Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 0918 CC REG ITEM 09E9E� MOORPARK, CAUFOPNA lTEt11�. of ptYCouncu Mee ng MOORPARK A— ,�98 -Ade �acl�Avenue Moc spark, Calilornfa 93021 (805) 529 -6864 8y LMEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Counc:ii, FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: September 4, 1991 (CC meeting of September 18, 1991) SUBJECT: RPD -91 -1 AND LDM -91 -2 (13]'30) Background The above captioned Residential klanned Development and Land Division Map were originally heard by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1991. This matter wa continued to the Planning Commission's regular scheduled meetl.ng of August 5, 1991 to allow the developer to work with staff ti) resolve several outstanding issues which are discussed in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated July 30, 1991 (Attachment No. 3). The Planning Commission reopened the public hearing on August 5, 1991 and directed staff to prepare a resolut:.ion recommending to the City Council denial of the projects without prejudice. This resolution is attached for the City Council'= eview (Attachment No. 1). Discussion At the public hearings held on July k5 and August 5, 1991, several persons from the public either spoke or submitted letters requesting that the project be denied. lssues discussed by the public related to the potential for overcrowding, increased crime, noise, potential parking and traffic problems, concentration of low income housing units within a small area of the City, incompatibility of the project with surrounding residential land uses, devaluation of property valuer of the existing properties, and the lack of recreational facilities for the future residents of the proposed apartments. The reasons for the Planning Commission recommending denial of the projects are described in the attached Planning Commission resolutions and are summarized as follows: 1. The proposed apartment units will have a significant adverse impact on the public health and safety which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated; and the applicant has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the conditions of approval pursuant to the Mitigation MeaSUres in the Mitigated Negative Declaration which are necessary in order to comply with CEQA without rendering the project unaffordable. The significant adverse impacts will be creatf�c for the following reasons: A:\CC.MEM PAUI W LAWRASON JR RE RNARDO M 74 RE,— SCOTT MOO 0( E TALLEY JP JOHN E WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tern :ounr !,, ;oUncilmember Councilmember a a. That interior open space area of the proposed apartments has been reduced by the applicant in order to accommodate required parking. The applicant has not provided adequate recreational facilities (such as a swimming pool) other than providing tot lots for young children, thus creating potential liability problems for the adjacent residents who have recreational facilities. b. There are no one bedroom units within the proposed complex which would help reduce the potential demand for parking. The project does not provide sufficient on -site parking required by the City's Zoning Ordinance. The lack of adequate parking will exacerbate an existing adverse traffic safety problem because of existing on- street parking in the area of the proposed project. c. That instead of providing access through an extension of Millard Street to Los Angeles Avenue, which would create a safer situation for motorists, the applicant has indicated that the project will provide access at the westerly boundary of the project adjacent to the access used by the residentia development to the west. The failure of the applicant to agree to provide adequate, safe, access to the sate via the extension of Millard Street to Los Angeles Avenue will create a detrimental safety problem because: a) The applicant's requested C. access is adjacent to the access presently used b y the existing residential development to the west, 2) The proposed project is '00 feet from the signalized intersection at Los Angeles Avenue and Moorpark Avenue making it dangerous for motorists to turn left onto Los Angeles Avenue from the proposed access, and 3) This access will create a -► additional off -set vehicle entry /exit point along o:: Angeles Avenue. 2. The Planning Commission also recommends to the City Council that the Land Division Map be denied without prejudice, because the site is unsuitable for the type of development proposed on the property. Th- specific reasons the proposed development is unsuitable foi the property are as follows: a. The proposed apartment .evelopinent on the subject site does not provide suffici.,)nt parking on -site to meet the City's parking requirq:nr .nt; a. defined in the City's Zoning Ordinance. b. The proposed apartment complex will generate sufficient traffic volumes to warrant: the extension of Millard Street to Los Angeles Avenue as the primary access to the proposed development. TI Land Division Map as proposed does not provide for ti_:: �;? <t :-�nsion. A:\CC.MEM C. With the additional traffic generated as a result of the proposed apartment complex, the existing access shown on the Parcel Map located along the west side of the property will conflict with the General Plan goal to provide for the safe ind efficient movement of people within the City. This is because: 1) The proposed project is 700 feet from the signalized intersection at Los Angeles Avenue and Moorpark Avenue making it dangerous for motorists to turn left onto Los Angeles Avenue from the proposed access to the site, and 2) This access will create an additional off-set vehicle access point along Los Angeles Avenue. d. The applicant has failed to consent to mitigations to complete the Millard Extension improvements as well as the traffic signalization at, the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue /Millard street. This is conflict with the stated goal in the Circulation Element of the General Plan to promote the completion of the ultimate circulation system through the improvement of substandard roadway segments and in,_ersect.ions, and the construction Of missing roadway .links and :related facilities. Should the City Council choose tc approve the Residential Planned Development and the Land Division Map, the Planning recommends to the City Council the following additional conditions of approval be placed on the proj +acts in addition to the existing proposed conditions of approval f.c ,ind in Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 15, 1991: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNEI DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A ZONING CLEARANCE * That a landscaping barrier to be approved by the Director of Community Development be ccm tructed in the following areas: a. Along the westerly most portion of the access easement located to the west cif 'use project site b. Along the easterly bouidary cif the proposed project adjacent to the propert �s fronting on Freemont Street * That a swimming pool and :,pa be provided on -site. location and design of the fa ilit 1s The the Director of Community D ., >1 )m , . t subject to approval of A: \CC.MEM C * That the apartment units shall contain at a minimum the following additional sound attenuation over and above the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code. The construction drawings showing the attenuation measures shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval. 1. STC 50 between adjoining dwelling units 2. STC 45 within i.nd:ividual living areas Note: The appropriate SIC ratings shall apply for each of the above CITY ENGINEERING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A ZONING CLEARANCE * Primary access to the site will be from the extension of Millard Street via Los Angeles Avenue. The proposed westerly access on the site plan and the Tentative Map shall be eliminated prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance and prior to recordation of the Tentat..ve Map. * Geometric improvements and traffic control measures approved by the City Engineer, or associated Traffic Studies must be included on the site plan. ?'he site plan will be signed by a registered Civil Engineer. * The applicant shall provide a bond in an amount equal to 1/2 the cost of signalizing the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Street. Said bond shall be in the amount determined by the Department of Public Works, and in a form acceptable by the City. Saic:r bonding shall be in effect for three years or until the development is completed and occupied, or whichever comes last, at which time the bond will be refunded if it is letermined by the Public Works Director that a signal wi[l not be required for this intersection, applied to construction of the signal or extended for another three years. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ADDED CONDITIONS FOR THE LAND DIVISION MAP CITY ENGINEERING CONDITIONS * Primary access to the site gill be from the extension of Millard Street via Los Angeles Avenue. The proposed westerly access on the tentative map shall be eliminated prior to recordation, A: \CC.MEM 4 �f S C� The applicant shall provide a bond in an amount equal to 1/2 the cost of signalizing the .intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Street. Said bond shall be in the amount determined by the Department of Public Works, and in a form acceptable by the City. Sa_;_d bonding shall be in effect for three years or until the development is completed and occupied, or whichever comes last, at which time, the bond will be refunded if it is determined by the Public Works Director that a signal will not be required for this intersection, applied to construction of the signal or extended for another three years. Findings Necessary for Recommendi.n,to the City Council Denial of the Pro sed Project According to the 1991 edition of California Land Use and Planning Law, there are restrictions on the disapproval of housing projects. Effective January 1, 1991, pursuant to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, a city shall not disapprove an affordable, low or moderate income housing project or condition approval of such a project in a manner which makes the project infeasible for development unless it; finds one cf the following: 1. The City has adopted an adequate housing element and the C project is not needed or the jurisdiction to meet its share of the regiona housing needs housing; of low income 2. The project as proposed would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety which cannot be satisfactorily mitigat&� without rendering it affordable; 3. The denial of the project or imposition of conditions is required in order to c:)mply with state or federal law (i.e. CEQA) and there s no feasible method to comply without rendering the 1; '-o ject unaffordable; 4. Approval of the project would increase the concentration of lower income households in a neighborhood that already has a disproportionate y high number of lower income households; 5. The project is proposed ,)n land zoned for agricultural or resource preservation which is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or preservation and which does not have an adequate water or wastewater facility to serve the p, o4cgq t, � or A: \CC.MEM C" 5. The ro p ject is inconsistent with the City's general plan land -use designation as specified in any element as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete and the city has adopted a housing element. There is nothing in Section 65589.5 of the Government Code regarding denial of affordable projects which can be construed to prohibit a city from requiring the development project to comply with development standards and policies appropriate to and consistent with meeting the quantified objectives relative to the development of housing as required in the city's housing element. The Government Code does not prohibit, the city from imposing exactions otherwise authorized by law which are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the project. If the City Council chooses to deny the proposed Residential Planned Development and Land Division Map, supporting evidence regarding one or more of the above findings should be made a part of the record. Recommendations: 1. Open the public hearing and Iccept public testimony. 2. Consider the Mitigated Negati-re Declaration prepared for these entitlement projects prior to approval or denial projects. 1 of the 3. Make the appropriate findincs for each of the entitlements requested by the applicant, 4. Direct staff to prepare a resc:lution denying without prejudice the requested Land Division, Map and Residential Planned Development Permit for presentation at. the City Council's next regular meeting of October 2 99z Attachments: 1. Planning Comm ssion Resolution No. PC 91- 2• Planning Comm ss.ion staff report dated July 30, 1991 3• Planning Comm ss�_on staff report dated July 15, 1991 A: \CC.MEM r 7 RESOLUTION NO. PC -91-247 C A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE APPLICATION OF LDM -9 -2 AND RPD -91 -1 ON BIBO, INC., ASSESSOR'S PARCEL, NO. 506- 0 -02 -48 Whereas, at a duly noticed public hearing on July 15 and August 5 1991, the Planning Commission considered the applications filed by BIBO, Inc. requesting approval of a) A land division to subdivide an existing 8.79 acre parcel into four lots consisting of 1.38 acres, 2.53 acres, 3.71 acres and 1.17 acres; and b) A Residential Planned Development Permit for construction of a multi- family apartment project with a total of 100 affordable residential units; and Whereas, the proposed projects are located in the City of Moorpark, south of Los Angeles Avenuef east of Moorpark Avenue, west of Freemont Street and both north and south of the easterly extension of Majestic Court. Whereas, at its meeting o; July 15, 1991, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, closed the pt,blic hearing; and Whereas, on August 5, 1991 �..he Planning Commission reopened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and closed the public ]lre3ring; and Whereas, the Planning commission after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff report, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigating Reporting and Monitoring Program, and testimony, and has found that the project will have a significant adverse mpact on the public health and safety which cannot be satisfaclo -i1y mi-tigated without rendering the project unaffordable; and Whereas, the Planning Commission has determined that denial of the Residential Planned Development: Permit is necessary because the applicant has indicated an unwillingness to comply with conditions of approval pursuant to the Mitigation Measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration which are rne:,essary in order to comply with CEQA, thus creating an adverse hazardous safety and health situation; and has reached its deiisi(Drt )n this matter; and Whereas, the Planning Commiss ._on has determined that denial of the Land Division Map is neces: >arYy because the applicant is unwilling to comply with tra:ff_c mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration 141 .ich are necessary in order to comply with CEQA, and as such the c.- (�sigrr (:,f the subdivision and the lack of access improvements to :Ml and Street will render the land division unsuitable for the typo t- (i£.'V f opment proposed. ATTACHVE 41 1 8 Resolution No. PC -91- Page -2- NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California {beginning at Section 21000}), the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigating Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for this project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State Guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to acting on the proposed project and has found that this document adequately addresses the environmental effects of the pr.ojosed project. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the findings in the staff reports dated March. 4 and July 30, 1991, and said reports are incorporated herein �y -eference as though fully set forth. SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to j the City Council denial without: prejudice, of the Residential Planned Development Permit on *.he application of BIBO, Inc., because the proposed apartment units will have a significant adverse impact on the public health and safety which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated; and the applicant has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with conditions of approval. pursuant to the Mitigation Measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration which are necessary in order to comply w;_th CEQA, without rendering the project unaffordable. The sigNlificant adverse impacts will be created for the following reasara:: 1• That interior open space area of the proposed apartments has been reduced by the rpplicant in order to accommodate required parking. Tf,:e applicant has not provided adequate recreational ._ acilities (such as a swimming Pool) other than providing tot lots for young children, thus creating potential liability problems for the adjacent residents w.hc ;ave recreational facilities. 2• There are no one bedroom units within the proposed complex which would helf: reduce the potential demand for parking. The project does not provide sufficient on -site parking required by the City's Zoning Ordinance. The lack of adequate parki.rig will exacerbate an existing adverse traffic safety _,)roblem because of existing on- street parking in the a �a of lie proposed project. Resolution No. PC -91- Page -3- 3. Thai instead of providing access through an extension of Millard Street to Los Angeles Avenue, which would create a safer situation for motorists, the applicant has indicated that the project will provide access at the westerly boundary of the project adjacent to the access used by the residential development to the west. The failure of the applicant to agree to provide adequate, safe, access to the site via the extension of Millard Street to Los Angeles Avenue will create a detrimental safety problem because, a) The applicant's requested access is adjacent to the access presently used by the existing residential.. development to the west, 2) The proposed project is 700 feet from the signalized intersection at Los Angeles Avenue and Moorpark Avenue making it dangerous for motorists to turn left onto Los Angeles Avenue from th(. proposed access, and 3) This access will create ;xn additional off -set vehicle entry /exit point alonq ,os Angeles Avenue. SECTION 4. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council denial without prejudice, of the Land Division Map on the application of BIBO, Inc., because the site is unsuitable for the type of development proposed on the property. The reasons the proposed development is uns.itab.IEI for the ro ert follows: P p y is as 1. The proposed apartment development on the subject site does not provide sufficient parking on -site to meet the City's parking requirements as defined in the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2• The proposed apartment complex will generate sufficient traffic volumes to warrant the extension of Millard Street to Los Angeles Avenue as the primary access to the proposed development, The Land Division Map as proposed does not provide for th s extension. 3• With the additional traffic generated as a result of the proposed apartment complex, the existing access shown on the Parcel Map locates: along the west side of the property will conflict.. with the General Plan goal to provide for the safe az;( E•ffic:i.ent movement of people within the City. This is because: 1) The proposed project is 700 feet f'r,m the signalized intersection at Los Angeles Avenue ar,.l Moorpark Avenue making it dangerous for motorists to t:.urn left onto Los Angeles Avenue from the propose access to the site, and 2) This access will create an Additional off -set vehicle access point along Los ng 1 cy;., Avenue. /v r Resolution No. PC -91- C Page -4- 4. The applicant has failed to consent to mitigations to complete the Millard Extension improvements as well as the Traffic Signalization at the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue /Millard Street. This is conflict with the stated goal in the Circulation Element of the General Plan to promote the completion of the ultimate circulation system through the improvement of substandard roadway segments and intersections, and the construction of missing roadway links and related facilities. SECTION 5. In the event the City Council approves the project, the Planning Commission recommends the conditions of approval found in Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 4, 1991 along with the following additional conditions: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A ZONING CLEARANCE * That a landscaping barrier t.> be approved by the Director of Community Development be con:,tructed in the following areas: a. Along the westerly most portion of the access easement located to the west of he project site b. Along the easterly boi..,ndary of the proposed project adjacent to the propert es fronting on Freemont Street * That a swimming pool and pa be provided on -site. The location and design of the facility is subject to approval of the Director of Community De,, el opment . * That the apartment units stiail contain at a minimum the following additional sound attenuation over and above the minimum required by the _►niform Building Code. The construction drawings showing the attenuation measures shall be submitted to the Departme it f Community Development for review and approval. 1. STC 50 between adjoining dwelling units 2. STC 45 within indL,,idual living areas Note: The appropriate ;[C ratings shall apply for each � of the above esolution No. PC -91- age -5- ITY ENGINEERING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A ZONING CLEARANCE * Primary access to the site will be from the extension of Millard Street via Los Angeles Avenue. The proposed westerly access on the site plan and the Tentative Map shall be eliminated prior to issuance of a "Zoning Clearance and prior to recordation of the Tentative Map, * Geometric improvements and i..raffic control measures approved by the City Engineer, or associated Traffic Studies must be included on the site plan. Phe site plan will be signed by a registered Civil Engineer_,. * The applicant shall provide a bond in an amount equal to 1/2 the cost of signalizing the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Street. Saie bond shall be in the amount determined by the DepartmenL of Public Works, and in a form acceptable by the City. Sa.ad bonding shall be in effect for three years or until the development is completed and occupied, or whichever comes last, at which time, the bond will be refunded if it is determined by the Public Works Director that a signal will not be required for this intersection, applied to !onstruction of the signal or extended for another three , +gas s . PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ADDED CONDITIONS FOR THE LAND DIVISION MAP CITY ENGINEERING CONDITIONS * Primary access to the site will be from the extension of Millard Street via Los Angelc,s Avenue. The proposed westerly access on the tentative maa shall be eliminated prior to recordation. * The applicant shall provide :3 bond in an amount equal to 1/2 the cost of signalizing the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Street. Said bond shall be in the amount determined by the Department of Public Works, and in a form acceptable by the City. Sai:i bonding shall be in effect for three years or until th de vc,l_.pment is completed and �a Resolution No. PC -91- Page -6- occupied,, or whichever comes last, at which time, the bond will be refunded if it is determined by the Public Works Director that a signal w:._ll not be required for this intersection, applied to :onstruc:tion of the signal or extended for another three )ears The action of the foregoing direct Lon was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Wesner, Miller and Brodsky; NOES: Commissioners Torres Ind May; ABSENT: None. PASSES, APPROVED, AND ADOPTF') THIS 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1991. Cha i_rman presiding: Mic�ael H.. ATTEST: Celia LaFleur, Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS COUNTY OF VENTURA ) Wesner Jr. 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 resolutr)n was du,?y adopted at a regular meeting thereof held on August 19, 1991 by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioner May, Brodsky, `1i11er, Torres, Wesner. Noes: None. Absent. None, ATTEST.• Celia LaFleur, Secretary MOORPARK �3 ITEM C . 799 Moorpark Avenue N1 ,orpark. California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 MEMORANDUM TO: The Planning Commission v FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Developmen DATE: July 30, 1991 (PC meeting of August 5, 1991) SUBJECT: OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO RPD -91 -2 AND LDM -91 -1 (BIBO) Background On July 15, 1991 the above project was heard by the Planning Commission. This matter was continued to the Planning Commission's regular scheduled meeting of August 5, 1991 to allow the developer to work with staff to resolve several outstanding issues. On July 17, 1991, staff sent the applicant a letter requesting that the applicant resolve several issues 1rior. tc the Planning Commission hearing of August 5, 1991. On July 24, 1991 staff met w.th the applicant to discuss outstanding issues regarding the project. Staff requested that the applicant respond in writing to ea,-h of the unresolved issues. On July 30, the Department of Community Development received a letter from the applicant which address =s project related issues (see attachment). Each of the issues arl responses by the applicant are discussed below. Discussion 1- There is disagreement between the applicant and staff regarding the dedication and improvement of Millard Street thru and beyond the boundary of the project and the payment of a portion of the proposed signalization of the intersection of Millard /Los Angeles Avenue intersection. The applicant is requesting that the project be conditioned to dedicate and improve Millard Street through the project site to the southerly boundary of the parcel wLth the existing residence, but not beyond; and that the requirem,nt t::o pay for a portion of the signali.zation be e Li_minated. A : \PC.MEM ATTACNM =NT ;? ly Staff's Response Staff is of the opinion that this project needs a secondary access based on the intensity of this proposed residential development, and other existing residential development. Allowing the applicant to utilize the western access as the main access to the project will create a hazardous traffic situation for motorists because: 1) The applicant's requested access to the proposed project will be directly next to the access 1:oresently used by the existing residential development to the west, 2) The proposed project is within close proximity to the :signalized intersection at Los Angeles Avenue and Moorpark Ave, and 3) The access along the western boundary of the project will create an additional off -set ingress and egress point along Los Angeles Avenue. Completing the extension of Millard Street will reduce the number of off -set intersections along Los Angeles Avenue and create a safer situation for motorists. The City Engineer is of the opinion that this proposed development would be creating approximately 1/2 of the traffic along the extension of Millard Street. Therefore, it has been requested by the City Engineer that the following conditions be placed on the project: 21.2. Primary access to the rite will be from the extension Of Millard Street via Los Angeles Avenue. The proposed westerly access on the tentative map shall be eliminated prior to recordation. 21.2e. Geometric improvements and traffic control measures approved by the City Engineer, or associated Traffic Studies must be included on the site plan. The site plan will be signed by a registered Civil Kngineer. In addition, the following cond_it.i(m relating to a traffic signal shall be added. The applicant shall provide a bond in an amount equal to 1/2 the cost of signalizing the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Millard Street. Said bond shall be in the amount determined by the Department of Public Works, and in a form acceptable by the City. Said bonding shall be in effect for three years or until the development is completed and occupied, or whichever comes last, at which time, the bond will be refunded if it is determined by the Public Works Director that a signal wia_1 not be required for this intersection, applied to C01- istruct ion of the signal or extended for another three yertrs. A:`PC.MEM /5 Staff Recommendation It is staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission that the above conditions be imposed on the project in order to reduce the Possibility that this project wil.] create an adverse safety impact to motorists within the proposed project, existing neighboring uses and along Los Angeles Avenue. 2. Parking along the southerly and westerly portions of the project, which may not be located on property available to BIBO on an irrevocable basis, is of` concern to the Planning Commission. The applicant indicates in their letter dated July 30, 1991 that they propose to eliminate the proposed parking located along the southern portion of the site that will be dedicated to the Flood Control District, and readjust the site to accommodate the reduction in parking spaces. Regarding the parking spaces locate along the western portion of the st.te, the applicant is requesting that the project be conditioned tc demonstrate to the Director of Community Development acceptable c:ocumentation of the applicant's ability to park within the easem ent prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the proposed project. Staff Recommendation Staff has imposed this condition of approval on the Residential Planned Development, and recommends the condition remain on the project since staff has concerns regarding the applicant's ability to utilize the adjacent property for parking. At the present time, the applicant has an easement on the adjacent strip of property to the west for access purposes. towever, the easement does not indicate that the applicant can a!A ize the property for parking. In a discussion with Bill Haydon from the County of Ventura Flood Control District, Mr. Haydon requested that the applicant be conditioned to dedicate the southerly port =ion of the property to the Flood Control District. Thezefore, staff is requesting the following condition of approval. h(. added to the LDM 91 -2. Prior to final recordation o9_ the Map, the applicant shall dedicate to the Ventura County Flood District sufficient land for Flood Control purposes idjacent to the Flood Control Channel in accordance with t:h- District's policy. 3. The applicant requested clari�ication regarding the width of dedication required for Milla-d Street and Majestic Court. The applicant requested that the t_' i y Engineer clarify the ultimate widths of these two roads. Pag aJ the staff report states A:\PC.MEM ' / (41:, � that a 68 foot wide dedication was needed for Millard Street and.a 60 foot dedication would be needed for Majestic Court. The City Engineer has indicated that Millard Street will require 60 feet and Majestic Court will require 68 felt. 4. The Planning Commission had questions as to how information contained in the Traffic Report was compiled. According to the applicant, a representative from Justin Farmer Transportation Engineers, Inc. w ll be present at the Planning Commission hearing on August 5, 1991 to answer any outstanding questions related to information c7(ntained in the completed Traffic Study for the project., 5. There was concern related at the Planning Commission hearing regarding potential overcrowding. The applicant has indicated that: there are several steps they intend to take in order to contra this potential problem. They are as follows: a. A requirement to list all persons residing in each apartment will be listed on each lease. Persons found to be residing in an apartment that is not listed on the lease agreement will be grounds for eviction of all of j the occupants of the apartment b. A policy of limiting th( total number of occupants per apartment to two persons per bedroom plus one, (example: a limit of 5 persons in a two bedroom or as few as two persons). The applicant_ states that this standard is acceptable to government. agencies who administer housing laws. Recommendation That the Planning Commission explore this subject and make specific recommendation to the City Council as to how best to control overcrowding. Possibly limiting the number of persons per bedroom may be part of a workable solution. Any recommended solution should not place the City in a po: >itlon of having to act in the capacity of the enforcement agency 6. How can potential noise intrusion from the project be reduced so as to not disrupt the surrounding property owners? The applicant indicates that the pr:)ject has been oriented so as to orient the fronts of the proposed �_Jwellings towards the center of the project thus creating a courtyard effect. This will result in the major part of human activity jithin the site being oriented away from the surrounding proper-t r, ri A: \PC.MEM 4 Also, there are substantial setbacks of the project of approximately 100 from surrounding residences along the east and approximately 7,5 feet from the west. In addition, there are no carports located along the eastern portion of the property, thus preventing a chamber effect that may amplify noise. The applicant further states that speed bumps will be installed as needed. The applicant indicates that repair of automobiles on the premises will be prohibited and that residents will be asked to monitor excessive noise after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. This language will be placed on the tenint leases. Staff Recommendation 1. That the Planning Commission consider recommending to the City Council that as a condition of approval to be placed on the Residential Planned Development permit that speed bumps be required to reduce excessive automobile speed. 2. That the Planning Commission c,)nsider recommending to the City Council that the applicant provide additional sound attenuation between apartments over and above the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code. This can be done by providing air space between wills or by foam cored boards of either 5/8 or 3/4 inches th :ic• :. 7. What happens to the remainder parcel'? The applicant indicates that the remainder parcel of approximately 1.25 acres will be retained by t,ie current property owner. A single family residence is present. located on this parcel. It is the applicant's understanding tha#: he res i-dence will remain on the parcel. Staff Response Staff has concerns that at in the future, the City will have to deal with this remainder parcel as 3n in -fill project. This could particularly be a problem if, to the future, any proposed development desires to take ingress and egress from Los Angeles Avenue. Staff Recommendation In order to preclude future tralLfic problems created by the northerly most parcel taking access from Los Angeles Avenue, staff recommends that the Planning Commission add a condition to both the Residential Planned Development and the Land Division Map requiring that the applicant relinquish t:he ability to access Los Angeles Avenue with the exception of the an a of the northerly extension of Millard Street. A:1PC.MEM c- /8 c 8. There is a need to correct the inconsistencies between the conceptual landscaping and lighting plans. The applicant indicates that therE are some discrepancies between the plans that will be corrected it the working drawing stage of the proposed development. Staff Recommendation Conditions of approval have been placed on the Residential Planned Development Permit requiring th�st the applicant submit both landscaping and lighting plans t) the Department of Community Development prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance. These plans will be reviewed by staff for consistency prior to approval by the Director of Community Deve1:ailment. 9. There is an interest on the part of the Planning Commission to have a decorative masonry wall along the east property line to buffer this use from adjacent residential uses. The applicant has proposed that a landscaped buffer be placed along the eastern boundary line of the project adjacent to the residents located along Freemont Street. ":he applicant has indicated in C their letter dated July 30, 1991 t1,at if a block wall is found to be more acceptable than a landscaped buffer, the applicant will construct a wall along the eastern property line north of Majestic Court to the northern property linE. of the project. The applicant states that their original intent of continuing the landscaped buffer along Millard was to hell mitigate traffic noise from Millard, provide an aesthetic ej.ff'er' as to not disrupt the property owners along Freemont ;3t r � „l Staff Recommendation That the Planning Commission recomrtiena to the City Council that a landscape buffer be placed along t }.e westerly most portion of the access easement located to the west of the project site. This would provide an additional vi.sY.;al buffer from the existing residential uses to the west. Staf aso recommends that either a landscape buffer, or a decorative wall be placed along the easterly boundary of this proposed project adjacent to the properties fronting on Freemont Street. This .irea is ]Located along a 15 foot easement easterly of the applicants easement for access. If the area is not landscaped, it will c eatE� a potential unsightly 15 foot strip adjacent to the existiac residential uses. 10. There was an interest on the l>art. of staff and the Planning Commission to provide a pool.. f( :,r- the residents of the project. The applicant has indicated that lE tr,q rosolutic�n of the parking A:\PC.MEM EI Iq situation, the applicant will study the possibility of locating .a wading pool on the site. The applicant also stated that relocation of parking will impact potential j`ool location. Staff Recommendation Staff is of the opinion that although the project provides tot lots for children, the project does not provide recreational facilities for adults and older children. Staff has also visited another affordable project developed by this developer in the City of Thousand Oaks that has a pool ar�d spa area for the residents. Staff has received information that there are funding sources available for affordable projects that will fund pool facilities. There is a continuing interest on r:he part of staff to have a pool facility provided for the residents of this proposed project. Therefore staff recommends that t }re Planning Commission consider recommending to the City Council that a condition of approval be placed on the Residential Planned Development Permit requiring a Pool facility. 12. The Planing Commission desired more information as to whether the laundry facilities being propose for the project would be adequate for the proposed number of: apartment units. The applicant has obtained a lettex from the Bondy Service Company Cdated July 18, 1991 indicating that it has been a industry practice to recommend a ratio of one washer and (:dryer for every 9 to 12 apartment units in a typical family project. This ratio has been endorsed by the Multi - Housing Laundry Association whose guideline in this area has been accepted and is used by the American Institute of Architects when desig,i criteria is needed. Staff Recommendation Based on this information and the applicant's testimony at the July 15, 1991 Planning Commission hearirkg indicating that the proposed project will have two laundry facilities a minimum of 10 washers and dryers in each facility, it appears that there will be sufficient laundry facilities to accommodate the proposed apartment units. Findings Necessary for Recommend_incl to_t.he City Council Denial of the Pro ' Proposed Project - -- — At the Planning Commission hearing for this project held on July 15, 1991, staff indicated that acs c_)rding to the 1991 edition of California Land Use and Planning Lai, there are restrictions on the disapproval of housing projects. Eff`ect.ive January 1, 1991, pursuant to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, a city shall not disapprove an affordable, lo- cr moderate income housing project or condition approval of st, -h a project in a manner which makes the project infeasible for cia -z Y. �loprcrert unless it finds one of A:\PC.MEM o?D (' the following: 1. The City has adopted an adequate housing element and the project is not needed f_)r the jurisdiction to meet its share of the regional. hous:inq needs of low income housing; 2. The project as proposea would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated without rendering it affordable; 3. The denial of the projec,_ or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with state or federal law (i.e. CEQA) and there s no feasible method to comply without rendering thE� project: unaffordable; 4. Approval of the project, would increase the concentration of lower income househol .s in a neighborhood that already has a disproportionat•.�iv high number of lower income households; 5. The project is proposea ( n land zoned for agricultural or resource preservation wh ._ch is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or preservation and which does not have an adequate water or wastewater facility to serve the pr- -)jest; or 6. The project is inconsistent with the City's general plan land -use designation as specified in any element as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete and the city has adopter: a housing element. There is nothing in the Section 65589.5 of the Government Code regarding denial of affordable projects which can be construed to prohibit a city from requiring the development project to comply with development standards and policies appropriate to and consistent with meeting the quantified objectives relative to the development of housing as required in the city's housing element. The Government Code does not prohibit the city from imposing exactions otherwise authorized by law which are essential to provide necessary public services rnd facilities to the project. If the Planning Commission chooses - -o recommend to the City Council denial of the proposed project, supporting evidence supporting one or more of the above findings should be made a part of the record. Attachment: 1. Letter from apilicant dated July 29, 1991 2 • Letter from E' der Sc>x ,A:i_c =e, Inc dated July 18, 1991 A:`PC.MEM C '61'eo 1St C. 360 MOBIL AVENVE LA QUINTA PROFESSIONAL BLDG CAMARILLO, CA,93010 (805) 482.9841 CA B-1 LICENSE 203079 Q 0 U Z 0 v J Z 0 N F- z Z Cr W a. 0 J W 0 0 Z 3 0 Z v 0 T V Hobert Fukutomt President v .ily 30, 1991 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Attn: Paul Porter, Senior Manner Dear Paul: RE: 100 Un:t Affordable Apartment Project RPD - -9 ]. 2, LDM -91 -1 This letter will address those items known to be of concern from the Planning Commisio ~: hearing of July 1.5, 1991. We have also included othar concerns that we feel must be addressed. 1) There is still a matter of considerable disagreement with staff on this project, which concerns the requirement of this project to dedicat�_� and improve Millard Street thru and beyond the boundary o the project as well as pay for 1/2 of signalization of roc Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118) and Millard. Staff freely admits and concurs with the traffic reports that this project does no-- ' solely need nor does it create the need for Millard Stree.. Staff has stated that the two major reasons it wants the improvement now is as a prelude to future development easI of the project, and to create a signalized four way inters{. �,tion at Millard and Los Angeles. This project will potenti,lly contribute less than 25% of the traffic on Millard, ye must provide 100% of the street improvements. In staff is conditioning this project to provide 1/2 of -he farads for signal izat;on of an intersection that primar :y benefits t ose people living north of Los Angeles av <,r,. - future development east of the project:. LiL -- __.0- Mr. Paul Porter July 30, 1991 Cpage 2 The cost of the road improvement combined with the addition- al request for decorative masonry walls and a swi mming pool is quickly making this pr�ject f- Lnancially unfeasable. One Commissioner expresscd the opinion that the developer should just pay for the pool. Except that now the developer must just pay for a new street, then the additional Land for pool. the street, a traffic is ,�., a block wall and a swimming The city must realize tha at some point this project will just not make sense. We propose the following in regards to the extension of Millard, the masonry wal :., and the pool: a• That the project be oo::,di!_ioned to dedicate and improve Millard through the propE,r -y but not beyond. b• That the requirement: w: pay ;or the signal be eliminat- ed. C• That pending resolution of the parking situation, we will study the possibilit1• of locating a wading ( site. Relocation of the pool on the \. locations. 1 ':rk ". g will i.Tr.pact potential pool d• That if a block wall Is .found to be more acceptable than what is proposed, the deve:oper will install, one along the Property property line nort: �y j;,,�estic up to the northern p P y line. Our original intent of cont_,,nuing the landscape buffer along Millard was to help mitig,.:,te traff oise from Millard, ic n provide a more aesthetic Duffer, disruption as possible tc and L the ,car Yards cause as little Street homeowners. y ds of the Fremont 2 ) The parking along the c, Est ��r.; =,, south Uf the project was . noted as being a concern t:; thF, Cc,a mission. We have proposed elimina *:._nc the parkin t within the Arroyo Simi Floc -i Conr_ -c�i Area g o the south, the site to accomodate the oGCe-. and readjusting In regards to the parking as -)ng -he west, we order to allow additional t me to -. PropOSe that in the project be conditioned t) denor. trate�to theuDirectorhof Community Development acct -pt .ibl<� d,:cumentation o ty to park within t f our ab' he ease:��f� -t ,r -y ,,r r ili- _o Zone cl6aranCP_. JUL- _0 -1 -A-91 16: 09 Fri =iM B I PF1 I t V Mr. Paul Porter July 30, 1991' 991 / Page 3 -- One commissioner exprecsr2d any of the concern about disruption pipes need raintenance disruption would only �.e or be '_emporar replaced. should The displaced cars to be parked y and in `he would cause an y street. However, it should be no °..ed next door in the Regal that the same condition exists Ho:zes Trati.r There is an easement for the water line that runs down the driveway along the east f the p lroject. An or replace this line wot:..�d cause a Simi y need to repair Regal Homes which would 3) Regarding Page 9 of sE t.t:(.�rt to parkelsewhere disruption to staf report regarding traffic. We requested a clarification c; Engineer. It states that 68 fcottwide em from the City for Millard Street and a 1 foot dedication d i ncator nis needed The City Engineer confirm: d ° -_hat l illard should and Majestic 68 feet. _� should be 60 feet report. �UeS that staff correct their 4) In response to conceras .h ties, we have obtained H reG`'zding e laundry facili- company Outlining et`-er from a laundry service Of Of machines er�unit. -t.aC ;la u`ed to determine the number units P �'e Generally use a ratio of 10 -12 Per machine. Thin; ,roject will have two facilities With approximately 5 wasr. <�: s and dryers each. 5) There are questions r -gardin was compiled." An engir. -er fr,g, the he traffic report report, Justin Farmer Trar ortation firm that did the present at the next 1 <- '•p. Eng_r.eers, Inc., will P 11ng c�;:r� mission hearing. 6) Concerns about future :vercrcwdiri we the public and the commi,�;...o.� Theregawere voiced by both intend to use to control several steps we are: I.. s potentlal problem. Among them 1. A requirement to li(,; each apartment to be t all persons residing in found residing eed on each lease. Any persons lease g in z r. apar` ment not ' d on will be rc) F-,. .�i_s e the occu ants that ga ,a s ' ✓fiction of G11 of the p of ner.r., 2. A policy of limit_ per apartment to twc, ti:e t.ctal number of occupants limit of 5 persons i;l ���twoehedroomlUS ano, (Example a persons). This seem, o as two mental acenr �e acceptable to the govern - and fP 1es, who ,c' izistcr housing laws. The stare deral aCOnCi es they w:Lll nog Mr. Paul Porter � f1 July 30, 1991 7 page 4 prosecute claims Of l.iscrininat' size, if it is found that based on family rule is being app, _he t•"O Per bedroom plus one g ed 3s a Emit. 7) A major concern of -.le public is intrusion from this prOJec' "Pon their hthe otential noise concern into account when da_slgning this prosecute took this the site plan will show th,3t the units are oriented lfacing the center of the site, thuz creating a courtyard effect opposed to f g acing the ne.ir_ h:)ora_ng ;'comes . as Also there are substantia et backs from both west sides of the project: aPProximatel 100 the east and east and 75 fee* from the w, Y feet from the are located a st• _x addt' .- long the we ,, of ion, no carports Prevent an .alley t:he project. This will y or echo c:,amber effect that would amplify traffic noise. Speed bumr:�E w:_'_ 1 r� i:�o be installed as need- ed, On the manageme:it side, o auto- nobiles on the rem- ises will be prohibited and e� p for excesive noise after Jlaen will be asked to moni- leases . T, � "1ci before 7 am on their 8) In response to auest�.G..s about t approximately 1.25 acres , he remaining parcel, owners. we will not have w;;ay control over by the current single family home on the it,.E, l.: it. There is a that it is tO remain in -i+'S ,- T is our understanding P�c3i3. use. It should be noted that if Project to dedicate -h- co:;;mission conditions this approximatel and rorcvP :�t.�!lard, it will leave acre 12U. �' 1 e remai �C parcel is zoned RPD- 9) There was some question, density bonus is. as to what the This bonus. Pr (Please refer to Ie City percent of the jest has requested a density lter of y Mcorpark) we are res ty bonus o 12-13 - :at n 22-13-9C) from Bibo to ` g and ask that it bi;2 density bonus 'at "` request for a densi- 13 pc "r ,t. r also be _ agreement, which i - s curreny' rReference to the F and is :e a_,ordable housing ;�r 10) One n Owed by staff. commissioner over the expre-;s, Proposed conceptual ar corn over discrepancies al landscape relatinn �- pJ.a:-i • We adnni � ight.in_r nd oroposed conceptu- t: at • walks and o Proposed concel:t landscaping. :,1.��re- al I �:ation are some, mostly of lights, H0v;e r .Y stage, These draa:in s a* be adjustments 9 e c> �, side - th ._ _s not unr_olnrnon at this ;eptt:a.: mace r_onst ,- � in �-he •,��,�� ru.c,. iori 'T, - _n nature. k ;,- There will . I.. ; �..� is t:tue and even during - g in any city. TI_IL -_0- _'_'? 1 16: 10 : =POM B I BO ; HC Mr. Paul Porter July 30, 1991 Page 5 '5258270 P . E1h as The commission should y:ot t:gat. the Director of Community Development must review a,'! apprcve all plans and changes. 11) We are asking that onditi(.)n C -1 of the land division be removed. There alrea,.y exist improvements that match existing right of ways ar"4 zmprovements found in front of the Regal Homes and Le :u; 'Tracts. We are Preparing some exh -)its for the commission, but have - not completed them at t:.t.� tire We will forward them to You as soon as possible. If you have any questio:s' 0 i.0asE! call. DJF \af Encl. d J. Fukutomi V ,,e President C SEBRVIE N COIN - OPERATED LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT FOR APARTMENTS AND MOBILE NOME PARKS July 18 1991 4: ��7 (to Mx. David Fukutomi Bibo, Inc. P.O. Box 1860 Camarillo, California 9301: Dear David: I am sending you this letter in regards to the number of washer and dryer coin - operated sets needed for the 100 unit apartment complex yoli Moorpark area, ire planning to build in the It has long been industry �,.'actise to recommend a ratio Of one washer and dryer set for every 9 to 12 apartment units in the typical family~ project. This ratio has been endorsed by our national tr.tde organization the Multi - IIousing Laundry Association whose has been accepted and is us,.d by thezAmerican institute of Architects when design c °iteria are needed. I would like to close in adc_in m �; g y Professional opinion that this ratio is ver experience of fart Y �atisfactor °y based on our own Y Year.. the bt<siness. If you have any question,-, weacc. o not hesitate to call Ver truly Yourst Z_ ee ondy Vice Preside U: rs 6?10 VAL11 EAN A`!Ei i11F• .,,,, ..� rte, C,;l_1Fr�� ^, ,�� A. C. E. L ITEM qA' MOORPARK a�J 799 Moorpark Avenue M :)orpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 4, 1991 SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION HEARING DATE: B. BEARING TIME: July 15, 1991 DARING LOCATION: City Council Chambers 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California STAFF CONTACT: Paul Porter Senior Planner PROPOSED PROJECT: 7:00 p.m. 1 IS ' • LDM -91 -2 and RPD91 -1 E. APPLICANT: BIBO, Inc. 360 Mobil Avenue Camarillo, California 1. Land Division Map No. 91 - 2 is for the subdivision of an existing 8.79 acre parcel. 'lto four lots consisting of the following: Parcel A - 1.3� acres, Parcel B - 2.53 acres, Parcel C - 3.71 acres and 11�rcel D - 1.17 acres. 2. Residential Planned Developm,:-�nt No, 91 -1 is for construction of a multi - family apartment. :)roject which will consist of 12 structures with a total of 1 0 residential units. There will be 40 - two bedroom units, 4 -- throe bedroom units, and 20 - four bedroom units. The pry j ect i:.:3 proposed t:o provide 100 affordable rental units t'o el p meet. the aff-ordable housing needs of the City. The 10(' nits w. II be placed on parcels C and D which consists of 7.1; is c�_!s . Pherefore, the applicant will be requesting a dens D� approx .mately 13.63 %. ATTACHMF -NT 3 C !if I. J. PROPOSED LOCATION: The proposed project is located in the City of Moorpark, Ventura County, California. The site is generally bounded by a single - family residence f,cing Los Angeles Avenue on the north, the Arroyo Simi to the south, single family residences along Freemont Street to the east, and two story condominiums and apartments to the west. The project site will be divided by the extension of Majestic Court, an existing public street which currently provides access t-o the condominiums and apartments to the west. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 506- 02-48. 23 q p V �we.� ,. � VVIC1r ; •ri ,.. I` t r IiN uq :n L1IC1116 Lx S'P1 i I I H H 1,a ST _ IN[) XTEq . _jT q nv A , LQJAW AV i +,n a• Y .. o jai_ Av l I r PAL AR AV f I K C�i{ z jl F aIASSLM I CE: r " .t AV W O W A' ANGELES I°0■ AV � 's- °- N1 ,J1JtU AV wi s Tt n VII lA c APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: April 12, 1991 Processing Expiration Date: October 12, 1991 REQUESTED ACTION AND STAFF RFCOMMFNDATION: SITE 1 • Open the public hear --_ng ;anc accept public testimony, 2. Consider the Mitigated N�gati.ve Declaration prepared for these entitlement T)r -)iects prior to making a recommendation to the Ci y Council for approval or denial of the projects (Exhj h i • Nc , :2 a q C 3. Make the appropriate findings (Exhibit No. 1) for each of the entitlements requested by the applicant. 4. Direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of the requested Land Division Map and Residential Planned Development Permit for presentation at the Planning Commis;io -i's next regular meeting of August 5, 7.991 R. ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 1. Deny the requested p::rc j ­ct -.s . 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed projects with modificati ins /changes as recommended by the Planning Commission regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation '4onitoring Program, or any of the entitlements requestec:. SECTION II - PROJE( "T SITE BACKGROUND A. PROJECT SITE HISTORY: In 1988, BIBO, INC applied for Permit No. RPD 88 -2, LDM 88 -1 and subdivision; a Zone Change to RPD C apartment buildings consisting o! two- bedroom units, for a total_ applications have previously been site was also previously used a:; B. EXISTING SETTING: tesidential Planned Development Zone Change 88 -1 for a two lot 20 U.P.A..; and two, three story 117 one- bedroom units and six �f 123 dwelling units. These withdrawn by the applicant. The �'hristmas Tree farm. The proposed project site is bor,_ier_ed on the north by a single - family house which faces Los Angels Avenue, and by the Arroyo Simi to the South. Adjacent to the _,roject on the east are single - family residences, and apartment,;- as weal as condominiums to the west. The proposed development site is ;�.)rimarily vacant; however, there is an agricultural building located on the northern portion of the project site. This structu;:=e will be demolished upon implementation of the proposed development. A single row of mature Cypress trees exists along the eas °_, property line. The rest of the proposed site contains sparse veg­tat.ion. The property is long and narrow with a slight north -to -south slope of five percent located in th(� a:-ea of the County Flood Control Channel (Arroyo Simi) , which bor_d( r s '.he }project site on the south. The site is relatively level wi h nu, "ills, valleys, or other significant topographical feat. -G! C. SITE ZONING: RPD -12u (Residential Planned Development (12 du /acre) D. VICINITY ZONING: North: R -1 (Single Family Resic.iential) South: RPD -4u (Residential Planned. Development (4 du /acre) East: R -1 (Single Family Residential) West: RPD -15u (Residential Planned Development (15du /acre) E. SITE GENERAL PLAN: VH, Very High Density Residential (10.1 -- 20du /acre) F. VICINITY GENERAL PLAN: North: M (Medium Density Residential) and S (School/ Institutional) South: M (Medium Density Res.i.d(ntial) East: M (Medium Density Ix�sident.ial and C -2 (General Commercial) West: VH (Very High Density R(sident-.al) H. INTERFACE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE Single family residences are locat.3d to the east of the site which without mitigation could potentially create a compatibility problem. The site has been design( d so as to provide a buffer from the adjacent use by placing t.h- extension of Millard Street adjacent to the property line. Tl us the proposed apartment units will be approximately 100 feet froze the existing residences to the east of the site. As the proposed property is bound on the South by the Arroyo Simi, the propos( apartment buildings will be required to be protected from pot e:itial flood hazards. Therefore, the proposed development will be compatible with the flood control channel. Existing condominiums (::rn,! apartments are located to the west of this proposed project. `]:'h,s the proposed apartments would be compatible with the other M t fam: ly developments in the vicinity of the proposed pr_ojec- I. CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL P)IAN The proposed development is Lr. -,onformance with the Land Use Element designation of the Ge;er_al Plan for the proposed development. The Vii (Very HLgh lesi.gnation allows a maximum density of 20 units per acre The proposed development is proposing a dens i_t.y c>f approxi.m :, t y 1 . _`. 7 units per acre which is I I r consistent with the Land Use Element of` the General Plan. The following residential policies are considered applicable to the proposed project: Policy 1: To encourage a variety f housing densities and varying densities within developments. Discussion: The proposed development does not provide varying densities within the development, out by providing a high density, this project is consistent with the City's overall need to provide additional high density development within the City. Policy 4: Encourage residential.d,,veLopment with properly planned and adequate public services. Discussion: Public services at,,? sufficient to service the proposed development. Policy 6: To provide a range of residential densities which will ensure a variety of housing to th, residents of Moorpark. Discussion: Although the applicant, has not yet completed a formal agreement to provide affordable ousing for their project, they have met with the affordable housing committee, and have proposed to provide a 100% affordable aprirtment project. The proposed development will include 20 - fou; bedroom townhouses, 40 - three bedroom townhouses, and 40 - two edroom units. Policy 7: To ensure that the to ration of residential land uses provides a harmonious relationship between adjoining land uses, natural features, and the totat e v.i_ronm(�nt. Discussion: The proposed structi—res of. this development will be setback approximately 80 feet fron the property lines to the east, and approximately 95 feet frorn t ,i�-a nearest structure on the adjacent easterly parcels. Policy 8: New residential deve.opment should incorporate good design standards and maintain t!,e character of the community. Design standards include open space, landscaping, circulation, off - street parking and architf -pct rt: compatibility with the surroundings. Discussion: The proposed Medit(rir_anean style architecture is in keeping with the design of other (.- .yveiopments within the City, the landscaping is in excess of 7.11c, recfuired 10% and internal circulation is adequate. Althou(j: the project provides sufficient parking, this parking is not pr vided )n -site. Therefore, the project could be construed to r _ncor. :-;istent with the parking requirements, if the applicant: unab e to obtain a permanent agreement to provide cff -site pai } n I fro-!ii the Ventura County Flood C Control District. SECTION 3 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT PROPOSALS /REQUIREMEN'T'S PROPOSED PROJECT Land Area Building area Drives and Parking Landscaping open space PARKING 8.7a acres 64, x04.4 :,..f. 59, �7* 2 s.f. 147 232.8 s.f. 3a CITY REQUIREMENTS As spec if ied by permit N/A N/A PARKING REQUIRED ON -SITE. PARKING 100 covered spaces 2 p,trking spaces per unit plus 1 .:Lsitor space per 2 units = 50 qpac,. es — 250 Total ;paces Required 49 uncovered spaces OFF -S CTE 107 uncovered spaces located oTi Flood Control property 256 total spaces provided (:i,icl.udinq 4 handicapped spaces) PROJECT SETBACKS SETBACKS (City Requirements) Front Yard: No setback on nortY, arce _ Minimum landscaped Setback of 20 feet from collector , minor or cul- e -sar �;traat 20 feet on south par Side Yard: 20 feet on east 57 feet on west Rear Yard: 23 feet for north parcel 187 feet. for south p, rc-c 1. HEIGHT Approximately 20 1`c- �s determined by Permit Yes determined by Permit j 5 feet '-53 ACCESS Access to the site will be provided from Los Angeles Avenue to the extension of Majestic Court and from Los Angeles Avenue along the proposed extension of Millard street to the proposed site. Majestic Court already serves a3 access to the apartments and condominiums which are adjacent t(_p the site on the west. The City Engineer has conditioned the pr(.)ject requiring access from Los Angeles Avenue via Millard Street. Thus the project will include the construction of Millard Strt�et from Majestic Court to the northern boundary of the project iite LANDSCAPING Total-Square-Feet Softscape Hardscape Landscaped open space 147,:32.8 s.f. 41= 6% of the site Landscaping /public areas 8,770 °.otal s.f. 5,660 s.f. 3,110 s.f. Landscaping /private areas 133, a2 s.f. Landscaping /parking areas 13, X30 s.f. 1.3.43 1 of parking areas The Zoning Ordinance requires tfgat 10% minimum of the site and parking areas must be devoted 1;- Landscaping. Therefore, the proposed development is consist,r.t_ with this requirement. TRAFFIC Trip generation of the project i- as follows: DAILY ADT TRIP GENERAT ON FORECAST Enter 320 Exit 320 MORNING PEAK Enter 10 7:15 -8:15 a.m. Exit 31 EVENING PEAK Enter 67 5:00 -6:00 p.m. Exit 31 The following information is has(d on the Traffic Study for this project dated February, 1990. rased c)ri manual count data, the busiest morning and evening pecJ, hours were determined to occur between 7:00 - 13:00 AM and 5:00 - 6:)(' PM and a capacity analysis was conducted for these hours. C 3q Capacity analysis considered the f.)llowing scenarios: Scenario A: Existing Volumes Scenario B: Scenario A plus project traffic Scenario C: Scenario B plus c urilative project traffic Based on the above analysis presented in the Traffic Study, all five intersections are currently (.}perating at satisfactory levels during both commuter peak period,. After addition of traffic associated with the proposed '9oorpark apartment, all five intersections will continue to operate at. satisfactory levels of C or better during both commuter )eak poriods. Therefore, the project will not cause a signif.:.+ jnt adverse impact on the road system. With the build -out of the study ar-a with potential future general land use designations, south of os Angeles Avenue, between the Maureen Lane residential tract on r :he west and Spring Road on the east, could be adequately served �y: A) three full- access type signalized intersections along the-- effected portion of Los Angeles Avenue (at Liberty Bell Road, Mo«.park Avenue, and Majestic Court Note: According to the proposed draft Circulation Element of the General Plan, Majestic Court is riot to connect with Los Angeles Avenue. The connection to Los Angeles Avenue is proposed to be located at Millard Street.) , B) -7c -estr.icted access roadways at Shasta Way and Park Lane. According to the traffic study prepared for the project, the following is presented. As a res,lt of the traffic impacts, the type of mitigations proposed fcr ie pro ect are as follows: o In order to reduce traf f: r� irnpact on the proposed Millard Street and to accommodai e concerns of the residents on Freemont Street (which a:: e repos table opposed to the road behind their homes), primary access to the proposed Moorpark apartments wi.l s,:? e.,tablished via an access drive utilizing an easemr nt along the western edge of the subject site. Staff_ -i of the opinion that primary access to the site should take place from Los Angeles Avenue via an extension to Millard Street which should be signalized. The seco�n t < c:c ,ss will he provided via Majesti..c Court. o The Applicant shall be nci_tic,iied to participate in the Los Angeles Area of Co • ibur J, ni . o The following streets a l:, improved to the City's standards: 35- Los Angeles Avenue ( constructed to half width) Millard Street (constructed to full width) Majestic Court ( constructed to full width) o A 68 foot wide full width dedication along Millard Street and a 60 foot full width dedication along Majestic Court shall be granted to the City o Moorpark. CIRCULATION AND PARKING Internal circulation between the :.tructures and the parking areas appears to be adequate in that a minimum of 25 feet two -way access width is maintained throughout th(., site. The Fire Department has reviewed the site in terms of fire equipment being able to enter and exit the site and has indicated to staff that the plan meets the current minimum requirements. The proposed project presently hai sufficient parking spaces for the proposed use; however, 107 of the open parking spaces are not located on property owned by the applicant. All of these spaces are presently on land controll.ebl by the Ventura County Flood Control District. In a telephony conversation with Bill Haydon (Flood Control District), staff wac informed that the Flood Control District does not object to the appli(::.ant using the area for parking at the present time, but teat the City should be aware that this privilege can be revoked 1)y Flood Control District at any time. Should the Flood Control )istr.ict :revoke the applicant's ability to park on the property in the future, the project would be deficient approximately 100 spaces, from the minimum parking spaces presently required pursuant tc tle Zoning Ordinance. Staff has conditioned the applicant to prow i_ ie suf f: icient documentation from Flood Control indicating that area controlled by the Flood Control District can be used for )�jrking �,,ithout the possibility of having the parking privilege r,�,oked. This condition must be satisfied prior to the applicant >ceiving _z Zoning Clearance from the Department of Community Deere 1, r)mEynt RECREATIONAL FACII.,ITI.ES The proposed apartment complex w.i.l.l include two tot lots and BBQ areas, and a 1,500 s.f. Communi °:y Building which will contain laundry facilities, meeting room and bathrooms. The northern portion of the proposed developmen will. u.nclude additional laundry facilities and a maintenance .rot :iT ARCHITECTURE AND COLORS The proposed apartment bui_lci i igs rof:lect a Mediterranean architectural style with the fol �.olor combinations for each of the proposed build._ng types Building Type 1 and 7 Roof Tile: Lifetime Mission Tile (Blended Mission # 820) Fascia and Trim: Olympic Stain /Ri;sset Stucco: La Habra Products /Blush -89 Window Frames: Anodize Bronze Building Type 3 and 4 Roof Tile: Lifetime Mission Tile (Blended Mission # 820) Fascia and Trim: Olympic Stain /Rr.sset Stucco: La Habra Products /French lanill.a X -55 Window Frames: Anodize Bronze Building Type 2, 5 6 and 8 Roof Tile: Lifetime Colonial Slate Tile (Oxford Brown #310) Fascia: Olympic Stain /Oxford Brov.ri Stucco: Building and Fence /La Habra Products /French Vanilla X -55 Trim: Olympic Stain /Fawn Siding: Masonite Corp. /Colorok. PF -bble BEyige Window Frames: Anodize Bronze AIR QUALITY During construction of the proposed project, air quality in the area will be impacted, but not to , significant level. Short -term clearing, grading and vehicular movement of unpaved surfaces will generate loose dust that may be blown across the site. Short -term construction activities will generate combustion emissions from on- site heavy equipment and off-site trucks hauling dirt, concrete, wood and other building materials. Fugitive particles and construction equipment emissions 3o not represent a significant health concern. Instead, they represent a nuisance as large particles settle on nearby par»�ed czars, foliage, and other surfaces. The ! "ollowing requiremE�nts w.a..l.l be required for this project which wil_1 mitigate pot:Onti.dl impacts during construction of the project: Co Grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emission) which requires water for the control of dust. o Fugitive dust emissions during construction shall be minimized by watering .he site for dust control and periodically watering and periodically washing of adjacent streets to remore accumulated materials will be required. o All construction vehicles shalll be equipped with proper emission control equi.pm(: nt . Based on calculations prepared pursuant to the County of Ventura Air Quality Management Plan, this project will produce 14.9 pounds of ROC and 13.1 pounds of NOx per Clay based on an analysis year of 1991. According to the AQMP, development projects capable of daily emissions less than 25 pounds per day of Reactive Organic Compounds or Nitrogen Oxides are not considered to have a significant adverse impact individually and cumulat:.i.v+ ly on air quality. NOISE A Noise study was prepared by Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates which is on file in the City of Moorpark. During the construction ( phase of the proposed project, there will be an increase in existing noise levels. According to information supplied by the applicant, approximately 12 truck trips will occur each 30 minutes. Each trip will carry 15 cubic yards of fill. The importation of fill will occur eight hours a day for approximately five days. The construction impact will be of lii it:.ed short duration. Adjacent land uses may be affeced by the construction- related noise. Residences adjacent to the pr(:)ject site are the only sensitive receptors in the projE_, t area. The proposed use is generally compatible with the sur oundinq land uses. Vehicular noise generated from t.ne project will increase noise levels in the local vicinity of th( project site, but the long -term impact of increasing existing )ise 1�vels is not considered significant. In order to mitigate potentiaa impact,3 related to noise, the following types of requirement;; w 1'. be r7equired for the project: o Construction equipment :shall be muffled to reduce construction noise i.mp i t:, o All construction acti_vi, ies shall comply with all local, State and Federal con: t si( l.ior noise regulations. o Hours of grading and t�xterior construction shall be limited to weekday dayt_i ne hours (Monday through Friday, 7:00'a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) o During construction, bu_ldings adjacent to the project site may be subjecteu to increased noise levels. Following project comple -.ion, the primary noise generator for the project site wi :. be hos Angeles Avenue. The evaluation indicates that the sound measured at a position on the site where living quarters nea. °-est to Los Angeles Avenue would exist was found to be 59.9 dba tc: 60.2 :Dba. Any potential noise impacts are considered to be insi,nificant.. VII. AGENCY REVIEW Agencies and Departments which -eviewed the proposed projects include the City Engineer, City of 'loorpark Police Department, Fire Prevention District, Waterworks District No. 1, Moorpark Unified School District, Caltrans Environmental Planning and the County of Ventura (Air Pollution Control District, Public Works Agency, Environmental Health, and the Planning Department) . Conditions of approval and comments from the vaxious :reviewing bodies have been incorporated into this report and nt,) the Conditions of Approval. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A Draft Mitigated Negative Declai:ition has been prepared for the project with mitigation measures incorporated to alleviate any potential negative impacts to the environment. Potential environmental issues are related .c grading, flood hazard, plant life noise, light and glare, and r.<:.ffa.c Assembly Bill No. 3180 was adopt 1988. This law requires the monitoring program for adopted cr avoid significant environmental . adoption of a Mitigated Negative Dk the findings for an Environment,:. Prepared By: —� cz 2a� Paul Porter Senior Planner �d by the State Legislature in ity to adopt a reporting and required changes to mitigate or ffects in conjunction with the -larat.a on or in conjunction with in.Fact Report. Approved By: Patrick J. Richards Director of Community Development 317- Exhibits 1. Findings 2. Mitigated Negative Declarati <n, Initial Study and Mitigating Monitoring Program 3. Traffic Study 4. LDM 91 -2 S. Site Plan 6. Elevations 7. Unit Plans 8. Conceptual Drainage /Grading -Lan 9. Conceptual Landscaping Plar7 10. Conceptual Lighting /Fenciriq la.r, 11. Conditions of Approval for L cl -2 12. Conditions of Approval for R D 1 -:1 13. Letters from public qO FINDINGS If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend to the City Council approval of the aforementioned prc ects, the following findings may be used. C.E.Q.A. Findings 1. That the Mitigated Negative D,-�clarat ion/ Initial Study for the projects is complete and has Deen prepared in compliance with the California Environmental. Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City policy (This finding can only be made if the applicant agree: to the mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration); 2. The contents in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study have been considered i the various decisions on these projects; 3. In order to reduce the advFrse impacts of these projects, mitigation measures discusses in the environmental document have been incorporated into hF- proposed projects; 4. A Mitigation Reporting anc: Monitoring Program has been prepared in compliance with :,,sembly Bill 3180 and considered in the various decisions reg rdinq hese projects. Subdivision Map Act Findings Based on the information set forth above, it is determined that the Tentative Parcel Map with imposition of the attached conditions, meets the requi- ements of the Government Code Sections 66473 .13, 66474, (J 74 6, and 66478.1 et seg., in that: 1. The proposed map is consister with the applicable general and specific plans; 2. That the design and improvem« nt. , of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the appl:_tlble general and specific plans; 3. The site is physically sui.- -, ;1 � +._o- the type of development proposed; 4. The site is physically sus_ l ior: the proposed density of development; 5. The design of the subdivisici and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause siir_,s r:t i'11 environmental damage; ExhiI t: q I - 6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious )ublic health problems; 7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements would not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, c L.ise c the property within the proposed subdivision; 8. There would be no discharce of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system in violation of existing water q..ality control requirements under Water Code Section 13000 et_ secT._; and 9. The proposed subdivision doe-, not contain or front upon any public waterway, river, strea -., coas- rA.ine, shoreline, lake, or reservoir. Residential Planned Development F_ndinas 1. The proposed use would be con. ist.ent with the purpose, intent, guidelines, standards, polio es, and provisions of the City's General Plan and Chapters ni 2 (_:7 the Ordinance Code; 2. The proposed use would not. iii ;pair the integrity and character r of the zone in which it i.s t !)(, Located; 3. The proposed use would be colroatible with land uses permitted within the General Plan land ise designations and the zone in the general area where the i, e s t,) be located; 4. The proposed use would not h- obnoxLous or harmful or impair the utility of the property °self or neighboring property or uses, and; 5. The proposed uses would no oe dE- trimental to the public interest, health, safety, c c v(�nien "E_>, or welfare. 799 MoorpaLk nt F f lifornia 93021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 NEGATIVE DECLARATION _% MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. Entitlement: LDM -91 -2 and F?'D -91 -1 2. Applicant: Bibo, Inc. (805) 529 -6864 q 4;,., 3. Proposal: The proposed projec% consists of Land Division Map No. LDM -91 -2 and Residential Planned Development No. 91 -1. The Land Division Map is for a four lot subdivision consist_ng of the following: Parcel A - 1.38 acres, Parc +l B - 2.53 acres, Parcel C - 3.71 acres and Parcel D - 1.17 acres. The proposed Residential Planned Development is for construction of a multi - family apartment project which will consist of 12 struc'.ures for a total of 100 units. There will be 40 two bedroom units, 40 three bedroom units, and 20 four bedroom units. The applicant will not be requesting a density bonus based on the fact that the present zoning which allows 12 units per acre would allow a maximum of 105 units on the s.i-.e. The project is proposed to provide 100 units f low income housing that will be affordable on a ong term basis to helpmeet the affordable hous i nq ieeJs of the City. 4. Location & Parcel Number (s): 7he proposed apartment and land division site is in the Cit of Moorpark, Ventura County, California. The site is gene ally bounded by a single- family residence facing Los Angeles We;nue to the north, the Arroyo Simi to the south, single farm .y residences on Freemont Street to the east, and two story cordorririiums and apartments to the west. The project site will_ be divi-ded by the extension of Majestic Court, an existing ptihl.:i.c street which currently provides access to the condor ri_i.t.rn arid apartment complexes to the west. 5. Responsible A enc es: County Jt�nt_ura Flood Control District II. STATEMENT OF—ENVIRONMENTAL " 4DINCS: An initial study was conduct, (I by tlhe Community Development Department to evaluate the r)t ential effects of this project upon the environment. Ba.;c1:: ,ipon t lie findings contained in the attached initial study, i .; I -(,(-n determined that this Exh _i 2 PAUL 'N !i,.4�t.SCN R ::[n!. _..' -.A f-[�•t' ,:.Gi' - ROY [ LILLEY ,;H Q HN F 43 '177 C project could not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigated Negative Declaration one: Potentially significant im,:Dacts can be satisfactorily mitigated through adoption of the following identified measures as conditions of apFroval: See attached Initial Study fir Mitigation Measures III. PUBLIC REVIEW: 1. Public Notice: Publicat...on of a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area.. 2. Document Posting Period June 1, 1991 to July 15, 1991 3. Mailing of notices to a 1 'oroperty owners within 1,000 feet of the project it- Prepared by: C Paul Porter Senior Planner Approved by: i Vatrick J. Richards, Director f Community Development June 1, 1991 :.ine 1, 1991 Entitlement: MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moc -park, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 CITY OF MOORPARK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIAL STUDY RPD -91 -1 and LDM -91 -2 Date of Initial Study: May 9, 19'1. Name of Applicant: Bibo, "rnc 4q Location of Project: The propo -ed apartment and land division site is in the City of Moorpark, V(-ntura County, California. The site is generally bounded by a Sincle- family residence facing Los Angeles Avenue to the north, the A'royo Simi to the south, single family residences on F'reemont StrFet to the east, and two story condominiums and apartments to the west. The project site will be divided by the extension of Majestic Court, an existing public street which currently provides ccess to the condominium and apartment complexes to the west:. Assessor's Parcel No(s).: General Plan Land Use Designation: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation: Present Land Use: Existing Zoning: PAUL '.Y 5()E- 2 -48 VH ( 'ery H.i,1h) 10.1 - 20 DU /AC N /1, UndF- ,e1OPec' RP! - 2 un Lt HOY 1 TP.L,EY A JGWN E WO? 4IAK �IL_5. r Proposed Zoning: N/A Agency Staff Contact: Cit;° of Moorpark Pau Porter_, Senior Planner 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, C.A 93021 80` ) 529 -6864 I. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRI:P -ION: Location: See first page consists of 1.38 acres is Project: The proposed proje,. t consists of Land Division Map No. LDM -91 -2 and tes.ident.ial Planned Development No. 91 -1. The Lane:°, Division Map is for a four lot subdivision consisting of the following: Parcel A 1.38 acres, Par +el. B - 2.53 acres, Parcel C - 3.71 acres and Parcel D - 1.17 acres. The proposed Residential Planner Development is for construction of a multi - family apartment project which will consist of 12 stru tures for a total of 100 units. There will be 40 two bedroom units, 40 three bedroom units, ar, 20 tour bedroom units. The applicant will not be requesting a density bonus based on the fact:. that. '..he present zoning which allows 12 units pe_• acre would allow a maximum of 105 units on the s T''IEe project is proposed to provide 100 units :f low income housing that will be affordable on a long term basis to help meet the affordable hous nc •iw�eds >!` the City. Site Description: 1. Proposed Parcel "A" vra..ch consists of 1.38 acres is currently developed wit. a single family residence, and a vacant agricultural tui.ldi.nq. The remainder of the proposed site is currently undeveloped. Parcel D which consists of 1.17 acres rid is aidjacent to residences on the east of this site s not. proposed for development with the exception of ,.e extension of Millard Street. An existing 48 inch star i drain i_s located to the west of the site and a servic: r ad to t ervice the Arroyo Simi is located to -.he southwc ? I I y n a t, portion of the site. 2. Surrounding Land User: North: F[ighway III s.i,igle family residence South: hrroyo Sim_ 4h r East: Single family es_idences and a vacant lot West: Condominiums II. IS THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONS1.1 ;TENT WITH: Yes No N/A Moorpark General Plan X Applicable Specific Plar; X Moorpark Zoning Ordinance X III. ARE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING STIJE[ES REQUIRED: X Noise Study X Tree Study Archaeological Repc :�t. Biology Report X Geotechnical Repo:r? X Soil borings and �3sessment for liquefaction potential X Traffic Study Other ( identify h« .7w) IV. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND I�,�:SPONSIsS: A. Earth 1. Does the parcel contain slopes of 20% or greater which will be affected by pro i -pct construction? Yes Maybe No N/A X 2. Is any significant mo ificaton of major landforms proposed? 4 Yes Maybe No N/A X 3. Will the project result in the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides ground failure, or similar hazards? Yes Maybe No N/A X 4. Does the site include any unique geological features or paleontological resources of significance? Yes Maybe No N/A X 5. Will the project result in a significant increase in wind or water erosion or siltation either off- or on -site beyond the construction phase of the project? Yes Maybe No N/A X 6. Will the project result in changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream? Yes Maybe No N/A P7 Responses to items 1 -6 A preliminary geotechnical investigation of the project site was prepared by Tierra Tech Testing L,:,b. , Inc:. which City of Moorpark. is on file at the Based on tha! findings of proposed project will not this report, the require excavation of the project site. No geotechnical hazards or unusucl conditions were identified the site and no negative impacts cre anticipated. indicates that the development on The soils study w.i_ . invol.v(� some disruptions to the soil during the grading and const ucti_on phases soils study also indicates that:. , ho surface and of the site. The subsurface soils are non - expansive sands underlain wit--h similar soils. inches The top 60 of surface soils are loose : ands underlain more dense sandy soil�a with increasingly with depth, The proposed site is relatively flat with a max .mum existing slo} �} djrad.ient of construction .5%. During the pjl]So of the propose p r r) 7e:-t:, wind and water erosion 5 of soils on the site will increase However, this is only a short term impact. During the construction phase of the project, landscaping and drainage improvements incorporated into the development will prevent wind and ..,later erosion of soils following project completion. Mitigation Measures 1. a. The applicant shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; shall obtain i grading Permit; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion. Cut and fill slopes shall be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal /vertical). Contour grading of all slopes shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director 3f Community Development and the City Engineer. b. An erosion control plan slLall be submitted for review and approval if grading is to occur between October 15th and April 15th. Along with the erosior control measures, hydroseeding of all graded slopes shall )e required within 60 days of completion of grading. C. All haul routes shall be approved by the City Engineer. COn -site haul routes shall b «� timite(J to graded areas only. 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 Oual ty_ImQact Analyses? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response Based on calculations pursuant to the County of Ventura Air Quality Management Plan, this project will produce 14.9 pounds of ROC and 13.1 pounds of NOx per day bases: on an analysis year of 1991. According to the AQMP, development projects capable of daily emissions less than 25 pounds per dray of Reactive Organic Compounds or Nitrogen Oxides are not considered to have a significant adverse impact individually and cumulatiuf;.y Dn air quality. Air Ouality Mitigation 1. The applicant shall ensure th,t contractors properly maintain and operate construction o(ju prient ind use direct injection 6 diesel engines or gasoline powered engines if feasible. 2. Dust generation produced dur Lr:ri grad =ing shall be suppressed by the following activities: a. All active portions of co lstruction site shall be watered sufficiently to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Complete coverage water.ng shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the hate morning and after work is done for the day. b. All material excavations grading shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. c. All trucks importing or exporting fill to or from the site shall use tarpauli.s ro rover the load and shall operate between the hour, c f q a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays only. d. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds greater than 20 miles pi hour (mph) averaged over one hour so as to prevent e_ , �essi.vcl amounts of dust. e. All unimproved areas v..th vehicle traffic shall be watered periodically r - -he vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. f. Streets adjacent to the rea being graded shall be swept as needed to remove silt which may have accumulated from construction activiti_o SO a:; to prevent excessive amounts of dust. g. The area disturbed by c.':c- firing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations sf,11 be minimized at all times. 2. Will the project resul.. in a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact based on inconsistency with the Ventura County Air Oaali_ty Management Plan? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response During construction of the propoc; d project, air quality in the area will be impacted, but not tc , signi_ii_cant level. Short -term clearing, grading and vehicular m(_,ement of unpaved surfaces will generate loose dust that may be Ll�wr: across the site. Short -term construction activities will gener,r, , e r:ombustion emissions from on- site heavy equipment find off -s _.t , t. arc'.:: hauling dirt, concrete, �o wood and other building. materials. Fugitive particles and construction equipment emissions do not represent a significant health concern. Instead, they represent a nuisance as large particles settle on nearby pai<ed cars, foliage, and other surfaces. 3. Will the project result-- ;_n the creation of objectionable odors? Yes Maybe No N/A Response X Typically, apartment units do n•t produce products to emanate objectionable odors. 4. Will the project resul °. in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantia pollutant concentrations? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The apartment complex will riot. pr:)duc:.e substantial pollutant concentrations. C. Water 1. Does the project involve a major natural drainage course or flood control channel? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The project involves the Arroyo Simi only in that the control channel is located adjacent to th,. s.Lte on the south. Also, the project will utilize as part of its parking, the Flood Control easement located along the westerly property line. Development related sedimentation is not expec- :�d to significantly modify river or stream channels or the bed cf 'Ay biiys, inlets or lakes. 8 2. Will the project.result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or ,he rate and amount of surface runoff? Yes Maybe No N/A Response An increase in the amount of run, ff will increase, but not to a significant level. Mitiqation Measure 1. The applicant shall submit: to the City for review and approval, drainage plans hydrologic and hydraulic calculations prepared by a registered civil engineer; shall enter into an agreement w.th the City to complete the improvements and shall post stfficient surety guaranteeing the construction of the improve3tients. The drainage plans and calculations shall indicate -.he fo? lowing conditions before and after development: Q Quantities of water, flow rat -s, major water courses. drainage areas and patterns, diversians, collection systems, flood hazard areas and drainage co rsos. Hydrology shall be per curre=•n vent.u3-a County Standards except as follows: a. all catch basins in s m :) locat ions shall be designated for a 50 -year storm; b. all catch basins on ccn�intious grades shall be designed for a 10 -year storm; C. all catch basins in a :gimp condition shall be designed such that the depth of cater _,t intake shall equal the depth of the approach f. ow:; d. all culverts shall bF� ;fie s i caned for a 100 -year storm; e. drainage facilities :;ha flows are intercepted adjacent. roadways; f. for a 1.0 -year storm, provided with a mini_mlin . that local, residentl_ai. lane available where L rye JDx.- ovided such that surface c c,nt.a _ned prior to entering any 1:1 collector streets shall be of. on(, travel lane with a goal str(,c?t s shall have one travel 9 g. Drainage to adjacent parcels shall not be increased or concentrated by this development. All drainage measures necessary to mitigate st:: )rm water flows shall be provided by the applicant. h. All improvement plans shall show the location of existing utility lines which wou -d effect construction and shall provide for their reloc,ition at no cost to the City. 3. Is the project within <x 100 -year flood hazard area as identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Mats for the City of Moorpark? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response A major portion of the project s..te is located within the flood plain of the Arroyo Simi. The pr(.)ject is expected to be designed in order that inhabitable buildings are located out of the 100 -year storm water level. The applicant has prepared a floodplain analysis based on the concerns and requirements of the County of Ventura. The project is designed so inhabitable buildings are located out of the flood plain. The applicant has submitted a floodplain study and a structural analysis of the existing flood control pipe on the project si.t.: to the County of Ventura for review and approval. 4. Will the project result in alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The proposed project will not produce a change in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in neither marine or fresh waters. No modification to the Arr >yo Simi will occur. Therefore, no adverse impacts are expected cccur. 5. Will the project result. in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or throuclt, int.erce -Ption of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? C10 Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The soils report indicates that groundwater is present at minimum depth of 20 feet under the proposed project site. Groundwater is not expected to be affected from his development. 6. Will the project result: in degradation of ground or surface water quality? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response Run -off due to an increase in impervious surfaces may cumulatively contribute to the degradation of water quality of the Arroyo Simi. As the project site is primarily undeveloped, the project may contribute to surface waters. Dr, :inage systems incorporated into the project will eliminate some s lt. and debris.. CMitigation Measures Same as for C (Water) ?. Will the project change the amount of surface water in any water body? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The Arroyo Simi is the only exist.ng natural body of water in the vicinity of the project site. Pro ect run-off into the Arroyo Simi will be insignificant.. Therefore ne si(jnificant adverse impacts are anticipated. 8. Will the project result, in substantial reduction in the amount of water otherw,se available for public water supplies? Yes Maybe No N/A 14 .may 11 Response The applicant has received a water availability letter from Waterworks District No. 1 stat ng t.hat. there is sufficient available water for this project. Mitigation Measure 1. An "Unconditional Will Servf -a Letter" for water and sewer service will be obtained froi the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. D. Plant Life 1. Will the project result in a substantial change in the diversity or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, cr -)ps, and aquatic plants)? Yes Maybe No N/A X C2. Are any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants present on the project site? (See State and Federal listings, California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascuxlar Plants, and /or General Plan EIR.) Yes Maybe No N/A X 3. Will the project result n the introduction of new plant species that may cau:�e increased competition and displacement of existing native vegetation patterns? Yes Maybe No N/A X 4. Will the proposal result in the reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Yes Maybe No N/A X r-- \ 12 Response to items 1 4 A tree study was done for the project site by Poly Associates, which is on file at the City of '- .00rpark. The proposed project site is currently covered with variety of trees, and native grasses. The study identifies ��6 trees. Construction of the proposed apartment complexes will not result in the reduction of unique, rare, or endangered species of plants. However, according to the tree study, one tree will. b�� removed from the north portion of the site and 21 trees are tc be removed from the southern portion of the project. Implementation of the proposed project will include landscaping which will incorporate primarily non- native landscape materials. However, the introduction of the new plant species into the project is rot considered an adverse impact. Therefore, no impacts are antici.pa.:ed. There will be no reduction in acreage of any agricultural cn ;ps E. Animal Life 1. Will the project result in a reduction in the diversity of any species of animal: (birds; land animals, including reptiles; fish and shellfish, benthic organisms; or insects) which current: l ,, occupy or utilize the project site in some way? Yes Maybe No N/A ►;4 2. Will the project restrict the range of or otherwise affect any rare or endangered animal species? Yes Maybe No N/A X 3. Will the project result in a deterioration of any significant wildlife haiitat? Yes Maybe No N/A X Responses to items 1 - 3 No species of animals exist, r c r tic 1.Y,, re any unique, rare, or ((' 13 endangered species of animals on the project site. The proposed project will not introduce any new species of animals into the area. Also, the site is not pres(ntly used for the migration or movement of animals. F. Department of Fish and Game Will the project have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Gamey Code)., Yes Maybe No N/A X As the project is in the location c.f the Arroyo Simi and there are existing trees on the site, this :project could possibly have an adverse effect on the above resour -es if mitigation measures were not imposed. Mitigation Measure C1. Within two days after approval of the ro'ect b the P J y City Council, the applicant shall d63posit with the City $1,250 plus a $25.00 filing fee made out to the County of Ventura for the State required Notice of Determination filing fee in accordance with Assembly Bi" 3158. G. Noise 1. Will the project resulr_ i_n increases to existing noise levels? Yes Maybe No N/A - -- X 2. Will the project result. in they exposure of people to conditionally acceptable or unacceptable noise levels based on the City's Noj s�� I; k.emerit? Yes Maybe No N/A X 507- 14 Responses to items 1 and 2. A Noise Study was prepared by Par..l S. Veneklasen and Associates which is on file in the City of Mo+:)rpark. During the construction phase of the proposed project, there will be an increase in existing noise levels. According to information supplied by the applicant, approximately 12 truck t rips will occur each 30 minutes. Each trip will carry 15 cubic yar,is of fill. The importation of fill will occur eight hours a day for approximately five days. Adjacent land uses may be affected by the construction - related noise. Residences adjacent to ..he project site are the only sensitive receptors in the proje -t area. The proposed use is generally compatible with the surrounding land uses. The construction impact will be of liri.ted short duration. Vehicular noise generated from tie project will increase noise levels in the local vicinity of t.-ie project site. The long -term impact of increasing existing_ i iso= levels is not considered significant. 4. During construction, buildings adjacent to the project site may be subjected to increased noise levels. Following project completion, the primary nois( generator for the project site f11 will be Los Angeles Avenue. "'ie evaluation indicates that the sound measured at a position n the site where living quarters nearest to Los Angeles Avenue would exist was found to be 59.9 dba to 60.2 Dba. Any potent.i i roi_se impacts are considered to be insignif ic:ant . H. Light and Glare 1. Will the project result in a significant new source of light or glare? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The proposed project will introd ice new light sources into the primarily vacant parcel. Lightirl for the residential apartment complexes and parking lot areas rn<i, impact adjacent residences and hillside residences to the sout.ti f t h� project site. Mitigation Measure 1. For all exterior, lighting, i lighting plan shall be prepared by an electrical engineer ,cgi_st.ered in the State of California and submitted t thc, Department of Community C15 Development for review and approval. The lighting plan shall achieve the following objectives: Avoid interferences with reasonable use of adjoining properties; minimize on -site and off -site glare; provide adequate on -site lighting; limit electroliers height to avoid excessive illumination; and provide structures which are ompatible with the total design of the proposed facility. a. The lighting plan shalt. :..nclude the following: b. A photometric plan showing a point -by -point foot candle layout to extend a minimum of twenty (20) feet outside the property lines. Layo, t plan to be based on a ten ( 10 ) foot grid center. C. Maximum overall height, c, fixtures shall be sixteen (16) f eet . d. Fixtures must possess :harp cut -off qualities with a maximum of one -half foc:t candle illumination at property lines. e. There shall be no more than a seven -to -one (7:1) ratio of level of illumination .hown (maximum -to- minimum ratio Cbetween lighting stands -ls). f. Energy efficient light..i­ig fixtures shall be provided which are compatible wl..r-i adjacent properties. g. Average maximum of one_!Ilf foot candle illumination. h. No light shall be em;?.ted above the 90 degree or horizontal plane. Nc> d_,_i-ec:t light source shall be visible from any of t:.ha! idjacert properties. I. Land Use 1. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned bind use of an area? Yes Maybe No N/A X The project has a VH (Very High Density) designation on the City of Moorpark's General Plan. This Genfra] Plan designation allows for the development of 10.1 to 20 unity per acre. The proposed project will have a density of approxJiT�a e y 11.4 units per gross acre which is consistent with the plan' .: d l jIn(I 11:3e for the land. C 16 2. Are adjoining or .planned land uses incompatible with the proposed project, so that a substantial or potentially substantial interface problem would be created? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response Single family residences are located to the east of the site. Without mitigation, this could potentially create a compatibility problem. However, the project haE been designed so as to provide a buffer from the adjacent use by placing the extension of Millard Street adjacent to the property 1 ir.e . The proposed apartment units will be approximately 100 feet fro-1 the existing residences to the east of the site. 3. Could the project serve to encourage the development of presently undeveloped areas or result in increases in the development intensity of existing developed areas {examples include the introduction of new or expanded public utilities, and iew industrial, commercial, or recreational. facilities ? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will require the use of nonrenewable natural resources for the construction and implementation of the project. The amount of these resources to be used is considered to be insign..i <_, -ant: J. Natural Resources 1. Will the project result i.n substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource? Response The project, in conjunction reasonably foreseeable future nonrenewable natural. resour implementation of t-he project. W P r- c. C' C: S T, I , Yes Maybe No N/A X .h ot.`�.er past, present, and ects, will require the use of far the construction and am un' of these resources to be 17 used is insignificant. 2. Will 'the project result in the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impairment of the agricultural productivity of agricultural land? Yes Maybe No N/A x Response The project site is not planned fcr agricultural uses, nor will it be taking prime agricultural lands out: of productivity. Therefore, no significant, adverse impacts s ,1a L_. occur. R. Risk of Upset and Human Health 1. Will the project involve 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 ivc_� materials) in the event of an accident or upset condi :ion? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response No on -site storage or disposal of hazardous materials is anticipated. The project is proposed as a residential development. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts are expected to occur on the project ite. 2. Is the project within or- adjacent to a high fire hazard area as defined by the Ventura County Fire Protection District? Yes Maybe No N/A Response The project may create the need o- additional fire protection and emergency medical services in the locaL trea due to the increased development. Mitiqation Measure The project shall be developed r _-sinned in accordance to the 1 C18 Ventura County Fire Department Bureau of Fire Prevention Standard Planning Conditions for the LDM an -i RPD. C 3. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard acrd /or the exposure of people to potential health hazards? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The proposed project will allow for the development of the primarily vacant site with apartment buildings. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are expected. L. Population 1. Will the project alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rata of the human population of an area? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The proposed project will generate housing opportunities which may alter population growth rates in the local area. This is not considered to be an adverse impact since the project will be providing affordable dwelling rani -s. M. Housing 1. Will the proposal requ re the removal of any housing unit(s)? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response With the proposed expansion of Mi lard Street, an existing single family residence will be remove . ;'h °_::c is not considered an significant impact because of t1), Kiev -] )pment of the additional 19 dwelling units. 2. Will the proposal reduce currently available low and very -low income housing through changes in use or demolition? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response According to the project description, this proposed development will be a 100 percent affordable apartment complex. Therefore, the project will provide additional l.aw -income housing in the City. 3. Will the proposal require the displacement of people from the project site? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The proposed project will require the relocation of the occupants of the single family residence located on the northeast portion of the site. This is not considered a significant impact. N. Transportation/Circulation 1. Will the proposal result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? (Identify estimated a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips and average daily vehicle trips generated by the projec +.) Yes Maybe No N/A X 2. Will the proposal resul, in a cumulative .impact to the existing or planned trarsportat-ion systems? Yes Maybe No N/A X b3 - 20 3. Will the proposal result, 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 vehic] > >s, bicyclists, or pedestrians? Yes Maybe No N/A R. Response to items 1 - 4 Trip generation of the project as follows: TRIP GENERAT'ON FORECAST DAILY Enter 320 ADT Exit 320 r A: Existing C, MORNING PEAK Enter 10 7:15a.m.- 8:15a.m. Exit 31 EVENING PEAK Enter 67 5:OOp.m.- 6:OOp.m. Exit 31 Based on manual count data, the )usiest morning and evening peak hours were determined to occur between 7:00 - 8:00 AM and 5:00 - 6:00 PM and a capacity analysis was conducted for these hours. Capacity analysis considered th(� "ollowing scenarios: Scenario A: Existing Volumes Scenario B: Scenario A plus pr. >ject traffic Scenario C: Scenario B plus curlulative project traffic Based on the analysis, all fi e intersections are currently operating at satisfactory levels dsr.i_ng both commuter peak periods. After addition of traffic associiteci with the proposed Moorpark apartment, all five intersect will. continue to operate at satisfactory levels of C or Le ter dt ring both commuter peak periods. Therefore, the proje -, i.' nn!- cause any impact on the road system. With the build -out of the study ,r as (witty potential future general land use designations, south o:_3 Anc;eles Avenue, between the Maureen Lane resident: i_al tract c r ,,,r 31; and Spring Road on the east, could be j, &2 uatel y ser�'u a � : three full- access type (:: 21 signalized intersections along the effected portion of Los Angeles Avenue (at Liberty Bell Road, Moorpark Avenue, and Majestic Court) , A) three full- access type signalized intersections along the effected portion of Los Angeles Avenue (at Liberty Bell Road, Moorpark Avenue, and Majestic Court), Note: According to the proposed draft Circulation Element of the General Plan, Majestic Court is not to connect with Los Angeles Avenue. The connection to Los Angeles Avenue is proposed to be located at Millard Street. There is not sufficient on -site parking to accommodate the proposed development. The applicant indicated to staff that they have obtained permission from the County of Ventura Flood Control District to park on the easement: ocated west of the property. Mitigation Measures 1. a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval, street improvement plans and access road plans prepared by a registered civil enginee -�r; enter into an agreement with the City to complete the improvements; and shall post sufficient surety guara�ateeing the construction of the improvements. Any nec4_yssary right -of -way required to complete the improvemc -,nts will be acquired by the Capplicant at their exjje se b. The improvements shall _include concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, striping and signing, paving and any necessary transitions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvem+nts shall include concrete curb and gutter, sidewal}:, street lights, striping and signing, paving, and ary necessary transitions to the satisfaction of the Ci t, Engineer. C. The applicable City : t.a, cards ,,l-e as follows: 1. Los Angeles Avenuc south of the centerline along the property fringf shall. be improved to the City's half -width arteries' standard. Eleven feet (11 ft.) of additional ded L it-ion may be required along Los Angeles Avenue c PI-ovi, le for a six ( 6 ) lane arterial standai (; 2. Millard Street anri 'a jest.:..c Court shall be improved to the City's i, l collector standard to the satisfaction of e-I, City Engineer. d. Primary access to sit. a':1. utilize the drive on the western side of the prc c,:. :,econdary access will be provided onto Majestic,L7It e. Access onto Los Ange _ - V,,(�nuf - be controlled with i5 22 "Right in /Right" movement only. Geometric improvements along the traffic control measures approved by the City Engineer or associated "'raffic Studies must be included in the site plan. The site Flan will be signed by a registered Civil Engine «r f. All geometric improvemer,�s shall be designed for service trucks and emergency vehicles. g. Traffic Control device; for vehicles and pedestrians shall be designed and i.n,,ta -led to safely move traffic at all access points and i tersec °_ions. h. Necessary provisions f r right -of -way for any future roadway shall include rdequate locations for traffic facilities. i. During the grading of ro ids , soils testing of the road by a qualified. soils engineering firm shall be performed to determine road structur 1 sec=t °_ons . 2. The applicant shall deposit ith th(� City a contribution for the Los Angeles Avenue Are, r)f Contribution. The actual deposit shall be the then current Los Angeles Avenue Area of C Contribution rate at the time of Zone Clearance. If previous payment of this contribution ari be emonstrated to the City's satisfaction, this Condit Lc r � . )(.r waived. O. 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 )r recreational facilities, or other governmental services Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The proposed project is not l.c °ated idjacent to existing or proposed recreational facilitie�r, The project may result in an impact upon the quality and quait.ity of existing recreational opportunities. On -site recreat._c ial_ fa- zilities will be provided which may lessen any potential n act s i itr_oduced by the proposed development. Implementation of the proposed p- ,jc�ct will result in the need for additional police protection tc >rov_dc service to the project site. The '� :oorpark malice Dep<ii t er;t wi 1 be impacted as it will be required to provide po 1: C for the additional C23 population. As the project will allow for the development of family residential units, it is anticipated that the implementation of the proposed project may generate the need for -idditional school services. Implementation of the project is iot expected to have an adverse impact upon any other governmenta servioes. Mitigation Measure The project will be completed in a cordanc.e with standard Moorpark Police Department conditions. P. Energy Will the proposal result in he use of excessive amounts of fuel or energy? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response Construction of the proposed apar!�ments will require the use of fuel and energy. This construction will not require unusually large amounts of energy nor requir(, new sources or large increases in existing energy resources. ThEL project will require the continued use of energy resources Q. Utilities Will the proposal result i.i a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to itilit.:ies, including power or natural gas, communications systems, water, sewer, storm water drainage, solid waste disposal, and street lighting annexation and /or improvements? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response See above stated response for it-(,n P R. Aesthetics 1. Wiz l the proposal resu l t=. n 1.he ()t_>struct!on of any scenic �7 24 vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Yes Maybe No N/A X Response The project site will not block t.Y, -s r._ew of any major scenic vistas from the public's view. 2. Will the project result in the loss, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features such as a natural canyon, rock outcrop, ridgeline, or hillside with a slope ii excess of 25 percent? Yes Maybe No N/A P. Response There are no known unique geologi cr physical features located on the project site. 3. Will the project resul in the loss of a distinctive landmark tree or stand )f anature trees? Yes Maybe No N/A 14 Response See previous sections regarding ± oni. S. Archaeological /Historical. 1. Is there a potential that- the proposal will result in the alteration or dest:ruc• ion of an archaeological or historical site? Yes Maybe No N/A X 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 X Response to items 1 and 2 No cultural documentation of the project site currently exists. It is not anticipated that there are on -site prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. No hist.:orical buildings or objects are known to exist on the site. Also, the project area is not known to be significant to any ethnic or social groups, nor is the site being used for existing religious or sacred structures or uses within the project area. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are expected. T. Mandatory Findings of _Signif,.cance 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the Cquality 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 Califounia history or prehistory? Yes Maybe No N/A - -- X 2. Does the project have t..he potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while .long -term imPacts will endure well into the future.) Yes Maybe No N/A X 3. Does the project have mpacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more sep irate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total oi- ios,- i_inpActs on the environment / C 26 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, and the effects of probable future projects.) Yes Maybe No N/A X 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly' Yes Maybe No N/A X V. REFERENCES: �. The references used in responding to this questionnaire include the following: 1. EIR for Ventura County t en_eral _Plan--Land Use Element for the Moorpark Area (198`) 2. Federal Emergency Manag� �ment Aclency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Pane] Ni nber O60712 0005 A, September 29, 1986. 3. General Plan of the C'i, y_ c,f_Mc�or ark. 4. Institute of Transport t:icm Engineers, Trip Generation, 1987. 5. U.S.G.S. Topographic 'Q acirang.e Maps for Moorpark. 6. Ventura County Air Pol 1 ticn Control District, Guidelines for the Preparation -�f i_i�ali_ty Impact Analyses, 1989. 7. Ventura County Air P utiori Control District, Ventura County Air_ ualitY 1r, °� is rT cent_ Plan, 298B. 8. 7,onin�L Ord_i nancc? oft,,, ( i ty- f Moorpark . l 70 1 VI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed pro ect COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment:., and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that altho,igh the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mit.iga.ion measures, described in this initial study, cou,.d be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. I find the proposed pro!! ?ct MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and n ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find the proposed prc)j,,ct MAY have a significant effect on the environment, a:d an ADDENDUM to an existing certified ENVIRONMENTAL. IMI)ACT REPORT is required. _ June 1, 1991 Date June 1, 1991 Date 1 Senior Planner atrick J" Ri hards , ommunit'y I)ev- Lo pm( iI- Director of TRAFFI ;TUD" EXHII 3 (under sep� t 7/ LDM-'�l 2 EXHIBIT 4 TENTH'! � f'AR( ` =i. MAP 7d I t Cl, - I s © f r Qp © V: 11 _ y i I----' I � I i '•4.N v +.ti 1.1 I I ) ItiA� � ' r�� r l ,�•�`�. �'r1�.� I I `"` - i I' I I j. _ �I I � I__ _. �-- *— °'-= --'� — 1, I© rill ii Ii - 1 I" I I - -� 1-- ^DL�QI el CI i t I © ' I I `+�.►�� sla Sl ' ©>�1 `--- ------- -- - - - - -- F,i -- ----- .. -- - ----- ' -- :. ,,, 1 ♦ ,.., .. ,.. .,, A I !�� eyr •e..• .•u, ','c fit. 'Act M C- 1011Pl :: ::. ,,.....,,III. SITE PLAN ( NORTH SECTION) L. _1_ 9) , • r, ,. - -- - wr1. I'•M' •rw YLLlax[leLC lS�ea�4 In •.�•� r• . . ....1• r�...l..'iilil..'iii.• ~ - .1 1r..,' tii :• {I I. «. t.+S,:u��••.e,. '....1....1..1..1, ...,.. 1'.��......II..II ... - EXHIBIT 5 S,5 it iii, -� D D. Ell o P J T J co ------------ -------- -------------------------- ---- ------ -- --------------------- - -------- -- - ----------- -- LLLLI) tro ---------------------- I l;.11�% -11, It SSITE PLAN "OU-1H SECTION) (3 _T -. ENTRY SID[ IItII:CY I:Y iI M: IIYCiO II11: /II M:IY IY/ WIYI /WIC h END r- ,� -. -T� - •-- -t�_!�� � . !'t`. C` II � �� 1 �I �� �� ��lI ?TI 1 � � I�I I 1 Ir l l Il� lli i!I Il 11 j�jl l (I f11� 1 11'lil I I iI��I11�11111I�Ilj I�I11 !li I Ilil' I ��I�II� -I i i�llll�ll 11'!11 II�I!1',� !' �� I�II��I f��ll�{ •�j 11 1 - - T „-- Lml--L r t I ; �, �,;��T� . l 1. -T, � >-Tr „-., _ • w.r.. �.. �.� F � 1 BACK BIDE ELEVATIONS BLDG. TYPE 1 _T- EXHIBIT 6 » II M M Ill�q� f� I�a F • � �,� ���:��.• „iiill��ll���lllj�i�l I 1��.�i�ll� I� � t }`. 1 �il � ' i i ENTRY SIDE ..rnlse rlry.l Ilut.e .0011 0.. Y10M t1�1 W tr OOW01 ♦1YYIMYY € r: ;,- ,1��,11a1 I �1�-�� � �'I III 1�� � I� I (�Ili1 III �IIII �f,��lll�ll l��'lllt�•�, -�� 'JUI BACK SIDE ELEVATIONS BLDG. TYPE 4 cO ENTRY SIDE ,F r Ll L � ILI -L] - -:: as moil ELEVATIONS BLDG. TYPE 6 Ell jL UnII type B EXHIBIT 7 ---------------- -------- - - - - -- n I IVGC C r r) F i nor I JLO ►I Unit Type A First Floor I".. I UNIT PLANS. G� r_ PIANO 1114. ,/II J n I I Type L —.. I- p I ooh Un i I Type D I s I F l o o r Type C First Floo UNIT PLA S DRAINAGE & 1�iADIN(l -LAN EXNI �yK - - -- --- -- -- ------ -- ,i 6 11U,HX:l lww./. li tl Mtl� Iw Ir. Vr.111 Iw�.w NMI In n• r. Irw1 u. 11..1 il�tai 1 nn. VL n1 101 Yrl Ir�til i 1• I1w II 1_N 1 111 1.:pL Iw.l 1►IrM 11),M T!o-l1 -?�� �lrilllII!�CLI lea I 1 � 0 I i Q < a 2 I g J � P-1 I I 1 1 i �I I, I r -71 '--- �iA.t1 I - - J a NI10 1 I o� I I �I l�II1 - -I -1 - -I- I -I- 1 -- - 1 -- - 1 --1 ./- I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I } I ------------------------ -- L PR-1 ZkRfl 1-------------- - - - - -, g KA t UST OPARTIAL 411w C- unu. r Wrr\ 111W flr IM••Iti MiK Il d Y.11. A Ilrl Y•.Y 01111 rW M1y (IN Yrr1y 111 Ir)1• lu/ 11r WI In• flrl ' 4rrt1 gr111 Yld•rr W 411w111 r/ 4M11 ( /Mly /11 w111•..' Y..r pl•1r 4rr•1 •M Iw•w,1 Ir•••1 41Hrrl• tirr 1nr (•Irr 1111 r>,r ilr itr.111 IM 1.11/•1 1111 411411 rl rl Ir M411 r1w•11 4+.• {r / -'�•*.�171 \Il/rlww 1/1 Iy1n1MIN1 rill Llw•1 i�f+.i 11wN1r I/,1p1 1 r Ilew•r �11•IIN \f••• N Ivu 11.x•11 r•1M Ir 1• 11N IN• fr I•rt) Niel yil 41•,� x\11 \IN \fN• 11 M frrrN 11 YrNIN 1yl•1 \ JI IN• Im n►r\1 rM/M krl• I o� I I �I l�II1 - -I -1 - -I- I -I- 1 -- - 1 -- - 1 --1 ./- I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I } I ------------------------ -- L PR-1 ZkRfl 1-------------- - - - - -, g 4. L vrJun alluao u.w �- .wg" Wq - fit o N.kcn 1^4+40 ,T1W En-o _jl- L_FLI c.cfal 1 - ; 2 i 7 I L • I � r'� \ .c I i . l—.' � t,�r- i1 I I I � 1 l I � � � `^ "r" II _ _�l —_ • � \` `�! /• �Q i'��a e �- I :._ -- - - --_ ±_ �r tl -- ' ------------------------ I ~� ___ r- �i 1`• a�Tr� --r ` -a �I _�._ i ._ -.- •__ n fir!- T-rf1T -n -- r- r -1Tr- F TT�fR11� F -f-1 - r_C- 11111IRIJJ_1111J11____- • I CONCEPTUAL LIGHTING PLAN /FENCE PLAN G •I�TJ.• • rnu HA, •rcn RYA. J� • I. L4or ?A r, I OJ�L• 10 V Oft, I t F r KLe I t�aMC.�yrta{ rt,xl•w.:iQr dfillL61+4 FT 1J!E ,W lh Lt#,v7, $l L .,w - u 61 Ill4JK0*4" ` �bll HA1 Ir EXHIBIT 10 C LAND DIVISION APPLICANT: DATE: MOORPARK NO: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS I 8q 91 -2 BIBO, Inc. July 15, 1991 1. The conditions of approval of this Tentative Parcel Map supersede all conflictinf notations, specifications, dimensions, typical sections and the like which may be shown on said map; and that all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, City of Moorpark Ordi_rar.ce and adopted City policies apply. 2. Recordation of this subdivision shall be deemed to be acceptance by the property wnOr of the conditions of this Map. 3. All applicable requirements c * any law or agency of the State, City of Moorpark an any oth >�r governmental entity shall be met, and all such requirements and enactments shall, by reference, become conditiori: of entitlement. 4. The developer's recordation c, t *,:his map and /or commencement of construction as a result of this map shall be deemed to be C_ acceptance of all condit.iors} of this map and Residential Planned Development No. 91 - -] by thE' applicant. 5. That no condition of this entitlement shall be interpreted as permitting or requiring any liolat.ion of law, or any lawful rules or regulations or orde s of an authorized governmental agency. In instances where r,I)re than one set of rules apply, the stricter ones shall t, n -ecF di nce. G. That if any of the con(l..ions or limitations of this subdivision are held to he nval_id, that holding shall not invalidate the remaining co-ie tuns -)r limitations set forth. 7. The development shall bE> ,_abject to all applicable City regulations regarding the RP ,cnF>. 8. No zone clearance shall be i final map has been recorder Permit, a zoning clearan:c Department of CommunityE, >� shall be obtained from the a after the granting of a zon clearance shall be issuf�ci outstanding permit process : 1 Exhi: SIIE�d for construction until the 1,r.i.or to the issuance of any :3nna11 be obtained from the lopment and a Building Permit partment. of Building and Safety :1c c -ecir. ance . Also, no zoning the applicant pays all to the City. :1 LAND DIVISION MOORPARK NO: APPLICANT: DATE: 91 -2 BIBO, Inc. July 15, 1991 9. Prior to approval of a Final Map, the developer shall demonstrate by possession (,*- a District Release from the Calleguas Municipal Water 'istrict that arrangements for payment of the Construction C -large applicable to the proposed subdivision have been made. 10. The Tentative Parcel Map sh, LI exp_Lre three years from the date of its approval. Failux-� to record a final map with the Ventura County Recorder pr..ioi to expiration of the Tentative Map shall terminate all proceedings, and any subdivision of the land shall require the '`fling and processing of a new Tentative Map. 11. Prior to approval of Final Mai:), an unconditional availability letter shall be obtained frO the County Waterworks District No. 1 for sewer and water service for each lot. Said letter shall be filed with the Department of Community Development or, if said Unconditional. -%vail.ability Letter in a form satisfactory to the City can -tot be obtained from the County Waterworks District No. Y., the developer shall execute a Subdivision Sewer Agreement in a form. satisfactory to the City. Said agreement sha_Ll. ; ermit, deferral of unconditional guarantee for sewer and water ser•,ice until issuance of a building permit for each :)t in the subdivision. Said agreement shall include I.an(uage holding the City harmless against damages in the event-. )f !:he .iltimate lack of adequate sewer service 12. Prior to recordation all ut-i_ , -t.y l i_nes from the property line shall be placed undergrounc.. 13. At the time water service coni.ect ion is made, cross connection control devices shall be i..n::s ..alled on the water system in a manner approved by the Count: Waterworks District No. 1. 14. As of the date of recordation jai final parcel map, the parcels depicted thereon shall meet thE- requirements of the zoning ordinance and General Plan af: l , c•ahl to the property when the application was deemed coml l !., . 15. That the subdivider shall d(� the City and its agents, c: claim, action or proceedi m -, officers or employees to a L t' approval by the City or a,r c0i "I mss Lons, agents, off l (' �n3, in emnify and hold harmless f .('er:L and employees from any g,a i rest the City or its agents, k, >rrt aside, void, or annul anv I it ; -rgenc i es , departments, W, ,mploye(�s concerning the �S c 'F LAND DIVISION MOORPARK NO: 91 -2- APPLICANT: BIBO, Inc. DATE: July 15, 1991 subdivision, which claim, action or proceeding is brought within the time period provided therefore in Government 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 3o 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 to this condition. 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. The subdivider shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by th,� subdivider. The subdivider's obligations under this condition shall apply regardless of whether a final map or parcel map is ultimately recorded with respect to the subdivision.. 16. Within two (2) days after approval of the project by the City Council, the applicant shall ieposit with the City $1,250 plus a $25.00 filing fee made out ' --o the County of Ventura for the State required Notice of Determination filing fee in accordance wi. -th Assembly Bil 3158. 17. Prior to recordation, all out: tandinq case processing fees for LDM 91 -2 and RPD 91 -1 shall e paid to the City. 18. Prior to recordation, the applicant-- shall deposit with the City of Moorpark a Conditici Compliance review fee in the amount of the original fi 15. r f`ee for" the LDM and RPD. CITY ENGINEER DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS PRIOR TO APPROVAL ON FINAL MAP, THE.FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED 19. The applicant shall submit. i-I the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a grading p_1iz prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; shall obtain a (_::jading Permit; and shall post sufficient surety guarantFE, ng completion. Cut and fill slopes shall be no steeps i —iar (horizontal : vertical) . Contour grading of all ,- 1 (,s sPiall be provided to the - F1 LAND DIVISION MOORPARK NO: 91 -2 APPLICANT: BIBO, Inc. DATE: July 15, 1991 satisfaction of the Director :f Community Development and the City Engineer. b. An erosion control plan stiall be submitted for review and approval if grading is to occt r between October 15th and April 15th. Along with the erosior control measures, hydroseeding of all graded slopes shall. be required within 60 days of completion of grading. C. All haul routes shall be approved by the City Engineer. On -site haul routes shall be limited to graded areas only. 20. a. The applicant shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a detai.,ed Soils Report certified by a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California. The report shall include a geoteclnic.al. investigation with regard to liquefaction, expansive �Dils, and seismic safety. The grading plan shall incorpor. ,t(� t1w, recommendations of the approved Soils Report. b. Review of the soils and go�otechnical report by the City's geotechnical consultant may required by the City Engineer. If so, the applicant shall. r= �im:bur.se the City for all costs including the City's adminis`rative costs. 21. a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Cit) for review and approval, street .improvement plans and ciccess road plans prepared by a .registered civil engine(.ar; enter into an agreement with the City to complete the improvements; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of the improvements. Any necessary right -of -way required to complete the improvements c;i11 be acquired by the applicant at their exle s(• b. The improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, striping and signing, paving and any necessary transit.i:.)r, } ti::) the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk:, street, lights, striping and signing, paving, and a � nec(aa;sary transitions to the satis f`ac-t ion of the C,t ;ri(g L), I ,er_ . C. The applicable City .3,_ d irj�; tro as follows: 1. Los Angeles Avert ,,out_)-, of the Centerline alonq the property frc): V �jc c fcl � approximately 264 feet s h�11. l i)e improved , t h(, (" i ty' s half-width arterial LAND DIVISION MOORPARK NO: APPLICANT: DATE: 91 -2 BIBO, Inc. July 15, 1991 standard. Eleven feet (11 ft.) of additional dedication may be required along Los Angeles Avenue to provide for a s_x (6) lane arterial standard. Sufficient dedicat_. ;on shall be provided by the applicant to extend Millard Street to Los Angeles Avenue. 2. Millard Street and majestic: Court shall be improved to the City's fual collector standard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Millard Street shall be constructed to connect with Los Angeles Avenue. d. Primary access to the site will be from the extension of Millard Street via Los A,igeles Avenue. e. Access onto Los Angeles Avenue will be controlled with "Right in /Right" movemen only. Geometric improvements along the traffic control measures approved by the City Engineer or associated - -affic Studies must be included in the site plan. The st.e 1)1an will be signed by a registered Civil Engint�( r . f. All geometric improvemenn is sha.1 L be designed for service trucks and emergency vol ..cles., g. Traffic Control device: for vehicles and pedestrians shall be designed and inc Called to safely move traffic at all access points and i_— ersecti.ons. h. Necessary provisions f - right -of -way for any future roadway shall .include dequat ) locations for traffic facilities. i. During the grading of roe ds, sod is testing of the road by a qualified soils engineering i trm shall be performed to determine road structur l sections. 22. Intersection sight distance l nes shall be drawn on the street improvement plans for the in ersections of the Access Drive and Los Angeles Avenue, Majes, is Court. and Millard Street, and Majestic Court: (arid the Acc �—; r1r i.,,1e 23. The applicant shall submit o the City for review, street improvements plans (in(:lu tricf 311 necessary drainage facilities) for an access r ad from Los Angeles Avenue to Majestic Court (as shown on ,, t2nt<itive tract map) , prepared by a registc red Civil. Eng.i.r—( ; 7h,i ' l tinter into an agreement C LAND DIVISION MOORPARK NO: 91 -2 APPLICANT: BIBO, Inc. DATE: July 15, 1991 with the city to complete these improvements; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the completion of the improvements. The access i- )ad shall be constructed of at least three inches of asphalt c concrete with the base section thickness to be determined by the Soils Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The _access road shall be constructed prior to project acceptance or the first building permit, whichever occurs first. The applicant shall provide for the maintenance of the access r >ad. The access road shall be designed to Ventura CO UT °.y F re Protection District guidelines. 24. All storm drains shall be ccnstruct:.ed completely within the public right -of -way. Future maintenance and replacement must be possible from within the public right -of -way. If a private storm drain system is proposed, the developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval evidence that the project wil l include provis i ( s '-or maintenance of the private system. 25. The applicant shall submit. to the City for review and approval, street improvement. plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer; shall enter i to an agreement with the City to complete these improvements; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion of the improvements. The final; design shall be subject to tie approval of the City Engineer and Caltrans. All required Los Anqeles Avenue intersection improvements shall be compIE :- ed pri..c:)r to the first occupancy in RPD 91 -1. Traffic con -rol.. arcd. detour plans for the construction period are rc-gi r-od. 26. The applicant shall deposit. with t:he appropriate agency a contribution for any affect. d Drainage Areas. The actual deposit shall be the thei currc = -nt Local Drainage Area Contribution rate at the t me of final map approval. If previous payment of this ccna.ri_buti_on can be demonstrated to the City's satisfaction, *,w; -()ndi.t.ion shall be waived. 27. The applicant shall indicii Moorpark, the disposition ,.t water that may exist wit.,"1 proposed to be abandoned, , not been properly sealed, tt. County Ordinance No. 2.372 r and Gas requ i_r,ements . e i_n writing to the City of aTrf, water well(s) and any other .he site. If any wells are -if t.hc +y, are abandoned and have y must he destroyed per Ventura a iy , )p] i_cable Division of Oil 28. The applicant shall demon: t it.(� Lc, the satisfaction of the City Engin( cer that each h�a i'r; ; -)c i has adequate protection LAND DIVISION MOORPARK NO: APPLICANT: DATE: � 91 -2 BIBO, Inc. July 15, 1991 from a 100 -year storm and f ,yas.Lble access during a 10 -year storm. 29. The applicant shall submit- ­.o the City for review and approval, drainage plans hydrologic and hydraulic calculations prepared by a registered civil engineer; shall enter into an agreement w th the City to complete the improvements and shall post s i.. f f. is Tent surety guaranteeing the construction of the improverents. The drainage plans and calculations shall indicat�.� --.he fc lowing conditions before and after development: Quantities of water, flow rate =s, major water courses. drainage areas and patterns, divers 'ons, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sups and dra:.n:ge courses. Hydrology shall be per currer. Ventui-a County Standards except as follows: a. all catch basins in sur a ] ocar:.i.ons shall be designated for a 50 -year storm; b. all catch basins on cor inuous grades shall be designed for a 10 -year storm; c. all catch basins in a amp condition shall be designed such that the depth of -,cater at intake shall equal the depth of the approach flows; d. all culverts shall be c signed for a 100 -year storm; e. drainage facilities sh.l oe provided such that surface flows are intercepted ,i, Dnt.a fined prior to entering any adjacent roadways; f. for a 10 -year storm, All collector streets shall be provided with a mini_mui of one travel lane with a goal that local, residentia streets shall have one travel lane available where :>( ,si!:)l.e. g. Drainage to adjacent, p, rcels : ihall not be increased or concentrated by this de elc>pmE:,rlt-- . All drainage measures necessary to mitigate 7 )rn wa'�-er flows shall be provided by the applicant. h. All improvement plans st all show the location of existing utility lines which w,rn.. d eff + =ct construction and shall provide for their re. .ti_:n .3t no cost to the City. LAND DIVISION APPLICANT: DATE: MOORPARK NO: 91 -2 BIBO, Inc. July 15, 1991 30. The applicant shall demonstr�:te legal. access for each parcel to the satisfaction of the C ty Eng9_neer. 31. The applicant shall deposit: with the City a contribution for the Los Angeles Avenue Ares of Contribution. The actual deposit shall be the then current Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution rate at the timF, of Zone Clearance. If previous payment of this contribution an be demonstrated to the City's satisfaction, this condition shall. be waived. 32. The applicant shall execute covenant running with the land on the behalf of itself and its successors, heirs, and assigns agreeing to participate in r_he formation of an assessment district or other financinc :: technique including, but not limited to, the payment of t.r.iffic mitigation fees, which the City may implement or ad(:,)t, to fund public street and traffic improvements direct.-I,- or indirectly affected by the development.. The covenant i t.cr be approved by the Director of Community Development pT :i r .o :r +!cordat ion . 33. If any of the improvements 4r_ch the applicant is required to construct or install is to constructed or installed upon C land in which the applicant: foes not have title or interest sufficient for such purpose. -, the applicant shall do all of the following at:. least 60 c: tys pr or to the filing of the final or parcel map for appi r i : p� .rs uant to Governmental Code Section 66457. a. Notify the City of Mu)rpark (hereinafter "City ") in writing that the appli_cGnt wishes the City to acquire an interest in the land whi h is sufficient for the purposes as provided in Governmc t,i . Cofie Section 66462.5. b. Supply the City with i_ a egal description of the interest to be acqu.i_ rec (.i _) a map or diagram of the interest to be acquired sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subdiw- ion (c) of Section 1250.310 of the Code of Civil proc:r lure, i i.ii) a current appraisal report prepared by ar, ipprai,er approved by the City which expresses an op i n )r is t ) the fair market value of the interest to b" c in i_ -f-, 1, and (iv) a current Litigation ]uarantee f c. Enter into an agreement i , i 1,ht1 City, guaranteed by such cash deposits or othc,x c uri t.} as the City may require, pursuant to which th p cir.: will pay all of the City's cost (includ ii ` F. i t: " :cr, t. limitation, attorney's fees and ovc,rhead exp(c s cciuir_inq .iuch an interest C a LAND DIVISION MOORPARK NO: 91 -2 / APPLICANT: BIBO, Inc. DATE: July 15, 1991 in the land. 34 The applicant shall pay all energy costs associated with street lighting for a period of one year from the initial energizing of the street lights. 35. The applicant shall post sL.ifficient surety guaranteeing completion of all improvements which revert to the City (i.e., landscaping, parks, fencing, etc.) or which require removal (i.e., temporary debris basins, etc.). 36. The applicant shall ensure thas contractors properly maintain and operate construction equipment and use direct injection diesel engines or gasoline powered engines if feasible. 37. Dust generation produced dur.in:a grading shall be suppressed by the following activities: a. All active portions of corst.ruction site shall be watered sufficiently to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Complete coverage waterizig shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the lat.e morning and after work is done for the day. b. All material. excavation <:r grading shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. C. All trucks importing or exporting fill to or from the site shall use tarpaulii s t- 'o cover the load and shall operate between the hour! of 9 a . m . to 5 p.m. on weekdays only. d. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds greater than 20 miles pfr hour (mph) averaged over one hour so as to prevent t:! >; °essive amounts of dust. e. All unimproved areas v watered periodically -v 1. imited to 15 mph. f. Streets adjacent to the as needed to remove silt . construction activit.i4 amounts of dust. .th vehicle traffic shall be i the vehicle speed shall be rea being graded shall be swept which may have accumulated from �"O a:� to prevent excessive g. The area disturbed by c.[( tri ng, ir.ading, earth moving, or excavat=ion operations -I 711 Le minimized at all times. �3 LAND DIVISION MOORPARK NO: APPLICANT: DATE: 91 -2 BIBO, Inc. July 15, 1991 IN CONJUNCTION WITH FINAL MAP APPROVAL, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 38. Applicant shall offer to dedicate on the Final Map to the City of Moorpark for public use all right -of -way for public streets as shown on the map. 39. The applicant shall make an irrevocable dedication on the Final Map of easements to the City of Moorpark over all private streets shown on the Vesting Tentative Map for the purpose of providing access t:) (a) all governmental agencies that provide public safety, Zealth and welfare services or that enforce laws and ordinan, :: °es, and (b) all members of the public who reasonably need to be vacated over the private streets because of the state of emergency declared by a representative of the C'J1, car the Ventura County Fire Protection District. 40. The applicant shall dedicate )n the Final Map to the City of Moorpark the access rights .djacent to Los Angeles Avenue along the entire frontage at the parent parcel except for approved access road as del. _i ,sated r_ >n the approved Tentative Map. 41. The applicant shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate on the Final Map to the City th«, area between the right -of -way and the sight distance lines it all intersections. 42. All road names are to be approved by the City Council and such approval shall be coordinatec through the City Engineer. 43. Applicant shall dedicate on the Final Map to the City of Moorpark, public service easements ;ss required. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED- -- - - - - - -- 44. That a street width of 25- 1e,: -t for two way traffic with off street parking on both sidos - ;l.all he provided. 45. That access roads shall ho msta.1Led with an. all weather surface, suitable for asses; y D ?G ton, Fire District vehicle shall be installed. That prior to construction, t (� app]_:. cant shall submit two ( 2 ) site plans to tl;.e Fire Dist r -t fr)r approval of the location RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT DATE: 91 -1 BIBO, INC. MAY 14, 1991 of fire lanes. The fire lane: shall be posted in accordance with California Vehicle Code Suction :22500. 1 and Article 10 of the Uniform Fire Code prior t, occupancy. i 46. That the access roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. Where the access roadway cannot be provided, approved fire protection system or systems shall be installed as required and acceptable t:c the Fire District. 47. That access roads shall not. e;�ceed 15% grade. 48. That all drives shall have a Pinimum vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches (13', 6 "). 49. That prior to recordation or street names, proposed names shall be submitted to the 'iro District's Communications Center for review. 50. The street name signs shall b,� installed in conjunction with the road improvements. The type of sign shall be in accordance with Plate F -4 of 7entura County Road Standards. 11 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT DATE: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 91 -1 BIBO, INC. JULY 15, 1991 1. The permit is granted for the land and project as shown on the submitted plot plans and elevations (Exhibits 5 and 6). The location and design of all site improvements shall be as shown on the approved plot plans nd elevations except or unless indicated otherwise herein.. 2. The development is subject t,; all applicable regulations of the RPD (Residential Plann,�d Development) Zone and all agencies of the State, Ventu.'a County, the City of Moorpark and any other governmental ?T-i. ties 3. That unless the project is iiaugurated (building foundation slab in place and substantial ,work in progress) not later than one year after this permit✓ is granted, this permit shall automatically expire on that_ late. The Director of Community Development may, at his di cretion, grant up to one (1) additional year extension fc; project inauguration if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if applicant can document that he 11�� dil:.gently worked towards inauguration. of the proje - :fiir nj the initial one year period. 4. All facilities and uses requested in the appliccat modification, application k; : Moorpark. 5. The design, maintenance, and facilities thereon shall regulations of the RPD rc enactments of Federal, State and all such requirements and become conditions of this po 6. No conditions of this ent :it permitting or requiring any rules or regulations or ord, agency. In instances where ii the stricter one: shall tiAJ1 , Exh c_1', ther than those specifically on ax-f� prohibited unless a Leer, approved by the City of ,perati_on of the permit area and comply with all applicable rie and all requirements and County,, and City authorities, enactments shall, by reference, lit. ement shall be interpreted as clatir.,n of law or any unlawful of an authorized governmental e t.ha; one set of rules apply, r;,.,c,d, n(-e. RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 91 -1 APPLICANT BIBO, INC. DATE: JULY 15, 1991 7. If any of the conditions or limitations of this permit are held to be invalid, that holding shall not invalidate any of the remaining conditions or 'imitations set forth. 8. The permittee agrees as a condition of issuance and use of this permit to defend, at his Sole expense, any action brought against the City because of issuance (or renewal) of this permit or in the alternati-e to relinquish this permit. Permittee will reimburse the City for any court costs and /or attorney's fees which the City may be required by the court to pay as a result of any such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the • defense of any such action, but such participation shall rot; relieve permittee of his obligation under this cond.it:)n. 9. A sign permit is required for all on -site signs to be approved by the Director of Community [: evelopment. No on -site building sign shall be permitted unless the building is occupied by a single user. No off -site si_—is are permitted. 10. Prior to the submission of ccnstruct:.ion plans for plan check or initiation of any construct ion activity, a zoning clearance Cshall be obtained from the Cc-imunity Development Department. 11. The permittee's acceptance of this permit and /or commencement of construction and/ or opei.-a .ions under this permit shall be deemed to be acceptance of -i ' conditions of this permit. 12. This permit shall expire if tr e use for which it is granted is discontinued for a period cf :80 consecutive days or more as determined by the City. 13. No later than ten (10) day,. af=ter change of ownership or lessee of this property, the I, :rector of Community Development shall be notified in writinq, _)f the new owner or lessee. The same letter shall state that he new owner or lessee has read all conditions pertaining t h_:; 13e!-mit and agrees with said conditions. 14. Within two (2) days after app oval of the project by the City Council, the applicant shall eposit with the City $1,250 plus a $25.00 filing fee made out o thf? County of Ventura for the State required Notice of De-1-- ermi.nation filing fee in accordance with Assembly F :i_ 31.5I�, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 91 -1 APPLICANT BIBO, INC. DATE: JULY 15, 1991 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A ZONING CLEARANCE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 15. Prior to the issuance of a ,oning Clearance, the permittee shall sign a statement indicar.ing awareness and understanding of all permit conditions, an,l shall agree to abide by these Conditions and present such statement to the Department of Community Development. 16. The final construction workin,3 drawings shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review. 17. Complete landscape plan& (2- sets), together with specifications and a maintenance program shall be prepared by a State Licensed Landscape Ar°,-hitect, generally in accordance with the Ventura Guide to Landscape Plans and in compliance with the City of Moorpark irdinance No. 74, and shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development. The final. ..andscape plans shall be in substantial conformance w.i_L; the conceptual landscape plan submitted with the applicat ic. n. The applicant shall bear the total cost of the landscape p'an review and final. installation inspection. The landscaping and. planting plan submitted for review and approval shall. accompanied by a deposit as specified by the City of M orhark,. Additional funds may subsequently need to be dep(:),i..ted to cover all landscape plan check and inspection fees. A:1 landscaping and planting shall be accomplished and approve,!' by the Director of Community Development, or his des i('TTI �e N I)r .c:>r to the approval of occupancy. The project 1 r[ iS :7.3 ,e plans shall. include the following: a. A 50 percent shade ccverage shall be provided within all parking areas. Shade cov =rage is described as the maximum mid -day shaded area de.f ii(>d by i:1 selected specimen tree at 50 percent maturi':e, , b. Any turf plantings ass:)(iated with this project shall be drought tolerant, low %N t.e,I 7.is ;_ng variety. C. Landscaping at site yntranc:es and exits and any intersection within t1;c parking lot shall not block or screen the view of a J(r_l driver from another moving v0h.icic or pedestriai RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 91 -1 APPLICANT BIBO, INC. DATE: JULY 15, 1991 d. Plantings in and adjacent to parking areas shall be contained within raised planters surrounded by six -inch high concrete curbs. e. Landscaping shall be designed so as to not obstruct the view of any exterior doer or window from the street. f. Landscaping (trees) shall not be placed directly under any overhead lighting which could cause a loss of light at ground level. g. Earthen berms shall be pi ovided to screen views of parked vehicles from access rods. h. Landscaping shall be use tc; screen views of any backf low preventers. 18. Roof design and construction shall _'L_nclude a minimum 18 -inch extension of the parapet wal above the highest point of the roof. 19. All roof mounted equipment (vents, stacks, blowers, air conditioning equipment, etc ) that may extend above any parapet wall shall be encic)sed on all four sides by view obscuring material. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance, the final design aid materials for the roof screen and location of any roof moon-, ed equipment must be approved by the Director. of Community De—?1opment:, . 20. Pullover parking (overhangs sizali be limited to 24 inch maximum. No vehicles shal be allowed to encroach onto walkways or into the requ red landscaped setbacks along roadways. 21. All property line walls sha.11 be no further than one inch from the property line. 22. The building shall be construe tea using energy saving devices. These shall include those de °.ices required by the California Administrative Code, Title 2 23. For all exterior lighting, a lighting plan shall be prepared by an electrical engineer registered in the State of California and submitted t. the Department of Community Development for review and a1:.,roval_. The lighting plan shall achieve the following obec .ves: Avoid interferences with reasonable . se e1 adjoi_ninc; c F ert: es; min=imize on -site and i RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT DATE: 91 -1 BIBO, INC. JULY 15, 1991 off -site glare; provide adequate on -site lighting; limit electroliers height to avoi <i excessive illumination; and provide structures which are r ompat.ible with the total design of the proposed facility. a. The lighting plan shah nclude the following: b. A photometric plan showing a point -by -point foot candle layout to extend a minimum of twenty (20) feet outside the property lines. Layoi t plan to be based on a ten ( 10 ) foot grid center. C. Maximum overall height o fixtures shall be sixteen (16) feet. d. Fixtures must possess sharp cut -off qualities with a maximum of one -half foot ^andle illumination at property lines. e. There shall be no more than a seven -to -one (7:1) ratio of level of illumination :-hown (maximum -to- minimum ratio between .lighting standaris),. f. Energy efficient light.i lg fixtures shall be provided which are compatible wit.- adjacent properties. g. Average maximum of one -hilf foot. candle illumination. h. No light shall be em_i�.ted above the 90 degree or horizontal plane. No -direct light source shall be visible from any of th(, djacent properties. 24. The applicant shall provide the City with satisfactory documentation that the parkiij area located on the adjacent property to the west of the )ro ject will be allowed by the adjacent property owner in Fpeppcetuit} and that this agreement is irrevocable. 25. No downspouts shall be pe:r-r : tt -�?d on the exterior of the building. 26. All exterior building materils an,:.a paint colors shall be approved by the Director c,f tomrrunity Development to ensure compatibility with adjacent c ve_opm�nt. 27. No asbestos pipe or const.ri t,.c>n iaterials shall be used without prior approval of r} c �� �" >uncil. 11 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT DATE: 91 -1 BIBO, INC. JULY 15, 1991 28. All utilities are required to be underground to the nearest off -site utility pole except through transmission lines. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance, the applicant shall submit a plan for review and approval to the Director of Community Development which idcanti..f ies how compliance with the undergrounding requirement wi'1 be met.. 29. If skylights are proposed, the specific type and model must be approved by the Director of Community Development to ensure that they shall be of an op,ique type to minimize evening illumination as viewed from t.'e exterior. 30. Prior to issuance of a zoning clearance, the permittee shall make a contribution to the Moorpark Traffic Systems Management Fund of $.15 per square foot of flc:7o.r_ area to fund Traffic System Management. programs. 31. All roof mounted equipment anc other noise generation sources on -site shall be attenuated tc::: 55 dBA at the property line, or to the ambient noise level a* the property line measured at the time of the occupant requ� -st. Prior to the issuance of a Zone Clearance for initial occupancy or any subsequent occupancy, the Director of Cci� nunity Development may request that a noise study be submitta::f for review and approval which demonstrates that all on- sitE::l noise generation sources would be mitigated to the required evel. The noise study must be prepared by a licensed acoust..::al engineer in accordance with accepted engineer_ tng stand -3r-c^ . 32. Prior to the issuance of zoning clearance, a Surety Performance Bond in the amour. of $10,000 shall be filed and accepted by the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community Development, may, through a public hearing to be heard before the Ci-ty Council recommend that any or all of the funds in the PE' ~formance Bond be forfeited for noncompliance of the Conditions of Approval or for some other just cause. This condition shill automatically be superseded by a related resolution c;r ordinance regarding condition compliance for entitlement ppr ~o%)'a l.s adopted by the City Council. 33. The applicant, permittee, of submit to the Department Df cover costs incurred by the review of the LDM and RFD., outstanding case processing all City legal sc�r_vice f(-,(' Clearance. successors in interest, shall "ommuni ty Development a fee to City for Condition Compliance The �ipplicant shall pay all planning and Engineering), and )1 101 :o issuance of a Zoning 1, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 91 -1 APPLICANT BIBO, INC. DATE: JULY 15, 1991 34. All trash disposal areas shall be provided in a location which will not interfere with circulation, parking, or access to the building and shall be screened with a six foot high, solid wall enclosure with metal gages. The final design of the trash enclosure shall be suoject to the approval of the Director of Community Development, prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance. Pipe guards shall be eliminated around typical trash enclosures. `'rash areas and recycling bins shall be depicted on the final construction plans, the size of which shall be approved b,,, Director of Community Development and the City employee responsible for recycling /solid waste managem-nt programs. 35. All walls shall be construct(I prior to installation of any sidewalks or concrete slabs PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BI!ILDING PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 36. An "Unconditional Will Serv( ,et.ter "' for water and sewer C service will be obtained fr•�r tle Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. 37. The applicant shall pay all s:hool assessment fees levied by the Moorpark Unified School r' st,. -.ict . 38. If any archaeological or histo -ical f Lnds are uncovered during excavation operations, the permit..tee shall assure the preservation of the site; s.al3- obtain the services of a qualified archaeologist to r- e, ommend disposition of the site; and shall obtain the Dire(::, -)r of Community Development's written concurrence of th(:� e ommerided disposition before resuming development. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, THE FOLLOWING, IONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 39. All parking areas shall be Su- faced. with asphalt or concrete and shall include adequate pr)visiorYs for drainage, striping and appropriate wheel block „s, Lira,., ):r• posts in parking areas adjacent to landscaped arc =--j 40. All landscaping and plantirrc; : al '. ire installed and inspected. 41. No use for which this perm. t is granted shall be commenced until a Certificate of )an, -y hzis been issued by the Building and Safety Divisir�r 'r nd iti -on, no Certificate of l RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT DATE: 91 -1 BIBO, INC. JULY 15, 1991 Occupancy may be issued until. all on -site improvements specified in this permit have been completed or the applicant has provided a Faithful Performance Bond. Said on -site improvements shall be completed within 120 days of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for either the hotel or restaurant facility. In case of: failure to comply with any term or provision of this agreement, the City Council may by resolution declare the surety forfeited. Upon completion of the required improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, the surety may be exonerated by action of the Director of Community Development. 42. At the time water service connection is made for each project, cross connection control dev..ces shall be installed for the water system in accordance with the requirements of the Ventura County Environmental fealth Department. 43. No Certificate of Occupanc- shall be granted prior to acceptance or completion o, landscaping or other sight improvements such as perimeter walls, including stucco treatment, landscaping, f en, °es,, slope planting or other landscape improvements not related to grading; private recreational facilities, etc. Said on -site improvements shall be completed within 120 days if issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In case of failt re. to comply with any term or provision of this conditi(:!i, the City Council may by resolution declare the suret•M forfeited. Upon completion of the required improvements to 'y 'ie satisfaction of the City, the City Council may reduce the « ,Laount. of the bond; however, the bond must be kept in full ef!ct for one year after the last occupancy to guarantee that Ems such as perimeter tract walls (including stucco treatment), landscaping, fences, slope planting or other landscap( lunprovements not related to grading, private recreatior Lill. 1 ac i I i.* i,es, etc. are maintained. AFTER ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATI, CONDITIONS SHALL BE APPLICABLE: 44. The continued maintenance of shall be subject to periodiR permittee shall be requirE�d maintenance, as indicated by within thirty (5) days aftc° 01" OCCUPANCY, THE FOLLOWING the permit area and facilities . nspec:t:ion by the City. The D remedy any defects in ground ,.-lie Code Enforcement Officer .ot.if ication. 45. The striping for parking sF: a s 1a I ._ I5e maintained so that it remains clearly visible. RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT DATE: 91 -1 BIBO, INC. JULY 15, 1591 46. No noxious odors shall be {enerated from any use on the subject site. 47. The applicant and his successors, heirs and assigns shall remove any graffiti within five (5) days from written notification from the City of Moorpark. All such graffiti removal shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Deve.loTment, CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS PRIOR TO ZONE CLEARANCE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY: 48. City Ordinance No. 100 and t.1e Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), require upcating of the National Flood Insurance Program maps for affected areas whenever any alteration of the watercourse is made. If a FIRM map revision is necessary, all material: required by FEMA for a map revision shall be provided o the City Engineer's office. This material will demonstra e the new 10, 50, 100, and 500 year flood plain locations following development. This information will be forwarded by the City Engineer to the FEMA for review and updating of the National Flood Insurance Program maps. A condition I letter of map revision (if required by FEMA) shall be pr v.ided to the City prior to zone clearance. The applicant wi l be responsible for all costs charged by the FEMA and the :t.y "s - Administrative costs. DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWI ; CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY: 49. Prior to any work being con, acted within the State or City right -of -way, the applicant shall. obtain an encroachment permit from the appropriat(- jenc,y. . 50. If necessary, the applicant shall obtain a Ventura County Flood Control District Water -)urso Fncroachment Permit. 51. The applicant shall construct all necessary drainage facilities, including brow itch and slope bench drainage channels, with a permanent oci t11 ton+3 color so as to minimize visual impacts. Said color- a� ill be submitted to and approved by the Director of Commurs i - )(,vo;,1:)pment as part of the grading plans. 52. Backfill of pipe shall be it iuil�y� compacted layers unless otherwise specified by the 7 4 I;r 1 <j i neer. IC: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT DATE: 91 -1 BIBO, INC. JULY 15, 1991 series of 22" X 36" mylars (made with proper overlaps) with a title block on each sheet. Submission of "as- built" plans is required before a final inspe,7tion will be scheduled. 60. Reproducible centerline tie sleets shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office. 61. The applicant shall file for a time extension with the City Engineer's office at least sir weeks in advance of expiration of the agreement to construct. subdivision improvements. The fees required will be in c- nformarrce with the applicable ordinance section. MOORPARK POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITI)NS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A OCCUPANCY PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET: 62. Lighting devices shall be h gh enough so as to eliminate anyone on the ground from tampering with them. All parking areas shall be provided wit-1 a lighting system capable of illuminating the parking surface with a minimum of one -half foot candle of light and shall be designed to minimize the spillage of light onto adjacent properties. All exterior lighting devices shall be pre ec :ed by weather and breakage - resistant covers. 63. Landscaping shall not cover aLy ,exterior door or window. 64. Landscaping at entrances /exit or at any intersection within the parking lot shall not k. or screen the view of a seated driver from another moving vc =ride or pedestrian. 65. Landscaping (trees) shall no be placed directly under any overhead lighting which cou l c' -.,-zn:so a1 Loss of light at ground level. 66. All entrance /exit driveways ;fall be a minimum of 30 feet in width. 67. All exterior doors shall be constructed of solid wood core, a minimum of 1 and three quarter_ inches thick, or of metal construction. Front glass doers commonly used f-or entry are acceptable but should be vi i� i ,1,? to the street.. . 68. Doors utilizing a cylinder I.ofk =hal.'; have a minimum five (5) pintumbler operation with t.tl, cckinq bar or bolt extending into the receiving guide r i inrzrr(f -inch deadholt. t` 1, f RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 91 -1 APPLICANT BIBO, INC. DATE: JULY 15, 1991 53. Soil testing for compaction is to be performed on all pipe or conduit placement. The interval of testing shall be less than once every 4 feet of lift a,d 1.00 lineal feet of pipe or conduit placed. 54. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shal _ be immediately stopped and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department, and the City Construction Observer shall t)e notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. Contaminated and hazardous soil as defined by Department of Health Services may not be used for on -site soil fill or roadway subgrade un;_ess the Department of Health Services determines in writii g that said material has been treated to a level that is no longer considered a public health risk or requires public discloser by the Department of Real Estate. Any contaminated or hazardous soil shall be removed to be approved landf::. 1 55. Where roads require four or m( re inches of pavement are to be built, the applicant shall .onstruct the required street section minus one -inch of paving as an interim condition until all utility cuts or trenching are completed. The final one - inch cap of asphalt shall e placed after all necessary trenching is completed. 56. No trees with a trunk diameter in excess of four inches shall be trimmed or removed without. prior approval of the Director of Community Development. Aa �iti lit:y lines shall be placed underground. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY THE FOLLOWING i.;ONDITION SHALL BE SATISFIED: 57. If the land is in a special i ood hazard area, the applicant shall notify all potential. c)c upants of this condition. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND BOND EXONERATION, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE `)ATISFIED: 58. Sufficient surety guaranteeir: the public improvements shall remain in place for one year ' Ilowirg acceptance of the City Council. 59. Original "as- built" plans wi.l. bo cerr.i_fied by the applicant's civil engineer and submittec .ith two sets of blue prints to the City Engineer's office. lthough grading plans may have been submitted for checking 3 i construction on sheets larger than 22" X �6 "' they must I ;ut -mn � r-t.e,d as "as- builts" in a RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 91 -1 r APPLICANT BIBO, INC. \ DATE: JULY 15, 1991 69. There shall not be any easy exterior access to the roof area, i.e. ladders, trees, high wal s, etc 70. If an alarm system is used, it shall. be wired to all exterior doors and windows and to any r )of vents or other roof openings where access may be made. 71. Address shall be clearly visible to approaching emergency vehicles and mounted against o contrasting color. The numbers shall be a minimum of 6 :inches in height and illuminated during the hours of darkness 72. Front door entrances shall be v si.ble from the street. 73. Peep holes and secondary i_ng devices shall be placed on all room doors. DURING CONSTRUCTION THE FOLLOWING 'ONDITIONS SHALL APPLY: 74. A licensed security guard is recommended during the C/ construction phase, or a 6 -foc high .--hain link fence shall be erected around the construct .� n site. 75. Construction equipment, tool.? et shall be properly secured during non - working hours. VENTURA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITLONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWIM3 CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 76. That a street width of 25 -fe(t for t-wo way traffic with off street parking on both sides ,ha L1 be provided. 77. That access roads shall be ._nstalled with an all weather surface, suitable for access 'I ,, 1 20 -.on Fire District vehicle shall be installed. 78. That prior to construction, th' applicant shall submit two (2 ) site plans to the Fire Distr_i -t for approval of the location of fire lanes. The fire lanE shall be posted in accordance with California Vehicle Code >ction 22500.1 and Article 10 of the Uniform Fire Code prier- t , )-,cur,ancy. 79. That the access roadway sha_ b4-� extended to within 150 feet Of all portions ef: the extor ar wal's of the first story of any buildinca . Were the i+ r(), =, away cannot be provided, l RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT DATE: 91 -1 BIBO, IN . JULY 15, 1991 approved fire protection systom or systems shall be installed as required and acceptable tc: the Fire District. 80. That access roads shall not xceed 15% grade. 81. That all drives shall have a rl..inimum vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches (131, 6 "). 82. That address numbers, a minimum of 6 inches high, shall be installed prior to occupancy, shall be of contrasting color to the background. Where structures are setback more than 250 feet from the street, larger numbers will be required so that they are distinguishable from the street. In the event a structure(s) is not visible from the street, the address number(s) shall be posted ad!icent to the driveway entrance. 83. That prior to construction, t-ie applicant shall submit plans to the Ventura County Bureau )f Fire Prevention for approval of the location of fire hyd.r.arnts. Show existing hydrants on a site plan, within 300 fee,.: )f the development. 84. That fire hydrants shall be i- st:alled and in service prior to combustible construction an(.! shall conform to the minimum standards of the Moorpark W,i —r Works Manual. a. Each hydrant shal. )e 6 inch wet barrel design and shall have one 4 Lr h and Iwo 2 1/2 inch outlet(s). b. The required fire f ow sha iLl be achieved at no less than 20 psi residlic pressure. C. Fire hydrants shat, be spaced 300 feet on center, and so located tha no structure will be farther than 150 feet from any onc3 hydrant. d. Fire hydrants shat be recessed in from curb face 24 inches at cent -, 85. That the minimum fire flow required is determined by the type of building construction, pro >imity walls, fire to other structures, fire and protection de,,ices the provided, as specified by I.S.O. for determinin ? <e aired Fire Flow. Given the present plans and informatz. n, they required fire flow is approximately 2,250 gallons 1 r minute. The applicant shall verify that the water purvey, � at the c,tji prc•wa_de the required volume pro j c,c � C RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT DATE: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 91 -1 BIBO, INC.-. JULY 15, 1991 86. That if any building(s) are to be protected by an automatic sprinkler system, plans shall be submitted, with payment for plan check, to the Ventura C(:-inty Bureau of Fire Prevention for review. 87. Than any structure(s) greater than 5,000 square feet in area and /or 5 miles from a fire station shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler sys °em in accordance with Ventura County Ordinance 414. 88. That building plans of all R -1 occupancies shall be submitted to the Ventura County Bureat r-)f Fire Prevention for plan check. 89. That an approved manual and automatic fire alarm system shall be installed in apartment houses three (3) or more stories in height or containing more tha, 1-1) dwelling units. 90. That plans for any fire alarm ystem shall be submitted to the Fire District for plan check. 91. That fire extinguishers shall .)e installed in accordance with National Fire Protection As�-ociation, Pamphlet #10. The placement of extinguishers 'call bf2 reviewed by the Fire District. 92. That all grass or brush exposing any structures shall be cleared for a distance of 100 feet prior to framing, according to the Ventura County Fire Pr tection Ordinance. 93. That commercial trash dumpEters and containers with an individual capacity of 1.5 cu' :sic yards or greater, shall not be stored within 5 feet of openings, combustible walls, combustible roof eave lines, unless protected by approved automatic fire sprinklers. 'liform Fire Code, Article 11). 94. That any gates to control veh::ular access, are to be located to allow a vehicle waiting fcr.` entrance to be completely of the public roadway. The me hod of gate control shall be subject to review by the Fire ' revention Division. A minimum clear open width of 15 fee in each direction shall be provided. If gates are to k-)e locked, a Knox system shall be installed. Gate plan detai.l.s hall t.,e :submitted to the Fired District for appr.()val pr. io _ *, �'Ocoi iation. 95. That prior to recordation .;tree'- names, proposed names shall be submitted to th- ac F,istrict's Communications Center for review. C RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT DATE: 91 -1 BIBO, IN . JULY 15, 1991 96. The street name signs shall be installed in conjunction with the road improvements. Tl�e type of sign shall be in accordance with Plate F -4 of Ventura County Road Standards. 97. That a plan shall be submittec to the Fire District for review indicating the method in whi.c) buildings are to be identified by address numbers. 98. That building plans of publ_i assembly areas which have an occupant load of 50 or more, shall be submitted to the Fire District for review. 99. That portions of this development may be in a high fire hazard area and those structures shall meet hazardous fire area building code requirements. 100. That an approved fire arrescler shall be installed on the chimney of any structure(s) WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 1 CONDITIC-N 101. Applicant for service shall comply with the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 "R.iles and Regulations" including C, all provisions of or relating to the existing Industrial Waste Discharge Requirements and sx.bsequent additions or revisions thereto. Ultra .Low plumbing ixtures are required in all new construction. A:IPDCPD. RECEIVED ,JUN 2 6 1991 RENE & DEBORAH MENARD City of Moorpark P.O. Box 698 Moorpark, (.A 93021 //0 (805) 52.4 -1529 t-- June 21, 1991 Planning Commission City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Re: Notice of Public Hearing set for July 15, 1991 Land Division Map No. 91 -2 Residential. Planned Developm -nt Permit No. 91 -1 Gentlepersons: This letter is to express my cone -rns with regard to the proposed development referenced above. My husband and I are homeowners in the Regal Park Condominiums and cur unit directly faces Majestic Court. We have lived in this uni since July 25, 1986. We currently have an empty field o the right of us (which we have long hoped would become single far ly homes) and Le Club Apartments to the left. Shortly after we moved in we disco rered that the Le Club apartments were going to be located next doc -- and a number of the homeowners already living in Regal Park (onl,1 60 at the time, since only two phases were fully occupied and the third phase just finished) , were upset that they were not notified sooner, knowing that apartments next door would somewhat devalue_ their property. Now we are advised that the Planning Commission is considering allowing apartments on the other side ol- u , when it was previously rumored that single family homes would h( going in there. My specific concerns with regarif c thi project are: 1. Apartments on both sir3es of our complex will significantly devalue our prop( -t y. Potential buyers to the condominium complex will most 1 :elZ feel. that there will be no separating the apartments from ht,, conlominiums and it will be viewed by visitors and other buyers as one large area filled with apartments, not no!- c nI ±h, condominiums (where each 1 unit is owned by someone) even exist in the midst of e apartments. Even now, visitors :o our unit get mixed up and go to the apartments (because they hava2 the same unit numbers as we do) . In addition, I note That these are to be low income housing units, thus devaluing oc.,r property even more. 2. The traffic on Majestic Court reached dangerous proportions when Le Club was finished, to the point that Regal Park had to put in speed bumps to dE:ter the flow of traffic from the apartment complex on to our private driveway (the residents of Le Club felt it was easier to go through our private drive at a high rate of speed, almost hitting pedestrians than to go up Moorpark Avenue to the turn signal to ma}:e a right hand turn. Traffic from an apartmcnt co-, -,,Iex on the other side would only increase the flow of traffi, :! on Majestic Court, especially if Majestic Court opens up to Fremorit :street. The majority of people will find it easier to travel Majestic, Court to Moorpark Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue's signal light than to go up Fremont Street to Los Angeles Avenue to try and turn left, thus increasing the flow of traffic on quiet little Maje ,'-.ic c'o,...irt even more. It should be noted teat the -re are a large number of children who live in Le Club and ust tr.iveling from the Regal Park o complex on Majestic Court up to Morpark Avenue, one has to be very Ccareful of children coming out °�-om between cars. An additional 100 unit- in this newly proposed area will significantly impact the traffic -)f Moorpark Avenue, Majestic Court and the private driveway of RE'(T, Park Condominiums. 3. If a developer were tc; come in with a smaller amount of nice single family homes to be ocated in this area: the traffic would not increase too much (at . past not as much as 100 additional apartment units with approximatel} two cars per unit) ; having single family homes next door would increase the value of the Regal Park property, which is severe y needed due to the recent and continuing recession; and it d lot increase the population of the downtown Moorpark area as -it -h IS �'Partments would. Let's facie it - t}rt; ( ownt.._)wn area of Moorpark is significantly lacking in nice s nq_Le family homes, and in fact, most of the downtown area i cIuttt,red with apartments and condominiums. Most of these };,s h,ivt been put up in the hills away from the downtown area. !fcctt nq downtown Moorpark with more and more apartments is n., k7> ��,�rr. The population needs to be spread out more. 4. supposed Our unit is to be ending currently, soon up lot :gale. The recession is our unit. However, whi -:': inc :-e ses our chance of selling property further if' we would �,e t: lower the value of our units potential l i ;, 1 rci out that 100 low income are goi -nil t() t_c, put in n If Moorpark must have low income housing, why not put in an area where it will not impact the sale of single family owner units. one place in mind is the large open field on the west side of Le Club. In any case, low income housing should not be put up directly next door to houses of condominiums which are owned by individuals, thus devaluing their property. Low income house should be placed next to existing apartments or commercial areas where it will not significant] r decrease the value of property owned by individuals. I certainly hope that the Planning Commission reconsiders this matter and that the City will by to entice a developer to put in single family homes in this relatively small area of land. Thank you for your time and con:iderat.�on. Very truly yours, (-1 Deborah Menard a /JAI :?!�L- C C Community Development Departmen City Hall 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, Ca. 93021. Mr. Paul Porter: (/3 Rebecca G. Engelman 150 E. Los Angeles Ave #306 Moorpark, Ca. 93021 June 30, 1.991 I am writing in response to the Notice Of Public Hearing, and described proposal of low income housing, Invoice 000352, Published June 20, 1991. As a 10 year resident and one who has worked very hard to be a homeowner in Moorpark, I would like to express my Extreme opposition to this proposed project. I currently own the unit I reside in at. Regal Park, 150 E. Los Angeles Ave. I am able to maintain my condominitim by working 2 jobs. For four years I have put everything into keeping my home and I fear I might be facing a great loss in more than one way. I am deeply concerned about what effect low income housing will have on property value, but an even stronger concern is my well -being and avoiding; the danger of an increase of the crime that already exists in this neighborhood. Since the completion and occupancy of the LE CLUB Apartments, adjacent to the Regal Park complex, crime has been on the rise �ind traffic problems in and surrounding the complex has inereas +.,d. Regal Park now pays for 24 hour surveillance to help minimize the occurrence of thefts and minor crimes. Twice recently, while jogging, I was stopped by the Moorpark police and was advised that it is unsafe for me t� run in my neighborhood by myself. If the city puts low income housing at the proposed location, I feel that the welfare of the good people of Moorpar! , is at risk. strongly urge you to please give sen )us thought to what I have expressed. feel all that I have mentioned is i-e any. rri.,.,r. . . r___ .__ time and cooperation. Sincerely, 1 becca G. Engelman Homeowner /'Resident i U L 3 1591 C��,} / Community Development Department (\ 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, Ca. 93021 RE: Low Income Housing Project Dear Sirs, 1% I have been a Moorpark resident for about five years now. I have seen it become a better place with the development of the Hughes shopping center and the new housing up on Peach Hill. It has grown to its present size while still maintaining a clean, small town atmosphere. However, while living in the Regal Park condominiums, I have become increasingly aware of the crime problems associated with the Le Club apartments located next to us. The police are there on a constant basis and it has started to genuinely affect our quality of living. While I do not blame this problem solely on low income residents, I am aware that there are several subsidized apartments in that complex. With this in mind, I fail to see what value will be derived from a 100 unit low income housing development, I feel it will only reduce the quality of life in Moorpark, while aiding to a growing criminal concern. In addition, Majestic Court is the only proposed access to this complex. This is an already crowded street and it is not designed to handle the type of traffic the new 100 units will bring. If a low income project must be bui:t, I strongly encourage find a more suitable location. I w:ll be �,ery disappointed the members of the city government this construction is take place. Respectfully, Thomas Wilkens 151 Majestic Ct. 1603 Moorpark, Ca. 93021 you to with all allowed to 1UL08 +991 �. ,ITV Of ! ", JI-tiv P-lul Lawrason r k tloorparf:. P 1 e find c- c t at De v e 1 ---, p fT-,,p n t enclosed the C --)DLc n -I. u (ns . This p c, t I I-jf Land Div iSl.--,n N-1 Perms k, N.- . j1 -1 A t F, c n ; arc._ LE. (' A'-: i V E L- L 0 8.19 City of Moorp / / A 7erltlOn p,.-,sted at F-' e c Briny t_I \/ ---- u it at t e n t I- o F rl e qA r- d i n (-I I annex rl d pf E-'r -1 � L" � I P ci Ap icanti DZDO; iic. ~ Proposal: 1. Land Division Map No. 91 2 is for the subdivision of an existing U 79 acre parcel into four lots consisting of Lhe following: Parcel A - 1.38 acres, Parcel L3 2.53 acres, Parcel C - 3.71 acres and I src el D 1.17 acres. i 2. Residential Planned Development No. 91 - -1 is for construction of a multi - family apartment project which will consist (,)' 12 structures consisting of a total of 00 residential units. 'there will be 40 - r..w+ bedroom unit's, 40 - throe bedroom units, ind 20 - four bedroom units. The project Is proposed to provide 100 units of low incl: ue housLig that will be affordable on a lone: term basis to help meet the affordable holsi; (ig reeds of the City. Location: The proposed project is loCated Ln ace City of Moorpark, California, Ventura County,, California. The site is generally bounded by a single- family residence facing Los Angeles Avenua on the north, the Arroyo Simi to the south, single family residences on Preemont Street to t:.e east, and two story condominiums and apartments t -) the west. The project site will be divided by tree extension of �C Majestic Court, and existing publ .c \street, which rr-\ rAA lo� �r=K 1�, Fir },, J you Vet concerns regarding l;i1s pe itlorr��. Th nk you. g l 9 Project 1 s., s.gr this l5 NAME id Cy IADDI?ESS �� �J0,0 r eu Pity i`, �__ ✓ 3 U N-1) E- r) a Yl 0 �� Pie nl k IRS- YOU M ' avo any quest cducancy of t1:o Drnf �A. - #q r 'o i ions or cumments rogardinj ho )reject or tho Vitrgatod Nogntivo Docl,ii tip i, cu itact tho ty s,:Jtw tit thci C' sll I9`l oornark �c ifornia 930,21; Phone fC`.) X23 6 6,; `.. Y, c s s�. F s: f r it �= x i �i „nuu,r -r l..rrrd Divisiu„ Map No. 91 -2 an iDevolopmernt rnNo. 91 -1 3cnLin1 l'inru,ed s Applicant: ISIISO, I Proposal: 1. Lane; Division ma subdivision of eaistinl I is I or the C into Cour lots consisting gol Lho Parcel A - 1.30 acres, Pa.,,,, followings IS Parcel C - 3,71 acres and acres. - 2.5.3 acres, arc cal. D - acres, 2. Residential Planned Develol)m, for consLruction r,t rlo. , -1 is t” s of a multi -;�1 project which will unit apartment �(( consist c. consisting of a total 12yst', cres of units. There will be 40 be 00 residential 4 be - - I_w bedroom units, bedroom bedroom units, i,rd Lour units. Provide 100 units of low'encc,e ro will be affordable on a long houspng�'LhaL term help meet the affordable hoes basis to City. rg r,eeds of the Location: The Proposed project is located .n Moorpark, California, Lhe City of Ventura Coun The site is generally bounded by residence y, California, facing Los Angeles Avenu< the sin single-family Arroyo Simi to the south, residences on Preemont oil the north, single g family j Street to tilu�r story condominiums and apartmenLS swest. tc Project site will be divided by tl,, Majestic the The Court and existing pubii: extension of street which If you have concerns regard.ng Cuts project petition. Thank t you. f e 'S IQ tints NAME ADDRESS r tS6' � �0_S .fir ✓��.�5 , -,_, - , �� e �t�� PYk ! N. \So so r 1 f`0° a::y cuesticrls L or cc ^r g, ,nte re-l. nrJ rdi r . , cl _ _ V ... Location: The proposed project is loco ed in tile City of Moorpark, California, Ventura .:aunty, California. The site is generally bounded by a single - family residence facing Los Angeles taenue on the north, the Arroyo Simi to the so th, single family residences on Preemont Street o the cant, and two story condominiums and apart.urer .,s to the west. The project site will be divide(i y the extension of Majestic Court., and exiotin(1 ub1Lc street which .,,\ If you have concerns regarding this prole p (a:ae ign this petition. Thank you. NAME I ADDRESS nr�05 0t6 s 1''. it. em o I t: LaiiC 171 1 Ii;,,, •ta aIknod DovoIo pa) o li s' IKIT i- CA�pkicanr�: 131B(i, IIS° Propotlal 1. Lane. )ivi ©ioil Map No L Lor the nubciivisiet, of an exist,.., io,re parcel int(-, Lour lots consinf -I v. o; .CIO following: Parcel 1.30 acres, I 1 e3 3 acres, Parcel 1.71 acro,s tr e l - 1.17 acr('n . ' 2. Res.i.dential Planned Dove,. pmeatt N(,. 91 -1 is for construction of a mu;, i- family apartment project which will consi. )1 12 structures consisting of a total C. 100 ionident-ial units .. There will be 4 (: two, bedi oom units, 40 - three bedroom unit 1, 3n(t 20 - four bedroom units. The pro! ct is proposed to provide 100 units of l ,w :tcoze he using that will be affordable on 1 ong terra basis to help meet the affordal 1, �ul:inq reeds of the City. Location: The proposed project is loco ed in tile City of Moorpark, California, Ventura .:aunty, California. The site is generally bounded by a single - family residence facing Los Angeles taenue on the north, the Arroyo Simi to the so th, single family residences on Preemont Street o the cant, and two story condominiums and apart.urer .,s to the west. The project site will be divide(i y the extension of Majestic Court., and exiotin(1 ub1Lc street which .,,\ If you have concerns regarding this prole p (a:ae ign this petition. Thank you. NAME I ADDRESS nr�05 0t6 T V r _S X k �i } k" i I CO � T V r _S X k �i } k" i ,•••l.4'�Z•'.�U�!ya�"'S}.yyyiti, �T:y �=a���► *7'4i` Kr'i.�{fF�i�f�2'�'° r _�Mt.• ."5 `±i h�'.� ��yEr, t.j.�...w;'+• 'M y,�i,, e parcel lowing: ac,:Eido ,t:.idi P :annkr +.1 1 )avE J ,Ern . Nu. 91 -1 is t: III Eaa of r.,a t : cl to nu :: I I' ajA ly ckt.rartment deco }Erc: t.l,ilcl! a r£ 12 at- ,-uctures ;,rkll 11 of nl Oil ceU , "dential 11 l..n W111, .a E3 11C I Atd.d`O(WI WlitO, uok.irooEa un 3.k( !0 four t.,.3cL.r.cicrrr, lnit.tr . The pr( . E ;: is prof osed to pcowrld O :;00 xknits uf Low i, .Jm,E hl' )U r .:ng that Wi.1.1 le .1,1 £or:dable on 1 harm l-asis to 11,-�lp n fret" ! :hv(� affoi aablo i.r 1 need + Df the ,'. i. t.'e Location: The propost d pro jec'C is local 'd. i, j Lhe City of Moorpark, (al.ifornia, Ventura c c ,nt f, Cal ifornia. The site is generally bounded Jri, a 1IingA, " -)- fanLily residence Facing Los Angeles Ave-ae c;n tho north, the Arroyo Simi to the soul -11 s.Lnglcx family residences on Freemont Street t.:., lie E3ast, and two story condominiums and apartmentlt '.o the west. The project site will he divided hl 110 extension of Majestic Court, end existing l.ui it nt.r�Ett which 1 C if you have concerns regaldlnd his projec! 'a i( 11C this petition. Thank you. NAME I ADURESS �\ y J F 1 1� r E . 4 tF 1 E �Y f� k q. t