HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2002 1014 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2002 -431
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY - OCTOBER 14, 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
OCTOBER 14, 2002
Page 2
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2002.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2002 -431)
A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone
Change No. 2002 -04, Major Modification No. 1 to
Tentative Tract Map No. 5307, and Minor Modification
No. 1 to Residential Planned Development No. 2001 -01,
a Request for a Change in Land Use Designation from M
(Medium Density Residential) to VH (Very High Density
Residential), Zone Change from R -1 (Single Family
Residential) to RPD 9.1 Dwelling Units /Acre, the
Addition of Three Lots to an Approved 22 -Lot Single -
Family Residential Subdivision, and the Construction
of Three Single Family Detached Affordable Units, on
Property Located at the Northwest Corner of Millard
Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue, on the Application of
Colmer Development Company and the City of Moorpark.
Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing,
accept public testimony, and close the public hearing;
2) Consider the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration to ensure that it adequately addresses the
impacts of the proposed residential project prior to
approval; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002-
recommending approval to the City Council of General
Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04, Tract
5307 - Major Modification No. 1, and Residential
Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01 - Minor
Modification No. 1.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Consider Planning Commission Meeting Schedule for
November and December 2002.
Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to set Planning
Commission meeting schedule for November and December
2002, as indicated in the staff report.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2002 \021014 pca.doc
Planning Commission Agenda
OCTOBER 14, 2002
Page 3
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of October 28,
2002:
• CPD 2000 -04; M &M Development Public Hearing
• IPD 2001 -01; Sharma Public Hearing
• PM 5371; RJR Engineering (Groff) Public Hearing
• CUP 2000 -08; The Consulting Group, Inc. Public
Hearing
• CUP 2002 -04; Nextel Public Hearing
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 make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to
this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104; ADA Title II).
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2002 \021014 pca.doc
ITEM: 6. A.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of September 9, 2002
Paae 1
1
1.
CALL TO ORDER:
2
Chair Otto called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
3
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
4
Chair Otto led the Pledge of Allegiance.
5
3.
ROLL CALL:
6
Commissioners DiCecco, Haller, Parvin, Vice Chair Landis
7
and Chair Otto were present.
8
Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community
9
Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager;
10
Walter Brown, City Engineer; Laura Stringer, Senior
11
Management Analyst; and Gail Rice, Administrative
12
Secretary.
13
4.
PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
14
None.
15
5.
REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
16
None.
17
6.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
18
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of August 26, 2002.
19
MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner DiCecco
20
seconded a motion to approve the minutes of August 26,
21
2002, with a correction to Page 2; lines 34 and 35 to read:
22
Does the agreement guarantee affordability for the life of
23
the project?
24
Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
25
7.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
26
None.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSI0N \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020909 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of September 9, 2002
Paae 2
1 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2 (next Resolution PC- 2002 -430)
3 A. Public Workshop for Discussion of Potential
4 Modifications to Chapters 17.20 (Uses by Zone), 17.28
5 (Standards for Specific Uses), 17.44 (Entitlement -
6 Process and Procedures), 17.60 (Amendments to the
7 General Plan, Specific Plans, Zoning Map and Zoning
8 Code) and 17.68 (Public Notice).
9 Staff recommendations: 1) Open the public workshop,
10 accept public testimony, and discuss issues related to
11 entitlement procedures; and 2) Provide direction to
12 staff for the possible preparation of amendments to
13 Chapter 17.20, 17.28, 17.44, 17.60, and 17.68 of the
14 Moorpark Municipal Code.
15 Dave Bobardt presented the staff report and identified
16 three (3) topics for discussion and as they relate to the
17 entitlement process:
18 • Processes for Permit Adjustments, Minor and Major
19 Modifications.
20 • Conditional Use Permits and Planned Development
21 Permits.
22 • Levels of review in the use matrices (Chapter 17.20)
23 and the standards for specific uses (Chapter 17.28)
24 The Commission questioned staff regarding:
25 • Minor Modification and Major Modifications and level
26 of approval authority.
27 • Planned Developments and Conditional Use Permits and
28 their processes.
29 • Minor Modifications and Permit Adjustments process and
30 approval authority.
31 • Administrative Permits and felt that if the project
32 met setbacks; then the issuance of a Zone Clearance
33 would be fine. The Commission also felt that it was
34 appropriate to add conditions to Administrative
35 Permits where necessary.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020909 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of September 9, 2002
Page 3
1
•
Staff should pull together number of hours that are
2
spent on Administrative Permits.
3
•
Section 17.28 - Show more common uses, characteristics
4
of each issue and then state requirements.
5
•
The use matrices
6
•
Decision Makers
7
•
Fee Structure
8
•
Temporary Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits
9
•
City Council review and changes to the Conditions of
10
Approval when they review a Development Agreement.
11
Staff
responded to the Commission's questions.
12
Chair
Otto opened the public workshop at 7 :49 p.m.
13
There
were no speaker cards and no written statements.
14
Chair
Otto closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
15
The Commission
requested staff to:
16
•
Simplify uses.
17
•
Incorporate wording for new uses.
18
•
Eliminate redundancy in the Planning Commission and
19
City Council processes.
20
•
Provide more specificity within the process.
21
•
Combine permit processes and add more clarification in
22
the modification process.
23
•
Elevate new home construction to be a discretionary
24
process.
25
•
Remove inconsistencies and uses that will likely never
26
be proposed.
27
•
Simplify the use matrix and clarify.
28
•
Use a decision letter process instead of a hearing
29
process for Administrative Permits, keeping the appeal
30
process.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020909 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of September 9, 2002
Page 4
1 • Make some zoning clearance approvals discretionary
2 where appropriate.
3 • Combining Major and Minor Modifications into one.
4
• Consider one
(1) process for Planned Development (PD)
5
and Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) processes; i.e.
6
Industrial
Planned Development
(IPD), Commercial
7
Planned Development (CPD) or
Residential Planned
8
Development
(RPD).
9
• Use Permit
Adjustment process
instead of Minor
10
Modification
process if character
of project does not
11
change.
12 • Streamline the process and reassess the fees /costs
13 once the amendment is complete.
14 • Eliminate inconsistencies between matrix and process.
15 Add Director of Community Development authority to
16 matrix where appropriate.
17 • Matrix is good for uses; make more reader - friendly.
18 • Maintain safeguards for surrounding uses.
19 Staff recommended:
20 • Process being uniform with the surrounding
21 neighborhood.
22 • Staff will create bilingual booklets for the building
23 process.
24 • Look into establishing a Development Review Committee
25 which would meet one (1) to two (2) times per month.
26 By consensus, the Commission directed staff to work with
27 the definitions, use matrix, new entitlement section, new
28 Resolution and set a public hearing date.
29 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
30 A. Subject: Consider Amendment to Resolution No. PC-
31 2002 -421 Regarding Rules of Procedure for Commission
32 Meetings and Related Functions and Activities.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020909 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of September 9, 2002
Paae 5
1 Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002-
2 amending Resolution No. PC- 2002 -421, regarding
3 rules of procedure for Commission meetings and related
4 functions and activities.
5 Barry Hogan gave the staff presentation and discussed
6 changes to Resolution No. PC- 2002 -421.
7 The Commission questioned staff regarding:
8 • Section 2.3; page 2: Call to Order:
9 Change: In the absence of both the Chair and the Vice
10 Chair, the meeting shall be called to order by the
11 Records Secretary to the Commission.
12 • Section 7.3; page 11: Precedence of Motions
13 • Section 9.2; page 14: Communications Involving a
14 Development Application
15 • Section 9.3; page 15: Communications Involving a
16 Planning Commission Agenda Item
17 • Notification to staff, the Commission, the public and
18 the applicant regarding materials received.
19 • Disclosure to staff when Commission meets with
20 applicant(s).
21 The Commission commented on:
22 • A one time protocol sheet should be handed out with a
23 project; i.e. how to contact the Commissioners and
24 reference if written comments or e -mail is sent to the
25 Commission, then it is part of the public record.
26 Staff commented:
27 • If one or more Commissioners have a meeting with the
28 applicant, at the public hearing it must be disclosed
29 prior to opening the public hearing, then this would
30 enable the public to comment upon the disclosure
31 during the hearing process.
32 • Recommended delivery of staff reports to the
33 Commission earlier and furnishing advance information
34 on projects.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020909 pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of September 9, 2002
Paae 6
1 MOTION: Vice Chair Landis moved and Commissioner Haller
2 seconded a motion to adopt Resolution PC- 2002 -430 with
3 changes proposed by the Commission.
4 (Unanimous 5:0 voice vote).
5 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
6 A. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of September 9, 2002:
7 • Zoning Ordinance Entitlements (Workshop) - Verbal
8 • Consider Amendment to Resolution No. PC- 2002 -421
9 Regarding Rules of Procedure for Commission Meetings
10 and Related Functions and Activities.
11 B. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of September 23,
12 2002:
13 • Possible cancellation
14 Mr. Hogan provided the Commission with a brief summary of
15 future agenda items.
16 Commissioner Parvin announced that Chair Otto will be
17 moving to Albuquerque, New Mexico and was currently working
18 in Seattle, Washington.
19 10. ADJOURNMENT:
20 MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Haller
21 seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting.
22 Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.
23 The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2002 Draft \020909 pcm.doc
ITEM: 8. A.
;uMOUi PARK, CALIFORNIA
Manning Commission meft
V -d�o
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION '-
AGENDA REPORT .
IAA
ct
To: Honorable Planning Commission
�.J
From: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared By: Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner
y
Date: September 26, 2002 (PC meeting of 10/14/02)
Subject: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change
No. 2002 -04, Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract
Map No. 5307, and Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential
Planned Development No. 2001 -01, a Request for a Change in
Land Use Designation from M (Medium Density Residential)
to VH (Very High Density Residential), Zone Change from R-
1 (Single Family Residential) to RPD4 9.1 Dwelling
Units /Acre, the Addition of Three Lots to an Approved 22-
Lot Single - Family Residential Subdivision, and the
Construction of Three Single Family Detached Affordable
Units, on Property Located at the Northwest Corner of
Millard Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue, on the Application
of Colmer Development Company and the City of Moorpark.
BACKGROUND
These projects comprise a change in the boundary of Tentative Tract
Map No. 5307, to include and subdivide an additional 0.33 acres to
provide three affordable housing units in support of the General
Plan Housing Element. This addition requires a Major Modification
to the tentative tract map and a Minor Modification to the
Residential Planned Development Permit. The additional property
will also require a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change.
Approval of the subject requests will enable the 0.33 acre site to
be incorporated into a compatible single family detached
neighborhood, which would be consistent with the goals and policies
of the Housing Element of the General Plan. The approval of these
projects and subsequent construction of the units will also
accomplish City Departmental Goal B -9 that has been established by
the City Council for Fiscal Year 2002/2003.
S: \Community Development \T T M \5307 \Staff Reports \nc. 021014 stf rn+ r.,i, A
Honorable Planning Commission
October 14, 2002
Page 2
On May 1, 2002, the City Council approved a request by Colmer
Development Company for Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 5307,
Residential Planned Development (RPD) Permit No. 2001 -01, General
Plan Amendment No. 2001 -01, Variance (VAR) No. 2002 -01, and
introduced Zone Change No. 2001 -01 for first reading. These
approvals included the subdivision of approximately 2.44 acres into
twenty -two (22) single family residential lots and the construction
of twenty -two (22) single family units located on the northeast
corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Flory Avenue.
On May 7, 2002, Colmer Development Company submitted an application
for a Major Modification to the Tract and Minor Modification to the
RPD Permit to include an additional 0.33 acres located at the
northwest corner of Millard Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue, to the
east and directly adjacent to the approved project. The City
Council, on October 2, 2002, initiated General Plan Amendment No.
2002 -04 and Zone Change 2002 -04 for this 0.33 acre site.
The modifications propose a subdivision of 0.33 acres into three
residential lots to be developed with three (3) affordable housing
units, with the same architecture used in the original subdivision.
The current General Plan Land Use Element Map designation for the
0.33 -acre site is Medium Density Residential (4 units per acre) and
the zoning is R -1, with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. A
General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from
M (Medium Density Residential) to VH (Very High Density
Residential) )and a Zone Change (ZC) to change the zoning designation
from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to RPD 9.1 Dwelling Units /Acre
are necessary for the proposed development.
The proposed modifications, GPA and ZC will allow this property to
be included within the tract, subdivided to a size consistent with
other lots in the tract, and developed with a housing product
similar to the other lots in the tract. These additional lots will
be required to be maintained as "affordable" units.
DISCUSSION
General Plan Amendment
The current land use designation for the subject property is M
(Medium Density Residential). The M designation allows a maximum
density of 4 residential units per acre. The proposed General Plan
Amendment to VH (Very High Residential) would allow for a maximum
density of 15 units per acre, although the proposed density is just
over 9 units per acre.
S: \Community Development \T T M \5307 \Staff Reports \pc 021014 stf rpt Colmer.doc
Honorable Planning Commission
October 14, 2002
Page 3
The proposed change in Land Use designation would permit the
incorporation of the subject site into the development pattern of
Tract 5307. The subject site is disconnected from the development
pattern of the medium density neighborhoods to the north and east,
as they are oriented differently. This change of designation would
serve to better incorporate the property into the proposed
neighborhood to the west.
Perhaps the most significant justification for the amendment of the
Land Use designation is the furtherance of the goals of the Housing
Element, which identify a need for affordable housing. The Element
also identifies Tract No. 5307 as a potential site for affordable
units. The addition of this property to create three additional
affordable units also meets an established goal of the City Council.
Zone Chanae
A change of zone is necessary for the addition of the subject
property to TTM No. 5307. The minimum lot size for the existing R -1
zone is 6,000 square feet. The proposed lot sizes for TTM No. 5307
range from 3305 to 4478 square feet. Creating lots which are of a
comparable size to the main part of the TTM No. 5307 requires a zone
change to the RPD -9.lu (Residential Planned Development - 9.1
dwelling units per acre), as the resulting density on the subject
property will be 9.1 units per acre.
The RPD zone allows lots smaller than 6,000 square feet in
conjunction with an RPD permit. This permit also analyses site
design and building design, and allows projects to be proposed and
built which do not fit into the rigid standards of the R -1 zone.
This is particularly useful when dealing with in -fill type
properties with small dimensions or other significant constraints.
In the case of Tract 5307, the property fronting on Los Angeles
Avenue is relatively long and narrow. The creation of Tract 5307
required the flexibility that the RPD zone offers. While the RPD
zone offers a degree of flexibility to overcome constraints, it
still maintains development standards which will ensure
compatibility between the lots within the zone and the adjacent R -1
zoned properties.
Tract 5307 - Malor Modification #1
Tentative Tract Map No. 5307, as
twenty -two lots ranging in size
square feet. The tract utilized
an interior "Z" lot line on
subdivisions, the front portion c
originally proposed, would create
from 3,275 square feet to 4,478
small lot approach that maintains
every other lot. In "Z" lot
a side property line is offset 5
S: \Community Development \T T M \5307 \Staff Reports \pc 021014 stf rpt Colmer.doc
Honorable Planning Commission
October 14, 2002
Page 4
feet from the back portion of the side property line. Each lot
grants a 5' wide easement to the adjacent property either in the
front or rear of the property. This allows each home to maintain a
minimum side yard setback of 5 feet but allows the adjacent property
owner to utilize this 5 feet for driveway and yard purposes.
The proposed Major Modification to the tract incorporates the
subject 0.33 acres into the tract. The proposed lots require
adequate access and turn around space; however, access to Millard
was determined inappropriate by earlier analysis. Therefore, the
lots proposed will be somewhat narrower and deeper than the other
lots in the subdivision, with access gained by means of an extended
shared driveway, twenty (20) feet in width, extending to the most
easterly lot, but not connecting to Millard Avenue. The turn - around
for the entire tract will be at the entry to the shared driveway and
will take the form of a "hammerhead," or a pair of turn pockets
which give large vehicles the distance required to negotiate a 180
degree, three point turn.
An easement for storm drain purposes also crosses the subject
property along its western edge. This easement contains an open
channel in which storm water is conveyed to an underground storm
drain system. This easement will remain, as there is still a need
to convey the storm and nuisance water from the areas currently
draining to the channel. However, the proposed project will fill in
the channel and convey the water via a forty -eight inch (48 ") storm
drain pipe. The easement area will then become part of the usable
side yard of Lot 23.
RPD Permit 2001 -01 - Minor Modification No. 1
The modifications to this permit also reflect the addition of the
subject property to TTM No. 5307. The new lots are proposed to be
developed with the Plan 3 building footprint as proposed in the
original RPD permit. This plan was utilized on three lots, and was
not a part of the paired "Z" lot combination which utilizes Plan 1
and Plan 2 homes. Plan 3 is used on those lots which are to be
designated as affordable units in the Low Income and Very Low Income
categories. The Plan 3 footprint also reflects a narrow home design
which is more appropriate for the narrower lots which are proposed
to comprise the subject property.
The three residential units propose rear yards adjacent to Los
Angeles Avenue, and are therefore expected to experience noise
impacts similar to those identified with the original RPD approval.
As such, the Mitigated Negative Declaration requires, and the
recommended conditions of approval reflect, the same noise
mitigation measures as the lots adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue in
S: \Community Development \T T M \5307 \Staff Reports \pc 021014 stf rpt Colmer.doc
Honorable Planning Commission
October 14, 2002
Page 5
the existing tract map. These measures include the installation of
a sound wall of sufficient height to mitigate the outdoor ambient
noise levels in the yard areas of the new lots. They also address
interior ambient noise levels and require the installation of
appropriate hardware and the use of appropriate materials and
construction techniques to adequately reduce the interior noise to
acceptable levels.
Aside from the addition of the new lots, another modification to
this RPD permit is the alteration of the design of the tract
perimeter wall /sound wall along Los Angeles Avenue. The current
design includes "round pockets" along the length of the wall where
trees or other landscaping can be planted. Staff feels that this
design is not the best choice for this location. Staff concerns
include maintenance issues inside the pockets, aesthetics, and
security issues that can arise out of the use of pockets. As an
alternative, staff is recommending the use of decorative masonry
block with substantial articulation in the form of pilaster -like
features, a cap course, variations in height, and other texturing of
the surface to soften its impact along the roadway. A raised
landscaping strip sufficiently wide to permit the planting of
appropriate tree species would be provided between the sidewalk area
and the wall, which would help to reduce the appearance of the
overall height of the wall.
These amendments and modifications would, if approved, allow the
construction of three affordable units in support of the adopted
City Council goals, as well as goals of the Housing Element of the
General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the
projects. Impacts associated with this project are nearly identical
to those described in the MND for the original Tract 5307, and are
primarily noise impacts. These impacts are due to the proximity of
the project to Los Angeles Avenue. While potentially significant,
this impact can be mitigated by the construction of a sound wall
along the rear property lines of the lots to be created, and by the
use of construction techniques and materials which can reduce the
interior sound levels to acceptable levels. The mitigation measures
have been incorporated into the project conditions. This is the
same mitigation as is required in the original Tract 5307. A copy of
the MND has been attached for the Planning Commission's review.
S: \Community Development \T T M \5307 \Staff Reports \pc 021014 stf rpt Colmer.doc
Honorable Planning Commission
October 14, 2002
Page 6
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, and close the
public hearing.
2. Consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure
that it adequately addresses the impacts of the proposed
residential project prior to approval.
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending approval to the
City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change
2002 -04, Tract 5307 - Major Modification No. 1, and Residential
Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01 - Minor Modification No.
1.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Project Exhibits
• Revised Tentative Tract Map
• Revised Plot Plan
• Revised Grading Plan
• Revised Drainage Plan
2. Draft Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04, Tract
5307 - Major Modification No.l, and Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2001 -01 - Minor Modification No. 1, with
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A).
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration
S: \Community Development \T T M \5307 \Staff Reports \pc 021014 stf rpt Colmer.doc
r r
FIATtYAV[NUC ��' �� . rlaewr,wssuIaccrrr-CCw ^� aa•.c.lwa i ;' 1h- •'n nw is to
11d1.ARDMIMT c.IwaTw+•-- ItlllaaTSSR -•a y i!3 r.u....
aTOgwl- ora�T••T -IK•,w •y= - b
TYMCAL RRdT6%CFION,
TYf1C'AI. tT1JQT 1OLT70N la•aa�av -r-. Ke..,l.r,w
-TA I�a1•TaT!•I- wII►aTT-r w•Tlw�u� I I
T -�lraT WffOAt- Trwlt-� -,
it LO[A770N TIA/ RTj, ScalE: I'• tt
MKAL SIRLL78rCI'KxY SECTION B-B .loa,z. tvtrTraL
j Y
LOT �WA MKS i� L06 ASNEfCrTTA.LIfOA N A -A S I`�ola�llor� olwwwr la w--ar. lwu O , la
- S. MOOR�AKK /Y��L
i1OlY SL7DM .[ rz;/ ?� �+1 . i •
TYPICALWMErrmcnom
^�
� � y -.Ta
am
IOU
�.c•Tal fi y i
u Ib
it
~ r• .: ` '__ —may '-i-� ,..raerr•wlrw .-: � �._ _ � —
a Y � W r i' r- r{+••���RT►Ri-LOYriiT_y`�` - ��si .'�' _ - a�e.ww�� •'
R10Tr. +YN �
n
Torat s� I C.
alw - --a-
I.
L WWWA-Ta U••ll -y-IT. LT,a[t
i-snu,''O�un -nswil - - :I '^ e.�=Y¢•� 1 _;i-`..._r -1 _.. t u.cL -'- - _aw-n3• -`� ' - -- -
--
L1avLtKSTOPi - JAIS - •/K O'111i-It•�R il; - -
,swtsG�IST
usac•sasTm uu - A
Irtra,raa•GV•stt - un - - - �ai.m I ::T.�._ '.. ._ .._,_..___ -_ _ .
I r4
' L tYt,--Y lta l.OT aata TA- llwlq -�TYOR
1 IiTliil�lY AJ I- OT11oAlNl4 NN,
a
ALL "WIND TOimomIOAmmomw wpK — — — L.�' ANGELUS iw`'rs' I AVE.
• Cwil•1iaW .Onu1.1O1f0it03 .. r< -T _ h' - I �. w-T womim,iy` ` ..
u•ar,risr.
wrar ►a,NTrn,lawswlt.�.rs•nwlTtoaTw
rR�•-stTTwY.lwwalansw
• Twew.rwc.wlarwti�wwan•L
I - If�ATIY�T1�i►Ci
- '71�.fl7 COSY
- 7tACT 110.7677) :.-T�,1as-t�ieT�
' . • • •. .• •. :.
- '
lwOarlLNTrl.wITOTT.7wL�-L
"maRT/ EOI+G..IV -l. erA,c
KtKwrl�tG�rw-
arl
L a +�p.QL1�rN�1(IIAIM
_MULTFFAMILYUl n- .__ -.. -._ _._.__— _..._�..I
I
1`w�ty�����
.M
t YLTYTOTw TIwOI -�11a• wUMNOCIINw
ti.._rYY�1w�R7U0YS.
"fir':.• .:.n 0' MY Ii0' IMo• ^_nfl'.awtt
o ..
... ..
�,M
.rAtp-
iaw l••wATGa
a �w...w...w.calvn.Lwr..oaw.aae
.. unwawMlwrwAr�r•wAa Rt101
DIGITAL kl,XPPI', !?:r' -Iw
.�stv�w`-wwlo
� •u.rr.
atLttOIpOTRL7w�Ntl -q NGi11TA,
�_ �TC.ATI NOTE
TaTw Alw- I•- Ywff-•Iw-
_.,.... i. r•!;+ ?L,•;n ..
n r n::vy:x -1 .T.vD.• nrs •••
-rte. •I''.,, r tHK wUt
= r.WLL4�
Rtw �1Y1• -Iatw aT1 -1-Hw t-wn•r
Tti111Mtgl- tlaO- ITKIa� ✓w,
K a1Kl�Trt lO Tt PROVO" PRO tart LOT. LOrATIaI, }NL
"TQlRi11iTY-�tA OaCT IOCa71pI 101R, -1-�0
7.1LT --aR ■N101wl- Y�1• -1
Mr�►Y•R.1a�I- III.�R
nMf�aYUYl1IIlIOYS
:..t '' .`!i n�' .r ,:.-tp .;a) , •fal ,l•[1I►Tln- >•nwl
.n..r.,•. .- ..�... r!+w••r._.
�. - IO -Tplf aLLOLIU UAIID I••ItO- A-- TTfIIT(taCal[ -L 14T
Tlw�tl -�` wrR
GPYKUL MOROL TOwI"'Of.1WK7 -T tp1.11loreM
MAJOR MODIFICATION «"w..��.:Y"a.ET�...,T"' «W' ""°`
111�••a
K.... rU Iw. r.rw...••w� •, "+..
,.... ._......s�5w
Coax= NgYT.,g1 =T CO.
t/lut TITLT c,LOO -Kl.
ITY OF M �%�
Mon
+~1�ir•'•:: ,'�T •rw,iv.r.�'_' --
.';,,:...
_ fltivl /..f. l_-rw �.IM.t.
�ts�AY CALLMIAS
___• ww SR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO 5307 ►7
CONKAZWM
t
w•yMA {CA. R10
SINCLE FAMQ•Y aMMENEIAL """"°1O
wC
,T`.
tIJRtOS •
•atlall-Ilrr- �Iresnw
4RW -'
/r I «
4
awrm C-C
szcpom ws
F
L<
!)��7 ----------- -A 7 T
!41
C,
W(Tva,
7.vo
C, %C
oil
I MAX 3A F a
7
2A
MAN PLAN 1.
IJ22
1
z 2
N,-.57
A
CC
2' • c 7
10
L 1A
.p 11 . .• " - _�A
,nt T
MAN 19
rtAX 119
A
o-
N_o
I itv yy
w t --A
14DS iHC ANGELES, AVE.
7'
7 513
z
-A�
LkGVW
"A' STAM MAJOR MODIFICATION;
!
PRZL�An G. K_
Lar J
ALTE RNATE B
A"' 1 SUMOK
PLOT PLAN
CITY OF MOORPARK S R
amm NO
TENTATIVE TRACT NO 5307 corouummmzw.
ft FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES
WTWM
nA)RYAVLMtfg
Tynca sritmm sgcnom TVPW_AL FrFJ= 89CT30M
-A' STRM
■TAL 1A
a
_T Lci IL
li
IYYIOaflnaf.ML w...
SECTION E-E
sc.u: .. • 1.
Sfc,rtow A-A
LOSAPKAMAVIUM
TYPICAL SntlzT SLCTWK
KIA
sac7mm "
KvA
GW4nAL MOM
L O AMA :U4.MM". -&MAC&
AMAOFLOM *Jr"
-eff=TAMA n"
L & AK W03INM um
M 10A 18LM • AMI - —" Affiffngl"
UNAWAS ..AMATADVLATMPIf
W=mm notaft Wh moomscomm MR
UWATM MAP
ILLL
WTA�
TIFFIGALSIMIXT89MON
AM Pft p fMiYiM AN fiwll MKFAVL G&PILILAL MOTLS: GRADW,
VM9UMWt vTnLaf vwwA=wLAv} TffUCL
OrYma "m Ofto
�cm� &Ammffiwft arse'r1w. Lkwrwwoaw grApr"m
rW.Lvwmw�.Mft8b*wm Tp�crmo.3m.3
r
VIM AMU" PEOVOGOMM MJW� MUT14AMILY tNM
no, 120' Iflo, 111.
wA A
pill
0 (
ley
cotaum ogyuAnmn M
OW FAa"Alt CALA.W"
WJIMSW
CAALM
TWIM Z!ITY OF Ajoj3RPAJUC_ T142 IMINT
S R
TENTATIVE TRACT NO 5307
71 :�7�
R SINGLE FAMMY RESIDENTIAL .7 Exam- - pe
r
rM�r
3
L A"PWIGP��ADORAMJMUL-MMAW
"KLMMt&ffAMW9AMV6C5M=WM"�
— — M�
I
DIGIT.�_L. MAPPI
Mak"MaULUK"copcormAL KAM QLAMM
ZAnWW 4UAWMWAM9LM%W=M.
&UgXWMMVrMMCVVMMPAV2.16WACRJTMZM.VGM
IL A IfMn TMnTG PDDVWMMa RACE IAMLOCA"M ML
AAJnull
np"Mffy� 'NUACFLO"�TOn�
:
LA;__L
�CATION
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
no, 120' Iflo, 111.
wA A
pill
0 (
ley
cotaum ogyuAnmn M
OW FAa"Alt CALA.W"
WJIMSW
CAALM
TWIM Z!ITY OF Ajoj3RPAJUC_ T142 IMINT
S R
TENTATIVE TRACT NO 5307
71 :�7�
R SINGLE FAMMY RESIDENTIAL .7 Exam- - pe
r
rM�r
3
. C L.rt.r ' L..w i D.rwr.•. yr.
Df.r AIIrwMr
A.-0 0
;'LAN ..►rerr.3 t ;�,wr ;W SECT•A•A
I/Arl S•I.Irw.. A RrJ.
M.n r n•, Rr �... er..
► F "'t' '0 i _TYP_. AIT. SECT. - APPOES 107 DRAIVALf
lwrl� /f I.� IIL_YJ r /w••IrASr �i� 1.nr..•Ar Re.•
i
TYP•ALT. L07 OAA/NAEt P/R NPOEJ 'rP'•" '•"'K•"'1"•"`
" �•r•'�� _. /mow .Yt a.. :.� .... I,
AYI Ir 7(AtF
f`+
k
T fo! rt
fA�' 1•!j
L-L
l..r wlY��Yf
�fr••If '•tf w.0
'a { »R �YYI.ONR.11.
{LCIION E -E
KAM l..N
SECTION A-A
IMANGUMAYEMM
TYPWAL srvm rELCTbW
%/MI /sw frr� �• �u
PA.!.
:tAR'
cs
I PI••R M.A QWr
L tr..rPAfa :.r.- K
Alrl.rrc• • go r.. (9—P)
Vs•(Ar,•r.f). t.�w
tR�u1101rer
F, q r Z..' • r.r •Pr
P'.e - C
L i All" - IaeM ADJi. • i." Am —
•A•rrMIlA»A IIW
LAArLWM : LMl% Iwi Yin.•aff�rwvoselfwl
lafaA 1Krf Af•.Y11YtAMrAL
a UWAMY =L=ANLATAwieewwws
a IslLlrawlK W IL»ewfwrww,w
♦ �KKIL»r KKi1wKA�K�II �a fiNIUMAL INYM CRADr10
• �aw»rr lfRA OOLlrOAiwi wluOrr llrYp a Au Mr no •OOww.r
Orwllla aw4 YlYArfw � Mr IloArlad
tl CAUF§w.l Dvllmi Irrr- .#-zw. L tAr ro.aLL C+A ar•.AlItm_
AIKIisa•rlw /YAfill ^ILAwYI MCAt� w.w�w
r Rrt• RT wn.ry pMLrt •y��N•
♦ �Krra�� '��AwirrwrRAL aY1ai.R f•rr wt
rgrrwet
> Yaf!►./LaLMarArv..aw.l
!. A�/NL4.r�r 1're�IM16W
♦ Darr lr�YLAiPK RYrIrr.lOa.rYO
L ALL e.wAw.reR,. AM
• ,sDD....1r,A"f.rw•A»•n tMrYNrwrr we
rwtel♦IALlf �sTweMl�wwuLrwlaa
1rmlAaflrnrrrAlrl Yla rww
l SOAwli. www.s OIOILALRM10rLAr�w.
♦ Au oslw•rwarra h•wf...Y1! "ra.![.A»
AMA
•. LALwlwlwiflrMwr�MwYrIW w".R
M ALL WWrwr»welwMftM/La rAdiijj6wClLra
f. wlwWrfG fV4rr lNA•IA RJNr a•1[f\
IIOrw Llow♦wwrrllo. waAww
f�fnal a►rAw.rrw.w■
IL Arr�llQlrllMlYwOrR rA[1 t/t.IKA7»M �Li.wwrYfrl.we•AIAAL
Rw PROP" VA wA YACTI.CATwr rrnllff O
LOW
M AAli —
• I I ���� rt. •,•r r.cr
rAer."1wKrclwplwwtR �C� f�"" —'I
i OA-1
SCAfl: 1'.,o'
' SELTwft Q•B •lw:orf 1 ..r.�rA,
L.T1
'iYPW- AL SraLS 5KCr n
tit•: ` calMlv�inror •_ ra� / aoravrn
l�� lY•• r�Y �l
IrMI'MAI(M•llll .rrr
ra M•r r.'r.��1�1M11•..�w.
M:lMfYAWY
,t�l � Wtl uYYYleA wa
�YMI� Nr•Mw� YAA� tY.Lr.r
.ww1M0YR.a.AI.�.L.w.1C t
I1�00N•1•1•t O.�wr Oda
Lq eN.rl ffrw_w w oaf wrArn
wwelL: l.wcrf r�w.ae.�l
r1 V W..Y
K�K•wl► .. •rnvr•u
rl ^ _ 0 -10' R0' 130' 160' 2(Xl'.Cm"r
: Ya' POW 1 ;4 MA•IOR -MODIFICATION
>��;� ,� .i,�,ri ic, '1 DRAINAGE
r .,u,Orb- r rol•.Proauu.:4r: , CONCEPT
... r: r:. ,rr.. .•.Df r .r
LLCfL D[S(l1lPllr)w :lrr!
•r • n._ .rr .., r.w N0 -NrW* "AlWK0DJv.4 \D WDfR[I)I.'Ar.i).fr0
\•. \r OI MOWIAIIL KrDlYhrl\, ■ \ \(!p VNI. V.a ♦k.r ?.
unrclAL .uroAOa . \r for -A• a • \t_a � A[r6>t ,IDnT.n\.
ONCEPTUAL (:RARING PLAN M"'""""r"`" "`"^^" "n,.. "• "[K
coUrsL LLVEi orKzw 1.1l I Vl' LYlVVKrAl(K N / ►S R
mm lw AYr "'• "• TENTATIVE TRACT NO 5307 , • ncvII on�r
LLRt I» 4
c.AA�.L•sCA »ar A SINGLE FAIMMY RESIDENTIAL MRPOS 'i"911M O1®"L '^wrrf°r
0
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 -04, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2002 -04,
MAJOR MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 5307, AND MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
2001 -01 FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 0.33 ACRES SITE
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOS ANGELES
AVENUE AND MILLARD AVENUE, ON THE APPLICATION
OF COLMER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND THE CITY OF
MOORPARK (ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 512 -0- 122 -040 &
-060)
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing on October 14,
2002, the Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment
No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04, Major Modification No. 1 to
Tentative Tract Map No. 5307 and Minor Modification No. 1 to
Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01 on the
application of Colmer Development Company and the City of
Moorpark for an approximately 0.33 acre site located on the
northwest corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Street
(Assessor Parcel No. 512 -0- 122 -040 & -060); and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is more specifically
described as follows:
General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04: A request for a change
in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan from M (Medium Density) to VHD (Very High
Density);
Zone Change No. 2001 -01: A request for a change in the
Zoning from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to RPD -9.1U
(Residential Planned Development -9.1 dwelling units /acre);
Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map No 5307 and
Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned Development
Permit No. 2001 -01: A request for inclusion of 0.33 acres
of land to be subdivided into 3 lots within the subdivision
and the construction of 3 additional affordable single
family units;
S: \Community Development \T T M \5307 \Resolutions- Conditions \021019 pc reso cond F.doc
PC ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
Page 2
WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 14, 2002, the Planning
Commission considered the staff report, conducted a public
hearing and received public testimony, and after receiving
public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public
hearing, and reached a decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Planning
Commission does hereby find that General Plan Amendment No.
2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04, Major Modification No. 1 to
Tentative Tract Map No. 5307 and Minor Modification No. 1 to
Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01 are
consistent with the City's General Plan, subject to amendment of
the land use designation as proposed.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The Planning
Commission further finds that General Plan Amendment No. 2002-
04, Zone Change 2002 -04, Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative
Tract Map No. 5307 and Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential
Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01 are consistent with the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project.
1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04,
Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map No. 5307
and Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2001 -01 serves as the environmental
document for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Tentative Tract Map modification, and Residential Planned
Development Permit modification.
2. In order to reduce the potential adverse impacts of this
project, mitigation measures discussed in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration have been incorporated and shall apply
to General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04,
Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map No. 5307
and Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2001 -01.
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
Page 3
I
3. A Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program prepared in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180 and considered in the
various decisions regarding these projects applies to
General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04,
Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map No. 5307
and Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2001 -01.
SECTION 3. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS: The Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
Modification to Tentative Tract Map No. 5307, with
imposition of the attached conditions, meets the requirements of
California Government Code Sections 66473.5, 66474, 66474.6, and
66478.1 et seq., in that:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the City of Moorpark
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the design and improvements of the proposed
subdivision is consistent with the City of Moorpark General
Plan.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements
are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of the property within
the proposed subdivision.
8. There will be no discharge of waste from the proposed
subdivision into an existing community sewer system in
violation of existing water quality control requirements
under Water Code Section 13000 et seq.
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
Page 4
9. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any
public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake,
or reservoir.
SECTION 4. RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS:
The Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and
provisions of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed project is compatible with the character of
surrounding development.
3. The proposed project would not be obnoxious or harmful, or
impair the utility of neighboring property or uses.
4. The proposed project would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
5. The proposed project is compatible with existing and
planned land uses in the general area where the development
is to be located.
6. The proposed project is compatible with the scale, visual
character and design of the surrounding properties,
designed so as to enhance the physical and visual quality
of the community, and the structure(s) have design features
which provide visual relief and separation between land
uses of conflicting character.
SECTION 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The
Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04, Major
Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map No. 5307 and Minor
Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned Development Permit No.
2001 -01 subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A).
SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: 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-
Page 5
The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2002.
Kipp Landis, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
EXHIBITS:
A. Conditions of Approval for Major Modification No. 1 to
Tentative Tract Map No. 5307 and Minor Modification
No. 1 to Residential Planned Development Permit No.
2001 -01
B. Mitigation Monitoring Program
C. General Plan Amendment Map
D. Zone Change Map
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
Page 6
FXHTRTT n
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MAJOR MODIFICATION NO. 1
TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5307
AND MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2001 -01
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All conditions of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 5307
and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01
shall continue to apply, and unless specifically directed
to particular lots, shall apply to the additional 0.33
acres of land, except as amended herein.
2. Conditions of Residential Planned Development No. 2001 -01
and Tentative Tract 5307 which apply to all lots adjacent
to Los Angeles Avenue shall apply to Lots 23, 24 and 25 as
well, unless the Director of Community Development
determines otherwise.
3. Recordation of this subdivision shall be deemed to be
acceptance by the subdivider and his /her heirs, assigns,
and successors of the conditions of this Map. A notation,
which references conditions of approval, shall be included
on the Final Map in a format acceptable to the Community
Development Director and the City Engineer.
4. Conditions of this entitlement shall not be interpreted as
permitting or requiring any violation of law or any
unlawful rules or regulations or orders of an authorized
governmental agency. The approved Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program is included as an attachment to the
approving resolution, and all mitigation measures are
requirements of the Tentative Tract Map and Residential
Planned Development Permit, as applicable.
S. All mitigation measures contained within the approved
Mitigation Monitoring Report and Program (MMRP) are hereby
adopted as requirements of the Tentative Map, as
applicable. Where conflict or duplication between the MMRP
and the conditions of approval occurs and applicability for
compliance is questioned by the Developer, the Community
Development Director shall determine the applicable
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
Page 7
condition compliance requirements for each phase of
development.
6. This approval permits the addition of 0.33 acres of land to
Tentative Tract Map No. 5307, for the purpose of creating
an additional three (3) lots within the tract. These
additional lots will be used for the construction of
affordable housing units. Income levels for prospective
buyers of these units shall be determined by the City of
Moorpark.
7. Lots 23, 24, and 25 shall be developed with Plan 3,
approved as part of Residential Planned Development No.
2001 -01. The exterior building treatment for each unit
shall be sufficiently different, as determined by the
Community Development Director, so as to be distinct from
one another.
8. The perimeter wall of Tract 5307 shall be extended to
encompass the additional acreage. The extended wall shall
be constructed of the same materials with the same
treatments as the rest of the tract. The wall height shall
be the same as the rest of the tract, except as noted
herein.
9. Wall pockets along Los Angeles Avenue shall be deleted. An
appropriate planting palette, subject to the approval of
the Community Development Director, shall be utilized to
soften the appearance of the sound wall. Plant material
used shall have low water demands and low maintenance
needs.
10. Access to lots 23, 24, and 25 shall be through a 20 -foot
wide common driveway. Entrance to the driveway from "A"
street shall be via a raised curb with driveway apron.
This driveway shall extend only far enough to provide
access to lot 25, but shall not connect, or appear to
connect, to Millard Street. Precise design shall be to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the
City Engineer.
11. A "hammerhead" turn- around area shall be located at the
easterly end of "A" street. This shall meet the standards
of the Fire Department, and shall be striped and signed, to
the satisfaction of the Fire Department and the City
Engineer, as a "No Parking" area.
12. The existing storm drain easement at the west side of Lot
23 shall be covered and graded to the level of the pad on
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
Page 8
Lot 23. This area shall be restricted to disallow
construction or permanent improvements within it to ensure
accessibility to the culvert for maintenance purposes.
13. The sidewalk along Los Angeles Avenue shall meander, and
may be reduced to a minimum width of 5 feet, with the
approval of the Director of Community Development and the
City Engineer, providing areas suitable for the planting of
trees and shrubs along the right of way. The location of
the sidewalk shall be approved by the Community Development
Director and the City Engineer.
14. Berms and /or low retaining walls shall be utilized
intermittently within the landscape planter areas along Los
Angeles Avenue to add visual interest and soften the
appearance of the sound walls, subject to the approval of
the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
15. The sound
constructed
texture and
appearance.
colors and
least every
are subject
Director
wall along Los Angeles Avenue shall be
of decorative block, with variation in color,
mass to create visual interest and soften the
"Pilaster" elements incorporating different
textures shall be incorporated into the wall at
25 feet to break up the wall mass. Wall plans
to the approval of the Community Development
16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a landscape plan
shall be prepared on the approved grading plan and
submitted to the City for review, and approved by the
Community Development Director.
17. Prior to the issuance of final occupancy for the first
unit, the approved landscape plan shall be implemented, and
be found to be in substantial compliance with the plan
approved by the Community Development Director.
B. MITIGATION MEASURE CONDITIONS:
1. Prior to or concurrently with the submittal of building
plans, the Applicant shall provide an acoustical study
report to the Community Development Director that outlines
the proposed program for compliance with the Noise Element
Standards of 65 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) for
exterior locations within the development and 45 CNEL for
interior locations within the dwelling.
2. Construct a sound wall along the southern property line of
lots 1 through 11, and lots 23 through 25, along Los
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
Page 9
Angeles Avenue. The top of the sound wall must be 9.5 feet
above the centerline surface of Los Angeles Avenue for lots
1 and 2, 10.5 feet above the centerline for lots 3 though
9, 11.5 feet above the centerline for lots 10 and 11, and
12.5 above the centerline for lots 23 through 25.
Construct a 5 to 6 foot wide planter between the wall and
Los Angeles Avenue. This planter shall be planted in
accordance with Condition No. 15, above.
3. The sound wall shall extend at least 20 feet to the north
on the west side of lot 1, and at least 20 feet to the
north on the east side of lot 25. These extensions shall
then transition gradually down in height to a standard 6
feet.
4. To reduce the interior noise levels, a minimum window glass
thickness of 3/16 -inch and a standard exterior wall of 5/8-
inch gypsum board, 3.5 -inch fiberglass filled cavity, 7/8-
inch lath and stucco, typical for single family residential
developments shall be installed.
S. All second story windows along Los Angeles Avenue shall be
Milgard type 5120 double glazed window assemblies or an
equivalent with a minimum STC 33 rating.
6. All rear and side entry doors of the homes on Lots 1
through 11, and lots 22 through 25, shall be gasketed
(jamb, head, sill) with interlocking or tube -type
compression weather - stripping, or an effective equivalent.
7. All exterior vents on the homes on Lots 1 through 11, and
lots 22 through 25, shall be directed away from Los Angeles
Avenue in order to reduce noise transmissions into the
house through vents and ducts.
8. The applicant shall prepare a hydrology study shall be
prepared, if deemed necessary by the City Engineer, to
determine the appropriate size of the culvert. The culvert
shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002-
Page 10
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City
Engineer shall provide verification to the Community
Development Director, that the proposed culvert to be
placed in the storm drain easement along the west side of
Lot 22 is properly sized to handle the expected flow.
2. Prior to the release of grading or improvement bonds the
City Engineer shall verify that the construction of this
culvert is satisfactory.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Building
Official shall provide verification to the Community
Development Director that the building permit plans comply
with all noise mitigation measures imposed as conditions of
approval.
4. Prior to occupancy of each unit, the Building Official
shall ensure, by physical inspection, the compliance with
these plans.
S: \Community Development \T T M \5307 \Resolutions- Conditions \021014 pc reso F.doc
Exhibit C
General Plan Amendment Map
M
I
F L
L L
Q A
R R
Y STREET D
A s
v Change of T
E General Plan: R
M to VH E
E
T
N
LOS AN G ELE AMEN U E
Note: drawing not to scale
Exhibit Q
Zone Change Map
m
I
F L
L L
O A
R R
Y "A" :3TRKET D
A S
V T
E Zone Change: R
R -1 to RPD -9.1 U E
E
T
N
LOS ANGELES AVENUE �
Note: drawing not to scale mi
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517 -6200
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
The City of Moorpark, after having conducted an Initial Study, has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the following project:
Major Modification No.1 - T 5307, Minor Modification No. 1 — RPD 99 -1, General Plan Amendment
2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04
Amend General Plan Designation from M (Medium Density Residential) to VH (Very High Density
Residential); Amend zoning designation from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to RPD -9.11.1
(Residential Planned Development — 9.1 units per acre); Modify Tract 5307 and RPD 99 -01 to
include an additional 0.33 acres for 3 additional affordable units.
The project is located at:
North east corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Avenue, Moorpark, Ventura County
The project site is not contained on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code including, but not limited to lists of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste
property, and hazardous waste disposal sites.
The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are forwarded to you for possible
comments relating to your area of interest. All documents referenced therein are available for review
during normal business hours in the Community Development office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, California, 93021. Information on public hearings or meetings for the proposed project can be
obtained from the Community Development Department at (805) 517 -6200.
Written comments should be directed to:
Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
(805) 517 -62 36
swolfe @ci.moorpark.ca.us
Written comments will be accepted in the Community Development Department office for a period of
twenty (20) days after publication of this notice.
Public Notice Published: September 30, 2002
Mitigated Negative Declaration Comment Period: September 30, 2002 to October 21, 2002
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
Distribution:
PC ATTACHMENT 3
2
PATRICK HUNTER ROSEANN MIKOS CLINT HARPER KEITH F MILLHOUSE JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
The following Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures
of the City of Moorpark.
Public Review Period: September 30 to October 21, 2002
Project Title /Case No.: Major Modification No.1 - T 5307, Minor Modification No. 1 — RPD 99 -1,
General Plan Amendment 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04
Project Location: North east corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Avenue, Moorpark,
Ventura County. (Location Map Attached)
Project Description: Amend General Plan Designation from M (Medium Density Residential) to VH
(Very High Density Residential); Amend zoning designation from R -1 (Single
Family Residential) to RPD -9.1 U (Residential Planned Development — 9.1
units per acre); Modify Tract 5307 and RPD 99-01 to include an additional
0.33 acres for 3 additional affordable units.
Project Type:
Project Applicant:
X Private Project X Public Project
Colmer Development Company, 5000 Parkway Calabasas, Suite 110,
Calabasas, CA 91302 / City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark,
CA 93021
Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above - referenced project, it is found that
there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of
Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
However, this effect can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through the
imposition of mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the
project. (Initial Study Attached)
Responsible Agencies: None
Trustee Agencies: None
Attachments: Location Map
Initial Study
Contact Person: Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California, 93021
(805) 517-62 36
SACommunity Development\T T M \5307\MND.doc
CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
Project Title: None Case No.: Major Modification No. 1 - TTM 5307, Minor Modification
No. 1 - RPD 99 -1, General Plan Amendment 2002 -04,
Zone Change 2002 -04
Contact Person and Phone No.: Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner (805) 517 -6236
Name of Applicant: Colmer Development Company City of Moorpark
Address and Phone No.: 5000 Parkway Calabasas 799 Moorpark Avenue
Calabasas, CA 91302 Moorpark, CA 93021
(818) 222 -5666 (818) 517 -6200
Project Location: Northwest Corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Avenue
General Plan Designation: M (Medium Density Residential) Zoning: R -1 (Single Family Residential)
Project Description: Amend General Plan Designation from M (Medium Density Residential) to VH
(Very High Density Residential); Amend zoning designation from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to RPD -9.1 U
(Residential Planned Development — 9.1 units per acre); Modify Tract 5307 and RPD 99 -01 to include an
additional 0.33 acres for 3 additional affordable units.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: Existing Residential Neighborhood
South: Los Angeles Avenue and Residential uses
East: Existing Residential Neighborhood
West: School Facilities — Tentative Tract 5307
Responsible and Trustee Agencies: None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially
Si nificant Impact" or Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated, "as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use /Planning
Mineral Resources X Noise Population /Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities /Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that although the proposed project could
have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions
in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. Mitigation measures described on
the attached Exhibit 1 have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
Prepared by: =i� Reviewed by:
Date: ' ' Date:
2
3.
4.
INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT 1:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A sound wall shall be constructed along the southern property line of lots 1 through 11, and lots 23
thorugh 25, along Los Angeles Avenue. The top of the sound wall must be 9.5 feet above the
centerline surface of Los Angeles Avenue for lots 1 and 2, 10.5 feet above the centerline for lots 3
though 9, 11.5 feet above the centerline for lots 10 and 11, and 12.5 above the centerline for lots 22
through 25. In order to screen the wall, a 5 to 6 foot wide planter shall be provided between the wall
and Los Angeles Avenue. This planter will be planted with trees, shrubs, and vines to screen the
wall.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
The sound wall shall extend at least 20 feet to the north on the west side of lot 1, and at least 20 feet
on the east side of lot 11. These extensions will then transition gradually in height down to a
standard 6 foot wall height.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
To reduce the interior noise levels, a minimum window glass thickness of 3/16 inch and a standard
exterior wall of 5/8 inch gypsum board, 3.5 inch fiberglass filled cavity, 7/8 inch lath and stucco,
typical for single family residential developments shall be installed.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
All second story windows along Los Angeles Avenue shall be Milgard type 5120 double glazed
window assemblies, or an equivalent with a minimum STC 33 rating.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
2
5. All rear and side entry doors of the homes on Lots 1 through 11, and lots 22 through 25, shall be
gasketed (jamb, head, and sill) with interlocking or tube type compression weather stripping, or an
effective equivalent.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
6. All exterior vents on the homes on Lots 1 through 11, and lots 22 through 25, shall be directed away
from Los Angeles Avenue in order to reduce noise transmissions into the house through vents and
ducts.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
A hydrology study shall be prepared, if determined necessary by the City Engineer, to determine the
appropriate size of the culvert. The culvert shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Monitoring Action: City Engineer to review project plans for compliance
Timing: Prior to issuance of grading permits
Responsibility: City Engineer
AGREEMENT TO PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3,
Article 6), this agreement must be signed prior to release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public
review.
I, THE UNDERSIGNED PROJECT APPLICANT, HEREBY AGREE TO MODIFY THE PROJECT DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE ABOVE - LISTED
MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE PROJECT.
Signature of Project Applicant Date
3
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Response: The project proposes to construct a sound wall along Los Angeles Avenue
ranging in height from 9.5 feet to 12.5 feet. In order to screen the wall, the
project will provide a 5 to 6 foot wide landscape planter in front of the wall
adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: This planter will be planted with trees, shrubs, and vines to screen the wall.
B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, the City of Moorpark may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
agency, to non - agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
3) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
Response: This project does not affect agricultural resources.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: None Required.
4
X
X
X
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
A. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
X
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Response: The project proposes to construct a sound wall along Los Angeles Avenue
ranging in height from 9.5 feet to 12.5 feet. In order to screen the wall, the
project will provide a 5 to 6 foot wide landscape planter in front of the wall
adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: This planter will be planted with trees, shrubs, and vines to screen the wall.
B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, the City of Moorpark may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
agency, to non - agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
3) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
Response: This project does not affect agricultural resources.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: None Required.
4
X
X
X
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
C. AIR QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X
air quality plan?
2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X
of people?
Response: This project does not affect Air Quality Resources.
Sources: 7
Mitigation: None required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5
conservation plan!
Response: This project proposes changes on previously developed urban land, and
therefore does not impact biological resources.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: None required.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of x
a historic resource as defined in §15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Response: This project proposes changes on previously developed land, and therefore
is not expected to impact cultural resources.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: None required.
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
Involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X
most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
N
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan!
Response: This project proposes changes on previously developed urban land, and
therefore does not impact biological resources.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: None required.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of x
a historic resource as defined in §15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Response: This project proposes changes on previously developed land, and therefore
is not expected to impact cultural resources.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: None required.
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
Involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X
most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
N
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -B X
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X
septic tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
Response: This project is not within Alquist Priolo Special Studies areas, and does not
have any soils or geological impacts. The site is within a liquefaction zone,
and will need to comply with the requirements of the Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act.
Sources: 3, Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone Map, Moorpark Quadrangle, Seismic
Hazard Zone Map, Moorpark Quadrangle.
Mitigation: None Required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
7
residences are mrermixea wim wuaianas r
Response: There are no known hazards on the project site.
Sources: 3
Mitigation: None Required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off -site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as X
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving i) flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
1.11
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
X
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are mrermixea wim wuaianas r
Response: There are no known hazards on the project site.
Sources: 3
Mitigation: None Required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off -site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as X
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving i) flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
1.11
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
ii) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Response: This project proposes the "boxing" of a currently open storm drain channel
into a 4 foot culvert. This improvement will be engineered to accommodate
anticipated flows, and therefore will not reflect a significant impact.
Sources: Project plans.
Mitigation: A hydrology study shall be prepared, if determined necessary by the City
Engineer, to determine the appropriate size of the culvert. The culvert shall
be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established community? X
2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural community conservation plan?
Response: While this project deviates from the current General Plan Land Use element
map designation with regard to density on the subject site, the project would
help meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element and is
consistent with all other General Plan Goals and Policies. Further, this
project includes a General Plan Amendment which will ensure that the
project is consistent with the Land Use Element map as well. Therefore, this
impact is not significant.
Sources: 3,4
Mitigation: None Required
J. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Response: This project will not affect mineral resources.
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None Required.
0
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
K. NOISE — Would the project result in:
1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in x
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels?
X
3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Response: 1) Ambient noise levels within the project area along Los Angeles Avenue
are expected to exceed 65 CNEL .
4)Temporary increases in ambient noise levels can be expected during
construction periods. However, City regulations pertaining to hours of
construction will ensure that this impact is less than significant.
Sources: 1,3,4
Mitigation: 1) Installation of sound walls along Los Angeles Avenue. See mitigation
monitoring program for further details.
4) None
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either x
directly ( for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly ( for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
10
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Response: This project will have a beneficial impact of helping to achieve housing goals
in support of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Sources: 3
Mitigation: None required.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
X
X
x
x
x
Response: While some incremental impact on public services is to be expected, the
impacts are not significant.
Sources: Site Plans, Project Description
Mitigation: None required.
N. RECREATION
1) Would the project increase the use of existing x
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require x
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
11
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
impact Mitigation im
Response: This project will have no impact on recreational resources.
Sources: Project plans, Project Description
Mitigation: None required.
O. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC — Would the project:
1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
2) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
5) Result in inadequate emergency access?
6) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Response: This project will have no impacts on transportation facilities or traffic
patterns.
Sources: Site Plans, Project Description
Mitigation: None required.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
2) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
12
ire
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the x
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment x
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
6) Be served by the landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and x
regulations related to solid waste?
Response: This project proposes the "boxing" of an open storm drain channel into a 4
foot culvert. This improvement will be engineered to accommodate
anticipated flows, and therefore does not reflect a significant impact.
Sources: Project Plans
Mitigation: None required
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality x
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history of prehistory?
2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effect of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and effects of probable future projects)?
3) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
13
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Im
im
Response: Mitigation measures will be impose that will enable the project to reduce any
potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
Sources: 1,3,4
Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tract 5307 and associated projects dated
March 4, 2002.
Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by
reference, and are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall,
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. Items used are referred to by number in the
Response Section of the Initial Study Checklist.
Traffic Noise Study Report for the Colmer Residential Department dated March 14, 2001.
Comments received from (departments) in response to the Community Development
Department's request for comments.
The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended.
The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended.
The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 92-872
Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title
14 Section 15000 et. seq.
Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, November 14, 2000.
14
ITEM: 9. A.
M1IOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Planning Commission fYRes#t
MOORPARK PLANNING CObBa S S ION Of I C 141 4 p
AGENDA REPORT AcCTION: cZe S
- COn C cart' 6� S
re cowl,
TO: Honorable Planning Commission }3y, 4",
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
By: Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analys y
DATE: September 5, 2002 (PC Meeting of 9/9/02) /
SUBJECT: Consider Planning Commission Meeting Schedule for
November and December 2002
DISCUSSION
Based on review the Department's pending case schedule and upcoming
holiday season, staff recommends consideration of, the following
Planning Commission Meeting schedule:
November 4, 2002 Special Meeting if Necessary.
November 11, 2002 Cancellation of Regular Meeting- Veterans
Day
November 25, 2002 Cancellation of Regular Meeting -
Thanksgiving Holiday Week.
December 9, 2002 Regular Meeting to be Held
December 23, 2002 Cancellation of Regular Meeting- Christmas
Holiday Week.
This schedule will accommodate all currently pending cases and
provide staff with sufficient time to prepare and present those
items to the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMNMNDATION
Direct staff to set Planning Commission meeting schedule for
November and December 2002, as indicated in the staff report.
S: \Community Development \ADMZN \C0MSZSSmN \v 0 DrNTT rT a\,___ -.- 014.doc