HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2014 0702 CCSA REG ITEM 08AITEM 8.A.
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development 9it ctor
Prepared By: Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner
DATE: June 7, 2014 (CC Meeting of July 2, 2014)
SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution Approving Variance No. 2014-01 to Allow an.
Alternative to In -Ground Landscaping in a Parking Lot for a Multi -
Tenant Indoor Retail Community Marketplace at 709 Science Drive,
on the Application of Community Marketplace (Manny Asadurian, Jr.)
1__J.1N:(rI:Z�11Ii1i7
On April 16, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-3286, conditionally
approving Administrative Permit No. 2013-19 and Modification No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1 to
allow a multi -tenant indoor retail community marketplace in the M-1 Zone at 709
Science Drive. At the public hearing for this project, the City Council discussed the
applicant's proposal to provide parking and landscaping, including trees planted in large
pots within the former truck staging and loading area, instead of cutting the concrete
and installing the landscaping and irrigation in the ground -level planters, as per the
City's adopted Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines. Condition of Approval No.
3 states:
3. Detailed landscaping plans demonstrating compliance with the City's Landscape
Design Standards and Guidelines must be submitted for review by the Parks and
Recreation Director and Community Development Director, or a Variance application
for the use of container plants in the parking areas must be submitted and deemed
complete, prior to issuance of a Building Permit. All landscaping must be installed in
accordance with the approved plan, or if a Variance is requested, a decision on the
Variance application must be made and sufficient surety posted with the City to
guarantee the installation of the required landscaping prior to occupancy, and all
landscaping required by the Variance decision must be installed within 90 days of
the decision.
1
Honorable City Council
June 18, 2014
Page 2
On May 6, 2014, the applicant submitted a Variance application, formally requesting a
deviation from the strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for parking lot
landscaping to be placed in above -ground pots instead of planter areas. Although a
Variance application is normally considered by the Planning Commission, the
Community Development Director is elevating this decision to the City Council per
Section 17.44.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for this action when there are
multiple discretionary permits so the entire project and all its permits are considered by
the highest decision-making authority. The City Council already considered a
Modification to the Industrial Planned Development Permit and an Administrative Permit
for this project. A Variance decision requires a public hearing.
DISCUSSION
The approved project is described in detail in the City Council agenda reports of April 2
and April 16, 2014 (Attachment No. 2). The applicant is proposing 94 new parking
spaces in an area formerly used for truck staging and loading. As noted in the April 2,
2014 staff report, 521 parking spaces are proposed for the two buildings that are part of
the original Industrial Planned Development project; 84 spaces more than the 437
parking spaces required with the new commercial use in one of the buildings. The
existing pavement in the area proposed for the new parking spaces was designed to
support ongoing weight and movement of large trucks and is estimated by the applicant
to be about 12-14 inches thick.
The applicant is proposing to provide landscaping in this new parking area with trees in
above -ground pots — 48 inches in diameter and 36 inches high. This proposal would
only require a shallow trench cut into this pavement for irrigation and drainage, but it
would not require removal of sections of pavement. This proposal would not comply
with the City's landscaping standards for parking lots, which call for landscaping to be in
planter areas including tree diamonds between parking aisles. This issue is discussed
in the analysis section below.
ANALYSIS
Issues
Staff analysis of the proposed project has identified the following issues for City Council
consideration:
• Justification for Variance
• Alternative to Provision of Landscaping on Site
Justification for Variance
State zoning law (Section 65906 of the Government Code) allows a variance to be
granted, "when because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning
K
Honorable City Council
June 18, 2014
Page 3
ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification. Any variance granted shall be subject to such
conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. A variance shall not be granted for
a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property."
Section 17.44.040 of the Zoning Ordinance states, 'A variance is an adjustment in the
regulations contained in this title. A variance is based on discretionary decisions and
may be granted to allow deviations from ordinance regulations governing such
development factors as setbacks, height, lot coverage, lot area and width, signs, off-
street parking, landscaping and wall, fencing and screening standards. A variance shall
be processed in accordance with the provisions of this title. A variance may not be
granted to authorize a use or activity as a substitute to an amendment to these zoning
regulations." Written findings consistent with State law based upon substantial
evidence in view of the whole record to justify the decision are required by the Zoning
Ordinance and are proposed later in this report.
Section 17.32.040(C)(9) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that, "All landscaping must
comply with the latest adopted city of Moorpark landscape guidelines and standards."
Section 10 of the City's Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, last amended by
City Council Resolution No. 2012-3096, requires the following for landscaping of parking
areas:
SECTION 10. PARKING AREAS
Parking lots should be designed to provide ease of access and safety as well as to
enhance the visual quality of the City. The ultimate goal of the design is to provide a
safe environment, minimize the visual appearance of the large expanse of asphalt and
to reduce glare, ambient temperature and traffic noise.
A. General Design Requirements:
1. A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total parking area shall consist of
landscaping. Landscaping shall be computed on the basis of the net
parking facility, which includes parking stalls (covered and uncovered),
aisles and walkways, but does not include required landscaping adjacent
to streets and within the public right-of-way.
2. All parking rows shall terminate with a planter or island that is a minimum
of eight -foot (8) width with a twelve inch (12') decorative concrete step -
out adjacent to each curb face, for a step out which has a total width of
eighteen inches (18'), parallel to the parking stalls. Parking rows shall not
exceed forty feet (40) in length without the addition of a diamond planter,
planter finger or island.
3
Honorable City Council
June 18, 2014
Page 4
3. A minimum of one (1) tree per every four (4) stalls is required to meet the
shade requirement.
4. There shall be a minimum of one (1) shrub per ten (10) s.f.
5. Shrubs shall consist of eighty percent (8094o) 5 -gallon size and twenty
percent (20946) 1 -gallon size.
6. Interior shrub planting shall not exceed thirty inches (30') in height.
7. Tun` is not allowed in parking areas.
8. Additional groupings of accent plants and perennials are required.
9. The minimum tree size is 24" box.
10. All shrub areas shall be installed with flatted groundcover unless the
landscape is installed with container plantings that will fill in within one
year.
11. All shrub areas shall be installed with minimum two-inch (2') depth of bark
mulch.
12. The planting palette shall be consistent with these standards and
guidelines.
B. Planting Design Requirements.-
1.
equirements.
1. The parking area and parked cars shall be adequately screened from view
from the street frontage with landscaping or low profile walls, not
exceeding three and one-half (3 1/2) feet in height, consisting of
decorative concrete, stone, brick, or similar types of masonry materials
consistent with the architecture of the on-site buildings and combined with
on-site landscaping.
2. There shall be a minimum of fifty percent (509,o') tree shade coverage of
the parking area. This is determined at two-thirds (2/3) tree maturity or
fifteen (15) years after installation.
3. A shade coverage exhibit must be submitted to the Community
Development Director for review and approval.
4. A minimum of one (1) planter, eight feet (8) in width with a twelve inch
(12') decorative concrete, or decorative paver step -out adjacent to each
curb face, parallel to the parking stalls, shall be provided at a minimum of
every forty (40) lineal feet, and at the terminus of every parking aisle.
5. A minimum of one (1) `diamond' planter shall be provided at a minimum of
every fourth stall within the parking area or adjacent to pedestrian or
landscape areas, or near buildings as needed to obtain the shade
coverage requirements.
6. A minimum of one (1) planter, eight feet (8) in width with a twelve inch
(12') decorative concrete, or decorative paver step -out adjacent to each
curb face, parallel to the parking stalls, shall be provided at every eight (8)
stalls adjacent to the building or street frontage. Additional tree massings
shall be included adjacent to these areas to provide the shade coverage
required.
2
Honorable City Council
June 18, 2014
Page 5
7. Decorative paving material is required to break up the large expanse of
concrete or asphalt to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
8. Landscape areas shall be designed so as to discourage pedestrians from
crossing any landscape areas to reach building entrances or parked
vehicles.
9. Landscape islands shall be designed with walkways that encourage
pedestrian circulation through the parking area.
10. Wheel stops are not allowed.
11. An eighteen inch (18') wide decorative concrete band adjacent to the
access side of the vehicle shall be installed adjacent to median islands
and planter curbs for pedestrian access.
12. Median islands shall be a minimum of five feet (5) wide without a walkway
and fifteen feet (15) wide with a five-foot (5'), walkway not including the
curb. When the access side of a vehicle is parallel to a median island, the
median island width shall be increased to accommodate an eighteen inch
(18') decorative concrete step -out adjacent to the curb, (including the six
inch wide curb).
Plants would have to be in the ground to meet these standards. In this particular case
the applicant proposes to use a former truck staging and loading area of an industrial
building to provide 94 parking spaces for the proposed Community Marketplace use.
This area is paved with reinforced concrete estimated by the applicant to be 12 to 14
inches thick, as this was needed to provide a durable surface for the turning of large
trucks. As noted in the April 2, 2014 staff report on the Administrative Permit and
Modification to the IPD staff report for this project, the project proposes 84 parking
spaces above what is required by code, therefore only 10 of the parking spaces in the
former truck staging and loading area are required. Nonetheless, the Landscape Design
Standards and Guidelines apply to all parking areas, whether or not the spaces are
required.
Specific physical circumstances related to the existing condition of the property are the
basis for variance. In this case, the thickness of the existing concrete creates a specific
physical circumstance that distinguishes the project site from its surroundings and
creates an unnecessary hardship for the applicant if the strict application of the zoning
standards were imposed. This is borne out by not only the increased costs that would
be borne by the applicant, but by the fact that demolishing portions of the truck loading
area would create irreparable damage and a hardship borne by the property owner.
Alternative to Provision of Landscaping on Site
The applicant has provided cost estimates for the proposed landscaping compared to
the cost of providing landscaping that complies with the City's Landscaping Standards
and Guidelines. The Parks and Recreation Director has independently estimated the
cost of the landscaping as proposed as well as the cost of landscaping that complies
5
june 18, 1014
Page 6
with the City's Landscaping Standards and Guidelines. These cost estimates are
shown in Attachment No. 3. The table below summarizes these estimates.
gation
Variance Requested
(Above -Ground Pots)
•F�_Code Compliant
(in -Ground Planting)
crete Patch,
of #w. I
Pots
$13,200.00
$11,550.00
n/a
Landscape Material
(Installed)
9,075.00
151800.00
$13,360.0
$21,330.00
gation
crete Patch,
of #w. I
Curb Installation
]IF Total
Concrete Cutting
crete Patch,
ontingency
]IF Total
Fro Z-1-tMuts I
provided in an alternative location. Staff recommends that in lieu of the on-si
compliant landscaping, the project contribute the cost differential of code-complia
landscaping over what is proposed ($49,594.90) to the City to provide enhance
landscaping on public property. The location of the enhanced landscaping would b
determined by the City Council.
I'D
1. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property with regard
to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, such that the ttrict
M
Honorable City Council
June 18, 2014
Page 7
application of the zoning regulations denies the property owner privileges
enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning
districts in that the subject property contains a large truck terminal staging and
loading area constructed of 12 to 14 -inch thick reinforced concrete. Cutting of
the reinforced concrete pad would result in the destruction of the integrity of the
truck terminal loading area should it be needed for a future use of the site;
2. The granting of the requested variance will not confer a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and
zone in that this is a unique situation where the concrete staging and loading
area was purpose-built to support ongoing heavy truck usage. Other properties
in the area have been designed with conventional asphalt parking lots;
3. The strict application of the zoning regulations as they apply to the subject
property will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent
with the general purpose of such regulations in that the strict imposition of the
landscape guidelines would compromise the structural integrity of the concrete
staging and loading area and compromise it's use as such at a later date; and
4. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or general welfare, nor to the use, enjoyment or valuation of neighboring
properties in that the applicant will compensate for the loss of landscaping
through payment of a fee towards installation of an equal value of landscaping
elsewhere in the City. Neighboring properties will not be adversely affected in
that the use will not change the existing physical condition of those properties in
any way.
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: June 6, 2014
Planning Commission Action Deadline: NIA
City Council Action Deadline: September 5, 2014
Upon agreement by the City and Applicant, one 90 -day extension can be granted to the
date action must be taken on the application.
7
Honorable City Council
June 18, 2014
Page 8
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As part of its review of the Administrative Permit and Modification to the IPD Permit for
this project, staff prepared an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the City Council's review and consideration before making a decision on the project.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment No. 4 - Exhibit B of Draft Resolution)
was circulated for public review from March 11, 2014 to April 1, 2014. The City Council
adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration on April 16, 2014. This proposal is
consistent with the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOTICING
Public Notice for this meeting was given consistent with Chapter 17.44.070 of the
Zoning Ordinance as follows:
1. Publication. The notice of the public hearing was published in the Ventura County
Star on June 21, 2014.
2. Mailing. The notice of the public hearing was mailed on June 19, 2014, to owners
of real property, as identified on the latest adjusted Ventura County Tax Assessor
Roles, within one -thousand (1,000) feet of the exterior boundaries of the
assessor's parcel(s) subject to the hearing.
3. Sign. One 32 square foot sign is to be placed on the street frontage by June 20,
2014.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2014- approving Variance No. 2014-01.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. April 2 and April 16, 2014 City Council Agenda Reports (w/o Attachments)
3. Resolution No. 2014-3286
4. City's and Applicant's Landscaping Cost Estimates
5. Draft Resolution No. 2014-
::
Ay
y r pl11 r�'I VII/� �/ ira! Li
ISTAIRAE:4114•57 Veil
j‘it
4
111firW*• 0'66
11: ��� --= ..714- of*
�' ` --
IMO pm, II
iiimar11,
mor
,. ,..,...,,
.. •• il, lit . ,.: - - ' - i i 23 111116, ,
{II
LI 11111111.11111111 ■1 04--,-- ix
rim Pal. 111*5 ,, ,,..„, .
Pig
,,,,,-,„ ,05
C 118'4414.- ,....1., oggft,,,[42,,,,,:go 8 ,---- Adi —
�3 \
lin& V
118
.,_ ,,
,..,.
%.‘1.%
'airy, S�
........---------. -,...„
,cam
„ . „,..
I \
%\,_ /
At
NORTH LOCATION MAP
CC ATTACHMENT 1
9
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Dire or VIP
Prepared By: Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner
DATE: March 25, 2014 (CC Meeting of April 2, 2014)
SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution Approving Administrative Permit (AP) No.
2013-19 and Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development
(IPD) No. 93-1 to Allow a 79,042 Square -Foot Multi -Tenant Indoor
Retail Operation in an Existing Building in the M-1 Zone at 709
Science Drive, and Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration under
CEQA in Connection Therewith, on the Application of Community
Marketplace (Manny Asadurian, Jr.)
BACKGROUND
On December 31, 2013 Community Marketplace submitted an application for
Administrative Permit No. 2013-19 to construct and operate a multi -tenant indoor retail
operation in the M-1 Zone in an existing building at 709 Science Drive. On February 11,
2014, in response to an incompleteness letter, Community Marketplace also submitted
an application for Modification No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1 for the proposed use, as was
required by conditions of approval on IPD 93-1 for a change of use from the mail
marketing and warehouse use listed in the original application_ The applicant proposes
a retail operation with up to 175 vendors within a "trade show" environment in 79,042
square feet of a 253,478 square -foot vacant building, that is part of a 406,534 square -
foot two -building industrial planned development project.
An Administrative Permit is required for retail sales in the M-1 zone, not to exceed
twenty percent of the gross floor area of the building or IPD. It is normally decided by
the Community Development Director, however in this case, the decision is elevated to
the City Council for consideration, because a Modification application that requires City
Council consideration is also needed for this project.
CC ATTACHMENT 2 10
Honorable City Council
April 2, 2014
Page 2
A condition in the original IPD No. 93-1 permit for this project required a modification to
the permit for any use not listed in the original application. The original application was
for mail marketing and warehousing. Any change that is not extensive enough to be
considered a substantial or fundamental change in the approved entitlement or use
relative to the permit, would not have a substantial adverse impact on surrounding
properties and would not change any findings contained in the environmental
documentation prepared for the permit, may be deemed a permit modification. Action
on the permit modification application shall be by the decision-making body that
approved the original permit by the same type of public action process and public
noticing as required for the original project application.
DISCUSSION
Project Setting
Existing Site Conditions:
The site consists of two large industrial buildings on an approximately 19.6 acre site.
The site has been graded as three lots, developed with two buildings. The applicant is
proposing the retail use in 79,042 square feet of the northernmost 253,478 square foot
building. The southernmost building is 152,786 square feet, for a total of 406,534
square feet of floor area. Access to the parking lots is from the driveway at the end of
Science Drive. The parking lot is landscaped, whereas the slopes leading to the upper
lot are largely natural vegetation.
Previous Applications:
Resolution No. 93-988 was adopted on October 6, 1993 for industrial Planned
Development No. 93-1 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 93-8 the application of G&S
Partnership. The permit allowed the construction of a 406,534 square foot industrial
planned development.
Minor Modification No. 1 to IPD 93-1 was approved by the Community Development
Director on November 18, 1994. This modification removed a condition requiring that
the entire building be painted with anti -graffiti paint and replaced the condition with a
requirement for all graffiti to be removed within 5 days of written notification. This is
consistent with the City's current graffiti ordinance.
Resolution No. 95-1141 was adopted on July 20, 1995 for Minor Modification No. 2 to
IPD 93-1. This modification allowed a refund of the Art in Public Places Fee of
$40,628.00 in exchange for providing the stone and water feature which currently exists
in the plaza area.
Resolution No. 2003-2138 was adopted on September 3, 2003 denying Minor
Modification No. 3 to IPD 93-1, requesting seasonal outdoor storage in the parking area
on an ongoing basis.
11
Honorable City Council
April 2, 2014
Page 3
General Plan and Zoning Consistency:
The 1-1 (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. The M-1 zone also allows for retail sales with an Administrative Permit, when up
to twenty percent of the gross floor area of the building or IPD when in an industrial
complex
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
Direction
General Plan
Zoning
Land Use
Site
1-1 (Light
M-1 (Industrial
Vacant and Warehouse
Industrial)
Park)
Retail
North
1-2 (Medium
M-2 (Limited
SPRR Railroad and
Industrial)
Industrial)
Industrial
C-2 (General
CPD (Commercial
Moorpark Marketplace
South
Commercial)
Planned
Shopping Center
-_____ _
_ _ __ _ ........ _
Development)
East--i-
ast
FRWY-RNV
n/a
SR -118 Freeway
West
_ _.......
1-1 (Light
_ ._.
M-1 (Industrial
Light Industrial
g
Industrial
Park)
Project Summary
Building One
Building Two
Building Area
(sq. ft.
Office
15,319
Retail
79,042
Warehouse
159,418
Office7,625
..5
........... ..... ..--
_
Warehouse
_
_ 144,875
Misc.
255
Total
406,534
Proposed Project
Architecture:
Although the overall architecture of Building One will not change, the applicant is
proposing the main retail entrance on the north side of the building. There will be an
additional entrance at the front (west) side of the building, but the majority of the parking
will be on the north side. The remaining portion will remain for rentable warehouse
space. Changes to the doors may be required for entry and exit purposes. The
12
Honorable City Council
April 2, 2014
Page 4
applicant is proposing to create a "storefront" entrance from one of the existing loading
bays. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to enclose the loading bays that will no
longer be used with spandrel glass and an architectural surround, to create the
appearance of large windows. A condition of approval has been added requiring that
final architectural design shall be subject to review and approval of the Community
Development Director.
Circulation:
Ingress to the site is provided via driveway from Science Drive, which is accessed from
Los Angeles Avenue to the south. The existing truck circulation and loading area will be
striped and landscaped for retail parking and will be specifically designated. The
remaining parking and loading areas will be designated for the warehouse use. A
condition of approval has been added requiring that the parking plan will require review
and approval by the Community Development Director.
Parking:
Proposed Use
Square Footage
Spaces Required
Spaces
Proposed
Building One
Office1
Retail
...... _- ......
79,042
.. ._-_.._......... - - .... _ ._--
263 (1/300)
....._.
_.
Warehouse
159,418
_ -
20 (1/500 15 10,000)
_. .....
30 (1/5,000 Remainder)
Misc
255
1 (1/300)
365 Required
Building Two
Office
7,625
25(1/300)
Warehouse
144,875
20 (1/500 1st 10,000)
27 (1/5,000 Remainder
72 Required
Total
406,534
437
521
The building was originally developed to accommodate a large bulk mail order
company. As such, employee parking was provided, as well as a large truck staging
area. The applicant is proposing to stripe and landscape the truck staging and loading
area to accommodate retail customer parking.
The two buildings on the site total 406,534 square feet which would require a total of
approximately 437 parking spaces. There are 521 proposed parking spaces on site,
resulting in a total surplus of 84 parking spaces on the site. A final parking plan is
13
Honorable City Council
April 2, 2014
Page 5
required for review prior to construction to ensure compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. This plan would also need to demonstrate compliance with the City's
landscaping standards for parking lots. At the present time, the applicant is proposing
trees in containers for landscaping in the former truck staging and loading area to avoid
damage to the existing concrete pavement in this area. Detailed landscaping plans will
be submitted for review by the Parks and Recreation Director and Community
Development Director to determine compliance with the City's landscaping standards if
the project is approved. If the proposed landscaping cannot meet the City standards for
parking lot landscaping, the applicant may need to cut into the concrete to provide for
necessary landscaping.
ANALYSIS
Issues
Staff analysis of the proposed project has identified the following areas for City Council
consideration:
• Zoning
• Uses
• Hours of Operation
• Traffic
® Art in Public Places
Zonin :
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. At 79,042 square feet, the proposed
retail sales would occupy 19.4 percent of the complex. No further retail sales would be
allowed at this location, regardless of the warehouse tenants.
The retail sales need not be tied to an M-1 use. This code section allows the flexibility
for tenants to have retail show rooms, or to allow a convenience store, coffee shop, or
restaurant within an industrial park to provide services to employees within the area.
This is not uncommon within large industrial areas. It also allows retail uses that are
synergistic with industrial uses, such as flooring, plumbing or electrical supplies.
Uses:
The applicant has submitted a letter describing the intent of the proposal. The intent is
to provide approximately 175 vendor 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.
Honorable City Council
April 2, 2014
Page 6
The Moorpark Municipal Code does not list a "community marketplace", swap meet, or
flea market within the use matrix. The Zoning Ordinance does, however define a swap
meet as "a market operating for the sale or exchange of merchandise at retail by a
number of sellers..." This definition does not pre -judge the quality of an establishment.
The Municipal Code separately addresses thrift stores, secondhand shops,
consignment stores and has a list of prescribed requirements for those uses.
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, with an
Administrative Permit. The applicant is not requesting these uses as the market will be
selling all new items, with the possible exception of art or antique dealers, which would
be allowed. A condition is included in the draft resolution that would prohibit thrift
shops, secondhand shops, and consignment stores.
Hours of Operation:
Currently, there are no restrictions to hours of operation for IPD 93-1. 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 the Friday after Thanksgiving (9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.),
December 23rd (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and December 24th (10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.),
annually. The applicant has also requested to operate on the following Federally
recognized holidays during the normal hours of operation: President's Day, Memorial
Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, and Veteran's Day. In order to mitigate traffic
impacts, a condition of approval has been added restricting the use to the days and
times proposed. Any temporary change to these days or extension of hours, such as
during a seasonal sale period, will require approval of a Temporary Use Permit. These
restrictions will not apply to the warehouse uses on site.
Traffic:
The applicant has provided a traffic impact assessment prepared by Overland Traffic
Consultants, Inc. (attached) to evaluate the traffic generated by the proposed project.
The key findings of the traffic study are:
1. The intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Science Drive / Miller Parkway
currently operates at LOS A AM and late AM Peak Hour, and LOS B PM Peak
Hour.
2. The existing + Community Marketplace project traffic would not create any
significant traffic impacts using the thresholds adopted by the City of Moorpark
(LOA A AM and late AM Peak Hour, LOS C PM Peak Hour).
3. The existing + Community Marketplace + 100 % occupancy of remaining vacant
floor area project traffic would not create any significant traffic impacts using the
thresholds adopted by the City of Moorpark (LOS A AM and late AM Peak Hour,
LOS C PM Peak Hour).
15
Honorable City Council
April 2, 2014
Page 7
This traffic study has been independently reviewed by Linscott, Law and Greenspan
(LLG), a traffic engineering firm retained by the City at the applicant's expense. A copy
of the LLG peer review is also attached. The peer review concluded that the trip
generation projections are sufficiently conservative for the use. It also recommended
consideration of splitting the southbound lane from Science Drive and Los Angeles
Avenue into a left turn -through land and a right turn lane, as this intersection was
projected to operate at the high end of Level of Service C with full occupancy of the
building by the proposed retail use and warehousing for the balance of the space.
Adding a right -turn lane would require review of the design and geometry by Caltrans
and may require the need for additional pavement width. Mitigation is included in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project for the additional traffic
generated by this use to contribute a fair share to intersection improvements at Los
Angeles Avenue and Science Drive.
Art in Public Places:
As mentioned above, the City Council approved a resolution for a modification that
allowed a refund of the Art in Public Places Fee of $40,628.00 in exchange for providing
the stone and water feature which currently exists in the plaza area. Integral to the
stone and water feature was a characteristic where a large stone sphere would revolve
360 degrees in all directions on a pressurized stream of recirculated water creating the
illusion of floating. At some point after the original tenant left, the water was shut off,
leaving the stone sphere motionless. A condition of approval has been added requiring
that, prior to occupancy, the public art must be restored to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director or an application must be submitted for Council
consideration to amend the public art feature.
Findings
The following draft findings are provided for City Council consideration:
Administrative Permit Findings:
Based upon the information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying studies, and
oral and written public testimony, the City Council finds in accordance with City of
Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.040, that the project complies with the
Moorpark Municipal Code for a retail use in the M-1 zone in that it does not exceed
twenty percent of the floor area of IPD No. 93-1 and sufficient parking is provided to
meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Modification to IPD Findings:
Based upon the information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying studies, and
oral and written public testimony, the City Council makes the following findings in
accordance with City of Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.100:
16
Honorable City Council
April 2, 2014
Page 8
A. The proposed project under Modification No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1 does not
pose a substantial or fundamental change in the approved entitlement or use relative to
the IPD No. 93-1 in that only minor exterior modifications are proposed to the building,
and the projected trip generation of the new use is similar to that of the use originally
approved as part of IPD No. 93-1.
B. The proposed project under Modification No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1 would not
have a substantial adverse impact on surrounding properties in that the project trip
generation is similar to that of the use originally approved as part of IPD No. 93-1 and
there is sufficient on-site parking for the project.
C. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed
project under Modification No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1, demonstrating that any potential
significant impacts can be mitigated.
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: March 19, 2014
Planning Commission Action Deadline: N/A
City Council Action Deadline: October 5, 2014
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
17
Honorable City Council
April 2, 2014
Page 9
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
Mitigated Negative Declaration for City Council review and consideration before
making a recommendation on the project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit
B of Draft Resolution, attached) was circulated for public review from March 11, 2014 to
April 1, 2014. As of the writing of this staff report, no comments on the Mitigated
Negative Declaration were received. Staff will update the City Council of any comments
received during its presentation of this report at the City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2014- approving Administrative Permit (AP) 2013-19
and Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development (IPD) No. 93-1 and
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA in connection therewith.
ATTACHMENTS -
1 .
TTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Project Exhibits (Under Separate Cover)
4. Overland Traffic Consultants Traffic Study
5. LLG Traffic Study Peer Review
6. Draft Resolution No. 2014-
W.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner
DATE: April 8, 2014 (CC Meeting of April 16, 2014)
SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution Approving Administrative Permit (AP) No.
2013-19 and Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development
(IPD) No. 93-1 to Allow a 79,042 Square -Foot Multi -Tenant Indoor
Retail Operation in an Existing Building in the M-1 Zone at 709
Science Drive, and Adopting a Mitigated 'Negative Declaration under
CEQA in Connection Therewith, on the Application of Community
Marketplace (Manny Asadurian, Jr.) (Public Hearing Continued From
April 2, 2014)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting approval to construct and operate a multi -tenant indoor retail
operation in the M-1 Zone in an existing building at 709 Science Drive. The applicant
proposes a retail operation with up to 175 vendors within a "trade show" environment in
79,042 square feet of a 253,478 square -foot vacant building, that is part of a 406,534
square -foot two -building industrial planned development project.
On April 2, 2014, the City Council opened the public hearing for this project, accepted
testimony, and continued the agenda item to the April 16, 2014 meeting with the public
hearing open. This allowed staff to mail hearing notices to the 19 property owners
within 1,000 feet of the property line who did not receive a hearing notice. Re -noticing
in the paper was not necessary, and the applicant changed the date on the hearing sign
on the site to reflect the date of the continued hearing.
The City Council had asked a number of questions of staff and the applicant during the
public hearing on April 2, 2014. This report supplements the original staff report by
addressing the issues that were raised.
19
Honorable City Council
April 16, 2014
Page 2
Driveway Slope/Condition of Asphalt
Concerns were raised about the slope of the site's southerly (main) driveway entrance
and about.the condition of the parking lot. The southerly driveway leads to a rotary
feature, with the public art in the center. It has a slope downward from the sidewalk to
the rotary. The sidewalk slopes down in the other direction to the street, with a high
point at the sidewalk. This causes vehicles with low clearance to bottom out. There are
a number of scratches across the driveway entrance to indicate that bottoming out is
common. This driveway would not be serving as the main entrance for customers of the
Community Marketplace use. A northerly driveway will be primarily used by customers
of the Community Marketplace. The northerly driveway does not have bottoming out
issues. To address this, a condition has been added requiring the applicant to place a
monument sign for the use at the northerly driveway. This will be reviewed under a sign
permit submittal. Separately from this project, staff will work with the property owners to
seek possible solutions for the southerly driveway.
With respect to the condition of the parking lot, staff inspected the parking areas that
would serve the proposed Community Marketplace, and has found that some minor
maintenance (filling of cracks and patching in places) is needed. The second building
on the site has a small part of the driveway areas that is in poor condition. A condition
of approval has been added on restoring these areas to an acceptable condition.
Prohibited Merchandise
The applicant has indicated that they are contractually prohibiting their vendors from
selling "Ammunition, Bombs, Counterfeit Merchandise, Drug Paraphernalia, Fireworks,
Grenades, Guns, Knives (permitted at the sole discretion of Community Marketplace
Management) and Pornography." Sales and ownership of some of these products,
such as counterfeit merchandise, bombs, grenades, fireworks, and drug paraphernalia
are illegal, and do not need specific conditions prohibiting their sale. Guns and
ammunition are considered retail sales by the Zoning Ordinance, and their sale would
be at the discretion of the property manager. Sales of guns or ammunition would still
have to comply with State and Federal laws.
The Zoning Ordinance currently only allows "Tobacco stores, including, but not limited
to, cigarette, cigar, and smoking paraphernalia shops" in the C-2 (General Commercial)
and CPD (Commercial Planned Development) Zones, and only with a Conditional Use
Permit. The Community Development Director has determined that e -cigarette stores
and vapor lounges are subject to an Administrative Permit. They could pose problems
in this use because the ventilation system could not be separated for individual vendors.
A condition has been added prohibiting vendors that sell tobacco or nicotine products,
including e -cigarettes, and vapor bars.
Adult Businesses, including adult bookstores, are allowed in the M-1 Zone, however,
there are certain separation requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Ordinance does not allow these businesses within 500 feet of any church, synagogue,
20
Honorable City Council
April 16, 2014
Page 3
mosque or other publicly recognized place of worship. The Cornerstone Church is
located at 379 Science Drive, which is less than 200 feet from this Industrial Planned
Development. Therefore, adult bookstores would not be permitted on this site. A
condition has been added to prohibit this use.
Sales of alcoholic beverages would be subject to a separate Administrative Permit. A
condition has been added to address this. A condition has also been added requiring
that 80% of the vendors be retail vendors with taxable sales, and that a maximum of
20% of the vendors may provide on-site or off-site services.
Parking Lot Landscaping
As discussed in the original report, this plan would also need to demonstrate
compliance with the City's landscaping standards for parking lots. At the present time,
the applicant is proposing trees in containers for landscaping in the former truck staging
and loading area to avoid damage to the existing concrete pavement in this area.
Although the applicant is showing more trees than would be required, the use of raised
planters for required trees in a parking lot does not comply with the City's Landscape
Design Standards and Guidelines, which specify diamond planters within the parking
areas. Diamond planters typically have a 6 -inch curb to protect the tree, which is
planted in the ground.
Nonetheless, this project as proposed may qualify for a Zoning Variance given the
unique site conditions of having an existing thick concrete loading area that is proposed
for parking. A Variance normally requires a public hearing before the Planning
Commission. In this case, a Variance hearing and decision would be elevated to the
City Council, since the other permit applications are being considered by the City
Council. To obtain a Variance, the applicant will be required to show that 1) there are
special circumstances applicable to this property with regard to size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the zoning regulations denies
them privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical
zoning districts; 2) the granting of the Variance will not confer a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone; 3)
the strict application of the zoning regulations as they apply to the subject property will
result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general
purpose of such regulations; and 4) the granting of such Variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or general welfare, nor to the use, enjoyment or valuation of
neighboring properties.
An estimate by the Parks and Recreation Director shows the cost of the proposed
container landscaping at $57,000. The estimated cost of providing landscaping in
compliance with the City's Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, including
enhanced landscaping at the new entrance to the building and cutting of the existing
concrete on site, is $107,000. Staff would be willing to support a Variance application
for the proposed container plants if the applicant provides the funds for the City to install
041
Honorable City Council
April 16, 2014
Page 4
landscaping elsewhere in the City to achieve the same or similar effect as if the
landscaping were installed on site, equivalent to the difference between the estimated
cost of the container plants and the cost of strict compliance with the Landscape Design
Standards and Guidelines.
A condition of approval is included in the attached resolution for the applicant to submit
a landscaping plan in compliance with the City's Landscape Design Standards and
Guidelines or submit an application for a Variance that is deemed complete prior to
issuance of building permits. All landscaping would need to be installed in compliance
with the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, or the Variance application
would need to be decided and a surety posted with the City to guarantee the installation
of the required landscaping prior to occupancy. If a Variance is obtained, all
landscaping required by the Variance would need to be installed within 90 days of the
decision on the Variance application.
Loitering
A condition has been added requiring signage and monitoring of the property to reduce
the possibility of loitering on and around the project site.
A revised draft resolution is attached with changes to conditions from those presented
on April 2, 2014 shown in legislative format. The final resolution will have the legislative
format removed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Continue to accept public testimony and close the public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2014- approving Administrative Permit (AP) 2013-19
and Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development (IPD) No. 93-1 and
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA in connection therewith.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. April 2, 2014 Agenda Report (w/o attachments)
2. Draft Resolution No. 2014-
22
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-3286
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE
PERMIT (AP) NO. 2013-19 AND MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO
INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (IPD) NO. 93-1 TO
ALLOW A 79,042 SQUARE -FOOT MULTI -TENANT INDOOR
RETAIL OPERATION IN AN EXISTING BUILDING IN THE M-1
ZONE AT 709 SCIENCE DRIVE, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER CEQA IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH, ON THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY
MARKETPLACE (MANNY ASADURIAN, JR.)
WHEREAS, on December 31, 2013 an application for Administrative Permit No.
2013-19 was submitted by Community Marketplace (Manny Asadurian, Jr.), followed by
an application for Modification No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1, to construct and operate a 79,042
square -foot multi -tenant indoor retail operation in an existing building in the M-1 Zone at
709 Science Drive; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were
prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended (CEQA) and City CEQA Procedures, and circulated for public review
from March 11, 2014 to April 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above, together with
any comments received during the public review process; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on April 2 and April 16, 2014,
the City Council considered the agenda report for Administrative Permit (AP) 2013-19
and Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development (IPD) No. 93-1, 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for this
project, attached hereto as Exhibit B, are complete and have been prepared in
compliance with CEQA, and City CEQA Procedures.
B. The City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above together with
any comments received- during the public review process before making a decision
concerning the project.
CC ATTACHMENT 3 23
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 2
C. Based on the whole of the record before the City Council, there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment,
with the incorporation of the Mitigation Measures identified in the attached Mitigated
Negative Declaration as project conditions of the accompanying Industrial Planned
Development and Conditional Use Permit for this project.
D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City of Moorpark as lead agency.
E. The City Council hereby designates the Office of the City Clerk as the
custodian of the records constituting the record of proceedings upon which its decision
has been based.
SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in connection with Administrative Permit (AP)
2013-19 and Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development (IPD) No. 93-1,
attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby adopted.
SECTION 3. ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, required by Section
21081.6 of CEQA and 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines, and included in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby adopted.
SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF PERMITS: Administrative Permit No. 2013-19
and Modification No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1 are hereby approved, subject to conditions of
approval in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April, 2014.
ATTEST:
Maureen Benson, City Clerk
Exhibit A — Special Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B — Mitigated Negative Declaration
Jani a S. Parvin, Mayor
24
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
PERMIT (AP) NO. 2013-19 AND MODIFICATION NO.4 TO
INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (IPD) NO. 93-1
1. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, the applicant shall pay the
City's air quality fee based on the increase in trip generation above that considered
for the project approved by IPD No. 93-1.
2. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, a parking plan must be
submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. All
damaged areas in the parking areas on the IPD site shall be repaired to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to occupancy.
3. Detailed landscaping plans demonstrating compliance with the City's Landscape
Design Standards and Guidelines must be submitted for review by the Parks and
Recreation Director and Community Development Director, or a Variance application
for the use of container plants in the parking areas must be submitted and deemed
complete, prior to issuance of a Building Permit. All landscaping must be installed in
accordance with the approved plan, or if a Variance is requested, a decision on the
Variance application must be made and sufficient surety posted with the City to
guarantee the installation of the required landscaping prior to occupancy, and all
landscaping required by the Variance decision must be installed within 90 days of
the decision.
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for occupancy, the public art must be
restored to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, or the property
owner must submit a complete application to amend the public art feature for
Council consideration.
5. 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. No off-site signs or roof signs are permitted for this use. As part of the sign
permit application for the use, the applicant shall include a monument sign in a
location that helps direct customers toward the northerly driveway to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director. The approved monument sign shall be
installed prior to occupancy.
6. The applicant shall be required to prepare and implement a plan for the posting of
"No Loitering" signs and the implementation of no loitering for the review and
approval of the Community Development Director. All of the "No Loitering" signs
shall be installed per the approved plan prior to the occupancy of the building and
the program shall be operational upon the opening day. The applicant shall enforce
the no loitering requirement on the permit area to the maximum extent permitted by
local, state and federal laws.
25
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 4
7. Hours of operation may only be between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday, with extended days/hours allowed as follows:
• Friday after Thanksgiving (9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
• December 23rd (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• December 24th (10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.)
• President's Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Memorial Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Independence Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Labor Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Veteran's Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
8. 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.
9. All exterior areas of the site, including landscaping and parking areas must be
maintained free of litter and debris at all times.
10. Administrative Permit (AP) 2013-19 and Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned
Development (IPD) No. 93-1 may be revoked or its use suspended by the City, if any
of the causes listed in Section 17.44.080.B 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 twelve (12) consecutive months, has ceased to exist, or has been abandoned.
The discontinuance for a period of one hundred eighty (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.
11.The City of Moorpark reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke for cause this
permit consistent with Chapter 17.44 of the Moorpark Municipal Code or as may be
amended in the future.
12. No major architectural changes are permitted. Minor architectural changes to the
building that would be authorized with a Permit Adjustment will require review and
approval by the Community Development Director prior to construction.
13.All sales shall comply with all local, State, and Federal laws and regulations. Thrift
stores, secondhand shops, consignment stores, tobacco stores, e -cigarette stores,
vapor bars, and adult businesses, including adult bookstores, are not permitted.
14. Sales of alcoholic beverages, either for on-site or off-site consumption, shall be by
separate permit as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
15.Approval of a Business Registration permit is required for the operator and each
vendor prior to initiation of sales.
26
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 5
16.A maximum of 175 vendors are permitted. Not less than 80% of vendors shall
provide taxable retail sales on site, with no more than 20% of vendors providing
either on-site or off-site services to customers. A list of each vendor and map
showing the location of each vendor shall be provided to the Community
Development Director prior to initiation of the operation and with each change in
vendor or location. In addition, the applicant shall provide the Community
Development Department with the following for each vendor before that vendor is
permitted to operate:
• 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.
17.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.
18.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.
19.All contests must comply with State of California Rules for Operation of Contests
(Business and Professions Code sections 17539-17539.3, 17539.35). For more
information see California Department of Consumer Affairs Legal Guide U-3.
20.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.
21.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.
22.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.
23.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.
24.The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans presented in
conjunction with the application for Administrative Permit (AP) 2013-19 and
Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development (IPD) No. 93-1, except any
27
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 6
modifications as may be required to meet specific Code standards or other
conditions stipulated herein.
25.All other conditions of approval of Industrial Planned Development (IPD) No. 93-1
shall continue to apply, except as revised herein.
26.AII necessary permits must be obtained from the Building and Safety Department
and all construction shall be in compliance with the Moorpark Building Code and all
other applicable regulations.
27.Approval of a Zoning Clearance is required prior to the issuance of building permits.
28.All other permit and fee requirements must be met.
29. If any of the conditions or limitations of this approval are held to be invalid, that
holding will not invalidate any of the remaining conditions or limitations set forth.
30. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for tenant occupancy, an occupancy
inspection shall be completed by the Building and Safety Division.
31. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for tenant occupancy, the prospective
tenant shall obtain a Business Registration from the City of Moorpark. All contractors
doing work in Moorpark shall have or obtain a current Business Registration.
32.This permit is granted or approved with the City's designated approving body
retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit—
including the conditions of approval—based on changed circumstances. Changed
circumstances include, but are not limited to, major modification of the business; a
change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the business; the expansion,
alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use; or the fact that the use is negatively
impacting surrounding uses by virtue of impacts not identified at the time of
application for the permit or impacts that are much greater than anticipated or
disclosed at the time of application for the permit. The reservation of right to review
any permit granted or approved under this chapter by the City's designated
approving body is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning
Commission, City Council and designated approving body to review and revoke or
modify any permit granted or approved under this chapter for any violations of the
conditions imposed on such permit.
33.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.
34. 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.
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 7
35.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 by the California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6 and Government Code Section 65009. 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:
The City bears its own attorney fees and costs;
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.
36. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for tenant occupancy, the applicant shall
submit a Developer Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan to the satisfaction of the
Community Services Administrative Specialist.
37. All mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
this project are incorporated as conditions of approval.
- End -
WE
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 8
EXHIBIT B
K
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF MOORPARK
° 799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
,.+may � (805) 517-6200
The following Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures
of the City of Moorpark.
Public Review Period:
March 11, 2014 to April 1, 2014
Project Title/Case No.:
Administrative Permit 2013-19, Modification No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1
Community Marketplace
Project Location:
709 Science Drive. (Location Map Attached)
Project Description:
A request to allow a multi -tenant indoor retail community marketplace in the
M-1 Zone. (Retail sales in the M-1 and M-2 zone limited to a maximum of
20% of the gross floor area of the planned development in which it is located.)
(Environmental Information Form Attached)
Project Type:
X Private Project _ Public Project
Project Applicant:
Manny Asadurian
11576 Sumac Lane, Santa Rosa Valley, CA 93012
(805) 796-9983 majr747@aol.com
Finding:
After preparing an Initial Study for the above -referenced project, revisions
have been made by or agreed to by the applicant consistent with the
mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. With these revisions, it is
found that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before
the City of Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment. (Initial Study Attached)
Responsible Agencies:
City of Moorpark
Trustee Agencies:
None
Attachments:
Location Map
Initial Study with Mitigation Measures
Contact Person:
Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California, 93021
(805) 517-6226
30
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 9
....... _.....,_.-.. r v.. :<...:._..�. x.. i. .;say ..r..b..z.,.. aw�,,.,.w:;.uw..,. 1✓.wkn'n`Uw+.1� , .;.�..... c .. ...,, .,.:.
Community Marketplace
(AP No. 2013-19 and Mod. No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1)
CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517-6200
Project Title: Community Marketplace Case No.: AP No. 2013-19 and Mod.
No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1 J
Contact Person and Phone No.: Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner (805) 517-6226 ,
Name of Applicant: Manny Asadurian
Address and Phone 11576 Sumac Lane, Santa Rosa Valley, CA 93012
No.: (805) 796-9983 majr747@aol.com
Project Location: 709 Science Drive
General Plan 1-1 Light Industrial Zoning: M-1 Industrial Park
Designation:
Project Description: A request to allow a multi -tenant indoor retail community marketplace in the M-1
Zone. (Retail sales in the M-1 and M-2 zone limited to a maximum of 20% of the
gross floor area of the planned development in which it is located.) (Submitted
12/31/13)
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: light Industrial (manufacturingy/Railroad Right of Way/Arroyo Simi
South: Light Industrial (warehousing)lLos Angeles Avenue/Regional Conxnercial
East SR 23 Freeway
West Light Industrial (general)
Responsible and Trustee Agencies: city of Moorpark
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The enwronrriental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this prow involving at least one impact that is a
-Potentially Significant tmpacP or 'Less Than Significant Wiith Mitigation,' as indicated by the checklist on the loAowing pages
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent. Mitigation measures described on the attached Exhibit 1 have been added to the
project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Prepared by: , Reviewed by: 2//0 ar!
Date:_ Roe
I Date: J//0
31
Aesthetics F—�, Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Biological Resources Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions I Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Land Use/Planning ! Mineral Resources
Population/Housing i Public Services
Transportatiory Traffic_ UtAitieslService Systems
None
On the basis of this initial evaluation,
X Air Quality
Geology/Soils
I HydrologyNYater Quality
, Noise
! Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
X
DETERMINATION:
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent. Mitigation measures described on the attached Exhibit 1 have been added to the
project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Prepared by: , Reviewed by: 2//0 ar!
Date:_ Roe
I Date: J//0
31
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 10
INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT 1:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
1. Hours of operation may only be between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday,
with extended days/hours allowed as follows:
• Friday after Thanksgiving (9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
• December 23rd (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• December 24th (10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.)
• President's Day (10:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m.)
• Memorial Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Independence Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Labor Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Veteran's Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
Monitoring Action: Check Hours of Operation
Timing: Ongoing and Annually as part of the Community Development
Department's Annual Review of Ongoing Mitigation Measures
Responsibility: Community Development Director
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay to the Citywide Traffic Mitigation
Fund a fair share contribution for intersection improvements at Los Angeles Avenue and Science Drive
based on increased trip generation and traffic impacts above that from the previously approved use as
determined by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works Director.
Monitoring Action: Receipt of payment
Timing: Prior to the issuance of a building permit
Responsibility. Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works
Director
AGREEMENT TO PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter
3, Article 6), this agreement must be signed prior to release of the Mitigated !Negative Declaration for
public review.
I, THE UNDERSIGNED PROJECT APPLICANT, HEREBY AGREE TO MODIFY THE PROJECT
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE ABOVE -
LISTED MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE PROJECT.
Signature of Project Applicant Date
32
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 11
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
A. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
Resoonse: The existing visual quality of the site will not change with the development of this project,
since the building is existing and the only change is occupancy and minor changes to some
openings (truck dock loading doors). Normal commercial light sources will not have a
significant impact on the area and will be evaluated and be consistent with the City's lighting
ordinance. The changes to the openings will be evaluated for consistency with City
standards.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14 General Plan Land Use Element (1992).
Mitigation None
B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources agency, to
non-agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
3) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Response: The subject site is not located within prime farmland and is zoned for industrial use, is
currently developed and The Ventura County Important Farmland Map classifies the site as
"Urban and Built -Up" land.
Sources: California Dep't of Conservation: Ventura County Important Farmland Map (2000)
Mitigation: None
33
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 12
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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
air quality plan?
2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
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
concentrations?
5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
X
X
X
X
Response: Mitigation is included to limit the use to three days per week and certain holidays, thereby
reducing trip generation from the proposed retail use. In addition, a Condition of Approval will
be placed on the project for the applicant to contribute to the City's Transportation Systems
Management (Air Quality) fund based on the change of use.
Sources: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Ventura County Air Quality Assessment
Guidelines (2000), URBEMIS 2001
Mitigation: Hours of operation may only be between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday, and
Sunday, with extended days/hours allowed as follows:
• Friday after Thanksgiving (9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
• December 23rd (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• December 24th (10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.)
• President's Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Memorial Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Independence Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Labor Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
• Veteran's Day (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.),
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 Californla
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
34
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 13
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
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?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat '
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
x
X
x
x
Response The use of the existing building will not have any adverse effect on biological resources in
that no major structural changes are occurring and the proposed occupancy will not create
any affects to any habitats.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, California Department of Fish and Game: Natural
Diversity Data Base -Moorpark and Simi Valley Quad Sheets (1993)
Mitigation: None
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance x
of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of x
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred x
outside of formal cemeteries?
Response: The use of the existing building will not have any adverse effect on cultural resources in that
no major structural changes are occurring and the proposed occupancy will not create any
affects to any historic or cultural resources.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14,
Mitigation: None
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:
35
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 14
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
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 1 B -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
Response: The project will have no effect upon geology or soils in that the use of the existing building
will not result in any new grading or excavation.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, General Plan Safety Element (2001)
Mitigation: None
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or X
ndirectly, 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
greenhouse gases? X
Response: The proposal will not generate additional greenhouse gas emissions that may have a
significant impact on the environment in that the impacts of the proposed use are
approximately the same as the prior use.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14
Mitigation: None
36
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 15
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
X
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
X
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely
X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
X
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
X
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Response: No hazardous material has been identified on the site. The retail use of the existing building
will not create any significant hazards to the public in that it will comply with all building and
safety codes for the proposed use.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, General Plan Safety Element (2001)
Mitigation: None
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge x
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
37
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 16
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Response: The proposal will have no impact upon hydrology and water quality because the use of the
existing building will not result in any new construction or modifications that would affect
water quality, supplies, or drainage.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, General Plan Safety Element (2001)
Mitigation: None
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: The proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan and Zoning designations for
the property. Some retail use is anticipated and is permitted in the M-1 zone.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, General Plan Land Use Element (1992)
Mitigation: None
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 17
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Response: There are no known mineral resources on site.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and
Recreation Element (1986)
Mitigation: None
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
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
X
X
X
X
Response: The project site is far removed from any noise -sensitive land uses. In addition, standard
conditions of approval have been placed on the project to adequately address any potential
noise issues.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, General Plan Noise Element (1998)
Mitigation: None
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
39
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 18
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
x
x
Response: The proposal will have no impact upon population and housing because the use of the
existing building will not result in any population growth or affect housing in any way, since
this is a commercial use of an existing warehouse building, serving the local population.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14
Mitigation: None
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered govemmental 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?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
x
x
x
Response: Conditions of approval and Development fees are collected by agencies in order to alleviate
potential adverse impacts on public services. The applicant is required to obtain approvals of
the Fire Protection District, Waterworks District No. 1 and other applicable agencies prior to
obtaining a building permit.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, General Plan Safety Element (2001), General Plan
Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986)
Mitigation: None
O. RECREATION
1) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
x
M
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 19
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?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X
Response: The project will not have any effect on the City's recreation infrastructure in that it only entails
commercial occupancy of an existing warehouse building_
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and
Recreation Element (1986)
Mitigation: None
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
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
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
5) Result in inadequate emergency access?
6) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
x
Response: A trip generation analysis was prepared for this application. The study shows that traffic
impacts from the proposal will be similar to the previous use. Adequate parking will be
provided on site.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, General Plan Circulation Element (1992), Trip
Generation Analysis Prepared by Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2/26/14
Mitigation: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay to the Citywide Traffic
Mitigation Fund a fair share contribution for intersection improvements at Los Angeles
Avenue and Science Drive based on increased trip generation and traffic impacts above that
from the previously approved use as determined by the Community Development Director
and City Engineer/Public Works Director.
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Droiect
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
41
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 20
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
2) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
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
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
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
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
Response: The project is required to enter into agreements and provide adequate utility and service
systems prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction.
Sources: Project Application 12/31/13, 2/27/14, Ventura County Watershed Protection District:
Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (2002)
Mitigation: None
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
X
X
X
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
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effect of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
effects of probable future projects)?
3) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
42
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 21
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Response: The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, have
impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, or have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly in that the project entails only occupancy of an existing building, consistent with the
City's General Plan and Zoning Code.
Sources: See below.
Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study
None
Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study
One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference,
and are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark
Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. Items used are referred to by number in the Response Section of
the Initial Study Checklist.
1. Application and materials submitted on 12/31/13, 2/27/14.
2. The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended.
4. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended.
5. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 2004-2224
6. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section
15000 et. seq.
7. Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, October 31, 2003.
B. Traffic Study Prepared by Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2/26/14
9. Traffic Study Peer Review Prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, Engineers 3/25/2014
43
Resolution No. 2014-3286
Page 22.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss.
CITY OF MOORPARK )
1, Maureen Benson, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby
certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 2014-3286 was
adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting held on the
16th day of April, 2014, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mikos, Millhouse, Pollock, Van Dam, and Mayor Parvin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 23rd day of April, 2014.
Maureen Benson, City Clerk
(seal)
W
Landscaping Cost Estimates
CC ATTACHMENT 4
45
CITY ESTIMATES
Community Marketplace 4/4/2014
Budget per plan
IRRIGATION
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
CITY
UNIT PRICE
$
TOTAL
POC
tie into existing, wire, etc.
1 $
1,500.00 ea
$
1,500.00
Controller
upgrade
1 $
750.00 ea
$
750.00
Drip irrigation valve
1.5" w/strainer & regulator
2 $
350.00 ea
$
700.00
Drip irrigation
bubblers/drip line
2,000 $
1.95 s.f.
$
3,900.00
IRRIGATION SUB -TOTAL:
$
6,850.00
PLANTING
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Trees 24" box incl. root barrier/staking
annual color 4" pots
Import soil 60/40 clean w/amendment
PLANTING SUB -TOTAL:
HARDSCAPE & AMENITIES
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Demo for trench sawcut & remove 5" depth - 4" trenc
Concrete patch 4" width x 5" depth
Concrete pots 48" dia
Drainage 2" pvc
HARDSCAPE SUB -TOTAL:
CITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
33 $350.00 ea $ 11,550.00
2,000 $1.25 s.f. $ 2,500.00
50 $35.00 cy $ 1,750.00
$15,800.00
CITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
1200
$
4.50
I.f.
$
5,400.00
1200
$
6.50
I.f.
$
7,800.00
33
$
350.00
ea
$
11,550.00
1200
$
2.00
If
$
2,400.00
$ 27,150.00
SUB -TOTAL $ 49,800.00
15% CONTINGENCY $ 7,470.00
TOTAL $ 57,270.00
W.
Community Marketplace 4/4/2014
Budget per Reso
IRRIGATION
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
CITY
UNIT PRICE
Demo for trench
sawcut & remove 5" depth - 4" trench
TOTAL
POC
tie into existing, wire, etc.
1
$ 1,500.00
ea
$
1,500.00
Controller
upgrade
1
$ 750.00
ea
$
750.00
Drip irrigation valve
1.5" w/strainer & regulator
2
$ 350.00
ea
$
700.00
Drip irrigation
bubblers/drip line
2,000
$ 1.95
s.f.
$
3,900.00
7,296.00
IRRIGATION SUB -TOTAL:
$
12.00
I.f.
$
6,850.00
PLANTING
$
18.00
s.f.
$
21,600.00
400
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT PRICE
4,800.00
TOTAL
Trees
24" box incl. root barrier/staking
18
$350.00
ea
$
6,300.00
Shrubs
1 gallon
40
$11.50
ea
$
460.00
Shrubs
5 gallon
160
$22.00
ea
$
3,520.00
groundcover
flats
2,000
$0.55
s.f.
$
1,100.00
Import soil
60/40 clean w/amendment
75
$35.00
cy
$
2,625.00
Bark mulch
2" depth
2,000
$0.40
s.f.
$
800.00
enhanced landscaping
building frontage - 36" box trees
6
$650.00
ea
$
3,900.00
enhanced landscaping
building frontage - shrubs 5 -gallon
75
$35.00
ea
$
2,625.00
PLANTING SUB -TOTAL:
$21,330.00
HARDSCAPE & AMENITIES
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
Demo for planters
sawcut & remove 12" depth
Demo for trench
sawcut & remove 5" depth - 4" trench
Demo for deco, paving
sawcut & remove 12" depth
Concrete patch
4" width x 5" depth
Concrete curb
6" at tree wells and medians
Decorate paving
12" width for step -out
Decorate paving
w/in parking area - 12" depth
Decorate paving
enhanced @ building frontage
HARDSCAPE SUB -TOTAL:
QTY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
2000
$
6.50
s.f.
$
13,000.00
550
$
4.50
I.f.
$
2,475.00
1200
$
6.50
s.f.
$
7,800.00
550
$
6.50
I.f.
$
3,575.00
768
$
9.50
I.f.
$
7,296.00
350
$
12.00
I.f.
$
4,200.00
1200
$
18.00
s.f.
$
21,600.00
400
$
12.00
s.f.
$
4,800.00
$ 64,746.00
SUB -TOTAL $ 92,926.00
15% CONTINGENCY $ 13,938.90
TOTAL $106,864.90
47
APPLICANT ESTIMATES
California LandCare Inc
849 P.O Box
Fillmore Ca, 93016
(805) 524-2614 Office.
(805) 524-3904 Fax.
Attention: Manny Asadurian
Description of work: Landscape- Construction
May 12, 2014
Customer: Community MarketPlace
Irrigation.
1. To install irrigation system to planting areas, such as:
a.
3 torn V Inline valves. $575.00
b.
3 flush valves. $265.00
c.
5 air relief valves. $480.00
d.
3,090 sq. ft of drip line, pressure compensating. $1,500.00
e.
2 -1" quick coupling valve. $125.00
f.
1-1" shut off gate valve. $125.00
g.
1 weather matic control timer 6 station. $385.00
h.
517 linear ft. of 1" $285.00
1.
224 linear ft. of 1" main line. $220.00
j.
551 linear ft. of 3" pipe.sleeve shd. 40 $360.00
Curb Installattlon.
2. To install 2,342 linear ft of curb. @ $16.00 per ft. $37,472.00
Installation.Landscape
3. To install 12- 24" box carrotwood trees. $3,300.00
a. To install 22 -24" box Magnolia grandiflora trees. $7,150.00
b. To install 195-5gallon dwarf rosemary ground cover. $2,910.00
Total cost of work spedfied above. $55,152.00.00
ReqmxfuNV Submitted,
Hector Olubstero, president
California tandeare Inc. State Lk. 901247
Any alterations or deviations from the above specifications involving extra cost will be executed only upon written
order, and will become an extra charge over and above esanate.
Acoeptence of proposal, the above prices spectfkations and conditions are hereby accepted. You are authorized to
do the work as specified.
Authorized signature (s) date
Please print name (s) date
Wo.
California tan6Csre Inc
849 P.O Box
Fillmore Ca, 93016
(805) 524-2614 Office.
(805) 524-3904 Fax.
May a 2014
Customer: Community MarketPlace
Attention: Manny Asadurian
Description of worts: Landscape- Construction
Precast concrete planters.
L To install 33 48" x 36" precast concrete pianters, @ $40(.00 ea. $13,200.00
a. Crane services. $390.00 per hr. 2-hrs. minimum.
landscape material.
1. To Install 12 Crepemyrtle trees 24' box. $3,300.00
a. To install 21 Dwarf Magnolia trees 24" box. $5,775.00
Irrigation.
2. To install 3 -1" inUne valves. $575.00
a. To install 66 bubblers, two per planter. $330.00
b. To install 517 linear ft. of 1"pvc pipe. $525.00
c To Install 1 control timer. $385.00
Total coat of work specified above. $24,090.00
77,?`;'€'_ "l, 77,f
iieetor Quintero, president
California Landare Inc. State Lk. 901247
Any alterations or deufations from the above sped lcations Involving extra cost wfit be executed only upon written
order, and will become an extra change over and above estimate.
Acceptance of proposal, the above proses speaRcations and conditions are hereby accepted. You are authorized to
do the work as specified.
Authorized signature (s) date
Please print name (s)
date
Eve
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2014-
01, TO ALLOW AN ALTERNATIVE TO IN -GROUND
LANDSCAPING IN A PARKING LOT FOR A MULTI -TENANT
INDOOR RETAIL COMMUNITY MARKETPLACE AT 709
SCIENCE DRIVE, ON THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY
MARKETPLACE (MANNY ASADURIAN, JR.)
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2014 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-
3286, approving Administrative Permit No. 2013-19 and for Modification No. 4 to IPD
No. 93-1 on the application of Community Marketplace (Manny Asadurian, Jr.), to
construct and operate a 79,042 square -foot multi -tenant indoor retail operation in an
existing building in the M-1 Zone at 709 Science Drive; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2014 an application for Variance No. 2014-01 was
submitted by Community Marketplace (Manny Asadurian, Jr.), to allow an alternative to
in -ground landscaping in the parking lot for the use; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were
prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended (CEQA) and City CEQA Procedures, circulated for public review from
March 11, 2014 to April 1, 2014 and adopted by the City Council on April 16, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the Mitigated
Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above, together with any
comments received during the public review process; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on July 2, 2014, the City Council
considered the agenda report for Variance No. 2014-01, 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City Council finds
Variance No. 2014-01 consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and
adopted in connection with Administrative Permit (AP) 2013-19 and Modification No. 4
to Industrial Planned Development (IPD) No. 93-1. No further environmental
documentation is needed.
SECTION 2. VARIANCE FINDINGS: Based upon the information set forth in
the staff report(s), accompanying studies, and oral and written public testimony, the City
Council makes the following findings in accordance with City of Moorpark, Municipal
Code Section 17.44.040:
CC ATTACHMENT 5 50
Resolution No. 2014 -
Page 2
A. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property with regard
to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict
application of the zoning regulations denies the property owner privileges
enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning
districts in that the subject property contains a large truck terminal staging and
loading area constructed of 12 to 14 -inch thick reinforced concrete. Cutting of
the reinforced concrete pad would result in the destruction of the integrity of the
truck terminal loading area, should it be needed for a future use of the site;
B. The granting of the requested variance will not confer a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and
zone in that this is a unique situation where the concrete staging and loading
area was purpose-built to support ongoing heavy truck usage. Other properties
in the area have been designed with conventional asphalt parking lots;
C. The strict application of the zoning regulations as they apply to the subject
property will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent
with the general purpose of such regulations in that the strict imposition of the
landscape guidelines would compromise the structural integrity of the concrete
staging and loading area and compromise it's use as such at a later date;
D. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or general welfare, nor to the use, enjoyment or valuation of neighboring
properties in that the applicant will compensate for the loss of landscaping
through payment of a fee towards installation of an equal value of landscaping
elsewhere in the City. Neighboring properties will not be adversely affected in
that the use will not change the existing physical condition of those properties in
any way.
SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF VARIANCE: Variance No. 2014-01 is hereby
approved, subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 2014.
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Maureen Benson, City Clerk
Exhibit A — Conditions of Approval 51
Resolution No. 2014 -
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE NO. 2014-01
1. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, a parking lot landscaping
plan must be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development
Director and Parks and Recreation Director.
2. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for occupancy, the applicant must provide
parking lot landscaping with irrigation and drainage to the satisfaction of the Parks
and Recreation Director and Community Development Director in the former truck
staging and loading area consistent with the landscaping concept proposed in pots
as part of the Variance application or provide surety to guarantee installation of the
proposed landscaping consistent with Condition No. 3 of the Conditions of Approval
for Administrative Permit (AP) No. 2013-19 and Modification No. 4 to Industrial
Planned Development (lPD) No. 93-1 as contained in Resolution No. 2014-3286,
and submit a payment to the City of $49,594.90 to be used for enhanced
landscaping on public property in a manner and location to be determined by the
City Council.
3. All conditions of approval and mitigation measures associated with AP No. 2013-19
and Modification No. 4 to IPD No. 93-1 as contained in Resolution No. 2014-3286
shall continue to apply except as modified by these conditions of approval.
-END-
52