HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 1986 109 0910RESOLUTION NO. PC -86 -109
A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. PM4219 ON THE APPLICATION
OF VICTOR CORRALEJO.
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on August
27, 1986, the Moorpark Planning Commission considered the information
contained in the staff report dated August 27, 1986, requesting
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. PM4219 to subdivide an existing
15,000 square foot lot into two parcels of 8,500 square feet and
6,500 square feet. Located at 142 Everett Street (block bounded
by Everett Street, Magnolia Avenue, Charles Street and Walnut
Canyon.
WHEREAS, on motion duly made, seconded and carried,
the Moorpark Planning Commission considered the Negative Declaration,
adopted the findings proposed by staff, and conditionally approved
the subject Tentative Parcel Map in that it was deemed appropriate
and compatible with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS;
SECTION 1. That this body, after review and consideration
t contained in the staff report dated August 27, 1986, the Moorpark
Planning commission took action to request staff to prepare a
resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. PM4219; said resolution
to be presented at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The
action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following
roll call vote;
AYES: Commissioners Rosen, Claffey, LaPerch and
Keenan;
NOES: None;
ABSENT: Commissioner Holland (unescused)
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September
1986.
ATTESSJT:��
Planning Secretary
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. PC -86 -109 - 09/10/86
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. PM -4219
APPLICANT: Victor M. Corralejo
DATE: August 27, 1986
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITION'
1. In accordance with Section 8251 (6) of the Municipal Code,
the Final Parcel Map shall be "recorded with the County
Recorder within thirty -six (36) months of the date of
adoption of a resolution of approval or conditional
approval.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITION
2. That if the subject parcel is within a Water Purveyor District,
water mains capable of providing a fireflow of 1000 GPM @ 20 psi
shall be installed from the public right of way, or from the
purveyor point of connection to the Everett Street property
line of parcel 1 and 2. The cost of engineering, installation
and maintenance of these mains shall be that of the applicant
of this Tentative Parcel Map. This improvement or provisions
to guarantee its installation shall. be completed prior to
recordation.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION
t 3. When constructed, the new residence shall have a roof composed
of a noncombustible material, treated shake shall not be
acceptable.
,e—�OMAS C. FERGUSON
Mayor
DANNY A. WOOLARD
Mayor Pro Tern
JAMES A. HARTLEY
Councilmember
ALBERT PRIETO
Councilmember
LETA YANCY - SUTTON
Councilmember
THOMAS P. GENOVESE
City Treasurer
Subject:
Location:
Applicant:
MOORPARK
STAFF REPORT TO:
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting of August 27, 1986
7:00 p.m.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. PM -4219
64
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J.KANE
City Attorney
RICHARD MORTON
Director of
Community
Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
Request to subdivide an existing 15,000 square foot
lot into two parcels of 8,500 square feet and 6,500
square feet.
142 Everett Street (block bounded by Everett Street,
Magnolia Avenue, Charles Street and Walnut Canyon).
Victor M. Corralejo
4911 Maureen Lane
Moorpark, CA. 93021
General Plan /Zoning:
R -1 Residential Medium Density (Maximum of 5.1 DU /AC)
Surrounding Property
Zoning /Use
North: R -1 /Single family residential
South: R -1 /Single family residential
East: R -1 /Single family residential
West: R -1 /Single family residential
Environmental:, Negative Declaration
Issues: 1) Substandard width.
2) Substandard parcel size.
3) Parcel configuration.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CaRfomia 93021 (805) 529 -6864
STAFF REPORT: PLANNING
p. 2 - August 27, 1986
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. PM -4219 - Victor M. Corralejo
Discussion: The existing parcel is 15,000 square feet. Provisions
of the R -1 zone allow one dwelling unit per 7,000
square feet of lot area. Ample lot area exists to
divide the existing parcel into more than the minimum
area required by the code:. A single family residence
(with attached garage) and a shed are the only two
structures on the site. It is the applicant's desire
to construct a new single: family residence on proposed
parcel 2 at an unknown future date. No immediate
plans exist to build the new residence. Proposed
parcel 1 is 8,500 square feet and parcel 2 is 6,500
square feet
The proposed subdivision has three concerns that the
Commission may wish to consider.
1. The Municipal Code requires a minimum lot width
of 40 feet in the R -]. zone. The minimum width of
proposed parcel 2 is only 38.5 feet. The code also
provides for the opportunity to grant an exception
to this requirement.
2. Partly because of the less than minimum lot width
provided, proposed parcel 2 is also drawn to show
less than the minimum required lot area of 7,000
square feet. The means to grant an exception to
this also exist.
3. The configuration of the proposed new lot line
creates the appearance of a flag lot which does
not pose a problem in this instance. The property
is not proposed to be developed as a flag lot normally
is. Most flags lots have a narrow staff which only
contains a driveway; the residence is built in
the top end of the lot. In this proposed subdivision,
the new residence, when built, would be built
within the staff. This would give the lot a
conventional appearance from the street. Very little
would be seen from the street that would give the
impression of a flag lot.
The proposed lot line was drawn in this particular
location for two reasons: To protect the orange trees
in the rear of the property and to keep the shed within
�^ proposed parcel 1.
STAFF REPORT: PLANNING COMMISSION
p. 3 - August 27, 1986
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.-PM-4219 - victor M. Corralejo
Staff Comments
The placement of the existing residence on the property makes it
somewhat difficult to evaluate a request to subdivide this property.
As shown on the tentative map, the residence is 14.25 feet from the
side property line on the east side. After allowing a five foot side -
yard on the west side, it leaves the 38.5 foot width for the remainder
of the parcel. Since it represents only a foot - and -half reduction
in required lot width, a suitable sized residence can still be built
within this width and still have the required side yards. The sub-
standard width is partially the reason for the substandard area of
proposed Parcel 2.
The applicant originally had a lot line drawn that would have provided
the minimum 7,000 square feet to each parcel. However, it resulted
in two awkwardly shaped parcels and may have led to an unusual placement
of the new residence. (see Exhibit "A "). At staff's suggestion the
proposed lot line was changed to its present configuration .
Pursuant to Sec. 8160 -14 of the Municipal Code, an exception to the
i may
required lot width
q y be granted based on optimal use of open space
in a subdivision. (see Exhibit "B "). If authorized by the Commission
the front and rear yards would benefit from the exception to reduce the
lot area and width. Even with the lot area reduction, the 6,500
square feet that would result is still a sizeable parcel. (Many
cities have allowable minimum lot sizes as low as 5,000 square
feet in a similar type of zone district.)
Other than the discussion of the shape of the proposed lot line
the project is very simple and straight forward. No city depart-
ments other than the Fire Department had any conditions of approval
to recommend.
Recommended Action
1. Make the following finding:
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on
the environment and that this body has reviewed and considered
the information contained in the Negative Declaration and
approves the attached Negative Declaration as having been completed
in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines issued thereunder.
STAFF REPORT: PLANNING COMMISSION
p. 4 - August 27, 1986
TENTTIVE PARCEL MAP NO. PM -4219 - Victor M. Corralejo
Recommended Action (continued)
2. Grant the exceptions as provided for in Section 8160 -14.4
of the Municipal Code.
3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve Tentative
Parcel Map No. PM -4219, subject to the attached recommended
conditions (and any amended or additional conditions) for
consideration by the Planning Commission at its next regular
meeting of September 10, 1986.
The decision of your Commission is final unless appealed to the
City Council within 15 calendar days of the date of adoption of a
resolution on this matter.
Prepared by:
Michael A. Rubin
Senior Planner
Attachments: Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map
Negative Declaration
Location Map
Exhibits: Exhibit "A" - Original proposed subdivision.
Exhibit "B" - Code sections.
4r
f \
POIND TER \SUED.
5 MR
36 PM 19
ash ; 32 P#
' S MR IS 1/2
' � • • �� : 111 =���
x 11 IIIIIIII 11�..11
P 111 NOR 111
_ S
0�
00 ❑
P016EXTjER
La
mm
=ks
'�
1111111:1
INIIIIN
�j1
fl
hll
II
_�
V
��
II
4r
f \
POIND TER \SUED.
5 MR
36 PM 19
ash ; 32 P#
' S MR IS 1/2
' � • • �� : 111 =���
x 11 IIIIIIII 11�..11
P 111 NOR 111
_ S
0�
00 ❑
P016EXTjER
La
mm
=ks
'�
1111111:1
INIIIIN
_�
J
z 0
0 0
x
z U
� !n
Y y
a a
a F
z
O w
O 2E
LLJ
J
13 RS w32
City O f TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 4219
Moorpark
142 Everett St.
Rim jymbgul
�1�1�I1111
r
� r
Z�RS�
20 PM
19 RS
' )r 1 \,
r
� r
Z�RS�
20 PM
19 RS
' )r 1 \,
CITY OF MOORPAr*',
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEWi)wNT
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
S1Z -U63-
5. Responsible Agencies: None
Ii. STIiiENLNF OF ENVIROM9ENTAL FINDINGS:
An initial study was conducted by the Department of Community Development
to evaluate the potential effects of this project upon the environment.
Based upon the findings contained in the attached initial study it has
been determined that this project could, could not, have a significant
effect upon the environment.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ONLY:
These potentially significant impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated
�- through adoption of the following identified measures as conditions of
approval.
MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS:
(IF APPLICABLE)
I1Z. PUBLIC REVIEW:
1. Legal Notice Method; Direct mailing to property owners within 300
feet. Yes
2. Document Posting Period; August :L3, 1986 - August 27, 1986
Prepared by: Approved by:
Michael A. Rubin 8/13/86
(Name) (Date) (Name)
i
CITY OF MOORPARK
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Applicant Victor M. Corralejo
2. Project Description 'Tentative Parcel Map No. PM -4219
Los split request to divide an existing lot into 2 lots and
subsequent construction of a single family residence
3. Date of Checklist submittal August: 13, 1986
4. Project Location 142 Everett Street
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,
or changes in situation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed *of the ocean or an}, bay,
inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
X
_
X
X
X
_
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
2. AIR. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
X
of ambient air quality?
—
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
X
c.
Alteration of air movement, moisture or
X
temperature, or any change in climate, either
—
locally or regionally?
d.
Is there a potential for cumulative adverse
X
impacts on air quality in the project area?
—
3. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in currents, or the course of direction
X
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
—
waters?
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
X
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
—
c.
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
x
waters?
—
d.
Change in the amount of surface water in.
x
any water body?
—
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
x
alteration of surface water quality, including
—
but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
x
ground waters?
—
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
X
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
h.
Degradation of ground water quality?
x
I.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water
X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
j.
Exposure of people or property to water related
X
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
—
6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area? X
9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural X
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable X
resource?
YES
MAYBE NO
4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in the diversity of species or number of
X
any species of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants?
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
X
endangered species of plants?
C.
Introduction of new species of plant; into an area,
X
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
X
5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or numbers of
X
any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
b.
Restrict the range of or otherwise affect any
X
rare or endangered animal species?
C.
Introduction of new species of animals into an
X
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
X
habitat?
6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area? X
9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural X
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable X
resource?
r-
10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density or growth rate of ithe human
population of an area?
12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand
for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and /or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental servies in any of the following areas:
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
X
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
C. Schools?
X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? -M
e. Other governmental services?
15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
X
_
X
X
_
X
_
X
_
X
1
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
C. Schools?
X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? -M
e. Other governmental services?
15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
YES
MAYBE NO
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources
X
of energy or require the development of new sources =
—
of energy?
16.
UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
X
b. Communications system?
X
c. Water?
X
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
X
e. Storm water drainage?
X
f. Solid waste and disposal?
X
g. Street lighting annexation and /or improvements?
X
17.
HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
X
hazard (excluding mental health)?
—
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
X
18.
AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
X
tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
—
or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
19.
RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact
X
upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
—
opportunities?
20.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal:
a. Affect possible unknown archaeological or historic-
X
al sites?
—
b. Result in destruction or alteration of a known
archaeological or historical site within the
X
—
vicinity of the project?
C. Result in destruction or alteration of a known
X
archaeological or historical site near the
vicinity of the project?
YES MAYBE NO
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self- sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long -term impacts will endure well into
the future.) X
C. Does the project have impacts which are individu-
ally limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where impact on ea.h resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly. X
Ill. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed lot split will divide an existing 15,000 square foot lot into
two parcels. One will be 8,500 square feet and has an existing single
family residence; the other parcel will be 6,500 square feet and will be
improved with a new single family residence at a future date. Normally
this type of lot split is exempt from CEQA because it is a division of
four (4) or fewer parcels and is in conformance with the General Plan
and zoning. However, if a variance or exception is required it is not
automatically exempt and must undergo CEQA review. This proposed subdivision
is requesting an exception from a requirement of a minimum 40 foot required
width for both lots. The smaller of the two proposed parcels has a minimum
of 38.5 foot width. The larger needs no exception.
The granting of this exception will not result in any significant environ-
mental impacts. All required setbacks and height limitations will be imposed
on the new residence at the time of construction.
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (continued)
It should appear to be compatible with the other single family residences
in the vicinity.
As a result of this Initial Study, the Community Development Department hs
determined that the proposed lot split will not have a significant adverse
effect on the environment based on the following findings:
a. The addition of only one single family residence made
possible by the proposed lot split is not expected to
generate a significant amount of additional vehicular
traffic.
b. Minimal additional noise will be created by a new residence
being built on the property.
C. Minor additional light and glare will result from the
new residence and from vehicular traffic generated by
the residence. However the increase is not expected to
be significant.
d. A new single family residence would be compatible with
other land uses in the immediate vicinity.
IV. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_ In conformance with Section 15060 of the State EIR Guidelines, I find
with certainity that the proposal would not have a significant impact
on the environment.
I find the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to
class
X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared.
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 the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet could be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SHOULD BE PREPARED.
_ I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ADDENDUM to an existing certified Environmental
Impact Report is required.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and this effect is adequately addressed in a certified
Environmental Impact Report, and thus SUBSEQUENT USE of the existing
EIR is required.
A
!S'
` I
z
I
J
Q
,o
l�
W
�-E X. Govc. GtJRB
Ea ST
a
i) O
u
.
z
u
3
k
W
EX
I
/P. So
5� I
o�
n�
I
frG
sT
h
0
k
W
Ioe, �4.Z5'
y
R �
t
r- 7.946
a� u
Sp" IAA �
P6R ael7 e1. R. �pT
N 7 / A L
MCHIVIT "A"
(OZ16 10AL SUSM l- rTA -L-)
F
EX. Q¢7'w.o LL 9':
�o
i
J
Q
W
Q
N
W
SC.4.
one lot aid not more thou one (1) amauj minding stall be permitted
on said parcel except as authorized and provided for the particular
zone in which located. Any divisions of suai parcel snail to in
_ accordance witu tine State of California Sauxlivision tap Pct or Division
8, Chapter 2 of tUs Ordinance Code;
Sec. 8160 -13.3 - Creation of Noncotformin Lots - wry individual
parcel of land whIc was�� en F,p 18, 1947 shall to deeMe+
to oe one lot. .(o such lot shall be divided into two (2) or acre
separate lots if such division will create any separate lot which is
noncnnfotaing uecause of less lot area, or widtZ, or yards than required
for the zone in which the property is located.
Sec. 9160 -14 - Wcmm�ity Park and Pcreaticnal Facilities - ;b encourage
er ear o provide parks and recreatiaM facilities and open space
areas for the health, safety, and general welfare of residents and
property owners of subdivisions; to make park and recreational facilities
immediately availaule for residents and property owners in subdivisions;
to keep diildren off the streets and away from places exposing then to
dangers and lumnful influences; and to encourage the orderly development
of the Cotmty, and Planning Ccmmi.ssion may, in the manner hereafter
prescribed, autnorize reduction in tine min Pum lot area of one (1) or
more lots in a sucaivi.sion. Lye land for the proposed par:: and recreational
facility mat be situated entirely or partially within tine boundaries of
the sutixUvision or within a reasonable distance from the subdivision.
Sec. 8160 -14.1 - Written Request - A written request for reduction of
lot area in the subdivision shall be submitted vita file tentative map
to the Planning coamission. A copy of said written request shall
also ce sent to the park - developing agency. The request snall be
signed by the owner or owners of the property of the proposed subdivision.
Sec. 8160 -14.2 - Parr. Developing Arency Ras.�se - A written star eumt,
of acceptance or reJ-e of of the proposed park site snail be filed by
the park- develtping agency with the Planning Commission at least seven
(7) days prior to the tine set for hearing on fine tentative map.
Sec. 8160 -14.3 - Lot Area Itrducticns - Lot area reductions may :fie
granted as follows provided that tee total of t:e lot area reductions
for all of the lots reduced in the subdivision goes not exceed are
and ore-half (1-10 times the area of the land to be set aside for part:
and recreation purposes: e.g.
(a) Cae (1) to five hundred (500) square feet for any lot zoned
seven thousand (7,000) to seven thousand nine hundred and
ninety -nine (7,999) square feet;
(u) one (1) to one thousand (1,000) square feet for any lot zoned
eight thousand (8,000) or more square feet.
., at�0 -t d_4 - Peductiou Lind.ts - A ale (1) foot reduction in width
of 1of 1 ybe granted for every one hundred (100) square feet reduction
of area of the same lot provided that in no instance shall the 'lot
width oe reduced to less than tine width permitted in the next smaller
lot width classification, and in the case of the lot reduced frtm seven
ECM 1131'i' "i3" pr l 440
518 OC -1
thousand (7,000) square feet to a smaller classification but not less
than six t housand five hundred (6,500) square feet as a result of the
application of Sections 8160 -14 et se g. the side yard may be reduced
to a minim= of five (5) feet wigs a minim um sum of the side yards
of ten (10) feet iz the R-1 Zone.
Sec. 8160 -14.5 - Tentative N;ap - The ten:ati A-, m au shall sihcw the lots
as reduced and the park site which the property owner intends W
convey to the County for part: and recreational uses. If it is not
practical to show the location of the part: site on the tentative imp,
the location and size shall be indicated by a written endorsement
thereon.
Sec. 8160 -14.6 - Cash in Lieu of Land - Whenever the park developing
agency determines that it is desiraole to accept a bond or cash in lieu
of an actual transfer of land, it may so notify the Planning Commission
statinq the reasons therefor including thou approximate location and
size of the land it desires to acquire. Tile Planning Couani.ssion may
thereafter allow the vesting of a bond or cash deposit in an amount
equivalent to the market value of an equaL amount of unimproved land
including street iq)roveve'nts within the suixlivision if the Commission
deternines it is reasonable to do so and shall condition tine tentative
map accordingly. Such value si;all lye determined by the County and the
subdivider and shall be at least equal to the average value of land
within the subdi vision. The park: developing agency must thereafter
with a a reasahahle tire use such funds only for the ac mAsition of
park. lands inn t,u, vicinity of tie suieiivision involved.
Sec. 8160 -14.7 - Appcal - The subdivider or awner or owners of the
property may Tr a h a disapproval of a lot reduction re( pest to the
Board of Supervisors in accordance with the provisions of Section 116611
of the Business and Professions Code.
Sec. 810'0 -14.8 - Conveyance to_COUnty - Fee skmle title to t'ie pari.
site shell ac conveyed cy the property artier to tine County by deed
free and clear of all encumbrances except those unman will not interfere
with use of the property for park purposes and aniah the County agrees
to accept. county shall thereafter begin developrr-nt of the property
for recreation or park purposes witiin five (5) years after recordation
of the final sutxlivision map and continue to use the property for
recreation or pat: purposes for a period of tairt'y -five (35) years, or
shall convey the property to another public entity for use as a
recreation or park purpose.
Sec. 8160 - 14.8.1 - Con once to Public Entity - :•lhen the park -
developing agency is a public entity other than the County, County
s.-nall convey the property to such appropriate ?ublic entity. The
property interest conveyed snal.l be a Fee Sirple Leterminable and
and the deed shall contain a reservation of Right of Peverter
substantially as follows:
"Provided, that if the said grantee shall fail to begin improvement
of said park site within five years from the date of recording
of the final subdivision map of Tract So. ' , then the land snall
automatically revert to County of Ventura as fully and effectually
MOW't ~ 0" p. 2 of Z
519 OC -1