Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0117 CC REG ITEM 09BMOORPARK I= PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M.PEREZ Councilmember LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk MEMORANDUM STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer TO: The Honorable City Council T,2--- FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director_ of Community Development DATE: January 2, 1990 (CC Meeting of 1-17--90) SU JECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST NO., GPA-88-1A AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST NO. Z-88-2.A (APPLICANY: ,JOSEPH IATUNSKI) B akgrc+un.d September 7, 1988 - The City Council voted to initiate a General Plan amendment and rezoning for the Latunski. property (refer to Attachment 1 - minutes). February 1, 1989 - The City Council voted to require Mr. Latunski to deposit with the City the funds determ:ined necessary to cover direct, unt-•o.f-pocket expenses to the City for processing his application including City .Engineer traffic/circulation analysis and public notice mailings and signs prior to continuing the processing of the application (refer. to Attachment 2 - minutes). April 5, 1989 - The City Council voted to close the Latunski. file and directed that the applicant be advised that he had one year in which to pay fees in order to reactivate the General Plan amendment and zone change application. (Attachment 3 - minutes.) September. 15, 1989 - Mr. Latunski. paid fees in order to :reactivate his application. November_ 1.3, 1989 - Focused Traffic and C-irculation Analysis completed. November 29, 1989 - Negative I)eclara.tion and Staff Report completed.. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 The Honorable City Council .January 2, 1990 Page 2 December 18, 1989 - A hearing was held before the Planning Commission for the Latunski General Plan amendment and zone change proposal. At this meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a. resolution recommending denial of the General Plan amendment and zone change requested by Mr. Latunski (refer to Attachment 4). The Commission's recommendation was based on the following findings: 1) That the proposal is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and 2) That access and public services are inadequate to accommodate the proposed zoning. The Commission directed staff to provide for the City Council's meeting the transcript from the Council's September 7, 1988, meeting when the Latunski proposal was discussed; and that the City Attorney be requested to render an opinion on the 1987 Supreme Court Opinion No. 85-1199 (related to a taking of property without just compensation) and its applicability to the 1982 down.zoni.ng of the Latunski property by the County of Ventura. Staff has attached the minutes from the City Council's September_ 7, 1988, meeting (Attachment 1). Discussion As identified above, the Planning Commission requested that the City Attorney render an opinion related to the allegations Mr. Latunski made that he had been denied all reasonable use of his property when the County rezoned his land from RE-1 Acre to RE-5 Acre in 1982. Staff has attached a letter dated December 28, 1987, from the Assistant City Attorney to Mr. and Mrs Latunski that responds to and refutes their claim regarding a "taking" of their property (refer to Attachment 5). Prior to adopting a resolution recommending denial., the Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of having the Latunski proposal included for consideration as part of the current General Plan Update. It appeared to be the consensus of the Commission that no change in the land use designation and zoning for Mr. Latunski's property should occur until. the surrounding properties to the east and south are also analyzed collectively regarding the appropriateness of allowing one -acre minimum lots. The inclusion of Mr. Latunski's property and the property to the south and east of Mr. Latunski's lot in the current General. Plan Update would require an amendment to the contract with PBR. The attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 6) outlines staff's reasons for recommending denial of the requested General Plan amendment and zone change. To summarize, staff considers the requested land use designation amendment and zone change to be inconsistent with adopted Land Use Element goals and policies. Spot zoning, such as that requested, is considered inappropriate because development does not occur in an orderly, phased manner. Extensive water and sewer line extensions would be required, access is inadequate, and there would not be a harmonious relationship between adjoining uses. Staff, therefore, considers the proposal to be premature. The Honorable City Council January 2, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Latunski claims that the County of Ventura unjustly downzoned his property from RE-1 Acre to RE-5 Acre in :1.982. However., as discussed in the Project Site History section of the attached Planning Commission staff report, the County downzoned hundreds of properties in the early 1980's to bring zoning in Moorpark into conformance with the Moorpark Community Plan which was adopted in 1979. For example, Harry Lieb's 51.5-acre property to the south and east of Mr. Latunski's lot was also downzoned from RE-1 Acre to RE-5 Acre in 1982 by the County of Ventura. Whatever decision the City makes for the Latunski property may be precedent setting for many other properties rezoned by the County just prior to incorporation. Recommendation That the City Council direct staff to draft a resolution to be considered at the next regular City Council meeting of February 7, 1990, denying the requested General Plan, amendment and •none change based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land use designation amendment and zone change are not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 2. Access and public services are inadequate to accommodate the proposed zoning. PJR/DST Attachments: 1. Excerpts from City Council. Minutes dated 9-7-88 2. Excerpts from City Council Minutes dated 2-1-89 3. Excerpts from City Council Minutes dated 4-5-89 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-89-207 and 12-18-89 Minutes 5. Letter from Assistant City Attorney dated 12-28-87 6. Planning Commission Staff Report. dated 11-28-89 (includes Negative Declaration and Focused Traffic: Study) MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of ACTION: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Mayor Lawrason seconded a motion to approve the negative declaration as presented in the staff report and direct the staff to prepare a resolution to approve a General Plan Amendment and zone change from RE-5 acre to RE-1 acre. The motion carried 3-2, Councilmembers Harper and Perez dissenting. ATTACHMENT 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California September 7, 1988 The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California was held on September 7, 1988 in the Council Chambers of City Hall of said City, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The Meeting was called to order at 7:16 p.m. by Mayor John Lane. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Perez. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Eloise Brown, John Galloway, Clint Harper, Bernardo Perez and Mayor John Lane. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Lisa Kranitz, Acting City Attorney; Patrick Richards, Director of Community Development; Philip Newhouse, Director of Community Services. Maureen Wall, City Clerk; Mike Rubin, Senior Planner; Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer; Lt. Mike Brown, Sheriff's Department; and Sally Coons, Executive Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS, AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 4.A. Proclamation of September 15, 1988 as D.A.R.E. Day in the City of Moorpark. Mayor John Lane read and presented the proclamation establishing September 15, 1988 as D.A.R.E. Day to D.A.R.E. instructor, Senior Deputy David Lea. Deputy Lea thanked those who were instrumental in supporting the program.- 4.B. Proclamation of September 1-30, 1988 as "Latino Voter Registration and Education 88 Month" in the City of Moorpark Mayor Lane read and presented the proclamation establishing the month of September, 1988 as Latino Voter Registration and Education Month to Pat Navarro of E1 Concilio del Condado de Ventura. 4.B.1. Proclamation of September 16, 1988 as National POW/MIA Recognition Day. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 September 7, 1988 Barricade" to the Agenda as the need to take action arose subsequent to the posting of the Agenda. The voice vote was unanimous. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Lane seconded a motion to add item ll.V. "Tract 4147 public improvements - placement of sidewalks"; and item 11.W. "Interpretation of August 17, 1988 minutes of the City Council regarding pilasters in Tract 3049" to the Agenda as the need to take action arose subsequent to the posting of the Agenda. The voice vote was unanimous. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 6.A. Edward R. Peters (7155 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark) addressed the Council with his concern regarding the proposed Hillside Ordinance. Mr. Peters advised that his lot split of ten acres was approved by the County prior to 1983, and if he was unable to build on top of the hill, as restricted by the proposed hillside ordinance, his property value would decline in half. He urged the Council to not implement the proposed hillside ordinance. 6.B. Neal R. Garrett (12900 Williams Ranch Road, Moorpark) addressed the Council in support of the closure of Williams Ranch Road. 6.C. Joe Latunski (289 Casey Road, Moorpark) addressed the Council concerning the down -zoning of his property, advising that when he purchased his property in 1959, it was zoned agriculture and subsequently re -zoned to residential estates (one acre). The property was again down -zoned to five acres. Since his total land is only 4.12 acres, he is now non -conforming and cannot sell or develop his property. He requested the Council restore the zoning back to one acre. 6.D. Joseph Vallino (12610 Hillside Drive, Moorpark) addressed the Council in support of the closure of Williams Ranch Road. 6.E. Tom Thompson (12623 Hillside Drive, Moorpark) addressed the Council in support of the closure of Williams Ranch Road, and presented a letter, signed by 38 residents, also supporting the closure. 6.F. Phil Vein (6685 Princeton Avenue, Moorpark) representing A & R Development, addressed the Council in support of a re -distribution of the 1987 residential permit allotments available as a result of the Urban West Communities settlement; and concurred with recommendation No. 3 in the Staff Report on this item. 6.G. Carol MacTarnaghan (12950 Williams Ranch Road, Moorpark) addressed the Council in support of the closure of Williams Ranch Road. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 15 September 7, 1988 11.A. Consider a report concerning a request by A & R Development for re -distribution of 1987 residential permit allotments. Staff recommended that they be directed as deemed appropriate. In response to concern expressed by Councilmember Brown, the City Manager advised that a minimal amount of Staff time would be required to process the two requests during the normal, annual allotment process. Director of Community Development Richards concurred with the City Manager, advising that he estimated a total Staff time of between five and eight hours to process the two allotment requests. In response to Councilmember Harper's question, Acting City Attorney Lisa Kranitz advised that the allotments would most likely "vanish" if they are not reallocated at this time since no provisions are made in Measure F or the implementing resolution to carry them into the next allotment period. Councilmember Harper expressed his desire that the allotments "vanish" since that would partially mitigate the large number of exemptions to the allotment process as a result of the Urban West Settlement. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to table this item and continue with negotiations currently taking place between the City and BIA. MOTION AMENDMENT: Councilmember Galloway moved and Councilmember Brown seconded an amendment to direct that this item be considered again at the next regular meeting. The voice vote was unanimous. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: The voice vote was unanimous. 11.H. Consider processing a General Plan amendment to return previous land use designations on two properties (Latunski and Clement). Staff recommended they be directed as deemed appropriate. Councilmember Galloway advised that both properties were down -zoned, making the Latunski property non -conforming, and suggested that both properties be pulled from the General Plan Update and returned to their original zoning. Councilmember Harper commented that a re -zoning of the properties must be accomplished by a General Plan Amendment which requires a public hearing, environmental study, etc. Director of Community Development Richards advised that the fee deposits for the initial study and processing for the Latunski property would cost $1,025; and for the Clement Property, $1,050. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 16 September 7, 1988 MOTION: Councilmember Galloway moved and Councilmember Brown seconded a motion to direct that the City initiate a General Plan Amendment to reinstate previous zoning on both properties. The motion carried with Councilmember Harper dissenting. Councilmember Harper advised that his dissenting vote reflected his concern that it is not wise to set a precedent of Council -initiated General Plan Amendments. 11.G. Consider a request by Tom Schleve regarding his proposed 71 acre development North of Wicks Road and East of Walnut Canyon. Staff recommended they be directed as deemed appropriate. Mayor Lane recognized Tom Schleve who advised the Council that his proposed project was too late to be included in the General Plan Update process. Council discussion included the possibility of adding this proposed development as the 20th project in the General Plan Update. Acting City Attorney Lisa Kranitz advised that nothing would preclude the Council from adding it to the process since the General Plan Update essentially evaluates the entire City. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Brown seconded a motion to direct Staff to include this project in the Request for Proposals for the General Plan Update, with the understanding that the proponent will pay all applicable costs associated with the application. The voice vote was unanimous. City Manager Kueny clarified that the Latunski and Clement properties will be removed from the RFP, and the Schleve project will be added. 11.L. Consider a report concerning the installation of stop signs at 15 locations within South Village (Tract Nos. 4140, 4141, and 4142. Staff recommended they be directed as deemed appropriate. In response to the Council's question, City Engineer Dennis Delzeit advised that stop signs are installed upon project acceptance, and the Resolution is subsequently adopted in order to enforce them. Currently there are some stop signs in these tracts which have not been approved by the Council. Lt. Brown advised that he concurs with the locations of all the stop signs outlined in Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 88-501, however he advised that limit lines are missing in several of the intersections and these need to be completed. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Galloway seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 88-501 approving the location of additional stop signs at various locations within the South Village (Tracts 4140, 4141, and 4142). The voice vote was unanimous. ATTACHMENT 2 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California February 1, 1989 A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California was held on February 1, 1989 in the Council Chambers of City Hall of said City, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The Meeting was called to order at the hour of 7:15 p.m. by Mayor Eloise Brown. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Perez. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Clint Harper, Paul Lawrason, Scott Montgomery, Bernardo Perez and Mayor Eloise Brown. Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Patrick Richards, Director of Community Development; Phil Newhouse, Director of Community Services; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; Susan Cauldwell, Administrative Assistant; John Knipe, Assistant City Engineer; Lt. Richard Rodriguez, Sheriff's Department; Don Reynolds, Associate Planner; and Sally Coons, Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS, AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS No proclamations, commendations or special presentations were made. 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE_ AGENDA By concensus, the Council determined to hear item 11.F. (Request of Moorpark Historical Society to use portion of Community Center site for constructon of a building) ahead of item 11.A. to accommodate persons present to speak to this item. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 6.A. Joe Latunski (289 Casey Road, Moorpark) addressed the Council regarding Agenda Item 11.H. - Consider a report regarding the cost involved in processing City initiated General Plan Amendments GPA 88-1 A & B Latunski/Clement. Mr. Latunski advised the Council he is desirous of restoring his property to Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 February 1, 1989 its original zoning, and felt that the Council's previous action established that the GPA would be processed by, and at the expense of, the City. He requested that the Council consider allowing him to speak during the discussion of the Agenda Item. 6.B. John Lane (12591 Crystal Ranch Road, Moorpark) addressed the Council on two matters: 1) that the Council expedite the GPA on the Latunski property; and 2) that the Council move forward with the widening of Tierra Rejada Road. 6.C. Jim Hartley (5950 Gabbert Road, Moorpark) addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed location of the Renaissance Faire; in favor of the Cadet Program; and opposed to returning the original zoning to the Latunski property. 6.D. Charles Schwabauer (12681 Broadway, Moorpark) addressed the Council in support of a site on the Community Center property for the Moorpark Historical Museum (Agenda Item 11.F.). 6.E. Elaine Freeman (24005 Ventura Boulevard, Calabasas) representing Griffin Homes, addressed the Council on two Agenda items: 1) That the College and LDS Church will be considering action at their respective meetings in February, 1989 concerning Agenda Item 8.J. - Consider extending the limit for completion of improvements on Collins Drive Widening South of TR-3963; and 2) That she was available to answer questions concerning Agenda Item 8.L. - Consider Agreement to Construct Improvements and Approval of the Final Map for TR-3963-4 (Griffin Homes). 6.F. Kevin Patterson/Joann Asman (Living History Centre, 10943 Remmet, Chatsworth) representing the Renaissance Faire addressed the Council concerning the proposed location of the Faire, and apologized for not addressing the Council prior to releasing the proposed site to the news media. Mr. Patterson advised that the Faire proponents have engaged Barton Ashman of Pasadena to complete a traffic study which will be made available to the Council when it is completed. Faire representatives advised that they will be hiring 80 people to work in parking lots; and 60 people for security. Alcoholic beverages will not be sold within two hours of the closing of the Faire. Mr. Patterson advised that they will address measures to control drug use when they make their formal presentation to the Council. He further advised that they expect 4,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day. 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilmember Perez advised that the Transportation Committee (Councilmembers Brown and Perez) will be meeting concerning the overturned truck on Highway 118 on January 27, 1989 to determine what measures can be taken immediately, such as flashing lights. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 10 February 1, 1989 11.G. Consider a report and recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding the amount of residential lot size vs. dwelling unit size. Staff recommended that the Council receive and file the Planning Commission's recommendation that no further action be taken by the Council. Director of Community Development Pat Richards advised that the Planning Commission does not feel that there is a need at this time to create specific standards or limitations regarding the ratio of lot size and dwelling unit size. It is the Commission's opinion that with the City's current use of the Residential Planned Development process there is no need for a strict standard. The Commission voted to recommend that further discussion on this subject be discontinued by the Council. The Council was generally in disagreement with the Commission's action and determined to place it back on the Agenda for Council consideration. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Harper seconded a motion to receive and file the Planning Commission's recommendation on this matter; to direct Staff to agendize as a Discussion/Action item, and subsequently as a Public Hearing item, with appropriate alternative mechanisms for the Council's consideration to implement building bulk restrictions; and to direct the City Attorney to review potential problems regarding whether a mechanism of this sort would be in conflict with the General Plan design. The voice vote was unanimous. 11.H. Consider a report r City initiated General Latunski/Clement. Staf- as deemed appropriate. ading the cost involved in proc Plan Amendments GPA 88-1 A recommended the Council direct essin Staff Director of Community Development Pat Richards reviewed the estimated costs to process the Latunski and Clement General Plan Amendments and Zone Change Applications. Councilmembers Harper and Perez concurred that their original intent when approving the City initiated General Plan Amendments was to waive initial fees, but not direct out-of-pocket costs to the City for traffic reports and public noticing. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to defer action on this item until after the Closed Session. The voice vote was unanimous. 11.I. Consider the Planning Commission's requet for further direction from the City Council regarding Art in Public Places Staff recommended the Planning Commission be advised as deemed appropriate. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 12 February 1, 1989 management study, and to direct Staff to proceed with the selection process. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Lawrason, Montgomery and Perez; Noes: Councilmembers Brown and Harper. 12. ORDINANCES No Ordinances were presented. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No future agenda items were requested. 14. CLOSED SESSION MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Harper seconded a motion to go into Closed Session under items 14.A. - Personnel; 14.D. - Potential litigation pursuant to Government code Section 54956.9(b)(1); 14.E. - Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c); 14.F. - Negotiation for real property at 280 Casey Road (former high school site - Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; and 14.G. - Negotiation for real property on a portion of Community Focus area of PC-3 (Urban West Communities) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. The voice vote was unanimous. The time of adjournment to Closed Session was 10:38 p.m. All Councilmembers; Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Phil Newhouse, Director of Community Services; Pat Richards, Director of Community Development; and Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager were present in the Closed Session. The Council reconvened into open session at the hour of 1:00 a.m. City Attorney Cheryl Kane advised that no action was taken as a result of the Closed Session. 11.H. Consider a report regarding the cost involved in processing City initiated General Plan Amendments GPA 88-1 A & B Latunski/Clement. In response to a question from Councilmember Harper, Cheryl Kane stated that all General Plan Amendments (GPA) are considered to be initiated by the City. The City can require a property owner/applicant to pay a processing fee. Such decision is at the City's discretion. Council discussed concerns with legal access by Mr. Latunski across the Lieb property and its effect on the GPA processing and what amount of work is required by the City Engineer for traffic and general consideration of the GPA. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Harper seconded a motion that Mr. Latunski deposit with the City funds determined necessary to cover direct, out-of-pocket expenses to the City including, but not limited to, City Engineer traffic and Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 13 February 1, 1989 general review, mailings and signs, prior to continuing the processing; that Mr. Latunski may choose to install signs himself in conformity with City requirements; and that information previously requested by City concerning legal access to the property not be required to continue the processing. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Harper, Montgomery, Perez. Noes: Councilmembers Brown and Lawrason. Councilmember Lawrason stated that his "no" vote reflects his feeling that the prior Council action was intended to waive fees. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Harper seconded a motion to require the same method of deposit and signage option for the Clement proposed GPA. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Harper, Montgomery, Perez. Noes: Councilmembers Brown and Lawrason. ADDITION TO AGENDA At this point, Cheryl Kane, City Attorney, requested Council add an item concerning lease of Arroyo Vista Park since the need arose subsequent to posting of the Agenda and the tenant, Fedele, had been given notice to vacate the property and has not done so. MOTION: Councilmember Lawrason moved and Councilmember Harper seconded a motion to add item 11.K. (Arroyo Vista Park Lease) to the agenda. The voice vote was unanimous. City Attorney Kane advised that notice was given to the tenant to vacate the property by January 31, 1989, but he has not complied. She recommended Council seek legal means to compel such action, however, the City first offer to extend the right to remain on the property through no later than February 28, 1989 to avoid litigation. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the tenant pursuant to the recommendation of the City Attorney. The voice vote was unanimous. 15. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at the hour of 1:32 a.m. The voice vote was unanimous. Eloise Brown, Mayor ATTEST: Richard Hare, City Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 ATTACHMENT 3 April 5, 1989 City Manager Kueny requested the Council consider adding the following items as matters of urgency having arisen since the posting of the Agenda: 1) Villa Del Arroyo lawsuit against the City concerning the City's Mobilehome Rent Ordinance; 2) Los Angeles Avenue Widening Project, specifically installation of a waterline to serve the Villa Campesina Project; and 3) Reconsideration of Agenda Item 8.P. of March 15, 1989 (Selection of Streets for Asphaltic Concrete Overlay Program for 1988/89), particularly to delete First Street from the program. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to add the following items to the Agenda as matters of urgency having arisen since the posting of the Agenda: 1) Agenda Item 14.L. - Villa Del Arroyo vs. City of Moorpark; 2) 11.0. - Los Angeles Avenue Widening Project; and 3) 11.P. - Reconsideration of Selection of Streets for Asphaltic Concrete Overlay Program for 1988/89. The voice vote was unanimous, with Councilmember Montgomery absent. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 6.A. Greg Barker (12453 Hillside Drive, Moorpark) President of Mountain Meadows Neighborhood Council, urged the Council to proceed as quickly as possible with the widening of Tierra Rejada Road, and requested that a project schedule be provided. The Council responded that they are proceeding on this project and when a tentative timetable is established, it will be released. 6.B. Joe Latunski (289 Casey Road, Moorpark) reviewed the background on his request for a General Plan Amendment to return his property to its original zoning. He requested the Council to stand by its earlier decision to fund and expedite the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Application. Councilmember Harper responded by stating that the City presented a compromise to Mr. Latunski where the City agreed to waive all fees if Mr. Latunski would pay the direct costs. To date, Mr. Latunski has not been willing to do this. 6.C. Mark Fitzpatrick (13062 Thomasville Court, Moorpark) President of the Fox Shadow Homeowner's Association, addressed the Council regarding Agenda Item 11.C. (Tierra Rejada Road Crosswalks) requesting that traffic control and a crosswalk be installed at Pheasant Run. He advised that because the swimming pool, park and playground (owned by the homeowners) is located across Tierra Rejada Road at Pheasant Run, children will cross at that location. He requested the Council consider the safety needs of these children. CONSENSUS: By consensus of the Council, Mr. Fitzpatrick will be invited to address the Council concerning this matter when it considers Agenda Item 11.C. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 April 5, 1989 MOTION: Councilmember Lawrason moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to waive further reading and declare Ordinance No. 108 read in title only. The voice vote was unanimous, with Councilmembers Harper and Montgomery absent. MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Lawrason seconded a motion to declare ordinance No. 108 introduced and read for the first time. The voice vote was unanimous, with Councilmembers Harper and Montgomery absent. NOTE: Councilmember Harper returned to the dais. 11.6. Consideration of processing the Latunski and Clement General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Applications. Staff recommended they be directed as deemed appropriate. Director of Community Development Pat Richards advised that pursuant to the Council's action on February 1, 1989, Mr. Latunski and Mrs. Clement were advised that the City would continue to waive the processing fee related to staff work on processing of a General Plan amendment and zone change for their properties, however they would be responsible for those direct costs associated with the preparation of a Traffic Study and public hearing noticing costs. They were advised of the costs which they would be required to pay prior to any further work being done on their applications. To date, no response has been received from Mr. Latunski; and a note from Mrs. Clement indicated she was unwilling to pay the identified costs. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion directing that no further work be done on the Latunski or Clement applications; that the files be closed; and that the applicants be advised that they have one year from this date in which to pay fees and their applications will be reintroduced with the same options as originally agreed upon. The voice vote was unanimous, with Councilmember Montgomery absent. 11.C. Evaluation of potential traffic control for Tierra Rejada Road at Pheasant Run Street and Harvester Street. Staff recommended no change be made. Assistant City Engineer John Knipe advised that although the Peach Hill Road/Tierra Rejada Road signal has been operational for several weeks, it has not provided the measure of relief desired by the Pheasant Run residents. After reviewing all alternatives, staff recommends that no change be made to the present traffic control systems on Tierra Rejada Road, and that pedestrian traffic be encouraged to utilize the adjacent signalized intersections to cross Tierra Rejada Road. The Council invited Mr. Mark Fitzpatrick to address the Council concerning this matter. ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC-89-207 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA-88-1A AND ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-88-2A ON THE APPLICATION OF JOSEPH LATUNSKI BE DENIED. WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on December 18, 1989, the Planning Commission considered the application filed by Joseph Latunski requesting approval to amend the General Plan land use designation from Residential Rural Low (5 acre/dwelling unit) to Rural High (1 acre/dwelling unit) and to change the zoning from RE-5 acre to RE-1 acre for his 4.12-acre property located approximately 1,800 feet north of Casey Road and 1,500 feet west of Walnut Canyon Road (Assessor's Parcel No. 500-260-06); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Staff Report dated November 28, 1989, and the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission's meeting of December 18, 1989, the Commission opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, closed the public hearing, and directed staff to prepare a Resolution for the Planning Commission's decision; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission hereby adopts the findings contained in the Staff Report dated November 28, 1989, which report is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny the requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change based on the findings contained in the Staff Report dated November 28, 1989, and based on the following reasons: The Planning Commission considers the proposal to be premature and that the County of Ventura acted correctly in 1982 when the Board of Supervisors rezoned Mr.. Latunski's property from RE-1 acre to RE-5 acre. No change in the land use designation and zoning for Mr. Latunski's 4.12 acre property should occur until the surrounding properties to the east and south are also analyzed collectively regarding the appropriateness of allowing one -acre minimum lots. Resolution No. PC-89-207 Page 2 SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission hereby requests the City Attorney be made aware of the allegations made by Mr. Latunski regarding a potential "takings" issue. SECTION 4. At the Planning Commission's meeting of December 18, 1989, the Commission took action to approve a Resolution recommending to the City Council that General Plan Amendment request No. GPA-88-IA and Zone Change request No. Z-88-2A be denied. That action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Schmidt, Lanahan, Talley, Wozniak NOES: ABSENT: Scullin PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1989. John Wozniak, Chairman ATTEST: Celia LaFleur, Secretary Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 18, 1989 -1- The regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was held on December 18, 1989 in the City Council. Chambers of the Community Center located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Wozniak presiding. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wozniak. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman John Wozniak; Vice Chairman William Lanahan; Commissioners Glen Schmidt and Roy Talley. Absent: Commissioner Michael Scullin was absent. By consensus, the Commission determined that Commissioner Scullin be granted an excused absence. Other City Officials and Representatives: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; Deborah Traffenstedt, Senior Planner; Winnifred Wilson, Associate Planner, John Knipe, Assistant City Engineer; and Sally Coons, Secretary. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 24, 1986 (PC) August 29, 1988 (PC & P&R) November 20, 1989 (PC) December 4, 1989 (PC) By consensus, the Minutes of December 4, 1989 were corrected to reflect the proper roll call vote; and to correct the address of William Mason, listed under Public Comments. MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt moved and Vice Chairman Lanahan seconded a motion to approve the minutes for the meetings of September 24, 1986; August 29, 1988; November 20, 1989; and December 4, 1989 (as amended). The voice vote was unanimous, with Commissioner Scullin absent. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 18, 1989 -2- 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Resolution No. PC-89-206 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, California, Recommending to the City Council that Major Modification No. 1 (Development Permit No. 348) on the Application of A to Z Self Storage be Denied Without Prejudice. MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt moved and Vice Chairman Lanahan seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-89-206. The voice vote was unanimous, with Commissioner Scullin absent. B. Planned Development Permit No. PD-1055 Minor Modification No. 1 - Ra}Iar The applicant requested the approval of a minor modification to PD-1055 which would involve changes in the architectural elements, materials, and colors in order to enhance the building character. Located at 216 Moorpark Avenue. Upon questioning by the Commission, Director of Community Development Richards advised that the new owners of the subject property are interested in repainting the building; eliminating trellis work and replacing it with mission tile; moving the front staircase to the back of the building; and re-establishing the landscaping. Chairman Wozniak advised that no action is required on this item. The Commission received and filed the report. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. General Plan Amendment No. GPA-88-1A and Zone Change No. Z-88-2A (Latunski) Amend General Plan land use designation from Residential Low (5 acre/du) to Rural High (1 acre/du) and revise zoning from RE-5 acre to RE-1 acre for a 4.12-acre property. Located at 289 Casey Road (approximately 1800 feet north of Casey Road and 1500 feet west of Walnut Canyon Road. Senior Planner Deborah Traffenstedt presented the Staff Report. She stated that if the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change were approved, it would create a maximum of four lots. Ms. Traffenstedt advised the Commission that Mr. Latunski owned the property at the time it 'was downzoned by the County in 1982 from RE-1 to RE-5 to bring the property into conformance with the 1979-adopted Moorpark Community Plan. In addition, there were approximately 100 other properties that were downzoned during Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 18, 1989 rage -.3- this County rezoning process in 1982. She noted that by approving Mr. Latunski's zone change, a precedent would be set for the other properties to request similar zone changes. The requested General Plan Land Use Designation Amendment and Zone Change are considered to be inconsistent with the adopted Land Use Element Goals and Policies related to preventing scattered urban development. Issues of concern included access and circulation, as well as water and sewer facilities. Ms. Traffenstedt requested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council a denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change based on the finding that: 1) it is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and 2) access and public services are inadequate to accommodate the proposed zoning. In response to Commissioner Schmidt, Director of Community Development Richards advised that the City is not in control of guidelines for water and sewer facilities; that the Fire Department determines what is safe and reasonable guidelines for access to the property; that no other zone changes to more intense use have been approved for open space areas; and that restrictions on the use of septic tanks are based on County standards. In response to Commissioner_ Lanahan, Director of Community Development Richards advised that the City Council did not direct Staff to research areas surrounding the Latunski property; and that Mr. Lieb was the only other property owner who expressed an interest in the re -zoning process, but subsequently withdrew. In response to Commissioner Lanahan, Ms. Taffenstedt advised that Staff's timetable for completing the hearings for the General Plan Update is November 1990. Chairman Wozniak opened the Public Hearing and recognized the following speakers: 7.A. Joseph Latunski (289 Casey Road, Moorpark) distributed a packet of information to the Commission. He reviewed the information, giving a history of his purchase of the property in 1960 at a zoning of Al -A acre; its subsequent rezoning by the County in 1982 to RE-5 acre; the Supreme Court's Opinion rendered in June, 1987 that states to downzone a property without compensation violates the Constitution; the City Council's action in September, 1988 to process the zone change at no cost to Mr. Latunski; the Council's subsequent action requesting Staff to expedite the process; and the requirement and payment of fees. Mr. Latunski stressed the fact that this is a zoning matter and not a development issue; that he is requesting a zone restoration and not a land division. AT THE HOUR OF 7:55 p.m., Chairman Wozniak declared a five minute recess. The meeting reconvened at the hour of 8:00 p.m. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 18, 1989 Page -4- In response to Vice Chairman Lanahan, Mr. Latunski advised that City Staff informed him in January, 1989 that his rezoning would require an EIR and Traffic Study, and that he would be required to pay these costs as well as the cost of sign posting and advertising. If these costs were not paid, Staff advised they would request the City Council to set aside the process, without prejudice. Mr. Latunski advised that he paid $1,000 in September, 1989 to reactive the process. In response to Commissioner Talley, Mr. Latunski advised that the main purpose for his request for rezoning is to: 1) sell the property; 2) build two or three houses on the property; or 3) wait for Mr. Guny or Mr. Lieb to develop the adjacent properties. In response to Vice Chairman Lanahan, Mr. Latunski advised that he cannot wait to go through the General Plan Update process because he cannot afford the lengthy time it is taking to complete the process. 7.B. Don Fender (14875-C Campus Park Drive, Moorpark) supported Mr. Latunski's position that the property be reinstated to RE-1 acre zoning as it was when Mr. Latunski purchased it in 1960. Mr. Fender also cited the Supreme Court Opinion advising that Mr. Latunski could bring expensive litigation against the City in this matter. He further advised that a traffic study is not necessary since the closure of the school on Casey Road has virtually eliminated all traffic in this area; that the issue of utilities has never been a problem before; and the fact that the property is approximately 800 feet from a fire department invalidates any argument regarding lack of fire protection. 7.C. John Galloway (338 Sierra Avenue, Moorpark) advised that he is concerned about several issues: 1) the request before the Commission is a zoning request and not a development request; 2) it is a unique situation in that Mr. Latunski owned the property prior to the downzoning; and 3) that the debate at the City Council was not whether or not the property should be reinstated to its original zoning but rather who should pay for it. He further advised that the City Council gave clear direction to remedy the downzoning and ascertained that Mr. Latunski should not be subject to the lengthy time frame of the General Plan Update process. Mr. Galloway also suggested that access to the property may be possible directly from Walnut Canyon Road. He further stated that he reserved the right to speak to this issue in the future should this not be resolved fairly. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Galloway advised that the City Council did not consider all the legal aspects of the Supreme Court decision when it made its decision to convert the property to its original zoning; however it was the City Attorney's opinion that if the property were to be rezoned, it had to go through the legally proper steps to do so and could not be changed merely by a Council action. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 18, 1989 Page -5- 7.C. Stephen Velador (1331 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark) advised the Commission that he felt Mr. Latunski had a right to get back his original zoning as it was when he purchased the property. He further advised that he did not see a problem with septic tanks on one acre lots in this area. Being no further speakers, Chairman Wozniak closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Schmidt recommended that the Commission get legal clarification on the Supreme Court Opinion concerning downzoning, and whether or not it is retroactive to actions taken in 1982; and that the appropriate zoning for the Latunski property be based on the requirements as they are now and not what they were in 1982. Vice Chairman Lanahan advised that he concurred with Staff's recommendation; that the land use should be in concert with the General Plan Update because it could be precedent setting. Commissioner Talley agreed that the Latunski rezoning should be a part of the General Plan Update process. Chairman Wozniak requested a clarification on the actions taken by the City Council on this matter, including the discussions and decisions; what legal opinions were garnered during those sessions; <and a legal clarification on the Supreme Court Opinion rendered on downzoning. He agreed with the other Commissioners that processing the Latunski request separate from the General Plan Update is not in the interest of the City at large. MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt moved that the Commission recommend to the City Council a denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Changed based on the following findings: 1) That the proposal is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and 2) That access and public services are inadequate to accommodate the proposed zoning. MOTION SECOND: Vice Chairman Lanahan seconded the motion with the following amendment: That the transcripts from the Council proceedings on this matter (City Council meeting September 7, 1988) be made available to the City Council when it again hears this matter; and that the City Attorney be requested to render an opinion on the 1987 Supreme Court Opinion No. 85-1199. MOTION VOTE: The voice vote was unanimous, with Commissioner Scullin absent. Staff presented Resolution No. PC-89-207 for the Commission's consideration entitled:' A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA-88-1A AND ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-88-2A ON THE APPLICATION OF JOSEPH LATUNSKI BE DENIED. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 18, 1989 Page -E- MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt moved and Vice Chairman Lanahan seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-89-207, with amendments. The voice vote was unanimous, with Commissioner Scullin absent. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS None. 9. INFORMATION ITEMS 10 11. None. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Talley expressed the concern of residents living adjacent to the Texaco Station which is storing contaminated dirt. Mr. Richards advised that the appropriate agencies are continuing to work on the clean-up of this problem. Vice Chairman Lanahan requested Staff to get direction from the City Council as to the Commission's role regarding decisions to remove General Plan Amendments from the General Plan Update process which tend to take the Commission away from its goal of long-term planning and instead require it to deal with short-term patchwork. Chairman Wozniak noted receipt of a copy of the letter between Caltrans and Unocal and indicated a desire that the City continue to pursue this. STAFF COMMENTS Director of Community Development Richards advised that there is no scheduled business to come before the Commission on January 2, 1990 and requested the Commission consider cancelling that meeting. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Commission determined to cancel the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for January 2, 1990. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 18, 1989 12. ADJOURNMENT Page -7- CONSENSUS: By consensus, the meeting was adjourned at the hour of 9:06 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON BY: Celia LaFleur, Secretary CHAIRMAN PRESIDING: John Wozniak 121889PC.MIN PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 18, 1989 799 MOORPARK AVE.., MOORPARK CA. COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND FELLOW RESIDENTS: -- RECEIVED - D r C 1 8 1989 CITY OF MOORPARK MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED OUR PROPERTY IN 1960. IT WAS ZONED A-1 (acre) adopted March 18, 1947 by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, on Aug. 8 1961 it was rezoned RR-1 acre (ordinance no.1092) On July 7 1982 it was again changed form RE-1 to RE-5 (acres), as noted in staff report I filed a letter of protest. Moorpark became a City and adopted all County Ordinances in 1983. On June 9, 1987 The Untied ;States Supreme Court handed down a ruling Supreme Court Opinion no. 85-1199 that states to down zone a property without compensation violates our Constitutional rights under the fifth amendment. I immediatley informed the City and requested our property be re -zoned to its previous zoning when we purchased it. I also cited the Supreme Court Opinion. The City Council Agreed, and by a vote of 4 to 1 agreed to process the change with NO COST to us to restore our zoning. They felt it was to correct a wrong commited by County prior to incorporation. This was done at the September 7-1,40 Council Meeting. I immediatley went to the City to see what I could do to assist them. I was informed by Mr Richards the Director of Community Development that he didnt like the Council's decision and would do what ever he could to stop this change from ever happening. I signed all the necessary documents. After waiting 6 weeks and heard of no progress I again went to the City Council and asked for a status report. When the Mayor Lane asked Mr Richards about it he said he didnt think it was a priority so he was just doing it in the normal time but that he was busy and hadnt even started to work on it. The Mayor then issued a strong mandate for him to get it done as soon as possible with the least of effort needed. November 4 1988 I recieved a letter from a associate Planner acknowledging the Council mandate and she outlined the steps needed to accoumplish it. She also quoted a time frame of completion in late January or middle February but no later than the first of March. There_ were all sorts of obstructions put forward to stop progress, even the mandate was changed requiring fees from us. These were paid. Here it is December of 1989 and we are now at the Planning Commission.We hope this is our final request for approval. We have read the Staff report and findings and conclusions. It is our belief they are bias, predjudical and contain inaccurate information. There are ommissions vague partial information offered as truth to support their findings. The Staff report concentrates entirely on issues that are addressed at the time of develop- ment and have no bearing on the issue of 9ONING. We have no chioce but to refute and deny this document to protect.our rights in the event litigation is necessary. We again affirm, this is a ZONING matter not a development one. -We again AFFIRM that our Constitutional Rights were violated and request the previous ZONING be re -instated as directed by the City Council of Moorpark in their Sept. 7 1988 Council Action. WE ARE NOT ASKING. FOR A LAND DIVISION, merely a ZONE RESTORATION. Thank you for your consideration at this time, respectfully Joseph & Evelyl Latunski 5! 'r •�•� • • .. - — r.rrmrra�YeryWiaf�i®RiI�IDFYlf Ff'Y C\J :0 zN o { r O 71Y f S r 1 k r7Sn� fp z I • � � � QQ���JJ � + � � ^+ � � !cb t�l • o taati � a� az� o cxs� �.r t. ww it + i• Z � Q i � y4.••I, � � ,� ^ ON �i � V F' •r vw M G ql��, \ � .� • � � E6 10, m .. jl Aq ki •1 21 W o �..: Q. N h I " 1 Y �4, 99 1 � 6 ,; Z£'i r r K . Kt, co 1• `Z I' „ aqF // yt� �,� � iLpt�t{. • � >•�.a*:.�''�MT�.li,i:�i . . �� ����/� t.Y4 W k�IL'•�1:Yuf-�w..-.__... fRtaYa�x'!. ;—)V.::i G �' RSYJATJ�•1 v• • ,. S�^�.•'P.J:Z:Iu.f.::L-0w •14...:':1.SL.v.Q�.^�?+:-lA�itl:S•'Ll. C�� INFORMATION FOR CHALLENGING THE STAFF REPORT GPA-88-lA/Z-88-2A Public Hearing December 18, 1989 (7:00 p.m.) I have compiled items either omitted or misrepresented to show bias or prejudice. I would appreciate any of you addressing any of them at the hearing to reveal the errors to the Planning Commissioners. I realize they are serving the community and give freely of their time. I also know they rely heavily on staff reports as they have limited time and access to information. I hope this information will be helpful and will result in the restoration of our previous zoning we had when we bought our property 30 years ago. . Page 2 Section T recommend the Commission accept J. after testimony. Section II Site Zoning History 1947 A -I 1 acre 1961 R-E 1 acre 1982 R-E-5 - adv s Item C. There has not been any planined dev lopment north of L.A. Avenue, west of SpringSt. si ce incorporation. Item D. The proposed property is within 2500 feet of City Hall in the center of town.; Item E. This entire area will change with the release of the General Plan Update. Item F. The topography of this property is such that all development excavations required could be accomplish- ed by hand shovel. The elevations and the entire property vary 35 feet. Therefore it has less changes than the Community Center. Item G. The City of Moorpark approved a tentative tract map #3218 directly north bordering the Latunski property to develop 227 acres into 47 lots with access to the Latunski land by road designated as D St., with all roads and utilities available. The City also approved a tentative tract map #3958 in 1985 with existing zoning of RE and RE-5 acres ad- joining to the south to subdivide the lower 6.1 acres into 19 lots, less than 1/3 acres lots with all roads and utilities. Further development shows extension of the road and utilities to the Latunski property. Both of these properties are in the present General Plan Update for re -zoning and tract approval. Item H. The General Plan Update of,1979 was orchestrated and controlled by the Ventura County staff to substantiate, approve and shift the zoning of this entire area to justify the concentration of population and development to Peach Hill and Campus Park. In order to do this, they hand-picked new residents, non-residents for a committee and spoon-fed them controlled information so that their findings would be the desired results to justify the Board of Supervisors action. I attended some of the meetings, I objected to their findings and filed a letter with the Board of Supervisors in protest, but to no avail. Section III General Plan consistency did no t provide for any resi- dential development west of Spring St. or north of L.A. Avenue. Goals 2, 3, 4 and 7 spell out NO DEVELOPMENT for this area. Discussions: This parcel can not be classified as "scattered urban development" when it is next to City Hall in the center of Moorpark. Prior to incorporation, the residents of Moorpark formed a water and sewer district so that we could have the college and for the future development of ALL of Moorpark. This allowed Campus Park to become a reality. Peach Hill had none of the utilities available when their tract maps were approved. Section IV Traffic: Access is not applicable for consideration of zone change and will be addressed at the time of develop- ment. Site access is also not applicable, however, liti- gation in Superior Court of Ventura (Case # 108091) will remedy access. The Fire Department has always had adequate access to our property. Hazardous brush and weeds have been removed at all times to meet the fire department's requirements since 1960. There are many areas in Moorpark that have been granted building permits that are on a 'NO EXIT' road of more than 1800 feet [example: Bonnie View is a single -lane dedicated road with 90 degree turns where our fire engines can not even get up the road. Others exist throughout the city]. Again, the Guny subdivision is mentioned. Access to the proposed development to the north and adjoining our land has been assured to us by the present owners. Access to the south will be provided with the develop- ment of the Lieb property and the disposition of our suit in the Ventura County Superior Court (Case 108091). All road, utility and fire protection will be addressed when development is made. CONCLUSIONS OF STAFF: Section V Under project history, how many parcels that were down - zoned have been re -zoned or developed? How many are still owned by their original owners? The return of the Latunski property to its previous zoning will not be precedent -setting. No development will be allowed before a lot split and building approval are granted by the City. Again, the property of Harry Lieb is cited. Yet no mention of previously -approved subdivision tract #3958. The possible sub -division of the possible purchaser is also proposing 19 lots on 6.1 acres presently zoned RE and RE-5 acres. With this proposal, the lot size would be less than 1/3 acre. A lis pendens document has been filed and it is accepted and recorded in the Court (Case # 108091) against the Lieb property. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Section VI The General Plan Update soon to be released will contain vast changes in all the land use of the land north of Los Angeles Ave. and west of Spring St. The one acre zoning will be compatible with the surrounding land use. Examples: The re -zoning of the high school property, the Lieb/Luny proposed development, the Walnut Ranches 227 acres north bordering the Tom Schleve and John Newton properties are before the Planning Department for in- corporation into the General Plan Update. Access and public service will be available before any development. Anyone interested in bringing up any of these points will be welcomed. I have spent a great deal of time preparing this information for your use. I hope that some of you do speak in favor of my property being restored to its original one acre designation that we had 30 years ago when we bought our property. Thank you for coming to this hearing. Merry Christmas to you all. Joe and Evie Latunski ATTACHMENT 5 LAW OFFICES BURBE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN O N E WILSHIRE BUILDING 950 COUNTY SOUARE DRIVE j24 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, II- FLOOR 3200 PARK CENTER DRIVE SUITE 207 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017 SUITE 650 VENTURA. CALIFORNIA 93003 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 (8051 644-7480 (213) 623-1900 (714) 545-5S59 TELECOPIER: (213) 623-8297 December 28, 1987 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Latunski 289 Casey Road P.O. Box 456 Moorpark, CA 93020 Re: Your Letter of August 21, 1987 - Dear Mr. & Mrs. Latunski: DEC-2 9 1S: I CITY OF MOORPARc This letter is in response to your letter of August 21, 1987 to the City of Moorpark. It appears your letter was intended to be a damages claim for inverse -condemnation. Although filing a claim is normally a prerequisite for sueing the City, a claim is only optional for inverse condemnation claims. (Gov. Code 5 905.1.) However, once filed, an optional claim is treated like any other claim. The law provides that claims not responded to after 45 days are automatically rejected by operation of law. (Gov. Code § 912.4.) Consequently, your claim which you presented to the City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager on August 21, 1987, was rejected by operation of law on October 5, 1987. In addition, the form of your claim was insufficient. Because your letter is lacking any amount of damages claimed, it is inadequate. The law also requires Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Latunski December 28, 1987 Page 2 that claims for damages state the amount of money claimed. (Gov. Code § 910.) You should also be aware that the City rejects the substance of your claim. open space - 5 acre zoning does not deny you substantially allrhavennoteuse of your been damaged. property, and consequently, you Although the City has not "taken" your property, you certainly are free to seek an amendment to the eral presently Plan. As you may know, the City is p y processing General Plan update. As part of the update, theCity suggests that all interested landowners file applications for General Plan amendments. However, we decline the suggestion in your August 21st letter that all filing fees be waived for your application. It would be unfair to favor you over other landowners. The City Council has not determined the scope of the update, but if individual properties are included in the process, City Staff will recommend that each landowner included in the update be charged his fair share of the cost of the update. of course, even if you are included in the update procaisPlaneamendment wre can be your request for a Gener Finally, you are welcome to file an amended claim stating the amount of your damages. However, y ou d be aware that filing an amended claim will not extend any applicable limitation period on your time to sue. Rather, we are legally required to give you the following notice: WARNING Subject to certain exceptions, -you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Gov't. Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Latunski" December 28, 1987 Page 3 A desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. Sincerely, Scott F. Field Assistant City Attorney, City of Moorpark -and Burke, Williams & Sorensen sff/LTR2890:dlw cc: Cheryl J. Kane Steven Kueny MOORPARK ATTACHMENT 6 ELOISE BROWN Mayor BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro Tern CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. Councilmember PAUL LAWRASON Councilmember SCOTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer A. HEARING DATE: CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - NOVEMBER 28, 1989 SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION December 18, 1989 C. HEAR.ING LOCATION: City Council Chambers 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 E. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Tr.affenstedt Senior Planner G. PROPOSED PROJECT: STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V..GILLESPIE Chief of Police B. HEARING TIME: 7:00 p.m. D. CASE NO.: 1. General Plan Amendment No. GPA-88-1A 2.. Zone. Change No. I,-88-2.A F. APPLICANT: Joseph. Latunski 1. Amend General Plan land use designation from Residential Rural Low (5 acre/du) to Rural. High (1 acre/du.). 2. Rezone subject property from RE-5 acre to RE-1. acre. The project site is approximately 4— 1.2 acres in size; therefore, a maximum of four lots could be created if the proposed General Plan amendment and zone change are approved. H. PROJECT LOCATION: The property location .is approximately 1,800 feet north of Casey Road and 1.,500 feet west of Walnut: ':,&n.yon Road (Assessors Parcel No. 500-260-06). The property address; is 289 Casey Road. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 I. hf i, ff 1 r� fr ' t ----------- 0 REQUESTED ACTION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony. 2. Review and consider the information in the Negative Declaration (Exhibit 1). 3. Make the appropriate findings. 4. Direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of GPA-88-1A and ZC-88-2A for adoption at the Planning Commission's next regular meeting of January 2, 1990. ALTERNATE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: Recommend approval of the requested Genera]. Plan amendment and zone change. SECTION II - PROJECT SITE BACKGROUND A. SITE ZONING: RE-5 Acre --Rural Exclusive B. SITE GENERAL PLAN: Residential Rural Low (5 acre/du) C. VICINITY ZONING: North: RE-5 Acre --Rural Exclusive South: RE-5 Acre East: RE-5 Acre West: RE-5 Acre and AE--Agricultural Exclusive D. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED PROJECT WITH SURROUNDING ZONING: Incompatible E. VICINITY GENERAL PLAN: North: RL--Rural Low (5 acre/du.) South: RL East: RL West: RL and AG-1--Agriculture (10-40 acres) -2- F. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED PROJECT WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: Incompatible G. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION: The topography of the site is relatively flat. The elevation at the northwest corner of the property is approximately 675 feet and the lowest elevation on the site, at the southeast corner, is approximately 640 feet. Based on the U.S. Geological Survey map for Moorpark, no slopes on the property exceed 20 percent. The subject property is at a lower elevation than the lands to the north, east, and west. A site inspection and review of aerial photography identified that much of the vegetation on the site has been disturbed. The applicant has identified that existing structures on the property include a single-family residence with a four -car garage. Existing utilities include electric, telephone, cable television, and public water facilities, and there are three septic tanks on the property for sewage disposal. H. SURROUNDING LAND USE: Currently, the land immediately surrounding Mr. Latunski's property is undeveloped and is used only for grazing purposes. A tentative tract map (Tract 4652) has been filed by Abe Guny for the 51.5-acre site immediately south and east of Mr. Latunski's property. Only the southern portion (7.1 acres) of the 51.5-acre site is, however, proposed to be subdivided by Mr. Guny at this time. Mr. Guny has been negotiating to purchase the 51.5-acre property from Harry Lieb (the current property owner). I. PROJECT SITE HISTORY: July 20, 1982: The County of Ventura adopted Ordinance No. 3604 changing the zone classification from RE-1 acre to RE-5 acre (Ventura County Zone Change No. Z-2688). According to the County staff report prepared for this zone change, Mr. Latunski's property was rezoned to be consistent with the Moorpark Community Plan Land Use Element, adopted on December 18, 1979. Zone Change No. Z-2688 was Phase V of the zone changes processed by the County to bring the zoning in Moorpark into conformance with the Moorpark Community Plan. There were a total of six rezoning phases processed by the County (Exhibit 2). Exhibit 3 identifies all of the individual properties north of Los Angeles Avenue that were rezoned under Phase V of the zone changes processed by the County. Mr. Latunski's property was encompassed in Subarea 6 as shown on Exhibit 3 and 4. Examination of Exhibit 3 clearly identifies that Mr. Latunski's property was not the only property that was downzoned to bring about compliance with the Moorpark Community Plan. Just for Phase V alone, 100 properties were downzoned. -3- The County staff report points out that the Moorpark Community Plan was the result of many hours of effort and meetings by the General Plan Update Committee in developing densities and land use designations, and that numerous public hearings were held before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors addressing specific community concerns before the Plan was adopted. The criteria utilized in determining the proposed zones for each subarea were: 1) Reflection of average lot size, 2) Community Plan, and 3) Existing and adjacent land uses and zoning. County of Ventura files contain evidence that Mr. Latunski did submit a letter of opposition to the Board of Supervisors prior to their decision to rezone his property from RE-1 Acre to RE-5 Acre. However, after considering all comments and the criteria identified above, the Board made the determination that the zoning for Mr. Latunski's property should be changed from RE-1 Acre to RE-5 Acre based on consistency with the Moorpark Community Plan and consistency with adjacent land uses and zoning. SECTION III - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposal is to amend the General Plan land use designation from Rural Low (5 acre/du) to Rural High (1 acre/du) and rezone the site from RE-5 acre to RE-1 acre. Staff reviewed the Land Use Element of the General Plan to determine consistency. It is staff's opinion that the proposed land use designation amendment/rezoning is not consistent with the following Land Use Element goals and policies: Residential Goal 2 To discourage urban sprawl and scattered development. Goal 3 To provide residential developments with properly planned and adequate services and facilities. Policy 3 Establish a phasing plan which will prevent scattered urban development and will provide for orderly growth. Policy 4 Encourage residential development with properly planned and adequate public services. Policy 7 To ensure that the location of residential land uses provides a harmonious relationship between adjoining uses, natural features and the total environment. Discussion: The proposed land use designation of Rural High and zoning of RE-1 acre is not consistent with the identified Residential goals and policies because scattered urban -type development will result, extensive water and sewer line extensions would be required, access is inadequate, and there would not be a harmonious relationship between adjoining uses. A spot zoning and land use designation would result. The following Analysis and Conclusions discussion sections further identify why staff finds the proposed land use designation amendment and zone change to be inconsistent with the aforementioned General Plan goals and policies. -4- Public Facilities and Services Goal 3 To reinforce controlled, orderly and phased development while discouraging urban sprawl. Policy 1 Permit urban development only in those locations where adequate public services are available (functional), under physical construction, or will be available in the near future (5 years). Discussion: The proposed project will. not result in controlled, orderly and phased development. If the requested general plan amendment and zone change are approved, the Latunski property could be subdivided into one acre lots, with all of the surrounding properties required to be five acre lots or greater. The approval of spot zoning for the Latunski property would, therefore, be growth inducing and precedent setting. SECTION IV - PROJECT ANALYSIS Traffic: A Focused Traffic Study was completed by the City Traffic Engineer for the Latunski proposal (Exhibit 5). The conclusion of that study was that the proposed General Plan amendment and zone change would result in an insignificant impact to the traffic circulation system within the City of Moorpark. However, the study did identify a concern regarding the lack of legal access to the project site. Site Access/Circulation: Currently, access to the property is from a private, unimproved road which connects to Casey Road. The private access road is approximately 1,800 feet long. Staff contacted Mr. Latunski to request that he provide proof of legal access to his property. He did not provide this documentation, and it is our understanding that currently there is no legal access to the property. Mr. Latunski did forward a letter from First American Title Insurance Company dated February 1, 1989, which identified that they were attempting to either obtain an easement or take legal action to prove a prescriptive access right. It is staffs opinion that it is inappropriate to increase the density of a property that does not have legal access. Staff contacted the Ventura County Fire Protection District and was informed that the maximum acceptable length of a dead-end residential road is considered to be 800 feet when there is no second access to a property. Also, staff was informed that the project site is in a high fire hazard area. It is considered poor planning for fire protection purposes to increase the density of development where there is a long dead-end road and no second access to a property. The problem with spot zoning is that it is difficult to obtain an adequate loop circulation system when development is scattered and occurs in an unordered manner. -5- Currently there is an access problem at the intersection of Casey Road and Walnut Canyon Road. The alignment of Walnut Canyon Road creates a sight distance problem at the Casey Road intersection. Caltrans' comment letter for the proposed 18-lot Guny subdivision to the south of Mr. Latunski's land identifies a traffic operation problem at the intersection of Casey and Walnut Canyon Roads and also identifies that mitigation measures should be proposed for this intersection. These comments also apply to the Latunski proposal, as any future subdivision of the property would require further traffic impact analysis to determine necessary developer contributions for needed improvements to the Casey Road/Walnut Canyon Road intersection. Sewer and Water: Staff contacted Ventura County Waterworks District 1 to determine where the nearest water and sewer facilities are located. There are existing lines in Casey Road (approximately 1,800 feet south of the property) and in Walnut Canyon Road (approximately 1,500 feet east of the property). Mr. Latunski currently has a one -inch water meter on Casey Road. Ventura County Waterworks District 1 commented that if the property is subdivided the applicant would be required to extend the District's water mains to the property line of each parcel created and would be required to provide for water storage. If the proposed spot zoning and land use designation are approved and a parcel map is subsequently filed, the necessary water and sewer line extensions and water storage requirements would most likely be economically infeasible at this time. When development is directed to occur in an orderly manner, the necessary infrastructure can be constructed incrementally. If the subject property is rezoned to RE-1, the City may be requested to approve a subdivision with one acre lots with individual septic systems. Staff would not recommend approval of the use of septic systems on one acre lots. The Ventura County sewer policy requires that new subdivisions provide public sewer hookups if there is a sewer line within one-half mile of the project, as is the case for the Latunski property. Fire Protection: As mentioned previously under the Access discussion, an 1,800 foot long dead-end road is inconsistent with Fire District requirements and is considered poor planning for fire protection purposes. SECTION V - CONCLUSIONS As discussed in the Project Site History section of this report, in the early 1980's, the County processed six rezoning phases to bring about compliance with the Moorpark Community Plan (adopted in December 1979). Mr. Latunski's property was included in Phase V of the areas to be rezoned. A total of 100 properties were downzoned as a result of the Phase V rezoning effort by the County (refer to Exhibits 3 and 4). If the City approves a General Plan amendment and rezoning for Mr. Latunski to return the RE-1 Acre zoning his property had in 1979, we will be setting a precedent for hundreds of properties throughout the City. For example, Harry Lieb's 51.5-acre property to the south and east of Mr. Latunski's lot was also downzoned from RE-1 Acre to RE-5 Acre in 1982. Whatever decision the City makes for the Latunski property will very obviously be precedent setting for the Lieb property. As discussed previously, Abe Guny has made an offer to purchase the Lieb property, and has filed a subdivision map for the southern 7.1 acres of the subject 51.5-acre property. Staff considers the requested General Plan land use designation amendment and zone change to be inconsistent with adopted General Plan goals and policies. Scattered urban development with inadequate public services and access may result. Spot zoning, such as that requested, is considered inappropriate because development does not occur in an orderly, phased manner. Staff, therefore, considers the proposal to be premature and that the County of Ventura acted correctly in 1982 when the Board of Supervisors rezoned Mr. Latunski's property from RE-1 acre to RE-5 acre. No change in the land use designation and zoning for Mr. Latunski's 4.12-acre property should occur until the surrounding properties to the east and south are also analyzed collectively regarding the appropriateness of allowing one -acre minimum lots. SECTION VI - STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission direct staff to draft a resolution to be considered at the next regular Commission meeting of January 2, 1990, recommending that the City Council deny the proposed General Plan amendment and zone change based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land use designation amendment and zone change are not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 2. Access and public services are inadequate to accommodate the proposed zoning. Prepared by: � Q.S.TAf Deborah S. Traffenstedt Senior Planner Approved by: ?PatrWJ. Richards Dire46r of Community Development -7- SECTION VII - EXHIBITS 1. Negative Declaration 2. Phasing Schedule for Moorpark Area Plan Rezoning 3. Phase V Rezoning --List of Properties and Zone Change Description 4. Phase V Rezoning Map 5. Traffic Analysis Report EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF MOORPARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CALIFOIRNTA 93021 NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. Entitlement: General Plan Amendment No. GPA-88-1A and Zone Change No. Z-88-2A. 2. Applicant: Joseph Latunski 3. Proposal: Amend General Plan land use designation from Residential Rural Low (5 acre/du) to Rural High (1 acre/du), and rezone from RE-5 Acre to RE-1 Acre. 4. Location & Parcel Number(s): Approximately 1,800 feet north of Casey Road and 1,500 feet west of Walnut Canyon Road (APN 500-260-06). 5. Responsible Agencies: None. II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: An init4al study was conducted by the Community Development Department to evaluate the potential effects of this project upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained in the aiaiched initial study, it has been determined that this project could not have a significant effect upon the environment. III. PUBLIC REVIEW: 1. Legal Notice Method: Direct mailing to property owners within 300 feet. 2. Document Posting Period: November :30 through December 18, 1989. Prepared by: S. T I I-z4-gq Deborah S. Traffenstedt (Date) Senior Planner Approved by: Patrick �. ihhards D i_r. ect:or o Community Developme t (Date) CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Applicant Joseph Latunski 2. Project Description Amend General Plan land use designation from Rural Los (5 acre/du) to Rural High (1 acre/du), and rezone from RE-5 Acre to RE-1 Acre. 3. Date of Checklist submittal November 29, 1989 4. Project Location Approximately 1,800 feet north of Casey Road and 1,500 feet west of Walnut Canyon Road. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? YES MAYBE NO X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or X overcovering of the soil? — C. Change in topography or ground surface )( relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in situation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? YES MAYBE NO 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d. Is there a potential for cumulative adverse X impacts on air quality in the project area? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction X of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, �( or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood X waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in. any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any X alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Degradation of ground water quality? X i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related Y1 hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? YES MAYBE NO 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species or number of X— any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or (� endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, X or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of _ _ existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of X any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Restrict the range of or otherwise affect any X rare or endangered animal species? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an X area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural x resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable �( resource? YES MAYBE NO 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous X substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, x _ distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand X for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation X systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental servies in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Other governmental services? X 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? g. Street lighting annexation and/or improvements? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal: a. Affect possible unknown archaeological or historic- al sites? b. Result in destruction or alteration of a known archaeological or historical site within the vicinity of the project? c. Result in destruction or alteration of a known archaeological or historical site near the vicinity of the project? YES MAYBE NO Y X X X_ X J YES MAYBE NO 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the.quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into v the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited, but cumulatively considerable?. (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where impact on ea.h resource is. relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) — .d. Dees the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. X III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Refer to Attachment 1. IV. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: In conformance with Section15060 of the State EIR Guidelines, I find with certainity that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the environment. I find the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to class 6 I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIDN. should be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet could be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD BE PREPARED. _ I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ADDENDUM to an existing certified Environmental Impact Report is required. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and this effect is adequately addressed in a certified Environmental Impact Report, and thus SUBSEQUENT USE of the existing EIR is required. -D S 11-2q-39 Deborah S. Traffenstedt Date Senior Planner 7 Case No.: GPA88-1A/Z88-2A Applicant: Joseph Latunski Staff Contact: Deborah Traffenstedt Senior Planner Attachment 1 to Initial Study DISCUSSION OF ENVIRON14ENTAL EVALUATION EARTH la-lf. The proposed amendment to the land use designation and rezoning would not result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes to geologic substructures; b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil; c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features; The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features; e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site; or f)Modification of the channel of a river or stream. However, approval of the request would allow a parcel map to be filed, and subsequent approval of a parcel map would allow additional residential development and associated lot grading. No significant impacts are anticipated as site grading would be reviewed prior to approval of a parcel map and issuance of a zone clearance for a. building permit. Standard parcel map conditions of approval require submittal of a grading plan for review and approval, require an erosion control plan if grading is to take place during the rainy season., and require hydroseeding or landscaping of all graded slopes within 60 days of the completion of grading. Grading associated with actual construction of residential structures would be reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit. lg. Based on the City's Safety Element, no geologic or seismic hazards are known to exist on -site or within the immediate vicinity of the Latunsk.i property. AIR 2a-2d. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning would not result in an inconsistency with the adopted Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District's Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses states that all projects which would emit 13.7 tons per year or more of either ROC or NOx would individually and cumulatively have a significant adverse impact on air quality. The proposed project would not. result in an emission of 13.7 tons per year or more of either ROC or NOx. Also, the proposal would not result in any substantial change in population.. r;� WATER 3a-3j. Because no development would be directly permitted by the approval of the proposed General Plan amendment and zone change, no water impacts would result. Any future parcel map proposal would need to include conditions of approval to ensure that no degradation of ground water quality would result from subdivision of the property. If the subject property is proposed to be subdivided into one acre lots, a necessary mitigation measure to minimize water quality impacts would be a requirement for the subdivider to provide public sewer service to each new parcel created. PLANT LIFE 4a-4d. There are no known unique, rare, or endangered species of plants located on the Latunski property. Future subdivision of the project site would result in removal of some of the existing vegetation on the property; however, no significant plant species would be affected. Existing trees on the property would be protected by existing City policy which requires protection or replacement of trees with a trunk 4 inches in diameter or greater. New plants may be introduced into the area if the property is subsequently subdivided. However, the existing vegetation on the property is substantially non-native. ANIMAL LIFE 5a-5d. The proposal is not expected to result in any impacts to animal species. NOISE 6a-6b. No significant increase in noise levels would result from the proposal, and no increased exposure of people to severe noise levels would result. LIGHT AND GLARE 7. Subsequent subdivision of the property would result in the introduction of new lighting and glare. Conditions of approval would need to be included for any future parcel map to minimize cumulative light and glare impacts from increased residential development. LAND USE 8. While the requested General Plan amendment/zone change would result in an alteration of the present and planned land use of the area and would be inconsistent with several General Plan goals and policies, the potential change in land use is not viewed as "substantial" due to the limited number of new lots which could be created if the proposal is approved. 0 NATURAL RESOURCES 9a-9b. The proposal would not result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources, nor would it result in substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource. RISK OF UPSET 10. The proposal would not result in an increased risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances. POPULATION 11. If the requested General Plan amendment/zone change is approved, the Latunski property could be subdivided into one acre lots, with all of the surrounding properties required to be five acre lots or greater. Approval of the proposal may, therefore, be growth inducing. The proposal could result in an alteration of the location of the human population in Moorpark; however, as the total size of the subject property is only 4.12 acres, only a minor change in population would result. HOUSING 12. The proposal could result in three additional housing units. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 12a-12f. A Focused Traffic Study was completed by the City Traffic Engineer for the Latunski proposal. The conclusion of that study was that the proposed General Plan amendment and zone change would result in an insignificant impact to the traffic circulation system within the City of Moorpark. That report did not, however, analyze circulation issues related to a future subdivision of the property. Currently access to the property is from a private, unimproved road which connects to Casey Road. The private access road is approximately 1,800 feet long. It is considered poor planning for fire protection purposes to increase the density of development where there is a long -dead-end road over 800 feet in length and no second access to a property. Any future subdivision proposal would need to include a second emergency access to the property. Another access problem is at the intersection of Casey Road and Walnut Canyon Road. The alignment of Walnut Canyon Road creates a sight distance problem at the Casey Road intersection. Any future subdivision of the property would require further traffic impact analysis to determine necessary developer contributions for needed improvements to the Casey Road/Walnut Canyon Road intersection. 10 PUBLIC SERVICES 14a-14e. The proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services due to the limited number of residential structures which could ultimately be constructed. However, conditions of approval may be required for any future parcel map to ensure adequate fire protection for any new lots created. ENERGY 15. The proposal would not result in any substantial change in energy use. UTILITIES 16. No substantial alterations to utilities would result. The proposal could result in a need for new extensions for water and sewer service. No problem with accommodating the few additional hookups to existing water and sewer facilities is expected. Necessary storm water drainage facilities would be analyzed in conjunction with any future parcel map submittal. HUMAN HEALTH 17a-17b. The proposal would not result in any health hazard or exposure of people to potential health hazards. AESTHETICS 18. The project site is screened from view from all major roadways and is surrounded by undeveloped property; therefore, no visual impact would be expected from additional residential development. The project site is at a lower elevation than the land to the north, east, and west. RECREATION 19. A Quimby fee would be required therefore, no impact on parks or expected. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL for any future parcel map proposal; recreational opportunities would be 20a-20c. There are no known archaeological or historical sites on the project site. Because the site has been disturbed by existing residential development, no sites are expected. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 21a-21d. The "No" responses are based on the answers to Checklist Questions numbered 1-20. 11 CITY OF MOORPARK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL INFORdATION FORM (To Be Completed By Applicant) Date Filed General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: C , ,Anc i , ,l Yose�2H Lo- 2. Address of project: Z- Assessor's Block and Lot Number: 3. Name, address; and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Rt Ci C'� /Yloo�rr{c , (0o-5) .529-6g6L 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: G RA F 5 - i 6/'Z C SO - 2.A 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal. agencies• N 6. Existing zoning district: 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Project Description 8. Site size. 4. 2 ac . 9. Square footage. 10. Number of floors of construction. AJA 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. pip 12. Attach plans. (� csr'er -to �oco. �r o r� mcki7 13. Proposed scheduling. /Ufa I 14. Associated project. �A 15. Anticipated incremental development. 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of -household size expected. 12 a 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. )JA 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. A))Di 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to_ be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning applica.- tion,- state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. i?rojeCA involVcS 0- Ye7_onn-,9 -Ep er�SGt3'c Cpng►� +cc� 1v1tJ� Gen�rcx� poor Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all it cheeped yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). : Yes No 21.- Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or.substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or.roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or -character of general area of project: y-ropo='ei C_ -,a,�c) e v ro"I - 7-esL. t �G• ZO111 rlQ . `J�Ysoux�C� 1 n� SJTO✓per t7 RE- 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. x 25. Change 'in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake_, stream or ground water., quality. or • �( quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or.vibration levels in. the vicinity. 28. Site on.filled land or on.slope of 10 percent or more._ 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flamorables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, X fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity., Oil, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. )< Environmental Setting 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including infor- mation on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the 13 site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted, 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. ( see bet oL.0 ) Certification I hereby certify -that the statements furnished above and in the attached ex- hibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the -facts,- statements, and in formation presented are true.and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1© -27 Date. S3. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION: Signature Crprnmun��-Et� � euc�j�a��n f'',�Jrcc'�6 The topography of the site is relatively flat. The elevation at the northwest corner of the property is approximately 675 feet and the lowest elevation on the site, at the southeast corner, is approximately 640 feet. Based on the U.S. Geological Survey map for Moorpark, no slopes on the property exceed 20 percent. The subject property is at a lower elevation than the lands to the north, east, and west. A site inspection and review of aerial photography identified that much of the vegetation on the site has been disturbed. The applicant has identified that existing structures on the property include a single-family residence with a four -car garage. Existing utilities include electric, telephone, cable television, and public water facilities, and there are three septic tanks on the property for sewage disposal. 34. SURROUNDING LAND USE: Currently, the land immediately surrounding Mr. Latunski's property is undeveloped and is used only for grazing purposes. A tentative tract map (Tract 4652) has been filed by Abe Guny for the 51.5-acre site immediately south and east of Mr. Latunski's property. Only the southern portion (7.1 acres) of the 51.5-acre site is, however, proposed to be subdivided by Mr. Guny at this time. Mr. Guny has been negotiating to purchase the 51.5-acre property from Harry Lieb (the current property owner). VICINITY ZONING: North: RE-5 Acre --Rural Exclusive South: RE-5 Acre East: RE-5 Acre West: RE-5 Acre and AE--Agr:icultural Exclusive 32133 5 1 I- ProJect Site T R. MOORPA�K UNION HIGH I H SCHOOL� - --------------- !�i�l�lllll, - g4p moon Mama -uggg.-H.--gum MEN 0 1 man .0.0 ■ ■ MIN MUM WHIM loom LOCATION MAP GPA-88-IA/Z-88-2A (No Scale) X 7 ir, 1j\1-j • � 11 !!� rl !! ' II Ir II 91 \\ It \ \• 1 i �I 11 l\ II I 11 1. I 11 \\ >r-__r RE -Sac.-=- - �111 \;\ I t .I II I "II II .I <Pr ect Site - 11���-'•��,�.•..T*v#j .•• 1119 ►.711w!� i . , �JPWIN-C. iflllelillllV i:ilil:!111111' ■ �i�J]r -�--�,111p 11�� �� �.ii. Cull: lnn■ ■ Illul: 1■■n� i►�w1111� II�t71� •.►���e�� j�i���\����� �t-�--= ■ ■■■■■ — —■ .011111 t\ s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ r. • :� _: ■ ■■� ■ ■9. is ■r �: Gam.: = lillllul �� ■■■■n■ ■ ■■■■ . '® �u=v■��■=■■■ 1■��:td■i■ ■■■ ■ ■li•■ ■ ttltttt■ttlt■■tU ■ ■n ■■ � � �"_' O • f"" C C ttiitttnittett ttetttttttttttti■ t � - r = � go I�IIIIIII■ �t� ■ ■ `-�-_ IN , ■ttttt■t■t t■�' W■NI mum SURROUNDING ZONING City o f Moorpark GPA-88-1A/Z-88-2A (No Scale) This Plan (mop) is part of the General Plan adopted pursuant it the ' Planning Low of the Stott of Collfornia, passed by resolutions of the Planning Commission on 12-13-79 and the Board of Supervisors of VtnZ County an�12-N-79. r�� • 'C/ows a.4�iV' joard Supe isore, Chairman Planning Commission, Wirmon Ventura County Resource PHASING SCHEDULE FOR Management Agency MOORPARK AREA PLAN REZONING to W N F-' O %D co J cn to Ca W N F•• a lop n M F I t"i � x N oN y o y O " c 0 x '° M H X 0 to b7 M yl tj d M iI tI y M T� M M x 0, n N 1 N � � O > n I 0 1 t r• Sj n � C A 0 O a ° M o m 00 M r- e CO a � r C) 1 G ° > 0 M (D N O z M ' ro � n o M M M N b UI N CD t to I to M y/ ul M n, Q n Q ° n Q N 0 m m x z 0 M w ASSESSOR'S PARCEL LIST Moorpark Rezone (Phase V) Z-2688 Assessor's Parcel No. Existing Zone Proposed Zone (Subarea 1) 500-340-21 R-E-1Ac A-E (Subarea 2) 500-250-05 ptn R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 500-250-06 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 500-250-07 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 500-250-08 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 500-330-12 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 500-330-18 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 500-330-22 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 500-330-23 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac (Subarea 3) 500-330-07 R-E-lAc 500-330-09 R-E-lAc A-E A-E 500-330-16 R-E-lAc A-E - 500-330-17 R-E A-E 500-340-22 R-E-lAc, R-E A-E 500-340-23 R-E-lAc, R-E A-E (Subarea 4) 511-010-07 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-16 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-18 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-19 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-23 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-24 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-27 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-28 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-29 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-31 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-34 R-E-20 R-E-IAc 511-010-36 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-37 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-38 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-39 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-40 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-43 R-E-20 R-E-lAc 511-010-44 R-E-20 R-E-lAc (Subarea 5) 511-020-01 ptn R-E-lAc, R-E A-E 511-020-06 R-E A-E (Subarea 6) 500-260-05 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 500-260-06 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 500-270-05 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 500-270-06 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 511-020-02 R-E-1Ac R-E-5Ac 511-020-03 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 511-040-19 R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac 511-110-03 ptn R-E-lAc R-E-5Ac (Subarea 7) 500-230-06 R-E-20Ac R-E-5Ac 500-230-12 R-E-20Ac R-E-5Ac 500-230-13 R-E-20Ac R-E-5Ac 500-240-07 R-E-20Ac R-E-5Ac (Subarea 8) 500-240-03 R-E-5Ac R-A-lOAc 500-240-04 R-E-5Ac R-A-10Ac 500-240-09 R-E-5Ac R-A-10Ac 500-240-13 R-E-5Ac R-A-10Ac 500-240-14 R-E-SAc R-A-lOAc 500-270-04 R-E-20Ac R-A-10Ac 500-270-07 R-E-lAc R-A-lOAc 500-270-08 R-E-5Ac R-A-lOAc 500-270-11 R-E-5Ac R-A-10Ac 500-270-12 R-E-5Ac R-A-lOAc 500-270-13 R-E-20Ac, R-E-lAc R-A-lOAc 500-270-19 R-E-SAc, R-E-IAc R-A-IOAc 500-270-20 R-£-lAc R-A-lOAc EXHIBIT "3" .. rdin,--nce Assessor's Parcel List Moorpark Rezone (Phase V) Z-2688 Page Two Assessor's Parcel No (Subarea 9) 512-010-01 512-010-02 512-010-05 512-010-06 512-020-01 512-020-02 512-030-01 512-030-02 512-040-03 512-040-04 512-040-07 512-040-14 512-040-15 512-050-01 512-160-14 512-160-15 512-160-52ptu 512-160-54 512-160-55 512-160-70 (Subarea 10) 512-050-14 (Subarea 11) 500-200-03 (Subarea 12) 500-210-01 500-210-03 500-210-04 500-210-06 500-210-21 500-210-26 500-210-29 500-210-30 500-210-31 500-210-32 500-210-33 (Subarea 13) 500-210-17 (Subarea 14) 500-160-05 500-160-07 502-050-08 502-050-13 502-050-16 502-050-18 502-050-23 502-050-24 502-050-27 502-050-28 502-050-29 502-050-30 RA:j/E151 Existing Zone R-1-20Av R-1-20Av R-1-20Av R-1-20Av R-1-20Av, R-P-D-20U R-P-D-20U R-P-D-20U R-P-D-20U, R-P-D-5U R-P-D-5U R-P-D-5U R-P-D-5U R-P-D-5U R-P-D-20U R-P-D-20U R-E-lAc R-1-20Av R-E-lAc R-E-lAc R-E-lAc R-E-lAc R-P-D-20U R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-A-lAc R-A-lAc R-A-2Ac R-A-lAc R-A-lAc R-A-2Ac R-A-2Ac R-A-2Ac R-A-2Ac R-A-2Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac Proposed Zone R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-5Ac R-E-lAc A-E A-E A-E A-E A-E A-E A-E A-E A-E A-E A-E A-E A-E R-A-lOAc R-A-lOAc R-A-1OAc R-A-lOAc R-A-10Ac R-A-lOAc R-A-10Ac R-A-IOAc R-A-IOAc R-A-10Ac R-A-10Ac R-A-lOAc ti L�'liltiillitlf•tft• •I - III w R �� % 1.., EXHIB `..., f.,.. nt nett• :•>:•:,:>:;:::•>:•:::.......::..:•`>.•`:•:::.:::•:::;; . J::::::-:....,. T4 0 z zco co Ow N c� W N 44 O cn cr- it `\N�11II ,,yy t.•.;�.�\•; :•: ii• .'....}ii:•i}:; r, J �\ .., l,y''..... /j �: I O E 0 .\ \,) I I f•}i: :�::: .•: , ; ,.... r .:.•:{�:;}; }}:•'ri•. I oo I ;::itr{r.t• '''' %: �.,.. \ O p O, Iwo 11\\` �, Ij\\, '� jyJ -.hr..l. � ..... ....•. :::: .•��::::::; r //' ': ( I`( :I 1 \ I I �I i � O O if it 1111 Its LH N If 11 �l �n IN i\ I 111 \\\\ 1 O ..L\. -•' pll w• �.001 9C•W' if 4r iIt \ � , \ , .. •;fp?.::$5: S.':: / Z. I I ; •:�::•:•:•:•.^ lam, .t .f - r I •. •• 71:..:••: � II .. 11 w r EXHIBIT 5 ELOISE BROWN Mayor BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro Tern CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. Councilmember PAUL LAWRASON Councilmember SCOTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer To: From: Date: Subj ect : MOORPARK STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police MEMORANDUM Pat Richards, Director of Community Development Mark Wessel, City Traffic Engineer M S W November 13, 1989 GPA-88-1A AND Z-88-2A (LATUNSRI) FOCUSED TRAFFIC STUDY This focused traffic study was prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment (GPA-88-1A) and Zone Change (Z-88-2A) requested for the Latunski property. The proximity of the Latunski property to the possible extension of the Route 118 Freeway is identified, traffic generation volumes for proposed versus currently approved land uses are quantified, and cumulative traffic analyses from a recent traffic study are summarized. As shown in Exhibit "A", the Latunski property is located approximately 1,800 feet north of Casey Road and 1,500 feet west of Walnut Creek Road. The property (Assessors Parcel Number 500- 260-06) totals 4.12 acres and is currently accessed from Casey Road. However, it is important to note that there is no known legal access to the Latunski property. As shown in Exhibit "B", the proposed future extension of the Route 118 Freeway will pass just south of the Latunski property. Consequently, the current access roadway would be eliminated and an alternative access roadway would have to be established. — RECEIVED — N 0 V 1 4 1989 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 November 13, 1989 Page 2 The requested General Plan Land Amendment (GPA-88-1A) is from land use description Residential Rural Low (5 acre/du) to Residential Rural High (1 acre/du) and the Requested Zone Change (Z-88-2A) is from RE-5 acre to RE-1 acre. There is currently one dwelling unit on the Latunski property; therefore, a maximum of three additional dwelling units could ultimately be constructed if the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are approved. Traffic generation volumes for the proposed versus currently approved land uses are shown in Exhibit "C". It is readily apparent from the exhibit that the additional traffic that could be generated as a result of the requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be insignificant. Consequently, because only 3 additional morning peak hour trips and only 4 additional evening peak hour trips could be generated, no intersection level of service analyses were deemed necessary. Cumulative traffic analyses from one of the most recently approved traffic studies are summarized in Exhibits "D", "E" and "F". These exhibits reflect projected conditions and levels of service at four critical intersections within the City. Exhibit "D" shows total future (1993) traffic demands, Exhibit "E" shows future intersection levels of service, and Exhibit "F" shows assumed cumulative improvements at the four critical intersections. In conclusion, the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA-88-1A) and Zone Change (Z-88-2A) would result in an insignificant impact to the traffic circulation system within the City of Moorpark. However, the lack of legal access to the Latunski property should be addressed. copy: Steve Kueny, City Manager R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer John F. Knipe, Assistant City Engineer Jim Biega, Project Engineer Chris Lynch, Associate Engineer MSW:JB:ts 01745/3001 AMO1363.MEM (WP) 11 32 33 II l LA1 1 PR =�•<"'-��,1�� �_'��;:•� ADO09 1, _.. TR. 36 // /'/ I.I TR. .40.\1 4 PM •- T U N S K I -----It-i�--L-------1LL---- �' � � � I J ill r�, •. O P E R T Y -_ ----- ROUTE _1'�� 118, FREEWAY O (NOT EXACT) / ------- ----- ----+�"5`•-------- / T-/-r�r------- i--------- ----------� / w ■11■1■=����Id —11 ■illlllllll■,� [It1111 9:L•li � tf1111■.aME � �ttWttttttttttttttttttttttt/ Mtt.. . _ ME '\��YtttttOltttt ttWtttttt� �tttWtttttt�ttttt�tttttttttttttttt���ftYtt Ott �t.wounnow .tttttttME �s tWNYttMtttYtNlttNNtttttttWtt�•ttttttYt :5 WME tr !: N:: 1 �11111111■��� ■Moans — ■�� IN 1111111:1 '�;;i� •• •CIE :� 1�1�11111 9lSt! ` �_�, . 'tm imRM A Sim FM e w a. •ice • Lifrii Ali EXHIBIT B LAND USE DESCRIPTION Single Family Dwelling Unit LAND USE SCENARIO Proposed (4 du) Current (1 du) Additional Traffic TRAFFIC GENERATION FACTORS AM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL 27% 73% 1.00 PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL ADT 63% 37% 1.25 12.5 TRAFFIC GENERATION VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED VERSUS CURRENTLY APPROVED LAND USES AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT 1 3 4 3 2 5 50 0 1 1 1 0 1 13 1 2 3 2 2 4 37 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Fourth Edition. EXHIBIT C f a Q � Q O �' V O �N O \ \ O O O O Qj M 006:� . N Lc � / 9b/09 -� OZI/011 —�- 1 SI/S� 000 N h M lO� h M y .00 EXCERPT FROM IPD-88-3 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (TMA, 6/16/89) t O � V W ,n a N tp m \\O O ka0 < t0 \ Go in S!/OE �-98E/OOb OLb/08Z 06b/OE9� 00i Sl£/99Z —�- � f r 9b1/96t, O,n,n Ln !h0 h N M h V, m=,n M \ m \O\ N N a OZ/ 911 i �- SL/Sb OOZ`L� v Obb/91£ DC 99E/99Z b ,n 0 Om \moo O h M O M N N 0 O b coh M b \ O m0 0CNfN SIB/SZb 1 I -•-- 0 S/0 8 961/09Z 09/OE oa � I r 06/SL — 011/S8 oW)CIL \—_ N \\ N ,Cl 0 m — M ` � j Z v SQ w W w 0 LL LL O O Z LLJ Y a O O O O EXHIBIT C� Ic Table 4 FUTURE VOLUME/CAPACITY RELATIONSHIPS V/C - LOS Values Time Peak 1993 Traffic Conditions Study Intersection Period Existing Plus Site Traffic Without With Site Traffic Site Traffic Spring Road & Los Angeles Avenue/New Los Angeles Avenue AM PM 0.94/E 1.00/E 1.03/F 1.16/F 1.03/F 1.17/F Los Angeles Avenue &-Moorpark Avenue AM PM 0.54/A 0.66/B 0.62/B 0.83/D 0.62/B 0.83/D Los Angeles Avenue & Tierra Rejada Road/ Gabbert Road AM PM 0.53/A 0.55/A 0.67/B 0.73/C 0.68/B 0.73/C Spring Road & High Street/Los Angeles Avenue AM PM 0.66/B 0.79/C 0.89/D 1.13/F 0.89/D 1.13/F EXCERPT FROM IPD-88-3 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (TMA, 6/16/89) EXHIBIT E TH 3 / TR. 36 TR. rR. ao. _ LATUNSKI •� -;1--; r; ;------- PROPERTY ❑ ❑ -a �OUNION f2K HI GUNION SCHOOLI I 11 (------- ---------------- l-/-ar------- f--------- --�--------r- POINO TER\\80. 5 MR ------- —----- --- A 36 ?5 132 PM 98 \��'/ N.T.S. 5 MR 18 1/2 i I { I R 72 i i i i i i -} i t i i i i i■ i i i } i} iF.iNNii OEM ��," Io..r �Ifdia n��ri■� to ow � � �IIfY� ��UNN= 1■■111 RE N:. aEv s°€N w am�a ' 7 EXHIBIT A In order to estimate the future operational efficiency of the street system serving the study site, an ICU analysis was again made at these four locations for both commuter peak travel periods. Based on previous traffic impact studies made by our firm, and on our initial evaluation of these projected design year peak hour traffic flow characteristics, the following study intersection traffic engineering improvements were assumed to be in place by 1993: 1. Los Angeles Avenue/New Los Ang_eles' Avenue and Spring Road - That the existing traffic signal operation at this intersection would be modified to provide a typical eight -phase operation (separate left -turn . phasing in all directions), with the north, south and westbound approaches striped for a left -turn lane, two through lanes, and a right - turn -only -lane, and the eastbound approach striped for double left -turn lanes, two through lanes, and a right -turn -only lane. 2. Los Angeles Avenue and Moorpark Avenue - That the existing traffic signal operation at this location would remain as is, with an additional through lane and a right -turn -only lane added on the northbound approach; the southbound approach to remain striped as is; the eastbound approach to be restriped for double left -turn lanes and three through lanes; and the westbound approach to be restriped to provide a third westbound through lane. 3. Los Angeles Avenue and Tierra Relada Road-Gabbert Road - That the existing traffic signal operation at this intersection would remain as is, with an additional left -turn lane added on the west and northbound approaches to provide double left -turn lanes; the existing eastbound right -turn -only lane converted to a through travel lane to provide three eastbound through lanes; and the addition of one through lane on the southbound approach. 4. Spring Road and High Street -Los Angeles Avenue - That the existing traffic signal operation and geometric design configuration at this location would remain as is. EXCERPT FROM IPD-88-3 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (TMA, 6/16/89) EXHIBIT F