HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2002 0826 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2002 -428
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY - AUGUST 26, 2002
7:00 P.M.
Moorpark Community Center
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
799 Moorpark Avenue
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any member of the public may address the Commission during the Public
Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Discussion
item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing
or Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Discussion portion
of the Agenda for that item. Speaker cards must be received by the Secretary
for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of
the meeting and for Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item
of the Discussion portion of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing
must be received prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing. A limitation
of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion
item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon
each Public Hearing item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in
lieu of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Discussion items. Copies
of each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the
Community Development Department /Planning and are available for public
review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the
Community Development Department at 517 -6233.
Planning Commission Agenda
AUGUST 26, 2002
Page 2
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
October
23, 2000.
B.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
November
13, 2000.
C.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
December
11, 2000.
D.
Adjourned Meeting Minutes
of December
19, 2000.
E.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
February
26, 2001.
F.
Regular
Meeting
Minutes
of
June 24,
2002.
G. Regular Meeting Minutes of July 22, 2002.
7. PUBLIC COIrMNTS:
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution PC- 2002 -428)
A. Subject: Consider Proposed Development Agreement with
Vintage Crest Senior Apartments, L.P., a California
Limited Partnershio.
Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
accept public testimony and close the public hearing;
and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002-
recommending to the City Council approval of a
Development Agreement with Vintage Crest Senior
Apartments, L.P., a California limited partnership.
B. Subject: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -03
and Zone Change No. 2002 -03 to Amend the Land Use
Element, Land Use Map and Zoning Map, in order to: 1)
Align Land Use Designations and Zones with Lot Lines
in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4928; 2) Allow for
a Lot Line Adjustment with an Adjacent Piece of Land
for the Development of a Water Tank Site; and 3)
Clarify Policy Related to the Separation of
Residential Uses from Aqricultural Uses.
Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
take public testimony, and close the public hearing;
and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending
to the City Council approval of the proposed
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \AGENDA \020826 oca.doc
Planning Commission Agenda
AUGUST 26, 2002
Page 3
amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Land
Use Map and Zoning Map.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of September 9, 2002:
• Zoning Ordinance Entitlements (Workshop) - Verbal
• -Consider Amendment to Resolution No. PC- 2002 -421
Regarding Rules of Procedure for Commission Meetings
and Related Functions and Activities.
B. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of September 23,
2002:
• Possible cancellation
11. ADJOURNMENT:
------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------ - - - - -- ------------------------
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's
Department at (805) 517 -6223. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to :Hake reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to
this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104; ADA Title II).
S: \Community Development \COMISSION \AGENDA \020826 pca.doc
ITEM: 6. A.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 23, 2000
Paae 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
October 23, 2000, in City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic
Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021.
1) CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DiCecco called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Landis led the pledge of allegiance.
3) ROLL CALL:
Mark DiCecco - Chair
Janice Parvin - Vice Chair
Paul Haller
Kipp Landis
William F. Otto
All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff
attending the meeting included John Libiez, Planning
Manager, and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary.
4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
None.
6) CONSENT CALENDAR:
A) October 9, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Otto
seconded a motion to approve the minutes of October 9,
2000, with revision to page 2 of the minutes.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
7) PUBLIC COMMENTS:
James Hartley, 5950 Gabbert Road, Moorpark. Mr. Hartley
stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was not
available by Internet until after 9:00 a.m. on the day of
the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Hartley further stated
that this had been an ongoing inconvenience for him.
SACommunity Development \COMMISSIONIMINUTES1Past PC Minutes PendingT 2000 -10 -23 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 23, 2000
Paae 2
8) PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A) West Pointe Homes Environmental Impact Report. The
Planning Commission will consider preliminary comments
to a Draft Environmental Impact Report and assess and
analyze the impacts related to the development by West
Pointe Homes, Inc., 250 lot hillside subdivision
located within the City of Moorpark west of Walnut
Canyon Road and northerly of Casey Road. Staff
Recommendation: 1. Continue to accept testimony and
comments; 2. Direct staff and the EIR Consultant to
prepare responses to comments for consideration as
part of the Final EIR; 3. Defer
decision /recommendation on the EIR to coincide with
the application components review and public hearing
tentatively scheduled for November 13, 2000, with
public hearing open.
John Libiez provided background information and the
status of this project. He said that the comment
period officially ended October 4, although some
comments were still coming in and comments received
after that date would be reviewed and considered.
Mr. Libiez said additional alternatives were being
reviewed and analyzed for the project and that
improvements along the corridor were being reevaluated
based upon an updated traffic analysis. He went on to
say that staff had met with developers who are
involved in the Walnut Canyon Road corridor, these
being, Toll Brothers, Morrison - Fountainwood- Agoura,
Suncal, and West Pointe Homes. The purpose of these
corridor discussion meetings had been to determine
existing conditions on Walnut Canyon Road, and to
consider improvements needed and potential street
sections to be designed and approved by Caltrans.
Testimony received from the following:
Vince Daly, Representing West Pointe Homes, 26500 W.
Agoura Road, Calabasas, California, 91302. Mr. Daly
said a presentation had not been scheduled for this
evening for the Commission, but that he was here to
answer questions. Mr. Daly said a meeting had occurred
with staff and other developers to discuss the
regional traffic issues.
F 2000 -10 -23 pcm
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 23, 2000
Paae 3
Commissioner Parvin asked where the public roadway
would be. Mr. Libiez replied that Figure 4 -4 of the
Environmental Impact Report identified the potential
public roadway. This roadway would connect to Specific
Plan No. 1 to the south.
James Rassmusen, 2020 Upper Ranch Road, Thousand Oaks,
said he also was available for questions.
Ellen Taylor, 7888 Grimes Canyon, Moorpark, said this
proposal was outrageous, and the current zoning only
allowed for 66 dwelling units, the proposal for an
additional 184 homes was a waste of everyone's time.
Ms. Taylor was concerned about the following:
❑ Truck traffic
❑ Traffic /Circulation
❑ Children riding their bikes in the vicinity.
❑ Train delays
❑ Additional traffic brought in by Fillmore.
Dr. Gregg J. Cutler, 8450 Happy Camp Canyon, Moorpark,
stated he was opposed to this proposal. He said this
project would potentially generate 2,500 additional
vehicle trips per day.
Pete Peters, 7155 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, said
he had read the EIR 3 times, and all though the EIR
does all it can to save the species affected, it does
nothing for the people. Mr. Peters said that
approximately 6,000 vehicle trips and 1,000 truck
trips would be added to traffic circulation. He said
the new housing in Fillmore has created more traffic
because of the lack of industry. Mr. Peters said the
City Council has the potential to create 3,600 more
vehicles trips for the City, and that the Council
should stick to it's General Plan.
John Gray, 7177 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, said he
was concerned about additional traffic and the women
and children that walk along Walnut Canyon Road where
there are no sidewalks.
Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette Street, Moorpark. Mrs.
Brown said it sounded rational to have open space.
That Suncal had originally proposed 150 dwelling units
F 2000 -10 -23 pcm
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 23, 2000
Paae 4
and has downsized to 107 dwelling units. Mrs. Brown
said that the current EIR related to the Hillside
Management Ordinance and proposes higher density.
James Hartley, 5950 Gabbert Road, Moorpark, said he
heard the majority speak about the development, and
not the EIR. In his view, the EIR document discussed a
project that is one of the few that is designed to be
a plus. The two speakers, who spoke previously, live
outside the City limits. He said that this proposal
fits in with other developments, and his concerns were
about Walnut Canyon Road and Caltrans design
standards.
Colin Velasquez, 601 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, said
he is opposed to this development. He said there is no
west access to Gabbert Road and opposes the
circulation pattern. He said that access all depended
upon the Walnut Canyon Road improvements.
Mr. Velasquez stated that taxpayers pay for open space
and he thought it should be the responsibility of the
homeowners association to maintain. He used the Bridle
Path development in Simi Valley as an example.
Mr. Libiez commented on the Walnut Canyon Road
corridor. He said he had talked with the County and
had taken the Grimes Canyon Mine tour to determine how
the mines work in relation to truck traffic and
determined an actual 640 vehicle trips currently with
a potential of 820 vehicle trips minimum under
permitted activities. Mr. Libiez also stated that
Specific Plan 2 required the dedication and grading to
continue State Route 23 alignment at Broadway, which
needs to proceed to improve regional circulation. He
said that Specific Plan No. 2 has been conditioned to
provide major intersection improvements at Spring Road
and Walnut Canyon Road.
Mr. Libiez further stated that there are alternatives
being reviewed for connection to Casey Road,
alternatives to extend High Street through Specific
Plan No. 1, the building of a State Route 118 bypass
to connect to Gabbert Road, and the potential
development of other private lands for linkage. He
said the EIR has looked at a number of options,
impacts and the fair share costs, and that the West
F 2000 -10 -23 pcm
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 23, 2000
Pointe Homes alternati•
proposed because it
habitat. In addition,
easement would provide
250 acres of Coastal
community.
Paae 5
ae of developing 250 homes was
protects the ridgeline and
he stated the conservation
a public benefit by preserving
Venturan Sage Shrub in the
Mr. Libiez recommended that the Commission defer their
decision on the EIR to allow staff to provide written
responses to comments.
Mr. Daly commented that he had met with the public and
will continue to be available to meet for any further
discussions.
Mr. Libiez responded to Mr. Gray's concern for the
safety of those walking along Walnut Canyon Road. He
said the City Public Works department had applied for
a grant to construct a walkway on the west side of
Walnut Canyon Road, coming from the Walnut Canyon
School site to the north. Staff discussions have
included talking with major developers about what kind
of improvements needed to be made, i.e., hiking
trails, and equestrian trails along the master
corridor.
Nancy Gray, 7177 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, stated
her concerns were about Walnut Canyon Road traffic
circulation and speeding.
Commissioner Otto stated that the applicant and
consultant need to address deficiencies regarding the
school district. In the current EIR it did not have
correct utilization information and needs to be
assessed, in regard to:
❑ The capacity for additional school sites.
❑ Waterworks District information was incorrect.
❑ The appropriateness of the pedestrian,
equestrian, and bike trails.
❑ Walnut Canyon Road inadequacies.
❑ Option 3 and 7 are most likely to address the
speed limit, re- striping, and landscape strips.
Commissioner Otto went on to say that the homeowners
association was not a good approach, and places a
burden on the organization's expertise and funding.
F 2000 -10 -23 pcm
R,
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 23, 2000
Pacie 6
Commissioner DiCecco questioned whether Solid Waste,
Chapter 15, page 8, a green waste program would be
used.
Commissioner Haller concurred with Commissioner Otto's
statements.
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Landis
seconded a motion to keep the hearing open and continue it
to the Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 2000.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
In closing Commissioner Haller stated that it was the job
of the Commission to review the environmental impact report
and not determine at this time the validity of developing
66 or 250 dwelling units.
B) City of Moorpark Zone Ordinance Amendment No. ZOA
2000 -01, Applicant: City of Moorpark. (Public Hearing
continued open from October 9, 2000.) Consideration of
a Zoning Code Amendment to amend Section 17.52.060
related to Change of Use for a Non - conforming Use to
allow a change in use upon City Council authorization
without need for Council approved Conditional Use
Permit as currently required. Staff Recommendation:
Continue to November 13, 2000.
Mr. Libiez said this was a proposal to change a
section of code intended to change from non - conforming
uses to lessor non - conforming uses. He further stated
that staff had received some of the information late
and did not have time to prepare it for the
Commission's meeting. He went on to say that the
current process is reviewed and permitted through the
Administrative Permit approval procedure.
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Haller
seconded a motion to continue this item with the public
hearing open to the Planning Commission meeting of November
13, 2000.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Commissioner Parvin announced the wedding anniversary of
Mr. & Mrs. DiCecco.
F 2000 -10 -23 pcm
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 23, 2000
Paae 7
10) ANNOUNCEMENTS OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
John Libiez announced future Planning Commission agenda
items: Updates for the Housing, Safety, and OSCAR, Land Use
and Circulation, and General Plan Elements. He stated the
Housing and Safety Elements were recently distributed, and
arrangements are in the works to schedule a public hearing
in early November.
11) ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Haller
seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
Mark DiCecco, Chairman
F 2000 -10 -23 pcm
ITEM: 6. B.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 13, 2000
Pacie 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
November 13, 2000, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic
Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021.
1) CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DiCecco called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Otto led the pledge of allegiance.
3) ROLL CALL:
Mark DiCecco - Chair
Janice Parvin - Vice Chair
Paul Haller
Kipp Landis
William F. Otto
Four Commissioners were present at the start of the
meeting. Commissioner Landis arrived at the meeting at 7:32
p.m.
Staff attending the meeting included Wayne Loftus, Director
of Community Development, John Libiez, Planning Manager,
Walter Brown, City Engineer, Steve Craig, Planning
Consultant, Mark Hoffman, Cotton Beland & Associates, and
Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary.
4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
Commissioner Parvin invited public participation in the
November 18, 2000, "Relay for Life" event.
5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
CONSENSUS: By consensus of the Commission, Items 8.0 and D
were reordered to be heard first on the agenda.
6) CONSENT CALENDAR:
A) October 23, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes
B) April 26, 2000, Joint City Council /Planning Commission
Minutes
S:ICommunity DevelopmenhCOMMISSIONIMINUTESIPast PC Minutes PendinglF 2000 -11 -13 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 13, 2000
Paqe 2
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Haller
seconded the motion to approve the minutes dated October
23, 2000 and April 26, 2000.
Motion passed with a 4:0:1 voice vote. Commissioner Landis
absent at this point in the meeting.
7) PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
8) PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A) Consider an Amendment to the City of Moorpark Zoning
Code to Amend Section 17.52.060.C.2 Related to Non -
Conforming Uses; Zoning Code Amendment No. ZOA 2000-
01. Staff Recommendation: 1. Continue to accept
testimony. 2. Close Public Hearing. 3. Adopt
Resolution PC -2000- recommending to the City
Council approval of an amendment to the Zoning Code to
permit changes of use from one non - conforming use to
another non - conforming use subject to issuance of an
administrative permit.
Mr. Libiez presented the staff report dated November
8, 2000.
Mr. Libiez described the Administrative Permit
process, which requires public notice, input and
comment, and conditional approval by the Director of
Community Development. The Director's decision is
appealable to the Planning Commission and ultimately,
the City Council.
Commissioner Landis questioned staff about those who
violate their permit. Mr. Libiez indicated that
voluntary compliance is always sought but the worst
case would be revocation of the permit, and /or legal
action.
Commissioner Otto inquired about the public notice
requirement and Mr. Libiez indicated that notice of
property owners within a 300 -foot of the subject
property owners is required. The notice would be 10-
days in advance of a public hearing, and would be
published in the local newspaper.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSICN \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -11-13 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 13, 2000
Paae 3
Mr. Libiez explained the Zoning Ordinance procedures
as it now applies in relation to the Administrative
Permit. Administrative Permits do not have the same
specific findings that a Conditional Use Permit
requires.
Commissioner Parvin asked how this type of permit is
tracked, used, and if they always remain a
nonconforming. Mr. Libiez answered yes; they always
remain a nonconforming use.
The public hearing opened at 10:02 p.m.
A Written Statement from Lynn Owens, 4647 Adonis,
Moorpark, CA. in support of Zoning Ordinance Amendment
No. 2000 -01 was received and made part of the record.
Commissioner Otto expressed difficulty with this
proposal because the intent is to lessen the
requirements for nonconforming uses, without any
safeguards for neighbors /adjacent property owners.
Commissioner Otto recommended that the process be
changed to make the Planning Commission the decision -
maker.
Commissioner Landis recommended a change in the
language from "less intense" to "is more consistent or
compatible, no greater impact from the existing use."
Commissioners Parvin and Haller agreed that the permit
process required clarification.
Chairman DiCecco remarked that he preferred to make
the amendment now, and was comfortable with the
administrative process, and believed this would be
simpler and provide the incentive to have someone
bring his or her property into conformance. The change
must have a lesser impact than the current use.
Mr. Libiez explained that the proposed language
included in Attachment 2 of the staff report does not
allow a greater impact in non - conforming use change,
and that the Director of Community Development makes
the final determination for an Administrative Permit.
The public hearing closed.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -11 -13 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 13, 2000
Page 4
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Otto
seconded a motion to directed staff to return with a
revision to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2000 -01 to
include a purpose and intent provision clause or similar
language and continue this item to the Planning Commission
meeting of November 27, 2000.
Motion passed with a 4:1 voice vote. Chairman DiCecco
voting NO.
B) Continued Public Hearing to Consider West Pointe Homes
Environmental Impact Report (SCH- 19940$1075). Staff
Recommendation: 1. Continue to accept testimony and
comments; 2. Discuss responses to comments for
consideration as part of the Final EIR; 3. Close the
public hearing on EIR 4. Defer recommendation on the
Draft EIR to coincide with the application components
review and public hearing tentatively scheduled for
November 27, 2000.
Mr. Libiez presented the Staff Report dated November
8, 2000.
Mr. Libiez advised the Commission that an additional
alternative to the project had been prepared and
reviewed by staff that would incorporate public and
private roadways within the project so that the City's
long term goal of interconnection of projects in the
northwest area could be realized. Mr. Libiez described
this alternative as follows:
a) Specific Plan No. 1 (linkage to the south).
Mr. Craig forwarded to the Commission the
Preliminary Response to Comments: West Pointe
Draft.
b) Class One CEQA impact at Moorpark Avenue and High
Street will be reduced to Class 2, based on the
following:
i) West Pointe Homes to fund the improvements
required at High Street and Moorpark Avenue
with future development subject to pay their
fair share or by reimbursement.
ii) East /west public access will be provided at
the northern part of the Hitch Ranch
development.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -11 -13 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 13, 2000
Paae 5
iii) Topic No. 4 remains unresolved, along with
drainage concerns of the Walnut Canyon
Drainage Area Study.
iv) Air Pollution Control District letter
concerning "use" formula, the City formula
vs. Impact Science formula.
V) Moorpark Unified School District tables to
reflect proper fees and generation data.
vi) The Final EIR should include modifications
to the watershed.
Mr. Craig concluded the staff presentation.
Walter Brown spoke about the geometry of Walnut Canyon
Road. Mr. Brown in brief spoke about developing
reasonable full width cost factor analysis that would
consider:
1. Peak hour traffic requirements.
2. Emergency parking restrictions created by a
four -foot shoulder.
3. Walnut Canyon Road bypass.
4. A longtime circulation plan for Walnut
Canyon Road.
5. Alternatives for bikes and pedestrians
traffic on Walnut Canyon Road.
The discussion concluded at 11:02 p.m.
Mr. Libiez concluded that the bottom line concerning
Walnut Canyon Road improvements is at Caltrans desire,
along with the cost of grading, retaining walls, and
moving drainage facilities. If appropriate, the
Commission could discuss corridor issues in order to
determine project impact and mitigation.
Commissioner Otto commended Mr. Brown, qnd questioned
if a Spring Road to Walnut Canyon connection had been
considered.
Mr. Libiez replied that Moorpark Highlands, Specific
Plan #2 was required to design and construct the
intersection of Walnut Canyon Road and Spring Road as
a part of the development agreement and project
conditions, and at one point City Council considered
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -11 -13 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 13, 2000
Paae 6
and rejected having SR23 designation shifted to Spring
Road.
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Landis
seconded a motion to continue the item, with the public
hearing open, to the Planning Commission meeting of
November 27, 2000.
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
C) Consider General Plan Amendment to Adopt Revised
Housing Element 2000; General Plan Amendment 2000 -02;
Applicant: City of Moorpark. Staff Recommendation:
1. Open the public hearing; accept public testimony;
2. Direct Staff and the consultant to prepare any
revisions, to the Housing Element that the Planning
Commission deems necessary. 3. Direct staff to prepare
a Resolution of the Planning Commission to recommend
adoption of the Revised Housing Element to the City
Council. 4. Continue the open public hearing to
November 27, 2000.
Mr. Libiez, presented the Staff Report dated November
6, 2000.
Mr. Libiez talked about the legislative background,
element history and administration of the Housing
Element.
Mr. Mark Hoffman from Cotton Beland and Associates,
Housing Element Consultant presented the Housing
Element to the Commission.
Mr. Hoffman spoke about the characteristics of
Moorpark in relation to population, age
characteristics, race and ethnicity, education and
employment, income groups, its senior citizens, owner
occupied residences, and rentals.
Mr. Hoffman explained housing costs and affordability,
housing prices for Moorpark, and defined income ranges
for the Very Low, Low, and Moderate and High income
ranges. Mr. Hoffman then in detail explained the
housing needs assessment, housing constraints,
resources, and proposed City housing implementation
plan.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -11 -13 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 13, 2000
Paqe 7
Mr. Hoffman further described Moorpark's share of the
region's future housing, its total allocation of 1,182
units and the relative breakdown by affordability
level.
The presentation concluded at 7:57 p.m.
Commissioner Parvin questioned staff about how the
City educates the public about residential
rehabilitation. Mr. Libiez said the City promotes
neighborhood conservation programs.
Mr. Libiez said other means include code enforcement
monitoring and identifying problems that would be an
impediment to keeping older housing in a good
condition. Other resources would include grants from
outside agencies.
Commissioner Otto said only 253 residential units are
allocated to the Very Low, at 15% in the redevelopment
area and 100 outside of the redevelopment area.
Commissioner Otto went on to say that the summary
proposed to the City may only get 150 of the needed
requirement.
Mr. Loftus said that the Housing Element is the City's
scenario that identifies population groups and
considers SCAG's projections of housing' units. These
projections fit into categories and provide
information to meet these requirements, and define the
City's responsibility for putting together a program
to get us to a solution.
Mr. Loftus went on to say that the State looks for
needs that are successful so that the City can achieve
affordable housing units for the community.
Commission comments:
Commissioner Haller recommended revising page 3 -11 to
reflect current school facility fees.
Response: Tables and data will be corrected.
Commissioner DiCecco inquired if SCAG's updated
numbers would create any change for the City.
Response: Mr. Libiez stated two numbers being
discussed were 1182 based on original numbers from
November 1999, and 1255 based on an appeal.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -11 -13 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 13, 2000
Paqe 8
Mr. Loftus said that this is the only number that's
known and used. Mr. Loftus said that the City had
maintained the right of appeal, should numbers be
changed.
Commissioner DiCecco noted that the Table of Contents
says we are the City of Glendora.
Response: The Final Table would be corrected.
Commissioner DiCecco went on to say that the City is
looking to increase residential units and some element
data seems to say we're not going to be able to meet
our needs.
Mr. Loftus said that some commercial lots are still
vacant and it's the economics, not the density or the
land that dictates total affordability.
Commissioner DiCecco said that according to the
element, the City had collected 3.4 million in fees,
and questioned staff if this met the City's needs.
Mr. Libiez responded fees could be used to offset cost
to construct units where they are produced at an
acceptable density level.
Commissioner DiCecco asked how "sweat equity" worked.
Response: Mr. Loftus indicated that the prospective
owner participates in the construction of the hom in
one manner or another.
Mr. Libiez asked the Commission to please provide
their recommendations by email or facsimile as soon as
possible in preparation of the final document.
Commissioner Haller commented that the report was
excellent in addressing low income, moderate, and
high, but needs more emphasis on low, and low to
moderate.
Commissioner DiCecco recommended allowing more
commercial type mixed uses for the downtown area.
Response: Mr. Loftus said that staff had developed a
policy for the priority, which should be incorporated
in the final draft.
Commissioner DiCecco commented that there are certain
projects where it would not make sense to collect only
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -11 -13 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 13, 2000
Page 9
a fee. He would prefer to see housing being built than
money paid.
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Otto
seconded a motion to continue Item 8.C. to November 27,
2000.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
Recessed at 9:10 p.m. - Reconvened at 9:29 p.m.
D) Consider General Plan Amendment to Adopt Revised
Safety Element 2000; General Plan Amendment 2000 -03;
Applicant: City of Moorpark. Staff Recommendation: 1.
Open the public hearing; accept staff and public
testimony; 2. Direct Staff and the consultant to
prepare any revisions to the Safety Element that the
Planning Commission deems necessary. 3. Direct staff
to prepare a Resolution of the Planning Commission to
recommend adoption of the Revised Safety Element to
the City Council. 4. Continue the open public hearing
to November 27, 2000.
Mr. John Libiez presented the staff report. Mr. Libiez
described some of the information now updated to
include West Simi Valley Fault in Carlsberg, Las
Posas; Landslide, flood; liquefaction; mapping; and
homeowners advisory indicating affected properties.
Mr. Hoffman said the follow -up Planning Commission
meeting would provide more specific information that
the Commission was looking for.
Mr. Libiez stated the consultant would add a glossary
of terms to the Final Draft Element.
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Haller
seconded a motion to continue this matter to the Planning
Commission meeting of November 27, 2000.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
9) DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None
10) ANNOUNCEMENTS OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -11 -13 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of November 13, 2000
Paae 10
11) ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
Mark DiCecco, Chairman
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -11 -13 pcm.doc
ITEM: 6. C.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 11, 2000
Paae 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held December
11, 2000, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center,
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021.
1) CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7 :12 p.m.
Chairman DiCecco commended outgoing Councilmembers Rodgers
and Evans, and congratulated incoming Councilmembers Mikos
and Millhouse.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Landis led the pledge of allegiance.
3) ROLL CALL:
Mark DiCecco - Chair
Janice Parvin - Vice Chair
Paul Haller
Kipp Landis
William F. Otto
All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff
attending the meeting included John Libiez, Planning
Manager; Walter Brown, City Engineer; and Celia LaFleur,
Administrative Secretary.
4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None
5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
None
6) CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
7) PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -12 -11 pcm.doc
11
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 11, 2000
Paae 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A) Draft Environmental Impact Report, Applicant: West
Pointe Homes. A continued public hearing to consider
West Pointe Homes Environmental Impact Report (SCH-
1994081075). Staff Recommendation: 1. Discuss
responses to comments. 2. Review Final Draft
Environmental Impact Report. 3. Adopt Resolution No.
PC -2000- recommending certification of the Draft
Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 1994081075).
(Continued from November 27, 2000, public hearing
closed).
Motion: Commissioner Otto moved and Commissioner
Haller seconded a motion to adjourn to December 19,
2000, at 7:00 p.m.
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
B) General Plan Amendment No. 2000 -03 - Safety Element,
Applicant: City of Moorpark. Consider General Plan
Amendment to Adopt an Updated Safety Element 2000.
Staff Recommendation: 1. Accept public testimony. 2.
Close the public hearing. 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC-
2000- recommending City Council adoption of the
Updated Safety Element. (Continued from November 27,
2000, public hearing open.)
Public hearing closed at 7:49 p.m.
Motion: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner
Parvin seconded a motion to approve staff
recommendation to adopt Resolution No. PC- 2000 -400
recommending City Council approval of the Updated
Safety Element 2000.
Motion passes with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A) Workshop - Presentation by SunCal Companies of
Proposed Residential Planned Development Permit No.
98 -02, a Proposed Residential Development of 107
Single Family Homes to be Located on 70 Acres on the
East Side of Walnut Canyon Road North of Wicks Road.
Information and Discussion Only, No Decision will Be
Made.
Bill Rattazzi, Representing SunCal Companies, 21601
Devenshire Street, Chatsworth, CA. Mr. Rattazzi
provided the presentation to the Commission.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 11, 2000
10) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None
11) ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
Paae 3
Mark DiCecco, Chairman
ITEM: 6. A
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 19, 2000
Paae 1
The Adjourned Meeting of the Planning Commission was held
December 19, 2000, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic
Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021.
1) Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Janice Parvin led the pledge.
3) ROLL CALL:
Mark DiCecco - Chair
Janice Parvin - Vice chair
Paul Haller
Kipp Landis
William F. Otto
All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff
attending the meeting included Wayne Loftus, Director of
Community Development; John Libiez, Planning Manager;
Walter Brown, City Engineer; and Steve Craig, The Planning
Corporation.
4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None
5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
None
6) CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
7) PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
8) PUBLIC HEARING:
A) Draft Environmental Impact Report, Applicant: West
Pointe Homes. A continued public hearing to consider
West Pointe Homes Environmental Impact Report (SCH-
1994081075). Staff Recommendation: 1. Accept public
testimony; 2. Discuss responses to comments; 3. Close
the public hearing; 4. Direct staff to prepare the
Final Draft EIR; (Continued from 12/11/2000 public
hearing closed.)
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2000 -12 -19 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of December 19, 2000
Page 2
MOTION: Commissioner Otto moved and Commissioner Landis
seconded a motion to Adopt Resolution PC- 2000 -401 to
recommend to the City Council the Certification of the
Screen Check Final Environmental Impact Report, dated
December 2000 for West Pointe Homes.
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
9) DISCUSSION ITEMS:
None
10) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None
11) ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Mark DiCecco, Chairman
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
ITEM: 6. E.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 26, 2001
Pane 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
February 26, 2001, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic
Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021.
1) CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Janice Parvin called the meeting to order at
7:08 p.m.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Kipp Landis led the pledge of allegiance to
the flag.
3) ROLL CALL:
Janice Parvin, Chairperson
William F. Otto, Vice Chairperson
Mark DiCecco
Paul Haller
Kipp Landis
All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff
attending the meeting included Wayne Loftus, Director of
Community Development; John Libiez, Planning Manager; Lynn
Harris, Planning Manager; Walter Brown, City Engineer; and
Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary.
4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None
5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA:
CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Commission reordered the
agenda to hear Item 9.A. prior to the public hearings
portion of the agenda.
6) CONSENT CALENDAR:
A) Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2001
MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner Landis
seconded a motion to approve the Planning Commission
minutes of February 12, 2001, and include a revision
concerning a report on Southern California Edison's ability
to deliver electricity to new development.
Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \Past PC Minutes Pending \F 2001 -02 -26 pcm.doc
7)
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 26, 2001
Paae 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A) Consider a Request to Divide 350 Acres into 250
Single - Family Lots on Approximately 100 Acres with the
Remaining 250 Acres Open Space; to Develop According
to a Residential Planned Development Proposal; to
Amend The General Plan Designation for the Property
from RL (Rural Low Density) to RH (Rural High Density)
and Open Space; to Change the Property Zoning from RE-
5 Acre Minimum Lot Size to RPD 1.78 Dwelling Units Per
Acre for the Residential Portion and from RE -5 Acre
Minimums to Open Space and Institutional. Applicant:
West Pointe Homes. Staff Recommendation: Continue to a
date certain with the public hearing open.
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Haller
seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation and
continue this item with the public hearing open to March
12, 2001.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
B) Consider Zone Ordinance Amendment No. ZOA 2001 -02, an
Amendment to the City of Moorpark Zoning Code to Amend
Chapters 17.44 Related to Entitlements and Chapter
17.60 Related to Amendments to the Zoning Code. Staff
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution PC -2001-
recommending to the City Council approval of
amendments to Chapters 17.44, and 17.60. (Continued
from February 12, 2001, public hearing closed.)
MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner
DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation
to adopt Resolution No. PC- 2001 -402, recommending City
Council approval of amendments to Chapters 17.44, 17.60,
and include those changes recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 vote.
9) DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A) Workshop - Presentation by SunCal Companies of
proposed Residential Planned Development (RPD 98 -02)
of 107 single family homes to be located on 70 acres
on the east side of Walnut Canyon Road north of Wicks
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 26, 2001
Paae 3
Road. Information and discussion only, No decision
will be made.
SunCal Companies gave a fifteen - minute presentation
and provided revised booklets on proposed
architectural features.
10) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Commissioner Haller requested that information be provided
on the next agenda concerning energy usage and Southern
California Edison to deliver service.
11) ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at
10:30 p.m.
Janice Parvin, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
ITEM: 6. F.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 24, 2002
Page 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June
24, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center,
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021.
1) CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Haller led the pledge of allegiance.
3) ROLL CALL:
Chair Landis, Commissioners DiCecco, Haller and Parvin were
present at the meeting. Commissioner Otto was absent.
Staff attending the meeting included Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director; Walter Brown, City
Engineer; Paul Porter, Principal Planner; Laura Stringer,
Senior Management Analyst; Joyce Parker - Bozylinski,
Planning Consultant; Celia LaFleur, Secretary II.
4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None
5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
None
6) CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Special Meeting Minutes of August 28, 1997
B. Adjourned Meeting Minutes of June 15, 1998
C. Regular Meeting Minutes of June 22, 1998
D. Regular Meeting Minutes of September 14, 1998
E. Regular Meeting Minutes of October 12, 1998
MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner DiCecco
seconded a motion to approve Consent Calendar Items 6.A.
through 6.E.
Motion passed with a 4:0 unanimous voice vote.
7) PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Written Statement Card - Ron Andrade, Candelaria Indian
Council. Statement - Moorpark needs to establish written,
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Final \020629 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 24, 2002
Paae 2
1 published procedures for public and organizations to file
2 inquires on complaints.
3 8) PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4 A. Consider Industrial Planned Development Permit No.
5 2000 -10, a Request to Construct an Approximately
6 113,994 Square Foot Mini - Warehouse /Office Building on
7 a 112,184 Square Foot Parcel Located at 875 Los
8 Angeles Avenue, at the Northwest Corner of Los Angeles
9 Avenue and Goldman Avenue, on the Application of
10 Asadurian Investments (Assessor Parcel No. 511- 0 -070-
11 55).(Continued from May 13, 2002)
12 Staff Recommendation: 1) Ask for public comments
13 regarding the revised project; 2) Consider the
14 Negative Declaration prepared for the requested
15 entitlements prior to making a recommendation to the
16 City Council; 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002-
17 recommending to the City Council denial of Industrial
18 Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -10.
19 Paul Porter, Principal Planner presented the staff
20 report. Reference: Staff Report dated June 19, 2002.
21 Commissioner DiCecco questioned if tree planting would
22 require 24 inch box or a specimen size tree. Mr.
23 Porter clarified the intent of the conditions.
24 Commissioner DiCecco inquired about premium pay for
25 Saturday's worked during construction. Mr. Brown said
26 this specifically applied to work done that called for
27 City inspection on Saturdays.
28 Commissioner DiCecco questioned staff on language in
29 the Negative Declaration. Mr. Porter responded that if
30 the Commission recommended denial then that portion of
31 the Negative Declaration would be changed.
32 Public testimony received from the following:
33 Ken Carroll, Architect; 24338 E1 Toro Road, Laguna
34 Woods, CA 92653. Mr. Carroll summarized the Ad Hoc
35 Committee's recommended changes.
36 Commissioner Parvin inquired about north elevation
37 planting. Mr. Carroll said tree planting would be
38 every twenty feet and additional trees would be added
39 as necessary or as recommended by the Commission.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 24, 2002
Paae 3
1
Commissioner Haller commented that the applicant was
2
under no obligation to sell or develop the proposed
3
site and could possibly continue to conduct their
4
business in its present form. Commissioner Haller said
5
that although some jobs would be created with this
6
proposal the City needed to focus on areas where the
7
City could create more jobs. Commissioner Haller said
8
with all of the proposed housing, the applicant
9
demonstrated the need for an additional storage
10
facility within the community. Commissioner Haller
11
further stated that the needs outweighed floor area
12
ratio and the economic value was in the ability to
13
serve the needs of residents, and stated his support
14
for the project.
15
Commissioner DiCecco commended the applicant for
16
working towards accomplishing the Commission's
17
recommended changes, concurred with Commissioner
18
Haller on potential use of the property, and commented
19
to the need for affordable housing to attract jobs to
20
the City.
21
Commissioner Parvin commented regarding the need for
22
the facility and the size of the proposed facility.
23
She further stated that she was attentive to the need
24
for a recreational vehicle storage facility in the
25
community.
26 Chair Landis commented on the Commission's approval of
27 the Negative Declaration and Mr. Hogan clarified the
28 Commission's actions required to recommend to the City
29 Council approval of the Negative Declaration.
30 Chair Landis queried, Commissioners DiCecco and Haller
31 on whether they were in agreement with findings in
32 the Resolution concerning housing /job ratios. Chair
33 Landis questioned language in Section 3, Paragraph A,
34 stating that he was unsure if the project will attain
35 that goal of maintaining a jobs /housing balance.
36 Commissioners DiCecco and Haller said that they were
37 comfortable with the language because another project
38 on the site might have the same potential for meeting
39 jobs /housing balance.
40 Commissioner DiCecco commented further to FAR's and
41 relationship to intensity of use, and stated that
42 conditions provide that if the NPDES needs are met the
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 24, 2002
Paae 4
1 project could meet the concerns of Commissioner Parvin
2 to provide berming.
3 MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner
4 DiCecco seconded a motion to approve Resolution No.
5 PC- 2002 -425, recommending to the City Council approval
6 of the Negative Declaration and Industrial Planned
7 Development Permit No. 2000 -10.
8 Motion passed with a 3:1 roll call vote, Commissioner
9 Parvin voting no, Chair Otto being absent.
10 B. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01, a Request
11 for a Change in the Land Use Designation From General
12 Commercial (C -2) to Very High Density (VH); Zone
13 Change No. 2002 -01, a Request for a Change Zone
14 designation from Commercial Planned Development (CPD)
15 to Residential Planned Development, 20 dwelling units
16 per acre (RPD 20 du /ac); and Residential Planned
17 Development (RPD) Permit No. 2002 -02, a Request to
18 allow the construction of 190 senior citizen apartment
19 units on 9.83 acres.
20 Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing,
21 accept public testimony, and close the public hearing;
22 2) Consider the proposed Mitigated Negative
23 Declaration to ensure that it adequately addresses the
24 impacts of the proposed residential project prior to
25 making a recommendation; 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC-
26 2002- recommending to the City Council approval of
27 General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01, Zone Change No.
28 2002 -01 and Residential Planned Development No. 2001-
29 02, subject to conditions of approval.
30 Joyce Parker - Bozylinski, Planning Consultant provided
31 the staff report. Reference: Staff Report dated June
32 24, 2002.
33 Commissioner DiCecco questioned page 6 of the staff
34 report, which reported that "a traffic study would be
35 required at a later date ". Ms. Parker - Bozylinski said
36 the requirement was for the vacant parcel to the
37 north, and that the subject project was conditioned
38 for improvements to Park Lane from the project site to
39 Los Angeles Avenue.
40 Ms. Parker - Bozylinski said a more recent study would
41 eliminate mitigation measures required for Radon and
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 24, 2002
Paae 5
1
it would be removed from the Mitigated Negative
2
Declaration.
3
Commissioner DiCecco questioned staff if the applicant
4
was aware of the fees stated in the resolution
page
5
14, and was concerned that this would affect
the
6
affordable housing proposal. Mr. Hogan replied
that
7
the applicant was aware of the fees.
8
Commissioner DiCecco questioned staff
about
9
conditioning of haul routes through the Arroyo
Simi
10
during construction. Mr. Brown stated that haul
route
11
conditioning would be operative if applicant used
City
12
streets for hauling.
13
Commissioner Parvin suggested providing fencing
which
14
would provide access to Arroyo Vista Community
Park.
15
Mr. Hogan responded that Flood Control had not in
the
16
past been receptive to providing public access to
17
their right -of -way.
18 Public Hearing opened at 7:59 p.m.
19 Testimony received from the following:
20 Troy Estacio, USA Properties Fund, Inc., 2440 Professional
21 Drive, Suite 100, Roseville, CA 95661 -7773. Mr. Estacio
22 responded to Commission's concerns by stating that the
23 applicant was aware of the fees proposed, and that the haul
24 route schedule is under review. Mr. Estacio also referenced
25 the applicant's intent to provide a masonry wall.
26 Mr. Estacio's further discussion related to the sidewalks,
27 wrought iron fencing, providing bench seating, and
28 requirements of Title 24 (ADA). Mr. Estacio said that the
29 Commission's comments would be reviewed and addressed by
30 the architect.
31 Chuck Novak, Hall and Foreman, Engineer for the project,
32 9310 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 220A, Chatsworth, CA
33 91311. Mr. Novak asked for clarification of Condition 36,
34 and further stated that the applicant was not proposing
35 underground utilities when improvements are made on Park
36 Lane.
37 Mr. Brown provided the following information:
38 • Condition No. 36 may not be required.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 24, 2002
Paqe 6
1 • Condition No. 75, the sidewalk on the easterly side
2 is proposed for improvements and the applicant is
3 required to provide improvements from the project
4 site to Los Angeles Avenue.
5 • Condition No. 98, the applicant may be required to
6 share in the costs established. This condition
7 remains unchanged.
8 Anastacio Martinez, Architect, Newport Beach, CA. Mr.
9 Martinez provided an overview of the project, addressed
10 architectural and site design issues, and clarified that
11 the project design was California Ranch, not Cape Cod.
12 Mr. Hogan, said because of the number of revisions made to
13 the project site concerning access and landscaping, staff
14 will revisit the design of various sidewalk areas within
15 the project site as part of the final landscape plan
16 approval and make changes to provide better access and
17 landscaping.
18 Robert Harris (representing Kurt Yager), Troop Real Estate,
19 Moorpark, CA 93021. Mr. Harris was concerned with the
20 proposed development of senior housing because his property
21 and adjacent properties are zoned commercial. Mr. Harris
22 believed the project proposed would present problems for
23 any future commercial development of his property.
24 Public hearing closed at 8:25 p.m.
25 Chair Landis commented that the city has been working hard
26 to address the Housing Element and this project goes a long
27 way toward meeting the housing needs in Moorpark.
28 MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner DiCecco
29 seconded motion to recommend to the City Council approval
30 of Mitigated Negative Declaration (with the deletion of
31 requirement concerning Radon) and to approve Resolution No
32 PC- 2002 -426 recommending to the City Council approval of
33 General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01, Zone Change No. 2002-
34 01, and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -02,
35 with revision to Conditions of Approval not to include
36 underground utilities for the extension of Park Lane to Los
37 Angeles Avenue (Condition No. 36).
38 Motion Passed with a 4:0 unanimous voice vote, Chair Otto
39 being absent.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 24, 2002
Pacie 7
1 9) DISCUSSION ITEMS:
2 A) Consider establishing Commission procedures for
3 written, electronic and telephone communication from
4 applicants and the public with the Planning
5 Commission.
6 Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to return with a
7 Resolution amending, Section 9. Written Communication
8 of Resolution No. PC- 2002 -421 and incorporating
9 additional language and revisions regarding procedures
10 for communication with the Commission.
11 Ron Andarie spoke about City of Moorpark needs for
12 establishing written, published procedures for public and
13 organizations to file inquires on complaints.
14 CONSENSUS: By consensus the Commission approved staff
15 recommendation to direct staff to return with a resolution
16 amending Section 9. - Written Communication to incorporate
17 additional language regarding procedures for communication
18 with Commission.
19 10) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
20 A) Planning Commission Summer Meeting Recess Scheduled
21 for July 8, 2002 and August 12, 2002 - Verbal
22 B) Tentative - Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of July
23 22, 2002, Revisions to the Lighting Ordinance - Verbal
24 Mr. Hogan provided a brief summary of future agenda items.
25 11) ADJOURNMENT:
26 MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner Parvin
27 seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting
28 Motion passed with a unanimous 4:0 voice vote.
29 The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
ITEM: 6. G.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of July 22, 2002
Page 1
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on July
22, 2002, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center;
799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021.
1) CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Otto called the meeting to order @ 7:03 p.m.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Landis led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3) ROLL CALL:
Commissioner's DiCecco, Haller, Parvin, Vice Chair Landis
and Chair Otto were present at the meeting.
Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community
Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager;
Walter Brown, City Engineer; Laura Stringer, Senior
Management Analyst; and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary.
4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
None.
6) CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 9, 1998.
B. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 23, 1998.
C. Special Meeting Minutes of November 30, 1998.
D. Regular Meeting Minutes of December 14, 1998.
E. Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 1999.
F. Regular Meeting Minutes of August 9, 1999.
G. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2000.
H. Regular Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2000.,
I. Regular Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2002.
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner
DiCecco seconded a motion to approve the minutes of
November 9, 1998; November 23, 1998; November 30, 1998;
December 14, 1998; March 22, 1999; March 22, 1999; August
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020722 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of July 22, 2002
Page 2
1 9, 1999; February 14, 2000; June 26, 2000; and March 25,
2 2002; as presented.
3 Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
4 7) PUBLIC COMMENTS:
5 None.
6 8) PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7 A) Subject: Amendments to Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark
8 Municipal Code Related to Lighting Regulations
9 Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
10 accept public testimony and close the public hearing;
11 and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002-
12 recommending to the City Council approval of
13 amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to Lighting
14 Regulations as included in Attachment No. 2.
15 Dave Bobardt presented the staff report, providing
16 background from the May 28, 2002 workshop. He further
17 stated that the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.30 were
18 based on input from the workshop, Commission's comments and
19 data from other cities surveyed. Mr. Bobardt's report
20 focused on five (5) primary topics:
21 • Lighting Values
22 • Types of Outdoor Lamps and Colors
23 • Energy Efficiency
24 • Use of Drop down lenses.
25 • Pole height.
26 Mr. Bobardt also discussed staff recommended changes to
27 help provide consistency and clarity to the section.
28 The Commission questioned staff regarding:
29 • Moorpark Marketplace compliance with recommended changes.
30 • Use of search and laser lights
31 Chair Otto opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
32 There were no public speaker or written statement cards
33 submitted.
34 Chair Otto closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Final \020722 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of July 22, 2002
Page 3
1 The Commission questioned staff and discussed the topics
2 included in staff's presentation. Commission Parvin
3 questioned staff regarding proposed language in several
4 sub - sections.
5 Commission discussion regarding the issues raised concluded
6 in the following:
7 • Section 17.30.030 Applicability (second sentence).
8 Recommended re- wording: "These regulations are
9 intended to augment lighting standards and regulations
10 within Specific Plan areas with adopted Specific
11 Plans."
12 • Section 17.30.050 prohibited lighting, Paragraph E and
13 Section 17.30.090 exemptions, Paragraph H:
14 Recommendation that searchlights be permitted for
15 temporary grand opening sales or special events
16 through the issuance of appropriate permits by the
17 city.
18 • Page 1 - Section 17.30.020 - Definitions:
19 "Correlated color temperature," Add a clause to the
20 first sentence to read "as specified by the lamp
21 manufacturer or if not specified, in accordance with
22 the CIE 1960 standard. "*
23 *CIE stands for Commission Internationale de
24 1'Eclairage.
25 MOTION: Vice -Chair Landis moved and Commissioner Parvin
26 seconded a motion to approved staff recommendations,
27 adopting Resolution No. PC- 2002 -427, recommending to City
28 Council approval of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
29 related to lighting regulations, with modifications as
30 recommended by the Commission.
31 Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
32 9) DISCUSSION ITEMS:
33 None.
34 10) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
35 A. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of August 26, 2002:
36 • USA Development Agreement - Verbal
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Final \020722 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of July 22, 2002
Page 4
1 • Toll Brothers General Plan Amendment /Zoning Change -
2 Tentative
3 B. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of September 9, 2002:
4 • Zoning Ordinance Amendment on Signs - Verbal
5 Mr. Hogan provided the Commission with a brief summary of
6 future agenda items.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11) ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Vice Chair Landis moved and Commissioner Haller
seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting.
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
William F. Otto, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Final \020722 pcm.doc
CITY OF MOORPARK
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
ITEM: 8. A.
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Planning Commission Meft
of
ACTION:
t ecc oe tic -aoo�
(q•0.,c"Le 77.) -fag
By '
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Direct o
By: Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analys
DATE: July 19, 2002 (PC Meeting of 8/26/02) _P
SUBJECT: Consider Proposed Development Agreement with Vintage
Crest Senior Apartments, L.P., a California Limited
Partnership
BACKGROUND
USA Properties Fund, Inc. (USA Properties) is the developer for an
approved 190 -unit affordable senior apartment project. USA will be
one of two General Partners for the entity, Vintage Crest Senior
Apartments, L.P., a California limited partnership, established to
actually develop, own, and maintain the project.
On June 24, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended to the City
Council approval of GPA 2002 -01, Zone Change 2002 -01, and RPD 2002-
02 for 190 affordable senior apartments located at Park Lane and
Park Crest Lane, including a change in the zoning and land use from
commercial to residential with a density of 20 units per acre. On
July 10, 2002, the City Council approved the project including the
introduction and first reading of the zone change ordinance. The
developer is seeking a bond allocation of about $16 million from
the State to help finance this project. They will know if they are
successful in achieving this financing by mid - August 2002.
A Development Agreement has been negotiated by a Council Ad Hoc
Committee (Mayor Pro Tem Mikos and Councilmember Harper) and staff
with the developer. On July 17, 2002, the City Council referred
the Development Agreement to the Planning Commission.
iLL tl
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Vintage Crest Senior Apartments (USA) Development Agreement
August 26, 2002
Page No. 2
DISCUSSION
A draft Development Agreement for this project has been prepared,
and was reviewed by the City Council at their July 17, 2002,
meeting. At that meeting, the City Council referred the Development
Agreement to the Planning Commission for public hearing on August
26, 2002.
The developer has indicated that this project is contingent upon
receiving its requested state bond allocation, the design /standards
modifications included in the conditions of approval and the fee
reductions contained in the Development Agreement.
The Development Agreement contains approximately $3,000 per unit
fee reduction. The Park Improvement, Citywide Traffic, Los Angeles
Area of Contribution (AOC), and Traffic System Management fees have
been partially reduced to achieve this total reduction.
The City otherwise receives all of its standard fees, including the
Development Fee contained in other development agreements, as well
as receiving a pass through of its share of the real property taxes
that this project would otherwise be exempted from.
The draft agreement attached to this report is in legislative
format showing changes from the City's Development Agreement with
the adjacent project Archstone Communities /Jocelyne Abrar.
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.40, the City Council has
directed the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on
August 26, 2002, and has set September 4, 2002, as the public
hearing date for the City Council on this matter. It is proposed
that after conducting the public hearing and considering all
testimony received, that the Planning Commission provide a
recommendation on the Development Agreement to the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has determined that the previously approved Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the general plan amendment, zone change
and residential planned development permit is sufficient
environmental documentation for the Development Agreement. No
further environmental review is necessary.
S: \Community Development \D A \2002 -01\Staff Report \PC 020826 USA DA.doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Vintage Crest Senior Apartments (USA) Development Agreement
August 26, 2002
Page No. 3
STAFF RECOMMMATIONS
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the
public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending to the City
Council approval of a Development Agreement with Vintage Crest
Senior Apartments, L.P., a California limited partnership.
Attachments:
1. Draft Development Agreement
2. Draft Resolution recommending approval to the City Council
S: \Community Development \D A \2002 -01 \Staff Report \PC 020826 USA DA.doc
Recording Requested By
And When Recorded Return to:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES
Pursuant to Government Code
§ 6103
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MOORPARK
AND
RC-1 STONE COMMrrn ITIESVINTAGE CREST SENIOR APARTMENTS L.P.
THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITHIN TEN DAYS
OF EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES HERETO PURSUANT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT CODE §65868.5
PC ATTACHMENT 1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement ( "the Agreement ") is made and
entered into by and between the CITY OF MOORPARK, a municipal
corporation, (referred to hereinafter as "City ") and a9C-EL3NE;
AB any —a Single i- an VINTAGE CREST SENIOR APARTMENTS L.P. a
California limited partnership (referred to hereinafter as
"Developer "). City and Developer are referred to hereinafter
individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties." In
consideration of the mutual covenants and agreement's contained in
this Agreement, City and Developer agree as follows:
1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the
following facts and for the following purposes, each of which
is acknowledged as true and correct by the Parties:
1.1. Pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et sea. and
Moorpark Municipal Code chapter 15.40, City is
authorized to enter into a binding contractual
agreement with any person having a legal or equitable
interest in real property within the City in order to
establish certainty in the development process.
1.2. Developer is owner in fee simple of certain real
property in the City of Moorpark, consisting of
approximately nineteen and -we to l4s-- (-19.2 ) nine and
forty -eight hundredths (9.48) acres generally located
north of the Arroyo Simi and west south of Park Lane
MeerpaEk A,enue -as and more specifically described by
the legal description set forth in Exhibit A, which
exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference (the "Property ").
1.3. City has approved, or is in the process of approving,
General Plan Amendment No. --(�4- 42002 -01 ( "GP"), Zone
Change No. 9:7-7 2002-01 ("ZC"), and Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2002 -02 ( "RPD "). Implementation
of these land use entitlements is subject to a
mitigation measures monitoring and reporting program
that was approved by City on jure23, 1999July 17, 2002
(the "Mitigation Monitoring Program "). (The GP, ZC,
RPD and Mitigation Monitoring Program are collectively
referred to as the "Project Approvals ".) The Project
Approvals authorize a residential development
consisting of 312-190 apartments on the Property (the
"Project ").
1.4. By this Agreement, City desires to obtain the binding
2
Q$A PR(iPERTIE$ 7EV . CR :3.VQ 2 062$.- & RTZ$ 5... DFV ....r';L' >Fu....20 +2'....i)6ei+
agreement of Developer to develop the Property in
accordance with the Project Approvals and this
Agreement. In consideration thereof, City agrees to
limit the future exercise of certain of its
governmental and proprietary powers to the extent
specified in this Agreement.
1.5. By this Agreement, Developer desires to obtain the
binding agreement of City to permit the development of
the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals
and this Agreement. In consideration thereof,
Developer agrees to waive its rights to legally
challenge the limitations and exactions imposed upon
the development of the Property pursuant to the Project
Approvals and this Agreement and to provide the public
benefits and improvements specified in this Agreement.
1.6. City and Developer acknowledge and agree that the
consideration that is to be exchanged pursuant to this
Agreement is fair, just and reasonable and that this
Agreement is consistent with the General Plan of City
as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 9!7 12002 -01.
1.7. On May 24, 1999 August 26, 2002, the Planning
Commission of City commenced a duly noticed public
hearing on this Agreement and at the conclusion of the
hearing recommended approval of the Agreement.
1.8. On -june 2, 1399 September 4, 2002, the City Council of
City ( "City Council ") commenced a duly noticed public
hearing on this Agreement, and at the conclusion of the
hearing approved the Agreement by Ordinance No. �
( "the Enabling Ordinance ").
2. Property Subject To This Agreement. All of the Property shall
be subject to this Agreement. The Property may also be
referred to hereinafter as "the site" or "the Project- area".
3. Binding Effect. The burdens of this Agreement are binding
upon, and the benefits of the Agreement inure to, each Party
and each successive successor in interest thereto and
constitute covenants that run with the Property. Whenever the
terms "City" and "Developer" are used herein, such terms shall
include every successive successor in interest thereto.
3.1. Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who
acquires any right, title or interest in or to any
portion of the Property in which the Developer has a
legal interest is, and shall be, conclusively deemed to
3
IT*A E?R()�ERTI.ti$ '�= `.'�...�G?.._'.002' 06.2$. DRAFTUgi- k-- PRi)P&R IFS -:: t1' s4 ......AGR...._22- 42.....0(i'24
have consented and agreed to be bound by this
Agreement, whether or not any reference to the
Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such
person acquired such right, title or interest.
3.2. Release Upon Transfer. Upon the sale or transfer of
the Developer's interest in any portion of the
Property, that Developer shall be released from its
obligations with respect to the portion so sold or
transferred subsequent to the effective date of the
sale or transfer, provided that the Developer (i) was
not in breach of this Agreement at the time of the sale
or transfer and (ii) prior to the sale or transfer,
delivers to City a written assumption agreement, duly
executed by the purchaser or transferee and notarized
by a notary public, whereby the purchaser or transferee
expressly assumes the obligations of Developer under
this Agreement with respect to the sold or transferred
portion of the Property. Failure to provide a written
assumption agreement hereunder shall not negate, modify
or otherwise affect the liability of the purchaser or
transferee pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing
contained herein shall be deemed to grant to City
discretion to approve or deny any such sale or
transfer, except as otherwise expressly provided in
this Agreement.
4. Development of the Property. The following provisions shall
govern the development and use of the Property.
4.1. Permitted Uses. The permitted and conditionally
permitted uses of the Property shall be limited to
those that are allowed by the Project Approvals and
this Agreement.
4.2. Development Standards. All design and development
standards, including but not limited to density or
intensity of use and maximum height and size of
buildings, that shall be applicable to the Property are
set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement.
4.3. Building Standards. All construction on the Property
shall adhere to the Uniform Building Code, including
the Fire Resistive Design Manual, the National
Electrical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform
Mechanical Code, the Uniform Housing Code, the Uniform
Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the
Uniform Code for Building Conservation and the Uniform
Administrative Code in effect at the time the plan
4
U$ P_ P QPERTIE,? DEV..AQP,,, 2.Q0-2 ..i DR: FTEiSi,..PRGP&R ES DE`:..A;R . 4 +2 .i15e8
check or permit is approved and to any federal or state
building requirements that are then in effect
(collectively "the Building Codes ").
4.4. Reservations and Dedications. All reservations and
dedications of land for public purposes that are
applicable to the Property are set forth in the Project
Approvals and this Agreement.
5. Vesting of Development Rights.
5.1. Timing of Development. In Pardee Construction Co. v.
City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), the California
Supreme Court held that the failure of the parties
therein to provide for the timing or rate of
development resulted in a later - adopted initiative
restricting the rate of development to prevail against
the parties' agreement. City and Developer intend to
avoid the result in Pardee by acknowledging and
providing that Developer shall have the right, without
obligation, to develop the Property in such order and
at such rate and times as Developer deems appropriate
within the exercise of its subjective business
judgment.
In furtherance of the Parties' intent, as set forth in
this section, no future amendment of any existing City
ordinance or resolution, or future adoption of any
ordinance, resolution or other action, that purports to
limit the rate or timing of development over time or
alter the sequencing of development phases, whether
adopted or imposed by the City Council or through the
initiative or referendum process, shall apply to the
Property provided the Property is developed in
accordance with the Project Approvals and this
Agreement. -In - particular, but ;,�4theut limiting any -o-f
the ferege ng no numerical restrictinn shall be- plaeed
en -the number of dwellings- units that can b-- built
year within the Prej eet Area Hewever, n- othing in
this section shall be construed to limit City's right
to insure that Developer timely provides all
infrastructure required by the Project Approvals and
this Agreement.
5.2. Amendment of Project Approvals. No amendment of any of
the Project Approvals, whether adopted or approved by
the City Council or through the initiative or
referendum process, shall apply to any portion of the
5
Q,9A.p9QPEUI. S DEV. 1G. _51.9 —' �4 -' DRe FTi3Siti -PR4 PERT-1ES -DEV AGR 20 2 k).628
Property, unless the Developer has agreed in writing to
the amendment.
5.3. Issuance of Subsequent Approvals. Applications for
land use approvals, entitlements and permits, including
without limitation subdivision maps, subdivision
improvement agreements and other agreements relating to
the Project, lot line adjustments, preliminary and
final planned development permits, use permits, design
review approvals (e.g. site plans, architectural plans
and landscaping plans), encroachment permits, and sewer
and water connections that are necessary to or
desirable for the development of the Project
(collectively "the Subsequent Approvals "; individually
"a Subsequent Approval ") shall be consistent with the
Project Approvals and this Agreement. For purposes of
this Agreement, Subsequent Approvals do not include a
final subdivision map or building permits.
The term of any Subsequent Approval, except a tentative
map, shall be one year; provided that the term may be
extended by the decision maker for two (2) additional
one (1) year periods upon application of the Developer
holding the Subsequent Approval filed with City's
Department of Community Development prior to the
expiration of that Approval. Each such Subsequent
Approval shall be deemed inaugurated, and no extension
shall be necessary, if a building permit was issued and
the foundation received final inspection by City's
Building Inspector prior to the expiration of that
Approval.
It is understood by City and Developer that certain
Subsequent Approvals may not remain valid for the term
of this Agreement. Accordingly, throughout the term of
this Agreement, the Developer shall have the right, at
its election, to apply for a new permit to replace a
permit that has expired or is about to expire.
Subsequent Approvals shall be governed by the Project
Approvals and by the applicable provisions of the
Moorpark General Plan, the Moorpark Municipal Code and
other City ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations,
policies, standards and requirements as most recently
adopted or approved by the City Council or through the
initiative or referendum process and in effect at the
time that the application for the Subsequent Approval
is deemed complete by City (collectively "City Laws "),
except City Laws that:
6
�J$A PRQPERTIES JEVAQR _200- ? QC2$._.LRi?.FTUSA. PR {PnRTIES._.D&V AG;R 2() +e 1)62,8
(a) change any permitted or conditional permitted
uses of the Property from what is allowed by the
Project Approvals;
(b) limit or reduce the density or intensity of the
Project, or any part thereof, or otherwise
require any reduction in the square footage or
number of proposed buildings or other
improvements from what is allowed by the Project
Approvals;
(c) limit or control the rate, timing, phasing or
sequencing of the approval, development or
construction of all or any part of the Project in
any manner, provided that all infrastructure
required by the Project Approvals to serve the
portion of the Property covered by the Subsequent
Approval is in place or is scheduled to be in
place prior to completion of construction;
(d) are not uniformly applied on a City -wide basis to
all substantially similar types of development
projects or to all properties with similar land
use designations;
(e) control residential rents; or
(f) modify the land use from what is permitted by the
General Plan Land Use Element at the date the
Enabling Ordinance is adopted or that prohibits
or restricts the establishment or expansion of
urban services including but not limited to
community sewer systems to the Project.
5.4. Modification Of Approvals. Throughout the term of this
Agreement, the Developer shall have the right, at its
election and without risk to any right that is vested
in it pursuant to this section, to apply to City for
minor modifications to Project Approvals and Subsequent
Approvals. The approval or conditional approval of any
such minor modification shall not require an amendment
to this Agreement, provided that, in addition to any
other findings that may be required in order to approve
or conditionally approve the modification, a finding is
made that the modification is consistent with this
Agreement.
7
U,,SA PROPERTZE$ DE`s' t iR.. 2 -002 Q62? DRAFTU irk PROP -R ISS D &V —AGR- - 220+2. 0628
5.5. Issuance of Building Permits. No building permit,
final inspection or certificate of occupancy will be
unreasonably withheld from the Developer if all
infrastructure required by Project Approvals to serve
the portion of the Property covered by the building
permit is in place or is scheduled to be in place prior
to completion of construction and all of the other
relevant provisions of the Project Approvals,
Subsequent Approvals and this Agreement have been
satisfied. In no event shall building permits be
allocated on any annual numerical basis or on any
arbitrary allocation basis.
5.6. Moratorium on Development. Nothing in this Agreement
shall prevent City, whether by the City Council or
through the initiative or referendum process, from
adopting or imposing a moratorium on the processing and
issuance of Subsequent Approvals and building permits
and on the finalizing of building permits by means of
a final inspection or certificate of occupancy,
provided that the moratorium is adopted or imposed (i)
on a City -wide basis to all substantially similar types
of development projects and properties with similar
land use designations and (ii) as a result of a utility
shortage or a reasonably foreseeable utility shortage,
including without limitation a shortage of water, sewer
treatment capacity, electricity or natural gas.
6. Developer Agreements.
6.1. The Developer shall comply with (i) this Agreement,
(ii) the Project Approvals, and (iii) all Subsequent
Approvals for which it was the applicant or a successor
in interest to the applicant.
6.2. All lands and interests in land dedicated to City shall
be free and clear of liens and encumbrances other than
easements or restrictions that do not preclude or
interfere with use of the land or interest for its
intended purpose, as reasonably determined by City.
6.3. As a condition of issuance of a building permit for
each residential dwelling unit, Developer shall pay
City a community services fee as described herein
(Community Services Fee). The Community Services Fee
may be expended by City in its sole and unfettered
discretion. The amount of the Community Services Fee
shall be Two Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars
($2, 700.00) Twe T14Gusand, Fight Hundred Ferty -Five
8
V_9&__PRQPERTIES „Df V_.A',R „20_Q _ 06?_�„ DRAFTU&P. - PROP6RTI6S...iiWd..._AGR...... G. 2 {)b-$
Sellars — ($2,545.00) per residential unit. The
Community Services Fee shall be adjusted annually
- commencing on January 1, 2005 and each January 1
thereafter two (2) nears after the €irst— residozn=t-jal
building - permit is issued within the prey ee} -by any
increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) until all
fees have been paid. The CPI increase shall be
determined by using the information provided by the
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
for all urban consumers within the Los
Angeles /Riverside /Orange Co. metropolitan area during
the prior year. The first such calculation shall be
made using the month of October 2004 over the month of
October 2003 and so forth each January 1 until all
Community Services Fees are paid. In the event there is
a decrease in the referenced CPI for any annual
adjustment, the Community Services Fee shall remain at
its then current amount until such time as the next
subsequent annual adjustment which results in an
increase. Which is €eur — (4) MGnthS Prier to the -ooh
- ;414ie the Deyelepment Agreement is-app ei ed by the
Gity -Council (e g ; if a gresaal eecu�s in dune, tl4
the —month of Febr-uaa - is used tG ealct4late the
increase).
6.4. The fee in lieu of park land dedication (Park Fee)
pursuant to the requirements of City Ordinance No. 52
shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building
permit for each residential unit. The fee - Ghal= —he
Three Thousand Dellars ($3,00o.00) for each residential
unit. The Park Fee may be expended by the City in its
sole and unfettered discretion. On the effective
operative date of this Agreement, the amount of the
Park Fee shall be Two Thousand Dollars
x$2,000.00) 3;G8 - -per residential unit. Commencing
January 1, 292005, and annually thereafter, the Park
Fee shall be increased to reflect the change in the
State Highway Bid Price Index for the twelve (12) month
period that is reported in the latest issue of the
Engineering News Record that is available on December
31 of the preceding year ( "annual indexing "). In the
event there is a decrease in the referenced Index for
any annual indexing, the Park Fee shall remain at its
then current amount until such time as the next
subsequent annual indexing which results in an
increase.
6.5. As a condition of the issuance of a building permit for
each residential unit, Developer shall pay City a
9
UyA PRUPERTZE$ DEV,,,r'�,,,R_ >QU.2 (1�.�E3- .- .DRAF1,USA...- PROPE R- TIEb.....D93,L GR- 20
§-
development fee as described herein (the "Development
Fee "). The Development Fee may be expended by City in
its sole and unfettered discretion. On the operative
date of this Agreement, the amount of the Development
Fee shall be two thousand seven five hundred fifty
dollars ($2,750.00) for each residential unit. The fee
shall be adjusted annually (eammeneing- ene -44+ year
after tie - first resi4entis1 building pe- rmit -i is issued
within the Pr ec -t on January 1, 2005, and each January
1 thereafter -by any increase in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) until all fees have been paid. The CPI
increase shall be determined by using the information
provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, for all urban consumers within the
Los Angeles /Riverside /Orange Co. metropolitan area
during the prior year. The first such calculation
shall be made using the month of October 2004 over the
month of October 2003 and so forth each January 1 until
all Development Fees are paid. In the event there is
a decrease in the referenced CPI for any annual
adjustment, the Development Fee shall remain at its
then current amount until such time as the next
subsequent annual adjustment which results in an
increase. which iG four --(4 ) montl:is -Grier to -t-he-
6.6. As a condition of the issuance of a building permit for
each residential unit, Developer shall pay City a
traffic mitigation fee as described herein ( "Citywide
Traffic Fee "). The Citywide Traffic Fee may be
expended by the City in its sole and unfettered
discretion. On the eff°eve- operative date of this
Agreement, the amount of the Citywide Traffic Fee shall
be Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) �$— 4, --per
residential unit for all Citywide Traffic Fees paid on
or before December 31 2004._ Developer agrees that the
Citywide Traffic Fee for all residential units with a
building permit issued after December 31, 2004 shall
be Four Thousand Two Hundred Forty Dollars ($4_,240.00)
plus the annual indexing as hereinafter specified.
Commencing January 1, 20064:, and annually thereafter,
the Citywide Traffic Fee shall be increased to reflect
the change in the State Highway Bid Price Index for the
twelve (12) month period that is reported in the latest
issue of the Engineering News Record that is available
on December 31 of the preceding year ( "annual
10
MM _PRQYERT S D�.GR- .�d _06 -e$ 7 . _ 2Si.i�ZL
indexing "). In the event there is a decrease in the
referenced Index for any annual indexing, the Citywide
Traffic Fee shall remain at its then current amount
until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing
which results in an increase.
6.7. On the operative date of this Agreement Developer shall
pay all outstanding City processing and environmental
processing costs related to the project and preparation
of this Agreement.
6.8. Developer hereby waives any right it may have under
California Government Code Section 65915 et. Seq., or
any successor thereto, or any provision of federal,
State, or City laws or regulations for application or
use of any density bonus that would increase the number
of residential units approved for this project to
exceed a total of Three Hundred - Twelve -(312) One
Hundred Ninety (190) dwelling units.
6.9. Developer agrees for the life of the Project to cast
affirmative ballots for the €ermatien e€ an assessment
district with the Power to le assessments increase of
any assessments for existing assessment districts for
the maintenance of parkway and median landscaping,
street lighting, and if requested by tie city - Ceune=1-
parks conferring special benefits, and for the
formation of any new assessment district for the
purposes listed above in order to supplement then
existing assessments upon properties within the
Project. Developer also agrees to add this language to
any Regulatory Agreement as part of the sale of any
revenue bonds issued by the City for this Pro'e� ct.
6.10 Developer, in consideration for a density bonus
obtained through the Project Approvals that is greater
than would otherwise be available, agrees to guarantee
the affordability of one hundred percent (1000) of all
residential units Gixty two 62) rental anitG for the
life of the Project -as follows: 48 units at very low
income (500 of median income) and 142 units at low
income (600 of median income). A minimum of twelve
(12) two - bedroom units shall be occupied by qualified
very low income tenants at all times for the life of
the Project . =hese- sixty =tom -(-62 ) affordable units shall
be rented ,-e eligible tenants as fellows in A.1 H. and
G. -
A. Thirty- Seven (37) units for Lower- lneome
11
QS;A_PRUDERTI S DEV._?QR..._'S2U= ¢ -$. R FTLdSF4- i�RUPfi ?-Z�S._i�BV ;< >R_:�(}� ..o6a,3
Ms-
- �wc
Ly
•
The abe2ve Adjustment feiF HE)usehe4:Gj size is
intended to p,-evide a single rental -12ate
applieable to eligible tenantG fer eaeh tyTe Gf
unit and, therefere, is applied regardless of
actual hGuseheld size. The Deve!Gper may net
eha.-ge additiena! rent based en a larger
heuseheld Gize. [e'er example, the
mGnthly rent fer a lew inceme heu-stalheld of sd:i
4ent4mng a th4-ee bedreGfR, twe bath snit weuld be
ealeulated as follows!
T3APRQURTIE$ QEV AQR-20,02 Qf.2-. - DRAFTU&A PROPERT-199 DEV AG - 22 o6- 8
�I�Idc mm—ElfwaSm
Rathe-- GaIC-Ulating hGuGeheld ineeme ---lay
using 80s; of median ineeme, the heusehe_ ineemee
ameunt- ter lower ineeme iieusehelclG shaii be the
amount publiGhed by �he United States Departme
of HeuGing and Urban Develepment Heuseheld
ineeme Limits for Ventura C-Gunty (HUI) incemee
L4:Md:tS) or- GUGh SUC-GeSE;eL= infermatien in the
event the referenced published infGrMatle-
longer available, but in ne el.,ent less -thy
seventy- three pereent (73!°) nor more than eigi4t
pereent (80%) of meElian Inceme if HUI)
ineeme Limits hGuseheld ineeme amount is less
than !�3% ef median ineeme, it shall be set at
�3% ef meelian ineeme ,--and _i-f—it is mere tl4an 8_n-Q�
of median ineeme, it —small be set at- sOF6 of
median ineeme.
N-i4;p# PPn (19) units for very Low i-nGeme
house= oids (sw� ou lees of Ventura - county median
ineeme) to be rented for ne mere than io� of 5g%
of the Ventura Ceunty median income adjusted for
l4e:useheld size appropriate to the unit and no
Morc—, less a 'at4lity allowance. Tilqe 4Atild:t-,,
allewanee shall be adjusted annaa4:1y, c-emnlenr.'
I-r-9
in the year 2000, baGed en the el:iange in the
Censumer Price 1ncle3c (CPI) . The CPI
E;14ll be determined by lasing the inf-Grmatio
provided by the U.S. Department ef Labor, Burea
of Labor Statistics, for- all urban eensumers
the Lee
metrepelitan area during toe -prig year--.T
ealeulatien shall be made using the mG -WhiGl
is four (4) months—prier to the meat'4 whiG14
_tJ,
the De�;.,el:epment= Agreement is appre,,red 1��,
City Geuneil (e.g., if approval E)Geurs j+j--june-,
the'4 the mentI4 ef February ice used to ealealate-
the increase) . if there is a deerease in --- t h. e
CPI, the motility allewanGe shall remain- at the
Game amGuRt :Until the next annual change in C- P-1
results in an lnerease-
Type ef Unit Number of Heuseheld Size ut i14-ty
U n -i t S, Adjustment A 11 m- i A r a n en e-
twe bedreepa, ene ba#-7-h- 6 3 pe ens $50
13
U A..MRQPE_RTIEl,' DF_'vl 'R OQ2 .. ...... A DRFTU&A -PROPERTI-ES DE;V--,A(;R 2i} .
tlziree bedreem, twe bath units --4 4 pel-GGns $63
or-- Heu E; e ho4 d- ----S-i-z e - -- is
rat-e
f o-r---eaahl- --type -of
heUE;ehe
for
be-
the---V4E�ira_ ceunty -median -in-eem, _r_a
by-12--Ies.a- the
$ 5 0.0 0 --eg -s- a41-
un t —fir y-
--t, h-an4-&% _-o-€_ 3-34
the meth -a : -neGme-c-Kij ust-ed--for
h,ou,Gehold size -r- appapri-a-t-e __...to- t4i&- -unit- - and--- ne
a
annu
allc�wance - a , -- cofnec '-ng
yea-r-2 0 0
Ce su er—PLr-i-ee---l-ndex
the
prov-i&_�-by-the—U,S, -- -tment ef --Labo-r--,--Bur-ea-u
met-rGpGlitan aY__ during--t44--e
Gur the I --- inwll-icll
te ca-lc-ul-ate
theincrease-} -=- i --there i-&--a deerease-int-be
CT-I—,the
sa e --- amount--until -the -n-e-xt---annua.-I
results--in an-i�r�.
14
QS; .F.ROPERTIE.°5DEV AGR 2Q.Q2 2$ ]DR1,.FTU&A--FR0PF;R'1'l8F, i)EV V-;R 2'0�2 �)62i;
The above - Adjustment for Heusehglel Size -414
intended te— provide a single rental rate
a. p l , - b e to eligible tenants for ea-eh t 1 S-
F-
uni t
and, therefore, is applied regarid less e f
aetual household size The Developer- Ma-y -n
charge additional- rent -based on a larger- aet-ua-1
heus ehel d size. [ For example, the eMa3ima,z,
menthlp rent for a erg —ver mew - -- neGfl e
household of four renting -a two bedieem, twe
bath unit would be calealated as
-- -
-
-- - -
• ..
m vii -
I
• •
The method of selecting eligible tenants, tenant
eligibility requirements, the respective roles
of the City and the Developer and any other
items determined necessary by the City shall be
set forth in an Affordable Housing
Implementation and Rental Restriction Plan (the
"Plan "). The Plan shall restrict the rents of
all one hundred ninety (190) the - sixt-ytwe (62)
affordable e units to the as referenced above RGt -
te e3ceeed ameunts and shall be consistent with
this Agreement and approved by the City Council
in its sole and unfettered discretion prior to
the final inspection and occupancy approval for
the first residential unit in the Project. The
Developer and City shall, prior to the occupancy
of the first residential unit for the Project,
execute an Affordable Housing Agreement that
incorporates the Plan in total and is consistent
with this Agreement. -- C-hapter- 17.64--of the
Meer-park. Municipal Cede shall not - apply -t t-
P-rejeet. Developer agrees to the extent
permitted by applicable state and federal law to
15
(J,°A Pr2QFERTIE$ LE'✓ TG2 .2.Q? 4F -2 i3 vk'�'E38A - PAJP&RT -789 BIs4.._ -iKGR r��+2 JE2g
grant priority to eligible Moorpark residents
for the life of the Project. Developer shall
pay the City's direct costs for preparation and
review of the Plan and the Affordable Housing
Agreement, up to a maximum of Five Thousand
Dollars ($5,000). By mutual agreement of
Developer and City in lieu of the aforementioned
Affordable Housing Agreement, these provisions
may be incorporated into the Regulatory
Agreement if revenue bonds are issued-by the
City for this Project.
In addition, the Developer shall agrees not to
convert the Project to for -sale condominiums
community apartments, planned development, stock
cooperative, or other common interest
development, or as congregate care or assisted
livincr facility. #G tom
,above .
6.11. In addition to fees specifically mentioned in this
Agreement, Developer agrees to pay all City capital
improvement, development, and processing fees at the
rate and amount in effect at the time the fee is
required to be paid. Developer further agrees that
unless specifically exempted by this Agreement, it is
subject to all fees imposed by City at the operative
date of this Agreement and such future fees imposed as
determined by City in its sole discretion so long as
said fee is imposed on similarly situated properties.
Developer further agrees to not protest these fees as
may be authorized by Section 66000, et. Seq. of the
California Government Code and statutes amendatory or
supplementary thereto or any other applicable state or
federal law.
6.12 Developer shall BenstruGt Par k sane (S
IMPICbyements) --frem its Gurre t terminus en - -its --east
side of appreximately one hundred - twenty - -42 0 ) --€ems
GeutI4 -ef Les Angeles Are=a - the interseetien -wi-th
the new east /west street between Meerpark Avenue and
Park Lane to be eensttruetod as part of
'the - street impre,,,em nts -shall inelude ene-1 € -of t 14
16
V$A PRUERTIEF �Et ?...NGR l? �? Q6l_t LRAFTUSP PROPERTIES BEV_ -AGR 2(42 06.4
future ultimate width and shall include twenty- eix -44-�T
feet of pavement plus curb, gutter, and sidewalk
consistent with Plate B -3 -C- and any necessary
trans; +- i ^^ and intersectien improvements with —the
future - east /west street- and current imp provements -erZ
Developer's Park Lane.
improvements shall be centingent en City's
s- �Qi�itiara
of the real - Property necessary for said Str- et.
improvements at no cost to Developer. City mast ebt�a?
the necessary real preperty within twelve (12) -me,nkh-
for the Project. Upe n written netifieation from city
ef- its acquisition of the real property within the
above referenced time period, Developer shall cen,l;�e
design nd shall complete construction —prier to
obtaining occupancy approval for the last resident-
building in the -Project. Final des-On,- plans and
specific c °' iens including but net tti Cited -te whether the
Street improvements will be en the east er west hw4l-?-Es�-f
Park Lane shall be approved by the City Coun at its
sele and unfettered discretion. Developer hall also
paw - City's nests €er -Phan check and inspection ph'sa-G.
City's administrative costs. Within sixty ( 60) —day 6�
receipt of City's notice to commence design of the
Street improvements, Develeper shall provide a surat
fn -an am8unt and €erm aeeeptable -te Cites- -at }ts sEle
and unfettered discretion to guarantee
the Street improvements within the a€ereme��t }e��ed -one
year time mod Mevveloper shall construct Park Lane
per modified Ventura County Standard Plate B -3 -0 68
feet right -of -way; containing 52 feet of roadway (curb
face to curb face), 8 feet wide parkways containing 5
feet wide sidewalks located 6 inches from the right -of-
way. This will include all portions of existing Park
Lane that do not conform to this section Developer
shall demonstrate conformance to ADA access
requirements at all locations including driveway
locations. Prior to approval of the Park Lane
improvement plans, an ADA plan shall be reviewed,
approved by the City Engineer and held on file to show
conformance to those requirements Improvement plans
will detail all locations where utilities or other
improvements conflict with normal walk locations and
that the plans conform to the City's requirements___
Developer shall reconstruct any broken sidewalk, curb
and gutter, and street pavement from the Project to Los
Angeles Avenue and repave any portions of Park Lane to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Street sections
shall be designed for a 50 -year life.
17
U$A P;I.QPERTIES DEV,_,,rQR 2,(1,x. _.. Q6, 3$-, J? 2�FTI3bA..... PRGPR RZISS...DSV- AGR....9012....0628
6.13 Developer agrees that in the event the cable television
services or their equivalent are provided to the
Project under collective arrangement or any collective
means other than by a City Cable Franchisee (including,
but not limited to programming provided over a
wireless or satellite system contained within the
Project) the apartment management entity shall ._.pay
monthly to City an access fee of five percent (50) of
gross revenue generated by the provision of those
services, or the highest franchise fee required from
any City Cable Franchisee, whichever is greater.
"Gross revenue" is as defined in Chapter 5.0.6 of the
Moorpark Municipal Code and any successor amendment or
supplementary provision thereto Developer further
agrees that in the event cable television services or
their equivalent are provided to the Project by any
means other than by a City Cable Franchisee, that the
City's government channel shall be available to all.
units as part of any such service on the same basis as
if the Project was served by a City Cable Franchisee.
Developer also agrees to add this language to any
Regulatory Agreement as part of the sale of any revenue
bonds issued by the City for this Project.
6.14 Developer agrees that any fees and payments pursuant to
this Agreement shall be made without reservation, and
Developer expressly waives the right to pa --ment of any
such fees under protest pursuant to California
Government Code Section 66020 and statutes amendatory
or supplementary thereto, or any other applicable state
or federal law.
6.15 Developer agrees that as a condition of issuance of a
building permit for each residential unit on or after
January 1, 2005, it shall pay the then applicable Los
Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (AOC) Fee less One
Thousand Fifty -two Dollars ($1,052.00) for each
residential unit so long as the payment of Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), as specified in
Subsection 7.2 of this Agreement has been paid on or
before December 31 2004. Developer agrees this is in
addition to the AOC amount specified in Subsection 7.2
of this Agreement. If the AOC payment specified in
Subsection 7.2 of this Agreement has not been paid on
or before December 31, 2004, Developer agrees to pay
the then applicable AOC fee for all residential units
prior to issuance of building permits.
18
pRAFTU&Ft PROPERTIFsS.DEV WR 2J�2 {)628
6.16 Developer agrees prior to issuance of any grading or
building permit for the Project to enter into an
agreement with City to pair City each year Project is
otherwise exempt from the payment of any portion or all
of the real secured and unsecured property taxes on the
Property the amount the City would have received if the
Project was not exempt from said payment of property
taxes. The agreement shall include but not be limited
to
A. If Project is sold or transferred to another
entity, the fee amount shall increase based on the new
value of the property as if it was reassessed
consistent with applicable laws.
B. The first year amount shall be Twenty Thousand
Dollars ($20, 000. 00) . In the event payment of the
first year amount occurs after December 31 2004, the_
first year amount shall increase by one percent (lo)
for each six -month period or any portion thereof until.
paid
C. The payment amount shall increase two percent
(20) each year above the prior year amount except as
noted in A., above. In no event shall there be a
decrease in the amount paid in any year compared to the
prior year.
D. Payments shall be made twice each year on dates
as mutually agreed upon with provisions for penalties
and interest in the event of late or non - payment
6.17 Developer agrees to comply with Section 15 40.150 of
the Moorpark Municipal Code and any provision
amendatory or supplementary thereto for annual review
of this Agreement and further agrees that the annual
review shall include evaluation of its compliance with
the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program.
City Agreements.
7.1. City shall process in an expedited manner to the extent
possible all plan checking, excavation, grading,
building, encroachment and street improvement permits,
certificates of occupancy, utility connection
authorizations, and other ministerial permits or
approvals necessary, convenient or appropriate for the
grading, excavation, construction, development,
improvement, use and occupancy of the Project.
19
SJSJP_ PROPERTIES DEVPQ R. 'aS).2 OG2E .. FtAFTUSA PROP&R'i'.IES..- DEN ?8,�2 O),2b
7.2. City agrees that the Developer's payment of the Los
Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (AOC) Fee for the
project shall be in the amount of Tkree - Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($x200,000.00) payable prior to
issuance of the first building permit for the project
so long as the building permits for all residential
units in the Project are issued on or before December
31, 2004. Developer shall pay the AOC Fee for each
residential unit as specified in Subsection 6.15 of
this Agreement for building permits issued after
January 1, 2 0 0 5.
7.3 City agrees that the Developer's payment of the Traffic
Systems Management (TSM1 Fee shall be in the amount of
Two Hundred Dollars $,1�200.001 for each residential
dwelling unit payable prior to the issuance of the
building permit for each unit.
7.4 City agrees to allow certain modifications to the City
Zoning Code and development standards as follows:
A. Allow the project to be built with a 1:1 2.!3:=
parking ratio as Gempared te -- -the Cade
requirement of 2.5!1 spaees per dwelling -u-n
with a total of 6-66190 parking spaces required
on site.
C--.-B. Allow the project to be built at a density of
16.E twenty (20) units per acre.
C. Allow reduction in Park Fees and Citywide
Traffic Fees and payment of the Los Angeles
Avenue Area of Contribution Fees at the
commercial fee rate so long as the Project has
all building permits issued for residential
units issued prior to December 31, 2004.
E.Allew the Pre =7eGt t9 be built With ene- 41Cepvered
spec -e —per unit and aeee as
fulfillment of this ebligatien se -�' e g— a
20
V-$A PRQYERTIES DEV AGR „x_00 0�Z?.$ DR}:FTUSR -- PROPERTIES- DFs'v.....rlCiFi..._20 +2
7.5 City agrees that the Citywide Traffic Fee shall be in
the amount of Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) for each
residential unit pavable prior to the issuance of the
building permit for each residential unit for any
building permit issued on or before December 31, 2004.
The Citywide Traffic Fee for all units with a building
permit issued after December 31, 2004, shall be Four
Thousand Two Hundred Forty Dollars ($4,240.00) plus the
annual indexing as specified in Subsection of this
Agreement.
7.6 City agrees that in lieu of preparing a traffic study
for the Prol ect and submitting same for review by the
City Engineer, the Developer shall pay Four Thousand
Dollars ($4,000.00) for impacted intersections.
7.7 Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the
contrary, in the event Developer repairs or rebuilds
the Project consistent with the Project Approvals as a
result of fire, earthquake, or other casualty, the
following fees would not need to be paid: Community
Services Fee Park Fee Development Fee, Citywide
Traffic Fee, and Los Angeles Avenue Area of
Contribution Fee.
8. Supersession of Agreement by Change of Law. In the event that
any state or federal law or regulation enacted after the date
the Enabling Ordinance was adopted by the City Council
prevents or precludes compliance with any provision of the
Agreement, such provision shall be deemed modified or
suspended to comply with such state or federal law or
regulation, as reasonably determined necessary by City.
9. Demonstration of Good Faith Compliance. In order to ascertain
compliance by the Developer with the provisions of this
Agreement, the Agreement shall be reviewed annually in
accordance with Moorpark Municipal Code chapter 15.40. of City
or any successor thereof then in effect. The failure of City
to conduct any such annual review shall not, in any manner,
21
LJ,SA -PROPER TZ.E$ DE:d A, R...2.0.02 0625 DRr.FTUSA P )PBR .I.£b .DE;V- .SCR. 20 2 J62,8
constitute a breach of this Agreement by City, diminish,
impede, or abrogate the obligations of the Developer hereunder
or render this Agreement invalid or void.
10. Authorized Delays. Performance by any Party of its
obligations hereunder, other than payment of fees, shall be
excused during any period of "Excusable Delay ", as hereinafter
defined, provided that the Party claiming the delay gives
notice of the delay to the other Parties as soon as possible
after the same has been ascertained. For purposes hereof,
Excusable Delay shall mean delay that directly affects, and is
beyond the reasonable control of, the Party claiming the
delay, including without limitation: (a) act of God; (b) civil
commotion; (c) riot; (d) strike, picketing or other labor
dispute; (e) shortage of materials or supplies; (e) damage to
work in progress by reason of fire, flood, earthquake or other
casualty; (f) failure, delay or inability of City to provide
adequate levels of public services, facilities or
infrastructure to the Property including, by way of example
only, the lack of water to serve any portion of the Property
due to drought; (g) delay caused by a restriction imposed or
mandated by a governmental entity other than City; or (h)
litigation brought by a third party attacking the validity of
this Agreement, a Project Approval, a Subsequent Approval or
any other action necessary for development of the Property.
11. Default Provisions.
11.1. Default by Developer. The Developer shall be deemed to
have breached this Agreement if it:
(a) practices, or attempts to practice, any fraud or
deceit upon City; or
(b) willfully violates any order, ruling or decision
of any regulatory or judicial body having jurisdiction
over the Property or the Project, provided that
Developer may contest any such order, ruling or
decision by appropriate proceedings conducted in good
faith, in which event no breach of this Agreement shall
be deemed to have occurred unless and until there is a
final adjudication adverse to Developer; or
(c) fails to make any payments required under this
Agreement; or
(d) materially breaches any of the other provisions of
the Agreement and the same is not cured within the time
set forth in a written notice of violation from City to
22
U!,A— PRQPERTIE$ DEVAQR „_2002 Q42$..DRA TUSA- ...PRt3PERTIFsS; DEY.....AIGR.._24t
Developer, which period of time shall not be less than
ten (10) days from the date that the notice is deemed
received, provided if Developer cannot reasonably cure
the breach within the time set forth in the notice,
Developer fails to commence to cure the breach within
such time limit and diligently effect such cure
thereafter.
11.2. Default by City. City shall be deemed in breach of
this Agreement if it!(a) — materially breaches any of
the provisions of the Agreement and the same is not
cured within the time set forth in a written notice of
violation from Developer to City, which period shall
not be less than ten (10) days from the date the notice
is deemed received, provided if City cannot reasonably
cure the breach within the time set forth in the
notice, City fails to commence to cure the breach
within such time limit and diligently effect such cure
thereafter.
11.3. Content of Notice of Violation. Every notice of
violation shall state with specificity that it is given
pursuant to this section of the Agreement, the nature
of the alleged breach, and the manner in which the
breach may be satisfactorily cured. The notice shall
be deemed given on the date that it is personally
delivered or on the third day following the day after
it is deposited in the United States mail, in
accordance with Section 20 hereof.
11.4. Remedies for Breach. The Parties acknowledge that
remedies at law, including without limitation money
damages, would be inadequate for breach of this
Agreement by any Party due to the size, nature and
scope of the Project. The Parties also acknowledge
that it would not be feasible or possible to restore
the Property to its natural condition once
implementation of the Agreement has begun. Therefore,
the Parties agree that the remedies for breach of the
Agreement shall be limited to the remedies expressly
set forth in this subsection.
The remedies for breach of the Agreement by City shall
be injunctive relief and /or specific performance.
The remedies for breach of the Agreement by the
Developer shall be injunctive relief and /or specific
performance. In addition, and notwithstanding any
other language of this Agreement, if the breach is of
23
VSt+.._PRQE'ERTIEE DE`..'_AzR 2.4.5%' Q6= .�...D?CFTC SSA uRt7PERT- _R- 5.. -DE A R - -0�2- 628
Subsections 6. 3, 6.4 6.5 6 6 6.9 6 ld 6. 11, or
6.15, 6.9 or x.18 of this Agreement, City shall have
the right to withhold the issuance of building permits
from the date that the notice of violation was given
pursuant to Subsection 11.3 hereof until the date that
the breach is cured as provided in the notice of
violation.
Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to preclude
City from prosecuting a criminal action against the
Developer if it violates any City ordinance or state
statute.
12. Mortgage Protection. At the same time that City gives notice
to the Developer of a breach, City shall send a copy of the
notice to each holder of record of any deed of trust on the
portion of the Property in which Developer has a legal
interest ( "Financier "), provided that the Financier has given
prior written notice of its name and mailing address to City
and the notice makes specific reference to this section. The
copies shall be sent by United States mail, registered or
certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and
shall be deemed received upon the third (3rd) day after
deposit.
Each Financier that has given prior notice to City pursuant to
this section shall have the right, at its option and insofar
as the rights of City are concerned, to cure any such breach
within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the notice from
City. If such breach cannot be cured within such time period,
the Financier shall have such additional period as may be
reasonably required to cure the same, provided that the
Financier gives notice to City of its intention to cure and
commences the cure within fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the notice from City and thereafter diligently prosecutes the
same to completion. City shall not commence legal action
against Developer by reason of Developer's breach without
allowing the Financier to cure the same as specified herein.
Notwithstanding any cure by Financier, this Agreement shall be
binding and effective against the Financier if it takes title
to the Property, and every owner of the Property, or part
thereof, whose title thereto is acquired by foreclosure,
trustee sale or otherwise.
13. Estoppel Certificate. At any time and from time to time, any
Developer may deliver written notice to City and City may
deliver written notice to the Developer requesting that such
Party certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the
24
U5A FRQPERTIE.` v- -DE`y'....!+(,R..._ >.J- Q3.06.2$ DRAFTUSA,.. PROPERTIES .....DBV-- AGR- .....2.j} .2...._0628
certifying Party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and
effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this
Agreement has not been amended, or if amended, the identity of
each amendment, and (iii) the requesting Party is not in
breach of this Agreement, or if in breach, a description of
each such breach. The Party receiving such a request shall
execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days
following receipt of the notice. City acknowledges that a
certificate may be relied upon by successors in interest to
the Developer who requested the certificate and by holders of
record of deeds of trust on the portion of the Property in
which that Developer has a legal interest.
14. Administration of Agreement. Any decision by City staff
concerning the interpretation and administration of this
Agreement and development of the Property in accordance
herewith may be appealed by the Developer to the City Council,
provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City
Clerk of City within ten (10) days after the Developer
receives notice of the staff decision. The City Council shall
render its decision to affirm, reverse or modify the staff
decision within thirty (30) days after the appeal was filed.
The Developer shall not seek judicial review of any staff
decision without first having exhausted its remedies pursuant
to this section.
15. Amendment or Termination by Mutual Consent. In accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark Municipal
Code or any successor thereof then in effect, this Agreement
may be amended or terminated, in whole or in part by mutual
consent of City and the Developer.
16. Indemnification. The Developer shall indemnify, defend with
counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City and its
officers, employees and agents from and against any and all
losses, liabilities, fines, penalties, costs, claims, demands,
damages, injuries or judgments arising out of, or resulting in
any way from, the Developer's performance pursuant to this
Agreement.
Developer shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by
City, and hold harmless City and its officers, employees and
agents from any against any action or proceeding to attack,
review, set aside, void or annul this Agreement or any
provision thereof, or the Project Approvals, or any Subsequent
Approvals.
17. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of
this Agreement of which time is an element.
25
USA P2 _(QPERTIE °.DE`"r1(lEt „LJQ2 0 --
.6_ 2{{ -DR F” USAFROPERT SS- DEV- .A(;R.....2k +t ...8.6.•.8
18. Operative Date. This Agreement shall become operative on the
date the Enabling Ordinance becomes effective pursuant to
Government Code Section 36937.
19. Term. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
for a term of five (5) years commencing on its operative date
or until one (1) year after occupancy of the Th.-ee u„ :dre a
Tavel €th - 431 -". } —One Hundred Ninetieth (190'1) apartment unit,
whichever occurs later, unless said term is amended or the
Agreement is sooner terminated as otherwise provided herein.
Expiration of the term or earlier termination of this
Agreement shall not automatically affect any Project Approval
or Subsequent Approval that has been granted or any right or
obligation arising independently from such Project Approval or
Subsequent Approval.
Upon expiration of the term or earlier termination of this
Agreement, the Parties shall execute any document reasonably
requested by any Party to remove this Agreement from the
public records as to the Property, and every portion thereof,
to the extent permitted by applicable laws.
20. Notices. All notices and other communications given pursuant
to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed
received when personally delivered or upon the third (3rd) day
after deposit in the United States mail, registered or
certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the
Parties at the addresses set forth in Exhibit "B" attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
Any Party may, from time to time, by written notice to the
other, designate a different address which shall be
substituted for the one above specified.
21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire
agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter
hereof, and all prior agreements or understandings, oral or
written, are hereby merged herein. This Agreement shall not
be amended, except as expressly provided herein.
22. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall
constitute a waiver of any other provision, whether or not
similar; nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing or
subsequent waiver of the same provision. No waiver shall be
binding, unless it is executed in writing by a duly authorized
representative of the Party against whom enforcement of the
waiver is sought.
26
U$A F?2.QPERT1E;i PE'.. Q± . 2002 "��F i � ? i�6 .g
23. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid
or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be
effective to the extent the remaining provisions are not
rendered impractical to perform, taking into consideration the
purposes of this Agreement.
24. Relationship of the Parties. Each Party acknowledges that, in
entering into and performing under this Agreement, it is
acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the
other Party in any respect. Nothing contained herein or in
any document executed in connection herewith shall be
construed as creating the relationship of partners, joint
ventures or any other association of any kind or nature
between City and Developer, jointly or severally.
25. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and
entered into for the sole benefit of the Parties and their
successors in interest. No other person shall have any right
of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.
26. Recordation of Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement and
any amendment thereof shall be recorded with the County
Recorder of the County of Ventura by the City Clerk of City
within the period required by Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark
Municipal Code or any successor thereof then in effect.
27. Cooperation Between City and Developers. City and Developer
shall execute and deliver to the other all such other and
further instruments and documents as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Agreement.
28. Rules of Construction. The captions and headings of the
various sections and subsections of this Agreement are for
convenience of reference only, and they shall not constitute
a part of this Agreement for any other purpose or affect
interpretation of the Agreement. Should any provision of this
Agreement be found to be in conflict with any provision of the
Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals, the provision
of this Agreement shall prevail.
29. Joint Preparation. This Agreement shall be deemed to have
been prepared jointly and equally by the Parties, and it shall
not be construed against any Party on the ground that the
Party prepared the Agreement or caused it to be prepared.
30. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement is made, entered
into, and executed in the County of Ventura, California, and
27
U5A PROPERTIES DEV__ V R ...'202 Q,62.8. DRAFTUSA -PR< PERTIES.. DF AGR 20-2 a6_)'9
the laws of the State of California shall govern its
interpretation and enforcement. Any action, suit or
proceeding related to, or arising from, this Agreement shall
be filed in the appropriate court having jurisdiction in the
County of Ventura.
31. Attorneys' Fees. In the event any action, suit or proceeding
is brought for the enforcement or declaration of any right or
obligation pursuant to, or as a result of any alleged breach
of, this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to
its reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and
costs, and any judgment, order or decree rendered in such
action, suit or proceeding shall include an award thereof.
Attorneys' fees under this section shall include attorneys'
fees on any appeal and any post - judgment proceedings to
enforce the judgment. This provision is separate and several
and shall survive the merger of this Agreement into any
judgment on this Agreement.
32. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but
all of which constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, doeelyne Abrar and
City of Moorpark have executed this Development Agreement on
CITY OF MOORPARK
By
Patrick Hunter
Mayor
ATTEST
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
City Clerk
VINTAGE CREST SENIOR APARTMENTS,
L.P., a California limited
partnership
28
UEA...PRQPERTIE5 JEV_AGR 2 „QU2...06.2_$_ DR. aFTvSA-- PROPERTIES - DF' v .....AC,A...:e.42.....G.F.?.8
aec e lyne Abrar
Developer
By: USA Properties Fund Tnc.,
a California corporation
Its: Administrative General Partner
By
Geoffrey C. Brown, President
By: Riverside Charitable Corporation
a California non - profit corporation
Its: Managing General Partner
By _
Kenneth S. Robertson Chairman
of the Board
29
US? PitOPERTIE'S DE,', AGR 20 2 V6l$- ..DR?F'TFSSA-- PROPSRT -1S& -DES- AGR _2.02- -062,,9
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Assessor's Parcel No. 5-&�9 =�0 -275506-0-050-185 and a portion of
506-0-050-475
EXHIBIT B
30
(1$A PR FERTIE$ '10 DRAFTUSX -PROPERT169- 478`1- P G -20 �2 -8
To City: City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Attn. City Manager
To Developer: jeeelyne-
-_..----
2931-1- - C ae, t-le —I4 i -- Drive
Agra Hills, CA 9!391
--- t7't7hn Luedtke, dice President
dent
TrGhc G�-3 e �- l vrr iri ' 4
- - 't-- MnR rccriri�icv
21:7 Technelegy Drive
- -- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -i rune , CA 9.2 6
Steven T. Gall Executive Vice President
USA Properties Fund
2440 Professional Drive Suite 100
Roseville CA 95661-7773
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA PROVIDING A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MOORPARK AND VINTAGE CREST SENIOR APARTMENTS,
L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
REGARDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF VINTAGE CREST SENIOR
APARTMENTS (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 2002 -02)
WHEREAS, Section 65864, Article 2.5, Chapter 4, Division 1,
Title 7 of the State Planning and Zoning Law provides that cities
may enter into contractual obligations known as Development
Agreements with persons having equitable interest in real property
for development of that property; and
WHEREAS, the owners of Vintage Crest Senior Apartments
(Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -02) have applied
to the City of Moorpark to seek a Development Agreement between the
City and said owners pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark has
previously reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General
Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Residential Planned Development
requests and has made recommendations to the City Council
pertaining to the approval of said requests; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
General Plan Amendment 2002 -01, Zone Change 2002 -01, and
Residential Planned Development Permit 2002 -02 is sufficient
environmental documentation for the Development Agreement, since
the Development Agreement relates to providing for the financing
and or construction of various improvements and facilities relating
to the project area that have already been addressed by the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, therefore, no
further environmental documentation is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the Planning Commission
evaluate and provide recommendations for revision, denial and /or
approval of a Development Agreement between the City and Owners,
and has provided the Commission with true copies of the Development
Agreement; and
PC ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No. PC -2002-
Development Agreement No. 2002 -01
Vintage Crest Senior Apartments (USA)
Page No. 2
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted by the
Planning Commission on August 26, 2002, to consider the Development
Agreement and to accept public testimony related thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all points of
public testimony relevant to the Development Agreement and has
given careful consideration to the content of the Development
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION:
The potential environmental impacts concerning this
Development Agreement relates to and would provide for financing
and construction of various improvements and facilities relating to
the project area which have already been addressed by the Mitigated
Negative Declaration prepared for the General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, and Residential Planned Development Permit.
SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission having conducted a public hearing on
the form and content of a Development Agreement between the City of
Moorpark and the owners of Vintage Crest Senior Apartments, at the
request of the City Council, hereby recommends that the City
Council, at public hearing before said Council, approve the
Development Agreement in the form and content presented to the
Planning Commission on August 26, 2002.
SECTION 3. DOCUMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL:
A copy of this Resolution, documents furnished by the public,
and minutes of the public hearing be furnished to the City Council.
SECTION 4. FILING OF RESOLUTION:
The Community Development Director shall certify to the
adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution
to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
Resolution No. PC -2002-
Development Agreement No. 2002 -01
Vintage Crest Senior Apartments (USA)
Page No. 3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2002.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
William F. Otto, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan,
Community Development Director
CITY OF MOORPARK
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
ITEM: 8. B.
OOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Planning Commission Muting
of a oa
ACTION: dV' eC�`
By
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo(
By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager] �j
DATE: August 22, 2002 (PC Meeting of August 26, 2002)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -03 and Zone
Change No. 2002 -03 to Amend the Land Use Element, Land
Use Map and Zoning Map, in order to: 1) Align Land Use
Designations and Zones with Lot Lines in Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 4928; 2) Allow for a Lot Line
Adjustment with an Adjacent Piece of Land for the
Development of a Water Tank Site; and 3) Clarify Policy
Related to the Separation of Residential Uses from
Agricultural Uses
BACKGROUND
In 1996, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment (GPA),
Zone Change (ZC), Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM), Residential
Planned Development (RPD), and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the
Moorpark Country Club Estates project on the application of
Bollinger Development, Inc. At the time, the project included two
18 -hole golf courses and 216 houses.
The project was subsequently acquired by Toll Brothers, Inc., who
applied for a modification to the VTTM, RPD, and CUP. The project
still included 216 houses, but involved changes to the grading,
amenities, street layout, lot layout and phasing. The City Council
approved this modification in February 2000. At that time, no
changes were made to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map,
leaving the new lot boundaries inconsistent with the General Plan
and Zoning Maps adopted for the project in 1996. Toll Brothers,
Inc. is now asking for amendments to the General Plan and Zoning
Maps to provide consistency between the land use designations and
lot lines of the final recorded subdivision.
Planning Commission Agenda Report
GPA 2002 -03, ZC 2002 -03 (Toll Bros.)
August 26, 2002
Page No. 2
Along with these proposed amendments is a request by Toll Brothers
to amend the General Plan and Zoning designations at the northwest
corner of the property, including adjacent property owned by the
Husted family, to allow for a reclaimed water tank in this area.
Finally, at the direction of the City Council, an amendment to the
language in the Land Use Element is proposed to clarify policy on
setbacks between agricultural and residential uses, an issue that
recently arose on this project.
DISCUSSION
Three (3) areas of change are discussed:
• Consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map
and Approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map
• Amendments to General Plan and Zoning Maps for Proposed
Reclaimed Water Tank Site
• Amendment to Land Use Element to Clarify Policy on
Residential /Agricultural Setbacks
Consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map and
Approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Currently, eighty -four (84) of the 216 residential lots, approved
by the modification to the subdivision, RPD, and CUP in February
2000, are either partially or completely zoned for Open Space. In
addition, about twenty -nine (29) acres approved for Open Space, are
in a residential zone. A change of the General Plan and Zoning Maps
to follow the lot lines of the approved subdivision would result in
a net gain of about 6.0 acres of Open Space, coming from the
residential and institutional zones. These map amendments are
recommended by staff to allow the subdivision to be completed as
approved and to avoid future zoning issues, when accessory
structures such as pools, are proposed.
A lot line adjustment is currently being processed to move the rear
lot line on three (3) of the residential lots further away from the
houses (approximately 19 feet), taking land from a common Open
Space lot. This lot line adjustment would allow for property line
fences to be located downslope of the pads, similar to the Council -
approved fence location for other lots in the project, to provide a
rear yard view. To avoid the need for another General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change, it is recommended that the new land use
boundaries include this proposed lot line adjustment.
S: \Community Development \G P A \2002 \03 \Staff Reports \PC 020826 GPA 2002 -03 ZC 2002 -03 Rpt(1).doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
GPA 2002 -03, ZC 2002 -03 (Toll Bros.)
August 26, 2002
Page No. 3
Amendments to General Plan and Zoning Maps for Proposed Reclaimed
Water Tank Site
The project as approved includes a 1.22 -acre site for a reclaimed
water tank immediately adjacent to Championship Drive and the
clubhouse site, approximately in the center of the project. The
applicant is proposing to adjust the lot lines with a neighboring
property owner to the northwest ( Husted family) to relocate the
tank site to a less - prominent location farther away from
Championship Drive. The lot -line adjustment involves 2.65 acres on
each property and would not change the total acreage of either
property. In order to adjust the lot lines, a General Plan
Amendment and a Zone Change are needed to place the tank in an
institutional zone.
Attachment No. 2 is a photograph, taken from Championship Drive
looking northwest, of the proposed tank site showing the
approximate location of the water tank. The 1.5 million - gallon
tank, 30 feet high and 93 feet across, would be located in a small
bowl between two ridges. Waterworks District No. 1 indicated that
the tank would be tan - colored with a flat finish. Dirt would be
brought in from other locations on the project site to elevate the
bowl about 30 feet for the tank pad. The top of the tank would
still be 50 feet below the lowest point on the ridge behind it, and
would only be visible from within the Toll Brothers site and the
adjacent Husted property. There is an existing project condition
which requires landscaping for the tank site subject to the
approval of the Community Development Director, to minimize visual
impacts of the tank.
The 2.65 acres of land to be transferred to the Husted site would
be reclassified from Open Space to its current rural exclusive (RE-
5) uses, making it consistent with the rest of the Husted property.
Land to be transferred to the Toll Brothers site would be
reclassified from rural exclusive residential uses to institutional
(1.72 acres) and Open Space (0.93 acres) uses.
Combined with the previously described General Plan and Zoning Map
amendments that adjust the boundaries to be consistent with the lot
lines, the total changes would add 3.9 acres of Open Space and 0.6
acres of institutional land. Land designated for residential uses
would decrease by 4.5 acres. Community Development staff believes
the new tank location provides for better site design, and
recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
as proposed.
S: \Community Development \G P A \2002 \03 \Staff Reports \PC 020826 GPA 2002 -03 ZC 2002 -03 Rpt(1).doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
GPA 2002 -03, ZC 2002 -03 (Toll Bros.)
August 26, 2002
Page No. 4
Amendment to band Use Element to Clarify Policy on
Residential /Agricultural Setbacks
On July 17, 2002, the City Council raised concerns over policy in
the Land Use Element of the General Plan, related to setbacks
between agricultural and residential uses. Current General Plan
policy reads as follows:
Policy 11.2: When new residential development is adjacent to
existing agricultural uses, a 200 -foot minimum
width setback shall be provided to minimize
compatibility conflicts.
On August 21, 2002, the City
Commission to study this policy
potential amendments. A copy of
included as Attachment No. 3.
Council directed the Planning
and provide a recommendation on
the City Council Resolution is
The goal under which this Land Use Element policy was formulated is
to "identify and encourage the preservation of viable agricultural
resources in the City and its Area of Interest." The focus of the
policy should therefore be on the preservation of commercial
agriculture. In order to clarify the intent of the policy, it is
recommended that Policy 11.2 be amended as follows:
Policy 11.2: When new residential development is adjacent to
existing commercial agricultural uses, a 200 -foot
minimum width setback shall be provided to minimize
compatibility conflicts. No setback is required
from ornamental, fruit - bearing, tree qroves within
a Residential Planned Development (RPD) project
when such groves are provided to emulate the
character of surrounding commercial agriculture,
based on a City- approved Landscape Plan.
This modification to the policy would allow for ornamental groves
in projects, like the Moorpark Country Club Estates, when they are
part of an approved Landscape Plan. It would also continue to
further the goal of preservation of existing commercial
agriculture.
A proposed Resolution (Attachment No. 1) is provided for Planning
Commission consideration, to recommend to the City Council approval
of these amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Map
and Zoning Map. A map showing the changes to the General Plan and
Zoning boundaries is included with the Resolution as Exhibit A. If
the General Plan Amendment is approved by the City Council, it
would be the third of a maximum of four permissible amendments to
S: \Community Development \G P A \2002 \03 \Staff Reports \PC 020826 GPA 2002 -03 ZC 2002 -03 Rpt(1).doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
GPA 2002 -03, ZC 2002 -03 (Toll Bros.)
August 26, 2002
Page No. 5
the Land Use Element this year under State law. The recent General
Plan Amendment for the Vintage Crest Senior Apartments is not
included in this count; it is exempt as an affordable housing
project.
Public Notification
The public hearing before the Planning Commission was noticed by
publication in the Moorpark Star on Friday, August 9, 2002, in
accordance with Sections 65854 and 65091 of the Government Code,
and notices were sent to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius
of the project site.
Environmental Documentation
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and four (4) Addenda were
previously prepared for the approved Toll Brothers subdivision.
This existing documentation fully addresses the component of the
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change related to adjusting the
Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map to match the approved lot
lines.
Amended language on the 200 -foot setback between residential and
agricultural uses is merely clarifying existing policy and could
not result in a physical change in the environment and therefore,
does not require any further environmental documentation.
The inclusion of the Husted property for the water tank site has
not previously been analyzed. The California Environmental Quality
Act allows an Addendum to an EIR to be prepared, when the
modifications to a project would not require major revisions to the
EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. The decision to prepare an Addendum must be
supported by substantial evidence. In this case, grading would be
extended less than two (2) acres into an area of disturbed
grassland. The tank would only be visible from within the Country
Club Estates and Husted properties. No significant impacts from
this modification are expected. The application and its exhibits,
along with this staff report, provide sufficient and substantial
evidence to constitute a fifth Addendum to the Moorpark Country
Club Estates EIR. The City Council will consider adoption of the
Addendum as the environmental record for the project.
S: \Community Development \G P A \2002 \03 \Staff Reports \PC 020826 GPA 2002 -03 ZC 2002 -03 Rpt(1).doc
Planning Commission Agenda Report
GPA 2002 -03, ZC 2002 -03 (Toll Bros.)
August 26, 2002
Page No. 6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and close the
public hearing; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending to the City
Council approval of the proposed amendments to the General
Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Map and Zoning Map.
Attachments:
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution PC -2002- recommending
to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendments and
Zone Changes, as recommended by staff, including map showing
proposed changes in General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map
boundaries.
2. Photograph of proposed tank location.
3. Resolution No. 2002- regarding residential /agricultural
setback policy in the Land Use Element.
S: \Community Development \G P A \2002 \03 \Staff Reports \PC 020826 GPA 2002 -03 ZC 2002 -03 Rpt(1).doc
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 2002 -03 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 2002 -03 TO ALIGN
LAND -USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONES WITH LOT LINES IN
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 4928, ALLOW FOR A
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
WATER TANK SITE, AND CLARIFY POLICY RELATED TO
RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS FROM AGRICULTURAL USES
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1996, Resolution No. 96 -1197 was
adopted by the City Council, approving General Plan Amendment
No. 94 -1 to amend the Land Use Map for the Moorpark Country Club
Estates project; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 1996, Ordinance No. 215 was adopted by
the City Council, approving Zone Change No. 94 -1 to establish
zoning classifications for the Moorpark Country Club Estates
project; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2000, Resolution No. 2000 -1694 was
adopted by the City Council, approving Minor Modification No. 1
to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4928, Residential Planned
Development No. 94 -1, and Conditional Use Permit No. 94 -1 in
order to allow changes to the lot and street layout and
amenities associated with the Moorpark Country Club Estates
project; and
WHEREAS, Toll Brothers, Incorporated, has requested a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to align the General Plan
Land Use Map and Zoning Map boundaries with the approved
Moorpark Country Club Estates subdivision and to allow for a
reclaimed water tank on an adjacent piece of property; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2002, the City Council directed the
Planning Commission to study, set a public hearing, and provide
a recommendation pertaining to amendments to the General Plan
Land Use Element on setbacks between residential and
agricultural uses; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing on August 26,
2002, the Planning Commission considered a Resolution
recommending to the City Council approval of amendments to the
General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Map and Zoning Map; and
PC ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
GPA 2002 -03, ZC 2002 -03 (Toll Bros.)
Page 2
WHEREAS, at its meeting of August 26, 2002, the Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing, and after receiving oral
and written public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the
public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
exhibits, and
Addendum to the
read, reviewed,
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The application,
staff report, constituting a proposed fifth
Moorpark Country Club Estates EIR, have been
and considered by the Planning Commission.
SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP: The
Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of
amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map as
proposed in Exhibit "A ".
SECTION 3. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: The Planning
Commission recommends to the City Council amendment of Policy
11.2 of the General Plan Land Use Element to read as follows:
Policy 11.2: When new residential development is adjacent to
existing commercial agricultural uses, a 200 -foot
minimum width setback shall be provided to
minimize compatibility conflicts. No setback is
required from ornamental, fruit - bearing tree
groves within a Residential Planned Development
(RPD) project when such groves are provided to
emulate the character of surrounding commercial
agriculture, based on a City- approved Landscape
Plan.
SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The Community
Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this
resolution and shall cause a cause a certified resolution to be
filed in the book of original resolutions.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \G P A \2002 \03 \Ordinances and Resolutions \PC 020826 Reso Toll
Bros GPA ZC(2).doc
Modified: 11/25/02
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
GPA 2002 -03, ZC 2002 -03 (Toll Bros.)
Page 3
The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
2002.
William F. Otto, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \G P A \2002 \03 \Ordinances and Resolutions \PC 020826 Reso Toll
Bros GPA ZC(2).doc
Modified: 11/25/02
ru
0
H
U7
H MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES
Z
CITY OF MOORPARK
Zoning /General Plan Land Use Designation
Existing Zoning Map Acreage
With VTTM 4928 Minor Mod 1 Acreage
With Proposed LLA Acreage
Difference (in Acres)
RPD -1.46u (Residential Planned Development)
/ML (Medium Low Density Residential)
150.7
146.2
146.2
—4.5
OS (Open Space) / OS -2 (Open Space 2)
496.8
502.8 •
500.7
+3.9
1 (Institutional) / PUB (Public Institutional)
4.3
2.8 •*
4.9
+0.6
RE -5 Ac. (Rusted Property)
38.9
38.8
38.9
0
Total
690.7
690.7
690.7
0
• THE 1.58AC INSTITUTIONAL AREA AND THE RE -5AC AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF VTTM 4928
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED WATER TANK WOULD BE OPEN SPACE WITHOUT THE LLA.
++ THE 1.22AC WATER TANK SITE ADJACENT TO THE GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE WOULD REMAIN
LEGENDINSTITUTIONAL WITHOUT THE LLA.
AREAS
PROPOSED
TO
BE
CHANGED
FROM
OPEN SPACE TO
RESIDENTIAL
AREAS
PROPOSED TO
BE
CHANGED
FROM
INSTITUTIONAL TO OPEN SPA
®
AREAS
PROPOSED
TO
BE
CHANGED
FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO
OPEN SPACE
AREAS
PROPOSED TO
BE
CHANGED
FROM
RE -5 TO OPEN SPACE
®
AREAS
PROPOSED
TO
BE
CHANGED
FROM
OPEN SPACE TO
INSTITUTIONAL
o000o
AREAS
PROPOSED TO
BE
CHANGED
FROM
RE -5 TO INSTITUTIONAL
IA Mx...
0
0
1-1.22ac
of
WESTPOIN'
ZONING I
C%.r-NFRAL PLAN LAND USE
xnh X4
Zc W-01
� "r
-MTIONS
R., f .4-0 - c
RE -sac
I
GLP.A W-01
10S
-500/OS
-2
I/puW
—1.22ac
y.
............... . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .....
j�1pN1N
av�loss
1-
1 11
mr3a
pin
1-1.22ac
of
WESTPOIN'
ZONING I
C%.r-NFRAL PLAN LAND USE
xnh X4
Zc W-01
� "r
-MTIONS
R., f .4-0 - c
RE -sac
I
GLP.A W-01
4 �L
r x ��.� #rs �, ,.� � 4c,�Sr'A,,1 0 C J, t„r - yc fa �° yi,
. r. L �". � _ W_
,.y :3"X^� w a
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -1996
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO STUDY, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, AND
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
PERTAINING TO AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON RESIDENTIAL
SETBACKS FROM AGRICULTURAL USES
WHEREAS, Section 17.60.030 of the Municipal Code provides
that the City Council may initiate proceedings to consider
amendments to the General Plan by the adoption of a resolution
of intent; and
WHEREAS, existing Policy 11.2 of the Land Use Element
related to residential setbacks from agricultural uses requires
study for potential clarification or amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS: That the City
Council hereby authorizes the initiation of proceedings to
consider amendments to revise the General Plan Land Use Element
for the purpose of adding, deleting, or modifying policies
related to residential setbacks from agricultural uses.
SECTION 2. DIRECTION TO PLANNING COMMISSION: That the
Planning Commission is hereby directed to study, hold a public
hearing, and provide a recommendation to the City Council
pertaining to amendments to the City of Moorpark General Plan
Land Use Element for the purpose of considering amending
policies related to residential setbacks from agricultural uses.
SECTION 3. CITY CLERK CERTIFICATION AND FILING: The
City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of
original Resolutions.
PC ATTACHMENT 3
Resolution No. 2002 -1996
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2002.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk -
S: \Community Development \G P A \Initiations \CC 020821 Reso Ag- Residential Setbacks (2).doc