Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES CC 1990 700 1990 0725RESOLUTION NO. 90 -700 A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM AS ADEQUATE FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89 -3, AND INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL, QUALITY ACT. Whereas, at a duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 1990 the City Council considered the application filed by the Moorpark Presbyterian Church requesting approval to construct a 23,161 sq.ft. church facility on a 4.7 acre (net) site located at the southeast corner of Spring and Peach Hill Roads. Whereas, the City Council after review and consideration of the information contained within the staff reports dated June 4, 1990 and June 27, 1990 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration has found that the subject project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has reached its decision in the matter; and Whereas, at its meeting of July 11, 1990 the City Council opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, closed the public hearing and directed staff to prepare a resolution for the City Council's decision; Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California, does resolve as follows: Section 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. Residential Planned Development Permit No. 89 -3 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for these projects and notice has been provided to the public through direct mailing to owners of property within 300 feet of the project sites and through the publication of a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed projects. C. Whereby, the City Council of the City of Moorpark has considered evidence presented by the Director of Community Development and other interested parties with respect to the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration. D. The City Council has evaluated the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and has determined it to be adequate and complete. Section 2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State Guidelines. The City Council has received and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to acting on the proposed project and has found that this document adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and the fact that no comments were received during the public review process, the City Council has found that there is no substantial evidence that there will be any significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the approval of the project. Mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no significant effects will occur. The mitigation measures included in the attached Negative Declaration are incorporated herein by reference, and have been included as conditions of approval for the referenced project. Section 3. A mitigation reporting and monitoring program has been prepared for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 89 -3 in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. The mitigation reporting and monitoring program is included in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project. The City Council has received and considered the mitigation reporting and monitoring program, incorporated herein by reference, prior to making a recommendation on the proposed project. The action with the forgoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: COUNCILMEMBERS BROWN, IiARPER, LAWRASON, MONTGOMERY AND MAYOR PEREZ Noes'- NONE Passed, approved and adopted on 25th day of JULY 1990. Mayor B' O M. PEREZ Attest: No. 90 -700 BERNARDO M PEREZ Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmemt>er CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Councilmember LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk MOORPARK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) SS. CITY OF MOORPARK ) STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J.KANE i City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer I, Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 90 -700 _ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 25th day of July , 1990, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS BROWN, HARPER, LAWRASON, MONTGOMERY AND MAYOR PEREZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 25th day of JULY _, 1990. Lillian E. Kellerman City Clerk 799 Mcxxnark AvPniiP Monmark California 9:3021 (805) 529 -6864 RPD 89 -3 May 21,1990 Page 13 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. a., EARTH Construction of the project would not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes to geologic substructures. 1. b., c. The topography of the site is relatively flat with an average slope ratio of 6 %. The cut and fill for this site is approximately 10,500 cu.yards and is anticipated to be balanced with no import of soil from the outside or export of soil out of the site. Moreover, building code requirements related to grading would minimize the potential erosional hazards. Some displacement, compaction would result from the grading of the proposed building. Mitigation Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a grading plan prepared by a registered Civil engineer; shall obtain a grading permit; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion. If grading is to take place during the rainy season (October through March), an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the start of construction. A required erosion control measure shall be that all graded slopes would be hydroseeded or landscaped within 60 days of the completion of grading. To minimize compaction of soils a detailed soils report shall be submitted by the applicant prior to Zoning Clearance and in addition, the building pad area must be compacted per City Code to support the structure. 1. e., f, and g. Based on the City's Safety Element, no erosional, geologic or seismic hazards are known to exist on site or in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, no significant effect is anticipated. 2. a.,b.,c., and d. AIR The proposed project is not expected to result in substantial deterioration of the ambient air quality. The anticipated RPD 89 -3 May 21,1990 Page 14 movement of vehicles and trucks to and from the site would not generate enough air emissions to degrade the ambient air quality. 3. a. through j. WATER The development of the 6,366 square foot fellowship hall and the classrooms with a total floor area of 5,475 square feet would increase the rate and amount of surface runoff, lower the infiltration rate and may change drainage patterns as a result of an increase in impervious surfaces. Mitigation: The use of a storm drain system, cross- gutters, and surface streets would reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Moreover, prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant is required to submit a drainage plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. 4. & 5 PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE The proposed project would not change the diversity and number of plant and animal species or affect the wild life habitat because no rare or endangered species are known to exist onsite. The existing vegetation on the site consists substantially of non - native plants (weeds and grass). 6. a. NOISE The proposed sanctury is located in proximity to residential homes to the west and to an existing church to the north of the project site. Use within the classrooms and the fellowship hall may slightly increase the ambient noise level in the general area. All uses and activities are conditioned to be conducted within the enclosed buildings thus reducing any future noise impacts to the residential community nearby. Mitigation To mitigate the potential noise impact on the adjoining residential properties, all noise generation sources onsite shall be attenuated to 55 d8A at the property line, or to the ambient noise level at the property line measured at the time RPD 89 -3 May 21,1990 Page 15 of the occupancy request. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning clearance for initial occupancy or any subsequent tenant occupancy, the Director of Community Development may request that a noise study or a certificate from a Licensed acoustical Engineer be submitted for review and approval which demonstrates that all onsite noise generation sources be mitigated to the required level. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE The proposal would generate new light or glare on the adjoining residential neighborhood. Mitigation To mitigate this impact, the applicant is required to shield all lighting onsite and to design lighting so that there is no glare or adverse spillover of light on the adjacent residential homes. The following requirement should be included as a condition of approval for the project. For all exterior lighting a lighting plan shall be prepared by an Electrical Engineer registered in the State of California and submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval. The lighting plan shall achieve the following objectives: Avoid interference with reasonable use of adjoining properties; minimize onsite and offsite glare; provide adequate onsite lighting; limit electroliers height to avoid excessive illumination; and provide structures which are compatible with the total design of the proposed facility. The lighting plan shall include the following: a. A photometric plan showing a point -by -point foot candle layout to extend a minimum of twenty (20) feet outside the property lines. Layout plan to be based on a ten (10) foot grid center. b. Maximum overall height of fixtures shall be fourteen (14) feet. C. Fixtures must possess sharp cut -off qualities with a maximum of one foot candle illumination of property lines d. Average maximum of one foot candle illumination. RPD 89 -3 May 21,1990 Page 16 e. There shall be no more than a seven -to -one (7:1) ratio of level of illumination shown (maximum to minimum ration between light standards). f. Energy efficient lighting fixtures shall be provided which are compatible with adjacent properties. g. No light shall be emitted above the 90 degree or horizontal plane. 8. LAND USE The proposed project would not encourage the development of presently undeveloped areas or increase the development intensity in developed areas. The proposed project is located in an area which is predominantly developed with residential properties. All public services and utilities are currently in place and no expansion to the infrastructure would result from the project. Therefore, no potential significant impact on land use is anticipated. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES The proposed project is not expected to result in a significant increase in the rate of any natural resource, or result in substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource. 10. RISK OF UPSET There is no potential risk that hazardous materials would be generated and /or stored onsite because this project is for church use only. 11. POPULATION The proposed project is not expected to significantly alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population in Moorpark. The proposal would be for the construction of a church and members of the congregation would already have been housed. RPD 89 -3 May 21,1990 Page 17 12. HOUSING This proposed development would not create the demand for new housing in the Community. As previously mentioned,all church members are already residents of existing homes. 13. a. through f. CIRCULATION The proposed development of the proposed Church preschool facility and church administration office in the first phase and the construction of the sanctuary in the second phase are not anticipated to generate adverse impact on the local street system in the immediate vicinity of the site or at nearby important arterial intersections north and south of the project site according to a traffic impact evaluation study conducted by the traffic consultant. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. The proposed project would not require additional fire protection or police protection personnel, and schools are not expected to be affected. Fees related to fire and police protection and school fees would have to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The project is also not expected to impact park and recreational facilities. The City typically imposes a park and recreation fee condition of approval requiring the developer to contribute an amount of $.25 per square foot of gross floor area to support the City's current and future park system. 15. ENERGY. The proposed project is not expected to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy, and would not substantially increase demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy. 16. UTILITIES. The proposal may result in the need for new connections to existing electrical, natural gas, telephone, water, sewer, and storm water drainage facilities, but would not create excessive demands on the existing systems. Solid waste collection and disposal would be contracted out to a private collection service. 17. HUMAN HEALTH. The proposed project is not expected to result in the creation of any health hazard or exposure of people to potential health hazards. RPD 89 -3 May 21,1990 Page 18 18. AESTHETICS. The placement of the proposed church building and educational facilities would not obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public. The proposed church building design and architecture would be compatible with that of the adjacent church to the north of the site. 19. RECREATION. The project would not be expected to affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. (Refer to discussion on Item No. 14. Public Services). 20. a. through c. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. There is a very low probability that the site has archaeological or historical significance due to previous grading activities and existing development onsite. 21. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICPiNCE a. As identified in the preceding responses, the project is not expected to significantly degrade the quality of biological and cultural environments. b. Both short term and long term impacts in terms of noise, visual, traffic, human health, light and glare, may result but are not expected to be significant if mitigation measures previously identified are included as conditions of project approval. C. The proposal is expected to result in cumulative traffic impacts when considered with other past, present, and future projects in the vicinity of the site. However, the proposed 53 foot dedication and improvement on Peach Hill road, and the proposed 13.5 foot Irrevocable offer of easement to be constructed along the Peach Hill Road frontage as part of the conditions of approval would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. d. The project would not have environmental effects which would adversely impact on human beings directly or indirectly because no hazardous materials would be used for the church and office building. EX I L-0 6 �,. 3 - RPD 89 -3 May 21,1990 Page 19 MITIGATION MEKASURES AND REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM 1. EARTH Mitigation Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer; shall obtain a grading permit; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion. If grading is to take place during the rainy season (October through March), an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the start of construction. A required erosion control measure shall be that all graded slopes would be hydroseeded or landscaped within 60 days of the completion of grading. To minimize compaction of soils a detailed soils report shall be submitted by the applicant prior to Zoning Clearance and in addition, the building pad area must be compacted per City Code to support the structure. Reporting and Monitoring Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance, the case planner shall contact the City Engineer's office to determine conformance with the grading plan requirement. The City Engineer shall be responsible for determining whether an erosion control plan is required prior to issuance of a grading permit. The City Engineer, or his designee, shall monitor the project during construction to ensure that any required hydroseeding is accomplished, and shall document compliance by preparing a memorandum for the project file prior to approval of occupancy. 2. WATER Mitigation The use of a storm drain system, cross- gutters, and surface streets would reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Moreover, prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant is required to submit a drainage plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. RPD 89 -3 May 21,1990 Page 20 Reporting and Monitoring Prior to the issuance of a Zoning clearance, the staff planner shall contact the City Engineer's office to determine compliance with this condition, and shall document compliance by placing a note in the project file. 3. NOISE Mitigation To mitigate the potential noise impact on the adjoining residential properties, all roof top mechanical equipment and other noise generation sources onsite shall be attenuated to 55 dEA at the property line, or to the ambient noise level at the property line measured at the time of the occupancy request. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning clearance for initial occupancy or any subsequent tenant occupancy, the Director of Community Development may request that the noise study or a certificate from a Licensed acoustical Engineer be submitted for review and approval which demonstrates that all onsite noise generation sources would be mitigated to the required level. 4. LIGHT AND GLARE Mitigation Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, a lighting plan shall be prepared by an electrical engineer registered in the State of California and submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval. The lighting plan shall achieve the following objectives: Avoid interference with reasonable use of adjoining properties; minimize onsite and offsite glare; provide adequate onsite lighting; limit electroliers height to avoid excessive illumination; and provide structures which are compatible with the total design of the proposed facility. The lighting plan shall include the following: a. A photometric plan showing a point -by -point foot candle layout to extend a minimum of twenty (20) feet outside the property lines. Layout plan to be based on a ten RPD 89 -3 May 21,1990 Page 21 (10) foot grid center. b. Maximum overall height of fixtures shall be fourteen (14) feet. C. Fixtures must possess short cut -off qualities with a maximum of one foot candle illumination at property lines. d. Average maximum of one foot candle illumination. e. There shall be no more than a seven -to -one (7:1) ratio of level of illumination shown (maximum to minimum ratio between light standards). f. Energy efficient lighting fixtures shall be provided which are compatible with adjacent properties. g. No light shall be emitted above the 90 degree or horizontal plane. Reporting and Monitoring Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the Director of Community Development shall review and approve the required lighting plan. The staff planner shall document this approval in the file. 3. AESTHETICS /VISUAL IMPACTS The proposed church building design and architecture would be compatible with that of the existing church to the north of the site as well as with the adjacent residential homes to the west.