HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 1988 1107 PC REGr JOHN PATRICK LANE
Mayor
ELOISE BROWN
Mayor Pro Tam
JOHN GALLOWAY
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
BERNARDO M.PEREZ
Councilmember
MAUREEN W. WALL
City Clerk
MOORPARK
A 6 E N D A
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF:
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1.988
7:00 P,M,
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of October 3, 1988
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Old Business)
A. Appeal No. AP -88 -12 Velazquez
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J. KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.t.C.P.
Director of
Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
To appeal the Director of Community Development decision to
deny a second time extension on Planned Development Permit No.
PD -1048. Located at 643 Moorpark Avenue at High Street.
This item is continued from October 3, 1988.
B. Draft Hillside Performance Standards Ordinance
For the purpose of creating proposed regulations for
development within the city's hillside areas.
To be continued to the Commissions meeting of 11/21/88.
-- --- -- -- -- -- - -- --- --- -------- -- --- --- -- -- - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- ----- ----- -- ----- -- -----
r^Those who wish to address the Moorpark Planning Commission on any item, are required
.o fill out a Speaker's Card, and present it to the Secretary prior to the item being
heard or they may not be heard.
--------------- - - - --- -------------------------------------------------------------------
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
11 /7PC /CHRONI
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF:
November 7, 1988 - Page 2
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS (New Business)
A. Conditional Use Permit No. 4503_ Studebaker Services
(Wedemeyer)
Condition No. 10 of Resolution No. 85 -250 to determine if the
applicant is in compliance and to recommend extension or denial.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS
A. Preliminary Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project
The Preliminary Plan is one of the initial steps required by the
California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL) to enable the
city to consider adopting a Redevelopment Plan.
10. INFORMATION ITEMS
A. The Planning Commission meeting of September 6, 1988 had been
cancelled.
11. COMMISSION COMMENTS
12. STAFF COMMENTS
13. ADJOURNMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"-opies of the reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business on
the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public
review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the Department of
Community Development, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. (805) 529 -6864.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - -- --
/I-
MOORPARK
JOHN GALLOWAY
STEVEN KUENY
Mayor
City Manager
ELOISE BROWN
CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tem °
i City Attorney
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
' PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember O
Director of
JOHN PATRICK LANE
Community Development
Councilmember °s,
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
MAUREEN W. WALL
^ City Engineer
City Clerk `°
�y
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
THOMAS P. GENOVESE
Chief of Police
City Treasurer
CITY OF MOORPARK )
COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I, Celia LaFleur, duly appointed Deputy City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, County
of Ventura, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that
I posted a copy of the Moorpark Planning Coftission Agenda for the Feting
of: `%%DU�im/�GL ,, 1,EW , at the following location:
CITY HALL
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California, 93021
Said agenda shall remain in place until after the sleeting so that it is available
for public review for at least 72 hours prior to the Mieting, pursuant to Section
54954 et.seq. of the California Government Code.
Executed on this day of �� /� 1988 at Moorpark,
California.
Celia LaFleur
Deputy City Clerk
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Califomia 93021 (805) 529 -6864
MOORPARK
ITEM �� B
JOHN PATRICK LANE STEVEN KUENY
Mayor
City Manager
P"PK cam CHERYL J. KANE
ELOISE BROWN o°—• �iz
Mayor Pro Tern � o City Attorney
JOHN GALLOWAY � PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember � ��,:`� Director of
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. e Community Development
Councilmember 1 R. DENNIS DELZEIT
�
BERNARDO M. PEREZ 9TEo �`'` City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
MAUREEN W. WALL Chief of Police
City Clerk MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning Commission Q /
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: November 3, 1988 (PC meeting of 11/7/88
SUBJECT: DRAFT HILLSIDE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ORDINANCE
On October 3,. 1988 the Planning Commission directed staff to
continue the item mentioned above in order that the following be
provided:
Initial Study/environmental assessment
City Attorney review, analysis and recommendation(s)
Staff has completed it's review and provided an Initial Study.
Unfortunately, we are unable to provide the City Attorney's
response and she has indicated that it will be provided to the
Commission for their meeting of November 21, 1988.
Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of November 21, 1988.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Califomia 93021 (805) 529-6864
HILSDC/CHRONI PJR:IIIAK:DT:JS:CM:crl
MOORPARK
JOHN PATRICK LANE STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
Mayor PPPK City
o CHERYL J. KANE
ELOISE BROWN o°�/`�ti,
Mayor Pro Tern o City Attorney
F
JOHN GALLOWAY ��� PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember ria) Director of
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. 9 Community Development
Councilmember o� R. DENNIS DELZEIT
BERNARDO M. PEREZ 1/1077
ES City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
MAUREEN W. WALL Chief of Police
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development u /\ j
I
DATE: November 3, 1988 (PC meeting of 11/7/88)
SUBJECT: DRAFT HILLSIDE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ORDINANCE
Background
The City Council several months ago appointed an Ad Hoc Committee
to create regulations regarding the control of development in the
city's hillside areas. The Council received a draft from the Ad
Hoc Committee at their August 17, 1988 meeting and referred the
matter to the Planning Commission on September 14, 1988. It was
the direction of the Council that the Planning Commission review
the draft and give the Council it's recommendation(s) by their last
meeting in October (October 19, 1988) .
The Planning Commission considered the draft hillside regulations
at their meeting of October 3, 1988. The Commission received two
written statements both of which were against the draft (see
attached). Staff has received one additional letter regarding the
draft which is included in this report. At that time there were
eight speakers regarding this matter. Two of the speakers said the
document was long; involved and confusing but wanted it adopted
anyway. The other six generally spoke against the draft. Two of
the six speakers made lengthy presentations and referred several
times to the city's existing General Plan. It was concluded by
both that the draft hillside regulations departed from the basic
policies of the General Plan. There was even some discussion of a
possible defacto general plan amendment. A final point made by
these two speakers were that the draft would substantially alter
the housing opportunities in the city.
The public hearing was closed on this matter with the Chairman
noting that the Commission may re-open the hearing if needed in the
future.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
HILSDA/CHRONI PJR:MAR:DI:JS:CM:crl
November 3, 1988
Page 2
The Commission discussed the draft and noted concerns regarding
inconsistencies with the city' s general plan . Also, the
Commission was concerned that the City Attorney's office had not
yet reviewed/commented on the draft.
The Commission elected to continue this matter until their meeting
of November 7, 1988 and directed staff to accomplish the following:
1. The City Attorney be provided with the draft and to have
the city Attorney provide any recommendations to the
Commission; and
2. That an Initial Study be provided for the draft
regulations; and
3. That staff review the entire General Plan and determine
where inconsistencies existed between the draft and the
General Plan.
The following is an element by element review of the city's General
Plan with comments where the draft is consistent and inconsistent.
Land Use Element
CONSISTENT
B. Issues, Goals & Policies
Urban Form,
Goal 2, (page 13) the draft does promote the establishment
of an urban boundary.
Goal 4, the draft does promote an "urban" core.
Policies (page 13)
Policy 2 (page 13) the draft will force a concentration around
the urban core.
Policy 8 (page 13) the draft will encourage the preservation of
an aesthetic resource which is the hills surrounding the city.
INCONSISTENT
Map 2 - Open Space Plan amendment Moorpark Area shows urban, rural
and open space areas where the draft "Valley Floor" exhibit shows
hillside areas. However, this map was superseded by the adoption
of the city's Open Space, Conservation & Recreation Elements.
HILSDA/CHRONI PJR:MAR:DT:JS:CM:crl
November 3, 1988
Page 3
Map 3 - Moorpark Growth Area. May be inconsistent, however the
difference between the two will still be subject to interpretation
of the guidelines for orderly development.
CONSISTENT
Residential
Goal 4, (page 16) the draft will discourage urban development in
mountainous areas.
Policy 7 (page 16) the draft should promote a harmonious
relationship between development and natural features.
INCONSISTENT
Policy 6, draft will reduce the range of residential densities
within the hillside areas. However, it may not reduce them
citywide.
CONSISTENT
Natural Resources
Policy 2 (page 20) the draft will limit development in scenic,
significant fragile habitats and watersheds.
Physical Environment/Hazard Areas
Goal 2, (page 21) the draft will provide the protection of
hillsides and ridgeline areas within its sphere.
INCONSISTENT
Physical Environment/Hazard Areas.
Policy 1, (page 21) reference to restrictions above 20o where as
the draft begins restrictions at 10%.
CONSISTENT
Open Space
Goal 1, (page 26) the draft will help plan for permanent open space
policy 1, 2 and 3 (page 26). The draft will encourage preservation
of visually unique terrain and keep development away from
geological hazards.
HILSDA/CHRONI PJR:MAR:DT:JS:CM:crl
November 3, 1988
Page 4
437
Visual and Cultural
Goal 1, (page 27) the draft will help maintain and enhance the
visual environment.
Goal 2, (page 27) the draft does protect unique natural features.
Policy 3, (page 27) the draft will prevent excessive and unsightly
teraining, grading and filling of hillside areas. Under the draft
development will be prevented along natural ridgelines.
INCONSISTENT
Residential
Density Averaging (page 39) Densities achieved would be generally
lower than those designated in the Rural High and Low Density Land
Use designations.
Noise Element
Does not apply.
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element
CONSISTENT
Table 3, (page II-5)B. Protective
Slopes over 25% were primary. Slopes 10 to 25% were least
Foldout Scenic Viewshed Map (Figure 1) several areas are listed the
same as the draft.
INCONSISTENT
Foldout Scenic Viewshed Map (Figure 1) several areas are within the
draft and are over and above the mapped area.
CONSISTENT
5. Open Space (page IV-3) the draft will encourage open space
currently held in private ownership to remain permanent open
space. The hillside areas do contribute to the natural beauty
of Moorpark.
HILSDA/CHRONI PJR:MAR:DT:JS:CM:crl
November 3, 1988
Page 5
AS/
INCONSISTENT
C. Needs and issues (page V-2) the draft may alter the assumptions
made in making projections in this section.
CONSISTENT
Goals & Policies
Policy 1.1 (page VI-1)
The draft will protect the scenic viewsheds both to and from the
city.
Policy 1.4 (page VI-1) the draft does provide for a conservation,
preservation and management program that discourages development or
alteration of ridgelines.
Implementation Program
No. 11 & 12 (page VII-3 the draft does encourage contour grading
and is the hillside preservation and management plan to protect the
scenic natural resources.
Circulation Element
Does not apply.
Housing Element
The Housing Element is currently being revised inasmuch as the new
SCAG Regional Housing Needs Analysis numbers are now available, and
the State mandates an update by July 1989. The basic assumptions
regarding the Housing Element may change because of the update
version. Review was conducted using the current Housing Element.
CONSISTENT
Generally the draft Hillside Regulations can be found to be
consistent. However, there are a substantial number of goals and
policies where thru interpretation one could argue valid points pro
and con.
INCONSISTENT
The Valley Floor exhibit in the map designates areas within the
Figure 6 Map (page 30) as hillside where as the map shows single
family development areas. The draft may raise the cost of housing
in hillside areas by adding additional development standards.
HILSDA/CHRONI PJR:MAR:DT:JS:CM:crl
November 3, 1988
Page 6
7
Safety Element
Does not apply.
Discussion
Staff's review of the General Plan identified only a few direct
inconsistencies between the draft hillside regulations and the
adopted goals and policies of the city. There is however, a
substantial amount of subjective evaluation that one makes in such
a review inasmuch as the language within the General Plan is not
always specific in nature.
The creation of any hillside regulations has a profound effect upon
how this city will evaluate residential development in the outer
areas of the city. As the central portion of the city moves
towards build-out there will be more and more pressure placed upon
the city's hillside areas. The city should not impair the
standards that were found acceptable on flat lands into the
hillside areas. The creation of hillside standards must address
all of those issues unique to an irregular topography.
At the present time the city has two filed tracts for subdivision
in the northwest area of the city. There is a need to create
standards as soon as possible so that there is a consistency of
development design between hillside areas within the city.
Although the draft is an adaptation of the regulations used by the
City of Simi Valley it is at least a beginning point in the process.
From staff's prospective it is not so important to identify the
negative aspects of the draft so much as what are the positive
features. The draft covers a number of subjects which the city may
or may not need to be addressed at this time.
During the last Commission meeting regarding this matter was some
discussion regarding housing opportunities and possible reductions
on the number of permitted units. First of all staff does not
expect a reduction in housing opportunities because of any hillside
regulations adopted by the city. In order for the city to continue
to meet it's "fair share" of the regional need, housing will be
provided somewhere within the city. It is anticipated that the
central city area will provide the greatest opportunities for the
city to reduce traffic trips and promote high densities closer to
goods and services.
Regarding the subject of density there is no question that the
draft will "formally promote a lower net yield on hillside
property. This same effect may have been caused under a
conservative planned development review process. The draft is much
more direct in it's presentation of what the exact density yield
HILSDA/CHRONI PJR:MAR:DT:JS:CM:crl
November 3, 1988
Page 7
will be on any given property predicated upon the topography of the
land. The drafts method is eliminating the "artificial" effect of
blanket zoning on a property. Under the city's process of planned
developments there is no guarantee that a property owner will
obtain the upper end of the density range.
Finally, whatever decision is made regarding a hillside regulation;
there is the need for more and more data collection regarding the
net effect of such a decision.
Please bring your copy of the General Plan to the meeting for
reference.
Attachment: Staff report dated 9/29/88.
Draft Valley Floor Map.
Letter from Edison dated 9/29/88.
Letter from Tom Scheleve (undated).
Notes from Ron Tankersley, Carlsberg (used at the PC
meeting) .
of 10/3/88)
Tables 4 & 5 plus unit forecasts from County Planning
Program
Initial Study
HILSDA/CHRONI PJR:MAR:DT:JS:CM:crl
• MOORPARK
JOHN PATRICK LANE STEVEN KUENY
Mayor PP" City Manager
ELOISE BROWN °°O /��z CHERYL J. KANE
F �
Mayor Pro Tern City Attorney
JOHN GALLOWAY � PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember Z �:I�,`V� Director of
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. �y �m Community Development
Councilmember o�/-" R. DENNIS DELZEIT
BERNARDO M. PEREZ `TF� i� City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
MAUREEN W. WALL Chief of Police
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: September 28, 1988 (PC meeting of 10/3/88)
SUBJECT: DRAFT HILLSIDE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Background
Since the city's early days of incorporation the subject of how to
deal with development in hillside areas has been an issue in the
community.
Several months ..ago the City Council elected to form an Ad Hoc
Committee for the purpose of creating regulations so as to control
development in the city's hillside areas. The Council received a
draft created by their Ad Hoc Committee at a meeting on August 17,
1988 and took action to refer the matter to the Planning commission
at their meeting of September 14, 1988. It was the direction of
the Council that the Planning Commission was to review the draft,
created by the Ad Hoc Committee, and give the Council it's
recommendation(s) by their last . meeting in October (October 19,
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 1988).
Piannin Commission Meeting
198 ziscussion
of
ACTION: /2)e Gf -The attached draft is generally the same document currently being
4.
/0 ,e e!„1. used by the City of Simi Valley. However, the draft has been
odified to meet the interests of this city. The purpose of these
tandards is to regulate development in all hillside areas of the
city.
Applicability
Certainly the first question is "where are the hillside areas?"
This is the reason for Exhibit A which defines graphically the
"Valley Floor". This is an important exhibit because it identifies
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
882709B/CHRONI PJR:crl
September 28, 1988
Page 2
who is to be regulated by these standards and who is not.
Therefore, how the line is drawn for this exhibit will play an
important part in the future when these properties plan to
develop. Although one can argue that some of the areas in the
"Valley Floor" are hilly; they are currently fully developed and
there is no need to impose these standards. However, that may be a
questions for discussion.
These hillside development regulations are applicable to all
residential, commercial and industrial properties that are outside
the "Valley Floor" area.
Variance from Performance Standards
Variances from these standards are allowed so long as the findings
as required by law and those specific to these hillside standards
can be found. How these variances are granted can play an
important part in the overall implementation of these hillside
standards. The draft wording leaves open, to a large extent, an
interpretation of the standards.
Exceptions
Another important area for consideration is the exceptions list.
As drafted these standards do not apply to any entitlement permit
granted by the city prior to the adoption of these standards.
Subsection (c) of Section 8148-4 addresses the development of a
single family residence and an allowance of grading up to 1000
cubic yards. The Commission may wish to review the appropriateness
of the 1000 cubic yards maximum.
Subsection(j) is of some interest inasmuch as this is the section
that would allow something like the Reagan Library.
Findings
The "finding" section (8148-5 {page 3)) is the heart of the entire
hillside performance standards. It is from these findings that
decisions regarding a project will stem from. Please note in this
section that findings are broken into two groups; 1) General; 2)
Development and Design. The intent here is to provide a few broad
based findings and then to deal with specific events that are
unique to hillside development and tailor a project to meet the
overall intent.
Slope Calculation Procedure
The slope calculation procedure is a straight forward approach and
is based upon the formula of dividing the rise by the run on the
slope multiplied by 100. This will give the change in elevation
(rise) over the horizontal distance (run) into a percent. The
diagram on page 5 is the best way to understand the formula.
882709E/CHRONI PJR:crl
September 28, 1988
Page 3 1
However an example might be illustrated as follows:
From point A to point B (a distance of 78 feet) the rise in
elevation from point A to point B is 17 feet.
17 X 100 = 21.79%
78
The second part to this section (8148-6) deals with the creation of
a slope map. This map plays an important part in the evaluation
and review of the proposed development. In an effort to make the
process a bit more simple the slope map has been standardized and
must be prepared by a Civil engineer or licensed land surveyor.
Calculation of Total Allowable Dwelling Units
Section 8148-7 begins by describing which land areas are to be
considered for the inclusion in the formula to determine how many
dwelling units a project area will yield. The developer of the
property can include most all gross area with certain exceptions
(see Section 8148-7€c}). These exceptions include areas subject to
flood inundation during a 100 year storm;,, land which is a
geological hazard where no mitigation measures are proposed and
land within an easement or right-of-way of a flood control channel.
To determine the residential dwelling unit yield the slope map must
be used. The maximum residential density under these draft
regulations is 4 dwelling units per acre. As the percent of slope
rises the density is reduced. Those areas identified by the city's
general plan as being less than 4 units per acre or open space are
to be developed only at permitted general plan densities. Within
this section there are permitted density transfers, however the
maximum is 4 units per acre. The exception is "affordable
housing." The target is low and very low income households. These
are the 80% and 50% of median income groups. However, the maximum
density is 7 units per acre, and there is still no allowance to
build on the 20% slope areas.
Commercial and Industrial Development Potential
Section 8148-8 will limit all commercial and industrial development
to slopes of ten (10) percent or less. The exit clause is that
this does not apply to specific plans. Should the city chose to
allow a majority of such developments to use the specific plan and
then back away from these draft regulations it would undermined the
intent of hillside regulations. An example of this process is the
amount of grading that took place in the west end of the City of
Simi Valley.
Subdivisions of Land
The purpose of this section is to preclude a property owner from
subdividing away useable areas in order to achieve a higher yield
on the remainder.
882709B/CHRONI PJR:crl
September 28, 1988
Page 4
ea
Development Standards
Sections 8148-10 through 17 are the "nuts and bolts" of this draft
hillside performance standards. They include grading, drainage,
street design, viewshed, and ridgeline and landscaping standards.
The introduction to this topic of standards (see Section 8148-10)
identifies these as minimum criteria. They are to be used as a
starting point for evaluations to occur. The various standards are
quite detailed and will not be specifically discussed by staff in
this report. However, it will be noted that at least one member of
the Council voiced concerns that the viewshed development standards
may be too restrictive.
Utilities and Sewer Facilities
This section will require that all public and private utility
facilities will be subject to the provisions of this draft. There
is a need to maintain the overall integrity of hillside development
and not to have it impacted by a utility disregarding the visual
intend of hillside regulations.
Procedures
The hillside performance standards does not invalidate the
underlying zoning on the property. Also, there is a provision to
require a planned development permit for the development of four or
fewer lots or dwellings if exceptions to the hillside standards are
requested.
The processing of these hillside standards will follow the same
hearing, appeal, revocation and expiration process as any other
entitlement in the city.
Under this section of the hillside regulations there is a
requirement for a number of technical reports. These include:
soils engineering, geologic, hydrologic, a preliminary grading plan
and preliminary landscape plan. All of these reports and plans
will aid the city staff and decision makers to more fully
understand the proposal. Again these are minimum requirements and
the city could request additional reports or exhibits as needed.
At times, an actual scale model of the property, may be needed to
obtain a clear understanding of the issues.
Conclusion
There is no question that the draft hillside performance standards
makes up a complex set of criteria and text language. However, in
order that such a process be workable it must set down the specific
criteria from which design and decisions can be derived. The city
is quickly moving towards developing it's northern area which is
mainly hillsides. The city is in need of protection for these
areas, and there is a need to be consistent from one hillside
project to the next. As a final note; many cities that have
882709B/CHRONI PJR:crl
September 28, 1988
Page 5
hillside regulations have created graphic illustrations to show
more of what their intentions are. Staff would encourage the use
of graphic displays.
Attachment: Draft Hillside Performance Standards
•
882709B/CHRONI PJR:crl
MOORPARK
JOHN PATRICK LANE STEVEN KUENY
Mayor
City Manager
P PpK cam o
ELOISE BROWN °°O2�`�Z CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tem F � o City Attorney
JOHN GALLOWAY PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember i:t��'�-� Director of
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. o m Community Development
Councilmember o� R. DENNIS DELZEIT
BERNARDO M. PEREZ aTEo City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
MAUREEN W. WALL Chief of Police
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Developmen
DATE: September 23, 1988
SUBJECT: DRAFT HILLSIDE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Please find attached a final draft of the proposed Hillside
Performance Standards. Various typo's were corrected within the
text. An added item is the inclusion of the Exhibit A - Valley
Floor Map. The intent was to use the 10a slope area as the cut off
but there has been some generalization of the lines.
The City Council, at their meeting of September 14, 1988, did
direct that the draft Hillside Performance Standards be reviewed by
the Planning Commission and returned to them with recommendations
by their last meting in October. The Council's last regular
meeting is October 19, 1988. The Commission is scheduled to meet
on this matter on October 3, 1988. Also, the next regular meeting
of October 17 many of the Commission's will be attending the
League's Annual Conference in San Diego. Given the time frame and
the potential loss of a regular meeting I would suggest that a
special meeting(s) be held the week of October 10th.
This subject is quite complex and may take more time than that
afforded by the Council. Should the Commission determine that
more time is needed I would encourage the Commission to advise the
Council as early as possible.
A staff report is expected to be forwarded to you by the evening of
September :, 1988.
Should you have any questions regarding the above please feel free
to contact me.
cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
882309E/CHRONI PJR:crl
• 00001 ARTICLE 30 /3
00002
00003 HILLSIDE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - DRAFT
00004
00005
00006
00007
00008 Sec. 8148-0 PURPOSE - It is the City of Moorpark's position that the
00009 hillsides constitute a significant natural topographical feature of the
00010 community which provides aesthetic relief to the viewscape from virtually
00011 every location in the City. The purpose of these . Performance Standards
00012 are, therefore, to implement those provisions of the General Plan of the
00013 City of Moorpark as they relate to the preservation of hillside and
00014 ridgeline areas, residential housing in hillside areas, the maintenance of
00015 open space, the retention of scenic and recreational resources of the City
00016 and to enhance the public health, safety and welfare by regulating
00017 development in hillside areas.
00018
00019 Sec. 8148-2 APPLICABILITY - Except as exempted in Section 8148-4 these
00020 Performance Standards shall apply to any parcel or any portion of a parcel
00021 of land in any land use zone which is located outside of the valley floor
00022 boundary line as noted on the Development Map of the Valley Floor attached
00023 hereto, and made a :part hereof by this reference as exhibit. All
00024 principally and conditionally permitted uses in the underlying zone are
00025 likewise principally and conditionally permitted under these Performance
00026 Standards subject to the Findings (Section 8148-5) and the application of
00027 Development Standards (Section 8148-10) contained herein.
00028
00029 Sec. 8148-3 VARIANCE FROM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - Variance from
00030 the terms of this ordinance shall be granted either pursuant to the
00031 procedures of Section 8163-2 of this Chapter or as part of a Planned
00032 Development Permit„ Conditional Use Permit, Specific Plan, or other
00033 entitlement, provided that the findings required below are made prior to
00034 approval of the project. Any variance granted shall be subject to the
00035 findings required by Section 8163-2, including, but not limited to an
00036 express finding that the granting of the variance will serve the interests
00037 of preserving and protecting the public health, safety or welfare.
00038
00039 Sec. 8148-4 EXCEPTIONS - These Performance Standards shall not apply to
00040 those specific developments or applications involving one or more of the
00041 following circumstances:
00042
00043 (a) Any approved permit, including, but not limited to, a Specific
00044 Plan, Planned Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Map,
00045 Tentative Map, Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, Encroachment .w
00046 Permit or other entitlement valid as of the date of adoption of
00047 these Standards. This shall include any such above-defined
00048 entitlement for which a minor modification is approved. However,
00049 prior to the Director of Community Development approving or
00050 conditionally approving the minor modification, he shall submit the
00051 application to the Planning Commission for a determination of
00052 whether the application meets the criteria in Section 8163-3. If
00053 the Commission so determines, this exception shall apply to any
00054 such subsequently approved
00055
882209A/CH RON I -1-
/40
00056 minor modification, unless the Director of Community Development, or the
00057 Planning Commission on appeal, or the City Council on further appeal find
00058 any modification to the above-defined entitlements to be a Major
00059 Modification of such a magnitude as to alter the original intent of the
00060 project approval.
00061 (b) Any reapplication for a previoulsy-approved Planned Development
00062 Permit, Tentative Map or any other entitlement valid as of the date
00063 of enactment of these Performance Standards, where the failure of
00064 the project to proceed under the original entitlement is solely
00065 caused by the failure to obtain necessary building permit
00066 allocations in spite of having filed good faith application(s)
00067 modification to the original entitlement of such a magnitude as to
00068 alter the original intent of the project approval.
00069
00070 (c) Construction of a residential dwelling unit, or additions thereto,
00071 and accessory building(s) on a legally subdivided,
00072 residentially-zoned parcel as of the date of adoption of these
00073 Performance Standards, which does not involve grading for
00074 structures on visually prominent redgelines or on land with a slope
00075 in excess of twenty (20) percent, or grading in excess of 1,000
00076 cubic yards.
00077
00078 (d) Any parcel having only isolated land forms with slopes of ten (10%)
00079 percent or greater which have a horizontal run of less than 100
00080 feet and a vertical rise of less than 30 feet.
00081
00082 (e) Grading for agricultural purposes, pursuant to a grading permit
00083 reviewed by the Planning Commission following a duly noticed public
00084 hearing.
00085
00086 (f) Lot line adjustments, lot mergers or condominium conversions
00087 involving existing structures, issued pursuant to local ordinance.
00088
00089 (g) Fire breaks and fire roads required by the Ventura County Fire
00090 Department.
00091
00092 (h) Recreation trails for pedestrian or equestrian purposes constructed
• 00093 by or pursuant to the requirements of the City of Moorpark.
00094
00095 (i) The construction of public works improvements, including, but not
00096 limited to drainage channels, retention basins, water tanks and
00097 pumping stations, provided that such facilities shall be landscaped
00098 and bermed so as to minimize their visibility from view points form
00099 the valley floor as defined in Section 8148-15(c)(2) herein.
00100
00101 (j) Public, quasi-public or non-profit facilities of a recreational or
00102 educational nature, including, but not limited to planetariums,
00103 observatories and libraries, provided that such facilities shall
00104 not be visible form viewpoints from the valley floor as defined in
00105 Section 8148-15(c)(a) herein.
00106
00107 (k) The... replacement or reconstruction of commercial, industrial or
00108 residential structures existing prior to the enactment of these
00109 performance standards which destroyed or damaged by fire or
00110 earthquake or other natural disaster.
00111
882209A/CH RON I -2-
• / 1
00112 Sec. 8148-5 FINDINGS - These findings constitute a further definition and
00113 implementation of those policies of the General Plan of the City of Moorpark
00114 which relate to the preservation of hillside areas, the preservation of open
00115 space and the protection of life and property in hillside areas subject to
00116 various natural and man-made hazards. In approving or conditionally
00117 approving any application for development subject to these Performance
00118 Standards, the Director of Community Development, the Planning
00119 Commission, or the City Council shall affirmatively find that all the
00120 following hillside development policies have been attained by the proposal.
00121 In denying any application for development subject to these Performance
00122 Standards, the Director of Community Development, the Planning
00123 Commission, or the City Council on appeal, shall state which of the
00124 following hillside development policies, if any, have not been attained.
00125 The manner in which these Findings are listed is not to be construed as
00126 giving one Finding priority over the other.
00127
00128 (a) General Findings
00129
00130 (1) That the natural topographic features of the hills located in
00131 and surrounding the City of Moorpark have been respected
00132 and protected.
00133
00134 (2) That all: development in this project has been kept from
00135 natural slope areas of twenty (20) percent or greater except
00136 as specifically authorized pursuant to Section 8148-3 and
00137 Section 8148-11 (a)
00138
00139 (3) That all commercial and industrial development has been kept
00140 from natural slope areas of twenty (20) percent or greater,
00141 except as approved by a Specific Plan.
00142
00143 (4) That the overall density or intensity of land usage in all
00144 land use zones generally decreases as slope increases.
00145
00146 (5) That the view of the hills from the valley floor as well as
00147 the viewshed from the hills has been respected and maintained
00148 as defined in Section 8148-14(c) and Section 8148-15.
00149
00150 (b) Development and Design Findings
00151
00152 (1) That grading has been kept to an absolute minimum in order
00153 to maintain the natural character of the hillsides and that
00154 unavoidable grading complements natural land forms.
00155
00156 (2) That mass grading of large pads and excessive terracing has
00157 been avoided in residential land use zones and minimized in
00158 commercial and industrial use zones.
00159
00160 (3) The significant natural landmarks and other outstanding
00161 features have been retained in their natural state.
00162
00163 (4) That proposed residential development plans have utilized
00164 varying setbacks and heights for buildings, building
00165 techniques, building forms and materials which ensure the
00166 compatibility of structures with
882209A/CH RON I -3-
00167
00168 the surrounding terrain and that proposed commercial and
00169 industrial development plans have utilized varying setbacks
00170 and heights for buildings, building techniques, building
00171 forms, materials and colors which ensure the compatibility of
00172 structures with the surrounding terrain .
00173
00174 (5) That street and circulation design respects the natural
00175 contours of the land, minimizes grading requirements and
00176 minimizes the percentage of land devoted to streets.
00177
00178 (6) That altered slopes will be re-landscaped with plants which
00179 are compatible with the project's soils, terrain and
00180 micro-climate, and which reduce the risk of fire, consistent
00181 with requirements for water conservation.
00182
00183 (7) That the project's design and construction complies with the
00184 Development Standards in Section 8148-11 through 8148-19.
00185
00186 (8) That land graded for road right-of-way purposes through
00187 slopes not otherwise permitted to be graded hereunder does
00188 not include or permit construction of an increase number of
00189 existing or proposed building pads other than those permitted
00190 within that parcel. Such road grading shall not increase an
00191 existing or proposed building pad site.
00192
00193 Sec. 8148-6 SLOPE CALCULATION PROCEDURE
00194
00195 (a) Slope Calculations- For the purpose of these Performance
00196 Standards, the
00197 following methods will be used to determine the slope of any land,
00198 and the square footage or acreage within any slope category on
00199 land subject to these Performance Standards.
00200
00201 (1) Definition of Slope - Slope is here defined as the
00202 relationship between the change in elevation (rise) of the
00203 land and the horizontal distance (run) over which that change
00204 in elevation occurs. The percent of any given slope is
00205 determined by dividing the rise by the run on the natural
00206 slope of land, multiplied by 100. See figure below.
00207
00208 (2) Slope Map Required - For the purpose of determining the
00209 amount and location of land falling into each slope category,
00210 the applicant shall submit to the Department of Community
00211 Development at the time of application a base topographical
00212 map of the subject site prepared and signed by a registered
00213 civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, Such a map shall
00214 have a scale of not less than one (1) inch to two hundred
00215 (200) feet and a contour interval of not more than two (2)
00216 feet provided that the contour interval may be ten (10) feet
00217 when the slope is more than twenty (20) percent. This base
00218 topographical map shall include all adjoining properties
00219 within 150 feet of the site boundaries. Slope bands in the
00220 range of zero (0) to ten (10) percent, ten (10) to fifteen
00221 (15) percent, fifteen (15) to include, or be accompanied by, a
882209A/CH RON I -4-
00222
00223 tabulation of the land area in each slope category specified
00224 in acres. The exact method for computing the percent slope
00225 and area by percent slope category should be sufficiently
00226 described and presented so that review can readily be made.
00227
00228
00229 MEASUREMENT OF SLOPE
00230
_ l
SLOPE- RUt4 X 100 -V
22 100 X 100 - -
OR 2274 SLOPE. T -840-
22 VERTICAL -830-
CHANGE IN
ELEVATION
(RISE) -820-
.1 too
ELEVATION IN FEET
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN CONTOUR$(RUNT
882209A/CH RON I -5-
00233 (3) Slope Mapping Method
PP 9
00234
00235 (i) The percent slope of any particular piece of land
00236 shall be plotted on the map described in Section
00237 8148 by dividing the vertical rise between the
00238 contours employed by the horizontal distance
00239 between the same contours, multiplied by 100. The
00240 minimum contour interval employed shall be two (2)
00241 feet and the maximum contour interval employed ten
00242 (10) feet with the ten (10) foot interval being
00243 preferred.
00244
00245 (iii) In preparing a slope map, isolated slope areas
00246 (i.e. , surrounded by a flatter or steeper slope
00247 category) with a horizontal run of less than one
00248 hundred (100) feet and a vertical rise of less than
00249 thirty (30) feet shall be disregarded and the area
00250 thereof classified as being within the adjacent
00251 category. If the isolated slope area is adjacent to
00252 two or more slope categories, the isolated slope
00253 area shall be classified with the steepest adjacent
00254 slope category.
00255
00256 (iii) In preparing a slope map, those portions of ravines,
00257 ridges, and terraces of less than one hundred and
00258 fifty (150) feet in width at their widest .
00259 measurement which are in an area generally sloping
00260 at twenty (20) percent slope or greater shall be
00261 regarded as being of twenty (20) percent slope or
00262 greater, and shall be included as part of the
00263 bordering twenty (20) percent slope or greater band.
00264
00265 Sec. 8148-7 CALCULATION OF TOTAL ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS
00266
00267 (a) Land Areas Included in Calculations - The total allowable
00268 residential dwelling units shall be calculated based on the total
00269 land area within each slope category pursuant to Section
00270 8148-6(a). Except for the exclusions specified in Section
00271 8148-7(c), all land areas, including group open space, park and
00272 recreation areas developed by the applicant and designed
00273 principally for use by the occupants of the proposal, lands
00274 dedicated to the City of Moorpark, dedicated or otherwise reserved
00275 natural areas within the site and lands within the proposed
00276 development required for new or expanded public right-of-way for
00277 roadways may be included in calculations of total allowable
00278 dwelling units, if the land area is designated for residential
00279 development on the General Plan. Such areas shall be calculated as
00280 open space (1 unit per 40 acres) if they are designated as Open
00281 Space on the General Plan.
00282
00283 (b) Land Areas Included in Calculations but Unbuildable - Isolated land
00284 areas shall be considered unbuildable but may be included in
00285 calculations of allowable numbers of dwelling units (gross density)
00286 for the entire site being considered if:
00287
882209A/CH RON I -6-
• 4C2. 1
00288 (1 ) The provisions of Section 8148-6(a) (3) (ii), Section
00289 8148-6(a) (3)(iii) or Section 8148-7(c) do not apply.
00290
00291 (2) A future public roadway must be constructed which traverses
00292 natural slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent for more than
00293 one hundred (100) feet per dwelling unit requiring such
00294 access.
00295
00296 (c) Exception - Lands meeting any or all of the following criteria
00297 shall not be included in the calculation of total allowable
00298 dwelling units:
00299
00300 (1) All land areas, regardless of slope, which will be subject to
00301 inundation during a one hundred (100) year storm after
00302 development has occurred.
00303
00304 (2) All land which is in a geologic hazard area as defined in the
00305 Safety Element of the General Plan of the City of Moorpark
00306 and for which no feasible mitigation measures are proposed
00307 consistent with these Performance Standards.
00308
00309 (3) All land which will lie within the easement or right-of-way
00310 boundaries of an open flood control channel after development
00311 has occurred.
00312
00313 (d) Residential Dwelling Unit Calculations
00314
00315 Using the Slope Map described in Section 8148-6(a), the maximum
00316 allowable number of units shall be calculated as follows:
00317
00318
00319 Slope Category Dwelling Units Per Acre
00320
00321 0-10 Percent Underlying General Plan
00322 designation at target density of
00323 a maximum of 4 units per acre,
00324 whichever is less.
00325
00326 10-15 Percent 1 Unit per 1/2 acre (2 units per
00327 acre) or target density, which
00328 ever is less.
00329
00330 15-20 Percent 1 .6 Units per 2.5 acres (.64
00331 units per acre)
00332
00333 20 + Percent 1 Unit per 40 acre (.025 unit
00334 per acre)
00335
00336 Areas General Planned 1 Unit per 40 acres (.025 unit
00337 per as Open Space acre; applies
00338 in all slope categories)
00339
00340
882209A/CH RON I -7-
00341 (e) Transfer of Dwelling Unit Allocations - Within a Tentative Map,
00342 Planned Development Permit, Vested Tentative Map or any other
00343 applicable entitlement, dwelling unit allocations within the
00344 applicable slope category may be utilized pursuant to Section
00345 8148-7(d) or may be transferred to other slope categories of less
00346 than twenty (20) percent. Residential sites shall only be
00347 developed with single-family, detached units with a maximum
00348 density of four (4) units per acre, except for the following:
00349
00350 (1) housing projects for senior citizens; or
00351
00352 (2) residential project located on a parcel not visible from
00353 viewpoints from the valley floor as defined by Section
00354 8148-16(c)(2), and containing at least twenty-five (25)
00355 percent of the units which are affordable for low income and
00356 very low income households, as defined by the Housing
00357 Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan (which, as of
00358 ), or as amended from time to time, was established
00359 for a family of four as an annual income of $20,200. or less
00360 for very low and $32,300. or less for low) and which does not
00361 exceed a maximum density of seven (7) units per gross acre,
00362 including density bonus and density transfer.
00363
00364 In no event shall these above exceptions exceed the twenty (20)
00365 percent slope restrictions.
00366
00367 Sec. 8148-8 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL -
00368 Development of parcels within a commercial or industrial land use zone shall
00369 comply with all of the provisions of the underlying base and overlay zone
00370 and all provisions of the Hillside Performance Standards, provided that
00371 development is limited to slopes of ten (10) percent or less, unless
00372 otherwise approved by a Specific Plan.
00373
00374 Sec. 8148-9 SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND - In order to avoid the creation of
00375 undeveloped parcels of land, any subdivision of land proposed in areas
00376 falling wholly or partially under the provisions of these Performance
00377 Standards shall not be divided in such a fashion as to preclude the •
00378 reasonable use of any resulting parcel(s) .
00379
00380 (a) Developable land may not be divided from land substantially
00381 undevelopable under the provisions of these Performance Standards
00382 unless:
00383
00384 (1) The undevelopable parcel(s) is to be held in common by the
00385 owner(s) of the resulting developable parcels(s): or,
00386
00387 (2) The undevelopable parcel(s) is conveyed to and accepted by
00388 an appropriate public agency or other party (e.g.,
00389 homeowners' association) to be used for other residential
00390 purposes, such as, but not limited to, parks, flood control
00391 facilities, campgrounds, agriculture or other uses consistent
00392 with the Open Space Element of the City of Moorpark General
00393 Plan; and,
00394
882209A/CH RON I -8-
•
. .213
00395 (3) An open space easement over the undevelopable parcel(s)
00396 specifying the allowable non-residential, or, alternatively,
00397 the prescribed uses, is dedicated to the City of Moorpark or
00398 another appropriate public agency. Such an open space
00399 easement shall be conveyed subject to the provisions of
00400 Government Code Section 51070 et seq.
00401
00402 (b) If a parcel of land is proposed for division into two or more
00403 parcels, but with no Planned Development Permit for the whole
00404 original parcel, each parcel shall have a proportionate share of
00405 the total developable land or the total dwelling units allowable
00406 under the provisions of these Performance Standards unless either
00407 of Section 8148-9(a)(1) or 8148-9(a)(2) have been satisfied.
00408
00409 (Example: If four lots are to be created from 40 acres, each
00410 approximately ten acres in size, each lot must have twenty
00411 five (25) percent of the developable land and/or twenty five
00412 (25) percent of the total units allowable on the original parcel.)
00413
00414 (c) Any parcel created pursuant to the provisions of these Performance
00415 Standards and entirely in twenty (20) percent or greater slope, or
00416 designated as open space in the City of Moorpark General Plan,
00417 shall be no less than 40 acres in size unless Section 8148-9(a)(1)
00418 or 8148-9(a)(2) pertain.
00419
00420 (d) Single parcels of land of record as of the date of adoption of
00421 these Performance Standards in a residential or open space land use
00422 zone on less than 40 acres shall be allowed a minimum of one
00423 dwelling unit notwithstanding Section 8148-6 of these Performance
00424 Standards.
00425
00426 (e) Land, otherwise developable under the provisions of these
00427 Performance Standards, is rendered undevelopable when the
00428 development which could be built on that land is—transferred
00429 elsewhere on the parcel(s) subject to the same development
00430 application. In such a case, the land rendered undevelopable shall
00431 be treated in a manner consistent with Section 8148-9(a) .
00432
00433 Sec. 8148-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - The purpose of this Section is
00434 to further define and describe the meaning of Findings (Section 8148-5, and
00435 to implement the same. The following Development Standards are, therefore,
00436 the minimum criteria by which to evaluate the achievement of the Findings t
00437 (Section 8148-5 of these Performance Standards by any proposal, plan or.
00438 similar action subject to the provisions of these Performance Standards.
00439
00440 Sec. 8148-11 GRADING STANDARDS - In addition to Chapter 70 of the
00441 Uniform Building Code, Chapter 7 of the Ventura County Land Development
00442 Manual, or any other applicable grading requirements, the following grading
00443 standards shall apply to all grading of land subject to these regulations.
00444
00445 (a) No manufactured slope shall exceed thirty (30) feet in height,
00446 €except that slopes required for public streets may exceed thirty
00447 (30) feet in height if no feasible alternative consistent with the
00448 Findings (Section8148-5 exists) . The height of a manufactured
00449 slope shall include the height of any retaining wall constructed as
00450 an integral part of that slope.
00451
882209A/CHRONI -9-
•
00452 (b) Where grading is necessary, the principles of contour grading shall
00453 be employed.
00454
00455 (1) Manufactured slopes shall be rounded and shaped to simulate
00456 the natural terrain.
00457
00458 (2) The toe and crest of any slope in excess of ten (10) feet
00459 vertical height, excepting the toe of any slope within
00460 twenty-five (25) feet of a structure, shall be rounded with
00461 vertical curves of radii no less than five (5) feet and
00462 designed in proportion to the total height of the slope.
00463
00464 (3) Any manufactured slope bank in excess of thirty (30) feet
00465 vertical shall have variable gradients.
00466
00467 (4) Grading shall follow the natural topographic contours as much
00468 as possible.
00469
00470 (5) Where cut or fill slopes exceed 200 feet in horizontal length,
00471 the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a
00472 continuous, undulating fashion with varying radii to reflect
00473 the natural terrain.
00474
00475 (6) manufactured slopes shall blend with naturally occurring
00476 slopes at a radius compatible with the existing natural terrain.
00477
00478 (7) Grading on naturally occurring slopes of 20 percent grade or
00479 more which have a vertical height of more than thirty (30)
00480 feet and a horizontal run of 100 feet or more shall not occur
00481 unless such grading becomes necessary and is specifically
00482 approved by the Planning Commission of City Council after
00483 making the appropriate Findings. A detailed plan for slope
00484 stabilization shall be submitted by the applicant.
00485
00486 (c) No manufactured slope shall have a slope angle steeper than two
00487 (2) horizontal to one (1) vertical (2:1). Shallower slope angles
00488 _ may be required if detailed soils and geologic investigations
00489 indicate such.
00490
00491 (d) Manufactured slope should be screened from view under or behind
00492 buildings or by intervening landscaping or natural topographic
00493 features.
00494
00495 (e) At the time of formal application, a preliminary grading plan shall
00496 be submitted detailing the extent and nature of proposed grading.
00497 Such a plan should include, but not be limited to:
00498
00499 (1) Preliminary cross sections detailing both the original and
00500 proposed ground surfaces with grades, slopes and elevations
00501 noted.
00502
00503 (2) A preliminary soil stabilization report including proposed
00504 final groundcover to reduce erosion, landscaping and erosion
00505 control.
00506
00507 (3) Erosion control measures to prevent soil loss when grading is
00508 in process.
00509
882209A/CH RON I -10-
. 41:21-5--
00510 Sec. 8148-12 DRAINAGE STANDARDS - All proposed draina
ge
of
facilitiess all
00511 respect the natural (before development) hydrologic
he
00512 subject terrain, preserve major drainage channels in their natural state and
00513 be designed in such a manner as to preserve the public health, safety or
00514 welfare. The provisions of the following standards shall apply to all land
00515 subject to these regulations, and shall be in addition to the provisions of
00516 the adopted version of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 6 and 7 of the
00517 Ventura County Land Development Manual or any other applicable drainage
00518 requirements.
00519
00520 (a) To the maximum feasible extent, all natural drainage courses
00521 serving major drainage areas and containing significant perennial
00522 vegetation which may constitute a significant wildlife habitat
00523 should remain in their natural state. Alterations to the above
00524 drainage courses may be allowed if the application of this Section
00525 will result in upstream or downstream flooding hazards for which
00526 there is no other feasible means of mitigation consistent with the
00527 Findings (Section8148-05) .
00528
00529 (b) In the event that off-site drainage facilities will be required to
00530 handle increased runoff from any development subject to these
00531 regulations, interim drainage facilities which provide
bevide for shall no
00532 increase in peak runoff from a ten (10) year
00533 constructed and maintained until such time as the permanent
00534 . .. facilities are completed.
00535
00536 (c) The overall drainage system shall be completed and made operational
00537 at the earliest possible time during construction or shall
00538 otherwise be provided for in a manner acceptable to the City of
00539 Moorpark. If a development is to be phased, all downstream
00540 (including interim facilities within the project area or required
00541 interim off-site drainage facilities) elements of the approved
00542 drainage facilities will be completed or otherwise provided for in _
00543 a manner acceptable to the City of Moorpark before the completion
00544 of upstream phases.
00545
00546 (d) A drainage plan, including text, maps and diagrams, shall be
00547 submitted to the City as part of any formal application for
00548 development under these regulations. The City engineer in
00549 consultation with the Director of Community Development, or their
00550 designees, shall review these submissions for completeness,
00551 adequacy and conformance with the above and other applicable
00552 standards.
00553
00554 Sec. 8148-13 STREET STANDARDS - The design of streets and the
00555 circulation pattern within any proposed project governed by these
00556 regulations shall be such as to minimize grading requirements; shall, to the
00557 maximum feasible extent, complement the natural contours of the land; shall
00558 serve to retain the natural features of the impacted hillsides; shall be
00559 designed in such a manner as to reduce street mileage to a minimum; and
00560 shall be as narrow as traffic generation and public safety will permit.
00561
00562 (a) Local Street Widths - The minimal street width in residential land
00563 use zones for local and cul-de-sac streets (those streets used
00564 primarily to serve abutting property) shall be a minimum of twenty
00565 eight (28) feet from curb facing to curb facing with a five foot
00566 improved shoulder on each side.
00567
882209 A/C H RO N I -11-
•
. Q.&
00568 (1) In order to encourage a rural feeling in residential land use
00569 zones of two units per acre or less, reduced street standards
00570 including, but not limited to reduction in minimum street
00571 width €Section 8148-13(a) 1 the elimination of sidewalks and
00572 formal parkways will be allowed if the Director of Community
00573 Development, in consultation with the City Engineer; or the
00574 Planning Commission; or the City Council determines that such
00575 will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
00576 welfare or that adequate alternative pedestrian circulation
00577 has been provided.
00578
00579 (b) Access Roadway Length - Where access to isolated land areas with
00580 less than twenty (20) percent slope can be provided only by
00581 constructing a roadway traversing natural slopes in excess of
00582 twenty (20) percent, such a roadway shall not traverse twenty (20)
00583 percent slopes for more than a cumulative distance of one hundred
00584 (100) feet per dwelling unit requiring such access nor more than
00585 two hundred (200) feet per acre of commercial or industrial land of
00586 less than twenty (20) percent slope and will be allowed if the
00587 Director of Community Development approves.
00588
00589 (c) Special Streets - Special streets, such as one-way streets, split
00590 level streets and dead-end streets shall be acceptable when their
00591 use is justified by detailed engineering studies submitted by the
00592 applicant, approved by the City Engineer in consultation with the
00593 Director of Community Development, or their designees, and are
00594 found to be necessary for the full achievement of the Findings of
00595 these Performance Standards (Section 8148-13(a).
00596
00597 (1) The maximum centerline gradient for residential streets shall
00598 be no more than ten (10) percent except at intersections or
00599 adjacent areas of transition where the gradient should be less
00600 than two (2) percent.
00601
00602 (d) Applicability of the City of Moorpark Road Standards - In all other
00603 respects, any proposed traffic ways shall comply with the City of
00604 Moorpark Road Standards. Exceptions to the City of Moorpark
00605 Road Standards may be granted under these Performance Standards
00606 if the City Engineer in consultation with the Director of Community
00607 Development, or their designees; or the Planning Commission; or
00608 the City Council determines that the Findings (Section 8148-05) of
00609 these Performance Standards serve to be furthered by such an
00610 exception.
00611
00612 Sec. 8148-14 DESIGN STANDARDS - Applicants are encouraged to employ
00613 site planning and architectural techniques which implement the Findings of
00614 these Performance Standards (Section 8148-05). In general, any proposed
00615 land use must be planned and designed in such a fashion as to complement
00616 and preserve the hillside terrain as well as provide a safe living environment.
00617
882209A/CH RON I -12-
•
00618 (a) Buildings
00619
00620 (1) Those building styles and lot configurations which lend
00621 themselves to hillside development or those which are easily
00622 adapted to meet the special design and terrain requirements
00623 presented by hillside areas are encouraged. The intent is to
00624 encourage building methods as well as other land development
00625 methods in ten to twenty percent slope areas which minimize terrain
00626 disruption and blend with the natural contours of the subject
00627 hillside terrain. The maximum height of any building constructed
00628 on land subject to these Standards shall be two (2) stories or
00629 thirty-five (35) feet, whichever is less.
00630
00631 (2) Buildings and grading should be planned in such a manner as
00632 to hide necessary grading under or behind buildings. An example
00633 of such a technique would be split level construction.
00634
00635 (b) Horsekeeping - When horsekeeping is proposed in areas subject to
00636 the provisions of this Ordinance, such property should be buffered
00637 from non-horsekeeping property as much as possible through
00638 intervening open space, arterial roads, landscaping, other
00639 appropriate design techniques or lotting patterns which avoid
00640 common lot :-lines between horsekeeping and non-horsekeeping
00641 property.
00642
00643 Sec. 8148-15 VIEWSHED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - In order to implement
00644 the Findings of these Performance Standards, view from property subject to
00645 these standards shall be preserved by the application of special design
00646 techniques which will assure the retention or enhancement of the natural
00647 viewshed characteristics of the site. The purpose of this section is to set
00648 forth standards for maintaining such viewshed.
00649
00650 (a) Preservation of Viewshed - Preservation of the natural vista and
00651 panoramic view characteristics of each hillside location shall be
00652 accomplished by respecting the natural contours of the site and
00653 designing in such a manner as to retain such views and
00654 panoramas. To the maximum practical extent all natural contours
00655 shall be retained and dwelling units shall be placed to take •
00656 advantage of views.
00657
00658 (b) Orientation of Living Areas- Living areas of dwelling units shall
00659 be oriented toward natural view areas, open vistas or landscaped
00660 areas.
00661
00662 (c) Location of Dwellings - Dwelling units shall be located in such a
00663 manner as to avoid interference with the view from other existing
00664 or proposed dwelling units.
00665
00666 (d) Preservation of Valley View - To the maximum extent possible, the
00667 view from the valley floor shall also be preserved and every effort
00668 made to maintain the original perceived view of the site.
00669
00670 Sec. 8148-16 RIDGELINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - In order to
00671 implement the Findings of these Performance Standards, there shall be no
00672 development along visually prominent redgelines in order to preserve the
882209A/CH RON I -13-
. 474/
00673 existing backdrop to the community and to maintain the open character of
00674 the visually prominent ridgelines surrounding the Moorpark area. The
00675 purpose of this Section is to set forth standards for maintaining such
00676 ridgelines and their immediately adjacent slopes.
00677
00678 (a) Areas To Remain Undeveloped
00679
00680 (1) Structures subject to the provisions of these Performance
00681 Standards shall not be constructed on top of any visually
00682 prominent ridgeline as defined in Section 8148-16(c)(1) .
00683
00684 (2) No point on any structure subject to the provisions of these
00685 Performance Standards shall be closer to a visually prominent
00686 ridgeline than one hundred and fifty (150) feet measured
00687 horizontally on a topographic map or fifty (50) feet measured
00688 vertically on a cross section, whichever is more restrictive,
00689 except that this requirement shall not affect the location of
00690 structures to be placed at or below the lowest visible
00691 elevation of a visually prominent ridgeline.
00692
00693 (b) Transfer of Dwelling Units - Allowed dwelling units may be
00694 transferred to another place on the subject parcel if such dwelling
00695 units could not be constructed due to the provisions of the
00696 previous section. The place to which the subject dwelling units
00697 are transferred must be buildable under the provisions of these
00698 Performance Standards.
00699
00700 (c) Definitions - The terms used in this section shall have the
00701 following meanings:
00702
00703 (1) "Visually prominent ridgeline" shall mean any hill location
00704 visible from the valley floor and subject to the provisions of
00705 these Performance Standards which forms a part of the skyline
00706 visible from the valley floor or any hill location visible
00707 from the valley floor, the ground surface of which is seen as
00708 a distinct edge against a backdrop of land at least three
00709 hundred (300) feet horizontally behind it. •
00710
00711 (2) "Visible from viewpoints from the valley floor" shall mean
00712 continuously visible for more than one thousand (1000) feet
00713 along any of the following:
00714
00715 (i) The 23 Freeway from Olsen Road to it's terminus as
00716 of the date of adoption of this article or it's
00717 connection with the 118 Freeway in the future;
00718
00719 (ii) Spring Road from Tierra Rejada Road to Charles
00720 Street;
00721
00722 (iii) Tierra Rejada Road from the Arroyo Simi to the
00723 easterly City limits;
00724
00725 (iv) Walnut Canyon Road from Broadway to Moorpark
00726 Avenue;
00727
882209A/CHRONI -14-
•
CPI 19
00728 (v) Poindexter Avenue from Gabbert Road to Moorpark
00729 Avenue;
00730
00731 (vi) Los Angeles Avenue from the westerly City limits to
00732 the easterly City limits;
00733
00734 (vii) New Los Angeles Avenue from Spring Road to the
00735 easterly City limits.
00736
00737 (viii) Campus Park Drive from it's westerly terminus to
00738 the easterly City limits.
00739
00740 (d) Maps on File - A map(s) shall be kept on file with the Department
00741 of Community Development outlining visually prominent ridgelines to
00742 be used as a guide in complying with the provisions of this
00743 Section. If there should be a conflict between the written
00744 provisions of this section or a detailed site analysis and the
00745 map(s), the written provisions shall control.
00746
00747 Sec. 8148-17 LANDSCAPING STANDARDS - All hillside property subject to
00748 these Performance Standards shall be landscaped in such a manner to reduce
00749 fire hazard, stabilize cut/fill slopes, reduce erosion, retain moisture and
00750 enhance the natural scenic view of the valley.
00751
00752 (a) Retention of Vegetation - Wherever possible, well adapted drought
00753 resistant natural flora shall be retained.
00754
00755 (b) Major Tree Planting - The planting of major trees in areas to
00756 remain in natural open space should include, but not be limited to,
00757 the following native species:
00758
00759 -Juglans California hindsi (California Black Walnut)
00760 -Platanus racemosa (California Sycamore)
00761 -Quercus agrifolia (California Live Oak)
00762 -Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)
00763
00764 (c) Landscaping in Developed Areas - Landscaping in developed areas
00765 such as in parkways or in group recreation areas should be
00766 integrated with other elements of the proposal and comply with
00767 other guidelines for the preservation of natural topographic
00768 features, the view of ridgelines and the preservation of vistas.
00769
00770 (d) Preliminary Landscape Plan - A preliminary or conceptual
00771 landscaping plan prepared by a registered landscape architect and
00772 acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be
00773 submitted at the time of application. Such a plan shall outline
00774 all proposed planting in graded and non graded areas, means of
00775 irrigation, proposed timing of landscape installation and the
00776 manner in which landscaping will be maintained. A precise
00777 landscape plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a
00778 grading permit.
00779
882209A/CH RON I -15-
•
00780 (e) Landscape Maintenance - Plans and proposed programs for the
00781 ongoing maintenance of landscaped areas shall be submitted at the
00782 time of application. Such plans shall include, but not be limited
00783 to, responsible parties or agencies, the nature and extent of each
00784 agency's and party's responsibility and the financial arrangements
00785 designee, shall review these plans for completeness, adequacy and
00786 conformance with applicable standards. The Director of Community
00787 Development, or his/her designee, shall review these plans for
00788 completeness, adequacy and conformance with applicable standards.
00789 The Director of Community Development, or his/her designee, may
00790 waive the above submissions in the event that determination is made
00791 that such submissions are not required due to the scope or scale of
00792 the subject application.
00793
00794 (f) All slopes which are to be landscaped shall cover all irrigation
00795 lines with jute so that such lines do not remain visible during
00796 initial growth of ground cover.
00797
00798 (G) All concrete drainage ditches shall use colored concrete of Omaha
00799 Tan by Davis Concrete or an equivalent.
00800
00801 Sec. 8148-18 UTILITIES AND SEWER FACILITIES
00802
00803 (a) All public or private utilities and facilities proposed in areas
00804 subject to this Ordinance shall be planned and constructed
00805 consistently with the appropriate provisions of this Ordinance.
00806 The Planning Commission or the City Council shall review and
00807 comment on any such proposals prior to construction.
00808
00809 (b) These Standards shall not apply to necessary access roads which
00810 service these facilities or to utilities or facilities which will
00811 not be visible from the valley floor after construction. When
00812 possible the road shall follow the contour of the hills so as not
00813 to be obtrusive.
00814
00815 Sec. 8148-19 PROCEDURES - The intent of this Section is to outline the
00816 general procedures for applying the provisions of these Performance
00817 Standards.
00818
00819 (a) Permits Required - Land subject to the provisions of these
00820 Performance Standards shall comply with the permit requirements of
00821 the underlying base and overlay zones. Additionally, a
00822 - development of four or fewer dwelling units or lots located in a
00823 residential land use zone shall obtain a Planned Development Permit
00824 if deviations pursuant to Section 814803 are requested.
00825
00826 (b) Hearings, Permits, Appeals, Revocations and Expirations - Any
00827 application for a permit or other entitlement subject to these
00828 Performance Standards shall also be subject to the relevant
00829 provisions of Article 43, as they relate to hearings, permits,
00830 appeals, revocations, expirations and other applicable procedural
00831 matters.
00832
882209A/CHRONI -16-
. 3 1
00833 (c) Required Technical Reports - In any area proposed for development
00834 which falls under the jurisdiction of these Performance Standards,
00835 certain technical reports shall be required. Such reports will be
00836 used to determine the suitability of the subject site for
00837 development and suggest special construction and design measures
00838 necessary to mitigate identified problems which may endanger the
00839 public health, safety or welfare. These reports shall be submitted
00840 at the time of application.
00841
00842 (1) Soils Engineering Report
00843
00844 (i) A soils engineering report shall be submitted with
00845 each application for development under the
00846 requirements of these Performance Standards. The
00847 soils engineering report shall contain, but not be
00848 limited to, data regarding the nature, distribution
00849 and strengths of existing soils, the potential for
00850 liquefication, degree of seismic hazard in the
00851 Safety Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan,
00852 conclusions and recommendations for grading
00853 procedures consistent with Section 8148-11 of these
00854 regulations, design criteria for any identified
00855 . corrective measures and opinions and
00856 recommendations covering the adequacy of sites to
00857 be developed.
00858
00859 (ii) The above investigations and report shall be
00860 performed by a professional soils engineer
00861 registered with the State of California who is
00862 experienced in the practice of soil mechanics. The
00863 above report shall be reviewed by the City Engineer
00864 in consultation with the Director of Community
00865 Development, or their designees.
00866
00867 (iii) Recommendations included in the report and reviewed
00868 by the City Engineer in consultation with the
00869 Director of Community Development, or their
00870 designees, shall be incorporated into the
00871 application and all associated plans or maps.
00872
00873 (2) Geologic Report
00874
00875 (i) A geology report shall be submitted with each
00876 application for development under the requirements
00877 of these Performance Standards. Such a report
00878 shall include, but not be limited to, the surface
00879 and sub-surface geology of the site, conclusions and
00880 recommendations regarding the effect of geologic
00881 conditions on the proposed development, opinions
00882 and recommendations covering the adequacy of sites
00883 to be developed and design criteria to mitigate any
00884 identified geologic hazards consistent with these
00885 Performance Standard.
00886
882209A/CH RON I -17-
-3t).4.
00887 (ii) The investigation and report shall be completed by a
00888 professional geologist registered with the State of
00889 California who is experienced in the practice of
00890 engineering geology. The above reports shall be
00891 reviewed by the City Engineer in consultation with
00892 the Director of Community Development, or their
00893 designees.
00894
00895 (iii) Recommendations included in the report and reviewed
00896 by the City Engineer in consultation with the
00897 Director of Community Development, or their
00898 designees, shall be incorporated into the subject
00899 application and all associated plans and maps.
00900
00901 (3) Hydrologic Report
00902
00903 (i) A hydrology report shall be submitted with each
00904 application for development under the requirements
00905 of these Performance Standards. Such a report
00906 shall include, but not be limited to, the hydrologic
00907 conditions on the site, the location of any above or
00908 below ground springs, the location of all wells,
00909 possible on-site flood inundation, downstream flood
00910 hazards, identification of natural drainage courses,
00911 conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect
00912 of hydrologic conditions on the proposed
00913 development, opinions and recommendations covering
00914 the adequacy of the sites to be developed and
00915 design criteria to mitigate any identified
00916 hydrologic hazards consistent with these regulations.
00917
00918 (ii) The investigation and report shall be completed by a
00919 registered Civil Engineer experienced in the science
00920 of hydrology and hydrologic investigation. The
00921 above report shall be reviewed by the City Engineer
00922 in consultation with the Director of Community
00923 Development, or their designees.
00924
00925 (Ill) Recommendations included in the report and reviewed
00926 by the City Engineer in consultation with the
00927 Director of Community Development, or their
00928 designees, shall be incorporated into the subject
00929 application and all associated plans and maps.
00930
00931 (4) Preliminary Grading Plan - A preliminary grading plan shall be
• 00932 incorporated in the application pursuant to Section 8148-11 .
00933
00934 (5) Preliminary Landscaping Plan - A preliminary landscaping plan shall
00935 be incorporated in the application pursuant to Section 8148-17.
00936
00937 (6) Exceptions - Any or all of the above required reports may be
00938 waived by the Director of Community Development in consultation
00939 with the City Engineer, or their designees, under any of the
00940 following conditions:
00941
882209A/C H RON I -18-
33
00942 (i) The existence of satisfactory reports covering the
00943 same subject matter on the same site, which have
00944 been completed not more than one (1 ) year from the
00945 date of the latest application.
00946
00947 (ii) Any or all of the above reports are included as part
00948 of an Environmental Impact Report or Negative
00949 Declaration if either is required, or has been
00950 satisfactorily completed for the proposal, on the site.
00951
00952 (iii) The proposed development comprises four or fewer
00953 residential structures or lots.
00954
00955 (iv) The proposed development is comprised of one or
00956 more residential structures(s) on a single parcel,
00957 wherein the minimum average amount of land per
00958 structure equals five (5) acres or more, no
00959 structure is located on a twenty (20) percent or
00960 greater slope and grading of land is less than 1,000
00961 cubic yards.
00962
00963
882209A/CHRONI -19-
i. �I •I ) BM Nb,r I \'! ,• II1 ) l 1l\. I i(''t 1 1,///�1 IJ I ay 1'',/iI///. ( �(�).y, L/,,,:, �` /if•. ' I . •11/ , /• I,.
' `` l C 1.; �� ) \ r(f I ,t�h -Ij//r./ /1 �1��� Ii. ) ,� ( '1
1 .:.. A':" i I _7 t: �I I'1�' e �..1 e � /•/I :'1 / /i. '1:i` 1•�' •t 1 '� /1/ I ,• r` i
'`' ..• �' '\ '1 1 r •� I1 • \I ,, i Ill ( , � .�qiy �n 7 ;i� I�M1 �;c r
�,.. :� i \)' 1� 1 �O. , \ `Y��V�1 •:I)I�� I,I�I I� 'd��l) - '��•11� 1 ;i� 4 / e '),
r 1 •.',�, �2: 1 '�{•G' /1 A` .i:t•1 Al.a��a,// .. /n� >I / ;,j7 ,, ,I
�` \: I l .1 I) 1. �. Rlx, ( /' \� \ \ �1. ,I, \ 11 \ I 'I'11t)1�� �'.1 /:
�• I' ✓�� ): t 1 .ba / , •\ i , ,'� ,I )!. � Ji ice/ l� /� (,,o - �.� ;
/<, `; , .n' I �, I � >\I'L.. An r � 1 •�.� ��i f J)��'. ,<l� �, /;Li l/ � '�� ��0(/1. _�Ft.
�V \L )� r �! , .�!. l , it ) �l � �,� i. �'- oA (�� � � ( ;}
�, , ., ' 1, :,, t. :, � . ,,� �,���,1, � .spa ly� ,� �-,.: - Ir � _
} �':.I A1 A"•( !(;i1 ) (, ),�'f �.i 1, �..A.�, I�/:). -.',5 --,-, , . ,1 �� , } t
�'' (:: �, 092).•�' / Il I,(. Qj
.(� `OVA ;:� I;�),`, c ) .�% 1 V .ns, r - 1 �� i- -l/ ) q�lr I� it u �'f
t, i ,, , �)d ,( / I� 4, 1, I ,?..,�` ' / V ., r( .,,-. //,,J i' n� )lr ) '1• li -.o� ;;1 ` 1 _� N� �'y� �)? /i'11 . ci °:1 `)',,. ,{/�:i' > 'r- .� I(( -. I r. �I ;.'': .•� l = V/` � �/ _ �� 'l/�. 11 ✓,n ��, _ iC/ ,1 ,�' ri� r �)r ( A-." �7.1 iiA. J.. f ,"�l '/. .�.• � c'l1 �'1 � �i> �.. Y ,6'1 eY�,���^1V1�
,-, . -, A,, •`.i,.;,1 �/ A r , y� - Z,.... '•)l j ^4 _)/..'•, .uv:1))) V1�/ Q\� - •�L_.. /---"sc-',n b , (� X,' :-,.< ,',3; T .:ii./F. ?-
1 � i,�>vP/ 1 i .r ;�/? ��� ��+ _ '- f. "'^, 'sY=',• '� �r . _�'�• I �'�" "eV I<'�j 1 .� � / m�.� ♦, � � I �. y� � i?. ���.r,,���,,: -
� a V• ,•(' I/`%� 'E, .� �� °i 0/,' .a. �' ' '-- .8 •'.: �.�-,� I �P r_� _:l ti ri
1 \ 1 /; ( ��31 � 1/ � � 'a? ..�.C�� .lr- c �r .� 3 r r � �� � ��� -' � � �
1 , �11! b�,epA•., %fr � �4. ' ��' �.'>dl.. , -• 1 �.> ,i� t I, 1. � I .' • el��1���`- � :n'•_. �..,�i:�°5� i�.,,��;'Ic /,I .i :'.
�♦ ,, '�r JJ r 26 �, , ,, ., (��y a, /( '7� /l:?" I li 1 il/( V 1. d - i. ''r`�'/�,-"v �e°�!�°i1,1��„
,' ';\ ,�`/' , I((l s�[1/` �>� .�,4' i ;en° Li i;•,, ,.;.� ✓\ /` . i' /I ` l• • pp 7.= %I:rn �(J FJ.? � `
�� l �\ > f .: iL-� '� '.f, i l/:I! J 7{c,erco.+ ' i .�i� 1 4 �i'. l ��" i.f
r� •
1 �, :/� �I ♦ 'ice •'l. ` � f C�' e / 'yy,�M 676 r.l V '; �. /. )7,
r �!;, ./(�' '> ,/N SM / J > i � r�<f<. rty _ I� I `' /".:di , 1 iy,,l n �"' - „ej�'-illw.�? y �sr .y./� �,' .',��V••, .- x+ fl M1 ,0 .( �, 1 _c—E af: ' �, h '� V �- /, f��-,, -�.._1.
tr er "%i�/ i»�{'• , _��s - :).� Jti-�! 1 /�� J.
I --• ! r %• VI \,..,I �,l! k ... 1- - -- - b .._ 1,„_, --v J r
�' 5 ��� •� 8� •<r ,C. .
_�/���� �r �»t• f t•, e�; ; �; , d �` �� ).. ..rw -\ == \ `_ . .1f\' . ,ti �l &i,
I
� >j .�L1�A �`o/ � L��p°/v`i� Ii0/� � :� � /fi
�
� . • , 7. •'., e l ‘' 1 ,• , / v.I r `t•` or4w,A31t.. 1� 11.77:: J��:: i . _ §SLC�i�' / 'f _ -, i _�./�Ml � (•� � �\�\�� �+_» l -iy�, •� ,'I,� `= fIL! 1=�t��'0_ � :�'Y � ::_,,,,:.',',w:
r �S�� �� / �-��o >,� - �j1 a.k-z/�.e, ` ✓](�� bH�99 'Ia1 J:� i ' 1�,\ 4 ,�^fty ^�C��t `',c.� lr A� it r , .
1(• )�L p"Il .y'- 4r�-r_ .M tp3tk ��/. . 11- j ,i�� `'1 .Z ,�� y �1 K! `,' j�----')) }. --1�1.ii.°,(li� � y.�s,i ` i LF ..�r , � �r 1� '', I �'.�r� ��I) �. % tHc-> - t-M ; 1 :� I , I% OIL ' /^ /��lLi1 < _1L ',!' ,' 1 --,SLr sar. =.� `, =. m�itkwp 1mI V�aIIe. =' � � �: . <� �� �r iF11�'7 ��,y iffl[- - .. s.esp,on._:. • r M3I�EII1r -•- �1/" � : 7� r�_�lJ ,®•NOEL ! •J nV ® C ,�� ���- II • ' :ti : i.. j� , � .,� Co ITY LIMITS
E ii / �,g y��l `--may .r�f � -
A =�=1 : ��, . ,__ ., , (�' VALLEY rLOOK
wen.. L I T T C E . I �S o I M '� ��¢ _. \ Apo•*_--�:r �T�� ,�+'� /J -
•., -..,\L„ — : ,,,P", _/;//,•.::::4:._•/,(71,,,ca-_- _..(7-;-e-••--)_•
.9." - 9 i(, / 1 (4') (., /,‘, ..4 , -
�'�_ i� O �'.o . _ =1 � . . ��-
\)\�'r ark ae roo y• •, "� ,'v l aesq° '' 1 \ e I O }' . .('
,5(-/-
------ -----"" .....":7- ''''.--.`. /'''''''!..__17,\'..7
l (/ ,. /_C_Ul� i' ( j'� ,00 win 1- oo .. -� �/'W
� �-�r,Ll� ly_ �sp0 1� i� �._�.��_..��� rL"_� r ^ ,s/w.�[ } i�� _�j� / -�1 1 7,i_____ -� //N/iG�cr I �. � _
�•.I `n rt.� •: ��. , V� r ...,------,--;1,,,-. _--...� •weu „i weu 1. roo �� �' �y/�----ij- 'F 17, . . t
,,._,,,,,,,,-(,,„:5,
/.�;I/ J' .-�:�".Lr�..,ar �_j� ',�1 1 1 'a�% i',. �', ti '�C, ,; S I r �...,, . 11 Tierra 1 Re a,c1a,/ //O,q2:� �_ _�At �� ki c,,,,
� J/''I "�J1 '� \l. :,r ' �: .). 2 1. )- :j raj .R.tl'. I.i �/ .i 1°v ..l .(7`. J�� 1'�.r�r- -� - .�% J -afi,orss
))�� J Sr.J%4: �i �•di \/i 1�. (/ !f/y.2•-11 1.7 . I fig.. 0 15/ p/ Imo.(' :1 / �/7 f i /� j:%
- { ' •1`.6', ':, r' 7 � J.(. r;i ..'..Y,' I. �1)•7 .' •: !r,1', �,r.'/ r.l>, . t�em�/ (�I ..( (< ��<'i ,/ 'L.�1� :=�d i. ii
I3.- S� :\� 1,. !i /; v 1' r1 r .� .,�:i� 'ie,. \ C. O� >� s � /ni/
r,+� 1 ' ;1 , r �1 I .'. • x,u: 1. A�" .,, ��rJ .,� aro ,r• V all a crr it ,r o f� /,' �ii• 5
r '� t- n �..• .JJ (.n x r,� r r♦ .A�ae ,1„.„........!.. • �•,/ 1 i� .�. �J�• I 'Y c -'�� ///J 1 ',i , / � L{ 'r''''-
•��%V�,(1 r \1\ - -/ "�l 11:1 • \•�j�,fa^ •�' '1�'� r •.� r J{;.i/ I �'• '%L '\I/ `�� // ". I�IF.�� iz/ �.T�'.,•' /'
illite
(64
f
�G C:ri, �e c -t ( /0—5 —ff8
J `•
F
Southern California Edison Company
2982 COCHRAN STREET
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 93065
September 29 , 1988
CHRISTINA BRADLEY TELEPHONE
AREA MANAGER 1805)583-8282
(B 1 81 999-1 880
Department of Community Development
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Re: Draft - Hillside Performance Standards
Gentlemen:
We have completed review of the Draft Hillside Performance
Standards for the City of Moorpark. The design and placement
of our distribution and transmission facilities is not
subject to local agency review and approval as noted in
Section 8148-18 Utilities and Sewer Facilities.
Distribution and transmission lines, regardless of voltage,
are a part of an integrated electric network consisting of
generation, switching, and distribution. Such facilities are
all located, constructed, and maintained under the
regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission
through its orders, specifications, and regulations. The
ability of our Company to provide adequate and efficient
electrical power to the public, when and where it is
needed, at the least possible cost, is dependent upon the
relationship of a facility to the area-wide network system.
It is recommended that Section 8148-18 be eliminated and a
new subsection (1) be added to Section 8148-4 Exceptions
exempting public utilities from these Performance Standards.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
41'
CAB/kdm y
:C.;
CITY /^r)r: f.
3",
Tom Schleve
P.O. Box 610
Moorpark, Ca. 93020
Planning Commission
City of Moorpark
Re: Hillside Performance Standards
Gentlemen,
After a brief review of the proposed Hillside Performance
Standards, I'm concerned that what should have been
Standards for Hillside grading has become a "View
Preservation Ordinance" . Sections 8148-15 and 8148-16
can only be interpreted as a restriction on any
development on any "hill location". Other sections
in the draft seem arbitrary and rely on discretionary
approval.
1. Sections 8148-6 and 7 remove density indicated on
the General Plan and distort land use patterns and
circulation requirements. Slope maps and other
documentation will add more confusion to an already
burdensome process.
2. Section 8148-9 takes the proposed standards into an
area that is incompatable with the density averaging
or "clustering" resolution adopted by the City Council.
3. Section. 8148-11-a, limiting slopes to 30 feet is too
restrictive. Maximum building heights for two story
singlefam ly.Construction is 35 feet. Property owners
and developers should have the option to create an
unrestricted view from their building pads. Heights
of manufactured slopes should be adjusted on a sliding
scale. Example: 40 feet at 50% slope, ; :80 feet at -,:.,,
40% slope. The size of the proposed pad should also -
be taken into consideration.
4. Section 8148-11-b-7 is an arbitrary condition that
will subject -a development to political quandary.
Nearly every property proposed for development would
fall into this category. Please consider that 20%
grade is only 1 foot of rise for every 5 feet of run.
5. Section 8148-13-b is another discretionary condition .
that would probably end up back to the City Council
on appeal. Design of access roadways should be subject
to the approval of the Planning Commission on a case
by case basis.
In summary, this proposal has too great an impact on
property owners and the economic future of the community
to limit public input to a few minutes per person.
Also consider that the General Plan us now undergoing
a comprehensive review that may redefine the goals and
policies of the City as they relate to hillside development.
Sincerely,
(///
Tom Schleve
rX
. .ti
-2-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The adoption of a Hillside Performance Standards Ordinance will not
result in a significant effect on the environment. The proposed
Hillside Standards will actually minimize environmental impacts for any
future development proposals in hillside areas by requiring stricter
regulation of grading, drainage, street design, landscaping, and the
protection of viewsheds and ridgelines. The proposed ordinance also
provides a procedure for calculating total allowable residential
dwelling units for different slope categories. The overall density of
land usage in all land use zones would decrease as slope increased.
This provision would not necessarily reduce the maximum average
allowable density of an individual property; the city's residential
development permit process allows a clustering of development with
provision for compensating open space or recreation area. Also, the
proposed ordinance provides that within a tentative map, planned
development permit, vested tentative map, or any other applicable
entitlement, dwelling unit allocations may be transferred to other
slope categories of less than 20 percent. The adoption of the proposed
ordinance, therefore, will not result in a substantial alteration of
the planned land use of the city.
The adoption of Hillside Performance Standards is intended to implement
provisions of the city's General Plan related to the preservation of
hillside ridgeline areas; maintenance of open space; retention of
scenic and recreational resources of the city; and enhancement of the
public health, safety, and welfare. The following discussion
identifies how the adoption of the proposed Hillside Performance
Standards Ordinance will implement environmental related goals and
policies of the city's Land Use- Element and Open Space, Conservation,
and Recreation (OSCAR) Element:
LAND USE ELEMENT
Residential
Goal 4 - To discourage urban development in mountainous areas.
Discussion: Goal 4 emphasizes that hillsides should be protected by
not allowing higher density residential development in mountainous
areas. The proposed ordinance would essentially prohibit development
from natural slope areas of 20 percent or greater.
Natural Resources
Goal 1 - To preserve resources having educational, scientific,
scenic, recreational or social value.
Goal 5 - To attain the widest range of beneficial uses. of
environment without degradation, risk to health of
safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
HILSDB/CHRONI -1-
• October 5, 1988 39
Policy 2 - Limit development in scenic, significant or fragile
habitats, watersheds and historical and cultural. areas.
Policy 3 - Encourage the preservation of natural resources having
educational, scientific scenic, recreational or social
value.
Discussion: The Hillside Ordinance would implement the referenced
goals and policies by providing increased protection of hillside areas
through stricter regulation of grading, drainage, street design,
landscaping, and the protection of viewsheds and ridgelines. The
public health and safety would be enhanced through implementation of
the ordinance's development standards.
Physical Environment/Hazard Areas
Goal 1 - To discourage the location of development in natural
and human made hazard areas.
Goal 2 - To provide for the protection of hillsides and
ridgeline areas within the Moorpark Sphere, with due
consideration to minimizing visual and environmental
impacts.
Policy 1 - Development should be strongly discouraged on areas of
natural or human made hazards or on hillsides above 20
percent slope or on ridgelines, or in hazard areas where
hazards cannot be mitigated without significant adverse
environmental effects and where public expenditures for
mitigating would not be cost effective.
Discussion: The proposed ordinance would prohibit development from
natural slope areas of 20 percent or greater (except as specifically
authorized in the ordinance). Also, in any area proposed for
development which was under the jurisdiction of the ordinance, detailed
soils engineering, geologic, and hydrologic reports would be required.
These reports would identify potential hazard areas and include
development restrictions and design criteria to mitigate identified
hazards.
Visual and Cultural
Goal 1 - To maintain and/or enhance the visual environment.
Goal 2 - To protect unique natural features, scenic qualities
•
and historical and cultural resources.
Goal 3 - To preserve and provide for open space.
Policy 2 - Encourage adequate provisions for open space which
respect natural features, scenic qualities and
historical and cultural resources.
HTT,SDB/CHRONI -2-
October. 5, 1988 1/46)
Policy 3 - Excessive and unsightly terracing, grading and filling
of hillsides shall be strongly discouraged. Development
which will obscure or alter the natural ridgelines shall
he strongly discouraged.
Discussion: The proposed Hillside Ordinance states that the
hillsides provide aesthetic relief to the viewscape from virtually
every location in the city. The primary purpose of the ordinance is to
preserve hillside and ridgeline areas by regulating development to
minimize visual impacts. The ordinance specifically requires that
structures shall not be constructed on top of any visually prominent
ridgeline. The provision of open space is encouraged through
requirements to retain significant natural landmarks and other
outstanding features in their natural state, restrict development from
natural slope areas of 20 percent or greater, and limit the overall
density of a project based on the percentage of slope of the property.
Community Identity
Goal 1 - To preserve and develop physical, cultural, and visual
qualities in the environment of Moorpark.
Policy 3 - To encourage the development of district and visual
amenities in major roads, commercial centers, industrial
areas and residential neighborhoods.
Discussion: The existing hillsides constitute a significant natural
topographical feature of the community and provide aesthetic relief to
the viewscape from virtually every location in the city . Goal 1 and
Policy 3 will be partially met by the proposed hillside performance
standards which will help to preserve existing visual amenities.
OSCAR ELEMENT (Open Space, Conservation and Recreation)
Goal 1 - Preserve and enhance the unique aesthetic and visual
qualities of Moorpark as a city with scenic topographic
features and elements that promote the quality of life
that Moorpark citizens pursue.
Policy 1.1 - Protect the scenic viewsheds both to and from the City
of Moorpark. This shall include those views extending
north to the Santa Susana Mountains and south to Tierra
Rejada Valley. This will extend to any new development
and to any future renovations and additions that may
potentially obscure a viewshed.
Policy 1.4 - Develop a hillside conservation, preservation and
management program that functions to discourage
ridgeline development and/or alteration.
•
HILSDB/CHRONI -3-
October 5, 1988
Discussion: The proposed ordinance is specifically intended to
preserve the existing hillsides and ridgelines of Moorpark, which are
considered unique, aesthetic topographic features. The ordinance
contains findings to be adopted when approving any application for
development in hillside areas. A required finding is that the view of
the hills from the valley floor as well as the viewshed from the hills
has been respected and maintained.
Goal 4 - Preserve and maintain the physical and biological
environment from future growth related degradation. In
those areas where degradation is inevitable, ensure the
restoration of affected areas.
Policy 4.3 - Conserve, preserve and enhance the quality of biological
and physical environments throughout the City of
Moorpark. Require restoration of those areas
unsatisfactorily maintained or subsequently degraded.
Discussion: The proposed hillside performance standards would act to
protect the physical and biological environments of the hillside areas
in Moorpark. The ordinance requires that any development proposals in
hillside areas would need to restore/landscape graded portions of the
project site.
The city's Land Use and OSCAR Elements are closely related. Both
elements provide policy guidelines related to natural, aesthetic,
cultural, and recreational resources. The OSCAR Element is also
related to the Land Use and Safety Elements in regard to hazards. For
example, the Land Use Element provides guidelines for regulating the
development of residential land uses in sloped areas, whereas the OSCAR
Element locates and defines those areas and specifies means of
preserving, conserving, and managing the hazardous areas for purposes
other than development.
The adoption of a Hillside Performance Standards Ordinance is intended
to implement provisions of the city's General Plan. The proposed
ordinance will not result in a significant effect on the environment.
Individual projects proposed in hillside areas would require a separate
environmental assessment to determine site specific impacts.
HILSDB/CHRONI -4-
CITY OF MOORPARK A
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
(To Be Completed By Applicant)
Date Filed September 29, 1988
General Information
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue, California 93021
2. Address of project: City-wide except as exempted in ordinance.
Assessor's Block and Lot Number: - see #2
3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted.concerning
• this- project: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Develop.
(80.5) 529-68644
4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this
form pertains: A-88-3 (City of Moorpark)
5; List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals
required for this project, including those required by city, regional,
state and federal agencies: NA
6. Existing zoning district: . NA -
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): - NA
Project Description Adoption of Hillside Performance Standards Ordinance
to control development in Moorpark's hillside areas.
8. Site size. . Refer to draft ordinance dated 9/23/88.
NA
9. Square footage.
NA
10. Number of floors of construction.
NA
11. Amount of off-street parking provided.
NA
12. Attach plans.
NA
13. Proposed scheduling.
NA
14. Associated project.
NA
15. Anticipated incremental development.
NA
16. If iiidential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range
of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected.
NA
q3
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally
oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities.
NA per shift , and loading
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment
facilities. NA to ent per
19. If institutional, indicate the major
facilities,ction, estimated
comnunity benefits to .
shift, estimated occupancy, loading
be derived from the project.
NA lica-
20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning applica-
tion, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required.
NA Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below
all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
Yes No
21.- Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, - X
or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours.
•
22. Change in scenic views .or vistas from existing residential X
•
areas or public lands. or .roads.
- 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of X
project.
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. X
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. . X
�. age in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or - X
quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. •
- - 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in X
the vicinity. -
28. Site on .filled land or on.slope of 10 percent or more. X
29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as X
toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, X
fire, water, sewage, etc.).
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, X
oil, natural gas, etc.).
32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. X
Environmental Setting
33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including infor-
mation on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural,
historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the
site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site.
Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. NA
34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and
animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type
of land use (residential, commercial, etc.) , intensity of land use (one-
family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) , and scale of
development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc. ) . Attach
photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be
accepted. NA
Certification
I hereby certify -that the statements furnished above and in the attached ex-
hibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to
the best of my ability, and that the.facts,_statements, and in formation
presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
•
September 29, .1988 - f� �. J.
Date - Signature Deborah S. Traffenstedt
• For Patrick J. Richards, Director
of Community Development
(Note: - This is only a.suggested-form. Public agencies are free to devise their
own format for initial studies.)
115
DISCUSSION OUTLINE
I . PURPOSE - THE ORDINANCE STATES ; . . . TO IMPLEMENT THOSE
PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK AS
THEY RELATE TO THE PRESERVATION OF HILLSIDE AND RIDGELINE
AREAS. . . " . UNFORTUNATELY THE ORDINANCE, AS DRAFTED, WAS
BASED ON A SIMI VALLEY ORDINANCE RATHER THAN BEING BASED ON
THE METHODOLOGY AND GUIDELINES PROVIDED IN THE MOORPARK
GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS ( "PLAN. ) .
II . DRAFT ORDINANCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH CITY OF
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN "HILLSIDE AND 'RIDGELINE"
LOGIC:
A. "VALLEY FLOOR" CONCEPT - USED TO DEFINE SIMI VALLEY
"HILLSIDE" AREAS, GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY AND ALLOCATE
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. (EXHIBIT A ) VS.
B. MOORPARK'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE & SPECIFIC AREA
IDENTIFICATION - (SEE METHODOLOGY, PAGE 2 OF LAND
USE ELEMENT, IE. L.U. E. ; SEE ALSO, O. S. C. A.R, PAGE
II-1 , III CONSERVATION, B. INVENTORY OF RESOURCES )
AND;
I. GROWTH/NON GROWTH AREAS (MAP 3 L. U.E, EXHIBIT B,
AND PAGE 49, TABLES 5, 6 AND 7 ) -IDENTIFIED FURTHER
AS:
a. URBAN AREA (MAP 2 LAND USE ELEMENT L. U.E. ,
-EXHIBIT C) -IDENTIFIED BY EXCLUSION AS NON
"HILLSIDE"' AREA (REFER TO EXHIBIT D, FIGURE 6
OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, H. E. ) WITH COMPATIBLE
LAND USES NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE "URBAN
CORE" WHICH INCLUDES ALL COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL USES AND A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSING
ELEMENT REQUIREMENT WITHIN THIS DEFINED AREA.
THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE URBAN CORE IS
DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ON
"HILLSIDE" AREAS. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
THE URBAN AREA USES DENSITY AVERAGING TO
ACHIEVE THE NECESSARY RESIDENTIAL UNITS
IDENTIFIED IN THE H. E. , GIVEN ISOLATED AREA
TOPOGRAPHICAL RESTRAINTS.
b. RURAL AREA - INCLUDED IN "HILLSIDE" AREA
INTENDED TO PROVIDE SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL
ELEMENT BUT AT DENSITIES BASED ON MINIMUM LOT
SIZES. APPROPRIATE DENSITY CONSIDERING THE
"HILLSIDE" TOPOGRAPHY IN WHICH THESE
PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED.
•
•
2 . NON-GROWTH AREAS OVERLAID BY PROTECTIVE LAND USES
( OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION AND RECREATION ELEMENT,
O. S . C. A. R. , SEE C. COMPONENTS OF OPEN SPACE, PAGE
II-R4 ) :
a . OPEN SPACE CATEGORIES - " HILLSIDE' AREAS SO
DESIGNATED BASED ON A WEIGHTING OF "PROTECTIVE"
PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITIZENS . THESE
PRIORITIES FOR SLOPE PROTECTION IN THESE AREAS
ARE DEFINED.
b. AGRICULTURAL CATEGORIES - NON "HILLSIDE AREAS
SO DESIGNATED BECAUSE OF DESIRE TO ['RESERVE THE
"PRODUCTIVE" NATURE OF THIS LAND AREA, .
C. SECTION 8148-16 RIDGELINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - ARE
ALSO BASED ON THE "VALLEY FLOOR" CONCEPT RATHER THAN
SPECIFIC AREA DESIGNATIONS USED IN THE MOORPARK
GENERAL PLAN . "VISUALLY PROMINENT RIDGEL1NES" ARE
HERETOFORE UNDEFINED IN THE PLAN, HOWEVER, IT IS
CLEAR THAT SUCH RIDGELINES WERE INTENDED TO EXIST
ONLY IN DEFINED HILLSIDE AREAS ( DESIGNATED AS RURAL
OR OPEN SPACE LAND USE) AND SHOULD BE A PROMINENT
SKYLINE FEATURE WHEN VIEWED FROM "SCENIC CORRIDORS"
DEFINED IN THE O. S. C.A.R. , PAGE II--9; RATHER THAN
THOSE IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 14, ITEM (C) , ( 2 ) ,
DEFINITIONS OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.
D. SECTION 8148-11 AND 12 OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -
CONTAIN A NUMBER OF ARBITRARY MEASUREMENTS AND
QUALIFICATIONS WHICH REQUIRES A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS BY
• EXPERTS
E. SEC. 8148 - 7 "CALCULATION OF TOTAL ALLOWABLE
DWELLING UNITS- - SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AS 1T 1S
-- INCONSISTENT WITH THE DWELLING UNIT DENSITY
CALCULATIONS IN THE MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN FOR
HILLSIDE AREAS (L.U.E. , PAGE 39, TABLE 2, az amended
AND PAGE 40. TABLE 3 AND DEMONSTRATED BY EXAMPLE ON
PAGE 50, TABLES 6 AND 7, ) .
UNLESS THE ORDINANCE IS REDRAFTED AND APPLIED ONLY TO
RURAL AND OPEN SPACE LAND USES DESIGNATIONS AS THE
PLAN INTENDED, IT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY AMEND THE PLAN
RATHER THAN IMPLEMENT IT. (SEE EFFECT WHEN APPLIED
TO -LOW DENSITY" RESIDENTIAL ELEMENT OF MOORPARK
HIGHLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN, EXHIBIT E. )
LOT SIZE MINIMUMS WERE INTENDED TO DETERMINE
-- — ALLOWABLE UNITS IN HILLSIDE AREAS AND DENSITY
AVERAGING IS NOT PERMITTED IN HILLSIDE AREAS . IE. ,
RURAL AND OPEN SPACE CATEGORIES.
- •
•
S
,;p ,'�� ,` 1- V7 •l y_ y
V. ;t ;.n tY ) r,
•
f `y� //l a `i /(J1 ( 'J '1 v 1 O 1 \ , S^ , ' •.
• .J I� ' '• ) \ 71 , �•1I/f ' ,- ... -N.Pt '' . 'I .> -1 - ' ; • , . , `( )
•` v.� •� l• 1
�\r ��t • T
iI .,i4b� y �1 , r c„ � \ u
K t<n x) • :)\•C'�` ,rcT
T - '5 4 •\ r t;� > i\l s�Zr {' ,l am
j •
f4 ,�~� i• x l%_-r - .r'•. i ,)-- . ` f 4 ,r s a' �lyA'{` l 1` •) I ' ' + j
C „ r TQ r 7 7: /`\/` 1•y.•I A \l�v ( l' �}} •
I'' J' • / .
1` I`, r i Y' 1 r `l,at +'. 1 )1 ; 1 \
,,-•'., - ' ).'i �...• ,�-/ ..-(' is :� 1. �� 7 . 1*� •) - ! 5 ,. 1
1(l'`r' # �// • tit A�� 1 `1 of\�) }
(`i\� , i 1, • •t .j� 1!1•,. '\01'�11.1 ;` '(0t.) , t 7'..4•f` t• - \ '1 -
� )!�l ( ♦ 1� 1, I Ty t , }r. '•, a
+4 / t t
•
/J 04 it aj , •F. 1)t. ': r--i ), ,} • ,X uPpa ))1 T •,
I r� q♦1. z 5♦Ull ))ii rf • ( x!1 1\i`) '1� f`.:J f• `
)w�)C \(. .1,i.', ..II 1 .,i!-•i 11 .•. ry�L"'.'/l1 T1a,l�.}••• ,i, ;'f7�! `• ,._ •_ :, m
.`. 11 t t-3 1r'r. ^_•�• .�...`�- t r) rit 1;�t. , "�I'f-:: } _ 1, I)i
•
"4 (• , > \ TG l.y ,-t t'
Off(\ /1,ry4 �r���I) Fes. 'j.<SC:„ ,- ':. '` 4 1 •/- 1, '///4- :; ,- 1 .(
,.t-- r -
•
„I ,y a.t•h
•`,` S , +t yf •'21•••j1 -,� r a.';j, :%k.- � •► . 3.•\\ t ,\ 1 .
,, {il ,. .p ,. x :;* �..A.. I, .
.17
.. ;-r :'-' s« 1(dt
i L,•, .{' "1'4/",s7- .3,Ls. FJI•'^ ••_ ,+v , -'y F.I '. •,''f 1 •i f / T.:
f.cc`... "• ,')+:r 4.,t, t 1 1• �t j•t i�1,� -:ICJ ��1 ."pyt� Z�4
�( 3 ,?'t\� •"th •.t+ �u: tl r. .• ;, 11i1 i�unwltl•• /- J t
,... ittil
r , 1,`-,
ram.„i ,.,tr� v ..—..,.- , '• .. \ �,,��♦ri, I1414 14::i if` 1 ?V; , .. is • ' el
l�3s ri ' ,4Mi� -e
l a I �OfTlli\ \ )(><""�` .\:‘.. .)?)�}"-«='t T j•f•4r.. �! ,��( - 1�t �,1�•} 1,..
� ••�`i) tC�
1 -') ^ fi \` / ` �' / �y' ) {{1 - Ylt \\\ '. ; 1(1. 1 -
� . . ra 1�l f ,
i' - ! )_vfr ,--i 1_ l•Gu. 1, lit -1 'l, ,,?,1. , \{ ., / }1
• Il'•
(fl\l t r\- -c,•J f•, •-� 1,)LS ham\ 4- ' ,1�r••/ /: 41 fl -- 1 `✓ r_
. !
i
_______,
,,.._.,
r-t-i,
Fo--------) ........ NON-GROWTH AREA
( .
I \ •
/1
•
•�ram• T .. - .l. r•�
•
to
. ,-GROV Th AREA'; .:; �:,-- . •
. \ . . • • .
filibiT B
. ,
MAP Z
MOORPARK
GROWTH AREA
"— .._ GROWTH ARCA BOUNDARY
: VENTURA COUNTY RESOURC= MANAGEMENT AGENCY
..,.,,ctnw1 197 9
. liq
ri...,. .
I
OPE+c SPACE
RURAL /
•
/ •
t�
1
i R!l1I
';II
RURAL /
ti f
:.N:. 'r•!;"-l. y:i': ,:,1:?0iw{.. r1M':Y:.i.'.� �.
-OPEN SPACE
•
RURAL -
•
•
jinalilini
. '
11/0w1• III
•
MAP 2
I
OP�t�I PAC= PLAiZI AM=NL7IVI I\IT
r\fMOORPARK AREA
alto t bow b ..
1 .
..„,
,
............. .„....._ ,r--- 1100.
. , rt
i I \ .. .,
• .
' .
.: •,..,..,-, .10114 ,.... _
1 'tf•-••;.;'• ..i.the 41--
1 . P.l'A'"% - :t:,...,...::••••••1:-..,..-•
r''''''re'll • 1 ...":•.'.: *:!:-. .,..-::',i.- .1.'•' ;',-..,,
1 11111 . 1111
• r • ... ••
,i.... : ,1,•4 4 - iffil
P 1 1.7.i,i . r:V.a i. .,
1,44 S' i• .,.' •t:.• .
4 111
1 1 . I . it
. .1
IIMPP .,„.f...,.. . -
I. ,.. .
. Z $k II. %11-1:•'.4.4L...0;4iP.,• .
. e, alljillb It 7",..
./. I
• 0111/41'till ' P 3 ., rd..",.1,, ......_,,,„„." . . 4,
........„... .. .•,.._.,:.,... ! ....,
..44-1It 1"4.-,1;.r.:V! ' • - •
1 1 ill i ' 1
. • .
1 I _,._:••' 4 '
ibpo''Ii'''dlligll,IL-11-1• f [11.1-!1.i.,:•...i.r.
I •
, P "A.,..-ii.-., - •
'4...$g i
• •' t I ' i 1
1 •tri..4..i.: .. ,
, tic'... 1..09,-; • 1 ,
• • . 1
. - • ,t,-.•. ,.
• •
I i , • . 1,,,-, ' ' . , ,
. , r • li
••••;,..i ,.i i 11.I....I •1 •
:•..„.-• • .....0 ••••1• ,. )...!;: "••••..........................:„_. 1...—..., 1
- ' ' ‘t •;!:t. • 1. ...... . j____.Sinf•l F er•411 4 D•••Itopers•ni
.. r
, %7'.." •/''' 1 . ...1:: . 4k•-?3,. ,
, . 1 ;: , - • . • - •'t 1 i - t."!..'•'-`2.r4 • ' .- • -' 1!! 14It•td• Ar••••14•11 Suit/40o, I•1 Klu111-F. ,11/ n.••i.• ,•
'.. ;):ii11.0 1''..0. 1.1-4 ..f"il\."...;:r.yi I r•
•-. • .. •••-• " • • ' 1 • •• '•-...tr, 11 kik.e•i•r•moi, Da••1•1•••••,• Al•••
... 4 7 I's," i .r.iVr ^1.1.:Plt:: ..:.. ••: :
, .
. . -: 1'-...:77- :Z•ii::..':. • .-- . • i rot•41161 1•4•4 sing Sr*if ,
r...!..t.F.;:c.Tc; F4, qi.;7;e•.,-g- ' .
.--.- ,!,'-..i..:...• a • 1 •.. ..:. ". ,i ..;...... . 1 .
•-- „;......t.-:-... '"' 1„. ..,:,.:.•,......r..:,...-.:s..., - ' "•
'•tCj.`'.1' . !..'..':,t..- p...:.4,::..,.... —.. . . .
! . . .
....a.
.. :•••••,.•. ....1... .;•• •:•... 4 Potential Housing Sites
...t ,_..... . ' :—. .... • '.. . •
6
Ciliklifitibk
• NW?
, .
• .,
1 )
3—/
EXHIBIT D
SLOPE ANALYSIS - MOORPARK HIGHLANDS
NORTHSIDE:
SLOPE ACRES CUM. /BUS. LAND USE
OY. - 10% 94 67 ACRES ( See Note
10% -15% 4 1 below )
15% -20% 2
20% + 86
186
SOUTHSIDE:
SLOPE ACRES RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNIT CALCULATION
0% - 10% 80 128
lOX - 15% 49 78
15% - 20% 8 5
20% i 174 4
311 213 (See Note 2 below)
Note 1 - It appears that the proposed business/commercial
land uses (per Specific Plan ) on the North would be reduced
from approximately 95 acre to 67 acres if the ordinance were
to be applied. This results from the inability to grade and
develop the plateau of approximately 11 acres and the
proposed dedications of a 10 acre park and 6 acres for other
public uses. The above acres are measure only in the less
than 10% slope areas. Based on the ordinance as written,
land greater than 10% slopes can be developed if pursuant to
an approved specific plan. See 8148-5, (a) , ( 3 ) , of the
draft.
Note 2 - Under the existing general plan "Low Density"
designation 498 units could be built on 311 acres at 1 . 6
Average DU ' s per acre. The ordinance as written is
inconsistent with density averaging provisions of the General
Plan; accordingly only 213 units. could be built.
4.545Z
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF YEAR 2000 DWELLING UNIT FORECASTS
IC I3LDG_ GEN.
1980 COMP. AQMI'* PLAN
CENSUS TREND` 208 PLAN (UNOFFICIAL) CAPACITY
Camarillo GA 16,804 26,425 29,478 31,135 27,081
Camarillo NGA 1,043 1,051 3,182 2,997 2,440
Fillmore GA 3,055 3,367 4,530 4,771 5,025
Fillmore NGA 729 775 750 814 1,042
Las Posas NGA 356 1,177 560 560 1,167
Moorpark GA 2,476 10,413 9,743 7,613 11,074
Moorpark NGA 267 275 289 ' 440 418
North Half NGA 323 395 490 483 1,061
Oak Park GA 1,078 2,632 6,660 4,755 7,284
Oak Park NGA 76 156 70 67 120
Ojai GA 3,316 4,099 3,093 • 4,910 4,073
Ojai NGA 855 1,167 1,352 1,067 2,222
Oxnard GA 39,815 49,137 66,199 67,064 56,427
Oxnard NGA 1,287 1,312 1,656 1,845 1,575
�Cru GA 380 414 235 475 796
iru NGA 64 64 120 93 735
Port Hueneme GA 6,942 8,664 8,907 10,000 9,369
Santa Paula GA 7,233 8,968 8,746 9,787 11,200
Santa Paula NGA 865 937 934 970 918
. Simi Valley GA 23,534 35,707 38,711 42,473 43,093
Simi Valley NGA 447 927 724 897 1,860
Thousand Oaks GA 31,902 45,026 48,566 51,639 54,306
Thousand Oaks NGA 607 809 1,054 908 1,782
Ventura GA 33,811 43,803 43,907 47,997 47,382
Ventura NGA 627 825 998 902 1,640
Vta. Riv. GA 4,916 5,581 4,967 4,967 7,353
Vta. Riv. NGA 576 681 854 854 1,416
TOTAL COUNTY 183,384 254,787 283,322 300,483 302,859
*Based on 1980-85 building completions
*Adjusted for revisions to Growth/Nongrowth Area boundaries.
L76/5
TABLE 4 3
.3
COMP,,..ISON OF YEAR 2000 POPULATION FOKECASTS
Bldg. Gen.
1 1980 Completion 208 AQMP** Plan
Area Census Trend Plan
(Unofficial) Capacity***
Camarillo GA 45,711 66,591 78,050 78,050 67,431
Camarillo NGA 3,668 3,269 11,901 9,851 7,881
Fillmore GA 9,604 9,529 12,950 14,264 14,472
Fillmore NGA 2,182 2,108 2,250 2,442 2,855
Las Posas NGA 1,312 3,802 1,444 1,444 3,944
Moorpark GA 8,054 30,302 29,177 21,677 32,225
Moorpark NGA 670 652 933 1,363 961
North Half NGA 487 644 650 725 1,464
Oak Park GA 3,617 7,870 17,000 14,121 22,435 ,
Oak Park NGA • 228 426 250 201 330
Ojai GA 8,411 9,797 8,375 11,389 9,490
Ojai NGA 2,298 2,929 3,651 2,497 5,488
Oxnard GA 121,055 135,618 184,590 191,024 157,431
Oxnard NGA 4,997 4,435 4,650 5,102 5,607
( ) Piru GA 1,368 1,312 760 1,435 2,627
Piru NGA 196 178 340 279 2,065 -
Port Hueneme GA 18,507 21,573 26,900 24,900 22,954
Santa Paula GA 20,889 23,765 24,758 26,131 29,680
Santa Paula NGA 2,958 2,848 2,952 3,159 2,883
- - Simi Valley GA 80,294 108,192 121,165 121,165 134,881
Simi Valley NGA 1,087 2,141 . 2,165 2,365 4,148
Thousand Oaks GA 91,962 118,869 144,892 144,592 143,368
Thousand Oaks NGA 1,070 1,472 2,313 2,374 2,869
Ventura GA 83,209 102,499 110,969 112,781 107,083
Ventura NGA 982 1,386 2,611 2,365 2,362
Vta. Riv. GA 12,849 13,618 13,303 13,303 17,574
Vta. Riv. NGA 1,509 1,668 2,306 2,306 3,398
TOTAL COUNTY 529,174 677,493 811,305 811,305 807,906
Based on 1980-85 building completions and year 2000 population-per-dwelling-
unit ratio for each GA/NGA
**Adjusted for revisions to Growth/Nongrowth Area Boundaries.
***General Plan holding capacity for dwelling units times Year 2000
population-per-dwelling-unit ratio.
L76/4
COUNTY OF VENTURA -RECEIVED-
1980 - 2010 Population Forecast 7 19b6
APR 1
Growth Area/ Census city of MoorPall
Nongrowth Area 4/1/80 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005'.:. 2010 -
Camarillo GA 45,711 52,690 61,560 68,150 74,300 79,340 84,280
Camarillo NGA 3,668 3,680 5,050 5,610 6, 140 6,640 7, 100
Fillmore GA 9,604 10,300 12,230 13,310 14,260 15,220 16, 170
Fillmore NGA 2,182 2,240 2,240 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,240
Las Posas NGA 1,312 2,030 2,130 2,240 2,340 ; 2,440 2,520
Moorpark GA 8,054 14,260 23,020 29,590 j 35,740. I 41,690 47,080
Moorpark NGA 670 690 750 780 810 830 860
North Half NGA 487 540 570 620 650 690 730
Oak Park GA 3,617 4,880 13,130 17,350 16,740 16,230 15,730
Oak Park NGA 228 300 320 340 350 370 390
Ojai GA 8,411 9,070 9,460 9,550 9,630 9,700 9,760
Ojai NGA 2,298 2,540 2,540 2,620 2,700 2,780 2,860
Oxnard GA 121,055 127,700 144,000 159,000 180,000 198,000 217,800
Oxnard NGA 4,997 5,000 5,120 5,100 5,100 5,090 5,070
Piru GA 1,368 1,400 1,810 1,980 2,150 2,300 2,440
Piru NGA 196 200 240 260 280 300 310
Port Hueneme GA 18,507 20,000 21,670 22,810 24,050 25,230 26,330
Santa Paula GA 20,889 22,320 24,500 26,000 27,500 29,000 30,500
Santa Paula NGA 2,958 3,030 3,050 3,050 3,050 3,050 3,050
Simi Valley GA 80,294 90,640 103,220 112,650 121,170 129,220 136,930
Simi Valley NGA 1,087 1,400 1,600 . 1,830 2,040 2,260 2,470
Thousand Oaks GA 91,962 101,910 109,900 118,300 126,500 132,600 135,800
Thousand Oaks NGA 1,070 1,210 1,280 1,360 1,450 1,540 1,'630
Ventura GA ,,83,209 90,100 93,000 102,000 111,000 116,940 123,150
Ventura NGA 982 1,120 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1;360
Vta. Riv. GA 12,849 13,500 14,000 14,360 14,680 15,100 15,500
Vta. Riv. NGA 1,509 1,610 1,610 1,630 1,660 1,690 1,710
TOTAL COUNTY 529,174 584,360 659,150 723,920 787,770 841,780 893,770
*See attached map. Growth Areas are generally larger than incorporated areas for cities.
''-`To be used for guideline purposes only.
oproved by Board of Supervisors on 5/7/85-
NOTE: Except for 1980, all forecasts are January 1 forecasts.
L76/1
65-
•
_ ,_:. . ,
'•?n__ COUNTY OF VENTURA
1980-2010 Dwelling Unit Forecast
Growth Areatnr Cegs,us
Nongrowth Area* 4/1/80 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005** 2010
Camarillo GA 16,804 19,089 23,144 26,314 29,484 31,484 33,484
Camarillo NGA 1,043 1,045 1,508 1,741 1,973 2,206 2,438
Fillmore GA 3,055 3,129 4,048 4,544 5,040 5,536 6,032
Fillmore NGA 729 740 775 797 820 843 866
Las Posas NGA 356 551 608 666 723 781 838
Moorpark GA 2,476 4,361 7,379 9,830 12,281 14,732 17, 184
Moorpark NGA 267 269 304 322 340 358 377
North Half NGA 323 340 360 380 " 399 418 437
Oak Park GA 1,078 1,447 4,091 5,598 5,598 5,598 5,598
Oak Park NGA 76 95 110 120 130 140 150
Ojai GA 3,316 3,502 3,797 - 3,912 4,027 4, 127 4,227
Ojai NGA 855 929 966 1,023 1,076 1,135 1, 187
Oxnard GA 39,815 42,029 48,980 55,986 65,217 73,881 83,130
Oxnard NGA 1,287 1,293 1,398 1,454 1,509 1,565 1,620
Piru GA 380 388 528 603 677 751 825
Piru NGA 64 64 82 91 100 110 118
Port Hueneme GA 6,942 7,351 8,301 8,980 9,659 10,338 11,018
Santa Paula GA 7,233 7,645 8,750 9,559 10,377 11,197 12,103
Santa Paula NGA 865 882 934 968 1,002 1,036 1,071
Simi Valley GA 23,534 26,425 31,761 35,875 39,988 44,102 48,215
Simi Valley NGA 447 . 561 . 665 774 883 992 1,101
Thousand Oaks GA 31,902 35,019 39,400 43,650 47,900 51,400 53,900
Thousand Oaks NGA 607 655 702 749 796 843 891
Ventura GA 33,811 36,184 38,430 42,857 47,436 50,842 54,249
Ventura NGA 627 674 698 721 744 767 ' 791
Vta. Riv. GA 4,916 5,074 5,467 5,742 6,017 6,292 6,568
Vta. Riv. NGA 576 601 626 649 678 701 725
TOTAL COUNTY 183,384 200,342 233,812 263,905 294,874 322, 175 349,143
See attached map. Growth Areas are generally larger than incorporated areas for cities.
":'*To be used for guideline purposes only.
Approved by Board of Supervisors on 5/7/85.
JTE: Except for 1980, all forecasts are January 1 forecasts.
L76/2
. .56
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Population Per Dwelling Unit Ratio Projections
Growth Area/ Census
Nongrowth Area 4/1/80 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005* 2010
Camarillo GA 2.72 2.76 2.66 2.59 2.52 2.47 2.42
Camarillo NGA 3.52 3.52 3.35 3.22 3.11 3.01 2.91
Fillmore GA 3. 14 3.29 3.02 2.93 2.83 2.75 2.68
Fillmore NGA 2.99 3.02 2.89 2.80 2.72 2.65 2.59
Las Posas NGA 3.69 3.68 3.50 3.36 3.24 3. 12 3.01
Moorpark GA 3.25 3.27 3.12 3.01 2.91 2.83 2.74
Moorpark NGA 2.51 2.57 2.47 2.42 2.38 2.32 2.28
North Half NGA 1.51 1.59 1.58 1.63 1.63 1.65 1.67
Oak Park GA 3.36 3.37 3.21 3.10 2.99 2.90 2.81
Oak Park NGA 3.00 3.16 2.90 2.83 2.69 2.64 2-.60
Ojai GA 2.54 = 2.59 2.49 2.44 2.39 2.35 2.31
Ojai NGA 2.69 2.73 2.63 2.56 2.51 2.45 2.41
Oxnard GA 3.04 3.04 2.94 2.84 2.76 2.68 2.62
Oxnard NGA 3.88 3.87 3.66 3.51 . 3.38 3.25 3.13
Piru GA 3.60 3.61 3.42 3.28 3. 18 3.06 2.96
Piru NGA 3.06 3.13 2:93 2.86 2.80 2.73 2.63
Port Hueneme GA 2.67 2.72 2.61 2.54 2.49 2.44 2.39
Santa Paula GA 2.89 2.92 2.80 2.72 2.65 2.59 2.52
Santa Paula NGA 3.42 3.44 3.27 3.15 3.04 2.94 2.85
Simi Valley GA 3.41 • 3.43 3.25 3.14 3.03 2.93 2.84
• Simi Valley NGA 2.43 2.50 2.41 2.36 2.31 2.28 2.24
Thousand Oaks GA 2.88 2.91 2.79 2.71 2.64 2.58 2.52
Thousand Oaks NGA 1.76 1.85 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.83 1.83
Ventura GA 2.46 2.49 2.42 2.38 2.34 2.30 2.27
Ventura NGA 1.57 1.66 1.65 1.66 1.68 1.69 1.72
Ventura Riv. GA 2.61 2.66 2.56 2.50 2.44 2.40 2.36
Ventura Riv. NGA 2.62 2.68 2.57 2.51 2.45 2.41 2.36
Total County 2.89 2.92 2.82 2.74 2.67 2.61 2.56
*See attached map. Growth Areas are generally larger than incorporated areas
for cities.
*To be used for guideline purposes only.
Approved by Board of Supervisors on 5/7/85-
NOTE: Except for 1980, all forecasts are January 1 forecasts.
L76/3
CITY OF MOORPARK 67
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021
_X_ NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I . PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
1 .Entitlement:Hillside Performance Standards (Adoption)
2.Applicant:City of Moorpark
3. Proposal:Adoption of Hillside Performance Standards
Ordinance to regulate development in Moorpark's hillside areas
consistent with General Plan policies relating to preservation
of hillside and ridgeline areas, residential development in
hillside areas, maintenance of open space, retention of scenic
and recreational resources, and to enhance the public health,
safety and welfare.
4. Location & Parcel Number(s):Citywide
5. Responsible Agencies:None.
II . STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
An initial study was conducted by the Community Development
Department to evaluate the potential effects of this project
upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained in
the attached initial study it has been determined that this
project could not, have a significant effect upon the
environment. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ONLY:
These potentially significant impacts can be satisfactorily
mitigated through adoption of the following identified
measures as conditions of approval.
MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED TO AVOID POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS:
1 .None.
III. PUBLIC REVIEW:
1 .Legal Notice Method:Publication in a newspaper of
general circulation.
2.Document Posting Period:October 5, 1988 through
October 19, 1988.
Prepared by: Approved by:
Deborah S. Traffens edt Patrick J. Richards
Associate Planner Director of Community Development
Name/Date Name/Date
CITY OF MOORPARK
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Applicant City of Moorpark
2. Project Description Hillside Performance Standards Ordinance
(refer to draft ordinance) .
3. Date of Checklist submittal September 29, 1988
4.- Project Location City of Moorpark
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or .physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, X
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition_ or erosion of beach sands, .�.
or changes in situation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
45
YES MAYBE NO
2. AIR. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors? Xv
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or X1
temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
d. Is there a potential for cumulative adverse —
X
impacts on air quality in the project area?
3. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
•
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction 4
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters? -
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? , - .
•
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in.:.
any water body?
•
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface- water quality, including
but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
•
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow.of
ground waters? . - YY
-
g. Change in the quantity of ground.water-s, either ' ' �]..
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts .
or .excavations?
• h. Degradation .of groundwater quality?
-i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water - X
- otherwise available for public water supplies? - -•
j. Exposure of people or property to water related • X
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
• . 4,49 ' 1
YES MAYBE NO
4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species or number of X
any species of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X
endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, X
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
S. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of - X
any species. of animals (birds, land animals
- including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
' organisms or insects)? - - - -
b. Restrict the range Of or-otherwise affect any • X_
rare or endangered animal species?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife X
habitat?
6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
•
•
a. Increases in existing noise levels? �.
•
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? • - X
7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new -
light or glare?
•
•
8. LAND USE. Will the proposal.result in -a substantial
alteration of the present or.:planned land use of an
•
area? .
9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal.. result in: . '
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural X
• resources? -
•
b. Substantial depletion .of any nonrenewable X
resource?
i
•
hi
•
YES MAYBE NO
10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, X
distribution, density or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, X
or create a demand for additional housing?
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result
in:
.a. Generation of .substantial additional- vehicular X
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand X
for new parking? .
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation X
systems?
•
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or X
movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X
bicyclists or pedestrians?
•
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered
•
governmental. servies in any of :the i9iiowing. areas: -
a. Fire protection? X
b. 'Police protection? •
X
c. Schools? X .
•
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? • X
e. Other governmental services? • -
•
15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: •
a. Use of substantial ,amounts Of fuel or energy? •
.
. . tod,
• - - . .
•
YES MAYBE NO
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources X
of energy or require the development of new sources
of energy?
16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Communications system? X
c. Water? X
•
d. Sewer or septic tanks? . X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
g. Street lighting annexation and/or improvements? XI
17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation_of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard (excluding mental -health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? —
X.
18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal .result in the obstruc —
-
tion of any scenic vista or view-open. to the public, -
or will the proposal result in the creation of an •
aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
19: RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact -
21
upon the quality or quantity- of existing recreational
opportunities?
20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. - Will the proposal:
a. Affect possible unknown archaeological or historic- X_
al sites?
•
b.. Result in..destruction or:alteration of a known X-
archaeological-or historical site within the. , -
vicinity of the project?
c. Result in destruction or -alteration of a known ' ' 4 .
archaeological or -historical site near the . -
• vicinity of the project? : - • - .
. 44/)143
YES MAYBE NO
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. 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 or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of .time
while longterm impacts will endure well into X
• the future.) -
c. Does the project have impacts which are individu-
• ally limited, but cumulatively considerable?- .
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where impact on ea .h resource is.
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.) /�
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects -
on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
IV. DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
In conformance with Section15060 of the State EIR Guidelines, I find with
certainity that the propel would not have a significant impact on the
environment.
I find the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to class .
•
I find the proposed project COULD_NOT_have..a significant _effect on..the
• environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet could be applied
to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD BE PREPARED.
,
41°19r
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared.
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 the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet could be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SHOULD BE PREPARED.
I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
_ I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ADDENDUM to an existing.certified Environmental
Impact Report is required.
_ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and this effect is adequately addressed in a certified
Environmental Impact Report, and thus SUBSEQUENT USE of the existing
EIR is required.