The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAG RPTS 2002 0513 PC REGMOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517 -6200 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 13, 2002 7:00 p.m. Next Resolution No. PC- 2002 -424 1) CALL TO ORDER: 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3) ROLL CALL: William F. Otto, Chair Kipp Landis, Vice Chair Mark DiCecco Paul Haller Janice Parvin ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Presentation /Action /Discussion item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing or Presentations /Action /Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Presentations /Action /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 Presentation /Action /Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item of the Presentation /Action /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 Presentation /Action/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 Presentation /Action /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. 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). 0200523 -pca 519102 4:44 PM C Packet to CM 7Packet to CC Al rtik,rn nury i try ROSEANN MIKOS CLINT HARPER KEITH F. MILLHOUSE JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 13, 2002 Page 2 4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: Introduction of Barry Hogan, Director of Community Development. 5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 6) CONSENT CALENDAR: A) Regular Meeting Minutes of June 30, 1997 B) Regular Meeting Minutes of July 14, 1997 C) Regular Meeting Minutes of July 28, 1997 D) Adjourned Special Meeting Minutes of July 31, 1997 E) Special Meeting Minutes of August 7, 1997 F) Regular Meeting Minutes of August 11, 1997 G) Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2002 7) PUBLIC COMMENTS: 8) PUBLIC HEARINGS: A) Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -10, A Request to Construct an Approximately 113,994 Square Foot Mini - Warehouse /Office Building on a 112,184 Square Foot Parcel Located at 875 Los Angeles Avenue, at the Northwest Corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Goldman Avenue, on the Application of Asadurian Investments (Assessor Parcel No. 511 -0- 070-55). (Continued from March 25, 2002, Public Hearing closed,). Staff Recommendation: 1) Re -open the public hearing, accept public testimony and discuss the revised project, and close the public hearing; 2) Consider the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared for the requested entitlements prior to making a recommendation to the City Council; 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending to the City PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 13, 2002 Page 3 Council to deny Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -10. 9) DISCUSSION ITEMS: 10) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: 11) ADJOURNMENT: ITEM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 30, 1997 Paae 1 The Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June 30, 1997, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Acosta called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Miller led the pledge of allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Chairman Acosta, Commissioners Lowenberg, Miller, and Norcross were present at the meeting. Commissioner Millhouse was absent. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Community Development Director; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None 5. REORDERING OF THE AGENDA By consensus of the Commission, Item 10.A. was reordered. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 8. CONSENT CALENDAR None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Study Session Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 97.04 - Consider revisions to Chapter 17.20, Uses by Zone, regarding the allowable uses in each zone and revisions to Chapter 17.44, Entitlement Process and Procedures. Location Citywide. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission continue their review of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and upon completion direct staff to F 1997 -06 -30 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 30, 1997 2 prepare a resolution to the City Council incorporating all recommended changes. (Continued from June 9, 1997) The Commission discussed at length allowable uses and purposes of open space, agricultural, and residential zones, and by consensus continued this item to July 28, 1997, when the Planning Commission will continue their review and focus on discussions of the Zoning Code as it relates to commercial and industrial uses. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Planning Commission Meeting Calendar There were no changes to the Planning Commission's scheduled meeting dates. 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS or FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ATTEST: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director William F. Otto, Chair for Ernesto Acosta, Chairman F 1997 -06 -30 pcm ITEM (40 . Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 14, 1997 Page - 1 - The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on July 14, 1997, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark, California, 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Miller led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3. ROLL CALL Chairman Acosta, Commissioners Lowenberg, Miller, Norcross, and Millhouse were present at the meeting. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None S. REORDERING OF THE AGENDA None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 8. CONSENT CALENDAR None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consider request for Industrial Planned Development Permit No(s) : IPD -97.1 and IPD -97.2, Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -1 (Morehead). A proposal to construct an automotive lube and tune facility and one warehouse /industrial building on one parcel. Automotive Lube and Tune Building 2312 square foot, Warehouse /Industrial Building 4992 square feet. Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -1 for proposed automobile F 1997 -07 -14 pan Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 14, 1997 Page - 2 - repair use. Located northwest corner of Los Angeles and Goldman Avenues, in the City of Moorpark. Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 511 -0 -151 -065 and 075. Staff Recommendation: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony. 2. Review, consider, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. Review and adopt the proposed mitigation monitoring program. 4. Make the appropriate findings and adopt the attached resolution recommending to the City Council, Industrial Planned Development Permits 97 -1 and 97 -2, and Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -1. (Continued from June 9, 1997) (Resolution No. PC -97 -339) MOTION: Commissioner Lowenberg moved and Commissioner Miller seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -97- 339, recommending to the City Council approval of Industrial Planned Development Permits 97 -1 and 97 -2, and Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -1. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. B. Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -03 (Qwest Communications) to construct a 320 square foot modular building to house fiber optic telephone network equipment in the Southern Pacific right -of -way on a 2,300 square foot site. Staff Recommendation: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony. 2. Determine that the project is Categorically Exempt as a Class 3 Exemption for the construction or conversion of small structures. 3. Adopt the attached Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -03 with conditions. (Resolution No. PC -97 -340) MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner Lowenberg seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC- 97 -340. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 97.04 - Consider revisions to Chapter 17.20, Uses by Zone, regarding the allowable uses in each zone and revisions to Chapter 17.44, Entitlement Process and Procedures. Location Citywide. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission continue their review of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and upon completion direct staff to prepare a Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 14, 1997 Paste - 3 - resolution to the City Council incorporating all recommended changes. (Continued from June 30, 1997.) CONSENSUS: By consensus of the Commission this item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1997. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS None 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS or FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m. William F. Otto, Chair for Ernesto Acosta, Chairman ATTEST: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director TT EM 6�> . C Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 28, 1997 Page - 1 - The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on July 28, 1997, in the City Council Chambers, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Acosta called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Bart Miller led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3. ROLL CALL Chairman Acosta, Commissioners Lowenberg, Miller, Norcross, and Millhouse were present at the meeting. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; Paul Porter, Principal Planner; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None 5. REORDERING OF THE AGENDA None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 8. CONSENT CALENDAR None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consider Tentative Tract Map No. 5056, Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 96 -3, and Conditional Use Permit No. 96 -2 (A. Deewayne Jones) . A proposal to subdivide an existing 4.05 acre parcel into three parcels of .78, .78 and 2.49 acres; and Commercial Planned Development Permit (CPD) No. 96 -3 - A request for a 3,900 square foot restaurant (Building F 1997 -07 -28 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 28, 1997 Page - 2 - A) on Lot 1, 3,400 square foot restaurant (Building B) on Lot 2 and a two -story 50,000 square feet. Office /Retail building on Lot 3 for a total building area of 57,300 square feet; and Conditional Use Permit increase from a maximum a 50 ft. high tower approval of a Condition a maximum height in the (CPD) Zone of 60 feet. (CUP) No. 96 -2 - To allow an height of 35 feet to allow for element for Building C with al Use Permit which allows for Commercial Planned Development Location: The property is located on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue, east of Shasta Avenue, immediately east of the terminus of Everest Street, and contiguous with the southwest quadrant of Mission Bell - Phase 2 (Assessor's Parcel No. 511- 08 -42). Existing General Plan Designation /C -2 General Commercial. Staff Recommendation: 1. Open the Public Hearing and accept public testimony. 2. Review and consider the information in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. Review and consider the proposed mitigation monitoring program. 4. Make the appropriate findings (see Attachment 1 - Resolution) . S. Adopt the attached Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 96 -3, and deferring action and recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 92 -2 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 5056. MOTION: Chairman Acosta moved and Commissioner Lowenberg seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation including staff recommended revisions relating to removing a condition to underground utilities north and west of the property, redesign the parking along southerly corner of two -story office building, additional landscaping around building, and modification of window treatments on (restaurant) buildings, including the following modifications. (Resolution No. PC -97 -341) 1. Traffic System Management fee be reviewed and recalculated and included in the staff report recommendation to City Council. F 1997 -07 -28 pan Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 28, 1997 - 3 - 2. Provide CCR's to include restrictions for employee parking and shared tenant parking for Commercial Planned Development Permit (CPD) No. 96 -3. 3. Revise the hours of operation for commercial center to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. 4. Allow left turn into the center from Los Angeles Avenue until the City completes street improvements. 5. Reduce the height of the tower element of the two story building to be more in scale with the size of the building, relocate the trash areas away from the residences, and relocate outside second story deck areas away from residential properties. Motion passed with a 3:2 voice vote. Commissioner Millhouse and Norcross voting NO. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 97.04 - Consider revisions to Chapter 17.20, Uses by Zone, regarding the allowable uses in each zone, also revisions to Chapter 17.44, Entitlement Process and Procedures. Location Citywide. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission continue their review of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and upon completion direct staff to prepare a resolution to the City Council incorporating all recommended changes. (Continued from June 30, 1997). CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Commission adjourned to a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on July 31, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS None 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS or FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None F 1997 -07 -28 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 28, 1997 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ATTEST: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director Page - 4 - William F. Otto, Chair for Ernesto Acosta, Chairman F 1997 -07 -28 pcm i Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 31, 1997 Page - 1 - The Adjourned Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on July 31, 1997, in the Moorpark Civic Center Conference Room, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Acosta called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE None 3. ROLL CALL Chairman Acosta, Commissioners Lowenberg, Miller, and Norcross were present. Commissioner Keith Millhouse was absent. Staff attending the meeting included the Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None 5. REORDERING OF THE AGENDA None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 8. CONSENT CALENDAR None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 97.04 - Consider revisions to Chapter 17.20, Uses by Zone, regarding the allowable uses in each zone and also revisions to Chapter 17.44, Entitlement Process and Procedures. Location Citywide. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission continue their review of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and upon completion direct staff to prepare a resolution to the City Council incorporating all recommended changes. The Commission reviewed Chapter 17.20.060 - Permitted Uses In Commercial and Industrial Zones (Airfields through Crop Production) and provided the following recommendations (recommendations provided in UPPERCASE). Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 31, 1997 Paqe - 2 - Table 17.20.060 PERMITTED USES IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES ♦ Permitted by zone clearance ■ Administrative permit • Planning commission- approved planned development permit 0 City council- approved planned development permit O Planning commission- approved conditional use permit +ll► City council- approved conditional use permit Air-fields and landing pads and strips, private Airports NO CHANGE Amusement and recreational facilities (see definitions) Amusement parks and carnivals NO CHANGE Arcades NO CHANGE (Discussed arcade definition change.) Batting cages and golf driving ranges, indoor NO CHANGE Bicycle racing tracks, outdoor NO CHANGE Health club /gymnasium (see definitions) NO CHANGE Martial arts and dance studios CUP IN M -1 ZONE Motion picture theaters, outdoor (drive -in) NO CHANGE Raeetmeks- (for motorized vehicles), shooting ranges and stadiums Art galleries, museums and botanical gardens NO CHANGE Automobile service stations DELETE FROM M -1 & 2 Banks and related financial offices and institutions NO CHANGE C2 CO C1 CPD M1 M2 I O O O O O • O O O O O O O O O • • O • O O O O PROHIBITED • O Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 31, 1997 Page 3 Table 17.20.060 PERMITTED USES IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES ♦ Permitted by zone clearance ■ Administrative permit • Planning commission- approved planned development permit 0 City council- approved planned development permit O Planning commission- approved conditional use permit f City council- approved conditional use permit Bars, taverns and nightclubs' CHANGE TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVED CUP Care facilities: For 9-7 or more persons' (see also H &SC and W &IC) CUP IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES Day"3 Intermediate and residential Car washes, self - service or automatic NO MI & 2 AND SAME AS A UTO SERVICE AS A CITY COUNCIL APPROVED CPD Cemeteries, columbaria and mausoleums Crematoria, accessory NO CHANGE Churches, synagogues and other buildings used for religious worships NO CHANGE Clubhouses With alcoholic beverages NO MI & M2 CLUBHOUSES WITH OR WITHOUT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Club projects, temporary outdoor Communications facilities NO CHANGE Radio and television broadcasting stations NO CHANGE Conference center /convention center NO CHANGE C2 CO C1 CPD M1 M2 I • • • O O O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O • • O O O • O • O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 31, 1997 Page 4 Table 17.20.060 PERMITTED USES IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES ♦ Permitted by zone clearance ■ Administrative permit • Planning commission- approved planned development permit 0 City council- approved planned development permit O Planning commission- approved conditional use permit • City council- approved conditional use permit Contractor service and storage yards and buildings NO CHANGE Crop production PERMITTED BY ZONE CLEARANCE Firewood operations Uses and structures, accessory Dwelling, farm worker (maximum one per lot) Fuel storage Offices Packing, preliminary processing, or storage of crops: Without structures Produce stands, retail NO CHANGE C2 CO C1 CPD M1 M2 I O O O O O O O CONSENSUS: By consensus of the Planning Commission this item was continued to a public hearing on Thursday, August 7, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS None 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS or FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 31, 1997 Page 5 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. William F. Otto, Chair for Ernesto Acosta, Chairman ATTEST: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director ITEM-6 � Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 7, 1997 Page 1 The Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on August 7, 1997, in the Moorpark Civic Center Conference Room, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Acosta called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE None 3. ROLL CALL Chairman Acosta, Commissioners Lowenberg, Miller, Norcross, Millhouse were present at the meeting. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None 5. REORDERING OF THE AGENDA None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 8. CONSENT CALENDAR None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 97.04 - Consider revisions to Chapter 17.20, Uses by Zone, regarding the allowable uses in each zone, and also revisions to Chapter 17.44, Entitlement Process and Procedures. Location Citywide. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission continued review of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and upon completion direct staff to prepare a resolution to the City Council incorporating all recommended changes. F 1997 -08 -07 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 7, 1997 Pane 2 The Commission reviewed Chapter 17.20.060 - Permitted Uses In Commercial and Industrial Zones (Airfields through Crop Production). No recommendations were made at this time. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS None 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS or FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Chamber of Commerce invitation to participate in Moorpark Country Days Parade. Received and filed. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ATTEST: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director William F. Otto, Chair for Ernesto Acosta, Chairman F 1997 -08 -07 pcm ITEM G . F. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 11, 1997 Pane 1 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on August 11, 1997, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Acosta called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Miller led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3. ROLL CALL Chairman Acosta, Commissioners Lowenberg, Miller, Norcross, Millhouse were present at the meeting. All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff attending included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; Deborah Traffenstedt, Principal Planner; Lee Anne Hagmire, RRM Consultants; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary;. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None 5. REORDERING OF THE AGENDA None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 8. CONSENT CALENDAR None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consider Specific Plan No. 95 -1 (Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan) General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, Zone Change No. 97 -5 (City of Moorpark). Proposal: The proposed project consists of: (1) A General Plan Land Use Element Amendment to revise the land use designations shown on the Land Use Plan (Exhibit 3) for various properties within the Specific Plan area and to amend the Land Use Element text pertaining to land use classifications; (2) A Zone Change to revise Title 17, F 1997 -0 8-11 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 11, 1997 Page 2 Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code to include new zoning standards, revise the list of permitted uses, and to revise the City Zoning Map for the Specific Plan area; and (3) Adoption of the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan, which includes land use and zoning maps, a streetscape beautification program, pedestrian and traffic circulation improvements, and specific design guidelines and development standards to guide future development within the Specific Plan area. Staff Recommendation: l.Open the public hearing and accept public testimony on the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change; and 2. Discuss issues identified in the staff report Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee Report, and continue public hearing to August 25, 1997; and 3. Direct staff to prepare a draft resolution recommending approval of the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, subject to incorporation of Specific Plan revisions as identified by the Planning Commission. Location: The Specific Plan area includes High Street, at its core, along with other parts of Downtown Moorpark, such as residential neighborhoods to the north of High Street, the railroad right -of -way south of High Street, and the properties along Moorpark Avenue from City Hall south to Los Angeles Avenue. The Specific Plan area also extends east of Spring Road, between Flinn Avenue and High Street /Los Angeles Avenue. The Draft Downtown Specific Plan was presented to the Commission by Leeann Hagmire, RRM Consultants. Testimony received from the following: John Newton, 165 High Street, Moorpark, California. Mr. Newton identified members in the Downtown Committee as local merchants and business owners and said he was in support of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan. Lori Rutter, 11611 Pinedale Road, Moorpark, California. Ms. Rutter was generally supportive of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan, but had concerns of potential displacement of residents, and highway impacts. Colin Velazquez, 476 W. Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, California. Mr. Velazquez was opposed to down- zoning C -2 F 1997.0 8-11 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 11, 1997 Page 3 to C -1. Mr. Velazquez said that C -2 provided for more development. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette, Moorpark, California. Ms. Brown said that all improvements would be made at the expense of the property owner's own money and this would be an obstacle for the property owners. Ms. Brown was concerned that this proposal would create illegal non- conforming uses. Deborah Tash, 5777 Balcom Canyon Road, Moorpark, California. Ms. Tash said she was the owner of the Texaco gasoline station on High Street. Ms. Tash said the current requirements for development in the downtown area were not economical for the property owners. Joy Cummings, 650 Bard Street, Moorpark, California. Ms. Cummings said she has lived in the downtown area since 1973. Ms. Cummings said she was concerned that Charles Street remain a residential neighborhood, and was opposed to second dwelling units. Ms. Cummings' recommendation was that Charles Street be zoned at R -1. Sandy Liddell, 261 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, California. Ms. Liddell asked who of Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee represented the Day Labors. Mr. Will Whitaker from the audience responded that there was no representative at the committee meetings. Gerald Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, California. Mr. Goldstein commented that the downtown playground (park site) needed restrooms for the public. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner Norcross seconded a motion to continued this matter to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1997. Motion passed with a 5:0 voice vote. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS None 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS or FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None F 1997 -08-11 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 11, 1997 12. ADJOURNMENT e 4 The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director William F. Otto, Chair for Ernesto Acosta, Chairman F 1997 -08-11 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, Minutes of April 8, 2002 �0.0 California Page - 1 - The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on April 8, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) CALL TO ORDER: Chair Otto called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Landis led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: William F. Otto, Chair Kipp Landis, Vice Chair Mark DiCecco Paul Haller Janice Parvin Commissioner's DiCecco, Haller and Parvin, Vice Chair Landis and Chair Otto were all present. Staff attending the meeting included Deborah Traffenstedt, Acting Community Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; Jim Alcala, Associate Engineer; Tom Doyle, Electrical Consultant; Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analyst; and Gail Rice, Secretary II. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: A) Regular Meeting Minutes of January 27, 1997 B) Regular Meeting Minutes of May 12, 1997 C) Regular Meeting Minutes of May 27, 1997 D) Special Meeting Minutes of June 9, 1997 E) Regular Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1997 F) Regular Meeting Minutes of February 11, 2002 S /community development /everyone /planning commission minutes1020408 draft pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 8, 2002 Page - 2 - Chair Otto stated that a correction should be made to page 1 of the May 27, 1997 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes. The date May 27, 2001, should be changed to read May 27, 1997. MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Haller seconded a motion that the Planning Commission minutes of the January 27, 1997; May 12, 1997; May 27, 1997; June 9, 1997, June 23, 1997; and February 1, 2002, meetings be approved collectively, with a correction to the May 27, 1997 minutes, as noted. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. 7) PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 8) PUBLIC HEARINGS: A) Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2002 -01, An Amendment to Ordinance No. 195 "Carlsberg Specific Plan Land Use Regulations" and Minor Modification No. 4 to Carlsberg Specific Plan (SP 92 -01) Regarding Lighting Regulations, on the Application of Zelman Retail Partners, Inc. Staff Recommendations: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, discuss issues identified in the staff report, and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC- 2002 -423 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -01 and Minor Modification No. 4 to the Carlsberg Specific Plan, subject to conditions of approval. Dave Bobardt gave the staff presentation and introduced Tom Doyle, Chief Electrical Engineer of Dahl, Taylor and Associates who the City has retained to review the applicant's lighting proposal. CONSENSUS: By consensus the Commission acknowledged receipt of a letter dated April 8, 2002, from Andy Powell, Lighting Design Alliance requesting a change in the allowable discrepancy rate from ten percent (10 %) to fifteen percent. Chair Otto opened the public hearing. S /community development /everyone /planning commission minutes /020408 - draft pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 8, 2002 Page - 3 - Robert Exel: Applicant's representative, Zelman Retail Partners; 515 South Figueroa, Suite 1230; Los Angeles, CA. Mr. Exel stated that he had no presentation, but was available for questions from the Planning Commission or staff. Brian Wolfe: Architect, P &R Architects; ill W. Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, CA. Mr. Wolfe stated that he had no presentation, but was available for questions from the Planning Commission or staff. The Commission had no questions for the applicant. Chair Otto closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Chair Otto invited discussion from the Commission, which included: • Commissioner DiCecco commented that there is a trade off with 25 -foot poles, offering more landscaping and also less light fixtures result in less energy use. • Commissioner Haller commented that he had no issues with 25 foot poles, drop down lens, nor reducing the number of poles. • Chair Otto questioned Mr. Doyle on how this lighting proposal compared to other cities and wanted to be sure there is no glare into resident's backyards. Mr. Doyle answered that the proposed ratio is reasonable and he has seen similar ratios in other installations. MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Vice Chair Landis seconded a motion to approve staff recommendations, adopting Resolution No. PC- 2002 -423 recommending to City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -01 and Minor Modification No. 4 to Carlsberg Specific Plan (SP 92 -01), with a revision to Condition No. 2 of Minor Modification No. 4, changing the allowable discrepancy rate from ten percent (10 %) to fifteen percent (15 %) . Motion carried with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. S /community development /everyone /planning commission minutes /020408 - draft pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 8, 2002 Page - 4 - 9) DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. 10) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: • April 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled. • April 24, 2002, will be a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting. • May 13, 2002, Planning Commission meeting will re -visit Asadurian Investments, Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -10. • The Master Sign Program for Moorpark Marketplace to be scheduled for review by the Planning Commission in the near future. 11) ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Chair Otto moved and Vice Chair Landis seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Motion carried by a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. William F. Otto, Chair Attest: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director S /community development /everyone /planning commission minutes /020408 - draft pcm I MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSIOM AGENDA REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Porter, Principal Plannez<4D, Deborah Traffenstedt, Acting Director of Community Development � �7 DATE: May 9, 2002 (PC Meeting of May 13, 2002 - continued from March 25, 2002)- SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2000 -10 ON THE APPLICATION OF ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 118,650 SQUARE FOOT MINI - WAREHOUSE /OFFICE BUILDING ON A 112,195 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL LOCATED AT 875 LOS ANGELES AVENUE WHICH IS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE LOS ANGELES AVENUE AND GOLDMAN AVENUE, ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 511 -0- 070 -55 BACKGROUND: This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2001 and continued to November 13, 2001 (public hearing open) to allow the applicant time to address Planning Commission recommended modifications. The revised project submitted to the Planning Commission for review at the continued public hearing on November 13, 2001 included increasing the size of the project from 116,811 square feet to 148,010 square feet. As a result of the substantial increase in square footage of the project combined with the new three -story building, the project was taken off calendar with direction to staff to readvertise the public hearing after the applicant made the requested revisions to the plans. The applicant subsequently revised the project, and a readvertised Planning Commission public hearing was scheduled for March 25, 2002. At the Planning Commission hearing on March 25, 2002, the Planning Commission established an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Commissioners Janice Parvin and Mark DiCecco to discuss additional revisions to the architectural design IPD 2000 -10 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 of the building to make it more compatible with other industrial buildings in the surrounding area. Comments offered by the Planning Commission on March 25, 2002 included the following: • Architecture of the building needs more work to address size and compatibility issues. • The Planning Commission was divided as to whether the project could be deemed compatible with the City's General Plan. • There may be a need for an additional self - storage facility, as housing in the City does not provide sufficient storage. In addition to the above, Commissioner Haller requested the applicant prepare a study evaluating items such as the number of employees, number of storage facilities, square footage of facility, etc. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval to the City Council, including findings in support of storage need and draft conditions of approval. DISCUSSION: On April 22, 2002, the Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Commissioners Parvin and DiCecco met with the applicant's architect and staff to discuss architectural modifications to this project. In response to Ad Hoc Committee comments, the applicant submitted revised plans on May 2, 2002, which incorporate the following revisions: • The number of "pop- outs" along Los Angeles Avenue and Goldman Avenue have been increased and modified. • The overall height of the buildings has been reduced by a minimum of two feet. • Trellis elements have been added in between the "pop - outs" for landscaping purposes. • The architectural design of the corner elevator tower has been modified to blend in with the rest of the building. • Additional detail has been added to the cap piece. • End units that had false "glazing" have been removed. • Plaster now occurs only at the "pop- outs" with other construction material to be split -face masonry. In addition, the color of all masonry and plaster now matches. • Accent openings are provided in location of "pop- outs ". Accent openings are approximately eight inches deep and IPD 2000 -10 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 3 have a wrought iron type metal cross bar placed over the openings. • Where accent openings are not used, ceramic tile accents have been added. • Ground level windows at the office areas are placed between the arched openings and second -floor office area casement windows are recessed. At the time of preparation of this staff report, staff had not yet received a color and materials board, revised conceptual lighting plan or the revised conceptual landscape plan rendering the resubmitted application for purposes of filing incomplete. Therefore, a recommendation regarding color compatibility and landscaping_ cannot be determined at this time. On May 8, 2002, the Ad Hoc meeting reviewed the applicant's revised plans and offered additional recommendations for modification, and confirmed the need to review the revised color and materials board as well as the landscape plan. In general, the Ad Hoc Committee indicated a desire to have more building articulation along each of the elevations. Specific Ad Hoc Committee recommendations regarding the need for additional articulation for the building elevations include the following: South Elevation • Add watertable of splitface block with a stucco foam cap to the pavilions with the arched elements. The watertable should stop approximately 9 inches below the springline of the arches. Foam trim painted in accent color should be added around the arches. • The recessed accent with the metal trim should be twice as big, and centered where it is currently located. A foam trim should be added around the recess. The metal accent constructed of wrought iron would provide a decorative addition. • The size of the recessed accent with glazed block should be multicolored, centered in its present location and increased to approximately twice the existing size. • Trellis elements should be more ornate, with band sawn details located on the ends. The ends of the trellis element are too far from the support posts and will tend to warp and sag over time. Also, there IPD 2000 -10 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 4 is a need for approximately twice the amount of projecting elements as shown on the revised plans. • The tower element as proposed appears plain for the prominence of the corner. The addition of a split face watertable element to the tower and decorative recesses similar to the pavilions would provide addition interest to the tower element. East Elevation • Foam trim painted with an accent color should be located around the stucco pavilions. • Foam trim should be added around the windows. • A small square or two glazed blocks with decorative accent centered over each window half way between the top of the window trim and bottom of the cornice should be added. • The pavilion located at the northeast corner should have similar treatment as the pavilions located on the south elevation. • A landscape buffer should be added between the pavilion and the parking stall. • Gate pilasters are spaced to far apart (also not the same number as on the plan). • Same comment regarding the trellis and the cornice. West Elevation • Same comments as south elevation North Elevation • Same comments as south elevation In addition to the Ad Hoc Committee's comments on the revised project, staff has remaining design concerns. Staff does not believe that the Fire District requirement of an access road width of 30 feet is achieved with the project as designed, if parking is to be permitted for loading and unloading of storage units within the access road width. The City's standard parking stall width is 9 feet. One parked standard vehicle would reduce the drive aisle width to approximately 21 feet. Two rows of parked vehicles would reduce the aisle width to 12 feet. A parked moving van would require an even wider parking area width. No loading area parking stalls have been provided within IPD 2000 -10 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 5 the complex convenient to elevators. All of the parking spaces for this proposed project have been placed outside of the gated storage complex. The exterior elevation facing Goldman Avenue inaccurately reflects the parking and fencing location. In addition to parking and access concerns, staff's opinion is that the amount of landscaping along the northerly and westerly elevations is inadequate to achieve any attractive tree canopy. Another concern of staff is that this project may also be affected by the flood insurance study currently under preparation for the Calleguas Creek watershed (Arroyo Simi in Moorpark), which could result in a higher building pad elevation for the project site. Staff does not have enough information at this time to reach a conclusion on this issue. Moorpark - Asadurian Project Statistics Study In response to Commissioner Haller's request, the applicant has supplied a needs study, which was received on May 1, 2002. This study provides population within a three- (3) mile radius, number of storage facilities within a three - (3) mile radius, percent of occupancy, facility square feet, per capita usage, floor area ratio, and average number of employees for the cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Port Hueneme and Santa Paula. The applicant will be prepared to discuss the contents of the study (Attachment No. 3) at the public hearing on May 13, 2002. Inconsistencv with General Plan Goals and Policies The applicant has made significant modifications to the architectural elements of this project, such as reducing the height, adding and modifying colors and materials and other architectural elements to the proposed building, intended to make the project more consistent with the industrial projects in the surrounding area. However, staff remains concerned that this project is in conflict with City General Plan Land Use Element Goal 13, Policies 13.1 and 13.2 (Economic Development and Employment) which encourage a balanced jobs /housing ratio and new commercial and industrial uses which generate long- term employment opportunities and diversify the community's employment base. At this time the City has insufficient jobs for the number of existing and proposed houses and has limited remaining undeveloped commercial /industrial land in which to create a jobs /housing balance. The concern is IPD 2000 -10 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 6 that the proposed mini - warehouse (storage) facility will not generate long -term employment opportunities or assist the City with its goal of maintaining a jobs /housing balance. Inconsistency with Land Use Element Recommended .38 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for Medium Industrial Land Use Category The Land Use Element includes a .38 FAR as a component of the Medium Industrial (I -2) land use category description. The size of the proposed project remains inconsistent with the .38 FAR density and intensity assumption for the I -2 land use category and is out of scale with the size of other industrial development in the area. For example, the FAR for neighboring buildings is as follows: Jiffy Lube to the east (.28), industrial building to the north (.48), A -Z Storage (.76). The FAR for the Moorpark Stow -It located at 12160 Poindexter Avenue is .32. This project has a FAR of 1.02, which is significantly greater than the recommended .38 FAR for new construction in the Medium Industrial (I -2) land use designation and other existing developments in the area. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to California State law, an evaluation has been conducted to determine if the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment, and based upon an Initial Study and analysis of available information, it was found that there is substantial evidence that the potential impacts of the proposed project on the environment will not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration is recommended to be adopted in compliance with the State of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA). SUMMARY: The Ad Hoc Committee has provided comments regarding the need for additional revisions to building elevations. A complete review of revised plans could not be completed due to the incomplete submittal of the revised plans (no color board, conceptual lighting plan or revised landscaping plan were received). Although the revised architecture appears more compatible with surrounding development in comparison to the last submittal, additional design enhancement has IPD 2000 -10 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 7 been requested by the Ad Hoc Committee and staff, and a concern remains regarding General Plan consistency. To summarize, unresolved land use and design issues include: • The FAR of the project significantly exceeds the .38 FAR designated for the Medium Industrial land use category. • The design of the facility is not compatible with the scale and visual character of the surrounding area. The project will not enhance the Los Angeles Avenue corridor. • The project does not provide any substantive economic benefit or assist in achievement of a jobs /housing balance. The revised project application has been deemed incomplete. Staff has included a resolution recommending denial of the project as an attachment to this agenda report. Based on the Planning Commission's specific request at the March 25 meeting for an approval resolution including findings and conditions of approval, staff has also included a draft resolution recommending approval as an attachment to this agenda report. Based on the incomplete application, the Planning Commission should not take an action recommending approval until all required application components are submitted for the revised project. To avoid readvertisement of the public hearing, continuance of the public hearing would need to be to a date certain meeting. If the Planning Commission's decision is to continue the public hearing, staff also recommends that the applicant be directed to incorporate the Ad Hoc Committee and staff design recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Motion to reopen the public hearing, accept public testimony, discuss the revised project, and close the public hearing. 2. Consider the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared for the requested entitlements prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. IPD 2000 -10 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 8 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending to the City Council denial of Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -10. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission staff report dated March 25, 2002 hearing 2. Project Exhibits 3. Moorpark Asadurian Statistics Study 4. Initial Study and Negative Declaration 5. Draft Resolution - recommending denial 6. Draft Resolution - recommending approval MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Porter, Principal PlanneQ)_ Deborah Traffenstedt, Acting Director of Community Development DATE: March 11, 2002 (PC Meeting of March 25, 2002) SUBJECT: Consider Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -10, a request to Construct an Approximately 113,994 Square Foot Mini - Warehouse /Office Building on a 112,184 Square Foot Parcel Located at 875 Los Angeles Avenue, at the Northwest Corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Goldman Avenue, on the Application of Asadurian Investments (Assessor Parcel No. 511 -0- 070 -55) BACKGROUND: This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2001 and continued to November 13, 2001 (public hearing open) to allow the applicant time to address Planning Commission recommended modifications. Recommended Planning Commission modifications included enhanced landscaping along Los Angeles and Goldman Avenues; increase the stacking distance at the entry; modifications to the architecture for the building elevations; increasing the interior truck turning radius; increasing the width of the reciprocal easement with the property to the west; increasing building setbacks along Los Angeles and Goldman Avenues; and reducing the setback along the western property line. The revised project submitted to the Planning Commission for review at the continued public hearing on November 13, 2001 had been extensively revised including increasing the size of the project from 116,811 square feet to 148,010 square feet, a twenty -seven percent (27 %) increase. Buildings B and C originally proposed to be interior two - story buildings separated by a drive aisle were replaced with one three -story building with elevators rather than a ramp providing access to the upper levels. As a result of ATTACHMENT I IPD 2000 -10 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 the substantial increase in square footage of the project combined with the new three -story building, the project was taken off calendar with direction to staff to re- advertise the public hearing once the applicant made the requested revisions to the plans. DISCUSSION: Since the continued Planning Commission hearing on November 13, 2001, the applicant has modified the proposed project to incorporate Planning Commission and staff recommended changes to the plot plan and elevations. These revised elevations, which are attached for the Planning Commission's review, have incorporated the following modifications: • Additional glazing along New Los Angeles Avenue and Goldman Avenue. • The tower on the corner incorporates clear glazing that allows the elevator to be seen from the street. • Color of the buildings have been rearranged to provide additional interest. • The interior building has been modified so that as it is viewed from Goldman, it provides additional interest. • What was two buildings has been consolidated to one building. • The access gate and fence is constructed of tubular steel to allow view of the interior of the site from Goldman Avenue. • The number of parking spaces has been increased to thirteen (13), which includes two (2) within a garage. • The stacking area adjacent to Goldman Avenue has been increased to 53' -011, not including the sidewalk area. • Internal circulation of the site has been modified per the Engineering Department's request. • Additional landscaping has been added due to setbacks, etc. • Approximately 618" of landscaping has been provided along the northerly property line. • The building setback along Los Angeles Avenue has been increased to thirty feet (301) with a minimum setback of twenty feet (201) along Goldman Avenue. • The reciprocal access easement along the westerly property line will remain and has increased by approximately five feet (51). IPD 2000 -10 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 3 • Building A has been placed closer to the west property line to eliminate the dead area between the project site and the adjacent property. CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING ORDINANCE, GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES: As revised, the proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Code requirements regarding setbacks, height, landscaping and parking. However, there is a concern that this project is in conflict with several goals and policies of the City General Plan (Land Use Element) , in particular Goal 13, Policy 13.1 and 13.2 (Economic Development and Employment) which encourages a balanced job /housing ratio, and new commercial and industrial uses which generate long- term employment opportunities and diversify the community's employment base. At this time the City has insufficient jobs for the number of proposed houses and has limited remaining undeveloped commercial /industrial land in which to create a housing /job balance. The concern is that a Mini - Warehouse facility does not generate long -term employment opportunities or assist the City with it's goal of maintaining a housing /job balance. Policy 17.2 (Community Appearance) of the Land Use Element states that new development shall be compatible with the scale and visual character of the surrounding neighborhood. Although the applicant has responded to Planning Commission and staff comments, the size of the building could be considered out of scale with the size other industrial developments in the area. The recommended Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Land Use Element for the Medium Industrial (I- 2) land use designation is .38. With this project, the gross site area is 112,184 square feet with a floor area of 113,994 which provides a 1.02 FAR which is greater than'the recommended FAR for Medium Industrial (I -2) land use designation. Section 17.44.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a Planned Development Permit is a permit based on a discretionary decision required prior to initiation of uses. As a discretionary permit, the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council approval or denial of this project based on compliance with Ordinance criteria as well as consistency with goals and policies contained within the City's General Plan. IPD 2000 -10 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 4 Should the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of this project, staff has included a draft resolution and recommended conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to California State law, an evaluation has been conducted to determine if the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment, and based upon an Initial Study and analysis of available information, it was found that there is substantial evidence that the potential effects of the proposed project on the environment will not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a Negative Declaration is recommended to be adopted in compliance with the State of California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA). The public review period for the Negative Declaration was from September 6, 2001, to October 6, 2001. RECOM14ENDATIONS: 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Consider the Negative Declaration prepared for the requested entitlements prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC 2002- recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -10. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission staff report dated September 24, 2001 2. Planning Commission staff report dated November 13, 2001 3. Project Exhibits 4. Draft Resolution k� 0 i z IN i r�� G - - - NEW LDS ANGELES AVENUE- _ - - - - - VacmW -Mee OVERALL. SITU00F PLAN —�- MOORPARKADVANCE STORAGE P�SADURIAN IN1/ESTMENTS -z ^ f-w Associates ��/��u��' MOOR PARK 875 P!'W LOS MIC$SAVB�R� eN[ ao aaH • laia �Arcn��<uure < «i [cca« i L1�V:ry IfIVV�V a V till VIV \� �" G:�i�2) �al0e� 01!01 �M • )Ia��TAW 1r Hi7 am0i s�5 rvEw cos ar�aa a APW19 MZCT DATA urr./e lne olere WA" VIM ra ali ft w rl/IrCTrI TTIe TR N 11�11p •� H a! C �ansuen► w ars r nrewo i roaa wat pfm rre me v •ar rem nr m i PIN Vill I Fill, i r�� G - - - NEW LDS ANGELES AVENUE- _ - - - - - VacmW -Mee OVERALL. SITU00F PLAN —�- MOORPARKADVANCE STORAGE P�SADURIAN IN1/ESTMENTS -z ^ f-w Associates ��/��u��' MOOR PARK 875 P!'W LOS MIC$SAVB�R� eN[ ao aaH • laia �Arcn��<uure < «i [cca« i L1�V:ry IfIVV�V a V till VIV \� �" G:�i�2) �al0e� 01!01 �M • )Ia��TAW 1r Hi7 am0i s�5 rvEw cos ar�aa a APW19 MZCT DATA urr./e lne olere WA" VIM I PIZ ali ft w rl/IrCTrI TTIe TR N 11�11p mm eur Mm IOIailTall H a! C �ansuen► w ars r nrewo i roaa wat pfm rre me v •ar rem nr m yr IAN! FM naa�� o s is rmm r wwhva rra�rl rla IfELrtbfR aww. rrw 11111l1a a sr�ras I�ae MME ro= aaalt6 a MOIL ear n � w� [•m uaula a� w rNw rwre w«a INCA IWA INCs INCA nos INCA INCA INCA INCA INCA INCA INCs nps INCA BUILDING A - FIRST LEVEL sla sw siu ma Ar. as ea ras .w sr sw Am Am nrA n.A w ArA re r a a w °a 1 i 11 An. 1 1 AIAA y GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANS ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS 0� MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE eC�� ^,M21 �°°I.. °� °«° [ M001�/1RK, C/H11OWIL►930Z1 nwds .s.I amsl 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, CAUFORMA F� 53"2" I• oI eo 5�ao26s QNeAA ww,�wa�a. .y,AS,�e..� 'd a - F �7-1- 00' 7z!, 9 I-]- 7.D - 194 lip 'A ........... yka Pq Mo M *A to V* I W! so be 0 000000a000 °aoo °0000 0 Aa�i 3 i' i �i LL�L- s! ..r i I I iCSs I �1 1 k -it$o, -arayn 7< are ri zm� i Lul y� I z °� oWg PUM �I W� l � f wps 80; me 1 co PJpvvrTAL OAZW U mm " WRammumm Km 0 aw ftmm mm Accw phum w CRA LA WM WU WKNAM FM At= Z" w om LA WAN " WNUM aw Fin WAM am Almm IK= MM ow— So -mm AIVW "mu w OW RAHMMAL A=ff MM LA WATA *5 WKWA - MM L4 WAIA No bNaMcm?m IIAQ titux MW KAN= CLO AUM AM WAY— ! IA WArA"liJkM=— ow We 1�r 'ALM eafts 11999 wm OUT ------- _b EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FACING WEST FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY DGERIOR ELEVATIONS ASADURIAN INVESTMEN"Y'"S &"iF ,7 MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE 5Q 875NWUXA14GREAVEME r.-A 00 acy 14 ff lk'%� Allikltllt.11 R,.l E,l... UWlW^rA4JF0lM9=1 *&'&m aW*' mmaftft" Ift"07 Tlyusm.lom m 530.0m mocral 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AMNJF, MOORPAIK CAUFORNIA KVVOI =J= 4 cullolaw FACWALE S30,0264 fown"l: rTarra aw wm Otte atA rereutt rrealts WTILL MM— mom Pm w w Rm rISM era =A m" RR: t WM &W IaA ANIM RM!tat WAT— 00101" aU. Y.y rem mm rn mom- - t- -- cm liM. TV W N Yli cm rrrr n lawawr rIQT �K yTn I aav 1"a was wen — - I V �i i EXTERIOR ELEVATION FACING NORTH - 1NTERIOR OF SITE - EAST END Pero er rrr aria W= rt r W tense tern "A&— —1 Wmw RTK taox roes 1ma Iva a w Rra i =A era ==I � atM Awns km mm ftAT- -� E1cT>`BE ELEVATION FACM NORTH - L ENOR OF SITE - WEST END A 1" vR= re ec W r w IYMW r/rReRe¢ —, atnat Ater Nom i cRA u trrM as rlrRaea� EXTERIOR ELEVATION FACING WEST - INTERIOR OF SITE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS °� •w� MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE f�SADURIAN INVESTMENTS , p tT_ IV; Associates 875 NEW LOS ANC$BAVBiE car aaaw IGR� �Alcntuca,r ea,lrllate iA00WYYKC#IFCW&A93021 s°R °op i:.°�.. 3W 07"ar arsan 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, WORMARK, CALIFORNIA � � r r lC1a .tQ wmw KM a= AI.Ea r.a p WAY atme a m Knm ma V Rom "IIl.rta ar am RAM MINK W am u WIU *0 MMIlIti .ar gem. TO HU w = I aac MYf m wra I.rmrt vNx EXTERIOR ELEVATION FACING NORTH - WEST END lm.. Ma wow am as War K= w WAY �a 1�wwle arse rrK nua rwR arAL.Irm � °* W� ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS R wa arr MWrf 0. RA... mm OIO.Iwt wm- IN -q CO OR» 1I'M'. I» WMT Ittlllfl[t ° 011 W.a• MN! m wr01 WN.OIf Iw'K! Imwl Ma W~ K= amm Ir x ati M = War A= l IIAT1 I mla M Malmo! - EXTIMOR ELEVATION HORTH - EAST END warn rrtrm EXTERIDN ELEVATION FACING WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS °* W� ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS R MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE 875 NEW LOS ANGEIZ AVBCEt MOORPARK, CAUFORNIA � 875PEWlASMK$FSAVff" DAR mo4m 530402" IN -q CO OR» 1I'M'. I» WMT Ittlllfl[t ° 011 Fr I � 8a a �� IVY � s 4 T Y C i 78 M zi wl 0 W 0 Lu. uil cn cn zoo o,1J QV i W¢ Y o!-4� W�� 8 o ,a^ OD MOORPARK - ASADURIAN PRC CT STATISTICS Location of Study Population within # of Storage Facilities % of # of Facility Per Floor Area Ratio Average # a 3 mile radius within 3 mile radius occupancy Units Square Feet Capita Usage commercial of Employees City of Camarillo 601 Carmen Drive 50,076 7 (seven) 93.55 3013 256,105 5.1143 30946 4 Camarillo, CA City of Fillmore - 250 Central Avenue 14,820 2 (two) 97.5 100 8,500 0.5735 50%+ 2 Fillmore, CA City of Moorpark 875 New Los Angeles 30,329 2 (two) 90 1500 115,000 3 See File 4 - Office Moorpark, CA 8 - Field Subject Site City of Port Hueneme 50% FAR on 333 Ponoma regular comml. Port Hueneme, CA 114,242 7 (seven) 89.66 3188 270,980 2.3720 3 55% on visitor serving comml City of Santa Paula 701 East Main 30,169 4 (four) 98:5 1003 85,255 2.8259 Unable to 3 Santa Paula, CA confirm. Notes: 1) The statistics are based on a three mile radius from the addresses shown above which is common for self- storage analysis 2) The cities above were chosen as they best reflect similar population size. 3) For City of Santa Paula, Best Storage is assumed to have 200 units, there is one new facility under construction and expected to open in the Summer, amount of units unknown 4) For the analysis of square footage, it is assumed that each storage unit averages 85 square feet in size. 5) For Sales Tax Purposes, it is assumed that the average revenue generated from each facility from supplies and goods sold is $12,000 for each facility, based on a 65,000 square foot average size facility 6) It is assumed that the jobs generated from the Moorpark Project will be 4 office staff and 8 additional outside employees, at a rate of $10.00 per hour minimum for each full time employee based on 40 hour work week 7) The developer is offering the City of Moorpark a developers fee of $5.00 for each unit rented, for a period of 12 months, one time fee for each unit only 8) The copy of the land use element dated 1992 is to be supplied by the project architect The above information is supplied to the City of Moorpark per a request for information from Paul Haller, information supplied by Self StorageWorks ATTACHMENT 3 INITIAL STUDY CHECK LIST ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR ftbrowly Signrcart AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or E] quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare El would adversely affect day or nighttime views . in . the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies 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: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or El Williamson Act contract? c)lnvolve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Page 1 0 Loss dw Less ttan No tnpsu Slpnrtant sww ant wtth P—g Nt n Wmarpomdon X X X X ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ X ATTACHMENT K Would the project? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 1:1 applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase E] of any 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1:1 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1:1 number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly ❑ or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and wildlife Service? FE VIEW X X X X X X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ X habitat or other sensitive natural community 11 El identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1:1 1:1 X protected 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? Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 2 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any n native migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ El ❑ X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ v protecting biological resources, such as a tree X preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ 11 El v X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic featu re? d) Disturb any human remains, including those 11 interred outside of formal cemeteries? GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:: a) 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 most recent Aiquist -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. Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 3 #�.sa ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? El ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x El ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ 1:1 a v unstable, or that would become unstable as a result J� of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table a El X 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting 1:1 v X the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ El X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the El El X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 1:1 El v X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 4 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of r-1 El v 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? e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ 1:1 v X plan or, 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ v airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for J� people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere E] 1:1 El v X with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ 1:1 El v X loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste El El X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ 1:1 El v X interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table levels (e.g. the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ v site or area, including through the alteration of the X course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 5 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the a 1:1 El v X site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ^ v exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 11 El ❑ v g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ v as mapped on a Federal Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures El X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ v j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ El X loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ v b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or v regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project X (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? c) Conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan [HCP] or El El X Natural Community Conservation Plan [NCCP]? MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ El mineral resource that would be of value to the region X and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ 11 El mineral resource recovery site delineated X on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ 1:1 v X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive El X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient E] 1:1 El v X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ El X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ El X plan or, 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1:1 v X airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 7 POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, F1 El El v X either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ 11 El v X necessitating the construction of replacement Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ v Police protection? ❑ El El v Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ v Other public facilities? 0 ❑ 0 v Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 8 Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 8 RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ v neighborhood and regional parks or other J� recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ v require the construction or expansion of recreational J� facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ ❑ ❑ v relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the J� 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ F1 v X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ X either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design F1 El El v X feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f)Result in adequate parking capacity? Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ El supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El El X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ El or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ ❑ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, ❑ El X or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ 1:1 X treatment 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ 1:1 El X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 10 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ftnrc"' `'°""" '� scan "°''�'" sa"r�c sw"neaK sq"nG,k kr"d WKh M09aftn kworpanWon a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ❑ ❑ v the quality of the environment, substantially reduce J� the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ v limited, but cumulatively considerable? J� ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects El X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 11 NEGATIVE DECLARATION INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IPD 2000 -10 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA. 93021 APPLICANT: ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 PREPARED: September 6, 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Industrial Planned Development application, IPD 2000 -10, will establish the design and control of a approximately a 118,650 square foot mini - warehouse /office building on a 112,195 square foot parcel. The applicant is proposing thirty one (31) foot access to the site on the west side of Goldman Avenue. The architectural style of this project is of a Eclectic Contemporary Mission Art. The building elevations will have several relief features, including a standing seam metal roof, accent parapet cap, building reveals utilizing contrasting colors, patterns, textures and finishes to add variety and interest. In addition, the roof shape and forms utilizes steep roof slopes and other treatments, the use of wrought iron fence and security gate as well as the recessed entry to the site will provide contrast by varying patterns of shades, sunlight and depth. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located at 875 New Los Angeles Avenue on the northwest corner of New Los Angeles and Goldman Avenues one property west of the southwest corner of Los Angeles Avenue, Assessor Parcel No.511 -0- 070 -55. PROJECT PROPONENT: The project is being proposed by: Asadurian Investments 875 New Los Angeles Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 PURPOSE: The purpose of this Negative Declaration (ND) is to focus upon any potential environmental impacts of the project identified by the Initial Study. Any potential impacts will not require specific mitigation to ensure that impacts to the community or the project area are reduced to a level of insignificance. Any potential impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance through standard conditions of approval imposed on the project. The information contained in this document is intended to assist decision makers in reaching conclusions concerning the environmental impacts of this project. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES: Asadurian Investments Negative Declaration September 6, 2001 Page No. 2 This ND is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970 as amended (Public Resources Code 21000 et.seq.), the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Administrative Code 15000 et. seq.), and the City of Moorpark Rules to Implement CEQA (Resolution 92 -872). TECHNICAL STUDIES. The following technical studies were prepared for the project. 1. EIR for Moorpark Land Use and Circulation Element Update and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study (1992). 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060712 0005 A, September 29, 1986 and revision dated August 24, 1990. 3. General Plan of the City of Moorpark. 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 1987. 5. Moorpark Municipal Code, including Title 17, Zoning. 6. Moorpark Traffic Analysis Model, Model Description and Validation, June 1994. 7. Technical Appendices for the General Plan Noise Element, November 1994. 8. U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle Maps for Moorpark. 9. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, 1989. 10. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan, 1991. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT: NO IMPACT Aesthetics: The project site does not involve scenic resources of the community. Agricultural Resources: The project occurs as an in -fill commercial project in the urban core with no adjacent or abutting agricultural uses, and there are no agricultural uses on the site. Asadurian Investments Negative Declaration September 6, 2001 Page No. 3 Cultural Resources: Professional site investigations and literature reviews show no archeological or cultural resources exist or are likely to exist on the site, and no further work is required. Mineral Resources: No SMARA resources have been identified in association with the project site. Impacts to regional resources will not occur nor will an impact to the capacity of existing resources occur. Population and Housing: The project will be consistent with General Plan build out and land use development for the project area. Recreation: The project will construct on -site facilities to serve the project. Impacts to community parks and recreation can be mitigated through the payment of development fees. Biological resources: No suitable wildlife habitat was identified for this site. Hydrology and Water Quality: The project will induce areas of impervious materials and will require re- routing of on -site water to approved drainage facilities. During and after construction, significant increase in pollution discharge is expected. Best management practices will be required as standard conditions of approval which will ensure that the level of pollutant discharge is within the acceptable limits under the regional water quality control plan. Transportation and Traffic: As determined by the City Engineer, as conditioned, site generated traffic demands will not significantly contribute to future traffic that would be generated by the subject mini - warehouse office building. Asadurian Investments Negative Declaration September 6, 2001 Page No. 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2000 -10, LOCATED AT 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, ON THE APPLICATION OF ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 511 -0- 070 -55 AND 56) WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on September 24, 2001, November 13, 2001, March 25, 2002, and May 13, 2002, the Planning Commission considered Industrial Planned Development No. 2000 -10 on the application of Asadurian Investments for a 113,994 square foot mini - warehouse /office building on a 112,184 square foot parcel located at 875 Los Angeles Avenue at the northwest corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Goldman Avenue (Assessor Parcel No. 511 -0- 070 -55); and WHEREAS, at its meeting of September 24, 2002, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took public testimony and continued the item, public hearing open, to November 13. 2001, at which meeting the Planning Commission took the item off calendar; and WHEREAS, at a duly renoticed public hearing on March 25, 2002, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, took public testimony, closed the public hearing and continued the item to May 13, 2002, at which meeting the public hearing was reopened and then closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff reports and public testimony, has reached a decision on this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based o reports, Planning "Project" public testimony Commission; the is inconsistent n information contained in the staff and other information presented to the Planning Commission finds that the with the General Plan in that: 1. The "Project" does not generate long -term employment opportunities, assist in providing a jobs /housing balance, or diversify the community's employment base. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments)) Page 2 2. The "Project" is not compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood. The recommended Floor Area Ration (FAR) in the Land Use Element for the Medium Industrial (I -2) land use designation is .38. With this project, the gross site area is 112,184 square feet with a floor area of 113,994 square feet, which equates to a 1.02 FAR and is significantly greater than the recommended FAR for the Medium Industrial (I -2) land use designation. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to a discretionary project which a public agency rejects or disapproves. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000- 10, because the "Project" is inconsistent with goals and policies of the General Plan. The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2002. William F. Otto, Chair ATTEST: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2000 -10, LOCATED AT 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, ON THE APPLICATION OF ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 511 -0- 070 -55 AND 5 6 ) WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on September 24, 2001, November 13, 2001, March 25, 2002, and May 13, 2002, the Planning Commission considered Industrial Planned Development No. 2000 -10 on the application of Asadurian Investments for a 113,994 square foot mini - warehouse /office building on a 112,184 square foot parcel located at 875 Los Angeles Avenue at the northwest corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Goldman Avenue (Assessor Parcel No. 511 -0- 070 -55); and WHEREAS, at its meeting of September 24, 2002, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took public testimony and continued the item, public hearing open, to November 13, 2001, at which meeting the Planning Commission took the item off calendar; and WHEREAS, at a duly renoticed public hearing on March 25, 2002., the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing, took public testimony, closed the public hearing and continued the project to May 13, 2002, when the public hearing was reopened and then closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS: 1. The Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the project is complete and has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and City policy. 2. The contents of the Negative Declaration/ Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on the proposed entitlement request. ATTACHMENT (0 Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 2 INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS: Based upon the information set forth above, it has been determined that this application with the attached conditions meets the requirements of the City of Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.030 in that: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the intent and provisions of the City's General Plan and Title 17 of the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed use is compatible with the character of the surrounding development. 3. The proposed use will not be obnoxious or harmful or impair the utility of the neighboring properties or uses. 4. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. 5. The proposed use 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 has design features which provide visual relief and separation between land uses of conflicting character; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff reports, the Negative Declaration, and public testimony, has reached a decision on this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the aforementioned project is consistent with the City's General Plan for the following reasons: a. The mini - warehouse use has the potential to provide limited additional job opportunities in that the facility will provide a sales area for storage materials and provide job opportunities for the managers of the facility, thereby assisting the City with its goal of maintaining a jobs /housing balance. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 3 b. The proposed facility is considered to be architecturally compatible with other existing industrial buildings in the surrounding area. C. Although the floor area ratio (FAR) for this development exceeds the General Plan Land Use Element recommended floor area ratio of .38, traffic generation created as a result of the mini - warehouse use is insignificant and the demand for a self- storage facility justifies a greater FAR. d. The need for mini - warehouse storage is of importance to the City as there is a significant number of existing and approved, but not yet built, residences in the City with insufficient storage, and an existing and projected demand for additional mini - warehouse opportunities. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to acting on the proposed project and has found that this document adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed project. SECTION 3. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, beginning at Section 21000), the Planning Commission has determined that the Negative Declaration prepared for this project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -10 subject to conditions in Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval). Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 4 The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF MAY, 2002. William F. Otto, Chair ATTEST: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 5 EXHIBIT A TO APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2000 -10 A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS General Requirements: 1. Permitted Uses: This permit is granted for the land and project as identified on the entitlement application form and as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations. The location of all site improvements shall be as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations except or unless otherwise indicated herein in the following conditions. All proposed uses of these buildings shall be required to receive a Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Department. The Department may determine that certain uses will require other types of entitlements or environmental assessment. 2. Other Regulations: This development is subject to all applicable regulations of the M -2 Zone, and all requirements and enactment's of Federal, State, Ventura County, City authorities, and any other governmental entities, and all such requirements and enactment's shall, by reference, become conditions of this permit. 3. Discontinuance of Use: This Industrial Planned Development Permit shall expire when any of the uses for which it is granted are abandoned for a period of 180 consecutive days. 4. All final construction working drawings, grading and drainage plans, plot plans, building colors and materials, sign programs, and landscaping and irrigation plans (three full sets) shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 5. Use Inauguration: Unless the project is inaugurated (building foundation slab in place and substantial work in progress) not later than one (1) year after this permit is granted this permit shall automatically expire on that date. The Community Development Director may, at his /her discretion, grant up to one (1) additional one (1) year extension for project inauguration if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas, and if the Developer can Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 6 document that he /she has diligently worked towards inauguration of the project during the initial one (1) year period. The request for extension of this entitlement must be made in writing, at least thirty (30) -days prior to the expiration date of the permit. 6. Abandonment of Use: Upon expiration of this permit, or failure to inaugurate the use, the premises shall be restored by the permittee to the conditions existing prior to the issuance of the permit, as nearly as practicable. 7. Other Regulations: No conditions of this entitlement shall be interpreted as permitting or requiring any violation of law or any unlawful rules or regulations or orders of an authorized governmental agency. In instances where more than one set of rules apply, the stricter ones shall take precedence. 8. Severability: If any of the conditions or limitations of this permit are held to be invalid, that holding shall not invalidate the remaining conditions or limitations set forth. 9. Permittee Defense Costs: The permittee agrees as a condition of issuance and use of this permit to defend, at his /her sole expense, any action brought against the City because of issuance (or renewal) of this permit. Permittee will reimburse the City for any court costs and /or attorney's fees which the City may be required by the court to pay as a result of any such action or in the alternative to relinquish this permit. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve permittee of his /her obligation under this condition. 10. Zoning Clearance Prior to Building Permit: Prior to approval of construction plans for plan check or initiation of any construction activity, a Zoning Clearance shall be obtained from the Community Development Department. 11. Zoning Clearance Required for Occupancy: Prior to initial occupancy or any subsequent change of tenant occupancy, the owner of the subject building, or the owners representative shall apply for a Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Department. The purpose of the Zoning Clearance shall be to determine if the proposed use(s) are compatible with the zoning and terms and conditions of the permit. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 7 12. Certificate of Occupancy Requirement: No use for which this permit is granted shall be commenced until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Building and Safety Department. In addition, no Certificate of Occupancy may be issued until all on -site improvements specified in this permit have been completed or the Developer has provided a faithful performance surety. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, said on -site improvements shall be completed within 120 days of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. In case of failure to comply with any term or provision of this agreement, the City Council may by resolution declare the surety forfeited. Upon completion of the required improvements to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, the surety may be exonerated by action of the City Council. 13. Tenant Occupancy: Prior to the occupancy, applicable proposed uses shall be reviewed and approved by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division to ensure that the proposal will comply with all applicable State and local regulations related to storage, handling, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, and that any required permits have been obtained. If required by the County Environmental Health Division, the Developer shall prepare a hazardous waste minimization plan. 14. Change of Ownership Notice: No later than ten (10) days after any change of property ownership or change of lessee(s) or operator(s) of the subject building, there shall be filed with the Community Development Director the name (s) and address (es) of the new owner (s) , lessee (s) or operators) together with a letter from any such persons) acknowledging and agreeing with all conditions of this permit. 15. Other Uses: If in the future, any use or uses are contemplated on the site differing from that specified in the Zoning Clearance approved for the occupancy, either the permittee, owner, or each prospective tenant shall file a project description prior to the initiation of the use. A review by the Community Development Director will be conducted to determine if the proposed use is compatible with the M -2 Zone and the terms and conditions of this permit, and if a Modification to the Planned Development Permit is required. All applicable fees and procedures shall apply for said review. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 8 16. Business Registration: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for tenant occupancy, the prospective tenant shall obtain a Business Registration Permit from the City of Moorpark. 17. Acceptance of Conditions: The permittee's acceptance of this permit and /or commencement of construction and /or operations under this permit shall be deemed to be acceptance of all conditions of this permit. 18. Fish and Game Requirement: Within two days after the City Council adoption of a resolution approving this Industrial Planned Development Permit, the Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark a check for a single fee of $1,250 plus a $ 25.00 filing fee payable to the County of Ventura, to comply with Assembly Bill 3158, for the management and protection of Statewide Fish and Wildlife Trust Resources. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21089; and (b) Fish and Game Code Section 711.4; (c) the project is not operative, vested or final until the filing fees are paid. 19. APCD Review of Uses: Prior to occupancy, Ventura County, Air Pollution Control District (APCD) shall review all applicable uses to ensure compliance with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 65850.5 et seq.) regarding the use, storage and disposition of hazardous materials. Final Certificate of Occupancy shall be withheld until compliance with these provisions from the Ventura County, Air Pollution Control District is provided. 20. Utilities Assessment District: The Developer agrees not to protest the formation of an underground Utility Assessment District. 21. Continued Maintenance: The continued maintenance of the permit area and facilities shall be subject to periodic inspection by the City. The permittee shall be required to remedy any defects in ground or building maintenance, as indicated by the City within five (5) business days after notification. 22. Noxious Odors: No noxious odors shall be generated from any use on the subject site. 23. Uses and Activities to be Conducted Inside: All uses and activities shall be conducted inside the building(s) unless otherwise authorized by the Community Development Director and consistent with applicable Zoning Code provisions. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 9 24. Graffiti Removal: The Developer and his /her successors, heirs, and assigns shall remove any graffiti within five (5) business days from written notification by the City of Moorpark. All such graffiti removal shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 25. Case Processing Costs: The Developer shall pay all outstanding case processing (Planning and Engineering), and all City legal service fees within thirty (30) days following project approval and prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction. In addition, the Developer shall be required to pay a Condition Compliance deposit pursuant to the requirements of the most recently adopted Resolution Establishing Schedule of Land Development Preliminary Processing Fee Deposits. 26. Code Enforcement Costs: The Community Development Director may declare a development project that is not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval or for some other just cause, a "public nuisance." The Developer shall be liable to the City for any and all costs and expenses to the City involved in thereafter abating the nuisance and in obtaining compliance with the Conditions of Approval or applicable codes. If the Developer fails to pay all City costs related to this action, the City may enact special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land upon which the nuisance existed (Municipal Code Section 1.12.080). Prior to the Issuance of a Zoning Clearance Conditions: 27. Submittal of Landscape Plans: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a complete landscape plan (3 sets), together with specifications and a maintenance program shall be prepared by a State Licensed Landscape Architect in accordance with the Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans, and shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The landscape plan shall include planting and irrigation specifications for the project site including any manufactured slopes over three (3) feet in height. The purpose of the landscaping shall be to control erosion, prevent aesthetic impacts to adjacent property owners, mitigate the visual impacts of the building height and mass and all manufactured slopes three (3) feet or more in height, and to replace mature trees lost as a result of construction. The final landscape plans shall also be in substantial conformance with the conceptual landscape plan submitted with the application, except as modified herein. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 10 The Developer shall bear the cost of the landscape plan review, installation of the landscaping and irrigation system, and of final landscape inspection. The landscaping and planting plan submitted for review and approval shall be accompanied by a deposit as specified by the City of Moorpark. Additional funds may subsequently need to be deposited to cover all landscape plan check and inspection fees. The landscaping shall be approved by the Community Development Director and be installed and receive final inspection prior to occupancy as determined by the Community Development Director. All landscaped areas shall have an irrigation system. The City's landscape architect shall certify in writing that the landscaping and irrigation system were installed in accordance with the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plans. The final landscape plans shall include landscaping specifications, planting details, and design specifications consistent with the following requirements: a. The permittee shall provide for additional enhanced landscaping equal to or greater than the cost of any trees to be removed, consistent with Municipal Code requirements, as determined by the Community Development Director. Additional trees, which form a canopy, shall be provided to shade parking and driveway areas, and screen the view of the building from public streets and other areas as determined by the Community Development Director to offset the value of the trees removed from the site. The landscape plan shall also incorporate extensive tree landscaping including specimen size trees as approved by the Community Development Director along Los Angeles Avenue and Goldman Avenue, and as otherwise determined by the Community Development Director. b. If consistent with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, the landscaping along Los Angeles Avenue shall be bermed as approved by the Community Development Director. C. The landscape plan shall include the final design of all sidewalks, barrier walls, streetscape elements, urban landscaping and pedestrian paths within the project limits. d. All plant species utilized shall be drought tolerant, low water using variety. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 11 e. Landscaping at site entrances and exits and any intersection within the parking lot shall not block or screen the view of a seated driver from another moving vehicle or pedestrian. f. Plantings in and adjacent to parking areas shall be contained within raised planters surrounded by six -inch high concrete curbs. g. Landscaping shall be designed to not obstruct the view of any exterior door or window from the street. h. Landscaping (trees) shall not be placed directly under any overhead lighting, which could cause a loss of light at ground level. i. Earthen berms, hedges and /or low walls shall be provided to screen views of parked vehicles from adjacent streets. j. Backflow preventers, transformers, or other exposed above ground utilities shall be shown on the landscape plan(s) and shall be screened with landscaping and /or a wall. k. A sufficiently dense tree - planting plan emphasizing tall growing trees and /or shrubs shall be designed. Fifty (50) percent (or as otherwise determined by the Community Development Director) of all trees shall be a minimum of 24 -inch box size in order to provide screening in a three- (3) to five- (5) year time period. All other trees shall be a minimum 15- gallon size. 1. Irrigation shall be provided for all permanent landscaping, as identified in the approved landscape plan. The Developer shall be responsible for maintaining the irrigation system and all landscaping. The Developer shall replace any dead plants and make any necessary repairs to the irrigation system consistent with the landscape plan approved for the development. M. No perimeter and /or garden walls are proposed for construction with this project. Landscaping shall be located around the perimeter of the exterior building as shown on the conceptual landscape plan. n. Prior to Final Inspection, the Developer's landscape consultant shall certify in writing that the landscape Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 12 and irrigation system was installed in accordance with the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 28. Offer of Dedication for Landscape Maintenance: Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City any easements required for the City to access and maintain any landscaped areas or drainage improvements outside of the public right -of -way, which have been designated to be maintained by the City. In addition, prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the Developer shall also provide to the City a signed Petition /Waiver: a) requesting formation of an Assessment District to fund future costs for the maintenance of any landscaping and /or drainage facilities designated to be maintained by the City, and b) waiving all rights conferred by Proposition 218 with regard to the right to protest any such assessments. Said Petition and Waiver shall include, as an Exhibit, an Engineer's Report fully setting forth a description of the assessment district and the assessments, consistent with the requirements of the California Streets and Highways Code. Said report shall be prepared by a consultant to be retained by the City. The Developer shall pay to the City a $5,000 advance to fund the cost of the Engineer's Report. In the event it is determined that there will be no landscaping or extraordinary drainage improvements to be maintained by the City, the Community Development Director may waive this condition with the concurrence of the City Manager. 29. The Building Plans or Plot Plan, and Elevations shall be revised to reflect the following: a. The transformer and cross connection water control devices shall be shown on the plot plan and landscaping and irrigation plan and screened from street view with masonry wall or landscaping. b. All fences and walls shall be shown on the plot plan and landscaping and irrigation plan. C. All required loading areas and turning radius shall be depicted on the plot plan. A 45 -foot turning radius shall be provided for loading zones consistent with the AASHO WB -50 design vehicle. d. Elevations of proposed hardscape treatment (including but not limited to the building entrance, window and Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 13 door treatment, etc.) shall be submitted with the final construction plans. 30. Skylights: If skylights are used, the material utilized shall be designed so as to minimize the light from the inside of the building to the exterior. Skylights are subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 31. Parapet Wall Requirement: Roof design and construction shall include a minimum 18 -inch extension of the parapet wall above the highest point of the flat roof area. 32. Lighting Plan: For all exterior lighting, a lighting plan shall be prepared by an electrical engineer registered in the State of California and submitted to the Community Development Department with the required deposit for review and approval. The lighting plan shall achieve the following objectives: avoid interference's with reasonable use of adjoining properties; minimize on -site and off -site glare; provide adequate on -site lighting; limit electroliers height; provide structures which are compatible with the total design of the proposed facility and minimize energy consumption. Ornamental lighting fixtures to complement the architectural style of the buildings are required on the building as well as in the parking lot area as determined by the Community Development Director. Light poles within the parking lot area shall be located on cement bases no higher than six (6 ") inches above the finished grade. When possible, light poles shall be located within proposed landscaped areas. All lighting shall be consistent with Section 17.30 of the Zoning Ordinance (Lighting Regulations) and the lighting plan shall, at a minimum, include the following: a. A photometric plan showing a point -by -point foot candle layout to extend a minimum of twenty (20') feet outside the property lines. Layout plan to be based on a ten - foot (101) grid center. Down lighting and accent, landscape and building lighting shall be employed throughout the project. b. Maximum overall height of fixtures shall be twenty -five feet (251). C. Fixtures must possess sharp cut -off qualities with a maximum of one foot (1') candle illumination at or beyond property lines. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 14 d. Energy efficient lighting devices shall be provided. e. A minimum of one and a maximum of two -foot candle illumination with a 1.5 -foot candle average or as otherwise approved by the Community Development Director, consistent with Title 17 of the Municipal Code. No light shall be emitted above the 90 degree or horizontal plane. No direct light source shall be visible from the street. f. Lighting devices in the parking lot shall be shielded and directed downward to avoid light and glare on neighboring properties. g. Lighting devices shall be high enough as to prohibit anyone on the ground from tampering with them unless tamper proof fixtures are approved by the Community Development Director. All exterior lighting devices shall be protected by weather and breakage resistant covers. h. Lighting at all exterior doors shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained two (2) footcandles at ground level. i. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a copy of the lighting plans shall be submitted to the Police Department for review. 33. Location of Property Line Walls: Where the building acts as the property line wall, such wall shall be no further than one inch from the property line. No other perimeter walls are proposed for this project. 34. Downspouts: No downspouts shall be permitted on the exterior of the building. 35. Roof Mounted Equipment: Roof mounted equipment is prohibited, except for equipment that cannot be mounted on the ground and approved to be roof mounted by the Community Development Director. No roof mounted equipment (vents, stacks, blowers, air conditioning equipment, etc.) may extend above any parapet wall, unless screened on all four sides by view obscuring material that is an intregal design element of the building. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, the final design and materials for the roof screen and location of any roof - mounted equipment must be approved by the Community Development Director. All screening shall be tall enough to block all Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 15 ground level views as well as those from the street and shall be maintained during the life of the permit. Construction material shall match the color and material used in the construction of the buildings. Colors, materials and building appendages (such as mechanical equipment on the roof, etc.) of the proposed building shall be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development and non - reflective in nature. 36. Exterior Ground Level Equipment: Any outdoor ground level equipment and storage (such as loading docks, cooling towers, generators, etc.) shall be screened from view by a masonry wall, the design of which shall be approved by the Community Development Director, and located a minimum of twenty (20') feet from any residentially zoned property. The wall shall be constructed of materials and colors consistent with the main building. 37. Building Materials and Colors: All exterior building materials and paint colors shall be those typical of the proposed architecture and are subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 38. Noise Generation Sources: All roof - mounted equipment and other noise generation sources on -site shall be attenuated to 45 decibels (dBA) at the property line, or to the ambient noise level at the property line measured at the time of the occupant request. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for initial occupancy or any subsequent occupancy, the Community Development Director may request that a noise study be submitted for review and approval which demonstrates that all on -site noise generation sources will be mitigated to the required level. The noise study must be prepared by a licensed Acoustical Engineer in accordance with accepted engineering standards. 39. Striping of Spaces: The striping of parking spaces and loading bays shall be maintained so that it remains clearly visible during the life of the development. 40. Parking Lot Surface: All parking areas shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete and shall include adequate provisions for drainage, striping and appropriate wheel blocks, curbs, or posts in parking areas adjacent to landscaped areas. All parking and loading areas shall be maintained at all times to insure safe access and use by employees, public agencies and service vehicles. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 16 41. Disposal Areas on Site Plan: All trash disposal and recycling areas shall be provided in a location which will not interfere with circulation, parking or access to the building. The final design and location of the trash enclosures shall be subject to review of the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for building permit. Trash areas and recycling bins shall be depicted on the final construction plans, the size of which shall be approved by the Community Development Director and the City's solid waste management staff. All trash disposal and recycling areas shall be designed in accordance with the following requirements: a. Rubbish disposal areas shall include adequate, accessible and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. The dimensions of the recycling area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of collection in the area in which the project is located. b. Refuse collection and recycling space shall be provided for two three -cubic yard collection bins for the first 20,000 square feet of gross floor area (107" x 84" or 168" x 53.5 ") and two three -cubic yard collection bin for each 10,000 square feet or fraction thereafter. Space for drop box collection of recyclables may be provided in lieu of three -cubic yard bins. The dimensions provided apply to the space available when the gate is fully open. C. The design of the disposal area enclosures shall be architecturally consistent with the development and compatible with the surrounding area as approved by the Community Development Director. d. Each disposal area enclosure shall be screened with a six foot (6') high solid masonry wall enclosure and six foot (6') high gates and shall be designed with cane bolts to secure the gates when in the open position. e. Disposal area enclosures shall have a roof so as to be protected from weather conditions, which might render collected recyclable materials unmarketable. f. Driveways or travel aisles shall provide unobstructed access for collection vehicles and personnel, and provide the minimum vertical clearance of 30 feet, or Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 17 other specified clearance required by the collection methods and vehicles utilized by the hauler. g. A sign, approved by the Community Development Director, clearly identifying all recycling and solid waste collection and loading areas, and the materials accepted therein shall be posted adjacent to all points of access to the recycling areas. h. Refuse disposal areas shall not be located in any area required by the Municipal Code to be constructed or maintained as unencumbered, according to fire and other applicable building and /or public safety laws. i. Recycling area(s) shall be located so they are convenient and adjacent to regular refuse collection areas. j. Space allocation for rubbish and recycling enclosures shall be designed in a manner that complies with the equal access requirements of Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. k. The enclosure shall have a separate indirect pedestrian access way, which does not require doors or gates. 1. Prior to Zoning Clearance for Building Permit, the City Engineer will review the design plan for compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. M. All litter /waste material shall be kept in leak proof containers. The area shall be paved with impermeable material. No other area shall drain onto these areas including rainwater. There shall be no drain connected from the trash enclosure area to the storm drain system. However, the drain from the trash enclosure shall be connected to the sanitary sewer and have an automatic seal that shall preclude any escape of gases or liquids from the sewer connection. 42. The franchised refuse hauler designated to service this location will be determined prior to construction. 43. Other requirements related to refuse disposal and recycling include: a. Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, a Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to occupancy of Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 18 the building. The plan shall include a designated building manager, who is responsible for initiating on- site waste materials recycling programs. This shall include the acquiring of storage bins for the separation of recyclable materials and coordination and maintenance of a curbside pickup schedule. b. The building manager or designee will conduct a routine waste management education program on -site to alert employees to any new developments or requirements for solid waste management. This measure shall be coordinated through the City's Solid Waste Management Department. 44. Enforcement of Vehicle Codes: Prior to Occupancy of the buildings, the Developer shall request that the City Council approve a resolution to enforce vehicle codes on the subject property as permitted by Vehicle Code Section 21107.7. 45. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for building permit, the Developer shall pay the following fees: a. Current and Future Park System Contribution Fee, in the amount of $.25 per gross square foot of building floor area. b. Art in Public Places Fee, in the amount of $.10 per gross square foot of building floor area. The Developer may create a public art project on or off -site in lieu of paying the Art in Public Places fee. The artwork must have a value corresponding to the fee and must receive approval from the City Council. C. The Moorpark Traffic Systems Management Fee, in the amount of $.15 per gross square foot of building floor area to fund TSM Programs or Clean -fuel Vehicle Programs as determined by the City. d. Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee, in the amount of $.50 per gross square foot of building floor area to fund public street and traffic improvements directly or indirectly affected by the development. Commencing January 1, 2003, 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 indexing "). In the event there is a decrease in the referenced Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 19 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. B. CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS General Conditions: 46. The Developer shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion of all site improvements within the development and offsite improvements required by the conditions as described herein (i.e., grading, street improvements, storm drain improvements, landscaping, fencing, etc.) in a form acceptable to the City. 47. The Developer shall indicate in writing to the City the disposition of any wells that may exist within the project. If any wells are proposed to be abandoned, or if they are abandoned and have not been properly sealed, they must be destroyed or abandoned per Ventura County Ordinance No. 2372 or Ordinance No. 3991 and per Division of Oil and Gas requirements. Permits for any well reuse (if applicable) shall conform to Reuse Permit procedures administered by the County Water Resources Development Department. 48. All existing and proposed utilities shall be under grounded as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to Issuance of a Zonina Clearance for a Buildina Permit: 49. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall pay to the Community Development Department the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (AOC) fee consistent with adopted City Council resolution. The cost shall be the dollar amount in effect at the time the fee is paid. 50. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all habitable structures shall be designed to current UBC requirements or the City approved geotechnical report requirements for the project, whichever standard is most restrictive. 51. The Developer shall provide revised Drainage Atlas Sheets showing all drainage improvements provided by the development, if applicable. The form, content and format of the Atlas shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 20 Prior to Acceptance of Public Improvements and Bond Reduction and /or Exoneration, the Following Conditions shall be Satisfied: 52. Sufficient surety in a form and in an amount acceptable to the City guaranteeing the public improvements shall be provided, and shall remain in place for one year following acceptance by the City. 53. Original "as built" plans will be certified by the Developer's Registered Civil Engineer and submitted with two sets of blue prints to the City Engineer's office. Although grading plans may have been submitted for checking and construction on sheets larger than 22" X 3611, they must be resubmitted as "record drawings" in a series of 22" X 36" mylars (made with proper overlaps) with a title block on each sheet. Submission of "as built" plans is required before a final inspection will be scheduled. Electronic files will be submitted for all improvement plans in a format to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Clerk. In addition, Developer will provide an electronic file update on the City's Master Base Map electronic file, incorporating all storm drainage, water and sewer mains, lines and appurtenances and any other utility facility available for this project, if applicable. Geotechnical Enaineerina Reauirements: 54. Prior to submittal of grading plans, the Developer shall have a geotechnical report prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and at the minimum the geotechnical report shall address the following: a. The Developer or subsequent developers shall contract with an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer to quantify the engineering properties of the on -site soil materials, to assess the potential for weak soils or bedding layers which may affect cut and /or natural slopes, and to verify that grading planned within landslide areas will be remediated to result in an increase in landslide stability consistent with factors of safety approved by the City's consulting Geotechnical Engineers. This geotechnical study shall, as deemed necessary by the City Engineer and consulting City Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer, further assess slopes within or adjacent to proposed residential development areas (depending on the final configuration of proposed individual residential Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 21 parcels). The findings and recommendations of the geotechnical assessment shall be incorporated into the final design for the components of the project. b. All cut and fill slopes, foundations and structures, shall be designed and constructed to comply with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and applicable City and /or Country Grading Ordinances. Modifications to these standards shall be permitted only with the written concurrence of the City Engineer and the City's consulting geologist. C. An engineering geologist shall define the final grading requirements for the proposed facilities. All geological recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the City's consulting geologist. Foundation designs in areas where fault traces were identified that have been deemed inactive should address enhancing the stability of those foundations in the event minor movement occurs as a secondary effect of ground shaking. d. The developer shall cause an engineering geologist to study all unanticipated faults exposed during grading to detect any evidence of possible recent activity. All active fault lines will be clearly shown on the grading plan and final map, if applicable. No habitable structure shall be placed within 50 feet of any fault trace. e. All habitable structures shall be designed to accommodate structural impacts from 0.128- ground acceleration or other standard factor of safety deemed applicable to this project. The standards shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. f. The developer shall contract with an engineering geologist to prepare grading recommendations, foundation design criteria, and other recommendations regarding detailed project design. As a component of required subsequent geologic studies, a soils engineer shall evaluate the condition of alluvium and unconsolidated soils. Relatively loose soils or alluvium shall be densified or removed and recompacted prior to placement of structures upon such soils. Other measures shall be incorporated into the final project design as required by the geological Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 22 assessment. All geological recommendations shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. The Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, a detailed Geotechnical Engineering Report certified by a California Registered Civil Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineering Report shall include an investigation with regard to liquefaction, expansive soils, and seismic safety. Also, the report shall discuss the contents of the soils as to the presence or absence of any hazardous waste or other contaminants in the soils. Should additional geotechnical studies be generated or required as a result of the geotechnical investigation, additional plan check fees will be required. h. Review of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by the City's Geotechnical Engineer, is required. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs including the City's administrative fee for this review. i. All recommendations included in the approved Geotechnical Engineering Report shall be implemented during project design, grading, and construction in accordance with the approved project. The City's geotechnical consultant shall review all plans for conformance with the soil engineer's recommendations. Prior to the commencement of grading plan check, the Developer's geotechnical engineer shall sign the plans confirming that the grading plans incorporate the recommendations of the approved soil report(s). General Grading Requirements: 55. ROC, NOx and dust during construction grading will be suppressed by the following activities: a. The fuel injection of all diesel engines used in construction equipment should be retarded two degrees from the manufacturer's recommendation. b. All diesel engines used in construction equipment should use high - pressure injectors. C. All diesel engines used in construction equipment should use reformulated diesel fuel. d. Construction grading shall be discontinued on days forecasted for first stage ozone alerts (concentration Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 23 of 0.20 ppm) as indicated at the Ventura County APCD air quality monitoring station closest to the City of Moorpark. Grading and excavation operations shall not resume until the first stage smog alert expires. e. All clearing and grading activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 miles per hour averaged over one hour) to prevent excessive amounts of fugitive dust. f. All material transported off -site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. g. All active portions of the site shall be either periodically watered or treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants to prevent excessive amounts of dust. h. Facilities shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. i. Large -scale construction vehicles and trucks exiting the project site during the mass grading period shall be required to have tire wash -downs to minimize the dispersion of dust onto local streets. 56. Temporary erosion control measures shall be used during the construction process to minimize water quality effects. Specific measures to be applied shall be identified in the project Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. A trained BMP Supervisor shall be onsite during all construction activities. (The qualifications of the BMP supervisor shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer). The following water quality assurance techniques shall be included, but not limited to the following, as deemed necessary: a. Minimize removal of existing vegetation. b. Provide temporary soil cover, such as hydro seeding, jute blankets, mulch /binder and erosion control blankets, to protect exposed soil from wind and rain. C. Incorporate silt fencing, berms, and dikes to protect storm drain inlets and drainage courses. d. Rough grade contours to reduce flow concentrations and velocities. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 24 e. Divert runoff from graded areas, using straw bale, earth, and sandbag dikes. f. Phase the grading to minimize soil exposure during the October through April rainy season. g. Install sediment traps or basins. h. Maintain and monitor erosion /sediment controls. 57. To minimize the water quality effects of permanent erosion sources, the following design features shall be incorporated into the project - grading plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall review and approve the grading plan to verify compliance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) including, but not limited to the following: a. Drainage swales, subsurface drains, slope drains, storm drain inlet /outlet protection, and sediment traps. b. Check dams to reduce flow velocities. C. Permanent desilting basins. d. Permanent vegetation, including grass -lined swales. e. Design of drainage courses and storm drain outlets to reduce scour. 58. Prior to issuance of the initial grading permit, the developer shall prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to address construction impacts and long -term operational effects on downstream environments and watersheds. A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Professional or a qualified Civil Engineer shall prepare this plan. The use of jute or other artificial cover approved by the City Engineer will be required for all graded slopes during the period of October 1 through and inclusive of April 15. Proposed management efforts shall include but not be limited to provisions for the use of vegetative filtering, preparation of detailed erosion control plans, appropriate use of temporary debris basins, silt fences, sediment traps and other erosion control practices. The proposed plan shall also address all relevant NPDES requirements and recommendations for the use of best available technology. The erosion control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits for mass grading. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 25 59. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during all construction activities throughout build out of the project to minimize the impacts of project - related noise in the vicinity of the proposed project site: a. Construction activities shall be limited to between the following hours: a) 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, and b) 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday. Construction work on Saturdays will require payment of a premium for City inspection services and may be further restricted or prohibited should City receive complaints from adjacent property owners. No construction work is to be done on Sundays and City observed holidays pursuant to Section 15.26.010 of the Municipal Code. b. Truck noise from hauling operations shall be minimized through establishing hauling routes that avoid residential areas and requiring that "Jake Brakes" not be used along the haul route within the City. The hauling plan must be identified as part of the grading plan and shall be approved by the City Engineer. C. The Developer shall ensure that construction equipment is fitted with modern sound - reduction equipment. d. Stationary noise sources that exceed 70 dBA of continuous noise generation (at 50 feet) shall be shielded with temporary barriers if existing residences are within 350 feet of the noise source. e. Designated parking areas for construction worker vehicles and for materials storage and assembly shall be provided. These areas shall be set back as far as possible from or otherwise shielded from existing surrounding rural residential neighborhoods. f. Property owners and residents located within 600 feet of the project site shall be notified in writing on a monthly basis of construction schedules involving major grading, including when clearing and grading is to begin. The project developer shall notify adjacent residents and property owners by Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested of the starting date for removal of vegetation and commencement of site grading. The content of this required communication shall be approved by the City Engineer in advance of its mailing and the return receipts, evidencing United States mail Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 26 delivery, shall be provided to the Engineering Department. 60. The Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a rough grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete public improvements and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of all improvements. 61. The final grading plan shall meet all UBC and City of Moorpark standards including slope setback requirements at lot lines, streets and adjacent to offsite lots. 62. Concurrent with submittal of the rough grading plan a sediment and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer. The design shall include measures for irrigation and hydroseeding on all graded areas within 30 days of completion of grading unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Reclaimed water shall be used for dust control during grading, if available from Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. 63. This project is projected to balance cut and fill onsite. Unanticipated off -site import /export operations requiring an excess of 1,000 total truck loads or 10,000 cubic yards of material shall require City Council approval prior to the commencement of hauling or staged grading operations in accordance with City Council Resolution establishing grading requirements. A haul route is to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. Additional surety for the cleaning and /or repair of the streets shall be required as directed by the City Engineer. 64. All requests for staged grading shall be submitted in writing to the City Engineer for review and approval by the City Council. 65. Temporary irrigation, hydroseeding and erosion control measures shall be implemented on all temporary grading. Temporary grading is defined to be any grading partially completed and any disturbance of existing natural conditions due to construction activity. These measures will apply to a temporary or permanent grading activity that remains or is anticipated to remain unfinished or undisturbed in its altered condition for a period of time greater than thirty Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 27 (30) days except that during the rainy season these measures will be implemented immediately. 66. The maximum gradient for any slope shall not exceed a 2:1 slope inclination except where special circumstances exist. In the case of special circumstances where steeper slopes are warranted, a certified soils engineer will review plans and his /her recommendations will be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. 67. All graded slopes shall be planted in a timely manner with groundcover, trees and shrubs that will stabilize slopes and minimize erosion. The planting will be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. During Grading, the Following Conditions Shall Apply: 68. Grading may occur during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15th subject to approval by the City Engineer and timely installation of erosion control facilities. Erosion control measures shall be in place and functional between October 15th and April 15th. In order to comply with the October 1 date, revised erosion control plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer no later than September 1st of each year from the start of grading or clearing operations to the time of grading bond release. 69. Prior to any work being conducted within any State, County, or City right of way, the Developer shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits from the appropriate Agencies. Copies of these approved permits will be provided to the City Engineer. 70. During site preparation and construction, the contractor shall minimize disturbance of natural groundcover on the project site until such activity is required for grading and construction purposes. 71. During clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation operations regular watering shall control dust. In addition the following measures shall apply: a. Water all site access roads and material excavated or graded on or off -site to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur a minimum of at least two Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 28 times daily, preferably in the late morning and after the completion of work for the day. Additional watering for dust control shall occur as directed by the City. The grading plan shall indicate the number of water trucks that will be available for dust control at each phase of grading. b. Cease all clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour). The contractor shall maintain contact with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) meteorologist for current information about average wind speeds. C. Water or securely cover all material transported off - site and on -site to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d. Keep all grading and construction equipment on or near the site, until these activities are completed. e. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive dust generation. f. Wash off heavy -duty construction vehicles before they leave the site. 72. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, and during construction activities, fugitive dust emissions should be controlled using the following procedures: a. Apply non - hazardous chemical stabilizers to all inactive portions of the construction site. When appropriate, seed exposed surfaces with a fast growing, soil binding plant to reduce wind erosion and its contribution to local particulate levels. b. Periodically, or as directed by the City Engineer, sweep public streets in the vicinity of the site to remove silt (i.e., fine earth material transported from the site by wind, vehicular activities, water runoff, etc.), which may have accumulated from construction activities. 73. During smog season (May - October) the City shall order that construction cease during Stage III alerts to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating, lower ozone levels and protect equipment operators from excessive smog Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 29 levels. The City, at its discretion, may also limit construction during Stage II alerts. 74. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Sheriff's Department, and the City Construction Observer shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. 75. The Developer shall utilize all prudent and reasonable measures (including installation of a 6 -foot high chain link fence around the construction sites or provision of a full time licensed security guard) to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the work site at any time and to protect the public from accidents and injury. 76. Backfill of any pipe or conduit shall be in 4 -inch fully compacted layers unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 77. Soil testing for trench compaction shall be performed on all trenching and shall be done not less than once every 4 feet of lift and 100 lineal feet of trench excavated. 78. Observe a 15 -mile per hour speed limit for the construction area. 79. During site preparation and construction, construct temporary storm water diversion structures per City of Moorpark standards. Road and Traffic Requirements: 80. Driveways shall be designed in accordance with the latest Ventura County Road Standards. 81. Above ground obstructions (utility cabinets, mailboxes, etc.) are to be placed within the right -of -way landscaping areas. When above ground obstructions are to be placed within the sidewalk, a minimum five (5) foot clear sidewalk width must be provided around the obstruction. 82. The Developer shall submit wall and landscaping plans showing that provisions have been taken to provide for and maintain proper sight distances. All fences, walls and other structures over six (6) feet high are to be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 30 83. The location of the centerline of the driveway into the project shall be a minimum of 250 feet from the centerline of Los Angeles Avenue. The site design shall accommodate turning movements for a semi - truck, particularly for the movements a semi -truck requires to safely exit the site onto Goldman Avenue. 84. The Developer shall make a special contribution to the City representing the developer's pro -rata share of the cost of improvements at the following intersections: Los Angeles Avenue /Gabbert Road ($100,000) Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue ($165,000) The actual contribution (pro -rata share shall be based upon the additional traffic added to the intersection. Prior to Zoning Clearance for building permit, the developer's traffic engineer shall provide the Community Development Director and City Engineer a "Fair Share Analysis" of the projects added traffic for calculation of the pro -rata ( "fair share ") amount. Street Lighting: 85. Final street lighting orientation and design along Los Angeles and Goldman Avenues shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If additional streetlights are required, the Developer shall submit improvement plans per the City of Moorpark and Ventura County Standards and installation shall occur prior to occupancy approval. 86. The applicant shall install two 22,000 lumen street lights on Los Angeles Avenue. As determined by the City Engineer, the applicant is required to pay the City for the total cost of all street lights. Drainage Requirements: 87. The Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, drainage plans; hydrologic and hydraulic calculations prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer; shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete improvements and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of all improvements. 88. The plans shall depict all on -site and off -site drainage structures required by the City. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 31 89. The drainage plans and calculations shall relate to conditions before and after development. Quantities of water, water flow rates, major water courses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps, sump locations, detention and NPDES facilities and drainage courses will be addressed. 90. Hydrology shall be per the current Ventura County Flood Control Standards except as follows: a. All storm drains shall carry a 10 -year frequency storm. b. All catch basins shall carry a 10 -year storm. C. All catch basins in a sump condition shall be sized such that depth of water at intake shall equal the depth of the approach flows. d. All culverts shall carry a 100 -year frequency storm. 91. Drainage facilities shall be provided such that surface flows are intercepted and contained in a storm drain system prior to entering collector or secondary roadways. 92. "After- development" drainage to adjacent parcels shall not be increased above "Pre- development" drainage quantities nor will surface runoff be concentrated by this development. All drainage measures necessary to mitigate storm water flows shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 93. Drainage grates shall not be used at any location. 94. If the land to be occupied is in an area of special flood hazard, the Developer shall notify all potential buyers in writing of this hazard condition. The grading plan shall also show contours indicating the 50- and 100 -year flood levels. 95. Drainage devices for the development shall be designed and installed with all necessary appurtenances to safely contain and convey storm flows to their final point of discharge to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 96. A hydraulic /hydrologic study shall be prepared which analyzes the hydraulic capacity of the drainage system, with and without the storm drain system for the proposed development. The Developer shall make any downstream improvements, required by the City, to support the proposed development. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 32 97. Improvements shall be constructed to detain drainage on -site when the drainage amount is between the ten -year and fifty - year storm event. A rainfall intensity Zone K shall be utilized in the design unless an alternate design intensity is approved by the City Engineer. Detention facilities shall include paved spillways. 98. The Developer shall demonstrate that surface drainage from the site shall not drain over the sidewalk or driveways. 99. The Developer shall demonstrate, for each building pad within the development area, that the following restrictions and protections can be put in place to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a. Adequate protection from a 100 -year frequency storm; b. Feasible access during a 50 -year frequency storm. C. Hydrology calculations shall be per current Ventura County Flood Control Standards. d. All structures proposed within the 100 -year flood zone shall be elevated at least one foot above the 100 -year flood level. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES): 100. Prior to the issuance of any construction /grading permit and /or the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, the Developer shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Control Plan ( SWPCP) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 101. The SWPCP shall be developed and implemented in accordance with requirements of the Ventura Countywide Storm Water Quality Management Program, NPDES Permit No. CAS004002. 102. The SWPCP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to storm water and shall include the design and placement of recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants from the construction site into the storm drain system. 103. Improvement plans shall note that the contractor shall comply to the "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks." 104. Prior to the issuance of any construction /grading permit and /or the commencement of any clearing, grading or Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 33 excavation, the Developer shall comply with all requirements of this General Permit including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 105. The Developer shall also comply with NPDES objectives as outlined in the "Storm Water Pollution Control Guidelines for Construction Sites." 106. Prior to Zoning Clearance approval, Developer will provide facilities to comply with NPDES requirements. Runoff from developed areas shall be diverted to detention basins, "passive- devices" or other passive Best Management Practices (BMP's) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A California registered civil engineer shall propose and design these devices as part of the drainage improvement plans for the project. Provisions shall be made by the Developer to provide for maintenance in perpetuity. 107. Prior to City issuance of the initial grading permit, the Developer shall obtain all necessary NPDES related permits. The grading permits issued for the development shall require Developer to provide schedules and procedures for onsite maintenance of earthmoving and other heavy equipment and documentation of proper disposal of used oil and other lubricants. The onsite maintenance of all equipment that can be performed offsite will not be allowed. 108. The project construction plans shall state that the contractor shall comply with the "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks" - Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to the development and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Said requirements shall include the following: a. All onsite storm drain inlets shall be labeled "Don't Dump Drains to Arroyo." b. No outdoor vehicle maintenance shall be allowed. C. All common area property locations shall be maintenance free of litter and debris. d. All onsite storm drains shall be cleaned, using approved methods, at least twice a year, once immediately prior to October 1, the rainy season, and once in January. e. All common sidewalks, walkways, and parking areas shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris from entering the storm drain. No Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 34 cleaning agent must be discharged into a storm drain system. If any cleaning agent or degreaser is used wash water shall not be discharged to the storm drain but shall be discharged to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review and approval of the County Waterworks District No. 1. f. The City will require that "passive" devices and BMP's be used to comply with NPDES water quality requirements. The Developer shall provide the City with a Maintenance Program for such devices 109. Prior to the starting of grading or any ground disturbance the Developer shall employ a full -time superintendent for NPDES compliance. The NPDES superintendent shall be present, on the project site Monday through Friday and on all other days when the probability of rain is 40% or higher and prior to the start of and during all grading or clearing operations until the release of grading bonds. The NPDES superintendent shall have full authority to hire personnel, bind the developer in contracts, rent equipment and purchase materials to the extent needed to effectuate Best Management Practices. The NPDES superintendent shall provide proof to the City Engineer of attendance and satisfactory completion of courses satisfactory to the City Engineer totaling no less than 8 hours directed specifically to NPDES compliance and effective use of Best Management Practices. Proof of such attendance and completion shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to employment to the NPDES superintendent. In summary, an NPDES superintendent shall be employed to assure NPDES compliance during the construction operations on the site. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 110. Access Road Width: An on -site access road of thirty (30) feet shall be provided. 111. Vertical Clearance: All driveways shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches (131611). 112. Fire Lanes: Prior to construction, the Developer shall submit two (2) site plans to the Ventura County Fire Protection District (Fire District) for the review and approval of the location of fire lanes. The fire lanes shall be posted in accordance with California Vehicle Code, Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 35 Section 22500.1 and Article 10 of the Uniform Fire Code prior to occupancy. 113. Turning Radius: The access road shall be of sufficient width to allow for a forty- (40) foot outside turning radius at all turns in the road. 114. Access Road Gates: Any gates to control vehicular access are to be located to allow a vehicle waiting for entrance to be completely off the intersection roadway. A minimum clear open width of fifteen (15) feet in each direction shall be provided for separate entry /exit gates and a minimum twenty (20) feet for combined entry /exit gates. If gates are to be locked, a Knox system shall be installed. The method of gate control, including operation during power failure, shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Division. Gate plan details shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval prior to installation. A final acceptance inspection by the Fire District for approval prior to installation. A final acceptance inspection by the Fire District is required prior to placing any gate into service. 115. Walkways: Approved walkways shall be provided from all building openings to the public way or Fire Department access road /driveway. 116. Address Numbers: Address numbers, a minimum of 6 inches (611) high, shall be installed prior to occupancy, shall be of contrasting color to the background, and shall be readily visible at night. Where structures are set back more than 250 feet (2501) from the street, larger numbers will be required so that they are distinguishable from the street. In the event, the structure(s) is not visible from the street, the address number(s) shall be posted adjacent to the driveway entrance. 117. Address Number Plan: A plan shall be submitted to the Fire District for review indicating the method by which this building will be identified by address numbers (Suite Numbers). 118. Fire Hydrant Plan: Prior to construction, the Developer shall submit plans to the Fire District for approval of the location of hydrants, and show existing hydrants within 300 feet of the development. 119. Fire Hydrant (s) Required: Fire Hydrants shall be provided in accordance with current adopted edition of the Uniform Fire Code, Appendix III -B and adopted amendments. On -site Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 36 fire hydrants may be required as determined by the Fire District. 120. Fire Hydrant Design: Fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to combustible construction and shall conform to the minimum standard of the Moorpark Water Works Manual. a. Each hydrant shall be a 6 -inch wet barrel design and shall have two (2) 4 -inch and two (2) 2 -1/2 inch outlet (s) . b. The required fire flow shall be achieved at no less than 20 -psi residual pressure. C. Fire hydrants shall be spaced 300 feet on center and so located that no structure will be farther than 150 feet from any one hydrant. d. Fire hydrants shall be set back in from the curb face 24 inches on center. e. No obstructions, including walls, trees, light and sign posts, and any meter, shall be placed within three (3) feet of any hydrant. f. A concrete pad shall be installed extending eighteen (18) inches out from the fire hydrant. g. Ground clearance to be the lowest operating nut shall be between eighteen (18) and twenty -four (24) inches. 121. Hydrant Location Markers: Prior to occupancy of any structure, blue reflective hydrant location markers shall be placed on the access roads in accordance with Fire District standards. If the final Asphalt cape is not in place at time of occupancy, hydrant location markers shall be installed and shall be replaced when the final asphalt cap is completed. 122. Fire Flow: The minimum fire flow required shall be determined by the type of building construction, proximity to other structures, fire walls, and fire protection devices provided, as specified by the 1997 Uniform Fire Code Appendix III -A and adopted Amendments. Given the present plans and information, the required fire flow is approximately 3,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a minimum three- (3) hour duration. A minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute shall be provided from any one hydrant. The Developer shall verify that the water purveyor can provide the required volume at the project. 123. Fire Sprinklers: Any structure greater than 5,000 square feet in area and /or five (5) miles from a fire station shall Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 37 be provided by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Fire District requirements. 124. Fire Protection System Plans: Plans for all fire protection systems (sprinklers, dry chemical, hood systems, etc) shall be submitted with payment for plan check, to the Fire District for review and approval prior to installation. Note: Fire sprinkler systems with 100 or more heads shall be supervised by a alarm system in accordance with Fire District requirements. 125. Fire Extinguishers: Fire extinguishers shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. The placement of extinguishers shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire District. 126. Trash Dumpster Locations: Commercial trash dumpsters and containers with an individual capacity of 1.5 cubic yards or greater shall not be stored or placed within 5 feet of openings, combustible walls, or combustible roof eave lines unless protected by approved automatic fire sprinklers. 127. Hazard Abatement: All grass or brush exposing any structure (s) to fire hazards shall be cleared for a distance of 100 feet prior to construction of any structure and shall be maintained in accordance with Fire District requirements. 128. Fire Department Clearance: The Developer shall obtain and comply with the provisions of Fire District Form #126 Requirements For Construction prior to obtaining a Building Permit for any new structures or additions to existing structures. 129. Building plans of all assembly occupancies shall be submitted to the Fire District for plan check. D. VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 1 CONDITIONS 130. The Developer shall comply with the Waterworks District No. 1 standard procedures for obtaining domestic water and sewer services for commercial, industrial and public developments within the District. Also, the Developer shall comply with the applicable provisions of the District Rules and Regulations. 131. Unconditional Will -Serve Letter: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, an "Unconditional Will Serve Letter" for water and sewer service will be obtained from the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 38 E. POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 132. Exterior access ladders are not permitted. There shall not be any easy exterior access to the roof area, such as from ladders, trees, high walls, etc. 133. All new construction, shall comply with public safety measures as determined by the Moorpark Police Department prior to Building Permit approval. F. MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CONDITIONS 134. If applicable, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Developer shall pay all school assessment fees levied by the Moorpark Unified School District. G. BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 135. Use of Asbestos: No asbestos pipe or construction materials shall be used. 136. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Developer shall demonstrate by possession of a District Release from the Calleguas Municipal Water District that arrangements for payment of the construction charge applicable to the proposed project have been made. Developer shall be required to comply with Ventura County Waterworks Rules and Regulations, including payment of all applicable fees.