Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AG RPTS 2002 0624 PC REG
Resolution No. PC- 2002 -425 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2002 7:00 P.M. Moorpark Community Center 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. ROLL CALL: 799 Moorpark Avenue 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: S. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any member of the public may address the Commission during the Public Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Discussion item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing or Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Discussion portion of the Agenda for that item. Speaker cards must be received by the Secretary for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of the meeting and for Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item of the Discussion portion of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing must be received prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing. A limitation of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Hearing item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in lieu of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Discussion items. Copies of each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the Community Development Department /Planning and are available for public review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the Community Development Department at 517 -6233. S: \Community Development \COMMISSION \AGENDA \020624 pca - rev.doc Planning Commission Agenda June 24, 2002 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Special Meeting Minutes of August 28, 1997 B. Adjourned Meeting Minutes of June 15, 1998 C. Regular Meeting Minutes of June 22, 1998 D. Regular Meeting Minutes of September 14, 1998 E. Regular Meeting Minutes of October 12, 1998 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 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) . (Continued from May 13, 2002) Staff Recommendation: 1) Ask for public comments regarding the revised project; 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 denial of Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -10. B. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01, a Request for a Change in the Land Use Designation From General Commercial (C -2) to Very High Density (VH); Zone Change No. 2002 -01, a Request for a Change Zone designation from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to Residential Planned Development, 20 dwelling units per acre (RPD 20 du /ac); and Residential Planned Development (RPD) Permit No. 2002 -02, a Request to allow the construction of 190 senior citizen apartment units on 9.83 acres. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, and close the public hearing; 2) Consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Planning Commission Agenda June 24, 2002 Page 3 Declaration to ensure that it adequately addresses impacts of the proposed residential project prior making a recommendation; 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2002- recommending to the City Council approval General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01, Zone Change 2002 -01 and Residential Planned Development No. 2 02, subject to conditions of approval. 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: the to PC- of No. 001- A) Consider establishing Commission procedures for written, electronic and telephone communication from applicants and the public with the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to return with a Resolution amending, Section 9. Written Communication of Resolution No. PC- 2002 -421 and incorporating additional language and revisions regarding procedures for communication with the Commission. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: A) Planning Commission Summer Meeting Recess Scheduled for July 8, 2002 and August 12, 2002 - Verbal B) Tentative - Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of July 22, 2002, Revisions to the Lighting Ordinance - Verbal 11. ADJOURNMENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department at (805) 517 -6223. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104; ADA Title II). ITEM -�(O 0 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 28, 1997 Paste A Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on August 28, 1997, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:51 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Bart Miller led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3. ROLL CALL Chairman Acosta, and Commissioners Lowenberg, Miller, and Norcross were present at the meeting. Commissioner Millhouse was absent. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; Debbie Traffenstedt, Principal Planner; 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 -08 -28 spl pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 28, 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. 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. Staff Recommendation: 1. Close the public hearing. 2. Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, Zone Change No. 97 -5, and the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan No. 95- 1, subject to incorporation of Specific Plan revisions as identified by the Planning Commission. Reference: Staff Report dated August 28, 1997. MOTION: Commissioner Lowenberg moved and Commissioner Miller seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. Pc -97 -342 recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, General Plan Amendment No. 97 -1, Zone Change No. 97 -5 and the Downtown Specific Plan. Motion passed with a 4:0 voice vote. Commissioner Millhouse was absent. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Commission continued Section 2.2 Design and Landscape Guidelines component of the draft Downtown Specific Plan to the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, forwarding comments on the Guidelines separately. B. 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 F 1997 -08 -28 SP1 Pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of August 28, 1997 Paste - 3 - completion direct staff to prepare a resolution to the City Council incorporating all recommended changes. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Commission continued this item to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS None 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS or FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. William F. Otto, Chair for Ernesto Acosta, Chairman ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan, community Development Director F 1997 -08 -28 spl pcm UEM (D. 5• Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 15, 1998 Page 1 An Adjourned Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June 15, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021. 1. Call to Order The meeting called to order at 7:16 p.m. 2. Pledlge of Allegiance Commissioner Millhouse led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3. Roll Call Chairman Lowenberg, Commissioners Millhouse, Acosta, Miller and DiCecco were present at the meeting. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Community Development Director; John Libiez, Principal Planner; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. Proclamations, Commendations and Special Presentations None 5. Reordering of, and Additions to, the Agenda None 6. Approval of Minutes None 7. Public Comments None 8. Consent Calendar None 9. Public Hearings A. Application: Proposed Development Agreement (Continued from June 8, 1998). Applicant: Hidden Creek Ranch Partners (Messenger Development). Purpose: Consider Proposed Development Agreement for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan, Specific Plan No. 8 (Messenger Development) . Staff Recommendation: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony. 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC 98- , recommending approval of the Proposed Development Agreement to City Council. F 1998 -06-15 PCM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 15, 1998 Page 2 Presented by Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development. Speakers included the following. Gary Austin, Representing Messenger Investment (Hidden Creek Ranch Partners), 959 South Coast Drive, Suite 490, Costa Mesa. Spoke in support. Lori Rutter, 11611 Pinedale Road. Spoke in opposition. Roseann Mikos, 14371 E. Cambridge Street. Spoke in opposition. Don Ulmer, 14851 Marquette Circle. Spoke in opposition. Maria Heissel, 15458 Borges Drive. Spoke in opposition. The Commission's discussions concerned the following topics. 1. Highway 118 Bypass 2. Ventura County Property Tax 3. Project Phasing and Build -out 4. Commercial Development 5. Traffic Circulation MOTION: Commissioner Acosta moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -98 -354 recommending the City Council approval of a Development Agreement between the City and Messenger Development. Motion passed with a 4:1 voice vote. Commissioner Millhouse voting NO. 10. Discussion Items None 11. Announcements of Future Agenda Items The Director provided the Commission with information concerning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 22, 1998. F 1998 -06-15 PCM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 15, 1998 12. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. William F. Otto, Chair for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director Page 3 F 1998 -06-15 PCM ITEM (Deco Nownlow Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 22, 1998 Page - 1 - The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June 22, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021. 1. Call to Order The meeting called to order at 7:14 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Miller led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3. Roll Call Chairman Lowenberg, Commissioners Millhouse, Acosta, Miller and DiCecco were present at the meeting. Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager; Paul Porter, Principal Planner; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Jim MacDonald, Building Official; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. Proclamations, Commendations and Special Presentations None 5. Reordering of, and Additions to, the Agenda None 6. Approval of Minutes None 7. Public Comments None 8. Consent Calendar None 9. Public Hearings A. Entitlement: Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -2. Location: 79 to 95 East High Street (Assessor's Parcel Number: 512- 0- 091 -060). Applicant: Javier Hernandez Ortiz. Proposal: Consider a request for operation of a nightclub. Staff Recommendation: 1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Make the appropriate findings, which are specified in Resolution No. PC -98 -355, including the environmental F 1998 -06-22 PCM8:04 AM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 22, 1998 - - -- - - - - -- - - -- — - Page - 2 - determination. 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC -98 -355, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -02. Staff provided the presentation. Testimony received from the following: Warren Tetz, Moorpark Chamber representative, 3935 Willowcreek Lane, Moorpark. Mr. Tetz provided background information concerning the proposed facility prior use (Whistle Stop), bar and restaurant. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette Street, Moorpark. Mrs. Brown said this facility was previously a dance hall in old Moorpark, and like Wood Ranch Restaurant, we shouldn't be intimidated about children and the proposed bar area. Jose Espinoza, 530 Sierra Avenue, Moorpark. Mr. Espinoza read from a letter, which said he found the opportunity to come to Moorpark 2 years ago when he heard the City of Moorpark was supporting new business and worked hard with Mr. Ortiz and the City's help to establish a restaurant facility at this location. George Shakiban, 23586 Calabasas Road, Calabasas. Mr. Shakiban said he was a structural engineer, and plans had been approved by the fire department. He said he was familiar with parking issues and he believed this project fully complied with requirements. The Commission discussed the expense and feasibility of expanding the proposed facility, hours of operation, nuisance issues and the history of the facility. Ludy Topete, 79 High Street, Moorpark. Mrs. Topete invited the Commission to ask her questions about the existing business. Mrs. Topete explained that the restaurant would provide a security guard and no bar service would be provided to under age (21) persons. The hours of operation proposed were 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., and currently were Friday, Saturday and Sunday 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. Bob Holms, (no address provided) Thousand Oaks. Mr. Holms addressed the construction needed at this location. Becky E. Rittorit, 4719 Maureen Lane, Moorpark Community Church, Moorpark. Mrs. Rittorit as a representative of the Church. She said she had obtained signatures in F 1998 -06-22 PCM8:04 AM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 22, 1998 Page - 3 - opposition to this proposal and recommended denial before the use becomes a problem. Roseann Mikos, 14371 E. Cambridge Street, Moorpark. Ms. Mikos, a 17 year resident asked to reconsider the proposal and suggested that the doorway be used as controlling point for security. Ms. Mikos said the applicant would comply with the Fire Department's requirements. David Aguirre, 689A New Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark. Mr. Aguirre questioned how the applicant intended to keep under age persons out of the bar area without a physical barrier. Public hearing closed at 8:14 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Millhouse moved and Commissioner Miller seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation to approve Resolution No. PC -98 -355 to deny CUP -98 -2. Roll Call Vote: DiCecco, Aye; Acosta, No; Miller, Aye; Millhouse, Aye; Lowenberg Aye Motion passed 4:1 B. Entitlements: Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 98 -1. Proposed two story 21,000 square foot (18,000 square foot first floor, 3,000 square foot second floor) manufacturing warehouse building including parking and landscaping located on Lot No. 2 of Tract 3492, Assessor Parcel No. 513 -0- 060 -285. Industrial Planned Development No. 98 -2. Proposed two story 21,000 square foot (18,000 square foot first floor, 3,000 square foot second floor) manufacturing warehouse building including parking and landscaping located on Lot No. 3 of Tract 3492, Assessor Parcel No. 513 -0- 060 -035. Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 98 -3: Proposed two story 16,700 square foot (13,700 square foot first floor, 3,000 square foot second floor) manufacturing warehouse building located on Lot No. 1 of Tract 3492, Assessor Parcel No. 513 -0- 060 -275. Applicant: Jerrold S. Felsenthal (IPD 98 -1 &2) J and L Investments (IPD 98 -3). Location: Lot Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of Tract 3492 located on the northeast corner of Condor Drive and Los Angeles Avenue at the Highway 118 on -ramp in the City of Moorpark. Staff Recommendation: 1. Open the public F 1998 -06-22 PCM8:04 AM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 22, 1998 Page - 4 - hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the requested entitlements prior to making a recommendation to the City Council for approval of denial of the projects. 3. Adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council approval of the Industrial Planned Development Permit. Wayne Loftus provided the staff presentation. Testimony received from the following: Mike Tingus, The Seeley Company, 16830 Ventura Blvd., Suite S, Encino. In support of the proposal. Ray Musser, R.M. Architects, 7112 Los Coyotes Place, Camarillo. In support of the proposal. Edward E. Gripp, 1449 Doral Circle, Thousand Oaks. In support of the proposal. Jerrold Felsenthal, 9201 Wilshire Blvd., #301, Beverly Hills. Mr. Felsenthal spoke in support of his proposal to construct Industrial Planned Development No. 98 -2, a proposed two story 21,000 square foot (18,000 square foot first floor, 3,000 square foot second floor) manufacturing warehouse building. Also, Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 98 -3, a proposed two story 16,700 square foot (13,700 square foot first floor), 3,000 square foot second floor) manufacturing warehouse building. Public Hearing Closed at 9:19 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Millhouse moved and Commissioner Acosta seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. PC -98 -357 with revisions to Condition Nos. 38, Item 2; 65; 49; 91; and 124. 38. The plot plan shall not be revised to reflect any requirements for right -of -way dedications, unless an appropriate modification is approved by the City. In addition, the following revisions to the site plan shall be made subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction. 2. On IPD 98 -3 the loading areas shall be located completely within the building, including the placement of overhead roll -up doors which F 1998 -06-22 PCM8:04AM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 22, 1998 - - -- -- - -- - -- - -- Page 5 shall be kept continuously closed except to allow vehicle ingress and egress. There shall be a second set of roll -up doors located inside the loading area to separate the loading zone from the lease area to be used for manufacturing, warehouse, etc. Additionally, the enclosed loading area shall be separated with a wall from the main building area and shall be properly vented so as to avoid exhaust fumes from vehicles utilizing the loading area. 49. Roof mounted equipment is prohibited, except for equipment that cannot be mounted on the ground and approved to be roof mounted by the Director of Community Development. 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 a design element of the building. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, the final design and materials for the roof, the Director of Community Development must approve screen and location of any roof - mounted equipment. All screening shall be tall enough to block all ground level views as well as those from Highway 118 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. 65. This project is proposed to balance cut and fill on- site. Unanticipated off -site import /export operations requiring up to 30 total truck loads of soils material shall require Council approval prior to the commencement of hauling or staged grading operations. 91. Street lights shall be provided on the improvement plans per Ventura County Standards and as approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall pay all F 1998 -06-22 PCM8:04 AM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of June 22, 1998 Page - 6 - energy costs associated with public street lighting for a period of one year from the acceptance of the street improvements. 124. If damaged and directed by the City Engineer or Public Works Director, the developer shall have repaired, overlay or slurried that portion of Condor Drive adjacent the development. The repairs, overlay or slurry repairs shall extend from curb to curb along the entire length of the project including transitions unless otherwise approved and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Motion passed with a unanimous voice vote. 9. Discussion Items None 10. Announcements of Future Agenda Items Nelson Miller announced the City Council /Planning Commission Joint Meeting scheduled for July 8, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. The Director informed the Commission that Mr. Bromiley (Industrial Planned Development Permit No. IPD 98 -04, Parcel Map 5123) had been tentatively scheduled for July 13, but had requested a continuance. The item will be scheduled for August 10, 1998. 11. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director William F. Otto, Chair for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman F 1996.0622 PCM8:04 AM IN EM 6 • D a Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 14, 1998 Page 1 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held September 14, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021. 1. Call to Order Chairman Lowenberg 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 Lowenberg, Commissioners Millhouse, Miller, DiCecco and Acosta were present at the meeting. (Commissioner Acosta arriving at 7:17 p.m.). Staff attending the meeting included Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development; Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. Proclamations, Commendations and Special Presentations None 5. Reordering of, and Additions to, the Agenda None 6. Approval of Minutes A. Planning Commission Meeting of August 24, 1998. MOTION: Commissioner Millhouse moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 1998. Motion passed with a 4:1 voice vote. Commissioner Acosta absent at this point in the meeting. 7. Public Comments Marilyn Bea Hoadley, 4060 Cliffrose Avenue, Moorpark. Ms. Hoadley commented on the recent City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -2. Ms. Hoadley praised the Commission for voting against the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -2 to allow a nightclub, bar and restaurant use at 79 to 95 East High Street. 8. Consent Calendar None F 1998 -09-14 PCM4:13 PM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 14, 1998 Page 2 9. Public Hearings A. Application: Industrial Planned Development Permit 97 -4 and Parcel Map 5123, Conditional Use Permit 98 -4 (Continued from August 10, 1998). Applicant: William Bromiley. Proposal: Consider a request for approval of an Industrial Planned Development Permit for the construction of a 72,400 square foot self storage facility including an on -site managers residence, and subdivision of a 7.5 acre site into two lots of 3.41 and 4.09 acres. Location: Northeast corner of Flinn Avenue and Spring Road. The property involved in this request is located within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Agency. Assessor's Parcel Number: 512 -0 -171- 20/21). Existing General Plan Designation: I -1 (Light Industrial). Existing Zoning: M -1 (Industrial Park). Staff Recommendation: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony. 2. Make the appropriate findings which are specified in Resolution No. PC -98- including the environmental determination. 3. Adopt Resolution PC -98- recommending approval of Industrial Planned Development No. 97 -4, Parcel Map 5123, Conditional Use Permit 98 -4 subject to conditions. Presented by Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager. Reference: Staff Report dated September 14, 1998. Testimony received from the following: Joanne Geiler, 19900 MacArthur Blvd., Irvine. In support of the proposal. Neal Scribner, 10855 Priscilla Road, Camarillo. In support of the proposal. Colin Velazquez, 1078 Mello Lane, Simi Valley. Susan Connally, 12160 Poindexter Avenue, Moorpark. MOTION: Commissioner Millhouse moved and Commissioner Acosta seconded a motion to adopt Resolution PC -98 -359 recommending approval of Industrial Planned Development No. 97 -4, Parcel Map 5123, and Conditional Use Permit 98 -4 subject to conditions that the resolution address the Commission's recommendations and that the required changes to the site plan and elevations be made prior to transmittal to City Council for hearing. F 1998 -09-14 PCM4:13 PM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 14, 1998 Pacre 3 • Change building color scheme. • Pedestrian orientation (suggested landscaped buffer between sidewalk and street). • Graffiti removal and maintenance on north side of project particularly. • Provide an architectural backdrop treatment where wrought iron gates allow view of project interior from the street. • Light fixtures be similar to those proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan. • Recreational vehicles of a size as determined by staff must exit onto Minor Street. • Berm landscaping • The roof treatment that includes the arch at the front of the building shall be extended deeper into the site to intersect with shed roof of the office. • False store fronts and pilasters to provide definition from Spring Road. • Incorporated planting on building, such as Boston Ivy to soften its appearance. • Use pyramid cap on pilasters replacing the ball shape. Motion passed with the following roll call vote: Commissioner Millhouse: Yes Commissioner Acosta: Yes Commissioner Miller: No Commissioner DiCecco: Yes Chairman Lowenberg: No 10. Discussion Items None 11. Announcements of Future Agenda Items A. Joint City Council /Planning Commission Workshop for introduction to Specific Plan No. 2 (Morrison- F 1998-09-14 PCM4:13 PM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of September 14, 1998 Page 4 Fountainwood- Agoura), on Wednesday, September 23, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. (Verbal Report). Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development provided the Commission with information regarding the Special City Council /Planning Commission meeting and workshop scheduled for September 23 to introduce Specific Plan No. 2. B. Cancellation of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1998. (Verbal Report) Presented by Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development 12. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ATTEST: harry x. Kogan, uommunity Development Director William F. Otto, Chair for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman F 1998-09 -14 PCM4:13 PM TEEM (4 , E • Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 12, 1998 Page 1 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission held October 12, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021. 1. Call to Order Chairman Lowenberg called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Vice Chairman Millhouse led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 3. Roll Call Commissioners, Lowenberg, Millhouse, Acosta, and DiCecco were present at the meeting. Commissioner Bart Miller was absent. Staff attending the meeting included Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Jana Morgan, EDAW Consultant; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. Proclamations, Commendations and Special Presentations None 5. Reordering of, and Additions to, the Agenda None 6. Approval of Minutes A. Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 1998. MOTION: Commissioner Millhouse moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 1998, with revision. Motion passed with a 4:0 voice vote. 7. Public Comments None 8. Consent Calendar None 9. Public Hearings A. Application: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 2 Applicant: Morrison - Fountainwood- Agoura Proposal: The Draft Environmental Impact Report and proposed mitigation measures to the identified impacts relating to the F 1998 -10 -12 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 12, 1998 Page 2 proposed development of 652 dwelling units, a 20.3 acre school site, an 11 acre park site, reservation of right -of -way for Highway 118 and Highway 23, the establishment of a 94 acre Open Space Conservation Easement and creation of a Habitat Conservation Plan, the establishment of a street pattern to serve the project and identification of project Open Space and the proposed amendment of the Circulation Element of the General Plan to extend Spring Road from Charles Street to Walnut Canyon Road as a prime arterial and future route of Highway 23. Location: The subject property is located north of the intersection of Spring Road and Charles Street and east of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark. The assessors Parcel Numbers are: 512.0.240.03, 512.0.240.04, 512.0.270.08, 512.0.270.07, 512.0.270.19, 512.0.270.20, 512.0.160.54, 512.0.160.55, 512.0.160.70, 512.0.160.52, 512.0.160.12 Existing Zoning: R -1 (Single Family Residential) RE -1 acre (Rural Exclusive - 1 acre lot) RA (Rural Agriculture - 10 acre lot) A change of zoning to RPD (Residential Planned Development) and 0 -S (Open Space) will be required for the proposed project. Existing General Plan: Specific Plan No. 2 which incorporates the overlay designations of RL (Rural Low Residential, 1 dwelling per 5 acres) and OS -1 (Open Space, 1 dwelling per 1040 acres). A change in the General Plan Overlay designation to reflect approved land uses will be required for the proposed project. Staff Recommendation: Receive public comments. Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager provided the Commission and public with a staff presentation. Mr. Loftus provided background information and a summary of environmental issues. MOTION: Commissioner Acosta moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to accept Nancy Wagenback's letter dated October 12, 1998. Motion passed with a 4:0 voice vote. F 1998 -10 -12 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 12, 1998 Pacte 3 Public Hearing opened at 7:47 p.m. Testimony provided by the following: Dennis B. Miller, 229 Charles Street, Moorpark. Opposed to this development proposal. Mr. Miller was concerned about the following: • Traffic circulation on Charles Street, Spring Road and Walnut Canyon. • Environmental document assumes that other developments exist and have been mitigated. • Must address the project as a single development and identify the impacts. • Additional traffic on Charles Street William LaPerch, 7200 Walnut Canyon, Moorpark. Opposed to this development proposal. Mr. LaPerch had the following concerns: • Air pollution • Valley Fever • Highway 118/23 construction • Gnatchter statement "better if relocated." • Light pollution • Noise pollution • Freeway connector - evaluate four separate alternatives. Bill Rattazzi, 21601 Devenshire Blvd., Chatsworth. Mr. Rattazzi, Representing Specific Plan No. 10 (SunCal Companies). Joe Ahern, 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue, #214, Moorpark. Spoke in support of this proposal. Mr. Ahern commented that the Chamber of Commerce had given 100% support for Specific Plan No. 2. Tina May, 13853 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark. Ms. May had the following concerns: • 80 acres of wildlife reduced to 30 acres. • What type of perimeter fencing will there be? • Will the Open Space remain permanent or future F 1998 -10 -12 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 12, 1998 Page 4 development proposed? • Who is responsible for Open Space maintenance? • Walnut Canyon truck traffic to New Spring Road. • Impacts to Spring Road /Los Angeles Avenue intersection. • What is the status of East Los Angeles Avenue right -of -way acquisition? Are there any plans to widen the road? Mark Stanley, 721 Sir George Court, Moorpark. Mr. Stanley had the following concerns: • Spring Road alignment. Karen King, 749 Sir George Court, Moorpark. Ms. King had the following concerns: • Lack of Downtown residents using Mountain Meadows parks. • Low income housing needed. • Oppose Specific Plan No. 2 development. • No support for the current community. • Oppose fast growth. • An attractive nuisance created when the City constructed a Park on Moorpark Avenue. Jose F. Martinez, 749 Sir George Court, Moorpark, California. Mr. Martinez had the following concerns: • Crime • Noise • Truck traffic • Wildlife • Lower property values • Pedestrians safety at the Charles Street and Spring Road intersection Public hearing closed. F 1998 -10 -12 pcm Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 12, 1998 Page 5 9. Discussion Items None 10. Announcements of Future Agenda Items None 11. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director William F. Otto, Chair for Gary Lowenberg, Chairman F 1998 -10-12 pcm rrEm S• 8-- - MOORPARK PLANNING M24ISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Paul Porter, Principal Planne .0 Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo DATE: June 19, 2002 (PC Meeting of 6/24/02) 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 On September 24, 2001, this project was first heard and then continued to November 13, 2001. The project was re- advertised and heard by the Planning Commission at its March 25, 2002 meeting, at which time the Planning Commission established an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Commissioners Janice Parvin and Mark DiCecco to suggest revisions to the building design to make it more compatible with other industrial buildings in the surrounding area. The hearing was continued to May 13, 2002 to allow the applicant time to meet with the Ad Hoc Committee and incorporate Committee recommended changes. Since that time, the applicant has made several modifications to the elevations and plot plan. DISCUSSION At its May 13, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed concerns related to architecture, the appropriateness of this use, the need for a revised landscape plan, the size of the use relative to other similar uses in the general vicinity, the importance of AHonorable Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 2 having a job /housing balance, and the need for additional architectural articulation. Motions were made for both recommending approval and denial of the project. Both motions failed for lack of a second. The Planning Commission ultimately adopted a motion to continue the hearing to June 24, 2002 and requested that the applicant submit a revised landscape plan and make additional architectural changes to the building elevations. Revised Project: On June 7, 2002, staff received the revised project from the architect, which was forwarded to the Ad Hoc Committee. Comments from the Ad Hoc Committee of Commissioners DiCecco and Parvin will be presented by the Committee members at the June 24 Planning Commission hearing. Changes to the plans from those shown at the Planning Commission hearing on May 13, include the following modifications: • A watertable element has been added at the pavilions facing both New Los Angeles and Goldman Avenues. The design watertable element consists of split -face block stopping with a stucco foam cap approximately eight inches below the springline of the arches. The foam trim element will be painted an accent color. • The recessed accent with metal trim has been doubled in size and is centered over each arch. Foam trim has been added around the recess. The metal accent that is placed over the recess is to be constructed of tubular steel, painted in a matte black finish. • The glazed block accent has been changed to a multi- color tile increased to twice the original size and is centered over arched elements. • The trellis has been modified to include some additional band sawn at the ends. Additional supports have been added to improve the appearance Honorable Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 3 of the trellis as well as adding additional structural stability. Also, additional projecting elements, doubling the number previously shown, have been added. • The tower element has been modified to include a recessed element with decorative metal accent. The split face watertable design element has also been added. • A foam trim element was added around the recessed accents and windows. • Four small glazed blocks, approximately sixteen inches square, have been centered over each window, half way between the top of the window trim and bottom of the cornice. • The landscape buffer between the northeast pavilion and the parking stall has been increased in size. • The fence pilasters have been re- spaced on the elevations to reflect what is shown on the site plan. Inconsistency with General Plan Goals and Policies 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. 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. Staff continues to be concerned 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. rFEM R. R . -1 MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Porter, Principal PlanneL<4D.# Deborah Traffenstedt, Acting Director of Community Development S� 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 ?C ATTACHMENT 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. Inconsistency 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 ,a (6i 0 m z 4 11%% New LOS AN GELES AVENUE_ VICINg MAP OVERALL SITEROOF PLAN ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE 875 w°ot• > — A.cntarctutr Rett (Statr ts„ IM4 OLOLTA .u., AApORP/1RI(,CJIUFORlJ1It93p�1 athovr• rAlreTao Mwe sr.c•:Ir 7ELEPHONE 53040099 o= ant t+ it A e� wiM°"i iii o 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA FK'W" S-002M IJM*3 P&ECT DATA lire" .' m yACtf I pm sop =W4 w trAees *k*W VAM Mrs- 1 MAcn rc M414 "w awe reer me TIM is �1D1RLEta sun FLW 020) MWATUM •+ an e ormroxy sou • pr�TAtL� man K aftem l 4 MA M Asomem RUM when POW Tw S*W.O lMl ram"L orowt NICLr" � t�l t� ia1Rf y ram 14P rrrt Lea ROW LOW LvilM l srice•waer tna twAOe veer CLul" u t muffrro 1I11e11T AT RAM WA A saw rm own sww I' rcry �lQp�:l' t1f M!N l� Ml� AWft AMOMAAY. CAI rim ow MrAiMMM t wcv.. MAIM► A•ALAOAM ALOMN41 IMLettrOQi m Will LIS AWLS AV= bwvAK Glrmu m 1naMwR 131 PACO= � IppHM C:rlr AmEAMi0W1!• 14M IL T0ml SAO, am hN tA11MA X IK d rm" "m TvArwow 13 ANN PACME A•A New LOS AN GELES AVENUE_ VICINg MAP OVERALL SITEROOF PLAN ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE 875 w°ot• > — A.cntarctutr Rett (Statr ts„ IM4 OLOLTA .u., AApORP/1RI(,CJIUFORlJ1It93p�1 athovr• rAlreTao Mwe sr.c•:Ir 7ELEPHONE 53040099 o= ant t+ it A e� wiM°"i iii o 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA FK'W" S-002M IJM*3 I { 1� �q c9 I { i PLANTING LEGEND mru Tw a rate catwr rwr tae Ttrss wcxariw raurmn r rmue Trs m" corms" c cmwr rum Pw i Imrarwr ttrwtw v vcum rte. o or tat t oera.u.w1" F Far ae Q` i imanuma rtru o oars w m t1 �' n nw cumum n nmu t w ar > >r eml w,:Tttre mows U Urar rmn.wr `t� z tiurow reaannurr T Ttv me zr ea twatt .www agora WON wr U Um ttrntrerw ttwmwua u ALM t torMwrua mm roast F Ftxtttrrc W ••.:.•.:• n nuumm man r roc Wdeum u mm" N NO.LT mom* AVON" r rret[w rmeT Ntwsr mm crew• m mw Mal E tau.Er nTmwuw tow r root rwre tantaeatw w =a terntrre ETIEUMA tn>,we r rat tr rmmre tnrew eorunw COMMON 1 11"Wom Meer Mesa tatnn t trwett wT r run ' Lettwe U M MANIO w rtuaTa w wr rnww t t Mth TIYOCJII'eMY JAMOwtIH S STAN JAgr1! t t awu.w F 'W � atttwu m m corer F Fun FTwwr T T" mwz t tar t teo to �a NEON LOS A GELES AVLNUE_ PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, CAIIFORNUI ASADURIAN INVESTMEWSL 875NEWL0SMVGBSAVEI*X Dw or OCT 16 ' caTraa lkt Arcnuectate Rear Estate MOORPARK CAUFCNM93021 wt"m ottxrtr y, M' iattrrTatowa SLME,217 5304=9 oT WIN f6 comwm tau FACSIA KE 530-0264 oo Jm" , ON 1Y1 awl %.N Is" ic#IYI -Ism 1, 30 ' UNION ION IYIam IYI "Iam I'm I'm ISO Ian 101soI "iYI"I,, IAN %WA Y an %in 1m a" Oft Y 0" Y om �a» >a�..o Y to ON Y Y Y Y Y Y Y am �YaYYYYYY .�f Y a" Y Y OQf ws OA •act WA Y Mtn ON tat Y Y Y so Y Y Y Y Y faDf � if►f Y as ON 1111111-0 1111111-0 Y tAIM Mls t1A H an 111111111 Y Y 1fA us 1Y11i Y a" Oft Y •qf Y a" Y Y ON OaN 1N we an Y Y afar Y ■ m bale >tt/o an MtOf Y a" tOt! Y Y ON In Y M rir0 ON Oft ON Y Y Y Y w LM ON Y so ION M 1Y0 � & LM Y ' Y �eoomoeeeveeceeeeeeveseeetiees GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANS ,Eal_ � ASADURIAN INVESTMENT �� t� S�f tne•.ro so�ates MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE gn �WS �A� � m�t. > _ A,cfniteetute Real tstate- MOORPMK GYJFOINAI193021 a!Ntto�a el t w?4 w' fw5 a Two tau � e s y 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA ' @�« L.W. 4 � 1. laI /f� ■ ./la_ _ ■.■ as 1, •- 1 .......... M . "./ 1 in_ f'. /1a_ _.1010101. 11'1 'I I'Mm I AMM .0- MML UMM m -: '_ © DDD ©D © ©D © © © ©DD ©DOO ©c�D ©v © © ©DmD■ _ = m DD ©D ©D © ©DD © ©ooD ©DDDDDDDD © Ij _q m D -:m o :::1.: ,. i=..: i m D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDODDD ©D mom 1 "'1 /i ki o� E3 = C � � 3 if if if if I 1 ill Ii A fig 3 aiy_ ^ r I c E ' a�Aw I czl�I 4'A.Aa -8o�gg i Z-C LU �I z I � I Z I un p o gl ..—v� j W� �z W� C.tt �I Wok oz L c reel AWNT PlWW W cim LA ktm *a WKS= PIM AMW TW WLA LA WA%A 040 artm CIM PJAM CKO LA bam 0•0 WKISM row N=ff PAURT CAP Coln LA WAFA f9-U SOKMM Kin Fm WAMM Km Witt AURM EM WAd WAY P" ham PAWL't UP mm u mm "45 WAKOW WTI PAM WAW kocl COLO Ams KM am guy- wv PDW AWlfr AM MM LA WMA 19-W OWTV MOAT" WAS $=W CMA ant k=— PUT Fm MUM T km 9PLA AWSA kG= 00 Aff Pow AtI mm =A LA WA A ft-W Dow "m accew WWI of CRA u K"K R•16 WmUsla egrem wer mAnqt COM LA NO A 19-D 9AWACC MUM FL UATIONE FACING WEST FROM ADJACENT FROECKH r r v w ELEVATIONS ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS am" owts"m , XK W-fts one ��'�� cEX7ERIOR VS WW = MMM A%43�M -m 0 =16 WW WW of WD W AI(hittc;ufe R941 I Statt MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE MCOWAW CkFOWAA 9-V21 TEU9440M s-v-om 131 "m 16 ftw" pa " MR a Tmftm 9 C.0.92W Meo" . *71"l i's 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA FMMMU 530 -0264 fTAlfl -furl aft onnr CwM OAl1A<ffl fA}rAf! 1lTAL !M� 7frsfA�f r+ACe wffleT fLfLc =ib Aum Kam f O IfftflOr rm wfuttT Km afLa ARf6a MaR flMl MT fAt1e0 f[TAl fo<LO feOR MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE 7 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA OAOA1 no scrAm OW WTAL IMPART W RAIDW I;aa MW To dk= *AM awm-, am wm wrm IN A no wee O — fume" APTAL AOLL4F foe =A ea fYL M SHUT WTAL ff m cAaf a0 wee am — fTAyr Mm alk AfOr1f1 LAD! fAYA M Wl10 MAL hNo" F%m W~ ftm MA AWRO YDL[ fMAll ffAT- AIR► WAL FWM W MAIMI MA KW To all" A mIT fu %TWw-wmwm own LaLa1A u wARA OR46 of arm" cm. ruum INR A LA WARA"w EXTERIOR ELEVATION FACING WEST - INTERIOR OF SITE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS ° °� M' sociates '�cr1 MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE 7 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 8%S �w �s �. i � CALFO~M21 ma CNR 000CT IA • A.�i3.2 T� Arc ltltecture ReJI fttate RMM OIo" � •r�' 2f3AteTara RbW UM E-217 01 fwv N C1110:101119 92M � m 11 OW MAL FAWU w RAPSW elm purr rr wra w►wcaa KWAa rrwaw Wr WM BW RJMW wit rA1r4m Wmw MAL MR aerw MAL lAL4V IOTA EXTERIOR ELEVATION FACING NORTH - WEST END mm""awamma FWO NO MAL Or auo what. r1AOi wr olAr 0.0 ONMUM omma WX PAW .leer wAL w�rt+n� —� aeg Ier�L nrwer w nulAllr EXTERIOR ELEVATION NORTH - EAST END _ ?S erA► I!IM r • r >. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AVOURIAN INVESTMENTS um ,�- ` �r MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE 875 Nom" WS A�A`� MOORPAIM CAUFORW 93021 "n�0/i of oCrn ,' »s>.sraeaoa s�elc•:n m rAOV u �eo� }N.114 R� 1M.71� OIII 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, G°WFORNIA fe0si 53" 0a�m ., =.ING 5 - S�`�LEIL�SIIlN L IN li ASIM AM AII cafAwc ne NOT CA ArlS!'A UI* mmm Cddt 1ism NLlT PAC! WIOff UDR Af<iNMI/la fNLTISAiR! — CUA A HAM ON IAMA AR - CI A4 Alumb I= VAN @W Cm u WAU "44 wouw — "mTnt rsAt F(m Amw TNi Ckft IATTV NAR- afm► u WM A410 =MZ wAr R-3 ►WQJ w "m Ac2lfT I= RAr ACCW MAW w eao! u ffAAfw ft•» wauAAR— C%* u Noce u+a UM M&- afmf u WAM 111aH AURZWK r i}.fl. .fir �f -�3'. .f •: ..r •!'. •.;t- n .. — ..` t• i f.Lz ••• _ 3. AMG�. LEMT IN KAfL W" WAL FWART CAP =A& twT To wTaf AIAI cw fArw zt f"&* 1CtAt IOLL4p M UUT rice it}AOlT NKf: Mft OMM NAM 8W NAT Bola W~ d M4 PM 2N' EXTERIOR E LEVATIONS CROSS; SECTION /&ADURIAN INVESTMENTS -V � ,� = . N -I �� � MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE 875WWUX MZAV&" Mm 000e►fa • _. Archfeec-we Real Istate 75 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA M00WAJ K, f WFORNA M21 ., - FACSYWQP AfMf m of Oa2l ,; 4 of now 16 au�wf2. 243Ma TWO fto DINE•2I7 r� t }N 7164114 ,N1 -;b; !3o -0264 02�wm METAL ROOF TO WALL 1w 0 11r ■ TYPICAL FOOTING k ; 1® PLASTER ACCENT ,'4; Q7 Y-ar- ,rims MAMA■ OVERHEAD DOOR HEAD „ 14 DOOR HEAD - STOREFRONT 11 GATE POST HINGE r■ ■ rr rum 1 1 —�■Er ■� w r rs wa wwal ■w r■ a 1w — wwraw■u '- 1--- -• 6 PLASTER ACCENT ,V ■ Mat I PARAPET WALL CAP =1 ;. Q1 �y —yam - rr ■e.ne .... nRr c w.lrslaE� .E war w TUBE STEEL FENCE , . �S STANDARD PARKING STALL ,Ka OT ws w wMwWwwra w"allow nlwr Ly —g- N z.: ✓r - a■ �WIND wmrrw ��i�� ■ a w --am 411111 FM OVERHEAD DOOR THRESHOLD 1® DOOR SILL- STOREFRDNT w; 1® ENCLOSURE GATE LOCK 114" Q9 ROLLING ENTRY GATE „w © HANDICAP PARKING STALL , ,1 Q3 BUILDING DETAILS ASADURIAN INVESTMENTS � Asp 72'= As eS MOORPARK ADVANCE STORAGE 875 NEW �OSMlCiELES �, �E �� 1. . _ A1c1111actul� Estate MOORPARK, CJWFOWM 9W2i a101E 01 acT D r ►°..r". 3�33� EI Taro •a.a Sew* E -711 TELEPHONE (805 530-OM i Nov 16 '� + In •r 875 NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA , " a'. � W' FACSIMILE BOS) 5304?64 C331MM wwwNFh.o�.ao� +AapMrw"9116 618 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM /INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK The following Negative Declaration 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). Project Title: Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 2000 -10 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 comer of Los Angeles Avenue, Assessor Parcel No.511 -0- 070 -55. Project Description: 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 Type: Private Project Project Applicant: Asadurian Investments 875 New Los Angeles Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 OPC ATTACHMENT3 or Negative Declaration IPD 2000 -10 Page No. 2 Finding: The Director of Community Development on , after considering the initial study prepared by the Department of Community Development found that the above referenced project would not have a significant effect on the environment and instructed that a negative Declaration be prepared. Action: Adopted by the City Council on Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures necessary as any potential impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance through standard conditions of approval imposed on the project. Attachments: - Initial Study Contact Person: Paul Porter Principal Planner City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark, California 93021 (8 05) 517 -624 3 Email: pporter @ci.moorpark.ca.us FAX: (805) 529 -8270 Prepared by: (*�' C-f' (?3�� Paul Porter Principal Planner Date: September 6, 2001 Jroved y: ry an c of Co nity Development Attachment:: Technical Studies Asadurian Investments Negative Declaration September 6, 2001 Page No. 2 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. 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. Technical Studies Page No. 2 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: Applicant will pay the City a development fee to help pay for community parks. 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. INITIAL STUDY CHECK LIST ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR S `ignIk" Less than "°'"''a`` Significant Significant Significant Impact With Mitigation AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1:1 El 1:1 X 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 El El El quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare F1 El El X which 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 1:1 El El 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 ❑ ❑ X a 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 Page 1 relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 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 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? ❑ El x El El x El El x El ❑ x ❑ El x ❑ ❑ x b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian El 1:1 X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ D 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 ❑ ❑ native migratory fish or wildlife species or with 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 ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 11 Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation El X 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 feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those 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 El El x El El x El El x El El x El El x El El 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 El ❑ El x El El El x ❑ ❑ ❑ x c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 ❑ ❑ X unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 11 El 1:1 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), X creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting 1:1 El the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water El X 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 ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 El acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste X 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 1:1 El El / 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 ❑ ❑ 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for _ people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ 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 El discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 11 E] 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 ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 5 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the El O site or area, including through the alteration of the 1:1 X 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 exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? D Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 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? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? El ❑ El x El ❑ El x El El 1:1 x ❑ El ❑ x ❑ El El x El El El x El ❑ El x c) Conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan [HCP] or 1:1 Natural Community Conservation Plan [NCCP]? MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 6 El El x a) Result in the loss of availability of a known a ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ 1:1 important mineral resource recovery site delineated El 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 El 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 ❑ ❑ X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1:1 El noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use El a 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 a ❑ 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, El El ❑ 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, ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse ❑ physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? El El El X Police protection? ❑ El El X Schools? El El a X Parks? 0 a El X Other public facilities? 1:1 El ❑ X Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 8 RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing El 1:1 ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ require the construction or expansion of recreational 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 ❑ ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 9 P � 9 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ 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 --Mwml*WA- IN El El El x g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus X turnouts, bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ El applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ F1 ❑ 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 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ X the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater El 0 ❑ 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 capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste El disposal needs? Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 10 El El x MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Attachment: Technical studies and effects found not to be significant Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 11 P(*W aly Lassthan Significant Significant hT Pact With Mitigation Incorporation r-1 El Less than No knPact Significant El X c) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on El F1 X human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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, Tri 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: Initial Study for IPD 2000 -10 The project occurs as an in -fill commercial project in the urban core with no adjacent or abutting agricultural uses,land there are no agricultural uses on the site. 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, May 13, 2002 and June 24, 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, closed, and continued to June 24, 2002; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2002, 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 on information contained in the staff reports, public testimony and other information presented to the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission finds that the "Project" is inconsistent 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. PC ATTACHMENT `7 NNW~ 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 0.38. 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. SECTION 4. The Community Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2002. ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director William F. Otto, Chair 54 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 56) WHEREAS, at duly noticed public hearings on September 24, 2001, November 13, 2001, March 25, 2002, May 13, 2002, and June 24, 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 and continued the public hearing to May 13, 2002, and subsequently continued the public hearing to June 24, 2002; and WHEREAS, at the duly noticed hearing on June 24, 2002, 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 hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. The Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the project is complete and has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and City policy. AT 1TACHMENT Rile Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 2 B. The contents of the Negative Declaration /Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on the proposed entitlement request. C. 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. D. 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. This finding reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark. SECTION 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: A. The proposed use is consistent with the intent and provisions of the City's General Plan and Title 17 of the Municipal Code. B. The proposed use is compatible with the character of the surrounding development. C. The proposed use will not be obnoxious or harmful or impair the utility of the neighboring properties or uses. D. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. E. 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, Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 3 and the structure has design features which provide visual relief and separation between land uses of conflicting character; and SECTION 3. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS. 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. 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 4. APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. 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). SECTION 5. FILING OF RESOLUTION The Community Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. Resolution No. PC -2002- 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 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2002. William F. Otto, Chair ATTEST: Barry K. 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. CObW=ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS General Requirements: - 1. 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. 2. Fish and Game Requirement: Prior to the City Council hearing on 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. 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. 3. Continued Maintenance: The continued permit area and facilities shall be inspection by the City. The permittee remedy any defects in ground or buil indicated by the City within five (5) notification. maintenance of the subject to periodic shall be required to ding maintenance, as business days after 4. 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 on file in the Community Development Department office. 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 require the issuance of a Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Department. The Department may determine that certain uses will require other types of entitlements or environmental assessment. 5. Other Regulations: This development is subject to all applicable regulations of the M -2 Zone, and all requirements Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 6 and enactments of Federal, State, Ventura County, City authorities, and any other governmental entities, and all such requirements and enactments shall, by reference, become conditions of this permit. 6. 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. 7. Final construction working drawings, grading and drainage plans, plot plans, building colors and materials, sign programs, and landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permit and prior to any construction. 8. 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 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 to the Community Development Director, at least thirty (30) -days prior to the expiration date of the permit. 9. 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. (Unenforceable and not necessary considering condition 5.) 10. 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. 11. Severability: If any of the conditions or limitations of this permit are held to be invalid, that holding shall not Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 7 invalidate the remaining conditions or limitations set forth. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Zoning Clearance Required for Occupancy: In order to determine if the proposed use(s) are compatible with the zoning and terms and conditions of the permit prior to initial occupancy or any subsequent change of tenant occupancy, the owner of the subject building, or the owners representative shall apply for and receive a Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Department. 15. Certificate of Occupancy Requirement: Prior to commencement of any use approved under this permit the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building and Safety Department shall be required. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not 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 and upon the posting of surety by the Developer, said on -site improvements shall be completed within 120 days of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Upon completion of the required improvements to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, the surety may be exonerated. In case of failure to comply with any term or provision of this agreement, the Community Development Director shall declare the surety forfeited. 16. Tenant Occupancy: Prior to occupancy, those proposed uses, which require review and approval for compliance with all applicable State and local regulations related to storage, Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 8 handling, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, shall obtain the necessary permits from Ventura County Environmental Health Division and provide proof of said permits to the Community Development Department. If required by the County Environmental Health Division, the Developer shall prepare a hazardous waste minimization plan. 17. 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, the current or new owner shall file the name(s) and address(es) of the new owner(s), lessee(s) or operator(s) with the Community Development Department. The change of ownership letter shall include an acknowledgement that the new owner agrees with all conditions of this permit. 18. Other Uses: If in the future, any use or uses are contemplated on the site differing from that specified in the initial Zoning Clearance approved for the occupancy, either the permittee, owner, or prospective tenant shall file a Zoning Clearance application prior to the initiation of the use. If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed use is not compatible with the M -2 Zone and the terms and conditions of this permit, a Modification to the Planned Development Permit may be required. 19. Business Registration: All contractors doing work in Moorpark are required to have a valid Business Registration Permit. 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. 20. APCD Review of Uses: Certificate of Occupancy shall be withheld until the Developer has provided proof of compliance with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 65850.5 et seq.) regarding the use, storage and disposition of hazardous materials as required by the Ventura County, Air Pollution Control District. 21. Utilities Assessment District: The Developer agrees not to protest the formation of an underground Utility Assessment District. 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 Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 9 otherwise authorized by the Community Development Director and consistent with applicable Zoning Code provisions. 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: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction or within thirty (30) days following project approval, whichever occurs sooner, the Developer shall pay all outstanding case processing (Planning and Engineering), and all City legal service fees. Prior to or concurrently with the submittal of a grading plan or plans for building permits the Developer shall pay the required Condition Compliance deposit. 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 Final Landscape Plans: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a complete landscape plan (3 sets), together with specifications and a maintenance program, prepared by a State Licensed Landscape Architect in accordance with the Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The landscaping shall control erosion, prevent aesthetic impacts to adjacent property owners, mitigate the visual impacts of the building height and mass. Final landscape plans shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual landscape plan submitted with the application, except as modified herein. Along with the submittal of the final landscape plans the Developer shall submit the required deposit to cover the costs of the landscape plan review, installation of the landscaping and irrigation Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 10 system, and of final landscape inspection. Final landscape plans, once approved by the Community Development Director shall be installed and receive final inspection prior to occupancy. 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 and location 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 or of a low water use variety. e. Landscaping at site entrances /exits and intersection within the parking lot shall be designed to allow adequate visibility for drivers consistent with standard traffic engineering practice. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 11 f. Plantings in and adjacent to parking areas shall be contained within at least 6 -inch high raised concrete planters. g. Landscaping shall be designed to not obstruct the view of any exterior door or window from the street /parking aisle. h. 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 or any subsequent owner shall be responsible for maintaining the irrigation system and all landscaping. The Developer or any subsequent owner 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 and irrigation system was installed in accordance with the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 12 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 a masonry wall, landscaping, or a combination of both. b. All fences and walls shall be shown on the plot plan. C. All required loading areas and turning radius shall be depicted on the plot plan. A 45 -foot turning radius shall be shown 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 door treatment, etc.) shall be submitted with the final construction plans. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 13 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, prepared by an electrical engineer registered in the State of California, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department with the required deposit for review and approval. The lighting plan shall 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 (25') . C. Fixtures must possess sharp cut -off qualities with a maximum of one foot (1') candle illumination at or beyond property lines. d. Energy efficient lighting devices shall be provided. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 14 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 ground level views as well as those from the street and Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 15 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, prepared by a licensed Acoustical Engineer in accordance with acceptable engineering standards, be submitted for review and approval which demonstrates that all on -site noise generation sources will be mitigated to the required level 39. Striping of Spaces: All parking space and loading bay striping 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. Trash areas and recycling bins shall be depicted on the final construction plans, the design, location, and 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 provide 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 (61) 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. f. Driveways or travel aisles shall provide unobstructed access for collection vehicles and personnel, and provide the minimum vertical clearance of 30 feet, or 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 Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 17 collection and loading areas, and the materials accepted therein shall be posted adjacent to all points of access to the recycling areas. h. Areas required by the Municipal Code to be maintained as unencumbered, according to fire and other applicable building and /or public safety laws shall be kept free and clear of refuse disposal. i. Recycling area(s) shall be located so they are convenient and adjacent to regular refuse collection areas. j. Recycling enclosures shall comply with the equal access requirements of Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. k. Enclosures shall be designed to have a separate indirect, unemcumbered pedestrian access way. 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. The required 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. 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. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 18 b. The building manager or designee shall conduct a routine on -site waste management education program, coordinated with the City's Solid Waste Management Department, for employees informing them of any new developments or requirements for solid waste management. 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 in the amounts stated or as may be in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits: 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 Index for any annual indexing, the Citywide Traffic Fee shall remain at its then current amount until such time Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 19 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. Prior to acceptance of public improvements and bond reduction and /or exoneration, the following conditions shall be satisfied: Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 20 52. Sufficient surety, in a form and in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the public improvements shall be provided and remain in place for one year following acceptance by the City. 53. Original "as built" plans shall be certified by the Developer's Registered Civil Engineer and submitted with two sets of blue prints to the City Engineer's office. The "record drawings" shall be submitted 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 shall be submitted for all improvement plans in a format to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Clerk. In addition, Developer shall provide an electronic file update to 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. The geotechnical report shall address, at a minimum, 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 parcels). The findings and recommendations of the geotechnical assessment shall be incorporated into the final design for the components of the project. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 21 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 0.12g- 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 assessment. All geological recommendations shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Resolution IPD 2000 -10 Page 22 No. PC -2002- (Asadurian Investments) 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 shall be suppressed by the following activities: a. The fuel injection of all diesel engines used in construction equipment shall be retarded two degrees from the manufacturer's recommendation. b. All diesel engines used in construction equipment shall use high - pressure injectors. C. All diesel engines used in construction equipment shall use reformulated diesel fuel. d. Construction grading shall be discontinued on days forecasted for first stage ozone alerts (concentration of 0.20 ppm) as indicated at the Ventura County APCD Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 23 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. THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN _CHAPTER 15.26. THIS CHAPTER ALLOWS CONSTRUCTION MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY FROM 7 AM TO 7 PM 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 Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 26 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 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 Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 27 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 (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: Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 28 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 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. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 29 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 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. Resolution IPD 2000 -10 Page 30 No. PC -2002- (Asadurian Investments) 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. 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 Liahtin 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 Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 31 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. 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. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 32 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. 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 Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 33 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 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. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investment.$) Page 34 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 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 400 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 Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 35 110. 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 (1316 "). 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, 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 (6 ") 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 (250') 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. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 36 117. 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 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. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 37 122. 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 hydr -ant. 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 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. Resolution No. PC -2002- IPD 2000 -10 (Asadurian Investments) Page 38 129. 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. 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. City of Moorpark Coam,unity Development Department Staff Report PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 24,2002 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 8 B AGENDA REPORT PREPARED BY: Joyce Parker- Bozylinski Planner and Barry K. Hogan, Director of Community Developme RPD i~ 2002-02 Residential Planned� r- Development Permit, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to iGPA 2002 -01 allow 190 unit senior citizen apartment tZC 2002 -01 complex on a 9.48 acre site. IAPN - 506 -0- 050 -185 and a portion of 506 -0- 050 -475 i,'CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 APPLICANT : USA Properties Fund Proposal: A request for change in General Plan designation from General Commercial (C -2) to Very High Density (VH), a change of Zone designation from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to Residential Planned Development (RPD) and a request for a RPD permit to allow the construction of 190 senior citizen apartment units on a 9.48 acre site. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project. LOCATION: Located on Park Crest Lane at Park Lane, City of Moorparx. !� SITE MAP I! i ja I' 4. r. lIAILRoAO Hie#1 ST. WS Pt' .. .... I fe d 06. T } > _ Los NX1.(y Avg 1 mom _i SITE A RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and approval of the RPD with conditions. Planning Commission Staff Report RPD 2002 -02 June 24, 2002 Applicant: USA Properties Fund Page No. 2 BACKGROUND In October 2001, the City Council Affordable Housing /Community Development Committee (Mayor Hunter and Councilmember Harper) held a special meeting to consider a General Plan land use designation from Commercial (C -2) to Residential (VH) on the subject property. The Committee considered the application and recommended that the City Council authorize concurrent processing for the application. Concurrent processing allows the applicant to process the legislative changes (General Plan and Zone Map amendments) together with the entitlement permits (RPD permit). On December 12, 2001, the City Council held a pubic hearing to consider a pre- screen application for the General Plan amendment and authorized the applicant, USA Properties Fund, to submit a General Plan Amendment application. The Council further authorized concurrent processing of all the necessary applications to develop the proposed senior housing project. At the pre- screen application hearing, the City Council directed the applicant to study the possibility of providing a connection between Park Crest Lane and Unidos Avenue to create a through street from Moorpark to Leta Yancy Road. This item is discussed further in the staff report. A Planned Development Permit requires a discretionary decision to authorize development and use on a site. Chapter 17.36.010 establishes standards for residential planned develop zones and Chapter 17.32 of the Municipal Code establishes standards for parking, access and landscaping. The application includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the existing land use designation and zoning on the property. The Planning Commission is an advisory body with respect to general plan amendments and zone changes. Planning Commission action on these applications will be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. This project will also involve a development agreement (DA), but as of this date, the DA has not been finalized. It is anticipated that the City Council Ad Hoc Committee (Councilmembers Mikos and Harper) will have completed its review of the DA by the scheduled City Council meeting on July 17, 2002. The DA would formalize the requirements for affordability for the project and a reduction in fees of approximately $3,000 per dwelling unit. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Staff Rpt \pc 020624 RPD 2002 -02 USA Roperties Rpt.doc Planning Commission Staff Report RPD 2002 -02 June 24, 2002 Applicant: USA Properties Fund Page No. 3 LAND USE DESIGNATION /ZONING /ADJACENT LAND USE Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use Site: North C -2 CPD Single Family Dwelling & Undeveloped Land South NA NA Arroyo Simi East VH RPD Archstone Apartments West H RPD 7u Single Family Dwellings Definitions: C -2 (General Commercial) , CPD (Commercial Planned Development) , H (High Density),. VH (Very High Density) and RPD (Residential Planned Development) . DISCUSSION The 190 unit senior citizen apartment complex is proposed on a 9.48 site on Park Crest Lane at Park Lane. The eastern half of the site is currently vacant and the western half of the site contains a commercial greenhouse that his been in use for approximately 20 years. All of the proposed units will be affordable senior units. Seniors include any person 55 years of age or older and the current proposal is for 200 of the units to be very low income and 800 of the units to be low income. As a part of the Development Agreement there is tentative approval for 25% of the units to be very low income. For purposes of the project, very low is defined as persons making 500 of the median income and low is defined as persons making 600 of the median income. The units will be deed restricted as affordable for 30 years. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change The application includes a request to change the existing General Plan land use designation from C -2 (General Commercial) to VH (Very High) Density Residential. Using a gross acreage of 9.48, the requested density is approximately 20 dwelling units (DU) an acre. The General Plan Land Use Element caps the Very High Residential category at 15 du /acre unless a density bonus is granted. The General Plan also limits density to 20 du /acre when a density bonus is approved pursuant to the State Density Bonus law and Municipal Code provisions. Both of these sources allow for a maximum bonus of twenty -five (25%) percent for projects meeting defined criteria. This project, which will be 100% affordable, meets this criteria. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Staff Rpt \pc 020624 RPD 2002 -02 USA Roperties Rpt.doc Plaruiing Commission Staff Report RPD 2002 -02 June 24, 2002 Applicant: USA Properties Fund Page No. 4 In addition to a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change would be required to change the property from CPD(Commercial Planned Development) to RPD -20 (Residential Planned Development 20 dwelling units per acre). Residential Planned Development Site Plan The proposed project site plan depicts 190 units within fourteen (14) two -story buildings arranged around a circular driveway. The project includes 96 one (1) bedroom units and 94 two ( 2 ) bedroom units. The proposed units are comprised of flats on each floor, with unit sizes ranging from 579 to 846 square feet. The project consists of four (4) 8 -plex buildings, one (1) 14 -plex building and nine (9) 16 -plex buildings. The buildings are clustered around a central recreation facility containing a pool and spa, recreation building and patio area. The 4,053 square foot recreation building includes a community room, library, laundry room, mail room, and management office. Setbacks The RPD zone establishes setbacks for market -rate, single family residential projects and market -rate multifamily projects but specifies that these setback standards can be modified by the Planning Commission or City Council as part of the RPD permit. The .following chart specifies the minimum setbacks for market rate multifamily: Required Proposed Front 20 ft. minimum 20 ft. minimum Interior Side 10 ft. minimum 10 ft. minimum Street Side 20 ft. for non arterial street 20 ft. minimum Rear As determined by RPD Permit 9.84 minimum The distance between the proposed buildings range from 15 feet to 20 feet. Architectural Style All of the proposed residential buildings are two stories ranging in height from 25 to 27 feet. The recreational building is one - story and 25 ft. 6 inches in height. The proposed architectural style is a modified Cape Cod style consisting of charcoal gray concrete tile roofing with brown hardboard or wood siding for all the buildings. The fascia or trim, stairs and hand rails are all wood with a wooden trim band around the building between the first S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Staff Rpt \pc 020624 RPD 2002 -02 USA Roperties Rpt.doc Planning Commission Staff Report RPD 2002 -02 June 24, 2002 Applicant: USA Properties Fund Page No. 5 and second floor. Two color schemes are proposed for the project. Scheme A consists of brown wood siding with white trim and green accents. Scheme B consists of a darker brown wood siding and darker white trim with rust accents. Decorative louver shutters are proposed around the primary windows. Colored elevations and a color material board will be available at the Commission hearing. There are four building types proposed for the project. Building Type 1 (7 buildings) are 16 -plex buildings which currently include unit entrances on both sides of the building in addition to unit entrances located at each end of the building. Building Type 1 shall be redesigned to provide consistent with the entry landings of the other building types. Building Type 2 (2 buildings) are 16- plex buildings and include the unit entrances on both sides of the building but do not incorporate unit entries on the ends of the buildings. Building Type 3 (4 buildings) are the smaller 8 -plex buildings which include all two (2) bedroom units that are accessed from the center of the building on both sides. The last building type, Building Type 4, is utilized for one 14 -plex building on the site. This building has unit entrances on both sides of the building and on one end of the building. Building Type 4 also incorporates a one story element at the end of the building. In addition to the differences relative to unit entry, each of the four building types is different architecturally in terms of roof elements and building projections. Circulation and Parking Access to the project is provided via Park Crest Lane and Park Lane. The project will be conditioned to improve Park Lane from Park Crest Lane to Los Angeles Avenue. Any acquisition of right - of -way that cannot be accomplished by the applicant would be acquired by the City with the applicant covering all costs of acquisition. Entrance to the project is via an entry drive divided into two one way entrance and exit lanes separated by a 20 foot wide landscape planter. The project will be controlled with a six (6) foot high wrought iron (tubular steel) electronically activated gate, an elevation of which is shown on the Landscape Master Plan. A condition has been added to the project requiring enhanced paving at the entry drive. A 25 foot wide circular drive aisle provides access to the parking located around the site. When the City Council first viewed the proposal as part of the pre- screen permit, it requested the applicant to study the possibility of purchasing the single - family home located directly northwest of the site to provide for an extension of Park Crest Lane to Unidos S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Staff Rpt \pc 020624 RPD 2002 -02 USA Roperties Rpt.doc Planning Commission Staff Report RPD 2002 -02 June 24, 2002 Applicant: USA Properties Fund Page No. 6 Avenue. The parcel on which the single- family dwelling is located is commercially zoned. The existence of the single family home and location of the Faith Lutheran Church reduces the potential for a street connection, however two (2) travel lanes could be achieved through a reduced roadway section to avoid the church, but would require removal of the existing single family dwelling. Staff has spoken to the property owner who confirms that he was approached but could not come to agreement upon price. If warranted in the future by traffic studies, this street connection could be required as a condition of development of the commercially zoned site. The applicant is proposing 190 parking spaces (a ratio of 1 space for each unit) which includes 132 carports and 58 uncovered spaces including six (6) handicapped spaces. The design of the proposed carports consists of a flat roofed structure supported by posts as shown on the attached carport plan. Landscape planter areas have been incorporated into the plan between the carports to provide visual relief. Parking for the project is proposed at less than zoning ordinance requirements. The parking standards require two (2) covered spaces for each one (1) or more bedroom units in multiple family developments, one (1) of which must be in a garage. RPD standards require an additional .5 spaces per unit for guest parking. The parking standards also allow some reduction in parking for bachelor or studio apartments when an RPD is reviewed (Section 17.32.010.M.1 and Section 17.36.030.B.3). There are no standards for senior citizen units. Section 17.32.010 allows the community development director to determine the parking requirements for any use not specifically listed. To assist in that determination a parking study that was submitted by the applicant analyzed five (5) other properties owned by USA Properties Fund. That study found that the maximum parking demand rate (based on the average of the highest day observed at each community) was .68 occupied spaces per occupied dwelling unit with a average parking demand rate of .55 to .77 occupied spaces per dwelling unit. USA Properties Fund has numerous senior projects throughout California. Some of the complexes have a minimum age for seniors of 55 years of age and others have a minimum age for seniors of 62 years of age. Of the five complexes studied, three (3) maintained a minimum age of 62 years and two (2) had a minimum age of 55 years. In addition, staff contacted the surrounding cities of Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley and Camarillo to determine their parking standard for senior units. The City of Thousand Oaks makes a determination on a case -by -case basis requiring the applicant to submit a study. Simi Valley and Camarillo require 1 space for every unit. Camarillo permits only 500 of the required spaces to be improved with the remaining area to be landscaped or used for recreation purposes. A covenant is recorded on the land S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Staff Rpt \pc 020624 RPD 2002 -02 USA Roperties Rpt.doc Planning Commission Staff Report RPD 2002 -02 June 24, 2002 Applicant: USA Properties Fund Page No. 7 that requires the owner to develop additional spaces if required should the use change to a conventional apartment project. Other cities contacted included Santa Maria (1 space for units over 600 square feet and 1 for staff) and Bakersfield (1 space for every 2 units). Staff believes that some modification of the current parking standard is reasonable, since many seniors do not maintain two (2) cars. Based on the study submitted by the applicant and the survey completed by staff, the community development director has determined that one (1) parking space per unit is sufficient for the project, so long as it remains a senior low income project. Landscaping, Fencing /Walls, and NPDES The project proposes to utilize a six (6) foot high wrought iron (tubular steel) fence along the front property line. This fence will be located behind the required 20 foot wide landscape setback. This landscape setback consists of a 2:1 slope that slopes up from the sidewalk and /or adjacent property to the project with the wrought fence located at the top of the slope. Cross section (D -D and E -E) depicting this feature is located on the preliminary Grading /Drainage Plan. Existing block walls and the back of carports for Archstone Apartments will be utilized on the east property line (Section F -F on the Grading /Drainage Plan) with a wrought iron fence proposed along the Arroyo Simi (Section G -G on the Grading /Drainage Plan). A new 6 foot high block wall (Section C -C on the Grading /Drainage Plan) will be constructed behind the single family homes to the west. Prior to approval of the final wall and fence plan, the Community Development Director shall approve the connection of the west property line wall with existing fences and or walls on the adjacent residential lots. The applicant has indicated that they will approach each of the owners of the single family homes to work with them to determine whether one wall or two walls would be required given the fact that most of the homes have existing rear yard walls. As shown on the Site Plan and Grading /Drainage Plan several areas in the project are proposed as biofiltration areas. The NPDES permit requires that the "first flush" of storm water run -off be treated before being released into the pubic storm drains. In order to meet this requirement, surface storm runoff will be directed to these biofiltration areas. These areas are shown on the landscape plan as turf areas. A detail of the biofiltration area proposed along the western project boundary adjacent to the single family homes is shown on the Grading /Drainage Plan in Cross Section A -A. In this area, trees will be planted on the bank of the slope, which will help screen the project from the adjacent single family homes. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Staff Rpt \pc 020624 RPD 2002 -02 USA Roperties Rpt.doc Planning Commission Staff Report RPD 2002 -02 June 24, 2002 Applicant: USA Properties Fund Page No. 8 Pedestrian circulation is provided throughout the site and from the parking areas. Staff has added a condition that would require the applicant to submit a more refined pedestrian walking plan with shaded seating areas for review and approval of the Community Development Director. This plan would include the provision of benches and sitting areas for residents to sit and visit or just enjoy the outdoor areas of the project including the adjacent Arroyo Simi. The applicant is proposing community garden areas for use by residents of the project. The community gardens are shown on the Landscape Master Plan between the Arroyo Simi and proposed carports in the southwest corner of the site. The City requires a valuation study be completed on all mature trees located on a site. The Tree Valuation Report completed for this project indicates that the site contains one (1) California Pepper tree located in the center of the property. The total valuation of the tree is $10,133. The project has been conditioned to provide enhanced landscaping that totals the amount of the estimated tree impact pursuant to Municipal Code requirements since the required grading would make it infeasible to leave the tree in place. Engineering The site currently consists of two separate parcels, which will need to be merged with a lot line adjustment or lot merger. The existing greenhouse is on a separate parcel from the adjacent vacant lot. A condition of approval has been added that will require the applicant to merge the two lots or utilize the lot line adjustment process prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit. Commulative traffic impacts from this project will effect the Level of Service at the intersections of Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue, Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road and Spring Road /High Street. The project has been conditioned to pay a pro -rata fair share of improvements to those intersections. The fair share for this project is based upon the traffic analysis prepared for the Archstone Apartment project at a sixty percent (600) value. The project is adjacent to the Ventura County Flood Control District ( VCFCD) Arroyo Simi, which is an improved trapezoidal channel with a dirt bottom and rip -rap side slopes. The channel also has concrete drop structures at various locations to stabilize the bottom of the channel from erosion. The VCFCD has published an approved hydrologic study report, which reports a peak flow in the Arroyo Simi for the 100 -year event of 26,600 cfs (cubic feet per second). A recent more detailed analysis indicates the peak 100 year event flow is 22,300 cfs. Since this new hydrologic report S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Staff Rpt \pc 020624 RPD 2002 -02 USA Roperties Rpt.doc Planning Commission Staff Report RPD 2002 -02 June 24, 2002 Applicant: USA Properties Fund Page No. 9 has not been approved, a study was performed for both cfs flows. As currently designed, the project can meet both cfs flows and the project has been conditioned to be at or above the 100 -year event based upon a 26,600 cfs or to an elevation satisfactory to the City Engineer. In addition, the project includes a 120 foot wide easement for flood control purposes. This easement will include wetlands and landscaping within the area adjacent to the project. AGENCY REVIEW All requested conditions of approval from Agencies and Departments that have reviewed the Residential Planned Development, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project and is attached for Commission review. The required 21 day MND circulation period began on June 14, 2002 and ends on July 8, 2002. Since the City Council will be the final decision making body for both the legislative and entitlement requests, the Planning Commission's action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council which is scheduled to hear the project on July 10, 2002. The MND prepared for the project identified four environmental impacts that required mitigation to lessen the impacts to less than significant. These impacts, which include liquefaction, cumulative traffic, flooding and radon, can all be mitigated to less than significant impacts as outlined in the MND. Additionally, further research on the radon impact, conducted after the completion of the MND, found a study conducted by the Indoor Air Quality Program of the California Department of Health Services entitled "Survey of Residential Radon Levels In Ventura County and Northwestern Los Angeles County ", June, 1991. This study includes Moorpark in the low average potential radon concentrations (1.28 pci /1) as opposed to above 4 pico Curies per liter identified in the MND. The final MND will need to be amended to reflect this new information and eliminate the mitigation measures, as the impact will now be less than significant without mitigation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, and close the public hearing. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Staff Rpt \pc 020624 RPD 2002 -02 USA Roperties Rpt.doc Planning Commission Staff Report RPD 2002 -02 June 24, 2002 Applicant: USA Properties Fund Page No. 10 2. Consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure that it adequately addresses the impacts of the proposed residential project prior to making a recommendation. 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2002- recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01, Zone Change No. 2002 -01 and Residential Planned Development No. 2002 -02, subject to conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Zoning Map 2. General Plan Map 3. Project Exhibits A. Site Plan & Illustrative Site Plan B. Grading /Drainage Plan C. Landscape Plan D. Floor Plans & Elevations 4. Carport Design 5. Traffic and Parking Study 6. Mitigated Negative Declaration 7. Draft Resolution with Conditions of Approval S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Staff Rpt \pc 020624 RPD 2002 -02 USA Roperties Rpt.doc G�fMRAL PLAN MAP oil ri ...� ,•.,_ ■�. . _ 1!1!11! - � � ■■ ■ ._.. - �.�.,�- 1 . =�_ � =..moo: -� f-= I�llttl! r. �. .i,. ■ ■ `ial a I.■1►.�,.��, Ap a os -z �_ PC ATTACH NT 1 -,� MAW- _1■111111 >:) j , - ol Mill y o i■■ jib • �a . ". ;, k.`` " love _ F m, *.. ■ nn ■ ° ON INK ~ 111i: ):l�lllw— Am S.i),= f t IS .� . low. •. .. dWr- �G�.�' r-•••-- -t-:�: ••' :: —^ �'• ;*,IL. Ar •� �,; N1111l1111l�j j1i11�lL31 • �� ter.• . s •�^+ • ';� •' y�r�:f',' ,,, ��� N' dA or ` • �� • ,� 1 161 It r' ' � s t i 1 I . ♦-. t y t ' r PROPOSED V.C.F.C.O R/W i DOCUMENTS No. 98 -$seo, O.R. 1 , �1• `•�' Y �,� 1^ t ti i r y t N �rso, � .' � ; i � EXISTING 420' t V.C.F.C.D. EASEMENT I , i 4314 O.R. 986 V do it 00, 100 —All Lap w *' l MOON " t, SANITA f� _ ♦ �' !0 �'f•r, t ,w ! t 1 DISTRICT I lwf ` 'y r % r ` ,r .� M'• • 'i I i V.C.F.C.D..EASEMENT 1 448 -451 PROPOSED V.C.F.C.D. EASEMENT i i r www 1. 4 \ 1 ri ' ! a i •+ t Oldp It � �'4 + �"! fwwf . .»+.� � r� 1 ! ♦ yr" 1 t t 1 i ,r w • \ r� f r�- 1 1 a+R '►`�. �r * ' r . y t % ,.,. 00 30. go It tom'♦ �'.s ®tr '`- 71 �r t � � M r 1 '� ✓. .\ \ ` NCt \ ... T ice'" f ►��� Cis '�` - ' l / 1 ,.' � K O r ►ip i % �p6 t00 to f r 1 pelf, �s -plar• it 2 rt 0 Z m Z 4 W SITE DATA' UNITS: 96 1BR/IRA UNIT 70 2BR/IRA LINII 24 2BR/2BA UNIT 190 UNITS TOTA ACCESSORY BUILDING RECREATION BUI MAINTENANCE 1 DENSITY: 190 UNITS/6.75 PARKING: MINIMUM: STANDARD OPEN SPACE . 9'x I B' STANDARD COVERED SPACE . I Ok 19' HANDICAPPED PARKMG SPACE . 14'x19' PROVIDED: STANDARD OPEN . SS SPACES ; TANDARD COVERED . 152 SPACES HANDICAPPED . 6 SPACES PARKING RATIO: 190/190 . 1.0 SPACES/UNIT USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. o0 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN • MOORPARK SENIOR APTS i z MOMARK, CA 21OU0 4-".02 t 1. I° 1' 1 � . ►.y ► t: ► t .. -a •.. �i , i t .. ► t Ka,yw'° OSEO V.C.F.C.O Rfl!l a 98 -1337 O.R. fw ✓ rNk It .' i ' ' EXISiM G 120 ♦ ! ', -t� .C.F.QC. EASEMENT► � t I 4 314 O.R. 9" ►i ot co- < `�- � lf `�L''"t ifs'*1�r , 1 t ► �} �..., .... _ yy� )1i ts ,; �!` .,,." yam:, �,� ,�5�. � �....•. • 1 ♦ ✓' � ', a. -1 •- -..ice � — �+� i , i moo+ )"TMi�..40� \ \ ,. '`, , it {' [ . g l *� - i � � ► `'�' = \, i �i ,,•+� 1 �j -W" EA5EI�IENY t OF m MOORPARK t. J iS yt i'r " . �1i _ y�� '1G7/ , `;µb'13 �".► ' -� + r , t t , t V.C.F.C.O. EASEMENT {t , t'` • �. FM"' .!! . '11 39 4 R. 448 -451 " } \ .r• \t ,.s,� `` r � l� c' IL ... - w♦ -''-' 1 ' r ,.�� PROPOSED + > j C.F.0 O. EASEMENT I ► -,�, 't•• �1C '.�+ � � i,t s ♦�.- . .�r' -t ..`•.• "...• ,+ .5 1 \ t't r.. + 1 , i .. w ,`,r ♦� ♦� '(`, *w .r1 '' ''Sy ate` «' .�i� / i +. •1.r�`';-" ,1i, �`t�(� �j _ „%a, i 1.�� I S i' ! 1 Y•i h.,,.; ice' `' ' �rf"' t [,y ,,,k "� .� ' -� Of ap loo fA r `��` ' ( • , ` v -, ( 400 Cl i C```t` , 30 y,�y • !A ' Pt, �j rr * 4000 IL 10 o VIV� 5 all NV 4+ el� 0 '` 0 ru Melva, JA I Web; t PaR ;yk fir d"I Al WAX 791 XM\, WE k IF NO kk PC 40 if �Pl 0 m .z mq �w ty I INI'1' A (ti! SINGLF. STOkY, HI.IXi TYPI 4 USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. UNIT "A" • SECOND FLOOR A 2 BR 720 S.F. I MOORPARK SENIOR APTS MOORPARK, CA UNIT 'A"@ FIRST FLOOR _7 N I A I COI RECEIVED rANPlt 09 2002 l.li4 %� iJoG +aa• I; 0 : 4 Y. • L ?lama 44 u USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. UNIT 'B' • SECOND FLOOR T -A- I I I I B 1 BR 579 S.F. UNIT 'B' ® FIRST FLOOR MOORPARK SENIOR APTS MOORPARK, CA RECEIVED 9 2002 G�ty �� iri;lt3tp, t::, • 'L 2102" 4-I -02 USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. UNIT 'C"O SECOND FLOOR C 2 BR, 2 BA 846 S.F. W-V E21 I U IhmaNgolm BEA ... KIT �DlNf LIV 2004'0 to DECK BA 21' - MBA LIM IBR 2 106000", UNM 'C" • FIRST FLOOR MOORPARK SENIOR APTS MOORPARK, CA 20W mm?mmmt 0 2 4 5 PZ 210260 41-02 3 SECOND FLOOR zu BUILDING TYPE I USA PROPERTIES - -- MOORPARK SENIOR APTS FUND, INC. Moorte ^RK, u FIRST FLOOR O 4 E It il)Z Ilona 1 -1.02 t 1 I —r - -- - t�D -j ��,- :Y - �yli� —_� _ ~,>�..�. ' �Y i I I � .;_t t, I'I•'t �l� .' ,' �1• ' �. �' ` r =�� � ._. ... � �:� _ ,. –.-.. -- — � =pt`s"_" z•. �_� � F -- - - - -- mom 2 I1R ] ]il: 1 Bk 7 BR FRONT ELEVATION \ i I.li1( W M 1 "I I RIALS ('r)h('Itl•Tf TII.C•.K()OFI`f; P" II•\ H!)IiOARf)SIDINGR;lN.,fXPOSI'KF L.1 RI•SA%VN2XW(X)DFASCIA i - -- .. -- - 1_ 1'. . I J RI•.SAWN 2X WOOD F1AR(,F �2l `a•, r_ i� ;, RI- SAW'N'_XW()()ncoRNFRTR[M rt r �- —. , ... .., -r I" [_ II _4 -.�1 .j t .� �...i -l- 1 _� �tflj- I KISAW'N7X41Nx)R&WINDOWTRIM I I 1: 1. �_ 1 & RAILS �, • IK J�nl Mfl i• F�.J 71. r - - - - f43 i7 i ,I, `4 A; of N W;J'RYl 1 7(C..' N'C'RLTT 1R1 Anti KL•tiAWN6X10()1TI.(X)KIRti f,AHt+I'RIMRESAWN2X6Vl•RTIC,\I .4 +\;; - r -- .. - - - - -- - -_ -- "--- - -- ~ DlAi�ONAI.'I RIM, KL.SAWV7X% H( IRI7ONTAL 'I RIM. &IIAKDB(IARnSIUINI- �. U, 4 "' FXPOSUKE 10 � IU 2X 10 TRIM BAND f_se ?' W'InF. SPLIT L()t °VI:K 1HL I "I'Fli - �'% 1. S II INF VLNLE.k 2 BR SIDE ELEVATION 2 BR BUILDING TYPE 1 • USA PROPERTIES -- - MOORPARK SENIOR APTS FUND, INC. MOORPARK, CA 710260 4.10: 5 USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. SECOND FLOOR BUILDING TYPE 2 FIRST FLOOR �_- MOORPARK SENIOR APTS MOORPARK, CA ECEILrt� V'•lV ui i , • 'L llow 6 i.l USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. 1 BR I BR 1 RR 1 BR F BR F BR FRONT I BR 1 Elk -- - - J =i D - - -Y 1 BR 1BR I AR 1 BR SIDE BUILDING TYPE 2 MOORPARK SENIOR APTS - - MOORPARK, CA FXTI•RI(1K MAThR1AI -S I (X)NI'RhfE TILE ROOFING ? IIARDBOARD SIDING W ;8" EXPOS(1RF ? RESAWN 2X W(X)I) FASCIA .1. RESAWN 2X WOOD BARGE 5. KLSAWN ?X WWDC'ORNLRTRIM ( RFSAW'N 2X4 0000 &WINDOW TRIM RFSAW'N W(X)D SI'AIRS & RAILS W /PRECAST CONCRETE TREADS K RFSAWN6X111OIIT1.00KERS 9. 6AIII.1 TRIM. RFSAWN 2X6 VFk'CI('AL & DIA00NA1. TRIM, RFSA WN 2XR 110RIZON'tAt 'PRIM,& IIARDBOARD SIDINC, W: 4" EXPOSURF. Itl. 2a III I'KIM BAND I W IDIi SI'Lfl- l ()(; V I-R 1,111 IT -rI.R 12. SI'ONN V'F NhI:K • L llom 4-101 USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. SECOND FLOOR BUILDING TYPE 3 FIRST FLOOR MOORPARK SENIOR APTS MOORPARK, CA ►4 E. CE IVED „N ►t G S 2002 "%E?EMW O 4 D IE • 'L 7IWb 4 . 107 2 BR 2 BR FRONT & REAR ELEVATION I.. � � j a I I i I �, n 11 � :. I_ �-i bra` _ ft 2 BR ItP SIDE ELIr v TON BUILDING TYPE 3 USA PROPERTIES MOORPARK SENIOR APTS - -- FUND, INC. MOORPARK, CA EK1!•.RIOR M.*,TERIALS I CONCRETE TILE ROOFING HARDBOARD SIDING W /8" CXPOSURE s. RESAWN 2X WOOD FASCIA -1 RESAWN 2X WOOD BARGE ti RESAWN 2X WOOD CORNER TRIM b RESAWN 2X4 DOOR &WINDOW TRIM ?. RESAWN WOOD STAIRS & RAILS W"FA.'AST CONCRETE TREADS S; RESAWN 6XIO OUTLOOKERS S ' y GABLE TRIM. RESAWN 2X6 VERTICAL & DIAGONAL TRIM, RESAWN 2X8 S• tyY' '� Ht)RI7.UNTA1. TRIM,& FIARDRUARO SID1hCi Wt4 "FAIROSURF. 111 2X10 TRIM RANI) t, I ! 2' WIDE SPLI1 1-01 JVER SHl1TFER STONI: 1 ENFER C. d. ✓ I 1 J 4 F. • :1abbo 4107 y USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. SECOND FLOOR - F . - I ior' -wkd BUILDING TYPE 4 MOORPARK SENIOR APTS MOORPARK, CA FIRST FLOOR r ° 2001 11)z � io 21cm 4102 T -.� It _. 1I , TTI 1. 1 , 11'uti�y 11 !,ril } TT d r .. .err` __ - -_ -_- - • yr S, 1 it _ - -- MUM 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR , PP 2 BR 1 Pk ] HR FRONT ELEVATION I I I-IM 4i MATPRIAI S t k !)NCRI I F TILT. R00FIN6 IL \RI)RttARI) SIDING W /8 "FXPOSI.RI I i 11 I I 1Q I a.. I;! SAWN 2X WOOII FASCIA re 1 1 ti P 1 1 f?r :>f.�i� i y 1 1?I tin WN ?X W001) RARGIR hl tinWN X W'(H)f)C(tRNF:R "fRIM 71' kl•.SAWN 2X4IX.K)R &WINDOW TRIM k.l:s 1,WN WO(11) I & RAILS !) NC('RERE- IT '[TREADS 1.9 tirt \VN(XIO0I1TDX)KFRS � ;A1 l 1-.TRIM RI:SAWN 2X6 VI:RII('41 k: \� III t 1.11 (tNA1. I RIk1, RLS.4WN 2X8 ..gyp' __ r Ili -� - -- - -�. _ lt_ I „j Y•,, \ t .1j�, ` _T - !� . K I�% iii I kIM 13 \t.I) ar -p 'SI t N'IItP SPI IT 1 ul'\ I'R tiNl l'fFi, TS -NO! F1 f Nf \ I NLGR An --�.�- \ -- - - — _ ; try //�(��,` - Ij 'v ,.�y � -- = �.�. - •! !. - j�L.__ ��..� _ - ' ' , , .. i3R SIDE ELEVATION (FORUIHLF SAW, Al ;11!. 5 FUR SIMIIAk I li V t BUILDING TYPE 4 • USA PROPERTIES MOORPARK SENIOR APTS j FUND, INC. MOORPARK, CA :I rtoao 41V USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. n , i ri ENTRY f PORCH RECREATION BUILDING MOORPARK SENIOR APTS MOORPARK, CA JANITOR / MECH O Z 4 C b L �.� 4f -U2 REAR ELEVATION L-t RIGHT ELEVATON RECREATION BUILDING USA PROPERTIES MOORPARK SENIOR APTS FUND, INC. MOORPARK, CA • j z 2101do ♦1,02 kr -_ 7 T_ I L - TE rT I T C2) 4 • Al. FRONT ELEVATION EXTERIOR MATERIALS ran I. CONCRFTF TILF ROOFING 2 HARDBOARD SIDING W1111" EXPOSURE 3 RESAWN 2X WOOD FASCIA %: 4 RESAWN lX WOOD BARGE 5 R ESAWN 2X WOOD CORNER TRIM T-A .3 , tvi, .4 'k 6. RESAWN 2X4 DOOR &WINDOW,rkim 7 RESAWN WOOD STAIRS A RAILS . . . . . . WIPRE CART CONCRETE TREADS U T _F I N. R FSAWN 6X 10 OUTLA)OKERS r 1. 1 1 j --L .. 9 GARLF TRIM: RESAWN 2X6 VERTICAL & DIAGONAL TRIM, RESAWN 2X8 I _L 1 T, 77 v 17 Tl _r jl IK)RIZ0NTAI.TRIM,& HARDROAILD SIDING W/4"EXPOSURE 10. 2XI0 TRIM HAND T� -q. 11 2• WIDE SPLIT LOUVER SHLITTER 12 %'rONF VFNFFR 011111 df, ummm LEFT ELEVATION RECREATION BUILDING USA PROPERTIES MOO RPA RK SENIOR APTS FUND, INC. MOORPARK, CA 0, E I V 'Pill 0 9 2002 mmum" - 2 4 e • 'L Elam 41101 A Lire. lrlh- 0 X11 z 1pil ENTIRF PARKENG $1 ki.L DRIVE AISI CARPORT - KNI W PARkINGSTALL 10 ,iit 2x6 TI A( RAND PAINT —10MAR'll HIALIANGS f7l TYPICAL CARPORT USA PROPERTIES VINTAGE CREST SENIOR APARTMENTS lbj FUND, INC. MOORPARK, CA i :10260 PC ATTACHMENT 4 I fFEHR&PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants 2990 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 916 773 -1900 • Fax 916 773 -2015 fehrandpeers.com Mr. Troy Estacio Project Manager USA Properties Fund 2440 Professional Drive, Suite 100 Roseville, CA 95661 -7773 RECEIVED APR o9 2002 City of Moorpark Community [)P.* meet 0eoadMn -r February 14, 2002 Re: Traf, fzc and Parking Study Summary for Five USA Properties Fund's Senior Communities Dear Mr. Estacio: Fehr & Peers Associates has completed a traffic and parking study for five USA Properties Fund senior communities located in Northern and Southern California. The purpose of the study was to summarize the existing trip generation and parking demand based on the data collected at the five facilities. Introduction Daily, AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates and parking demand were determined for the following five USA Properties senior communities: • Vintage Canyon in Brea, CA • Vintage Gardens in West Covina, CA • Vintage Point in Oceanside, CA • Vintage Oaks in Citrus Heights, CA • Vintage Chateau in Petaluma, CA Data was collected and analyzed to determine the average number of trips generated and parking spaces occupied per dwelling unit for each community. Traffic counts and parking surveys were conducted during a consecutive four -day study period (including two weekdays and weekend) at each facility. Table 1 shows the locations of the five senior communities, their occupancy levels and their available parking spaces. Refer to Attachment 1 for the existing site plans. ? . C ATTACHIYIENT�!�5� FEHR&PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants Mr. Troy Estacio USA Properties Fund February 14, 2002 Page 2 Table 1 Locations and Dwelling Occupancies of Five Senior Communities t X � tie V_ 4�aks a rea'CA +Cwi,na, CA A Helgtts, :CA CA Occupancy Occupied Units 101 188 136 232 237 Levels Capacity 105 188 136 241 240 Available Parking Spaces 80 188 214 254 228 Traffic Count and Parking Survey Results The results of the traffic counts and parking surveys for the five communities are summarized below. Refer to Attachment 2 for actual counts data sheets. Traffic Counts Traffic counts were performed by recording the number of vehicles entering and exiting each complex during peak periods for a consecutive four -day period between Friday, January 25 and Monday, January 28, 2002, inclusive. The counts on Friday and Monday were performed from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. The counts on Saturday and Sunday were performed from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Table 2, on the following page, summarizes the volume of traffic observed at each facility during the AM and PM peak hours, and the average number of trips per occupied dwelling unit. Average daily trips were estimated based on the documented relationship between AM and PM peak hour trips and daily trips derived from Institute of Transportation Engineers (PTE), Trip Generation Manual, 1997 for Apartments (Land Use Code 220). As shown in Table 2, there is a notable difference between the number of weekday and weekend trips at each facility. On average, approximately 20% more trips were generated during the weekend days versus the weekdays for all the facilities except for Vintage Gardens Senior Community, at which 6% more trips were observed on the weekdays versus the weekend days. fpFEHR &PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants Mr. Troy Estacio USA Properties Fund February 14, 2002 Page 3 Table 2 Traffic Volumes at the USA Properties Senior Communities Fnd�►y saaY Mandt FaG #ti Jana` i �. _ ,- r 11, Ok a Trips Trxp$/i3ntt ,. Trips 'iripsMidit Trips Trips/uilit ' Trips TripsJtJ6it 'hips Trip L pir Day Vintage �) 237 2.35 332 3.29 299 2.96 257 2.54 281 2.78 Canyon in Brea, CA AM. 7 0.07 27 0.27 26 0.26 17 0.17 19 0.19 PM 24 0.24 20 0.20 22 0.22 26 0.26 23 0.23 Vintage DkiHy Gardens in (E): 592 3.15 639 3.40 609 3.24 604 3.21 611 3.25 West Covina, AM 50 0.27 52 0.28 49 0.26 50 0.27 50 0.27 CA pM '` 44 0.23 39 0.21 53 0.28 61 0.32 49 0.26 Da ily Vintage 376 2.76 528 3.88 310 2.28 297 2.18 378 2.78 Pointe in AM 20 0.15 43 0.32 27 0.20 17 0.13 27 0.20 Oceanside, CA PM 38 0.28 28 0.21 23 0.17 30 0.22 30 0.22 Vintage Daily Oaks inE):.,. 406 1.75 516 2.22 517 2.23 356 1.53 449 1.93 Citrus Heights,f 29 0.13 35 0.15 35 0.15 24 0.10 31 0.13 CA PM 41 0.18 42 0.18 45 0.19 36 0.16 41 0.18 Daily Vintage ) 517 2.18 640 2.7 517 2.18 374 1.58 512 2.16 Chateau in AM 38 0.16 53 0.22 44 0.19 30 0.13 41 0.17 Petaluma, CA PM 51 0.22 46 0.19 41 0.17 38 0.16 44 0.19 Notes: 1. Based on traffic counts conducted between January 25 and January 28, 2002. 2. Based on 101 occupied dwelling units at Vintage Canyon, 188 at Vintage Gardens, 136 at Vintage Pointe, 232 at Vintage Oaks, and 237 at Vintage Chateau. 3. Daily trips estimated by applying the relationship between peak hour and daily trip generation as documented in Trip Generation for the Apartments Land Use Category. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., February 2002. FEHR &PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants Mr. Troy Estacio USA Properties Fund February 14, 2002 Page 4 Figure 1 graphically illustrates the trip generation rates for the five facilities. The following summarizes the average (weighted for number of occupied dwelling units) trip generation of the five communities: • Daily (Estimated): 2.49 trips per occupied dwelling unit; • AM Peak Hour: 0.19 trips per occupied dwelling unit; and • PM Peak Hour: 0.21 trips per occupied dwelling unit. 3.5 3 2.5 C D 2 .C. 7 V 1.5 d H 0.5 0 Daily AM Peak Hour , PM Peak Hour Figure t Trip Generation Rates Comparison for ttm Five Senior Communities Parkin Surveys The number of vehicles parked within the five senior communities was surveyed between the hours of 4:00 to 5:OOAM on each day between January 25, 2002 and January 28, 2002, inclusive. This period was selected because it typically represents the peak parking occupancy for residential communities. Table 3 summarizes the parking survey results. It should be noted that access to the Vintage Chateau Senior Community was not possible between Saturday, January 26 and Monday, January 28, 2002 due to an incorrect gated entry code. Therefore, the parking analysis for this community is based on the data collected on January 25, 2002 only. FEHR&I?EERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants Mr. Troy Estacio USA Properties Fund February 14, 2002 Page 5 Table 3 Parking Demand at the Selected USA Properties Facility Piaatta Sun+d�r .9 ay, Average . January 25th ` January.2Cth January;27th : January 28th Occupied 54 55 55 57 55 Vintage Canyon Spaces Occupied Spaces per 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.56 0.55 in Brea, CA Occupied. Unit Vintage Gardens Occupied Spaces 145 153 145 139 146 in West Covina, CA Occupied Spaces per 0.77 0.81 0.77 0.74 0.77 Occupied Unit.. Occupied 84 86 87 82 85 Vintage Point in Spaces Occupied Spaces per 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.60 0.62 Oceanside, CA Occupied Unit Vintage Oaks in Occupied Spaces 150 145 147 133 144 Citrus Heights, CA Occupied Sparc P _ 0.65 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.62 Occupi�ah;it Occupied 162 N/A N/A N/A N/A Vintage Chateau Spaces Occupied: Spaces per 0.68 N/A N/A N/A N/A in Petaluma, CA Occupied'Unit Notes: 1. Based on parking surveys conducted between January 25 and January 28, 2002. 2. Based on 101 occupied dwelling units at Vintage Canyon, 188 at Vintage Gardens, 136 at Vintage Pointe, 232 at Vintage Oaks, and 237 at Vintage Chateau. 3. Access to vintage Chateau in Petaluma was not possible due to incorrect gated entry access code. Therefore, parking surveys between January 26 and January 28, 2002 could not be performed. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., February 2002. FEHR &PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants Mr. Troy Estacio USA Properties Fund February 14, 2002 Page 6 Table 3 shows that average parking demand (for the four -day count period) for each community ranged from 0.55 to 0.77 occupied spaces per occupied dwelling unit. The following summarizes the average and peak -day (weighted for number of occupied dwelling units) parking demand for the five communities combined: • Average Parking Rate: 0.66 occupied spaces per occupied dwelling unit; • Maximum Parking Rate 2: 0.68 occupied spaces per occupied dwelling unit; 1: Based on the average observed for the four -day count period at each community. 2 : Based on the highest day observed at each community. Conclusions The purpose of this study was to determine the trip generation and parking demand for five USA Properties senior communities in Northern and Southern California. The following average trip generation rates were observed at these facilities: • Daily (Estimated): 2.49 trips per occupied dwelling unit; • AM Peak Hour: 0.19 trips per occupied dwelling unit; and • PM Peak Hour: 0.21 trips per occupied dwelling unit. Each community generated an average parking demand rate ranging from 0.55 to 0.77 spaces per occupied dwelling unit. The maximum parking demand rate (based on the average of the highest day observed at each community) was 0.68 occupied spaces per occupied unit. We hope this information is helpful. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. pynt,ard, P.E. Associate 1028 -0014 Attachment 1— Existing Site Plans Is 6aO fs Trl . ...... ..... e� �, � ; , is ` `t��a= ul so-otce, . - AMW :tRR• P•rKw•1'•• VINTAGE CHATEAU Petaluma, California Source: USA Properties Fund, Inc. a J J J 1 J u W L' 0 t� loot -_-`.'-__-.--- rT . . VINTAGE GARDENS SENIOR APARTMENTS West Covina, California Source: USA Properties Fund, Inc. ., ,;a \, te- + t rf 7. J � r t z t t I • Y R A M E N T O S E N I O R S z 19Ctt w •NC.. a c•� r�;s A0tIfIT F.UTs VINTAGE OAKS Citrus Heights, California Source: USA Properties Fund, Inc. bLW6 TIM A .: n.r. 011TA :w rv+a sw.. l..vre A P A R T M E N T S VINTAGE POINTE SENIOR COMMUNITY Oceanside, California Source: USA Properties Fund, Inc. Attachment 2 — Traffic Counts and Parking Surveys Traffic Counts and Parking Surveys at Vintage Canyon Senior Community (Friday, January 25 - Monday, January 28, 2002) Date Fri ay. Jan ary 25 Mon av, Jan ary 28 Saturda , Ja uary 26 Sun ay, Jan ary 27 Approach Lanes NL NR SR ER WL In 2 I Total NL NR SR I ER WL In 2 I Total NL NR I SR ER WL Total NL NR SR ER WL In 2 Total Trip Directions Out Out In Out Out Out In jOut Out Out In Out In Out Out In Out Drivewa s 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 7:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 11:00 AM 1 1 1 2 1 6 0 2 2 1 2 7 7:15AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 11 :15 AM 0 2 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 Traffic 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 11:30 AM 0 3 0 4 0 7 0 1 1 0 1 3 Counts 7:45 AM 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1:45 AM 2 0 3 1 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 5 12:00 AM 1 1 2 0 1 4 1 1 8 0 1 2 2 0 1 5 AM 8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 0 2 7 12:15 AM 0 1 2 1 0 1 4 0 0 2 3 2 7 8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 12:30 AM . 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 3 8 8:45 AM 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 12:45 AM 1 0 0 2 1 4 0 1 2 1 2 6 Peak Hour Volume 7 17 Peak, Hour Volume 27 26 4:00 PM 2 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 0 2 1 5 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 4:15 PM 4 0 1 2 4 11 3 0 2 2 3 10 4:15 PM 1 0 1 2 1 5 0 3 2 1 1 7 Traffic 4:30 PM 3 1 1 0 2 7 2 1 1 0 2 6 4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 Counts 4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 5 4 :45 PM 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 3 4 9 5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 5 5:00 PM 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 4 PM 5:15 PM 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 1 0 4 5 :15 PM 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 3 5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 3 4 2 1 1 2 2 8 5:30 PM 1 2 3 1 1 8 0 1 1 2 2 6 5:45 PM 2 0 1 3 1 7 1 0 0 2 1 4 5:45 -PM 3 0 2 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Volume 24 26 Peak Hour Volume 20 22 Parking Surve s 4:00,AM - 5 :00-AM 54 57 4:00 AM - :;5:00 AM 55 55 Notes: -,: 1. In terms of Approach Lanes, NL =North Bound Left Lane, SR =South Bound Right Lane, and so on. 2. In terms of Trips Directions, Out = Outbound, In= Inbound. 3. Based on 2 driveways, 101 occupied dwelling units and 80 parking spaces provided. Source: SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS, JOB# 02130001. Traffic Counts and Parking Surveys at Vintage Gardens Senior Community (Friday, January 25 - Monday, January 28), 2002 Date F idav, Ja uary 25 Mond y, Januar y 28 Saturda , Janua ry 26 Sunda , January 27 Approach Lanes NL NRI EL ER In 2 I Total NL NRI EL ER Total NL NRI EL ER Total NL NRI EL ER In Total Trip Directions In Out In In Outl In In In Outi In In In Outl In Drivewa s 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 7:00 AM 0 1 0 4 5 2 4 0 3 9 11:00 AM 5 3 0 2 10 5 6 0 2 1 13 7 :15 AM 1 6 1 1 9 2 3 0 3 8 11 :15 AM 7 6 0 4 17 6 1 5 0 0 11 Traffic 7:30 AM 2 7 1 2 12 3 5 1 0 9 11 :30 AM 8 4 0 4 16 8 4 0 1 13 Counts,,,, 7:45 AM 4 3 0 0 7 2 4 2 2 10 > 11:45 AM 3 5 0 1 9 5 4 0 0 9 8 :00 AM 6 4 2 3 15 4 5 1 2 12 12 :00 AM 2 3 0 1 0 5 4 3 0 1 1 8 AM 8 :.15 AM 8 3 0 1 12 5 3 1 1 10 12 :15 AM 7 7 0 2 16 8 3 0 1 12 $:30" AM 6 5 0 0 11 7 4 0 1 12 - 1.2 :30 AM : 5 4 0 3 12 10 5 0 1 16 8:45 AM 7 4 0 1 12 7 5 2 2 16 12 :45 AM 6 5-1 0 2 1 13 7 4 0 2 13 Peak Hour Volume 1 50 50 Peak. Hour Volume 52 49 4:00 PM 3 4 0 3 10 3 5 0 1 9 *00 PM, 5 3 0 0 8 8 4 0 2 14 4:15 PM- 3 3 1 1 8 5 4 0 0 9 4 :15 PM 7 2 0 1 10 5 3 0 1 9 Traffic 4 :30 PM 5 5 0 0 10 4 4 1 3 1' 2 4:30 PM 4 4 0 0 8 7 5 0 0 12 Counts 4:45 PM 8 4 0 2 14 4 8 0 2 14 4 :45 PM 6 3 0 3 12 101 4 0 4 1 18 5 :00 PM 6 2 1 1 10 7 9 2 2 20 5.00 PM 4 3 0 2 9 4 6 0 2 12 PM 5:15 PM 7 1 1 1 10 7 6 0 0 13 5 :15 PM: 3 2 0 1 6 4 3 0 1 8 5:30 PM 5 4 0 0 9 10 5 1 1 17 5 :30 PM: 4 4 0 3 11 5 4 0 3 12 5:45 PM 5 3 1 1 10 6 4 0 1 1 11 5.45 PM . 5 4 0 3 12 6 4 0 3 13 Peak Hour Volume 1 44 61 Pe, ak.Hour Volume , 39 53 Parking, Parkin Surve s ` 4.00 AM ,- : S Ot)" AM:1 145 139 4700 "AM 'AM, .! 153 145 Notes:: 1. In terms of Approach Lanes, NL =North Bound Left Lane, ER =East Bound Right Lane, and so on. 2. In terms of Trips Directions, Out = Outbound, In= Inbound. 3. Based on 2 driveways, 188 occupied dwelling units and 188 parking spaces provided. Source: SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS, JOB# 02130002. Traffic Counts and Parking Surveys at Vintage Pointe Senior Community (Friday, January 25 - Monday, January 28, 2002) Date Friday. Janua 25 Monday. Janu 28 urday. Jan uary 26 Su nday, Jan 27 oach Lanes NL NT1 NRI ST ERI In WL In Total NL NT NRI ST ER WL In Total NL Out NT Out NRI Out STI In ER In VNL In Total NL NT I NRI ST ER I WL Total Trip-Directions Out Out Out In Out Out Out In In Out Outl Outl In In In Drivewa 7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 11 :00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 7:15 AM. 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 AM 2 0 2 0 1 5 10 1 1 0 3 0 1 4 9 Traffic 7 :30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 11:30 AM 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 3 0 0 0 2 2 7 Counts 7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 7 11;45�AM 3 0 2 0 2 0 7 1 0 1 0 0 3 5 8 :00 AM 01 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 01 1 0 0 0 1 2:OOAMI 1 0 5 0 3 3 12 1 0 1 1 3 0 6 AM 8:15 AM 21 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 4 12:15•AM 2 0 2 0 3 4 11 1 1 1 0 0 21 1 5 8:30 AM 21 0 2 0 2 1 7 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 12:90 AM 3 1 2 1 1 2 10 2 0 1 1 0 4 2 9 8:45 AM 21 0 3 1 01 0 3 8 4 0 1 0 2 2 9 12:45 AM 2 0 3 0 2 3 10 1 0 1 0 3 0 5 Peak Hour Volume 20 17 p Volume, 43 27 4:00 PM 01 0 1 0 1 4 4 9 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 7 ,4:00 PM 31 0 1 4 0 2 0 9 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 4:15 PM 31 1 1 0 4 1 10 1 0 0 0 2 3 6 14.1 5 PM 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 3 0 1 0 1 2 7 Traffic 4 :30 PM 01 0 2 0 3 5 10 4 0 2 0 1 2 9 4:30 PM 2 0 2 0 0 2 6 2 0 0 0 1 1 4 Counts 4:45 PM 21 0 4 0 2 1 9 1 0 3 0 3 1 8 4:45 W. 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 1 0 2 0 3 1 7 5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 5;00 PM 2 1 1 0 5 5 14 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 PM 5:15 PM, 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 2 0 0 0 1 2 5 5 :15; PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 5:30 PM 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 1 0 0 0 5 0 6 5:30.PM 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 2 0 2 0 1 4 9 5:45 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 TT-0 1 2 5 5 :45,,PM 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 2 0 2 2 7 Peak Hour Volume 38 30 peak Volume; 28 23 Parking Surveys ` 4:00 AM - 5 :00 AM 84 82 4:00AW. 5 pO;AM 86 87 Notes: 1. In terms of Approach Lanes, NL =North Bound Left Lane, SR =South Bound Right Lane, and so on. 2. In terms of Trips Directions, Out--Outbound, In--Inbound. 3. Based on 136 occupied dwelling units and 214 parking spaces provided. Lce: SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS, JOB# 02130003. Traffic Counts and Parking Surveys at Vintage Oaks Senior Community (Friday, January 25 - Monday, January 28) Date Frida January 25 Monda , J nuary 28 Saturda , Janu ry 26 S nday, J nuary 27 Approach Lanes SB SB WB WB Out 1 Total SB SB WB WB Total SB SB WB WB Total SB SB WB WB Total -Trip-Directions In Out In In Outi In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out Driveways 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 7 :00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 1:00 'AM 0 1 10 4 15 2 0 2 2 6 7 :15 AM 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 2 0 2 11:15 AM 0 0 3 1 3 6 0 1 1 1 3 Traffic 7 :30 AM 0 1 3 1 5 0 0 0 2 2 11:30 AM 2 0 4 5 11 0 2 3 1 6 Counts 7 :45 AM 0 1 2 2 5 0 1 1 4 6 11 :.45 AM 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 6 2 9 8:00 AM 0 2 2 1 5 1 2 3 0 6 12 :00 AM 0 1 3 6 10 1 3 2 3 9 AM 8 :15 AM 0 0 3 4 7 1 0 2 2 5 12:15 AM 1 1 3 0 5 2 2 4 2 10 8:30 AM 0 4 0 3 7 0 2 3 2 7 12 :30 AM 0 1 3 2 6 0 0 4 2 6 8:45 AM 1 2 4 3 10 0 1 0 1-T--2 -12 :45 AM 0 1 5 3 9 1 1 7 1 1 10 Peak Hour Volume 29 24 Peak Hour Volume 35 35 4:00 PM 0 1 3 1 5 0 2 1 2 5 4:00 PM 1 0 4 2 7 1 1 2 3 7 4:15 PM 0 1 5 0 6 1 0 3 1 5 4:15 PM 1 0 2 2 5 0 3 2 1 6 Traffic 4:30 PM 0 2 6 3 11 2 2 2 1 7 4 :30 PM 0 1 5 3 9 1 5 7 2 15 Counts 4:45 PM 3 1 4 4 12 0 1 5 0 6 4: :45, PM 2 0 2 5 9 1 1 7 1 10 5:00 PM 2 2 4 2 10 1 2 6 6 15 5:00 PM 0 1 3 2 6 2 2 6 2 12 PM 5:15 PM 0 1 4 3 8 1 0 1 3 5 5 :15 PM 1 2 5 0 8 1 2 3 2 8 5:30 PM 3 0 5 3 11 0 2 5 0 7 5030 PM 3 4 7 2 16 2 4 2 1 9 5:45 PM 1 4 4 0 T 9 1 0 4 2 7 5 :45 PM 3 L3 4 1 2 1 12 1 1 5 0 7 Peak Hour Volume 41 1 36 Peak Hour Volume 42 45 Parking,, Surve s 4:00 AM - 5 00'AM ,' 150 145 4 :00 =AM:= S:Of} AM : 147 133 Notes',: 13. 1. In terms of Approach Lanes, SB =South Bound, WB =West Bound. 2. In terms of Trips Directions, Out = Outbound, In= Inbound. Based on 2 driveways, 232 occupied dwelling units and 254 parking spaces provided. Source: ALL TRAFFIC DATA. Traffic Counts and Parking Surveys at Vintage Chateau Senior Community (Friday, January 25 - Monday, January 28, 2002) Date Friday. Janua 25 Mond v. Janua 28 Sa urday, Janua ry 26 Sunday, Janua 27 Approach Lanes SB SB I WB WB NB In 3 NB Out 3 Total SB SB WB WBI NB NB Total SB SB WB WB NB NB Total SB I SB WB WB NB In 3 NB Out 3 Total Trip Directions In Outl In Out In Out In Outl In Out In Out In Out In Out In In Out Driveways 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 f—lu 2 2 7:00 AM 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 1 4 11:00 AM 1 5 0 0 0 1 7 4 2 0 0 0 0 6 7:15 AM 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 11:15 AM 4 5 0 0 0 2 11 1 0 0 0 0 1 Traffic 7 :30 AM 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 11:30 AM 7 3 0 1 0 0 11 7 2 0 0 EO 2 11 Counts 7:45 AM 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 11:45 AM 6 4 0 1 0 3 14 4 2 0 1 2 9 8 :00 AM 7 1 0 1 0 2 11 4 0 0 0 0 2 6 12:00 AM 4 5 0 0 0 1 10 3 2 0 3 0 0 8 AM 8 :15 AM 3 1 0 1 0 1 6 4 1 0 1 0 3 9 12:15 AM 3 6 0 1 0 3 13 4 0 0 1 0 1 6 8:30 AM 5 2 0 3 0 3 13 5 0 0 3 0 3 11 12:30 AM 7 5 0 1 0 3 16 4 5 0 2 0 1 12 8:45 AM 2 2 0 1 0 3 8 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 12:45 AM 3 1 0 1 0 0 5 12 0 0 1 0 5 18 Peak Hour Volume 38 30 Peak Hour Volume 53 44 4:00 PM 12 2 0 4 0 0 18 3 1 0 2 0 0 6 4:00 PM 3 2 0 0 0 4 9 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 4 :15 PM 4 5 0 2 0 0 11 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 4 :15 PM 6 4 0 2 0 1 13 5 3 0 1 0 1 10 Traffic 4 :30 PM ' 7 2 0 1 0 1 11 2 2 0 0 0 1 5 4:30 PM 7 4 0 0 0 0 11 9 5 0 1 0 0 15 Counts 4 :45 PM 6 3 0 2 0 0 11 6 0 0 2 0 0 8 4:45 PM 5 1 0 4 0 0 10 5 5 0 F. 0 0 10 5:00 PM 2 3 0 1 0 0 6 8 5 0 3 0 2 18 5:00 PM 5 3 0 1 10 3 2 0 1 0 0 6 PM 5:15 PM 9 4 0 2 0 1 16 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 5:15 PM 5 2 0 0 9 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 5:30 PM 8 3 0 1 0 1 13 3 3 0 1 0 0 7 5:30 PM 8 3 NA 0 0 13 5 4 0 1 0 5 15 5:45 PM 7 3 0 2 0 2 14 6 3 0 0 0 1 10 5 :45 PM 6 5 0 2 14 7 1 0 1 0 0 9 Peak Hour Volume 51 38 Peak Hour Volume 46 41 Parking Surveys 4:00 AM - 5:00 AM 162 N/A 4;OO AM - 5:66 AM N/A N/A Notes: 1. In terms of Approach Lanes, SB =South Bound, WB =West Bound, and NB =North Bound. 2. In terms of Trips Directions, Out = Outbound, In= Inbound. 3. Based on 3 driveways, 237 occupied dwelling units and 228 parking spaces provided. 4. Access to site was not possible due to incorrect gate code provided therefore parking surveys between January 26 and January 28, 2002 could not be obtained. Source: ALL TRAFFIC DATA. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: The City of Moorpark, after having conducted an Initial Study, has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the following project: RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No. 2002 -01 & ZC 2002 -01: A request for a change in General Plan designation from General Commercial (C -2) to Very High Density (VH). a change of Zone designation from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to Residential Planned Development (RPD) and a request for a RPD permit to allow the construction of 190 senior citizen apartment units on a 9.48 acre parcel The project is located at: Park Lane at Park Crest Lane (APN 506 -0 -050 -185 & a portion of 506 -0- 050 -475, Moorpark, Ventura Countv The project site is not contained on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code including, but not limited to lists of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste property, and hazardous waste disposal sites. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are forwarded to you for possible comments relating to your area of interest. All documents referenced therein are available for review during normal business hours in the Community Development office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021. Information on public hearings or meetings for the proposed project can be obtained from the Community Development Department at (805) 517 -6200. Written comments should be directed to: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6258 bhogan@ci.moorpark.ca.us Written comments will be accepted in the Community Development Department office for a period of twenty (20) days after publication of this notice. Public Notice Published: June 14, 2002 Mitigated Negative Declaration Comment Period: June 14, 2002 to July 8. 2002 4B K. gan, Co ity Development Director � C ATTACHMENT (G MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6200 The following Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures of the City of Moorpark. Public Review Period: June 14, 2002 to July 8, 2002 Project Title /Case No. Vintage Crest Senior Apartments RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No. 2002 -01 and ZC No. 2002 -02 Project Location: Park Lane at Park Crest Lane, Moorpark, Ventura County. (Location Map Attached) Project Description: A request for a change in General Plan designation from General Commercial (C -2) to Very High Density (VH), a change of Zone designation from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to Residential Planned Development (RPD) and a request for a RPD permit to allow the construction of 190 senior citizen apartment units on a 9.48 acre parcel. Project Type: X Private Project Public Project Project Applicant: USA Properties Fund, 2440 Professional Drive, Ste. 100, Roseville, CA 95661, (916) 773 -6060 Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above - referenced project, revisions have been made by or agreed to by the applicant consistent with the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. With these revisions, it is found that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Initial Study Attached) Responsible Agencies: None Trustee Agencies: None Attachments: Location Map Initial Study with Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Program Contact Person: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California, 93021 (805) 517 -6258 SACommunity Development\R P D\ 2002 -02 \Env Docs\VintageANDl.doc Page 1 LOCATION MAP O� A NORTH CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6200 Project Title: Vintage Crest Senior Apartments Case No.: RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No. 2002 -01 & ZC 2002 -01 Contact Person and Phone No.: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director Name of Applicant: USA Properties Fund Address and Phone No.: 2440 Professional Drive, Ste. 100, Roseville, CA 95661 —(916) 773- 6060 Project Location: Park Lane at Park Crest Lane (APN 506 -0 -050 -185 & a portion of 506-)-050- 475 General Plan Designation: General Commercial Zoning: Commercial Planned Development Project Description: A request for a change in General Plan designation from General Commercial (C -2) to Very High Density (VH), a change of Zone designation from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to Residential Planned Development (RPD) and a request for a RPD permit to allow the construction of 190 senior citizen apartment units on a 9.48 acre parcel Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: Vacant and single family home on commercially zoned property South: Arroyo Simi Flood Channel East: Archstone Apartments (312 units) West: Single Family Dwellings (Villa Campesina) Responsible and Trustee Agencies: None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Sign* nt Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated, "as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources X Geology /Soils X Hazards and Hazardous Materials X HydrologyMater Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population /Housing Public Services Recreation X TransportationfTraffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. Mitigation measures described on the attached Exhibit 1 have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Prepared by: Jo a Parker- ozylinski, Case Planner Date: June 10 2002 Reviewed by: a K. cfin, Co Inity Development Director Date: " %* 'OZ S: \Community Development\R P D\2002- 02\Env Docs \Vintage.IS1.doc Page 2 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT 1: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Liquefaction potential was evaluated at the site and the site was found to have potential for liquefaction. Monitoring Action: The final Geotechnical recommendations for development of the project shall include measures to address the potential for liquefaction, which may include but not be limited to caissons, piers, and /or deep footings. Timing: Prior to Issuance of Grading permit Responsibility: City Engineer 2. The existing Ventura County Flood Control District ( VCFCD) Arroyo Simi is an improved trapezoidal channel that traverses the City of Moorpark. The channel consists of a dirt bottom, rip -rap side slopes, and concrete drop structures at various locations to stabilize the bottom of the channel from erosion. The VCFCD has published an approved hydrologic study report that reports a peak flow in the Arroyo Simi for a 100 -year event of 26,600 cfs (cubic feet per second). Additionally, more detailed analysis indicates that the peak 100 year event flow is 22,300 cfs. Since this new hydrologic report has not been approved, a study was performed for both cfs flows. Monitoring Action: The project site shall be raised to an elevation sufficient to be at or above the 100 -year event based upon a 26,600 cfs or to an elevation satisfactory to the City Engineer, which would provide protection from the 100 -year event. Timing: Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Responsibility: City Engineer 3. Future Year 2010 with cumulative traffic reflecting buildout of all foreseeable development projects indicated that four of the six study intersections will operate at LOS D or E during the AM and /or PM peak hours. Monitoring Action: The project will be required to pay a pro -rata percentage (fair share) of the planned cumulative mitigation measures identified in the Traffic Impact Study. Timing: Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Responsibility: City Engineer SACommunity DevelopmenhR P D\2002 -02\Env Docs\Vintage.IS1.doc Page 3 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) 4. According to the State of California Department of Health Services (DHS) state -wide radon survey conducted in 1991, radon concentrations in residences located within the geographical region of the site average above 4 pico Curies per liter of air. Therefore, elevated concentrations of radon in indoor air may adversely impact the site upon completion of the development Monitoring Action: Construction shall incorporate radon - resistant design approved by a State Certified radon mitigation specialist. After construction, indoor air radon levels shall be tested and reduced to below 4 pico - Curries per liter if exceeding this threshold. Timing: Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Responsibility: Director of Community Development and Building Official AGREEMENT TO PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 6), this agreement must be signed prior to release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review. I, THE UNDERSIGNED PROJECT APPLICANT, HEREBY AGREE TO MODIFY THE PROJECT DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE ABOVE - LISTED MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE PROJECT. Signature of Project Applicant Date SACommunity Development\R P D\2002 -02\Env Docs \Vntage.ISl Am Page 4 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) Potentially Significant Impact A. AESTHETICS — Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Less Than With Significant No Mitigation Impact Impact X X X X Response: The proposed project is an infill site surrounded on three sides by residential uses and on the south by the Arroyo Simi. The terrain of the site is relatively flat. The eastern half of the site is currently vacant and western half of the site contains a commercial greenhouse that has been in use for approximately 20 years. The project site does not affect any significant ridgelines defined by Ordinance No. 207. Sources: Project application on file with the City. Ordinance No. 207 and exhibits Mitigation: None B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, the City of Moorpark may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources agency, to non - agricultural use? 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? 3) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? Response: The terrain of the site is relatively flat. The eastern half of the site is currently vacant and western half of the site contains a commercial greenhouse that has been in use for approximately 20 years. No agricultural or farming uses exist on the site. Sources: Project application on file with the City. Mitigation: None SACommunity Development\R P D\2002 -02 \Env Docs \Vintage.IS1 -doc Page 3 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) C. 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. Would the project: 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Response: The preliminary URBEMIS 7G run for the project yielded total unmitigated emission estimates of 21.58 pounds per day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and 18.78 pounds per day of Nitrous Oxides (NOx). The total emission estimates for ROG and NOx are less than the 25 pounds per day air quality significance threshold, as defined by the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. Sources: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Letter dated January 30, 2002 Mitigation: None D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? SACommunity Development \R P D\2002 -02\Env Docs \Vintage.IS1.doc Page 4 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat X conservation ian-r Response: The terrain of the site is relatively flat. The eastern half of the site is currently vacant and western half of the site contains a commercial greenhouse that has been in use for approximately 20 years. Annual grasses and weeds grow on the eastern half of the site. One California Pepper tree was located approximately in the center of the property adjacent to an existing wire fence that separates the nursery operation from the eastern undeveloped portion of the lot. The multi - trunk California Pepper is a large specimen exhibiting good health and form. Grading activities will require removal of the tree. The City of Moorpark Municipal Code requires that upgraded tree plantings equal to the value of the removed tree be installed. Residential uses surround the property on three sides with the Arroyo Simi Sources: Pacific Horticulture Tree Evaluation dated November 16, 2001, Moorpark Municipal Code Mitigation: None E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historic resource as defined in §15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Response: The terrain of the site is relatively flat. The eastern half of the site is currently vacant and western half of the site contains a commercial greenhouse that has been in use for approximately 20 years. The possibility of archaeological resources being contained on the site is minimal given that the site has been previously used for agriculture. Sources: Project application on file with the City. Mitigation: None F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: 1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X X X X X X SACommunity Development\R P D12002- 02\Env Docslvntage.IS1.doc Page 5 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste Response: The site and soil conditions, with the exception of the loose surface soils, appear to be conducive to the development of the project according to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project. The surface soils have a loose consistency and will be recompacted. The project must meet minimum requirements of the California Administrative Code, 1997 Edition, as amended by the Moorpark Municipal Code prior to issuance of a building permit. Liquefaction potential was evaluated at the site and the site was found to have potential for liquefaction. Sources: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Prepared by Krazan & Associates dated April 4, 2001. Moorpark Municipal Code. Mitigation: The final Geotechnical recommendations for development of the project shall include measures to address the potential for liquefaction, which may include but not be limited to caissons, piers, and /or deep footings. G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? SACommunity Development\R P D\2002 -021Env Docs\Vintage- IS1.doc Page 6 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) 8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where resiaences are intermixed with wildlands7 Response: The eastern half of the site is currently vacant and western half of the site contains a commercial greenhouse that has been in use for approximately 20 years. Pesticides generally associated with commercial greenhouse operations may have historically been applied to plants on site. The County of Ventura Agricultural Commission records indicate no registered pesticide usage at the site during the year of 1999, 2000, 2001. A cesspool is located in the southeast quadrant of the subject site. Water discharged from the greenhouse drains to the cesspool. Therefore, elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticide may be found in the near surface soils of the site in the area of the cesspool. According to the State of California Department of Health Services (DHS) state -wide radon survey conducted in 1991, radon concentrations in residences located within the geographical region of the site average above 4 pico Curies per liter of air. Therefore, elevated concentrations of radon in indoor air may adversely impact the site upon completion of the development Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Krazan and Associates, Inc. April 11, 2001 Mitigation: Construction shall incorporate radon - resistant design approved by a State Certified radon mitigation specialist. After construction, indoor air radon levels shall be tested and reduced to below 4 pico - Curries per liter if exceeding this threshold. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? 5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X 7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? SACommunity Development\R P D\2002 -02\Env Docs \Mntage.IS1.doc Page 7 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Response: The existing Ventura County Flood Control District (VCFCD) Arroyo Simi is an improved trapezoidal channel that traverses the City of Moorpark. The channel consists of a dirt bottom, rip -rap side slopes, and concrete drop structures at various locations to stabilize the bottom of the channel from erosion. The VCFCD has published an approved hydrologic study report that reports a peak flow in the Arroyo Simi for a 100 -year event of 26,600 cfs (cubic feet per second). Additionally, more detailed analysis indicates that the peak 100 year event flow is 22,300 cfs. Since this new hydrologic report has not been approved, a study was performed for both cfs flows. The proposed onsite drainage system includes a detention basin. The basin is intended to detain the incremental increase in runoff. The project will also comply with NPDES permit requirements and the treatment of non -storm and "first flush" storm runoff through the use of four onsite bio- filtration areas. The project site would be raised to a point at or above the 100 - year event. Estimates are approximately 2 -feet. Sources: Preliminary Hydrology /Hydraulic Report, Hall & Foreman, Inc., April 30, 2002 and Floodplain Analysis Report of the Arroyo Simi, Hall & Foreman, Inc., May 14, 2002 Mitigation: The project site shall be raised to an elevation sufficient to be at or above the 100 -year event based upon a 26,600 cfs or to an elevation satisfactory to the City Engineer which would provide protection from the 100 -year event. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: 1) Physically divide an established community? X 2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Response: The proposed project would be inconsistent with the current General Plan and Zoning designations on the property. However, the application includes a request to change the General Plan designation from General Commercial to Very High Density Residential and the Zone Map designation from Commercial Planned Development to Residential Planned Development. A condition of the RPD would require approval of the general plan amendment and zone change for the RPD approval to be effective. Sources: City of Moorpark General Plan Map and Zoning Map Mitigation: None. J. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X SACommunity Development\R P D\2002- 02\Env Docs \Vntage.IS1 -doc Page 8 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) Response: No known mineral resources have been identified in the Moorpark City limits. Sources: City of Moorpark Open Space. Conservation. and Recreation Element 1986. Mitigation: None. K. NOISE — Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 5) For a project located within an airport land use 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? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X X X X Response: The primary noise generator in the vicinity is traffic on Los Angeles Avenue. The project is more than sufficient distance from Los Angeles Avenue that standard construction techniques would sufficiently attenuate traffic noise. Temporary impacts due to construction noise will occur while the project is constructed, however, construction will be limited to work Monday through Saturday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Sources: City of Moorpark Noise Element, 1998: Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 15.26. Mitigation: None. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: 1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X X X SACommunity Development\R P D\2002- 02\Env Docs \Vintage.IS1.doc Page 9 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) Response: The project is for 190 senior restricted rental dwelling units. If we assume a conservative reasonably - foreseeable occupancy rate of 2.0 persons per unit, a total of 380 persons would be projected at full occupancy. Since the site is currently zoned for commercial, no population numbers were allocated to this site. The projection of 380 persons, while an increase over the current population projections of the Moorpark General Plan, it is not considered to a significant increase. Sources: City of Moorpark Housing Element, 2001. Mitigation: None. M. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? X X X X X Response: The senior residents would not impact schools. Other services are already provided to the site and are not expected to be impacted. Sources: City of Moorpark Safety Element, 2001 Mitigation: None. N. RECREATION 1) Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the Response: On site recreation facilities including a swimming pool will be provided for the residents of the apartment. Community gardens are also planned for the project. Since this project is a senior- restricted project and will have on -site recreation and recreation programs, it is not likely that it will have a significant impact upon neighborhood or regional parks, nor upon recreation facilities. Sources: Site plan and Landscape plans dated April 25, 2002 Mitigation: None SACommunity DevelopmenAR P D\2002- 02\Env Docs \\lntage.IS1.doc Page 10 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) O. TRANSPORTATION[TRAFFIC — Would the project: 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation X to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 2) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 6) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Response: The proposed project is expected to generate 13 vehicle trips (8 inbound and 5 outbound) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate 19 vehicle trips (11 inbound and 8 outbound). Over a 24 -hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate 662 daily trips during a typical weekday. Six intersections were analyzed to determine changes to the volume /capacity ratio. No significant impacts at the intersections were found due to project traffic. Future Year 2010 with cumulative traffic reflecting buildout of all foreseeable development projects indicated that four of the six study intersections will operate at LOS D or E during the AM and/or PM peak hours. The project will be required to pay a pro -rata percentage (fair share) of the planned cumulative mitigation measures identified in the Traffic Impact Study. A Parking Study that analyzed five other USA Properties Fund's senior project found that the average parting rate was .66 occupied spaces per occupied dwelling unit with a maximum parking rate of .68 occupied spaces per dwelling unit. The proposed project provides 1 parking space for every dwelling unit. Sources: Traffic Impact Study, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, April 2, 2002 Traffic and Parking Study Summary, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. February 14, 2002 Mitigation: The project will be required to pay a pro -rata percentage (fair share) of the planned cumulative mitigation measures identified in the Traffic Impact Study. P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X X SACommunity Development\R P D\2002 -02\Env Docs \Vintage.IS1 -doc Page 11 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction'of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6) Be served by the landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Response: The Ventura County Waterworks Districts have an existing 10" water main northwest of the property within Park Lane, and an existing 8" sewer main within a 40' wide easement south of the project, on the north side of Arroyo Simi. The District has indicated that the project is within existing capacities. Electric, gas and cable television connection points are available east of the site in Park Crest Lane. Sources: Ventura County Waterworks Districts letters dated January 14, 2002. Mitigation: None Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history of prehistory? 2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and effects of probable future projects)? 3) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Response: This project has been reviewed with respect to the various CEQA issue areas identified herein and found to have less than significant impacts in most instances and less than significant impacts when mitigation measures are imposed, specifically in the areas of traffic, hydrology and soils. Potential cumulative impacts have been examined and this initial study has not found significant impacts. The project has been designed in such a manner so as not to have indirect or direct environmental effects or cause significant adverse effects upon human beings. Sources: Moorpark General Plan, Moorgark Municipal Code, project plans. SACommunity Development\R P D\2002 -02 \Env Docs \Vintage.IS1 -doc Page 12 (Vintage Crest Senior Apartment) (RPD No. 2002 -02, GPA No.2002 -01, ZC No. 2002 -02) Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study None Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. Items used are referred to by number in the Response Section of the Initial Study Checklist. Environmental Information Form application and materials submitted on January 8, 2002. 2. Comments received from (departments) in response to the Community Development Department's request for comments. 3. The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended. 4. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended. 5. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 92 -872 6. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15000 et. seq. 7. Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, November 14, 2000. SACommunity Development\R P D\2002- 02\Env Docs\Vintage.IS1.doc Page 13 RESOLUTION NO. PC -2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -01, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2002 -01, AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2002 -02 FOR A 9.48 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON PARK CREST LANE AT PARK LANE, ON THE APPLICATION OF USA PROPERTIES FUND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 512 -0- 050 -185 AND A PORTION OF 506 -0- 050 -475 WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing on June 24, 2002, the Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01, Zone Change No. 2002 -01, and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -02 on the application of USA Properties Fund for a 9.48 acre site located on Park Crest Lane at Park Lane (Assessor Parcel No. 506 -0 -5- 050 -185 and a portion of 506 -0- 050 -475); and WHEREAS, the proposed project is more specifically described as follows: General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01: A request for a change in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan from C -2 (General Commercial) to VHD (Very High Density); Zone Change No. 2002 -01: A request for a change in the Zoning from CPD (Commercial Planned Development) to RPD -20 du /ac (Residential Planned Development 20 dwelling units /acre); Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -02: a request for a permit to allow the construction of 190 senior citizen apartment units; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of June 24, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and received public testimony, and after receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \pc reso gpa zc rpd usapropfundl.doc Modified: 06/20/02 TPC. ATTACHMENT.1 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01, ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2002 -02 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY: The Planning Commission does hereby find that General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01, Zone Change 2002 -01 and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -02 are consistent with the City's General Plan, subject to amendment of the land use designation as proposed. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: A. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01, Zone Change 2002 -01 and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -02 serves as the environmental document for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Residential Planned Development Permit. B. In order to reduce the potential adverse impacts of this project, mitigation measures discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated as conditions of approval of Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -02. C. A Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program prepared in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180 and considered in the various decisions regarding these projects applies to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -02. D. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. SECTION 3. RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS: The Planning Commission finds that: A. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and provisions of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. B. The proposed project is compatible with the character of surrounding development. Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01, ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2002 -02 Page 3 C. The proposed project would not be obnoxious or harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property or uses. D. The proposed project would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. E. The proposed project is compatible with existing and planned land uses in the general area where the development is to be located. F. The proposed project is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of the surrounding properties, designed so as to enhance the physical and visual quality of the community, and the structure(s) have design features which provide visual relief and separation between land uses of conflicting character. G. The residential structure setbacks are appropriate for an infill residential project that includes affordable housing. SECTION 4. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -01 (Exhibit A), Zone Change 2002 -01 (Exhibit B), and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -02 subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit C). SECTION 5. FILING OF RESOLUTION: The Community Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01, ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2002 -02 Page 4 The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2002. William F. Otto, Chair ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. General Plan Exhibit Map B. Zone Change Exhibit Map C. Conditions of Approval for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -02. GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT MAP uj d v�g _ 4 E 5, HIGH ST. lu P, Ratc -RoPo .A rolNoExT Q ' J . LO-5 ANGE Lge? AVE . 1 AK ..i f W SITE k o . 5..� Tog C-2 to VH o EXHIBIT A ZONING EXHIBIT MAP 4�r E H16+4 ST• . RAI�RoP A� fol j Q I - J ;%17 L05 NJGEL(s17 AVE . 1 TA �1i !y PARK / 3 J� LNNE K d ~NJ -J W . _Vj SITE 0 5`M 04,o CPD TO RPD -20 DU /AC EXHIBIT B Resolution No. GPA 2002 -01,ZC Page 7 PC -2002- 2002-01, RPD No. 2001 -01 EXHIBIT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2002 -02 A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS: 1. The Residential Planned Development permit is granted for the land and project as identified on the entitlement application form and as shown on the plot plans and elevations incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A" on file in the Community Development Department Office. The location and design of all site improvements shall be as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations except or unless indicated otherwise herein in the following conditions. 2. Use Inauguration: Unless the Residential Development Permit is inaugurated (building foundation slab in place and substantial work in progress) not later than two (2) years after this permit is granted, this permit shall automatically expire on that date. Upon application for an extension of time filed with the Community Development Director at least 30 -days prior to the expiration date, the Director may, at his /her discretion, grant up to one (1) one (1) year extension for project inauguration if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if Applicant can document that he /she has diligently worked towards inauguration of the project during the initial three -year period. 3. Other Regulations: The design, maintenance, and operation of the permit area and facilities thereon shall comply with all applicable regulations of the applicable zone and all requirements and enactment's of Federal, State, County, and City authorities, and all such requirements and enactment's shall, by reference, become conditions of this permit. 4. Duplication of Conditions: All mitigation measures contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring Report and Program (MMRP) are hereby adopted as requirements of the Residential Planned Development Permit, as applicable. Where conflict or duplication between the MMRP and the conditions of approval occur and applicability for compliance is questioned by the Developer, the Community S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 8 Development Director will determine the applicable condition compliance requirements for each phase of development. 5. Image Conversion of Plans: Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the builder shall pay to the City a fee for the image conversion of building permit plans as determined by the Community Development Director into an electronic imaging format acceptable to the City Clerk. 6. Public Nuisance: 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 Applicant 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 Applicant 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. 7. Approval of the Residential Planned Development Permit is conditioned upon execution of an Affordable Housing Agreement, or other mutually acceptable agreement between the City of Moorpark and the applicant or developer to insure the affordability of the project. Compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall address affordable housing provision and the term of the affordability. The Agreement is subject to the approval of the City Council. By mutual agreement, these provisions will be incorporated into a regulatory agreement if bonds are issued to finance the project. 8. Affordable Housing Agreement (Development Agreement) Preparation Fee: Developer shall pay to City the amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) for the City's cost to prepare the required affordable housing plan and agreement. 9. Outstanding Case Processing Costs: The Applicant shall pay all outstanding case processing (Planning and Engineering), and all applicable City legal service fees within sixty S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 9 (60) days of approval of this RPD Permit. The applicant, permittee, or successors in interest shall also submit to the Department of Community Development, prior to or concurrently with the building permit application, a fee to cover costs incurred by the City for Condition Compliance review of the RPD Permit. 10. Design /Development Standards: Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the building elevations shall be revised to be consistent with the conditions of approval for this Residential Planned Development Permit, subject to Community Development Director approval. 11. Compatibility of Changes to Plans: No expansion, alteration or change in architectural elements that are visible from any abutting street shall be allowed, unless in the judgment of the Community Development Director such change is compatible with all dwellings having frontage on the same street and located within 200 feet (or as otherwise determined by the Community Development Director) of the side property line of the structure proposed for expansion or alteration, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director consistent with the approved Design Guidelines and Zoning Code requirements. 12. Landscape Plans: Within thirty (30) days of issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a Grading Permit, the Applicant shall submit a complete Landscape Plan shown on the approved grading plan, together with specifications and a separate Maintenance Plan. The Landscape Plan shall encompass all areas required to be planted consistent with these conditions of approval. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and approved by the Community Development Director prior to Zoning Clearance for building permits for the first apartment building. The Landscape Plan and inspection requirements shall comply with the following: a. Prior to initial review of the landscape plans, the Applicant shall deposit funds for plan review in an amount specified by the Community Development Director. The Applicant shall deposit additional funds upon request as needed to cover all landscape plan check and inspection fees and City administrative S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 10 costs. Any deposit balance remaining following final approval of the installation shall be refunded to the Applicant. b. All plant material shall conform to the current issue of the American Standard for Nursery Stock published by the American Association of Nurserymen. C. Prior to final inspection by the City of Moorpark, the Applicant's landscape architect shall provide written certification to the City, stating that the installation is in substantial conformance with the approved landscape plans. d. Prior to final inspection by the City of Moorpark, the Applicant shall provide a written certification for the operation of the backflow device. e. All backflow preventers, transformers, and other above -grade utilities shall be appropriately screened with walls and /or plantings. f. The planting and irrigation design shall comply with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. g. Prior to occupancy, the landscape installation shall be approved by the Community Development Director. This approval shall be based upon written certification of the landscape installation by the City Landscape Consultant. h. The Tree Valuation Report completed for this project indicates that the site contains one (1) California Pepper tree located in the center of the property. The total valuation of the tree is $10,133. The landscape plans shall provide enhanced landscaping that totals the amount of the estimated tree impact pursuant to Section 12.12.070 of the Moorpark Municipal Code. 13. Fence /Wall Plan: A fencing, perimeter, gate, and privacy barrier wall plan, complete with related landscaping details, identifying the materials to be used and proposed wall heights and locations shall be submitted to the Community Development Director within thirty (30) days of S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 11 issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Grading Permit. The fence /wall plan shall be depicted on the approved grading plan and shall require approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for building permits for the first apartment building. All fences /walls along lot boundaries shall be in place prior to occupancy of first building, unless timing for installation is otherwise stated in these conditions. Where applicable prior to approval of the final fence /wall plan, the Community Development Director shall approve the connection of property line wall with existing fences and or walls on adjacent residential properties. The Developer is required at his /her sole expense to connect or reconstruct adjacent residential walls and or fences to the project perimeter wall utilizing the same type of material, or better, that comprises existing walls and or fences that are to be connected to the project perimeter wall. 14. Sight Distance on Fence /Wall and Landscaping Plans: The Developer shall submit fence /wall and landscaping plans showing that provisions have been taken to provide for and maintain proper sight distances. All fences, walls and other structures shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 15. The main entry drive shall incorporate stamped concrete or other decorative paving as approved by the Community Development Director. 16. Lighting Plan: An exterior lighting plan designed in accordance with Section 17.30 (Lighting Regulations) of the Moorpark Municipal Code shall be submitted to the Community Development Director within thirty (30) days of issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Grading Permit. The lighting plan shall be depicted on the approved grading plan and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for building permits for the first apartment building. Prior to initial review of the lighting plans, the Applicant shall deposit funds for plan review in an amount specified by the Community Development Director. The Applicant shall deposit additional funds upon request as needed to cover all lighting plan check and inspection fees and City administrative costs. Any deposit S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 12 balance remaining following final approval of the installation shall be refunded to the Applicant. 17. Ultra -low water consumption plumbing fixtures shall be installed consistent with City Ordinance No. 132. The project shall also include a requirement for the following energy saving devices or construction features: a. Ultra low flush toilets (to not exceed 1.6 gallons); b. Low water use shower controllers as required by Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code shall be placed on all shower facilities; C. Stoves, ovens, and ranges, when gas fueled shall not have continuous burning pilot lights. d. All thermostats connected to the main space- heating source shall have night set back features; e. Kitchen ventilation system shall have automatic dampers to ensure closure when not in use. 18. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a detail of the pool and spa area for review by the Community Development Director. The pool and spa plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for building permits for the first apartment building. The pool and spa plan may be submitted as part of the Landscape Plan. 19. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a pedestrian walking /seating plan for the project for review by the Community Development Director. The pedestrian walking /seating plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for building permits for the fist apartment building. The pedestrian walking /seating plan may be submitted as part of the Landscape Plan. 20. Within 30 days of issuance of a Grading Permit a lot line adjustment or lot merger as determined by the City Engineer or Land Surveyor and in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act shall be submitted to make the two existing lots into one lot. The lot line adjustment /lot merger shall be S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 13 approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit. 21. Modifications to Permit: All facilities and uses other than those specifically requested in the application are prohibited unless an application for a modification is submitted to the Department of Community Development consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. 22. Rain gutters and downspout shall be provided on all sides of the structure for all structures where there is a directional roof flow. Water shall be conveyed to the street or drives in non - corrosive devices as determined by the City Engineer. 23. Maintenance of Permit Area: The continued maintenance of the permit area and facilities shall be subject to periodic inspection by the City. The permittee or owner shall be required to remedy any defects in ground maintenance, as indicated by the Code Enforcement Officer within five (5) days after notification. 24. Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee: As a condition of the issuance of a building permit for each residential unit within the boundaries of the Tract Map, Developer shall pay City at the time of issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, a traffic mitigation fee as described herein ( "Citywide Traffic Fee "). The Citywide Traffic Fee may be expended by City in its sole and unfettered discretion. The amount of the Citywide Traffic Fee shall be $4,240 per residential unit. 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 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. 25. Fish and Game Fee Requirement: Within two (2) days after the City Council adoption of a resolution approving this project, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Moorpark S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No..PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 14 a check for a single fee of $1,250-00 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 Fish and Game Code Section 711.4; the project is not operative, vested or final until the filing fees are paid. 26. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for building permits, the developer shall pay fee in accordance with the City's Parks and Recreation Facilities requirements, the amount of which will be determined as part of the Development Agreement. 27. Miscellaneous Fees: Applicant shall pay to the City capital improvement, development, and processing fees at the rate and amount in effect at the time the fee is required to be paid. Said fees shall include but not be limited to Library Facilities Fees, Police Facilities Fees, Fire Facilities Fees, entitlement processing fees, and plan check and permit fees for buildings and public improvements. Further, unless specifically exempted by City Council, the Applicant is subject to all fees imposed by City as of the issuance of the first permit for construction and such future fees imposed as determined by City in its sole discretion so long as said fee is imposed on similarly situated properties. 28. Traffic System Management Plan: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction for each residential unit, the permittee shall make a contribution to the Moorpark Traffic Systems Management (TSM) Fund for each residential unit, at the rate in effect at the time of building permit application, to fund TSM programs or clean - fuel vehicles programs as determined by the City. 29. Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (AOC) Fee: The applicant shall contribute to the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (AOC) Fee Program. The Los Angeles Avenue AOC Fee shall be paid in accordance with City Council adopted AOC fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. The AOC Fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for each building permit. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 15 30. Cable Television: During construction, Developer shall allow all persons holding a valid cable television franchise issued by the City of Moorpark ( "Cable Franchisees ") to install any equipment or infrastructure (including conduit, power supplies, and switching equipment) necessary to provide Franchisee's services to all parcels and lots in the Project. Developer shall provide notice of its construction schedule to all Cable Franchisees sufficiently in advance of construction to allow the Cable Franchisees to coordinate installation of their equipment and infrastructure with that schedule. City shall provide Developer a list of Cable Franchisees upon Developer's request. 31. In the event the cable television services or their equivalent are provided to the Project or individual lots under collective arrangement or any collective means other than a Cable Franchisee (including, but not limited to, programming provided over a wireless or satellite system contained within the Project), the apartment management entity shall pay monthly to City an access fee of five percent (50) of gross revenue generated by the provision of those services, or the highest franchise fee required from any City Cable Franchisee, whichever is greater. "Gross revenue" is as defined in Chapter 5.06 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any successor amendment or supplementary provision thereto. C. CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS: General Conditions: 32. 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, bridges, etc.) or which require removal (i.e., access ways, temporary debris basins, etc.) in a form acceptable to the City. 33. 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 S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 16 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. 34. If hazardous materials are found on the site, the Developer shall stop all work and notify the City immediately. The Developer shall develop a plan that meets City, State and Federal requirements for its disposal. 35. The applicant shall comply with all pertinent County of Ventura Public Works Department water and sewer connection regulations implemented by the County of Ventura Public Works Department Waterworks District No. 1. 36. All existing and proposed utilities within the project shall be under grounded as approved by the City Engineer. This also includes all existing above ground power lines adjacent to the project that are less than 67Kv. 37. Prior to improvement plan approval, the applicant shall submit plans to the Ventura County Fire Prevention Division and obtain the approval of the location of fire hydrants. 38. This project shall not create any non - conforming lots in violation of the Map Act or local ordinances. The Developer shall provide all easements and rights -of -way granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. 39. 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 shall be provided to the City Engineer. Grading Conditions: 40. All development areas and lots shall be designed and graded so that surface drainage is directed to acceptable locations or natural or improved drainage courses as approved by the City Engineer. Altered drainage methods and patterns onto adjacent properties shall not be allowed without mitigation. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 17 41. 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 of 0.20 ppm) as indicated at the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 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. 42. 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 S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 18 operational effects on downstream environments and watersheds. 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 limited to) provisions for the use of vegetative filtering enhanced by creek bed reconstruction, 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. Sediment yields in the watersheds within the project boundary shall be computed for pre- development and post - development conditions in accord with methods outlined in Erosion and Sediment Yields in the Transverse Ranges, Southern California (United States Geological Survey, 1978). These estimates of sediment yield shall be completed prior to initiating final design of the debris /detention basin facilities situated in the downstream portion of the project. 43. 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. 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 hydroseeding, 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. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 19 d. Rough grade contours to reduce flow concentrations and velocities. 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. 44. 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 features 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. 45. 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 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and b) 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 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 be City receive complaints from adjacent property owners. No construction work is to be done on Sundays and City observed holidays. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 20 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 (including a map of the haul route) 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 delivery, shall be provided to the Engineering Department. g. A construction effects mitigation program shall be prepared and submitted to the City after completion and occupancy of the first phase of project build out. This program shall protect, to the degree feasible, new residents from the impacts of sustained construction. 46. Grading and improvements shall be designed, bonded and constructed as a single project. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 21 47. The Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a rough grading plan, consistent with the approved Preliminary Grading /Drainage Plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. The Developer 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. 48. 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. 49. 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. 50. This project is projected to import soils onsite. Import /export operations requiring an excess of 100 total truckloads or 1,000 cubic yards of material shall require City Council approval prior to the commencement of hauling or staged grading operations. 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. Approval of the Haul Route Permit shall require the following: a. The haul route permit application shall be completed in its entirety including information indicating maximum quantity of dirt to be hauled. The haul shall be conducted only as permitted and no soil shall be transported to or from any site, via any route, during any time, or by any means except as specified in the permit. b. If import is coming from the east, the haul trucks shall enter the City from the Freeway 23 and Los Angeles Avenue interchange and proceed westerly to S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002- -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 22 Park Lane thence southerly along Park Lane to the site. Empty haul trucks shall retrace the haul route. If the haul is from the West, the haul trucks shall enter the City from Los Angeles Avenue and proceed easterly to Park Lane, thence southerly along Park Lane to the site. Empty haul trucks shall retrace the haul route. If import is coming from the adjacent Arroyo Simi, then provide written approval from the Ventura County Flood Control District. C. The haul route permit application shall indicate the name of the dirt hauling company; the contractor's state license number; the contractor's City license number; proof of insurance per the City's requirements; the supervisor in charge, including work address, daytime work telephone numbers, a 24 -hour availability number and the number of days to complete the haul. d. The haul route permit application shall specify the starting and completion dates. No changes to the approved haul route, times and dates of operation, dust control, signage or traffic control shall be made without approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. e. The Developer shall procure a City Encroachment permit and post a cash bond in the amount of $500 per day for each day of operations approved by the City Engineer. The deposit shall be for payment of any costs incurred by the City related to the haul including but not necessarily limited to damage remediation, street cleaning, administration, inspection and monitoring of the permit. Upon certification by the City Engineer that the haul operation is completed and that, all damages to the City facilities and all costs to the City and its agents and contractors have been paid; the unused portion of the deposit shall be refunded. Should the costs to the City exceed the deposit amount, the Developer hauling the soil shall cease all work operations and deposit additional funds with the City, in an amount determined by the City Engineer, within 10 days of written demand by the City. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 23 f. The haul permit shall be subject to revocation or revisions by the City Council or the City Engineer. A copy of the permit shall be available for review on the site at all times. The truck trip counts and yardage hauled shall be tallied as the trucks enter the import site. A true copy of the tally sheets shall be delivered to the City Engineer, or his /her designee, at the end of each working day that the hauling occurs. g. The haul operation shall provide traffic control to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. h. Hauling operations shall be conducted only on weekdays (Monday through Friday) and during daylight hours and only between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. Hauling shall be done on consecutive days, not including weekends and a lapse between hauling days shall invalidate the permit. i. Appropriate traffic warning signs and devices and a flagger shall be provided at the entrances to the public way. The flagging operation shall be directed to controlling the entrance of the trucks used to haul the soil on and off the public street. Disruption of traffic on public streets due to the haul operation shall be reduced to the maximum extent practical. j. All portions of the haul route and intersecting streets within 500 feet of the haul route shall be swept continuously during haul operations. No less than two street sweepers shall be in operation over the portions of the haul route within City jurisdiction during haul operations and for 30 minutes after the haul operation hours. k. Haul operations shall be suspended on rain days. The suspension shall continue until soils on the import site have dried sufficiently that the haul truck tires do not pick up the soils. 1. The soil shall be wetted to optimum moisture (ASTM D- 1557) before loading. Each haul truck shall have all soil cleared from surfaces outside the bed before traveling on a public street. The tires of the haul S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 24 trucks shall be cleaned of adhering soil before traveling on any public street. The soil may be covered by tarps during the haul as an alternative to wetting the soil to optimum moisture. M. Onsite haul routes and soil moisture conditioning measures shall be such to eliminate tracking or blowing soil onto City streets or adjoining property from the loading, hauling, dumping or distributing portions of the operation. Onsite operations shall be coordinated to avoid passage of haul trucks over wet soils that might adhere to the tires of the haul units. n. The haul permit shall be signed by both the hauling company and the Developer and shall bind both to the conditions of the permit. 51. 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 (30) days except that during the rainy season these measures will be implemented immediately. 52. 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 soil engineer will review plans and their recommendations will be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. 53. 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. 54. So as to reduce debris from entering sidewalk and streets, the approved grading plan shall show a slough wall, S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 25 approximately 18 inches high, with curb outlet drainage to be constructed behind the back of the sidewalk where slopes exceeding 4 feet in height are adjacent to sidewalk. The Developer shall use the City's standard slough wall detail during the design and construction. The City Engineer and Community Development Director shall approve all material for the construction of the wall. 55. Grading may occur during the rainy season from October 1st 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 1st and April 15th. In order to comply with the October 1st 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. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. 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 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 S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 26 (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. 59. 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. 60. 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 levels. The City, at its discretion, may also limit construction during Stage II alerts. 61. 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, S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 27 and the City Engineer shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. 62. The Developer shall utilize all pi measures (including installation of link fence around the construction si full time licensed security guard) tc persons from entering the work site protect the public from accidents and udent and reasonable a 6 -foot high chain tes or provision of a prevent unauthorized at any time and to injury. 63. Backfill of any pipe or conduit shall be in 4 -inch fully compacted layers unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 64. Soil testing for trench compaction shall be performed on all trenching and shall be done not less than once every 2 feet of lift and 100 lineal feet of trench excavated. Test locations shall be noted using street stationing with offsets from street centerlines. 65. Observe a 15 -mile per hour speed limit for the construction area. 66. During site preparation and construction, construct temporary storm water diversion structures per City of Moorpark standards. Geotechnical /Geological Conditions: 67. 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 applicant 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 the site is 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 S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 28 adjacent to proposed residential development areas. The findings and recommendations of the geotechnical assessment shall be incorporated into the final design for the project. b. The applicant will determine with subsequent geotechnical studies, the location of any landslide or unstable area, if existing or immediately adjacent to the site. Landslides and unstable areas shall be removed and recompacted during grading to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City's consulting geotechnical engineers. Alternatively, landslides or unstable slopes can potentially be stabilized by constructing buttress or stabilization fill slopes to reduce their potential for future down slope movement. 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 residential and recreational 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 homes 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. No structure shall be placed within 50 feet of any fault trace. e. All habitable structures shall be designed to accommodate structural impacts from 0.12g- ground acceleration or other standard factor of safety deemed S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 29 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 mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the final project design as required by the geological 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, detailed Geotechnical Engineering Reports 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 cost including the City's administrative fee for this review. i. All recommendations included in the approved Geotechnical Engineering j. 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 S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 30 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). 68. 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. 69. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an as- graded geotechnical report and rough grading certification shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer. Street Conditions: 70. In accordance with Business and Professions Code 8771 the street improvement plans shall provide for a surveyor's statement on the plans, certifying that all recorded monuments in the construction area have been located and tied out or will be protected in place during construction. 71. Monuments shall meet the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura Standards and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Mitigation of Traffic Impacts: 72. Prior to the first Zoning Clearance for residential unit building permit, Developer shall pay a fair -share contribution for intersection improvements for Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue, Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road and Spring Road /High Street. The level of fair -share participation is based upon the traffic analysis prepared for the Archstone Apartment project at a sixty percent (600) value. Street Requirements: 73. The Developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, street improvement plans prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer; shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete public improvements; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 31 the construction of all improvements. Public streets shall conform to City of Moorpark requirements including all applicable ADA requirements. Street improvements shall be acceptable to the City Engineer and Director of Community Development 74. All streets shall conform to the design requirements of the Ventura County Road Standards (most recent revision and as modified), unless noted otherwise in the Conditions. 75. Pedestrian facilities shall meet all City and ADA requirements, shall be safe from vehicular traffic along Park Lane, Park Crest Lane and Los Angeles Avenue. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, Developer shall submit an ADA access exhibit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The exhibit shall denote how ADA access throughout the public right of way shall be accomplished. 76. The street improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, landscaped parkways, streetlights, signing, striping, interim striping and traffic control, repaving and paving, and any necessary transitions, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City Engineer and the Director of Community Development shall approve all driveway locations. The Developer shall dedicate or acquire any additional right -of -way necessary to make all of the required improvements. 77. Entry monumentation that does not interfere with sight - distance or turning movements shall be incorporated into the project entrance planning. Landscaping shall be provided appropriate to the entry that will not interfere with sight- distance or turning movement operations. The final design for the project entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department Director and the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. Park T,ane 78. Park Lane shall be constructed per modified Ventura County Standard Plate B -3 -C, 68 feet right -of -way; containing 52 feet of roadway (curb face to curb face), 8 feet wide parkways containing 5 feet wide sidewalks located 6 inches from the right -of -way. This will include all portions of S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 32 existing Park Lane that do not conform to this section. Developer shall demonstrate conformance to A.D.A. access requirements at all locations including driveway locations. An ADA plan shall be reviewed, approved by the City Engineer and held on file to show conformance to those requirements. Improvement plans will detail all locations where utilities or other improvements conflict with normal walk locations and that the plans conform to the City's requirements. Developer shall reconstruct any broken sidewalk, curb and gutter, and street pavement from the project site to Los Angeles Avenue and repave any portions of Park Lane to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Street sections shall be designed for a 50 -year life. 79. Driveways shall be designed in accordance with the latest APWA Standards. 80. 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) feet clear sidewalk width must be provided around the obstruction. 81. The Developer shall submit wal: showing that provisions have been maintain proper sight distances. other structures over six (6) feet to and approved by the Director and the City Engineer. and landscaping plans taken to provide for and All fences, walls and high are to be submitted of Community Development 82. Any right -of -way acquisition necessary to complete the required improvements shall be acquired by the Developer at his expense. Street Lighting Conditions: 83. Streetlights shall be provided on the improvement plans per Ventura County Standards and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to final map recordation, the Developer shall pay all energy costs associated with public street lighting for a period of one year from the acceptance of the street improvements. Drainage Requirements: 5: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 33 84. The applicant shall make a pro -rata contribution to the mitigation of cumulative regional drainage deficiencies consistent with the remediation programs proposed in the Drainage Deficiency Study adopted by the City. If a formal fee program to implement required drainage improvements is not adopted at the time of project approval, the applicant's pro -rata contribution to funding required regional improvements shall be included in the project Development Agreement. Payment of negotiated drainage improvement fees shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 85. 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. 86. The plans shall depict all on -site and off -site drainage structures required by the City. 87. The drainage plans and calculations shall relate to conditions before and after development. Quantities of water, water flow rates, major watercourses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps, sump locations, detention and NPDES facilities and drainage courses will be addressed. 88. 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. 89. Surface flows shall be intercepted, detained and given sufficient time to provide storm water clarification by "passive" BMP systems prior to entering collector or storm S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 34 drain systems. This shall be clearly shown on the improvement plans and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 90. Under a 10 -year frequency storm, local, residential and private streets shall have one dry travel lane available on interior residential streets. Collector streets shall have a minimum of two dry travel lanes in each direction. 91. "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. 92. Drainage grates shall not be used at any location accessible by pedestrian, bicycle or equestrian traffic. 93. The grading plan shall also show contours indicating the 50- and 100 -year flood levels based on the latest and best information available. 94. All flows that have gone through flow attenuation and clarification by use of acceptable BMP systems and are flowing within brow ditches, ribbon gutters, storm drain ,channels, area drains and similar devices shall be deposited directly into the storm drain system and shall be restricted from entering streets. If necessary, the storm drain system shall be extended to accept these flows. Both storm drains and easements outside the public right -of -way are to be privately maintained unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 95. Concrete surface drainage structures exposed to the public view, shall be tan colored concrete, as approved by the Community Development Director, and to the extent possible shall incorporate natural structure and landscape to reduce their visibility. 96. In order to comply with California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements no curb outlets will be allowed for pad drainage onto the street. This notification agreement shall be recorded and enforced by the property owner. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 35 97. 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. 98. 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. 99. 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 alternate design intensity is approved by the City Engineer. 100. 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. 101. The Developer shall provide for all necessary on -site and off -site storm drain facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to accommodate upstream and on -site flows. Facilities, as shown on existing drainage studies and approved by the City Engineer, shall be delineated on the final drainage plans. Either on -site detention basins or storm water acceptance deeds from off -site property owners must be specified. 102. The design of the storm drain system shall provide for adequate width easements for future maintenance and reconstruction of facilities particularly those facilities that are deeper than 8 feet. In addition all facilities S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 36 shall have all - weather vehicular access. This design shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 103. Engineering and geotechnical reports shall be provided to prove, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that all "passive" NPDES facilities meet their intended use and design. These facilities shall meet the minimum requirements relating to water retention and clarification. 104. The Developer shall demonstrate and certify to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that all existing storm drain culverts within the site shall perform in an acceptable manner based on their intended design and the proposed increase /decrease of loading conditions, introduction of surface water within subsurface areas that may affect the culvert and proposed construction. This especially includes cast -in -place concrete pipe (CIPP). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Requirements: 105. 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. 106. The SWPCP shall be developed and implemented in accordance with requirements of the Ventura Countywide Storm Water Quality Management Program, NPDES Permit No. CAS004002. 107. 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. 108. Improvement plans shall note that the contractor shall comply to the "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks." 109. Prior to the issuance of any construction /grading permit and /or the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, the Developer shall also submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the California State Water Resources S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 37 Control Board, Storm Water Permit Unit in accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit (No. CASQ00002): Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities). The Developer shall comply with all requirements of this General Permit including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 110. The Developer shall obtain a permit from the State Water Resources Control Board for "All storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation results in land disturbances of five or more acres." The Developer shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the City Engineers office as proof of permit application. 111. The Developer shall also comply with NPDES objectives as outlined in the "Storm Water Pollution Control Guidelines for Construction Sites." 112. Prior to Grading Plan 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. 113. Prior to City issuance of the initial grading permit, the applicant shall obtain all necessary NPDES related permits. The grading permits issued for the development shall require applicant 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. 114. 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 s: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 38 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 11 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. f. No 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. g. 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. The CC &R's shall include a requirement that the Developer /HOA shall maintain, in perpetuity, such devices in a manner consistent with specific requirements to be detailed within the Maintenance Program. 115. 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 have no other duties than NPDES compliance, shall be present, on the project site Monday through Friday and on all other days when the probability of rain is 400 or higher and prior to the start of and during all grading or clearing operations until the release of grading bonds. The NPDES S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 39 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 addition, an NPDES superintendent shall be employed to assume NPDES compliance during the construction of streets, storm drainage systems, all utilities, buildings and final landscaping of the site. Acctuisition of Easements and Rivht of Wa 116. If any of the improvements which the applicant is required to construct or install is to be constructed or installed upon land in which the applicant does not have title or interest sufficient for such purposes, the applicant shall do all of the following at least 60 days prior to the filling of the final or parcel map for approval pursuant to Governmental Code Section 66457: a. Notify the City of Moorpark (hereinafter City) in writing that the applicant wishes the City to acquire an interest in the land, which is sufficient for the purposes as provided in Governmental Code Section 66462.5. b. Supply the City with: (i) a legal description of the interest to be acquired, (ii) a map or diagram of the interest to be acquired sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (e) of Section 1250.310 of the Code of Civil procedure, (iii) a current appraisal report prepared by an appraiser approved by the City which expresses an opinion as to the fair market value of the interest to be acquired, and (iv) a current Litigation Guarantee Report. C. Enter into an agreement with the City, guaranteed by such cash deposits or other security as the City may S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 40 require, pursuant to which the applicant will pay all of the City's cost (including, without limitation, attorney's fees and overhead expenses) of acquiring such an interest in the land. Prior to Issuance of a Zone Clearance for A Building Permit, the following conditions shall be satisfied: 117. 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. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Following Conditions shall be Satisfied: 118. If directed by the City, the Developer shall have repaired, overlayed or slurried that portion of Park Lane and Park Crest Lane adjacent to the development damaged as a result of project related construction work or utility trenching. The repairs, curb replacement, parkways, sidewalks, and overlay or slurry of the street, as a result of damage from construction work or utility trenching shall be along the entire length of the project including transitions unless otherwise approved and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 119. A final grading certification shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Prior to Acceptance of Public Improvements and Bond Exonerations, the Following Conditions shall be satisfied: 120. Reproducible centerline tie sheets shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office. 121. 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. 122. Original "as built" plans shall be certified by the Developer's Registered Civil Engineer and submitted with two sets of blue prints to the City Engineer's office. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 41 These "as built" plans shall incorporate all plan revisions. Although grading plans may have been submitted for checking and construction on sheets larger than 22" X 36", they shall 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 is scheduled. Electronic files shall be submitted for all improvement plans in a format to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, Developer shall 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. D. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 123. Prior to combustible construction, an all weather access road /driveway suitable for use by a 20 ton Ventura County Fire Protection District (Fire District) vehicle shall be installed. 124. All access roads /driveways shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches (13'6 "). 125. Approved turnaround areas for fire apparatus shall be provided when dead -end Fire District access roads /driveways exceed 150 feet. Turnaround areas shall not exceed a 2.50 cross slope in any direction and shall be located within 150 feet of the end of the access road /driveway. 126. Public and private roads shall be named if serving more than four (4) parcels. 127. Prior to recordation of street names, proposed names shall be submitted to the Fire District's Communications Center for review. 128. Street name signs shall be installed in conjunction with the road improvements. The type of sign shall be in accordance with City of Moorpark Road Standards. 129. Address numbers, a minimum of 8 inches 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 150 feet from the S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 42 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 posed adjacent to the driveway entrance. 130. A plan shall be submitted to the Fire District for review indicating the method in which buildings are to be identified by address numbers. 131. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans to the Fire District for placement of fire hydrants. On plans, show existing hydrants within 500 feet of the development. Indicate the type of hydrant, number and size of outlets. 132. Fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to combustible construction and shall conform to the minimum standards of the City of Moorpark Water Works Manual. a. Each hydrant shall be a 6 -inch wet barrel design and shall have one (1) 4 inch and one (1) 2 1/2 -inch outlet. b. The required fire flow shall be achieved at no less than 20psi residual pressure. C. Fire hydrants shall be spaced 500 feet on center, and so located that no structure will be farther than 250 feet from any one hydrants. d. Fire hydrants shall be set back from the curb face 24 inches on center. e. No obstructions, including walls, trees, light and sign posts, meter, and shall be placed within three (3 ) feet of any hydrant. f. A contract pad shall be installed extending 18 inches out from the fire hydrant. g. Ground clearance to the lowest operating nut shall be between 18 to 24 inches. 133. Prior to occupancy of any structure, blue reflective hydrant location marketers shall be placed on the access roads in accordance with Fire District standards. If the final asphalt cap is not in place at time of occupancy, S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 43 hydrant location markers shall still be installed and shall be replaced when the final asphalt cap is completed. 134. Prior to map recordation, the applicant shall provide to the Fire District, verification from the water purveyor that the purveyor can provide the required fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi. 135. Any structure greater than 5,000 square feet in area and /or 5 miles from a fire station shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with current Fire District Ordinance. 136. Plans for all fire sprinkler systems shall be submitted, with payment for plan check, to the Fire District for review and approval prior to installation. 137. Applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction. 138. A copy of all recorded maps shall be provided to the Fire District within seven (7) days of recordation of said map. E. VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 1 CONDITIONS: 139. Prior to issuance of a building permit, provide Ventura County Waterworks District the following: a. Water and sewer improvement plans in the format required. b. Hydraulic analysis by a registered Civil Engineer to determine the adequacy of the proposed and existing water and sewer lines. C. Copy of approval of fire hydrant locations by County of Ventura Fire Protection District. d. Copy of Release from Calleguas Municipal Water District. e. Cost estimates for water and sewer improvements. f. Fees: Plan check, construction inspection, capital improvement charge, sewer connection fee and water meter charge. g. Signed Contract to install all improvements and a Surety Bond. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 44 F. VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CONDITIONS: 140. No direct storm drain connections to Ventura County Flood Control District facilities will be allowed without appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) for compliance with Ventura Countywide Stormwater Program. 141. Cross Connection Control Devices: At the time water service connection is made, cross connection control devices shall be installed on the water system in a manner approved by the County Waterworks District No. 1. F. POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 142. Construction equipment, tools, etc. shall be properly secured to prevent theft during non - working hours. 143. All appliances (microwave ovens, dishwashers, trash compactors, etc.) shall be properly secured prior to installation to prevent theft during non - working hours. 144. If an alarm system is used, it shall be wired to all exterior doors, windows, roof vents or other roof openings where access may be made. 145. Directory Boards indicating the location of the various buildings and individual units will be displayed at each entrance to the complex and lighted during hours of darkness. 146. Address numbers shall be placed on all buildings, in an obvious sequence pattern, to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department community services officer prior to installation. 147. Prior to issuance of building permits for either the residential or recreational components of the project, the Police Department shall review development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services. To the degree feasible, public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans. The Applicant shall prepare of list of project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. Review and approval by the Police Department of all defensible S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. PC -2002- GPA 2002 -01,ZC 2002 -01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Page 45 space design features incorporated into the project shall occur prior to initiation of the building plan check process. G. MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CONDITION: 148. Prior to issuance of building permits for the residential units, all legally mandated school impact fees applicable at the time of issuance of a building permit shall be paid to the Moorpark Unified School District. H. BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 149. The final grading plan shall meet all standards of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 150. Spark Arrestor: An approved spark arrestor shall be installed on the chimney of any structure(s). I. MITIGATION MEASURE CONDITIONS: 151. Prior to Issuance of Grading permit, the final Geotechnical recommendations for development of the project shall include measures to address the potential for liquefaction, which may include but not be limited to caissons, piers, and /or deep footings. 152. Prior to the first Zoning Clearance for residential unit building permit, Developer shall pay a fair -share contribution for intersection improvements for Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue, Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road and Spring Road /High Street. The level of fair -share participation is based upon the traffic analysis prepared for the Archstone Apartment project at a sixty percent (60 %) value. 153. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit, the project site shall be raised to an elevation sufficient to be at or above the 100 -year event based upon a 26,600 cfs or to an elevation satisfactory to the City Engineer, which would provide protection from the 100 -year event. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR MITIGATION MEASURES: S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 Resolution No. GPA 2002 -01,ZC Page 46 PC -2002- 2002-01, RPD No. 2001 -01 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the City Engineer shall provide a memorandum to the Community Development Director verifying that the grading plans comply with all mitigation measures imposed as conditions of approval. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Building Official shall provide a memorandum to the Community Development Director verifying that the building plans comply with all mitigation measures imposed as conditions of approval. S: \Community Development \R P D \2002 -02 \Resolutions Conditions \PC conds gpa zc rpd usapropfund2.doc Modified: 06/20/02 MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT To: The Honorable Planning Commission From: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Date: June 19, 2002 (PC Meeting of 6/24/02) rrEm 9. A. Directo Subject: Consider Establishing Commission Procedures for Written, Electronic and Telephone Communication from Applicants and the Public with the Planning Commission BACKGROUND Recently, Staff was asked applicant's representative would be prior to any Staff concerned that there could information was transmitted of the information. to transmit some information from an to the Commission. The information analysis of the application. Staff was be a public presumption that since the via Staff that the City was in support Section 9 of Resolution 2002 -421, adopted by the Commission on February 11, 2002 sets forth procedures for written communications to the Commission as a whole and "all other written communications." The procedure established does not take into account communications with respect to development applications, nor does it cover any oral, telephonic or electronic communications which may occur. DISCUSSION It is not uncommon to have applicants, applicant's representatives, proponents, and opponents contact the Commission or the Staff regarding a public hearing item. Nor is it uncommon to have the public contact the Commission via phone, e -mail, or a personal meeting. Each of these forms of contact have the potential to influence a Commissioner's decision on an application. It is Staff's opinion that the current procedure outlined in Section 9 does not adequately cover communications from applicants, applicant's representatives, proponents and opponents. The policy S: \Community Development \ADMINISTRATION \P C POLICIES \Communication.doc Honorable Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 2 also does not have any discussion on the Commission's obligation to disclose the communication as part of the public hearing process. RECOM4ENDATIONS Direct staff to return with a Resolution amending, Section 9. Written Communication of Resolution No. PC- 2002 -421 and incorporating additional language and revisions regarding procedures for communication with the Commission. Attachment: 1. Resolution 2002 -421, Rules of Procedure for Commission Meetings and Related Functions and Activities S: \Community Development \ADMINISTRATION \P C POLICIES \Communication.doc