Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2004 0406 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2004 -455 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY - APRIL 6, 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 March 16, 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 item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the Community Development Department/ Planning and are available for public review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the Community Development Department at 517 -6233. \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2004 \04_0406_pca.doc Planning Commission Agenda April 6, 2004 Page No. 2 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. 2004 -455) A. 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) (Continued from March 16, 2004 Meeting) Staff Recommendation: 1) Accept public testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and 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. B. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02, 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 March 16, 2004 Meeting) Staff Recommendation: 1) Continue to accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Accept the requested change to the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 with revisions, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02. Planning Commission Agenda April 6, 2004 Page No. 3 C. Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03, a Request for a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on an Existing Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility Tower, with Proposed Underground Equipment, Located South of Tierra Rejada Road and Southwest of Brookhurst Court. Applicant: Wireless Facilities, Inc. for Cinaular Wireless. (APN: 506 -0- 010 -615) Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03, subject to conditions. 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Consider Recommendation to City Council on Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.) A. April 20, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting: • Residential Planned Development Permit Nos. 2002 -03, -04 & -05, (Specific Plan 2, Pardee) 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 March 16, 2004 Paae 1 1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March 2 16, 2004, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center; 3 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021. 4 1. CALL TO ORDER: 5 Chair Pozza called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. 6 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7 Commissioner Landis 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 Barry Hogan, Community 12 Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; 13 Walter Brown, Assistant City Engineer; and Gail Rice, 14 Administrative Secretary. 15 Also attending the meeting was Dana Privitt from BonTerra 16 Consulting. 17 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 18 None. 19 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 20 None. 21 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 22 A. Regular Meeting Minutes of March 2, 2004. 23 MOTION: Vice Chair Lauletta moved and Commissioner DiCecco 24 seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular 25 Meeting Minutes of March 2, 2004, be approved. (Motion 26 carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 27 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 28 None. \ \m0r_pr:_Sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04_0316_pcm.doc 0 �T`l.0 1 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paqe 2 1 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2 (next Resolution No. 2004 -454) 3 A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone 4 Change No. 2003 -02, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5425, 5 and Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 2003- 6 02, a Request to Subdivide Approximately 15 Acres for 7 Condominium Purposes to Develop 102 Duplex-Style and 8 Detached Condominium Dwellings and a Recreation 9 Facility, Located at the Terminus of Fremont Street, 10 South of Los Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118) and East of 11 Majestic Court, on the Application of Shea Homes, 12 Inc.; (506 -0- 020 -23, 506 -0- 020 -31, 506 -0- 020 -32, 506- 13 0- 020 -33, 506 -0- 020 -34) (Continued from March 2, 2004 14 Meeting) 15 Staff Recommendation: Accept public testimony and 16 continue the item with the public hearing open to 17 April 6, 2004. 18 Barry Hogan presented the agenda report and stated 19 that the applicant had requested a two week 20 continuance to allow additional review of the 21 Conditions of Approval with staff. 22 Ro Hawkinson, resident, representing the Fremont 23 Street Homeowner's group, questioned the status and 24 location of the recreation facility. He commented on 25 the fence height around the property and requested 26 that it be a minimum of eight feet high. 27 Mr. Hogan responded to Mr. Hawkinson, stating the 28 recreation area was no longer proposed to be adjacent 29 to the property on Fremont Street and was placed at 30 the elbow where Majestic Street turns north. He stated 31 normal fence height was six feet, which could vary to 32 eight feet in some areas. Mr. Hogan stated that the 33 issue would be further discussed at the April 6 34 meeting. 35 One statement card was submitted which was neutral on 36 the project. The statement will be included in the 37 record. 38 \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \09 0316 pcm.doc 10(10002 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 3 1 Mr. Hogan stated the trees on Fremont Street would not 2 survive the amount of fill required for this project 3 and would be removed. 4 MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Vice Chair 5 Lauletta seconded a motion to approve staff 6 recommendation. 7 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 8 B. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific 9 Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02, for 10 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally 11 North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land 12 Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal 13 Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN: 14 500 -0 -120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, - 15 145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, - 16 235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, - 17 145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0 -110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150- 18 185) (Continued from March 2, 2004 Meeting) 19 Staff Recommendation: 1) Continue to accept public 20 testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt 21 Resolution No. 2004- recommending to the City 22 Council certification of the Final Environmental 23 Impact Report and approval of General Plan Amendment 24 No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 with revisions, 25 and Zone Change No. 2001 -02. 26 David Bobardt gave the staff presentation. He stated 27 that staff was in receipt of correspondence from 28 Lowell Preston of the Fox Canyon Groundwater 29 Management Agency which indicated satisfaction with 30 the water quality analysis for this project. He also 31 commented that a large quantity of new material had 32 been distributed, and the public had requested 33 additional time to review it. He suggested that the 34 Commission might wish to consider keeping the public 35 hearing open to the April 6 meeting. 36 He also commented on corrections that were needed to 37 the agenda report, which were: Bottom of stamp page 38 23, "Current Urban Restriction Boundary" should say 39 "City Urban Restriction Boundary "; stamp page 24 - \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \09 0316 pcm.doc 0C 003 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 4 1 third bullet item can be deleted because there is no 2 property identified as prime agricultural land; stamp 3 pages 34 and 35, Exhibits B -1 and B -2 have a minor 4 error with respect to the exiting CURB boundary 5 regarding a parcel adjacent to Highway 23. 6 The Commission questioned staff regarding the 150 7 multi - family units reserved for low income or 8 affordable housing, the Broadway extension and a west 9 road terminus. 10 At 7 :30 p.m. Commissioner DiCecco left the dais, 11 returning at 7:42 p.m. 12 The Commission continued to question staff regarding 13 east and west access to this project, applicant and 14 staff's concurrence on mixed uses, the inclusion of a 15 neighborhood center, and concerns with zoning. 16 Kim Kilkenny, applicant, addressed the timing of the 17 intersection improvements; the grading schedule and 18 building permits; the interchange schedule and 19 applicant's commitment to the City; Planning Area 31 20 and concurrence with staff's recommendations; 21 clarification of school impact fees to be paid to 22 MUSD, the Commission's recommendation for inclusion of 23 a western extension to the project, and that an 24 affordable housing agreement will help decide the 25 mixed uses. 26 James Roller, resident, not in support of the 27 proposal, commented on excavation quantities, the 28 Ventura County Health Department Pamphlet he 29 distributed, and disturbance of contaminated soil. He 30 also requested a Phase II toxicology study be 31 performed. 32 Rick Katz, resident, spoke in support of the proposal, 33 commenting on the Planning Commission's diligence and 34 the developer's continuous efforts for the past six 35 months. He stated that this project should go forward 36 for the people's vote. 37 Suzanne Wilson, resident, not in support of the 38 proposal, stated her concerns regarding oil and gas 39 leases including building near and over well sites and 40 the supervision of clean up within the site and on \ \mor_pri sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0316 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 5 1 adjacent areas. She expressed concern for leaks, and 2 questioned process for soil sampling. 3 David Bagwell, resident, spoke in support of the 4 proposal and commented that the stages of planning for 5 this project have gone well and that CALOSHA could 6 apply restrictions on the development if there is soil 7 disturbance. He stated there is a need for housing in 8 California. 9 Janet Murphy, resident, not in support of the 10 proposal, commented on the mitigation monitoring 11 program for the project, requesting that the 12 Commission continue the hearing so that the public 13 could fully review the new materials. She stated that 14 the Mitigation Monitoring Program failed for a vernal 15 pool in the Carlsberg project. She also stated the 16 City should save open space and that the questions on 17 the oil wells were important. 18 Tim Saivar, resident, not in support of the proposal, 19 requested the Commission not certify the EIR at this 20 time due to the additional materials provided. He 21 commented on concerns related to western access and 22 traffic. He discussed Level of Service issues at 23 Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive . He commented 24 that the shopping center and college improvements 25 would increase traffic. He stated the interchange at 26 the 118 freeway has not been done due to lack of funds 27 and there was no guarantee by Caltrans for the 28 improvements to the intersection. 29 Dorothy Ventiamiglia, resident, not in support of the 30 proposal, stated her concerns about hazardous waste 31 and an e -mail she sent to the City regarding toxic 32 exposure at Beverly Hills High School and an alleged 33 cover -up. She stated there were new laws or guidelines 34 coming up that would govern this project, and that new 35 schools would have to be built on higher standards due 36 to the close proximity of the children and that the 37 homes should be built to a higher standard. 38 Lisa Leal, resident, spoke in support of the proposal 39 and commented on that the issues mentioned by the 40 speakers tonight had been reviewed many times by staff 41 and the Commission. She stated she was not in favor of \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \09 0316 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 6 1 the Hidden Creek project and that North Park had more 2 to offer Moorpark, such as the fire station, helipad 3 and offramp. She commented on complaints about the 4 dirt in the air, stating if that were a concern then 5 no homes would be built. She stated this was an 6 excellent project and it was time to move forward. 7 Eight written statement cards were submitted and seven 8 were in favor and one was opposed to the project. The 9 statements will be included in the record. 10 The Commission questioned staff and the applicant on a 11 number of issues, including continuing the matter to 12 the April 6, 2004 Planning Commission meeting to 13 resolve a few outstanding issues such as the western 14 access to the project, project amenities if the 15 interchange is not completed, the Collins Road and 16 Campus Park improvements schedule, east and west 17 access below the lake due to gates, completing 18 improvements prior to issuance of grading permits, and 19 issues related to Caltrans permits. 20 Mr. Hogan clarified that the intent was to start 21 processing the interchange with Caltrans as early in 22 the project as possible, and that Caltrans already had 23 the interchange included in their master plan, and 24 that the developer had committed to funding it through 25 a Community Facilities District, unlike other Caltrans 26 projects that are not moving forward because they are 27 State funded. 28 The Commission continued with their comments on the 29 attachments to the packet: 30 • Page 58 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program 31 indicates a 12 -acre school site. It should be 18- 32 acres, "Elementary" should be eliminated and shown 33 as a "school site ". 34 • A letter from APCD missing from the Response to 35 Comments 36 • Comparison of letters 6 and 7 37 • Page 59 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program 38 information should be added for the Phase II Report, 39 indicating that the City should review and approve 40 the scope of work and sampling plan. \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0316 pcm.doC 0CIC;o0G Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 7 1 Mr. Bobardt requested the Commission keep their 2 attachments so they may be used at the April 6, 2004 3 meeting. 4 MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner 5 Peskay seconded a motion to continue the public 6 hearing open to the Planning Commission Regular 7 Meeting on April 6, 2004. 8 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 9 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 10 A. Consider City of Moorpark, Mission Statement 11 Priorities, Goals, and Objectives, FY 2004/2005 12 Staff Recommendation: Consider City of Moorpark, 13 Mission Statement, Priorities, Goals, and Objectives, 14 FY 2004/2005 for discussion at the March 24, 2004 15 Special Joint City Council /Planning Commission 16 meeting. 17 Mr. Hogan conducted a brief review with the Commission 18 on the top ten items that were Community Development 19 Department's responsibility and the status on each. 20 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: 21 (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.) 22 A. March 24, 2004, Special Joint City Council /Planning 23 Commission Meeting 24 • City Goals and Objectives 25 C. April 6, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting: 26 • General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone Change No. 27 2003 -02, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5425, and 28 Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 2003 -02 29 (Shea) 30 • Residential Planned Development No. 2002 -03, -04, - 31 05, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -01 (SP -2; 32 Tract No. 5045) (Morrison /Fountainwood /Agoura and 33 Pardee Construction Company) 34 • Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03, a Request to 35 Place a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on an \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0316 pcm.doc o�v�oo•7 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 - IE - :3 1 Existing SCE Utility Pole, with Proposed Equipment 2 Located Underground (Cingular) 3 • Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines 4 Mr. Hogan discussed future agenda items. 5 10. ADJOURNMENT: 6 MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Vice Chair Lauletta 7 seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. 8 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 9 The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. 10 11 12 ATTEST: Scott Pozza, Chair 13 14 Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \09 0316 pcm.doc Oollla'1008 ITEM: 8.A. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission 30 FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director Oz Prepared By: Joseph F. Fiss, Principal Planner DATE: March 26, 2004 (PC Meeting of 4/6/2004) SUBJECT: 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) DISCUSSION 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 public hearing for this project was opened by the Planning Commission on March 2, 2004, and public comments were received. The hearing was continued to March 16, 2004, at the request of the applicant, to allow for discussion of the recommended Conditions of Approval with staff. Prior to the March 16, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting, the applicant requested another extension, with the hearing open, to April 6, 2004, in order to continue discussions with staff. That extension was also granted after \ \mor _pri_serv\City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2003 \ -02 Shea \Agenda Rpts \Agenda Report.040406.doc 0 „ 0 " 0i Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 2 additional public comments were received. Residents of the Fremont Street neighborhood raised concerns at the hearing on the height of the walls and fences adjacent to and within their neighborhood. ANALYSIS The applicant was primarily concerned with Conditions of Approval regarding improvement of Los Angeles Avenue and with specific wording of engineering conditions. Los Angeles Avenue - The City's Public Works Department is currently in the process of designing improvements and acquiring right -of -way for street widening along the south side of Los Angeles Avenue /Highway 118. This project will provide three (3) travel lanes in each direction by widening the road and shifting the centerline eleven feet (111) to the south between Millard Street and Spring Road. The widening project includes a five - hundred -foot (5001) long transition west of Millard Street and east of Spring Road, and is designed to include a traffic signal at Millard Street. These improvements coincide with Shea's responsibility to provide off -site improvements that are directly related to their project. For consistency of design and construction, it is clear that the City should continue to move forward on its improvement projects, provided that the applicant funds its fair share of those improvements. Shea is in concurrence and has proposed revisions to several Conditions of Approval to reflect this understanding. Staff has incorporated applicant's proposed revisions into the attached Planning Commission resolution, except for one proposed additional clause in Special Condition Number 11 of Tentative Tract No. 5425. Tract 5133, also known as Shea 1, was conditioned to contribute $60,000.00 towards the design and installation of the traffic signal at Millard Street and Los Angeles Avenue. Shea is proposing that the same cost per home ($779.22) be applied to this project. With this project, it should be Shea's responsibility to pay for the entire balance of the cost of the design and installation of the signal, since it is these two projects that created the need for the signal. Engineering Issues - The developer has requested that the language applied to site improvements and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements be changed. Staff is in concurrence with the requested changes as summarized in legislative format below: The City Engineer has conditioned the project to provide for all necessary on -site and off -site storm drain improvements O00U1(i Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 3 within the limits of the project and improvements related to Los Angeles Avenue and Arroyo Simi. The project will comply with - n='_uu'ing the imposition of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. "Passive," Structural, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices Drainage Facilities are required to be provided so that suEfaee flows are intercepted and treated on the surface over biofilters (grassy swales), infiltration areas and other similar solutions prior to entering the storm drain system and additional water quality filters and systems. A layered approach using various methods will be implemented to achieve compliance with the City's Urban Runoff and Stormwater NPDES Permit. In most cases, staff encourages the use of "Passive" treatment control systems because they have a lower failure rate than mechanical systems. However, in "infill" situations such as this, it is not always practical or beneficial to rely on a single treatment control system. A combination of passive and structural treatment systems can often work as well as biofilters and infiltration areas to provide an effective system of water clarification. Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposed modifications to the Special and Standard Conditions of Approval and concurs that the modifications are acceptable for this project. As mentioned above, "infill" projects, such as this, often require slight modifications to situations that would otherwise be "standard ". The Planning Commission Resolution has been modified to reflect these changes. The modifications have been made in legislative format in the resolution for ease of reading. The modified Special Conditions of Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5425 are Numbers 7, 11, 12, and 15. The modified Standard Conditions of Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5425 are Numbers 12, 43, 52, 53, 56, 72, 74, 79, 84, 91, 93, 101 and 109. Fences and Walls - Several residents on Fremont Street have expressed concerns regarding their privacy because this tract will be raised several feet above the existing grade. Retaining walls will be provided to elevate the site. The applicant has proposed six -foot (6') high privacy walls at the top of the slope with retaining walls at the bottom of the slope, adjacent to the Fremont Street rear property lines. At their highest, the combined walls are approximately nine feet (9') in height. At the southern end of the site, there is no need for a retaining wall and thus the applicant has proposed only the six -foot (61) high privacy walls. In light of the privacy concerns of the existing residents, a OUV,011 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 4 better solution would be to allow a single combined retaining /privacy wall at the property line. Special Condition of Approval No. 10 of RPD No. 2003 -02 has been modified, requiring that, where possible, a single combined retaining /privacy wall of no less than eight feet (8`) and no higher than ten feet (10') shall be provided. In the event that an alternative design is required, the Community Development Director may approve a stepped retaining wall with a privacy wall at the top of the slope. The ultimate location and design of the walls and fencing shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. STAFF RECOM4ENDATION 1. Accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and 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. March 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Report (resolution not included). 2. Draft (Modified) PC Resolution with Conditions of Approval. OilvU1. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Direc00cr Prepared By: Joseph F. Fiss, Principal Plan DATE: February 23, 2004 (PC Meeting of 3/2/2004) SUBJECT: 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) 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. PC ATTACHMENT 1 p 0► � 013 S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2003 \ -02 Shea \Agenda Rpts \Agenda Report.040217.doc Honorable Planning Commission March 2, 2004 Page 2 DISCUSSION Project Setting Existing 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. 0C 0 01 Honorable Planning Commission March 2, 2004 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN /ZONING Direction General Zoning Land Use Plan General Commercial Site (C -2) / CPD/ Commercial /Lodge /Church /Vacant Medium R -1 Density Res. (M) Medium ... _. _... Los Angeles Avenue /Single- North DeRensitnsit y R -1 family Residential South Floodway 0 -S Arroyo Simi /Single Family 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 (20%) 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 00000 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 000016 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 (21') 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 (131) 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 (18') 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 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 Moorpa7rk. 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 (1/2) space per dwelling unit is required for visitor parking. Using this formula, a total of 255 parking spaces would be required. [(102x2) + (102x.5) = 2551. 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 000013 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. 0 0019 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 Zonina 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 (1') foot to seven (7') 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. 000020 Honorable Planning Commission March 2, 2004 Page 9 General Plan and Zoning 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 designated 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 000021 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 (30') 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. Landscapinq /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 maintenance of the landscaping and recreation area. 000022 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 0() i302:s 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 development 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 000024 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 i, 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 Residential 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 effect 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 000025 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 RECONMNDATION 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 10 O C10 -263 {._ City of Moorpark Planning Division LOC3 location Map t South of East Los Angeles Avenue 00 2,02 j7 WIN Ift it -s- -. --- - , - s , I r• o Hn Ar - 41 A all .41 O 02 f �T Y 19 I i� I � I y r V � ha+ _ 1 x,131 Q r , -- iV, z- it -4•. .._.. _...YI1 -C • Lam m PROPOSED SFTE PLAN P•. - ... •° __ ... CITY OF MOORPARK .es nrcburt��nwc7�wvw� +.n _. . PLAN 2/4 A PLAN 2/4 B ELEVATIONS CANTERBURY MOORPARK CA SHEA HOMES Qec,03® + i "Aaron SWROOM 7 � EEONOOM twee ; ^' E�OOR .•.. M 4TN ' "NORPOW 11 R - � � t ` n•a/e • I - _ ":�iii a a. I r �. I .� I L► \ r i .mpz i I 1 1 SECOND FLOOR _ t i opNG cNEAr Noon ►A�ttT I PUT •.• •• - •OR r_ K1TC11[N i 1 i 1 � PORCH - �' 'L- - ---- - -- GARAGE ------------ GARAGE GARAGE I I , FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2A 1,607 SQ.FT. in lIfTRT / I IONrCMyI l l ry I I(I �7j� PLAN 4A 1,883 SQ FP. N�6D.MM I CANTERB URY MOORPARK , CA —�--�� SHEA HOMES �w - 000031 M.tlM P �i CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6200 Project Title: Shea Homes /Canterbury Case No.: RPD 2003- 02/VTM 5425/ GPA 2003 -02IZC 2003 -02 Contact Person and Phone No.: Joseph Fiss (805) 517 -6226 Name of Applicant: Shea Homes Limited Partnership 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 -1 /CPD 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 5133/RPD 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 be low would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Si nificant Impactor less Than Significant IMth Mitigation, '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 r, Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None 000032 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: 2 000033 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 1. 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 2. 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 3. 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 000034 4e. 3 Shea Homes VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02 ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact A. AESTHETICS — Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but X not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the epsting visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact 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 California Resources agency, to non - agricultural use? 2) Conflict with epsting zoning for agricultural use, or a 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 infill 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. 000035 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 directlyor x through habitat modiications, 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 X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or bythe California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse elect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5 000030 Shea Homes VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02 ZC 2003 -02, G PA 2003 -02 Resvonse: 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 (3/14/03), 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 significance of X a historic resource as defined in §15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifcance 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? Resoonse: 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) Evose 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 OV0i0J1/ Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural CommunityConservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat Resvonse: 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 (3/14/03), 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 significance of X a historic resource as defined in §15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifcance 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? Resoonse: 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) Evose 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 OV0i0J1/ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on a )vansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative Neste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste 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 x x 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 Neste within one - quarter mile of an epsting or proposed school? 4) Be located on a site Mich 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 Nithin an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted. Wthin two miles of a public airport or public use airport, Aould the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7 x x x x 00010.38 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 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, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where X 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 (3/14/03), 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 X requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or of -site? 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? 5) Create or contribute runof water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X 7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other food hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect food flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. X 8 Potentially Significant 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? 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 Response: The site is within a within a FEMA identified 100 -year too d hazard area. On site grading and improvements may affect existing drainage patterns. Sources: Grade Drainage Study /Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Study /Project Application (3114/03), 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 floodpllain. The applicant shall comply with all of the requirements of the CLOMR. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: 1) Physically divide an established communityP 2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specifc plan, local coastal program, or inning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 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 x resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Response: 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. 9 000040 K. NOISE — Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 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 in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinityabove levels existing without the project? 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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 X 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 X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing. X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 000041 Shea Homes VTM 5425, RPD 2003 -02 ZC 2003 -02, GPA 2003 -02 Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? 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 of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 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 000042 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? 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 of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 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 000042 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. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC — Would the project: 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacltyratio 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 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or X 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 X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination bythe wastewater treatment X 12 000043 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 weste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? 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 a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important wamples 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 Preparation of this Initial Study None Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall, 13 000044 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 CommunityDevelopment Department's request for comments. 3. The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended. 4. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended. 5. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 92 -872 6. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15000 et. seq. 7. Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, November 14, 2000. oiuc)045 14 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION s CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 1 - (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 -022C 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 -0226 00004E \\mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development\DEV PMTS\R P D\2003\ -02 SheMEnv\Proposed MND.REVISED.ft 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 duly noticed public hearings on March 2, 2004, March 16, 2004 and April 6, 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 meetings of March 2, 2004, March 16, 2004 and April 6, 2004, the Planning Commission considered the agenda report and any supplements thereto and written public comments; on March 2, 2004 opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal; continued the item, public hearing open, to subsequent meetings, and on April 6, 2004, 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. \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2003 \ -02 Shea \Reso- Cond \PC Reso Shea 2.doc PC ATTACHMENT 2 000047 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 2 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 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. U ! 1 • Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 3 I. 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. 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). O00049 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 4 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 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 6th day of April, 2004. Scott Pozza, Chair ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan Community Development Director Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Map Exhibit B: Zone Change Map OCR, >030 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 5 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 OOCIOsJL Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 6 � LL EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MAP O(,COS 2 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 7 - LL (S'T. HWY 118; EXHIBIT B AVE LOS ANGELES AVENUE r{ RE 80NITA HEiGFRS ST ZONE CHANGE MAP 000053 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 8 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, "B," "C," N %D," "E," "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 eeeupaney issuance of the first (1St) building permit for the first (1St) dwelling unit the applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the een9t�ue+ —full street improvements along the Los Angeles Avenue frontage of Tract No. 5425 and along the Los Angeles Avenue frontage of the 000054 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 9 Fremont Street neighborhood subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Developer shall deposit sufficient funds per the approved cost estimate with the City. The improvements shall include, but not be 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, and the City Engineer anet-he `teef-nia DepaftFaent ef e �=e G In lieu of construction of said improvements, the applicant shall provide interim improvements for access to Los Angeles Avenue until such time as the City approved widening project is completed. Applicant shall provide paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, striping and required traffic control devices to prevent left turning movements. The improvements will be constructed per City Standard Designs and subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Offsite right -of -way acquisition for the City widening project shall be the responsibility of the City, however, all righ=t- of_wav required for the ultimate improvements shall be dedicated to the City per the final map recordation. 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 be built to public street standards with a thirty -six (36') foot curb -to -curb width, subject to approval of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. The applicant /developer shall grant an irrevocable offer of dedication for street purposes for the entire length and 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 ai pliea-n} shall: the applicant will pay the City the 000055 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 10 cash equivalent of the cost of the design and installation of a traffic signal at Millard Street and Los Angeles Avenue, less the cost paid for by the developer of Tract 5133. Should construction of this project precede that of Tract 5133, the applicant shall pay the entire cost of the desiqn and installation of the traffic. signal- 12. Left -turn `+vehicular a-e=ess ingress and egress _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 rreqkiiiced - 13y - thesc-- Genditiens ef Appreval. Said improvements will be constructed by the City as part of the ultimate widening project, however, cash out for the improvements and interim improvements must comply with 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. 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 location, 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 060056 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 11 100 -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). 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 000057 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 12 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 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 oacoss Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 13 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 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 000059 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 14 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, 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 review the proposed appreve 4ahe 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 provide a connection between existing structures and /or walls subject to the approval of the Director. Said connections shall be designed to limit removal and reconstruction of existing facilities where possible. The connection details shall, where possible, utilize the same type of materials, colors and textures as the existing structures iesi d-en t i a l walls and e r f e n c e s to the jeet pei=imte= L , , t , , • g the —same type ef fftato=ra l 4.hat — eefnpr-Tse -s e� i i s t i R g -w all-s --can and e r f en e es that are :Ice be e e n n ecizd :1-v 000060 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 15 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. 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 pr-or 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; 000061 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 16 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 County of Ventura, to comply with Assembly Bill 3158, for the management and protection of Statewide Fish and Wildlife Trust Resources. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21089, and Fish and Game Code Section '711.4, the project is not operative, vested or final until the filing fees are paid. 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 O(. cOG 2 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 17 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 (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. 000063 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 18 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 submit to the City Engineer clearly states within the 1 easements that approval of Final Map the Applicant shall Community Development Department and the for review a current title report, which all interested parties and lenders included Lmits of the subdivision as well as any affect the subdivision. 31. Any mapping that requires review and approval by 7_he 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 OVC,064 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 19 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 the 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, 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 000005 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 20 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 possible from or otherwise shielded from existing surrounding rural residential neighborhoods. f. Property owners and residents located within six - hundred feet (6001) 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 0OU060 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 21 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. Irrigation and hydroseeding implementation shall be reviewed for constructability and adapted to the onsite construction schedule as applicable. Reclaimed water or a similar water source shall be used for dust control during grading, if available at the site WateicweflEs Distrie —We. I. 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 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. 00Q00'� Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 22 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 (4') 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 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 accordance with City of Moorpark Standard Specifications €ems —(4 ") inen fully -eefalaae T- 1_ayers 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 0 60 U 6 CS Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 23 two (2') feet of lift and one - hundred (100) lineal feet of trench excavated unless approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and the City Engineer. 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 per the approved erosion control plans, SWPPP, and Stormwater Management Plan to the satis€ae . 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. 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 06.'069 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 24 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 at 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 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 0000170 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 25 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') feet clear sidewalk width must be provided around the obstruction. 71. The Applicant shall submit wall and showing that provisions have been taken maintain proper sight distances. All other structures over six (61) feet submitted to and approved by the Cor Director and the City Engineer. 72. Anv �4:Efht of way s-itrep neeessafN the Applr . landscaping plans to provide for and fences, walls and high are to be imunity Development — eon =et e 0000'i1 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 26 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. m itlga-t i en o f euFaulative reg ienal —drainage the first Jarri-leiinq— pefffli-t. 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. 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. Sur€ae -fYews siiazT be ire e e p t ed-, de4�ainQEi —aid -- gi v 177 \\ // 80. Under a ten (10) year frequency storm, local, residential and private streets shall have one dry travel lane 000072 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 27 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 to the maximum extent possible and shall be restricted from entering streets. if neeessary, the — stenR —d-r-a shall be— eiEeneed te— aeeept— these flews;--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 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, 0000173 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 28 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 Appbean— sues ---p revide f- ems —all: neeessary -en site and final: dfi3- plans. ith„ -site detefitieit- bas1�}s r s to inffi water aeeeptanee deed s— frees -e £ €—s site mtis- be s eei fie-a . 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 Ejee:rzieehniealm EepeLzts shall be pfevideel t-& p rep e, t o the —satisf a et i en--e f the G i ley Engineer-, t- a-t —a-l-1- des -i q R. The s e- -fa ems l t i e s shall fftee t the ffi± n iFftUrR - 000074 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 29 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 Activit-es). 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. 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 000075 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 30 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. MIM-1-M ME . .. 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 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. 100001-76 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 31 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. d. 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. 103. Prior to acceptance of public improvements and bond exoneration reproducible centerline tie sheets shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office. 104. 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. 105. 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 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 0000't'i Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 32 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: 106. 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. 107. All access roads /driveways shall have a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches (13'6 "). 108. p r e v i dee- whew -Eiead enei -Fire Dist r i et a e e e reaeiskirivewa-y-s, exeeed ene -heneired fifty (150' ) feet-. Tui=naice�ind areas (2.5%) eice slepe in any Eid:i�eetien and shall be leeated within ene hiandr-ed fifty ' icead,/diciveway. 109. Public and private roads shall be named if se -ving more than four (4) parcels. 110. Prior to recordation of street names, proposed names shall be submitted to the Fire District's Communications Center for review. 111. 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. 112. 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. 113. 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. 114. 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') 00001,11b Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 33 feet of the development. Indicate the type of hydrant, number and size of outlets. 115. 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. 116. 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. 117. 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. 118. 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. I: 119. Prior to issuance of a building permit, provide Ventura County Waterworks District the following: a. Water and sewer improvement plans in the format required. b. Hydraulic analysis by a registered Civil Engineer to determine the adequacy of the proposed and existing water and sewer lines. C. Copy of approval of fire hydrant locations by County of Ventura Fire Protection District. d. Copy of Release from Calleguas Municipal Water District. e. Cost estimates for water and sewer improvements. f. Fees: Plan check, construction inspection, capital improvement charge, sewer connection fee and water meter charge. g. Signed Contract to install all improvements and a Surety Bond. 120. 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. 0000179 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 34 E. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Ventura County Watershed Protection District: 121. 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. 000080 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 35 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. The front setback for each unit shall not be less than eighteen (18') feet. 7. The rear setback for each unit shall not be less than thirteen (13') feet. 8. There shall be no less than three (3') feet of clearance between block walls and allowable interior protrusions. 9. The sound wall adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue shall be no less than eight (8') feet in height, with the final design 000081 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 36 and height to be approved by the Community Development Director, subject to ultimate pad elevations. 10. 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. 11. A solid decorative block wall, a minimum of —& eight feet (84&' )rev in height from the highest- finished grade of the Fremont Street Tract and a minimum of six feet (6') in height from the finished grade of Tract 5425, shall be installed along the western boundary of the site, adjacent to the Fremont Street tract. Where possible, a single combined retaining /privacy wall, no less than eight feet (8') and no higher than ten feet (10') shall be provided. In the event that an alternative design is required, the Community Development Director may approve a stepped retaining wall with a privacy wall at the top of the slope. The final location and design, including wal- heights, retaining walls and sound walls, shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 g--anted 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 OOCIOS2 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 37 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 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 (2001) 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 side yards 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. 0000F.i Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 38 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 street or drives in non - corrosive devices as determined by the City Engineer. 10. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning CleaNance 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 aemonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. Review and approval by the Police Department of all defensible 000084 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 39 space design features incorporated into the project shall occur prior to initiation of the building plan check process. 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- OU('Ot :77 ITEM: 8. B. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director Prepared by: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager DATE: March 23, 2004 (PC Meeting of 4/6/2004) SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02, 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 At its March 16, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission continued this agenda item with the public hearing open to allow the public additional time to review the environmental documents transmitted with the last Planning Commission report and to allow the applicant to provide additional information on a potential road connection on the west side of the property. In addition, the applicant requested alternative language for the timing of the improvements to the Collins /Campus Park /SR -118 intersection and interchange, due to Caltrans review. DISCUSSION Road Connection - The applicant has provided an exhibit (Attachment 1) showing one possible road connection on the west side of the project. It should be noted that the land to the west of the project site is in unincorporated County territory, outside the City municipal boundaries, Sphere of Influence, and City Urban Restriction Boundary. It is planned as open space and zoned for agricultural uses. Existing uses include grazing land and orchards. The City has no application in process that would S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \040406 PC Report.doc O () O O S G Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 2 involve development of the property to the west. Nonetheless, the provision of such a road connection would allow a design option for circulation if future development of the City is ever considered west of the project site. A condition has been added to the draft Planning Commission resolution recommending that the Specific Plan be revised to include a road connection on its western boundary. At the Specific Plan level, the precise alignment of a road connection is usually not necessary. Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive /SR -118 Improvements - The applicant has requested that the timing of the improvements to the Collins /Campus Park /SR -118 intersection and interchange (Section 3.3 of Revised Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure No. 1) be amended as follows: • Applicant obtains requisite permits and provides surety to the satisfaction of the City for the improvements: Prior to the issuance of grading permits (except for grading permits associated with the new Moorpark College interchange and connecting roadway). • Completion of improvements: Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the first residential unit. Current language in the Mitigation Monitoring Program calls for the improvements to be completed prior to the issuance of grading permits. This requested modification would not result in any adverse traffic impacts from construction, since the majority of the construction traffic comes during the building of the houses. Staff could accept the change to the timing of the mitigation measure as it is consistent with the analysis in the EIR. Staff will already be incorporating changes identified by the Planning Commission at the last meeting to 1) note that the size of the school site is 18.0 acres instead of 12.0 acres, 2) remove the word "elementary" from the school site, and 3) add "review of scope of work" and "review of sampling program" to the monitoring action for the Phase II Assessment. Responses to EIR Conents - Since the last Planning Commission meeting, staff and the environmental consultant discussed the inclusion of two Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency letters in Volume VIII of the EIR with the comments received during the comment period on Chapter 3.3b of the Revised Draft EIR. These letters have already been included in the environmental record and have been transmitted to the Planning Commission. However, their inclusion in the Volume VIII of the EIR provides for easier public access. Responses prepared to these letters are similar to the responses prepared for the letter received from the County Water Resources Division, and no new substantial information is included 000087 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 3 in this document. A complete bound "Volume VIII - Responses to Comments" has been transmitted to the Planning Commission under separate cover. STAFF RECObZWMDATION 1. Continue to accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2. Accept the requested change to the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 with revisions, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02. Attachments: 1. Map of Proposed Road Connection 2. Volume VIII - Responses to Comments (under separate cover, a copy is available in the Community Development Department) 3. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 111.. if t t SW OA Aw NO RK I NO AD 7 ,' LION . � A• „ t� p , � '"y� * i*��"% "� .. �/`i,�, �- ' Gy *.. %' �ssGy '' -. � � ��� � 5lb y. � ti @�S y ,• \tY-;� .6 ) ��� Lt i ,-�� „t`�t�a rya � Fb``�' z •. �,� .r .1��, \t. +{ �r��. `\, w��.+a I f - -_� �� a '~ . {Std � �t�,.ti� A �'^iy�~t� y,�.. �r _,i �'e��. �,n/•�`'�`y .• �i°Ji�e ..,' r, •i'' � yit+,l�dl�' � •��. � �+ •-:`�.%' ?„ " �y ( % . , yS � 2 r�, � �� �" `"' , � �� S � t `�i:. / ,sd ,,, a ed la 6 r �!�, ice'} •Q} ?f AJA.�}, ....� Jg`jg, .t37 : f8 7 ;L � � 4 � .•��u �� •?�CafH,Fi'tyre� �� ,�-H c,,j �r�,/ r� �+' ��,�t� j �� - ••L.��+yj4!ica . . •�''7� Es � ��j� ( t3 {'- ^cr,.' �'(b19!'�i'' 3 QI, h � �= ..:. ti • 6t,1 ?���2t 3r.'y%)rLN ''+-+r g `,• �,fly,�_'•" � - ` `� ._ - ti3t ,i r r1 ^'( r �,tii�:t /1,�1 '� - - ^ -Q' - f ° e„ ,y �~ . ti �`4'. s� � (+ ai •'' `, • T$ S vV �i 9 �. i � ti LKIRviC.'+`.f•± � r 1� PA -, P-4-4j ` 1 `�i ►� 4,l.. _ }. r � y \ 1t,7 ^f � � ,tii�"� � t �+ !? `ty'fa (y �� dr !{�.� �' j.1, t _ 3 "* ! IW � k'- � � /.hh'a� • -,,� I:t a. =� •. "'max.`, ` `- �•..'�.�, as � �� ", S. �' . 47 rhV ZA 7,77 ^S crs PC AT TAC � - -Y Volume VIII - Responses to Comments (under separate cover, a copy is available in the Community Development Department) PC ATTACHMENT 2 FITITITI, Le 1� 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. 2001 -05, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2001 -01, AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 2001 -02, FOR THE NORTH PARK VILLAGE AND NATURE PRESERVE SPECIFIC PLAN, CONSISTING OF 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, ON THE APPLICATION OF NORTH PARK VILLAGE, LP (ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 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, -1'75; 500 -0- 292 -135, -145, -195, -215, -225; 615- 0 -110- 205, -215; AND 615 -0- 150 -185) WHEREAS, at duly noticed public hearings on October 7, 2003, October 21, 2003, November 4, 2003, November 18, 2003, December 2, 2003, December 16, 2003, January 6, 2004, January 20, 2004, February 3, 2004, February 17, 2004, March 2, 2004, and March 16, 2004, and April 6, 2004, the Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02 on the application of North Park Village, LP for the North Park Village and Nature Preserve Specific Plan, consisting of 1,650 housing units and related and supporting uses on 3,586.3 acres, located generally north of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on land immediately outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries; and WHEREAS, at its meetings of October 7, 2003, October 21, 2003, November 4, 2003, November 18, 2003, December 2, 2003, December 16, 2003, January 6, 2004, January 20, 2004, February 3, 2004, February 17, 2004, March 2, 2004, and March 16, 2004, and April 6, 2004, the Planning Commission considered the agenda reports and any supplements thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal; continued the open public hearing at each meeting through April 6, 2004, closed the public hearing on April 6, 2004 and reached a decision on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the proposed North Park Village and Nature Preserve Specific Plan, comments received on the Draft EIR and Chapter PC ATTACHMENT 3 000091 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 2 of 30 3.3(b) of the Revised Draft EIR, draft responses to comments received on the Draft EIR and Chapter 3.3(B) of the Revised Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTION: Based upon its review and consideration of the Revised Draft EIR, all appendices, all comments received, and all draft responses to comments, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council, upon review and consideration of the information contained in the Final EIR, certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City environmental review procedures and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Moorpark. SECTION 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information set forth in the draft North Park Village and Nature Preserve Specific Plan, the Environmental Impact Report, agenda reports, accompanying studies, and public testimony, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05 as included in Exhibit A, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, as included in Exhibit B with revisions as included in Exhibit C, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02 to prezone the entire property contained within the North Park Specific Plan boundaries as "Specific Plan (SP) ", and to add Chapter 17.70 to the Moorpark Municipal Code as included in Chapter 5 of Exhibit B. SECTION 3. 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. 000092 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 3 of 30 The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 2004. Scott Pozza, Chair ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan Community Development Director Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05 Exhibit B: Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 Exhibit C: Recommended Revisions to Specific Plan No. 2001- 01 000093 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 4 of 30 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001 -05 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: The Land Use Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan is amended to read as follows: SECTION 4.0 LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES: Page 11 of the General Plan, under the heading Growth and Population, Policy 2.1 is amended to read as follows: Growth and Population GOAL 1: Attain a balanced city growth pattern that `ncludes a full mix of land uses. Policy 1.1: New development and redevelopment shall be orderly with respect to location, timing and density/ intensity; consistent with the provision of local public services and facilities; and compatible with the overall suburban rural community character. Policy 1.2: Every five years the City's land use inventory shall be reviewed and, if necessary, the land use element shall be modified to ensure that general -plan policies are being adhered to and to provide an adequate up -to -date data base for continuing development considerations. Policy 1.3: New residential development shall be consistent with City- adopted growth ordinance policies. Policy 1.4: New development and redevelopment shall be coordinated so that the existing and planned capacity of public facilities and services shall not be adversely impacted. Policy 1.5: A comprehensive planning approach for undeveloped areas of the community shall be followed, to prevent disjointed, incremental expansion of development. 000094 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 5 of 30 GOAL 2: Establish a logical Sphere of Influence. Policy 2.1: The City shall strive to obtain and maintain sphere of influence boundaries consistent with the City Urban Restriction Boundary, as amended by vote of the electorate, or pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 8.4. SECTION 5.2 SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION - SP: Page 35 of the General Plan under the subtitle "Planning Area Outside City Limits" is amended to read as follows: Planning Area Outside City Limits Specific plan areas 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (proposed within the unincorporated planning area) were analyzed in conjunction with the updating of the Land Use Element but were found to be outside the sphere of influence and outside of the CURB (see, Section 8.0, et seq.) and accordingly not appropriate for urban development and were, therefore, not approved. Specific Plan 4 (Deleted) Specific Plan 5 (Deleted) Specific Plan 6 (Deleted) Specific Plan 7 (Deleted) Specific Plan 8 (Deleted) Specific Plan 11 Specific Plan 11 consists of approximately 3,544- acres, located north of State Route 118 (SR -118), northeast of downtown Moorpark and north of Moorpark College. The Specific Plan area lies entirelv within the Citv of Moorpark's area of interest. 000095 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 6 of 30 The North Park Village and Nature Preserve Spec=ific Plan shall incorporate the following elements and policies: Required Plan Elements: ■ A 2,121 -acre Nature Preserve protected by the Current Urban Restriction Boundarv. ■ A 423 -acre open space system. ■ A 29 -acre community park. ■ A 1.5 -acre fire station site, and 1.5 -acre fire service helispot site. ■ A 67 -acre recreation lake area (including lake surface and lake buffer). ■ An 18 -acre school site offered for dedication to the Moorpark Unified School District. ■ A minimum 500 -foot open space buffer between existing homes and new homes. ■ A maximum of 1,500 single - family detached homes and 150 affordable homes. ■ A new SR -118 interchange approximately one mile east of Collins Drive providing direct vehicular access from SR -118 to the Specific Plan area and Moorpark College. ■ A maximum of 45,000 square feet of local serving, lake oriented commercial uses. Required Plan Policies: ■ The number and density of homes or size of the Neighborhood Center permitted in the Specific Plan 11 may not be increased without approval of the Moorpark electorate. ■ The Nature Preserve and the City Urban Restriction Boundary cannot be changed without approval of the Moorpark electorate. 000096 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 7 of 30 ■ Development within the Specific Plan area shall pay the Moorpark Unified School District's school impact fees as defined by state law. ■ The size of the 500 foot open space buffer may not be changed without approval of the Moorpark electorate. ■ Seventy -five percent of hillside in the Specific Plan area with slopes greater than twenty -five percent shall be preserved. ■ At least eighty percent of the existing oak trees within the planning area subject to the Moorpark Tree Protection Ordinance shall be preserved and the remaining oak trees affected by the Specific Plan shall be either relocated or replaced so that the planning area ultimatelv contains a net increase in oak trees. SECTION 6.0 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUH�RMY; Page 38, consisting of three paragraphs, is amended to read as follows: The following table (Land Use Plan - statistical summary, Table 3) summarizes the approximate acreage and the number of dwelling units resulting from each of the land use classifications designated on the Land Use Plan maps for the overall planning area (City Area - Exhibit 3, and Unincorporated Area - Exhibit 4). Dwelling unit n/c is based on an estimate of the density, which could occur for each residential land use classification based on the maximum density permitted. The actual number of dwelling units constructed and associated population amount will vary with the development conditions and constraints for each project (access, availability of services, geotechnical and natural resource constraints, etc.). In addition, a density increase above the maximum density could be approved, up to the designated density limit for each residential land use category, if public improvements, public services, and /or financial contributions are provided that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community, except that the overall number of homes in SP 11 (North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan) may not be changed without vote of the residents of the Citv of Moorpark. 00009`1 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 8 of 30 As identified on Table 3, a combined total of up to 12,511 14,161 dwelling units could be constructed in the overall City of Moorpark planning area, based on maximum density estimates. The resulting build -out population for the Moorpark planning area would be approximately 34,280 38,801 persons, based on the County's 2.74 population dwelling unit factor for the year 2010. Note, however, that the resulting build -out for the Moorpark planning area would be approximately (a) 43-9 47,312 persons, based on the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit's "Ventura County Population and Housing Estimates" for Moorpark which average 3.341 persons per household for the year 1994 -1997 inclusive; or, (b) 4005 46,165 persons, based on the "VCOG 2020 population Per Dwelling Unit Ratio Forecast" for the City of Moorpark (3.26 persons per dwelling unit). The Table 3 build -out figures were calculated using the smaller county -wide ratios and are considered a conservative population estimate for the City. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this land use element and circulation element update of the Moorpark General Plan evaluates potential impacts on the service capabilities of relevant infrastructure systems (i.e., sewer, water, police, fire, etc.) associated with the land use designations proposed as a part of this update process. Environmental documents prepared for subsequent and proposed amendments to the General Plans evaluate the potential impacts of such amendments. SECTION 6.0 TABLE 3, LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY: Pages 39 -40 of the Moorpark General Plan, Table 3, are amended to add the North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan (SP 11) to the City's Land Use Designation, Unincorporated Area and Planning Area, to read as follows: 000098 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 9 of 30 TABLE 3 LAND USE PLAN - STATISTICAL SUbO RY LAND USE DESIGNATION CITY UNINCORPORATED TOTAL PLANNING AREA AREA AREA COMBINED RL RURAL LOW (1 du / 5 acres maximum) 1,668 ac 334 du - - -- - - -- 1,668 ac 334 du RH RURAL HIGH (1 du /acre maximum) 208 ac 208 du - - -- - - -- 208 ac 208 du L LOW DENSITY (1 du / acre maximum) 168 ac 168 du - - -- - - -- 168 ac 168 du MEDIUM LOW DENSITY ML 568 ac 11136 du - - -- - - -- 568 ac 1,136 du (2 du / acre maximum) M MEDIUM DENSITY (4 du / acre maximum) 1,174 ac 4,696 du - - -- - - -- 1,174 ac 4,696 du H HIGH DENSITY (7 du /acre maximum) 343 ac 2,401 du - - -- - - -- 343 ac 2,401 du VH VERY HIGH DENSITY (15 du / acre Maximum) 161 ac 2,415 du - - -- - - -- 161 ac 2,415 du SP SPECIFIC PLAN* SP 1 LEVY 285 ac 415 du - - -- - - -- 285 ac 415 du SP 2 JBR 445 ac 475 du - - -- - - -- 445 ac 475 du SP9 MUSD 25 ac 80 du - - -- - - -- 25 ac 80 du SP 10 SCHLEVE 71 ac 154 du - - -- - - -- 71 ac 154 du SP 11 NORTH PARK - - -- 3.544 ac 1.650 du 3.544 ac 61. 50 du NEIGHBORHOOD C 1 9 ac - -- -- 9 ac COMMERCIAL (.25 FAR) C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 194 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 194 ac (.25 FAR) I -1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 263 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 263 ac (.38 FAR) I -2 MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL 285 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 285 ac (.38 FAR) AG1 AGRICULTURE 1 45 ac 1 du - - -- - - -- 45 ac 1 du / 10-40 acres) AG2 AGRICULTURE 2 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- (1 du / 40 acres OS1 OPEN SPACE 1 16 ac 1 du - - -- - - -- 16 ac 1 du / 10-40 acres) OS2 OPEN SPACE 2 +1980 27 du - - -- - - -- 4_1080 27 du (1 du / 40 acres) 1.064 ac 1,064 ac S SCHOOL 357 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 357 ac P PARK 197 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 197 ac U UTILITIES 47 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 47 ac PUB PUBLIC / INSTITUTIONAL 16 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 16 ac FRWY FREEWAY/ W RIGHT -OF -WAY 291 ac - - -- - - -- - - -- 291 ac TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ** T 12,711 d t 1 (At Build -out — Year 2010) 12,511 du 1,650 du 14,161 du TOTAL POPULATION * ** 34,280 At Build -out — Year 2010 34,280 4.521 38.801 TOTAL CITY AREA ACRES (Approximate) 7,916 TOTAL UNINCORPORATED AREA ACRES (Approximate) O-ae 3.528 ac TOTAL PLANNING AREA COMBINED (Approximate) 7-141-6 11,444 gc Acreage for open space, schools, parks, commercial, highway right -of -way and any other appropriate land uses will be determined at time of specific plan approval. ** Residential Density calculations for specific plan areas are based on the maximum density. Section 5.2 of the Land Use Element allows the City Council to approve a density exceeding the maximum density up to an identified density limit, if public improvements, public services and /or financial contributions are provided that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community, except that the density of SP 11 (North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan) may not be changed without a vote of the electorate of the City of Mark. * ** Based on 2.74 persons per dwelling unit. 000099 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 10 EXHIBIT 4, PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN MAP: Amended to add SP 11 as depicted in Exhibit A2. SECTION 8.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF CURB, SUBSECTION A: Amended to clarify the proper exhibit order and name, as follows: A. The City of Moorpark hereby establishes and adopts a Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (Moorpark CURB) line. The Moorpark CURB shall be established coterminous with and in the same location as the Sphere of Influence line established by the Local Agency Formation Commission as it exists as of January 1, 1998, or as altered or modified pursuant to the Amendment Procedures set forth below. Goaphie-- nepLcesentatien ez that lineis sheia;z --zr-t- Exhibit "All- The Moorpark CURB line is depicted in General Plan Exhibit 5. SECTION 8.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF CURB: The Moorpark CURB line is amended to include the approximately 1,423 acre planned development portion, as depicted in Exhibit B2 (reflecting the amended Planning Area Land Use Plan Map, Exhibit 4, City of Moorpark General Plan) and clarifying the proper General Plan Land Use Element exhibit order. CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: The Circulation Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan is amended as follows: FIGURES 2, 3 and 4 City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network, Biking Element and Equestrian Trail Network, pages 19, 22 and 24 respectively are amended to delete Broadway Road and to add a new separate roadway system comprised of a new interchange at SR 118 (Moorpark College Interchange) and a Four -Lane Collector connecting SR -118 to Moorpark College and to SP 11, including Residential Collector and local streets, as depicted in Exhibit C2. The bikeway exhibit is amended to reflect the new road system without altering the bikeway circulation plan, as depicted in Exhibit C2. The equestrian exhibit is amended to reflect the road system and move the north eastern -most equestrian trail eastward as depicted in Exhibit E2. SECTION 5.0 ROADWAY CIRCULATION PLAN, CIRCULATION SYSTEM: The last paragraph of page 20 of the Circulation Element of the Moorpark General Plan is amended to delete Broadway Road and to add a new roadway system providing direct access to Moorpark College, as read as follows: 000100 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 11 CIRCULATION SYSTEM The goals and policies included in the Circulation Element emphasize the need for a circulation system that is capable of serving both existing and future residents while preserving community values and character. The location, design and constituent modes of the circulation system have major impacts on air quality, noise, community appearance, and other elements of the environment. The highway network designated in the Circulation Element is illustrated in Figure 2, and indicates all of the designated freeways, six -lane arterials, four -lane arterials and rural collectors. In addition, a selected number of designated local collectors, which carry through traffic, are indicated on the map. Any permanent closure to through traffic or relocation of the designated arterials and collectors will require a General Plan Amendment. Highway facilities are shown within the current City limits as well as for the surrounding planning area that has been defined for the General Plan Update. Existing and potential future traffic signal locations within the City limits are also indicated on the highway network map, as are existing and potential at -grade and grade separated railroad crossing locations. Traffic signal warrants are satisfied for the locations shown here based on current traffic projections. Traffic signalization may be required at minor street and driveway locations not shown on the Circulation Element highway network map. A grade separated railroad crossing is shown only for the future SR -118 bypass arterial crossing. Grade separation is not considered feasible at the four existing railroad crossings (Gabbert Road, Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road and Los Angeles Avenue). The roadway network in the Circulation Element indicates a number of improvements with regard to the existing roadway system in the Moorpark planning area. The following are the more important improvements that will need to be implemented: • Connection of the SR -118 and SR -23 freeways with new interchanges at Collins Drive and Princeton Avenue. O00101 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 12 • Provision of an east /west SR -118 arterial bypass from the SR -23 /SR -118 connector to Los Angeles Avenue west of Buttercreek Road, without a connection to Walnut Canyon Road, and recognition of a potential future SR- 118 freeway extension west of the City limits. • Provision of a north /south SR -23 arterial bypass from the SR -23 /SR -118 connector to Broadway Road. • Extension of Spring Road north to the SR -23 arterial bypass. • Provision of a local collector system to serve circulation needs in the northwest portion of the City. Local collectors added to the existing circulation system include an extension of Casey Road to Gabbert Road, "C" Street between Grimes Canyon Road and the SR -23 arterial bypass and "D" Street between Princeton Avenue and the SR -23 arterial bypass. • Provision of a roadway system to serve circulation needs in the Carlsberg Specific Plan (Moorpark Highlands) area in the southeast portion of the City. Roadways added to the existing circulation system include an extension of Science Drive from New Los Angeles Avenue to Tierra Rejada Road, and an extension of Peach Hill Road to Science Drive. • Previsien ef an easteffi y7 pe4c —e tial l y eennee�.Anq with AlaffteJ en Read anEi arc R 118 freeway Vie- serve—eireb-1atien- needs of pe}=n} -,l 1 - - agamei,l}.,r l , epen spa-ee, er reecureluses ��e pert=ie n -e —4�h e --planning area ne rte e a s t—e f —; �h e - -e-rty T Provision of a separate roadway system comprised of an interchange at SR -118 (Moorpark College Interchange) and a Four -Lane Arterial with raised median connecting SR -118 to Moorpark College and to the Specific Plan 11 area, including residential collector and local streets. OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION AND RECREATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: The Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan is amended as follows: SECTION II OPEN SPACE, Subsection D: Existing Open Space Areas, Paragraph 2 Parks - Inventory of Existing and Proposed Facilities, page II -8 of the Open Space, Conservation and OCOJL02 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 13 Recreation Element of the Moorpark General Plan is amended to read as follows: 2. Parks - Inv_entory of Proposed and Existing Facilities Community Park Mountain Meadows N. Village Neighborhood Park Type of Size Neighborhood Park Status Imp- + Facility _ (in acres) __location _ _ _ April 4. 1986' _ _Arroyo Vista I Community Park _69.0 , 4550 Tlerra_Reada Rd_ _ i Existing _ Buttercreek Neighborhood Park South of L.A. Avenue Adjacent to 13.0: Planned; Location Undecided Campus _ Neighborhood Park Arrow Simi 2.5 L.A. Av. at Hartford _i Existing _ Campus Canyon Park _ Neighborhood. Park _ 2.5 6400 Harvard _Street Existing Community Center Park Neighborhood Park _.. .5_ 799 Moorpark Avenue Existing County Trail Park Neighborhood Park _ 8.6 . 11.701 1/2 Mountain Trail Existing Glenwood Neighborhood Park 4.5 Terra Rejada at Harvester Rd.. Pending Acceptance by City Glenwood Park Neighborhood Park _ j 4.5 . 11800 Harvester Street ___. Existing Greenbelt Agreement Area Open Space Within Tierra Rejada Valley _ _ Existing _ _ Griffin Park Neighborhood Park _ 5.0 15400 Campus Park Drive Existing Happy Camp Regional Park I 3,700 North of the City Boundaries, but Proposed within Moorpark's Area of Interest Miller Park Neighborhood Park .._. 6.5 4530 Miller Parkway Existin 9 Monte Vista Nature Park Nature Park _ 5.0 Moorpark Rd. near Peach Hill__.. Acceptance Pending__ Moorpark Community Center 4.5 ;Moorpark Ave. at Charles St. Existing Mountain Meadows #4 Community Park Mountain Meadows N. Village Neighborhood Park Mountain Meadows S. Village Neighborhood Park Mountain Meadows W. Village Neighborhood Park & Retention Basin North Park Lake Private Lake with Public Access North Park Nature Preserve Nature Preserve North Park Northside Park Neighborhood Park North Park Community Park Community Park Paul E. Griffin Sr. Neighborhood Park Peach Hill Neighborhood Park Poindexter Park Neighborhood Park Tierra Rejada Lake Tierra Rejada Park Tract 3963 Villa Campesina Virginia Colony Park I Total L_ Regional Recreation Area Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park .. Neighborhood Park South of Arroyo Simi at Liberty Bell 39 Acres Currently Owned by City 69.0 Rd and Leased for Farming; 30 Acres _ _ Proposed for Dedication, July 1986 8.0 North of Terra Rejada Rd. _ Design Approved by City 8.0 South of extension of Tierra Rejada Proposed Road 8.0 West end of Peach Hill Drain Design Approved by City 4 North of City boundaries but within Proggsed Moorpark's Area of Interest North of City boundaries but within 2,121.0 rk' r Pr000sed ProposedNorth of Citv boundaries but within 11& M Argp f 224 North of Citv boundaries but within Prop MoorparK'5 Interest Existing 10.0. Peach Hill Rd. and-Christian Barrett Design Phase 7.5 500 Poindexter Ave. Existing South of Tierra Rejada Road and 250 -300 West of the Moorpark Freeway. Proposed Outside of City Boundaries, but within Moorpark's. Area of Interest 8.0. 11900 Mountain Trail St. Existing North of Campus Park Drive, West 6.0 of Moorpark_ College Proposed .5 4704 Leta Yancy Road . Exisb� 1.0 14507 Condor Drive ._ Existing 492:5 i 6 419.3 SECTION II, OPEN SPACE, Figure 3, Parks and Open Space Areas: Figure 3, as amended, as shown on Exhibit F2, to remove the developable portions of SP 11 (North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan) from the open space classifications as shown on Figure 3. 000103 4.0 Campus Park Rd. at College View Existing 10.0. Peach Hill Rd. and-Christian Barrett Design Phase 7.5 500 Poindexter Ave. Existing South of Tierra Rejada Road and 250 -300 West of the Moorpark Freeway. Proposed Outside of City Boundaries, but within Moorpark's. Area of Interest 8.0. 11900 Mountain Trail St. Existing North of Campus Park Drive, West 6.0 of Moorpark_ College Proposed .5 4704 Leta Yancy Road . Exisb� 1.0 14507 Condor Drive ._ Existing 492:5 i 6 419.3 SECTION II, OPEN SPACE, Figure 3, Parks and Open Space Areas: Figure 3, as amended, as shown on Exhibit F2, to remove the developable portions of SP 11 (North Park Village and Nature Preserve Plan) from the open space classifications as shown on Figure 3. 000103 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 14 MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN EXHIBITS Attached hereto are true and correct copies of the following exhibits /figures relating to the City of Moorpark General Plan: (a) Exhibit Al, (Existing Plan) Planning Area Land Use Map, City of Moorpark General Plan, Exhibit 4; (b) Exhibit A2, (Amendment) Planning Area Land Use Map, City of Moorpark General Plan; Exhibit 4; (c) Exhibit Bl, (Existing Plan) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Line, City of Moorpark General Plan; (d) Exhibit B2, (Amendment) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Line, City of Moorpark General Plan, Exhibit 5; (e) Exhibit C1, (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network, Figure 2; (f) Exhibit C2, (Amendment) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network, Figure 2 (Note: this exhibit should be modified to show the Moorpark College access road designated as a 4 -lane arterial); (g) Exhibit Dl, (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element, Figure 3; (h) Exhibit D2, (Amendment) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element, Figure 3; (i) Exhibit El, (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network; Figure 4; (j) Exhibit E2, (Amendment) City of Moorpark, General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network; Figure 4; (k) Exhibit Fl, (Existing Plan) Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open Space Areas, City of Moorpark, and Figure 3; (1) Exhibit F2, (Amendment) Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open space Areas, City of Moorpark, Figure 3. 0001.04 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 15 Exhibit A -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Planning Area Land Use Map Exhibit 4 Area of Interest ■ 1 .........................•'• l� , 1 ■ 1 . Current City Limits and —: ____ Sphere of Influence — i City of Moorpark ■ (Refer to Exhibit 3 for City Area Land Use Plan) ` — -r ■ NAa4 - --- CG7eou�ary - - --• —• 1 �� � uw wn ■ ♦ ■ rah+ ♦ mss+✓ ....................: LEGEND CURRENT CITY LIMITS AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE •.• AREA OF INTEREST VENTURA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS t<.`j RURAL OPEN SPACE AGRICULTURE 1 5 ACRES MINIMUM Note: Please refer to the text of the Land Use Element for a description of the designated Specific Plan No. 8 area. 001.,105 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 16 Exhibit A -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Planning Area Land Use Map Exhibit 4 Area of Interest •' ■ ........ aww■www■.. ■ 1 ■ ■ �•q� SP #11 2.121 Acm Nakn Preserve : i 473 ACm of open SpBCB j 64 Aeres d Pa*s t 93 Ayes of Pudic i Commurkry Service ■ 769 Am V,"(1,650 norresl 67 Ave Lake Area Current City Limits and Sphere of Influence City of Moorpark • Cy Oou"Cary • LEGEND I ■ ■ .J ■ ■ ■ ■ N" ■ ■ zo xa .................: / CURRENT CITY LIMITS AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ♦� AREA OF INTEREST VENTURA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS RURAL n OPEN SPACE AGRICULTURE 1 5 ACRES MINIMUM Note: Please refer to the text of the Lend Use Element for description of the designated Specific Plan No. 8 area. 000106 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 17 Exhibit B -1 (Existing Plan) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) City of Moorpark General Plan Exhibit 5 City of Moorpark ■ ■ NaiF i" CA ry Boundary I 11 ■ o Isar, soon J 4b . —.. ■ is4 mom LEGEND CURRENT CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY ♦♦ AREA OF INTEREST 000107 ■ Area of Interest ,•'� ■ one ,.. ■ ♦� 8 ■ ■ i ■ ■ City Urban Restriction : a Boundary (CURB) all -...# City of Moorpark ■ ■ NaiF i" CA ry Boundary I 11 ■ o Isar, soon J 4b . —.. ■ is4 mom LEGEND CURRENT CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY ♦♦ AREA OF INTEREST 000107 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 18 Exhibit B -2 (Proposed Amendment) Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) City of Moorpark General Plan Exhibit 5 Area of Interest ; .............. -r • " -• -- s9' _ Project Site Boundary = City Urban Restriction ♦ _ Boundary (CURB) (proposed) A P,11 - - 1•� City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) (existing) City of Moorpark j ■ ■ ■ ■ . ry Boundary Non4 1 ■ n ism 5a[a ■ ♦ SaY a A*i LEGEND / CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY (CURB) LINE - EXISTING I CITY URBAN RESTRICTION BOUNDARY (CURB) LINE -PROPOSED AREA OF INTEREST 000108 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 19 Exhibit C -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network Figure 2 s u - -�BROADWAY Oq City of /• C PUS PARK OR Moorpark j SR 115 qF'+ � „ / i / • ' � .. � SRR VALLEY FWV CO. POIROE %TER I '� O • PARK (� ROUTE — �osAROSEs r BUTRR °o 2 CREfK ROURTAN ,iRAII WALNUT o PFACNNU CREEK 1^� \ PS'�POA .i J- ,p \ OJ O KTA�N •. VM01RnA1R �.� tRRA REJAO' \ S9 t�� Not6 _'2 - _.�._�. � City Boundary o BW swo S.ck m Jnr LEGEND ---- CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY -- LOCAL COLLECTOR —__— FREEWAY IN SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION INTERCHANGE ❑ AT -GRADE RR CROSSING SIX -LANE ARTERIAL ® GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL = _ = SR -118 FREEWAY CORRIDOR R — RURAL COLLECTOR 000109 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 20 Exhibit C -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Network Figure 2 N W y �t 1 l BROADWAY 4l 1 ly �� • �— A. •�a• _��_ O _ OaMw II City Of loorpark a AIpUSAMNOq SA IT$ 1 �`'' 4r "ON j600EXTER I ►AAI( LAN • — .. J LOS ANGELES iC BUTTER YO R TRAIL i ALN O REEK ab s O NLL T Oa RY�' Z BARFIETT Oft 101 TA�N�NA �, 3 � EggA REJAVA �. - --DOWN - .. —. `C8y Bountlary ---- - CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY FREEWAY INTERCHANGE SIX -LANE ARTERIAL FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL R - RURAL COLLECTOR LEGEND WM VALLEY I" Nw1h o 25M 3000 S.k n Jrn - - -- LOCAL COLLECTOR ■ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AT -GRADE RR CROSSING ® GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING = SR -11S FREEWAY CORRIDOR 000110 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 21 Exhibit D -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element Figure 3 S,9 �d o� LEGEND CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY CLASS I BIKEWAY (BIKE PATH) A facility designed for exclusive use by bicycles and physically separated from vehicular traffic by a barrier, grade separation or open space. Cross -flows by vehicles and pedestrians allowed but minimized - - - - -- CLASS II BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) A paved area of roadway designated for preferrential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and signage indicate the presence of a bike lane on the roadway. CLASS III BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) A conventional street where bike routes are indicated by sign only. There are no special pavement walkways and bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motorized traffic. Only Class III facilities which connect the Moorpark sphere with the regional bikeway system are identified in the bikeway network. Roadways which are not designated with a Class II bikeway, but which serve as connections between Class II facilities or the regional bikeway system should be considered as Class III bikeways. 0 0v111 saoAWAr ! .. .. __ R c A -- --- -' n I _ --I 4Y �•' City of Y �+ �' L ,•' �''�"- =lA =♦ Moorpark 1 '. -' MGM �- �pOHIDE77ER♦ I HO1TE LAME . -- , -- - - - -r— ' — • • •� cos iwDEtas -- -� �,'\ .ICREEI[ yTMLM WAINIlT , D. ♦ CREEK \ -- ---- -.s - - -y -sue EMIE7TDR. �y,r I North Whom,,p City Boundary A U 9 24Ai SL9)U snk. fi. LEGEND CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY CLASS I BIKEWAY (BIKE PATH) A facility designed for exclusive use by bicycles and physically separated from vehicular traffic by a barrier, grade separation or open space. Cross -flows by vehicles and pedestrians allowed but minimized - - - - -- CLASS II BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) A paved area of roadway designated for preferrential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and signage indicate the presence of a bike lane on the roadway. CLASS III BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) A conventional street where bike routes are indicated by sign only. There are no special pavement walkways and bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motorized traffic. Only Class III facilities which connect the Moorpark sphere with the regional bikeway system are identified in the bikeway network. Roadways which are not designated with a Class II bikeway, but which serve as connections between Class II facilities or the regional bikeway system should be considered as Class III bikeways. 0 0v111 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 22 Exhibit D -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Bikeway Element \, Figure 3 Sq �3 O I OR°AO�TAV � I z — � City of �• Moorpark "'""'"°" � b+ G SO VALLEY nVY ydNOEITER J RTE ►AK LAN! _ J _ - - • LOS ANGELES ' i Ib \ ECEK �o MORAL WALN1n CREEK Y II * * ** 1 G N 1 lARRATT ETT pl. , AW ERR, JAOA' e�3 NMk MEADOW � City Boundary 2500 50000 LEGEND CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY CLASS I BIKEWAY (BIKE PATH) A facility designed for exclusive use by bicycles and physically separated from vehicular traffic by a barrier, grade separation or open space. Cross -flows by vehicles and pedestrians allowed but minimized. CLASS II BIKEWAY (BIKE LANE) A paved area of roadway designated for preferrential use of bicycles. Pavement markings and signage indicate the presence of a bike lane on the roadway. CLASS Ill BIKEWAY (BIKE ROUTE) A conventional street where bike routes are indicated by sign only. There are no special pavement walkways and bicycle traffic shares the roadway with motorized traffic. Only Class III facilities which connect the Moorpark sphere with the regional bikeway system are identified in the bikeway network. Roadways which are not designated with a Class 11 bikeway, but which serve as connections between Class 11 facilities or the regional bikeway system should be considered as Class III bikeways. 000112 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 23 Exhibit E -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network Figure 4 „Z •• •••••• • Ut • • •• +• • • • — • • • • • F1 so • • • 9 • : •• csTRlET '/ � • /�,� ate,.' • ;� n -:•• /� • • City of cAYPOi PARK DR •• �' :I' • • Moorpark • • • 7R T III � - • • SP's: i a •••�`. GPaN '• • .... ,.. b•L� _, ; • • • .. MY VALLEY PwY HM "'g LS•••••.POINOlETlR_ ••••� O •��,* : 011MIC E PARK - a P • L IARE . ff • L P �8 LOG AMOELZ3 so e • `�� • MET, •••YOLKRAM •••••••••• SP' • ••� .TV . wALmuT PEACH Iftl RO. . ••iii Vwc°°" �_. Nom' - .. `.\ ME ADOW •.. ':i. --- -lrt \q� 0, i = -'� 9 ?a .l_ - Nxt6 _ • + � City BounCary • n % u tson sun v� ••• Src4m /n� LEGEND ••••• EQUESTRIAN TRAILS _ _ _ CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY 001 c "113 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 24 Exhibit E -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element, Equestrian Trail Network Figure 4 LEGEND ••••• EQUESTRIAN TRAILS _ _ _ CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY 0o0j-14 s9 ••••ar • -- -- - -- ��_aa�aaaaa- ••a••aaaa••� i Ar �, • i %' • • oo— -- 0*0 City 07 • 0 • Moorpark - � • /; • • SR N ,� I • b - - -- -- D — • • _ . • **4 .. POWDEXTER OA•DEW PARK • ROM 0 LANE.— . J R� e s • — .. -_..:_ •+i— • _ LOS ANOEL.ES •• . • • •• • 0 qO 7 O s� . y E• N • •. bP ` b CREK• •OU TAN WAUpjT • • � • if1•AL •OP:: � • � • • - � CREEK . „q�.P MHNSRCrT D0. O 4Ry�. •' ,� iMEAOOwN • City Boundary • o tsoo uae •� scak ,R r LEGEND ••••• EQUESTRIAN TRAILS _ _ _ CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY 0o0j-14 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 25 Exhibit F -1 (Existing Plan) City of Moorpark General Plan Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open Space Areas Figure 3 i - �•iVr -. LEGEND AG -1 10 -40 acres /DU Arroyo Simi AG-2,140+ acres/DU City Park rY Moorpark Collage OS -2 40 -acres /DU Regional Park, p� Rural Low - Density I •I- r i - �•iVr -. LEGEND AG -1 10 -40 acres /DU Arroyo Simi AG-2,140+ acres/DU City Park OS -1 10 -40 acreslDU Moorpark Collage OS -2 40 -acres /DU Regional Park, p� Rural Low - Density 1 AG -1 10 -40 acres /DU AG-2,140+ acres/DU OS -1 10 -40 acreslDU OS -2 40 -acres /DU 0 N yw,�G 'n1 C '000 0 0 r 0 • �QOO �^ i ---- -i Area of Interest City Limits and Sphere of Influence 000115 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 26 Exhibit F -2 (Proposed Amendment) City of Moorpark General Plan Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element, Parks and Open Space Areas Exhibit 5 r aoo oci LEGEND oo Arroyo Slml r------i City Urnits and Sphere of Influents City Park jjI''(��p)''I�� I (C:) I(C:) 1) LM Moorpark College Regional Park - V/ Rural Low- Unslty ,o ft t! "n AG -1 10 -40 acne /DU L ... r------i City Urnits and Sphere of Influents OS -1 10 -40 acreuDU IOS -2 40 • acres /DU 1E-] Nature Preserve (0 DU /Acres) 7 AG -1 10 -40 acne /DU 1- -•—i Area of Interest A�•�—.m• AG -2 "40 • acres /DU r------i City Urnits and Sphere of Influents OS -1 10 -40 acreuDU IOS -2 40 • acres /DU 1E-] Nature Preserve (0 DU /Acres) 0 () ()116 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 27 EXHIBIT B SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2001 -01 (Transmitted to Planning Commission under Separate Cover and Available for Review at the Community Development Department Office) 00011'1f Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 28 EXHIBIT C REVISIONS TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2001 -01 1. The size of the school site should be increased from 12 acres to 18 net usable acres. 2. The size of the day care site should be decreased from 1.6 acres to 0.5 acres to allow for an increased school size. 3. One water tank should be relocated to avoid impacts to the vernal pool watershed. 4. The alignment of Moorpark College Road should be modified and /or the adjacent slope should include the use of walls to prohibit encroachment of grading into the vernal pool watershed. 5. A second wildlife crossing should be added under Moorpark College Road. 6. A canyon crossing for Phase A should be relocated to preserve additional trees based on a re- evaluation of the number of living oak trees in the impact area. 7. The middle and western entry cottages should be moved further into the community; the park in PA -11 should be in front of the entry cottage, and the western entry cottage should be moved west to be less visible from public areas. 8. Planning Areas 37 and 38 should be consolidated into one planning area to create a 9.8 -acre publicly accessible lakeside park with a public swim area, restroom and changing facilities, and a public boat rental operation. 9. The Lakeside Neighborhood Center (Planning Area 50) should be moved to the west of the Lakeside Park (Planning Areas 37 and 38 as noted above). 10. Public parking for the Nature Park (Planning Area 11) should be included as a permitted use. 11. The public trail system should be extended to completely loop around the lake as presented to the Planning Commission by the applicant on March 2, 2004, as Option B, with the lakeside alternative on the north side of the lake, using paseos where the trail is not immediately adjacent to the lake. In addition, this lakeside trail should connect to the Planning Area 44 trail head. 000118 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 29 12. Mixed uses (residential and commercial) should be provided on Planning Area 50 to shift some of the required affordable housing from Planning Area 9 and allow for market -rate housing opportunities in conjunction with commercial uses. The commercial component of Planning Area 50 should be reduced to a maximum of 45,000 square feet to allow for residential development. 13. Exhibits or references to Planning Area 10 as a Youth Sports Park should be eliminated, with reference only to a Community Park site in the Specific Plan Document and Planning Area 10 should be combined with Planning Area 21, as one Planning Area, to include a minimum of 29.1 usable acres for a Community Park and 18.0 usable acres for a School site. 14. Night lighting, other than security lighting, should not be included as part of the Community Park description in the Specific Plan. Should the City wish to include lighting for nighttime use as part of the park design, this could be addressed at the time of the park design. 15. The Implementation Section should include the establishment of a non - wasting endowment or landscape managemen_ district for the ongoing management costs of the Nature Preserve. The Land Use, Grading, and Circulation section should identify Interpretive Facilities to be provided as part of the Nature Preserve. 16. The 33 residential lots in the East Las Posas Groundwater Basin outcrop area should be relocated to Planning Area 31. Planning Area 31 should be designed with either a density higher than 2.9 units per acre, or narrower lots around the lake front in order to provide for a greater variety of housing types in the Specific Plan area. 17. The four -lane access road from the new freeway interchange should be developed as a four -lane arterial with a 14 -foot wide median. 18. A ranch -style home should be included as an architectural style in the Design Guidelines. 19. The existing canyon road through the Unocal site should be available for use during construction activities and be ultimately improved for permanent emergency access. 20. Transit stop locations should be added as part of the improvements to the community park and neighborhood commercial areas. 000-119 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 30 21. The Specific Plan should include a road connection to the western property line as shown in Attachment 1 to the Planning Commission Agenda Report of April 6, 2004 with full access rights given to the City to allow for an option of a roadway connection should the City ever consider the future development of the land west of this Specific Plan project. OCCio i ITEM: 8.C. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission �Y FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director V Prepared by Steven Valdez, Planning Technician DATE: March 2, 2004 (PC Meeting of 4/6/04) SUBJECT: Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03, a Request for a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on an Existing Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility Tower, with Proposed Underground Equipment, Located South of Tierra Rejada Road and Southwest of Brookhurst Court. Applicant: Wireless Facilities, Inc. for Cingular Wireless. (APN: 506 -0- 010 -615) BACKGROUND On April 30, 2003, Wireless Facilities, Inc. ( Cingular) submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for the installation and operation of a cellular communication antenna array on an existing SCE utility tower south of Tierra Rejada Road and west of Brookhurst Court. An underground vault is proposed for related equipment. The initial application was determined incomplete. Wireless Facilities, Inc. resubmitted plans, and the application was determined complete on January 15, 2004. DISCUSSION Project Setting Existing Site Conditions: The project site is on SCE property, south of Tierra Rejada Road and southwest of Brookhurst Court. The steeply - sloped property includes high -power electrical transmission towers with lines running from north to south. The tower adjacent to the tower in the subject request is the site of another cellular facility, discussed below. Single- family residential properties are located to the east and west of the SCE property. \ \MOR PRI_SERV \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \C U P \2003 \03 Wireless [� Facilities(Cingular) \S'TAFF REPORTS \PC Agenda Report 040407.doc 0 0) 012 1 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 2 Previous Applications: On April 1, 2003, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -03 (InfraNext) for the construction of a cellular telecommunication facility (with equipment placed in an underground vault) on an existing Southern California Edison utility tower adjacent to the tower proposed to accommodate the facility in the current request. This approved CUP is similar to the proposed telecommunication tower, except that the height of the proposed antenna will be greater than the previously approved app- - ication in order to avoid interference. This issue is further discussed in the analysis section below. General Plan and Zoning Consistency: Chapters 17.20 and 17.42 of the Municipal Code require a Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit for wireless cellular facilities. The applicant's proposal for a utility- mounted facility is defined as a "Minor Facility" and is allowed in the OS (Open Space) Zoning Classification. This type of facility is required to be compatible with surrounding land uses, must be an attachment to an existing above - ground structure and must comply with all other provisions of Section 17.42.070.B, 17.42.070.C, and 17.42.070.D of the Municipal Code. Proposed Project Facility: This proposed wireless communication facility consists of the installation of twelve(12) antennas, with four (4) antennas per sector and one (1) microwave dish mounted upon an existing SCE High Power Transmission Tower via an approved SCE antenna mounting bracket. The proposed facility will transmit signals from the panel antennas to the wireless telephones within the coverage area. It will provide coverage along Tierra Rejada Road and the surrounding community. The proposed panel antennas measure four feet (4') in height, eight inches (8 ") in width and three inches (3 ") in depth, 000122 GENERAL PLAN %ZONING Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use Site Open Space -2 -- - - - -- __ .._.. ... OS Edison Power poles North Open Space -2 _.. _...._ OS -- -- Edison Power Poles South ...... Open Space -2 OS Edison Power Poles East Med.Dens.Res. RPD Residential West Med.Dens.Res. RPD Residential General Plan and Zoning Consistency: Chapters 17.20 and 17.42 of the Municipal Code require a Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit for wireless cellular facilities. The applicant's proposal for a utility- mounted facility is defined as a "Minor Facility" and is allowed in the OS (Open Space) Zoning Classification. This type of facility is required to be compatible with surrounding land uses, must be an attachment to an existing above - ground structure and must comply with all other provisions of Section 17.42.070.B, 17.42.070.C, and 17.42.070.D of the Municipal Code. Proposed Project Facility: This proposed wireless communication facility consists of the installation of twelve(12) antennas, with four (4) antennas per sector and one (1) microwave dish mounted upon an existing SCE High Power Transmission Tower via an approved SCE antenna mounting bracket. The proposed facility will transmit signals from the panel antennas to the wireless telephones within the coverage area. It will provide coverage along Tierra Rejada Road and the surrounding community. The proposed panel antennas measure four feet (4') in height, eight inches (8 ") in width and three inches (3 ") in depth, 000122 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 3 and will have an antenna tip height of fifty -five feet (55'). Pursuant to City Code requirements, no Minor Facility shall exceed the maximum building height for the applicable zoning district unless such facility receives approval of the Planning Commission, and the applicant demonstrates that exceeding the height limitation is necessary for operation of the facility. In this case, the proposed height exceeds the thirty -five foot (351) height limitation. This issue is further discussed in the analysis section of this report. The proposed microwave dish will serve as a transmit antenna for the telephone landline transmissions. The microwave dish measures twenty -four inches (24 ") in diameter. The height to the center point of the microwave antenna is proposed at approximately forty feet six inches (40'6 "), which is ten feet (10') below the center point of the antenna array, proposed at fifty feet (50') above the base of the utility pole. The proposed antenna will be camouflaged by the use of paint called "Stormy Night" to blend in with the steel gray color of the SCE Transmission Line tower. In this case, as with the antennae, the proposed height exceeds the thirty -five foot (35') height limitation. This issue is further discussed in the analysis section of this report. Equipment Enclosure: Cingular Wireless also proposes to install a twelve foot (12') wide, eighteen foot (18') long, twelve foot (12') deep underground equipment vault. All equipment necessary to operate the facility will be housed in the underground vault. The underground vault will be located twenty -five feet (25') west of the SCE tower. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area: There is no scenic vista at the proposed location, nor is the proposed location within a scenic view. No materials used in construction of the site would create substantial glare that would effect either daytime or nighttime views in the area. Additionally, the color of the equipment is proposed to blend with the color of the existing utility pole and the proposed use is located in an area that is not likely to impact any of the adjacent residential uses due to its small size. The proposed cellular facility on the existing utility pole is considered a passive use, which would not produce noise, not violate any air quality standards, affect biological resources, or cause an adverse effect on cultural resources. It will require no transport of hazardous materials to or from the site. Although the proposed use is designed to serve the existing residential area, it 000123 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 4 would not induce substantial population growth, would not displace existing housing or have a negative impact on public services. Therefore, the utility mounted cellular antenna facility operation will not disturb the surrounding area or be harmful or detrimental to neighboring properties or uses. Traffic and Parkina: The proposed unmanned communication facility generates a minimal amount of traffic (only that necessary to periodically check the facility) ; therefore, no parking is required. The applicant's submittal information indicates a Cell Site Technician will visit the facility an average of one (1) to two (2) times per month. During routine maintenance, the site can be accessed from Tierra Rejada Road. No parking facilities are required by the Zoning Code for this type of facility. ANALYSTS Issues Staff analysis of the proposed project has identified the following areas for Planning Commission consideration in their recommendation to the City Council: • Minor Facilitv Heiaht Requirement • Tx)(-at i nn Minor Facility Height Requirement: Pursuant to Section 17.42.070 of Ordinance No. 278, no Minor Facility shall exceed the maximum building height for the applicable zoning district, unless such facility receives approval of the Planning Commission and the applicant demonstrates that exceeding the height limitation is necessary for operation of the facility. The applicant is proposing to place the cellular communications antenna on an existing SCE utility pole at a height of fifty -five feet (55'), which will exceed the allowable height in the OS Zone by twenty feet (20'). Although this proposed cell facility will exceed the allowable height limitation in the OS zone, it was determined by staff to be the best location to meet Cingular's coverage needs based on results of alternate location analysis and concerns about potential interference problems from competing cell sites. The proposed height of the antenna on the SCE pole can further be justified, based on the placement of competing cell antennas. An approved AT &T antenna, which is located on an adjacent SCE pole 0CQ124 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 5 twenty -five feet (251) west of Cingular's proposed antenna, would interfere with the proposed antenna at the same height, which was thirty -five feet (35'). The rule of thumb to prevent interference from competing cell sites is to apply a fifteen foot (151) separation. The fifteen foot (151) rule will allow competing signals to function in close proximity to each other without interfering. Thus, Cingular's proposed fifty -five foot (551) height was determined to be both the best location and only location suitable to meet all of Cingular's coverage needs. T.ncat- i nn - To determine the best possible location, staff requested that two (2) other locations be analyzed to verify if another location could meet Cingular's coverage needs, while meeting the height limitation in the OS zone, which is thirty -five feet (351). A location on a SCE pole directly south of the proposed site was analyzed, as was a site on an existing water tank north of Tierra Rejada Road in the Carlsberg Specific Plan. After analysis, neither location was found to meet coverage needs of Cingular at either the thirty -five foot (351) height or fifty -five foot (551) height. The SCE poles at a higher elevation than the current proposal turned out to be too high, because the significant increase in elevation causes the facility to overshoot areas of Tierra Rejada Road to the east. In effect, visual benefit of moving the facility to a higher elevation is negated by the fact that the site would move further south, preventing it from adequately covering Tierra Rejada Road, thus failing to meet the coverage objective of Cingular Wireless. The second analyzed location on the water tank would only cover the Carlsberg area and would not address the coverage needs of Cingular Wireless. Propagation maps showing the coverage area for the alternate locations can be seen in Exhibits 1 through 6. Findings Conditional Use Permit Findings: A. The proposed use is consistent with the intent and provisions of the City's General Plan, and Title 17 of the Municipal Code in that the proposed use, height, setbacks, and improvements are consistent with City Code requirements, when conditioned. B. The proposed use is compatible with the character of the surrounding development because the site is currently used by Southern California Edison for high power electrical transmission lines and the use of utility poles has been designated as an appropriate location for the cohabitation of cellular sites. 00C,12a Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 6 C. The proposed use is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of the surrounding properties, in that it is designed so as not to detract from the physical and visual quality of the community. The color of the antennae is proposed to be painted to blend in with the existing SCE structure. In addition, the proposed equipment cabinets and fencing will be painted to blend into the surroundings. D. The proposed use will not be obnoxious or harmful or impair the utility of the neighboring properties or uses, as the proposed use is designed to blend in with the colors of the terrain and the existing high power transmission line. E. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, as the project has been conditioned to protect the public's health and safety. Wireless Facilities Findings: A. The proposed facility will not create any significant blockage to public views, as the cellular facility will be placed on an existing electrical transmission tower. B. The proposed facility will enhance communication services to the City due to its ability to provide increased communication capabilities. C. The proposed facility will be aesthetically integrated into its surrounding land uses and natural environment, since it will be painted to blend into the existing electrical transmission tower. D. The proposed facility will comply with FCC regulations regarding interference with the reception or transmission of other wireless service signals within the City and surrounding community. E. The proposed facility will operate in compliance with all other applicable Federal regulations for such facilities, including safety regulations, as Cingular operates its wireless network in compliance with its FCC license and FCC rules and regulations concerning frequency emissions and /or radio frequency interference. The transmission densities emanating from the facility will not exceed current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) recommended maximum exposure levels for wireless transmission frequencies which do not have the potential to significantly impact the community. In all cases, Effective Radiated Power (ERP), and its associated electromagnetic (EM) radiation power densities are a small fraction of the maximum permissible exposure set by OU10126 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 7 ANSI, or the more restrictive exposure standard put forth by the National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP). F. The public need for the use of the facility has been documented by the applicant and verified by City staff to be consistent with California law in that the proposed cell site will provide a substantial increase in the coverage area (an increase from weak coverage to good coverage in the target area) . G. The applicant will provide at its own expense a field survey or other method consistent with Federal law to provide written verification that the Facility is in compliance with applicable Federal regulations regarding electromagnetic frequency emissions. This radio - frequency (RF) report shall also include signal strength exhibits, including calculations and measurements under maximum loading conditions. Such field survey shall be provided to the City upon request, not to exceed one such request in any 24 -month period. 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 effect 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. Pursuant to California State law, an evaluation has been conducted to determine whether the proposed project could significantly 000127 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 8 affect the environment. It has been found that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. PROCESSING TIME LIMITS Time limits have been established for the processing of development projects 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). Under the applicable provisions of these regulations, the following timelines have been established for action on this project: Date Application Deemed Complete: February 13, 2004 Planning Commission Action Deadline: April 14, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03, subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Construction Plan 3. South /East Elevation 4. North /West Elevation 5. Exhibits 1 through 6 6. Draft Resolution No. PC -2004- with Conditions cf Approval 000128 ,.. City of Moorpark - Planning Division Location Map Location: SCE EASE -ENT (1 000 Foot Radius) F-41)w. � NK=E== mlm-z� g M IF mm 9 13 oil= im r! I I r -t- - mclo3s xzz X. JON ns OT.;p %*AM WWI I am Wjoft MOL33S ,two. cot 10-S&L-AA ILP0 164VCM VIAERL Z LTJNHMZ)VLTJLTJV OCT 7�7 - -,ply W Wf"ba J, LOW Aj — — — — --- — — — — 5, g um M]w x law mmm CrJGK",w SmftwAj* 4 w raw ar a I M MGKIAD 3A a U w mum "Mapso."imw oz -611-kZ1 3--vowmm -ALlil All, blimmdhk v jo .0 Vtv. 7)Wd GIW~ 0 C11 MMK" VNNZLNV kaft sw of SMI.W.1 lm -*L uw wf".*Q osoxad .3, H0133S Vft W.4.01 'AID 34S HM AL o"Usca v jo .0 Vtv. 7)Wd GIW~ 0 C11 7---- --- -1----- 1 Ell ip 11 7---- --- -1----- 1 a L7i'- E-1 Z 91 -ri *00131 MV ACCESS -JC" —IN 4A AW tx..m jowq!! W"U'At WAK 10 K- ro-smw QKm- Ull N jkl.n lam U c As aa,MCO '*w Loc WAXT JIM& AS ft,�VRM 1 10. NFWC4;m .... CZ akou%ft PWE PC ATTACHMENT 4 1 - -.;; -, ..- llY -"Cm AA Ap WAO c .7 SCU. 114*.I-r t° Fwq*,,:c r", MC'-'W 'LATE 4 [rwmwj F G G Planet DMS V3.1 Metapath Software International Inc Tue Apr 22 19:17:12 2003 VY- 346 -01 Without Centre Long:116 53'01.52 "W Lat: 34 15'44.94 Scale: 1:63766 Connecting_Road - Neighborhood_Road Primary_Road Secondacy_Road Signal(Block) dBm Good Marginal Poor COVERAGE WITHOUT CELL ANTENNA EXHIBIT 1 O N Cr: P:anet DMS V3.1 Me_ -apach Software Internaticnal Inc Tue Apr 22 15:21:51 2003 VY- 346 -01 With at 55 feet Centre Long:118 53'01.52 "W Lat: 34 1S'44.94 Scale: 1:63766 Connecting Road Neighborhood_Road ••- Primary_Road Secondary_Road Signal(Block) dBm Good Marginal Poor PROPOSED LOCATION COVERAGE AT 55 FEET EXHIBIT 2 O O O N % UT Planet DMS V3.1 Metapath Software International Inc Tue Apr 22 19:38:50 2003 VY- 346 -01 With Lower Height Centre Long:118 53'01.52 "W Lat: 34 15'44.94 Scale: 1:63766 Connecting_Road -- Neighborhood_ Road Primary_Road — Secondary_Road Signal(Block) dBm Good Marginal . Poor Gap in Coverage COVERAGE ON PROPOSED SCE POLE AT A 35 FOOT HEIGHT. EXHIBIT 3 O O O N Cj m Planet DMS V3.1 Metapath Software International Inc Fri Feb 20 15:58:26 2004 VY -346 Water Tank Centre Long:118 53'44.28 "W Lat: 34 15'59.47 Scale: 1:61234 Connecting_Road - -- Neighborhood_ Road Primary_Road — Secondary_Road Signal(Block) dBm Good Marginal Poor WATER TANK COVERAGE EXHIBIT 4 O N CJ Planet DMS V3.1 Metapath Software International Inc Thu Feb 5 12:34:17 2004 VY -346 2 Centre Long:118 53'02.88 "W Lat: 34 16'22.90 Scale: 1:61234 Connecting_Road Neighborhood_ Road — Primary_Road — Secondary_Road Signal(Block) dBm Good Marginal ■ Poor COVERAGE ON ALTERNATE SCE POLE AT A HIGHER ELEVATION -35 FOOT HEIGHT EXHIBIT 5 O N Planet DMS V3.1 Metapath Software International Inc Thu Feb 5 11:59:27 2004 VY -346 1 Centre Long:118 53'02.88 "W Lat: 34 16'22.90 Scale: 1:61234 Connecting_Road - - -- Neighborhood_ Road — Primary_Road — Secondary_Road Signal(Slock) dBm Good Marginal Poor COVERAGE ON ALTERNATE SCE POLE AT A HIGHER ELEVATION -50 FOOT HEIGHT. EXHIBIT 6 RESOLUTION NO. PC -2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -03 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON AN EXISTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) UTILITY TOWER, LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT -OF -WAY, SOUTH OF TIERRA REJADA ROAD IN AN OPEN SPACE AREA SOUTHWEST OF BROOKHURST STREET. (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 506 -0- 010 -615). WHEREAS, at duly noticed public hearing on April 6, 2004, the Planning Commission considered Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03 on the application of Wireless Facilities, Inc., requesting approval of a wireless communication facility, consisting of twelve (12) antennas with four (4) antennas per sector, to be located on an existing seventy five foot (75') high Southern California Edison (SCE) tower with supporting equipment in a seventeen -foot by twelve -foot (17' x 12') prefabricated underground vault, located eighty feet (801) west of the existing SCE tower; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of April 6, 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 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concurs with the Community Development Director's determination that this project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 as a Class 3 exemption for the construction of new small structures or facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: Based upon the information set forth above, it is determined that this application with the attached special and standard conditions, meets the requirements of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.44.040 in that: 3: \Comnr.1ci_y Deveiopment \DEV PX'I'S \C J P\ 2003 \03 Wireless Fac :ii.ties(Cinguiar) \PC RESO \PC Resc C4C407.co:� PC ATTACHMENT 6 0001:39 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 2 A. The proposed use is consistent with the intent and provisions of the City's General Plan, and Title 17 of the Municipal Code in that the proposed use, height, setbacks, and improvements are consistent with City Code requirements, when conditioned. B. The proposed use is compatible surrounding development because by Southern California Edison transmission lines and the use designated as an appropriate lc of cellular sites. with the character of the the site is currently used for high power electrical of utility poles has been cation for the cohabitation C. The proposed use is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of the surrounding properties, in that it is designed so as not to detract from the physical and visual quality of the community. The color of the antennae is proposed to be painted to blend in with the existing SCE structure. In addition, the proposed equipment cabinets and fencing will be painted to blend into the surroundings. D. The proposed use will not be obnoxious or harmful or impair the utility of the neighboring properties or uses, as the proposed use is designed to blend in with the colors of the terrain and the existing high power transmission line. E. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, as the project has been conditioned to protect the public's health and safety. SECTION 2. WIRELESS FACILITIES FINDINGS: Based upon the information set forth above, it is determined that this application with the attached special and standard conditions, meets the requirements of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.42.060 in that: A. The proposed facility will not create any significant blockage to public views, as the cellular facility will be placed on an existing electrical transmission tower. B. The proposed facility will enhance communication services to the City due to its ability to provide increased communication capabilities. C. The proposed facility will be aesthetically integrated into its surrounding land uses and natural environment, since it will be painted to blend into the existing Electrical transmission tower. 000140 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 3 D. The proposed facility will comply with FCC regulations regarding interference with the reception or transmission of other wireless service signals within the City and surrounding community. E. The proposed facility will operate in compliance with all other applicable Federal regulations for such facilities, including safety regulations, as Cingular operates its wireless network in compliance with its FCC license and FCC rules and regulations concerning frequency emissions and /or radio frequency interference. The transmission densities emanating from the facility will not exceed current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) recommended maximum exposure levels for wireless transmission frequencies which do not have the potential to significantly impact the community. In all cases, Effective Radiated Power (ERP), and its associated electromagnetic (EM) radiation power densities are a small fraction of the maximum permissible exposure set by ANSI, or the more restrictive exposure standard put forth by the National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP). F. The public need for the use of the facility has been documented by the applicant and verified by City staff to be consistent with California law in that the proposed cell site will provide a substantial increase in the coverage area (an increase from weak coverage to good coverage in the target area). G. The applicant will provide at its own expense a field survey or other method consistent with Federal law to provide written verification that the Facility is in compliance with applicable Federal regulations regarding electromagnetic frequency emissions. This radio - frequency (RF) report shall also include signal strength exhibits, including calculations and measurements under maximum loading conditions. Such field survey shall be provided to the City upon request, not to exceed one (1) such request in any 24 -month period. SECTION 3. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL: the Planning Commission herby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03 subject to the Special and Standard Conditions of Approval found in Exhibit A attached. SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The Community Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this 000141 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 4 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 6th day of April, 2004. Scott Pozza, Chair ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan Community Development Director Exhibit A: Special and Standard Conditions of Approval 000142 Resolution No. PC -2009- Page 5 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) NO. 2003 -03 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall allow the City to co- locate a radio antenna on the structure and place associated equipment and electronics within or on the equipment enclosure, at no cost, so long as this is done for City purposes at the expense of the City, there is no interference with the operation of the primary equipment, and that security and access are feasible. 2. Prior to approval of a Zoning Clearance, the antenna shall be designed to ensure that the visual appearance matches the surrounding uses by including design and /or landscaping elements, as determined by the Community Development Director. The Director may require additional trees after the installation of the antenna, if additional screening is deemed necessary. 3. In the event that a future merger, acquisition, or other action renders this antenna array redundant or unnecessary, the applicant shall remove the facility within ninety (90) days of a determination of redundancy or non - necessity. Propagation maps identifying then - current signal coverage and coverage without this facility shall be provided to the City at the request of the Community Development Director. Such request may occur not more than once in a twelve (12) month period. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. Acceptance of Conditions: The applicant's acceptance of this permit and /or commencement of construction and /or operations under this permit shall be deemed to be acceptance of all conditions of this permit. 2. This permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of its approval, unless a building permit has been obtained and construction inaugurated. The Community Development Director may, at his /her discretion, grant up to two (2) additional 1 -year extensions, if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if the applicant can document that he /she has diligently worked towards obtaining 000143 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 6 building permits or inaugurating construction. The request for extension of this permit shall be made in writing, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the permit. 3. The Conditions of Approval of this permit, City of Moorpark Municipal Code and adopted City policies at the time of the permit approval supersede all conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, typical sections and the like which may be shown on plans. 4. Conditions of this entitlement shall not be interpreted as permitting or requiring any violation of law or any unlawful rules or regulations or orders of an authorized governmental agency. 5. If any architectural or historical finds are uncovered during grading or excavation operations, all grading or excavation shall cease in the immediate area and the find shall be left untouched. The applicant shall assure the preservation of the site and immediately contact the Community Development Director informing the Director of the find. The applicant shall be required to obtain the services of a qualified paleontologist or archeologist, whichever is appropriate to recommend disposition of the site. The paleontologist or archeologist selected shall be approved by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the investigation and disposition of the find. 6. 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 permit, 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: 000144 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 7 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 building permit is ultimately obtained, or final occupancy is ultimately granted with respect to the permit. 7. 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. FEES 8. Entitlement Processing: Prior to the acceptance of any Zoning Clearance, entitlement, building permit, grading permit, or advanced grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director, all outstanding entitlement case processing fees including all applicable City legal service fees. This payment shall be made within sixty (60) calendar days of approval of this permit. 9. Capital Improvements, Facilities, and Processing: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director the capital improvement, development, and processing fees at the current rate in effect. Said fees include but are not limited to Library Facilities, Police Facilities, Fire Facilities, entitlement processing, building and public improvement, plan checks and permits. Unless specifically exempted by City Council, the applicant is subject to all fees imposed by the 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. 10. Electronic Conversion: Prior to or concurrently with the approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer and the Building Official the City's electronic image conversion fee for the Final Map /improvement plans and building permit /plans or other plans as determined by the Community Development Department. o00:145 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 8 11. Condition Compliance: Prior to the issuance of any Zoning Clearance for construction, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department the Condition Compliance review fee. B. Please contact the PLANNING DIVISION for compliance with the following conditions: OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 12. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, the applicant shall submit all construction plans for review and approval by the Planning Division. 13. This facility is approved as an unmanned operation. Following construction of the facility, traffic generated by this use shall be limited to periodic and emergency maintenance of the facility. LANDSCAPING 14. Prior to operation of the use, the applicant shall replace at the applicant's expense, any vegetation or landscaping removed or damaged as a result of the installation or operation of this facility. The replacement shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 15. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, a Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall pay any cost of landscape plan review at the time of submittal. Landscaping shall be provided to screen any equipment associated with this communications facility. 16. In the event that the uses for which this Conditional Use Permit are approved, is determined to be abandoned, the City of Moorpark may, at its discretion, initiate revocation procedures for cause per the provisions of Section 17.44.080. For purposes of this condition, "abandoned" shall mean a cessation of a business or businesses which would render the use unavailable to the public for a period of 180 or more consecutive days. Initiation of revocation procedures may result in the revocation of the permit or modification of the permit based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. A surety, in an amount subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director, shall be provided to 000146 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 9 the City prior to the approval of a Zoning Clearance for construction, to guarantee removal of equipment and structures, if the City determines the facility to be abandoned and /or a public nuisance. 17. Removal or relocation of any and all of the facilities shall be at the facility owner's expense, and at no cost to the City. Should the facility be removed or relocated by the City, the facility owner hereby waives any claims, damage, or loss (including, but not limited to, consequential damages) resulting from the city's removal or relocation of the facility. 18. The applicant will provide, at its own expense, a field survey or other method consistent with Federal law to provide written verification that the facility is in compliance with applicable Federal regulations regarding electromagnetic frequency emissions. This radio - frequency (RF) report shall also include signal strength exhibits, including calculations and measurements under maximum loading conditions. Such field survey shall be provided to the City upon request, not to exceed one (1) such request in any 24 -month period. 19. The facility shall be removed at the owner's expense when a City- approved project requires relocation or under grounding of the utility structure on which the facility is mounted. If the facility owner refuses to remove the facility, the owner shall reimburse the City for city costs and expenses to remove the facility. The applicant waives any claims, damage, or loss (including, but not limited to, consequential damages) resulting from the City's removal or relocation of the facility. Please contact the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT for compliance with the following conditions: 20. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, proof of the right to ingress and egress shall be obtained from adjacent property owner and provided to the City Engineer. Prior to any grading or drainage activity a grading and /or drainage plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. No grading or drainage work shall occur without a grading permit and /or the permission of the City Engineer. 21. In the event that existing drainage patterns are affected by this project the applicant shall adhere to all Federal 000147 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 10 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations and requirements. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit all necessary calculations shall be submitted to the City and any governing Federal agency for review and approval. -End- 000148 ITEM: 9.A. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission .�J �� FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Direct rr� Prepared by Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner G / DATE: March 17, 2004 (PC Meeting of 04/06/04) ,/ SUBJECT: Consider Recommendation to City Council on Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines BACKGROUND As part of the annual City Council Goals and Objectives, the City Council has identified, for the past several years, the need to adopt guidelines for preparation of landscape and irrigation plans. This goal is currently listed as item number F -8 on the list of departmental goals and objectives. In support of this Goal of the City Council, Community Development staff has worked with the City's Landscape Consultant tc develop a series of standards and guidelines to ensure that the landscaping of new development projects, as well as, that of public facilities and streetscapes, is designed to achieve the desired outcome at maturity. DISCUSSION The attached document represents a comprehensive program for the implementation of landscape design policies and regulations which are already in existence within the City today. The benefits to be gained from these Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines will be realized by both City staff, as well as, by private land owners and developers, through the clear communication of expectations and standards pertaining to the installation and maintenance of landscaping and irrigation systems. The Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines begin with general information which pertains to all projects in the City. This information identifies points of concern which should be considered when designing the landscape and irrigation plans for any project. Issues such as water conservation, fire hazard mitigation, public S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \Z 0 A \2002 \Landscape Guidelines \PC Agenda Report.doc 0 (10 1 4 9 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 2 accessibility, and development of community character are addressed in a very general way, so that landscape designers can understand these concerns before considerable time is expended in design. Landscape Plan submittal requirements and processing procedures constitute the next portion of the document. These sections establish standards for submittals and outline the general processing steps to enable applicants to navigate their way through the Landscape Plan review process as easily and expeditiously as possible. The procedures and requirements sections address the format of plans, the content of submittals, and the process from the time of submittal to the final inspection of landscaping and irrigation and the release of sureties. Next, the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines identify design standards to be used for different types of projects. These project types range from public concerns such as streetscapes to private developments. Separate requirements exist for single- family residential projects, as well as, commercial and industrial projects, and treatments of utilities. Parking areas have their own requirements in the document as well. Finally, the Standards and Guidelines provide a series of aids to applicants designing and submitting plans to the City. Applications and other forms are included in the "Attachments to the Standards and Guidelines." Other helpful information is included, such as plant lists, submittal requirements, and standard details for the installation of plant materials and irrigation equipment. It should be noted that these Standards and Guidelines are intended to provide direction to applicants and guidance to staff in processing requests for landscape approval on public projects, and private commercial, industrial, institutional and residential projects. The Standards and Guidelines are not, however, intended to dictate planting requirements for individual private residential properties. While the plant lists and planting methods included in the document may prove useful to homeowners, they are not to be enforced as the only list of plants or methods acceptable to the City. Homeowners will retain their own freedom to design the landscapes on their property, subject only to property maintenance provisions of the Municipal Code and individual Homeowners Association regulations. Many of the provisions of the Standards and Guidelines use mandatory language ( "shall ") rather than directory language ( "should "), which is not typically true of "Guidelines." The 0 G01S0 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 3 provisions using the mandatory language are Standards to be adhered to in all instances, while the provisions with directory language are Guidelines. This fact should be viewed in light of the intent that these Guidelines be adopted as general policies, which set direction and guide both staff and applicants in the accomplishment of the goal of ensuring a pleasant and livable community, enriched with desired landscape amenities. However, in some instances, there may be situations which are better addressed by a practice which may not strictly adhere to the guidelines set for--h in the document. In those situations, the Community Development Director may adjust the guidelines to best meet the needs of the City. The Commission should be aware that the Director's ability to adjust provisions in the Standards and Guidelines does not extend to those mandatory items that require compliance with other City, State, or Federal requirements, such as Title 24, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and local health and safety requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines is considered to be a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requiring an appropriate level of environmental review. 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 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 a 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 effect 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 reviewed this project and found it to qualify for a General Rule Exemption in accordance with Section 15061 of 000151 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 4 California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). No further environmental documentation is required. STAFF RECOM4ENDATION Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines. ATTACHMENT: Draft Resolution PC -2004- 0 U 0 1 S ti RESOLUTION NO. PC -2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the City Council has established a goal of developing a policy document addressing Landscape and Irrigation system design for projects on both public and private property; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines will serve both project applicants as well as City staff responsible for processing project applications by outlining submittal requirements, applicable standards, and processing procedures; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after discussion of the matter at its regular meeting of April 6, 2004, determined that the draft Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines presented by the Community Development Department would support the objectives desired by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concurs with the Community Development Director's determination that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects that may have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark recommends to the City Council the adoption of the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. 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. PC ATTACHMENT 000153 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 2 The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 2004. Scott Pozza, Chair ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan Community Development Director Exhibit A - Draft Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines 000154 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 3 LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CITY OF MOORPARK Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 805 - 517 -6224 EXHIBIT A 0(30155 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Water Conservation 1.2 Ecological Viability 1.3 Development of Community Character 1.4 Public Access and Enjoyment 1.5 Fire Mitigation SECTION 2 PROCESSING PROCEDURES 2.1 Pre - Submittal Meeting 2.2 Conceptual Landscape Package Submittal 2.3 Conceptual Plan Review and Approval 2.4 Guarantee /Surety and Exoneration of Surety 2.5 Installation and Inspection 2.6 Enforcement SECTION 3 PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Plan Check Fees 3.2 General Plan Preparation Requirements 3.3 Planting Plan Requirements 3.4 Soils Analysis 3.5 Irrigation Plan Requirements 3.6 Maintenance Program SECTION 4 INSTALLATION VERIFICATION 4.1 Approved Plans /Conditions 4.2 Landscape Condition Compliance Review 4.3 Maintenance Program SECTION 5 INSTALLATION ENFORCEMENT SECTION 6 WATER BUDGET AND PROJECTED WATER USE CALCULATIONS SECTION 7 PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY 7.1 Parkways and Streetscapes 7.2 Median Island Planting Requirements SECTION 8 COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI - FAMILY PROJECTS SECTION 9 UTILITIES SECTION 10 PARKING AREAS SECTION 11 EROSION CONTROL AND NATURAL AREAS SECTION 12 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 12.1 Water Efficient Model Home Requirement 12.2 Private Front Yards 12.3 Street Trees 12.4 Streetscape Concept 12.5 Wall and Fencing © (3 C. JL Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 5 ATTACHMENTS: I LANDSCAPE SUBMITTAL PLAN CHECKLIST • General Plan Requirements • Slope Planting Plan Requirements • On -Site Planting Plan Requirements • Irrigation Plan Requirements • Landscape Inspection Requirements (City Maintained and Master Association) • Landscape Inspection Requirements (Sub- Association, Commercial and On -Site Areas) • City Approval Block (must be on title sheet) II GENERAL RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST III INVASIVE AND PROHIBITED PLANT LIST IV RECOMMENDED TREES FOR STREETS V REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN REIVEW VI APPLICANT'S LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT'S CHECKLIST AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE VII CITY STANDARD PLANTING DETAILS 1 -1 Tree Planting Detail 1 -2 Tree Guying Detail 1 -3 Tree Planting on Slope Detail 1 -4 Shrub Planting Detail 1 -5 Shrub on Slope Planting Detail VIII CITY STANDARD IRRIGATION DETAILS 2 -1 Remote Control Valve Detail 2 -2 Anti- siphon Valve Detail 2 -3 Backflow Preventer Detail 2 -4 Bubbler Detail 2 -5 Pop -up Rotor Detail 2 -6 Rotor On Slope Detail 2 -7 Pop -up Spray Head Detail 2 -8 Riser Spray Detail IX PLANTING DESIGN REQUIREMENT FIGURES 12 -1 Slope Planting w/View Fence (Elevation) 12 -2 Slope Planting w /Screen Wall (Elevation) 12 -3 Slope Planting at Single- Family Residence (Plan View) 12 -4 Slope Planting a Multi - Family Residence (Plan View) 00 L,157 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 6 SECTION 1 GENERAL The purpose of this guide is to assist in the preparation of landscape plans while incorporating water conservation measures, design aesthetics and landscape consistency throughout the City of Moorpark. It has been prepared by the City of Moorpark Community Development Department as a guide for use by landscape architects and others involved with the development of projects within the City. These standards and guidelines include water use requirements and the City's minimum landscape standards established to create a sense of community character. The landscape plans must meet the basic criteria within these standards and guidelines. Items which utilize mandatory language ( "shall ") are considered standards and must be adhered to. Additionally, certain projects may be required to exceed the minimum standards to achieve specific objectives. The items which utilize directory language ( "should ") are considered guidelines, and may be interpreted with some flexibility to meet goals which result in community benefit. The Community Development Director may waive any guidelines as deemed necessary and appropriate. 1.1 Water Conservation Water conservation through landscaping offers the greatest single opportunity for water savings in the urban area. About forty percent (40 %) of urban water is used to irrigate landscaped areas in California. A water - efficient landscape includes water efficient (drought tolerant) plants, efficient irrigation systems, proper soil preparation, responsive maintenance and watering schedules, and reuse of water (wherever possible) such as grey water, reclaimed or recycled water systems. Water - efficient design can both reduce project costs and reduce the amount of water usage for landscaping. Due to the increasing demand for water and the limited supply in Ventura County and within the City of Moorpark, water - efficient landscaping shall be required in new developments and existing developments undergoing significant modifications. Included within these standards and guidelines are Water Budget and Projected Water Use Calculations as well as a list of City approved plants and their suggested landscape use. The applicant may expand upon the material list with approval by the Community Development Director, but all suggestions must meet the basic criteria within the standards and guidelines, including: • Drought tolerant planting; • Limitation of lawn areas; • Efficient irrigation; • Proper soil preparation, including use of mulch • Responsive maintenance and watering schedule; • Use of surfaces that allow percolation of stormwater, such as turfcrete, gravel, porous pavements, vegetative groundcover, mulch, etc; • Surface drainage through bioswales; and • Stormwater storage for reuse onsite, such as cisterns. 000158 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 7 1.2 Ecological Viability The landscape plans should incorporate sensible conservation of public resources, including water, soil, biodiversity, energy resources, air quality, agricultural, recreational and wildlife open space, and other such resources in the public interest. Judicious conservation is cost - effective in both project construction and maintenance. Landscape plans that incorporate conservation also integrate with the character of the City's community and environs. The applicant is encouraged to take full advantage of the wide range of possibilities in design and technology within the framework established by this guide. A list of invasive and prohibited plants is provided (Attachment III). The Community Development Director or his /her designee may allow usage of select plants on this list in landscape areas that do not interface with sensitive ecological zones. Methods of increasing ecological viability include: • Reduced disturbance of soil and natural terrain through minimizing grading and working with the natural topography as much as possible; • Narrower road design and layouts with shorter road lengths, to reduce infrastructure costs and impermeable surfaces, as well as to increase opportunity to conserve natural resources, viewsheds and other space- requiring amenities in newly developed areas; • Native topsoil conservation and renewal, by saving topsoil and replacing it after grading, by re- vegetating with native plants, and other landscape regeneration methods; • Minimization of runoff via on -site stormwater retention /infiltration through open - bottom and vegetated swales and /or detention /retention basins, and other aesthetically enriching project amenities; • Slope stabilization with appropriate vegetation; • Use of drought - tolerant non - invasive native plants adjacent to designated natural resource areas and waterways; • Use of recycled materials of local origin for hardscaping, mulching and /or soil amendments; • Protection of viewsheds and open space areas; and • Multiple uses for landscapes, such as stormwater parks, to maximize available land area and natural resources, and to increase the quality of public service or economic opportunity. 1.3 Development of Community Character It is the intent of these standards and guidelines to provide a sense of community character that is compatible with the City's culture and environment, and to strengthen the perception of the community as a unique place. The aim of community character development is to create and enhance a community identity, to increase the enjoyment and sense of community among the public, and to enhance the image of the community as a desirable place to live, work and shop. 00 159 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 8 a. Design with consistency and maintain a high standard of aesthetics: 1. Design elements should complement the architectural theme. 2. Private and public uses should be visually separate, but aesthetically consistent. 3. Public and Private streets should take on an individual appearance with a common street tree and design intent. 4. Landscape areas and streetscape should include `surprises' such as a large focal tree. b. Introduce design ideas that complement the City's cultural heritage and natural history such as: 1. ranch' style and early Spanish architecture; 2. natural landscape elements such as native trees and shrubs; 3. natural building material such as river rock and boulders; 4. the City's agricultural heritage; 5. the railroad; 6. the arroyo; and 7. local chaparral and riparian plant communities. C. Integrate conservation and efficiency whenever possible, to enhance enjoyment of the unique characteristics of the area, such as: 1. mild, sunny climate; 2. maritime weather patterns; 3. distinctive shape of the existing terrain; 4. viewsheds; 5. beauty of local natural history; and 6. local building materials. 1.4 Public Access and Enjoyment The landscape plans shall meet all Title 24 and ADA accessibility requirements as well as all applicable codes for fire and building in order to promote health, safety and community welfare. The intent of these standards and guidelines is to universally provide safe access for use and enjoyment, on new projects and on modifications of existing projects. a. ADA accessibility and Title 24 requirements shall be incorporated for public, commercial and industrial projects, for both new projects and modification of existing projects. b. Landscapes shall be viable, functional and attractive, to provide universal access, use and enjoyment. Landscapes shall provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community, through compliance with all applicable ordinances for fire, health and safety. 00CAGO Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 9 C. In addition to ADA accessibility, landscapes should be designed for specific user populations as needed, whether for an elderly population, youth, or for specific disabilities such as blindness. Specific landscape functions and amenities should be considered. Examples include: 1. raised beds to wheelchair height and reach for handicapped and elderly access in a community garden; 2. casual seating located along pedestrian ways positioned for "people watching ", such as benches, steps, planters or grassy slopes, with a view onto a park, plaza or street; and 3. textured surfaces along pedestrian ways to guide non - sighted pedestrians. d. Landscapes shall enhance the microclimate and character of pedestrian ways and gathering places by adequately providing the following: 1. shade, from trees or from overhead structures; 2. screening; 3. seating; 4. lighting; 5. circulation, including adequate separation of pedestrian, bicycle, equestrian and vehicular circulation; and 6. attractive gathering spaces with focal amenities. 1.5 Fire Mitigation A Fuel Modification Plan may be required when a proposed project contains or is bounded by hazardous native vegetation as determined by the Ventura County Prevention District, This plan will demonstrate how the proposed project will mitigate potential fire hazards. The final Fuel Modification Plan shall be submitted in conjunction with landscape plans prior to review by the City. The final approved Fuel Modification Plan may take precedence over these standards and guidelines. SECTION 2 PROCESSING PROCEDURES 2.1 Pre - Submittal Meeting A pre - submittal meeting familiarizes the applicant with the review process, and identifies the information and materials necessary to file landscape plans. A pre - submittal meeting can be arranged by contacting the case planner at the Community Development Department. 2.2 Conceptual Landscape Package Submittal After the applicant has prepared all the information identified during the pre - submittal meeting, the landscape package shall be formally submitted with the required fee deposit in accordance with fee schedule and signed Reimbursement Agreement. (See Attachment V) Elements to be included in the conceptual landscape plan package are as follows: OCRQIIRSI Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 10 a. existing trees and shrubs to be removed and /or protect in place; b. structures or buildings to be removed and /or protect in place; C. tree, Shrub and Groundcover Plant Palette; d. street tree plan; e. general plant sizes and locations; all design elements, site features and flatwork, including elevations or perspective drawings of those features; g. project entry monumentation layout and elevations or perspective drawings. h. walls and fences including details; i. paving and walkways; j. color and material schedule. Samples should be included for City to review; all site amenities. At a minimum, the site amenities should reference color and material (i.e. wood, metal, etc.); site and landscape lighting; M. preliminary parking lot shading plan if applicable. Plan should address all four seasons (refer to Section 10); and n. preliminary utility screening plan (refer to Section 9). 2.3 Conceptual Plan Review and Approval Upon receipt of the landscape package, the City's case planner shall review it for completeness and forward it to the City's consulting landscape architect for review. The consultant's review, which normally takes two weeks, consists of an on -site inspection and package review for consistency with City standards as outlined by this guide. Upon completion of the review, the consultant returns the package to the Planning Division with recommendations for approval or modification. This process is repeated until approval is achieved. Based upon the recommendations of the City's consulting landscape architect and case planner, the Community Development Director shall approve the project's landscape package. 2.4 Guarantee /Surety and Exoneration of Surety A surety bond may be required as a condition of approval in the following cases: a. To assure plant viability at least one year after installation. b. To assure installation of plants after issuance of a Zoning Clearance by the Planning Division and Certificate of Occupancy by Building and Safety. (This would normally be allowed only on non - sloped areas of residential projects where the applicant is providing landscaping). If, upon final landscape inspection, the Community Development Director determines that the landscaping and irrigation have been installed in accordance with the approved plans, the Community Development Director may recommend that the guarantee /surety be returned to the applicant. 000162 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -_ Page 11 2.5 Installation and Inspection Landscaping for commercial, industrial and residential sloped areas shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City Building and Safety Division. The applicant's landscape architect shall be required to certify in writing to the Community Development Director that all work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications (Attachment VI). The City's landscape consultant will conduct the final landscape inspection after receipt of the certification. (See Section 4 - Installation Verification and Attachment I - Landscape Submittal Plan Checklist & Landscape Inspection Requirements) 2.6 Compliance Discretionary development permits may be conditioned for follow -up inspections to verify a maintenance program, water management auditing, or compliance with environmental mitigation measures. Failure by the applicant, successor in interest, or homeowner's association to maintain installed common area landscaping and /or irrigation systems will constitute a violation of the Conditions of Approval and /or Mitigation Measures of the development permit. SECTION 3 PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The project's landscape package shall be prepared by a California Registered Landscape Architect, unless waived by the Community Development Director. Plans must be wet - stamped, signed and dated. Plan submittals shall include the following: (see Attachment I - Landscape Plan Review Checklist) 3.1 Plan Check Fees The applicant shall pay the deposit fee in accordance with the fee schedule and submit a signed reimbursement agreement to cover landscape review and inspection. Fees shall include costs of any required follow -up inspections. (See Attachment V - Reimbursement Agreement for Plan Review) 3.2 General Plan Preparation Requirements (See Attachment I - Landscape Plan Review Checklist) a. Base Sheets: 1. Plans shall be drawn on clear and legible base sheets prepared especially for the landscape submittal. 2. Plans shall not exceed 30" x 42" or be less than 22" x 36" in size. 3. Base Sheets should accurately and clearly show the following existing and proposed features: a) property lines; b) streets, street rights -of -way, access easements and /or public or private driveways, walkways, bike paths, and any other paved areas; C) all existing and proposed buildings and structures; 000163 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 12 d) parking areas, lighting, striping, curbs and wheel stops; e) all existing and proposed trees, shrubs and other significant landscape features; i.e., water courses, rock outcroppings, etc.; f) grading areas; top and toe of slopes, slope direction (engineer's Precise Grading plans must included with submittal); g) all Utilities, including street lighting, fire hydrants, transformers, electric meters, irrigation equipment, air conditioning units, etc.; h) existing native vegetation, on -site and on contiguous parcels, may be shown in a generalized manner; and i) Fire Clearance Zone, if applicable (Approved Fuel Modification Plan must be included with submittal). b. Scale: The scale shall not be smaller than 1"=20' unless prior approval is received from the Community Development Director. C. Title Block: A title block shall be included on all plans indicating the names, addresses and phone numbers of the applicant and the landscape architect. The title block shall include a north arrow and scale for each sheet. Each sheet shall be clearly labeled. The title block shall include the California Registered Landscape Architect's seal. Each sheet shall be 'wet- signed' for final approval. d. Title Sheet: Content of the Title Sheet shall include the following: 1. Project Title; 2. Title block; 3. Vicinity Map; 4. Location Map; 5. Sheet Index; 6. Landscape Approval Block (see Attachment I — Landscape Plan Review Checklist); 7. Landscape Inspection Schedule (see Attachment I — Landscape Plan Review Checklist); e. Other Items. 1. One (1) copy of the engineer's precise grading plans shall be included with the landscape submittal. 2. The final Fuel Modification Plan shall be included with the landscape submittal if applicable. 3.3 Planting Plan Requirements (See Attachment I — Landscape Plan Review Checklist) Plan Preparation Requirements: a. A Horticultural Soils Analysis with recommendations shall be attached to the landscape plans. (See Section 3.4 below) 0001.64 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 13 b. The plans must include notation that a ninety (90) day maintenance period is required and that expenses are to be paid for by the owner. C. The planting plan shall include maintenance notes on either the plans or in the specifications. d. Planting specifications shall be included. e. Existing and proposed grades and drainage elements are shown f. All design elements shown on the approved Landscape Concept Plan; i.e. recreational areas, outdoor eating areas, trails, etc. g. Location and spacing of all plants are clearly identified. h. Common and botanical names of all plants are listed. i. Size and quantity of all plants are listed. j. Seed mix information including: 1. rate; 2. mix; 3. mulch; 4. binder; 5. fertilization; and 6. inoculation. k. Planting details I. General planting notes M. Planting specifications n. Maintenance notes (see Section 4) 3.4 Soils Analysis A soils report performed by a laboratory that is a member of the California Association of Agricultural Laboratories shall be attached to the landscape plans. The soil sample tested shall be taken after site grading and the date of the sample shall be included on the report. The planting backfill mixture and soil amendments shall be based on this analysis. Use of soil amendments produced from recycled yard trimmings and /or organic wastes of local origin is encouraged, whenever feasible. The report shall include the following: a. Determination of soil texture indicating the percentage of organic matter shall be indicated. b. An approximate determination of the soil infiltration rate shall be indicated. A range of infiltration rates should be noted, where appropriate C. Measure of pH and total soluble salts shall be indicated. d. Amendments and recommendations for improving water - holding properties shall be noted. OCCO165 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 14 3.5 Irrigation Plan Requirements (See Attachment I - Landscape Plan Review Checklist) All landscape areas shall be provided with an approved irrigation system that meets the requirements of this section. Specific site conditions and proposed landscape materials will determine the design of the irrigation system. The irrigation system shall deliver water efficiently and uniformly. All equipment shall be designed for installation per manufacturer's recommendation, and conform to Uniform Plumbing Codes and all local regulations. a. When considering design alternatives, the following criteria shall be utilized: 1. Head -to -head coverage: The irrigation design shall provide adequate "head -to- head" and sufficient water for the continued healthy growth of all proposed plantings with a minimum of waste or overspray on adjoining areas. 2. Reduced Pressure Backflow Device: Notation shall be on the landscape plan that the backflow device must be tested at a minimum of once a year. All backflow devices shall be installed in a mesh enclosure with green or tan powder coating. 3. Uniform distribution: The distribution of uniformity of an installed sprinkler system shall meet or exceed seventy percent (70 %). 4. Controllers: Automatic irrigation controllers are required with separate programs for each landscape area with a different irrigation need. Controllers shall be capable of controlling the operating time for each circuit, the starting time and daily schedule of operation. Each controller must be able to accommodate multiple schedules and contain fourteen (14) -day minimum clocks; percentage switches; repeat cycles; the ability to schedule by the day of the week; and rain sensing override devices. A watering schedule shall be placed in each controller. 5. Soil moisture sensors: Soil moisture sensing devices are suggested in representative areas of the landscape plan. 6. Point irrigation: Drip emitters and bubblers are recommended for trees and shrubs. 7. Runoff and overspray: Soil types and percolation rate shall be considered when designing irrigation systems. All irrigation systems shall be designed to avoid runoff, low head drainage, overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent areas, walks, roadways, or structures. The water application rate shall attempt to match the infiltration rate of the soil. Repeat cycles shall be utilized in an effort to avoid runoff. Sprinkler heads should be properly located to minimize landscape water overspray or runoff onto hardscape, unplanted areas, or areas of dissimilar water needs. 8. Quick couplers: Quick couplers or hose bibs are required at one - hundred foot (100') intervals throughout the project. 00CA0G Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 15 9. Sprinkler heads: Sprinkler heads shall be selected for proper area coverage, precipitation rate, operating pressure, adjustment capability, and ease of maintenance. Heads or emitters shall have matched precipitation rates within ten percent (10 %) for each control valve circuit. Above ground risers are not allowed next to sidewalks, driveways, or curbs and are discouraged anywhere people can easily access; these sprinklers must be the pop -up type. In areas less than six feet wide, drip emitters and bubblers are recommended. 10. Rain sensing override devices: Rain sensing override devices are required on all irrigation systems. 11. Back -up System: The irrigation system shall be installed with a back -up system should an operating valve fail to shutoff or a break in the mainline occurs. The back up system should either consist of a normally open master valve with flow meter or a normally closed master valve. On large irrigation systems, a normally open master valve with flow meter will be required. 12. Piping: Plastic (PVC) mainline piping requires placement not less than 18" below final grade and minimum twenty-four inches (24 ") below finish surface of streets, with lateral lines requiring 12" depth. UVR (Ultra Violet Resistant) above ground pipe shall only be installed on slope areas. Galvanized lines shall be above ground. Other piping shall be considered for drip or temporary irrigation. Piping for reclaimed water systems shall follow current County Health and State Health standards for pipe color, depth and separation. All irrigation piping under streets or flatwork shall be sleeved with sch 40 PVC minimum two (2) times the diameter of the pipe enclosed. 13. Water meters: Landscape irrigation systems shall be on a separate water meter unless waived by the Community Development Director. A separate meter provides for monitoring of landscape irrigation efficiency. 14. Reclaimed water: If reclaimed water is available, and if installation is determined to be feasible and is approved by the Ventura Councy Environmental Health Division in conjunction with the local water purveyor, a reclaimed irrigation system shall be installed. b. Plan Preparation Requirements Irrigation Plans shall be separate from Planting Plans, and shall have clear graphic indication of all system components with an irrigation legend on each sheet and shall include the following: a) equipment manufacturer; b) type of equipment; C) model number; d) precipitation rate; e) size; f) gallon per minute (GPM) demand; 00016'7 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 16 g) pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) demand; h) radius of cover for each head type; i) name and telephone number of the water purveyor; D design and static water pressure (contact water company) and note reference engineer and date; k) point of connection (location and size); 1) backflow protection as approved by Ventura County Environmental Health; m) controllers, including number of stations; n) remote control valves including gallonage requirement, piping, heads and quick couplers (or hose bibs); o) pipe sizes indicated numerically (i.e.' /2 ", 3/4 ", etc.); and P) rain shut off device. 2. The plans shall include the landscape inspection requirements. The inspection schedule shall be included on the Title Sheet. (See Attachment 1) 3. The plans shall include an irrigation schedule. 4. Worst case pressure loss calculation for the circuit with the highest demand, farthest distance from the POC and highest elevation shall be provided. 5. Details and specifications shall be provided for all irrigation system components. 3.6 Maintenance Program Landscapes of residential common areas and commercial or industrial projects shall be carefully and competently maintained to ensure water efficiency and high quality appearance. A watering schedule encased in plastic shall be kept inside each controller (with reduced as -built plans showing hydro- zones). Maintenance guideline notes must appear on the planting plan drawings. Using these standards and guidelines, a schedule for ongoing maintenance shall be prepared and shown on the planting plan. The maintenance guidelines shall be as follows: Post - installation Maintenance Standards and Guidelines a. Any alterations to the landscape must be approved by the Community Development Director. b. Control all harmful diseases and pests. All chemical applications must be per state licensed advisors and applications. C. Pruning shall be done to keep plants within special limitations, removal of deadwood, cross - branching, etc., per International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards. Plants shall never be sheared unless specified on the approved plan. 00 103 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 17 Trees are to be allowed to grow to the designed size to provide maximum shading of paved areas. d. Water shall be applied for optimum plant growth with minimal runoff or overspray. Adjust controllers per current California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) data. Information can be obtained at www.cimis.ca.gov . e. Always replace heads with the same kind of head, or head with a matching precipitation rate. f. Backflow device shall be tested and certified annually by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division. g. Inspect tree supports frequently, and remove as soon as the plants will stand without support and will be able to resist wind damage. Never allow support materials to girdle the trunk or branches. h. Landscape irrigation shall be scheduled during the night or early morning hours. i. A regular maintenance schedule shall include checking, adjusting, and repairing the irrigation equipment; aerating and de- thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; weeding; and removing litter in all landscaped areas. SECTION 4 INSTALLATION VERIFICATION 4.1 Approved Plans /Conditions Copies of the approved landscape plans and conditions are kept and available at the City of Moorpark, Community Development Department. 4.2 Landscape Condition Compliance Review Prior to completion of the landscaping and rior to final inspection, the City's landscape consultant shall inspect the site and certify that the landscape complies with these standards and guidelines per the attached inspection schedule (see Attachment 1). The applicant shall notify the City a minimum of forty -eight (48) hours prior to inspection. Upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and prior to final inspection, the applicant's landscape consultant shall inspect the site and certify that the landscape complies with these standards and guidelines. Certification shall be accomplished by completing the Certificate of Compliance checklist (see attachment VII). Concurrently or afterwards, the City's landscape consultant shall inspect the landscape planting and irrigation installations for final conformance with the approved plans and specifications. The applicant must also employ a certified backflow tester to certify the backflow device. A second inspection of residential common areas, commercial or industrial projects shall be conducted by the City's landscape consultant one year after certification to assure condition compliance including irrigation efficiency and plant viability. 4.3 Maintenance Program Landscapes of residential common areas, commercial or industrial projects shall be carefully and competently maintained to ensure water efficiency and high quality appearance. A watering schedule and as -built plans shall be encased in plastic and shall be kept in each controller. 000169 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 18 SECTION 5 CONTINUED COMPLIANCE REQUIRED The applicant, successor in interest, or homeowner's association shall maintain installed landscaping and efficient irrigation systems in compliance with the Conditions of Approval and /or Mitigation Measures of the development permit. SECTION 6 WATER BUDGET AND PROJECTED WATER USE CALCULATIONS Each landscape plan must have a water budget and projected water use calculations. Each project site is allowed a certain amount of water based upon the climate of the site and the total square footage of the planting area. Any plant can be used, provided the combined projected water use of all the plants does not exceed the water budget. A water budget calculation is based on the site's size and the reference Evapotranspiration (ET) factor. Included in the calculation of ET factors are evapotranspiration rates, precipitation rates, a crop coefficient and an allowance for uniformity. The reference ET factors within Ventura County are available at the CIMIS website at www.cimis.ca.Qov . The water budget and projected water use calculations shall be submitted as part of the irrigation plan. The projected water use shall not exceed the water budget. A reproducible hydro -zone map showing separation of planting areas with plant factors shall be submitted as part of the landscape package. Areas such as parks, golf courses or school yards where turf provides a playing surface may require additional water. A statement to that effect shall be included with the planting plan, designating areas to be set aside for such purposes. The designated recreation area may receive more water than the water budget allows on a case -by -case basis. Such additional allocation shall be consistent with Ventura County's policy regarding the use of reclaimed water for golf courses. Calculating the Water Budget of a Project Site A site's water budget is determined by multiplying the square footage of the planting area by the site's ET factor. After you have determined how much water is in your budget, you can then calculate the projected water use of your proposed planting plan. To calculate the water budget of a site use this formula: Water Budget (Gallons/Year) = (ET) x (.8) x (LA) x (.62) Water Budget = Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gal /yr) ETo = Reference Evapotranspiration (incheslyr) .8 = ET Adjustment Factor LA = Landscaped Area (in square feet) .62 = Conversion Factor (to gal. /sq. ft.) This formula is based on California state law (Assembly Bill 325). Calculating the Project Water Use of a Landscape Plan: The total amount of projected water use should be less than or equal to the site's water budget. To determine the plant factor, multiply the plant factor of each planting hydro- 0001:0 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 19 zone by its square footage. Then add the results and complete the calculation of projected water use for the entire planting area. Generalized plant factors are: .3 = low water using plants, .5 = average water using plants, and .8 = high water using plants. These factors must be agreed upon by the designer and the City. If a plant is not on the list, an equivalency determination will be made by the Community Development Director. Any changes in the irrigation system or landscape will require new water projections. To calculate the projected water use of a landscape plan, use this formula: Projected Water Use (Gallons /year) _ (ET) x j(PF x) (HA )l x (.62) IE ETo = Reference Evapotranspiration (incheslyear) PF = Plant Factor ( 1 low through .9 high) HA = Hydro -zone Area (square feet) ( 62) = Conversion Factor (to gallons/square foot) IE = Irrigation Efficiency (minimum .625) For the purpose of determining the projected water use, irrigation efficiency is assumed to be 0.625 or better. Irrigation systems shall be designed, maintained and managed to meet or exceed 0.625 efficiency. If the plant factors average 0.5, the water budget will be met at an irrigation efficiency of 0.625. SECTION 7 PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY Special attention should be given to the planning and design of areas that are to be maintained by the City and /or are within the public right -of -way. These areas should utilize drought tolerant planting material, planting material that is low maintenance and utilize water conservation techniques without compromising the aesthetics of the design. 7.1 Parkways and streetscapes The design and layout of the streetscape is not only important to identify and individualize the project area, but also to capture the characteristics of Moorpark. The following goals should be considered: • The street tree should be of the same species for each street to promote consistency and area identity. • The streetscape must be designed with parkways. • Sidewalks should meander whenever possible. • Secondary trees outside of the right -of -way should consist of randomly spaced tree groves and informal massings. • Trees and shrubs should be chosen to provide varying texture, color and form. The landscaping should be consistent with the architectural theme. • Shrub plantings should consist of layers of planting of varying heights. a. General Streetscape Requirements OOC-171. Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 20 1. There shall be a minimum of one (1) shrub per ten (10) s.f. and one (1) tree per four - hundred (400) s.f., exclusive of street trees located within the parkway area. 2. Shrubs shall be minimum 5- gallon size. 3. Accent and perennials shall be located in groupings or massings along the planting edges at a distance not to exceed twenty feet (20') on center. The accent and perennial groupings are exclusive of the shrub - planting requirement. Accent and perennial plant massings shall consist of minimum 1- gallon container size plants with a minimum of twenty -five (25) plants per grouping. Larger groupings at a distance greater than thirty feet (30') may be installed provided the plant quantities are met. 4. With the exception of street trees and median island trees, the minimum tree size is 15- gallon. 5. All shrub areas shall be installed with flatted groundcover unless the landscape is installed with container plantings that will fill in within one year. 6. All shrub areas shall be installed with minimum one -inch (1 ") depth of bark mulch. 7. Turf may be allowed within the parkway area but not in the median island areas. 8. All planting shall be drought tolerant and low maintenance. 9. Six -inch (6 °) wide concrete headers shall be installed between turf and shrub areas. 10. Turf shall not be installed on slopes that exceed a 4:1 ratio. b. Street Tree Requirements 1. Street trees should be spaced according to the mature canopy size of the tree, but in no circumstance should the spacing exceed thirty feet (30') on center without City approval. 2. Street trees shall be minimum 24" box size with minimum 1 %" caliper. Trees shall be between eight (8') to twelve (12') height with a minimum two foot (2') wide spread. 3. Trees shall be standard trunk, not multi- trunk. 4. All street trees within ten feet (10') of walks, curbs, or other hardscape areas shall be installed with a linear root barrier ten feet (10') in length by twenty-four inch (24 ") in depth installed against the hardscape area centered on the tree trunk. 5. Trees shall be located per the sight distance requirements established by the City Engineer at intersections. Unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer, street trees shall not be closer than twenty-five (25') to the back of curb return. 00 C17A -! Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 21 6. Street trees shall be located no less than five feet (5') from curbs, sidewalks and other hardscape areas, unless they are located in parkways. 7. Street trees shall be located no less than ten feet (10') from utility poles and light standards, fire hydrants, utility structures and driveway aprons. 8. Trees that may exceed twenty feet (20') vertical height at maturity shall not be located under utility lines. 7.2 Median Island Planting Requirements a. General Requirements 1. There shall be a minimum of one (1) shrub per ten (10) s.f. and one (1) tree per four - hundred (400) s.f. 2. Shrubs shall consist of minimum 5- gallon container sizes. 3. In median islands ten feet (10') wide or greater, accent and perennials shall be located in massings along the planting edges at a distance not to exceed thirty feet (30') on center and shall be exclusive of the shrub - planting requirement. Accent and perennial plant massings shall consist of minimum 1- gallon container size plants with a minimum of twenty -five (25) plants per grouping. Larger groupings at a distance greater than thirty feet (30') may be installed provided the plant quantities are met. 4. Median island trees shall be minimum seventy -five percent (75 %) 24" box size and twenty -five percent (25 %) 15- gallon container sizes. 5. All shrub areas shall be installed with flatted groundcover unless the landscape is installed with container plantings that will fill in within one year. 6. All shrub areas shall be installed with minimum 1" depth of bark mulch. 7. Turf is not allowed in the median islands. 8. All planting shall be drought tolerant and low maintenance. 9. All trees shall be installed with a linear root barrier ten feet (10') in length by twenty -four inch (24 ") in depth installed against the hardscape area centered on the tree trunk. b. Planting Design Requirements 1. Median island trees shall consist of a variety of tree species of varying form, texture and color. Flowering and canopy trees are encouraged. 2. Trees shall be located per the sight distance requirements established by the City Engineering Department. Trees shall not be installed adjacent to a turn pocket. 3. Shrubs located adjacent to the turn pocket shall not exceed eighteen inches (18 ") in height. Larger shrubs are permitted at a distance of twenty feet (20') from the beginning of the turn pocket, but shall not exceed thirty inches (30 ") in height. 000113 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 22 4. Turf is not permitted in median islands. 5. An eighteen -inch (18 ") wide hardscape edge shall be installed along the entire length of the median island adjacent to the curb for maintenance. The hardscape band shall consist of either colored, stamped concrete, or concrete pavers, to match the architectural theme of the project. SECTION 8 COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI - FAMILY PROJECTS Landscape screening is particularly important with respect to commercial, industrial and multi - family street frontages. The large building mass, parking areas and maintenance staging areas are all relatively visible from the street frontage and require landscaping to soften the architecture and screen utility structures. a. General Planting Requirements 1. Minimum percentage of landscape coverage shall be provided within on- site parking areas consistent with Chapter 17.32 of the Moorpark Municipal Code. 2. There shall be a minimum of one (1) shrub per one - hundred (100) s.f. and one (1) tree per five - hundred (500) s.f., exclusive of street trees located within the parkway area. 3. Shrubs shall consist of eighty percent (80 %) 5- gallon and twenty percent (20 %) 1- gallon of each variety. 4. Turf shall not exceed ten percent (10 %) of the total landscape area, exclusive of the parkway area. 5. Large groupings of accent, perennials and annuals are encouraged. 6. Trees shall be a minimum seventy -five percent (75 %) 24" box and twenty - five percent (25 %) 15- gallon. 7. All shrub areas shall be installed with flatted groundcover unless the landscape is installed with container plantings that will fill in within one year. 8. All shrub areas shall be installed with minimum one -inch (1 ") depth of bark mulch. 9. The planting palette shall be consistent with these standards and guidelines. 10. Turf shall not be installed on slopes that exceed 4:1. b. Planting Design Requirements. 1. The landscape buffer shall consist of tall vertical trees adjacent to the building and lower canopy trees adjacent to the street frontage. 2. The tree planting shall consist of a mixture of evergreen, deciduous and flowering trees. 3. All utilities, trash enclosures, maintenance staging areas, etc. shall be screened from view. 000174 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 23 4. A parkway with street trees shall be installed at the street frontage. 5. Large specimen trees and enhanced landscaping shall be located at the entry locations. Specimen trees shall be minimum 36" box size. 6. Parking areas should be screened from public view from the street. SECTION 9 UTILITIES To reduce the visibility of generally unattractive utility equipment, landscape screening shall be incorporated. For the purpose of these standards and guidelines, utility structures are any appurtenances that are above ground and have been installed in conjunction with new construction or are existing and part of a newly renovated project (i.e. electric meters, transformers, irrigation equipment, air conditioning units, etc.). The landscape plans shall identify all utility structures on site and provide appropriate screening. a. General Design Requirements 1. All utility structures shall be screened from view with appropriate landscaping. 2. Utility structures shall utilize camouflage, disguising the facility as a natural or more aesthetically pleasing man -made object to soften its visual impact on its surroundings. 3. Access to utility structures shall be maintained, while at least seventy -five (75 %) of the shall be screened from view. 4. Bollards shall not be installed with any new utility equipment unless required by governing agency. 5. All utility equipment shall be located at the rear of the property. 6. All utility equipment shall be located in shrub areas with a minimum of three feet (3') clear distance around all sides for appropriate landscape screening. 7. Screening shall take into consideration traffic sight distance requirements established by the City Engineer. SECTION 10 PARKING AREAS Parking lots should be designed to provide ease of access and safety as well as to enhance the visual quality of the City. The ultimate goal of the design is to provide a safe environment, minimize the visual appearance of the large expanse of asphalt and to reduce glare, ambient temperature and traffic noise. a. General Design Requirements A minimum of fifteen percent (15 %) of the total parking area shall consist of landscaping. Landscaping shall be computed on the basis of the net parking facility, which includes parking stalls (covered and uncovered), aisles and walkways, but does not include required landscaping adjacent to streets and within the public right -of -way. 0000 r 13' Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 24 2. All parking rows shall terminate with a planter or island that is a minimum of five -foot (5') width. Parking rows shall not exceed forty feet (40') in length without the addition of a planter finger or island. 3. A minimum of one (1) tree per every four (4) stalls is required to meet the shade requirement. 4. There shall be a minimum of one (1) shrub per ten (10) s.f. 5. Shrubs shall consist of eighty percent (80 %) 5- gallon size and twenty percent (20 %) 1- gallon size. 6. Interior shrub planting shall not exceed thirty inches (30 ") in height. 7. Turf is not allowed in parking areas. 8. Additional groupings of accent plants and perennials are required. 9. The minimum tree size is 24" box. 10. All shrub areas shall be installed with flatted groundcover unless the landscape is installed with container plantings that will fill in within one year. 11. All shrub areas shall be installed with minimum one -inch (1 ") depth of bark mulch. 12. The planting palette shall be consistent with these standards and guidelines. b. Planting Design Requirements 1. The parking area and parked cars shall be adequately screened from view from the street frontage with landscaping. 2. There shall be a minimum of fifty percent (50 %) tree shade coverage of the parking area. This is determined at two- thirds (2/3) tree maturity or fifteen (15) years after installation. 3. A shade coverage exhibit must be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 4. A minimum of one (1) 'finger' planter, five feet (5) in width, shall be provided at a minimum of every forty (40) lineal feet, and at the end of every parking aisle. 5. A minimum of one (1) 'diamond' planter shall be provided at every fourth stall within the parking area or as needed to obtain the shade coverage requirement. 6. A minimum of one (1) 'finger' planter, five feet (5') in width, shall be provided at every eight (8) stalls adjacent to the building or street frontage. Additional tree massings shall be included adjacent to these areas to provide the shade coverage required. 7. Decorative paving material is encouraged to break up the large expanse of concrete or asphalt. 0 00176 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 25 8. Landscape areas shall be designed so as to discourage pedestrians from crossing any landscape areas to reach building entrances or parked vehicles. 9. Landscape islands shall be designed with walkways that encourage pedestrian circulation through the parking area. 10. Wheel stops are not allowed. 11. An eighteen inch (18 ") wide concrete band adjacent to the access side of the vehicle shall be installed adjacent to the median island curb for pedestrian access. 12. Median islands shall be a minimum of five feet (5) wide without a walkway and fifteen feet (15') wide with a five -foot (5'), walkway not including the curb. SECTION 11 EROSION CONTROL AND NATURAL AREAS Erosion control landscaping is required to reduce soil erosion and excessive runoff due to construction activities. Erosion control landscaping can also provide an aesthetically pleasing hillside with the proper selection of plant material and design intent. a. General Design Requirements 1. Slope planting design should incorporate three (3) levels of vegetation: ground cover, shrubs and trees. Each planting level should provide varying levels of height, texture and color. 2. 'Ornamental' orchards are strongly discouraged and shall only be considered on a case -by -case basis and accompanied by a long -term care and maintenance plan. 3. A minimum five -foot (5') wide Transition Zone of ornamental planting shall separate streets or sidewalks from native areas. The planting species chosen for these areas shall not be invasive or subject to naturalizing and shall be drought tolerant. 4. Pepper Trees are strongly discouraged except as specimen trees within the historic downtown area. 5. Eucalyptus Trees are strongly discouraged and shall only be considered on a case -by -case basis. 6. All manufactured slopes, three feet (3') or greater in vertical height, shall be planted with groundcover from cuttings, shrubs and trees. Hydroseed may be considered adjacent to naturalized areas with prior City approval. 7. All manufactured slopes, five feet (5) or greater in vertical height, shall be installed with jute mesh or equal per City approval. 8. Shrubs on slopes shall be planted at a minimum of one (1) shrub per one - hundred (100) square feet. 9. Trees on slopes shall be planted at a minimum of one (1) tree per three - hundred -fifty (350) square feet. 00011 T Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 26 10. Minimum tree size is seventy -five percent (75 %) 15- gallon and twenty -five percent (25 %) 24" box. 11. Minimum shrub size is sixty percent (60 %) 5- gallon and forty percent (40 %) 1- gallon. 12. All slopes planted with cuttings shall be treated with a pre- emergent herbicide per the manufacturer's recommendations and must be identified on the landscape plans. 13. Any existing slope area cleared by construction activity shall, at a minimum, be "'re- vegetated" with a hydroseed mix and temporary irrigation system. The restoration requirement for cleared areas will be per the City's discretion. At a minimum the cleared area shall be restored to its original condition. 14. All existing vegetation shall be retained to the greatest extent possible. The City shall determine mitigation measures for the loss of existing trees. 15. To the greatest extent possible, existing trees that cannot be preserved shall be relocated on site. 16. All manufactured slopes shall be permanently irrigated with an automatic irrigation system. 17. Unimproved disturbed and slope areas shall be landscaped within one - hundred -eighty (180) days following the issuance of a grading permit and /or within thirty (30) days prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 18. Temporary slope erosion control plans are required if the unimproved areas are not permanently planted and irrigated through the rainy season. 19. All slope erosion control plans, temporary slope erosion control plans and landscape plans that include disturbed areas, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit and shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 20. All hardscape structures such as bench drains and slough walls shall be designed to blend into the hillside with matching colored concrete or masonry color. 21. All hardscape structures shall be screened with plant material. 22. Slope landscaping shall not be accepted by the City until 100% planting coverage has been attained. b. Planting Design Requirements 1. Slope planting shall promote varying height, mass, texture, color and form. Large masses of shrubs shall be designed in groupings. 2. The slope planting must reinforce the theme of the hillside area. 3. Plant material shall reinforce the natural hillside terrain and /or general manufactured topography. 0 0010 8 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 27 4. Low growing and medium size shrubs shall be placed at the lower slope areas in large massings. Medium and large shrub massings should be intermingled at the mid and upper slopes areas. Plantings must respect neighboring views (see fig. 12.1 & 12.2 in Attachment IX). 5. Canopy trees shall be placed at the lower slope areas and shall not grow above the height of the top of slope at view conditions. Canopy trees shall be placed in random clusters adjacent to property lines to open view corridors. Vertical trees shall be located at the upper slope areas adjacent to property lines at view conditions (see fig. 12.3, 12.4 in Attachment IX). 6. Trees located on large slopes shall be grouped in clusters to maintain a natural appearance. C. Irrigation Design Standards 1. All manufactured slopes shall be installed with a permanent, automatic irrigation system. 2. UVR PVC, or "brownline ", may be installed only on master association or LMD slopes. However, all toe -of -slope conditions shall be buried and installed with pop -up heads. 3. Private slopes shall be installed with buried PVC pipe. 4. All slope irrigation shall be installed with an approved means of backflow prevention. 5. Separate circuits shall be installed for top, toe and mid slope conditions. 6. Spray heads shall be designed to avoid bench drains. Heads shall be installed on both sides to maintain coverage. 7. Spray heads shall be designed with respect to the topography. 8. A master valve with flow sensor is required at all point of connections. 9. Rain sensing override devices are required. 10. Worst case pressure loss calculations shall be included for the circuit with the highest volume, the circuit with the longest run from the POC and the circuit at the highest elevation. 11. An irrigation schedule shall be included within the irrigation controller box. 12. All necessary means shall be taken to prevent low head drainage. The plans must specify that any head that drains for more than sixty (60) seconds requires a check valve. SECTION 12 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 12.1 Water- Efficient Model Home Requirements a. General: These requirements apply to all Residential Zones whenever model homes are involved. If there are two or more model homes, one shall be designed to meet the water - saving landscaping condition for residential tracts. OOOJL79 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 28 Each "water- saving" model home shall contain exclusively low -water use plant materials and efficient irrigation systems with appropriate signs and information for prospective home buyers. b. Water Meter: Each model in the complex, including the low -water use model, shall be equipped with a water meter to generate records on how much water the landscape uses. The information will be used in public information materials about the model and the water - saving potential for low -water use landscapes. C. Plant Material: All plants used are to be low -water using types and readily available in Ventura County or other nearby sources. The plants used should be attractive, including some flowering types, require relatively little maintenance once established, and enhance the appearance of the model. d. Use of Lawn: When there are two models, the use of lawn in the water - efficient model shall not exceed twenty -five percent (25 %) of the net landscaped area with no limit on front yard use. When there are three or more models, the use of lawn shall be no more than total fifteen percent (15 %) of the net landscaped area of the water - efficient model. The net landscaped area is the gross area minus the house foot print, the driveway, detached garage, attached covered patio, slopes of 3:1 ratio or steeper and higher than four feet. Low -water use varieties of lawn shall be used. e. Irrigation System: The irrigation system serving a low -water use landscape shall include a bubbler and /or drip system valve. Any sprinklers shall be located properly to minimize overspray onto unplanted areas. At least one (1) moisture sensor should be used with a sign indicating its location. The moisture sensor will override the controller if the soil is too wet to require irrigation. f. Signs: Signs identifying aspects of the landscape design and irrigation shall be placed around the model. These signs should be clearly marked on the landscape plan for the model. The criteria below should be used in developing and placing the signs. 1. Entrance Sign: A maximum four (4) square foot sign shall be located in front of or at the entrance to the model home. The sign shall indicate that the model is landscaped with low -water using or drought tolerant plant materials and that an efficient irrigation system has been used. 2. Identification Signs: Small, maximum one (1) square foot, Identification signs shall be placed throughout the landscaped area identifying the irrigation system used, the different sub -areas of the landscape, and any other features that contribute to the overall water conservation theme (hardscapes, redwood bark, mulch). One (1) sign shall identify the moisture sensor in the display. 3. Interior Signs or Displays: A drawing or combination of drawings should be displayed inside the model providing a schematic of the landscape. These drawings should include a key identifying the plants in the yard. It is suggested that this schematic also be printed in a one (1) page handout to be available at the model or the sales office. The drawings could be simplified renderings of the landscape plan itself, using common 000150 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 29 names rather than the botanical names for the plants. The drawings should be colorful, easy to read, and framed for protection. g. Literature: A package of literature describing water conserving landscaping shall be given out to individuals upon purchase of a home in the tract. This literature and additional materials shall be displayed inside the model, also enclosed in a frame, with a note indicating where this material can be obtained. 12.2 Private Front Yards Residential landscapes are those which occur on private property outside the street right -of -way. These areas are installed and maintained by the homeowner or homeowner association. The following suggestions are provided to assist the homeowner or the association in establishing a well conceived and balanced landscape design with the emphasis on allowing the maximum amount of creativity as possible while still meeting the intent of these guidelines. a. Water Conservation: 1. Turf areas should be limited to one -third (1/3) of the total landscape area. The remaining area should include one -third (1/3) shrubs /groundcover and one -third (1/3) hardscape. 2. Irrigated areas should be separated between turf and shrub /groundcover areas. This allows for different watering schedules to meet the various water needs of different plant materials. 3. Automated irrigation controllers and remote control valves should be utilized to efficiently monitor watering schedules. This prevents accidental all night watering and also provides freedom to leave the landscape for prolonged periods of time without creating stress conditions. 4. Irrigation design should include properly sized sprinkler heads (spray radius) and provide head to head spacing of sprinklers to insure adequate coverage. 5. Water overspray should be kept to a minimum of one foot (1') to two feet (2') on hardscape surfaces and avoid spraying on walls and fences. 6. Bubbler and drip irrigation is encouraged for use in small landscape areas. 7. Turf varieties should be selected for durability and reduced water needs. Alta fescue and Bermuda hybrids (with perennial rye grass used as a "nurse crop" in winter) are encouraged. 8. Shrubs selected should be compatible with the climatic conditions of the inland valleys (hot and cold) and somewhat drought tolerant. b. Planting 1. Trees should be selected based on their size at maturity. 00OJL SI Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 30 2. A balance of evergreen and deciduous (leafless in winter) trees should be planted to provide a seasonally changed landscape. 3. Shrubs and groundcovers should be selected based on their eventual size to avoid an "overgrown" or butchered appearance. 4. Foreground and background relationships should be utilized in shrub and groundcover plantings. 5. Screening (planting of trees and /or shrubs of undesirable views is encouraged. 6. View opportunities should be maintained as a courtesy to adjacent property owners. C. Installation: All planting areas should be loosened to a depth of six inches (6 ") and rototilled in two (2) directions with soil amendments and conditioners as required by soil type. d. Maintenance 1. Landscape areas should be maintained in an attractive condition at all times. 2. Regular fertilization with a well - balanced fertilizer should be done to avoid stressed conditions and prevent disease. e. Safety 1. Water overspray on hardscape areas should be avoided and kept to a minimum. 2. Pop -up sprinkler heads on swing joints should be used along walkways to avoid a "trip hazard ". 12.3 Street Trees It is the goal of the City of Moorpark to create an overall cohesive theme in terms of street tree design and species selection. Street trees should be incorporated into the overall landscape theme of the development. The designer shall refer to the approved Street Tree List. The following guidelines serve to create a visible community character that will foster a unique image: Planting Design: Within all residential projects, minimum 24" box size street trees shall be planted as follows: a. Cul -de -sac: minimum one tree per street frontage (maximum thirty feet (30') on center). b. Interior Lot: minimum one tree per street frontage (maximum thirty feet (30') on center). C. Corner Lot: minimum three trees per street frontage (maximum thirty feet (30') on center). 000182 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 31 12.4 Streetscape Concept The Streetscape Concept is the primary landscape framework for the City of Moorpark. The intention is to establish the theme for each major street in the City. The streetscape components consist of sidewalks, street trees, landscape areas behind the sidewalk, and median islands where they occur. Larger specimen trees should be planted at highly - visible focal points, such as entry gates, major intersections and other landmarks. Median islands along arterials should be planted with the same palette as adjacent parkways. A different, but complementary palette should be used along collector streets within the project and another different, but complementary palette along residential streets. Each palette may differ from area to area, but they should reflect the theme which is established by the arterial and collector streets. The designer shall verify final tree selection with the Community Development Director. 12.5 Walls and Fencing The perimeter wall acts as a divider between residential and commercial areas from a street. The wall blocks noise and creates privacy. The treatment of wall can add special dimension to the streetscape concept. The design of walls should be consistent throughout neighborhoods of the City to create a community theme. The following are guidelines for walls which are located along streets, public space, the rear street of double frontage lots, and the side street yard of double frontage lots: a. Wall niches are prohibited. A minimum five -foot (5') planter area shall be provided for trees, shrubs and vines adjacent to all walls. b. Chain link, plastic and wood fencing is not permitted, except in rural areas, subject to Community Development Director approval. C. The minimum wall setback shall be determined by the Conditions of Approval for the project. Walls shall vary in setback to provide areas for landscape features that create interest and reduce the linear aspect of appearance of a walled street. d. Use of decorative masonry block, pilaster, wrought iron and other decorative treatments are required. e. Precision concrete is not permitted for walls adjacent to a street. f. The texture and color of walls shall match the theme of the development or adjacent surroundings. g. In residential areas the wall height shall be a minimum of six feet (6') when located in a street sideyard. Wall heights in excess of six feet (6') shall require adjacent landscaping on the street side to soften the overall height. h. Walls over six feet (6') high and retaining walls over three feet (3') high require certification by a Registered Engineer. i. The use of vines, shrubs, and trees shall be required to break the monotonous pattern of the wall. Landscaping shall be approved by the Community Development Director. 000183 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 32 ATTACHMENT LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST (GENERAL REQUIREMENTS) APPLICANT'S NAME: PROJECT NAME: PERMIT /ENTITLEMENT NUMBER(S): DATE: 1. ENGINEER'S PRECISE OR ROUGH GRADING PLAN MUST BE INCLUDED WITH SUBMITTAL. 2. PLANS ARE PREPARED BY A CALIFORNIA LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S SEAL IS ON ALL SHEETS. (ALL SHEETS MUST BE WET SIGNED FOR FINAL APPROVAL) 3. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S COMPANY NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER ON ALL SHEETS. 4. OWNER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER ON ALL SHEETS. 5. SHEET INDEX ON TITLE SHEET. 6. ALL SHEETS CLEARLY LABELED. 7. VICINITY MAP AND LOCATION MAP WITH PROJECT SITE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. 8. NORTH ARROW AND SCALE ON ALL APPLICABLE SHEETS. 9. 'LANDSCAPE INSPECTION SCHEDULE' ON TITLE SHEET (SEE ATTACHED) 10. SIGNATURE BLOCK ON TITLE SHEET (SEE ATTACHED) 11. ALL PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, PUBLIC R.O.W., SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. 12. ALL SLOPES, INCLUDE TOP AND TOE, ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. 13. ALL SITE UTILITIES ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. 14. ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. NOTATION IS INCLUDED IDENTIFYING WHICH STRUCTURES ARE TO BE REMOVED AND WHICH WILL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. 15. ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES AND SHRUBS ARE CLEARLY LABELED. NOTATION IS INCLUDED IDENTIFYING WHICH ARE TO BE REMOVED AND WHICH WILL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. COMMENTS: 000184 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 33 LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST (SLOPE PLANTING PLAN REQUIREMENTS) APPLICANT'S NAME: PROJECT NAME: PERMIT /ENTITLEMENT NUMBER(S): DATE: 1. A HORTICULTURAL SOILS ANALYSIS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IS ATTACHED TO THE PLANS. THE SOILS ANALYSIS IS PERFORMED BY A LABORATORY OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES. SOIL SAMPLE IS TAKEN AFTER SITE GRADING AND DATE IS INCLUDED ON THE REPORT. 2. ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN 3' VERTICAL HEIGHT ARE PLANTED WITH GROUNDCOVER FROM CUTTINGS, SHRUBS AND TREES. HYDROMULCH IS USED IN AREAS ONLY WITH PRIOR CITY APPROVAL. 3. ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN 5' VERTICAL HEIGHT ARE INSTALLED WITH JUTE MESH OR EQUAL. 4. SHRUBS ON SLOPES ARE PLANTED AT A MINIMUM OF 1 SHRUB PER 100 SQUARE FEET. 5. ALL SLOPES ADJACENT TO MAJOR ROADS, 'ENTRY' TO PROJECTS SITES AND OTHER HIGHLY VISIBLE AREAS ARE 'ENHANCED' WITH SHRUBS AND TREES THAT EXCEED THE MINIMUM QUANTITY AND SIZE REQUIREMENT. 6. TREES ON SLOPES ARE PLANTED AT A MINIMUM OF 1 TREE PER 350 SQUARE FEET. 7. A CALCULATION IS PROVIDED SHOWING TOTAL SLOPE LANDSCAPE AREA, TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES WITH TREE SIZES AND TOTAL NUMBER OF SHRUBS WITH SHRUB SIZES. 8. PLANT MATERIAL IS SUITABLE FOR CLIMATIC CONDITIONS. 9. PLANT MATERIAL IS SUITABLE FOR SLOPE AREAS. 10. PLANT MATERIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH CITY APPROVED PLANT LIST. 11. MINIMUM TREE SIZES ON SLOPES IS 15 GALLON. 12. MINIMUM SHRUB SIZES ON SLOPES IS (60 %) 5 GAL., (40 %) 1 GAL. 13. PLANS MUST CALL FOR A NINETY (90) DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD TO BE PAID FOR BY OWNER. 14. PLANS CLEARLY IDENTIFY PLANT LOCATIONS. 000185 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 34 15. PLANT QUANTITY AND SIZES ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANS AND IN LEGEND. 16. PLANTING LEGEND IDENTIFIES BOTANICAL AND COMMON NAME. 17. GROUNDCOVER SPACING IS SHOWN IN THE LEGEND. 18. HYDROSEED MIX IS INCLUDED IF APPLICABLE. MIX IDENTIFIES SEED TYPE AND LBS. /ACRE. 19. PLANTING DETAILS ARE CONSISTENT WITH CITY STANDARDS. 20. PLANTING NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE PROVIDED. 21. NOTATION IS INCLUDED THAT TREES PLANTED WITHIN 10' OF SIDEWALK, CURB OR OTHER HARDSCAPE AREAS MUST HAVE A LINEAR ROOT BARRIER INSTALLED. ROOTBARRIER MUST EXTEND 5 FEET IN BOTH DIRECTIONS FROM THE CENTER OF THE TREE AND BE A MINIMUM OF 24° DEPTH. COMMENTS: 0(),(-),180 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 35 LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST (PLANTING PLAN REQUIREMENTS) APPLICANT'S NAME: PROJECT NAME: PERMIT /ENTITLEMENT NUMBER(S): DATE: 1. A HORTICULTURAL SOILS ANALYSIS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IS ATTACHED TO THE PLANS. THE SOILS ANALYSIS IS PERFORMED BY A LABORATORY OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES. SOIL SAMPLE IS TAKEN AFTER SITE GRADING AND DATE IS INCLUDED ON THE REPORT. 2. ALL ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN WITH ADEQUATE PLANT SCREENING OR CAMOUFLAGING. 3. ALL MAINTENANCE STAGING AREAS AND UTILITARIAN STRUCTURES SUCH AS TRASH ENCLOSURES AND MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS ARE SHOWN WITH ADEQUATE PLANT SCREENING. 4. PLANT MATERIAL IS SUITABLE FOR CLIMATIC CONDITIONS. 5. PLANT MATERIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH CITY APPROVED PLANT LIST. 6. MINIMUM SHRUB SIZES ARE MET. 7. ALL PLANTING AREAS ADJACENT TO MAJOR ROADS, 'ENTRY' TO PROJECTS SITES AND OTHER HIGHLY VISIBLE AREAS ARE 'ENHANCED' WITH SHRUBS AND TREES THAT EXCEED THE MINIMUM QUANTITY AND SIZE REQUIREMENT. 8. PLANS MUST CALL FOR A NINETY (90) DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD TO BE PAID FOR BY OWNER. 9. PLANS CLEARLY IDENTIFY PLANT LOCATIONS. 10. PLANT QUANTITIES AND SIZES ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANS AND IN LEGEND. 11. PLANTING LEGEND IDENTIFIES BOTANICAL AND COMMON NAME. 12. GROUNDCOVER SPACING IS SHOWN IN THE LEGEND. 13. PLANTING DETAILS ARE CONSISTANT WITH CITY STANDARDS. 14. PLANTING NOTES /SPECIFICATIONS ARE PROVIDED. 15. NOTATION IS INCLUDED THAT ALL TREES PLANTED WITHIN 10' OF SIDEWALK, CURB OR OTHER HARDSCAPE AREAS MUST HAVE A LINEAR ROOT BARRIER INSTALLED. ROOT BARRIER MUST EXTEND 5 FEET IN BOTH DIRECTIONS FROM THE CENTER OF THE TREE AND BE A MINIMUM OF 24" DEPTH. 000187 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 36 16. ALL STREET TREES ARE PLANTED MINIMUM 5' FROM WALKS OR OTHER HARDSCAPE AREAS. 17. ALL STREET TREES ARE PLANTED MINIMUM 10' FROM UTILITY POLES AND LIGHT STANDARDS, FIRE HYDRANTS, SEWERLINES AND UTILITY STRUCTURES. 18. ALL LOTS HAVE MINIMUM (1) ONE STREET TREE AND MINIMUM (1) SECONDARY TREE PER LOT. 19. ALL CORNER LOTS HAVE MINIMUM (3) THREE STREET TREES PER LOT. TREE SPACING DOES NOT EXCEED 30' ON CENTER. 20. ALL STREET TREES ARE MINIMUM 24" BOX SIZE. ALL SECONDARY TREES ARE MINIMUM 15- GALLON SIZE. 21. MINIMUM TREE QUANTITIES FOR MULTI - FAMILY OR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS IS ONE TREE PER 500 S.F. 22. TREE SIZES FOR MULTI - FAMILY OR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS IS 75% 24" BOX AND 25% 15- GALLON. 23. STREET TREE SPACING DOES NOT EXCEED 30' ON CENTER. 24. PARKING AREAS HAVE MINIMUM 50% SHADE COVERAGE AT 2/3 TREE MATURITY OR 15 -YEARS GROWTH OR ONE (1) TREE PER EVERY 4 STALLS IN A ROW. 25. PARKING AREA TREES ARE MINIMUM 24" BOX SIZE. 26. PARKING AREAS HAVE PLANTER 'FINGERS' AND /OR ISLANDS AT THE TERMINUS OF ALL PARKING ROWS AND MINIMUM EVERY 100 LINEAL FEET AND EVERY 12 STALLS ADJACENT TO BUILDING FRONTAGES AND STREETS. 27. PARKS HAVE A MINIMUM OF 55 TREES PER GROSS ACRE. HOWEVER, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT MAY BE REDUCED IF THE PARK HAS 'ACTIVE' RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 28. PARK TREES ARE MINIMUM 40% 24" BOX AND 60% 15- GALLON. 29. A CALCULATION IS PROVIDED SHOWING TOTAL PROJECT AREA, TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA, TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES WITH TREE SIZES AND TOTAL NUMBER OF SHRUBS WITH SHRUB SIZES. COMMENTS: 000188 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 37 LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST (IRRIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS) APPLICANT'S NAME: PROJECT NAME: PERMIT /ENTITLEMENT NUMBER(S): DATE: THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS AUTOMATIC. 2. THE WORST CASE PRESSURE LOSS IS CALCULATED AND SHOWN FOR THE VALVE WITH THE MOST VOLUME, THE VALVE FARTHEST FROM THE WATER METER AND THE VALVE AT THE HIGHEST ELEVATION. 3. THE WATER USE CALCULATIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 4. AN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE IS PROVIDED AND SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SCHEDULE IS DESIGNED SO THAT THE OPERATING WINDOW IS NOT WITHIN 8 HOURS OF PEAK DEMAND PERIODS. 5. NOTATION IS INCLUDED STATING THAT THE BACKFLOW DEVICE MUST BE TESTED A MINIMUM OF ONCE A YEAR. 6. IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT IS SHOWN IN SHRUB AREAS WITH ADEQUATE PLANT SCREENING. 7. THE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF ALL WATER METERS ARE SHOWN. THE PLANS REFERENCE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WATER METER AND HOOK -UP. 8. THE ELECTRICAL SOURCE FOR ALL CONTROLLERS IS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE PLANS REFERENCE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ELECTRIC METER INSTALLATION. 9. THE ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENT FOR ALL BOOSTER PUMPS IS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE PLANS REFERENCE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ELECTRIC METER INSTALLATION. 10. SPRAY HEADS ARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE FULL COVERAGE. 11. ALL VALVES ARE DESIGNED WITH MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATES. 12. THE SYMBOL, MANUFACTURER, MODEL #, AND SIZE OF ALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT ARE CLEARLY LABELED IN THE LEGEND. 13. THE LOCATION OF ALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN. 14. THE BACKFLOW PREVENTER IS IDENTIFIED IN THE LEGEND WITH A POWDER COATED MESH ENCLOSURE WITH ROUNDED CORNERS. THE MODEL # AND SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE IS CLEARLY LABELED. 00 CI L-19 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 38 15. THE MASTER VALVE AND FLOW METER (IF APPLICABLE) ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE LEGEND WITH MODEL # AND SIZE CLEARLY LABELED. 16. SPRAY HEADS ARE LISTED IN THE LEGEND WITH SYMBOL, MANUFACTURER, MODEL #, RADIUS, FLOW, PRESSURE AND PRECIPITATION RATE. 17. ROTOR HEADS ARE LISTED IN THE LEGEND WITH NOZZLES GROUPED FOR MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATES. 18. DETAILS ARE CONSISTENT WITH CITY STANDARDS. 19. IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS ARE INCLUDED. 20. THE CLASS AND /OR SCHEDULE FOR MAINLINE, LATERAL LINE, AND IRRIGATION SLEEVES IS SHOWN IN THE LEGEND. 21. THE SIZE OF THE MAINLINE, LATERAL LINE AND IRRIGATION SLEEVES IS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 22. VALVE CALLOUTS IDENTIFY THE STATION AND CONTROLLER #, VALVE SIZE AND MAXIMUM GPM. 23. OPERATING PRESSURE IS WITHIN MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 24. FLOW VELOCITIES DO NOT EXCEED 5' PER SECOND. 25. IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS MATCHED PER INDIVIDUAL HYDROZONE. 26. TOP AND BOTTOM OF SLOPES MUST BE IRRIGATED SEPARATELY. 27. EQUIPMENT USED IS WITHIN MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 28. ALL PIPES AND WIRES UNDER PAVING MUST BE SLEEVED. SLEEVES MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE FOR NUMBER OF WIRES AND SIZE OF PIPE (MINIMUM 2x'S DIAMETER OF PIPE ENCLOSED). 29. POP -UP HEADS ARE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. SYSTEM MUST BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE OVERSPRAY. 30. RISER HEADS ARE NOT INSTALLED WHERE HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC VIEW. 31. HEAD RADIUS MUST NOT BE REDUCED MORE THAN 15% OF NOZZLE SIZE TO MINIMIZE OVERSPRAY. COMMENTS: 000190 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 39 LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST LANDSCAPE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS (CITY MAINTAINED AND MASTER ASSOCIATION AREAS) SCHEDULE: THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL INSPECT CONSTRUCTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EACH OF THE REQUIRED INSPECTION: 1. PRESSURE TEST OF IRRIGATION MAINLINE. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING TRENCHES. 2. IRRIGATION COVERAGE TESTS. COVERAGE TEST SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ANY PLANTING. 3. AFTER TREES AND SHRUBS ARE SPOTTED, BUT PRIOR TO PLANTING. 4. UPON COMPLETION OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE MAY BE GRANTED AT THIS TIME. 5. FINAL INSPECTION: AT THE START OF THE ONE -YEAR MAINTENANCE PERIOD OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 6. FINAL ACCEPTANCE: AT THE END OF THE ONE -YEAR MAINTENANCE PERIOD OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 000191 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 40 LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST LANDSCAPE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS (SUB- ASSOCIATION, COMMERCIAL AND ON -SITE AREAS) SCHEDULE: THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL INSPECT CONSTRUCTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EACH OF THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS: IRRIGATION COVERAGE TESTS. COVERAGE TEST SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ANY PLANTING. 2. UPON COMPLETION OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. FINAL ACCEPTANCE MAY BE GRANTED AT THIS TIME. 000192 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 41 LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST CITY APPROVAL BLOCK (Must be included on Title Sheet) APPROVED CITY OF MOORPARK These plans have been reviewed and found to be in compliance with relevant sections of the Moorpark Municipal Code and the Conditions of Approval for (Permit Case No.) and (Permit Case No.). Landscaping and Irrigation shall be installed on the subject property substantially as shown herein. Approved by: Community Development Director 000193 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 42 ATTACHMENT II GENERAL RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST The City reserves the right to approve or reject any of the plant species listed at any time. Note that several plant species listed are included on the prohibited list. These plants are only intended to be installed in urban areas away from native hillsides or natural areas. Prior City approval is required. Trees Acacia spp. ncn Acacia baileyana Bailey Acacia Agonis flexuosa Peppermint Myrtle Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree Anus rhombifolia White Alder Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree Bauhinia variegata Purple Orchid Tree Brachichiton acerifolius Flame Tree Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Callistemon citrinus Lemon Bottlebrush Callistemon viminalis Weeping Bottlebrush Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud Chitalpa x tashkensis Chitalpa Cinnamomum Camphora Camphor Tree Cupaniopsis Anacardiodes Carrotwood Cuppressocyparis leylandi Leyland Cypress Eriobotrya japonica Loquat Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat Eucalyptus camaldulensis Red Gum Eucalyptus citriodora Lemon - scented Gum Eucalyptus polyanthemos Silver Dollar Gum Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red Iron Bark Fraxinus ornus ' Raywood' Raywood Ash Fraxinus veluntina 'Modesto' Modesto Ash Fraxinus veluntina 'Rio Grande' Rio Grande Ash Geijera parviflora Australian Willow Ginko biloba (Male only) Maidenhair Tree (grafted male) Gleditsia triacanthos spp. Honey Locust Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda Juglans hindsii Northern California Black Walnut Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Rain Tree Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Ligustrum japonicum Japanese Privet Liquidambar styraciflua (cultivars) Sweet Gum Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree Lyonathamnus floribundus var. asplenifolius Island (Catalina) Ironwood 000194 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 43 Magnolia grandiflora var. Southern Magnolia Maytenus boaria 'Green Showers' Showers Mayten Tree Melaleuca linarifolia Flaxleaf Paperbark Melaleuca styphelioides Black Tea Tree Melalueca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree Metrosideros excelsus New Zealand Christmas Tree Nerium oleander (standard) Oleander Olea europaea (fruitless) Olive Photinia serrulata Chinese Photinia Pinus spp. Pine Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Pittosporum rhombifolium Queensland Pittosporum Platanus acerifolia ' Bloodgood' Bloodgood Plane Tree Platanus acerifolia ' Yarwood' Yarwood Plane Tree Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine Podocarpus macrophyllus Yew Pine Populus fremontii Western Cottonwood Prunus cerasifera 'Atropurpurea' Purple Leaf Plum Prunus cerasifera 'Krauter Vesuvius' Black -leaf Plum Prunus lyonii Catalina Cherry Pyrus calleyana 'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Pear Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' Bradford Pear Pyrus calleyana 'Capitol' Capitol Pear Pyrus calleyana 'Red Spire' Red Spire Pear Pyrus calleyana 'Chanticleer' Chanticleer Pear Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen Pear Quercus spp. Oak Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Quercus engelmanii Mesa Oak Quecus ilex Holly Oak Quercus lobata Valley Oak Quercus suber Cork Oak Quecus virginiana Southern Live Oak Rhaphiolepis 'Majestic Beauty' Rhaphiolepis Tree Rhus lances African Sumac Robinia (tree form) Locust Sapium sebiferum Chinese Tallow Tree Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda Tree Tabebuia chrysotricha Gold Trumpet Tree Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree Tristania conferta Brisbane Box Ulmus parvifolia Evergreen Elm OOCI19 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 44 Shrubs Abelia grandiflora Agave spp. Arbutus unedo 'Compacta' Arctostaphylos densiflora Artemisia spp. Atriplex spp. Calliandra inaequilatera Callistemon spp. Callistemon citrinus Cassia artemisiodes Ceanothus spp. Cistus spp. Cistus purpureus Cuphea hyssopifolia Dodonaea viscosa'Purpurea' Echium Fastuosum Elaeagnus spp. Eriogonum crocatum Escallonia spp. Fe#oa sellowiana Fremontodendron spp. Fremontodendron 'California Glory' Grevillea noelii Heteromeles arbutifolia Kniphofia uvaria Leucophyllum frutescens 'Compacta' Ligustrum lucidium Mahonia 'Golden Abundance' Mahonia nevinii Myrtus communis Nerium oleander Pittosporum spp. Photinia fraseri Prunus caroliniana Prunus ilicifolia Prunus lyonnii Punica granatum Rhapheolepis indica Rhamnus alaternus Rhamnus california 'Eve Case' Rhamnus crocea ilicifolia Rhus integrifolia Rhus ovata Romneya coulteri Salvia spp. Senecio cineraria Sollya heterophylla Tagetes lemmonii Abelia Agave Dwarf Strawberry Tree Manzanita Wormwood Saltbush Pink Powder Puff Bottlebrush Lemon Bottlebrush Feathery Cassia California Lilac Rockrose Orchid Rockrose False Heather Purple Hopseed Bush Pride of Madiera Elaegnus Conejo Buckwheat Escallonia Pineapple Guava Flannel Bush 'California Glory' Fremontia Noel's Grevillea Toyon Red Hot Poker Texas Ranger Glossy Privet 'Golden Abundance' Oregon Grape Nevin's Barberry Myrtle Oleander Mock Orange (some species) Photinia Carolina Cherry Hollyleaf Cherry Catalina Cherry Pomegranate India Hawthorne Italian Buckthorn 'Eve Case' Coffeeberry Hollyleaf Coffeeberry Lemonade Berry Sugar Bush Matilija Poppy Sage Dusty Miller Australian Bluebells Mexican Bush Marigold 000190 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 45 Tamarix pentandra, T. parviflora Salt Cedar Tamarisks Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle Westringia rosmariniformis Westringia Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma Yucca spp. Yucca Umbrellularia californica California Laurel Ground and Slope Cover Acacia redolens prostrate Prostrate Acacia Achillea spp. Yarrow Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita Arctotheca calendula Yellow capeweed Atriplex semibaccata Australian Saltbush Baccharis pilularis Dwarf Coyote Brush Baccharis `Twin Peaks' or 'Pigeon Point' Coyote Brush Bougainvillea spp. Bougainvillea Ceanothus spp. California Lilac Cerastium tomentosum Snow in Summer Cistus spp. Rockrose Convolvulus cneorem Bush Morning Glory Coreopsis aruiculata `Nana' Dwarf Coreopsis Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster Euonymus fortunei radicans Common Winter Creeper Gazania hybrids Gazania hybrids Grevillea 'Noelli' Noel Grevillea Hypericum calycinum Creeping St. John's Wort Ice Plant varieties Ice Plant Iris douglasiana Pacific Coast Iris Lantana montevidensis and hybrids Lavender Lantana and hybrids Limonium pectinatum Petite Sea Lavender Lonicera japonica halliana Hall's Honeysuckle Myoporum pacificum Prostrate Myoporum Myoporum parvifolium Prostrate Myoporum Optunia spp. Prickly Pear Osteopermum fructicosum Trailing African Daisy Pyracantha spp. Firethorn Ribes viburnifolium Catalina Perfume Rosa banksiae Lady Bank's Rose Rosmarinus officinalis ' Prostrata' Dwarf Rosemary Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle Teucrium chamaedrys 'Prostratum' Prostrate Germander Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine Vinca spp. Periwinkle 000197 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 46 Flowering Plants, Perennials and Accent Plants Achillea spp. Yarrow Agave spp. Century Plant Aloe arborescens Tree Aloe Aloe nobilis Dwarf Aloe Aloe spp. Aloe Asparagus sprengeri Asparagus Fern Asparagus myeri Myer's Asparagus Centranthus ruber Red Valerian Chamaerops humilis Mediterranean Fan Palm Cistus spp. Rockrose Convolvalus cneorum Bush Morning Glory Coreopsis auriculata Golden Coreopsis Coreposis verticillata Thread - leafed Coreopsis Cotinus coggygria Smoke Tree Dietes spp. Fortnight Lily Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira Eriogonum spp. Buckwheat Escallonia spp. Escallonia Fremontodendron spp. Flannel Bush Helianthes tuberosus Jerusalem Artichoke Hemerocallis hybrids Daylily Kniphofia uvaria Red Hot Poker Lantana spp. Lantana Lavandula spp. Lavender Limonium perezii Sea Lavender Nerium oleander Oleander Oenothera speciosa childsii Mexican Evening Primrose Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass Penstemon hybrids California Penstemon Plumbago auriculata Cape Plumbago Portulaca grandiflora Rose Moss Romneya coulteri Matilija Poppy Rosa spp. Rose Senecio cineraria Dusty Miller Spartium spp. Broom Teucrium fruiticans Bush Germander Tulbaghia violacea Society Garlic Vitis spp. Grape Yucca gloriosa Soft -tip Yucca Yucca recurvifolia Curveleaf Yucca Vines Bougainvillea cultivars Bougainvillea cultivars Campsis spp. Trumpet Creeper Clytostoma callistegiodes Violet Trumpet Vine Distictis buccinatorius Scarlet Trumpet Vine Hardenbergia comptoniana Lilac Vine 000198 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 47 Hibbertia scandens Jasminum spp. Macfadyena unguis -cati Parthenocissus tricuspidata Rosa spp. Solandra maxima Solanum jasminoides Tecomaria capensis Vitis vinifera Wisteria spp. Guinea Gold Vine Jasmine Cats Claw Boston Ivy Climbing Rose Cup of Gold Vine Potato Vine Cape Honeysuckle Wine Grape Wisteria 000199 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 48 ATTACHMENT III INVASIVE AND PROHIBITED PLANT LIST The following undesirable plant species are not to be used near or adjacent to native vegetation or around drainage courses that terminate at natural areas. It should be noted that several of the plant species listed may be considered for use in an urban environment where the risk of escape is clearly negligible only with prior approval from city's landscape architect. Botanical Name Common Name Acacia spp. Acacia Acacia cyclops Acacia Acacia longifolia Sydney golden or golden wattle Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood acacia Ageratina adenophora Sticky eupatory Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bentgrass Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven Ammophila arenaria European beachgrass Andropogon virginicus Broomsedge bluestem Anthriscus cauca /is Bur chervil Aponogeton distachyon Cape pondweed Aptenia cordifolia Baby sun rose Arundo donax Giant reed Atriplex sembiccata Australian saltbush Avena barbata Slender wild oat Avena fatua Wild oat Berula erecta Cutleaf water parsnip Brassica nigra Black mustard Brassica raga Field mustard, Turnip Brassica tournefortii Moroccan mustard Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess Bromus madritensis Foxtail chess Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass Carderia chalapense Lens -pod Carderia drabs Hoary cress Carderia pubescens White -top Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Carpobrotus edulis Hottentot -fig Catharanthus roseus Madagascar periwinkle Centaurea melitensis Tocalote Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star - thistle Ceratophyllum demersum Aquatic hornwort Chenopodium album Lamb's quarters, Pigweed Chenopodium murale Nettle- leaved goosefoot Chrysanthemum coronarium Garland or crown daisy Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle 000200 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 49 Conicosia pugioniformis Narrow - leaved ice plant Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Cortaderia jubata Andean pampas grass, jubatagrass Cortaderia selloana Pampas grass Cotoneaster lacteus Cotoneaster Cotoneaster pannosus Cotoneaster Cotula coronopifolia Brass buttons Cynara cardunculus Artichoke thistle, Cardoon Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom Cytisus striatus Portuguese broom Datisca glomerata Durango root Delairia odorata (= Senecio milkanioides) Cape ivy (German ivy) Descurainia sophia Tansy mustard Egeria densa Brazilian waterweed Ehrharta calycina Veldt grass Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth Elaeagnus augustifolia Russian olive Elodea canadensis Common waterweed Erodium cicutarium Red - stemmed filaree Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge Ficus carica Edible fig Foeniculum vulgare Fennel Genista monspessulana French broom (= Cytisus monspessulanus) Gunnera tinctoria Gunnera Hedera helix English ivy Hedera canariensis Algerian ivy Hippurus vulgaris Mare's tail Hirschfeldia incana Shortpod mustard Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed Lobularia maritima Sweet alyssum Lupinus arboreus Bush lupine Lythrum spp. Loosestrife Lythrum hyssopifolium Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Malva parviflora Cheeseweed, Little mallow Marrubium vulgare Horehound Melilotus alba White sweetclover Mentha pulegium Pennyroyal Mesembryanthemum crystallinum Crystalline iceplant Myoporum laetum Myoporum Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrot's feather Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian milfoil Nerium oleander Oleander Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco 000201 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 50 Ottelia alismoides Ottelia Oxalis pes- caprae Bermuda buttercup Parentucellia viscosa Parentucellia Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass Pennisetum setaceum Fountain grass Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Phoenix dactylifera Date palm Phragmites australis (= communis) Common reed Phyla (= Lippia) nodiflora Lippia Picris echioides Bristly ox- tongue Piptatherum miliaceum Smilo grass Pistia stratiotes Water lettuce Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Raphanus sativus Radish Ranunculus aquatilis var. aquatilis Water buttercup Ranunculus muricatus Buttercup Rhus lancea African Sumac Ricinus communis Castor bean Robinia pseudocacia Black locust Rorippa nasturtium - aquaticum Watercress Rubus procerus (= discolor) Himalayan blackberry Rumex conglomeratus Whorled dock Rumex crispus Curly dock Salix alba White willow Salsola spp. Tumbleweed Salsola soda Tumbleweed Salsola tragus Russian thistle, Tumbleweed Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree Scirpus spp. Bulrush, alkali bulrush Senecio mikanioides German -ivy Silybum marianum Milk thistle Sisymbrium irio London rocket Sisymbrium officinale Hedge mustard Sisymbrium orientate Oriental mustard Sonchus oleraceus Common sow thistle Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass Spartina alterniflora European /Atlantic cord grass Spartina densiflora Cord grass Spartina patens Cord grass Spartium junceum Spanish broom Taeniatherum caput - medusae Medusa -head Tamarix aphylla Athel Tamarix ramosissima, T. chinensis, Salt cedar, tamarisk T. gallica, T. parviflora Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion Tribulus terrestris Puncture vine Tropaeolum majus Garden nasurtium Ulex eruopaeus Gorse Varbascum spp. Mullein 0OC1202 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 51 Veronica ssp. (incl. V. Anagallis - aquatica, V. beccabunga, V. catenata) Vinca major Washingtonia filifera Xanthium spinosum Xanthium strumarium Zantedeschia aethiopica Speedwell, Brooklime Greater periwinkle Fan palm Spiny cocklebur Cocklebur Calla lily ' Sources include: California Native Plant Society. 1992. Non - native invasive plants in the Santa Monica Mountains; Dudley, T. 1998. Exotic plant invasions in California riparian areas and wetlands. Fremontia 26(4): 24-29; California Exotic Pest Plant Council. 1996. List of exotic pest plants of greatest ecological concern in California. 000203 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 52 ATTACHMENT IV RECOMMENDED TREES FOR STREETS The City reserves the right to approve or reject any of the plant species listed at any time. Note that several plant species listed are included on the prohibited list. These plants are only intended to be installed in urban areas away from native hillsides or natural areas. Prior City approval is required. Trees Agonis flexuosa Peppermint Myrtle Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree Bauhinia variegata Purple Orchid Tree Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Callistemon citrinus Lemon Bottlebrush Callistemon viminalis Weeping Bottlebrush Cassia excelsa Crown of Gold Tree Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree Chitalpa x tashkentensis Chitalpa Cinnamomum Camphora Camphor Tree Eriobotrya def/exa Bronze Loquat Fraxinus ornus ' Raywood' Raywood Ash Geijera parviflora Australian Willow Ginko biloba (Male only) Maidenhair Tree (grafted male) Gleditsia triacanthos `var.' Honey Locust Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Rain Tree Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree Magnolia grandiflora var. Southern Magnolia Maytenus boaria `Green Showers' Showers Mayten Tree Melaleuca linarifolia Flaxleaf Paperbark Melalueca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree Photinia serrulata Chinese Photinia Pinus eldarica Mondell Pine Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine Pinus pinea Italian Stone Pine Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Pittosporum phillyraeoides Willow Pittosporum Platanus acerifolia `Bloodgood' London Plane Platanus acerifolia ` Yarwood' Yarwood Plane Tree Podocarpus glacilior Fern Pine Podocarpus macrophyllus Yew Pine Prunus cerasifera Atropurpurea' Purple Leaf Plum Prunus c. `Krauter Vesuvius' Black -leaf Plum Prunus serrulata Amanogawa' Columnar Flowering Cherry Pyrus calleryana `Aristocrat' Aristocrat Pear 000204 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 53 Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' Pyrus kawakamii Quercus agrifolia Quecus ilex Rhus lancea Robinia (tree form) Sapium sebiferum Sophora japonica Tristania conferta U/mus parvifolia Bradford Pear Chanticleer Pear Evergreen Pear Coast Live Oak Holly Oak African Sumac Locust Chinese Tallow Tree Japanese Pagoda Tree Brisbane Box Evergreen Elm OW 205 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 54 ATTACHMENT V REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW PERMIT /ENTITLEMENT NUMBERS I, the undersigned Applicant, hereby authorize the City of Moorpark, California to review the Landscape Plans submitted for the above referenced permit/entitlement request(s) in accordance with the City of Moorpark Ordinance Code. I am herewith depositing in accordance with adopted fee schedule to cover consultant review (plus 15% city administrative charge), staff review, coordination and processing, the unused portion of the deposit will be refunded to me. I further understand that, if the final cost is more than the deposit fee, I shall pay the balance due. Name of Applicant*: Phone: Please print or type Address of Applicant (Do not use P.O. Box) Phone: Name of Corporation or Agency. Address of Corporation or Agency (Do not use P.O. Box) Signature Date "If corporation or agency, list person(s) authorized to act on behalf of corporation or agency. Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 55 ATTACHMENT VI APPLICANT'S LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT'S CHECKLIST AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Project Number Assessor's Parcel No.: Landscape Contractor: Landscape Architect: Applicant: I certify that: Post - Installation Inspection: (check to indicate compliance) ❑ A. Plants installed as specified including proper staking & root control boxes ❑ B. Soils amended as noted in soils report (Invoices attached) ❑ C. Irrigation system installed as designed an adjusted ❑ D. Reduced as -built plans in controllers ❑ E. As -built plans provided to owner /manager ❑ F. Backflow Prevention Test I certify that this project complies with the City of Moorpark Landscape Design Standards and guidelines. The landscape planting and irrigation installation conform to the approved plans and specifications with the following exceptions: (Itemize all exceptions on attached sheets) Signature, Applicant's Landscape State License Number Architect of Record CITY OF MOORPARK Landscape Consultant Verification Date I certify that this project: ❑ Complies, ❑ Does not comply, with the approved Landscape Plans with the following exceptions: (Use attached sheets, if necessary) Signature, City's Consultant State License Number Date 00020 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 56 o d ALL PEIV -WmB;U V6 b�7ft T REF- AdP (2) FAR ai " 4OR LAZ6M TRM KEY 1 FL'I (MACE 2 ROO SAL M "LRM 0K ER. PLOW TAPS (TCP I'* A° Rwr A&L-4 Pmt FM jA-1 W PA 0 FM AW br?X MP 6REArEA) 4 TEWOR.+tiRY IC WAT50* W61N 3 NArw 50L. b DAG+c!"LL MX MR 501.5 MW_Y90) 7 TRU TES QrIrN _# f� _ SELILRE TO rP'Ga�� 1N v. taw_ Me 7EW P KTMMU WW INn.F UMIW I HARPW-WE S-WAX 4" F5VWRATEP PIPE WP.4FFM IN FL..TtV PA PJC ! PVC, LAP Nm - STAKM *V LL NPr PURCC WrPOILL Ate 3HA11- EXTEW INro UVISri ttv Wt- - PLACC PRE - yONU TIES A66MPH& r0 MOM RE66t&AEHDATk%r., , - C- Y APPROVEP RLY r AARRE" &VU DE NSTA -L P GN AL T "TW W-O' A.L W&AS. PRNEWAYS. WAILS MP V M R MARPSWE ARMS AND ffRU15,nRES. TREE PL,.A,NTINO PETAtIL (PLAT!: 1 - 1) Fity of Moorpark Tree Planting Detail Plate 1 -1 lanning Division Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 57 z t Kwl i mm eme 1 P4X"A -L VVM%g _VOY%FLA5TVo iVOM WAS IW PUMMS ARAM Ttt= {i i'`i v,& TRH re: ArrAc;n t0 m&a,- ��;;��,, PRAW, �CS� �QCY, �R 10 �tL% i'1K� :1.11Wti &LY IWM: -- "to LT WAIS> IOPGM24 TRMS 0MWS LN W-IM 1R+1Ea VIZIXIRRE AND VVw EWO%M Tim LAWSGd E AR4"TtLT fzv"%es "t ftfiF' TO mwz nt ,rome *L4mt4& 9iF.TAtit- (toLAT9 1-2) City of Moorpark Tree Guying Detail ]:Plate 1 -2 Plannin Division 9 OC1209 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 58 o o ir L,��, x �a�►�ett�t Vr KEY I MMW GRACE s RA7ib+�.� rAbfi (T6P or arORpw4 . e4. err F �+ TrwaR.IR'! a YVATERto OASH w►rw -Om DAWLL. Mlx 526m TOPTCYW76TV IL- Pr E TRH 'n om. OM nftftmr- TKW ww IN Tw w�. RDO7 i t1 *0 *VLL cxrw NTO UtD 'COL_ - PLC M-NOW rr-5 A TO M" - CErY WrROVW RX' bAMMS ALA- TREES 047m 60-0 &L W&", PFidVEMAY5, WA—L-, ADD OrKR H)W66AM AREAS AW 5TRL1 TURE5. '�RgE P^,.A�N1iN1�". OPt SLt?�� pET,A1L ( *L/►''L'� 1 -9) F ity of Moorpark Tree Plantin on Slo a Detail Plate 1 -3 lanning Division g P 000210 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 59 0 -0 9A . IV 00 0 0 C. 0< P- dp c, Ci 0 40 • I x PW6t'TEFt KEY 6F Rwr AkL rteq? ep-VE 6;- wArmoe oAs" (TO Ve PEMOVW MOR A6RraFW RANT TA" To W or mmarNmm (W V7 4P Ra9r MJQ WNt 50L 0 Fm I-.&*- I PUZ &-*& 66' %P 4 Pm F,4�. 6 Fm Om c4w"Oq) OXUS %TTza&wvvArar,) 02A" VMP RWr PARRER WMIN MM HARP-64APE 19WACe 6WPtUB PLANTING, r)ZrAtIL rPLAre 1 -4) City of Moorpark Shrub Planting Detail Plate 1-4 Planning Division 000211 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 60 o 0 6 ,PCs, 1% • O. iA1� /2 xx rLAKr � DA.�1. cAggLL � Jt%LS AT RT) 1 DEPi'M! Rt�f AL m ROM DOU TAPS p eM rte, I FER 6-6., A MR F'.• -tom, 6 PW WA IZN ANCR) SHRUS ON BLO IS FOLA%, TtNG OrMUL (! LA'rE 1 -S) City of Moorpark Shrub on Slope Planting Detail Plate 1 -5 Planning Division 001,1212 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 61 �Y Cw"Ww LAM eA" *v MAE rfe WICS ro WOUt FR&'W era Y &WMrWk. P rA* V4-kc aooc W140 x or t? MAMW w, at wam �.X%t arc wMt�e KLM Id litwN �/ !" N 61RQNaG+7rlR ROAST f.QiMLL,/II YM M V*-W Z AAG 44" so WkI b PYIG 4Wi IV butt AMOrm !MG LA?bk t. rM PL/ W" r VWM' ar f/r wNM eKwn. 0fqmVOlu00 �r� . G47yTRCiL 'IL` (a City of Moorpark Planning Division Remote Control Valve Detail Plate 2 -1 000213 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 62 KEY WM FROM c4N dI W w Vv�+�' rent r we ro - l DU+A t 'E ROAM 60OUL AWI- tsuv vA.Vt w9T %o'h`m cw=x Lw RA °'`rte TAW 0c ' 0 rtWM NkAM jrM CP M,tZA pvcybUL t��z> OJ PVC, LATERAL t _ (54M MR R.d+tvi 1- MAt WE 64WRlL wMS Ar rE, rWr WMRVAL4. Z rV TFZt4gt * AT Sir 6RD"j5P5, r L&V#t 5TAWAIRP5 rat PEPM 5. bV.$P L -!WWI le 40WA(,TEP StZM THAT NO SE TUO 6 ARM FRiIr-GT GGWFLE'TM 4 FaMt ro TPVO*46 PeTMt/VP"TVN Olt�r�" rM LATE Litt APP WAH-rt pfflrn AMf1•�!'rGN YA6VU 7GTA16MATE : -Z) F ity of Moorpark Anti- Siphon Plate 2 -2 anning Division Valve Detail 000214 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 63 i win r mk/ 1 P.WX r Wk Key W v RULU!P �PF , �, Gt)� *mT MASS NMI � FVC- caft �i (rm 2 �+�L.L V,O 0 Df e$ C k 0-m {� DA6K LAV FfEA5 TER t}�RL ' "ATM W5 ") RASS wre 6nvNNm s TEvm DA-56 6aimtm r6oTb 6 ORm U� �? r t eA40L.ww OrRwctiTER CMTAIL fr,�Ye Z -9J (City a of Moorpark Back-flow Preventer Detail Plate 2 -3 Planning Division 000215 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 64 1 171 KEY (`i ft OR-AM -7. k-- LA9W &kLaAAW kAftER f-:-- tav %H A& NFPLE A6 F=,Wzg3>) EU FVC fich 40 15rpj!f!r ELL PV4 Sch 40 m OR ML PY6 LATMZX Pft 2-4J City of Moorpark Bubbler Detail Plate 2-4 of Mc Division 000216 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 65 dt KEY OPO---tr OE AR mrmN WRI %9 ve& B-4- (:A)MOA" STRMT fu (5 )PVC SCA 00 WMX 12' STPMT M.L PVC fAtM& Ut AW rnT*x.* eRxr- POP -VP PLQrrCM ORTA16 (PLATE 2 - 9) ECity of Moorpark Pop-Up Rotor Detail Plate 2-5 P ion Planning Division 1 000217, Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 66 KGB/ �}e�owuw O�� mmz ftew " re Sore (DPW, m W. 2 mK%= srt�r ai f4 roc ern w UPRZ a' OrAWr ML FW L►T5%OL ue rYrrtes arrO01 WUM - U w►x v%' w+ P rftwt U'%K UO&rats at rrr Cl) ROTOR OK $LX'P$ QZTAj-, (PLATS s-bi 1 a City of Moorpark Rotor on Slope Detail Plate 2 -6 Planning Division OOC -2183 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 67 City of Moorpark Planning Division KEYr I � MIN . WKLY 01' 2 V#" "LARMYE 4 PVC 60 W WeLr- 1?'1 AS IEOAPZP. -Z' MIN) (D P'V(.%" -wetL i PVC 6c" 40 5T ELL. 7 PVC !Zm 40 TIE GR Ell 8 PVC, LATW& FVI? 9 P'Y(I %" 69 N PLF- TM A5 Fr.QWPP. a Met) { rfas f evict POE-UP GPOtAy 04BAD DETAIL. f" -ATQ 2 -'!; Pop- Up Spray Head Detail Plate 2 -7 000219 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 68 E' KEY , I r6r or mix'n ( if (DrTot-"m £*C tR INFRAY tf--AC 04 Nc, Y-4-1 t t3 f'rFTU k5 FT-qWf ) A�11 EU ,fl)F'V( -56M A-' 71�E J;W r1_1 (3 City of Moorpark Riser a Detail Plate 2-8 ser Planning Division p y 1 1 000220 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 69 t. ��yw f V VJ'sl. d.f` V 6 � 4 3 I � k � a• v Low s� � r�eMr. k4mm � -W - ra ar,® raP ar :tr.�e TO N.T.S. 0 TOE OF 6L6FE Z CANGPY TREE ON LOY&R %ZF F- MAiU�F- t E16"T 6F TREES 5 VLL Ngr DCI, TOP Of %.OPE 13 LOW 6ROYY & 5I" RLC* LAR6C StR G YERTIGAL. TREE WAR SHAW LXLI �E5 OR NUte e To N A ,nom TOP GF SLOPE �fJ YIEW FENCE SLOPE PLANTING YN/ VIE.^ FENCE (ELEVA"MON) (gIG. 12. 1 ) City of Moorpark Slope Planting W/ View •� `''� Planning Division Fig. 12.1 Fence (Elevation) 00022 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 70 4A 3 E � wssfba LAR&E v,RrN& M&IT *iRLa L"St N.T.S. TOE Of SLOPE O G*WY TWft ON LOWR !R GPE Q LOW GROW RO *14b6 WR716& TRM NM SVEYAV LVTLM5 OR p! LDW E6E TO SOFTEN ARO flILliRE ra? 6r S aPE 6COf EN WA-L SLOPE PLANTING W/ SCAUN WALL (ELEVATION) (FICG. 12.2) City of Moorpark Slope Planting W/ Screen Fi .12.2 "" Planning Division Wall (Elevation) A0222 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 71 wai A, e; vr-w owvw Vr_W rENCZ 0 TOP OF a-OPE 1 rot or q-0m 51-OPE PLANTINCv AT SINGLE-FAMILY RE51PENCZ (PLAN VIEVOPRIC-r. 12.5) FCity of Moorpark Slope Planting at Single-Family Fig 12.3 P lanning Division Residence (Plan View) 0 0223 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 72 1;, T i r 0 ouxv 7D wnitE5 GR IXKP M ff)6F TO '56�3F.N ,qR(,tbTFLTURf O684 'Y THE ON LI uNMR 5L0�'E MaiuZV- rtair or M=S V tN.L NOF EZEf-P FOP OF 9—OFF— Vr4J 66RRVOR ram Or rct or %.OPE SLOPE PLANTING AT MULTIPLE! - FAMILY Kff5IDENGE (FLAN VIE^) (FIG. 12.4) r. City of Moorpark Slope Planting at Multi - Family Fig. 12.4 " Planning Division Residence (Plan View) g 0(?C2'24