HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 2002 431 1014RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -431
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -04, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2002 -04,
MAJOR MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 5307, AND MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
2001 -01 FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 0.33 ACRES SITE
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOS ANGELES
AVENUE AND MILLARD AVENUE, ON THE APPLICATION
OF COLMER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND THE CITY OF
MOORPARK (ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 512 -0- 122 -040 &
-060)
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing on October 14,
2002, the Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment
No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04, Major Modification No. 1 to
Tentative Tract Map No. 5307 and Minor Modification No. 1 to
Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01 on the
application of Colmer Development Company and the City of
Moorpark for an approximately 0.33 acre site located on the
northwest corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Street
(Assessor Parcel No. 512 -0- 122 -040 & -060); and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is more specifically
described as follows:
General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04: A request for a change
in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan from M (Medium Density) to VHD (Very High
Density);
Zone Change No. 2001 -01: A request for a change in the
Zoning from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to RPD -9.1U
(Residential Planned Development -9.1 dwelling units /acre);
Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map No 5307 and
Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned Development
Permit No. 2001 -01: A request for inclusion of 0.33 acres
of land to be subdivided into 3 lots within the subdivision
and the construction of 3 additional affordable single
family units;
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -431
Page 2
WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 14, 2002, the Planning
Commission considered the staff report, conducted a public
hearing and received public testimony, and after receiving
public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public
hearing, and reached a decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Planning
Commission does hereby find that General Plan Amendment No.
2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04, Major Modification No. 1 to
Tentative Tract Map No. 5307 and Minor Modification No. 1 to
Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01 are
consistent with the City's General Plan, subject to amendment of
the land use designation as proposed.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The Planning
Commission further finds that General Plan Amendment No. 2002-
04, Zone Change 2002 -04, Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative
Tract Map No. 5307 and Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential
Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01 are consistent with the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project.
1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04,
Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map No. 5307
and Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2001 -01 serves as the environmental
document for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Tentative Tract Map modification, and Residential Planned
Development Permit modification.
2. In order to reduce the potential adverse impacts of this
project, mitigation measures discussed in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration have been incorporated and shall apply
to General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04,
Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map No. 5307
and Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2001 -01.
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -431
Page 3
3. A Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program prepared in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180 and considered in the
various decisions regarding these projects applies to
General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04,
Major Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map No. 5307
and Minor Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2001 -01.
SECTION 3. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS: The Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
Modification to Tentative Tract Map No. 5307, with
imposition of the attached conditions, meets the requirements of
California Government Code Sections 66473.5, 66474, 66474.6, and
66478.1 et seq., in that:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the City of Moorpark
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the design and improvements of the proposed
subdivision is consistent with the City of Moorpark General
Plan.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements
are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
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.
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.
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -431
Page 4
9. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any
public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake,
or reservoir.
SECTION 4. RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS:
The Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and
provisions of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed project is compatible with the character of
surrounding development.
3. The proposed project would not be obnoxious or harmful, or
impair the utility of neighboring property or uses.
4. The proposed project would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
5. The proposed project is compatible with existing and
planned land uses in the general area where the development
is to be located.
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 provide visual relief and separation between land
uses of conflicting character.
SECTION 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The
Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04, Major
Modification No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map No. 5307 and Minor
Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned Development Permit No.
2001 -01 subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A).
SECTION 6. 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.
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -431
Page 5
The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chair Landis, Commissioners DiCecco, Haller
and Parvin.
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Chair Otto
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2002.
Kipp L ndis, Vic Chair
ATTEST:
Aa ry Hoevnlopment C mm ty Director
EXHIBITS:
A. Conditions of Approval for Major Modification No. 1 to
Tentative Tract Map No. 5307 and Minor Modification
No. 1 to Residential Planned Development Permit No.
2001 -01
B. Mitigation Monitoring Program
C. General Plan Amendment Map
D. Zone Change Map
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -431
Page 6
EXRTATT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MAJOR MODIFICATION NO. 1
TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5307
AND MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2001 -01
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All conditions of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 5307
and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01
shall continue to apply, and unless specifically directed
to particular lots, shall apply to the additional 0.33
acres of land, except as amended herein.
2. Conditions of Residential Planned Development No. 2001 -01
and Tentative Tract 5307 which apply to all lots adjacent
to Los Angeles Avenue shall apply to Lots 23, 24 and 25 as
well, unless the Director of Community Development
determines otherwise.
3. Recordation of this subdivision shall be deemed to be
acceptance by the subdivider 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 and the City Engineer.
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. The approved Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program is included as an attachment to the
approving resolution, and all mitigation measures are
requirements of the Tentative Tract Map and Residential
Planned Development Permit, as applicable.
5. All mitigation measures contained within the approved
Mitigation Monitoring Report and Program (MMRP) are hereby
adopted as requirements of the Tentative Map, as
applicable. Where conflict or duplication between the MMRP
and the conditions of approval occurs and applicability for
compliance is questioned by the Developer, the Community
Development Director shall determine the applicable
condition compliance requirements for each phase of
development.
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -431
Page 7
6. This approval permits the addition of 0.33 acres of land to
Tentative Tract Map No. 5307, for the purpose of creating
an additional three (3) lots within the tract. These
additional lots will be used for the construction of
affordable housing units. Income levels for prospective
buyers of these units shall be determined by the City of
Moorpark.
7. Lots 23, 24, and 25 shall be developed with Plan 3,
approved as part of Residential Planned Development No.
2001 -01. The exterior building treatment for each unit
shall be sufficiently different, as determined by the
Community Development Director, so as to be distinct from
one another.
8. The perimeter wall of Tract 5307 shall be extended to
encompass the additional acreage. The extended wall shall
be constructed of the same materials with the same
treatments as the rest of the tract. The wall height shall
be the same as the rest of the tract, except as noted
herein.
9. Wall pockets along Los Angeles Avenue shall be deleted. An
appropriate planting palette, subject to the approval of
the Community Development Director, shall be utilized to
soften the appearance of the sound wall. Plant material
used shall have low water demands and low maintenance
needs.
10. Access to lots 23, 24, and 25 shall be through a 20 -foot
wide common driveway. Entrance to the driveway from "A"
street shall be via a raised curb with driveway apron.
This driveway shall extend only far enough to provide
access to lot 25, but shall not connect, or appear to
connect, to Millard Street. Precise design shall be to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the
City Engineer.
11. A "hammerhead" turn- around area shall be located at the
easterly end of "A" street. This shall meet the standards
of the Fire Department, and shall be striped and signed, to
the satisfaction of the Fire Department and the City
Engineer, as a "No Parking" area.
12. The existing storm drain easement at the west side of Lot
23 shall be covered and graded to the level of the pad on
Lot 23. This area shall be restricted to disallow
construction or permanent improvements within it to ensure
accessibility to the culvert for maintenance purposes.
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -431
Page 8
13. The sidewalk along Los Angeles Avenue shall meander, and
may be reduced to a minimum width of 5 feet, with the
approval of the Director of Community Development and the
City Engineer, providing areas suitable for the planting of
trees and shrubs along the right of way. The location of
the sidewalk shall be approved by the Community Development
Director and the City Engineer.
14. Berms and /or low retaining walls shall be utilized
intermittently within the landscape planter areas along Los
Angeles Avenue to add visual interest and soften the
appearance of the sound walls, subject to the approval of
the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
15. The sound wall along Los Angeles Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative block, with variation in color,
texture and mass to create visual interest and soften the
appearance. "Pilaster" elements incorporating different
colors and textures shall be incorporated into the wall at
least every 25 feet to break up the wall mass. Wall plans
are subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director
16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a landscape plan
shall be prepared on the approved grading plan and
submitted to the City for review, and approved by the
Community Development Director.
17. Prior to the issuance of final occupancy for the first
unit, the approved landscape plan shall be implemented, and
be found to be in substantial compliance with the plan
approved by the Community Development Director.
B. MITIGATION MEASURE CONDITIONS:
1. Prior to or concurrently with the submittal of building
plans, the Applicant shall provide an acoustical study
report to the Community Development Director that outlines
the proposed program for compliance with the Noise Element
Standards of 65 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) for
exterior locations within the development and 45 CNEL for
interior locations within the dwelling.
2. Construct a sound wall along the southern property line of
lots 1 through 11, and lots 23 through 25, along Los
Angeles Avenue. The top of the sound wall must be 9.5 feet
above the centerline surface of Los Angeles Avenue for lots
1 and 2, 10.5 feet above the centerline for lots 3 though
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -431
Page 9
9, 11.5 feet above the centerline for lots 10 and 11, and
12.5 above the centerline for lots 23 through 25.
Construct a 5 to 6 foot wide planter between the wall and
Los Angeles Avenue. This planter shall be planted in
accordance with Condition No. 15, above.
3. The sound wall shall extend at least 20 feet to the north
on the west side of lot 1, and at least 20 feet to the
north on the east side of lot 25. These extensions shall
then transition gradually down in height to a standard 6
feet.
4. To reduce the interior noise levels, a minimum window glass
thickness of 3/16 -inch and a standard exterior wall of 5/8-
inch gypsum board, 3.5 -inch fiberglass filled cavity, 7/8-
inch lath and stucco, typical for single family residential
developments shall be installed.
5. All second story windows along Los Angeles Avenue shall be
Milgard type 5120 double glazed window assemblies or an
equivalent with a minimum STC 33 rating.
6. All rear and side entry doors of the homes on Lots 1
through 11, and lots 22 through 25, shall be gasketed
(jamb, head, sill) with interlocking or tube -type
compression weather - stripping, or an effective equivalent.
7. All exterior vents on the homes on Lots 1 through 11, and
lots 22 through 25, shall be directed away from Los Angeles
Avenue in order to reduce noise transmissions into the
house through vents and ducts.
8. The applicant shall prepare an addendum to the previously
prepared hydrology study, if deemed necessary by the City
Engineer, to determine the appropriate size of the culvert.
The culvert shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2002 -431
Page 10
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City
Engineer shall provide verification to the Community
Development Director, that the proposed culvert to be
placed in the storm drain easement along the west side of
Lot 22 is properly sized to handle the expected flow.
2. Prior to the release of grading or improvement bonds the
City Engineer shall verify that the construction of this
culvert is satisfactory.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Building
Official shall provide verification to the Community
Development Director that the building permit plans comply
with all noise mitigation measures imposed as conditions of
approval.
4. Prior to occupancy of each unit, the Building Official
shall ensure, by physical inspection, the compliance with
these plans.
F
L
G
R
Y
A
V
E
Exhibit C
General Plan Amendment Map
S ANGELES AVER U E
O
M
I
L
L
A
R
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
Note: drawing not to scale
Exhibit D
Zone Change Map
m
F L
L L
A
R R
Y "A" STREET D
A S►
v T
E Zone Change: R
R -1 to RPD -9.1 U E
E
T
r
LOS ANGELES AMEN U E
Note: drawing not to scale
MOORPARK
1 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517 -6200
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
The City of Moorpark, after having conducted an Initial Study, has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the following project:
Major Modification No.1 - T 5307, Minor Modification No. 1 — RPD 99 -1, General Plan Amendment
2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04
Amend General Plan Designation from M (Medium Density Residential) to VH (Very High Density
Residential); Amend zoning designation from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to RPD -9.1U
(Residential Planned Development — 9.1 units per acre); Modify Tract 5307 and RPD 99 -01 to
include an additional 0.33 acres for 3 additional affordable units.
The project is located at:
North east corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Avenue, Moorpark, Ventura County
The project site is not contained on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code including, but not limited to lists of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste
property, and hazardous waste disposal sites.
The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are forwarded to you for possible
comments relating to your area of interest. All documents referenced therein are available for review
during normal business hours in the Community Development office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, California, 93021. Information on public hearings or meetings for the proposed project can be
obtained from the Community Development Department at (805) 517 -6200.
Written comments should be directed to:
Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
(805) 517 -62 36
swolfe@ci.moorpark.ca.us
Written comments will be accepted in the Community Development Department office for a period of
twenty (20) days after publication of this notice.
Public Notice Published: September 30, 2002
Mitigated Negative Declaration Comment Period: September 30, 2002 to October 21, 2002
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
Distribution:
PC ATTACHMENT 3
0
PATRICK HUNTER ROSEANN MIKOS CLINT HARPER KEITH F. MILLHOUSE JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
The following Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures
of the City of Moorpark.
Public Review Period: September 30 to October 21, 2002
Project Title /Case No.: Major Modification No.1 - T 5307, Minor Modification No. 1 — RPD 99 -1,
General Plan Amendment 2002 -04, Zone Change 2002 -04
Project Location: North east corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Avenue, Moorpark,
Ventura County. (Location Map Attached)
Project Description: Amend General Plan Designation from M (Medium Density Residential) to VH
(Very High Density Residential); Amend zoning designation from R -1 (Single
Family Residential) to RPD -9.1 U (Residential Planned Development — 9.1
units per acre); Modify Tract 5307 and RPD 99 -01 to include an additional
0.33 acres for 3 additional affordable units.
Project Type:
Project Applicant:
X Private Project X Public Project
Colmer Development Company, 5000 Parkway Calabasas, Suite 110,
Calabasas, CA 91302 / City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark,
CA 93021
Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above - referenced project, it is found that
there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of
Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
However, this effect can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through the
imposition of mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the
project. (Initial Study Attached)
Responsible Agencies: None
Trustee Agencies: None
Attachments: Location Map
Initial Study
Contact Person: Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California, 93021
(805) 517 -62 36
SACommunity Development\T T M \5307\MND.doc
CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517 -6200
Project Title: None Case No.: Major Modification No. 1 - TTM 5307, Minor Modification
No. 1 - RPD 99 -1, General Plan Amendment 2002 -04,
Zone Change 2002 -04
Contact Person and Phone No.: Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner (805) 517 -6236
Name of Applicant: Colmer Development Company City of Moorpark
Address and Phone No.: 5000 Parkway Calabasas 799 Moorpark Avenue
Calabasas, CA 91302 Moorpark, CA 93021
(818) 222 -5666 (818) 517 -6200
Project Location: Northwest Corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Avenue
General Plan Designation: M (Medium Density Residential) Zoning: R -1 (Single Family Residential)
Project Description: Amend General Plan Designation from M (Medium Density Residential) to VH
(Very High Density Residential); Amend zoning designation from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to RPD -9.1 U
(Residential Planned Development — 9.1 units per acre); Modify Tract 5307 and RPD 99 -01 to include an
additional 0.33 acres for 3 additional affordable units.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: Existing Residential Neighborhood
South: Los Angeles Avenue and Residential uses
East: Existing Residential Neighborhood
West: School Facilities — Tentative Tract 5307
Responsible and Trustee Agencies: None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially
Si nifrcant Impact" or Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated, "as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use /Planning
Mineral Resources X Noise Population /Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities /Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None
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: ?P/ Reviewed by:
Date: Date:
INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT 1:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A sound wall shall be constructed along the southern property line of lots 1 through 11, and lots 23
thorugh 25, along Los Angeles Avenue. The top of the sound wall must be 9.5 feet above the
centerline surface of Los Angeles Avenue for lots 1 and 2, 10.5 feet above the centerline for lots 3
though 9, 11.5 feet above the centerline for lots 10 and 11, and 12.5 above the centerline for lots 22
through 25. In order to screen the wall, a 5 to 6 foot wide planter shall be provided between the wall
and Los Angeles Avenue. This planter will be planted with trees, shrubs, and vines to screen the
wall.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
2. The sound wall shall extend at least 20 feet to the north on the west side of lot 1, and at least 20 feet
on the east side of lot 11. These extensions will then transition gradually in height down to a
standard 6 foot wall height.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
3. To reduce the interior noise levels, a minimum window glass thickness of 3116 inch and a standard
exterior wall of 5/8 inch gypsum board, 3.5 inch fiberglass filled cavity, 7/8 inch lath and stucco,
typical for single family residential developments shall be installed.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
4. All second story windows along Los Angeles Avenue shall be Milgard type 5120 double glazed
window assemblies, or an equivalent with a minimum STC 33 rating.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
2
5. All rear and side entry doors of the homes on Lots 1 through 11, and lots 22 through 25, shall be
gasketed (jamb, head, and sill) with interlocking or tube type compression weather stripping, or an
effective equivalent.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
6. All exterior vents on the homes on Lots 1 through 11, and lots 22 through 25, shall be directed away
from Los Angeles Avenue in order to reduce noise transmissions into the house through vents and
ducts.
Monitoring Action: Physical Inspection
Timing: Prior to Occupancy of Units
Responsibility: Department of Community Development
A hydrology study shall be prepared, if determined necessary by the City Engineer, to determine the
appropriate size of the culvert. The culvert shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Monitoring Action: City Engineer to review project plans for compliance
Timing: Prior to issuance of grading permits
Responsibility: City Engineer
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
3
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Response: The project proposes to construct a sound wall along Los Angeles Avenue
ranging in height from 9.5 feet to 12.5 feet. In order to screen the wall, the
project will provide a 5 to 6 foot wide landscape planter in front of the wall
adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: This planter will be planted with trees, shrubs, and vines to screen the wall.
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
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
agency, to non - agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
3) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
Response: This project does not affect agricultural resources.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: None Required.
4
X
X
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact 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 existing visual character or
X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Response: The project proposes to construct a sound wall along Los Angeles Avenue
ranging in height from 9.5 feet to 12.5 feet. In order to screen the wall, the
project will provide a 5 to 6 foot wide landscape planter in front of the wall
adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: This planter will be planted with trees, shrubs, and vines to screen the wall.
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
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
agency, to non - agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
3) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
Response: This project does not affect agricultural resources.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: None Required.
4
X
X
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: This project does not affect Air Quality Resources.
Sources: 7
Mitigation: None required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (inGuding, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5
X
X
X
X
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
x
X
conservation plan f
Response: This project proposes changes on previously developed urban land, and
therefore does not impact biological resources.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: None required.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of x
a historic resource as defined in §15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Response: This project proposes changes on previously developed land, and therefore
is not expected to impact cultural resources.
Sources: Site Plan, Project Application
Mitigation: None required.
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
Involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
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?
0
X
X
Potentially
Significant
Impact
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 expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B
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 altemative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Less Than
Significant Less Than
With Significant No
Mitigation Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
Response: This project is not within Alquist Priolo Special Studies areas, and does not
have any soils or geological impacts. The site is within a liquefaction zone,
and will need to comply with the requirements of the Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act.
Sources: 3, Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone Map, Moorpark Quadrangle, Seismic
Hazard Zone Map, Moorpark Quadrangle.
Mitigation: None Required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
X
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely
X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
X
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
7
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Response: There are no known hazards on the project site.
Sources: 3
Mitigation: None Required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off -site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving i) flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
X
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Response: There are no known hazards on the project site.
Sources: 3
Mitigation: None Required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off -site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving i) flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
ii) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? x
Response: This project proposes the "boxing" of a currently open storm drain channel
into a 4 foot culvert. This improvement will be engineered to accommodate
anticipated flows, and therefore will not reflect a significant impact.
Sources: Project plans.
Mitigation: A hydrology study shall be prepared, if determined necessary by the City
Engineer, to determine the appropriate size of the culvert. The culvert shall
be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established community? x
2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or x
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural community conservation plan?
Response: While this project deviates from the current General Plan Land Use element
map designation with regard to density on the subject site, the project would
help meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element and is
consistent with all other General Plan Goals and Policies. Further, this
project includes a General Plan Amendment which will ensure that the
project is consistent with the Land Use Element map as well. Therefore, this
impact is not significant.
Sources: 3,4
Mitigation: None Required
J. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important x
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Response: This project will not affect mineral resources.
Sources: n/a
Mitigation: None Required.
0
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
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels?
3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
X
Response: 1) Ambient noise levels within the project area along Los Angeles Avenue
are expected to exceed 65 CNEL .
4)Temporary increases in ambient noise levels can be expected during
construction periods. However, City regulations pertaining to hours of
construction will ensure that this impact is less than significant.
Sources: 1,3,4
Mitigation: 1) Installation of sound walls along Los Angeles Avenue. See mitigation
monitoring program for further details.
4) None required.
X
X
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?
10
X
X
X
Response: 1) Ambient noise levels within the project area along Los Angeles Avenue
are expected to exceed 65 CNEL .
4)Temporary increases in ambient noise levels can be expected during
construction periods. However, City regulations pertaining to hours of
construction will ensure that this impact is less than significant.
Sources: 1,3,4
Mitigation: 1) Installation of sound walls along Los Angeles Avenue. See mitigation
monitoring program for further details.
4) None required.
X
X
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?
10
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Response: This project will have a beneficial impact of helping to achieve housing goals
in support of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Sources: 3
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 performance
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.
Sources: Site Plans, Project Description
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?
11
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Ir
Response: This project will have no impact on recreational resources.
Sources: Project plans, Project Description
Mitigation: None required.
O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:
1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio 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 traffic 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 altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Response: This project will have no impacts on transportation facilities or traffic
patterns.
Sources: Site Plans, Project Description
Mitigation: None required.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
2) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Response: This project proposes the "boxing" of an open storm drain channel into a 4
foot culvert. This improvement will be engineered to accommodate
anticipated flows, and therefore does not reflect a significant impact.
Sources: Project Plans
Mitigation: None required
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1) 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 of prehistory?
2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effect of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and effects of probable future projects)?
3) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
13
X
X
X
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
x
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
X
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
x
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
6) Be served by the landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
x
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
x
regulations related to solid waste?
Response: This project proposes the "boxing" of an open storm drain channel into a 4
foot culvert. This improvement will be engineered to accommodate
anticipated flows, and therefore does not reflect a significant impact.
Sources: Project Plans
Mitigation: None required
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1) 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 of prehistory?
2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effect of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and effects of probable future projects)?
3) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
13
X
X
X
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitiaation Impact Impa
Response: Mitigation measures will be impose that will enable the project to reduce any
potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
Sources: 1,3,4
Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tract 5307 and associated projects dated
March 4, 2002.
Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by
reference, and are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall,
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. Items used are referred to by number in the
Response Section of the Initial Study Checklist.
Traffic Noise Study Report for the Colmer Residential Department dated March 14, 2001.
Comments received from (departments) in response to the Community Development
Department's request for comments.
The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended.
The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended.
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
Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title
14 Section 15000 et. seq.
Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, November 14, 2000.
14