Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1987 0715 CC REG ITEM 09AMEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STAFF ry SUBJECT: CASE NO. DP -392 DATE: JULY 15, 1987 PROJECT SUMMARY /LOCATION ITEM i Ai MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting ACTION: •• DP -392 The proposed project is a light industrial use totalling 200,097 square feet (s.f.). The total square footage includes 23,472 s.f. of office area; 132,469 s.f. of assembly and light manufacturing area; and, 44,156 s.f. of warehousing. The location of the proposed project is as shown on page 1 of the Planning Commission Staff Report. REQUESTED ACTIONS 1. Approval of Resolution ; Sustaining the recommendation of the Planning Commission by accepting a Miti- gated Negative Declaration and certifying that the information was considered on decisions related to the project; and, 2. Approval of Resolution ; Sustaining the recommendation of the Planning Commission approving the Develop- ment Plan Permit (DP -392) for a 2 -story light industrial structure of 200,097 square feet located in Moorpark Business Center, Lot 7; PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission at its July 6, 1987 open the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to give testimony, and approved Resolution Nos. 142 and 143 (4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstain) recommending that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Plan Permit DP -392 subject to the conditions as stated on Exhibit "A" of the Planning Commission Staff Report. In making this recommendation, the Planning Commission make the following changes to Exhibit A. 1) The Planning Commission deleted Condition #11 from page 27, 2) The Planning Commission changed the wording of Condition 19 on page 21 to read as 1 DP -392 follows: 19. That signs are subject to the Moorpark Code, Chapter 50, Title 9, Sign Ordi- nance. A sign permit is required. Either /or a monument sign or a building sign shall be permitted. If a monument sign is selected, it shall not exceed 30 square feet, and be no higher than 5' above average ground level. A sign program shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development for all other onsite direction signage. FINDINGS 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration: a. That the Initial Study is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. b. That the contents of the Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on this project. C. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorpor- ated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures to the proposed project. d. That the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as suggested Conditions of Approval. 2. DP -392 a. The proposed uses would be consistent with the purpose, intent, guidelines, standards, policies, and provisions of the City's General Plan and Chapters I and 2 of the Ordinance Code; b. The proposed uses would not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which they are to be located; C. The proposed uses would be compatible with land uses permitted within the General Plan land use designations and the zones in the general area where the uses are to be located; d. The proposed uses would not be obnoxious or harmful or impair the utility of the property itself or neighboring property or uses; e. The proposed uses would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare; f. The proposed project, together with the provisions for its design and improve- ment, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project is compatible 2 DP -392 with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. g. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of its action upon the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. 3. Conditions: Conditions to be imposed upon the proposed project are provided in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, as modified by Commission actions and staff suggestions within this report. They have been sorted by municipal department or advising agency. REMAINING ISSUES 1) Color Chip The project applicant at the Planning Commission meeting indicated that they would like to change the accent color scheme of the building from a "matador" red to a "burgundy" red. It is the opinion of staff that the change in shade is aesthetically superior. The Planning Commission took no specific action on this request. It is the opinion of the staff that it was the Commission's intent to incorporate this change in their approval and it should be done by the City Council. 2) Lighting The project applicant would like a change in wording of the recommended condition of approval on page 22, Item E to read as follows: o Lew High pressure energy efficient light fixtures shall be used. The Planning Commission did not take action on this request. It is the opinion of staff that this change would make the proposed lighting consistent with existing development within the Moorpark Business Center. The consistent lighting pattern will provide for a more aesthetically pleasing ultimate development and should be approved. 3) Title 24 It is the intention of the project applicant to meet all requirements of Title 24. The applicant would like to amend the wording of page 42, Item 24 to reaffirm their commitment to abide by this requirement. Staff has no concern with proposed change. 3 DP -392 CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION A. HEARING DATE: July 6, 1987 B. HEARING TIME: 7:00 p.m. C. HEARING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, City Hall 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California G. REQUESTED ACTION: D. CASE NO.: DP -392 E. STAFF CONTACT: Fred Talarico F. APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Moorpark Properties 2801 Townsgate Rd., Suite 101 Westlake Village, California 1. Approval of Resolution ; • Recommending that the City Council accept a Mitigated Negative Declaration and certifying that the information was considered on decisions related to the project; and, 2. Approval of Resolution ; Recommending that the City Council approve the Development Plan Permit (DP -392) for a 2 -story light industrial structure of 200,097 square feet located in Moorpark Business Center, Lot 7; H. PROJECT LOCATION: 6080 Condor Drive, Moorpark, California Project Site Hw 118 m L CD d ` ><> o ( P ,CC Goy So she Los PROJECT LOCATION DP -392 1 DP -392 SECTION II: SUMMARY A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take testimony from all those wishing to give testimony, and approve Resolution Nos. and ' recommending that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Plan Permit DP -392 subject to the condi- tions as stated on Exhibit "A." B. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: 1. Open the Public Hearing; close the Public Hearing; approve Resolutions Nos. and recommending that the City Council accept the Mitigated Negative Decla- ration and certify that the information was considered on decisions related to the project; and, recommending' that the City Council approve or modify and approve Development Plan Permit (DP -392) as recommended by staff. -or- 2. Find that it has reviewed and considered the Project Findings attached to this 'Staff Report. Find that based upon the staff report and testimony presented at this public hearing that the Commission recommend that the City Council deny approval of Development Plan Permit DP -392. C. PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed project is a light industrial use totalling 200,097 square feet (s.f.). The total square footage includes 23,472 s.f. of office area; 132,469 s.f. of assembly and light manufacturing area; and, 44,156 s.f. of warehousing. The applicant manufactures pool /spa heaters, boilers, demand heaters used in hotels, and similar types of products. Pre - manufactured parts would be assembled and spot welded. A metal encasement would then be painted with a dry powder paint electrostatically applied to the metal. The part then would be tested and packaged prior to shipment. 2 D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. Existing Conditions: E. ISSUES: Based upon a review of the proposed project, the issues identified related to the proposed project include: • traffic • air quality • visual resources • flood hazard • light and glare • noise It is the opinion of the staff that conditions of approval on the project, and mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will alleviate the issues identified above. (Please see Section III.E. for a further discussion). 3 GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE nsite: I -1 (light industrial) M -1 Vacant North: I -1 & future 118 Fwy R -O -W O -S -40A light industrial & future 118 Fwy R -O -W South: I -1 M -1 light industrial & wet- land habitat, vacant, & creek East: OS -1 (Open Space 10 -40 ac /du) O -S -20A wetland habitat, vacant & creek West: I -1 M -1 light industrial E. ISSUES: Based upon a review of the proposed project, the issues identified related to the proposed project include: • traffic • air quality • visual resources • flood hazard • light and glare • noise It is the opinion of the staff that conditions of approval on the project, and mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will alleviate the issues identified above. (Please see Section III.E. for a further discussion). 3 SECTION III: ANALYSIS A. PROPOSED PROJECT: DP -392 The proposed project includes the consolidation and relocation of approximately 75% of the existing Teledyne Laars facility resources from North Hollywood, California, to Moorpark Business Center (Lot 7). Corporate offices, engineering, support staff, assembly, warehousing and shipping operations would be relocated to the Moorpark Business Center. Teledyne Laars will employ approximately 185 people working in a single shift from 7:00 a.m. to 4 :00 p.m. five days a week in the new facility. The proposed structure is a 200,097 square feet (s.f.). The total square footage includes a mix of office area, assembly and light manufacturing and warehousing as shown below. Office 23,472 s.f. Assembly and Light Manufacturing 132,469 s.f. Warehousing 44,156 s.f. Total 200,097 s.f. The applicant manufactures pool /spa heaters, boilers, demand heaters used in hotels and similar types of products. Pre - manufactured parts would be assembled and spot welded. A metal encasement would then be painted with a dry powder paint electrostatically applied to the metal. The ; part would be then be tested and packaged prior to shipment. The proposed building has thirty -one feet tilt -up textured concrete walls, painted soft white with two -inch reveals. An 18 -inch parapet wall would extend beyond the structural walls to screen mechanical equipment. Accent trim would be painted brick -red and windows would be smoke -glass. Outside building materials are on file with the City of Moorpark and will be displayed at the Planning Commission hearing. The office area will have grey glass with blue interior railings and a sandblasted entry. Please refer to the Project Description Section for further details. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed project is located within the Moorpark Business Center, a light industrial park located within the eastern portion of the City of Moorpark. The Moorpark Business Center is approximately 30°x6 developed in light industrial uses at the present time. The proposed light industrial site is currently vacant. The site has been graded and is currently level and primarily devoid of onsite trees or topographic features. Landscape trees do exist, however, on the western site periphery along Condor Drive. Landscape trees also exist to the north, offsite, of the project site. Native trees are also found to 4 DP -392 the east of the site along the Arroyo Simi. The building pad is approximately 8 feet below the floor of the structure located to the north of the site and is level with the building pad elevation located immediately south of the site. South of the site, one lot away, the pad elevation is approximately 12 feet above the proposed project site. Surrounding land uses include light industrial structures to the north, south, and west of the site. The Arroyo Simi is located to the east of the site and includes a creek and associated riparian habitat. Regional access is provided to the site primarily along State Highway 118 (Simi valley - San Fernando Freeway) from the north, State Highway 23 from the south and Los Angeles Avenue from the west. Direct site access is provided only along Condor Drive, which also serves the entire Moorpark Business Center. C. CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND GUIDELINES: The proposed project is in conformance with the existing Moorpark Community Plan Land Use Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan. In particular, the indus- trially- oriented policies applicable to the proposed project include the following: "Policy 2: To encourage industrial development to adopt a harmonious architectural style with appropriate landscaping and buffer areas." The project proposes an architectural style and color palette similar to existing structures in the Moorpark Business Center. The proposed landscaping exceeds the required landscape standards for the zone. In addition, the applicant has already planted and maintained trees along Condor Drive to provide a landscape buffer that will be relatively mature when development of the site occurs. "Policy 5: In order to discourage strip industrial development, future industrial facilities should be in the form of industrial parks." The proposed project is infill to an existing planned, and partially complete, industrial park. Implementation of the project would not result in strip industrial development. "Policy 6: To establish sites for appropriate industrial uses in locations which are harmonious with adjoining land uses, and which do not degrade the general physical environment of Moorpark." The proposed project is surrounded on the north, west, and south by existing and planned light industrial uses. The Moorpark Business Center is bordered along the east by the Arroyo Simi, buffering the development from future land use incompatibilities along this border. 9 DP -392 The project will be developed such that no detrimental effects to the Arroyo Simi will occur from the light industrial user on the site. The proposed project is generally in conformance with the Moorpark Zoning Ordinance as shown in Table 1, following. Conditions are attached with this staff report to modify the proposed project to provide for adequate illumination, and to ensure that final landscape and irrigation plans are provided prior to development of the site. In addition, conditions have been provided for trash enclosures. Other reviewing departments and agencies have attached conditions ensuring compliance with Municipal Codes and other applicable regulations. These departments include fire protection, sheriff, water works, engineering and public works. The Air Pollution Control District and the Moorpark Unified School District reviewed the proposed project and have submitted recommendations, as attached to this staff report. With the attached conditions, the proposed project would meet all planning requirements for development. D. PROJECT HISTORY. 1. Site and Surrounding App'rovals within the Moorpark Business Center: The proposed project area was approved for industrially related uses by the Resource Management Agency of the County of Ventura. The Tentative Map of Tract No. 3492 and Zone Change (Z -2617) were approved in 1981. The project area has been developing into light industrial uses since that time. A summary of approvals for the site and surrounding area is provided below. Zone Change No Z -2617 and Tentative Tract Man No. TT-3492: On June , 9, 1981, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors reviewed four actions related to Assessor's Parcel Number 513- 010 -08 (the proposed project site and surrounding area). These actions included a Conditional Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change No. Z -2617 and Tentative Tract Map No. 3492 to create a 34 lot industrial park on 89.9 acres of land. On May 21, 1981, the Ventura County Planning Commission adopted Resolutions Nos. 8089, 8090, and 8091 recommending certification of the Conditional Negative Declaration, adoption of the proposed findings, approval of the delayed Zone Change No. 2617, and approval of the Tentative Tract Map No. TT-3492. Ordinance No. 3551 was adopted on June 9, 1981 to amend the County Zoning ordinance as requested in Zone Change No. Z -2617. 0 TABLE 1 PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO MOORPARK ZONING ORDINANCE CITY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Setbacks: Front: 20% lot width or depth with minimum of 20 feet Side: 15% lot width or depth with minimum of 20 feet Rear: same as side. 2. Height: 30 feet plus 1 foot for each additional foot of yard, up to 60 feet. 3. Parking: Office 79 sp. Light Manufacturing 265 sp. Warehouse 45 st>. Total 389 sp. 4. Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 sq. feet 5. Development Intensity: No requirement/ limitation i 6. Site Coverage: No requirement /limitationi 7. Landscape Coverage: 5 percent 190 feet 80 feet, 50 feet 60 feet 32 feet 6 inches (including parapet) 425 (including 7 handicapped) 11.78 acres or 513,136 sq. ft. 200,097 sq. ft. Building footprint = 36.71% Square Footage of Site = 38.99% 31.14% (including 18% in parking area) 1 The only restrictions are based upon provision of adequate onsite parking. 7 DP -392 Minor Modification to Tract No. 3492: On May 9, 1983, a Minor Modification for Tentative Tract No. 3492 was approved (related to walls required on the site). Final Man of Tract No. 3492: On March 31, 1983, the Final Map of Tract No. 3492 was recorded. Development Plan Permit No. DP -290: On June 27, 1983, the Development Plan Permit No. DP -290 (Litton Systems) was approved for a Research and Development facility subject to conditions by the Ventura County Resource Management Agency. This approval was for Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 located to the west and across Condor Drive from the proposed project site. Minor Modification DP 290 -1: On June 12, 1984 Minor Modification DP -20 -1 was approved to correct a violation of conditions regarding the screening of cooling towers. Minor Modification DP- 290 -2: On December 11, 1985 Minor Modification DP -290 -2 was approved by the Director of Community Development for a revised recreation area to include softball field and basketball facilities for Litton Systems. Development Plan Permit No. DP -299: On March 7, 1984 the City Council of the City of Moorpark approved DP -299 for the development of a 86,412 square foot industrial building located to the northwest of the proposed project site. The approval was adopted by Resolution No. 84 -70 which also certified a Negative Declaration associated with the Development Plan Permit. Development Plan Permit No. PD -300: On March 21, 1984, Development Permit Plan No. PD -300 was approved by the Moorpark City Council for a 97,680 square foot building. Approval occurred with adoption of Resolution No. 84 -73. Development Permit Plan No. PD -300 is located to the south of the proposed project site. Development Plan Permit No. PD -332: On February 2, 1987, Development Plan Permit No. PD -332 was approved by the Moorpark Planning Commission by adoption of Resolution No. PC -87 -128. The Development Plan Permit approved the construction of an industrial facility including a 39,424 square foot building on Assessor Parcel Numbers 513- 060 -020, and 030. These parcels are located to the west of the proposed project site. 2. Project: There have been no actions on the proposed project lot. The application for the project site was accepted as complete on May 20, 1987. 8 DP -392 3. Staff Testimony to Date: No staff testimony has been given to date on this project proposal. 4. Previous Actions: No previous action has been conducted to date on this project proposal. E. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: Traffic: The proposed project and the Moorpark Business Center are located south and east of the proposed extension /alignment of the Highway 118 and Highway 23 freeways. Three potential alignments are currently under review by the City and Caltrans. The three alignments under review include 1) on and off ramps at Princeton Avenue, located northwest of the proposed project site; 2) on and off ramps at a western extension of Condor Drive; and, 3) a split roadway alignment. The three alternatives would each route the roadway from the existing Highway 118 location, around the Moorpark Business Center and the Virginia Colony to intersect with Highway 23. The proposed project would not preclude development of any of the three alignments under review by Caltrans. A traffic report was completed on June 22, 1987 for the proposed project and its immediate vicinity by Willdan Associates. The complete traffic report is attached to this staff report, and is summarized below: The existing conditions of the traffic report indicate roadway widths, planned signalization and planned number of lanes for roads in the project vicinity. Condor Drive, which is the loop street through the Moorpark Business Center, has a current curb to curb width of 40 feet. Los Angeles Avenue between Condor Drive South and Condor Drive North is currently at its ultimate curb to curb width of 78 feet. Two traffic signals are planned for the project vicinity. One signal is being provided at the intersection of Princeton Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue. The City of Moor- park is currently receiving bids for a second signal that will be located at the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Condor Drive North. Upon installation of both signals, Los Angeles Avenue will provide two lanes, each direction, between Condor Drive South and Princeton Avenue, with left turn pockets at each intersection. The current intersection Level of Service (LOS) for Princeton Avenue and Condor Drive is shown in Table 2, below. E INTERSECTION TABLE 2 CURRENT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS Princeton Avenue 1.00 F .95 E Condor Drive (North) .60 B .58 A Condor Drive (South) 52 A .50 A Upon completion of the two traffic signals (Los Angeles Avenue /Princeton Avenue, Los Angeles Avenue /Condor Drive), intersection LOS are expected to be as shown in Table 3, below. These LOS do not include the proposed project. TABLE 3 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AFTER SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION INTERSECTION AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS Princeton Avenue .72 C .73 C Condor Drive (North) .61 B .60 B Condor Drive (South) .51 A .46 A Upon completion of the two traffic signals, and with the proposed project, intersection LOS are expected to be as shown in Table 4, below. Ii] INTERSECTION Princeton Avenue Condor Drive (North) Condor Drive (South) TABLE 4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AFTER SIGNALS AND PROPOSED PROJECT AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS .74 C .73 C .66 B .66 B .53 A .47 A DP -392 The traffic report concludes that no mitigation measures are necessary to provide satisfactory LOS at intersections in the project vicinity with the addition of the proposed project. Air Quality: Traffic trips associated with operation of the facility will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts in the vicinity. Once operational, the facility would employ approximately 185 people in a single shift from 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Average daily trips (ADT) generated by this development are shown in Table 5, below. In addition to the traffic generated by the employees of the facility, approximately 20 truck trips would occur for deliveries to and from the facility. TABLE 5 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AM PM ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT DAILY RATE .57 .10 .22 .43 3.20 VOLUME 114 20 44 86 640 11 DP -392 The air quality in this region is generally good. However, this project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would incrementally contribute to a degradation of air quality. This impact is not, however, considered a significant impact. All Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations will be implemented into the project to help lessen any cumulative air quality impacts from the project. Visual Resources: The primary issue associated with visual resources relates to potential views of the proposed facility from existing and potential future residents located north, and across Highway 118, from the project site. In addition, views of the proposed facility could occur from Highway 118 travelers. The project site is currently vacant. Adjacent to the site (north, west and south), other light industrial buildings have been completed, and most are occupied. Landscaping and trees exist along Condor Drive. Existing residential development is located less than 1/2 mile to the north of the project site, across Highway 118. The residential area has a fairly unobstructed view of the site. The proposed project includes truck loading and unloading bays along the northern portion of the project building. Existing residents located less than 1/2 mile away may have a permanent view of the facility and truck loading /unloading bays. The potential view of the bays by residents is not considered a significant impact. The truck bays would be partially recessed into the ground so that trucks backing into the facility would be at the same level as the doors to the warehouse. The recessed bays reduce visibility of trucks, particularly from ground level. Landscape screening, including shrubbery and trees, is proposed within the site grounds and around the perimeter of the property. This will further provide screening of the trucks from the nearby residents. In addition, the project facility is infill property within an existing industrial park. Residents located north of the site would be subject to views of an expanded develop- ment, rather than to views of a new structure located within an otherwise undeveloped portion of the City. A portion of the residential development north of the project site exists on a topographic rise that is higher than the project site. Although this part of the development is currently not built -out, it is planned for residential uses. In the future, these planned residential units may experience a visual impact similar to the existing residents. Roof equipment may also be visible from residents across Highway 118. This equip- ment could include vents, air conditioners, and possibly heaters. The applicant is however, subject to a condition of approval to provide screening of this roof equipment. The screening would be composed of materials similar to the structure, and would be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 12 DP -392 It is the opinion of City Staff that, subject to the condition of approval on the roof equipment, the applicant will have provided methods to reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible. Views of the project site would also occur from Highway 118 travelers. The image from the Highway would include much, or all of, the Moorpark Business Center. The addition of the proposed project would not be the isolated addition of a structure to an otherwise undeveloped portion of the community. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to the view is not considered significant. Flood Hazard: The proposed project is located adjacent to, and west of the Arroyo Simi. The proposed project site had a potential hazard related to 100 -year flooding. However, as a condition of approval on Map of Tentative Tract 3492, "...areas subject to a 100 -year flood shall be delineated on the Final Map as flowage easements" prior to recordation of the Final Tract. As shown on the site plan for the proposed project, the flowage easement is located along the northern building border and extends east to the Arroyo Simi. The proposed structure is bordered by, yet is outside of, the flowage easement. Light and Glare: Similar to visual resources the proposed project may result in increases in light and glare in the evening and nighttime hours. The site is currently vacant. The proposed project would provide illumination to parking areas as free - standing light posts. In addition, lights would be located on the structure. These lights could be visible from existing and future neighborhoods located to the north, and across Highway 118, from the proposed project. Skylights would be provided in the roof of the structure to enhance interior natural lighting, as required by Title 24. These skylights may be visible during nighttime hours if the interior of the structure is illuminated. These skylights would incrementally add to overall nighttime visibility of the structure. The overall potential light and glare impact in not considered significant. The project site is surrounded on the northwest, west, and south with existing light industrial uses that are illuminated during the nighttime hours. The proposed project would incremen- tally add to this lighting. Landscaping along the northern periphery of the site would reduce the amount of light and glare from the site. The project would be required to provide lighting fixtures with shields that are directed downward and skylights that are as opaque as feasible. 13 DP -392 Noise: The proposed project will result in automobile and truck traffic and the operation of outside mechanical roof equipment. Auto traffic will primarily occur from employees coming and going to work, lunch, and errands. Truck traffic will be the result of distribution of manufactured goods, and deliveries to and from the site. Mechanical equipment such as fans and air conditioners may be in operation some, or all, of most days. The traffic and equipment will result in increased noise throughout each day. The noise generated at the site would be perceived primarily by adjacent users within the Moorpark Business Center, and is not considered a significant impact. Automobile and truck traffic that occurs offsite, but is directly related to the proposed use, could be perceived by other uses within the vicinity. When roadway and intersec- tion improvements are completed in the project vicinity (please refer to the Traffic discussion), traffic is expected to flow at satisfactory levels. It is anticipated that smooth - flowing traffic would result in less objectionable noise levels than congested traffic where engines would alternately idle and then rev. The proposed project is anticipated to result in incremental, although not objectionable, noise levels in the project vicinity. F. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed project is consistent with the Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element and for the goals and policies designated for light industrial uses. The project site is designated for light industrial use on the General Plan. In addition, the project will be consistent with the Moorpark 'Zoning Ordinance (please refer to Section III.C). The site is zoned M -1, for light industrial use. The proposed development provides parking islands that are five (5) feet in width, with two -foot drive overhangs on either side. This effectively permits only one (1) foot of visible landscaping during the day. Trees are proposed in this one -foot area, to be planted between parking stalls. Staff does not consider such landscaping to be optimal, and that a better landscape solution be sought. The project meets required landscape area requirements with or without the planted island areas. _ The project would not result in significant environmental concerns. Potential environmental issues related to traffic, air quality, visual resources, flood hazard, and light and glare are not considered significant, or can be reduced to a level of insignificance. All appropriate mitigation measures have been included as suggested Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). The Moorpark Business Center is an existing light industrial facility. The proposed project would infill a vacant lot in an existing light industrial area that is currently preplanned for such a use. 14 DP -392 Existing municipal services can be provided to the site without causing the need for additional facilities. Wastewater services may be delayed to the site due to the timing of a planned expansion to sewer treatment facilities. The demand for the expansion already exists. (Please see attached letter). As of this Staff Report, there is no known opposition to the proposed project. Since the project is proposed in an area preplanned for such development, and since the area is already developing in these uses, significant opposition to the project is not currently anticipated. The applicant has been a consistent factor in the Moorpark Business Center from the recordation of the Final Map of Tract 3492, until the current application. This consistency has resulted in an integrated and cohesive development throughout the industrial park. The planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider recommendation of the requested actions on the proposed project to the City Council. Prepared by: Sanchez Talarico Associates 15 914 Approved by: I Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development DP -392 SECTION IV: ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT "A" a. Findings b. Conditions 1. Community Development (including landscaping) 2. Public Works 3. Police 4. Fire 5. School 1. RESOLUTION NO. ( "Mitigated Negative Declaration ") 2. RESOLUTION NO. (DP -392) 3. TRAFFIC REPORT (Prepared by Willdan Associates) 4. INITIAL STUDY 5. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6. EXHIBITS a. Site Plan and Elevations (separate attachment) b. Existing General Plan c. Existing Zoning d. Site Photos 7. CORRESPONDENCE a. Ventura County Waterworks (dated April 27, 1987) b. Moorpark Unified School District (dated May 13, 1987) 16 DP -392 EXHIBIT A RECOMMEND FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DP -392 JULY 6, 1987 A. FINDINGS 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration: a. That the Initial Study is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. b. That the contents of the Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on this project. c. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorpor- ated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures to the proposed project. d. That the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as suggested Conditions of Approval. 2. DP -392: a. The proposed uses would be consistent with the purpose, intent, guidelines, standards, policies and provisions of the City's General Plan and Chapters 1 and 2 of the Ordinance Code; b. The proposed uses would not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which they are to be located, c. The proposed uses would be compatible with land uses permitted within the General Plan land use designations and the zones in the general area where the uses are to be located; d. The proposed uses would not be obnoxious or harmful or impair the utility of the property itself or neighboring property or uses; e. The proposed uses would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare; 17 DP-392 f. The proposed project, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. g. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of its action upon the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. 3. CONDITIONS: Conditions to be imposed upon the proposed project are provided below and are sorted by municipal department or advising agency. 18 DP -392 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO.: DP -392 APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes DATE: July 6, 1987 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS 1. That the permit is granted for the land and project on the plot plan(s) and elevations labeled Exhibit a except or unless indicated otherwise herein. That the location and design of all site improvements shall be as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations. 2. That unless the use is inaugurated not later than one (1) year after this permit is granted, this permit shall automatically expire on that date. The Director of Community Development may, at his discretion, grant up to one (1) additional year extension for use inauguration if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if permittee has diligently worked toward inauguration of use during the initial one -year period. 3. That any minor changes may be approved by the Director of Community Develop- ment upon the filing of a Minor Modification application, and the passing before the Planning Commission prior to the appeal period ending. But any Major Modification is to be approved by the City Council. 4. That prior to the occupancy or change of occupancy of this building by the tenant, either the owner or prospective tenant shall apply for the use of this building. The purpose of the zoning clearance shall determine if the proposed use is compatible with the existing zoning and terms and conditions of this permit. 5. That the design, maintenance and operation of the permit area and facilities thereon shall comply with all applicable requirements and enactments of Federal, State, and County and City authorities, and all such requirements and enactments shall, by reference, become conditions of this permit. 6. That no conditions of this entitlement shall be interpreted as permitting or requiring any violation of law or any unlawful rules or regulations or orders of an authorized governmental agency. In instances where more than one set of rules apply, the stricter ones shall take precedence. 7. That if any of the conditions or limitations of this development plan are held to be invalid, that holding shall not invalidate any of the remaining conditions or limitations set forth. 8. That prior to construction, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Department of Community Development and a building permit shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division. 19 DP -392 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO.: DP -392 APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes DATE: July 6, 1987 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (Cont'd.): 9. That prior to the issuance of a zone clearance, a landscaping and planting plan (3 sets), together with specifications and maintenance program, prepared by a State licensed landscape architect in accordance with County Guidelines for Landscape Plan Check, shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. The applicant shall bear the total cost of such review and of final installation inspection. The landscaping and planting plan shall be accompanied by a fee specified by the City of Moorpark. All landscaping and planting shall be accomplished and approved prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit. 10. That the final landscape plans shall provide for a 50% shade coverage within all parking areas. Shade coverage is described as the maximum mid -day shaded area defined by a selected specimen tree at 50% maturity. Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided to the curb adjacent to Condor Drive. 11. That all turf plantings associated with this project shall be drought tolerant, low -water using variety. 12. Landscaping shall not obscure any exterior door or window from street view. 13. Landscaping at entrances /exits or at any intersection within the parking lot shall not block or screen the view of a seated driver from another moving vehicle or pedestrian. 14. Landscaping (trees) shall not be placed directly under any overhead lighting which could cause a loss of light at ground level. 15. That all roof mounted equipment (vents, stacks, blowers, air conditioning equip.) that may extend above the parapet wall shall be enclosed on all four sides by view obscuring material used in the construction of other buildings in the same park. Prior to the issuance of a zone clearance, the final design and location of any roof mounted equipment of the project must be approved by the Director of Community Develop- ment. 16. That trash disposal areas shall be provided in a location which will not interfere with circulation, parking or access to the building and shall be screened with a six (6) foot high, solid wall enclosure with metal gates, final design of said enclosure shall be subject to the approval of, the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of zone clearance. 17. That all utilities shall be underground to the nearest off -site utility pole. 20 DP -392 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO.: DP -392 APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes DATE: July 6, 1987 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (Cont'd.): 18. That all parking shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete and shall include adequate provisions for drainage, striping and appropriate wheel blocks or curbs in parking areas. 19. That signs are subject to the Moorpark Code, Chapter 50, Title 9, Sign Ordi- nance. A sign permit is required. Only a monument sign shall be permitted for this development plan and shall not exceed 30 square feet, no higher than 5' above average ground level. A sign program shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development for all other onsite directional and building signage. 20. Roof design and construction shall include a minimum 18" (inch) extension of the parapet wall above the highest point of the roof. 21. That the permittee agrees as a condition of issuance and use of this permit to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City because of issuance (or renewal) of this permit or in the alternative to relinquish this permit. Permittee will reimburse the City for any court cost which the City may be required by court to pay as a result of any such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve permittee of his obligation under this condition. 22. That the continued maintenance of the permit area and facilities shall be subject to periodic inspection by the city. The permittee shall be required to remedy any defects in ground maintenance, as indicated by Code Enforcement Officer within thirty (30) days after notification. 23. That prior to issuance of a zone clearance, an "Unconditional" Will Serve letter for water and sewer service will be obtained from Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. 24. Prior to issuance of a zoning clearance, the final working drawings shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. 25. For all exterior lighting, a lighting plan shall be prepared by an electrical engineer registered in the State of California and submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to the issuance of a zone clearance. The lighting plan shall achieve the following objectives: Avoid interference with reasonable use of adjoining properties; minimize on -site glare; provide adequate on -site lighting; limit electroliers height to avoid excessive illumination; provide structures which are compatible with the total design of the proposed facility. 21 DP -392 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO.: DP -392 APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes DATE: July 6, 1987 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (Cont'd.): These plans include the following: a. A photometric plan showing a point by point foot candle layout to extend a minimum twenty (20) feet outside the property lines. Layout plan to be based on a ten (10) foot grid center. b. Maximum overall height of fixtures shall be not more than fourteen (14) feet in or adiacent to residential areas and not more than twenty (20) feet in non - residential areas. c. Fixtures must have sharp cut -off qualities at property lines. d. There shall be no more than a seven to one (7:1) ratio of level of illumination shown. (Maximum to minimum ratio between Lighting Standards.) e. Low pressure energy efficient light fixtures shall be used. f. Minimum of one -foot candle illumination. 26. Pullover parking (overhangs) shall be limited to 24 inches maximum. 27. The planting area shown on all four sides of the building shall be landscaped to include 24 -inch box trees capable of growing above the buildings to further obscure the view of the building from the nearby residential areas. The twenty -four inch box trees shall be planted to help obscure the building and shall be shown on the landscape plan approved by the Director of Community Development in such a way as to accomplish the intent within 5 - 7 years. 28. That prior to the issuance of a building permit the developer shall pay all school assessment fees levied by the Moorpark Unified School District. 29. That the final design of site improvements including materials and colors is subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 30. That no later than ten (10) days after any change of property owner or of lessee(s) or operator(s) of the subject use, there shall be filed with the Director of Community Development the names(s) and address(es) of the new owner(s) lessee(s) or operator(s), together with a letter from any such person(s), acknowledging and agreeing to comply with all conditions of this permit prior to zone clearance. 22 DP -392 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO.: DP -392 APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes DATE: July 6, 1987 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (Cont'd.): 31. That permittee's acceptance of this permit and /or operation under this permit shall be deemed to be acceptance by permittee of all conditions of this permit. 32. Prior to occupancy by any tenant or subsequent owner that would employ or dispose of hazardous waste or materials, a Major Modification shall be processed and filed. 33. No outside storage of materials or overnight truck trailers, beyond the loading bays, of any kind shall be permitted after occupancy. 34. That the applicant shall construct a utility room with common access to house all meters. No exterior ladders shall be permitted. 35. Contour grading shall occur along Condor Drive so as to provide earth berms for landscaping purposes. 36. The applicant shall, prior to the issuance of a zone clearance, execute a covenant running with the land on behalf of itself and its successors, heirs and assigns agreeing to participate in the formation of and be subject to any assessment district or other financing technique including but not limited to the payment of traffic mitigation fees, which the City may implement or adopt, to fund public street and traffic improve- ments directly or indirectly affected by the development. Traffic mitigation fees shall be used for projects in this Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution, such as, but not limited to, the extension of New Los Angeles Avenue. 37. No repair or maintenance of trucks or any vehicle shall occur on the subject site. 38. Loading and unloading operations shall not be conducted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 39. Prior to zone clearance, the applicant shall redesign the _two site entrances. This redesign shall widen the distance between the entries or limit site access to one major entry, or other appropriate redesign as approved by the Director of Community Development. 40. Prior to zone clearance, the applicant shall redesign the smaller truckwell area to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The redesign shall achieve clearer visibility for automobile and truck drivers in the vicinity, improve the traffic flow and generally upgrade the safety along the southeast corner of the structure. 23 DP -392 41. Prior to zone clearance, the applicant shall have approval of the Director of Community Development on the location, size, orientation, and style of trash disposal area(s). 42. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide skylights that are as opaque as feasible to minimize potential evening illumination as viewed from the exterior. VENTURA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy of any use in the proposed structure, such use shall be reviewed and approved by the Ventura County Environ- mental Health Division. 24 DP -392 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO.: DP -392 APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes DATE: July 6, 1987 VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 1. A licensed security guard is recommended during the construction phase or a six -foot chain -link fence shall be erected around the construction site and locked during evening hours and or weekends when no construction activity is present. 2. Construction equipment, tools, etc., shall be properly secured during non - working hours. 3. If an alarm system is used, it should be wired to all exterior doors and windows and to any roof vents or other roof openings where access may be made. 4. Lighting devices shall be high enough as to prevent anyone from tampering with them. All parking areas shall be provided with a lighting system capable of illuminating the parking surface with a minimum of one -foot candle of light and shall be designed to minimize the spillage of light onto adjacent properties. All exterior lighting devices shall be protected by weather breakage resistant covers. 5. All entrances /exit driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet in width radius curb returns. 6. All exterior doors shall be constructed of solid wood core minimum of 1 and 3/4 inches thick or of metal construction. Front glass door(s) commonly used for entry are acceptable but should be visible to the street. 7. Doors utilizing a cylinder lock shall have a minimum of five pintumbler operation with the locking bar or bolt extending into the receiving guide a minimum of 1 inch. 8. All exterior sliding glass doors or windows shall be equipped with metal guide tracks at the top and bottom and be constructed so that the window cannot be lifted from the tract when in the "closed" or "locked" position. 9. There shall be no exterior access to the roof area, i.e., ladders, trees, high walls, etc., which would provide any roof access. All service access shall be taken from inside the buildings(s). 10. Landscaping at entrances /exists or at any intersection within the parking lot shall not block or screen the view of a seated driver from another moving vehicle or pedestrian. 25 DP -392 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO.: DP -392 APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes DATE: July 6, 1987 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS STANDARD LAND DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS Subject: Preliminary Plan Review - DP -392 (CC & F) That prior to zone clearance, the developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; shall obtain a Grading Permit; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion. 2. That prior to zone clearance, the developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a detailed Soils Report certified by a registered professional Civil Engineer in the State of California. The grading plan shall incorporate the recommend- ations of the approved Soils Report. 3. That prior to any work being conducted within the State or City right of way, the developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the appropriate Agency. 4. That prior to zone clearance, the developer shall demonstrate for each building pad to the satisfaction of the City of Moorpark as follows: a. Adequate protection from 100 -year frequency storm; and b. Feasible access during a 10 -year frequency storm. 5. That prior to zone clearance, the developer shall indicate in writing to the City of Moorpark, the disposition of any water wells(s) and any other water that may exist within the site. If any wells are proposed to be abandoned, or if they are abandoned and have not been properly sealed, they must be destroyed per Ventura County Ordi- nance No. 2372. 6. That prior to zone clearance, the developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, drainage plans, hydrologic, and hydraulic calculations prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete the improvement and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of the improvements. The drainage plans and calculations shall indicate the following conditions before and after development: Quantities of water, water flow rates, major water courses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps and drainage courses. Storm drain systems shall be sized such that all sumps shall carry a 50 -year frequency storm, all catch basins on continuous grades shall carry a 10 -year storm, and all culverts shall carry a 100 -year frequency storm. 1 DP -392 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO.: DP -392 APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes DATE: July 6, 1987 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS: (Cont'd.) 7. If the grading operation occurs during the rainy season, (between October and April), an erosion control plan shall be submitted along with the grading plan. Along with the erosion control measures, hydroseeding of all graded slopes shall be required within 60 days of completion of grading. 8. If the land which is to be occupied is in an area of special flood hazard, the developer shall notify all potential buyers of this hazard condition. 9. 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 Sheriffs Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. 10. Driveways are to be 30' wide per Ventura County Road Standard E -2. 11. Prior to zone clearance or occupancy, as deemed appropriate by the City, the developer shall deposit with the City the traffic mitigation fee. The amount of this fee has not been established at this time. The actual deposit shall be the then current traffic mitigation fee in effect at the time the deposit is required by the City. 27 DP -392 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO.: DP -392 APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes DATE: July 6, 1987 VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 1. A flood control permit shall be obtained from the Ventura County Flood Control District for any connections into the flood control channel (Arroyo Simi). 2. A watercourse permit shall be obtained from the Ventura County Flood Control District for any work within the flowage easement, including landscaping. VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 1. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall complete a relocation study and develop a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program approved by the City Traffic Engi- neer to encourage car pools and van pools. 2. Preferential parking shall be designated with signage near the employee exit of the building for at least 20 parking stalls. These stalls shall be for use by car pool and van pool vehicles only. 3. Onsite bicycle facilities shall be provided to accommodate a minimum of six (6) bicycles. 4. Prior to occupancy, the proposed project shall designate one onsite rideshare coordinator, spending a minimum of 4 hours per week, to manage carpool /vanpool programs. 5. Employees shall be encouraged to register for commuter computer services. Car pooling information shall be available with the facility on a regular basis so long as occupied. 28 DP -392 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT NO.: DP -392 APPLICANT: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes DATE: July 6, 1987 VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS Prior to zone clearance and contingent upon satisfactory applicant data, the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 will provide a letter of commitment to issue an "Unconditional" will serve letter prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an "Unconditional" will serve letter for water and sewer services shall be obtained from the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. 3. Prior to zone clearance, the applicant shall provide a detailed analysis of composition, volume, rate (including peaking values), and timing of all anticipated discharge into the sewage system that are related to the operation of the facility and products used onsite. The analysis shall be approved by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. 4. The applicant shall install a Palmer -Bolus flume in a monitor metering manhole sized to accommodate an ISCO proportional flow composite sampler within the manhole. 5. Prior to zone clearance, applicant must submit information regarding onsite pretreatment facility for the wastewater discharge. 6. The applicant shall comply with the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 rules and regulations including requirements for the industrial waste discharge ordinance currently being developed. 29 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR DP- 392(CC &F) JUNE 229 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 CURRE1,:r LEVEL OF SERVICE: 1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS 2 PROJEC'_ TRIP GENERATION 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 3 MITIGATION MEASURES 4 CONCLUSION 4 APPENDIX A: INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to quantify the estimated impact of project traffic on the adjacent intersections of Los Angeles Avenue with Condor Drive (North) and with Princeton Avenue. The project designation is DP -392 (CC &F) and consists of a 200,000 square foot light industrial building located on Condor Drive. The proposed tenant will have 200 employees. EXISTING CONDITIONS Condor Drive is d 40 foot wide (curb to curb) loop street serving Cabot, Cabot & Forbes' Moorpark Business Center. The current tenant in this industrial park is Litton Aerospace Industries. Another light industrial facility, Kavlico, was recently occupied on the west side of Los Angeles Avenue opposite Condor Drive (North). In conjunction with construction of the Kavlico facility and the Moorpark Business Center, Los Angeles Avenue has been improved to its ultimate width of 78 feet (curb to curb) between Condor Drive (South) and Condor Drive (North). The posted speed limit on Los Angeles Avenue is 40 miles per hour. Through a cooperative agreement with Caltrans, the City is currently constructing a traffic signal with widening improvements at the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue - Princeton Avenue. As a separate project, the City is scheduled to open bids on June 25, 1987 for construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue - Condor Drive (North). Upon completion of these projects later this year, Los Angeles Avenue will provide two travel lanes in each direction from Condor Drive (South) through Princeton Avenue, with left turn pockets at each intersection. Los Angeles Avenue (State Route 118) currently carries approximately 22,000 vehicles per day, of which a substantial portion consists of through traffic on the State route. The proposed connection of the 118 and 23 freeways, i scheduled for 1992, is expected to substantially reduce traffic volumes on Los Angeles Avenue. The exact configuration of the freeway connection is as yet unknown, but it is anticipated that a full interchange in the vicinity of Princeton Avenue will be provided. CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE To determine the current level of service at the three subject intersections, traffic turning movement counts were conducted during the morning and afternoon peak periods (see -1- I N.T.S. EXISINNG VOLU1r)iJ 'M V C E a Ill AVENU` 40 Z5a 3/G 7 `�► 935 A� 33� LCS ANGELS AVENUE SR 113 DRIVE (SOUTH) J� P / i8 �S /Z49 31 7053 1 `O S c,Q` EXHIBIT 'A' PROPOSED DP -392 AM(7:15 -8:15) PM(4:30 -5:30) CONDOR DRIVE p 73 (NORTH) (7 p� /OSG /5 G /0968 z g %3 /3 � CONDOR DRIVE (SOUTH) J� P / i8 �S /Z49 31 7053 1 `O S c,Q` EXHIBIT 'A' PROPOSED DP -392 AM(7:15 -8:15) PM(4:30 -5:30) Exhibit "A "). Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses were then performed. The results of these analyses are shown in Table "A ", and indicate that although the Princeton Avenue intersection currently operates at poor levels of service, the intersecticns of Condor Drive (North) and Condor Drive (South) both operate at very good levels of services. It should be noted that these analyses attempt to quantify overall intersection operation, and that some specific traffic movements may exhibit better or worse operation. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS When the traffic signals at Princeton Avenue and Condor Drive (North) are completed, traffic flow patterns are expected to change. To quantify the effect of these changing patterns, the following assumptions were made: 1. All traffic from Condor Drive wishing to turn left onto Los Angeles Avenue will do so at the signalized intersection at Condor Drive (North). 2. Of the vehicles turning right from Condor Drive onto Los Angeles Avenue, the current pattern of 93% using Condor Drive (North) will continue. 3. of the northbound traffic turning right onto Condor Drive, 70% will use Condor Drive (South) . This shift (approximately 30 %) from Condor Drive (North) to Condor Drive (South) reflects the attempt to avoid delay to the main street traffic caused by the signal at Condor Drive (North). 4. All traffic wishing to turn left from southbound Los Angeles Avenue will do so at the signalized intersection at Condor Drive (North). 5. The availability of a signal at Princeton Avenue will divert approximately 10% of the traffic from the Los Angeles Avenue - College View Avenue - Campus Park Drive route to the Los Angeles Avenue - Princeton Avenue - Campus Park Drive route. -2- TABLE A Current Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Princeton Avenue Condor Drive (North) Condor Drive (South) 1.00 F .60 B .52 A .95 .58 .50 E A A TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS When the traffic signals at Princeton Avenue and Condor Drive (North) are completed, traffic flow patterns are expected to change. To quantify the effect of these changing patterns, the following assumptions were made: 1. All traffic from Condor Drive wishing to turn left onto Los Angeles Avenue will do so at the signalized intersection at Condor Drive (North). 2. Of the vehicles turning right from Condor Drive onto Los Angeles Avenue, the current pattern of 93% using Condor Drive (North) will continue. 3. of the northbound traffic turning right onto Condor Drive, 70% will use Condor Drive (South) . This shift (approximately 30 %) from Condor Drive (North) to Condor Drive (South) reflects the attempt to avoid delay to the main street traffic caused by the signal at Condor Drive (North). 4. All traffic wishing to turn left from southbound Los Angeles Avenue will do so at the signalized intersection at Condor Drive (North). 5. The availability of a signal at Princeton Avenue will divert approximately 10% of the traffic from the Los Angeles Avenue - College View Avenue - Campus Park Drive route to the Los Angeles Avenue - Princeton Avenue - Campus Park Drive route. -2- AFTER SIGNAL INSTALLATICNS AT PRiNCST ON aY�. AND CCNOCrR DRIAV= �yCisT�-:) 1 1\1 C - AVENUE III � N.,. s. A 40 6�d 92/ 350 863 171 950 3 T Z 4Z /3 5 � i194 i056 /5 6 O CONDOR DRIVE (SOUTH) c� /ZZS ZS /cro2 1 L Os 5o LOS ,ANGELES AVENUE SR 118 CONDOR DRIVE (NORTH) EXHIBIT 'B' PROPOSED DP -392 AM(7:15 -8:15) PM(4:30 -5:30) Application of these assumptions results in the traffic volumes shown in '7xhibit "B ". Intersection analyses were again performed, with the results shown in Table "B ". The intersection at Princeton Avenue should exhibit significant improvement in operation, while the other two intersections will continue to operate at their current high levels of service. TABLE B Intersection Le -:el of Service After Signal Construction AM PM Intersect_cr_ ICU LOS ICU LOS I Princeton Avenue .72 C .73 C Condor Drive (North) .61 B .60 B I Condor Drive !South) .51 A .46 A i PROJECT TRIP GENERATION To estimate project traffic, Institute of Traffic Engineers 1 (ITE) Trip Genera ion Report factors were used. The ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) trip rate factors per emplc_:ee were balanced and multiplied by the anticipated number- of employees for the proposed project. This information _s contained in Table "C ". The number of employees was used as a traffic predictor for this project because there is a better correlation between the number of employees and traffic generated than there is between building area and traffic generated. TABLE C Project Trip Generation AM PM Enter Exit Enter Exit Daily Rate .57 .10 .22 .43 3.20 Volume 114 20 44 86 640 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT It is estimated that project trip distribution will approximate that for the existing land use (Litton Industries). The distribution used was 45% to the south and 55% to the north. The previous traffic assignment assumptions were also applied to project traffic to derive J the traffic flow pattern shown in Exhibit "C ". Intersection analyses based on the volumes contained in 1 Exhibit "C" were then performed, with the results indicated -3- i f �I AA= T =..R SiGNAL INSTALL:aT;CNS AND P9. 0P0SE D PgOJE T 1 �.1NC L 1 `J M -\`✓ENUE 9 73/ _S 777 7� 9Gd e&-,) Z3a 3�/7 ¢ Z%/ /O ZZ �176 G7 0� /059 G O CONDOR DRIVE (SOUTH) P 738 IZ40 39 P� 1� LOS ANGEL-ES AVENUE SR 118 CONDOR DRIVE (NORTH) EXHIBIT" 'C' PROPOSED DP -392 AM(7:15 -8:15) PM(4:30 -5:30) in Table "D ". The intersection at Condor Drive (North) will experience the greatest impact with a level of service degradation of approximately one -half level in both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The level of service at all three intersections will remain high following project implementation. Because Los Angles Avenue and Condor Drive will be constructed to ultimate standards with traffic signals at Condor Drive (North) and at Princeton Avenue prior to project occupancy and, because all three adjacent intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service following traffic signal installation and project occupancy, no specific traffic mitigation measures are identified. To minimize air pollution, decrease fuel consumption, and minimize traffic congestion in general, the developer should implement an employee ride sharing program. CONCLUSION The Princeton Avenue intersection operation will improve from level of service F/E to level of service C/C upon completion of the Princeton Avenue traffic signal and will remain at this level following project occupancy. The Condor Drive (North) intersection operation will continue to operate at threshold level of service A/B during both peak periods following construction of the traffic signal there, and will operate at a mid B level of service during both periods following project occupancy. The Condor Drive (South) intersection operation will continue to operate at level of service A for all scenarios analyzed. QROf ESS/ON wE�c� F''c l ; m �4)j � No. 1469 � Mark Wessel, T.E. * Exp. 12-31-87 J1 TRA FF \SJ -4- �rFOF CAOG`�� TABLE D Intersection Level of Service After Signals and Proposed Project AM PM Intersecticn- ICU LOS ICU LOS Princeton Avenue .74 C .73 C Condor Drive (North) .66 B .66 B Condor Drive (South) i .53 A .47 A MITIGATION MEASURES Because Los Angles Avenue and Condor Drive will be constructed to ultimate standards with traffic signals at Condor Drive (North) and at Princeton Avenue prior to project occupancy and, because all three adjacent intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service following traffic signal installation and project occupancy, no specific traffic mitigation measures are identified. To minimize air pollution, decrease fuel consumption, and minimize traffic congestion in general, the developer should implement an employee ride sharing program. CONCLUSION The Princeton Avenue intersection operation will improve from level of service F/E to level of service C/C upon completion of the Princeton Avenue traffic signal and will remain at this level following project occupancy. The Condor Drive (North) intersection operation will continue to operate at threshold level of service A/B during both peak periods following construction of the traffic signal there, and will operate at a mid B level of service during both periods following project occupancy. The Condor Drive (South) intersection operation will continue to operate at level of service A for all scenarios analyzed. QROf ESS/ON wE�c� F''c l ; m �4)j � No. 1469 � Mark Wessel, T.E. * Exp. 12-31-87 J1 TRA FF \SJ -4- �rFOF CAOG`�� APPENDIX A INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNTS TUNING MOVEMENT C^UNTS (J ►LL b A. .-1 Vj=�NTORq L.00}�Td01� LOS A K16 EcE 5' �R ► N TUN 01ooRPj R1" f HON ^4r- „.,c_ c- L- c Pty l Ar n r 7-r, A/ �t os /p-_ f-nIG I NY WH IT ► N -r E !c rn � T I E r►� L Y F() � ll.'18 . NJAY� J .ti 1,C-107 ® ®sue ®�o�ss�ooas m�o� SIoov� EELF em s� • ®gym ®mac- � ®s�as�� . ®sue IMN cis - - aver �MENs��ea�� .. �eMINES 0=110 NZMINaseM �o10o - . aME 0 cs © �EMMEs , �mNm ors �: o■��o��ese� NOUN MOM, SIMS m MINNIE /p-_ f-nIG I NY WH IT ► N -r E !c rn � T I E r►� L Y F() � ll.'18 . NJAY� J .ti 1,C-107 TUF NING MOVEMENT rj FtE� O�VAT►o�i� X1/YG- PEds �n w�� „✓� N9SCONz t J` �X, Tln/G KAV� -ICO QE-Tu�E.EPI T HOUHD -� CARS TRANCE SP Cotyl SRS NAS ANOTHER kRV��co - �F 1 �f,�rs FRo►}� co,l�o� �i Fr- �ev�T Lv�a 1 c2 L 1 Wile ✓1 ears FRorn Kai V't co �1FF1cLJLr ES �� for �F TuJz r�1 PRIN t J-�'recutej �.� Qrr �,,�ck2d F' ,o CAT tot'l M 0 Al �r S ANGEL. E S L r��0� N, NO2TH gpU�.iD SOUTN aOw.1p �' Ehh►T �uND I� �ciL`jT B•OV>N� �FPT�MA cT I LT T »RU ¢T t. THRU tT ► I.T TNeu 2T r �.�>:u C) Imo¢_ I 5 , c� 71 rj FtE� O�VAT►o�i� X1/YG- PEds �n w�� „✓� N9SCONz t J` �X, Tln/G KAV� -ICO QE-Tu�E.EPI T HOUHD -� CARS TRANCE SP Cotyl SRS NAS ANOTHER kRV��co - �F 1 �f,�rs FRo►}� co,l�o� �i Fr- �ev�T Lv�a 1 c2 L 1 Wile ✓1 ears FRorn Kai V't co �1FF1cLJLr ES �� for �F TuJz r�1 PRIN t J-�'recutej �.� Qrr �,,�ck2d F' Z "1 1 �I z w w a 0 2 0 Z_ L. = Cr a. I Q z v .f� I ko w z Q O J 0� F� Q Or 9� 1111 it i II R oe 0� F� Q Or 9� APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION C;iLCULATION LOCATION: PRINCETON AVENUE - LDS AN2ELES AVENUE CITY OF: ncaRP";Rw COUNT DATE: MAY IS, 1927 PEAK HR.: A.M. CAL-0. DATE: JUNE 19,,9E7 CALC. BY: MEW -E-- C'hPACiTY-- ;- -- Y�'LL- E------------'--------------------11--------------------- pv: cxc - ----- -- - -- --; - - - -- --- ---- - - -- _____ _____ _____ ____ _— __-- _- _______`tu— _—_____— _______`___—_____`_.____:____—____-- _-- ,_-- _--_ „ u_ iii} - -____________— 47 -------------- , °------------- ----`------------------------------.------------------------------j-------1----- ij iiit . V.. . - --------------------------- :- - - - - -- -;- - - - - -- i ------------------------------------------- ----------------------- cz .00 •iii: .UV } ----- --------------- - --- 1 --- -- -- -- - ---- --------------------------- -- - ------------- 1- —r. T..r..r Y ---- - ---------------i--------------- ,' tt a ii 1 • , tr1i------,__'-11-------------- _-------- i-------------- -- - - -F ----------------------- - ------ -------------------- E RIGHT i i 15�s1 IJo .I5 [ 416 4?c 1 0.'2I + ;t. ?B = ;.�a + Ij . ------------------------ - - - - -; ------------------------------------------- NB LEFT t A J 0 ' t 0 'J 0. 00 i—----- , ` t°'�-- },— S----- 01. 00 J --__—____—_—_--__ i_--_---__----_---__—____-- — —' --- ---- _— ----------------------------i 0 t 01. t t :t THRU 0 j . .lWB . ----------- i------°--------- -------- °---l— - -- --------1—------------------- °-- °--- ---- °----, -------°—,—°--`----- Nr RIGHT ? t� Q 1 0 ij ii.fla ij,Ot ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE---------- --- -- -V--- -- - - - - --t -- - -- + - --- -+ - - - I.0 VALUE - -- - -I;' 1.00 4. ". U.74 Vv ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE r --- - - - - - - -- - - -- C - - - - -- C --------------- - - -- ---------------------- NOTES: -------------------------- -------------------------------------- NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, NB = WESTBOUND + DENOTES CRITICAL VIC UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE. I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION LOCATION: PRINCETON AVE"!UE - LOS ANGELES AVENUE CITY OF: MOORPARK ;Er;'r: HR.: P.M. COUNT DATE: MAY 19, 1957 CALL. DATE: JUNE 1911997 CALC. BY: NEW ----- - - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - - ~ ' -- -----------=--- -LANES CAPACITY - VOLUMES V/C MOVEMENT------------- - - - - -' ---------------------------;----------------^-------------------------- AFTER AFTER AFTER AF- A, At,:r EXISTiiG PROPO;ED = XISTiiG SIGNALS 1 EXISTING SIGNALS SIGNALS EXISTING SIGNALS JI�NALS ------------------------------------------------ __ __ ___ __ ____ ___ ____ _____ . F n -,.. .i „ n --- --- v'- --- -- f- ---- -- ----------------------------------------------------------- - ---- - - ---- ,-- - -- -- -- -- - ---- -- ------------------------- ,-- - _-- ``---------- --- -- -- - --- .---- - - - --- .J w C! t ! SB THRU _ 16v"'!0' GLi Yi ' ----- ------------- - - - -- '- --- - - - - -- --- i- ---------` - ± - - -- -- -F - -- --- --- ---- --- - -- ----------- -- ------ ---- - - - --- ---- ----- 1 i ' S-Pa RIGHr 1-1 " � 40 l-- - - - - ---------------- .- 1 4ii - - - - -- ------ --------: ----- ---------------- - - - -1- -- - -------- -- -B LEFT 15 7 vFJ ` "- f------- - �--------- V ``-Y F ------------------- 1----------------- -------'------------------------------------------- - - - - -- F A V F! THRU a ( � J �. VV vrU9 — _. _____U__ .U—U _ __ _--------------------------------------------- 1__— _-- __— _ — -- _---------- - - - - -- ___—_—__--__ _— ___— ____________ EB i?IGi{T 1 1 1500 15110 it I44 244 2 44 , J. iii + ----------------------- — ----- ------------- -- -- --- ;--------------------- — ------- .------------------------------------------- + i + AA At WB LEFT A , , — ---------------------------- i - - - -------- - ------------------------- - - - - - - ---- ----- --- ---- -- - - - - -- ----------------- WB THRU C 0 L 3 0 + l ------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - -Y- ' ------------------------------------- 0.00 OL - - - - -+ 0. c� J WB RIGHT 0 ; � j - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0.140 + 0.10 + O.:iJ + 10.00 + ICI VALUE 0, q i.l v .130 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE E C C NOTES: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, WB = WESTBOUND + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION LOCATION: CONDOR DRIVE !NORTH) PEA{ HR.. A.M. %Af r. {: -mS4 CITY OF: MOORPARK COUNT DATE: MAY 18, 1487 CALL. DATE: JUNE :4,147 --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- LANES CAPACITY VOLUMES VIC MO::EMr »- ------------ - - - - -- ------------------- ;------------------------------ ;------------------------------------------- AFTEPI A:-_., AFTER HFT_., 'TAB %PtICCD; E:=,ISTSNa �i'Nri_ i = I1�T1"L ST'^?AL- ;I NAL EXISTTNL• ST'NAL'3 1'GNALv ----- --- -- ---- ----- -- - - - - - -- - ---- ----- -- - - - - - -- ------------------------------ - --- --------- -- - -1' ;-------t-I------ ---------------- j-- ---- - - --_i .. .,. , ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------- v✓_- ,--------- - - - - -- ; '_- .Y- i^ y, , ;1; ____- _` 1 ;!i! -_fv, :�.;1,ri __- -; ___-- ; -__- -_____ �.�. S; _- __- __- __-_____ ___ ___ _ ____ ;----------------------------- i 1' 15i!0 100 1 , v 1 . 1 }a_i_____ ._-- ,IV,I.t J ___-- `` "flV__ ___ - -__ _ __________________'__ __--- __- __-- _- ___}____- _- __ - -__ ________________ __________-_ __- ___- ___- __-- ___- T '� 'J i !J �} i 3 IJ i 1 . v J.v E 1" ' - ----- --------- ----- ----------------------------- - ------ ---- ---- --- i --- ----- - - - - -- ----i-------'---------------- 0.00 ? ;} Ye E? Ni:. JJv -------------------------------------- 'J.iil! J.ii1 ± .. -- WB LEF 1 ISM >ii i �i ii 1 -------------------------------------- i 0 D i 0.00 . f0.00 . {}.:��� . 0.1010 . WB TLI' U 11 J t} ------------------'------------------------------ i-------- -°----------------------°-------- c- 15101 — ----------1---------1-`----j-!1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEARANCE 0. 1 101 0.10 ± 0.101 } A. CIA ----------------------------------------------------------------- IC1J VALUE 0.60 0.61 0.66 0.130 ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE B B B ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: 1 --------------------------------------------------------- NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTEOUND, WB = WESTBOUND t DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE. I f l INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION ! CITY OF: MODP.PARK LOCATION: CONDOR DRIVE (NORTH) . COUNT DATE: MAY 18, 1987 PEAK HR.: P.N. CALC. DATE: JUNE 19,1487 CALC. BY: MSW NYN---__- LANES ( CAPACITY VOLUMES V1C MOVEMENT ------ - ____ -_ -_; ------ - - - -� AFTER AFTER AFTER AFTER AFTER EXISTING PROPOSED! EXISTING SIGNALS EXISTING SIGNALS SIGNAL'S . EXISTING SIGNALS SIGNALS & PROJECT. & PROJECT --------- ----------------------------- NG LEFT 1 1 . ! °00 15 10, 0 1 . - - -- -- - --- -- -- ---- ___V_ -----°---------- - -- :.. :..: r Iry , v-'. N- iH ; iF { i "1 ''•3 -------- - 0.00 J - - - -- - - 0 i0 . 4 Ic 0.i *0 . O.i�O . 0.00 . 0.00 . NB RIGHT ? 0 1 10 ---------- .-- - - - - -� --------------- - - --- ------------ - - -' -- ----------------------- -C .: . i5 1 Sp EFT I I I :5, ,�.., r': +- 450 ' ' 200 g.- 9. . 0 .3. U_30 1�- 0.00 THRU �:I'3 t----- - - - - -- ----- .---- - - - - -- - - - - -- c - - - - -- -' -- - - - - -i -. - - -- - - - - -- `, - - - - -- - --- -- -- ------------------------ 0 . 10 10 10 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0. 00 . 0.00 . SB RIGHT 0 0 . 0 -- --0.00 - -T ----- - - - - -1 - - --- ---------- v- --- --------- --- -- --- --- -- - - -- ---- -E ---- --- --- - --- --+ -- --0.uy - -E- i---- 1�ftr = 7 ' 67 67 67 . ; i � 150 1 0.04 + U.04 + . ___ - -- --- __ - ------ -' - - - ---� -- ^ --- -3 - - - --- ---- --- ^-- --- 11 -- - -- --- ----- - --- - -------- -- --- ---------------- � 1,- U- 0 0 1 . . . ED THRU ' ----------- - ------- ' -------------- - -------- - ----------------- 5 5 EB RIGHT 1 1 . 1500 1500 . 5 ' . --------------------------------- 0.00 WB LEFT 1 1 , 1530 1500 . 73 137 176 . 0.05 . 0.09 . 0.12 . . ------------------ - - - - -. - - - - - ------------.---------------------------. ------------------------------------------- +3.04 WB THRU 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0.00 . 0.00 . 0.00 . . ---- ------ ' ---- - - - - -- ' ------------------ - - - - -. ------^---------^----------------- +0.14 + 0.; WB RIGHT 1 1 1500 1500 1 16. 167 211 . 0.11 + 0.11 + CLEARANCE 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.00 + - - -- ------------------ ICU VALUE - - - - -s ---------------------------------- 0. 5-8 0.60 0.66 0.04 LEVEL OF SERVICE A B B NOTES: NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, ED = EASTBOUND, - WB = WESTBOUND + DENOTES CRITICAL VIC UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION J LOCATION: CONDOR DRIVE ('SOUTH) CITY OF: MOORPARK COUNT DATE: MAY 18, 1987 PEAS. HR.: A.M. CALC. DATE: JUNE 1911987 CALC. BY: MSW ----------------------- --------------------------------------------------- I !rNES- ! ;P CiT'�1----- {.-L-M------------- !------------- ------ - - - - -- - - - -- ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- ----------------------- AFT YI -. _ - it1 -�__ _..� .._ _:_'�1, �.J ! �.Ii I..�.-ji .�.,1 .•Y4 �v _.'1 ����_ i r... �.:tjC N. il: � _____ii—`I_;____L:y:— 0. ____'.l. l!:j 1 - - -- -------- -'-- __--- _ - -. ------ ------------- .---- ________=-_ 1� }— L—_______-1.Li_{______:;__: -- -- ----------- .. ..,r ii —• Ty 1 ---- -- - -- - -- :. 1' . :. ,1 -.. 1! { : tfi2 1 ---- ------- J- -- - - - - -- .... . i0.0 —1—,'------------------------- =: ACT — 1 1 i ------------------ 150:) 15ii. r . 1---- 0 �: i .11li + :� �j iJ Vii, i)i.) } :+. ��:5 _ L ` --- --------------------------------------- ----------------`- -- ---- -- --�---------- _ ---- °`- -i— -------------------------- - ,,:: moo, 1 8b8 1 881 v90 cJ :7 4.' B ii 5 THRU - -- ---------------- --- • "- ---- --- --- -------- -- ----- —i- -------------'----------J------------`lli-- -.. -.,. - ;• , j; 0 1 0 0 li i 11.:iCj ;l.ljiJ 0.'JLI ii ie J tt: Jl1 { f------------------- • __— ___— _______ - -_ - -_ — i-- --------- - -- --- ------------ ---------- --------------- ------------- i---- ____— 0 ] ; 0 0.00 1 t 0.O1 + 00 + EB LEF T ` ---------------------------- EB THRU EB- i-------------------i--------------- -, - 0 0 1 - u 1 ---------------t------------------------------------------ j j1 it 0 - -- ------------------------------ 1 - - - -- -- - - - - - -- ------- - --- -. - - -- -- - -- EB RISHT 0 0 U u ; 0 0 u 0.00 + 0.00 . 0.00 i—_----__— ---- ----:— __-- _— _— _:--- _- -___ —; ---------------------------- i------------------_?--_--__—__—_—_-----_—_--__--__ � I3 0 0 i 0 O1 i- 0 00 0.00 0.00 SIB j EFT 1 1 15100 15;j0 ------------------------------i------------------------------------------- WB THRU i� 0 a 0 0 0 0 IJ ; 0.00 . 0.O0 0.00 . ------ ---- ----- ---- 0.00 ' ------ --- ------ - -- - -- -- 4------------------------ - - - --- ------------- a 5 1'— +- + WR RIC HT 1 i 1500 15A0 4 .00 .u0 .00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 CLEARANCE 'J. 10 + U.!0 + 0.ilt + 0.00 + ICU VALUE 0.52 0.51 0.53 .00 1 — ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE---- -- A ---- - »___ - - -_ -- A - - - -- --------- - - - - -- ----- ----------- - -__ NOT E5: ----------------------------------------------------- NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, EB = EASTBOUND, H8 = WESTBOUND + DENOTES CRITICAL'V /C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION LOCATION: CONDOR. DRIVE {SOUTH) CITY OF: MOORPARK PEAK HR.: P.M. COUNT DATE: MAY 19, 14B7 CALC. BY: MSN CALC. DATE: JUNE 19,1987 LANES CAPACITY VOLUMEz- //C MOVEMENT------------ - - - - -- ------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- ------------------------------------------- 1 AFT;P 1 AFT;:;; AF.— Ar t" AFTER E %iS "iNE aazprccDi EII =TivE V SIrNALS EXI = ?iN6 v EIsNALE BivaALB ExiE ?iRB �iB ^iALE EiF+ALv 1 f 1 FP1.l r PT _.__________ __ __ ______________ LL N?iI::��. ___________ ______ . _____________ __________ ___ ______ ___ _ ______ ��,•L V ::.... ,.;,- ....., ------ . ..J4 ------------------------------------------- .._- _._., ...0 . ---------------------------- i------------------- f------------------------ :------------------------------ !------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- i------------------- u'. ?NRU f .ti�' . L ` f , i 1 5� i------------------------------------------- }. J. U. � + J.',' {! ---------------- v L' x I b; i { -- ------ :} ---- i------------ ij iv - - - - --- i� f ------------------------------ i`i �� .'.1 :i . ;) . �f :i . :}. ii'.! ----------------------------i-------------------;------------------------------!------------------------------------------- EB LEFT T J i �i i tl 'i i V. 01 } jJ.:!'J U. Q;l + ---------------------------- E= ?rRU iJ ,------------------- 'J i i3 .------------------------------ J '-------------- _i i------------------------------------------- ii ' iv. ;V + ------------------------------------------- ii. i 0 . J JJ ii. i0 . ------ EB ---------------- RIGHT - ii - - - -- ------------------- 0 vi 0 - - - -- V ------------------------------'------------------------------------------- ---------------- V. VV . V vu , il.iiii . J. "o . ----------------------------------------- WB LEFT i 1 15:sv - i50;} i '.`.4 . i �l,!ty i iy,iiv {i„ i0 . ;i.0"o . ---------------------------- i------------------- i------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- B T !RU 0 0 i '0 f '% - ---------------- ---- ------- i --------- --------- i -------------------------- ---- i --------------------------------------°°- WB RIGHT 1 1 i 15;00 1500 13 ib i 0.101 1 . 0.01 + u, r1 + 0.00 , --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +NC CLEARANCE >� tii cj 1i) . 103. 100 + c.OL ----------------------------------------------------------------- ICU VALUE 0.50 0.45 0.47 3.:!! ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES:----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND, ED = EASTBOUND, YB = WESTEOUND + DENOTES CRITICAL V/C UTILIZED TO DETERMINE ICU VALUE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE. 1 CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Applicant Cabot Cabot & Forbes Moorpark Properties 2. Project Description The proposed facility in the Moorpark Business Center is a 202,087 s f building used for office manufacturing and warehouse.. The company makes waterheaters for swimming pools and would employ 185 people. 3. Date of Checklist submittal June 17, 1987 4. Project Location 6080 Condor Drive, east of Los Angeles Avenue, Moor- park Business Center, Lot 7. Moorpark 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 )L in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or X overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface X _ relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of X any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, X either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, X or changes in situation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic X hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 1 YES MAYBE NO 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d. Is there a potential for cumulative adverse 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. XX 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 otherwise available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related X — hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of 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 rare or endangered animal species? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? 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? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. . Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource? 3 YES MAYBE NO X X X Me X X X X___ X _ I_ X_ YES MAYBE NO 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous X — 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 the 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 X — movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand X for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation X — systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or X movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X — 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: a. Fire protection? X — b. Police protection? X — c. Schools? X — d. Parks or other recreational facilities? �— — e. Other governmental services? �- 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: .a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X 4 5 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 _X archaeological or historical site within the vicinity of the project? c. Result in destruction'or alteration of a known X archaeological or historical site near the vicinity of the project? 5 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 X the future.) 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 III. RECOMMENDATION 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 _ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a, significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. X 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. R _ 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. 7 INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES DP -392 MOORPARK BUSINESS CENTER The following section discusses the yes, maybe, and not responses given in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed light industrial project in the Moorpark Business Center (Lot 7). l.a. A limited amount of grading would be required in that the site has previously been graded in preparation for future development. This project would not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures. l.b. There is the possibility of compaction, disruption and overcovering of soils due to grading operations associated with the proposed project. All grading is anticipated to be balanced onsite. All grading will be done in accordance with approved City standards. I.c. The project site is flat, with no visible ground surface relief features. Minor modifications to the earth surface may occur related to landscaping and drainage. No major alterations to the topography are anticipated to occur. l.d. In that there are no known unique geologic or physical features onsite, the proposed project would not result in the destruction, covering or modification of these features. Le. During construction of the proposed project, only a limited amount (5,000 cu. yds.) of grading is anticipated to occur. Therefore, there would not be a substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils due to necessary earth movement. l.f. In that no beach sands, rivers, streams, oceans or bays exist onsite, the proposed project would not result in changes to any of these features. A flowage easement is included in the proposed project to protect the project site from 100 -year flood hazard. This would also protect the adjacent Arroyo Simi from a wash of potential urban pollutants (e.g. parking area surface oil) during 100 -year flood occurrences. Storm water drainage would be directed away from this creek in accordance with an approved Master Plan of Drainage. l.g. No geologic or seismic hazards are known to exist onsite or within the immediate vicinity. Should any such hazards be discovered, an increase in human exposure to such hazards would occur. 2.a. In that the proposed light industrial facility would not emit significant amounts of pollutants, the project would not result in substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality. 2.b. The proposed project would be utilizing a dry powder paint electrostatically applied to metal as part of the manufacturing process. This process would be conducted in a E:3 fully enclosed and properly ventilated area objectionable odors. 2.c. In that the project consists of construction manufacturing and warehouse (2 stories), it movement, moisture or temperature or any regionally. Therefore, the facility would not create of approximately 200,097 s.f. of office, would not result in an alteration of air change in climate, either locally or 2.d. Automobile and truck trips associated with operation of the industrial project may create the potential for cumulative impacts on air quality in the project area. The new development would result in an incremental contribution to air emissions. However, the proposed project would provide jobs in proximity to housing.The project is designated on the Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element Map for industrial uses and has been included in regional air quality analysis. The impact is not considered significant. 3.a. No marine or fresh waters are present onsite. The proposed project would not result in the change in currents or the course of direction of such water bodies. 3.b. The proposed project represents a change in land use from vacant land to approxi- mately 37% lot coverage. This may result in a change in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. 3.c. The proposed project would not result in additional storm drainage into the Arroyo Simi creek. The proposed project would not alter the course or flow of flood water. A flowage easement is provided to protect the proposed project from flood hazard and can also protect the Arroyo Simi from adverse changes. 3.d. The proposed project would not result in additional storm drainage into the adjacent creek. Surface drainage is directed towards Condor Drive into existing storm water drainage facilities. The proposed project would not alter the course or flow of flood water. Flowage easement is provided to protect the proposed project from flood hazard and can also protect the Arroyo Simi from adverse changes. 3.e. All excess onsite water would be diverted to existing storm drains via gutters along Condor Drive. The proposed project would not result in discharge to surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity. 3.f. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not alter the direction or rate of flow of any known groundwaters. Water is provided by purveyors; no wells would be constructed. No aquifers are located onsite. 3.g. The proposed project would obtain water for the facility from a water purveyor. The project would not change the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. 9 3.h. The proposed project would obtain water for the facility from a water purveyor. The project would be served by existing water mains (in Condor Drive) sized and served to meet water demands in Moorpark Business Center. 3.i. The proposed project would use an estimated 28.3 acre - feet /year of water. The proposed project would not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public use. Adequate capacity and water pressure exist to serve the site. No additional constraints for fire protection are known to exist. 3.j. The Arroyo Simi is located approximately to the east of the project. This creek has flooded in the past, especially during heavy and prolonged rain. However, prior to recordation of Tract 3492 (Moorpark Business Center), flowage easements were required to be designated. No construction of buildings could occur within these easements. The proposed project borders, but is located outside, a flowage easement. Therefore, , the potential for flood hazard is anticipated to be minimal. 4.a. The site is currently void of vegetation except for landscape trees existing along Condor Drive. No trees would be removed with implementation of this project. The project would not result in a change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants. 4.b. There are no known unique, rare or endangered species onsite. Therefore, the project would not result in the reduction of any of these types of species. 4.c. The proposed project includes the introduction of new plant species to be utilized for landscaping. This will be in addition to existing landscaping along Condor Drive. In that only weeds currently exist onsite, the proposed project would not present a barrier to the normal replenishment of onsite vegetation. 4.d. No significant crops currently, exist onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the reduction in acreage of any agricultural crops. 5.a. No species of animals are known to exist on site other than, possibly, rodents and reptiles. No rare or endangered species are known to exist onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals. 5.b. No rare or endangered species are known to exist onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would not restrict the range of, or otherwise affect these species. 5.c. Introduction of animal species is not proposed with this project. No animal species are known to exist onsite. The proposed project would not introduce new animal species or result in a barrier to the migration of movement of animals. 5.d. There are no known existing fish or wildlife habitats onsite. The existing Arroyo Simi would not be altered by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not deteriorate these habitats. 10 6.a. Manufacturing activities associated with the proposed project may result in increases in existing noise levels. These possible measures could be lessened through proper installation of the facility and through muffling of large machinery. 6.b. Manufacturing activities within the proposed facility would not exceed surrounding noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in exposure of people to severe noise levels. 7. The site is currently vacant and has no onsite lighting. The proposed project would introduce lighting associated with parking areas and illumination of the new facility. 8. The site is currently' planned as part of a light industrial park. The existing surrounding uses include, primarily, light industrial uses. The project would therefore not result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area. 9.a. The proposed project would not be utilizing any natural resources. The facility would include assembly and finishing of primarily premanufactured parts. Therefore, the proposed project would 'not result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources. 9.b. The proposed project would not use substantial amounts of nonrenewable resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial depletion of these resources. 10. The proposed facility would be using dry powder paint, electrostatically applied, as part of its manufacturing process. This may represent a risk of release of a hazardous substance (dry powder paint) in the event of an accident. Additionally, a propane tank is proposed to be located on the project site. There is the possibility of an accidental explosion of this tank should unsafe conditions occur. 11. The proposed project would employ (+) 185 employees. This could possibly alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population in the area including relocation for employment of the employee and family. 12. The proposed project would employ (+) 185 employees. This could possibly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing. 13.a. The average daily trips associated with employee traffic and truck traffic associated with the proposed facility will generate additional vehicular movement. Existing peak hour traffic congestion is a current problem and, therefore, additional traffic could be considered a substantial increase. 13.b. The proposed project would construct 420 parking spaces to provide for employee and truck parking onsite. This parking would meet City requirements. The proposed project would not result in a demand for other new parking offsite. 11 13.c. The current transportation system is congested at the intersection of Condor Drive and Los Angeles Avenue. This intersection is currently not signalized, but a signal is planned to be in place by 1987. The proposed project would add to the congestion at - this intersection. This impact could be lessened through encouraging ridesharing and other alternative modes of transportation. Installation of a traffic signal at Condor Drive and Los Angeles Avenue will control traffic. 13.d. In that all roads to and from the project have already been built, the proposed project would not result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods. 13.e. There would be no waterborne, rail or air traffic associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter these types of traffic. 13.f. The proposed project would increase the amount of automobile and truck traffic in the area. It could present an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. 14.a. The addition of a new building with � 185 employees may require the need for additional fire protection personnel in the area. 14.b. The addition of a new building with ± 185 employees may require the need for addi- tional police protection personnel in the area. 14.c. A portion of the employees at the proposed light industrial facility may be relocating from outside of the area. Therefore, there may be an increase in the number of school -age students which may in turn require the building of new schools. 14.d. The probable influx of people (as employees) associated with the proposed project may necessitate the development of new parks or other recreational facilities. 14.e. The proposed project and associated employees may result in the need for the addition of other governmental services. 15.a. The proposed project, with 200,097 s.f. of office, manufacturing and warehouse uses would not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. 15.b. The proposed project, with 200,097 s.f. of office, manufacturing and warehouse uses would not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy. 16.a. The proposed project, with 200,097 s.f. of office, manufacturing and warehouse uses would not substantially alter or require new power or natural gas. 16.b. The proposed project, with 200,097 s.f. of office, manufacturing and warehouse uses would not substantially alter or require new communication systems. L 12 16.c. The proposed project, with 200,097 s.f. of office, manufacturing and warehouse uses would not substantially alter or require new water. 16.d. The proposed project, with 200,097 s.f. of office, manufacturing and warehouse uses and in itself, would not substantially alter or require new sewer or septic tanks. However, the Ventura County Waterworks District is currently in the early stages of planning a sewage treatment plant expansion project, due in part to the cumulative increase of flow into the existing treatment plan. This project will cumulatively impact the existing sewage treatment plant. 16.e. The proposed project, with 200,097 s.f. of office, manufacturing and warehouse uses would not substantially alter or require new storm water drainage. 16.f. The proposed project, with 200,097 s.f. of office, manufacturing and warehouse uses would not substantially alter or require new solid waste and disposal. 16.g. The proposed project, with 200,097 s.f. of office, manufacturing and warehouse uses would not substantially alter or require new street lighting annexation and /or improvements. 17.a. The proposed project would not be using any materials that would result in the creation of any health hazards or potential health hazards. 17.b. The manufacturing uses within the proposed project could possibly expose people to potential health hazards should proper safety precautions not be incorporated. 18. The proposed project with a 200,097 s.f. building two stories in height, may obstruct the view of residents to the northwest. 19. The proposed project with a 200,097 s.f. building two stories in height, would not result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. 20.a. Grading and construction onsite may affect possible unknown archaeological or historical sites. 20.b. In a 1980 report written by Mr. Robert Lopez, Archaeological Consultant, a recorded archaeological resource, VEN -225, "was identified in 1970 by King and Docker, students from the University of California at Los Angeles." However, Mr. Lopez comments that "the resources had been destroyed at the time of construction of (an) agricultural road." In that any resources within the vicinity have likely been already disturbed and /or destroyed, the proposed project would not result in destruction of these resources. 20.c. There are no known archaeological or historical sites near the vicinity of the project, therefore the proposed project would not result in destruction of these resources. 13 CITY OF MOORPARK DEPARTMENT OF COWUNITY DEVELOPMENT 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 NEGATIVE DECLARATION XX MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION T . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1." Entitlement;Deevelopment Plan Permit, DP -392 2. Aanlicant; a ot, abot and Forbes Moorpark Properties 3. Proposal; e proposed facility in the Moorpark Business Center is a 200,087 s.f_ building used for Office, manufacturing anrd warPhnrneP_ The company makes waterheaters for swimming nools and employs 185 people. 4. Location and Parcel Number(s): 6080 Condor Drive east of Los Angeles Avenue Moorpark Business Center, Lot 7. Moorpark AP# 513 -0- 060 -070 - -- 5. Responsible Agencies: II. STATEMENT' OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: An initial study was conducted by the. Department of Community Development to evaluate the potential effects of fhis 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 EFFECT'S: (I-F APPLICABLE) Please see attachment III. PUBLIC REVIEW: 1. Legal Notice Method; Direct mailing to property owners within 300 feet. 2. Document Posting Period; Prepared by: Sanchez Talarico Assoc _,Inc. (Name) (Date) June 15, 1987 Approved by: Patrick J. Richards Tune 15, 1987 (Nan-e) I (Date) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DP -392 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall be subject to requirements set forth by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District and modified by the City of Moorpark. 2. The applicant shall direct surface runoff away from the Arroyo Simi and towards condor Drive. 3. The applicant shall provide exterior lighting with shields that face down, or are otherwise so directed, to reduce evening and nighttime light and glare from offsite locations. 4. The applicant shall incorporate skylights into the facility that are as opaque as feasible to reduce evening and nighttime light as viewed from the exterior. 5. The applicant shall locate propane tanks or other potentially volatile or hazardous materials in a protected area away from areas occupied by employees, delivery persons or any other person known to be in the vicinity for a reasonable period of time. Materials, as noted above, shall be stored and located in fully protected enclosures. 6. The applicant shall encourage alternative means of transportation to reduce automobile trips to the facility by providing a bike rack and a preferrential parking area for canpoolers or vanpoolers. 7. The applicant shall provide a crash gate or other emergency vehicle access along the southern site boundary. The access shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 8. The applicant shall, to the extent feasible, screen loading /unloading, trash disposal and parking areas, particularly along the northern site boundary to minimize potentially offensive views from residents located north, and across, Highway 118. 2 RESIDENTIAL 0= Rural High 1 Acre /du ® Light Industrial Medium Density 3.1 -5 du /Acre = Open Space ® High Density 5.1 -10 duiAcre 10 -40 Acres /du GENERAL PLAN DP -392 EXHIBIT b EM M -1 Industrial Park R -E -1A Rural Exclusive 1 Acre 0 O -S -20A Open Space 20 Acres ® R- P -D -10U Residential Planned Development 10 Units O -S -40A Open Space 40 Acres�- �.'.'. R -1 One Family Residential ZONING DP 392 EXHIBIT c " I ���ai�� �deie�E;�E� `iuuN RESIDENTIAL 0= Rural High 1 Acre /du ® Light Industrial Medium Density 3.1 -5 du /Acre = Open Space ® High Density 5.1 -10 duiAcre 10 -40 Acres /du GENERAL PLAN DP -392 EXHIBIT b EM M -1 Industrial Park R -E -1A Rural Exclusive 1 Acre 0 O -S -20A Open Space 20 Acres ® R- P -D -10U Residential Planned Development 10 Units O -S -40A Open Space 40 Acres�- �.'.'. R -1 One Family Residential ZONING DP 392 EXHIBIT c " I PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY C county of ve ura Manager — Administrative Services Paul W. Ruffin April 27, 1987 City of Moorpark Planning Division 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021 ECEIVED APR 2 81987 CITY OF Vies AQIE Subject: TR 3492, lot 7 Water and Sanitary Sewer Availability Director Arthur E. Goulet Deputy Directors Ron Brazill Real Property Services Al F. Knuth Transportation T. M. Morgan Engineering Services G. J. Nowak Flood Control/Water Resources Subject property is within the boundaries of Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1, Division 1 for water and sanitary sewer service. Applicant for service shall comply with the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 "Rules and Regulations" including all provisions of or relating to the existing Industrial Waste Discharge Requirements and subsequent additions or revisions thereto. The District has an existing 10" water main in Condor Dr. capable of providing domestic quality water to the subject property. Any requirements by the Ventura County Fire Protection District greater than the District's existing facilities shall be the responsibility of the applicant. The District also has an existing 10" sanitary sewer main in Condor and along the southerly property line of the subject property. The District" is in the early stages of planning a sewage treatment plant expansion project. Since the cumulative increase of flow into the existing treatment plant is directly related to the rate at which new connections to the sewerage system are made, the currently available plant capacity could be consumed prior to completion of any plant expansion. This could cause a delay in issuance of a "will serve" letter to the applicant to insure the plant expansion will be complete when sewer service begins. This is not to be construed as a "will serve" letter. Very truly yours, C'J 6regory . Fowler, Manager Water & Sanitation Services Division Real Property Services Department 6SF: RF • j p 7150 Walnut Canyon Road, P.O. Box 250, Moorpark, CA 93020 (805) 584 -4829 -tp 114. 01 W5 4 AI 10 Ma aq,5 rMw TIP - --------- OvegRIM lyr oo(3 Ck 14 k. V cl J9 d COH& 4UP45 V--rWF-F- H A.C. "M�; APPLICANTS EXHIBIT To be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of 7/6/87. SLhIEFz Ar COW— PAS 10 y to VNf"j 1 � �• t� i� - 1 APPLICANT EXHIBIT To b,2 discussed at the meeting of the Planning Commission .+ "" 7/6/87. MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 30 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 May 13, 1987 Mr. Pat Richards Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Re: Development Plan Permit No. 392 Dear Pat: (805) 529 -1149 After considering the information contained in your correspondence addressed to Project Reviewer relative to the Proposed 200,000 square foot industrial project proposed by Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, I find that there are no requirements which must be fulfilled for the Moorpark Unified School District. Thank you for your assistance in these matters. Sincerely, C, V, 0-a�� Lyle V. Richardson, School Facilities & LVR:jz Director Transportation BOARD OF EDUCATION: LYNDA KIRA, President; PATTY WATERS, Vice President; DENNIS HATLAND, Clerk; CARLA ROBERTSON, Member; WILLIAM McMAHON, Member; MICHAEL R. SLATER, District Superintendent An Equal Opportunity Employer