middle School
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
Sign' nt Impact" or 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated, " as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources x Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials HydrologyNVater Quality Land Use /Planning
Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportationfl-raffic
Utilities /Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None
DETERMINATION: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by the City. Mitigation Measures described on the attached Exhibit 1 have been added to the project. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
Prepared by: ",_�� '' ' Reviewed by:
Date: — -` of Dat
000056
Poindexter Park Expansion
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitiaation 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 expansion will not be lit for nighttime use. Low -level security lighting may be
installed.
Sources: Project description
il
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 000051
Poindexter Park Expansion
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 park expansion will serve primarily existing residences within walking distance and
is not expected to generate substantial vehicle traffic.
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?
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
Response: This project, in an urbanized location, does not affect natural biological resources.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
3
000052
Poindexter Park Expansion
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
a historic resource as defined in §15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
X
X
X
Response: This project involves the grading and landscaping of the site for a park. The land had previously
been cleared and developed, leaving a remote possibility of cultural resources existing on site. A
building foundation remains from the previously demolished house. However, it has not been
identified as a historic resource and has no known historical significance. It was once owned by
Adolph Gisler and in the 1930's it served as a walnut ranch.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: A site investigation by a qualified archaeologist will be conducted prior-to grading. Any
significant artifacts present will be handled in accordance with recommended actions of the
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
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
x
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?
4
000053
Poindexter Park Expansion
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Sigriificant 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
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,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
X
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 intermixed with wildlands?
Response: No known hazardous materials exist on the project site. Removal and disposal of any
hazardous materials, if identified, will take place in compliance with all local and State
regulations.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
5
000054
Poindexter Park Expansion
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 expanded parkland.
Proper NPDES Best Management Practices will be employed during demolition and
construction.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established community?
2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
u
X
X
000055
Poindexter Park Expansion
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitiaation Impact Impact
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?
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural community conservation plan?
The expansion of the existing park in the downtown area is consistent with the Moorpark
Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Open Space Conservation and Recreation
Element. A park is a permitted use in the RPD -15 Zone.
Sources: City of Moorpark General Plan, Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
Moorpark Parks and Recreation Master Plan, project description.
Mitigation: 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
groundbome vibration or groundbome 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?
000056
Poindexter Park Expansion
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
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?
Response: Construction noise will be limited per the requirements of the Moorpark Municipal Code;
therefore, this impact will be less -than significant. A potential skatepark facility would be used
intermittently, would not be in use at night, and would not generate noise levels greater than
activities in adjacent parkland.
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 park will serve existing residents and will not lead to additional growth. The site is
currently unoccupied, containing only building foundation and vegetation.
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? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
00005'7
Poindexter Park Expansion
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
impact mitigation Impact
Response: A minor amount of additional park maintenance will be required with park expansion.
Sources: Project description.
Mitigation: None required. .
N. RECREATION
1) Would the project increase the use of existing X
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
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 r
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
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
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
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
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
5) Result in inadequate emergency access?
6) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Response: This project will serve the existing neighborhood within walking distance. Additional vehicle
traffic is expected to less than significant. The adjacent developed parkland has sufficient
parking spaces.
Sources: City of Moorpark General Plan, project description, site plans.
Mitigation: None required.
9
000058
Poindexter Park Expansion
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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 projects solid waste disposal
needs?
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? .
a
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?
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
000059
Poindexter Park Expansion
Response: This project involves the expansion of a park to serve an existing neighborhood. The area of
work is fully urbanized.
Sources: Project description, site plans.
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: 412 Poindexter Avenue, 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.
9. The Moorpark Story by Norma Gunther, 1969
11 000060
08 1112003 10:10 15057588667
MAIL BOXES ETC 2317 PAGE 03
74 vi� I
..,� G / //p 3
/Qg 12sSA 7,1 a/U ° .c1 b'?�° 2
/��� C'r9i2,di tiG ����j�� -7�2T y �a c.5s i �c= � ,•9: yip? �O�.u.�,c ki.� 2
�.r % o % /}.[= /�•�i9fPi �� sc iY.l-O v�.0 --c9 Fo � g/s °/ °-� /9.�
y Mme}, .0 yam- .8c iNc fah' cv - �2D.c- x� a M.c "ov cis v <o
19s L Gui .G.[ .C�.C. v / crF S'� i9 r•C� UAv
:o•L �/VC 7W,
M v s
My so
v' -- t-
a' ��
�'Ji9 TT•C� r2 /,1 N �O d �c� u.0 ,� A�,��2.c� c.�:.rc
19
/S." o ,v
GG�Go�
-?`�
000061
A-
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517 -6200
August 18, 2003
Richard White
P.O. Box 321
Aguanga, CA 92536
Dear Mr. White:
The City has agreed to your request to postpone the hearing on the property located at
412 Poindexter Avenue from August 20, 2003, to September 17, 2003. I will send you a
hearing notice setting the new date.
Sincerely,
Mary dley
Director of Community Services
No]
Steven Kueny, City Manager
Joseph Montes, City Attorney
1111.::
PATRICK HUNTER KEITH F. MILLHOUSE CLINT HARPER 0
_ _ ROSEANN MIKOS JANICE S. PARVIN