Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2013 0827 PC REG OPAK C4�•.1. &VI& 44 0�me, pFD ,Jy Resolution No. PC-2013-585 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2013 7:00 P.M. Moorpark Community Center 799 Moorpark Avenue 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. ROLL CALL: 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS, AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: 6. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: All writings and documents provided to the majority of the Commission regarding all agenda items are available for public inspection at the City Hall public counter located at 799 Moorpark Avenue during regular business hours. The agenda packet for all regular Commission meetings is also available on the City's website at www.ci.moorpark.ca.us. Any member of the public may address the Commission during the Public Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Discussion item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing or Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Discussion portion of the Agenda for that item.Speaker cards must be received by the Secretary for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of the meeting; for a Discussion item, prior to the Chair's call for speaker cards for each Discussion agenda item; and for a Public Hearing item, prior to the opening of each Public Hearing, or beginning of public testimony for a continued hearing. A limitation of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Hearing item speaker.Written Statement Cards may be submitted in lieu of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Discussion items. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the Community Development/Planning office at 517-6233. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda August 27, 2013 Page 2 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND REPORTS ON MEETINGS/CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY THE COMMISSION: A. Future Agenda Items i. CUP 2003-05 National Ready Mixed (Continued from August 26, 2009 to a date uncertain.) ii. ZOA Sign Ordinance Revision iii. Rescinding Toll Mazur DA, GPA, ZC 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. PC-2013-585) A. Consider a Resolution Recommending Approval of 1) Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-04: an Amendment to Section 17.20.060 (Permitted Uses in Commercial and Industrial Zones) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code to Allow Retail Uses in the M-1 Zone with a Conditional Use Permit when Immediately Adjacent to a Freeway Interchange; and 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-02: a 71,840 Square-Foot Retail Use in the M-1 Zone at 14501 Princeton Avenue on the Application of Manny Asadurian Jr. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013- recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-04 and conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-02. (Staff: Joseph Fiss) B. Consider Recommending to the City Council the Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2013-01; Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 (Downtown Specific Plan); Zone Change No. 2013-01; and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03, consisting of a Zone Change of a 23.44 Acre Site, Located Within the Southeastern Portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan; a General Plan Amendment and Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan 1995-01; and a Zone Change on a 1.36 Acre Site, Located at the Southeast Corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street; and a Zone Change of a 1.34 Acre Site, Located at the Southeastern End of Majestic Court. The Project Includes a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Add Chapter 17.76 to the City's Zoning Ordinance to Create the Residential Planned Development 20 Units to the Acre, (RPD20U-N-D) Zone to. Allow for Development of Multi-Family Housing as a Permitted Use in accordance with Objective Development Standards and Not Subject to Discretionary Review, to Ensure Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda August 27, 2013 Page 3 Compliance with the Adopted Housing Element, and Consistency with Federal and State Law; and Consider Recommending the Adoption of a Negative Declaration. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013- recommending to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration; and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2013-01, Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 and Zone Change No. 2013-01; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013- recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-03. (Staff: Joseph Vacca) C. Consider Recommending to the City Council the Approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2012-02 to amend Chapters 17.08 (Definitions), 17.20 (Uses by Zone), and 17.32 (Off-Street Parking Requirements), and to add Subdivision "I" (Farm Worker Dwellings) to Section 17.28.020 (Standards relating to Dwellings) and Subdivision "G" (Requests for Reasonable Accommodations) to Section 17.44.040 (Discretionary Permits and Exceptions) of the Moorpark Municipal Code to address farm worker housing, residential parking requirements, and reasonable accommodation procedures, and recommending that the City Council make a determination of exemption under CEQA. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013- recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-02. (Staff: Joseph Vacca) 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. NONE. 10. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Consider Approval of the Joint Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2013. Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes. B. Consider Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2013. Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes. C. Consider Approval of the Special Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013. Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda August 27, 2013 Page 4 11. ADJOURNMENT: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Community Development Department at (805) 517-6233. Upon request, the agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Any request for disability-related modification or accommodation should be made at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to assist the City staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104;ADA Title II). STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss CITY OF MOORPARK ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AGENDA I, Tracy J. Oehler, declare as follows: That I am the Deputy City Clerk of the City of Moorpark and that an agenda of the Regular Meeting of the Moorpark Planning Commission to be held on Tuesday, August 27, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Moorpark Community Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, was posted on August 22, 2013, at a conspicuous place at the Moorpark Community Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 22, 2013. Tracy J. Oehler, Deputy City Clerk MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA ITEM: 8.A. Planning Commission of 8 .21. 20 s3 ACTION: APPROvEO .4TP1 F RECoMMt?J A17ot ADoPrrD RCS. MO. PC.- 2013 .56S BY: T. 0E01--0.2 MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development � - or Prepared By: Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner DATE: August 19, 2013 (PC Meeting of 8/27/2013) SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution Recommending Approval of 1) Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-04: an Amendment to Section 17.20.060 (Permitted Uses in Commercial and Industrial Zones) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code to Allow Retail Uses in the M-1 Zone with a Conditional Use Permit when Immediately Adjacent to a Freeway Interchange; and 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-02: a 71,840 Square-Foot Retail Use in the M-1 Zone at 14501 Princeton Avenue on the Application of Manny Asadurian Jr. BACKGROUND On July 22, 2013 an application was filed by Manny Asadurian, Jr. to amend Chapter 17.20.060 "Permitted uses in commercial and industrial zones" of the Moorpark Municipal Code to allow retail uses in the M-1 Zone, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-tenant indoor retail use in the M-1 Zone at 14501 Princeton Avenue. DISCUSSION Project Setting Existing Site Conditions: The site consists of three large industrial buildings on a thirty six acre site. The site has been graded as two distinct pads, with the lower pad developed with the aforementioned buildings and the upper pad remaining undeveloped. The applicant is proposing the retail use in 71,840 square feet of the northernmost 144,335 square foot two story building. Access to the parking lots is from three driveways on Princeton Avenue. The parking lot is landscaped, whereas the slopes leading to the upper lot are largely natural vegetation. Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 2 Previous Applications: Resolution No. 85-249 was adopted on November 4, 1985 for Development Plan DP 318 and LDM-5 on the project site on the application of Fred Kavli (Kavlico Corporation). The permit allowed the construction of a 130,288 square foot industrial building and division of an existing 55.9 acre parcel into two lots. Much of the site was dedicated for the SR 118/23 interchange as part of the lot split map. Resolution No. 93-914 was adopted on February 9, 1993, approving Major Modification No. 1 to Development Plan No. 318, on the application of Fred Kavli. The permit allowed a 91,549 square foot building. Resolution No. 97-1412 was approved on December 17, 1997, approving Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 97-3 on the application of Sunbelt Properties (Fred Kavli). The permit allowed a one-story 42,146 square foot industrial building on the project site. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use Site I-1 (Light M-1 (Industrial Light Industrial Industrial) Park North FRWY-R/W n/a SR 118 Freeway Interchange M (Medium R-1-6 (Single Single Family South Density Family Residential Residential)*_Residential) East - I-1 (Light M-1 (Industrial Retail Motorcycle Industrial) Park) _ Dealership, Offices West FRWY-R/VV _ n/a - SR 118 Freeway General Plan and Zoning Consistency: Goal 7 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan is to "Provide for a variety of commercial facilities which serve community residents and meet regional needs". Goal 8 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan is to Provide for new commercial development which is compatible with surrounding land uses. The I-1 (Light Industrial) General Plan land use designation is intended to provide for a variety of light industrial uses, technical research and business office uses in a business park context. The site is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) which allows the uses mentioned above. A Zoning Ordinance Amendment is proposed to allow for retail uses within this setting, but only when the site is immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange. The M-1 zone already allows sales of vehicles, restaurants, and general retail uses when the retail use does not exceed 20% of the floor area of a building or planned development in a multiple building complex. This issue is discussed in detail in the analysis section below. 110C1\Department Share%Community DevelopmentlDEV PMTS IZ 0 A1201312013-04 Asadunan Community Marketplace Agenda Reports\PC Agenda Report 130827.docx 2 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 3 Project Summary Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-04 An Amendment to Section 17.20.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow in the M-1 zone with a Conditional Use Permit retail uses greater than 20% of the floor area of a building when immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange. Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-02: Proposed Use Building Area (sq. ft.) Lobby (Office) 2,526 Retail (1St Floor) 71,840 Office (2 Stories) 54,734 - Storage 15,235 Total 144,335 Although the Planning Commission is normally the decision maker on Conditional Use Permit applications, this project also requires a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, which requires City Council approval. Therefore both items will be considered concurrently by the City Council, with the Planning Commission acting as an advisory body. Proposed Project Architecture: Although the overall architecture of the building will not change, the applicant is proposing the retail entrance on the west (rear) side of the building. The eastern portion, facing Princeton Avenue, will remain for rentable office space. Changes to the doors may be required for entry and exit purposes. A "storefront" entrance is not proposed at this time. Any architectural changes to the building in the future will require review to determine if a permit adjustment, modification, or new planned development permit will be required Circulation: Ingress to the site is provided via driveways from Princeton Avenue. Although there is a raised median in Princeton Avenue, left and right turns are permitted to and from the site. As mentioned above, the applicant is proposing the retail entrance on the west (rear) side of the building. Parking for the office and retail uses will be specifically designated. A condition of approval has been added requiring that the parking plan will require review and approval by the Community Development Director. 11DC11Department Share\Community DeveiopmentlDEV PMTSIZ 0 A1201312013-04 Asadsian Community MarketplaceAgenda Reports PC Agenda Report 130827.docx Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 4 Parking: Proposed Use I Square Footage Spaces Required Spaces Provided Lobby (Office) ___.........-......- 2,526 8.42 (1/300) Retail Floor _ 71,840 239.4711/300)____ Office (2 Stories) __ 54,734 _ 182.45 (1/300) _ Storage 15,235 50.78 (1/300) Total 144,335 481.12 487 The building was originally parked to accommodate a large number of research and development employees, and as such, exceeds the parking requirement for office and retail uses. The three buildings on the site total approximately 275,000 square feet. The two smaller buildings, with light industrial uses currently, require a total of approximately 268 parking spaces. The building in question, with a 100% retail and office component, would require approximately 481 parking spaces for the proposed uses. There are 870 total parking spaces on site, resulting in a total surplus of 121 parking spaces on the site. ANALYSIS Issues Staff analysis of the proposed project has identified the following areas for Planning Commission consideration in their recommendation to the City Council: • Zoning • Uses • Hours of Operation Zoning: Currently, retail sales are allowed in the M-1 and M-2 zone, subject to an Administrative Permit, but they are limited to a maximum of 20% of the gross floor area of the building or industrial complex in which they are located. The retail sales need not be tied to an M-1 use. A Zoning Ordinance Amendment is proposed as part of this application to allow for retail uses in the M-1 zone with a Conditional Use Permit when greater than 20% of the floor area of the buildings or industrial complexes if immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange. The table below shows the proposed addition to Section A (Retail and Service Uses) of the Table in Section 17.20.060 (Permitted Uses in Commercial and Industrial Zones). The listed uses currently numbered 24 through 26 would be re- \\DC1\Department Share\Community Development\DEV PMTS\Z 0 A1201312013-04 Asadunan Community Marketplace1Agende Reports\PC Agenda Report 130827.docx 4 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 5 numbered if this new listed use is added. Zones C-O C-1 C ZD C-OT M-1 M-2 I 24. Retail sales in the M-1 zone over twenty percent (20%) of the gross floor area of the building in which it is located, when: A. The building is located on a parcel immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange; B. The building is located within 500 feet of freeway interchange; C. The driveway access is no CUP greater than 500 feet from the freeway interchange, as measured along the street. In an industrial complex the twenty percent (20%) shall be computed on the basis of the cumulative total floor area of the industrial planned development (IPD). The amendment as proposed would retain the integrity of the industrial park area while allowing for greater flexibility in uses. Only two properties, the subject property, and the one directly across the street (Harley Davidson) would be allowed to have retail sales under this provision. Uses: The applicant has submitted a letter describing the intent of the proposal. The intent is to provide approximately 364 tenant spaces, consisting of small booths (10' x 10') inside the existing building for a mix of dealers of new items, arts and crafts, food, and services. Thrift stores, secondhand shops, consignment stores when in compliance with Chapter 5.32 are currently allowed only in the CPD, C-2, and C-OT Zones. This Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not change this requirement, and therefore, those land uses would not be allowed at this location. A bona fide art or antique dealer, however, would be allowed. The applicant is proposing to restrict the sales of weapons or "obviously harmful products" in addition to ammunition, bombs, counterfeit merchandise, drug \\DC1\Department Share\Community Development\DEV PMTS\Z 0 A\2013\2013-04 Asadurian Community Marketplace Agenda ReportMPC Agenda Report 130827.doex 5 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 6 paraphernalia, fireworks, grenades, guns, knives (allowed at the discretion of the operator) and pornography. Firearms and ammunition sales are regulated by State and Federal law. The Police Department would be notified of any business registration for such dealers. Fireworks sales are prohibited locally. Hours of Operation: Currently, the only restriction to hours of operation was imposed by Major Modification No. 1 to DP-318. This condition prohibits loading and unloading operations from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. This condition will not be modified as a result of the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is proposing hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, with extended hours on certain holidays. Staff does not find a need to restrict the days or hours of operation, however, a condition of approval has been added allowing the Community Development Director to impose restrictions to the hours of operation in the future if it is found to be necessary to comply with standards of the Moorpark Municipal Code. Conditional Use Permit Findings 1. The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance as amended by Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-04, and any other applicable regulations in that retail uses are not unexpected within areas designated I-1 (Light Industrial) by the General Plan Land Use Element and the M-1 (Industrial Park) Zone; 2. The proposed use is compatible with both existing and permitted land uses in the surrounding area in that conditions of approval regarding parking and use restrictions have been included to mitigate impacts on neighboring land uses; 3. The proposed use is compatible with the scale, visual character, and design of surrounding properties in that there will be no changes to the site as a result of the application; 4. The proposed use would not be obnoxious or harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property or uses in that the impacts of the proposed use are no greater that the impacts of allowable uses within the zone in that the use has been evaluated with respect to neighboring property, and is consistent with surrounding land uses and has been conditioned to limit hours of operation; 5. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare in that conditions of approval have been added to take care of any detrimental effects; 11DC11Department Share1Community DevelopmentlDEV PMTSIZ 0 A1201312013-04 Asadurian Community MarketplacetAgenda ReportstPC Agenda Report 130827.doox 6 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 7 PROCESSING TIME LIMITS Time limits have been established for the processing of development projects under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5), the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2), and the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13, and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). Under the applicable provisions of these regulations, the following timelines have been established for action on this project: Date Application Determined Complete: August 19, 2013 Planning Commission Action Deadline: City Council Action Deadline: November 17, 2013 Upon agreement by the City and Applicant, one 90-day extension can be granted to the date action must be taken on the application. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts. Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may determine that a project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared. For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will prove to be sufficient environmental documentation. If the Director determines that a project has the potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation can not be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared. The Director has reviewed this project and found it to be Categorically Exempt in accordance with Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), in that an existing building would be used for the proposed use. The environmental impacts of individual projects are evaluated on a case by case basis. No further environmental documentation is required. UDC11Dapartment SharelCommunity Development1DEV PMTSIZ 0 A1201312013-04 Asadurian Community MarketplaceVsgenda Reports\PC Agenda Report 130827 dog( 7 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013- recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-04 and conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-02. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Project Exhibits A. Site Plan B. Conceptual Exhibit Space C. Full Size Exhibits (Under Separate Cover) 4. Draft PC Resolution with Conditions of Approval 11DC1 Department Share1Community DevelopnentDEV PMTS2 0 AI201312013-04 Asadurien Community Marketplace Agenda ReportslPC Agenda Report 130827.docx 8 in `fv 4e -r/ c s i8 Cr tnYolaSt y_oyota U Reedley St q `y Oe yP;�`�ts c`/ Car/7 Park Dr c4,„ Q. . E.Amherst sr c.,`' Stantord St so°St 0 _y — v c Q• ¢ > c i >.13 v • X Hartford St ✓ 118---4----- -- —> . o � a 7'` SITE / ,16A e / /7 (./0' o` / a°` / coy 118 f 7 Princeton Pie 5 1 1 Ns)en.4 {a‘octo a y NI 18B� A-v v v LOCATION MAP PC ATTACHMENT 1 9 v, i i` �,. �/ Le • 'ash. .. 9s _ - •.. Hi Irt! ; 118 IMMO SITE '19 tom., ti 4,. .. � v A ,,g "plill. - i AL • i`r t . N '. ;� q } AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH PC ATTACHMENT 2 ie _ _ WO. 3 IAIIVIOfiY1100 Ia3aa1Ya1Y , ,.4�w» Y `° 3 NOSYN+SHJ1EH19 IIC18" _ 10.»ro,,0.1 ,.. 1 1 1 I Ili, j IN a 30b'1d13N21NW` *"s 1'" ` a, Q a y e A1INf1WWOO NMdd2i0OW p.141.1 1EE 2 P �� , �� HY� ¢ o il a S 18i ./ x 1 d iiJL.ikIIjiJi 1 I� ,5 z r a za �u;� o N 1.! lii Y 0 \ 0. 0 I iiirlt Q 1 i gil 111 ill pi Ell 1 \‘',N I t rN1'. 1- ill ag- i R R le 5 0 m im2 P it g d�� 1 I hi ' \ Q S:' baaaav 110163111114 O CR X 0 L.,.I.J.J.t.i_i_I.._LL, , (�_ _ iJ +J c L)ki GI ■ 1...4 V% _= 171` '' `' i=1 =I �"t I"I�-� c_ll FJ ca W [[ TWO r z L 1 NQ� Z °z¢ ).- !. 1-- 1- goo q r LLI - -,.. F. LC k. a \1:1 . . o T 0. Q. z IHHI 1 O a 1 CO PC ATTACHMENT 3.A. ii ;gal hi i al F Ii l i '"::'''. 1 ‘,,4*\\\A\\st‘‘s\\i ENT 3.B. 12 PC ATTACHMENT 3.C. FULL SIZE EXHIBITS (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) COPIES OF THE EXHIBIT ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST OF THE PROJECT PLANNER 13 RESOLUTION NO. PC-2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF 1) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2013-04: AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.20.060 (PERMITTED USES IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW RETAIL USES IN • THE M-1 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEN IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A FREEWAY INTERCHANGE; AND 2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-02: A 71,840 SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL USE IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 14501 PRINCETON AVE ON THE APPLICATION OF MANNY ASADURIAN. WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2013, the Planning Commission considered Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-04 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2013-02 on the application of Manny Asadurian. for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Chapter 17.20.060 (Permitted Uses In Commercial And Industrial Zones) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code to allow retail uses in the M-1 zone with a Conditional Use Permit when immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange; and a Conditional Use Permit to allow an indoor retail community marketplace in the M-1 Zone when immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange, at 14501 Princeton Avenue.; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of August 27, 2013 the Planning Commission considered the agenda report and any supplements thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal; closed the public hearing and reached a decision on this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTION: The Community Development Director has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (existing facilities) in that an existing building would be used for the proposed use. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Community Development Director's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the determination of exemption. PC ATTACHMENT 4 14 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 2 SECTION 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2013-04: The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-04 found in Exhibit A attached. SECTION 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: Based upon the information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying studies, and oral and written public testimony, the Planning Commission makes the following findings in accordance with City of Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.040: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance as amended by Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-04, and any other applicable regulations in that retail uses are not unexpected within areas designated I-1 (Light Industrial) by the General Plan Land Use Element and the M-1 (Industrial Park) Zone; 2. The proposed use is compatible with both existing and permitted land uses in the surrounding area in that conditions of approval regarding parking and use restrictions have been included to mitigate impacts on neighboring land uses; 3. The proposed use is compatible with the scale, visual character, and design of surrounding properties in that there will be no changes to the site as a result of the application; 4. The proposed use would not be obnoxious or harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property or uses in that the impacts of the proposed use are no greater that the impacts of allowable uses within the zone in that the use has been evaluated with respect to neighboring property, and is consistent with surrounding land uses and has been conditioned to limit hours of operation; 5. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare in that conditions of approval have been added to take care of any detrimental effects; SECTION 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-02: The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-02, subject to the Standard and Special Conditions of Approval found in Exhibit B attached. \\DC1\Department Share\Community Development\DEV PMTS\Z 0 A\201312013-04 Asadurian Community Marketplace\Resolutons\PC_Reso 130827.docx 15 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 3 • SECTION 5. FILING OF RESOLUTION: The Community Development Director shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 2013 Diana Gould, Chair David A. Bobardt Community Development Director Exhibit A— Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-04 Exhibit B— Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-02 Standard and Special Conditions of Approval 11DC11Department Share\Community Development\DEV PMTSIZ 0 A1201312013-04 Asadurian Community Marketplace ResolutionsPPC_Reso_130827.doex 16 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 4 EXHIBIT A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2013-02 Section 17.020.060 (Permitted Uses in Commercial and Industrial Zones) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code is amended with the following addition to Section A (Retail and Service Uses). Listed Uses currently numbered 24 through 26 shall be renumbered as 25 through 27. Zones C-O C-1 2D C-OT M-1 M-2 I 24. Retail sales in the M-1 zone over twenty percent (20%) of the gross floor area of the building in which it is located, when: A. The building is located on a parcel immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange; B. The building is located within 500 feet of freeway interchange; CUP C. The driveway access is no greater than 500 feet from the freeway interchange, as measured along the street. In an industrial complex the twenty percent (20%) shall be computed on the basis of the cumulative total floor area of the industrial planned development(IPD). 11DC11Department Share1Community Development\DEV PMTSIZ 0 A12013%2013-04 Asatlurian Community Marketplace\Resolutions1PC_Reso_130827.docx 17 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 5 EXHIBIT B STANDARD AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) NO. 2013-02 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The applicant shall comply with Standard Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permits as adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2009-2799 (Exhibit B), except as modified by the following Special Conditions of Approval. In the event of conflict between a Standard and Special Condition of Approval, the Special Condition shall apply. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be valid upon the effective date of the approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-04. No Zoning Clearances or Business Registrations related to operation of this use shall be issued until Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-04 is effective. 2. The applicant's acceptance of this permit and/or commencement of construction and/or operations under this permit is deemed to be acceptance of all conditions of this permit. 3. The Conditions of Approval of this permit, City of Moorpark Municipal Code and adopted city policies at the time of the permit approval supersede all conflicting notations,' specifications, dimensions, typical sections and the like which may be shown on plans. 4. Conditions of this entitlement may not be interpreted as permitting or requiring any violation of law or any unlawful rules or regulations or orders of an authorized governmental agency. 5. Nothing in this permit or its Conditions of Approval precludes the City from enforcing the Municipal Code with respect to any violations which may occur on the property affected by this permit. 6. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval by the City or any of its agencies, departments, commissions, agents, officers, or employees concerning the permit, which claim, action or proceeding is brought within the time period provided therefore in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 or California Government Code Section ttDC11Department Share%Community DevelopmenttDEV PMTSZ 0 A12013t2013-04 Asadunan Community Marketplace\Resolutions1PC_Reso_130827.docx 18 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 6 65009, whichever is shorter. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and if the City should fail to do so or should fail to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents, officers and employees pursuant to this condition. 7. a. The City may, within its unlimited discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, if both of the following occur: i. The City bears its own attorney fees and costs; ii. The City defends the claim, action or proceeding in good faith. b. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. The applicant's obligations under this condition shall apply regardless of whether a building permit is ultimately obtained, or final occupancy is ultimately granted with respect to the permit. 8. If any of the conditions or limitations of this approval are held to be invalid, that holding shall not invalidate any of the remaining conditions or limitations set forth. 9. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for occupancy, a landscaping plan must be submitted. Such plan must show restoration of planters within the front setback area and restoration of parking lot landscaping. The landscaping must be installed within 90 days of a Zoning Clearance for occupancy, in a manner satisfactory to the Community Development Director. 10. All signs must be in compliance with Chapter 17.40 of the Moorpark Municipal Code (Sign Regulations). A separate sign permit application is required for all proposed signs. 11. All refuse and recycling bins for the center shall be maintained in enclosures. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for occupancy, all enclosures shall be upgraded to be screened with a solid wall and decorative gate and covered with a roof, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 12. All exterior areas of the site, including landscaping and parking areas must be maintained free of litter and debris at all times. 13. Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-02 may be revoked or its use suspended by the City, if any of the causes listed in Section 17.44.080.8 of the Zoning Code are found to apply, including if the use for which the permit was granted has not been exercised for at least \\DC11Department SharelCammunity Developmont'.DEV PMTS\Z 0 A1201312013-04 Aaadurian Community MarketplacelResolutionaaPC Reao_130827.docx 19 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 7 twelve (12) consecutive months, has ceased to exist, or has been abandoned. The discontinuance for a period of one hundred eghty (180) or more days of a nonconforming use or a change of nonconforming use to a conforming use constitutes abandonment and termination of the nonconforming status of the use. 14. The City of Moorpark reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke for cause this conditional use permit consistent with Chapter 17.44 of the Moorpark Municipal Code or as may be amended in the future. 15. No major architectural changes are permitted. Minor architectural changes to the building will require review and approval by the Community Development Director. 16. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for occupancy, a parking plan must be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. 17. The Community Development Director to impose restrictions to the hours of operation in the future if it is found to be necessary to comply with standards of the Moorpark Municipal Code. 18. Thrift stores, secondhand shops, and consignment stores are not permitted as part of this permit. 19. Approval of a Business Registration permit for the operator and each vendor. 20. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with the following for each vendor: • A copy of their valid Seller's Permit issued by the State Board of Equalization. • A letter, on business letterhead, certifying that all retail sales generated at the location will be properly reported to the State Board of Equalization as occurring within the City of Moorpark. 21. All giveaways must comply with State of California Rules For Promotional Giveaways (California Business and Professions Code sections 17533.8, 17537.1.) For more information see California Department of Consumer Affairs Legal Guide U-1. Any raffle or similar game must comply with State of California Rules Prohibiting Lotteries (California Penal Code section 319 and following). For more information see California Department of Consumer Affairs Legal Guide U-2. All contests must comply with State of California Rules for Operation of Contests (Business and Professions Code sections 17539-17539.3, 11DC11Department Share\Community DevelopmentlDEV PMTSIZ 0 AA201312013-04 Asadurian Community Ma r ketplacelResolutions\PC_Reso_130827.docx 20 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 8 17539.35). For more information see California Department of Consumer Affairs Legal Guide U-3. The distribution of any prizes or gifts must comply with State of California Rules On Conditional Offer Of Prizes Or Gifts (California Business and Professions Code section 17537) For more information see California Department of Consumer Affairs Legal Guide U-4. 22. The applicant shall comply with Chapter 8.32 PROHIBITING SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES at all times and shall provide signs consistent with Chapter 8.32.040 to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, prior to initiation of the uses allowed by this permit. 23. The approval of temporary signs, banners, flags, streamers, balloons, or other similar advertising devices are not included under this application: Temporary signs are processed under a separate permitting procedure and are subject to the requirements of Section 17.40 of the Municipal Code and the review and approval of the Community Development Director. -END- \\DC1\Department Share%Community DevelopnenttDEV PMTSIZ 0 A1201312013-04 Asadurian Community MarketplaceU2esolutions\PC_Reso_130827.docx 21 MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA Planning Commission ITEM 8.B. of $.Z . 20( ACTION: gai cc RE:Cn�t�r� 4?1oJ• AI PIKED RES . n)O. PC 2013•S7(o d. RES. Mo. PC- 2,0x5 •3 3 BY: T. cE to MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission j) FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director Prepared By: Joseph R. Vacca, Principal Planners of DATE: July 24, 2013, (Meeting of 08/27/13) SUBJECT: Consider Recommending to the City Council the Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2013-01; Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 (Downtown Specific Plan); Zone Change No. 2013-01; and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03, consisting of a Zone Change of a 23.44 Acre Site, Located Within the Southeastern Portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan; a General Plan Amendment and Amendment No.2 to Specific Plan 1995-01; and a Zone Change on a 1.36 Acre Site, Located at the Southeast Corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street; and a Zone Change of a 1.34 Acre Site, Located at the Southeastern End of Majestic Court. The Project Includes a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Add Chapter 17.76 to the City's Zoning Ordinance to Create the Residential Planned Development 20 Units to the Acre, (RPD2OU-N-D) Zone to Allow for Development of Multi-Family Housing as a Permitted Use in accordance with Objective Development Standards and Not Subject to Discretionary Review,to Ensure Compliance with the Adopted Housing Element,and Consistency with Federal and State Law;and Consider Recommending the Adoption of a Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Under state law, the City is required to prepare a Housing Element update for the 2008- 2014 planning period. A Draft Housing Element was prepared and reviewed by the City Council on October 6, 2010. Following review by the City Council, the Draft Housing Element was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)for review. After a series of discussions between City staff and HCD and revisions to the draft element, on January 31, 2012, a letter was received from HCD stating that the draft element addresses statutory requirements. The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Housing Element for the 2008-2014 planning period on March 27,2012, and adopted PC Resolution No. 568, recommending its adoption to the City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on May 16, 2012, to review the Draft Housing Element 22 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 2 Update 2008-2014 and approved Resolution No. 2012-3105, adopting the Housing Element Update 2008-2014 as one of the mandatory elements of the City's General Plan. The goals and policies of the Housing Element are implemented through housing programs coordinated by the City's Community Development Department and the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark. There are several programs that Moorpark is required to implement to address housing needs within the community. The following tables provide a summary of Housing Element Program Nos. 3 and 17, and the six-year objective to implement the program, as outlined in the Housing Element; provided as follows: 3. Sites to Accommodate Fair-Share Housing Needs Six-Year Vacant or underutilized sites offer opportunities for residential development and achieve lower- Objective: income housing goals,as identified by the RHNA. In the past several years,developers have By 2012, initiated both the conversion of commercial sites for residential use,and the up-zoning of low- create a new density residential sites for higher-density development.Zoning amendments have resulted in RPD-20 zoning development of the Archstone project,Shea Homes Tract 5425,and the CEDC Monte Vista district and project. Other projects where zoning has been modified to allow for affordable housing rezone at least opportunities that have not yet been built include the Pacific Communities project,the Essex 25.8 acres of apartment project,William Lyon Home 17-unit affordable project,Area Housing Authority land at a Apartment project,and the Pardee School Site project.Other projects are under consideration. density of 20 As shown in Appendix B,the City's lower-income need is 655 units and a total of 139 new units per acre. lower-income units have been built or approved since the beginning of the new planning period.Additional sites to accommodate at least 516 lower-income units are needed in order to meet RHNA requirements.While pending projects and vacant sites contain sufficient potential to accommodate this remaining need,a new RPD-20 zoning district will be established and additional sites with a minimum of 25.8 total acres will be rezoned to this designation that allows owner-occupied and multi-family rental residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre in order to ensure adequate capacity to accommodate the City's fair-share needs during this planning period. Rezoned sites to accommodate the remaining lower-income need will be provided in pending projects identified in Table B-2 of Appendix B,primarily in the Hitch Ranch,Chiu,and Pacific Communities projects.Zoning for these projects shall meet all the requirements of Government Code Sec.65583.c.1.,which include the following: 'Permit a minimum density of 20 units/acre. 'Permit a minimum of 16 units per site. 'Accommodate at least 50%of the units on sites designated for residential use only. For projects that require subdivision or lot consolidation prior to development,the City will facilitate this process through expedited or concurrent processing of the required approvals. Since most affordable housing developments occur on sites of 2 to 10 acres,the City will prioritize rezoning and subdivision of sites that can accommodate developments of this size. In order to enhance the likelihood of affordable housing development in these projects,the City will take the following actions: • Contact affordable housing builders regarding development opportunities in these projects,and convene meetings between the master developer and interested builders, if requested. •Offer incentives and concessions for affordable housing projects such as expedited processing,reduced development standards,administrative assistance with funding applications such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits,and fee waivers or reductions if feasible. 23 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 3 17. R-P-D Zone Designation and Planned Development Permit Process Six-Year The R-P-D Zone designation provides flexibility in the development process to meet specific Objective: housing needs.The R-P-D Zone designation offers various densities that can be tailored to the Continue to lot,nature of the development,and local housing needs.The R-P-D Zone provides a use the R-P-D mechanism for the development of higher-density housing(up to 20 du/ac)and can be coupled Zone with a density bonus,financial and regulatory incentives to provide affordable housing. designation to In order to further reduce processing time a Zoning Code amendment will be initiated to make encourage a the following changes to the Planned Development Permit process: variety of 1)Designate the Planning Commission as the final approval authority(rather than City housing types to address Council);and local needs. 2)Modify the required findings for approval to confirming that the project complies with Process a objective development and design standards. Code amendment by 2012. Staff initiated a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to complete the programs outlined above. On July 17, 2013,the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-3204 which directed staff and the Planning Commission to study, hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council on a General Plan Amendment, a Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, a Zone Change of at least 25.8 total acres of land to Residential Planned Development 20 Units to the Acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), and amendments to Title 17 (Zoning)of the Moorpark Municipal Code regarding development of a RPD2OU-N-D zone, to allow development of 20 units per acre, at various locations to be determined throughout the City, on the application of the City of Moorpark, consistent with State law, the City's General Plan and other provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance. ANALYSIS There are currently no vacant or underutilized sites in Moorpark with zoning that allows residential development at densities of 20 units or greater per acre, excluding density bonus. Accordingly, the City must rezone at least 25.8 acres of land to accommodate the development of 516 lower-income units at a density of 20 units per acre commensurate with the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment, (RHNA). Program 3 of the Housing Element requires the City to identify parcels totaling at least 25.8 acres to be rezoned to allow multi-family residential development by-right at a density of 20 units per acre to meet the City's obligations under the RHNA for the 2008-2014 planning period. This application filed by the City, applies to three project sites, which will be rezoned to RPD2OU-N-D as follows: 24 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 4 Project Locations: > 23.44 acre site – southeast area of Specific Plan 1, Hitch (Reflected on Location Ranch Specific Plan, just west of the bus turnaround for Map,Attachment 1) Walnut Canyon School. > 1.36 acre site –southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street,just east of City Hall. This project site is City owned. • 1.34 acre site – southeastern end of Majestic Court, just southeast of the Fountains Apartment project. This project site is City owned. > 26.14 total acres proposed for re-zone to RPD20U-N-D Project Setting Existing Site Conditions: o 23.44 acre site – southeast area of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, this property is vacant and consists of gently sloping terrain, covered mostly with non- native grasses and some trees. o 1.36 acre site–southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street,this property had been developed with single family homes and institutional/office buildings, and is mostly vacant and consists of primarily flat terrain, covered generally with non-native grasses. There are one office and one institutional structures remaining on-site.. o 1.34 acre site– southeastern end of Majestic Court, just southeast of the Fountains Apartment project, vacant and consists of mostly flat terrain, covered mostly with non- native grasses. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING 23.44 Acre Site Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use Specific Plan 1 – Agricultural Site Hitch Ranch Exclusive, (A-E) Vacant land Specific Plan Specific Plan 1 – Agricultural North Hitch Ranch Vacant land Specific Plan Exclusive, (A-E) Specific Plan 1 – Agricultural South Hitch Ranch Exclusive, (A-E) Vacant land Specific Plan Specific Plan 1 – Agricultural East Hitch Ranch Exclusive, (A-E) Vacant land Specific Plan — Specific Plan 1 – Agricultural West Hitch Ranch Vacant land Specific Plan Exclusive, (A-E) 25 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 5 General Plan and Zoning Consistency: The proposed re-zoning of the 23.44 acre site within the southeastern portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property from Agricultural Exclusive, (Specific Plan 1),to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre (RPD2OU-N-D) zone, (remaining within Specific Plan 1), is proposed to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. This proposed zoning is consistent with Ahe intensity of land use, and with the range of residential development densities, already allowed under the existing Specific Plan 1 general plan land use designation of the property, and under the current Hitch Ranch Specific Plan area designation. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING 1.36 Acre Site Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use Commercial Office; Office, (CO); Vacant land, an Public/Institutional; Institutional, (I); office, and garage Site and Medium and Single associated with prior Density Residential Family Office and (4DU/AC) Residential (R1) Institutional uses and Downtown Specific Plan overlay zone High Density Residential Residential Planned North (7DU/AC) and Development 7- Vacant land and Medium Density 14 units/acre single family homes Residential (RPD-7-14U) (4DU/AC) _ and R-1 Office and Medium Commercial Vacant land, a dental South Density Residential Ofhce and R-1 office and single (4DU/AC) family homes Medium Density Vacant land, single East Residential R-1 family home and (4DU/AC) church West Public/Institutional Institutional City Hall General Plan and Zoning Consistency: The proposed re-zoning of the 1.36 acre site (four properties combined), located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, from the existing Institutional, Commercial Office and Single Family Residential zones, to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre (RPD2OU-N-D)zone to allow for development of multi- family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. Staff is proposing a General Plan Amendment on this project site, which also includes an Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan 1995-01, (Downtown Specific Plan), to change the 26 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 6 existing Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density. Residential general plan and specific plan land use designations of these properties to a Very High Residential general plan and specific plan land'use designation on all these properties. The proposed land use designations are comparable with the combined intensities of land uses currently allowed at this site under the existing Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan land use designations. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING 1.34 Acre Site Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use Very High Residential Density Planned Site Residential Development 15 Vacant land (15DU/AC) units/acre Very High Residential Density Planned North Residential Development 15 Condominiums units /acre (15DU/AC) Residential Planned South Floodway Development 15 Arroyo Simi units/acre (RPD15u) Very High Residential Attached townhomes ry g Planned East Density Development 12 (Shea), and a Residential units/acre stormwater auality (15DU/AC) basin Very High Residential Density Planned West Residential Development 15 Apartments (15DU/AC) units/acre (RPD15u) General Plan and Zoning Consistency: The proposed zoning of the 1.34 acre site, approximately located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court property from Residential Planned Development 15 units to the acre to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre (RPD2OU-N-D) zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review, is consistent with the intensity of land use, and with the range of residential development densities, already allowed under the existing Very High Density Residential general plan land use designation of this property.This proposed zoning is consistent with the intensity of land use, and with the range of residential development densities, already 27 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 7 allowed under the existing very high density residential general plan land use designation of the property. These three project sites were selected for a zone change to RPD20U-N-D zone because higher density residential, or more intensive development such as commercial, office or institutional land uses and developments, have always been considered appropriate at these locations based on the existing general plan and specific plan land use designations. Therefore, staff believes the General Plan Amendment, Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan and Re-zoning of the sites are appropriate and based on the proposed development standards in the RPD20U-N-D zone. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03 The Housing Element, Program 17-Efficient Project Processing R-P-D zone and Planned Development Permit Process, calls for an update to the review process for Residential Planned Development Permits. The RPD Zone designation provides flexibility in the development process to meet specific housing needs. The RPD Zone designation offers various densities that can be tailored to the lot, nature of the development, and local housing needs. The RPD Zone provides a mechanism for the development of higher- density housing (20 dwelling units per acre) in the City. In order to further reduce processing time, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-01 was initiated to create development standards for construction of multifamily housing on these properties and to make the following changes to the existing Planned Development Permit process for RPD20U-N-D zoned property: 1) Designate the Planning Commission as the final approval authority(rather than City Council); and 2) Modify required findings for approval to confirm that the project complies with objective development and design standards; and,would therefore be allowed "by right" by the Planning Commission when in compliance with the requirements and regulations of the RPD20U-N-D development standards. Therefore, the project includes a Zoning Ordinance amendment to add Chapter 17.76 to the City's Zoning Ordinance to create the Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre (RPD20U-N-D)zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use, in accordance with objective development standards and not subject to discretionary review. The Zoning Ordinance amendment also includes conforming changes to Chapters 17.12 and 17.20 to refer to the new Zoning designation and uses permitted by Chapter 17.76. ❖ Chapter 17.12 Establishment of Zones, Boundaries and Maps Under section 17.12.010., Purpose and Establishment of Zones,the recommendation is to add letter "S", to the list that establishes zones of the City, as reflected in Attachment 5, Exhibit A, as follows: 28 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 8 S. Residential Planned Development 20 Units Per Acre(non-discretionary) (RPD 20U-N-D) per Chapter 17.76. Amendments to Chapter 17.20 Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 17.20 establishes the uses by zone in the City. The recommendation, (as reflected in Attachment 5, Exhibit A), is to amend Table 17.20.050,to add a new column labeled "RPD20U-N-D" and then to add a subparagraph (c) to paragraph 5 (Dwellings, multiple-family) to read as follows: (c) Residential Planned Development 20 units per acre(non-discretionary planned development permit) pursuant to Chapter 17.76. This subparagraph(c)shall be shown with the symbol"ZC" under the column RPD20U-N- D to reflect that developments in the RPD20U-N-D zone are subject to Zoning Clearance review. ❖ Addition of Chapter 17.76 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 20 UNITS TO THE ACRE, (RPD 20U-N-D) Proposed Purpose: The purpose of this proposed additional chapter is to set forth development regulations and standards, which have been established to provide criteria for the development of the properties within the RPD20U-N-D zone to allow for development of affordable multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review or approval, and to provide adequate separation for light, air, safety, and open space as well as to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment in which to live,work, and recreate. Implementation of the regulations and standards set forth in this chapter are intended to ensure that future development is coordinated and consistent with the goals and policies of the downtown specific plan and the City's General Plan, specifically the Housing Element. The standards contained in this chapter provide for the arrangement, development, and use of multi-family residential neighborhoods, open space areas, and recreational sites. Application of these regulations and standards is intended to encourage the most appropriate use of the land, create a harmonious relationship among land uses, provide opportunities to construct affordable housing and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Proposed Application Procedures and Consistency Determinations: A Planned Development(PD) permit is required prior to initiation of uses and structures in the RPD20U-N-D zone, as specified in the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.20. A PD permit application is subject to compliance with the development standards of the RPD20U-N-D zone and shall be a permitted use not subject to discretionary review or approval if determined to be in compliance with the development standards of the 29 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 9 RPD2OU-N-D zone. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public meeting on any PD permit application in this zone. A PD permit shall be approved by resolution if the Planning Commission determines that: 1. The site design, including structure location, size, height, setbacks, massing, scale, architectural style and colors, and landscaping, satisfies the objective requirements of the general plan, zoning ordinance, and any other applicable ordinances, or Federal or State regulations; and 2. The project complies with the development standards in chapter 17.76. Following the public meeting, pursuant to Section 17.44.030(B)(1), a'Zoning Clearance review and approval by the Community Development Director shall be required before a building permit may be issued for any development in the RPD2OU-N-D zone. Proposed Development Standards: o Minimum lot area: 0.75 (three quarters) of an acre (32,670 square feet). o Density: 20 units per acre with a minimum of 16 units per site. Subsections(2)and (3) of Section 17.64.030(B) allowing for a density bonus exceeding the density bonus required by State law shall not apply to the RPD2OU-N-D zone. o Building Setbacks: a. Front setback: Minimum landscaped setback of twenty (20) feet and architectural facade projections of up to sixteen (16) inches are allowed for non-livable spaces; with a minimum driveway depth of twenty (20) feet, as measured from front property line across area leading to enclosed parking within a garage; any two(2) adjacent lots may have the same front setback; however the third consecutive lot should vary the front setback by one(1) or more feet, as appropriate to the street and lot configuration, and to provide for variety in the streetscape. b. Side setback: Minimum for a multiple-family dwelling unit on an interior lot shall be five (5) feet. Minimum for a multiple-family dwelling unit adjacent to a street is fifteen (15) feet. Minimum for a single story enclosed patio, patio cover or detached accessory structure shall be five (5) feet. c. Rear setback: Minimum for a multiple-family dwelling unit is fifteen (15) feet, and second story floors, and/or architectural projections, may cantilever a maximum of eighteen (18) inches into the minimum required fifteen (15) foot setback. For single story enclosed patios or open patio covers, carports, or for detached accessory structures, the minimum required rear setback is five (5) feet. 30 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 10 d. Mechanical equipment: Must be located in the rear yard with a minimum five (5) foot setback from any side or rear property line and must be screened with a decorative masonry wall or landscaping; or must be located below the lowest parapet roof so equipment will not be visible from offsite, subject to criteria under Roofs below. o Maximum building height: a. Thirty-five (35)feet for dwelling units; b. Fifteen (15) feet for a patio cover, carport or accessory structure; c. Second story decks or balconies are prohibited within fifteen (15)feet of any property line. o Fences and Walls. Fences and walls shall comply with the provisions of this Code,with the exception that sound attenuation walls shall be constructed to a height as required by a city-approved noise study for the residential planned development permit. o Lighting. Lighting shall comply with Chapter 17.30 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code. o Parking. Parking shall comply with Chapter 17.32 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code. o Signage. Signage shall comply with Chapter 17.40 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code. o Archeological Mitigation Plan. If any archeological or historical finds are uncovered during grading or excavation operations, all grading or excavation shall immediately cease in the immediate area and the find must be left untouched. The applicant, in consultation with the project paleontologist or archeologist, shall assure the preservation of the site and immediately contact the Community Development Director by phone, in writing by email or hand delivered correspondence informing the Director of the find. In the absence of the Director, the applicant shall so inform the City Manager. The applicant shall be required to obtain the services of a qualified paleontologist or archeologist, whichever is appropriate, to recommend disposition of the site. The paleontologist or archeologist selected must be approved in writing by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the investigation and disposition of the find. o Paleontological Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a grading permit, a paleontological mitigation plan outlining procedures for paleontological data recovery must be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The development and implementation of this Plan must include 31 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 11 consultations with the Applicant's engineering geologist as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered under any scenario will be through the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACMNH). All specimens become the property of the City of Moorpark unless the City chooses otherwise. If the City accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised. The monitoring and data recovery should include periodic inspections of excavations to recover exposed fossil materials. The cost of this data recovery is limited to the discovery of a reasonable sample of available material. The interpretation of reasonableness rests with the Community Development Director. o Air Quality. Reactive organic compounds, Nitrogen oxides (ozone/smog precursor), and particulate matter(aerosols/dust)generated during construction operations must be minimized in accordance with the City's standards and the standards of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). When an air pollution Health Advisory has been issued, construction equipment operations (including but not limited to grading, excavating, earthmoving, trenching, material hauling, and roadway construction) and related activities must cease in order to minimize associated air pollutant emissions. o Indemnification.The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval by the City or any of its agencies, departments, commissions, agents, officers, or employees concerning this entitlement approval, which claim, action or proceeding is brought within the time period provided therefore in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other sections of state law as applicable and any provision amendatory or supplementary thereto.The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and, if the City should fail to do so or should fail to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents, officers and employees pursuant to this condition. a. The City may, within its unlimited discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding if both of the following occur: i. The City bears its own attorney fees and costs; ii. The City defends the claim, action or proceeding in good faith. b. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. The applicant's obligations under this condition shall apply regardless of whether a building permit is issued pursuant to the planned development permit. 32 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 12 o Clarification. All facilities and uses, other than those specifically requested in the application and approval and those accessory uses allowed by the Municipal Code, are prohibited unless otherwise permitted through application for modification consistent with the requirements of the zone and any other adopted ordinances, specific plans, landscape guidelines, or design guidelines. o Recreational Amenities. Residential planned development permit areas on properties that have an average size of more than one and one half acre (65,340 square feet) shall include private recreational.amenities including but not limited to the following: restrooms,swimming pool and spa, play apparatus, picnic shelter, barbecue area with seating, and multipurpose play area field. Residential planned development permit areas on properties that have an average size of less than one and one half acre (65,340 square feet) shall include private recreational amenities including but not limited to the following: play apparatus, picnic shelter, barbecue area with seating, and multipurpose play area field. o Eaves and Window Treatments and Surrounds. The eaves and window treatments and surrounds on all sides of a structure shall match the eaves, window treatments and surrounds on the front elevation, achieving four-sided architectural compatibility with the chosen architectural style. • o Wrap-Around Front Elevation Treatment. The architectural style and treatment included along the front elevation of a unit shall continue along each side elevation until commencement of fencing or other architecturally feasible termination point, such as a chimney or window. o Colors. The paint colors shall be earth-toned, and match the chosen architectural style. The paint treatment must be applied along all window surrounds and parapets with varying colors, and on all wall facades of all elevations until commencement of wall planes or other architecturally feasible termination point,such as a chimney or window. Identification of coating or rust-inhibitive paint must be used for all exterior metal building surfaces to prevent corrosion and release of metal contaminants into the storm drain system. o Roofs. The roofs shall be pitched roofs covered in concrete roofing tile or equivalent with a minimum 3:12 pitch, or shall utilize decorative parapet roofing matching the chosen architectural style, that shall be no lower than the tallest roof mounted mechanical equipment. Roof-mounted equipment and other noise generation sources on-site must be attenuated to 45 decibels (dBA) or to the ambient noise level at the property line measured at the time of the occupancy, whichever is greater. This shall be based on a city-approved noise study for the residential planned development that shows that the current project attenuates all on-site noise generation sources to the required level or provides recommendations as to how the project could be modified to comply. The noise study must be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer in 33 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 13 accordance with accepted engineering standards. No exterior roof access ladders are permitted. o Durable Materials. The trim on the ground floor levels of the structures must be constructed of durable materials, (i.e. wood window trim or 1/4"minimum cementous stucco coat over foam). o A utility room with common access to house all meters and the roof access ladder must be provided o Outdoor facilities. Any outdoor ground level equipment, facilities or storage areas including, but not limited to loading docks, trash enclosures, cooling towers, generators, must be architecturally screened from view with masonry wall and/or landscaping. Transformers and cross connection water control devices (subject to approval by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1), must be screened from street view with a masonry wall and/or landscaping. o Trash disposal. Trash disposal and recycling areas must be placed in locations which will not interfere with circulation, parking or access to the building. Exterior trash areas and recycling bins must use impermeable pavement and be designed to have a cover and so that no other area drains into it. The trash areas and recycling bins must be depicted on the final construction plans and drains from the disposal and recycling areas must be connected to the sewer system. o Grading, drainage and improvement plans and supporting reports and calculations must be prepared in accordance with the latest California Building Code as adopted by the City of Moorpark and in conformance with the latest"Land Development Manual" and "Road Standards" as promulgated by Ventura County; "Hydrology Manual" and "Design Manual" as promulgated by Ventura County Watershed Protection District; "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction"as published by BNI (except for signs, traffic signals and appurtenances thereto which must conform to the provisions of Chapter 56 for signs and Chapter 86 for traffic signals, and appurtenances thereto, of the"Standard Specifications,"most recent edition, including revisions and errata thereto, as published by the State of California Department of Transportation). o Grading, drainage and improvement plans and supporting reports and calculations must be prepared in accordance with the most recently approved"Engineering Policies and Standards"of the City of Moorpark, and "Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," most recent edition, as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. In the case of conflict between the standards, specifications and design manuals listed herein and above,the criteria that provide the higher level of quality and safety prevail as determined by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 34 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 14 o Engineering plans must be submitted on standard City title block sheets of 24-inch by 36-inch to a standard engineering scale representative of sufficient plan clarity and workmanship. o A 15-mile per hour speed limit must be observed within all construction areas. o If any hazardous waste or material is encountered during the construction of this project, all work must be immediately stopped and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department, the Ventura County Fire Protection District, the Moorpark Police Department, and the Moorpark City Engineer and Public Works Director must be notified immediately. Work may not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. o The applicant and/or property owner shall provide verification to the City Engineer and Public Works Director that all on-site storm drains have been cleaned at least twice a year, once immediately prior to October 1st (the rainy season) and once in January. Additional cleaning may be required by the City Engineer and Public Works Director depending upon site and weather conditions. o All paved surfaces; including, but not limited to, the parking area and aisles, drive- through lanes, on-site walkways must be maintained free of litter, debris and dirt. Walkways, parking areas and aisles and drive-through lanes must be swept, washed or vacuumed regularly.When swept or washed, litter, debris and dirt must be trapped and collected to prevent entry to the storm drain system in accordance with NPDES requirements. o Prior to improvement plan approval, the applicant shall obtain the written approval on approved site plan exhibit sheets for the location of fire hydrants by the Ventura County Fire Prevention Division. Water and Sewer improvements plans must be submitted to Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 for approval. o Prior to any work being conducted within any State, County, or City right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits from the appropriate agencies and provide copies of these approved permits and the plans associated with the permits to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o The applicant shall comply with Chapters 9.28, 10.04, 12.24, and 17.53 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any provision amendatory or supplementary thereto, as a standard requirement for construction noise reduction. 35 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 15 o The applicant shall utilize all prudent and reasonable measures (including installation of a 6-foot high chain link fence around the construction site(s) and/or provision of a full time licensed security guard) to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the work site at any time and to protect the public from accidents and injury. • o The applicant shall post, in a conspicuous location, the construction hour limitations and make each construction trade aware of the construction hour limitations. o All grading and drainage plans must be prepared by a qualified Professional Civil Engineer currently registered and in good standing in the State of California and are subject to review by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Prior to or concurrently with the submittal of a grading plan the applicant shall submit a soils (geotechnical) report. o Grading must conform to the standards contained in Chapter 17.38 Hillside Management of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any provision amendatory or supplementary thereto. Plans detailing the design and control(vertical and horizontal) of contoured slopes must be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Public Works Director and Community Development Director. o Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or Final Map approval, whichever comes first, the applicant shall post sufficient surety with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and Public Works Director, guaranteeing completion of all onsite and offsite improvements required by these Conditions of Approval and/or the Municipal Code including, but not limited to grading, street improvements, storm drain improvements, temporary and permanent Best Management Practice (BMP) for the control of non- point water discharges, landscaping,fencing, and bridges. Grading and improvements must be designed, bonded and constructed as a single project. o Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or Final Map approval, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide written proof to the City Engineer and.Public Works Director that any and all wells that may exist or have existed within the project have been properly sealed, destroyed or abandoned per Ventura County Ordinance No. 2372 or Ordinance No. 3991 and per California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources requirements. o Prior to issuance of a grading permit,final approved soils and geology reports must be submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The approved final report must encompass all subsequent reports, addendums and revisions under a single cover.Where liquefaction hazard site conditions exist, an extra copy of the final report must be provided by the applicant to the City Engineer and Public Works Director and be sent by the applicant to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 2697 within 30 days of report approval. 36 Honorable Planning Commission ' August 27, 2013 Page 16 o Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a grading remediation plan and report must be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Director.The report must evaluate all major graded slopes and open space hillsides whose performance could affect planned improvements. The slope stability analysis must be performed for both static and dynamic conditions, using an appropriate pseudo-static horizontal ground acceleration coefficient for earthquakes on faults, capable of impacting the project in accordance with standard practice as outlined in DMG Special Publication No. 117, 1997. o Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project geotechnical engineer shall evaluate liquefaction potential. Where liquefaction is found to be a hazard, a remediation plan with effective measures to avoid and control damage must be provided to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. During construction, measures to reduce seismic liquefaction risks shall be employed as recommended in the approved remediation plan and associated geotechnical report,such as placement of a non-liquefiable cap over the alluvium, removal of the liquefiable soils, in-situ densification, or the excavation of a shear key below the base of the liquefiable zone. Where liquefaction hazard site conditions exist, the applicant shall provide an extra copy of the final report to the City Engineer and Public Works Director and shall send a copy of the report to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 2697 within 30 days of report approval. o The project must comply with all NPDES requirements and the City of Moorpark standard requirements for temporary storm water diversion structures during all construction and grading. o Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified, currently registered Professional Civil Engineer in good standing in the State of California shall be retained to prepare Erosion and Sediment Control Plans in conformance with the currently issued Ventura County Municipal Strom Water NPDES Permit. These Plans shall address, but not be limited to, construction impacts and long-term operational effects on downstream environments and watersheds. The Plans must consider all relevant NPDES requirements and recommendations for the use of the best available technology and specific erosion control measures, including temporary measures during construction to minimize water quality effects to the maximum extent practicable. Prior to the issuance of an initial grading permit, review and approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer and Public Works Director is required. o Prior to the import or export of more than one hundred (100) truckloads or one thousand cubic yards (1,000 cu. yds.) a Haul Route Permit in conformance with the currently adopted City of Moorpark Engineering Policies and Standards is required. 37 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 17 o Where slopes exceeding 4 feet in height are adjacent to sidewalks, and streets, the grading plan must include a slough wall,Angelus Standard slumpstone, color or other alternative as determined by the Community Development Director, approximately 18 inches high, with curb outlet drainage to be constructed behind the back of the sidewalk to prevent debris from entering the sidewalk or street. The wall must be designed and constructed in conformance with the City's standard wall detail. All material for the construction of the wall shall be approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director and Community Development Director. Retaining walls greater than 18 inches in height must be set back two-feet(2')from the back of the sidewalk. This two-foot (2') area must be landscaped and have no greater than a two percent (2%)cross fall slope. The slough wall and landscaping design is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Director and Community Development Director. o Grading plans must include, but not be limited to entry walls and project identification signs in accordance with City standards. Landscaping, appropriate to the entry, shall be provided that will not interfere with sight-distance or turning movement operations. The final design for the project entrance must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o During grading, the project geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations, removal of fill and landslide materials down to stable bedrock or in-place material, and installation of all sub-drains including their connections. All fill slope construction must be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director to be kept on file. Cuts and slopes must be observed and mapped by the project geotechnical and civil engineers who will provide any required slope modification recommendations based on the actual geologic conditions encountered during grading. Written approval from the City Engineer and Public Works Director must be obtained prior to any modification. o Written weekly progress reports and a grading completion report must be submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director by the project geotechnical engineers. These reports must include the results and locations of all compaction tests, as-built plans of all landslide repairs and fill removal, including geologic mapping of the exposed geology of all excavations showing cut cross-sections and sub-drain depths and locations. The lists of excavations approved by the engineering geologist must also be submitted. Building permits will not be issued without documentation that the grading and other pertinent work has been performed in accordance with the geotechnical report criteria and applicable Grading Ordinance provisions. o During grading, colluvial soils and landslide deposits within developed portions of the properties must be re-graded to effectively remove the potential for seismically-induced landslides in these materials. Additional buttressing, keying and installation of debris benches must be provided in transition areas between non-graded areas and 38 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 18 development as recommended in the final geotechnical reports by the project geotechnical engineer. o The recommendations for site grading contained in the final geotechnical reports must be followed during grading unless modifications are submitted for approval by the engineers-of-work and specifically approved in writing by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o Temporary irrigation, hydroseeding and erosion control measures, approved by the Community Development Director, City Engineer and Public Works Director, must be implemented on all temporary grading. Temporary grading is defined to be any grading partially completed and any disturbance of existing natural conditions due to construction activity. These measures will apply to a temporary or permanent grading activity that remains or is anticipated to remain unfinished or undisturbed in its altered condition for a period of time greater than thirty(30)calendar days except that during the rainy season (October 1 to April 15), these measures will be implemented immediately. o The maximum gradient for any slope must not exceed a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope inclination except where special circumstances exist. In the case of special circumstances,where steeper slopes are warranted, a registered soils engineer and a licensed landscape architect will review plans and their recommendations will be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer, Public Works Director,and the Community Development Director. o All graded slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical) must have soil amendments added, irrigation systems installed and be planted in a timely manner with groundcover, trees and shrubs(consistent with the approved landscape and irrigation plans) to stabilize slopes and minimize erosion. Timely manner means that the slope soil amendments, irrigation systems and planting on each slope must commence immediately upon the completion of the grading of each slope, that the completion of slope grading will not be artificially delayed and that the slope soil amendments, irrigation systems and planting must be completed on a schedule commensurate with the grading. The planting will be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, and Public Works Director. o Grading may occur during the rainy season from October 1 to April 15, subject to timely installation of erosion control facilities when approved in writing by the City Engineer, Public Works Director and the Community Development Director and when erosion control measures are in place. In order to start or continue grading operations between October 1 and April 15, project-specific erosion control plans that provide detailed Best Management Practices for erosion control during the rainy season must be submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director no later than September 1 of each year that grading is in progress. During site preparation and construction,the contractor shall minimize disturbance of natural groundcover on the project site until 39 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 19 such activity is required for grading and construction purposes. During the rainy season, October 1 through April 15, all graded slopes must be covered with a woven artificial covering immediately after completion of each graded slope. Grading operations must cease if the applicant fails to place effective best management measures on graded slopes immediately after construction. No slopes may be graded or otherwise created when the National Weather Service local three-day forecast for rain is twenty percent(20%), or greater, unless the applicant is prepared to cover the permanent and temporary slopes before the rain event. The artificial covering and planting will be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, and Public Works Director. o During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, soil import and/or soil export operations, the applicant shall comply with the City of Moorpark standard requirements for dust control, including, but not be limited to, minimization of ground disturbance, application of water/chemicals, temporary/permanent ground cover/seeding, street sweeping, and covering loads of dirt. All clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, soil import and/or soil export operations must cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour). o Backfill of any pipe or conduit must be in four-inch (4") fully compacted layers unless otherwise specified, in writing, by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o Soil testing for trench compaction must be performed on all trenching and must be done not less than once every two feet(2') of lift and one-hundred lineal feet(100') of trench excavated. Test locations must be noted using true elevations and street stationing with offsets from street centerlines. o Prior to issuance of each building permit,the project geotechnical and/or soils engineer shall submit an as-graded geotechnical report and a rough grading certification for said lot and final soils report compiling all soils reports, addendums, certifications, and testing on the project for review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project's engineer shall certify that the grading and improvements have been completed, as noted on the original approved plans and any subsequent change orders. o When required by the Community Development Director and/or the City Engineer and/or Public Works Director, at least one(1)week prior to commencement of grading or construction, the applicant shall prepare a notice that grading or construction work will commence. This notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all owners and occupants of property within five-hundred feet (500') of the exterior boundary of the project site, as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll.The notice must include current contact information for the applicant, including all persons with authority to 40 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 20 indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility, including the name of the contact responsible for maintaining the list. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control,tree protection,construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the twenty-four(24) hour emergency number, must be expressly identified in the notice. The notice must be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of all notices must be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice record for the City must be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners notified and a map identifying the notification area. o Consistent with the final geotechnical reports, at a minimum, the following measures must be implemented during design and construction where appropriate to minimize expansive soil effects on structures: potential foundation systems to include pier and grade beam; use of structural concrete mats and post-tensioned slabs;pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment. o Prior to issuance of building permits, chemical testing of representative building pad soils is required to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. The following measures must be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion: • use of sulfate-resistant concrete; and • use of protective linings to encase metallic piping buried in soils warranting such measures. o Engineered fills must be constructed in compliance with the standards and criteria presented in the approved geotechnical report. The differential thickness of the fill under individual buildings may not be greater than ten (10)feet.These measures must be verified by construction observation and testing by the project geotechnical engineer as outlined in the final geotechnical reports and approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o Additional analysis of the predicted total and differential settlements of the major fills at each site must be performed by the project geotechnical engineer during the final design stage. Possible measures that may be required based on the settlement data include surcharging, delaying construction for a period of time before constructing on deep fills, or allowing for the predicted settlement in the design of the project components. o Transfer of responsibility of California Registered Civil Engineer in charge for the project must be in accordance with rules and guidelines set forth pursuant to.Rules of the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 5, Board Rule 404.1, Subsections(c)and(d),that speak to Successor Licensee and Portions of Projects. 41 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 21 o Applicant has full right to exercise the service of a new engineer in charge at any time during a project. When there is a change in engineer, the applicant/owner shall notify the City Engineer and Public Works Director in writing within 48 hours of such change. Said letter shall specify successor California Registered Civil Engineer and shall be stamped and signed and dated by said engineer in responsible charge and shall accept responsibility of project. The letter will be kept on file at the City. o Prior to construction of any public improvement, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer and Public Works Director, for review and approval, street improvement plans prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, and enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete public improvements, with sufficient surety posted to guarantee the complete construction of all improvements, except as specifically noted in these Standard Conditions or Special Conditions of Approval. o Prior to issuance of the first building permit, all existing and proposed utilities,including electrical transmission lines less than 67Kv, must be under-grounded consistent with plans approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Director and Community Development Director. Any exceptions must be approved by the City Council. o Above-ground obstructions in the right-of-way(utility cabinets, mailboxes,etc.)must be placed within landscaped areas when landscaped areas are part of the right-of-way improvements. When above ground obstructions are placed within the sidewalk, a minimum of five feet(5')clear sidewalk width must be provided around the obstruction. Above-ground obstructions may not be located within or on multi-purpose trails. o Prior to final inspection of improvements, the project Registered Civil Engineer shall submit certified original "record drawing" plans with three (3) sets of paper prints and the appropriate plan revision review fees to the City Engineer and Public Works Director along with electronic files in a format satisfactory to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. These "record drawing" plans must incorporate all plan revisions and all construction deviations from the approved plans and revisions thereto. The plans must be"record drawings" on 24"X 36" Mylar®sheets(made with proper overlaps)with a City title block on each sheet. In addition, the applicant shall provide an electronic file update of the City's Master Base Map electronic file, incorporating all streets, sidewalks, street lights, traffic control facilities, street striping, signage and delineation,storm drainage facilities,water and sewer mains, lines and appurtenances and any other utility facility installed for this project. o The street improvement plans must contain a surveyor's statement on the plans, certifying that, in accordance with Business and Professions Code 8771, all recorded monuments in the construction area will be protected in place during construction, or have been located and tied with no fewer than four(4)durable reference monuments, which will be protected in place during construction. Copies of all monument tie sheets must be submitted to the City on reproducible 3-mil polyester film. 42 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 22 o Prior to reduction of improvement bonds, the applicant must submit reproducible centerline tie sheets on 3-mil polyester film to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o All streets must conform to the latest City of Moorpark Engineering Policies and Standards using Equivalent Single Axle Loads(ESAL)for a minimum thirty(30) year term for public streets and ESAL for a twenty (20) year term on private streets. All streets must be designed and constructed to the required structural section in conformance with the latest City of Moorpark Engineering Policies and Standards. The geotechnical or soil reports must address the need for possible sub-drainage systems to prevent saturation of the pavement structural section or underlying foundation. An additional one and one-half inch (1-1/2") thick rubberized asphalt pavement must be added to the structural section for public streets. This additional pavement may not be used in determining the required structural section. o When required by the City Engineer and Public Works Director, the applicant shall provide, for the purposes of traffic signal installation, two (2) four-inch (4") P.V.C. conduits extending across all intersections, and surfacing through "J" boxes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o Prior to approval of a grading plan, the applicant shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director, drainage plans with the depiction and examination of all on-site and off-site drainage structures and hydrologic and hydraulic calculations in a bound and indexed report prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer. o Drainage improvements must be designed so that after-development, drainage to adjacent parcels would not be increased above pre-development drainage quantities for any stormwater model between and including the 10 year and 100 year storms, nor will surface runoff be concentrated by this project.Acceptance of storm drain waters by the project and discharge of storm drain waters from the project must be in type, kind and nature of predevelopment flows unless the affected upstream and/or downstream owners provide permanent easement to accept such changed storm drainage water flow. All drainage measures necessary to mitigate stormwater flows must be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The applicant shall make any on-site and downstream improvements, required by the City,to support the proposed development. o The drainage plans and calculations must analyze conditions before and after development, as well as, potential development proposed, approved, or shown in the General Plan. Quantities of water, water flow rates, major watercourses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps,sump locations, detention and NPDES facilities and drainage courses must be addressed. 43 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 23 o Local residential and private streets must be designed to have at least one dry travel lane available during a 10-year frequency storm. Collector streets must be designed to have a minimum of one dry travel lane in each direction available during a 10-year frequency storm. o All stormwater surface runoff for the development must have water quality treatment to meet the design standards for structural or treatment control BMPs per the latest issued Ventura County Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit. o The hydraulic grade line within any catch basin may not extend higher than nine inches (9") below the flow line grade elevation at the inlet. o No pressure manholes for storm drains are allowed unless specifically approved in writing by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. If permitted, all storm drain lines under water pressure must have rubber gasket joints. o All manhole frames and covers shall have a thirty inch (30") minimum diameter. This includes all access manholes to catch basins, as well as any other storm drain or NPDES structure. o The Q50 storm occurrence must be contained within the street right-of-way. o The maximum velocity in any storm drain system may not exceed twenty feet(20')per second. o All detention and debris structures that fall under the definition of being a dam must have an open air spillway structure that directs overflows to an acceptable location to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o Only drainage grates of a type approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director may be used at locations accessible by pedestrian, bicycle or equestrian traffic. Drainage grates shall not be allowed in sidewalks or trails. o To verify that the Reinforced Concrete Pipe(RCP)specified on the improvement plan is correct, the RCP delivered to project site must have the D-LOAD specified on the RCP. o The grading plan must show distinctive lines of inundation delineating the 100-year flood level. o All flows that have gone through flow attenuation and clarification by use of acceptable Best Management Practice Systems and are flowing within brow ditches, ribbon 44 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 24 gutters, storm drain channels, area drains and similar devices are to be deposited directly into the storm drain system unless an alternative has been approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Storm drain and related easements outside the public right-of-way are to be privately maintained unless otherwise approved by the City Council. o Concrete surface drainage structures exposed to the public view must be tan colored concrete, as approved by the Community Development Director, and to the extent possible must incorporate natural structure and landscape to blend in with the surrounding material. o Prior written approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director is required for curb outlets that provide for pad or lot drainage onto the street. o Drainage devices for the development must include all necessary appurtenances to safely contain and convey storm flows to their final point of discharge to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o The applicant shall demonstrate, for each building pad within the development area, that the following restrictions and protections can be put in place to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director: • Adequate protection from a one-hundred (100) year frequency storm; • Feasible access during a fifty (50) year frequency storm. • Elevation of all proposed structures within the one-hundred (100) year flood zone at least one (1') foot above the one-hundred (100) year flood level. Hydrology calculations must be per current Ventura County Watershed Protection Agency Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Development projects within a 100 year flood zone may require a Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMR)and Letter of Map Revision(LOMR)as determined by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o The storm drain system must be designed with easements of adequate width for future maintenance and reconstruction of facilities, particularly facilities deeper than eight feet (8'). In addition, all facilities must have all-weather vehicular access. o All existing public storm drain systems within the development require pre-construction and post-construction Closed Caption Television Videoing (CCTV) including identification by existing plan and station. 45 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 25 o Storm drain systems must be constructed per the most current Ventura County Watershed Protection District Standard Design Manual, City of Moorpark Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o All storm drain easement widths and alignments must conform to the City of Moorpark requirements and be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Easements must provide sufficient room for reconstruction of the storm drain systems and provide all weather access within the easement, to all manholes, inlets, outlets and any other structure that requires maintenance. o Prior to the start of grading or any ground disturbance, the applicant shall identify a responsible person experienced in NPDES compliance who is acceptable to the City Engineer and Public Works Director.The designated NPDES person(superintendent) shall be present, on the project site Monday through Friday and on all other days when the probability of rain is forty percent (40%) or greater and prior to the start of and during all grading or clearing operations until the release of grading bonds. The superintendent shall have full authority to rent equipment and purchase materials to the extent needed to effectuate Best Management Practices. The superintendent shall be required to assume NPDES compliance during the construction of streets, storm drainage systems, all utilities, buildings and final landscaping of the site. o Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any qualifying grading or excavation, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP), on the form established in the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program.The SWPCP must address the construction phase compliance to stormwater quality management regulations for the project. The SWPCP, improvement plans and grading plans must note that the contractor shall comply with the California Best Management Practices Construction Handbook, published by the California Stormwater Quality Association. The SWPCP must be submitted,with appropriate review deposits,for the review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The SWPCP must identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges and design the use and placement of Best Management Practices(BMPs)to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants from the construction site into the storm drain system during construction. Erosion control BMPs,which include wind erosion, dust control,and sediment source control BMPs for both active and inactive (previously disturbed) construction areas are required. o The SWPCP must include provisions for modification of BMPs as the project progresses and as conditions warrant. The City Engineer and Public Works Director may require the first version and each subsequent revision of the SWPCP to be accompanied by a detailed project schedule that specifically identifies the type and location of construction operations for the project. The SWPCP must be developed and implemented in accordance with the latest issued Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, NPDES Permit, Chapter 8.52 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any other requirements established by the City. The applicant is 46 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 26 responsible for ensuring that all project contractors, subcontractors, materials suppliers, tenants and tenants' contractors comply with all BMPs in the SWPCP, until such time as a notice of termination has been approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director and accepted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPCP must include schedules and procedures for onsite maintenance of earthmoving and other heavy equipment and documentation of proper disposal of used oil and other lubricants. Onsite maintenance of all equipment that can be performed offsite will not be allowed. o Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any qualifying, grading or excavation,the applicant for projects with facilities identified as subject to the State Board General Industrial and Commercial permits shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must address post-construction compliance with stormwater quality management regulations for the project. The SWPPP, improvement plans and grading plans must note that the contractor shall comply with the latest edition of the California Best Management Practices New Development and Redevelopment Handbook, published by the California Stormwater Quality Association. The SWPPP must comply with the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program Land Development Guidelines, Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, and the Stormwater Management Program(SMP)to develop,achieve,and implement a timely, comprehensive, cost effective stormwater pollution control program to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The SWPPP must be prepared in compliance with the form and format established in the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, and submitted, with appropriate review deposits, for the review and approval of the City Engineer/Public Works Director. The proposed plan must also address all relevant NPDES requirements, maintenance measures, estimated life spans of Best Management Practices facilities, operational recommendations and recommendations for specific Best Management Practices technology, including all related costs. The use of permanent dense ground cover planting approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director and Community Development Director is required for all graded slopes. Methods of protecting the planted slopes from damage must be identified. Proposed management efforts during the lifetime of the project must include best available technology. "Passive" and "natural" BMP drainage facilities are to be provided such that surface flows are intercepted and treated on the surface over biofilters(grassy swales), infiltration areas and other similar solutions. The use of filters, separators, clarifiers, absorbents, adsorbents or similar"active"devices is not acceptable and may not be used without specific prior approval of the City Council. The use of biological filtering, bio- remediation, infiltration of pre-filtered stormwater and similar measures that operate without annual maintenance intervention, that are failsafe, that, when maintenance is needed,will present the need for maintenance in an obvious fashion and which will be maintainable in a cost effective and non-disruptive fashion is required. As deemed appropriate for each project, the SWPPP must establish a continuing program of monitoring, operating and maintenance to: 47 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 27 a. Provide discharge quality monitoring. b. Assess impacts to receiving water quality resulting from discharged waters. c. Identify site pollutant sources. d. Educate management, maintenance personnel and users, to obtain user awareness and compliance with NPDES goals. e. Measure management program effectiveness. f. Investigate and implement improved BMP strategies. g. Maintain, replace and upgrade BMP facilities (establish BMP facility inspection standards and clear guidelines for maintenance and replacement). h. Secure the funding, in perpetuity, to achieve items "a"through "g" above. o Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation,the applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the California State Water Resources Control Board, Stormwater Permit Unit in accordance with the latest issued NPDES Construction General Permit: Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activities). The applicant shall also provide a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the City Engineer and Public Works Director as proof of permit application. The improvement plans and grading plans shall contain the Waste Discharge Identification number for the project. o Engineering and geotechnical or soils reports must be provided to prove, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director, that all "passive"NPDES facilities meet their intended use and design. These facilities shall meet the minimum requirements relating to water detention and clarification. o The applicant shall comply with Chapter 8.52 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any provision amendatory and supplementary thereto. 48 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 28 Proposed Fees Required: Typically, in the City requires the payment of City fees through conditions of approval or mitigation measures. The City adopts fee resolutions or ordinances to collect fees to offset the costs incurred to support development, and to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of residents and visitors. Since conditions of approval cannot be placed on projects that must be approved by right,the fees that are typically required for development of multi- family projects, in association with adopted resolutions and ordinances, have been included in the proposed ordinance, generally provided as follows: o Entitlement Processing: Prior to the approval of any Zoning Clearance for this entitlement,the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department all outstanding entitlement case processing fees, including all applicable City legal service fees. This payment must be made within sixty(60)calendar days after the approval of this entitlement. o Condition Compliance: Prior to the issuance of any Zoning Clearance,building permit, grading permit, or advanced grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department the Condition Compliance review deposit. o Capital Improvements and Facilities, and Processing: Prior to the issuance of any Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department, capital improvement,development,and processing fees at the current rate then in effect. Said fees include, but are not limited to building and public improvement plan checks and permits. o Parks: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit,the applicant shall submit to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department fees in accordance with City ordinances and resolutions. o Fire Protection Facilities: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, current Fire Protection Facilities Fees must be paid to the Building and Safety Division in accordance with the City Council adopted Fire Protection Facilities. Fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. o Library Facilities: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit,the Library Facilities Fee must be paid to the Building and Safety Division in accordance with the City Council adopted Library Facilities Fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. o Police Facilities: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit,the Police Facilities Fee must be paid to the Building and Safety Division in accordance with the City Council adopted Police Facilities Fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. 49 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 29 o Traffic Systems Management: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department the established Moorpark Traffic Systems Management (TSM) Fee for the approved development consistent with adopted City policy for calculating such fee. o Intersection Improvements: Prior to the issuance of the first Zoning Clearance for a building permit,the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a fair-share contribution for intersection improvements relating to the project. The amount of fair-share participation will be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director based on the traffic report prepared for the project and the extent of the impact to these intersections. o Citywide Traffic: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department the Citywide Traffic Fee. The fee shall be calculated per dwelling unit for residential projects, based upon the effective date of approval of the entitlement consistent with adopted City policy for calculating such fee for similar projects. o Area of Contribution: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall pay to the Community Development Department the Area of Contribution (AOC) Fee for the area in which the project is located. The fee shall be paid in accordance with the City Council adopted AOC fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application for similar projects. o Street Lighting Energy Costs: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall pay to the Community Development Department all energy costs associated with public street lighting for a period of one year from the acceptance of the street improvements in an amount satisfactory to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. o Schools: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall provide written proof to the Community Development Department that all legally mandated school impact fees applicable at the time of issuance of a building permit have been paid to the Moorpark Unified School District. o Art in Public Places: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall contribute to the Art in Public Places Fund in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 17.50 and sections amendatory or supplementary thereto. Contribution is to be submitted to the Community Development Department. If the applicant is required to provide a public art project on or off-site in lieu of contributing to the Art in Public Places Fund, the art work must have a value corresponding to, or greater than, the contribution, and must be approved, constructed and maintained for the life of the project in accordance with the applicable provision of the Moorpark Municipal Code. 49A Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 30 o Electronic Conversion: In accordance with City policy,the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department, City Engineer and Public Works Director and the Building and Safety Division the City's electronic image conversion fee for entitlement/condition compliance documents; Final Map/engineering improvement plans/permit documents; and building plans/permit documents, respectively. o Crossing Guard: Prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall pay to the Community Development Department an amount to cover the costs associated with a crossing guard for five (5) years at the then current rate, plus the pro-rata cost of direct supervision of the crossing guard location and staffs administrative costs, calculated at fifteen percent (15%) of the above costs. This applies to residential project of ten (10) or more units. o Storm Drain Discharge Maintenance Fee: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall pay to the Community Development Department the citywide Storm Drain Discharge Maintenance Fee in accordance with the City Council adopted Storm Drain Discharge Maintenance Fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. o County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee must be paid in accordance with County adopted fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. The City Attorney's office has reviewed the draft PC Resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration; and approval of General Plan Amendment 2013-01 and Zone Change 2013-01 (Attachment 4); and, the draft PC Resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03 (Attachment 5), and has determined that the changes are acceptable and do not conflict with Federal or State Law. PROCESSING TIME LIMITS Since this is an action initiated by the City, the processing time limits under the Permit Streamlining Act(Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5),the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2), and the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13, and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) are not applicable. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary fora project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects may be 49B Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 31 exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts. Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may determine that a project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared. For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will prove to be sufficient environmental documentation. If the Director determines that a project has the potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation cannot be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared. The Director has prepared or supervised the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the potential significant impacts of this project. Based upon the Initial Study, the Director has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment and has prepared a Negative Declaration for Planning Commission review and consideration before making a recommendation on the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013- recommending to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration; and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2013-01, Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 and Zone Change No. 2013-01. 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013- recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-03. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Draft PC Resolution—Negative Declaration, (without original attachments), General Plan Amendment No.2013-01,Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 and Zone Change No. 2013-01, which contains the following: Exhibit A — General Plan Amendment No. 2013-01 Map; Amendment No. 2 to SP 1995-01 Map; Exhibit B —Zone Change No. 2013-01 Map; and Exhibit C — Negative Declaration, (without original attachments) 4. Draft PC Resolution—Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03, which contains the following: Exhibit A—Amendments to Chapter 17.12 and Chapter 17.20; and Addition of 50 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 32 Chapter 17.76 Residential Planned Development 20 Units to the Acre (RPD- 20U-N-D) of the Municipal Code 5. Existing Zoning Map (11" x 17" copy) — Under Separate Cover 51 , .............. , : /�l , IA / I., 1 rtnaa rs Mik. all7, P "- PP, em.13 , 1my" mono • • ,-- 10111111= IIUIIII� I►' avail. © 1111 polonium uiiiiiIuIu IIIuiu ■ j cie IIII� 111111.- Ili lsll l�11.��Qr 1 _ i I 1I Ill I 11ir -T' E ' ma xter � i t A.„t.,�ti,.,uy ri WI r:::::n II �� ��1� ■IIIN1111• ___ • i. i*i D• 11111■111�■111111 mi. •,'Ii! Illuiiii 5=4:u 1111111:1 1u11in11P11111� r, ■ U■1■■ ■11'1!1! : anta : 1■111iva■■1■1■ . �. ..„„..e� 1111111 ■ •• ■■ ■a al : .....��.. 1 1. 1■111■■■■1111■■■ • ■r ■ L' rug �n ,��r��7� .�i.,A� ■■111111!■A/�11■ ilrlr. ■ ■: 1111 m2 Ci NI II M.:Ir1i1111�"•i /tAJ- �,.�, ■ • • a1111■11fa■1mmo: I:: ■ ■l11111 - -- rap �j I. lima iE as'• 1 �, v-_ ., i ■E /s. • i -. i■■11■1��a111u11i r ■ ■i ■11 • — 1111111111I1.1UII11O r„ • ■■ ■■ • os • il ®== f i I Imuni d 1 �. 11111111111111111 � E 1!!/A111111h111111 In 1® g ■ ■ v I C 1u•11%I111111/111 E E-7, Mho i .,1�� , u. -.A ri/."�, 1111a1A 1 111111 us iiiiiiinlidll 11111i111111I1111 • • • - - • *` is • , 4, - - • , - to . : c oun_ �� IIitii1{NII[ G i _ ' n—mom ,.. _ ..1111111111a a is / "411111j111E' 611 III : 0 —if ,„,%,„,„„4 41,111 .,. 4,,„ . ........ ,...- ...:: ,., ,,#Part ri elf iliblilli.4°1 lik AA BO vow ..;•.1115 . .rk + = = i�� 1�1!'=�1 ��I € 1 inch-750 feet h{Al =Z.= ==-== LOCATION MAP PROJECT SITES SHOWN IN YELLOW PC ATTACHMENT 1 52 e r a /if CaSetRd „' Uf .." i • ," a C fi r« �� _. At � 'r v � € ri ., " p + , ' rrMw�� a`y r i r',J.** 1.",_u f:1...,,k.� . i:G.�. -13.%".".F.-._.. " + �t § ` Ro t vt,be"+ ii i i ,411$ SI f „ ,„ - Sher(Ilan Ve • oin. 0 P iF'.. 1 4 € fp.tittivor timilisio . 4/..4.,,,N,N. ,.....:, . ......... .....; am , _ at Olb i -; td A � i„iw tu +,P , i V. r %t *nI r: 4. :a i . .' #, . AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NORTH PROJECT SITES SHOWN IN YELLOW PC ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. PC-2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-01 AND AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1995-01 (DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN) FOR A 1.36 ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MOORPARK AVENUE AND EVERETT STREET, ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO VERY HIGH RESIDENTIAL; AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 2013-01 TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING THREE SITES TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 20 UNITS TO THE ACRE (RPD2OU-N-D) ZONE: (1) A 23.44 ACRE SITE (LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 1, HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY), (2) A 1.36 ACRE SITE (LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MOORPARK AVENUE AND EVERETT STREET), AND (3) A 1.34 ACRE SITE (LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEASTERN END OF MAJESTIC COURT) WHEREAS, at its meeting of July 17, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-3204 directing the Planning Commission to consider a General Plan Amendment, a Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, a Zone Change of at least 25.8 total acres of land to Residential Planned Development (RPD) — 20U, (locations to be determined) and amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code regarding development of a RPD-20U zone, to allow development of 20 units per acre, at various locations throughout the city, locations to be determined, on the application of the City of Moorpark, to ensure compliance with the adopted Housing Element, consistent with State law, the City's General Plan and other provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2013, the Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment No, 2013-01 and Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 (Downtown Specific Plan) for a 1.36 acre site located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, to change the existing Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan and specific plan land use designations of this site to a Very High Residential general plan and specific plan land use designation; and WHEREAS, at the August 27, 2013 hearing, the Planning Commission also considered Zone Change No. 2013-01 to change the zoning for the following three sites to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre (RPD2OU-N-D): (1) a 23.44 acre site, located within the southeastern portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property, currently zoned as Agricultural Exclusive; (2) a 1.36 acre site, PC ATTACHMENT 3 54 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 2 located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, currently zoned as Institutional, Commercial Office and Single Family Residential; and (3) a 1.34 acre site, located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court, currently zoned as Residential. Planned Development 15 units; and WHEREAS, the zone changes are intended to allow for development of multi- family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review to comply with Programs 3 and 17 of the Housing Element, of the General Plan, on the application of the City of Moorpark (Assessor Parcel Nos. 511-0-020-110, 511-0-020-130, 511-0-020- 180, 512-0-062-020, 512-0-062-120, 512-0-062-110, 512-0-062-070 and 506-0-020- 525); and WHEREAS, at the August 27, 2013 hearing, the Planning Commission considered the agenda report, the negative declaration, and any supplements thereto, as well as written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal; closed the public hearing and reached a decision on this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTION: An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and City Policy. Based upon the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, including any comments received, the Planning Commission finds that the negative declaration reflects its independent judgment, and further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Negative Declaration and related documents that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. The custodian of records is Joseph Vacca, Principal Planner. The Planning Commission therefore recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: A. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2013-01 and Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 (Downtown Specific Plan), as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, for a change in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan on a 1.36 acre site, located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, from Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan and specific plan land use designations to a Very High Residential general plan and specific plan land use designation. B. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Zone Change 2013-01, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to change the zoning for the following three sites to the Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre (RPD2OU-N-D) zone: (1) a 23.44 acre 55 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 3 • site located within the southeastern portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property; (2) a 1.36 acre site, located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street; and (3) a 1.34 acre site, located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court. SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The Community Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 2013. Diana Gould, Chair ATTEST: David A. Bobardt Community Development Director ' Exhibit A— General Plan Amendment 2013-01 and Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 Map Exhibit B — Zone Change No. 2013-01 Map Exhibit C — Negative Declaration (without original attachments) 56 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 4 EXHIBIT A H M PROPOSED DESIGNATION: VII EVERETT PROPOSED DESIGNATION: VII EXISTING DESIGNATION:0 ST EXISTING DESIGNATION:M PROPOSED DESIGNATION:VII EXISTING DESIGNATION:PUB/INST M L 0 g Ill 0 M M il gE y i PUB CHARLES ST PROPOSED DESIGNATION: VII EXISTING DESIGNATION.M 8 a 2 r M c) I— CC Z ea 2 °o @ a 0 40 80 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2013-01 MAP Feet AMENDMENT No. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN No. 1995-01 0 57 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 5 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED DESIGNATION:RPD-20U-N-D PROPOSED DESIGNATION:RPD-20U-N-D EXISTING DESIGNATION:A-E EXISTING DESIGNATIONS:I,CO,AND R-I SITE=23.44ac COMBINED SITE: 1.36ac D. as Airt 41141111 a'" . 111' 7 i11ri op Ipri_11, . r E razvin III Mil ill - IG31 11ti9 D7 • tree ��-- � • 73-TE I El; H.,""1,71 ■ 4E1M'� Wpt €�11111 ! iEiiI:lifflin f ir -1 1.4R � a ZUNI is 1; ;: i�1•• iv:■■: �i N. im •• ® �� 1p ,.�,1 11113Ef milling Eso ■riii ■■ t■ ■ .11 2 ■■ _ ■! �.p C: III P ■ ® __■_■1 a..M� 1■t!!INIE '�`, �:�' Wiillii iir =■p • R-1$ a ) ...i 0 11��_1 ume No ■ ■ co/ ' ■�IN tt �,�.e,■�I 7...7.4!)-71—ralit 011201111111 c , , Los Angeles Avenue % pA a-r; RPD-7U t u am mg t .-Zi fd1.:! 4 _ �.-N'A'T) 1 ia misor oft 04 Thrtruilli .T„,,, OS ii PROPOSED DESIGNATION:RPD-20U N-D ,, EXISTING DESIGNATION:RPD-1 SU s SITE=1.34ac o 0111 IMMl 1111 g 1111.3 M = g par. ..: i 0 400 800 e,mml" Feet ZONE CHANGE 2013-01 MAP 0 58 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 6 EXHIBIT C � �" NEGATIV E DECLARATION OI �� CITY OF MOORPARK 4�� 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805)517-6200 The following Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures of the City of Moorpark. Public Review Period: July 26, 2013 to August 26, 2013 Project Title/Case No.: General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2013-01; Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 (Downtown Specific Plan); Zone Change(ZC) No.2013-01; and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03; Project Locations: A 23.44 acre site, within the southeastern portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan; a 1.36 acre site, located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street; and a 1.34 acre site located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court. (GPA, SPA and ZC Location Maps Attached to Initial Study—Exhibit A) Project Description: The application consists of a zone change of a 23.44 acre site within the Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property, from Agricultural Exclusive zone, to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. A General Plan Amendment and Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan 1995-01, (Downtown Specific Plan), on a 1.36 acre site, located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, on City owned property, to change the existing Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan and specific plan land use designations of this site to a Very High Residential general plan and specific plan land use designation; and a zone change of this 1.36 acre site from the existing Institutional, Commercial Office and Single Family Residential zones, to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. Also, a zone change of a 1.34 acre site, located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court, on City owned property, from Residential Planned Development 15 units to the acre to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. Finally, the project includes a Zoning Ordinance amendment to add Chapter 17.76 to the City's Zoning Ordinance to create the Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use, in accordance with objective development standards and not subject to discretionary review. The Zoning Ordinance amendment also includes conforming changes to Chapters 17.12 and 17.20 to refer to the new Zoning designation and uses permitted by Chapter 17.76. 59 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 7 Project Type: Private Project X Public Project Project Applicant: City of Moorpark,799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark CA 93021 Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above-referenced project, it is found that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Moorpark,that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Initial Study Attached) Responsible Agencies: City of Moorpark Trustee Agencies: None Attachments: Initial Study(with attachments) Contact Person: Joseph R.Vacca Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California, 93021 (805) 517-6236 ivaccaact.moorparkca.us 68 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 8 Implementation of 2008-2014 Housing Element—Programs:3 and 17 GPA 2013-01;AMENDMENT 2 to SP 1995-01;ZC 2013-01;and,ZOA 2013-03 e:. 410% 4 �• CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY 799 MOORPARK AVENUE, MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805) 517-6200 Project Title: Implementation of 2008-2014 Housing Case GPA 2013-01; Element—Programs: 3 and 17 Nos.: AMENDMENT 2 to SP 1995- 01, (Downtown Specific Plan); ZC 2013-01; and, ZOA 2013-03 Contact Person and Phone No.: Joseph R. Vacca, AICP Principal Planner(805) 517-6236 Name of Applicant: City of Moorpark Address and Phone 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark CA 93021; (805) 517-6236 No.: Project 1) 23.44 acre site—southeast area of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan. Locations: Three 2) 1.36 acre site—southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street. Project Sites: 3) 1.34 acre site—southeastern end of Majestic Court, (Project sites 2&3 City owned). General Plan 1) 23.44 acre site — Zoning: 1) 23.44 acre site — Designations: Specific Plan 1 — Agricultural Exclusive, Hitch Ranch Specific (A-E). Plan. 2) 1.36 acre site — 2) 1.36 acre site — Commercial Office, Office; (CO); Institutional, (I); Public/Institutional; and Single Family and Medium Density Residential (R1) and Residential Downtown Specific (4DU/AC). Plan overlay zone. 3) 1.34 acre site — Very 3) 1.34 acre site — High Density Residential Planned Residential Development 15 units / (15DU/AC). acre(RPD15u). Project Description(continues on following page): California Government Code Section 65302(c) mandates that each city shall include a Housing Element in its General Plan. The Housing Element is required to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs, and include statements of the City's goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The City, in adopting its Housing Element, considered economic, environmental, and fiscal factors, as well as community goals as set forth in the General Plan. However, while cities generally have considerable flexibility in drafting the other elements of their General Plan, the Housing Element must comply with the detailed statutory provisions of the California Government Code, which are codified in Section 65580 et seq. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), of the Housing Element, identified Moorpark's "fair share" of the regional housing need for the planning period July 2006 through June 2014 as 1,617 units. This total includes 182 extremely-low income units, 181 very-low income units, 292 low-income units, 335 moderate-income units, and 627above-moderate units. State law requires the City to demonstrate that its "land inventory" contains adequate sites to accommodate the various types of units that have been allocated in the RHNA. In accordance with Government Code Section 65583 et seq., the residential density (excluding any density bonus) presumed to be adequate to facilitate development of lower-income housing in most metropolitan areas, including Moorpark, is 20 units/acre. 1 61 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 9 Project Description,(Continued): There are currently no vacant or underutilized sites in Moorpark with zoning that allows residential development at densities greater than 20 units/acre, excluding density bonus. Accordingly, the City must rezone at least 25.8 acres of land to accommodate the development of 516 lower-income units at a density of 20 units/acre commensurate with the RHNA. The Housing Element- (Program 3), contains a commitment to identify parcels totaling at least 25.8 acres to be rezoned to a new RPD-20 zoning to allow multi- family residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre to meet the City's obligations under the RHNA for the 2008-2014 planning period.The sites to be considered for rezoning to RPD2OU-N-D are as follows: 1) 23.44 acre site-southeast area of Specific Plan 1 -Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 2) 1.36 acre site-southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, (City owned). 3) 1.34 acre site-southeastern end of Majestic Court, (City owned). 1) The proposed re-zoning of the 23.44 acre site within the southeastern portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property from Agricultural Exclusive, (Specific Plan 1), to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), zone, (remaining within Specific plan 1), is proposed to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. This proposed zoning is consistent with the intensity of land use, and with the range of residential development densities, already allowed under the existing Specific Plan 1 general plan land use designation of the property,and under the current Hitch Ranch Specific Plan area designation. 2) The proposed re-zoning of the 1.36 acre site (four properties combined), located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, from the existing Institutional, Commercial Office and Single Family Residential zones, to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU- N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. There is a General Plan Amendment on this project site, which also includes Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan 1995-01, (Downtown Specific Plan), to change the existing Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan and specific plan land use designations of these properties to a Very High Residential general plan and specific plan land use designation on all these properties. The proposed land use designations are comparable with the combined intensities of land uses currently allowed at this site under the existing Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan land use designations. 3) The proposed zoning of the 1.34 acre site, approximately located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court property from Residential Planned Development 15 units to the acre to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review, is consistent with the intensity of land use, and with the range of residential development densities, already allowed under the existing Very High Density Residential general plan land use designation of this property. This proposed zoning is consistent with the intensity of land use, and with the range of residential development densities, already allowed under the existing very high density residential general plan land use designation of the property. Also, the Housing Element, (Program 17), Efficient Project Processing R-P-D zone and Planned Development Permit Process, calls for an update to the review process for Residential Planned Development Permits of properties in the RPD2Ou zone. The RPD Zone designation provides flexibility in the development process to meet specific housing needs. The RPD Zone designation offers various densities that can be tailored to the lot, nature of the development, and local housing needs. The RPD Zone provides a mechanism for the development of higher-density housing (up to 20 du/ac) and can be coupled with a density bonus,financial and regulatory incentives to provide affordable housing. In order to further reduce processing time, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-01 was initiated to create development standards for construction of multifamily housing on these properties and also make the following changes to the existing Planned Development Permit process for RPD2OU-N-D zoned property: 1)Designate the Planning Commission as the final approval authority(rather than City Council); and 2)Modify required findings for approval to confirming that the project complies with objective development and design standards;and,would therefore,be allowed"by right"by the Planning Commission,when in compliance with the requirements and regulations of the RPD2OU-N-D development standards Therefore, the project indudes a Zoning Ordinance amendment to add Chapter 17.76 to the City's Zoning Ordinance to create the Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D),zone to allow for development of multi- family housing as a permitted use, in accordance with objective development standards and not subject to discretionary review. The Zoning Ordinance amendment also includes conforming changes to Chapters 17.12 and 17.20 to refer to the new Zoning designation and uses permitted by Chapter 17.76. 2 62 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 10 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: 1) 23.44 acre site—southeastern area of Specific Plan 1 —Hitch Ranch Specific Plan: To the west, north, east and south of the subject property is currently in the Agricultural Exclusive zone, and all property is within the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1 general plan land use designation area. The subject property and immediate surrounding properties are all vacant and consist of valleys and gently rolling hills. 2) 1.36 acre site—southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, (City owned). West of the site are existing urban developments consisting of the offices for City Hall, City Library, and a dental office. North of the site is vacant land, once occupied by a mix of single family homes. East and south of the site are existing urban residential neighborhoods, consisting mainly of single family homes and residential properties. 3) 1.34 acre site-southeastern end of Majestic Court, (City owned). To the west and north of this site the properties are zoned RPD15u, and are developed with existing urban uses consisting of multi-family apartment and attached condominium units at these densities. East of the subject property is zoned RPD12u and it is currently being developed at this density with multifamily, attached town homes, (currently under construction). West, north and east of the subject property all have very high density residential 15 du/ac general plan land use designations. South of the subject property is zoned open space and is vacant and consists of the Arroyo Simi. The general plan land used designation of this area, south of the subject property is Floodway. Responsible and Trustee Agencies: none ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"or"Less Than Significant With Mitigation,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Mandatory Findings of Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Significance X None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Date: Date: 3 63 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 11 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A. AESTHETICS-Would the project: 1)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but X not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Response: Al. Through 4.: The new development is expected to occur within and adjacent to urbanized areas, mostly as in-fill. This type of development would not be expected to substantially alter the aesthetic character of the site, and in most cases would be expected to improve the aesthetic character of the surrounding neighborhoods. All developments will be required to conform to the General Plan Land Use Element, zoning regulations and development standards, and therefore would not be expected to create a negative aesthetic effect on the City's visual qualities. None of the sites identified for re-designation contain prominent ridgelines and development must comply with grading standards adopted by ordinance, including landscaping requirements. Furthermore, developments must comply with the development standards of the zoning district which address setbacks, height, and visual quality to ensure adequate health and safety. None of the sites identified for re-designation contain scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. New residential development could also create new sources of light and glare due to exterior lighting, lighting of streets and walkways, and interior lighting that could be visible from the outside. Prior to construction, each new development will be reviewed to ensure compliance with all appropriate development standards and developments must also comply with the lighting ordinance to mitigate any potential aesthetic impacts. No significant impacts are expected to occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zoning ordinance amendment 2013-03. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General. Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards(proposed July 2013-attached) Mitigation: None required B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, the City of Moorpark may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board-Would the project: 1)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland X of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources agency, to non-agricultural use? 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X 4 • 64 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 12 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause, rezoning of, X forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)),timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or,timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? 4) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest X land to non-forest use? 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment X which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? Response: B1.Through 5.: New development is to occur in urbanized areas as in-fill, and a significant portion of new development would be expected to occur on land that is currently vacant and zoned for agricultural uses, and would therefore result in the conversion of open space to urban use but, none of the sites are currently used for agriculture, nor are the lands currently forested or used for foresting resources. Furthermore, none of the sites currently designated for residential development contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, nor are any such sites currently used for farming; and, none of the subject properties have Williamson Act contracts. Therefore no significant impacts are expected to occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zoning ordinance amendment. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element Sources: (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013 —attached), California Dep't of Conservation:Ventura County Important Farmland Map(2000). Mitigation: None required C. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of X any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? 5)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? 5 65 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 13 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: C1. Through 5.: The Housing Element update included policies, programs and guidelines through which Moorpark can continue to meet the fair share of regional housing growth. The zone change of the subject sites and zoning ordinance amendment will not have a cumulative net increase on the intensity of use of the subject properties beyond what has already been established under the existing general plan land use designations. Therefore there will not be a cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is not attaining any relevant air quality standard. The development of these sites will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations nor create objectionable odors. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Long-term air quality impacts are those associated with the emissions produced from project-generated vehicle trips as well as from stationary sources related to the use of natural gas and electricity for heating, cooling, lighting, etc. Without specific details regarding future development, such as unit types and vehicle trips, it is not possible to accurately quantify long-term emissions. However, the amendments to land use plans and regulations called for in Program 3 (creation of a new RPD 20 zoning district and rezoning of 25.8 acres of land) would not be expected to result in long-term air quality impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR since the total amount of new development under these amended regulations is expected to remain consistent with the long-term growth forecast. The proposed development standards in this RPD2OU-N-D zoning district state that Reactive organic compounds, Nitrogen oxides (ozone/smog precursor), and particulate matter (aerosols/dust) generated during construction operations must be minimized in accordance with the City's standards and the standards of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District(APCD). When an air pollution Health Advisory has been issued, construction equipment operations (including but not limited to grading, excavating, earthmoving, trenching, material hauling, and roadway construction) and related activities must cease in order to minimize associated air pollutant emissions. As part of the review process for the development of the sites, potential air quality impacts will be mitigated with collection of the payment of Air Quality fees prior to issuance of building permits, as required per Resolution No. 2006-2461, adopted by the City Council on May 17, 2006. Also, the City has adopted a green building ordinance which includes BMPs to address greenhouse gas emissions. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element Sources: (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013—attached), City of Moorpark City Council Resolution No. 2006-2461 Transportation System Management Established Minimum Fee Schedule Mitigation: None required D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? 6 66 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 14 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Response: Dl.Through 4.: While some new development would be expected to occur in urbanized areas as in-fill where there were previous urban developments, a significant portion of new development would be expected to occur on land that is currently vacant, and would therefore result in the conversion of open space to urban use. However the 23.44 acre vacant site was completely burned in 2003 and 2006 and now consists primarily of non-native grassland, non-native trees and limited California Sage Brush. Development of the previously urban developed properties and the recently burned vacant site will not significantly impact biological resources including modifications to habitats of any species identified as sensitive or having special protective status nor will it have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, review of the sites indicates that development will not impact federally-protected wetlands nor substantially interfere with the movement of any native or migratory fish or wildlife species. Response: D5.Through 6.: The Moorpark Municipal Code contains tree preservation regulations, which are codified under Chapter 12.12 (Historic Trees, Native Oak Trees and Mature Trees). The ordinance defines "historic, mature and native oak trees," and specific requirements are described for protecting or mitigating their removal. Permits are required for pruning or removal of protected trees, which include historic, mature and native oak trees. All residential developments that could impact such trees will be required to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, which will reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary at this time. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan within areas that are to be considered for re-zoning. No mitigation measures are necessary at this time. The draft zoning ordinance amendment also does not conflict with adopted conservation local, regional or state conservation plans. As a result, no further environmental review is necessary. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013- attached), Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 12.12: Historic Trees, Native Oak Trees and Mature Trees(1988) Mitigation: None required E. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: 1)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historic resource as defined in§15064.5? 2)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? 7 67 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 15 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred x outside of formal cemeteries? Response: El. Through 4.: While some new development is expected to occur in previously developed urbanized areas as in-fill, a significant portion of new development would be expected to occur on land that is currently vacant but, has a history of being used for dry farming and grazing. There are no known or expected cultural resources on the project site. The proposed improvements within the project area will have no adverse impact on known cultural resources and must comply with development standards, which indicate that if any archeological or historical finds are uncovered during grading or excavation operations, all grading or excavation shall immediately cease in the immediate area and the find must be left untouched. The applicant, in consultation with the project paleontologist or archeologist, shall assure the preservation of the site and immediately contact the Community Development Director by phone, in writing by email or hand delivered correspondence informing the Director of the find. In the absence of the Director, the applicant shall so inform the City Manager. The applicant shall be required to obtain the services of a qualified paleontologist or archeologist, whichever is appropriate to recommend disposition of the site. The paleontologist or archeologist selected must be approved in writing by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the investigation and disposition of the find. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project. 1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the X most recent Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X iv)Landslides? X 2)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? x 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? 4)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 8 68 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 16 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: Fl. Through 5.: Moorpark is located in a seismically active region containing active faults. These faults have the potential to expose people or structures to significant impacts as a result of a fault rupture and seismic ground shaking. Parts of the city may contain expansive or unstable soils that have the potential to cause structural damage. In addition, grading associated with future development could result in substantial soil erosion. Upon review of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones maps for Moorpark, it was verified that the project sites are not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Boundary areas and are not subject to any special seismic setback requirements. While it is not possible to determine specific potential impacts related to developments at this time, some general requirements designed to minimize geological impacts will apply to all new development. These include compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Uniform Building Code, Title 24 of the California Building Code, and the standards of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Compliance with these building standards is considered the best means of reducing geologic hazards. In addition, as part of the City's planning and development process, based on existing adopted ordinances, the proposed future development projects will be required to provide site-specific geotechnical conditions to the City Engineer during plan check and prior to construction to determine appropriate construction methods to address potential hazards such as liquefaction. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zone change and zoning ordinance amendment. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), RPD20u Development Standards Sources: (proposed July 2013— attached).General Plan Safety Element (2001), California Building Code(2010). Mitigation: None required G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS—Would the project: 1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or X indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of X greenhouse gases? 9 69 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 17 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: G1. Through 2.: Many of the world's leading scientific experts agree that greenhouse gases (GHGs) generated by human activities affect climate by increasing the "greenhouse effect." The gases concentrate in the Earth's atmosphere and trap heat by blocking some of the long-wave energy the Earth normally radiates back into space. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. These activities are increasing the greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere and could be accelerating global climate change. Long-term environmental consequences in California could potentially include a reduction in water supply from the Sierra Nevada snow pack,which could result in a reduction in imported water, and public health problems due to degraded air quality and more intense summer heat. In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 2000 levels by the year 2010, 1990 levels by the year 2020, and to 80 percent less than 1990 levels by year 2050. These reductions will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (GARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. AB 32 requires that GARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. In 2007, CARB adopted the statewide 2020 emissions cap at 427 million metric tons(MMT)equivalent carbon dioxide(CO2e)greenhouse gas emissions. GARB estimated that 2020 'business-as-usual' emissions (meaning, emissions of greenhouse gases without consideration of climate change) would be 596 MMTCO2e; therefore, emissions will need to be reduced by 169 MMTCO2e (28 percent)statewide to meet the 2020 threshold. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. A numerical threshold to determine the significance of greenhouse gas emissions has not been established by the City or Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. Because development of the sites proposed for the zone change will occur in a manner that is consistent with the adopted growth forecast and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, it would not cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the level currently projected to occur. Therefore, no new significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary at this time. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the x environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3)Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 10 70 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 18 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to ---- Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving wild land fires,induding where wlldlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intended with wildlands? Response: H1. Through 8.: The re-zoning of the subject properties will not create hazards through transporting, using, or disposing hazardous materials. Further, it will not create hazards through the reasonably foreseeable future, nor result in hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed elementary school. The approval of the zone change will not impact any identified hazardous material sites. There are no airports within the city limits,and the development of the proposed sites will not result in a safety hazard for people working or living in the city. There are no private airstrips in Moorpark,so there would not be any hazards as a result of the zone change. Further, adoption of the zone change will not impair implementation of the emergency response plan.As a result, no further environmental review is required. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X 3)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 4)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? 11 71 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 19 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the x capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? x 7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as x mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures x which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, x injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? x Response: I1.: New development could impact water quality through runoff and wastewater discharge. However, developments will be required to comply with applicable federal, state and local water quality requirements such as the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Additionally, through the City's building permit issuance process, projects will be evaluated for potential site-specific water quality and flooding impacts and must comply with requirements of Chapter 8.52, Storm Water Quality Management, of the Moorpark Municipal Code. Development projects will be required to prepare water quality plans and/or incorporate "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) into their construction operations to reduce erosion, siltation and water pollution both during and after construction. Compliance with these regulations would be expected to reduce water quality impacts to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zone change and zoning ordinance amendment. Response: 12.: Development consistent with prior land use intensity assumptions of the General Plan would not result in increased water consumption nor have the potential to deplete groundwater supplies. Additionally, new developments will not result in an increased amount of impervious surfaces beyond what has been analyzed and anticipated with build-out levels anticipated under the existing general plan land use designations. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Response: 13. Through 10.,: Prior to development of any new projects, potential impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns and flood hazards will be analyzed and appropriate BMPS must be complied with. In addition, existing policies require the provision of adequate storm water drainage facilities and prevent residential development within 100-year floodplains. Upon review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the project sites, it was verified that none of the project sites are within any of the designated 100-year floodplains. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zone change and zoning ordinance amendment. Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 8.52, Storm Water Quality Management. 2008-2014 Sources: Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013— attached). FEMA 100-year floodplain mapping. Mitigation: None required 12 72 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 20 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact J. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: 1)Physically divide an established community? X 2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Response: J1.Through 3.: Future residential development as anticipated under the zone change and zoning ordinance amendment would be either small-scale infill/redevelopment projects or larger-scale master-planned projects on vacant land. As such, these future projects would not have the potential to divide an existing community. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. New residential development will be required to comply with all applicable plans and regulations, including the General Plan, specific plan, and zoning. The Housing Element contains a commitment to rezone at least 25.8 acres of land for multi-family residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre. Prior to issuance of building permits for these projects, building plans will be prepared and evaluated for the projects' conformance with applicable policies and regulations. Changes in the general plan land use designation of the site and zoning will not conflict with any General Plan and zoning ordinance provisions that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating any environmental effects. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zoning ordinance amendment. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan within the project areas that are being considered for rezoning. None of the project sites contain environmentally sensitive habitats and all sites are intended for intensive development under the existing general plan land use designations. No impacts would occur and mitigation measures are not necessary at this time. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required K. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? Response: K1.Through 2.: According to the City of Moorpark General Plan, no classified or designated mineral deposits of statewide or regional significance have been identified in the city. The State Geologist has not mapped any Mineral Resource Zones in the city, and consequently the State Mining and Geology Board has not designated any regionally significant mineral resource areas in the city. However, prior to development of specific projects, potential site-specific impacts to mineral resources will be evaluated as part of the building permit issuance process and any appropriate requirements will be applied at that time. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required 13 73 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 21 Less Than Significant • Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact L. NOISE—Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? X 3)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Response: L1.Through 4.: Future residential developments would be expected to result in short-term construction-related noise impacts, including groundbome vibration noise that could exceed established standards. Required compliance with the City's noise regulations and restrictions on construction hours will help to mitigate these impacts. Development would also be expected to result in an incremental increase in long-term noise levels from increased vehicular traffic as well as new stationary sources of noise. As part of the building permit issuance review process, projects will be subject to site-specific analysis of potential noise impacts and any appropriate requirements will be imposed at that time. Based on Chapter 15.26 Construction Activity Restrictions, of the Moorpark Municipal Code, construction activity hours are limited to between 7:00a.m. and 7:00p.m., Monday through Saturday, and construction is not allowed on Sundays. Additionally, construction activities such as requiring staging areas, regulating haul routes and other requirements to limit noise activities are required. Chapter 17.53 Noise, of the Moorpark Municipal Code contains standards whereby allowable exterior noise limits must be complied with to control noise to preserve the health and safety for residents and ensure noise levels comply with acceptable values. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Response: L5. Through 6.: There are no public airports or private airstrips located within the city. As such, future residential development would not be expected to expose people to excessive aircraft noise levels. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required 14 74 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 22 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact impact M. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: 1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either x directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Response: M1. Through 3.: The level of new residential development anticipated due to this project would directly induce population growth but the growth will fall within the parameters anticipated in the existing general plan, based on the current general plan land use designations and anticipated intensities of land use associated with those designations. Furthermore, the City is required by state law to accommodate its fair share of regional housing needs, therefore this is not an adverse environmental impact under CEQA. No mitigation measures are required. that most new residential development would occur on vacant land and therefore would not displace existing houses or people. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required N. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X 15 75 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 23 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: N1.: New residential development would be expected to increase the demand for public services. Approval of the zone change will result in development consistent with prior land use intensity assumptions under the existing approved general plan, and would not result in a significant increase in demand for services beyond what has been anticipated. Additionally, new developments will be required to pay Fire Protection Facilitates fees, Police Facilities Fees, Library Facility Fees and Park Fees. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required 0. RECREATION 1) Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Response: 01. Through 2.: New residential development will increase the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. As part of the building permit issuance process, all new developments will be evaluated to determine the level of demand for recreational facilities and appropriate level of fees to be paid to ensure that adequate service levels are maintained. The City of Moorpark Park Fees, that all new residential developments are required to pay, are used to acquire and/or improve park facilities, which helps to mitigate the impact of additional residents. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required P. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: 1) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy x establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? 2) Conflict with an applicable congestion management X program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either x an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 16 76 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 24 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or -- incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? 5)Result in inadequate emergency access? X • 6)Result in inadequate parking capacity? X 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Response: P1.Through 7.: New residential development anticipated in accordance with the project, would be expected to generate increased traffic on the road network and could result in hazardous road conditions, inadequate emergency access or insufficient parking. The level of new residential development anticipated on the total of 26.14 acres of re-zoned land would not be expected to have a significant effect on air traffic volume beyond the levels assumed in the regional growth forecast. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required at this time. Prior to the issuance of building permits the RPD2OU-N-D development standards require that projects within this zone submit a traffic study and pay fair share traffic fees associated with any traffic impacts relative to road capacity, design, emergency access and parking, and to ensure that safe design standards and adequate service levels are maintained. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments include measures to avoid impacts. The traffic impact fees that new residential developments are required to pay will mitigate the impact of additional traffic through funding of new road improvements. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards(proposed July 2013-attached). Mitigation: None required Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6)Be served by the landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? 17 77 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 25 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Response: Q1. Through 7.: New residential development would not be expected to increase the demand for utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, and solid waste disposal since the project sites were previously developed as urban uses and/or are already anticipated to have the intensity of residential development associated with the zone change according to the existing intensity of uses based on existing general plan land use designations. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required 18 78 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 26 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history of prehistory? 2) Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable` means that the incremental effect of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and effects of probable future projects)? 3) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Response: R1.: Under state law, cities are required to comply with the adopted programs of their Housing Element that, among other things, identify how the jurisdiction's fair share of regional housing growth needs will be accommodated. The City of Moorpark's fair share of the region's new housing need, as established by the Southern California Association of Governments, is 1,617 units for the period 2006-2014. The City's new housing need is distributed among various income levels. Since the City's current land use plans and zoning do not demonstrate adequate capacity to accommodate its need for lower-income households, the Housing Element includes a commitment to rezone 25.8 acres of land for multi-family residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre(Program 3). Anticipated development in association with the zone change is proposed on sites currently designated for residential development, and this would not result in environmental impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the General Plan and EIR. As part of the City's building permit issuance process, each project will be evaluated prior to construction and appropriate measures will be complied with to mitigate any potential impacts. Furthermore, prior to issuance of building permits, compliance with the development standards of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments will be analyzed and appropriate standards and measures will be complied with to address any potentially significant impacts, therefore mitigation is not required. Response: R2.: As noted in Item R1., above, the Housing Element identifies a need for 1,617 new residential units during the 2006-2014 planning period and includes a commitment to rezone 25.8 acres of land for multi-family residential development. However, the development associated with the specific location of sites to be rezoned is to be completed in compliance with the development standards created for the properties in this zone which are self-mitigating. Prior to adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, appropriate development standards have been drafted which will be required to address any potentially significant impacts. Response: R3.: As noted in Items R1., and R2., above, appropriate development standards have been drafted with the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, which will be required to address any potentially significant impacts. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required to address any potentially significant impacts. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards(proposed July 2013-attached). Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study City of Moorpark City Council Resolution No. 2012-3105, adopted May 16, 2012,Adopting a Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02, an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update of the City of Moorpark General Plan. 19 79 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 27 Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. Items used are referred to by number in the Response Section of the Initial Study Checklist. 1. The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended. 2. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended. 3. RPD20U-N-D Development Standards [(proposed July/August 2013)-and associated proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes maps of project sites]. 4. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 2004-2224 5. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations,Title 14 Section 15000 et. seq. Attachments: EXHIBIT A: General Plan Amendment 2013-01 Map Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 and Zone Change 2013-01 Map EXHIBIT B: DRAFT - Chapter 17.76 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 20 UNITS TO THE ACRE, (RPD 20U-N-D) 20 80 RESOLUTION NO. PC-2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2013-03, TO AMEND CHAPTERS 17.12 (ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES BOUNDARIES AND MAPS) AND 17.20 (USES BY ZONE), AND TO ADD CHAPTER 17.76 (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 20 UNITS TO THE ACRE [RPD-20U-N-D]), TO THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT, AND CONSISTENCY WITH CHANGES IN FEDERAL AND STATE LAW WHEREAS, at its meeting of July 17, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-3204 directing the Planning Commission to consider a General Plan Amendment, a Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, a Zone Change of at least 25.8 total acres of land to Residential Planned Development (RPD) — 20U, (locations to be determined) and amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code regarding development of a RPD-20U zone, to allow development of 20 units per acre, at various locations throughout the city, locations to be determined, on the application of the City of Moorpark, to ensure compliance with the adopted Housing Element, consistent with State law, the City's General Plan and other provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2013, the Planning Commission considered Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03, to amend Chapters 17.12 (Establishment of Zones Boundaries and Maps) and 17.20 (Uses by Zone), and to add Chapter 17.76 (Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre [RPD-20U-N-D]), to the Moorpark Municipal Code to ensure compliance with the adopted Housing Element, and consistency with changes in Federal and State Law; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of August 27, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the agenda . report and any supplements thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal; and on August 27, 2013, reached a decision on this matter; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and City Policy. Based upon the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, including any comments received, at its meeting of August 27, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study and any supplements thereto and written and oral public comments; and on August 27, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration by the City Council. PC ATTACHMENT 4 81 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Planning Commission finds Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03 amending Chapters 17.12 (Establishment of Zones Boundaries and Maps) and 17.20 (Uses by Zone), and adding Chapter 17.76 (Residential Planned Development 20 Units to the acre [RPD-20U-N-D]) to the Moorpark Municipal Code to be consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan and all adopted Specific Plans. SECTION 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03 to amend Chapters 17.12 (Establishment of Zones Boundaries and Maps) and 17.20 (Uses by Zone), and to add Chapter 17.76 (Residential Planned Development 20 Units to the acre [RPD-20U-N-D]), as recommended by staff and shown as Exhibits A attached. SECTION 3. FILING OF RESOLUTION: The Community Development Director shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED,AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 2013. Diana S. Gould, Chair David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director Exhibit A: 17.12.010 Purpose and establishment of zones; 17.20.050 et seq.; Addition of Chapter 17.76 Residential Planned Development 20 Units to the Acre(RPD-20U-N-D) 82 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 3 EXHIBIT A Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03 Amendments to Chapter 17.12 17.12.010 Purpose and establishment of zones. In order to classify, regulate and segregate uses of lands and buildings; to regulate the height and size of buildings; to regulate the area of yards and other open spaces around buildings; and to regulate the density of population, the following classes of use zones and their subzones are established: A. Open space (O-S) zone; B. Agricultural exclusive (A-E) zone; C. Rural agricultural (R-A) zone; D. Rural exclusive (R-E) zone; E. Single-family estate (R-O) zone; F. Single-family residential (R-1) zone; G. Two-family residential (R-2) zone; H. Residential planned development (R-P-D) zone; I. Commercial office (C-0) zone; J. Neighborhood commercial (C-1) zone; K. General commercial (C-2) zone; L. Commercial planned development (C-P-D) zone; M. Industrial park (M-1) zone; N. Limited industrial (M-2)zone; 0. Planned community (P-C) zone; P. Specific plan (S-P) zone; Q. Old town commercial (C-OT) zone; R. Specific plan—downtown overlay (SP-D) zone; S. Residential Planned Development 20 Units Per Acre (non-discretionary) (RPD 20U-N-D) per Chapter 17.76. Amendments to Chapter 17.20 Table 17.20.050 is amended to add a new column labeled "RPD2OU-N-D" and then to add a subparagraph (c) to paragraph 5 (Dwellings, multiple-family) to read as follows: (c) Residential Planned Development 20 units per acre (non-discretionary planned development permit) pursuant to Chapter 17.76. This subparagraph (c) shall be shown with the symbol "ZC" under the column RPD2OU- N-D to reflect that developments in the RPD2OU-N-D zone are subject to Zoning Clearance review. 83 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 4 Chapter 17.76 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 20 UNITS TO THE ACRE (RPD 20U-N-D) Sections: 17.76.010 Purpose. 17.76.020 Definitions. 17.76.030 General provisions. 17.76.040 Application Procedures and Consistency Determinations. 17.76.050 Development Standards. 17.76.060 Fees. 17.76.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to set forth development regulations and standards, which have been established to provide criteria for the development of the properties within the Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre (RPD2OU- N-D) zone to allow for development of affordable multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review or approval, and to provide adequate separation for light, air, safety, and open space as well as to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment in which to live, work and recreate. Implementation of the regulations and standards set forth in this chapter are intended to ensure that future development is coordinated and consistent with the goals and policies of the downtown specific plan and the city's general plan, specifically the housing element. The standards contained in this chapter provide for the arrangement, development, and use of multi-family residential neighborhoods, open space areas, and recreational sites. Application of these regulations and standards is intended to encourage the most appropriate use of the land, create a harmonious relationship among land uses, provide opportunities to construct affordable housing and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 17.76.020 Definitions. Words and terms used in this chapter shall have the same definitions as provided in Chapter 17.08 of this Title 17. 17.76.030 General provisions. A. The provisions of this chapter shall control development in the RPD2OU- N-D zone and shall prevail over any conflicting provisions in other portions of the Moorpark Municipal Code. 84 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 5 B. All land use entitlements and permits issued within the RPD2OU-N-D zoning area shall be consistent with the city's general plan, as amended. C. The director of community development shall have the power to interpret the regulations and standards applicable to the RPD2OU-N-D zone. D. Procedures for the processing of land use entitlements for the RPD2OU-N- D zone shall be the same as defined in Sections 17.44.060 and 17.76.040 of this Code. 17.76.040 Application Procedures and Consistency Determinations. A. Planned Development (PD) Permit. A PD permit is required prior to initiation of uses and structures in the RPD2OU-N-D zone, as specified in Chapter 17.20 of this Title. A PD permit application is subject to compliance with the development standards of the RPD2OU-N-D zone and shall be a permitted use not subject to discretionary review or approval if determined to be in compliance with the development standards of the RPD2OU-N-D zone. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one (1) public meeting on any PD permit application in this zone. A PD permit shall be approved by resolution if the Planning Commission determines that 1. The site design, including structure location, size, height, setbacks, massing, scale, architectural style and colors, and landscaping, satisfies the objective requirements of the general plan, zoning ordinance, and any other applicable ordinances, or Federal or State regulations; and 2. The project complies with the development standards in this chapter 17.76. B. The procedures for appeals and modifications of a PD permit application under this chapter shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 17.44 of this Code. C. A PD permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of its approval by the Planning Commission unless the use has been inaugurated by issuance of a building permit. The Community Development Director may, at his/her discretion, grant up to two (2) additional one-year extensions for use inauguration of the PD permit, if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if the applicant can document that he/she has worked diligently towards use inauguration during the initial period of time. The request for extension of this PD permit must be made in writing, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the permit and must be accompanied by applicable entitlement processing deposits. D. Zoning Clearance. Pursuant to Section 17.44.030(B)(1) of this Title, a Zoning Clearance review and approval by the Community Development Director shall 85 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 6 be required before a building permit may be issued for any development in the RPD2OU-N-D zone. E. The failure of the owner to develop and maintain property in the RPD2OU- N-D zone in compliance with this chapter, and the PD permit shall subject the owner to nuisance abatement requirements of this Code and State law. The applicant shall be liable to the City for any and all costs and expenses to the City required to abate the nuisance and obtain compliance with the project approvals or applicable codes. If the applicant fails to pay all City costs related to this action, the City may enact special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land upon which the nuisance existed, pursuant to Chapter 1.12 of this Code. 17.76.050 Development Standards. 1. Minimum lot area: 0.75 (three quarters) of an acre (32,670 square feet). 2. Density: 20 units per acre with a minimum of 16 units per site. Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 17.64.030(B) allowing for a density bonus exceeding the density bonus required by State law shall not apply to the RPD2OU-N-D zone. 3. Building Setbacks: a. Front setback: Minimum landscaped setback of twenty (20) feet and architectural facade projections of up to sixteen (16) inches are allowed for non-livable spaces; with a minimum driveway depth of twenty (20) feet, as measured from front property line across area leading to enclosed parking within a garage; any two (2) adjacent lots may have the same front setback; however the third consecutive lot should vary the front setback by one (1) or more feet, as appropriate to the street and lot configuration, and to provide for variety in the streetscape. b. Side setback: Minimum for a multiple-family dwelling unit on an interior lot shall be five (5) feet. Minimum for a multiple-family dwelling unit adjacent to a street is fifteen (15) feet. Minimum for a single story enclosed patio, patio cover or detached accessory structure shall be five (5)feet. c. Rear setback: Minimum for a multiple-family dwelling unit is fifteen (15) feet, and second story floors, and/or architectural projections, may cantilever a maximum of eighteen (18) inches into the minimum required fifteen (15) foot setback. For single story enclosed patios or open patio covers, carports, or for detached accessory structures, the minimum required rear setback is five(5)feet. d. Mechanical equipment Must be located in the rear yard with a minimum five foot setback from any side or rear property line and.must be screened with a decorative masonry wall or landscaping; or must be located below the lowest parapet roof so equipment will not be visible from offsite, subject to criteria under Roofs below. 86 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 7 4. Maximum building height: a. Thirty-five (35) feet for dwelling units; b. Fifteen (15)feet for a patio cover, carport or accessory structure; c. Second story decks or balconies are prohibited within fifteen (15) feet of any property line. 5. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls shall comply with the provisions of this Code, with the exception that sound attenuation walls shall be constructed to a height as required by a city-approved noise study for the residential planned development permit. 6. Lighting. Lighting shall comply with Chapter 17.30 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code. 7. Parking. Parking shall comply with Chapter 17.32 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code. 8. Signage. Signage shall comply with Chapter 17.40 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code. 9. If any archeological or historical finds are uncovered during grading or excavation operations, all grading or excavation shall immediately cease in the immediate area and the find must be left untouched. The applicant, in consultation with the project paleontologist or archeologist, shall assure the preservation of the site and immediately contact the Community Development Director by phone, in writing by email or hand delivered correspondence informing the Director of the find. In the absence of the Director, the applicant shall so inform the City Manager. The applicant shall be required to obtain the services of a qualified paleontologist or archeologist, whichever is appropriate, to recommend disposition of the site. The paleontologist or archeologist selected must be approved in writing by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the investigation and disposition of the find. 10. Paleontological Mitigation Plan: Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a grading permit, a paleontological mitigation plan outlining procedures for paleontological data recovery must be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The development and implementation of this Plan must include consultations with the Applicant's engineering geologist as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered under any scenario will be through the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACMNH). All specimens become the property of the City of Moorpark unless the City chooses otherwise. If the 87 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 8 City accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised. The monitoring and data recovery should include periodic inspections of excavations to recover exposed fossil materials. The cost of this data recovery is limited to the discovery of a reasonable sample of available material. The interpretation of reasonableness rests with the Community Development Director. 11. Reactive organic compounds, Nitrogen oxides (ozone/smog precursor), and particulate matter (aerosols/dust) generated during construction operations must be minimized in accordance with the City's standards and the standards of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). When an air pollution Health Advisory has been issued, construction equipment operations (including but not limited to grading, excavating, earthmoving, trenching, material hauling, and roadway construction) and related activities must cease in order to minimize associated air pollutant emissions. 12. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval by the City or any of its agencies, departments, commissions, agents, officers, or employees concerning this entitlement approval, which claim, action or proceeding is brought within the time period provided therefore in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other sections of state law as applicable and any provision amendatory or supplementary thereto. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and, if the City should fail to do so or should fail to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents, officers and employees pursuant to this condition. a. The City may, within its unlimited discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding if both of the following occur: i. The City bears its own attorney fees and costs; ii. The City defends the claim, action or proceeding in good faith. b. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. The applicant's obligations under this condition shall apply regardless of whether a building permit is issued pursuant to the planned development permit. 13. All facilities and uses, other than those specifically requested in the application and approval and those accessory uses allowed by the Municipal Code, are prohibited unless otherwise permitted through application for modification consistent with the requirements of the zone and any other adopted ordinances, specific plans, landscape guidelines, or design guidelines. 88 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 9 14. Recreational Amenities. Residential planned development permit areas on properties that have an average size of more than one and one half acre (65,340 square feet) shall include private recreational amenities including but not limited to the following: restrooms, swimming pool and spa, play apparatus, picnic shelter, barbecue area with seating, and multipurpose play area field. Residential planned development permit areas on properties that have an average size of less than one and one half acre (65,340 square feet) shall include private recreational amenities including but not limited to the following: play apparatus, picnic shelter, barbecue area with seating, and multipurpose play area field. 15. Eaves and Window Treatments and Surrounds. The eaves and window treatments and surrounds on all sides of a structure shall match the eaves, window treatments and surrounds on the front elevation, achieving four-sided architectural compatibility with the chosen architectural style. 16. Wrap-Around Front Elevation Treatment. The architectural style and treatment included along the front elevation of a unit shall continue along each side elevation until commencement of fencing or other architecturally feasible termination point, such as a chimney or window. 17. Colors. The paint colors shall be earth-toned, and match the chosen architectural style. The paint treatment must be applied along all window surrounds and parapets with varying colors, and on all wall facades of all elevations until commencement of wall planes or other architecturally feasible termination point, such as a chimney or window. Identification of coating or rust-inhibitive paint must be used for all exterior metal building surfaces to prevent corrosion and release of metal contaminants into the storm drain system. 18. Roofs. The roofs shall be pitched roofs covered in concrete roofing tile or equivalent with a minimum 3:12 pitch, or shall utilize decorative parapet roofing matching the chosen architectural style, that shall be no lower than the tallest roof mounted mechanical equipment. Roof-mounted equipment and other noise generation sources on-site must be attenuated to 45 decibels (dBA) or to the ambient noise level at the property line measured at the time of the occupancy, whichever is greater. This shall be based on a city-approved noise study for the residential planned development that shows that the current project attenuates all on-site noise generation sources to the required level or provides recommendations as to how the project could be modified to comply. The noise study must be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer in accordance with accepted engineering standards. No exterior roof access ladders are permitted. 19. Durable Materials. The trim on the ground floor levels of the structures must be constructed of durable materials, (i.e. wood window trim or 1/4" minimum cementous stucco coat over foam). 89 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 10 20. A utility room with common access to house all meters and the roof access ladder must be provided 21. Outdoor facilities. Any outdoor ground level equipment, facilities or storage areas including, but not limited to loading docks, trash enclosures, cooling towers, generators, must be architecturally screened from view with masonry wall and/or landscaping. Transformers and cross connection water control devices (subject to approval by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1), must be screened from street view with a masonry wall and/or landscaping. 22. Trash disposal. Trash disposal and recycling areas must be placed in locations which will not interfere with circulation, parking or access to the building. Exterior trash areas and recycling bins must use impermeable pavement and be designed to have a cover and so that no other area drains into it. The trash areas and recycling bins must be depicted on the final construction plans and drains from the disposal and recycling areas must be connected to the sewer system. 23. Grading, drainage and improvement plans and supporting reports and calculations must be prepared in accordance with the latest California Building Code as adopted by the City of Moorpark and in conformance with the latest "Land Development Manual" and "Road Standards" as promulgated by Ventura County; "Hydrology Manual" and "Design Manual" as promulgated by Ventura County Watershed Protection District; "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" as published by BNI (except for signs, traffic signals and appurtenances thereto which must conform to the provisions of Chapter 56 for signs and Chapter 86 for traffic signals, and appurtenances thereto, of the "Standard Specifications," most recent edition, including revisions and errata thereto, as published by the State of California Department of Transportation). 24. Grading, drainage and improvement plans and supporting reports and calculations must be prepared in accordance with the most recently approved "Engineering Policies and Standards" of the City of Moorpark, and "Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," most recent edition, as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. In the case of conflict between the standards, specifications and design manuals listed herein and above, the criteria that provide the higher level of quality and safety prevail as determined by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 25. Engineering plans must be submitted on standard City title block sheets of 24-inch by 36-inch to a standard engineering scale representative of sufficient plan clarity and workmanship. 26. A 15-mile per hour speed limit must be observed within all construction areas. 90 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 11 27. If any hazardous waste or material is encountered during the construction of this . project, all work must be immediately stopped and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department, the Ventura County Fire Protection District, the Moorpark Police Department, and the Moorpark City Engineer and Public Works Director must be notified immediately. Work may not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. 28. The applicant and/or property owner shall provide verification to the City Engineer and Public Works Director that all on-site storm drains have been cleaned at least twice a year, once immediately prior to October 1st (the rainy season) and once in January. Additional cleaning may be required by the City Engineer and Public Works Director depending upon site and weather conditions. 29. All paved surfaces; including, but not limited to, the parking area and aisles, drive-through lanes, on-site walkways must be maintained free of litter, debris and dirt. Walkways, parking areas and aisles and drive-through lanes must be swept, washed or vacuumed regularly. When swept or washed, litter, debris and dirt must be trapped and collected to prevent entry to the storm drain system in accordance with NPDES requirements. 30. Prior to improvement plan approval, the applicant shall obtain the written approval on approved site plan exhibit sheets for the location of fire hydrants by the Ventura County Fire Prevention Division. Water and Sewer improvements plans must be submitted to Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 for approval. 31. Prior to any work being conducted within any State, County, or City right- of-way, the applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits from the appropriate agencies and provide copies of these approved permits and the plans associated with the permits to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 32. The applicant shall comply with Chapters 9.28, 10.04, 12.24, and 17.53 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any provision amendatory or supplementary thereto, as a standard requirement for construction noise reduction. 33. The applicant shall utilize all prudent and reasonable measures (including installation of a 6-foot high chain link fence around the construction site(s) and/or provision of a full time licensed security guard) to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the work site at any time and to protect the public from accidents and injury. 34. The applicant shall post, in a conspicuous location, the construction hour limitations and make each construction trade aware of the construction hour limitations. 35. All grading and drainage plans must be prepared by a qualified Professional Civil Engineer currently registered and in good standing in the State of California and are subject to review by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 91 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 12 Prior to or concurrently with the submittal of a grading plan the applicant shall submit a soils (geotechnical) report. 36. Grading must conform to the standards contained in Chapter 17.38 Hillside Management of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any provision amendatory or supplementary thereto. Plans detailing the design and control (vertical and horizontal) of contoured slopes must be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Public Works Director and Community Development Director. 37. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or Final Map approval, whichever comes first, the applicant shall post sufficient surety with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and Public Works Director, guaranteeing completion of all onsite and offsite improvements required by these Conditions of Approval and/or the Municipal Code including, but not limited to grading, street improvements, storm drain improvements, temporary and permanent Best Management Practice (BMP) for the control of non-point water discharges, landscaping, fencing, and bridges. Grading and improvements must be designed, bonded and constructed as a single project. 38. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or Final Map approval, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide written proof to the City Engineer and Public Works Director that any and all wells that may exist or have existed within the project have been properly sealed, destroyed or abandoned per Ventura County Ordinance No. 2372 or Ordinance No. 3991 and per California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources requirements. 39. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, final approved soils and geology reports must be submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The approved final report must encompass all subsequent reports, addendums and revisions under a single cover. Where liquefaction hazard site conditions exist, an extra copy of the final report must be provided by the applicant to the City Engineer and Public Works Director and be sent by the applicant to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 2697 within 30 days of report approval. 40. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a grading remediation plan and report must be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The report must evaluate all major graded slopes and open space hillsides whose performance could affect planned improvements. The slope stability analysis must be performed for both static and dynamic conditions, using an appropriate pseudo- static horizontal ground acceleration coefficient for earthquakes on faults, capable of impacting the project in accordance with standard practice as outlined in DMG Special Publication No. 117, 1997. 41. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project geotechnical engineer shall evaluate liquefaction potential. Where liquefaction is found to be a hazard, a 92 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 13 remediation plan with effective measures to avoid and control damage must be provided to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. During construction, measures to reduce seismic liquefaction risks shall be employed as recommended in the approved remediation plan and associated geotechnical report, such as placement of a non- liquefiable cap over the alluvium, removal of the liquefiable soils, in-situ densification, or the excavation of a shear key below the base of the liquefiable zone. Where liquefaction hazard site conditions exist, the applicant shall provide an extra copy of the final report to the City Engineer and Public Works Director and shall send a copy of the report to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 2697 within 30 days of report approval. 42. The project must comply with all NPDES requirements and the City of Moorpark standard requirements for temporary storm water diversion structures during all construction and grading. 43. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified, currently registered Professional Civil Engineer in good standing in the State of California shall be retained to prepare Erosion and Sediment Control Plans in conformance with the currently issued Ventura County Municipal Strom Water NPDES Permit. These Plans shall address, but not be limited to, construction impacts and long-term operational effects on downstream environments and watersheds. The Plans must consider all relevant NPDES requirements and recommendations for the use of the best available technology and specific erosion control measures, including temporary measures during construction to minimize water quality effects to the maximum extent practicable. Prior to the issuance of an initial grading permit, review and approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer and Public Works Director is required. 44. Prior to the import or export of more than one hundred (100) truckloads or one thousand cubic yards (1,000 cu. yds.) a Haul Route Permit in conformance with the currently adopted City of Moorpark Engineering Policies and Standards is required. 45. Where slopes exceeding 4 feet in height are adjacent to sidewalks, and streets, the grading plan must include a slough wall, Angelus Standard slumpstone, color or other alternative as determined by the Community Development Director, approximately 18 inches high, with curb outlet drainage to be constructed behind the back of the sidewalk to prevent debris from entering the sidewalk or street. The wall must be designed and constructed in conformance with the City's standard wall detail. All material for the construction of the wall shall be approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director and Community Development Director. Retaining walls greater than 18 inches in height must be set back two-feet (2') from the back of the sidewalk. This two-foot (2') area must be landscaped and have no greater than a two percent (2%) cross fall slope. The slough wall and landscaping design is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Director and Community Development Director. 93 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 14 46. Grading plans must include, but not be limited to entry walls and project identification signs in accordance with City standards. Landscaping, appropriate to the entry, shall be provided that will not interfere with sight-distance or turning movement operations. The final design for the project entrance must be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 47. During grading, the project geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations, removal of fill and landslide materials down to stable bedrock or in-place material, and installation of all sub-drains including their connections. All fill slope construction must be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director to be kept on file. Cuts and slopes must be observed and mapped by the project geotechnical and civil engineers who will provide any required slope modification recommendations based on the actual geologic conditions encountered during grading. Written approval from the City Engineer and Public Works Director must be obtained prior to any modification. 48. Written weekly progress reports and a grading completion report must be submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director by the project geotechnical engineers. These reports must include the results and locations of all compaction tests, as-built plans of all landslide repairs and fill removal, including geologic mapping of the exposed geology of all excavations showing cut cross-sections and sub-drain depths and locations. The lists of excavations approved by the engineering geologist must also be submitted. Building permits will not be issued without documentation that the grading and other pertinent work has been performed in accordance with the geotechnical report criteria and applicable Grading Ordinance provisions. 49. During grading, colluvial soils and landslide deposits within developed portions of the properties must be re-graded to effectively remove the potential for seismically-induced landslides in these materials. Additional buttressing, keying and installation of debris benches must be provided in transition areas between non-graded areas and development as recommended in the final geotechnical reports by the project geotechnical engineer. 50. The recommendations for site grading contained in the final geotechnical reports must be followed during grading unless modifications are submitted for approval by the engineers-of-work and specifically approved in writing by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 51. Temporary irrigation, hydroseeding and erosion control measures, approved by the Community Development Director, City Engineer and Public Works Director, must be implemented on all temporary grading. Temporary grading is defined to be any grading partially completed and any disturbance of existing natural conditions due to construction activity. These measures will apply to a temporary or permanent 94 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 15 grading activity that remains or is anticipated to remain unfinished or undisturbed in its altered condition for a period of time greater than thirty (30) calendar days except that during the rainy season (October 1 to April 15), these measures will be implemented immediately. 52. The maximum gradient for any slope must not exceed a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope inclination except where special circumstances exist. In the case of special circumstances, where steeper slopes are warranted, a registered soils engineer and a licensed landscape architect will review plans and their recommendations will be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer, Public Works Director, and the Community Development Director. 53. All graded slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical) must have soil amendments added, irrigation systems installed and be planted in a timely manner with groundcover, trees and shrubs (consistent with the approved landscape and irrigation plans) to stabilize slopes and minimize erosion. Timely manner means that the slope soil amendments, irrigation systems and planting on each slope must commence immediately upon the completion of the grading of each slope, that the completion of slope grading will not be artificially delayed and that the slope soil amendments, irrigation systems and planting must be completed on a schedule commensurate with the grading. The planting will be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, and Public Works Director. 54. Grading may occur during the rainy season from October 1 to April 15, subject to timely installation of erosion control facilities when approved in writing by the City Engineer, Public Works Director and the Community Development Director and when erosion control measures are in place. In order to start or continue grading operations between October 1 and April 15, project-specific erosion control plans that provide detailed Best Management Practices for erosion control during the rainy season must be submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director no later than September 1 of each year that grading is in progress. During site preparation and construction, the contractor shall minimize disturbance of natural groundcover on the project site until such activity is required for grading and construction purposes. During the rainy season, October 1 through April 15, all graded slopes must be covered with a woven artificial covering immediately after completion of each graded slope. Grading operations must cease if the applicant fails to place effective best management measures on graded slopes immediately after construction. No slopes may be graded or otherwise created when the National Weather Service local three-day forecast for rain is twenty percent (20%), or greater, unless the applicant is prepared to cover the permanent and temporary slopes before the rain event. The artificial covering and planting will be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, and Public Works Director. 55. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, soil import and/or soil export operations, the applicant shall comply with the City of Moorpark standard 95 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 16 requirements for dust control, including, but not be limited to, minimization of g round disturbance, application of water/chemicals, temporary/permanent g round cover/seeding, street sweeping, and covering loads of dirt. All clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, soil import and/or soil export operations must cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour). 56. Backfill of any pipe or conduit must be in four-inch (4") fully compacted layers unless otherwise specified, in writing, by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 57. Soil testing for trench compaction must be performed on all trenching and must be done not less than once every two feet (2') of lift and one-hundred lineal feet (100') of trench excavated. Test locations must be noted using true elevations and street stationing with offsets from street centerlines. 58. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the project geotechnical and/or soils engineer shall submit an as-graded geotechnical report and a rough grading certification for said lot and final soils report compiling all soils reports, addendums, certifications, and testing on the project for review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 59. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project's engineer shall certify that the grading and improvements have been completed, as noted on the original approved plans and any subsequent change orders. 60. When required by the Community Development Director and/or the City Engineer and/or Public Works Director, at least one (1) week prior to commencement of grading or construction, the applicant shall prepare a notice that grading or construction work will commence. This notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all owners and occupants of property within five-hundred feet (500') of the exterior boundary of the project site, as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice must include current contact information for the applicant, including all persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility, including the name of the contact responsible for maintaining the list. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the twenty-four (24) hour emergency number, must be expressly identified in the notice. The notice must be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of all notices must be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice record for the City must be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners notified and a map identifying the notification area. 61. Consistent with the final geotechnical reports, at a minimum, the following measures must be implemented during design and construction where appropriate to minimize expansive soil effects on structures: potential foundation systems to include 96 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 17 pier and grade beam; use of structural concrete mats and post-tensioned slabs; pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment. 62. Prior to issuance of building permits, chemical testing of representative building pad soils is required to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. The following measures must be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion: • use of sulfate-resistant concrete; and • use of protective linings to encase metallic piping buried in soils warranting such measures. 63. Engineered fills must be constructed in compliance with the standards and criteria presented in the approved geotechnical report. The differential thickness of the fill under individual buildings may not be greater than ten (10) feet. These measures must be verified by construction observation and testing by the project geotechnical engineer as outlined in the final geotechnical reports and approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 64. Additional analysis of the predicted total and differential settlements of the major fills at each site must be performed by the project geotechnical engineer during the final design stage. Possible measures that may be required based on the settlement data include surcharging, delaying construction for a period of time before constructing on deep fills, or allowing for the predicted settlement in the design of the project components. 65. Transfer of responsibility of California Registered Civil Engineer in charge for the project must be in accordance with rules and guidelines set forth pursuant to Rules of the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 5, Board Rule 404.1, Subsections (c) and (d), that speak to Successor Licensee and Portions of Projects. 66. Applicant has full right to exercise the service of a new engineer in charge at any time during a project. When there is a change in engineer, the applicant/owner shall notify the City Engineer and Public Works Director in writing within 48 hours of such change. Said letter shall specify successor California Registered Civil Engineer and shall be stamped and signed and dated by said engineer in responsible charge and shall accept responsibility of project. The letter will be kept on file at the City. 67. Prior to construction of any public improvement, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer and Public Works Director, for review and approval, street improvement plans prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, and enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete public improvements, with sufficient surety posted to guarantee the complete construction of all improvements, except as specifically noted in these Standard.Conditions or Special Conditions of Approval. 97 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 18 68. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, all existing and proposed utilities, including electrical transmission lines less than 67Kv, must be under-grounded consistent with plans approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Director and Community Development Director. Any exceptions must be approved by the City Council. 69. Above-ground obstructions in the right-of-way (utility cabinets, mailboxes, etc.) must be placed within landscaped areas when landscaped areas are part of the right-of-way improvements. When above ground obstructions are placed within the sidewalk, a minimum of five feet (5') clear sidewalk width must be provided around the obstruction. Above-ground obstructions may not be located within or on multi-purpose trails. 70. Prior to final inspection of improvements, the project Registered Civil Engineer shall submit certified original "record drawing" plans with three (3) sets of paper prints and the appropriate plan revision review fees to the City Engineer and Public Works Director along with electronic files in a format satisfactory to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. These "record drawing" plans must incorporate all plan revisions and all construction deviations from the approved plans and revisions thereto. The plans must be "record drawings" on 24" X 36" Mylar® sheets (made with proper overlaps) with a City title block on each sheet. In addition, the applicant shall provide an electronic file update of the City's Master Base Map electronic file, incorporating all streets, sidewalks, street lights, traffic control facilities, street striping, signage and delineation, storm drainage facilities, water and sewer mains, lines and appurtenances and any other utility facility installed for this project. 71. The street improvement plans must contain a surveyor's statement on the plans, certifying that, in accordance with Business and Professions Code 8771, all recorded monuments in the construction area will be protected in place during construction, or have been located and tied with no fewer than four (4) durable reference monuments, which will be protected in place during construction. Copies of all monument tie sheets must be submitted to the City on reproducible 3-mil polyester film. 72. Prior to reduction of improvement bonds, the applicant must submit reproducible centerline tie sheets on 3-mil polyester film to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 73. All streets must conform to the latest City of Moorpark Engineering Policies and Standards using Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL) for a minimum thirty (30) year term for public streets and ESAL for a twenty (20) year term on private streets. All streets must be designed and constructed to the required structural section in conformance with the latest City of Moorpark Engineering Policies and Standards. The geotechnical or soil reports must address the need for possible sub-drainage systems to prevent saturation of the pavement structural section or underlying foundation. An 98 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 19 additional one and one-half inch (1-1/2") thick rubberized asphalt pavement must be added to the structural section for public streets. This additional pavement may not be used in determining the required structural section. 74. When required by the City Engineer and Public Works Director, the applicant shall provide, for the purposes of traffic signal installation, two (2) four-inch (4") P.V.C. conduits extending across all intersections, and surfacing through "J" boxes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 75. Prior to approval of a grading plan, the applicant shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director, drainage plans with the depiction and examination of all on-site and off-site drainage structures and hydrologic and hydraulic calculations in a bound and indexed report prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer. 76. Drainage improvements must be designed so that after-development, drainage to adjacent parcels would not be increased above pre-development drainage quantities for any stormwater model between and including the 10 year and 100 year storms, nor will surface runoff be concentrated by this project. Acceptance of storm drain waters by the project and discharge of storm drain waters from the project must be in type, kind and nature of predevelopment flows unless the affected upstream and/or downstream owners provide permanent easement to accept such changed storm drainage water flow. All drainage measures necessary to mitigate stormwater flows must be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The applicant shall make any on-site and downstream improvements, required by the City, to support the proposed development. 77. The drainage plans and calculations must analyze conditions before and after development, as well as, potential development proposed, approved, or shown in the General Plan. Quantities of water, water flow rates, major watercourses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps, sump locations, detention and NPDES facilities and drainage courses must be addressed. 78. Local residential and private streets must be designed to have at least one dry travel lane available during a 10-year frequency storm. Collector streets must be designed to have a minimum of one dry travel lane in each direction available during a 10-year frequency storm. 79. All stormwater surface runoff for the development must have water quality treatment to meet the design standards for structural or treatment control BMPs per the latest issued Ventura County Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit. 80. The hydraulic grade line within any catch basin may not extend higher than nine inches(9") below the flow line grade elevation at the inlet. 99 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 20 81. No pressure manholes for storm drains are allowed unless specifically approved in writing by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. If permitted, all storm drain lines under water pressure must have rubber gasket joints. 82. All manhole frames and covers shall have a thirty-inch (30") minimum diameter. This includes all access manholes to catch basins, as well as any other storm drain or NPDES structure. 83. The Q50 storm occurrence must be contained within the street rig ht-of- way. 84. The maximum velocity in any storm drain system may not exceed twenty feet(20') per second. 85. All detention and debris structures that fall under the definition of being a dam must have an open air spillway structure that directs overflows to an acceptable location to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 86. Only drainage grates of a type approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director may be used at locations accessible by pedestrian, bicycle or equestrian traffic. Drainage grates shall not be allowed in sidewalks or trails. 87. To verify that the Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) specified on the improvement plan is correct, the RCP delivered to project site must have the D-LOAD specified on the RCP. 88. The grading plan must show distinctive lines of inundation delineating the 100-year flood level. 89. All flows that have gone through flow attenuation and clarification by use of acceptable Best Management Practice Systems and are flowing within brow ditches, ribbon gutters, storm drain channels, area drains and similar devices are to be deposited directly into the storm drain system unless an alternative has been approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Storm drain and related easements outside the public right-of-way are to be privately maintained unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 90. Concrete surface drainage structures exposed to the public view must be tan colored concrete, as approved by the Community Development Director, and to the extent possible must incorporate natural structure and landscape to blend in with the surrounding material. 91. Prior written approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director is required for curb outlets that provide for pad or lot drainage onto the street. lee Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 21 92. Drainage devices for the development must include all necessary appurtenances to safely contain and convey storm flows to their final point of discharge to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 93. The applicant shall demonstrate, for each building pad within the development area, that the following restrictions and protections can be put in place to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director: • Adequate protection from a one-hundred (100) year frequency storm; • Feasible access during a fifty(50) year frequency storm. • Elevation of all proposed structures within the one-hundred (100) year flood zone at least one (1')foot above the one-hundred (100) year flood level. Hydrology calculations must be per current Ventura County Watershed Protection Agency Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Development projects within a 100 year flood zone may require a Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) as determined by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 94. The storm drain system must be designed with easements of adequate width for future maintenance and reconstruction of facilities, particularly facilities deeper than eight feet (8'). In addition, all facilities must have all-weather vehicular access. 95. All existing public storm drain systems within the development require pre- construction and post-construction Closed Caption Television Videoing (CCTV) including identification by existing plan and station. 96. Storm drain systems must be constructed per the most current Ventura County Watershed Protection District Standard Design Manual, City of Moorpark Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 97. All storm drain easement widths and alignments must conform to the City of Moorpark requirements and be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Easements must provide sufficient room for reconstruction of the storm drain systems and provide all weather access within the easement, to all manholes, inlets, outlets and any other structure that requires maintenance. 98. Prior to the start of grading or any ground disturbance, the applicant shall identify a responsible person experienced in NPDES compliance who is acceptable to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The designated NPDES person (superintendent) shall be present, on the project site Monday through Friday and on all other days when the probability of rain is forty percent (40%) or greater and prior to the start of and during all grading or clearing operations until the release of grading bonds. The superintendent shall have full authority to rent equipment and purchase materials to 101 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 22 the extent needed to effectuate Best Management Practices. The superintendent shall be required to assume NPDES compliance during the construction of streets, storm drainage systems, all utilities, buildings and final landscaping of the site. 99. Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any qualifying grading or excavation, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP), on the form established in the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program. The SWPCP must address the construction phase compliance to stormwater quality management regulations for the project. The SWPCP, improvement plans and grading plans must note that the contractor shall comply with the California Best Management Practices Construction Handbook, published by the California Stormwater Quality Association. The SWPCP must be submitted, with appropriate review deposits, for the review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The SWPCP must identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges and design the use and placement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants from the construction site into the storm drain system during construction. Erosion control BMPs, which include wind erosion, dust control, and sediment source control BMPs for both active and inactive (previously disturbed) construction areas are required. 100. The SWPCP must include provisions for modification of BMPs as the project progresses and as conditions warrant. The City Engineer and Public Works Director may require the first version and each subsequent revision of the SWPCP to be accompanied by a detailed project schedule that specifically identifies the type and location of construction operations for the project. The SWPCP must be developed and implemented in accordance with the latest issued Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, NPDES Permit, Chapter 8.52 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any other requirements established by the City. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all project contractors, subcontractors, materials suppliers, tenants and tenants' contractors comply with all BMPs in the SWPCP, until such time as a notice of termination has been approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director and accepted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPCP must include schedules and procedures for onsite maintenance of earthmoving and other heavy equipment and documentation of proper disposal of used oil and other lubricants. Onsite maintenance of all equipment that can be performed offsite will not be allowed. 101. Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any qualifying, grading or excavation, the applicant for projects with facilities identified as subject to the State Board General Industrial and Commercial permits shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must address post-construction compliance with stormwater quality management regulations for the project. The SWPPP, improvement plans and grading plans must note that the contractor shall comply with the latest edition of the California Best Management Practices New Development and Redevelopment Handbook, 102 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 23 published by the California Stormwater Quality Association. The SWPPP must comply with the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program Land Development Guidelines, Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, and the Stormwater Management Program (SMP) to develop, achieve, and implement a timely, comprehensive, cost effective stormwater pollution control program to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The SWPPP must be prepared in compliance with the form and format established in the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, and submitted, with appropriate review deposits, for the review and approval of the City Engineer/Public Works Director. The proposed plan must also address all relevant NPDES requirements, maintenance measures, estimated life spans of Best Management Practices facilities, operational recommendations and recommendations for specific Best Management Practices technology, including all related costs. The use of permanent dense ground cover planting approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director and Community Development Director is required for all graded slopes. Methods of protecting the planted slopes from damage must be identified. Proposed management efforts during the lifetime of the project must include best available technology. "Passive" and "natural" BMP drainage facilities are to be provided such that surface flows are intercepted and treated on the surface over biofilters (grassy swales), infiltration areas and other similar solutions. The use of filters, separators, clarifiers, absorbents, adsorbents or similar "active"devices is not acceptable and may not be used without specific prior approval of the City Council. The use of biological filtering, bio-remediation, infiltration of pre-filtered stormwater and similar measures that operate without annual maintenance intervention, that are failsafe, that, when maintenance is needed, will present the need for maintenance in an obvious fashion and which will be maintainable in a cost effective and non-disruptive fashion is required. As deemed appropriate for each project, the SWPPP must establish a continuing program of monitoring, operating and maintenance to: a. Provide discharge quality monitoring. b. Assess impacts to receiving water quality resulting from discharged waters. c. Identify site pollutant sources. d. Educate management, maintenance personnel and users, to obtain user awareness and compliance with NPDES goals. e. Measure management program effectiveness. f. Investigate and implement improved BMP strategies. g. Maintain, replace and upgrade BMP facilities (establish BMP facility inspection standards and clear guidelines for maintenance and replacement). 103 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 24 h. Secure the funding, in perpetuity, to achieve items "a"through "g"above. 102. Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, the applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the California State Water Resources Control Board, Stormwater Permit Unit in accordance with the latest issued NPDES Construction General Permit: Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activities). The applicant shall also provide a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the City Engineer and Public Works Director as proof of permit application. The improvement plans and grading plans shall contain the Waste Discharge Idenfication number for the project. 103. Engineering and geotechnical or soils reports must be provided to prove, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director, that all "passive" NPDES facilities meet their intended use and design. These facilities shall meet the minimum requirements relating to water detention and clarification. 104. The applicant shall comply with Chapter 8.52 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any provision amendatory and supplementary thereto. 17.76.060 Fees. 1. Entitlement Processing: Prior to the approval of any Zoning Clearance for this entitlement, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department all outstanding entitlement case processing fees, including all applicable City legal service fees. This payment must be made within sixty (60) calendar days after the approval of this entitlement. 2. Condition Compliance: Prior to the issuance of any Zoning Clearance, building permit, grading permit, or advanced grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department the Condition Compliance review deposit. 3. Capital Improvements and Facilities, and Processing: Prior to the issuance of any Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department, capital improvement, development, and processing fees at the current rate then in effect. Said fees include, but are not limited to building and public improvement plan checks and permits. 4. Parks: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department fees in accordance with City ordinances and resolutions. 5. Fire Protection Facilities: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, current Fire Protection Facilities Fees must be paid to the Building and Safety Division in accordance with the City Council adopted Fire Protection Facilities Fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. 204 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 25 6. Library Facilities: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the Library Facilities Fee must be paid to the Building and Safety Division in accordance with the City Council adopted Library Facilities Fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. 7. Police Facilities: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the Police Facilities Fee must be paid to the Building and Safety Division in accordance with the City Council adopted Police Facilities Fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. 8. Traffic Systems Management: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department the established Moorpark Traffic Systems Management (TSM) Fee for the approved development consistent with adopted City policy for calculating such fee. 9. Intersection Improvements: Prior to the issuance of the first Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a fair-share contribution for intersection improvements relating to the project. The amount of fair-share participation will be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director based on the traffic report prepared for the project and the extent of the impact to these intersections. 10. Citywide Traffic: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department the Citywide Traffic Fee. The fee shall be calculated per dwelling unit for residential projects, based upon the effective date of approval of the entitlement consistent with adopted City policy for calculating such fee. 11. Area of Contribution: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall pay to the Community Development Department the Area of Contribution (AOC) Fee for the area in which the project is located. The fee shall be paid in accordance with the City Council adopted AOC fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. 12. Street Lighting Energy Costs: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall pay to the Community Development Department all energy costs associated with public street lighting for a period of one year from the acceptance of the street improvements in an amount satisfactory to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 13. Schools: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall provide written proof to the Community Development Department that all legally mandated school impact fees applicable at the time of issuance of a building permit have been paid to the Moorpark Unified School District. 105 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 26 14. Art in Public Places: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall contribute to the Art in Public Places Fund in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 17.50 and sections amendatory or supplementary thereto. Contribution is to be submitted to the Community Development Department. If the applicant is required to provide a public art project on or off-site in lieu of contributing to the Art in Public Places Fund, the art work must have a value corresponding to, or greater than, the contribution, and must be approved, constructed and maintained for the life of the project in accordance with the applicable provision of the Moorpark Municipal Code. 15. Electronic Conversion: In accordance with City policy, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department, City Engineer and Public Works Director and the Building and Safety Division the City's electronic image conversion fee for entitlement/condition compliance documents; Final Map/ engineering improvement plans/permit documents; and building plans/permit documents, respectively. 16. Crossing Guard: Prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall pay to the Community Development Department an amount to cover the costs associated with a crossing guard for five years at the then current rate, plus the pro-rata cost of direct supervision of the crossing guard location and staff's administrative costs calculated at fifteen percent (15%) of the above costs. This applies to residential project of ten (10) or more units. 17. Storm Drain Discharge Maintenance Fee: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the applicant shall pay to the Community Development Department the citywide Storm Drain Discharge Maintenance Fee in accordance with the City Council adopted Storm Drain Discharge Maintenance Fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. 18. County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a building permit, the County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee must be paid in accordance with County adopted fee requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. -end- 106 PC ATTACHMENT 5 EXISTING ZONING MAP (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) COPIES OF THE EXHIBIT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE FRONT COUNTER 107 MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA Planning Commission of 8.21 . 2.0 3 ACTION:OPPIlvEu s'/An=teCoMmE�taATl u.-.). ITEM 8.C. A l o PD RES.No. PG• 2013-St 3. BY: T. cam' 0$2-. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission t ; FROM David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director ;`ft Prepared by Joseph R. Vacca, Principal Planner(- . `, DATE: July 25, 2013, (Meeting of 08/27/13) SUBJECT: Consider Recommending to the City Council the Approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2012-02 to amend Chapters 17.08 (Definitions), 17.20 (Uses by Zone), and 17.32 (Off-Street Parking Requirements),and to add Subdivision "I" (Farm Worker Dwellings)to Section 17.28.020 (Standards relating to Dwellings) and Subdivision "G" (Requests for Reasonable Accommodations)to Section 17.44.040 (Discretionary Permits and Exceptions)of the Moorpark Municipal Code to address farm worker housing, residential parking requirements,and reasonable accommodation procedures, and recommending that the City Council make a determination of exemption under CEQA. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Under state law, the City was required to prepare a Housing Element update for the 2008- 2014 planning period. A Draft Housing Element was, prepared and reviewed by the City Council on October 6, 2010. Following review by the City Council, the Draft Housing Element was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)for review. After a series of discussions between City staff and HCD and revisions to the draft element, on January 31, 2012 a letter was received from HCD stating that the draft element addresses statutory requirements. The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Housing Element for the 2008-2014 planning period on March 27, 2012, and adopted PC Resolution No. 568, recommending its adoption to the City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on May 16, 2012, to review the Draft Housing Element Update 2008-2014 and approved Resolution No. 2012-3105, adopting the Housing Element Update 2008-2014 as one of the mandatory elements of the City's General Plan. The goals and policies of the Housing Element are implemented through housing programs offered by the City's Community Development Department and the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark. There are several programs that Moorpark is required to implement to address housing needs within the community. 108 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 2 The Following Tables provide a summary of Housing Element Program Nos. 5, 18 and 21, the six-year objective,funding sources, and agency responsible to implement the program as outlined in the Housing Element; provided as follows: 5. Farm Worker Housing Six-Year Objective: Though most of the region's functional agricultural areas are located Amend the Zoning Code in outside Moorpark, some farm workers live in the community. Year- conformance with the Employee round farm laborers are typically housed in older apartments, Housing Act in within two years of government-assisted units,and Mobile-Homes.In order to facilitate the Housing Element adoption, provision of additional housing for agricultural workers, the City will following completion of a address Farm Worker Housing as part of a comprehensive study of comprehensive study of agricultural zoning and land uses within Moorpark,consistent with the agricultural zoning and land uses Employee Housing Act (Health & Safety Code Sec. 17021.5 & within Moorpark. 17021.6). 18. Off-Street Parking Requirements Six-Year Objective: In order to facilitate the production of affordable housing, a Code Process a Code amendment by amendment will be processed to allow reduced off-street parking for 2012. projects meeting the requirements of state Density Bonus law (Government Code Sec.65915)when requested by the developer.In addition,the parking requirement for market rate one-bedroom multi- family units will be reduced to 1.75 spaces per unit(including guest parking),one of which must be covered (garage or carport). 21. Reasonable Accommodation Six-Year Objective: The Municipal Code will be amended to include procedures for Municipal Code amendment in reviewing and approving requests for reasonable accommodation by 2010-2011. persons with disabilities consistent with current law. Staff initiated a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to complete the programs outlined above. On September 19, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-3129, which directed staff and the Planning Commission to study, hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation to City Council on a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that would amend Chapters 17.08 (Definitions), 17.20 (Uses by Zone), 17.32 (Off-Street Parking Requirements) and 17.44 (Application Review Procedures) to address farm worker housing, reasonable accommodation procedures, and residential parking requirements, consistent with State law,the City's General Plan and other provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance. ANALYSIS The proposed zoning ordinance amendment primarily includes the following five updates: • It adds definitions to Chapter 17.08; and vCIO.p.Nnem 5hreCommwnoy Cavokarnen0DEV PMTS2 0 M2012Y12 Farm Mow tin_Reason inmm a PanwgWmma Reprn'Fnal PC rtyeoaa Report(aCA naiad 1306Y7 doc 109 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 3 • It amends the Use Matrix Table 17.20.050 to address Farm Worker Housing as part of a comprehensive study of agricultural zoning and land uses within Moorpark; and • It adds subdivision "I" to Section 17.28.020 to establish development standards for Farm Worker Dwellings; and ■ It amends Section 17.32 related to parking requirements for one-bedroom units in multi-family buildings; and • It adds Subdivision "G11 to Section 17.44.040 to establish procedures for the request and review of Reasonable Accommodations. ❖ Definitions Chapter 17.08 This Zoning Code Amendment No. 2012-02 includes amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code amending Section 17.08.010, to add the definitions of "Disability", "Disabled Person" or"Individual with a disability, "Fair Housing Laws", "Major Life Activity", "Physical or Mental Impairment"and "Reasonable Accommodation". This is a change that the City committed to do in Program 21, Reasonable Accommodations, of the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. The proposed definition of"Disability" is: "Disability"means the same as that term is defined in the Fair Housing Laws. The proposed definition of "Disabled Person" or "Individual with a Disability" is: "Disabled Person or "Individual with a Disability" means a person who has a Physical or Mental Impairment that limits or substantially limits one or more Major Life Activities, anyone who is regarded as having such impairment, or anyone who has a record of such impairment, as those terms are defined in the Fair Housing Laws. This term does not include impairments, disorders or conditions resulting from the current, illegal use of, or addiction to, a controlled substance, sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania. The proposed definition of "Fair Housing Laws" is: "Fair Housing Laws" means the "Fair Housing Act" (42 U.S.0 § 3601 et seq.), the "Americans with Disabilities Act" (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), and the"California Fair Employment and Housing Act"(California Government Code § 12900 et seq.), as these statutes now exist or may be amended from time to time, and the implementing regulations for each of these statutes. The proposed definition of "Major Life Activity" is: "Major Life Activity" means any physical, mental, or social activity, such as the operation of major bodily functions, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working. The proposed definition of "Physical or Mental Impairment" is: "Physical or Mental Impairment" means any physiological disorder or condition and any mental or psychological disorder, including, but not limited to, orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, \1DC11Department Share\Communiy Deselopment1DEV PMTS\Z 0 A12012102 Farm Worker Hsg Reason Accom 8 Par1Wg\Agenda Reports1Final PC Agenda Report(wCA review)130827 doe 110 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 4 multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, intellectual disabilities(formerly termed "mental retardation"), emotional or mental illness, learning disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), tuberculosis, and alcoholism and drug addiction (but not including current use of illegal drugs).A temporary condition,such as a broken leg, pregnancy, use of crutches, etc. does not qualify as a Physical or Mental Impairment. The proposed definition of "Reasonable Accommodation" is: "Reasonable Accommodation"means a modification or exception to the standards, regulations, policies and procedures contained in Title 17 of this code for the siting, development and use of housing or housing-related facilities, that is necessary to provide an individual with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. • Agricultural Zoning and Standards for Farm Worker Dwellings Program No. 5, Farm Worker Housing, of the Housing Element indicates that while most of the region's functional agricultural areas are located outside Moorpark,some farm workers live in the community. Year-round farm laborers are typically housed in older apartments, government-assisted units, and Mobile-Homes. In order to facilitate the provision of additional housing for agricultural workers,the City is to address Farm Worker Housing as part of a comprehensive study of agricultural zoning and land uses within Moorpark, consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health & Safety Code Sec. 17021.5 & 17021.6), to allow development of Farm Worker Dwellings by right, consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters, or 12 units designed by use for single family households, as an agricultural use of property, when in conjunction with allowed agricultural uses. Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 17.20 establishes the uses by zone in the City. Table 17.20.050 is being amended to state that a farm worker dwelling unit, used by a farm worker and his or her family, employed and working on or hired from the premises, (as defined in Section 17.08.010 of the Moorpark Municipal Code), is allowed by right, with no zoning clearance required, in accordance with Chapter 17.20 of this code, when in compliance with all of the proposed standards and requirements. For the comprehensive study of agricultural zoning and land uses, staff proposes amending Table 17.20.050(Use Matrix). Attachment 1, Exhibit B indicates in legislative format the changes to the allowed agricultural uses, including the fact that such uses will be limited to the O-S,A-E, R-A, and R-E zones, predominately on lots that are a minimum of 5 acres in size; and prohibits agricultural uses in the R-1, R-2, RPD and TPD zones. Proposed amendments to 17.20.050 are outlined as follows: Tables 17.20.050.A.: Propose an amendment for Agricultural Uses with the additional requirement to be on lots with a minimum size of 5 acres. Tables 17.20.050.A.1.a.: Propose amendments to prohibit animal husbandry, as a primary use in accordance with Chapter 17.28,without structures, in the R-O and R-1 zones, (currently allowed with a zoning clearance in these zones). tlDC1 Department SharelCommunity Development DEV PMrSQ 0 A12012%02 Farts Worker Hag_Reason Aceom&Parkin'penda RepoasWinal PC Agenda Report(*CA review)130827 doe 1 1 1 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 5 Tables 17.20.050.A.3.: Propose amendments to allow crop production where no structures are involved, with a zoning clearance in the 0-S,A-E, R-A and R-E zones and prohibit this use in the R-0, R-1, R-2, RPD and TPD zones. Tables 17.20.050.5.: Propose amendments to allow greenhouses and hothouses and the like, less than 1,000 sq. ft., with a zoning clearance in the 0-S, A-E, R-A and R-E zones and prohibits this use in the R-O, R-1, R-2, RPD and TPD zones; and, in sizes between 1,001 —20,000 sq. ft., with an administrative permit in the 0-S, A-E, R-A and R-E zones and prohibits this use in the R-O, R-1, R-2, RPD and TPD zones. Tables 17.20.050.A.7.: Propose amendments to allow wholesale nurseries, tree farms and ornamental plant farms including container plants, with the additional requirement to be on lots with a minimum size of 5 acres, with an administrative permit in the 0-S,A-E, R-A, and R-E zones and prohibits this use in the, R-0, R-1, R-2, RPD and TPD zones. Tables 17.20.050.D.1.a: Propose amendments to allow apiculture as an accessory and miscellaneous use in accordance with Chapter 17.28,with the additional requirement to be on lots with a minimum size of 5 acres, with a zoning clearance in the 0-S and A-E zones and an Administrative Permit in the R-A zone. Tables 17.20.050.D.1.b: Propose amendments to allow aviaries as an accessory and miscellaneous use in accordance with Chapter 17.28,with the additional requirement to be on lots with a minimum size of 5 acres, with an Administrative Permit in the 0-S,A-E, R-A and R- E zones. Tables 17.20.050.0.1.c: Propose amendments to allow farm animals including horses and ponies as an accessory and miscellaneous use in accordance with Chapter 17.28,with no zoning clearance required in the 0-S, A-E, R-A, R-E, R-0 and RPD zones and prohibits Farm animals including horses and ponies as an Accessory and Miscellaneous use in the R-1 and R-2 zones. Tables 17.20.050.D.5: Proposes amendments to allow dwellings, farm labor as an accessory and miscellaneous use, in accordance with the newly proposed requirements of Chapter 17.28.020.1, with a zoning clearance required in the 0-5, A-E, R-A and R-E zones, and prohibited in all other zones because the other zones do not accommodate agricultural land uses. Tables 17.2O.050'.4.1K: Proposes amendments to allow produce stands as an accessory and miscellaneous use in accordance with Chapter 17.28,with a zoning clearance required in the 0-S, NDC1tDeparpnent SkarenCommmrey DevakSpmaneDEVPMTSIZO A12012W2 Farm Worker Hop Reason AUan&Parkigwgende ReporLs1Fnat PC Agenda Report(v.CA WeNew)130827 doe 112 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 6 A-E, R-A, and R-E,zones and prohibited in all other zones because the other zones do not accommodate agricultural land uses. To provide standards for development of farm worker dwellings on agricultural property, staff proposes adding Subdivision I to Section 17.28.020, Standards Relating to Farm Worker Dwellings, to Chapter 17.28,Standards for Specific Uses,to Title 17 Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code. The proposed development standards (Attachment 1, Exhibit C), are generally outlined, as follows: 17.28.020 Standards relating to dwellings. I. Farm worker dwellings. • Standards and Requirements. A farm worker dwelling unit as defined in Section 17.08.010 of this code, shall be allowed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.20 of this code, and in compliance with all of the following standards and requirements: o Minimum lot size. Property must meet minimum lot size of five(5) acres as required for agricultural uses. o Permitted Size. Farm worker dwellings, may consist of no more than thirty-six beds in a group sleeping quarters,or twelve units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household. o Off-street Parking. One off-street, covered parking space must be provided for each single family unit and one parking space must be provided for each three beds in the group sleeping quarters. The parking must be have approved access and paving in accordance with Chapter 17.32 of this code. o Lighting. Lighting shall comply with Chapter 17.30 of this code. o HCD Permit.A permit from the State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)shall be obtained,as required by the Employee Housing Act and all applicable regulations. o Occupancy Review. The property owner must complete and submit to the director of community development a farm worker dwelling verification letter no later than 30 days after receiving a permit to operate from HCD, and annually thereafter,to ensure compliance with state and local regulations on farm worker housing. The verification letter must include information regarding the housing type, number of dwelling units or beds, number of occupants, occupants' employment information, and proof that a permit to operate from HCD has been obtained and maintained. o Farm Worker Occupancy. The property must be occupied by farm workers and their families. A declaration of this restriction in a form approved by the city will be recorded by the city and be binding on all future owners. Beginning one year after the issuance of the building permit and annually thereafter, the owner must file an annual report to the department listing the occupants of the farm worker dwelling and their place of work in order to ensure compliance with this requirement. NDC183epadmera SharelCommurity DevelopnenllDEV PMrS1Z 0 A120121O2 Farm Worker Hsg—Reason Aecom&Parkipkpenda Replds•Fnal PC Agenda Report(wCA reNew)130827 doc 113 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 7 o General Development Requirements.Construction of farm worker dwellings, shall comply with development requirements of the underlying zone. o Maintenance. Facilities shall be maintained in a neat, safe, and orderly manner. ❖ 17.32.020.B Parking Requirements Program No. 18 of the 2008-2014 Housing Element requires a code amendment for the parking requirement for market rate one-bedroom multi-family units to reduce the requirement to 1.75 spaces per unit (including guest parking), one of which must be covered (garage or carport). Staff proposes amending Section 17.32.020.B. Parking Requirements development standards (Attachment 1, Exhibit D), outlined, as follows in legislative format: 5. Dwellings, multiple (>2 units) 1 space per unit covered in a garage or carport for each bachelor or studio unit 1.75 spaces per unit, 1 covered in a garage or carport for each one-bedroom unit(including guest parking) 2 spaces per unit, 1 covered in a garage for each unit with 24 or more bedrooms plus for all units (except one-bedroom units)0.5 spaces per unit for visitors ❖ Reasonable Accommodations Procedures Program No. 21 of the 2008-2014 Housing Element requires the Municipal Code to be amended to include procedures for reviewing and approving requests for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. On May 15, 2001, the California Attorney General sent a letter to all California Mayors to encourage every jurisdiction in the State to adopt Reasonable Accommodations procedures, (Attachment 2). Staff proposes adding Subdivision "G" to Section 17.44.040, as stated in Attachment 1, Exhibit E, relating to procedures for reviewing requests for Reasonable Accommodations,generally outlined, as follows: 17.44.040 Discretionary permits and exceptions. G. Requests for Reasonable Accommodations: • Establishes a process for individuals with disabilities seeking equal access to housing to request a reasonable accommodation in the application of the city's land use, zoning, and building standards, regulations, policies, and procedures and to establish relevant criteria to be used when considering such requests. \\DC1Veparlment Share%Communily DeoelopmentIDEV PINTS2 OA\2012V)2 Farm Worker Rsa Reason Accom d ParldngWpenda Repohsfinel PC Agenda Ripon(wCA re few)130827 doe 114 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 8 • Any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities may seek relief from any land use, zoning or building standard, regulation, policy or procedure found in Title 17, Zoning, to ensure equal access to housing and to facilitate the development of housing for individuals with disabilities by requesting a reasonable accommodation. Requests for a reasonable accommodation must be submitted on an application form provided by the department, and must contain the following information: o The name, address and telephone number of the applicant; o The name, address and telephone number of the individual with a disability for whom the reasonable accommodation is being requested; o The name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the property for which the reasonable accommodation request is being made; o The address and current use of the property for which the reasonable accommodation is being made; o If the applicant is someone other than the property owner, a letter of agency or authorization signed by the property owner consenting to the application being made; o The basis for the claim that the individual to be reasonably accommodated is disabled under the fair housing laws; o A description of the reasonable accommodation request and the land use, zoning or building standard, regulation, policy or procedure to be modified or waived; o A statement of the reason why the requested accommodation is necessary for the individual with a disability to use and enjoy the dwelling. • If the project for which the request fora reasonable accommodation is made requires another discretionary permit or approval,then the applicant may file the request for reasonable accommodation together with the application for the other discretionary permit or approval. The processing procedures of the discretionary permit will govern the joint processing of both the reasonable accommodation and the discretionary permit. If the project for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is made requires a discretionary permit or approval,then the application for a reasonable accommodation will be heard at the same time as the other discretionary permit or approval. • If an individual needs assistance in making a request for a reasonable accommodation,the city will provide assistance to ensure that the process is accessible. • A request for a reasonable accommodation may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect an individual's obligations to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. 14DC11Depanment ShamCommenity De etopmenODEV PMTSSZ 0 At2012502 Farm Worker itag Reason Accom&Pat%ingAgenda RepansWnal PC Agenda Report(WCA review)130627 doe 115 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 9 • The community development director shall have review authority for requests that are not made in conjunction with a discretionary approval that requires planning commission review.The community development director may refer the processing of the reasonable accommodation to the planning commission for review if the request is submitted in conjunction with a request for a separate discretionary approval. • The reviewing authority shall approve,with or without conditions,the request for a reasonable accommodation if it finds that: o The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more disabled persons protected under the fair housing laws. o The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. o The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city as "undue financial or administrative burden" is defined in the fair housing laws. o The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's zoning code, as"fundamental alteration"is defined in the fair housing laws. o The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or physical damage to the property of others. • Conditions of Approval. In granting a request for a reasonable accommodation, conditions of approval may be imposed as deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable accommodation would comply with the required findings. • Any reasonable accommodation approved shall expire one hundred eighty (180) days after issuance, unless otherwise indicated by the community development director or unless the use of land or structures or building construction has commenced and is being diligently pursued, as evidenced by current inspections and/or valid building permits. • Any reasonable accommodation approved under this chapter may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such reasonable accommodation are violated, Or if any law or city ordinance is violated in connection with the reasonable accommodation. The revocation procedures in Section 17.44.100 will be followed to revoke a reasonable accommodation. • If the individual with a disability who initially occupied the applicable dwelling ceases to reside at the premises,the reasonable accommodation will remain in effect only if the community development director determines that: o The modification is physically integrated into the residential structure and cannot easily be removed or altered to comply with requirements of Title 17, Zoning; and/or o The accommodation is necessary to give another disabled individual an equal opportunity to enjoy the dwelling. The community development PDC1\Department Seare'Commun ty Denelopment'DEV PMTS¢0 A12012■02 Farm Worker Wg,_Reason Ace=8 Pamkpt panda RepodSSFM&I PC Agenda Report(aCA review)130S27.d0c 116 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 10 director may request that any successor-in-interest to the property provide documentation that subsequent occupants are persons with disabilities. Failure to provide such documentation within ten days of the date of a request by the community development director will result in the termination of a previously approved reasonable accommodation and the applicable premises must subsequently be made to conform to requirements of Title 17, Zoning. The City Attorney's office has reviewed the draft PC Resolution for Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2012-02, (Attachment 1) and has determined that the changes are acceptable and do not conflict with Federal or State Law. PROCESSING TIME LIMITS Since this is an action initiated by the City, the processing time limits under the Permit Streamlining Act(Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5),the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2), and the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13, and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) are not applicable. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts. The Director has reviewed this project and found it to qualify for a General Rule Exemption in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). The proposed ordinance would amend the Municipal Code provisions related to farm worker dwellings, parking requirements,and reasonable accommodations. Both the changes to the provisions related to farm worker dwellings and reasonable accommodations merely conform the Municipal Code to what already would be required by State law. As such, there is no possibility that the changes may result in a significant environmental impact. The change to the parking requirements reduces the required parking for one-bedroom units from 2 spaces per unit to 1.75 spaces per unit. This regulatory change reduces the minimum required parking for future developments of multi- family buildings with one-bedroom dwelling units, but such future dwelling units would be subject to discretionary permits.The City retains the authority to require additional parking if the particular development at issue would have a significant impact on the environment. Thus, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the zone text amendments may have a significant impact on the environment. No further environmental documentation is required. yDClrDepergnent Shore Communly Oevelopmor 1 DEV PMTSIZ 0 A12012102 Farm Worker Hag_Reason Amen 8 PetklnplAgende ReportSFlnel PC Weds Report{wCA revlaw)130427 Om 117 Honorable Planning Commission August 27, 2013 Page 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013- recommending that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-02. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft PC Resolution which contains the following: Exhibit A- Section 17.08.010 Application of definitions Exhibit B -Table 17.20.050 et seq. in legislative format Exhibit C - Section 17.28.020.1 Farm Worker Dwellings Exhibit D -Table 17.32.020.B Required Parking Exhibit E - Section 17.44.040.G Requests for Reasonable Accommodations 2. May 15, 2001, California Attorney General Letterto All California Mayors on Adoption of Reasonable Accommodations Procedures 3. Zoning Map (11" x 17" copy) — Under Separate Cover 'DC11Depanmeni ShareCCommun8y DevelepmenPDEV PMTSK 0102012102 Farm Wodrer Hsg_Reason Accom&Paraingwgenda ReporlsWFinal PC Agenda Report(WCA review)130827.doe 118 PC ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO, PC-2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2012-02 TO AMEND CHAPTERS 17.08 (DEFINITIONS), 17.20 (USES BY ZONE), AND 17.32 (OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS), AND TO ADD SUBDIVISION "I" (FARM WORKER DWELLINGS) TO SECTION 17.28.020 (STANDARDS RELATING TO DWELLINGS) AND SUBDIVISION "G" (REQUESTS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS) TO SECTION 17.44.040 (DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND EXCEPTIONS) OF THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDRESS FARM WORKER HOUSING, RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROCEDURES, AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, at its meeting of September 19, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-2139 directing the Planning Commission to consider a zoning ordinance amendment that would address farm worker housing, residential parking requirements and reasonable accommodation procedures, to ensure compliance with the adopted Housing Element, and ensure consistency with State law, the City's General Plan, and other provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2013, the Planning Commission considered Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2012-02, to amend Chapters 17.08 (Definitions), 17.20 (Uses by Zone), and 17.32 (Off-Street Parking Requirements), and to add Subdivision "I" (Farm Worker Dwellings) to Section 17.28.020 (Standards relating to Dwellings) and Subdivision "G" (Requests for Reasonable Accommodations) to Section 17.44.040 (Discretionary Permits and Exceptions) of the Moorpark Municipal Code to address farm worker housing, residential parking requirements, and reasonable accommodation procedures; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of August 27, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the agenda report and any supplements thereto and written public comments, opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal and reached a decision on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by the general rule that CEQA only applies to "projects" that may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed ordinance would amend the Municipal Code provisions related to farm worker dwellings, parking requirements, and reasonable accommodations. The changes to the provisions related to farm worker dwellings and reasonable accommodations merely conform the Municipal Code to what already would be required by State law. As such, there is no possibility that the changes may result in 119 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 2 a significant environmental impact. The change to the parking requirements reduces the required parking for one-bedroom units from two spaces per unit to 1.75 spaces per unit. This regulatory change reduces the minimum required parking for future developments of multi-family buildings with one-bedroom dwelling units, but such future dwelling units would be subject to discretionary permits. The City retains the authority to require additional parking if the particular development at issue would have a significant impact on the environment. In this case, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance may have a significant impact on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA DETERMINATION: The Planning Commission has reviewed the Community Development Director's determination and recommends that the Council find that this project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the exception included in Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Planning Commission finds Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2012-02 to be consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan and all adopted Specific Plans. SECTION 3. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2012-02, as recommended by staff and make the changes to the Municipal Code included in Exhibits A, B, C, D and E attached hereto. SECTION 4. FILING OF RESOLUTION: The Community Development Director shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 2013. Diana S. Gould, Chair David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director Exhibit A-Section 17.08.010 Application of definitions Exhibit B-Table 17.20.050 et seq.in legislative format Exhibit C-Section 17.28.020.1 Farm Worker Dwellings Exhibit D-Table 17.32.020.B Required Parking Exhibit E-Section 17.44.040.G Requests for Reasonable Accommodations 120 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 3 EXHIBIT A AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.08.010 APPLICATION OF DEFINITIONS OF CHAPTER 17.08 DEFINITIONS OF TITLE 17 ZONING OF THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE Add the following definitions of "Disability", "Disabled Person" or "Individual with a Disability", "Fair Housing Laws", "Major Life Activity", "Physical or Mental Impairment" and "Reasonable Accommodation", as follows, with all other definitions to remain unchanged: 17.08.010 Application of definitions. "Disability" means the same as that term is defined in the Fair Housing Laws. "Disabled Person" or"Individual with a Disability" means a person who has a Physical or Mental Impairment that limits or substantially limits one or more Major Life Activities, anyone who is regarded as having such impairment, or anyone who has a record of such impairment, as those terms are defined in the Fair Housing Laws. This term does not include impairments, disorders or conditions resulting from the current. illegal use of, or addiction to, a controlled substance, sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania. "Fair Housing Laws" means the "Fair Housing Act" (42 U.S.0 § 3601 et seq.). the "Americans with Disabilities Act" (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et sea.), and the "California Fair Employment and Housing Act" (California Government Code§ 12900 et sea.), as these statutes now exist or may be amended from time to time, and the implementing regulations for each of these statutes. "Major Life Activity" means any physical, mental, or social activity, such as the operation of major bodily functions. seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping. walking. standing. sitting, reaching. lifting, bending, sneaking, breathingileaming, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working. "Physical or Mental Impairment" means any physiological disorder or condition and any mental or psychological disorder, including, but not limited to, orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, intellectual disabilities (formerly termed "mental retardation"),emotional or mental illness, learning disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), tuberculosis, and alcoholism and drug addiction (but not including current use of illegal drugs). A temporary condition, such as a broken lea, pregnancy, use of crutches, etc. does not qualify as a Physical or Mental Impairment. "Reasonable Accommodation" means a modification or exception to the standards, regulations, policies and procedures contained in Title 17 of this code for the siting. development and use of housing or housing-related facilities. that is necessary to provide an individual with a disability the equal opportunity to use and eniov a dwelling. 121 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 4 EXHIBIT B AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.20.050 PERMITTED USES IN OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL, AND SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONES OF CHAPTER 17.20 USES BY ZONE OF TITLE 17 ZONING OF THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE Table 17.20.050 PERMITTED USES IN OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL, AND SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONES 17.20.050 Permitted uses in open space, agricultural, residential and special purpose zones. Permitted uses in open space, agricultural, residential and special purpose zones are set forth in Table 17.20.050 below and in the conditions of approval of any applicable residential planned development permits. In addition to the entitlements required by Table 17.20.050, a planned development permit is required for all residential development of five (5) or more units. All uses, as applicable, shall comply with Moorpark Municipal Code Title 5, Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations. Table 17.20.050 PERMITTED USES IN OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL, AND SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONES [Blank] = Not permitted AP = Administrative Permit CUP = Conditional Use Permit NZC = No Zoning Clearance required TUP = Temporary Use Permit ZC = Permitted by Zoning Clearance 122 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 5 EXHIBIT C ADDING SUBDIVISION (I) REGARDING FARM WORKER DWELLINGS TO SECTION 17.28.020 STANDARDS RELATING TO DWEWNGS OF CHAPTER 17.28 STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC USES OF TITLE 17 ZONING OF THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE 17.28.020 Standards relating to dwellings. I. Farm worker dwellings. 1. Standards and Requirements. A farm worker dwelling, as defined in Section 17.08.010 of this code, shall be allowed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.20 of this code, and in compliance with all of the following standards and requirements: a. Minimum lot size. Property must meet minimum lot size of five (5) acres as required for agricultural uses. b. Permitted Size. Farm worker dwellings, may consist of no more than thirty-six beds in a group sleeping quarters, or twelve units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household. C. Off-street Parkin.. One off-street covered sarkin. .ace must be .rovided for each single family unit and one parking space must be provided for each three beds in the group sleeping quarters. The parking must have approved access and paving in accordance with Chapter 17.32 of this code. d. Lighting. Lighting shall comply with Chapter 17.30 of this code. e. HCD Permit. A permit from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) shall be obtained, as required by the Employee Housing Act and all applicable regulations. f. Occupancy Review. The property owner must complete and submit to the director of community development a farm worker dwelling verification letter no later than 30 days after receiving a permit to operate from HCD, and annually thereafter, to ensure corn @Ilan - ' state and local - ulations on farm worker housin.. The verification letter must include information regarding the housing type, number of dwelling units or beds, number of occupants, occupants employment information, and proof that a permit to operate from HCD has been obtained and maintained. g. Farm Worker Occupancy. The property must be occupied by farm workers and their families. A declaration of this restriction in a form approved by the city will be recorded by the city and be binding on all future owners. Beginning one year after the issuance of the building permit and annually thereafter, the owner must file an annual, report to the department listing the occupants of the farm worker dwelling and their place of work in order to ensure compliance with this requirement., h. General Develo•ment Re•uirements. Construction of farm worker dwellin•s shall comply with development requirements of the underlying zone. i. Maintenance. Facilities shall be maintained in a neat, safe,and orderly manner. 123 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 6 EXHIBIT D AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.32.020 REQUIRED PARKING OF CHAPTER 17.32 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 17 ZONING OF THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE 17.32.020 Required parking. Off-street parking spaces for new uses and for expansion of existing uses shall be provided in the quantities specified below. A fraction of a space greater than one-half (1/2) will be counted as a whole space. Parking requirements for new uses and for expansion of existing uses fronting on High Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road and Walnut Street between High Street and Charles Street are calculated under the provisions of Section 17.32.025. Minimum Parking Required Based on Gross Floor Area of Building (Unless Use Otherwise Stated) B. Residential: Handicap parking must be provided where required by the California Accessibility Code. 1. Boarding houses and bed and 2 spaces in a garage plus 1 space per rented breakfast inns room 2. Care facilities for up to 12 2 spaces in a garage persons 3. Dwellings, single-family 2 spaces in a garage for dwellings s 2,800 sq. ft. 3 spaces in a garage for dwellings > 2,800 sq. ft. 4. Dwellings, two-family or two 2 spaces in a garage for each dwelling s single-family dwellings on one lot 2,800 sq. ft. (not second dwellings per 3 spaces in a garage for each dwelling > Section 17.28.020(G)) 2,800 sq. ft. 5. Dwellings, multiple (> 2 units) 1 space per unit covered in a garage or carport for each bachelor or studio unit 1.75 spaces per unit, 1 covered in a garage or carport for each one-bedroom unit (including guest parking) 2 spaces per unit, 1 covered in a garage for each unit with 2 or more bedrooms plus for all units (except one-bedroom units) 0.5 spaces per unit for visitors 124 Resolution No. PG-2013- Page 7 6. Mobile home parks 2 tandem spaces covered in a garage or carport plus 1 space for each 4 mobile homes for visitors 7. Model homes, temporary office 8 spaces minimum. The director may for sale of homes or lots in increase the standard depending upon the subdivision where a model number of models. complex plan/temporary office complex plan 8. Second dwelling units See Section 17.28.020(G) _ 9. Senior housing (attached or 0.5 spaces per unit (0.25 spaces shall be in a detached) restricted to residents garage or carport) 55 years old and older 125 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 8 EXHIBIT E ADDING SUBDIVISION "G" REGARDING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TO SECTION 17.44.040 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND EXCEPTIONS OF CHAPTER 17.44 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES OF TITLE 17 ZONING OF THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE 17.44.040 Discretionary permits and exceptions. G. Requests for Reasonable Accommodations. 1. This section establishes a process for the request and consideration of a reasonable accommodation in the application of the city's land use, zoning, and building standards, regulations, policies, and procedures to allow disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. 2. Any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for disabled persons may seek relief from any land use,zoning or building standard, regulation, policy or procedure found in Title 17, Zoning, to ensure equal access to housing by requesting a reasonable accommodation. Requests for a reasonable accommodation must be submitted on an application form provided by the department, and must contain the following information: a. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant; b. The name, address and telephone number of the individual with a disability for whom the reasonable accommodation is being requested; c. The name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the property for which the reasonable accommodation request is being made, where different from the applicant: d. The address and current use of the property for which the reasonable accommodation is being made; e. If the applicant is someone other than the property owner, a letter of agency or authorization signed by the property owner consenting to the application being made; f. The basis for the claim that the individual to be reasonably accommodated is disabled under the fair housing laws; q. A description of the reasonable accommodation requested and the land use, zoning or building standard, regulation,policy or procedure to be modified or waived; h. A statement of the reason why the requested accommodation is necessary for the disabled person to use and enjoy the dwelling. 3. If the project for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is made requires another discretionary permit or approval, then the applicant may file the request for reasonable accommodation together with the application for the other discretionary permit or approval. The processing procedures of the discretionary permit will govern the joint processing of both the reasonable accommodation and the discretionary permit. If the project for which the request for a reasonable accommodation is made requires a discretionary permit or approval, then the 126 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 9 application for a reasonable accommodation will be heard at the same time as the other discretionary permit or approval. 4. If an individual needs assistance in making a request for a reasonable accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure that the process is accessible. 5. A request for a reasonable accommodation may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect or negate an individual's obligation to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. 6. The community development director shall be the decision-maker for a reasonable accommodation that is not made in conjunction with a discretionary approval that would require planning commission review. The community development director may refer the processing of the reasonable accommodation to the planning commission for review if the request is submitted in conjunction with a request for a separate discretionary approval. 7. The reviewing authority shall approve, with or without conditions,the request for a reasonable accommodation if it finds, based upon all of the evidence presented, that all of the following findings can be made: a. The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more disabled persons protected under the fair housing laws who will occupy the dwelling. b. The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. c. The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city as "undue financial or administrative burden" is defined in the fair housing laws. d. The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's zoning code, as "fundamental alteration" is defined in the fair housing laws. In considering whether the accommodation would require such a fundamental alteration, the reviewing authority may consider, among other factors: Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood; ii. Whether the requested accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking: iii. Whether the requested accommodation would substantially undermine any express purpose of either the City's General Plan or an applicable specific plan; and iv. Whether the requested accommodation would create an institutionalized environment due to the number of, and distance between, facilities that are similar in nature or operation. 127 Resolution No. PC-2013- Page 10 e. The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or physical damage to the property of others. 8. Conditions of Approval. In granting a request for a reasonable accommodation, conditions of approval may be imposed as deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable accommodation would comply with the required findings. The reviewing authority shall issue a written determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for a reasonable accommodation. The reviewing authority may approve an alternative reasonable accommodation that provides an opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling equivalent to that which would be provided by the accommodation specifically requested where such alternative accommodation would reduce impacts to neighboring properties or the surrounding area. The director shall mail written notice of the'determination to the applicant and as part of such notice shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal the determination. The written determination must explain in detail the basis of the decision. The written decision of the reviewing authority shall be final, unless appealed. 10. Any reasonable accommodation approved shall expire one hundred eighty (180) days after issuance, unless otherwise indicated by the community development director or unless the use of land or structures or building construction has commenced and is being diligently pursued, as evidenced by current inspections and/or valid building permits. 11. Any reasonable accommodation may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such reasonable accommodation are violated, or if any law or city ordinance is violated in connection with the reasonable accommodation. The revocation procedures in Section 17.44.100 will be followed to revoke a reasonable accommodation. 12. If the disabled person who initially occupied the applicable dwelling and for whom the reasonable accommodation was granted ceases to reside at the premises, the reasonable accommodation will remain in effect only if the community development director determines that: a. The modification is physically integrated into the residential structure and cannot easily be removed or altered to comply with the requirements of this Title 17: or b. The accommodation is necessary to give another disabled individual an equal opportunity to enjoy the dwelling. The community development director may request that any successor-in-interest to the property provide documentation that subsequent occupants are persons with disabilities. Failure to provide such documentation within ten days of the date of a request by the community development director will result in the termination of a previously approved reasonable accommodation and the applicable premises must subsequently be made to conform to requirements of this Title 17. 128 ,n �41.a \ wry &VATS OF CALIFORNIA • OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Bia.L LA)l'KYItK i1'1`Il 31tN111' III-NI:RtAI May 15,2001 To: All California Mayors: Re: Adoption of A Reasonable Accommodation Procedure Both the federal Fair Housing Act("FHA")and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act("FEHA")impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations(i.e.,modifications or exceptions)in their zoning laws and other land use regulations and practices when such accommodations"may be necessary to afford"disabled persons"an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B);see also Gov. Code, §§ 12927(c)(1), 12955(1).) Although this mandate has been in existence for some years now,it is our understanding that only two or three local jurisdictions in California provide a process specifically designed for people with disabilities and other eligible persons to utilize in making such requests. In my capacity as Attorney General of the State of California,I share responsibility for the enforcement of the FEHA's reasonable accommodations requirement with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Accordingly,I am writing to encourage your jurisdiction to adopt a procedure for handling such requests and to make its availability known within your community.2 ' Title U of the Americans with Disabilities Act(42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-65)and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act(29 U.S.C. § 794)have also been found to apply to zoning ordinances and to require local jurisdictions to make reasonable accommodations in their requirements in certain circumstances. (See Bay Area Addiction Research v. City of Antioch(9th Cir. 1999) 179 F.3d 725;see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(1997).) 2 A similar appeal has been issued by the agencies responsible for enforcement of the FHA. (See Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Group Homes,Local Land Use and the Fair Housing Act(Aug. 18, 1999), p.4,at<http://www.bazelon.org/cpfha/cpflhg.html>[as of February 27,2001).) 130(1 1 S'I I I. :T • SUITE 17411 • SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA • 95814 • 916-324-5437 PC ATTACHMENT 2 129 • • • • • • May 15,2001 • Page 2 • • It is becoming increasingly important that a process be made available for handling such requests that operates promptly and efficiently. A report issued in 1999 by the California Independent Living Council makes it abtmdant y clear that the need for accessible and affordable • housing for Californians with disabilities will increase significantly over the course of the present decade.' The report's major findings include the following: • •Between 1999 and 2010,the number of Californians with some form of physical or psychological disability is expected to increase by at least 19 percent,fromapproximately 6.6 million to 7.8 million,and may rise as high as 11.2 million. The number with severe disabilities is expected to increase at approximately die same rate,from 3.1 million to 3.7 . million,and may reach 6.3 million.4.Ftwther,most of this increase will likely be concentrated in California's nine largest counties.' • • If the percentages of this population who live in community is,in private homes or apartments(roughly 66.4 percent)and group homes(approximately 10.8 percent)-is to be maintained,thine will have to be a dal expansion in the stock of suitable housing in the next decade. The projected growth adds population translates into a need to accommodate an additional 800,000 to 3.1 million people with disabilities in affordable and Accessible private residences or apartments and an additional 100,000 to • 500,000 in group homes. • I recognize that many jurisdictions currently handle requests by people with.disabilities for relief from the strict terms of their zoning ordinances pursnant to existing variance or conditional use permit procedures. I also,recognise that several courts called upon to address the •matte have concluded that requiring people with disabilities to utilize existing,non • • • • 'See Tooteliaa&Gaedeke,The he Impact of IlousthgAvailabiy,Accessibility, and . 4efordability On People.With Disabilities(April 1999)at > [as of February 27,20011 • • 'The lower projections are based on the assumption that the percentage of California residents with disabilities will remain constant over time,at appromamately 19 percent(Le.,one • in every five)_overall,with about 92 percent having severe disabilities. The higher figures, • reflecting adjustments for the aging of the state's population and the higher proportion of the • • elderly who are disabled,assume that these peges•will increase to around 28 percent(Le., • one in every four)overall,with 16 percent having severe disabilities. (Ibid.) 'These are: Alameda,Contra Costa,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,Sacramento,San Bernardino,San Diego,and Santit Clara.(lbid.) . • 130 • • May 15,2001 'Page 3 discriminatory procedures such as these is not of itself a violation of the FHA.' Several . considerations counsel against exclusive reliance on these alternative procedu tes,however. • Chief among these is the increased risk of wrongfully denying a disabled applicant's request for relief and incuinring the consequent liability for monetary damages,penalties, attorneys'fees,and costs which violations of the state and federal fair housing laws often entail.' This risk exists because the criteria for determining whether to grant a variance or conditional use - • permit typically differ from those which govem the determination whether a requested accommodation is reasonable within the meaning of the fair housing laws.' • Thus,municipalities relying upon these alternative procedures have found themselves in the position of having refused to approve a project as a result of considerations which,while sufficient to justify the refusal under the criteria applicable to grant of a vali nce or conditional use permit,were insufficient to justify the denial when judged in light of the fair housing laws' reasonable accommodations mandate. (See,e.g., Hovaon's Inc. v. Township of Brick(3rd Cir. 1996)89 F.34 1096(township found to have violated the FHA's reasonable accommodation mandate in refusing to grant a conditional we permit to allow construiction of a nursing home in • a"Rural Residential--Adult Comniimity Zone"despite the fact that the denial was sustained by • the state courts under applicable zoning criteria);Trovato v. City of Manchester,NH. 1997)992 F.Supp.493(city which denied disabled applicants permission to build a paved parking space in front of their home bet use of their failnre to meet state law requirements for a variance found to have violated the FTIA's reasonable accommodation mandate). • • • 'See,U.S.v. Village of Palatine,M.(7th Cir. 1994)37 F:3d 1230,1234;Oxford House, Inc.v. City of Virginia Beach(E.D Va.1993)825 F.Supp.1251,1262;see generally Annot. (1998) 148 A.L.R.Fed. 1,115-121,and later cases(2000 pocket supp.)p.4.) 7 See 42 U.S.C. §3604(t)(3)(B);Gov.Code,§§ 12987(a),12989.3(f. ' Under the FHA,an accommodation is deemed"reasonable"so long as it does not . impose"undue financial and administrative burdens"on the municipality or require a • . "fundamental alteration in the nature"of its zoning scheme. (See,e.g., City of Edmonds v Washington State Bldg. aide Connell(9th Cir. 1994)18 F.3d•802,806;TwnhigPo1n Inc. v. • City ofCaldwell(9th Cir.1996)74 F.3d 941;Hovaarfi Inc.v Township of Brick(3rd Cir. 1996) 89 F.3d 1096,1104;Smith&Lee Associates,Inc.v City of Taylor,Michigan(6th Cir. 1996)102 Fad 781,795;Erdman v. City of Fart ANdnson(7th Cir.1996)84 F..3d 960;Shapiro v Cadman Towers,Inc.(2d Cir. 1995)5.1 F3d 328,334;see also Gov.Code,§12955.6[explicitly declaring • that the FEHA's housing discrimination provisions shall be construed to afford people with disabilities,among others,no lesser rights or remedies than the FHA].) • • 131 • • • • May 15,2001.. • • • Page 4 • Further,and perhaps even more importantly,it may well be that reliance on these alternative procedures,with their different governing critaia,serves at least in some circxwastances to encourage commtmity opposition to projersiniolving despc rately.needed . • housing for the disabled. As you are well aware,opposiiion•to such housing is often grounded on stereotypical assumptions about people with disabilities and appy ally unfounded . • concerns about the impact of Such homes on surmmding property values.' Moreover,once • triggered,it is difficult to quell.Yet this is the vary type of opposition that for example,the • typical conditional use permit procedrte,with its general health,safety,and welfare standard, would seem rather predictably to invite,whereas a procedure conducted puasuant to the more . • focused criteria applicable to the-reasdniable accommodation determination would not. • For these reasons,I urge your jurisdiction to amend your mining ordinances to include a procedure for handling requests for reasonable accommodation made pursuant to the thir]wusing laws. This task is not a burdensome one:Examples of reasa rable accommodation ordinances are easily attainable from jurisdictions whichhave already taken this stepu°and from various . =grad groups which provide services to people With disabilities,among others" It is, • however,an important one By taking this one,relatively simple step,you can help to ensure the inclusion in our communities of those among us who are disabled. • • Sincerely, , • BILL LOCKYBR • • -Attorney General • • • 9Numerous studies support the conclusion that such concerns about property values are • • misplaced. (See Lauber,A Real LULU:Zoning for Group Homes and Halfway Houses Under The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988(Winter 1996)29 J.Marshall L.Rev.369,3$4-385 &fn.50(reporting that there are more than fifty such studies,all of which found no effect'on property values,even for the homes immediately aliment))A compendium of these studies, many of which also document the lack of any fonndadon for other commonly egad fears • about housing for people with disabilities,is available. (See Council of Pluming Lribcarians, There Goes the Neighborhood...A Summary'((Studies the Most Often&pressed Fens about the if ecti Of Group Homes on Neighborhoods In iv, IlieyAil'Placed (Bibliography No.259)(Apr.1990).) • • 10 Within California,these include the cities of Long Beach and.San Jose. • • " Mental Health Advocacy Services,Inc.,of Los Angeles for example,maintains a •collection of reasonable accommodations ordinances,copies of which are available upon • • • . 132 PC ATTACHMENT 3 EXISTING ZONING MAP (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) COPIES OF THE EXHIBIT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE FRONT COUNTER 133 MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA ITEM 10.A. Planning Commission of 8.2?. 2013 ACTION: APPROv • MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION BY: T. OE N-Le e-. Moorpark, California April 2412013 A Special Joint Meeting of the Moorpark City Council and Planning Commission was held on April 24, 2013, 2013, at 7:00.p.m. at the Moorpark Community Center located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark,California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Parvin called the City Council to order at 7:14 p.m. Chair Gould called the Planning Commission to order at 7:14 p.m. 2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: - Planning Commissioner, Kipp Landis, led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: City Council: Councilmembers Mikos, Mil!house, Pollock, Van Dam, and Mayor Parvin. Planning Commissioners: Commissioner Hamous, Landis, and Chair Gould. Absent: Commissioners Di Cecco and Groff. Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Deborah Traffenstedt, Deputy City Manager; David Bobardt, Community Development Director; and Maureen Benson, 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 5. PRESENTATION/ACTION/DISCUSSION: A. Consider Status Report on Mission Statement, Priorities. Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2012/2013 and Direction for Fiscal Year 2013/2014. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Kueny deferred giving a staff report and stated staff is available to respond to Council and Commission questions. There were no speakers. 134 Minutes of the City Council and Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 2 April 24, 2013 A discussion followed among the Councilmembers, Commissioners, and staff which focused on: 1) An update on the proposed Aszkenazy project on High Street; 2) Processing of Special Event Permits with forms on the City's website and submission in person and the possibility of filing more permit forms. online for ease of doing business in the City; 4) An update on the day-laborer transition to the Ruben Castro Human Services Center to take place in May; 5) An update on the Princeton Avenue Widening Project with the utility relocations being the next hurdle; 6) An update on the status of the installation of the sound wall at Tierra Rejada on State Route 23, with completion of the base of the wall and the block wall to being going up in early May and a completion date in August; 7) Possibility of reducing development fees to encourage an enterprise zone in the downtown area, which would lower the cost to build and encourage more development; 8) Opportunities to consider changing from commercial to high density residential and increased density allowed for affordable housing units; 9) Clarification that "blue-lights" on traffic signals are used by law enforcement to facilitate documenting vehicles running red lights; 10) Status on funding for alternate for State Route 23 and the need to assess fees for mining trucks using roadways; 11) Status on County enforcement of prohibition of mining in unapproved areas in the County; 12) Explanation of citywide assessment districts for lighting and landscaping, and parks maintenance and the need to find public support for increasing these; 13) A community garden would require a group from the community to manage and coordinate, as there is no staff available for this project. Future consideration, when economic times improve, for a full-time volunteer coordinator staff position to utilize volunteers to orchestrate projects such as the community garden; 14) Limitations on what violations the City can enforce in private parking lots; 15) Resident input needed regarding 9-acres of undeveloped land at the south end of Tract 3032 called Buttercreek Park; 16) Status on the Civic Center Master Plan, which is located on land now subject to state approval due to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency; 17) Status on the updates to the Land Use and Circulation Elements; 18) Status on updates to the Zoning Ordinance; 19) Locations of electric vehicle charging stations in the City and potential for revenue; 1.35 Minutes of the City Council and Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 3 April 24: 2013 20) Placing contact information on the City's website referring residents to agencies that assist with injured animals; 21) Scheduling a Planning Commission study session to review the Conditional Use Permit process versus the Administrative Permit process to encourage more business to locate in Moorpark and then present findings to City Council; 22) Lack of mitigation to the City in response to truck traffic generated by the Oxnard Port traveling through the Moorpark; 23) An update on the North Hills Parkway with the phasing being developed by the studio project, the City's effort with a consultant preparing design plans in coordination with AB Properties portion to be built per their development agreement, and the City's coordination with Union Pacific for the undercrossing of the railroad tracks, which involves the need to relocate underground fiber optics; 24) Possibility of providing a link on the City's website to the Moorpark Historical Society's brochure on a Walking tour of Moorpark; 25) Report on Senator Pavely's efforts to pass Senate Bill 203, which would allow continued use of Transportation Development Act funds for street maintenance purposes; 26) Including protection and enhancement of the view shed in County unincorporated areas in the General Plan update; 27) Consideration to include high speed fiber optics in the City to continue to attract more businesses to Moorpark; and 28) Status on the secondary access to Arroyo Vista Community Park with three options from a consultant to come before the Council in the future and a request to also bring information regarding any commitments made to residents near the emergency access. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Parvin adjourned the City Council meeting and Chair Gould adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:31 p.m. Janice S. Parvin, Mayor Diana Gould, Chair ATTEST: Maureen Benson, City Clerk 136 MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA ITEM 1 O B Planning Commission O.B. of B. Z?. Zot3 ACTION: 4,pp R oveo MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION T. iii; February 26, 2013 A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark was held on February 26, 2013, in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gould called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Landis led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Di Cecco, Hamous, Di Cecco, Vice Chair Groff, and Chair Gould. Staff Present: David Bobardt, Community Development Director; Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner, Joseph Vacca, Principal Planner; and Joyce Figueroa, Administrative Assistant. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 6. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: None. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND REPORTS ON MEETINGS/CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY THE COMMISSION: (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.) A. Future Agenda Items i. CUP 2003-05 National Ready Mixed (Continued from August 26, 2009 to a date uncertain.) ii. ZOA Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance 137 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 2 February 26, 2013 iii. ZOA Farm Worker Housing Ordinance iv. ZOA Sign Ordinance Revision v. Rescinding Toll Mazur DA, GPA, ZC Mr. Bobardt briefly discussed future agenda items. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. PC-2011-579) A. Consider Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2012-02, a request to construct a 200-Unit Apartment Project on Approximately 10.57 Acres, Located at 150 Casey Road, on the Application of Essex Property Trust. Inc. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013-579 recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2012-02. (Staff: Joseph Vacca) Mr. Vacca gave the staff report. A discussion followed among the Commissioners and staff regarding: 1) parking; 2) will the affordable units moderate be, low or very low ; 3) area for stacking of vehicles at gated access; 4) is the facility completely enclosed with fencing; 5) Casey Road primary access; 6) trail network and if there is any way to use the drainage channel as a trail; 7) no south exit; and 8) balconies/conduit for satellite dishes. Chair Gould opened the Public Hearing. Andrew Baker, Essex Property Trust, discussed the project and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to discuss the proposed development and looks forward to building in Moorpark and being part of the community for years to come. A discussion followed among the Commissioners and Mr. Baker regarding: 1) will the property be completely enclosed with fencing; 2) provide pedestrian access to the Civic Center, High Street, and Metro-link; 3) reduction in parking; 4) condition regarding preventing storage in garages; 5) is there an extra fee for a parking or garage stall; and 6)discussion regarding no circulation and trails. Carlos Jerez, Casey Road Resident, spoke in opposition of the project and discussed concern regarding traffic, and the single entrance one entrance to the project. S:\Community Development\PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES\2013\2013 0226 draft.doc 138 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark. California Page 3 February 26, 2013 Mario Jerez, Casey Road Resident, spoke in opposition of the project and discussed concern regarding turning left onto Casey Road and the increase in traffic. Kim Jerez, Casey Road Resident, spoke in opposition of the project and discussed concern regarding school and bus traffic, week-end festivities, high traffic area congestion, and the single entrance on Casey Road as a huge danger. Colin Velasquez, Moorpark Stakeholder, spoke in opposition of the project and concern about High Street and any emergency access to High Street. Dennis Hardgrave, Development Planning Services, Project Director for Hitch Ranch, discussed the project and believes they are very close to having a detailed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ready for public review and this project is a good fit with the eastern portion of Hitch Ranch. Mr. Hardgrave requests that staff have the Essex engineering design team work closely with the Hitch Ranch team and City Engineer to make sure that the actual configuration of the Casey Road and Walnut Canyon intersection is adequate. A discussion followed among the Commissioners and Mr. Hargrave regarding: 1) plans to widen Casey Road; 2) working with Essex and Planning to make a wider intersection at Casey Road and Moorpark Road; 3) what the ultimate Casey Road intersection will look like; and 4) ultimate right of way distance. John Hamilton, Ventura County Resident, spoke in opposition of the project and concerns regarding traffic and safety. Ty Vallelunga, Moorpark Resident, spoke in opposition of the project and concerns regarding traffic, safety, and environmental concern regarding reducing water and where it is going to come from. At the request of Chair Gould, Mr. Baker, Essex Property Trust, applicant, stepped forward to the lectern and responded to comments that were raised. Mr. Baker stated that a traffic report was done and Essex Property Trust plans on complying with all the project specific mitigation measures that were laid out in the traffic plan. In response to Chair Gould, Mr. Bobardt stated there was an additional speaker card from Alan Scales, KTGY Group, Architect Representative. Mr. Scales responded to comments discussed regarding the balcony detailing. S:\Community Development\PLANNING COMMISSIONWIINUTES\2013\2013 0226 draft.doc 139 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 4 February 26, 2013 A discussion followed among the Commissioners and Mr. Scales regarding: 1) placement of the carports; 2) disabled access stall location; 3) the location of the leasing building close to the intersection; and 4) construction and material for the balconies. Chair Gould closed the Public Hearing. A discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding traffic and parking as the two major issues, including concerns about:1)trails; 2) entrances to the gate; 3) landscaping; 4) no off-site parking; 5) egress issues on Wicks Road; and 6) would like to see pedestrian connection provided to the south in order to allow access to downtown High Street, Civic Center, Moorpark Library, and the Metro- link. Based on the traffic study and mitigation measures the Commission is in . support of the project and thanked staff and Essex for putting together an excellent report. MOTION: Commissioner Di Cecco moved and Commissioner Hamous seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation, with changes as proposed by the Commission, including adoption of Resolution No. PC-2013-579; to include an additional whereas referencing prior project approvals of MND, GPA No 2004-05, ZC No. 2004-04 and RPD No. 2004-06; and include about a condition of approval for developer to provide a pedestrian access connection to Civic Center and to downtown Moorpark. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The City Council has final approval authority for this project. At this point in the meeting the Commission recessed. The time was 8:32 p.m. The Planning Commission meeting reconvened at 8:38 p.m. B. Consider a Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Tract Mao No. 5906, a Re-Subdivision of Tract No. 5147 for 17 Industrial Lots on 34.70 Acres, Located 1300 Feet West of Gabbed Road, North of the Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, on the Application of John Newton for AB Properties. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013-580, recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Tentative Tract No. 5906. (Staff: Joseph Fiss) Mr. Fiss gave the staff report. S:1Community Devetopment1PLANNING COMMISSIONIMINUTES1201 31201 3 0226 draft.doc 140 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Pane 5 February 26, 2013 A discussion followed among the Commissioners and staff regarding: '1) reason why right-of-way exhibit is done as a new map, and why this isn't a Lot Line Adjustment; 2) do any of the items such as new MS4, new regulations and storm water get grandfathered in; 3) Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (AOC); 4) following the sale of the individual lots; and 5) if a new person buys an acre lot, will they need to contribute toward the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution. Chair Gould opened the public hearing. John Newton, Newton and Associates, Applicant Representative, discussed the project and stated that implementation of the Settlement Agreement is all that is trying to be accomplished and is trying to record the final map and cannot give dedicated public access. Mr. Newton stated they will be prevented from recording the map with the condition and unable to sell the seven lots which they need to finance construction of the public access. Mr. Newton also expressed concerns regarding: 1) problem with some of the language and standard conditions in the Development Agreement that will need to be amended; 2) current proposal; 3) conditions being imposed on the Tentative Tract Map when all there supposed to be doing is implementing the settlement agreement; 4) the original map; 5) public access to Edison and the secondary map was allowed to record with private access; 6) trying to record final map, cannot give dedicated public access and going to be using Edison private easement; 7) stamp page 34, Condition No. 7 regarding recording of the final map; 8) stamp page 35, Condition No. 11 regarding Community Facilities District providing funding to improvements of constructing North Hills Parkway and improvements to Gabbert Road; and 9) bonding. Mr. Newton also requested a recommendation that staff continue working with the applicant to solve the conflict between the development agreement and potential conditions before being presented to the City Council. A discussion followed among the Commissioners and Mr. Newton regarding: 1) if the Commission approves the project as is and recommends moving it forward is there concern that the conditions are set in stone without having the ability to work with staff; and top three concerns being Condition No. 7, Condition No. 11, and the Standard Conditions of Approval clause in Exhibit A that adds another 270 conditions. Paul Burns, A-B Properties, applicant, stated he had no additional comments and agreed with the concerns of Mr. Newton. S:\Community Development\PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES\2013\2013 0226 draft.doc 141 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 6 February 26, 2013 At the request of the Commission, Mr. Bobardt responded to concerns that were raised by Mr. Newton regarding 1) additional conditions that were in the development agreement that were related specifically to the recording of the final map, Condition 7; 2) issue with financing and that once a final map is recorded the developer can sell off the lot, and having a funding mechanism in place before the lots are sold off or we may not get the votes to establish the funding mechanism; and 3) staff will look at the standard conditions to see if they still apply. Mr. Bobardt stated that staff is more than happy to discuss Mr. Newton's concerns with him and see if they can get resolution or if we need to look at an amendment to the Development Agreement. A discussion followed among the Commissioners and Mr. Bobardt regarding if the Development Agreement has to amended, will the item come back to the Planning Commission. Chair Gould closed the Public Hearing. A discussion followed among the Commissioners who recommended that staff work with Mr. Newton and move this item forward to the City Council. MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Di Cecco seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation, with changes as proposed by the Commission, including adoption of Resolution No. PC-2013-580. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The City Council has final approval authority for this project. C. Consider a Resolution Recommending Approval of Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 2012-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2012- 07 for a 21.644 Square-Foot Church on a 2.78 Acre Lot at 13960 Peach Hill Road, on the Application of Hollee L. King, AICP/SitesPacific, Inc. for the Kim Clement Center. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013-581 recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 2012-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-07. (Staff: Joseph Fiss) Commissioner Di Cecco disclosed that he did consulting work with the applicant over a year ago and his actions tonight will have no impact on his interest financially or otherwise and is confident that he can make unbiased decisions for the best interest for the City of Moorpark. Mr. Fiss gave the staff report. S:\Community Development\PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\2013\2013 0226 draft.doc 142 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 7 February 26, 2013 A discussion followed among the Commissioners and staff regarding: 1) did we receive civil plans for this project; 2) seating; 3) parking requirements; 4) any requirements from the City that the applicant enter into any parking agreements with adjacent facilities; and is a public art piece required for a church. Chair Gould opened the public hearing. Hollee King, Kim Clement Center, applicant, discussed the project and stated they are looking for a permanent home and excited to come to Moorpark. Ms. King thanked Planning staff and is happy with the staff report and conditions and is committed to get the facility started. Mark Kiesel, Landscape Architect, Kiesel Design, stated he was available to answer any questions. David VanHoy, Architect, discussed the project and stated he was happy to be here and was available to answer any questions. A discussion followed among the Commission and Mr. VanHoy regarding: 1) aesthetics; 2) how is rain water dealt with; 3) what is proposed under the side of the over hangs; and 4) pedestrian connection between the project and the church to the north. The Commission also suggested: 1) motorcycle and bike parking closer to the front entrance; 2) more articulation on the building by the back access and fire department turn around; and 3) reaching out to the school and adjacent churches for additional parking. John Fisher, Architect, JSRA Inc., discussed the project and addressed the Commission's concern regarding parking. Chair Gould closed the Public Hearing. A discussion followed among the Commissioners who all concur that this is a nice addition to the community and is a very nicely designed project. MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Vice Chair Groff seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation, including adoption of Resolution No. PC-2013-581. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The City Council has final approval authority for this project. S:\Community Development\PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\201312013 0226 draft.doc 143 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 8 February 26, 2013 D. Consider Resolution Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-01: an Amendment to Section 17.28.020(B) (Home Occupations and Garaae Sales) of Title 17 (Zoningl of the Moorpark Municipal Code. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013-582 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-01. (Staff: Joseph Fiss) Mr. Fiss gave the staff report. A discussion followed among the Commission and staff regarding: 1) if the five-year term is revoked what mechanism is there to ensure that the Home Occupation Permit continues in the use that it was originally granted for and how would we monitor that. The Commission also thanked staff and stated this is a good idea in trying to reduce the fees and costs to the businesses in Moorpark. Chair Gould opened the Public Hearing. In response to Chair Gould, Mr. Bobardt stated there were no speaker cards or written cards for this item. Chair Gould closed the Public Hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Hamous moved and Commissioner Di Cecco seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation, including adoption of Resolution No. PC- 2013-582. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The City Council has final approval authority for this project. 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. 10. CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTION: Commissioner Di Cecco moved and Commissioner Hamous seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. A. Consider Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2013. Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes. S:1Community DevelopmentlPUWNING COMMISSIONIMINUTES1201312013 0226 draft.doc 144 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark. California Page 9 February 26. 2013 11. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Vice Chair Groff seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 9:49 p.m. Diana S. Gould, Chair David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director S:\Community DevelopmeMPLANNING COMMISSIONWIINUTES\2013\2013 0226 draft.doc 145 MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA Planning Commission ITEM 10.C. of 8•Z7.Z0 r,3 ACTION: APPRa/VD MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION -r. CIE aea- BY: Moorpark. California June 4. 2013 A Special Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark was held on June 4, 2013, in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gould called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Groff led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Di Cecco, Hamous, Di Cecco, Vice Chair Groff, and Chair Gould. Staff Present: David Bobardt, Community Development Director; Dave Klotzle, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Joseph Vacca, Principal Planner; Freddy Carrillo, Assistant Planner I, and Joyce Figueroa, Administrative Assistant. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 6. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: None. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND REPORTS ON MEETINGS/CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY THE COMMISSION: (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.) A. Future Agenda Items i. CUP 2003-05 National Ready Mixed (Continued from August 26, 2009 to a date uncertain.) ii. ZOA Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance 146 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 2 June 4. 2013 ZOA Farm Worker Housing Ordinance iv. ZOA Sign Ordinance Revision v. Rescinding Toll Mazur DA, GPA, ZC Mr. Bobardt briefly discussed announcements and future agenda items and announced the cancellation of the Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 2013. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. PC-2011-583) A. Consider Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-01 for an Auto Body Shop at 5395 Kazuko Court, Unit A, on the Application of Alan and Michelle Palmer for Palmer's Custom. Inc. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public • hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013-583 for conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-01. (Staff: Freddy Carrillo) Mr. Carrillo gave the staff report: A discussion followed among the Commissioners and staff regarding whether the City has existing zoning that would allow for this type of use as a specific zoning for auto body shops. • Chair Gould opened the Public Hearing. Alan Palmer, Palmer's Custom, Inc., discussed the project and stated that Moorpark suited their needs. In response to Chair Gould, Mr. Bobardt stated there were no additional speaker cards or written cards for this item. Chair Gould closed the Public Hearing. MOTION: Vice Chair Groff moved and Commissioner Di Cecco seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation, including adoption of Resolution No. PC-2013-583 for conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-01. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The Planning Commission has final approval authority for this project. B. Consider Resolution Recommending to the City Council Approval of an Ordinance Adopting a Development Agreement between City of Moorpark VDC1\Department Share\Community Development\PLANNING COMMISSIONIMINUTES1201312013 0604 draft.doc 147 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark. California Page 3 June 4, 2013 and Essex Moorpark Owner L.P. and Rescinding Ordinance No. 355 for Approximately 10.57 Acres Located at 150 Casey Road. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC-2013-584 recommending to the City Council approval of the proposed Ordinance adopting a Development Agreement between the City of Moorpark and Essex. (Staff: David Bobardt) Mr. Bobardt gave the staff report. A discussion followed among the Commissioners and staff regarding: 1) Stamp page 19, $350,000 underground storm drain estimated costs; 2) Is there a conflict between Item 5.1 of the Resolution regarding timing of development cannot be constricted by the City and item 5.7 that allows the City to declare a moratorium if there isn't the ability to service the project with water; 3) Stamp page 127, text which references the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency needs to be changed; 4) Stamp page 132, Item 6.24, are BJ Palmer and Associates mentioned specifically because they have already started the relocation of the power poles; 5) Stamp page 133, Item 6.25, clarification regarding parking and no additional charges for parking for affordable units; 6) City bond financing for the additional ten units; 7) 2008 original Development Agreement regarding different methods of calculating fees, consumer price index and Caltrans highway bid price index; 8) Stamp page 125, in lieu fees for additional four units and fee expiration date; 9) Stamp page 127, pooled investment fund; 10) Stamp page 125, annual rate of accrual for payments received ten days after the due date; and 11) purchase of eight acre property back from the developer. Chair Gould opened the Public Hearing. Andrew Baker, Vice-President of Development, Essex Property Trust, discussed the project and wants the opportunity to discuss changes, modifications, how method fees were calculated, would like to see back up for the storm drain, and get the project going forward. In response to Chair Gould, Mr. Bobardt stated there were no additional speaker cards or written cards for this item. Chair Gould closed the Public Hearing. A discussion followed among the Commissioners concern regarding the various fees and adjustments on an annual basis and stated this is a good project and would like to work with the applicant. MOTION: Commissioner Hamous moved and Commissioner Di Cecco seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation, with changes as proposed by the \\DC11Department Share\Community Development1PtANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES12013\2013 0604 draft.doc 148 Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page June 4, 2013 Commission, including adoption of Resolution No. PC-2013-584; to include that City Council look at the fees with staff to see if we can make it equitable for both Essex Property Trust and the City of Moorpark. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The City Council has final approval authority for this project. 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Consider Draft Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program for the Department of Public Works for FY 2012/13 — FY 2018/19. Staff Recommendation: 1) Find the draft Seven Year Capital Improvement Program for the Department of Public Works for FY 2012/13 — FY 2018/19 to be in conformity with the Moorpark General Plan, except as noted above; 2) Find the planned acquisition of street right-of-way for certain specified projects described in this report, to be in conformity with the Moorpark General Plan. (Staff: Dave Klotzle) Mr. Klotzle gave the staff report. A discussion followed among the Commissioners and Mr. Klotzle regarding: State law requires the Planning Commission to make a finding on the General Plan conformity of the Capital Improvement Program and the finding would note that by listing the Moorpark widening project, this project is not consistent with the circulation element. MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Vice Chair Groff seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 10. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 11. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Hamous seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 7:53 p.m. Diana S. Gould, Chair David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director \\DC1\Department Share\Community Development\PLANNING COMMISSIONUMINUTES\2013\2013 0604 draft.doc 149