Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 0619 CC REG ITEM 09DC ITEM-9--Lb MF . MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue M ,orpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of y 199 A ION: CpxLx�;Z�,c To: Honorable City Council From: Patrick J. Richards, Direct(Ir of Community Development Date: June 10, 1991 (CC meetincf 6- 19 -91) Subject: Appeal 91 -1 (Bridgernan) On May 6, 1991 the Planning commiss,on of the City of Moorpark approved LDM 90 -7 of the application of Gerald Bridgeman regarding a four lot subdivision of 1.59 acres at 78 Wicks load. Discussion LDM 90 -7 is a proposed subdivision c: f 1.59 acres into four lots of 10,190, 10,145, 14,350 and 34,690 square fee, located on the south side of Wicks Road. A minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet is required by the R -1 zoning. Staff recommended denial f the application to the Planning Commission. The existence of a hi on the north side of Wicks Road completely blocked visibility to the forth rendering left turns extremely dangerous. Visibility problems at ° rlis intersection was the primary reason for Staff's recommendation i addition, Staff was concerned with the fact that allowing any additiona development which could further worsen an already dangerous conditio 'The Commission acknowledged the condition of the intersection, an j any additional development would not change this fact. Also (onside ed by the Commission were three options from the City Engineer to adcress the visibility problem. Option 1 PAUL W LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M PEREZ SCOTT M, .TG(W[ P', ROY E TALLEY .JR JOHN E WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor P,o Tem )r err, ac Councilmember Councilmember was to improve the intersection. Option 2 was to make a contribution as part of an Area of Benefit. Option � was to prohibit lefthand turns from Wicks Road. The City Engineer concurred with the Department of Community Development Staff that tl e sight distance at the Wicks Rd. - Walnut Canyon Rd. intersection was inadequate. These options are included as an attachment (see exhibit 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report). The Commission selected c)ption 2 with the provision that no recording of the map could take piace until an Area of Benefit was created. At its meeting of May 6, 19 "91 the Commission approved LDM 90- 7 by a unanimous vote. With the Commission's decision, staff is concerned that the City is now burdened with the need to create an Area of Benefit before the Parcel Map can be recorded. Generally, the City may consider this type of mitigation approach where the applicant is responsible for the costs of creating an area of Benefit. On May 29, 1991, at a Special Meeting, the City Council appealed the decision of the Planning Commission regarding this Parcel Map The Council set June 19, 1991 as a Public hearing date for this appeal, All required notice has been provided by the City. 605 '' • •. • Direct staff as deemed appropriate cc: LDM 90 -7 File ITEM 9-A. MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark„ California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 CITY OF MOORPARK MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SECTION I - GE:NF RAL INFORMATION A: HEARING DATE: B. (HEARING TIME: May 6, 1991 7:00 p.m. C. HEARING LOCATION: D. CASE NUMBER: City Council Chambers Land Division Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue LDM 90 -7 Moorpark, Ca, 93021 E STAFF CONTACT APPLICANT Craig Malin Gerald Bridgeman Assistant Planner 78 Wicks Road Moorpark, Ca, 93021 G PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to sub,livide a 1..59 acre parcel (gross) into four parcels of 10,190, 10,1.15 14,350 and 34,690 sq.ft. (net). PAUL W LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M PEREZ ':;OTr +;)N'C,OviR ROY E TALLEY JR JOHN E WOZMAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tem r o m'r•ibe Councilmember Councilmember K PROJECT LOCATION: J. 1. 2, 3. 4. a The proposed subdivision is located at 78 Wicks Road, Moorpark, Ca, 93021. The Assessor's Parc(, Number is 512 -0 -050 -09/10 ff 4 �� __ fT-, y- IS I T E GOMMUNIT'f o Jfi scHooa_ V _ . APPLICATION DEEMED COMP-E- November 21, 1990 Processing Expiration Date: M i y 21, 1991 REQUESTED ACTION AND STAIFF ,RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing and a(:(,,-ept public testimony. Review and consider the infor, cation in the Negative Declaration Make the appropriate findings >ee exhibit 1). Direct staff to prepare a Res( -uticn Denying the Tentative Land Division Map 90 -7. ALTERNATE PLANNING COMMIS` ION ACTIONS: 1. Approve the Negative Declar Jor ar�d conditionally approve the proposed subdivision. 2. Approve the Negative Declaration and conditionally approve the proposed subdivision as modifie,i by the Commission. SECTION II - PROJE(, SITE BACKGROUND A. SITE ZONING: R -1, Single Family Residentlial B. SITE GENERAL PLAN- M, Medium Density Residentlial 3 1 -5 Du /Acre (target of 4 Du /acre) C. VICINITY ZONING: RE-lac (Rural Exclusive 1 ac e minimum) to the north, east and west. R -1 to the south. D. VICINITY GENERAL PLAN: RH (Rural High, 1 acre minimun ) to the north, east and west. M to the south. E PROJECT SITE HISTORY: On June 30, 1982 Gerald Bridcteman filed for Parcel Map 3806 with the County of Ventura to subdivide the property into two parcels. One lot (containing the existinc house) was 10,000 square feet, the second and larger parcel was 31,270 square feet. The Parcel Map was approved on January 25, 1983 and expired on January 25, 1986 without recordation. No Zoning Clearances have been issued for the site. To the north of Wicks Road is a four lot subdivision (PM 3930 - Brossard) which was filed bet ,,re incorporation but approved by the City. F. EXISTING SETTING: I&M The project area for the proposed subdivision is currently developed with one dwelling unit and n( accessory structures. Access is provided to the site from WalnL, Canyon Road /State Highway 23 via Wicks Road. The topography of the parcel is generally flat with an elevation range from 590 to 625 feet. lFh( site slopes downward with a 5 -10% grade away from Wicks Road i )ward the south. A gully with slopes greater than 20% is located it the eastern portion of the site. All four pads can be located on ge- ierally existing level ground. The project site is not within ? ie Redevelopment Area for the City of Moorpark and is not within *he area covered by the Downtown Plan. SECTION III - PROJI -CT DESCRIPTION PROJECT PROPOSALS / REQUIREh,1ENTS The total area of this propost.�d subdivision is 1.59 gross acres (69,375 sq.ft.). This subdivision will divide the existing parcel into four parcels of 10,190 sq.ft. 1 375 sq..ft., 10,145 sq.ft and 14,350 sq.ft. Section 8160 -7.1.1 of lots in the R -1 (Single than 7,000 square feet. the minimum lot area zoning ordinance. B. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS- the Moorpark Zoning Ordinance states that Family Residential) zone must be not less There? )re the proposed land division meets for earl parcel as required pursuant to the The only public street providing access to this site is Wicks Road. It is presently a 60 foot wide r iht- of -w<iy with a paved roadway that varies from 23 to 26 feet No curbs, gutters, or sidewalks exist on Wicks Road. At the present time the existi from an existing driveway. served by a separate driveway . easement to APN 512 -0 -061 containing a single family i access is through the subjecl rig house has access to Wicks Road ach of the proposed lots would be Between parcels 1 and 2 is an access 120;, which is a landlocked parcel ime under construction whose only e. SECTION IV - CONFORMAN E WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The requested Land Division is onsistent with the Land Use Map designation for the parcel which is 1.Iedium Density (3.1 -5 units per acre). This project represents a density if 2.51 units per acre (gross). In addition, the following policies app RESIT ENTIAL Policy 8 - New residential develop rent should incorporate good design standards and maintain the characte of the community. design standards include open space, landscape .1, circulation, off - street parking, architectural compatibility with the irroundings, and others. TRAM -= PORTATION Policy 1 - Widening and curve a ,erations to existing traffic corridors should be encouraged where necess�i r. The intersection of Wicks Road anc Walnut Canyon requires imrovements to provide an increased level of sate r o improvements are proposed. Policy 7 - To improve interior ve, :icular circulation involving collector and minor streets within Moorpark better serve existing needs and to anticipate future needs and land F p� ttern _ . The project site is served by only )ne street, Wicks Road, which is of inadequate design. Policy 8 - To upgrade the currei r condition of streets and related facilities such as parking lots, strF et lamps, bike racks, etc., and to provide for adequate off - street park ig and other facilities in conjunction with future development. No improvements are proposed to t �ther the streets, intersections, traffic control features or related facilities Policy 9 - To encourage quali design in future transportation improvements. The applicant in not proposing an,, improvements to the transportation system. Each of these Policies requires the .;city to maintain a circulation system that meets the highest design standards. All circulation systems which are inadequate must be improved, The circulation components of any proposed developments must meet , ,iese standards, either on site or off site. Any development proposal whic h does not meet these standards or impacts upon an existing inadequa - situation does not conform to the General Plane PHYSICAL ENV] RONIAENT /HA.ZARD AREAS Policy 1 - Development should be strongly discouraged on areas of natural or human -made hazards or on hilly ides above 20 percent slope or on ridgelines, or in hazard areas wherF, hazards cannot be mitigated without significant adverse environmental etlects and where public expenditures for mitigating would not be cost 0 cti�e All development pads and access t( the pads are on slopes significantly less than 20 percent. Parcel 1 cor aiw; ari existing house built on level ground. All pads conform to this pol y. SECTION V - ENVIRC''wMENTAI DOCUMENT Staff has reviewed this proposed fc r lot s,bdivision and has determined that it would not have a significant r ffect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. SECTION VI - At ENCY REVIEW Agencies and Departments that have reviewed this proposed land division include: Air Pollution Control district, City Engineer, County Environmental Health, County Pub -c WorKS, County Sheriff, County Waterworks District No. 1, Fire Prot, -:tio i District, School District The City Engineer has included a r, emorandum indicating their concerns with the traffic and visibility probler, ; on the site. The Fire Department has conditions d that the applicant provide a turn around on Wicks Road and that fire k drants he provided. Ventura County Waterworks District No. t has required the applicant to comply with Ventura County Water,,,,orks rules and regulations including the payment of all applicable fees ind installation of ultra low plumbing fixtures. SECTION V - ANALYSIS This proposal does not include a ,y new streets but will impact the existing circulation system. The lw� rsection of Wicks Road and Walnut Canyon Road is served by a Stop Sign Visibility from Wicks Road to the south is adequate. Visibility to the i1orth is almost non - existent, because of a large hill, making left turns ex remely dangerous. The City engineer concurs with this analysis. Statist ;s provided by the Ventura County Sheriff's reveal that there were a t tai of N )Ur crashes during 1989 and 1990 at this intersection. Becai -e the top of the hill contains a residence, and there are homes no �e :,outh of Wicks Road a realignment of the road is not a feasible improvf ner't option. At present the City has no improvement plans for Wicks Roac Walnut Canyon is a State Highway under the jurisdiction of Caltrans M- h 1as no improvement plans. As a general rule the City should not ailo , any additional development to occur which would exasperate an alread,, az 3rdc is condition, in this instance, the inadequate intersection. SECTION VIII - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning ::,ommission adopt Resolution No. PC 91 -238 for LDM 90 -7 denying the ` )ur lot subdivision and the Negative Declaration as proposed Prepared by: Craig Malin Assistant Planner Approved by ,�wrick J. ichards, AICP Director ofi Community Development SECTION V! I - EXHIBITS 1. Recommended Findings 2- Negative Declaration 3. Initial Study 4. Land Division Map 5. Memorandum from City Engineer 6. Resolution of Denial MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA Plannma Commt on Meeting of G 19 � ACTION)_ � r' BY RECOMMENCED FINDINGS EXH F3IT 1 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION a. The Negative Declarationllnr° al Study is complete and has been prepared in compliance w th the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. and City Policy. b. The contents of the Negative Declaration /Initial Study have been considered in the decision of ° its oroject. 2. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND CITY OF MO()RPARK FINDINGS: a. The proposed map is not onsistent with the applicable general and specific plans; b. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with the applicar,ie general and specific plans; c. The design of the subdivision and the type or improvements are likely to cause serious public iealth problems; because of the poor sight distance concerns at t ,e ntersection of Wicks Road and Walnut Canyon Road. CITY OF MOORPARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 799 MOOFJ)A.RK AVENUE MOORPARK , ClU I FO RN I-A 93021 X NEGATIVE: DECLARATION MITIGATED NEE ATIVE DECLARATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. E n t i t l eme n t: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ILDM) 90-7 2. Appl icant : GERALD EIRIDGEMAN 3. Pr000s a 1 :SUgDMDE A 1.59 ACRE PARCEI INTO 4 PARCELS OF 10,190. 10.145, 14,350 AND 34.690 SQUARE F 4. Location & Parcel Number s 78 WICKS ROAD APN 500-0-050-09/10 S. Responsible Agencies: NONE II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRON?- iENTAl, 'INDINGS: An initial study was condu teo by the Co=unity Development Department to evaluate the otent.ial effects of this project upon the environment. Bas,d upon the findings contained in the attached initial stucly it has been determined that this project could not hav <= ii. +g;sif_icant effect upon the environment. Nitiaated Negative Declarat ;.on On] v: Potentially significant imp, +_-ts can be sais�factorily mitigated through adoption of the )llowi.rg identified measures as concitions of approval: III. PUBLTC REVIEW- 1 . Public Notice: Public - ion o a notice in a newspaper of general circulation i; twl,y az �a. 2. Document Postina Pe r i + 3. "ailing of notices t.> ill ;:,roperty owners within 1,000 feet of tho project C_ Prepared bv: CRAIG MALIN, SISTANT PLANNER 5/1 /11 ADf� roved b : 1) .ri.c;K J. Rychards, Director 1-olilznu y Development EXHIBIT 2 PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. Mayor BERNARDO M.PEREZ Mayor Pro Tern SCOTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember JOHN E. WOZNIAK Councilmember LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk Entitlement: LDM 90 -7 MOORPARK „0 o a t F 7 0A CITY OF M(:!ORPARK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIAL ', '> TUDY Date of Initial Study: March 22,1991 Location of Project: 78 Wicks Road, Moorpark, a, 44302 Name of Applicant: Gerald Sridgeman STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development JOHN F. KNIPE City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer Assessor's Parcel No(s): 512 -0- 050 - 09'10 General Plan Land Use Designation: 'M' Mediur Density Residential, 3.1 -5 units per acre Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation. Nc hange is proposed Present Land Use: One single family house on t , westerr corner of the parcel Existing Zoning: R -1, One Family Residentia Proposed Zoning: No change is proposed Agency Staff Contact: City of Moorpark. Craig Malin, Assi� ant Plann,;r 799 Moorpark Avg ,ue Moorpark, Ca. 9.� X21 (805) 529 -686 I . PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION LOCATION: 78 Wicks Road PROJECT: Subdivision of a 1.59 acre parcel 1� > to ir separate lots of 10,190 sq. ft., 10,145 sq.ft., 14,350 sq.ft., and 34,690 sq ft EXHIBIT 3 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpar. California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 SITE DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including historical information on topography, vegetation, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. describe any existing structures on the ;ite, and use of the structures. Undeveloped except for one single famsiy, house occupied by the applicant in the western corner of the property. The topography :s generally flat with a gentle slope to the south. the eastern portion of the site (lot 4) ~ontains a small gully greater than 20% slope. The site is covered with grasses and a number of trees except the gully which contains shrubs and undergrowth. No historica >r cultural landmarks are on site. A view of the city is available from Wicks Road. 2. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Wicks Rd., 1 acre lots South: Slope leading down to he ses on Everett St. East: Undeveloped land West: Ace Bowen property (1 7 inits on a two acre parcel) H, , IS THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTEf,, T WITH Moorpark General Plan /Yc. No N/A Applicable Specific Plan ✓r No N/A Moorpark Zoning Ordinance (. No N/A Ill. ARE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING STUDIES f QUIRED: Archaeological Report V % N/A Biology Report Yf N/A Geotechnical Report ; /Y{ No N/A Noise Study —� N/A ` Soil Report jwf, No N/A Traffic Study v, hb� N/A Tree Study 'f_ ) hb N/A Other (identify below) UE �No N/A IV. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST iND RESPONSES: A. Earth 1. Does the parcel contain slopes of 20% or greater which will be affected by project construction? Yes Maybe No N/A 2• Is any significant modification of major landforms proposed? Yes Maybe No N/A 3. Will the project result in the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslires, ground failure, or similar hazards? Yes Maybe No N/A 4. Does the site include any unique geological features or paleontological resozrces of significance? Yes Maybe No N/A X 5. Will the project resu Lt in a significant increase in wind or water erosion or siltation either off- or on -site beyond the construct on phase of the project? Yes Maybe No N/A G. Will the project �sult in changes in siltation, deposition, or eros( which, may modify the channel of a river or stream? Yes Maybe No N/A B. Air 1. Will the project result in a significant adverse air quality impact (based on the estimated date of project completion), as identified in the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District's Guidelines for the Preparation of Air__Q iality Tmpact Analyses? Yes Maybe No N/A 2. Will the project result in a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact based on inconsistency with the Ventura County A_r Ouality Management Plan? Yes Maybe No N/A x 3. Will the project resut.t in the creation of objectionable odors? Yes Maybe No N/A 4. Will the project re:iult in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Yes Maybe No N/A V C. Water 1. Does the project invc ve a major natural drainage course or flood control c ha r ,te 1 ;' Yes Maybe No N/A V 2. Will the project res It in r-hanges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, the rate and amount of surface runoff"? Yes Maybe No N/A 3. Is the project within a 100 -year flood hazard area as identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rat, Map for the City of Moorpark? Yes Maybe No N/A X 4• Will the project i-e: i.ilt in alterations to the course or flow of flood watery S• Will the project result ground waters, either withdrawals, or thrc:ugh cuts or excavations? Yes Maybe No N/A in a change in the quantity of through direct additions or interception of an aquifer by Yes Maybe No N/A 5. Will the project result= in degradation of surface water qual i.t% ., ground or Yes Maybe No N/A 7. Will the project charge the amount of surface water in any water body? Yes Maybe No N/A 8• Will the project result in substantial reduction in the amount of water oth< -Wise :Available for public water supplies? Yes Maybe No N/A D- Plant Life 1• Will the project resu t 3_n a substantial change in the diversity or number o' any species of plants (including trees shrubs, grass, sops, and aquatic plants)? Yes Maybe No N/A 2. Are any unique, rax,�, or Endangered species of plants present on the project site? (See State and Federal listings, Californi,j Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered 'ascular Plants, and /or General Plan EIR.) Yes Maybe No N/A -- x 3. Will the project resi.At in the introduction of new plant species that may :ause increased competition and displacement of exis ing native vegetation patterns? Yes Maybe No N/A 4. Will the proposal result in the reduction in acreage of any agricultural crn -? Yes Maybe No N/A X E. Animal Life 1. Will the project result in a reduction in the diversity of any species of ani.ur,als (birds; land animals, including reptiles; fish and shellfish, benthic organisms; or insects) which curre,3tly occupy or utilize the project site in some way? Yes Maybe No N/A 2. Will the project rest.ri,.t the range of or otherwise affect any rare or ens+ angered animal species? Yes Maybe No N/A X 3. Will the project rc:;ult i.ri a deterioration of any significant wildlifl-I ;3bitrlt: Yes ,Maybe No N/A F. Department of Fish and_G,ime "De Minimis Finding" Will the project have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife is defined as "all wild anim,ils, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological coi,,munities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and game Code). Yes Maybe No N/A G. Noise 1. Will the project re::ul t in increases to existing noise levels? Yes Maybe 1N/o N/A _ J� 2. Will the project -result in the exposure of people to conditionally acceptable or unacceptable noise levels based on the City's *40_i,;(2 Element? Yes Maybe No N/A H. Light and Glare 1- Will the project result, in a significant new source of light or glare? Yes Maybe No N/A I- Land Use 1 • Will the proposal re ,lt= in a substantial alteration of the present or plann( , : ,ind ise of an area? Yes Maybe No N/A 2. Are adjoining or plany,ed land uses incompatible with the proposed project, so that a substantial or potentially substantial interface :)robl.em would be created? Yes Maybe No N/, 3. Could the project skr-ve to encourage the development of presently undevelope,f areas or result in increases in the development intenszt--y of existing developed areas (examples include ttie _introduction of new or expanded public utilities, rind new .industrial, commercial, er recreational facil_ i.., i e, ) Yes Maybe No N/A X J. Natural Resources 1- Will the project res.zlt: in substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource? Yes Maybe No N/A X 2. Will the project result in the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural. use or impairment of the agricultural product vi.ty of agricultural land? Yes Maybe No N/A _ X K• Risk of Upset and Human Health 1. Will the project inv(Lve or be subject to a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radioact _ve materials) in the event of an accident or upset ---,or '_L on:° Yes Maybe No N/A X 2. Is the project within :)r adjacent to a high fire hazard area as defined by t . r, GJent;ira County Fire Protection District? Yes Maybe No N/A 3. Will the proposal res hlt_ in the creation of any health hazard or potential he iltli hazard and /or the exposure of people to potential h� s l t h li,i zards? Yes Maybe No VA L_ Population 1- Will the project alter the location, distribution, density, or growth sate of the human population of an area? Yes Maybe No N/A Ai. Housinq 1. Will the proposal equire the removal of' any housing unit(s)? Yes Maybe No N/A 2. Will the proposal -educe currently available low and very -low income he }ising through changes in use or demolition? Yes Maybe No N/A Y 3. Will the proposal re <uire the displacement of people from the project site? Yes Maybe No N/A N. Transportation /Circulatio l - Will the proposal res .lt in the generation of substantial additional vehicular novement? (Identify estimated a.m. and p.m. peak hour ti ps and average daily vehicle trips generated by the p r'o �C t 'I Yes Maybe No N/A X Z- Will the proposal re 11t in a cumulative impact to the existing or lanneci ° P '-an�,pol_tation systems? Yes Maybe No N/A I 3. Will the proposal t t =ysutt in an increased demand for off - site parking? Yes Maybe No N/A X 4- Will the proposal result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicLes,, :bicyclists, or -pedestrians? Yes Maybe No N/A 0- Public Services Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services such as police and fire Protection, schools, parks or recreational facilities, or other governmental services? Yes Maybe No N/A P. Energy Will the proposal result in the use of excessive amounts of fuel or energy? Yes Maybe No N/A x 4- Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to utilities, including power or natural gas, communications systems, water, sewer, storm water drainage, solid waste disp,)sa1_, and street lighting annexation and /or improvements? Yes Maybe No N/A X R. Aesthetics l - Will the proposal resit Lt in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open U) the public, or will the proposal result in the creatio,' of an ,:aesthetically offensive site open to public view" Yes Maybe No N/A 2. Will the project result in the loss, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features such as a natural - anyon, rock outcrop, ridgeline, or hillside with a sl(r)e in excess of 25 percent? Yes Maybe No N/A X 3. Will the project. r -sult in the loss of a distinctive landmark tree or st:end of mature trees? Yes Maybe No N/A S. Archaeological /Historica 1• Is there a potential that the proposal will result in the alteration or dest•uct. ion of an archaeological or historical site? Yes Maybe No N/A 2• Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to an archaeological site or historic building, structure, or object: Yes Maybe No N/A T. Mandatory Findings of Sig' J i,:-ance l• Does the project hc,ae the Potential quality of the envi, ��nment, ubstantiall degrade the reduce habitat of a fish Or wildlife species, cause f fish the or wildlife population t drop below self-sustaining threaten to eliminate -I Eel ant: or animal community, levels, the number or restric -? the range of a rare or endangered Plant or animal or Ey im i nat« important examples of the major periods of C(il i ,)r -r!ic' Pristory or prehistory? Yes Maybe No N/A 2. Does the project gave the potential to achieve short - term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -t-erm impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long - -t( r-m L.mpacts will endure well into the future.) Yes Maybe No N/A 3. Does the project ;rave impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource -s relatively small, but where the effect of the total. of those impacts on the environment is significant. The term ~cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,, ind the effects projects.) of probable future Yes Maybe No N/A 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? either Yes Maybe No N/A INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES A. EARTH 1. Although the proposed site contains slopes which are greater than 20% the building pad locations are not located on any of these slopes. (reference site plan and grading plar 2. The amount of cubic yards to -)e utilized for the cut and fill will not significantly affect the site. Lot !No will involve 98 cubic yards, Lot three 122, and Lot four 146 yards his amount will be used to create the pads. No additional fill materia will need to be brought on site (balanced). Per Les Kovacs (appiica, ''s engineer). 3. Reference Seismic and Safe-, Element of General Plan Plate 11 (Liquefaction), Plate III (LandslidE!). late V ( Expansive Soils). 4. No unique geological features Paleontological resources have been identified on site. Response is bas( on site inspection, Soils Report. and General Plan E.I.R. 5. The amount of grading proposed is features to increase wind or water erosion alteration of natural drainage char gels is water erosion. Standard parcel map :grading will ensure no significant erosior r oacts insufficient to alter terrain (only 366 cubic yards). No proposed which would affect related conditions of approval 6. No rivers or streams are loca, yd on site. The proposed parcel map would have no impact on erosion dc, ,rvn the southern slope and erosion to Wicks Road will be slightly reduced )y water being channeled down future driveways rather than the existing rra n 1. See below. 2. Page B -2 (Guidelines for tha Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analysis) indicates a potential releasf of .924 lbs. of ROC and .892 lbs. of NOx per day at ultimate buildout. hese rates are well below the 25 lb. threshold (page 2 -2, 2 -3). This project will not have a cumulative impact on air quality (page 1 -2), the release of 337 lbs. ROC and 325 lbs. NOx per year is below the 25 Ib.threshold. 3. The existing Zoning and Genet it Plan designations require any future development to be residential in na# re 4. See response 2 above. C. WATER 1. No major natural drainage cour es are located on site. 2. No major changes to topography or soil content are proposed (see EARTH 2.). The direction of surf;:ice water runoff will remain constant (Grading Plan and soils report) S^andard parcel map drainage related conditions of approval will ensure eat no >ignificant impacts will result. 3. Response is based on Federal Emergency Management Agency Community Panel Number 06071,' 0005 '\, Zone C (area of minimal flooding). 4. See response 1. No drainage channels are located on site and the site is not in a flood zone. 5. Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element of the General Plan, page III -5 indicates that no water sources are located in Moorpark. The Soils Report indicates no grounlre waiter within 15 feet or more of the surface. 6. No surface water is on site 'ield inspection) or in ground (Soils Report, O.S.C.A.R. Element). 7. No bodies of water are on site Drainage will be directed onto Wicks Road to appropriate drainage facility ,,, 8. This project will have no imp, c,t on the amount of water available for the City. Per County Waterwc Ks District, Water Availability Letter and conversation with Reddy Pakala D. PLANT LIFE 1. The only plant life on site iE: grasses and trees. No trees are proposed to be removed (Tree Location Map). 2. No endangered plants are locate, in Moorpark (O.S.C.A.R. Element page III -6). 3. It cannot be determined at thi, time what , if any, landscaping will be planted as part of any future development. No impact to existing native vegetation patterns will result fron future landscaping on the project site based on the location of the property in an urbanized area. 4. No agriculture is being conduct(A on site. E. ANIMAL LIFE 1. No discernible animal habitats ;ire iocated on site. 2. No endangered animal life is lo( ated in Moorpark (O.S.C.A.R. Element page III -6). 3. No significant wildlife habitats ire located on site (site inspection). F. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1. The project will not have an adverse effect on fish and wildlife resources. The project site is in ail urbananized area, and there is an existing single family house on the s,re. The existing trees on the project site will be preserved. G. NOISE 1. All new construction creates noise while construction is taking place. This site will not create a large amount of noise, or any noise in excess of the surrounding scale of development. The proposed project is the creation of four single family res - tential pots (see response 2). 2. Based on Figures 3, 6, and / in 'he Noise Element of the General Plan the project will not result in exposure of people to adverse noise levels. (Creation of 45 db. maximum, Noise I- lement figure 1, page 10, 12). H. LIGHT AND GLARE 1. Any new construction will result in new light sources. Based on the location and size of the project, o sJgnrficant light or glare will be created. 1. LAND USE 1. Any new construction will be consistent with the existing Zoning, General Plan , and the surrounding sc�ile of development. 2. The surrounding land uses are of a similar density and use. see Section I (Site Description) question (page 2). 3. The subject parcel is an undeveloped ',sland' in an urbanized area and will not require a zoning change J. NATURAL RESOURCES 1. When the proposed uses are b rift out, no substantial depletions will occur. 2. No agriculture is being conducte f Oil site. K. RISK OF UPSET AND HUMAN HEALTH 1. Field inspection, General Plan � afety Element, Soils Report. 2. Based on the project locatio i, which is approximately 1,000 feet from a fire station serving the proje :I area and the conditions that will be imposed by the Fire Dept, no imp ict on the service levels is expected. (Shona Perry, Fire Prevention Distric 3. See question N. 4. L. POPULATION 1. The project does not involve a z� ie change, exceed or invoke Measure F (City Growth Management Ordincince), or involve growth in the urban fringe. M. HOUSING 1. At present only one dwellin( unit is located on site, which is occupied by the applicant. 2. No changes in housing patter is will result (see Surrounding Land Uses, Page 2). No demolitions willl r, cult 3. See questions 1 and 2 above N. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION 1. This project will create 30.186 additional weekday vehicle trips per day (Institute of Transportation ngineers Trip Generation Manual September 1987) 2._ See above question. The trip generation of the project is .0043% of the 1989 traffic level on Walnut ",anyon Road (General Plan Traffic Analysis). The additional trips will not substantially increase the current level of traffic and no cur - relative further impact on circulation will result. 3. No building permits will be ssraed for a single family home unless a two -car garage is provided. 4. The 30.186 additional trips that could be created will be required to use Wicks Road for ingress /egress. These additional trips will not create a burden on the capacity of Wicks Road (source, Mark Wessel, City Traffic Engineer). Although the intersection of Wicks Road and Walnut Canyon is protected by an existing stop sign tht• line of sight from Wicks road to the north is almost completely blocked b the hill to the north. Cars can turn right from the intersection with relative safety but a left turn is clearly hazardous. The only possible mitigat on methods would be to remove the hill or realign the streets. Mitigatio would be difficult because a house is on top of the hill, and Caltrans l ias indicated that it has no plans to either realign or signalize the inters ction. Although this is a negative traffic impact there is r o negative e, vironmental effect. City policy is to not allow additional development in -in area where a hazard exists, either environmental, seismic or, in this case, traffic. Any future developments to the north of the project site might be required to construct additional access points to Walnut Canyon, and a connection with Wicks Road. Because Walnut Canyon is a State Highway, Caltrans has the responsibility for any maintenance and infrastrua.ire improvements, such as additions of lights of stop signs. No improvem, ants or expansions to Wicks Road are currently proposed by the City. Q. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Police, fire and school fees must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Additionally, the applicant will be required to pay a park fee consistent with City Ordinances No. 1 and 6. Any new increases of services will have the necessary funning available. P. ENERGY 1, The project will not require additional generating capacity or the consumption of fuel. No expansion of generation or transmission facilities is required. (Southern California Edison Co). Q. UTILITIES 1. Project is an infill development in an urbanized area with all infrastructure already constructed anc: serving the adjacent developments. This project will not require any near, utility lines. R. AESTHETICS 1. A view of the city is available from the subject parcel. However, this is private property and is not le:lally accessible to the public except with the permission of the property ova -ier 2. No unique physical features are ocated can site. 3 No trees are located on the proposed building pads or property line (Site Plan, Tree Location map, site i ;pe ;tiow. S. ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL 1. No evidence of archaeological artifacts are on site (Draft E.I.R. for General Plan Update). 2. No Historic structures or objects are located on site (site inspection). T. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIF[aANCE 1. Based on the responses to th,a checklist questions, the project will not result in a significant effect on he environment. 2. Based on the responses to tP checklist questions, the project will not result in a significant effect on tie environment. 3. Based on the responses to tF,. checklist questions, the project will not result in a significant cumulatir, - effect 4. Based on the responses to thh } checklist questions, the project will not result in a significant effect n human beings, either directly or indirectly. V. REFERENCES: The references used in respor ding to this questionnaire include the following: 1. EIR for Ventura County General Plan - Land Use Element for the Moorpark Area (1980 2. Federal Emergency Mam-lgement Agency, flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Niirnber 060712 0005 A, September 29, 1986, 3. General Plan of the Citv_;,J Moorpark. 4. Institute of Transportat )n E= ngineers, Trip Generation 4th Edition, 1987 5. United States Geologic Si rvey Topographic Quadrangle Maps for Moorpark. 6. Ventura County Air Polltitiori Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Management °Ian, 1988, 7. Ventura County Air Pol, ation Control District, Guidelines for the Preparation of Air. Qu_ality_Impact Analysis, 1989. 8. Zoning Ordinance of the 1, ,ity of Moorpark. 9. City of Moorpark Genera{ Plan _Traffic Analysis, Austin -Foust Associates, May 1990 10. County of Ventura Fire F° evention District, Shona Perry. 11. County of Ventura Waterviorks District, Reddy Pakala. VI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial �,valuati..on: X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DEC.L.ARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on th(:� environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures, described in this initial study, could be applied to the project. 7" MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared_ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and zi i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find the proposed projec -t MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ADDENDUM to an existing certified ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT is required. 3/2M/ - Date CRAIG MAUN,) SSISTANT PLANNER Date P KCK J_ Ppi$ADS, DIRECTOR OF MMUN DEVFI...OPMENT . I Zt rn i LOCAT /ON MA.o Ai G_ i-A, /%K�-; 5 co as o .o "I, ve pMa /iI.L^ lCYLt' /'. CIO' _w VEST /NG TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. A9B/NQ A AoRT /ON OF LOT 10, M.L. H/ /CKS T,AACT NO. 2 /N THE RAn.C'Ho 9/M /, COUNTY Vk5VIZI a ol—A7D Of CAL1, -WJ qN /A , PCQ MAP /N ZO►< CF.. -.S4ff 4F7 Re=,Q05, /N THG OfF /CG O/- 7?W-" COYJ/V7Y AWCO"ChffQ /N TH" CITY, O," A4Cj 4Q.wA.QAe SCPTQM�Q/ 1D1�I O.'VWelO- euao/vioso: ltrovnnGSGQ. GrGgdLO ,OR/OOEMAN L.1, KOV4Cp,M.Y.,P6. 7p W/CACO gdgO - r""OOM^4A1K AVC. MOGSO,�1a,oKC:A 010t/ MQG1I/M.fAC, CA.I6pG/ (OOpi ism,- &*a; CEOs(! �! SHEET / OF / Sh/eCr NOTC 15 1 L C/T /L /T /Cb KpC77D /C • p0. CoL /�. CO /yG/ C19. W.47pA► - ✓C.t/T. GO. W-W, O /OT, /A7. / Se War.o ^ V--"r cO. W.W. 0137. M7./ TGG F1°h'Q� /C- 47CNd54AL TCLLAY.CM/a O. Q�ea6 aGV b .W �C6L NO. 4 r9C,PEA6G'e � ^ G007B AQGA� o.f.s761�./" /. �'3J.00r. H44CGL / A3 /se /O. rAlr O. C9 aCs PAQCCGG A:% W /VV/'l O." ACV. Pa,�caL J • Me oW D pb 00 Wr O. !J Acs P.�.GCQLO ..HIr 4,p R7 err O 00 ACT. VEST /NG TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. A9B/NQ A AoRT /ON OF LOT 10, M.L. H/ /CKS T,AACT NO. 2 /N THE RAn.C'Ho 9/M /, COUNTY Vk5VIZI a ol—A7D Of CAL1, -WJ qN /A , PCQ MAP /N ZO►< CF.. -.S4ff 4F7 Re=,Q05, /N THG OfF /CG O/- 7?W-" COYJ/V7Y AWCO"ChffQ /N TH" CITY, O," A4Cj 4Q.wA.QAe SCPTQM�Q/ 1D1�I O.'VWelO- euao/vioso: ltrovnnGSGQ. GrGgdLO ,OR/OOEMAN L.1, KOV4Cp,M.Y.,P6. 7p W/CACO gdgO - r""OOM^4A1K AVC. MOGSO,�1a,oKC:A 010t/ MQG1I/M.fAC, CA.I6pG/ (OOpi ism,- &*a; CEOs(! �! SHEET / OF / Sh/eCr 3105 t�29 3274;z r col 1814M 111hy, TO: Patrick Richards, City of Moorpark FROM: John F. Knipe, Willdan Ass, ciates Oy --- �} t "� DATE: May 2, 1991 SUBJECT: LDM 90-7 (BRIDGE-MAN) WALNUT CANYON ROAD WICKS ROAD IN'MRSECTION We concur with your analysis that the available sight distance for westbound left turns at the Wicks Road - Walnut Canyon Road intersection is inadequate. We also concur that this intersection should be unproved to mitiga ~t- this situation. Should the Planning Commission and City 'ouncil wish to approve the subject project, the following alternative conditions should als be considered: 1. Full improvement of this intr• rsection to provide proper sight distance. aR I The applicant shall make a s.7ecial contribution to the City representing the applicant's share of the cost :f improvements to the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road - Wicks Road. To determine the cost of these improvements, the applicant's civil engineer shall first prepare a conceptual plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The plan shall be designed to identify the necessary street improven7ent , to provide standard intersection sight distance. The applicant's prorata share ;hall then be approved by the City Council prior to Final Map approval. The )ntribution shall then be paid to the City, prior to Final Map recordatio: . )R �• Prohibit westbound ler, :r, a the `Nicks Road - Walnut Canyon Road intersection. EXHIBIT 5 ui�LL -% "OS X25 8270"- Page -2- Alternative No. 2 does not correct the situ „,Lion until sufficient funds are available to make the improvements. Alternative No. 3 would increase U -turns at the Casey Road intersection. This does not correct the situation and only moves the :)roblem to the location where U -turns can be made. Copy: Patrick Dobbins, Willdan Associates .TFK,PMD:sf 01782/3003 IM0527.IvfEM RESOLUTIO! NO. PC yl _238 A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK rLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPLICATION OF GERALD BRIDGEMAN, FOR A PARCEL MAP (LDM 90 -7) A SE.SSOR PARCEL NO. 512 -0- 050 -09/10 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Division 8 Planning and Development Chapter 2 - Subdivisions of the Moorpark Mumcipal Code, the applicant, Gerald Bridgeman, has requested a four (4) lot parcel map approval, ind WHEREAS, studies and ins, ;tigations were made, and staff reports and recommendations were submitted; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Article 5, of Chapter 3 to Title 7 (beginning at Section 65300) of the Governmi +nt Code of the State of California ( "The Planning and Zoning Law ") the City of Moorpark has aclo,;ted a General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Coy emission after review and consideration of the information contained in the Negative Decl,�ration found that this project would not have a significant effect on the environment; and ha, reached its decision in the matter not to approve the project; and WHEREAS, this Commission„ upon giving the notice required by the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 4 of Title 7 of the Gover iment Code (beginning at Section 65850), did on the 6th day of May 1991 conduct a public he,! ng as prescribed by law in order to consider said application for parcel reap. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSI( N OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Comm�_sion is unable to make all of the findings specified in the staff report dated May 1, 1991, and i particular the Planning commission specifically finds that the proposed use as a result o, the subdivision would be inconsistent with the purposes, intent, guidelines, standards, pol, ;yes, and provisions of the City's General Plan, Zoning Code and Subdivision Code and that ti e proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and we sre Section 2. A finding is made t, it this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaratie;n has been completed in compliance with C.E.Q.A. and the State Guidelines issued thereunder, ii id that this body has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declar, ion ;md Initial study. EXHIBIT 6 Section 3. The proposed subdivis,on and subsequent use will be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, and to the property in the vicinity in which the use is situated due to the lack of vehicular visibility at the intersection of Wicks Road and Walnut Canyon Road. Section 4. The imposition or co+ ditions upon the requested entitlement use will not adequately or significantly mitigate the abc� F? described injurious and detrimental effects. Section 5. At its meeting of Ma , 6, 1991, this Commission took action to deny Parcel Map No. LDM 90 -7 and adopted Resolution PC 91 -238 denying said application. The action with the foregoing direction was approvf- � by the following roll call vote: AYES: passed, approved, and ADOPTE 1, this ___ _day of CHAIRMM.1 t'RESIDIN(3: Michael H Wiesner ATTEST: Celia La Fleur, Secretary RESOLUTION NC PC - -91 -238 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP LDM -90 -7 ON THE P''PLICATION OF GERALD BRIDGEMAN. Whereas, at a duly not'ict,d public hearing on May 6, 1991, the Planning Commission considered the application filed by Gerald Bridgeman requesting approval to s�ibdivide a 1.59 acre parcel into four parcels of 10,145; 10,190; 14 350; and 34,690 square feet; and Whereas, the Planning Commission after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff report, the Negative Declaration and testimony, and has found that the project will not have a significant advers,� effect on the environment, and has reached its decision in the m,t--ter; and Whereas, at its meet.inc; of` May 6, 1991, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and closed thf public hearing. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, California, does resoly, as follows: Section 1. Pursuant L0 the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Pct (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California {beginning at Section 21000y), the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark has determined that the Negative Decla at.ion prepared for this project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State Guidelines. The Planning Commission has receiy• .1 and considered the information contained in the Negative Decla ation prior to acting on the proposed project and has found L1:Lat. this document adequately addresses the environmental eff��:- (:;t t�e proposed project. Section 2. The Planing Commission hereby adopts the findings in the staff report date( May 2, 1.991, and said report is incorporated herein by referent_ t:.houoh fully set forth. Section 3. The Plan ing Commission does hereby find } that the approval of the Parcel I' o i.� ,onsistent with he City's General Plan. Resolution No. PC -91 -238 page 2 Section 4. That tht, Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Parcel Map No. LDM -90 -7 on the application of Gerald Bridgeman subject to compliance with all of the attached conditions attached hereto. The <�(,tion of the foregoing direction was approved by the following :rol ,rote: Ayes: Schmidt, M.il.l -r, 11rodsky, Torres, Wesner; Noes: None. Absent: None. ATTEST: Celia LaFleur, Secretary Chairman presiding: r c aez . We ner Jr. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF VENTURA ) I, Celia LaFleur, do hereby certify that I am the secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, California and that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: Ayes: Torres, Brodsky, Mil er, Tie.snei Noes: None. Absent. Vacancy (one) ATTEST. - Celia LaFleur, Secretary EXHIBIT' A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The conditions of approval of this dens itive Parcel Map supercede all conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, typical sections and the like which may be shown on said map; and that all provisions of he :3ubdivision Map Act, City of Moorpark Ordinance and adopted City policies apply 2. Recordation of this subdivision shall be oe, med to be acceptance by the property owner of the conditions of this map. 3. All applicable requirements of any law or tigency of the State, City of Moorpark or any other governmental entity shall be met„ an( all Such requirements and enactments shall, by reference, become conditions of this fir :tlement. 4. The developer's recordation of this map and/or commencement of construction as a result of this map shall be deemed to be ; :ceptance of all conditions of this map by the applicant. 5.- That no condition of this entitlement shall be interpreted as permitting or requiring any violation of law, or any lawful rules regulations or orders of an authorized governmental agency. In instances wherE more than one set of rules apply, the stricter ones shall take precedence. 6. That if any of the condition or limitations )f this subdivision are held to be invalid, that holding shall not invalidate the remaining :onditions or limitations set forth. 7. The development shall be subject tc �il applicabl( regulations of the Single Family Residential (R -1) zone. 8. No Zone Clearance shall be issued for cony truction until the final map has been recorded. Prior to the issuance of any permit, a Z )ning Clearance shall be obtained from the Department of Community Development arr i a Building Permit shall be obtained from the Department of "Building and Safety after th granting of a Zoning Clearance. 9. The Tentative Parcel Map shall expire thrc,, years from the date of its approval. Failure to record a final map with the Ventura '.,ounty Recorder prior to expiration of the Tentative Map shall terminate all procee i ngs, and any subdivision of the land shall require the filing and processing of a n.ww " �wa'ivf 1,1ap. 10. That the subdivider shall defend, indemm and hold harmless the City and it's agents, officers and employees from any claim, ictron or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, se iside, void, or annul any approval by the City or any of its agencies, departments, mm ssio ps, agents, officers or employees concerning the subdivision, which claim icri o pr )c.eeding is brought within the time period provided therefore in Governmer.l Code Section 66499.37. The City will promptly notify the subdivider 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 subdivider shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees pursuant io this condition. The City may, within its unlimited discretion, participate in the defer >e o^ any such claim, action or proceeding if both of the following occur;. The City bears its own attorney fees + id costs. The City defends the claim, action op Oroceeding in good faith. The subdivider shall not be require: i to pay or perform any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless trio settlement is approved by the subdivider. - The subdivider's obligations under this condition shall apply regardless of whether a final map or parcel ma: is ultimately recorded with respect to the subdivision. 11 . The Initial Study prepared by the City has determined that this project will have a "De Minimis" impact upon the environment. In .;�onformance with the procedures set forth in Assembly Bill 3158 the applicant is required to deposit with the City within two (2) days after approval of the project a $25.00 filing fee made out to the County of Ventura for the State required Certificate of Fee Ex(� nption. PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT APPROVAL, THE FOLL_(r MNG CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 12. Prior to obtaining a grading permit, the developer shall submit grading plans to the Director of Community Development for approval to ensure that they meet with the intent expressed in the architect's conceptl-V O plans and/or tentative map. 13. The applicant shall submit a plan for review& and approval of the Director of Community Development which identifies how co oliance with the utility undergrounding requirement will be met. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL, THE FOLLOWING! ONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 14. An Unconditional Availability Letter shall r.)e obtained from the County Waterworks District No. 1 for sewer and water service for each lot. Said letter shall be filed with the Department of Community Developmew or, if said Unconditional Availability Letter in a form satisfactory to the City cannot be obtained from the County Waterworks District No. 1, the developer shall execute a Subdivision Sewer Agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. Said agreement sh ill permit deferral of unconditional guarantee for sewer and water service until issuan of a building permit for each lot in the subdivision. Said agreement shall include anguage holding the City harmless against damages in the event of the, ultimate lack of equate +?wer service. 15. All proposed utilities shall be undergrounds­; to the nearest off -site utility pole. All new utility service must be underground prier t� e(c rdati n of this map. 1 6 - As of the date of recordation of the final Parcel Map, the parcels depicted thereon shall meet the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan then applicable to the property when the land division was deemed complete. This requirement applies to the subdivision only. Any request for development or construction must. meet with the development standards applicable at the r me the application for development is made. 17, Building standards for residential structu es as provided under Chapter 2 -53 of Part 2 and Chapter 4 -10 of Part 4, Title 24 o the California Administrative Code, shall be imposed on any future residential units jnstructed in this subdivision. 18. The subdivider shall obtain a "District pielease" from the Waterwork's District No. 1. Applicant shall be required to comply with Ventura County Waterwork's Rules and Regulations, including payment of all api. icabie fe(- ,,. 19. At the time water service connection is oiade, cross connection control devices shall be installed on the water system in a rrann -r approved by the County Waterworks District No. 1. 20. The applicant shall pay Quimby (par, and recreation) Fees consistent with City Ordinance No. 6. 21. The applicant shall pay all outstanding processing fees including but not limited to, Planning, City Engineering and any City, ' ttomey fer!s. CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL, THE FOLLOWIN, CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED; 22. The applicant shall submit to the City to+ review and approval, a grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer; shall obtain a grading permit, and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion. Cut ,r fill slopes shall be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal /vertical). Contour grading of ill slopes shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Developrner, and City Engineer. 23. An erosion control plan shall be subrnitteo for review and approval if grading is to occur between October 15th and April 15th Along with the erosion control measures, hydroseeding of all graded slopes shal oe equired within 60 days of completion of grading. 24. All haul routes shall be approved by 1h City Engineer. On -site haul routes shall be limited to graded areas only. 25- The applicant shall submit to the City r review and approval, a detailed soils and geotechnical report prepared by both civil engineer and a geotechnical engineer registered with the State of Californi, The report shall include a geotechnical investigation with regard to liquefaction expansive soils, and seismic safety. The grading plan shall incorporate the recomri �yndationcr of the approved soils report. 26. Review of the soils and geotechnical rep�;rt by the City's geotechnical consultant may be required by the City Engineer. If so, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs including the city's administrative costs 27. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval, street improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer; shall enter into an agreement with the City to complete the improvements, arw shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of the improvements_ An•, necessary right -of -way required to complete the improvements will be acquired by th applicant at their expense. 28. The improvements shall include concr :te curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, striping and signing, paving, and any ne ssa +y transitions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer_ 29. The applicable Ventura County Road Starioard Plates are as follows: Wicks Road shall be per Plate B -5A (Revision F), modified tc provide 60 feet of right of way. 30. The applicant shall submit to the cit for review and approval, drainage plans, hydrologic and hydraulic calculation prepared by a registered civil engineer; shall enter into an agreement with the City to complete the improvements and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of the improvements. The drainage plans and calculations shall indicate the following o editions before and after development: - Quantities of water, water flow rates, major water courses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood t,azard areas, sumps and drainage courses. Hydrology shall be per current Ventura C _inty Standards except as follows: a- all catch basins in sump Ic rations shall be designed for a 50 -year storm; b. all catch basins on contir jous grades shall be designed for a 10 -year storm; C. all catch basins in a sump ,onclition shall be designed such that the depth or water at intake shall eqi d the depth of the approach flows; d. all culverts shall be desig, End for a 100 -year storm; e. drainage facilities shall :_7e provided such that surface flows are intercepted and contaim � prior Io entering collector or secondary roadways; f. for a 10 -year storm, al collector streets shall be provided with a minimum of one travel I,1 `e with a goal that local, residential streets shall have one travel Done ✓a lable where possible; g. drainage to adjacent parce shall not be increased or concentrated by this development. All drainag, measure!, necessary to mitigate storm water flows shall be providec by Re applic,�nt. 31 . The applicant shall demonstrate to the sa sfaction of the City Engineer that each building pad has adequate protection from a 10' year storm and feasible access during a 10- year storm. 32. The applicant shall demonstrate legal acco ss for each parcel to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 33. The applicant shall deposit with the City contribution for the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution. The actual deposit shall e the then current Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution rate at the time of final reap approval. If previous payment of this contribution can be demonstrated to I F =.,'ty's satisfaction, this condition shall be waived. 34. The applicant shall make a contribution t $3,000 per lot to the city which will be used to fund public street and traffic impro\ ments directly, or indirectly affected by this development. 35. The applicant shall make a contribution the City representing the applicant's share of the cost of improvements to the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road - Wicks Road as determined by an Area of Benefit to be e tablished by the City. To determine the cost of these improvements, the applicant's civil engineer shall first prepare a conceptual plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer The plan shall be designed to identify the necessary street improvements to provide standard intersection sight distance. The applicant's prorata share to the Area c Benefit shall then be approved by the City Council prior to Final Map approval. Thf contribution to the Area of Benefit shall then be paid to the City, prior to approval of 1, e final Map. 36. The applicant shall indicate in writing to tie City Engineer, the disposition of any water well or any other well that may exist with n the project. If any wells are proposed to be abandoned, or if they have been abandon~: A and have not been properly sealed, they must be destroyed per Ventura County Ordinal e No. 23;'2 and any applicable Division of Oil and Gas requirements. 37. The applicant shall transmit (by Certified Mail) a copy of Section 66436 of the State of California Subdivision Map act to each public entity or public utility that is an easement holder of record. Written compliance shal be submitted to the City Engineer. 38. If any of the improvements which the af,;;)licant is r equired to construct or install is to be constructed or installed upon land which the applicant does not have title or interest sufficient for such purposes, the - applicant shall do all of the following at least 60 days prior to the filing of the fine) rrr ;a fo approval pursuant to Government code Section 66457. a. notify the city in writing Its, inE applicant wishes the City to acquire an interest in their land whicf s Sufficient for such purposes as provided in Government Code Section '45,' b. supply the City with (1) a it (jal description of the interest to be acquired, (11) a map or diagram of y )I [tie merest to be acquired sufficient to satisfy the requirements I subdivision (e) of Section 1250.310 of the code of Civil Procedure, Lill) a current appraisal report prepared by an appraiser approved by tho, City which expresses an opinion as to the current fair market value of the interest to be acquired, and (IV) a current Litigation Guarant, � Report C. enter into an agreement w,:r the City, guaranteed by such cash deposits or other security as the City may require, pursuant to which the applicant will pay all of the City's _osts (including, without limitation, attorney's fees and overhead expens, .) (::)f acquiring such an interest in the land. 39. The applicant shall pay all energy costs i,. sociated with street lighting for a period of one year from the initial energizing of the 0 et I�ghts IN CONJUNCTION WITH FINAL MAP APPROV, . THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 40. The applicant shall offer to dedicate tc the City of Moorpark a street dedication of sufficient width along Wicks Road to f; �rmil an ultimate right -of -way of 60 feet, as delineated on the approved Tentative Map 41. The applicant shall dedicate on the Final Map to the City of Moorpark the access rights adjacent to Wicks Road along the entire frontage of the parent parcel except for the access road and the driveways for Lots ' and 4. Lots 2 and 3 shall not be permitted to have driveways onto Wicks Road. Acces to Lots 2 and 3 shall be via the on -site access road shown on the Tentative Map. 42. The applicant shall dedicate on the Fin, Map to the City of Moorpark, public service easements as required. 43. The applicant shall delineate areas subj&A to flooding as "Flowage Easement" and then offer the easements for dedication to the City of Moorpark on the Final Map. Lot to lot drainage easements, flood hazard areas aid secondary drainage easements shall also be delineated on the Map. Assurance shall t:.f, provided to the city that these easements will be adequately maintained by property ow, ers to safely convey storm water flows. DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING COND ONS SHAt1 APPLY: 44. Prior to any work being conducted wiihi the State or City right -of -way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit frog illie appropriate Agency. 45. The applicant shall construct all necess,: � drainage facilities, including brow ditch and slope bench drainage channels, wit[ a ; ,rin,ineni earth tone color so as to minimize visual impacts. Said color shall be subr 'ted to and approved by the Planning Director as part of the grading plans. 46. If any hazardous waste is encountered ,ring the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Vei iura County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Sheriff's De,_�arr � rt and the City Construction Observer shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. Contaminated or hazardous soil as defined by Department of Health Services may, not be used for on -site soil fill or roadway subgrade unless the Department of Health Services determines in writing that said material has been treated to a level that is no longer considered i ublic health risk or requires public disclosure by the Department of Real Estate. Any cor° 3minated or hazardous soil shall be removed to an approved landfill- 47. Where roads requiring four or more inch s of pavement are to be built, the applicant shall construct the required street secti ors rrnus one inch of paving as an interim condition until all utility cuts or trenchin; are completed. The final one inch cap of asphalt shall be placed after all necessar} ren(hing is completed. 48. No trees with a trunk diameter in exces of four inches shall be trimmed or removed without prior approval of the director of t mmunity Development. PRIOR TO FIRST SALE OF ANY LOT, THE FOLLOWIt: a C:CrNDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 49. If the land is in a special flood hazarc are Vii applicant shall notify all potential buyers in writing of this condition. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMEN S AND BOND EXONERATION, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 50. Sufficient surety guaranteeing that the ;)ubli(; improvements shall be provided. The surety shall remain in place for one year � dlowing acceptance by the City Council. 51. Original "as- built" plans will be certit ed by the applicant's civil engineer and submitted with two sets of blue prints to the City Engineer's office. Although grading plans may have been submitted for checking and construction on sheets larger than 22" x 36 ", they must be resubmitted as "as-b ills" in a series of 22" x 36" mylars (made with proper overlaps) with a title block ol each sheet. Submission of "as - built" plans is required before a final inspection will b schwclulE', 1. . 52. Reproducible centerline tie sheets shall b� submitted to the City Engineer's office. 53. The applicant shall file for a time extens� =n with the City Engineer's office at least six weeks in advance of expiration of the agn -�ment to construct subdivision improvements. The fees required will be in conformancE Ih tie applicable ordinance section. VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS ONDMQN; 54. Applicant for service shall comply with I J( -ntur 3 County Waterworks District No. 1 "Rules and Regulations" including all pr( sions of or relating to the existing Industrial Waste Discharge Requirements and subs :Iuer,t additions or revisions thereto. Ultralow plumbing fixtures are required in all nen one trE,cti )n. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 55. A turn around which meets fire Departme it standards shall be provided on Wicks Road for this project 56. Access easement between Parcels 2 and sha!I be identified for use, for example, access to property backing us to this parcel v Ch �!cces�, from Everett Street or additional building to the rear of parcels 2 and :? 57. That approved turn around areas or ea >ements for fire apparatus shall be provided where the access road is 150 feet or fart° Fir from tie main thoroughfare. 58. That all driveways shall have a minimui vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches (13' 6 "). 59. That if the subject parcel is not annexim, to a Water Purveyor District, an acceptable private water system for fire protecti e1 mall he provided prior to combustible construction.. 60. That if the subject parcel is within a Water Furveyor District, water mains capable of providing a fire flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi shall be installed from the public right of way, or from the Purveyor point of connection to the northwest property line of Parcel No. 4. the cost of engineering, installation and maintenance of these mains shall be that of the applicant of this division (Parcel Map). this improvement or provisions to guarantee its installation shall be complet ,d prior to recordation. 61. Prior to combustible construction on any parcel, the water mains shall be extended to within 250 feet of the building site. a firc� hydrant shall be installed at this location on the access road to the site and it shall be capable of providing the required fire flow. the owner of the combustible construction responsible for the cost of this protection installation. 62. That prior to recordation, the applicant nail provide to the Fire District, verification from the water purveyor that the purvey cen provide the required fire flow for the project. 63. Fire hydrants shall be a minimum of a (�" 4" X '...E, ` wet barrel. Planning Commission , City of Moorpark, California Minutes of 6, 1991. Page -2- 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Commissioner Schmidt moved and Commissioner Torres second a motion to aj,,rrove the minutes of April 15, 1991... Motion carried by a ianimoiis voice vote. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR No items for consent. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. LDM -90 -7 (Land Division Moorpark) - Gerald Brid eman " Subdivision of a 1.59 acre parcel. --:i-nto 4 lots of 10,190; 10,145; 14,350, and 34,690 sq.'t. The Director introduced Craig r -lip, Assistant Planner to the Commission. Mr. Malin proceeded with his Staff Report on LDM -90 -7, dated May 6, 1991. The Assistant P'.anner provided the Commission Staff Analysis in stating that the proposed subdivision does not include any new streets but may impact the existing circulation system. The inters -ction of Wicks Road and Walnut Canyon Road is served by a Stop sign and the visibility from Wicks Road to the south is adequate. The visibility to the north is almost non - existent, b -cause of a larger hill, making left turns are extremely daj,gerous The City Engineer concurred with Staff Analysi. tend provided the following alternative conditions: 1. Full improvement of this nter.ser.tion to provide proper sight distance. a:\91 -5/6 Planning Commission , City, o Moorpark, California Minutes of May 6, 1991 . Page -3- 2. The applicant shall make special contribution to the City representing the a.pp';Lcant's share of the cost of improvements to the inters�,ction of Walnut Canyon Road - Wicks Road. To determine tie cost of these improvements, the applicant's civil enc_:,_neer shall first prepare a conceptual plan to the sati ;faction of the City Engineer. The plan shall be desi.gn4 d t..o identify the necessary street improvements to provide standard intersection sight distance. The applicant's share shall then be approved by the City Counc I prior to final Map approval. The contribution shall the b�? pa.i.d to the City, prior to Final Map recordation. -or_ 3. Prohibit westbound left to ns at the Wicks Road - Walnut Canyon Road intersection, At this point in the meeting t Chairman opened the public hearing. All Commissioners for the rfcord stated that they had - individually visited the site w -th the applicant present. - The Commission proceeded to r(,-,pond t.o concerns addressing liability, signal maintena,< -e acid responsibilities, private /city street. Commissioner Brodsky inquired (f staff if Alternative No. 2 were considered, "Where would ddit.ional monies come from "? The Director replied that a new Area of Benefit would need to be developed. Testimony received by the follcwinq: Gerald Bridgeman, 78 Wicks Road uoorpark, CA. Mr. Bridgeman provided the Commission with ba,Kground information as to how he had acquired the property, e went on to explain that the four accidents mentioned by St. �f were not related to sight distance problems, but were dt_� -o speeding. However, Mr. Bridgeman concurred with Staff ii the sight distance problem. He stated that he intends to coi tribute to the funding needed to provide the improvements a.t hi.,, intersection. a: \91 -5/6 Planning Commission , City d Moorpark, California Minutes of Ma) 6, 1991 Page -4- Ty Valleunga, 179 Wicks Road, Y orpark, CA. In support of the requested subdivision. Mr. Va] ', eurnga commented that since the high school has been relo(.c ec] t.hrit traffic issues are minimal. Les Kovacs, 798 Moorpark Avem.,e, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Kovacs, the applicant's engineer rema=rked that the grading would be minimal and that water sere es aro now adequate for an additional three dwelling unit Commissioner Miller inquired o Staff if there were any other request for development north of Wicks Road. The Director responded that currently on th- east and west side of Walnut Canyon, a few lots will devtAc Commissioner Brodsky commented whi_Le on site he also concurred with the sight distance problc The Commissioner's concerns were Liability, maintenance responsibilities, whether emei(_lency vehicles turning radius was adequate, and the enforcer nt o#- t:.he vehicle code. PUBLIC HEARING CLOS}') AT 8:oo P.M. Motion: Commissioner Schmidt moved and Commissioner Miller second a motion that The applicant shall crake a special contribution to the City representin, the applicant's share of the cost of improvements to the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road - Wicks }oad. To determine the cost of these improvements, he applicant's civil engineer shall first prepay, a conceptual plan to the satisfaction of the ity Engineer. The plan shall be designed to ic3a nti fy the necessary street improvements to prov ie standard intersection sight distance. The app cant," share shall. then be approved by the C,i it Council prior to final Map approval. The corn . b..- -i on shall then be paid to the City, prior to i_na1. Map recordation. Staff directed to bring Ijc< a resolution for consent calendar approval a the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planr7 -ic C(�)rnmi.ssion. a: \91 -5/6 Planning Commission , City of Moorpark, California Minutes of May . , _991, Page -5- Motion passed by the fol.l<n.. -_no roll call vote: Commissioner Schmidt: Yt Commissioner Miller: Yi Commissioner Brodsky: Yo Commissioner Torres: YO Commissioner Wesner: YE B. Amendment to Chapter 5.52 of Til I.e_5__of, the Municipal Code - City of Moorpark The City Council has initiate <:. an amendment to the City Municipal Code to make minor corrections to mobile home park rent control regulations. The proposed changes are for editorial reasons and will no result in any change in procedure for processing applic•itions for mobile home park rent increases, nor will they re:rilt in any increase in rents beyond that which is allowed by he current City Code. Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Manner presented the Staff' Report dated April 8, 1991. Motion: Commissioner Miller mc: ved and Commissioner Torres second a motion to approve Staff recommendation to prepare a resolution recommending that the City _ Council adopt an ordinance which approves minor - corrections to Chapte 5.52 of 'Title 5 of the Municipal Code, and adopt a resolution which revises the mobile home park rent control administrative rules t_ardd standardized forms to be consistent with Chaptc- 5.52. Motion passed by a una Lmcus voice vote. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Entitlement Processing The Director presented the (:)mmission with background information on the Entitlemer permit Application and processing time frame. a: \91 -5/6 Lynn W. Cro 'kat t 13768 Christian Barrett Moorpark, Calif..o ~n.i_� 93021 June 19, a91. Honorable Mayor and City Council: I am working and will be unable to attend this evening's City Council meeting. As in the past, work, other planned meetings, and a trip have prevented me from attending. I have yet t.o receive any correspondence from the City of Moorpark requesting me to ittend any of the meetings where Cinco de Mayo has been agendized. I have also not received any calls from council members, other than the Mayor, relative to Cinco de Mayo. �At your last meeting, you modified -eimbursements, agreed to have the D.A. s office and the Grand Jury look int.::) the event and placed my possible removal from the Parks and Recreation Comrniss.ion on this week's agenda. I do not agree with your actions an(, the last seems premature since I have not been able to respond to staff': report either to the D.A., Grand Jury, or the Council. I disagree with the tone and some of the facts as presented in staff's report of May 17, 1991. They are biased sand self - preserving, and naturally SO. The "City of Moorpark" was responsible for this event. If controls were to be in place they should have come from the City and not from a group of volunteers. I feel we were left holding the bag and I have been singled out as the fall guy. Phil Newhouse was allowed little time to adequately oversee this event and, in fact, I perceived a general reluctance from the top City administrator to support our activities. I am but one person from a committee of volunteers that made some honest mistakes and worked very hard to provide a cultural, family event for the City. I was not aware of a "succinct" City policy relative to warrant numbers versus cash payment. I am now. However, the decision I made the day of the event was from thf- heart and under extraordinary circumstances despite what another would Piave you believe. In the future, I would recommend a Commissioner's Handbook be developed to identify the policies and 1:r- ocedures of the City to prevent any future recurrence. In closing,-please feel free to contact me personally if you have any direct questions regarding staff's report, or I would be obliged to meet with a committee to discuss any of your c ncerns. Sincerely, , Lynn W Croy vat-t- -�) RECEIVED — Chairman, M' & R(' 9 19' ,WC:tabs City of Moorpark