HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2004 0302 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2004 -454
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY - March 2, 2004
7:00 P.M.
Moorpark Community Center
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
799 Moorpark Avenue
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2004.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
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 iterr. 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 \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2004 \04_0302_pca.doc
Planning Commission Agenda
March 2, 2004
Page No. 2
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2004 -454)
A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone
Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for
1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally
North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land
Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal
Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN:
500 -0 -120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -
145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, -
235, -245, -255; 500 -0 -281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0 -110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
185) (Continued from February 17, 2004 Meeting)
Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public
comments and continue the agenda item with the public
hearing open to the March 16, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting.
B. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone
Change No. 2003 -02, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5425,
and Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 2003-
02, a Request to Subdivide Approximately 15 Acres for
Condominium Purposes to Develop 102 Duplex -Style and
Detached Condominium Dwellings and a Recreation
Facility, Located at the Terminus of Fremont Street,
South of Los Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118) and East of
Majestic Court, on the Application of Shea Homes,
Inc.; (506 -0- 020 -23, 506 -0- 020 -31, 506 -0- 020 -32, 506-
0- 020 -33, 506 -0- 020 -34)
Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing,
accept public testimony and close the public. hearing;
2) Recommend approval to the City Council of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 3) Adopt
Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City
Council conditional approval of General Plan Amendment
No. 2003 -02. Zone Change No. 2003 -03, Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 5425, and Residential Planned
Development No. 2003 -03.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Planning Commission Agenda
March 2, 2004
Page No. 3
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
(Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.)
A. March 16, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting:
• General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change No.
2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 (North Park
Village)
• City Goals and Objectives
• Landscape Guidelines
B. March 24, 2004, Special Joint City Council /Planning
Commission Meeting
• City Goals and Objectives
C. April 6, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting:
• RPD 2002 -03, -04, -05, ZOA 2002 -01 (SP -2; TR 5045)
(Morrison /Fountainwood /Agoura & Pardee Construction
Company)
11. ADJOURNMENT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to review an agenda or participate in this meeting, including
auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Community Development
Department at (805) 517 -6233. Upon request, the agenda can be made available
in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Any request
for disability - related modification or accommodation should be made at least
48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to assist the City staff in assuring
reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting
(28 CFR 35.102- 35.104; ADA Title II).
ITEM: 6.A.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 17, 2004
Paqe 1
1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
2 February 17, 2004, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic
3 Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021.
4 1. CALL TO ORDER:
5 Chair Pozza called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
6
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
7
Commissioner Peskay led the Pledge of Allegiance.
8
3.
ROLL CALL:
9
Commissioners DiCecco, Landis and Peskay, Vice Chair
10
Lauletta and Chair Pozza were present.
11
Staff attending the meeting included David Bobardt,
12
Planning Manager; Walter Brown, Assistant City Engineer;
13
Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analyst; and Gail Rice,
14
Administrative Secretary.
15
4.
PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
16
None.
17
5.
REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
18
None.
19
6.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
20
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2004.
21
MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner Peskay
22
seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular
23
Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2004, be approved. (Motion
24
carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
25
7.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
26
None.
27
8.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
28
None.
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004
Draft \09 0217 pcm.doc ,
- - 0 COO U (11
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 17, 2004
Paae 2
1 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2 (next Resolution No. 2004 -454)
3
A. Consider General Plan
Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone
4
Change
No. 2001 -02, and
Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for
5
1,650
Housing Units on
3,586.3 Acres Located Generally
6
North
of Moorpark College
and State Route 118 on Land
7
Immediately Outside
City of Moorpark Municipal
8
Boundaries. Applicant:
North Park Village, LP (APN:
9
500 -0-
120 -065; 500 -0- 170
-135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -
10
145,
-155, -165, -175,
-185, -195, -205, -215, -225, -
11
235,
-245, -255; 500 -0-
281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
12
145,
-195, -215, -225;
615 -0 -110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
13
185)
(Continued from January 20, 2004 Meetina)
14 Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public
15 comments, direct staff on the suggested amendments to
16 the Revised Draft EIR, and continue the agenda item
17 with the public hearing open to the March 2, 2004
18 Planning Commission meeting.
19 David Bobardt gave the staff presentation.
20 The Commission questioned staff on water quality
21 standards and review by the Regional Water Quality
22 Control Board. They also questioned staff on
23 percolation and replacement of the lake water.
24 Kim Kilkenny, applicant, addressed the lakeside trail
25 options and provided a brief Power Point presentation.
26 He also submitted a drawing which showed unused oil
27 well surface easements on the site and provided an
28 updated matrix, which he stated now included the
29 Commission's consensus on various issues.
30 Staff provided clarification on staff's understanding
31 of the Commission's consensus on the matrix issues.
32 The Commission questioned Mr. Kilkenny on the various
33 trail options, purchasing oil well easements, and
34 combining various trail proposals.
35 Lyle Pennington, resident, spoke in support of the
36 proposal, and commented that the amenities were beyond
37 comparison and the freeway improvement would offer a
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004
Draft \04_0217_pcm.doc O ( 0002
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 17, 2004
Pape 3
1
much needed entry and exit to the area. He commented
2
on College expansion issues and the City's growth.
3
Lisa Leal, resident, spoke in support of the proposal,
4
and reiterated her previous comments on amenities and
5
the proposed off -ramp.
6
Lynn Shackelford, resident, spoke in support of the
7
proposal, and commented on the positive nature of the
8
proposed project and potential growth in the City.
9
Four (4) written statement cards were submitted, all
10
were in favor of the project. The statements will be
11
included in the record.
12
The Commission reviewed items 17 through 26 on the
13
matrix.
14
By consensus, the Commission concurred with staff's
15
recommendation on items 17, 19, 20, and 26.
16
The Commission provided direction to staff or
17
recommendations on the following items:
18
Item No. 18: The Commission concurred with staff's
19
recommendation. Staff indicated that the City
20
standard is for a 14 -foot wide median and this should
21
be corrected in the matrix.
22
At this point in the discussion, Commissioner Peskay
23
commented on the proposed interchange and mechanisms
24
for assuring prior to approving construction, that it
25
will be constructed.
26
Item No. 21: The Commission by consensus concurred
27
that early in the process, the applicant should
28
provide sufficient security with the City to guarantee
29
Collins Road Improvements by either the developer or
30
the City if the applicant should not move forward, and
31
that improvements should be completed prior to the
32
issuance of a grading permit. Commissioner Peskay
33
questioned staff on turning movements and proposed
34
signalization.
\ \mor_pri —sere \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004
Draft \04 0217pcm.doc ()(
— _ � •
O v V ti• .J
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 17, 2004
Page 4
1
Item No. 22: The Commission by consensus concurred
2
that Item Nos. 12, 13 and 22 are all related to
3
densities and Affordable Housing and the issues will
4
require further discussion between staff and the
5
applicant, and may be part of Development Agreement
6
negotiations.
7
Item No. 23: There was lengthy discussion on the
8
merits of whether the school and the park site should
9
be switched, as staff had recommended. The Commission
10
requested that staff obtain a recommendation on
11
location of the park sites from the Parks and
12
Recreation Commission.
13
Item No. 24: The Commission questioned whether there
14
should be more detail of proposed park facilities. In
15
response staff suggested that the Specific Plan was
16
intended to identify land use areas, and that details
17
on specific facilities were more appropriate for the
18
Tentative Map, Planned Development application stage.
19
The Commission requested that staff forward their
20
recommendation to the City Council that specific park
21
detail be included if the project will be sent to the
22
Moorpark voters.
23
Item No. 25: The Commission expressed support for an
24
extension of Campus Park Drive to be used for
25
construction and as a permanent emergency access road.
26
The Commission discussed tax rates on previously owned
27
property and new development and the mixed use and
28
affordable units.
29
The Commission requested a review of the recorded
30
surface mineral easements in the nature preserve, an
31
assessment of the economic and fiscal impacts of the
32
project, an operational analysis of freeway traffic
33
impacts, an assessment of the configuration of the
34
project at a regional level including east and west
35
circulation and the extension of Broadway currently on
36
the Circulation Element, and clarification of
37
affordable housing construction onsite or offsite.
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004
Draft \04_0217_pcm.doc 0 COO 0 4
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 17, 2004
Paae 5
1 MOTION: Vice Chair Lauletta moved and Commissioner
2 DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff
3 recommendation.
4 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
5 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
6 None.
7 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
8 (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to continuation.)
9 A. March 2, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting:
10 • Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2003 -02,
11 General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone Change No.
12 2003 -02 and Tentative Tract Map No. 5425 (Shea
13 Homes, Inc.)
14 B. March 17, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting:
15 • RPD 2002 -03, -04, -05, ZOA 2002 -01 (SP -2; TR 5045)
16 (Morrison /Fountainwood /Agoura & Pardee Construction
17 Company)
18 Dave Bobardt discussed future agenda items and stated the
19 correct date for the second regular March Planning
20 Commission Meeting is March 16, 2004.
21 12. ADJOURNMENT:
22 MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Peskay
23 seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting.
24 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
25 The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
26
27
28 ATTEST:
29
30
Scott Pozza, Chair
Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004
Draft \04_0217_pcm.doc 0(--J005
ITEM: 8. A.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Dire cto
Prepared by: David A. Bobardt, Planning Man e ,�
DATE: February 25, 2004 (PC Meeting of 3/2/2004)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change
No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for 1,650
Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally North of
Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately
Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant:
North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0- 120 -065; 500- 0 -170-
135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -
195, -205, -215, -225, -235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -
175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -145, -195, -215, -225; 615- 0 -110-
205, -215; 615 -0- 150 -185)
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Environmental documentation expected to be distributed for this
meeting is not yet complete, but should be available before the
following Planning Commission meeting. An updated matrix of issues
reflecting input from the Planning Commission at the February 17,
2004 meeting is attached. Additional exhibits will be presented
for discussion at this meeting in response to requests from the
Planning Commission.
STAFF RECObMNDATION
Continue to accept public
with the public hearing
Commission meeting.
Attachment:
Issues Matrix
comments and continue the agenda item
open to the March 16, 2004 Planning
\ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040302
PC Report.doc
OC. X9006
North Park Village Issue Matrix
March 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
No.
Issue /Project Proposal
Applicant
Option
Staff
Recommendation
Discussion
Planning Commission
Recommendations
1
School Site Size (PA -10):
Increase the school site to 18
Increase the school site to 18
Agreement.
Tentative: support staff
12 -acre school site.
net usable acres to satisfy a
request from the Moorpark
net usable acres to satisfy a
request from the Moorpark
recommendation. At Planning
Commission's request, staff will
Unified School District.
Unified School District.
return with more information on
need for 2" Hi h School
2
Day Care Site Size (PA-
Reduce the size of the day
Reduce the size of the day
Agreement.
Tentative: support staff
22): 1.6 acre day care
site.
care site to .5 acres to allow
for an increased school site
care site to .5 acres to allow
for an increased school site
recommendation. Prefers day
care located adjacent to school.
size.
size.
3
Vernal Pool Preservation
Relocate the water tank to
Relocate the water tank to
Agreement.
Tentative: support staff
— Water Tank (PA -54):
avoid the impacts to the
avoid the impacts to the
recommendation.
Water tank encroaches
vernal pool watershed.
vernal pool watershed.
into a vernal pool's
watershed.
4
Vernal Pool Preservation-
Modify the alignment of
Modify the alignment of
Agreement.
Tentative: support staff
Moorpark College Road
Moorpark College Road
Moorpark College Road
recommendation.
Alignment: Moorpark
and /or require the adjacent
and /or require the adjacent
College Road encroaches
slope to be returned through
slope to be returned through
into the pool's watershed.
the use of walls to prohibit
the use of walls to prohibit
encroachment into the vernal
encroachment into the vernal
pool watershed.
pool watershed.
5
Wildlife Movement:
Modify the North Park land
Modify the North Park land
Agreement.
Tentative: support staff
Moorpark College Road
plan to add a second wildlife
plan to add a second wildlife
recommendation.
contains one wildlife
crossing on Moorpark College
crossing on Moorpark College
crossing
Road.
Road. (Included as Mitigation
in the Revised Draft EIR
O
C
0 March 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting PC ATTACHMENT 1
O
r ^.
C
C
No.
Applicant
Staff
Planning Commission
Issue /Project Proposal
Option
Recommendation
Discussion
Recommendations
6
Canyon Crossing: Road
Modify the Land Plan to
Re- evaluate the number of
The applicant
Tentative: support staff
crossing impacts mature
relocate a canyon crossing to
living oak trees in the impact
supports the staff
recommendation. Preference is
trees.
minimize impacts to trees.
area (as a result of the
recommendation.
to replace on -site, rather than
Alternative 1 would preserve
October 25 -26, 2003 fire) and
compensate for trees lost.
an additional 49 trees.
develop a crossing to
Alternative 2 would preserve
preserve as many as possible
an additional 64 trees but
without the need for a sewer
would require a wider canyon
pumping facility. Trees to be
crossing and installation of a
removed would require
sewer pumping facility.
replacement or compensation
consistent with City
Ordinance.
7
Gated Entry Locations:
Relocate the middle and
Relocate the middle and
Agreement.
Tentative: support staff
The middle and western
western entry cottages further
western entry cottages further
recommendation.
entry cottages are
into the community.
into the community. PA -11
immediately adjacent to
should be in front of any entry
public areas. The
gate and the western entry
proposed public Nature
gate should be moved west to
Park (PA -11) is behind a
be less visible from the public
gated entrance.
areas.
8
Separation of Lakeside
Consolidate PA -37 and PA-
Consolidate PA -37 and PA-
The applicant
Tentative: support staff
Parks (PA -37 and PA-
38 into a single 9.8 -acre
38 into a single 9.8 -acre
supports the Staff
recommendation.
38): Public and private
public accessible lakeside
public accessible lakeside
Recommendation.
park separated by
park on the north side of
park. Create a separate
commercial center.
the Neighborhood Center.
public swim area in the lake
This re- configuration also
adjacent to this park with
widens the end of the lake to
restroom and changing
increase its recreational
facilities, and provide a public
value.
boat rental operation with
concession building and
docks. Incorporate timing
language to tie permit
issuance to completion of this
amenity.
9
Lakeside Neighborhood
Move the Lakeside
Move the Lakeside
Agreement, move the
Tentative: support staff
Center (P -50): Currently
Neighborhood Center (P -50)
Neighborhood Center (P -50)
Neighborhood Center
recommendation with the
between a public and
to the east or west.
to the east or west.
(P -50) to the west.
Neighborhood Center be
private park.
located on the western side of
the larcler Dark.
March 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
O
rte,
O
C
:L
No.
Applicant
Staff
Planning Commission
Issue/Project Proposal
Option
Recommendation
Discussion
Recommendations
10
Parking for Nature Park:
Clarify that public parking at
Clarify that public parking at
Agreement.
Tentative: support staff
The park is placed behind
the Nature Park is a permitted
the Nature Park is a permitted
recommendation.
the entry cottage and
use.
use.
parking is not shown on
the plan.
11
Length of Public Access
Extend the lakeside public
Include at least 75% of the
The applicant
Requested the applicant to
on Lakeside Trail: The
trail to connect the revised
lake perimeter as publicly
supports revising the
identify alternative lakeside trail
proposed plan calls for a
9.8 acre lakeside public park
accessible by a pedestrian
plan to connect the
plans. Reviewed options
public trail on a portion of
to the trailhead location in
trail. Provide for a public
Lakeside trail to the
presented by applicant on
the south lake shore from
PA-44.
pocket park at the mid - point.
PA-44 trail head.
2/17/2004. Requested
the commercial center to
Connect the revised 9.8 acre
The applicant does
additional information on cross -
sections of the trail for options
a pocket park (PA -41).
lakeside public park to the
not support modifying
where the trail left the lakeside
Public access to the
trailhead location in PA -44 as
the plan so that at
and followed a paseo through
Nature Preserve is
part of this trail.
least 75% of the lake
the residential area,
indicated but not clearly
perimeter is
defined.
accessible by the
Lakeside Trail.
12
Mixed Use (Residential
Modify the plan to permit all
Include both market -rate and
The applicant
Deferred pending more
and Commercial: No
or a portion of the affordable
affordable housing units as
supports reducing
discussion between staff and
mixed -use development
housing requirement be
part of a mixed -use
mixed us in PA -50
the applicant.
is proposed.
satisfied as a mixed -use
(horizontal and /or vertical)
and reducing the
component within the
development in PA -50.
neighborhood
Neighborhood Center PA -50.
Reduce the size of the
commercial from
commercial component to
70,000 sq ft to 45,000
allow for housing on this site.
sq ft. The applicant
Possibly increase the size of
does not support
PA -50 with a reduction to the
reducing the size of
size of PA -31 to
PA -31. The applicant
accommodate a mixed -use
does not support
development.
market rate mixed
use residential.
13
Public /Quasi - Public Uses
Designate PA -9 for
Provide several locations,
The applicant seeks
Deferred pending more
on PA -9: The Specific
Public /Quasi - Public Uses.
possibly both on and off the
to work with the city
discussion between staff and
Plan now locates 150
project site for the provision
to develop an
the applicant.
affordable housing units
of affordable housing units
affordable housing
on PA -9.
mixed with market -rate units
plan and resolve
to avoid a concentration of
related land use and
affordable units in a single
intensity issues.
location.
(relates to items 8, 9,
11, 12, 13, 22 and
23).
March 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
O
r ^.
C
W
C
No.
Applicant
Staff
Planning Commission
Issue/Project Proposal
Option
Recommendation
Discussion
Recommendations
14
Night Lighting at the
Prohibit night lighting at the
Eliminate any exhibits or
The applicant
Tentative: support staff
Community Park (PA -10):
park (PA -10).
references to this site as a
supports the staff
recommendation.
The DEIR analyzed the
Youth Sports Park.
recommendation.
impacts of night lighting
Designate the site a
of the park.
Community Park and follow
the normal City process of
park and facility design
through recommendation by
the Parks and Recreation
Commission and approval by
the City Council.
15
Nature Preserve
Enact a condition to require
Mitigation in the Revised
The applicant
Tentative: support staff
Maintenance Funding
the establishment of an
Draft EIR provides that a non-
supports the staff
recommendation.
ongoing funding program for
wasting endowment or
recommendation and
the maintenance of the
landscape management
indicated that
preserve in the amount
district be established to
Interpretive Facilities
would be proposed
requested by SMMC.
provide for ongoing
as part of the
management costs of the
Nature Preserve.
management plan.
16
Groundwater Recharge
Remove development from
Remove development from
Agreement.
Tentative: support staff
Outcrop: The Specific
the outcrop and relocate 33
the outcrop and relocate 33
recommendation.
Plan development
residential lots into PA 31.
residential lots into PA 31.
footprint encroaches into
about 15 acres of the Fox
Canyon Outcrop.
17
Street Widths: The
Modify the plan to apply
Leave the Street Standards
Tentative: support staff
proposed Specific Plan
narrower streets standards.
as shown in the Specific Plan
recommendation.
applies County Road
and consistent with the City of
Standards.
Moorpark adopted standards.
18
Moorpark College Road
Modify Moorpark College
Modify Moorpark College
Agreement.
Tentative: support staff
Design: The proposed
Road to become a four -lane
Road to become a four -lane
recommendation.
Speck Plan establishes
collector with a 13 -foot wide
collector with a 43 14 -foot
Moorpark College Road
median.
wide median.
as four -lane collector
without a median.
March 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
O
O
No.
Applicant
Staff
Planning Commission
Issue /Project Proposal
Option
Recommendation
Discussion
Recommendations
19
Architectural Style: The
proposed Specific Plan
Modify the Specific Plan to
delete the 'Italianate House"
Add a ranch home as an
architectural style.
The applicant
supports the Staff
Tentative: support staff
recommendation.
identifies a series of
style and add a ranch -style
Recommendation.
architectural styles,
theme.
generally categorized as
"California Heritage ",
including 'Italianate
House" style but not
including a ranch -style
theme.
20
Guarantee Lake
Maintenance and Access:
Impose a requirement that as
a conditional of approval the
Impose a requirement that as
a conditional of approval the
The applicant
supports the Staff
Tentative: support staff
recommendation.
The proposed Specific
project's CC &Rs provide that
project's CC &Rs provide that
Recommendation.
Plan identifies states that
the Homeowner's Association
the Homeowner's Association
the proposed lake will be
maintain the lake to
maintain the lake to City of
accessible to the public.
prescribed standards, and be
Moorpark prescribed
obligated to continue public
standards, and be obligated
access to the lake; and that
to continue public access to
these restrictions cannot be
the lake; and that these
modified without a unanimous
restrictions cannot be
vote of all members of the
modified without a unanimous
Homeowners Association.
vote of all members of the
Additionally, require the
Homeowners Association and
applicant to provide an
approval of the City of
easement be granted to the
Moorpark. Additionally,
City assuring public access to
require the applicant to
the lake.
provide an easement be
granted to the City assuring
continuous public access to
the lake.
21
Collins Road
Impose a requirement that as
Include the improvement of
The applicant
Tentative: support staff
Improvements: The
a conditional of approval of
the Collins Road /SR -118 and
supports the Staff
recommendation, however,
suggests for Development
proposed Specific Plan
the project's the applicant
Campus Park intersection as
Recommendation.
requires that the applicant
immediately and diligently
part of the Specific Plan, with
Agreement to provide
complete the Collins
pursue the Collins Road
timing for improvements to be
assurances that improvements
will be installed guickly.
Road improvements prior
improvements upon project
completed prior to the
to the issuance of the first
approval by the electorate
issuance of any grading
building permit.
and annexation of North Park
permits. related- to-t#e
Village into the City.
Specific +'lan -, 4nGiuding soil
testin
March 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
O
O
N
N
No.
Applicant
Staff
Planning Commission
Issue /Project Proposal
Option
Recommendation
Discussion
Recommendations
22
Density: The proposed
Provide for a greater variety
Other than re- locating
Deferred pending more
Speck Plan contains
of residential densities, with
units from the outcrop
discussion between staff and
the applicant.
1,500 single - family
the highest densities around
area to PA -31, the
detached home sites
the lake and commercial
applicant opposes
generally on larger lots.
center. Any increase in
any increases in
overall density of the
density.
development area should
result in an increase in the
size of the nature preserve.
(1/6/04 Staff Report
Recommendation A)
23
School /Community Park
Switch the locations of PA -10
The applicant
Requested recommendation
from Parks and Recreation
Locations: The proposed
(Community Park) with PA -21
opposes switching
Commission on whether or not
Specific Plan places the
(School) to allow for a road
the Community Park
such a physical connection is
school site adjacent to
undercrossing or
and School sites.
important.
the town center and the
overcrossing between the
community park near the
29.1 acre Community Park
community college.
and Lakefront Park if desired
by the City. (1/6/04 Staff
Report Recommendation D)
March 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
Q
A
w
No.
Issue/Project Proposal
Applicant
Option
Staff
Recommendation
Discussion
Planning Commission
Recommendations
24
Park Detail: The
Delete any schematic
The applicant
Tentative: Recommended that
proposed Specific Plan
contains conceptual plans
for the park sites
diagrams of public parks or
any discussion of
improvements or
supports the staff
recommendation.
details on the physical design
and intended uses of the park
be developed through the
programming of public parks.
Parks should be referred to
normal park design process
before the project is submitted
by names designated in the
to Moorpark voters.
Open Space, Conservation,
and Recreation Element
based on their size and
service area. The design and
programming of public parks
should take place through the
established practice of the
Parks and Recreation
Commission and City
Council. The Specific Plan
should, however, identify
appropriate funding
mechanisms for the
improvement and
maintenance of the public
parks.. (1/6/04 Staff Report
Recommendation E)
25
Campus Road /Campus
Provide a full -time road
The applicant
Tentative: Recommended that
the Campus Park Drive access
Park Drive Extension:
connection to the site (in
opposes conversion
to the site be used for
The proposed Specific
addition to Collins Drive)
of Campus Road to a
Plan anticipates that
either through the conversion
public street or
construction vehicle access and
primary access to the
of Campus Road to a public
extending Campus
that a permanent emergency
Phase A of the
street or through the
Park Drive.
access road be developed as
community would be on
Collins Drive.
extension of Campus Park
Drive. (1/6/04 Staff Report
part of the project from Campus
Park Drive.
Recommendation 1)
26
Transit Stop: The
proposed Specific Plan
Include language in the
Specific Plan that transit stop
The applicant
supports the staff
Tentative support staff
recommendation.
does not identify a
locations shall be provided for
recommendation.
precise location for a
the commercial center and
public transit stop.
Community Park, if desired
by the City. (1/6/04 Staff
Report Recommendation J)
March 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
ITEM: 8.11.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry R. Hogan, Community Development Direct0
Prepared By: Joseph F. Fiss, Principal Plan
DATE: February 23, 2004 (PC Meeting of 3/2/2004)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -021 Zone Change
No. 2003 -02, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5425, and
Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 2003 -02, a
Request to Subdivide Approximately 15 Acres for
Condominium Purposes to Develop 102 Duplex -Style and
Detached Condominium Dwellings and a Recreation Facility,
Located at the Terminus of Fremont Street, South of Los
Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118) and East of Majestic Court, on
the Application of Shea Homes, Inc.; (506 -0- 020 -23, 506-
0- 020 -31, 506 -0- 020 -32, 506 -0- 020 -33, 506 -0- 020 -34)
BACKGROUND
Shea Homes has submitted a request to develop 102 duplex -style and
detached condominium dwellings and a recreation facility on
approximately 15 acres, located south of Los Angeles Avenue at the
terminus of Fremont Street. The application includes a proposed
General Plan Amendment to change the land -use designation of the
site from General Commercial to High - Density Residential, a Zone
Change to change the zoning from General Commercial to Residential
Planned Development, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the
land, and a Residential Planned Development Permit for the
architecture and site design. The site will surround the existing
Fremont Street neighborhood on the east, west and south sides.
This project is proposed to be built together with and as an
extension of approved Tentative Tract No. 5133 /RPD No. '98 -01.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2003 \ -02 Shea \Agenda Rpts \Agenda Report.040217.doc
0', , 014
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Project Setting
Existinq Site Conditions:
Existing buildings on the site include a church, a fraternal lodge
and an office for a former automotive dismantling business. The
site is basically flat and has been disturbed by commercial uses.
Vegetation consists of a few trees, shrubs and weeds. The various
lots are separated by miscellaneous chain link and wood fencing.
Surrounding uses include: the Arroyo Simi to the south, the Fremont
Street residential tract to the west, Los Angeles Avenue to the
north and recreational vehicle storage and commercial uses to the
east.
The site is directly adjacent to the Arroyo Simi and 2.76 acres of
the site are being dedicated to the Ventura County Watershed
Protection District (VCWPD) for creation of a wetlands area. The
dedication substantially affects the shape and size of the area
available for development. Much of the remaining developable area
of the site is currently within the 100 -year floodplain. Flood
protection in this area is being addressed through the raising of
the site several feet with fill material. Site design issues
related to flood control are addressed later in this report.
Previous Applications:
There have been no previous entitlement applications on this
specific site; however, as mentioned above, this project is
designed as an extension to Tract 5133 and Residential Planned
Development No. 98 -01 to the west. A previous General Plan
Amendment Pre - screening Application that included this site and
additional property to the east was filed by LT Development in
2000. That proposal would have allowed a total of 271 dwelling
units. In 2001, the City Council reviewed the Pre- screening
Application and authorized the filing of a General Plan Amendment
for residential use of this property.
Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 98 -01 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 5133, on the south side of Los
Angeles Avenue, west of Fremont Street, were originally approved by
the City Council on October 6, 1999, for seventy -nine (79) 2- story,
condominium dwelling units on three (3) condominium lots within a
10.37 acre parcel. There were three (3) subsequent minor
modifications, most recently on July 2, 2003, resulting in minor
changes to the approved product, the street alignment and the
height of retaining walls.
0 � 0 1
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 3
GENERAL PLAN /ZONING
Direction
General
Zoning
Land Use
Plan
General
Commercial
Site
CPD/
Commercial /Lodge /Church /Vacant
Medium
R-1
Density
R_ es. (M)
Medium
Los Angeles Avenue /Single-
North
Density
R -1
family Residential
Res. (M)
_-
Arroyo Simi /Single Family
South
Floodway
0 -S
Residential
General
East
Commercial
CPD
Commercial
(C -2)
Medium
R -1/
Single- family /Vacant (Entitled
West
Density
RPD
for Tract 5133 /RPD 1998 -01)
Res. (M)
General Plan and Zonina Consistencv:
The applicant is concurrently requesting a General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change for this project. The current General Plan
designations of the site are General Commercial (C -2) and Medium
Density Residential (M). The current Zoning designations are CPD
(Commercial Planned Development) and R -1 (Single- family
Residential). The applicant is proposing to change the General
Plan designation for the residential portion of the site to Very
High Density Residential (VH) and the Zoning to RPD. The proposal
would result in a gross density of 6.8 dwelling units per acre
(102/15 =6.8) for the entire site before dedication of streets and
land for flood control purposes. The net density would be 11.3
dwelling units per acre (102/9 =11.3) for the portion that would be
residentially zoned. The large discrepancy between net and gross
density is due to the proposed dedication to the Ventura County
Watershed Protection District for flood control purposes of
approximately 2.76 acres (nearly twenty percent (200) of the
project site), in addition to, street dedications. The Arroyo
dedication would be planned as Floodway (FLDWY) and zoned as Open
Space (OS) as a condition of approval. The requested zoning
designation of RPD -12 would accommodate the proposed density and be
consistent with the zoning of the adjacent approved Planned
Development. The General Plan designation of Very High Density
0 C .v 0 16
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 4
Residential (VH) allows a maximum density of 15.0 dwelling units
per acre.
The purpose of the Residential Planned Development zone is to
provide areas for communities which will be developed, utilizing
modern land planning and unified design techniques. This zone
provides a flexible regulatory procedure in order to encourage:
1. Coordinated neighborhood design and compatibility with
existing or potential development of surrounding areas;
2. An efficient use of land particularly through the clustering
of dwelling units and the preservation of the natural features
of sites;
3. Variety and innovation in site design, density and housing
unit options, including garden apartments, townhouses and
single - family dwellings;
4. Lower housing costs through the reduction of street and
utility networks; and
5. A more varied, attractive and energy- efficient living
environment, as well as, greater opportunities for recreation
than would be possible under other zone classifications.
Proposed Project
Architecture:
A duplex -style design has been proposed for eighty -six (86) of the
housing units; the same product that has been approved as part of
Tract No. 5133 /RPD No. 1998 -01. This product provides a useable
eighteen -foot (18') long driveway. The proposed units are designed
to give the appearance of a large, single- family home from the
street. By providing a variety of floor plans and elevations, the
appearance of "back -to- back" duplex units is avoided. The dwelling
units are all two stories in height. A standard level of
architectural detail and sufficient architectural variety between
units is provided to create visual interest. The square footage of
the units ranges from 1,607 square feet to 1,885 square feet. The
remaining sixteen (16) units are detached; however, they share the
same architecture and floor plans as the duplex -style units. A
special condition of approval regarding articulation of the side
and rear elevations of the detached units has been added to provide
for visual interest.
Setbacks:
Setbacks in the RPD Zone are determined by the Conditions of
Approval. Although this is a condominium project, it has been
o", . J 0 1'r
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 5
designed to impart the sense of a compact, single- family
neighborhood that will be compatible with the Fremont Street
neighborhood, the approved adjacent tract (Tract No. 5133 /RPD No.
1998 -01), and other surrounding properties. Strict adherence to
the setbacks would substantially alter the design concept. This
project is unique in that there are two (2) types of setbacks to be
considered.
The first type of setback to be considered is the setback from the
project boundaries and the new public street. The overall setback
from Los Angeles Avenue is designed to be consistent with those of
other residential projects, including Tract No. 5133. A three(3')
foot landscaped strip will buffer the sound wall from the Los
Angeles Avenue right -of -way, with the individual dwelling units set
back from thirteen (13' ) feet to twenty -one (2 1' ) feet from the
right -of -way. These setbacks are taken from the edge of the
ultimate Los Angeles Avenue right -of -way. Backyard setbacks
adjacent to the Fremont Street tract are a minimum of thirteen
(13') feet, slightly less than the fifteen (15') foot setback that
is typically found in residential tracts. A minimum five (5') foot
side yard setback has been provided along the new southern tract
boundary.
The second type of setback is the setback between structures and
from the private streets. Each unit is proposed with a small front
yard to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. A minimum
eighteen (181) foot deep front yard is proposed to accommodate a
driveway deep enough for two (2) vehicles to park off of the
street. Typical five (5') foot side yards and fifteen (15') foot
rear yards are proposed; however, in a few isolated instances
lesser setbacks are proposed. A condition of approval will be
added so that side yard clearances will not be less than three (3')
feet and that rear yards will not be less than thirteen (13') feet.
Circulation:
The tract is designed to take access from Los Angeles Avenue on the
north and the extension of Majestic Court on the west. The "L"
shaped access allows for short private streets and driveways
creating small neighborhoods. Given the unique shape of the
property, twenty (20) units take access from "A" Street and three
(3) units take access from Majestic Court, both public streets.
Fremont Street is currently a private street easement, which
presently serves seventeen (17) houses and a church building. Fee
title to Fremont Street is held by Shea Homes, and is contained
within the boundaries of this proposed subdivision. As part of
this proposal, Fremont Street would be a cul -de -sac on the north
OC JOI3 i
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 6
end, just before to Los Angeles Avenue. Full access rights would
be provided to existing residences through to Majestic Court. The
project proposes five (5) detached houses and six (6) duplex units
to take access from Fremont Street.
Currently, there is no development proposal for the property to the
east of this project. However, staff anticipates a request for a
residential proposal for that site in the near future, although the
site is currently zoned for commercial use. The applicant has been
required to provide "stubbed" street access to these two (2)
properties with access and drainage easements irrevocably given to
the City of Moorpark. The City would be able to accept these
easements when and if the adjacent properties need such access and
transfer the City's access and drainage rights to those properties.
The applicant would be required to construct a six (6') foot high
wood fence across the end of these stubbed streets and provide a
minimum three (3') foot landscape area. The Homeowners Association
would be required to maintain the fences and landscaping until such
time as the easements are activated and the streets extended.
Traffic:
A traffic report was prepared for this project. According to the
analysis, over a 24 -hour period, the proposed project is expected
to generate 1,008 daily trips during a typical weekday (504 inbound
and 504 outbound trips) . The project's calculated fair share
contribution toward the recommended cumulative mitigation measures
are 0.6% for the Moorpark Avenue /High Street intersection, 1.5% for
the Moorpark Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue intersection and 3.3% for
the Spring Road /New Los Angeles Avenue intersection. The traffic
analysis also evaluated the potential closure of Fremont Street at
Los Angeles Avenue. Vehicular access would be provided via the
future extension of Majestic Court. The traffic analysis concluded
that the potential Fremont Street closure would not result in any
significant changes to the existing traffic patterns. The
disposition of Fremont Street will be discussed further in the
analysis section.
Parking
For dwelling units, the Zoning Code requires a minimum of one (1)
2 -car garage per unit. In addition, in the RPD Zone, one -half
(112) space per dwelling unit is required for visitor parking.
Using this formula, a total of 255 parking spaces would be
required. [(102x2) + (102x.5) = 255].
Without counting parking available on public or private streets,
408 parking spaces have been provided for the project. Each
dwelling unit has been provided with a garage that has a minimum
L. 4,,O�
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 7
interior clear area of twenty (20') feet by twenty (20') feet to
accommodate two (2) vehicles. An eighteen (18') foot deep driveway
is also provided to accommodate two (2) additional vehicles parked
off street, for a total of four (4) potentially available off -
street parking spaces per dwelling unit. Additional parking will be
provided on the streets, but will be restricted to one side of the
street for the private streets, Majestic Court and "A" Street. A
condition of approval has been added to this effect.
Landscaping /Recreation:
Existing vegetation consists of ornamental trees, shrubs and weeds.
The twenty -eight (28) trees on the project site include California
peppers, Arizona cypresses, English walnuts, and fan palms. The
applicant /owner has been notified of the potential for brush fires,
as well as, for illegal dumping and other potential code violations
on the site. Cleaning of the site has been initiated. The mature
trees on site will be removed due to the grading required to raise
the property above the 100 -year flood condition. Per the Municipal
Code, enhanced landscaping will be provided on site, equal to the
value of the removed trees. This will be discussed further in the
analysis section.
Proposed landscaping will consist of common area landscaping,
including the recreation area, strips adjacent to walls, and
landscaping along the Los Angeles Avenue frontage. Furthermore,
the front yard of every unit will be landscaped prior to occupancy
and will be continuously maintained by the Homeowners Association.
A private recreation area is shown in the southeast corner of the
project and is proposed to be used by the residents of this project
and of Tract No. 5133. This recreation area will take the place of
the smaller one approved for Tract No. 5133. One Homeowners
Association will be established for both tracts and maintenance of
the landscaping and recreation area will be the responsibility of
the property owners of both tracts. This issue is discussed
further in the analysis section.
Site Improvements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Requirements (NPDES):
The City Engineer has conditioned the project to provide for all
necessary on -site and off -site storm drain improvements, including
the imposition of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements. "Passive" Best Management Practices Drainage
Facilities are required to be provided so that surface flows are
intercepted and treated on the surface over biofilters (grassy
swales), infiltration areas and other similar solutions.
01,0020
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 8
Air Quality:
According to the 2003 Ventura County Air Quality Assessment
Guidelines, the proposed project will produce 4.41 tons of Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) per year and 3.35 tons of Reactive Organic Gases in
its first year, which is below the allowable 25 pounds per day
threshold. Air quality has been addressed as a standard condition
of approval requiring a contribution to the Moorpark Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) Fund to offset air pollutants, consistent
with the recommendations of the Ventura County Air Quality
Assessment Guidelines.
ANALYSIS
Issues
Staff analysis of the proposed project has identified the following
areas for Planning Commission consideration in their recommendation
to the City Council:
• Flood Control
• General Plan and Zoning for Open Space Lot
• Fremont Street
• Access /Drainage to Site to the East
• Landscapinq /Recreation
Flood Control:
Site planning for this project is affected by the Arroyo Simi and
the Ventura County Watershed Protection District ( VCWPD) in several
aspects. As mentioned below, 2.76 acres of the site are being
dedicated to the VCWPD for creation of a wetlands area. This
substantially decreases not only the size of the site, but the
north -south length of the site, thus requiring a greater grade
change to obtain proper drainage. The north side of the site is
required to be substantially higher than the south side, thus
requiring higher sound walls along Los Angeles Avenue
(approximately seven to ten feet in height). In addition,
retaining walls raise the grade of the project site from
approximately one (11) foot to seven (71) feet, adjacent to the
rear yards on the east side of the Fremont Street tract. Similar
design constraints were encountered as part of Tentative Tract No.
5133, just west of this project site.
00.0021
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 9
General Plan and Zonina for Open Space Lot:
Approximately 2.76 acres of the project site are proposed for
dedication to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District for
flood control purposes. This would leave approximately twelve (12)
acres for the development of 102 housing units, including public
and private streets. It has been the City's practice to designate
such dedications as "Floodway (FLDWY)" and to zone the land "Open
Space (OS)" on the General Plan Land Use map. Since the boundary
between the development and dedication may change slightly, it is
recommended that the land to be dedicated, be designa wed on the
General Plan use map as "Floodway (FLDWY)" and zoned as "Open Space
(OS) ", with the boundary set by limits of the ultimate dedication,
which would be established at the time of Final Map. The
Discussion section above includes an explanation how this
dedication and subsequent zoning affect the ultimate residential
density of the project.
Fremont Street:
As mentioned above, Fremont Street is a private street easement
that is actually part of one of the lots of this subdivision.
Fremont Street is proposed to be extended southward to provide a
connection to Majestic Court. The applicant would close Fremont
Street at Los Angeles Avenue by providing a cul -de -sac at the north
end, with pedestrian access to Los Angeles Avenue. In order for
Fremont Street to remain a private street, the existing Fremont
property owners or the new Homeowners Association, or both, would
be required to agree to maintain the street in perpetuity.
Regardless of whether Fremont Street remains private or public, the
applicant will be required to provide access, either through a
reciprocal access agreement or other instrument, for the entire
length of Fremont Street, from Los Angeles Avenue to Majestic
Court. Conditions of Approval address the proper subdivision of
the street and the provision of full access.
Access /Drainage to Site to the East:
A commercially -zoned parcel lies directly to the east of this
project, and is currently used for recreational vehicle storage. No
development proposal has been filed for the site, but staff
anticipates that a residential proposal for that site may be
submitted in the near future. Although that site has frontage on
Spring Road, future access to Spring Road may be restricted and
thus adequate access, circulation and drainage should be provided
from this property. A condition of approval has been added to this
project so that irrevocable offers of dedication are given to the
City for reciprocal access and drainage easements for the entire
length and width of the four (4) streets on the eastern side of the
0C.0022 0022
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 10
project. "D" Street has been conditioned to be built to public
street standards with a thirty -six (36') foot curb -to -curb width.
The irrevocable offer of dedication for "D" Street would not be
accepted by the City until, or if ever, needed for residential
street purposes by the adjacent property. At that time, at the
City's option, the City could accept necessary dedication(s) and
then transfer the easement(s) to the adjacent property. This
procedure of not accepting the offered dedication, until needed,
would limit any liability for the City while allowing the City to
keep control of access /drainage through this property.
Landscaping /Recreation:
As previously mentioned, twenty -eight (28) mature non - native
ornamental trees on site will be removed. In order to compensate
for the loss of mature trees, enhanced landscaping equal to the
value of the removed trees will be required to be installed. Per
the Horticultural Tree Report prepared by Lee Newman Design Group,
the replacement value of the trees is $47,548.00. Although the
adjacent Tract No. 5133 /RPD No. 1998 -01 is a smaller site, the
value of those trees on that site was placed at $130,324.00. A
condition of approval was placed on that project for enhanced
landscaping of that value. Because this tract is proposed to be
developed in conjunction with Tract No. 5133, it would be
appropriate to spread the enhanced landscaping over both projects
to create a balanced and unified landscape concept for the entire
development. This would meet the requirements of the ordinance and
no modification to the conditions of Tract No. 5133 /RPD No. 1998 -01
would be necessary. Should this tract not be constructed, the
conditions of Tract No. 5133 would remain in full force.
As with the tree replacement, Tract No. 5133/RPD No. 1998 -01
contains a condition of approval requiring a private recreation
area. A subsequent modification to that tract allowed for the
private recreation area to be placed off -site, in anticipation of
this subdivision and RPD. A private recreation area has been
included on the southeast corner of this project and is proposed to
be used by the residents of this project and of Tract No. 5133.
The proposed 0.35 acre private recreation area is adequate to take
the place of the 0.22 -acre site approved for Tract No. 5133 and can
serve the 181 housing units in both projects. Though specific
architecture and amenities have not been established, a condition
of approval is included requiring a recreation building, swimming
pool, and play area with equipment. The condition will state that
the final design of these amenities will be subject to approval by
the Community Development Director. A single Homeowners Association
would be established, encompassing both tracts for main-:�enance of
the landscaping and recreation area.
0x
.023
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 11
Development Agreement
A City Council Ad -hoc Committee consisting of Councilmember's Mikos
and Parvin has been established to develop a draft Development
Agreement between Shea Homes, Inc. and the City of Moorpark. This
agreement would be presented to the Planning Commission as a
separate item at a future meeting if so directed by the City
Council.
Findings
The following findings are offered pursuant to the requirements of
the Subdivision Map Act:
1. The proposed map would be consistent with the City of Moorpark
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, if amended by General Plan
Amendment No. 2003 -02 and Zone Change No. 2003 -02, to allow
for a density up to twelve (12) units per acre.
2. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision would
be consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan, if
amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02 and Zone Change
No. 2003 -02, to allow for a density up to twelve (12) units
per acre.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed in that the site can be engineered to allow for all
required utilities to be brought to the site, adequate ingress
and egress can be obtained, and the site can be provided with
public and emergency services.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development, in that all City Development standards would be
met by the proposed project.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, in
that all potential impacts would be mitigated through project
design or conditions.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that
adequate sanitation is both feasible and required as a
condition of this development.
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of the property within the
proposed subdivision, in that reciprocal access easements for
the improvement of Fremont Street and for the site to the east
0v. ?024
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 12
have been identified and incorporated in the design of this
project.
8. There will be no discharge of waste from the proposed
subdivision into an existing community sewer system in
violation of existing water quality control requirements under
Water Code Section 13000 et seq.
9. The proposed subdivision fronts upon a public waterway (Arroyo
Simi) as defined in California Government Code Section 66478.1
et seq. Public access easements will be provided per
Conditions of Approval.
The following findings are offered for the Residential Planned
Development Permit:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and
provisions of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, in
that the proposed project will provide for the orderly
development of land identified in the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance as appropriate for residential development.
2. The proposed project is compatible with the character of
surrounding development, in that the surrounding, existing and
future development which includes a variety of single- family
attached and detached homes.
3. The proposed project would not be obnoxious or harmful, or
impair the utility of neighboring property or uses, in that
the use proposed is similar to uses existing or proposed to
the north, south, and west, and access to or utility of those
adjacent uses are not hindered by this project; and reciprocal
access easements will be provided to the sites to the east.
4. The proposed project would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, in that
adequate provision of public access, sanitary services, and
emergency services have been ensured in the processing of this
request.
5. The proposed project is compatible with existing and planned
land uses in the general area where the developmen� is to be
located, in that the existing and planned land uses in the
general area are generally single- family, detached residential
uses. The proposed project is compatible with nearby
commercial uses and with the Arroyo Simi.
6. The proposed project is compatible with the scale, visual
character and design of the surrounding properties, designed
so as to enhance the physical and visual quality of the
community, and the structure(s) have design features which
0`i A2a
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 13
provide visual relief and separation between land uses of
conflicting character, in that the proposed project complies
with all development standards of the Moorpark Municipal Code,
and the development will utilize high quality architectural
materials and treatments to enhance the visual appeal of the
structures to be constructed.
PROCESSING TIME LIMITS
General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are legislative acts that
are not subject to processing time limits under the Permit
Streamlining Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter
4.5), the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division
2), and the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and
Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13, and California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). The applicant has elected to
process the Vesting Tentative Map and Residentia_ Planned
Development concurrently with the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures
adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director
determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some
projects may be exempt from review based upon a specific category
listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule
that environmental review is not necessary where it can be
determined that there would be no possibility of significant effect
upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an
exemption requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess
the level of potential environmental impacts.
Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may
determine that a project will not have a significant e =fect upon
the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
prepared. For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration will prove to be sufficient environmental
documentation. If the Director determines that a project has the
potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation
cannot be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
is prepared.
The Director has prepared or supervised the preparation of an
Initial Study to assess the potential significant impacts of this
project. Based upon the Initial Study, the Director has determined
Q
0 26
Honorable Planning Commission
March 2, 2004
Page 14
that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of
its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment and
has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Commission review and consideration before making a recommendation
on the project.
STAFF RECOW4ENDATION
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the
public hearing.
2. Recommend approval to the City Council of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City
Council conditional approval of General Plan Amendment No.
2003 -02. Zone Change No. 2003 -03, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 5425, and Residential Planned Development No. 2003 -03.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Project Exhibits
A. VTTM No. 5425
B. Site Plan
C. Typical Elevation
D. Typical Floor Plan
3. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Draft PC Resolution with Conditions of Approval
0 C- - 13027
City of Moorpark
Planning Division Location Map
Locanon South of East Los Angeles Avenue
PC ATTACHMENT 1 06 ; 028
• �}saAawr�arr�r�e-
� raIISiliiilfitlST�f!lBa�'
i��Tl�ssrwr�mu.
' �'illia'lYrDllC�tRic
>
1QMYi11l��IDfSL7�'
,• 1Q11F]RfArQll�:� '
• �r�+nwa�wrc��
i L
i• �rr+rK+a�ras'
-
0
N
, I I
' i I JN1tlh 1Qll. YlilLl. L11RJIL� S I �.. ..___ .t'_Ldl �I�^M(L.. .. ____. ♦ .j.
W0.41 AC
1 � T I ' Y'LT r ����- �f�� I, •��-- ��T_ -�'�- -fir - �.- 1 .. IE'
i I 1►'�Jt• \>•f #'JAL �"' '�'
- sJaxSi'4'LJ` s
_
cm Of MOORtMIC
PC ATTACHMENT
2 -A
�
1
--
-- --
- --�1 --
-- -
Lys
-- -- -- --
- - - ---
lUl i
J
=kM%'titrs'ff#M%W ?
NNW
i�
1
ir�rtu7�esatia
•
e,
�.
�
sv.,iaeuea�iraanr —•—
�
,
SAM
_s.�wr.yumry .}s+tarr.ra�nt_
, I I
' i I JN1tlh 1Qll. YlilLl. L11RJIL� S I �.. ..___ .t'_Ldl �I�^M(L.. .. ____. ♦ .j.
W0.41 AC
1 � T I ' Y'LT r ����- �f�� I, •��-- ��T_ -�'�- -fir - �.- 1 .. IE'
i I 1►'�Jt• \>•f #'JAL �"' '�'
- sJaxSi'4'LJ` s
_
cm Of MOORtMIC
PC ATTACHMENT
2 -A
9-1
PC ATTACHMENT
2-B
L14
?
ll
jo-
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
CrTY OF MOORPARK x 13W TUffATM TRoWl
I;
PLAN 2/4 A
PLAN 2/4 B
ELEVATIONS
CANTERBURY
MOORPARK , CA
SHEA HOMES
PC ATTACHMENT
2 —C
sssriw
mm
i
I
io l �a0
SECOND FLOOR
ICI
GREAT ROOM
---- 2tl--
------------
PON
KITICII*
6—
zi 11=1
IrtH
BEDROOM i
BEDROOM
KAS roo
L
adonoom
BATH
BEDROOM 3
WW
64ALL
y
t
SECOND FLOOR
ICI
GREAT ROOM
------
BIZ L
7
L----------
FIRST FLOOR
PLAN 2A PLAN 4A
1,607 SQ.F-r. 1,885 SQ.P•.
c A 1*4 rr B a D u a "Y uccm
MOORPARK , CA
SHEA HOMES
PC ATTACHMENT
2-D
0 (: `�, 0 3
PON
KITICII*
6—
L
------
BIZ L
7
L----------
FIRST FLOOR
PLAN 2A PLAN 4A
1,607 SQ.F-r. 1,885 SQ.P•.
c A 1*4 rr B a D u a "Y uccm
MOORPARK , CA
SHEA HOMES
PC ATTACHMENT
2-D
0 (: `�, 0 3
F aa
I-A
CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
Project Title: Shea Homes /Canterbury Case No.:
Contact Person and Phone No.: Joseph Fiss (805) 517 -6226
Name of Applicant: Shea Homes Limited Partnership
RPD 2003- 021VTM 54251
GPA 2003 -022C 2003 -02
Address and Phone No.: 555 St. Charles Dr. #205 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 (805) 557 -2100
Project Location: Terminus of Fremont Street, south of Los Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118) and east of
Majestic Court
General Plan Designation: Residential Medium Zoning: R -11CPD
Project Description: A request to develop 102 duplex style condominium dwellings and a recreation
facility on approximately 15 acres, located at the terminus of Fremont Street, south
of Los Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118) and east of Majestic Court. The application
consists of a Residential Planned Development (RPD), a vesting tentative tract map
to subdivide five parcels for condominium purposes, a General Plan Amendment
(from Residential Medium Density and General Commercial to Residential Very High
Density and Floodway) and a Zone Change (from R -1 and CPD to Residential
Planned Development [RPD] and Open Space [OS]). This project is proposed to be
built together with, and as an extension of Tract 51331RPD 98 -01.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: Los Angeles Avenue /Residential
South: Arroyo Simi
East: Unimproved (Approved Tract 5133)
West: Commercial/Recreational Vehicle Storage
Responsible and Trustee Agencies: Ventura County, California Dept. of Trans.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially
Si nificant Impactor 'less Than Significant With Miti ation,' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
X Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials X Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use /Planning
Mineral Resources X Noise Population /Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None
PC ATTACEMNT 3 0(:; 0033
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
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:
Date:
Reviewed by:
Date:
Ji " 1 0
2
0 A "O34
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT 1:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A sound wall, a minimum of seven (7) feet in height shall be constructed along the northern
boundary of the site, abutting Los Angeles Avenue.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Community Development Department
The project shall comply with Chapter 15.24 (Floodplain Management) of the Moorpark Municipal
Code. The applicant shall make necessary improvements to the site and /or the Arroyo Simi
channel so that the site will no longer be a flood hazard. Drainage and flood control devices shall
be provided in compliance with City and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements. The applicant shall apply for and receive a CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map
Revision) from FEMA prior to any grading activity in the 100 year floodplain. The applicant shall
comply with all of the requirements of the CLOMR.
Monitoring Action: Inspect drainage and flood control improvements to the Arroyo Simi
and /or the site as recommended by the hydrology study and for
compliance with NPDES.
Timing: During grading and prior to dwelling construction.
Responsibility: City Engineer, Community Development Department, Federal
Emergency Management Agency
The applicant shall replace trees on the site in an amount equal to the appraised value of the
removed trees, as identified in the Tree Report. Should there not be sufficient space to replace the
required trees, or should appropriate trees not be available, the applicant shall pay to the City of
Moorpark an amount equal to the difference between the appraised amount and the value of the
trees planted on site.
Monitoring Action: City Landscape Consultant to review project plans and inspect site for
compliance
Timing: Prior to issuance of occupancy zoning clearances
Responsibility: Community Development Department
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
A. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse elect 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 eAsting 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?
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant With
Significant No
Impact Mitigation
Impact Impact
X
X
X _
X
Response: The Site is not located within an identified scenic corridor and there are no scenic resources
on site. Normal street lighting and residential light sources will not have a significant impact
on vistas and will be evaluated and be consistent with the City's lighting ordinance.
Architecture and landscaping will be evaluated for consistency with City standards
Sources: Project Application and exhibits (3/14/03), Moorpark Municipal Code, General Plan Land Use
Element (1992).
Mitigation: None required.
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 Califomia Resources
agency, to non - agricultural use?
2) Conflict with a )dsbng zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
3) Involve other changes in the e)isting environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
X
Response: This is an Will project, is in an urban setting and does not affect agricultural resources.
Historically, this site was used for agricultural purposes; however it has not been in production
in recent years. The Ventura County Important Farmland Map classifies the site as "Urban
and Built -Up land.
Sources: Biological Assessment/Archaeological Survey /Project Application (3 /14 /03),California Dep't of
Conservation: Ventura County Important Farmland Map (2000)
Mitigation: None required.
4 0 % 11 C0421('.
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
C. AIR QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X
air quality plan?
2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X
of people?
Response: The project is estimated to result in approximately 4.41 tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) per
year and 3.35 tons of Reactive Organic Gases in its first year, mostly from vehicle trip
emissions. The level for NOx exceeds suggested thresholds of the Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District of 25 lbs. per day. A Standard Condition of Approval has been
added as part of the project for the developer to pay a contribution to the City's Transportation
System Management fund, reducing this impact to a less than significant level. No additional
mitigation is needed.
Sources: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Ventura County Air Quality Assessment
Guidelines (2000), URBEMIS 2001
Mitigation: None required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) 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 bythe
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian 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?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 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, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
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
X
X
X
0 X03':'
Potentially
Significant
Impact
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Comm unity Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
Less Than
Significant Less Than
With Significant No
Mitigation Impact Impact
X
X
conservauon pian-!
Response: Due to the highly disturbed urban setting of the site, there are minimal adverse affects to
biological resources. This project does propose the removal of mature trees, both native and
non- native from the site, requiring mitigation in accordance with the Chapter 12.12 of the
Moorpark Municipal Code.
Sources: Biological Assessment/Horticultural Tree Report/Project Application (3114/03), California
Department of Fish and Game: Natural Diversity Data Base - Moorpark and Simi Valley Quad
Sheets (1993)
Mitigation: The applicant shall replace trees on the site in an amount equal to the appraised value of the
removed trees, as identified in the Tree Report dated December 2002. Should there not be
sufficient space to replace the required trees, or should appropriate trees not be available, the
applicant shall pay to the City of Moorpark an amount equal to the difference between the
appraised amount and the value of the trees planted on site.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifcance 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: There are no known or expected cultural resources on the project site.
Sources: Archaeological Survey /Project Application (3/14/03)
Mitigation: None required.
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
Involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X
most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
6
0 0038
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: This project will be built subject to compliance with building codes and compliance with all
project conditions of approval. All plans will be subject to the review and approval of the City
prior to issuance of building permits. The site is not located in an earthquake fault zone. The
site is, however, located in a liquefaction hazard zone; therefore, geotechnical measures will
be incorporated into the project design as required by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits(3 /14/03), Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map (Simi
Valley West, 1999), Seismic Hazard Zone Map (Simi Valley, 1997) General Plan Safety
Element (2001)
Mitigation: None required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
2) 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?
3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an epsbng or proposed school?
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
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,
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?
7
x
x
x
x
x
0`:3039
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides?
X
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
X
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
4) Be located on a )pansive 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: This project will be built subject to compliance with building codes and compliance with all
project conditions of approval. All plans will be subject to the review and approval of the City
prior to issuance of building permits. The site is not located in an earthquake fault zone. The
site is, however, located in a liquefaction hazard zone; therefore, geotechnical measures will
be incorporated into the project design as required by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits(3 /14/03), Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map (Simi
Valley West, 1999), Seismic Hazard Zone Map (Simi Valley, 1997) General Plan Safety
Element (2001)
Mitigation: None required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
2) 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?
3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an epsbng or proposed school?
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
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,
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?
7
x
x
x
x
x
0`:3039
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving vildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
Response: There are no known hazards on the project site, nor will new hazards be created as a result
of the project.
Sources: Project Application (3114/03), General Plan Safety Element (2001)
Mitigation: None required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
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
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 of -site?
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off -site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other food hazard delineation
map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect Rood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0�_' :040
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
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?
8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving vildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
Response: There are no known hazards on the project site, nor will new hazards be created as a result
of the project.
Sources: Project Application (3114/03), General Plan Safety Element (2001)
Mitigation: None required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
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
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 of -site?
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off -site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other food hazard delineation
map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect Rood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0�_' :040
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
injury or death involving i) looding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
ii) Inundation byseiche, tsunami, or mudlow? X
Response: The site is within a within a FEMA identified 100 -year flood hazard area. On site grading and
improvements may affect existing drainage patterns.
Sources: Grade Drainage Study /Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Study /Project
Application (3/14/03), General Plan Safety Element (2001), Moorpark Municipal Code
Mitigation: The project shall comply with Chapter 15.24 (Floodplain Management) of the Moorpark
Municipal Code. The applicant shall make necessary improvements to the site and /or the
Arroyo Simi channel so that the site will no longer be a flood hazard. Drainage and flood
control devices shall be provided in compliance with City and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall apply for and receive a
CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) from FEMA prior to any grading activity in the
100 year flood lain. The applicant shall comply with all of the requirements of the CLOMR.
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, speafc
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 Tentative Tract Map and Residential Planned Development Application were filed
concurrently with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The applications and plans
are internally consistent and, if approved, will not conflict with any other plans. The project is
consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Sources: Project Application (3/14/03), General Plan Land Use Element (1992)
Mitigation: None required.
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 X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Response: There are no known mineral resources on site
Sources: Project Application (3/14/03), General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation
Element (1986)
Mitigation: None required.
0!' ;041
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
K. NOISE — Would the project result in:
1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Response: There will be a temporary increase in noise during grading and construction. Noise
generators will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and allowed hours of
construction. Future residents on site may be subject to excessive noise levels from traffic on
Los Angeles Avenue.
Sources: Noise Study /Project Application (3/14/03), General Plan Noise Element (1998)
Mitigation: A sound wall, at least seven (7) feet in height, shall be constructed along the Los Angeles
Avenue Frontage.
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, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Response: This project will have a beneficial impact of helping to achieve housing goals in support of the
Housing Element of the General Plan. There will be no negative impacts related to
population growth or housing.
10
�, 042
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Sources: Project Application (3/14/03)
Mitigation: None required.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other perbrmance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
Response: While some incremental impact on public services is to be expected, the impacts are not
significant. Development fees and increased property taxes will be paid to fund required
public services.
Sources: Project Application (3/14/03), General Plan Safety Element (2001), General Plan Open
Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986)
Mitigation: None required.
N. RECREATION
1) Would the project increase the use ofe>osting 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 a )pansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
Response:` On site recreational facilities are proposed. Park and recreation fees will be paid.
Sources: Project Application (3/14/03), General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation
Element (1986)
Mitigation: None required.
11
0'-""043
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:
1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacityratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
2) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
3) Result in a change in air trafic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
5) Result in inadequate emergency access?
6) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Response: The proposed project will not reduce the level of service (LOS) of intersections in the area.
Access to the site will be provided from the Los Angeles Avenue and the future extension of
Majestic Court. Adequate parking will be provided on site, including within garages,
driveways and on public and private streets.
Sources: Traffic Impact Study /Project Application (3/14/03), General Plan Circulation Element (1992)
Mitigation: None required.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
2) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
3) 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?
4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
5) Result in a determination bythe wastewater treatment
12
X
X
X
X
X
0�' .)044
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
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 Neste disposal
needs?
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
Response: Utilities and service systems within the area are adequate to serve the project. Development
fees will be paid to fund required utilities and service systems, or they will be provided by the
developer.
Sources: Project Application (3/14/03), Ventura County Watershed Protection District: Technical
Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (2002)
Mitigation: None required.
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
fish or wildlife species, cause a ish 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 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 individuallylimited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental efect of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the efects of other current
projects, and effects of probable future projects)?
3) Does the project have environmental efects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Response: This is an infill project on a substantially disturbed site within an urban setting.
Sources: See below.
Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Pieparation 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,
13
0`' °045
Shea Homes
VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02
ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02
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 March 14, 2003.
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 Calibrnia Code of Regulations, Title
14 Section 15000 et. seq.
Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, November 14, 2000.
14 0 ,:046
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: February 13, 2004 to March 15, 2004
Project Title /Case No.: RPD 2003- 02/VTM 5425/ GPA 2003 -02/ZC 2003 -02
Project Location: Terminus of Fremont Street, south of Los Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118)
and east of Majestic Court, Moorpark, Ventura County. (Location Map
Attached)
Project Description: A request to develop 102 duplex style condominium dwellings and a
recreation facility on approximately 15 acres, located at the terminus of
Fremont Street, south of Los Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118) and east of Majestic
Court. This project is proposed to be built together with, and as an extension
of Tract 5133/RPD 98 -01. (Environmental Information Form Attached)
Project Type:
Project Applicant:
X Private Project Public Project
Shea Homes Limited Partnership, 555 St. Charles Dr. #205 Thousand
Oaks, CA 91360 (805) 557 -2100
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: California Department of Transportation, Ventura County Watershed
Protection District
Trustee Agencies: None
Attachments: Location Map
Environmental Information Form
Initial Study with Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Program
Contact Person: Joseph Fiss
Community Development Department
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California, 93021
(805) 517 -6226
\mor o Q �7 _ C \ D R .
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -02, ZONE
CHANGE NO. 2003 -02, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 5425,
AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPD) NO. 2003 -02
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 102 HOUSING UNITS ON A 15.13
ACRE PARCEL, LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF FREMONT
STREET, SOUTH OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE AND EAST OF
MAJESTIC COURT, ON THE APPLICATION OF SHEA HOMES,
INC.; ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 506 -0- 020 -23, 506 -0- 020 -31,
506 -0- 020 -32, 506 -0- 020 -33, 506 -0- 020 -34
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on March 2, 2004,
the Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment No.
2003 -02, Zone Change No. 2003 -02, Vesting Tentative Tract No.
5425, and Residential Planned Development No. 2003 -02 on the
application of Shea Homes, Inc. for the development of 102
housing units, including the subdivision of approximately 15.13
acres into 3 lots for condominium purposes, located at the
terminus of Fremont Street, south of Los Angeles Avenue and east
of Majestic Court. (Assessor Parcel Nos. 506 -0- 020 -23, 506 -0-
020-31, 506 -0- 020 -32, 506 -0- 020 -33, 506 -0- 020 -34); and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of March 2, 2004, the Planning
Commission considered the agenda report and any supplements
thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing
and took and considered public testimony both for and against
the proposal, and reached a decision on this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTION: An Initial Study and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the
project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and City Policy. The Planning Commission has
reviewed and considered this Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including any comments received, and
recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration by the
City Council.
SECTION 2. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT FINDINGS: Based on the
information set forth in the staff report(s) and accompanying
maps and studies the City Council has determined that the
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2003 \ -02 Shea \Reso- Cond \PC Reso Shea 2.doc
PC ATTACHMENT 4
0"0048
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 2
Vesting Tentative Tract Map, with imposition of the attached
special and standard Conditions of Approval, meets the
requirements of California Government Code Sections 66473.5,
66474, 66474.6, and 66478.1 et seq., in that:
A. The proposed map would be consistent with the City of
Moorpark General Plan and Zoning Ordinance if amended by
General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02 and Zone Change No.
2003 -02 to allow for a density up to 12 units per acre.
B. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision
would be consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan
if amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02 and Zone
Change No. 2003 -02 to allow for a density up to 12 units
per acre.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed in that the site can be engineered to allow for
all required utilities to be brought to the site, adequate
ingress and egress can be obtained, and the site can be
provided with public and emergency services.
D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development, in that all City Development standards would
be met by the proposed project.
E. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage,
in that all potential impacts would be mitigated through
project design or conditions.
F. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements
are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in
that adequate sanitation is both feasible and required as a
condition of this development.
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of the property within
the proposed subdivision, in that reciprocal access
easements for improvements to Fremont Street and for the
site to the east have been identified and incorporated in
the design of this project.
H. There will be no discharge of waste from the proposed
subdivision into an existing community sewer system in
violation of existing water quality control requirements
under Water Code Section 13000 et seq.
I. The proposed subdivision fronts upon a public waterway
(Arroyo Simi) as defined in California Government Code
0CUO49
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 3
Section 66478.1 et seq. Public access easements will be
provided per Conditions of Approval.
SECTION 3. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS: Based upon the
information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying
studies, and oral and written public testimony, the Planning
Commission makes the following findings in accordance with City
of Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.030:
A. The proposed project site design is consistent with the
provisions of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
if amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02 and Zone
Change No. 2003 -02, in that the proposed project will
provide for the orderly development of land identified in
the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as appropriate
for residential development.
B. The proposed project would not create negative impacts on
or impair the utility of properties, structures or uses in
the surrounding area, in that the use proposed is similar
to uses existing or proposed to the north, south, and west,
and access to adjacent uses is not hindered by this
project; and reciprocal access easements will be provided
to the sites to the east.
C. The proposed project is compatible with existing and
permitted uses in the surrounding area, in that the
surrounding existing and future development includes a
variety of single- family attached and detached homes.
SECTION 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
A. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, as amended
by staff, for a change in the Land Use Designation of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan from General
Commercial (C -2) and Medium Density Residential (M) to Very
High Density Residential (VH) and Floodway (FLDWY).
B. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council
approval of Zone Change No. 2003 -02, as amended by staff,
for a change in the zoning from Commercial Planned
Development (CPD) and Single - family Residential (R -1) to
Residential Planned Development twelve (12) dwelling units
per acre (RPD -12u) and Open Space (OS).
C. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5425 for the
subdivision of approximately fifteen (15) acres of land
01,__1 t()050
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 4
into three (3) lots for condominium purposes to develop a
maximum of 102 duplex -style and detached condominiums, a
recreation area, private streets, and future right -of -way
purposes, subject to the special and standard Conditions of
Approval included in Exhibit A (Special and Standard
Conditions of Approval), attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
D. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council
approval of Residential Planned Development Permit No.
2003 -02 for the construction of 102 duplex -style and
detached single- family units subject to the special and
standard Conditions of Approval included in Exhibit A
(Special and Standard Conditions of Approval), attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The Community
Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this
resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in
the book of original resolutions.
The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 2004.
Scott Pozza, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
Exhibit
A:
General Plan
Amendment Map
Exhibit
B:
Zone Change
Map
Exhibit
C:
Special and
Standard Conditions
of Approval for
Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No.
5425
Exhibit
D:
Special and
Standard Conditions
of Approval for
Residential
Planned Development
Permit No. 2003 -02
OC 0051
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page S
EXHIBIT A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MAP
0`,1')052
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 6
EXHIBIT B
y• ._ w� �'�� 5, '�'" w
(ST HWY 118 AVE LOS ANGELES AVENUE
M.;.EST �7
of
<�"'�< 9r !y � � w,�;;ti irr � \ „rth��i)buurvlc".•I'114 ���IL':Ir,l i- .n•� \1n.r JwJ
+'� .r,�y • �, � h.� tit. n Ununt wd4� J.J�:oti. r 1wY I ^v.. n;>tl�
a
Proposed Zoning Designation: OS
Current Zoning Designation: CPO
RE � . V HEIGHTS Si -
. .. BON:TA _
ZONE CHANGE MAP
000053
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 7
EXHIBIT C
SPECIAL AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5425
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5425 is approved per the
submitted tentative map as modified by the conditions
contained in this resolution.
2. Up to a maximum of 102 dwelling units may be developed
under this entitlement.
3. Parking is restricted to one side of the street for "A"
Street %NB " %NC " %%D ,'f NNE," "F," and "G" Drives and
Majestic Court (approval of all street names shall follow
the City's process). "No Stopping" signs shall be
installed at the sole cost of the applicant to the
satisfaction of the Ventura County Fire Prevention District
and the City Engineer.
4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map the applicant
shall provide access through Fremont Street, either through
a reciprocal access agreement or other instrument
acceptable to the Community Development Director and City
Engineer, for the entire length of Fremont Street, from Los
Angeles Avenue to Majestic Court regardless of whether
Fremont Street remains private or public.
5. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for building
permit for the first (1St) dwelling unit of Tract No. 5425 a
plan for the improvement and closure of Fremont Street at
Los Angeles Avenue shall be provided for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Community Development
Director. Fremont Street shall be improved in accordance
with the approved plan prior to issuance of a building
permit of the fiftieth (50th dwelling unit of Tract No.
5425.
6. There shall be no construction traffic on Fremont Street,
except to improve Fremont Street or any lots abutting
Fremont.
7. Prior to occupancy of the first (1St) dwelling unit the
applicant shall construct full street improvements along
the Los Angeles Avenue frontage of Tract No. 5425 and along
the Los Angeles Avenue frontage of the Fremont Street
neighborhood. The improvements shall include, but not be
Of� X054
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 8
limited to, a deceleration lane installed along the south
side of Los Angeles Avenue, west of the northerly entrance
to Tract No. 5425, curb, gutter, sidewalk and a noise
attenuation wall. All improvements shall be subject to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, the
Director of Public Works, the City Engineer and the
California Department of Transportation. Subject to City
Manager approval, the applicant may be allowed to pay the
City the cash equivalent of the cost of such improvements.
8. Prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the Final
Map the applicant shall grant the City with an irrevocable
offer of dedication for vehicular access and drainage
along the entire width of the four (4) streets on the
eastern side of the project to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director and City Engineer.
9. "D" Street shall
thirty -six (36')
approval of the
Engineer. The
irrevocable offer
entire length and
be built to public street standards with a
foot curb -to -curb width, subject to
Community Development Director and City
applicant /developer shall grant an
of dedication for street purposes for the
width of "D" Street.
10. Prior to or concurrently approval of the Final Map the
applicant shall grant the City public access easements to
the Arroyo Simi. The exact location of said easements will
be subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director and the City Engineer.
11. Prior to or concurrently with the approval of the Final Map
the applicant shall pay for the design and installation of
a traffic signal at Millard Street and Los Angeles Avenue,
subject to a design approved by Caltrans. If Caltrans has
not approved the conceptual design for the installation of
a traffic signal at this location prior to the approval of
the Final Map, the applicant shall bond for such
improvements.
12. Vehicular access shall be prohibited to and from Los
Angeles Avenue until such time as full improvements
including, but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk,
paving, street lights, and landscaping, are installed,
accepted and ready for use on Los Angeles Avenue as
required by these Conditions of Approval.
13. Prior to the issuance of any building permit in the FEMA
identified 100 -year floodplain A Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) approved Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) shall be provided to the City Engineer.
000055
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 9
14. The applicant shall provide, as part of the street
improvement plans, a public service easement within the
private streets, subject to approval of the Community
Development Director and City Engineer.
15. The sound wall adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue shall be no
less than eight (81) feet in height, with the final design
and height to be approved by the Community Development
Director.
16. Majestic Court shall be designed with a forty (40') foot
curb -to -curb width. The total right -of -way design shall be
subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director and the City Engineer.
17. Prior to the close of sale of each dwelling unit, the
applicant shall provide a written acknowledgement statement
to the buyer indicating that the buyer is aware that the
dwelling unit is either in the FEMA identified 100 -year
floodplain or may be in it in the future. Additionally,
the acknowledgement shall indicate that the buyer
acknowledges that if the dwelling is in the FEMA identified
100 -year floodplain that the buyer understands that flood
insurance will be required. A copy of each statement shall
be provided to the City and shall be kept as part of the
building permit file.
18. Prior to the approval of a Final Map, if the applicant has
not received a CLOMR from FEMA for the entire site, the
applicant shall add a non - mapping data sheet to the map set
showing the extent of inundation and shall place a
prominent note on the map indicating that no construction
may occur on lots within the floodplain until a CLOMR has
been issued removing the lots from the floodplain.
19. Concurrent with the completion of the southerly block
fence /wall the applicant shall install a gate in the
southern project boundary fence /wall for access to the
Arroyo by the project residents in the event that a trail
is installed along the Arroyo. The gate shall be locked
until such time as a trail is installed and access is
granted.
20. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall pay
an amount to cover the costs associated with a crossing
guard for five years at the then current rate when paid,
plus the pro -rata cost of direct supervision for one
crossing guard location and staff's administrative costs
(calculated at fifteen percent (150) of the above costs).
OCT056
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 10
21. Prior to the release of final building permit for the 102nd
dwelling unit the applicant shall place the overhead power
lines underground on the east side of the Fremont Street
neighborhood and shall pay for the lateral connections to
the houses on either side of Fremont Street. The developer
shall grant a sufficient amount of time, approved by the
Community Development Director and the City Engineer, to
allow for the lateral connections prior to the
undergrounding. Alternatively, if necessary, the developer
shall pay for and the city shall initiate a Rule 210 for
undergrounding of the overhead lines and lateral
connections.
22. The developer shall provide fifteen (15) affordable
dwelling units on site. Nine (9) units shall be reserved
for low income purchasers and six (6) units shall be
reserved for very -low income purchasers. The affordable
dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the tract.
The first eight (8) units (five (5) low income and three
(3) very low income) shall be constructed and ready for
occupancy prior to the fifty- second (52nd) occupancy in
Tract No. 5425 and the next seven ( 7 ) ( four ( 4 ) low income
and three (3) very low income) shall be constructed prior
to the one - hundred - second (102nd) occupancy in Tract No.
5425.
23. The ultimate general plan and zoning boundaries for the
Floodway /Open Space area shall be consistent with the
northerly boundary of the Ventura County Watershed
Protection District wetlands dedication as shown on the
final map of Tract No. 5425.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
A. For compliance with the following conditions contact the
Planning Division of the Community Development Department:
1. The Conditions of Approval of this Tentative Tract Map and
all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, City of Moorpark
Ordinances and adopted City policies at the time of
tentative map approval supersede all conflicting notations,
specifications, dimensions, typical sections and the like
which may be shown on said map.
2. Recordation of this subdivision shall be deemed to be
acceptance by the Applicant and his /her heirs, assigns, and
successors of the conditions of this Map. A notation which
references Conditions of Approval shall be included on the
0 0, o0s'i
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 11
Final Map in a format acceptable to the Community
Development Director.
3. This Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall expire three (3)
years from the date of its approval. The Community
Development Director may, at his /her discretion, grant up
to two (2) additional one (1) year extensions for map
recordation, if there have been no changes in the adjacent
areas and if Applicant can document that he /she has
diligently worked towards map recordation during the
initial period of time. The request for extension of this
entitlement shall be made in writing, at least thirty (30)
days prior to the expiration date of this approval.
4. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim,
action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul
any approval by the City or any of its agencies,
departments, commissions, agents, officers, or employees
concerning the subdivision, which claim, action or
proceeding is brought within the time period provided
therefore in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City
will promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim,
action or proceeding, and, if the City should fail to do so
or should fail to cooperate fully in the defense, the
Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents,
officers and employees pursuant to this condition.
a. The City may, within its unlimited discretion,
participate in the defense of any such claim, action
or proceeding if both of the following occur:
i. The City bears its own attorney fees and costs;
ii. The City defends the claim, action or proceeding
in good faith.
b. The Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform
any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding
unless the settlement is approved by the Applicant.
The Applicant's obligations under this condition shall
apply regardless of whether a Final Map is ultimately
recorded with respect to the subdivision.
5. 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. All mitigation measures are
OI0005N
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 12
requirements of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and
Residential Planned Development Permit, as applicable.
6. If any of the conditions or limitations of this approval
are held to be invalid, that holding shall not invalidate
any of the remaining conditions or limitations set forth.
7. Where conflict or duplication between the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the Conditions
of Approval occurs and applicability for compliance is
questioned by the Applicant, the Community Development
Director shall determine the applicable condition
compliance requirements for each phase of development.
8. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, the Applicant shall
submit to the Community Development Department and the City
Engineer for review a current title report which clearly
states all interested parties and lenders included within
the limits of the subdivision as well as any easements that
affect the subdivision.
9. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Applicant shall pay
to the City a fee for the image conversion of the final map
and improvement plans, as determined by the Community
Development Director, into an electronic imaging format
acceptable to the City Clerk.
10. The Applicant shall pay all outstanding case processing
(Planning and Engineering), and all applicable City legal
service fees within sixty (60) days of approval of this
Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The Applicant, permittee, or
successors in interest shall also submit to the Department
of Community Development a fee to cover costs incurred by
the City for condition compliance review of the Tentative
Map.
11. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading,
Applicant shall submit a complete Landscape 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 grading
permit, or first Final Map approval, whichever occurs
first. The Landscape Plan shall conform to the latest City
of Moorpark Landscape Guidelines and Standards.
12. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading
the Applicant shall submit to the Community Development
Director for review and approval a fencing, perimeter,
0`.:!13059
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 13
gate, and privacy barrier wall plan, complete with related
landscaping details, identifying the materials to be used
and proposed wall heights and. All fences /walls along lot
boundaries shall be in place prior to occupancy of each
lot, 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 Applicant 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 that comprises existing walls and
or fences that are to be connected to the project perimeter
wall.
13. The Applicant 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 for review and approval
by the Community Development Director.
14. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant 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.
15. If required by a Special Condition of Approval, an
Assessment District [herein "Back -Up District "] shall be
formed to fund future City costs, should they occur, for
the maintenance of Parkway Landscaping, median landscaping
or Drainage Improvements previously maintained by a Private
Responsible Party and then assumed by the City. If a Back -
Up District is formed, it shall be the intent of the City
to approve the required assessment each year, but to only
levy that portion of the assessment necessary to recover
any past City costs or any anticipated City costs for the
following fiscal year. In the event the City is never
required to assume the maintenance of any such improvements
maintained by a Private Responsible Party, the amount of
the annual assessment actually levied upon the affected
properties would be minor amount, possibly zero. The City
shall administer the annual renewal of the Back -Up District
and any costs related to such administration shall be
charged to the Fund established for such district revenues
and expenses.
OC. OGO
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 14
16. When it has been determined that it is necessary to form an
Assessment District (including a Back -Up District), the
applicant shall be required to undertake and complete the
following:
a. At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the
planned recordation of any Final Map or the issuance
of any Zoning Clearance for building permit, which
ever comes first:
i. submit the final draft plans for any irrigation,
landscaping or Drainage Improvements [herein
"Maintained Areas "] to be maintained by the
Assessment District (including a required Back -Up
District), along with any required plan checking
fees;
ii. submit a check in the amount of $5,000 as an
advance to cover the cost of Assessment
Engineering for the formation of the Assessment
District [Note: Developer shall be required to
pay for all final actual assessment engineering
costs related to the Assessment District
formation along with City administrative costs.];
b. At least sixty (60) days prior to the planned
recordation of any Final Map or the issuance of any
Zoning Clearance for building permit, which ever comes
first, submit to the City the completed, "City
approved" plans for the Maintained Areas (landscaping,
irrigation and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Drainage Improvements);
C. Prior to the planned recordation of any Final Map or
the issuance of any Zoning Clearance for building
permit, which ever comes first, submit to the City a
signed Petition and Waiver requesting formation of the
Assessment District [Note: The Petition and Waiver
shall have attached to it as Exhibit `A' the City
approved final draft Engineer's Report prepared by the
Assessment Engineer retained by the City.]
17. Prior to Final Map approval, the City Council shall
determine which areas shall be maintained by a maintenance
assessment district.
18. Within two (2) days after the City Council adoption of a
resolution approving this project, the Applicant shall
submit to the City of Moorpark a check for of one- thousand-
one- hundred -fifty dollars ($1,250.00) plus a check for a
twenty -five dollar ($25.00) filing fee, both payable to the
p£:f`061
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 15
County of Ventura, to comply witr
the management and protection
Wildlife Trust Resources. Pursuant
Section 21089, and Fish and Game
project is not operative, vested
fees are paid.
Assembly Bill 3158, for
of Statewide Fish and
to Public Resources Code
Code Section 711.4, the
r final until the filing
19. The 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.
20. During construction, the Applicant 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. The Applicant 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 the
Applicant a list of Cable Franchisees upon the Applicant's
request.
21. Prior to approval of Zoning Clearance for residential unit
building permit, the Applicant shall pay fees in accordance
with Section 8297 -4 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance
(Parks and Recreation Facilities).
B. For compliance with the following conditions please contact
the City Engineer:
General Conditions:
22. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map the Applicant
shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion of all
site improvements within the development and offsite
improvements required by the conditions as described herein
000 062
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 16
(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.
23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or prior to the
approval of a Final Map the Applicant 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. All existing and proposed utilities shall be under grounded
as approved by the City Engineer. This also includes all
existing above ground power lines adjacent to the project
site that are less than 67Kv.
27. 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.
28. The Applicant shall provide all easements and rights -of -way
granted to the City free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances.
29. Prior to any work being conducted within any State, County,
or City right -of -way, the Applicant shall obtain all
necessary encroachment permits from the appropriate
Agencies. Copies of these approved permits shall be
provided to the City Engineer.
30. Prior to the approval of Final Map the Applicant shall
submit to the Community Development Department and the
City Engineer for review a current title report, which
clearly states all interested parties and lenders included
0 C fl) 06a
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 17
within the limits of the subdivision as well as any
easements that affect the subdivision.
31. Any mapping that requires review and approval by the County
of Ventura shall be concurrently submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. The Applicant shall be
responsible for all associated fees and review costs.
32. The Final Map shall be prepared by a California Registered
Engineer meeting all of the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act.
33. Any lot -to -lot drainage easements and secondary drainage
easement shall be delineated on the Final Map. Assurance in
the form of an agreement shall be provided to the City that
these easements shall be adequately maintained by property
owners to safely convey storm water flows. Said agreement
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval and shall include provisions for the owners
association to maintain any private storm drain or National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System, hereinafter NPDES
system not maintained by a City Assessment District and
shall be a durable agreement that is binding upon each
future property owner of each lot.
34. On the Final Map, the Applicant shall offer to dedicate to
the City of Moorpark all rights -of -way for public streets.
35. Prior to submittal of the Final Map for review and
approval, the Applicant shall transmit by certified mail a
copy of the conditionally approved Vesting Tentative Map
together with a copy of Section 66436 of .he State
Subdivision Map Act to each public entity or public utility
that is an easement holder of record. Written evidence of
compliance shall be submitted to the City Engineer.
36. 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.
37. Reactive organic compounds, Nitrogen oxides (ozone /smog
precursor), and particulate matter (aerosols /dust)
generated during construction operations shall be minimized
in accordance with the City of Moorpark standards and the
standards of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District. When an air pollution Health Advisory has been
issued, construction equipment operations (including but
not limited to grading, excavating, earthmoving, trenching,
0-0064
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 18
material hauling, and roadway construction) and related
activities shall cease in order to minimize associated air
pollutant emissions.
38. 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
39. To minimize the water quality effects of permanent erosion
sources, appropriate 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.
40. The following measures shall be implemented during all
construction activities throughout build out of the project
to minimize the impacts of project - related noise in the
vicinity of the proposed project site:
a. Construction activities shall be limited to between
the following hours: a) 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 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 the
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
000065
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 19
possible from or otherwise shielded from existing
surrounding rural residential neighborhoods.
f. Property owners and residents located within six -
hundred feet (600') 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 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.
41. The Applicant shall submit to the City of Moorpark for
review and approval, a rough grading plan, consistent with
the approved Vesting Tentative Map, 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.
42. The final grading plan shall meet all Uniform Building Code
(UBC) and City of Moorpark standards including slope
setback requirements at lot lines, streets and adjacent to
offsite lots.
43. 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 thirty (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.
44. 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
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 20
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 shall be implemented immediately.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. So as to reduce debris from entering sidewalk and streets,
the approved grading plan shall show a slough wall,
approximately eighteen (18 ") inches high, with curb outlet
drainage to be constructed behind the back of the sidewalk
where slopes exceeding four (41) feet in height are
adjacent to sidewalk. The Applicant 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.
48. During site preparation and construction, the Applicant
shall minimize disturbance of natural groundcover on the
project site until such activity is required for grading
and construction purposes.
49. 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.
50. 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 Engineer shall be notified immediately. Work
0010067
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 21
shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of
these agencies.
51. The Applicant shall utilize all prudent and reasonable
measures (including installation of a six (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.
52. Backfill of any pipe or conduit shall be in four (4 ") inch
fully compacted layers unless otherwise specified by the
City Engineer.
53. Soil testing for trench compaction shall be performed on
all trenching and shall be done not less than once every
two (2') feet of lift and one - hundred (100) lineal feet of
trench excavated. Test locations shall be noted using
street stationing with offsets from street centerlines.
54. All vehicles in the construction area shall observe a
fifteen -mile per hour (15 mph) speed limit for the
construction area at all times.
55. During site preparation and construction, the Applicant
shall construct temporary storm water diversion structures
per City of Moorpark standards.
56. The entire site shall be graded at the same time. Pads
shall be graded, planted and landscaped to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
57. Prior to submittal of grading plans the Applicant shall
have a geotechnical report prepared to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
Oct)068
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 22
61. Monuments shall meet the City of Moorpark, County of
Ventura Standards and shall be to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
62. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for
construction for each residential unit, the Applicant shall
make a contribution to the Moorpark Traffic Systems
Management (TSM) Fund, on a per unit rate, to fund TSM
programs or clean -fuel vehicles programs as determined by
the City. The rate shall be calculated per Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District guidelines in force at the
time of issuance of the first Zoning Clearance. Commencing
annually thereafter the Air Quality Fee shall be adjusted
by any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) until all
fees have been paid. The CPI increase shall be determined
by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for all urban consumers
within the Los Angeles /Anaheim /Riverside metropolitan area
during the prior year. The calculation shall be made using
the month of December over the prior month of December. In
the event there is a decrease in the CPI for any annual
indexing, the fee shall remain at its then current amount
until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing
which results in an increase.
63. As a condition of the issuance of a building permit for
each residential unit, Developer shall pay City a traffic
mitigation fee as described herein ( "Citywide Traffic
Fee "). The Citywide Traffic Fee may be expended by the City
in its sole and unfettered discretion. On the effective
date of approval of this map, the amount of the Citywide
Traffic Fee shall be four- thousand - three - hundred - eighty-
nine dollars ($4,389) per dwelling unit. Commencing
January 1, 2005, 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 az its then
current amount until such time as the next subsequent
annual indexing which results in an increase.
64. 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
00.0069
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 23
of building permit application. The AOC Fee shall be paid
prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for each building
permit.
65. Prior to or concurrently with the Final Map and prior to
any construction on State Highways an encroachment permit
shall be obtained from Caltrans. Any additional rights -of-
way required to implement the approved design for this work
in the Caltrans right -of -way, including slope easements for
future grading, shall be acquired by the Applicant and
dedicated to the State in a manner acceptable to Caltrans
and the City Engineer. All required dedications shall be
illustrated on the Final Map. Proof of encroachment or
other non -City permits and bonds shall be provided to the
City Engineer prior to the start of any grading or
construction activities.
66. Prior to or concurrently with the Final Map and prior to
any construction for all streets, except for those under
the jurisdiction of Caltrans the Applicant shall submit to
the City of Moorpark for review and approval, street
improvement plans prepared by a California Registered Civil
Engineer, enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark
to complete public improvements, and post sufficient surety
guaranteeing the construction of all improvements. Public
streets shall conform to City of Moorpark requirements
including all applicable Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requirements. Street improvements shall be acceptable
to the City Engineer and Community Development Director.
67. All streets shall conform to the design requirements of the
Ventura County Road Standards (most recent revision),
unless noted otherwise in the conditions.
68. The street improvements shall include concrete curb and
gutter, street lights, and signing, striping, interim
striping and traffic control, paving, and any necessary
transitions, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
City Engineer and the Community Development Director shall
approve all driveway locations. The Applicant shall
dedicate any additional right -of -way necessary to make all
of the required improvements.
69. Driveways shall be designed in accordance with the latest
American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards.
70. 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 three and one -half (3.5')
0 C(110 "to
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 24
feet clear sidewalk width must be provided around the
obstruction.
71. The Applicant 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.
72. Any right -of -way acquisition necessary to complete the
required improvements shall be acquired by the Applicant at
the Applicant's expense.
73. Street lights shall be provided on the improvement plans
per Ventura County Standards and as approved by the City
Engineer. Prior to Final Map recordation, the Applicant
shall pay all energy costs associated with public street
lighting for a period of one (1) year from the acceptance
of the street improvements.
74. The Applicant shall make a pro -rata contribution to the
mitigation of cumulative regional drainage deficiencies,
should the City adopt such a program prior to issuance of
the first building permit.
75. Prior to or concurrently with the Final Map the Applicant
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.
76. The plans shall depict all on -site and off -site drainage
structures required by the City.
77. 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.
78. Hydrology shall be per the current Ventura County Flood
Control Standards except as follows:
a. All storm drains shall carry a ten (10) year frequency
storm.
b. All catch basins shall carry a ten (10) year frequency
storm.
00 00"1 1
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 25
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 one - hundred (100) year
frequency storm.
79. Surface flows shall be intercepted, detained and given
sufficient time to provide storm water clarification by
% %passive" Best Management Practice (BMP) systems prior to
entering collector or storm drain systems.
80. Under a ten (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 one (1) dry travel lane in
each direction.
81. "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 take care
of storm water flows shall be provided to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
82. Drainage grates shall not be used at any location
accessible by pedestrian, bicycle or equestrian traffic.
83. The grading plan shall also show contours indicating the
fifty- and one - hundred (50 & 100) year flood levels.
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. In order to comply with California Regional Water Quality
Control Board requirements, no curb outlets will be allowed
for pad drainage onto the street. The Applicant shall
inform all new and future homeowners that future
OU00 i2
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 26
improvements such as pool construction or other private
improvements require observance of the same requirements.
This notification agreement shall be acknowledged by each
homeowner and recorded with each.
87. 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.
88. 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 Applicant shall make any downstream
improvements, required by the City, to support the proposed
development.
89. 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.
90. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the Applicant
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 one - hundred (100) year
frequency storm.
b. Feasible access during a fifty (50) year frequency
storm.
C. Hydrology calculations shall be per current Ventura
County Flood Control Standards.
d. All structures proposed within the one - hundred (100)
year flood zone shall be elevated at least one foot
above the one - hundred (100) year flood level.
91. The Applicant 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.
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 27
92. 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 eight (8') feet. In addition, all
facilities shall have all - weather vehicular access. This
design shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
93. 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.
94. The Applicant 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).
95. Prior to the issuance of any construction /grading permit
and /or the commencement of any clearing, grading or
excavation, the Applicant shall submit a Storm Water
Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP) to be developed and
implemented in accordance with requirements of the Ventura
Countywide Storm Water Quality Management Program, NPDES
Permit No. CAS004002, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
96. Prior to the issuance of any construction /grading permit
and /or the commencement of any clearing, grading or
excavation, the Applicant shall also submit a Notice of
Intent (NOI) to the California State Water Resources
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
Applicant shall comply with all requirements of this
General Permit including preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
97. The Applicant 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 one
or more acres." The Applicant shall submit a copy of the
Notice of Intent (NOI) to the City Engineers office as
proof of permit application.
0000"M
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 28
98. The Applicant shall also comply with NPDES objectives as
outlined in the "Storm Water Pollution Control Guidelines
for Construction Sites."
99. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant shall 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.
100. 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.
101. Prior to the starting of grading or any ground disturbance
the Applicant shall designate 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 forty
percent (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 Applicant 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 eight (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.
102. 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
0U J0'75
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 29
interest sufficient for such purposes, the Applicant shall
do all of the following at least sixty (60) days prior to
the filing of the Final 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
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.
103. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first
residence a copy of the recorded Map(s) shall be forwarded
to the City Engineer for filing, and a final grading
certification shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer.
104. Prior to acceptance of public improvements and bond
exoneration reproducible centerline tie sheets shall be
submitted to the City Engineer's office.
105. Prior to acceptance of public improvements and bond
exoneration 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 (1)
year following acceptance by the City.
106. Prior to acceptance of public improvements and bond
exoneration original "as built" plans shall be certified by
the Applicant's Registered Civil Engineer and submitted
with two sets of blue prints to the City Engineer's office.
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
OC -00:6
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 30
36 ", they shall be resubmitted as "record drawings" in a
series of 22" X 36" mylar sheets (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.
C. For compliance with the following conditions please contact
the Ventura County Fire Department:
107. Prior to combustible construction, an all weather access
road /driveway suitable for use by a twenty (20) ton Ventura
County Fire Protection District (Fire District) vehicle
shall be installed.
108. All access roads /driveways shall have a minimum vertical
clearance of thirteen feet six inches (13'6 ").
109. Approved turnaround areas for fire apparatus shall be
provided when dead -end Fire District access roads /driveways
exceed one - hundred -fifty (150') feet. Turnaround areas
shall not exceed a two and one -half percent (2.5 %) cross
slope in any direction and shall be located within one -
hundred -fifty (150') feet of the end of the access
road /driveway.
110. Public and private roads shall be named if serving more
than four (4) parcels.
111. Prior to recordation of street names, proposed names shall
be submitted to the Fire District's Communications Center
for review.
112. 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.
113. Address numbers, a minimum of four (4 ") 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 one -
hundred -fifty (150') feet 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 posed adjacent
to the driveway entrance.
O CI C30':'7
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 31
114. Prior to or concurrently with the submittal of plans for
building permits a plan shall be submitted to the Fire
District for review and approval indicating the method in
which buildings are to be identified by address numbers.
115. Prior to construction, the Applicant shall submit plans to
the Fire District for placement of fire hydrants. On
plans, show existing hydrants within five - hundred (500')
feet of the development. Indicate the type of hydrant,
number and size of outlets.
116. Prior to combustible construction fire hydrants shall be
installed and in service and shall conform to the minimum
standards of the City of Moorpark Water Works Manual.
117. 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,
hydrant location markers shall still be installed and shall
be replaced when the final asphalt cap is completed.
118. 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
one - thousand (1,000) gallons per minute at twenty (20) psi.
119. A copy of all recorded maps shall be provided to the Fire
District within seven (7) days of recordation of said map.
D. For compliance with the following conditions please contact
the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1:
120. 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.
O .00W
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 32
g. Signed Contract to install all improvements and a
Surety Bond.
121. 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.
E. For compliance with the following conditions please contact
the Ventura County Watershed Protection District:
122. No direct storm drain connections to Ventura County
Watershed Protection District facilities shall be allowed
without appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) for
compliance with Ventura Countywide Stormwater Program.
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 33
Exhibit D
SPECIAL AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPD) 2003 -02
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. Residential Planned Development No. 2003 -02 is approved per
the submitted site plan as modified by the conditions
contained in this resolution.
2. Enhanced landscaping valued at $177,872.00 ($47,548.00 for
Tract No. 5425 and $130,324.00 for Tract No. 5133) shall be
distributed over both projects (Tract Nos. 5425 and 5133)
and the recreation area to create a balanced and unified
atmosphere in the development. Should this tract not be
developed, the conditions of Tract No. 5133 would remain in
full force. Should Tract No. 5133 not be developed,
enhanced landscaping valued at $47,548.00 shall be
installed.
24. A recreation building, a swimming pool, and a play area
with equipment shall be required within the recreation
area. The final design and architecture shall be subject
to the approval of the Community Development Director prior
to or concurrently with the approval of the landscape
plans.
3. Any future homeowner improvements to the individual homes
and the exclusive use area shall follow the City's RPD
(residential planned development) zone Development
Standards. Said standards shall be incorporated into the
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for this project.
4. There shall be no development allowed in the front yards of
the individual homes and exclusive use areas. This
includes, but is not limited to, fences, lighting,
pilasters and fountains.
5. The front setback for each unit shall not be less than
eighteen (181) feet.
6. The rear setback for each unit shall not be less than
thirteen (131) feet.
7. There shall be no less than three (3') feet of clearance
between block walls and allowable interior protrusions.
8. The sound wall adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue shall be no
less than eight (8') feet in height, with the final design
0UI01080
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 34
and height to be approved by the Community Development
Director, subject to ultimate pad elevations.
9. A fence /wall plan shall be required. Location, design,
material and height of all fences and walls shall be
approved by the Community Development Director. Interior
walls shall be a minimum height of six (6') feet from the
highest finished grade.
10. A solid decorative block wall, a minimum of six (6') feet
in height from the highest finished grade, shall be
installed along the western boundary of the site, adjacent
to the Fremont Street tract. The final design, including
wall heights, retaining walls and sound walls, shall be
subject to approval by the Community Development Director.
11. The landscape plan shall incorporate, to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director, natural vegetation
in the transition area to the Arroyo at the southern
portion of the development.
12. Architectural enhancements, such as window reveals and
plant -ons shall be required on side and rear elevations
subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
13. The detached housing units shall include articulation of
the side walls, to avoid having an entire side of the
building on a single plane, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
A. For compliance with the following conditions please contact
the Community Development Department:
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 ".
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. All conditions of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5425
shall apply to this residential planned development permit.
3. Unless the Residential Development Permit is inaugurated
(building foundation slab in place and substantial work in
progress) not later than three (3) years after this permit
00.0081
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 35
is granted, this permit shall automatically expire on that
date. The Community Development Director may, at his /her
discretion, grant up to two (2) 1 -year extensions 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 and the Applicant has
concurrently requested a time extension to the Tentative
Tract Map. The request for extension of this entitlement
shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration date of the permit.
4. Prior to occupancy of each dwelling unit the Applicant
shall install front yard landscaping as approved on the
landscape plans.
5. 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 two - hundred (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 these approved
conditions and Zoning Code requirements.
6. All air conditioning or air exchange equipment shall be
placed at ground level, may not be placed in a sideyard
setback area within fifteen (151) feet of an opening window
at ground floor level of any residential structure, and
shall not reduce the required sideyards to less than five
(5') feet of level ground.
7. 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.
8. Garages shall maintain a clear unobstructed dimension of
twenty (20') feet in length and ten (10') feet in width for
each parking stall provided with a minimum of two garage -
parking stalls required for each dwelling unit.
9. 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
OCVOS2
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 36
street or drives in non - corrosive devices as determined by
the City Engineer.
10. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for
construction, working drawings, grading and drainage plans,
plot plans, final map (if requested by the Community
Development Director), sign programs, and landscaping and
irrigation plans (three full sets) shall be submitted to
the Community Development Director for review and approval.
B. For compliance with the following conditions please contact
the Engineering Division:
11. The City Engineering Conditions of Approval for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 5425 apply to Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2003 -02.
C. For compliance with the following conditions please contact
the Ventura County Fire Department:
12. All conditions of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5425
shall apply.
D. For compliance with the following conditions please contact
the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1:
13. All conditions of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5425
shall apply.
E. For compliance with the following conditions please contact
the Police Department:
14. 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
space design features incorporated into the project shall
occur prior to initiation of the building plan check
process.
0000b3
Resolution No. PC -2004-
Page 37
F. For compliance with the following conditions please contact
the Moorpark Unified School District:
15. 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.
-End-
0CC�OF4