HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0117 CC REG ITEM 09BPAUL 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
MOORPARK
MEMORANDUM
6TEM(; - 15•
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
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
TO:
The Honorable City Counc:i
FROM:
Patrick
J. Richards, Diry for of Community Development
DATE:
January
2, 1990 (CC Meet.iig of
1- 17 -90)
SUBJECT:
GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST
Mo. GPA -88 -1A AND ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST
NO. Z -88 -2A (AP►'I ' CANE :
1owu LATUNSKI)
Background
September 7, 1988 - The City coy, ii voted to initiate a General Plan
amendment and rezoning for the l,< t isk' )r'�per-ty (refer to Attachment 1 -
minutes).
February 1, 1989 - The City C'oii
deposit with the City the funds
out -of- pocket expenses to the City
City Engineer traffic /circulation
signs prior to continuing the f
Attachment 2 - minutes).
:ii. voted to require Mr. Latunski to
let.crmined necessary to cover direct,
)r processing his application including
ua lys is and public notice mailings and
(- ;ir,, {of' the application (refer to
April 5, 1989 - The City Cournc i I votPd ) close the Latunski f ilo and
directed that the applicant be adei -,d hrnt hf, had one year in which to pay
fees in order to reactivate tl,(, 'r) .r' l -trr amendment arul zone change
application. (Attachment 3 - mirut i
September 15, 1989 - Mr. Latiu si in order to reartivnto his
application.
November_ 13, 1989 - Focused Trafl i irai 1'1r- �tlat'ion Analysis completed.
November. 29, 1989 - Negative Declw i )' ^-] f'taff 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 wa:
held bef =ore the Planning Commission for
the Latunski General Plan amendn
rit. acid zone change proposal. At this
meeting, the Planning Commission
dopt(,d i resolution recommending denial
of the General Plan amendment an
; >one iiiange requested by Mr. Latunski
( refer to Attachment. 4) . The Come
s,, c;;;' . ecommendat: i.on was based on the
following findings: 1) That tho
roposal i7 not consistent with the Land
Use Element of the General Plan; �
d 2) 'fhrit access and public services are
inadequate to accommodate the pr
posed z�r�n ing. The Commission directed
staff to provide for the City (, ,
Hooting the transcript from the
Council's September 7, 1988, m4
(�t ing the Latunski proposal was
discussed; and that. the City Attortev
b' equested to render an opinion on
the 1987 Supreme Court Opinion No.
85--l-P)9 (related to a taking of property
without just compensation) and it�
app➢ crid_,i]fty to the 1982 downzoning of
the Latunski property by the (,oui:.y
:)f Vjitura. Staff has attached the
minutes from the City Counci l' � S(,
torw)JI , 1988, meeting (Attachment 1) .
Discussion
As identified above, the Plann
Attorney render an opinion relat
that he had been denied all renso
rezoned his land from RE -1 Acre tc
letter. dated December 28, 1987, ii
Mrs Latunski ghat. responds to ind
of their property (refer to Atta(i
g ;ommi ssi -on requested that the City
1 t�) tli allegations Mr. Latunski made
ib h, %is- of his property when the County
RE - i 1lc r e. it, 1982. Staff has attached a
, tiie A, s i_stant Citv Attorney to Mr. and
o f i�tf^s • llo i t claim regarding a "taking"
lip i ,
Prior to adopting a resolution rer rnmWiding denial, the Planning Commission
also discussed the possibility of -Ivi +ig tnne Latunski proposal included for
consideration as part of the cnrr it ',erreral Plan Update. It appeared to
be the consensus of the Commi! ic;n 1h �t no change in the land use
designation and zoning for Mr. k: irlsi; i 's, property should occur until the
surrounding properties to the east irirl ;li,li are also analyzed collectively
regarding the appropriateness <f al_:owing one -acre minimum lots. The
inclusion of Mr. Latunski's proper anal t',e property t.o the south and east
of Mr. Latunski's lot in the cuii it ;F ,,r a' Plan Update would require an
amendment to the contract with PFIR
The attached Planning Commissic�r
staff's reasons fox recommend inf
amendment and zone change. '1'�
land use designation amendment
adopted Land Use Element goal t
requested, is considered inapp -o,,
in an orderly, phased manner,
would be required, access i,
harmonious ro lat. ionship betwee
considers the proposal to be pr�o,
st,ifi - (,,port (Attachment 6) outlines
d�i i,i 1 of the requested General Plan
mnla r i .:e staff considers the requested
hang(, to he inconsistent with
d : a e:. Spot ;zoning, such as that
a' F uise development does not occur
eras Tnt.er and sewer line extensions
ice ri its and theme would not be a
�i rf�, uses Staff, therefore,
r
The Honorable City CounciL
January 2, 1990
Page 3
Mr. Latunski claims that the C:,
property from RE -1 Acre to RE -5 Ac
Project Site History section _,f
report, the County downzoned hund,
bring zoning in Moorpark into r:ont
which was adopted in 1979. For ex
the south and east of Mr. Latunslc
to RE -5 Acre in 1.982 by the Coia,nt�
makes for the Latunski property
properties rezoned by the County
Recommendation
it o' jOTIturn unjustly downzoned his
However, as discussed in the
1« rt t iclied Planning Commission staff
is 0- roperties in the early 1980's to
ri71fr1ic.f, ii:i the Moorpark Community Plan
',p1r. lk: ry FJeb`s 51.5 -acre property to
.,,!s also downzoned from RE -1 Acre
> v "rnti,ra. Whatever decision the City
!v �'rer..edent setting for many other
t= l t incorporation.
That the City Council direct stof Lo drat a resolution to be considered
at the next regular City Council r—et ing of February 7, 1990, denying the
requested General Plan amendment id liange based on the following
findings:
1. The proposed land use designs for :3mondment and zone change are not
consistent: with the Land Us(, 1 eme-it � I -lie General Plan.
2. Access and public services �Er
zoning.
PJR /DST
Attachments:
iii, �i -111 It e to accommodate the proposed
I.
Excerpts
from City Council
"9inntes dated 9 -7 -88
2.
Excerpts
from City Council
Mimttos dated 2 -1 -89
3.
Excerpts
from City Council
Iinrrtrs dated 4 -5 -89
4.
Planning
Commission Resold,
ion Nf� PC -89 -207 and 12 -18 -89 Minutes
5.
Letter from Assistant Cit}
\ttnriio4 dated 12 -28 -87
6.
Planning
Commission Staff
opo,tt d;3ted 11 -28 -89 (includes Negative
Declaration
and Focused 'l*r
`f i,'t
ATTACHMENT 1
M I NUTF.;- P .l. FiF C TY COUNCIL
Moorpark, California September_ 7, 1988
The Regular Meeting of the ity ;ouricil of the City of Moorpark,
California was held on Septon er 7, 1988 in the Council Chambers of
City Hall of said City, lcr ei <<t 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark,
California
1. CALL '1"0 ORDER
The Meeting was called t., rder it 7:;6 p.m. by Mayor John Lane.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance t.;s led b,, Councilmember. Perez.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers 1 oise Brown, John Galloway, Clint
Harper, Bernar(l( Per,�z and Mayor John Lane.
Steven Kueny, ty Manager; Lisa Kranitz, Acting City
j Attorney; Pat; .k. Richards, Director of Community
Development; lip Newhouse, Director of Community
Services; Maure,u Wall, City Clerk; Mike Rubin, Senior
Planner; Dennis IeI;,ei1:1 City Engineer; Lt. Mike Brown,
Sheriff's Del)�a tme�it , and Sally Coons, Executive
Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDA'TI(''S, .AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
4.A. Proclamation of Sept mber 1'�z 1988 as D. A. R. E. Day in the
City of_Moorpark.
Mayor John Lane tad ar.,i presented the proclamation
establishing Septemb , 1 , 11188 as D.A.R.E. Day to D.A.R.E.
instructor, Senior �!piity David Lea. Deputy Lea thanked
those who were in <tii entil it supporting the program.
4-B. Proclamation of Se, tember_ 1-30 1988 _as "Latino Voter
Registration and Edra( tion 88 Month" in the City of Moorpark
Mayor Lane read and .)resented the proclamation establishing
the month of Septemt)� , '988 is Latino Voter Registration and
Education Month to '�rvarro "f E1 Concilio del Condado de
k'entur,,i.
4. B.1 Proclamation of �eptembcr_161_ 1988 -as _National POW /MIA
Recognition Day.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California
Barricade" to the Agend
subsequent to the posIiri
unanimous.
MOTION: CouncIImembe
seconded a motion to
improvements - placemo
"Interpretation of August
regarding pilasters in 'Ti
take action arose subseyi
voice vote was unanimoia
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
6.A. Edward R. Peters
addressed the Counci
Hillside Ordinance.
t.en acres was approvf
was unable to build
proposed hillside ()r(
in ha I f . He urger�il
hillside ordinancF
I age i September 7, 1`1188
�t� th=e need to take action arose
rf tIt- Agenda. The voice vote was
3rler noved and Councilmember. Lane
&I ti'm 11.V. "Tract 4147 public
�t si.dewalks "; and item 11.W.
9-�8 minutes of the City Council
.t ((,,49' to the Agenda as the need to
It t r ! ie posting !Df the Agenda. The
155 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark)
with hi concern regarding the proposed
r. Pete)s advised that his lot split of
by the County prior_ to 1983, and if he
e t:()p cat t:he hill, as restricted by the
nan +.e, is� property value would decline
(':)tiinc;i to not implement the proposed
6.B. Neal R. Garrett. 9Oet W lliams Ranch Road, Moorpark)
addressed the Count i in s,iJ} ort: of the closure of Williams
Ranch Road.
6.C. Joe Latunski (289 C,3 y I,oad, Moorpark) addressed the Council
concerning the down r.oning cf his property, advising that
when lie purchasi�d 'iii, pro.7e.rty in 1959, it was zoned
agriculture and subs,quently re -zoned to residential estates
(one acre). The a'op(,rty was again down -zoned to five
acres. Since hi.- al lama is only 4.12 acres, he is now
non- conforming and nnor ;ell or develop his property. He
requested the Coui(. restore the zoning hack to one acre.
6.D. :Joseph Vailino (1.16i H i. l :Is id,! Drive, Moorpark) addressed the
Council in support ( �l e ( c, u-e of Williams Ranch Road.
6.E. Tom Thompson (12( -;'
Council: in suppor-.
presented a lettF-
the closure.
6.F. Phil Vein (6685 Ir'i
R Development, edd
re- distribution c,f
available as a
settlement; and (:ol['
Staff Report on thi
FI sick Drive, Moorpark) addressed the
tit( 1O;ure of Williams Ranch Road, and
is T (e(' , "18 residents, also supporting
�,to,i Avenue, Moorpark) representing A &
QS! ;(I1 t' hc. Council in support of a
Ie 198' residential permit allotments
u 0 the Urban West Communities
r_sect w _ -h recommendation No. 3 in the
6.G. Carol MacTarnaghan I:795G 'N:'illiams Ranch Road, Moorpark)
addressed the Col n� I of the closure of Williams
Ranch 1:cad.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California Inge 5
September 7, 1988
11.A. Consider a report -concerning_ a _request by _A & R Development
for re- distribution of 198" residentia�ermit allotments. Staff
recommended that they be 1 lected an deemed appropriate.
In response to couce ropren red jy Councilmember Brown, the
City Manager advisoc thet n minimal amount of Staff time
would be required t pro" s; the two requests during the
normal, annual al'lam t 1 ri vi ,s.
Director of Community Developrrrent Richards concurred with the
City Manager-, advisiu, tha° -e estimated a total Staff time
of between five and gr t hot-!, to process the two allotment
Y equests
In response to lounc lmember Harper's question, Acting City
Attorney Lisa Kranit advised that the allotments would most
likely "vanish" if nev arc not reallocated at this time
since no provisions a made ;n Measure F or the implementing
resolution to carry -m n',o he next allotment period.
Councilmember Harper xpr "ssen This desire that the allotments
"vanish" since that w uld partially mitigate the large number
of exemptions to ric a; Y mart: process as a result of the
Urban West Settl.emerr
MOTION.: Councilmember arpor moved and Councilmember Perez
seconded a motion tc, ahlcr ' -41s item and continue with
negotiations currently in , ig 10ce between the City and BIA.
MOTION AMENDMENT: ;out.cilmember Galloway moved and
Councilmember Brown secopo -A as amendment to direct that this item
be considered again at t rent Yogular meeting. The voice vote
was unanimous.
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: The )i :( voit was unanimous.
11. H. Consider processing_ a _General Plan amendment to return
previous _land use designations on two properties (Latunski and
Clement). Staff rpcomiended they be directed as deemed
appropriate.
Councilmember Gallow v advised that both properties were
down - zoned, making •} ,<.unsci property non- conforming, and
suggested that bot:l. )ropert..i'_s be pulled from the General
PInn Update and retur Q r" thoir original zoning.
Councilmember Harper commented that a re- zoning of the
properties must bo n 7omplished by a General Plan Amendment
which requires a pull rearing, environmental study, etc.
Director of Communit Development Richards advised that the
fee deposits - for tir, in AA a & study and processing for the
Latunski property i N, 11,025; and for the Clement
Property, $1,050.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California ',;o i September 7, 1988
MOTION: Councilmember 3, 1r+way moved and Councilmember Brown
seconded a motion to direr t.rqt the City initiate a General Plan
Amendment to reinstate pre iou; toting on both properties. The
motion carried with Counc 1 m` pr A rrpor dissenting.
Councilmember Harpe WK W! t -hat his dissenting vote
reflected his concer i n t t ..; not wise to set a precedent
of Council - initiators C V-01 'F in Amendments.
H.G. Consider a request ly Fom-Schleve regarding his proposed 71
acre -- de - velopment North o` ic.ks Road and East of Walnut Cation.
Staff rcommended they lt=- e in deemed appropriate.
Mayor Lane recognizec T ti Scitleve who advised the Council
that his proposed pr" c, was zoo late to be included in the
General Plan Update It eh;.
Council discussion Ei
iud,vd
' !iv possibility of adding
this
proposed development
de e
21t" project in the General
Plan
Update. Acting At
Attornoy
Lisa Krani-tz advised
that
nothing would prw. hi;
Lie
C n.rnci l from adding it to
the
process since the !;
r;1 'W
update essentially evaluates
the entire City.
MOTION: Councilmember
r }jer
r"ved and Councilmember Brown
seconded a motion to din,
Ktaf
f no include this project in
the
Request: for Proposals f-
..1e
General Plan Update, with
the
understanding that the I r
pwitnit
will pay all applicable costs
associated with the appl!,
;on
T voice vote was unanimous.
City Manager Kueny r fied that the Latunski and Clement
properties will be ocv d ram the RFP, and the Schleve
project will be adder
Consider report _ c_or, erninl; the installation of stop signs
at 15 locations within Soul h Villag _(Tract Nos. 4140, 4141, and
4142. Staff recommended 11 v bn directed as deemed appropriate.
In response to the n,.i1 s question, City Engineer Dennis
Delzeit advised that Wq Agri:; are installed upon project
acceptance, and thn Q: Ohitipn is subsequently adopted in
order to enforce them (u roK ly there are some stop signs
in these tracts wh i c no n-t boon approved by the Council.
Lt . Brown advised t h, 1,e r on .urs with the locations of all
the stop signs out. i A 0 4;xhibit "A" of Resolution No.
88 -501, however he P i <,ed t.irat limit lines are missing in
several of the inter-=; i is n'd these need to be completed.
MOT_ION_; Councilmember „r 1wr moped and Councilmember Galloway
seconded a motion to ad,j Rpsoli Won No. 88 -501 approving the
location of additional stc; sign, Pt various locations within the
South Village (Tracts 41: 1.l nd 4142). The voice vote was
unanimous.
MINUTES OF * I T f -O'. NCI L
February 1, 1989
Moorpark, California
A Regular Meeting of the City n the E of the C + o
,,ambers ofo City k California
was held on February 1, 1989 in the unci
City, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue. 'Mo0rp1r� California.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Meeting was called to ordi
Eloise Brown.
2. PLEDGE OF_ALLEGIANCE
t t,ho hour of 7:15 p.m. by Mayor
The Pledge of Allegiance wa , t)y (,OU-,ci lmember Perez.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Clint °larger, Paul Lawrason, Scott
Montgomery, Bernard( leroz a "d Mayor Eloise Brown.
-- Steven Kueny, City° 'Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney;
f Community
Patrick Richards, n r•ect.or s; Rc
Richard Hare,
Newhouse, Director f wommunity Services;
Deputy City Manage Sus:n Cauldwell, Administrative
Assistant; John k ipe, Assistant City Engineer;
Richard Rodriguez, Sheriff's Department; Don Reynolds,
Associate Planner; rd `al Goons, Secretary.
4. PROCLAMATIONS COMMENDATIONS, �ND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
No proclamations, commendat., o^ `:p( "cial presentations were made.
5. REORDERING OF1_ AND ADDITIONS tJ, THE t,GENDA
By consensus, the Council (4 - rmined to hear item 11.F. (Request of
Moorpark Historical Society ) use p!
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California February 1, 1989
its original zon•nq and felt, that the Council's previous
action established t.! t the GPA would be processed by, and at
the expense of, t:hr C ty Ile requested that the Council
consider allowing ht t p(, k during the discussion of the
Agenda Item.
6.B. John Lane (12591 ,-:ry
.a! Ranch Road, Moorpark) addressed the
Council on two mat',,e�
1) `hat the Council expedite the GPA
on the Latunski props
ty, and 2) that the Council move forward
with the widening rf
} ra Rerada Road.
6.C. Jim Hartley (5950 Saab.
-rp Road, Moorpark) addressed the Council
in opposition to t. h,
proposed location of the Renaissance
Faire; in favor of th
CaJet Program; and opposed to returning
the original zoning
;Ie lat,nski property.
6.0. Charles Schwabauer (
'68 Btoadway, Moorpark) addressed the
Council in support.
1 <7te )r the Community Center property
for the Moorpark H
a1 'Iu ejm (Agenda Item 11.F.).
6.E. Elaine Freeman I,
005 V, rtura Boulevard, Calabasas)
representing Griff n t
mes, addressed the Council on two Agenda
items: 1) That the
?'ege a d LDS Church will be considering
action at their
po(t:,v( meetings in February, 1989
concerning Agenda [t+rr
8 ,. - Consider extending the limit for
completion of improvi
n. on Collins Drive Widening South of
TR -3963; and 2) TI -a
h w,rs available to answer questions
concerning Agenda Itr
�I Ccnsider Agreement to Construct
Improvements and Axr
v ca the Final Map for TR- 3963 -4
(Griffin Homes)
6.F. Kevin Patterson /Joarr
As�nan (Living History Centre, 10943
Remmet, Chatsworth)
r +?Presenting the Renaissance Faire
addressed the Counci'
oncerning the proposed location of the
Faire, and apologize)
or not addressing the Council prior to
releasing the propose
s to t: the news media. Mr. Patterson
advised that the Fairs
'7roaoonents have engaged Barton Ashman of
Pasadena to completo
a traffic study which will be made
available to the ,
,nciI when it is completed. Faire
representatives adve!,
that t'iey will be hiring 80 people to
work in parking lots.
:rd 60 ;)eople for security. Alcoholic
beverages wi i 1 not h,
o ( wi . �>> n two hours of the closing of
the Faire. Mr. I ;
't "M d 10 sed that they will address
measures to contra'
r.l when they make their formal
presentation to th._
u,c' he further advised that they
expect 4,000 to 7,0' €1��
r �, ,er day.
7. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilmember Perez advis
(Councilmembers
l chat the Transportation Committee
Brown an(,
orez) bill be meeting concerning the
overturned truck on Highwa
113 ors January 27, 1989 to determine
what measures can be tak,>n
mc,ciatc y, such as flashinq lights.
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California �ag,? 10 February 1, 1989
11.G. Consider a repor and _recommendation from the Planninq
Commission regarding -he-amount
_ of residential lot size vs,
dwellin unit size. aff recommended that the Council receive
and file the P`la n n i Commi, ;sion's recommendation that no
further action be tak, l v ti)e Council.
Director of Community
Planning Commission do
time to create speci f
ratio of lot size
Commission's opinion
Residential Planned DE
strict standard. ?
further discussion
Council.
?velopment Pat Richards advised that the
s not feel that there is a need at this
,tandar-ds or limitations regarding the
-id dwelling unit size. It is the
a?, with the City's current use of the
�lopment process there is no need for a
Commission voted to recommend that
abject be discontinued by the
The Council was genera y n d1sagreement with the Commission's
action and determine,( t7 it il e it back on the Agenda for
Council consideration
MOTION: Councilmember Mortgomery
moved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion
to rece
/e and
file the Planning Commission's
recommendation on
this mat
=r; to
direct Staff to agendize as a
Discussion /Action
item, anc
subsequently as a Public Hearing item,
with appropriate
aIterna
ive mechanisms for the Council's
consideration to implement ;
icing
!)ulk restrictions; and to direct
the City Attorney
to revi,,e
pc,tent.
ill problems regarding whether a
mechanism of this
sort rc: ;
;`- i n
conflict with the General Plan
design. The voice
vote wa
nanimr;r,�
11.H. Consider a report - egadinq the cost involved in processing
City initiated Gener< Plan _Amendments GPA 88 -1 A & B
Latunski /Clement St <i recommended the Council direct Staff
as deemed appropriate
Director of Community Jeve�lopment Pat Richards reviewed the
estimated costs to pr es< the Latunski and Clement General
Plan Amendments and Zor Change Applications.
Councilmembers Harper d I'ere concurred that their original
intent when approvin t ^e J ty initiated General Plan
Amendments was to w v,n it tial fees, but not direct
out -of- pocket costs t hF *;y fer traffic reports and public
noticing.
MOTION: Councilmember Har[,r inovec and Councilmember Montgomery
seconded a motion to defer action on this item until after the
Closed Session The voice a +e wa<; wianimous.
Consider the Planning_ Commission's requet for further
direction from the City ouncil regarding Art in Public Places_
Staff recommended the r' rnn'nq 'ommission be advised as deemed
appropriate.
Minutes of the City Counc;
Moorpark, California Pace i;' February 1, 1989
management study, and to c, rect Staff to proceed with the selection
process. The motion ,- -ried i :
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California :?age 13
general review, mailings
processing; that Mr. Latun�
conformity with City requi
requested by City concern
required to continue the
following voice vote: Ay
Perez. Noes: Councilmemb(>
February 1, 1989
a n c, signs, prior to continuing the
i ma,y cl;oose to install signs himself in
ements; and that information previously
Fg 'egai access to the property not be
rocessirg. The motion carried by the
S : CotnciImembers Harper, Montgomery,
i3,-own and Lawra so n .
Councilmember Lawrasor stated that his "no" vote reflects his
feeling that the pr action was intended to waive
fees.
MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion to requii� the same method of deposit and signage
option for the Clement pr ,nosed GE'A. The motion carried by the
following voice vote: Ay, CCounciImembers Harper, Montgomery,
Perez. Noes: Councilmembe Brown ind Lawrason.
ADDITION TO AGENDA
At this point, Cheryl Kane, City Attorney, requested Council
add an item concernin lease of Arroyo Vista Park since the
need arose subsequent. 7 postirwg of the Agenda and the tenant,
Fedele, had been g i ve ri ).. i, e t.o vacate the property and has
not done so.
MOTION: Councilmember I_�:,Yrasor ,3oved and Councilmember Harper
seconded a motion to add it a ; "Arroyo Vista Park Lease) to the
agenda. The voice vote wa<, nanir -OL
City Attorney Kane adv sed that notice was given to the tenant
to vacate the propert, by January 31, 1989, but he has not
complied. She recomme,ded Council seek legal means to compel
such action, however, he City first offer to extend the right
to remain on the prop -rtv thr -ugh no later than February 28,
1989 to avoid litigat-
MOTION: Councilmember Harpe, moved ,ind Councilmember Perez seconded
a motion to authorize the M:_.r,or to -,nter into an agreement with the
tenant pursuant to the re( limendat, ; oin of the City Attorney. The
voice vote was unanimous.
15. ADJDIIRNWNT
MOTION: Councilmember Harper mov( -] and Councilmember Montgomery
seconded a motion to adjour '.he m plJng at the hour of 1:32 a.m.
The voice vote was unanimou,
ATTEST:
Richard Hare,
loise Brown, Mayor
Minutes of the City Council ATTACHMENT 3
Moorpark, California P3go April 5, 1989
City Manager Kueny reqk m ed the Council consider adding the
following items as mitt °s v ,ryency having arisen since the
posting of the Agenda:
City concerning the City'
Avenue Widening Project,
serve the Villa Campes i na
Item S.P. of March In,
Concrete Overlay Program
Street, from the program
D l i Gel Arroyo lawsuit against the
Mobiiehome Rent Ordinance; 2) Los Angeles
e(if Qa'ly installation of a waterline to
Dro ec:t, and 3) Reconsideration of Agenda
09 (Se "ect:ion or Streets for Asphaltic
:grF /19), particularly to delete First
MOTIOti: Councilmember Hat er roved and Councilmember Perez seconded
a motion to add the tol )wing items to the Agenda as matters of
urgency having arisen sin, Y the posting of the Agenda: 1) Agenda
Item K.L. -- Villa Del Ar oyo vs City of Moorpark; 2) 11.0. - Los
Angeles Avenue Widening P,njert, and 3) 11.P. - Reconsideration of
Selection of Strec�s for AsFhal ic. Concrete Overlay Program for
1988/89. The voice rr, wa, unanimous, with Councilmember
Montgomery absent.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
6.A. Greg Barker (12453 1 1side Drive, Moorpark) President of
Mountain Meadows Nei;hborh000 Council, urged the Council to
proceed as quickly , possihle with the widening of Tierra
Rejada Road, and reo ned thit a project schedule be provided.
The Council respordp( that they are proceeding on this project
and when a tentatia 'Im t,;>le is established, it will be
released.
6.B. Joe Latunski (289 Cas�v Road,
Moorpark) reviewed the background
on his request for
+ Gener.,l
Plan Amendment to return his
property to its ong
,,al zon
ng. He requested the Council to
stand by its earlier
W isior
to fund and expedite the General
Plan Amendment and 1n
- 71'angp
Application.
Councilmember Harper
responded
by stating that the City
presented a compromis
to Mr.
Latunski where the City agreed to
waive all fees if Mr
!at msk
would pay the direct costs. To
elate, Mr. Latunski K
I"! 1•P-
i willing tc do this.
6.C. Mark Fitzpatrick (13k,?
T-roma
ville Court, Moorpark) President
of the Fox Shadow
lomrownor's
Association, addressed the
Council regarding A
rn i I ^ern
li.C. (Tierra Rejada Road
Crosswalks) requesnii
06L t..,iffic
control and a crosswalk be
installed at Pheascr
Run
He advised that because the
swimming pool, parr a
playgr)und
(owned by the homeowners) is
located across Tier-
Rejada
Road at Pheasant Run, children
will cross at that to
t cn
de requested the Council consider
We safety needs o! '
n Zlil
-TOM.
_CONSENSUS_ BY conscr t I ie Council, Mr. Fitzpatrick will
be invited to addrp, Ao w is i 1 concerning this matter when
it considers Aqend 1 11
Minutes of the City Council
Moorpark, California ?ace 1) April 5, 1989
MOTION: Councilmember wra,on moved and Councilmember Perez
seconded a motion to waive irther -eading and declare Ordinance No.
108 read in title only The a)ice vote was unanimous, with
Counciimembers Harper ani m tiiemar, absent.
MOTION: Councilmember �; e., moved and Councilmember Lawrason
seconded a motion to de .l a ;)r•d i nanc:e No. 108 introduced and read
for the first time. hr' ao .e vote was unanimous, with
Counci imembers Harper and M - t{icmer,, absent..
NOTE: Councilmember °i o or -e' irned to the dais.
11.B. Consideration of processing the Latunski and Clement
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Applications. Staff
recommended they be di ct.ed a, deemed appropriate.
Director of Community Development Pat Richards advised that
pursuant to the Coun 1'� ac J on on February 1, 1989, Mr.
Latunski and Mrs. C'E,nent were advised that the City would
continue to waive the rocess� 7g fee related to staff work on
processing of a Gene, 1 Flan amendment and zone change for
their properties, Fow� or. they would be responsible for those
direct costs associate w th th,: preparation of a Traffic Study
and public hearing no c rg (_osts. They were advised of the
costs which they would )e ^equ,red to pay prior to any further
work being done on tF. r ippl cations. To date, no response
has beer, received f, i. itunski; and a note from Mrs.
Clement indicated J , w,i rill ii - 1 i rig to pay the identified
costs.
MOTION:
Councilmember
Harp, moved and
Councilmember Perez seconded
a motion
directing that
no
urther work
be done on the Latunski or
Clement
applications;
tha"
the f�les
be closed; and that the
applicants be advised
that
they have
one year from this date in
which to
pay fees and
the i
applications will be reintroduced with
the same
options as or,igi�
lly agreed
upon. The voice vote was
unanimous, with Councilmemb,
Montgcr,iery
absent.
U.C. Evaluation of potntial traffic control for Tierra Rejada
Road at Pheasant Run Street. and Harvester Street. Staff
recommended no chancre w mad(
Assistant City EngineE
Peach Hill Road /Tierra
for several weeks, i°
desired by the Pheasa
alternatives, staff re
present traffic contr).
pedestrian traffic
signalized intersects(,
The Council invited M,
concerning this Matto
�chr snipe advised that although the
leiada 4oad signal has been operational
;a, nc�t provided the measure of relief
Run '-sidents. After reviewing all
)mmonds that no change be made to the
system! on Tierra Rejada Road, and that
c}ncouraged to utilize the adjacent
tr) c s Tierra Rejada Road.
M. -irk '. zpatrick to address the Council
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUl'L," NO i'(', i9- -207
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RE(OMMENDING THAT GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. GPA -88 -1A .)',,ND ZONE ''IIANGE NO. Z -88 -2A
ON THE APPLICATION OF JO' ; -:PH LATUNSKI BE DENIED.
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed 1 :bli�- hearing on December 18, 1989, the
Planning Commission considered th applic=ation filed by Joseph Latunski
requesting approval to amend the =eneral Plan land use designation from
Residential Rural Low (5 acre /dwel ng unit) to Rural High (1 acre /dwelling
unit) and to change the zoning ''rom RF' 5 acre to RF, -1 acre for his
4.12 -acre property located approxin,itely 1, :iO0 feet north of Casey Road and
1,500 feet west of Walnut Cany"�)n aci �1s �er,��,or" s Par�.e1. No. 500-260-06);
'
WHEREAS, the Planning C:omriss,(M reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Staff 4ep,)rt. sted November 28, 1989, and the
Negative Declaration. and
WHEREAS, at the Planning Comriss
ones; meeting of December
18, 1989,
the Commission opened the public
searing, t=ook testimony from
all those
wishing to testify, closed the
ribl,t, hearing, and directed
staff to
prepare a Resolution for the Plan :i
g Ccimmi,.sion's decision;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNINt
COr1M1S '-ION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLI,Oi'
SECTION 1. That the Plannin,
Commission hereby adopts the
findings
contained in the Staff Report da
.•d November 28, 1989, which
report is
incorporated herein by reference
±- Loig'i 'ally set forth.
SECTION 'That the Planni:,,
Commis ion hereby recommends
that the
City Council deny the requestt�d
,,n,,i a.7 11 :1Ti Amendment and Zone
Change
based on the findings contained
�- gaff Report dated November
28,
1989, and based on the followinf.
cn;
The Planning Commission ollsidet: the proposal to be premature
and that the County of k ,ltu =-a a(ted correctly in 1982 when the
Board of Supervisors . ii( d P ,,itunski's property from RE -1
acre to RF -5 acrd.
No change in the 1 3n,i ur,c deg, ignat ion and zoning for Mr.
Latunski's 4. 12 acre pr rt y slioiild occur until the surrounding
properties to the east { nth arc: also :analyzed collectively
regarding tie appropri ,! s a'''wing urnn acre minimum lots.
Resolution No. PC -89 -207
Page 2
SECTION 3. That the Planni >mmi icon hereby requests the City
Attorney be made aware of the all, t. "do by Mr. I,atunski regarding a
potential "takings" issue.
SECTION 4. At the Planning Co
the Commission took action to appre
Council that General Plan Amendmen
request No. Z -88 -2A be denied. I'
was approved by the following roll
AYES: Schmidt, Lanahan, Tall
NOES:
ABSENT: Scullin
i,migni -n meeting of December 18, 1989,
3 Rosolut -ion recommending to the City
rogn-s —"n. CPA -88 -1A and Zone Change
it l -: W i with the foregoing direction
1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIn 1T' +I 01Y W DECEMBER 1989.
>hn Wn niak, Chairman
ATTEST:
Celia LaFleur, Secretary
Punning Commission,_ C ty r,f Moorpark California
Minutes of D� - e-mhei 18,E 1989
_ Pa R0 -1- -
The regular scheduled meeting cf tl�,e i'lhnning Commission was held on
December 18, 1989 in the City Col rci] Chambers of the Community Center
located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, 'Ioc �a rl , C 3 1 i torn i a .
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to do a 7:00 p.m., Chairman Wozniak
presiding.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was l A by ('hhirman Wozniak.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman John Woznia,; Vice 1,hairman William Lanahan;
Commissioners Glen S �rmidt. ar;d Roy Talley.
Absent: Commissioner Michaci ;cull n was absent.
By consensus, the I mmissicn determined that Commissioner
Scullin be granted 1 ex .u!;t_0 absence.
Other City Officials and Repr c ant rt. i v, =s
Patrick J. Richard• Lirec.tor of Community Development;
Deborah Traffensted Senior Planner; Winnifred Wilson,
Associate Planner , Iiii, Knipa,, Assistant City Engineer; and
Sally Coons, Secrelfi ,.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 24, 1986 (PC)
August 29, 1988 (PC & P &R)
November 20, 1.989 (PC)
December 4, 1989 (PC)
By consensus, the Minutes Dccemb+�r 4, 1989 were corrected to
reflect the proper roll c.ai vote; Ind to correct the address of
William Masora, listed under i i c ('cam - rents.
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt oved an,- Vice Chairman Lanahan seconded
a motion to approve the miiu,_es for the meetings of September 24,
1986; August 29, 1988; Novemt -r- .10, 989; and December 4, 1989 (as
amended). The voice vote ir�anir�i -)us, with Commissioner Scullin
absent.
Planning Commission, C ty of Moorpark, California
Minutes of P.- -ember 18, 1989
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Resolution No. PC -89 -206
A Resolution of the Plans ng Commission of the City of Moorpark,
California, Reccmmendink tc> the City Council that Major
Modification No. 1 (I'- °velopment Permit No. 348) on the
Application of A to Z Sel Storage he Denied Without Prejudice.
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt oved and Vice Chairman Lanahan seconded
a motion to adopt Resolutio° No. PC -89 -206. The voice vote was
unanimous, with Commissioner 11 n absent.
B. Planned Development Permi No PD -1055 Minor Modification No. 1 -
Baher
The applicant requested ,e approval of a minor modification to
PD -1055 which would i oIve ,hanges in the architectural
elements, materials, and o1ors in order to enhance the building
character. Located at "1 M,x)rpa�k Avenue.
Upon questioning by the Commi,• ion, Director of Community Development
Richards advised that the r)(.,, owners of the subject property are
interested in repainting the wilding„ eliminating trellis work and
replacing it with mission ti.le moving the front staircase to the back
of the building; and re- estab] ;ping the landscaping.
Chairman Wozniak advised that
Commission received and file(:
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
r 1(.t i on I s required on this item. The
ie repo t„
A. General Plan Amendment N( GPA -88-1A and Zone Chafe No. Z -88 -2A
Latunski
Amend General Plan land ;e designation from Residential Low (5
acre /du) to Rural High ( acre /du) and revise zoning from RE -5
acre to RE -1 acre for a + 2-acre property. Located at 289 Casey
Road (approximately 180( ect rior=h of Casey Road and 1500 feet
west of Walnut Canyon R,ora
Senior Planner Deborah I' iffenstedt. presented the Staff Report.
She stated that if th(, pi :)posed General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change were approved, it would create a maximum of four lots.
Ms. Traffenstedt.advisec he Commission that Mr. Latunski owned
the property at the time t was iownzoned by the County in 1982
from RE -] to RE -5 to hri t, tlt( prc>})erty into conformance with the
1979 - adopted Moorpark C,); rurciity llan. In addition, there were
approximately 100 othe, r-j eiti "s that wei,7. downr_oned during
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark,__California
Minutes of U- cember 18, 1989
this County rezoning l�
approving Mr. Latunski's
for the other propert io,
requested General Plait
Change are considered _e
Use Element Goals and F'
urban development.
Page -3-
>cc ;s in 1982. She noted that by
zone change, a precedent would be set
L(, roquest similar zone changes. The
inc; !,;,,v Designation Amendment and Zone
bra inconsistent with the adopted Land
ii,. o., related to preventing scattered
sues �) f .oncern irrc]uded access and
circulation, as well a
water-
and sewer facilities.
Ms.
Traffenstedt requested t.i
it tlw Planning
Commission recommend
to
the G33ity Council a denia
of tfie
proposed General Plan Amendment
other zone
and Zone Change based
n lie
finding that: 1) it is
not
consistent. with the Lan<i
se Element
of the General Plan; and
2)
access and public ser,
arc
inadequate to accommodate
the
proposed zoning.
In response to Commissioner S(hmidt, Director of Community
Development. Richards a.dv seed that. the City is not in control of
guidelines
for water rid sewer
facilities;
that the
Fire
Department
determines wni i.� afar
and reasonable guidelines
for
access to
the property, th,it ri)
other zone
changes to
more
intense use
have been nFprovo(! for
open space
areas; and
that
restrictions
on the u�,, -rapt iJ:
tanks are
based on County
gat }i- ; requesting; a zone restoration
standards.
In response to Commis,, oner- Lanahan, Director of Community
Development Richards ndvi „ed :ghat the City Council did not direct
Staff to research areas surrounding the Latunski property; and
that Mr. Lieb was the on a other property owner who expressed an
interest in the re -zon irip pi o :ess but subsequently withdrew.
In response to COMMiSSI(Aii r Lanahan, Ms. Taffenstedt advised that
Staffs timetable foi mpert rrF the hearings for the General
Plan Update is November =)C
Chairman Wozniak opened t.!;- 'tbii< Hearing and recognized the
following speakers:
7.A. Joseph Latunski (289 Cas
w Road, Moorpark) distributed a packet
of information to the C'c
imi s:, ion Ile reviewed the information,
giving a history of his
>urc hasp• of the property in 1960 at a
zoning of Al -A acre; it
subsequent rezoning by the County in
1982 to RE -5 acre; thf ;
; >rerr +e C "(,rr t.'s Opinion rendered in June,
1987 that. states to dc)..rizote
ri property without compensation
violates ' -he Constit-ut
yr, t'r, City Council`s action in
September, 1988 to pro,;,-
s -_ire , one change at no cost to Mr.
Latunski; the Counci'.,,
ub- .equc:rt- action requesting Staff to
expedite the process; tin
the re, uirement and payment of fees.
Mr. Latunski stressed tit
f i( t t- fit this is a zoning matter and
not a development issue,
gat }i- ; requesting; a zone restoration
and not a land divis:icr
AT THE HOUR OF 7:55 p.m., Cltairmhr h'c,,.iiak do,c_lared a five minute recess.
The meeting reconvened at the ht:cr I) I
11lanning_ ommission, C ty of Moorpark, California
Minutes of D)- :ember 18, 1989
page -4-
In response to Vice Chai man Lanahan, Mr. Latunski advised that
City Staff informed him Tanuarv, 1989 that his rezoning would
require an F.IR and 'i raf ; udy, , tnd that he would be required
to pay these costs Iis 11 is th`� cost of sign posting and
advertising. If these c sts wei- riot paid, Staff advised they
would request the City :;c;inc.il tc set aside the process, without
prejudice. Mr. Latuii ri(iv:.(Ici that 1:e paid $1,000 in
September, 1989 to retisl i 11, l,° )4 Oss.
In response to CommissioriIr l'tlleI,, Mr. Latunski_ advised that the
main purpose for his re( iest fo; rezoning is to: 1) sell the
property; 2) build two r Airee houses on the property; or 3)
wait for Mr. Guny or Ma iet> In - evelop the adjacent properties.
In response to Vice Chai man Lanrchan, Mr. Latunski advised that
he cannot wait to go t.1 ough the General Plan Update process
because he cannot ? erigthy time it is taking to
complete the process.
7.B. Don Fender (14875 -C Camps [ark Drive, Moorpark) supported Mr.
Latunski's position that he property be reinstated to RE -1 acre
zoning as it was when 11 Latunski purchased it in 1960. Mr.
Fender also cited the S.})reme Court. Opinion advising that Mr.
Latunski could bring exl-nsiv(, litigation against the City in
this matter. He furtbe ,idvisecl that a traffic study is not
necessary since the �.lo ,ro ,f the school on Casey Road has
virtually eliminated n]. raffia n this area; that the issue of
utilities has never b(�eii i problem before; and the fact that the
property is approximate , 800 feet from a fire department
invalidates any argument ga-fln,� lack of fire protection.
7.C. John Galloway (338 Sieii
concerned about severa'F
Commission is a zoning r -f
it is a unique situat:i.o7
prior to the downzon:u.:nF,
Council was not whethor
to its original zoning
further advised that t. }c+
remedy the downzoning 11
not be subject to the
Update pro( :ess. Mr. -a1
property may be possilrl
further stated that h(,
in the. future should thi
Avenue. Moorpark) advised that he is
ss;ue: : 1) the request before the
guest ar,d riot a development request; 2)
a that Mr. Latunski. owned the property
aad i that the debate at the City
rct the property should be reinstated
it ;-at::hf,r who should pay for it. He
Ct i;;,urrcil gave clear direction to
c�c:.c rt lined that Mr. Latunski should
°rgt ,y i me frame of the General Plan
,11 o suggested that access to the
l- from Walnut. Canyon Road. He
e.r v(�r. t re right to speak to this issue
o' ho solved fairly.
In response to quesLI)i trom the Commission, Mr. Galloway
advised that the Cite C in,- l c,d not consider all the legal
aspects of the Supreme ir' decision when it made its decision
to convert the property its original zoning; however it was
the (;ity Attorney's )pi on that f the property were to be
rezoried, it had t:o go t ,i ;u;.;} t h- i ega l ly proper steps to do so
and could not be changes r, b rE Council action.
Planning Commission, C ty of Moorpark,_ California
Minutes of k nember 18„ 1989
Being no further speakers, 31ka mip hovilak closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Schmidt recomme ied uh,Gt the Commission get legal
clarification on the Supreme + ait Opinion concerning downzoning, and
whether or not it is retroa( t ap to a n ions taken in 1982; and that
the appropriate zoning for I 1,atun,4kL property be based on the
requirements as they are now n i i"i whit they were in 1982.
Vice Chairman Lanahan advi •d that he concurred with Staff's
recommendation; that the Ian ire should be in concert with the
General Plan Update because i, of d ho precedent setting.
Commissioner Talley agreed tha tic Alinski rezoning should be a part
of the General Plan Update pr „s4
Chairman Wozniak requested a
City Council on this matter,
what legal opinions were garn
clarification on the Supreme
He agreed with the other Komi
request separate from the do
of the City at large.
triticat. ion on the actions taken by the
chiding the discussions and decisions;
ed during, those sessions; and a legal
:out Opinion rendered on downzoning.
ssionein that processing the Latunski
3 Plan update is not in the interest
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidi wvcd that the Commission recommend to
the City Council a denial of to proposed General Plan Amendment and
Zone Changed based on the foi )wing findings: 1) That the proposal
is not consistent with the La A WKe Element of the General Plan; and
2) That access and public iv, c -, r- inadequate to accommodate the
proposed zoning.
MOTION SECOND: Vice Chairmai
following amendment: That:
proceedings on this matter Ti
made available to the City
and that the City Attorney l
1987 Supreme Court: Opinion ` k
Lar,ahan seconded the motion with the
tho transcripts from the Council
Counc,,i meeting September 7, 1988) be
w(iI when it again hears this matter;
req iesL d Co render an opinion on the
' `l
MOTION VOTE: The voice vote Pnpnimous, with Commissioner Scullin
absent.
Staff presented Resolution A0 'C -89 -207 for the Commission's
consideration entitled:' A RE:OLUT ON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CAi,IF�414110, RECOMMENDING THAT GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. GPA -88 -1A AND 7,0? cAANGI NO Z -88 -2A ON THE APPLICATION
OF JOSEPH i.ATIJNSI<:I BE DF,NIEI)
Page -5-
7.C. Stephen Velador
(1331 Wa
itit Canyon Road, Moorpark)
advised the
Commission that
he felt N
Latun«k.i had a right to
get back his
original zoning
as it w.
don e purchased the property. He
further advised
that he
d ,;n, , a problem with
septic tanks
on one acre lots
in thi"
e;
Being no further speakers, 31ka mip hovilak closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Schmidt recomme ied uh,Gt the Commission get legal
clarification on the Supreme + ait Opinion concerning downzoning, and
whether or not it is retroa( t ap to a n ions taken in 1982; and that
the appropriate zoning for I 1,atun,4kL property be based on the
requirements as they are now n i i"i whit they were in 1982.
Vice Chairman Lanahan advi •d that he concurred with Staff's
recommendation; that the Ian ire should be in concert with the
General Plan Update because i, of d ho precedent setting.
Commissioner Talley agreed tha tic Alinski rezoning should be a part
of the General Plan Update pr „s4
Chairman Wozniak requested a
City Council on this matter,
what legal opinions were garn
clarification on the Supreme
He agreed with the other Komi
request separate from the do
of the City at large.
triticat. ion on the actions taken by the
chiding the discussions and decisions;
ed during, those sessions; and a legal
:out Opinion rendered on downzoning.
ssionein that processing the Latunski
3 Plan update is not in the interest
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidi wvcd that the Commission recommend to
the City Council a denial of to proposed General Plan Amendment and
Zone Changed based on the foi )wing findings: 1) That the proposal
is not consistent with the La A WKe Element of the General Plan; and
2) That access and public iv, c -, r- inadequate to accommodate the
proposed zoning.
MOTION SECOND: Vice Chairmai
following amendment: That:
proceedings on this matter Ti
made available to the City
and that the City Attorney l
1987 Supreme Court: Opinion ` k
Lar,ahan seconded the motion with the
tho transcripts from the Council
Counc,,i meeting September 7, 1988) be
w(iI when it again hears this matter;
req iesL d Co render an opinion on the
' `l
MOTION VOTE: The voice vote Pnpnimous, with Commissioner Scullin
absent.
Staff presented Resolution A0 'C -89 -207 for the Commission's
consideration entitled:' A RE:OLUT ON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CAi,IF�414110, RECOMMENDING THAT GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. GPA -88 -1A AND 7,0? cAANGI NO Z -88 -2A ON THE APPLICATION
OF JOSEPH i.ATIJNSI<:I BE DF,NIEI)
Planning Commission, pity of Moorpark California
Minutes �of !ocember 18, 1989
Page -6-
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt roved and Vice Chairman Lanahan seconded
a motion to adopt Resoluti,) No K-89-207, with amendments. The
voice vote was unanimous, tai, 'am s� ioner Scullin absent.
8. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION IT S
None..
9. INFORMATION ITEMS
None.
10. COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Talley expressed he concc >.rn of residents living adjacent
to the Texaco Station whici is staring contaminated dirt. Mr.
Richards advised that the app opriate agencies are continuing to work
on the clean -up of this probif
Vice Chairman Lanahan request-d Staff to get direction from the City
Council as to the Commissio, s role regarding decisions to remove
General Plan Amendments from the Genriral Plan Update process which
tend to take the Commission r+,;ay from its goal of long -term planning
and instead require it to c e,o with S11-rL -term patchwork.
Chairman Wozniak noted rece >t of I copy of the letter between
Caltrans and Unocal and it d •. f to d P, c s i re that the City continue to
pursue this..
11. STAFF COMMENTS
Director of Community Development Richards advised that there is no
scheduled business to come bE +ore the Commission on January 2, 1990
and requested the Commission ,nsider <ancelling that meeting.
CONSENSUS: By consensus, tl c Commission determined to cancel the
Planning Commission meeting, -( eduled for January 2, 1990.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark,_California
Minutes of D4- cemher 18„ 1989
12. ADJOURNMENT
Palle -7-
CONSENSUS: By consensus, 0i� in�; wits adjourned at the hour of
9:06 p.m..
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON
BY:
Celia LaFleur, Secretary
CHAIRMAN PRESIDING:
John Wozniak
121889PC.MIN
l
PUBLIC HEARING 1 CEMSE.R 0, 1989
799 MOORPARK Alf I 100RI ARK. CA.
COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND FELLOW RESTDEN
MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED OUR PROV!
adopted `larch 18, 1947 by the Ventur, 1,
1961 it was rezoned RR - -1 acre (ordinnn—
changed form RE -I ta RE -, (acres), a
of protest. Moorpark became a City aid
- RECEIVED -
DEC 1 8 1989
CITY OF MOORPARK
7) ;N IK60. IT WAS 40NEU A -1 (acre)
nly ian,d _ri Supervisors, on Aug. 8
.c . h ?.' n ,iu1y 7 1982 it was again
c a:1 report 1 riled a letter
I t I i _ounty Ordinances in 1983.
On June 9, 1987 The Untied State, upremc Court handed down a ruling
Supreme Court Opinion no. 85 -1199 that aces is down zone a property without
compensation violates our Constitutionn rights vender the fifth amendment. I
immediatley informed the City and reu do ed iur : roperty be re -zoned to its
previous zoning when we purchased it 1yo r[n d the Supreme Court Opinion.
The City Council Agreed, and by a vote ,
with NO COST to us to restore our zotiny
commited by County prior to incorporki:
Council Meeting.
I immediatlev went to the City (
I was informed by Mr Richards the Dire,i
like the Council's decision and would di
from ever happening. I signed all the nt
to I agreed to process the change
The} felt it was to correct a wrong
Vii; as done at the September 7-01153
que what I could do to assist them.
r of Conmunity Development that he didnt
ghat ever he could to stop this change
absilv ocuments.
After waiting 6 weeks and heard ( ro prenress I again went to the City
Council and asked for a status report. 4 of the "Mayor Lane asked Mr Richards
about it he said he didnt think it was "ri�rit° so he was just doing it in
the normal time but that he was busy ani indw (,en started to work on it. The
Mayor then issued a strong; mandate F. 1 r A it done as soon as possible
with the least of erfort needed.
November 4 198$ I recieved a let-
the Council mandate and she outlined tilt
quoted a time frame of completion in
than the first of March.
There- were all sorts of obstruct_,(
mandate was changed requiring fees from
of 1989 and we are now at the Planninn t
for approval.
We have read the Staff report art(
they are bias, predudical and contair.r
vague partial information offered as tr,
report concentrates entirely on issuer,
ment and have no bearing on the issu(
and deny this document to protect out
We again affirm, this is a ZONING maitpt
that our Constitutional Rights were vi"
be re- instated as directed by the City
Council Action. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOP
r from associate Planner acknowledging
itep,s reeded to accoumplish it. She also
.. Thin, y or middle February but no later
s put f"rward to stop progress, even the
Fhesw were paid. Here it is December
mr i is de hope this is our final request
f i n3i npn and conclusions. It is our belie>
arcur 3t� information. There are ommissions
A t- support their findings. The Staff
At are, .,ddressed at the time of develop -
1UNINK. We have no chi_oce but to refute
htq .r he event litigation is necessary.
n(t - ct vel.opment one.' We again AFFIR`1
ttd :nc request the previous ZONING
ancil ( '.Moorpark in their Sept. 7 1988
AND 1` 1% SION, merely a ZONE. RESTORATION.
Thank you for your onsidcration at 0 -:mi, r,spectfully Joseph & Evelyl Latunski
e 'Y'�";! ttl[�r a.y+� '.i,.,y�., ..: �+., 'C a�.n;�'
4�.i � "°Y-�;S )S!''•tOn'�.:z;;i
'a .c�:.d!i ire -.' � -_?
�11.�..,
Q
I
_
113GAC .., 6
I O
3 u � 5
POR TRACT L RANCHO SIMI
,
7
18
2 2
O
26
� .moo•,
-
__._. __.._�..__.
/T
Q
s Act
'
3 67Ac.
rat Aroc C 4c 67 -06
67-/4
67 -15
30 67-022
67005
500_P6
t4
zao7
Q
I
_
113GAC .., 6
I O
3 u � 5
6'Af of 4.12'Ac.
3174
Q
'
-JAC
j
jai
`,�,
-- 'a -�•'-
�% 1
° -i
y <'cz a,d 5
09
53164
OPD 1092
VVV
y�
En
1
<; rS
n
GQ /d 11415
O� 4Q /�iiCS
}
h
�
Q
_
113GAC .., 6
I O
3 u � 5
6'Af of 4.12'Ac.
3174
r
�p G
"toaM:- „!7 a' -• -i S 'y7- 1 DOe i „v w � .if T6
1132G1J Z�GY�J ;320 �Z1�hJ -11)97
c _
N
Zo -; rsrF 500 26!
t - •_ �-- - .�-- `� --- -' -- -. _ tAt D,NANct 233 A1k A'll l'
-J
-7n I
I
INFORMATION FOR CHALLE�4GING THE STAFF REPORT
GPA- 88-- 1A /Z -88 -2A
Public Hearing Decembe, _ 18, 1989 (7:00 Vim• )
I have compiled items either omitte or misrepresented to show bias or
prejudice. I would appreciate an,! you ,addressing any of them at the
hearing to reveal the errors to the Pitnning Commissioners. I realize they
are serving the community and give fr-ely of their time. I also know tl:ey
rely heavily on staff reports as ti.ey have limited time and access to
information. I hope this information gill be helpful and will result in the
restoration of our previous zoninc; r had when we bought our property 30
years ago.
Page 2 Section I
recommend the ComI'Lssion
accept
J. after testimony.
Section II
Site Zoning Hist::>•/
1947 A -I 1
acre
1961 R -E 1
acre
1982 R -E-5
aces
Item C.
There has not beep
any plan xied
development north of
L.A. Avenue, west
)f` Spring; St.
since incorporation.
Item D.
The proposed prop
,--t.y is within
2500 feet of City
Hall in the cento,
cf 'own.;
Item E. This entire are,3
General Plan Up(. -1 i
Item F. The topography of
development excav
ed by hand shovel
property vary -5
than the Commur: i ..
i 1 1 ( °h _:nge with the release of the
'phis property is such that all
tions required could be accomplish -
The elevations and the entire
��et. Therefore it has less changes
C:'ent e .
Item G. The City of Moorp �-k approved a tentative tract map
#3218 directly no�-h bordering the Latunski property
to develop 227 ,:a s intc� 47 lots with access to the
Latunski land by gad designated as D St., with all
roads and utilit; available.
The City also approved a tentative tract map #3958 in
1985 with existin zoning of RE and RE -5 acres ad-
joining to the soth to subdivide the lower 6.1 acres
into 19 lots, lea than 1/3 acres lots with all roads
and utilities. -,ther .development shows extension
of the road any:: 11 i It e to the Latunski property.
Both of these pro
Plan Update foi
Item H. The General Plan
controlled by the
approve and shif`.
justify the concr>
orties are in the present General
-zcn i.nci and tract approval.
pdate of,1979 was orchestrated and
Ientura County staff to substantiate,
-he zoning of this entire area to
- -ration 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 spo.:)n -fed them control-led information so
that their findings would be the desired results to
justify the Board _)f Supervisors action. I attended sorlc
of the meetings, c;bjected to their findings and filed
a letter with the Board :)f Supervisors in protest, but
to no avail.
Section III General Plan con, stency did no t provide for any resi-
dential development west of Spring St. or north of L.A.
Avenue. Goals 3, G and 7 spell out NO DEVELOPMENT
for this area.
Discussions: Thi; parcel can not be classified as
"scattered urban 3evelopment" 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 ae could have the college and for the
future developmer, of ALL of Moorpark. This allowed
Campus Park to be « -ome a reality. Peach Hill had none of
the utilities avz, lable when their tract maps were
approved.
Section IV Traffic: Access a not applicable for consideration of
zone change and w; 11 be addressed at the time of develop-
ment. Site access is also not applicable, however, liti-
gation in Super_•-: Court of Ventura (Case tt 108091) will
remedy access.
The Fire Departmer t has always had adequate access to our
property. Hazarc:)us brush and weeds have been removed
at all times to m,,,et the fire department's requirements
since 1960. Then= are many areas in Moorpark that have
been granted bui.liinq permits that are on a 'NO EXIT'
road of more than. 1800 feet [example: Bonnie View is a
single -lane dedi.c.ited road with 90 degree turns where
our fire engines -an not even get up the road. Others
exist throughout ht;, c i t ,r j .
Again, the Guny sbdiv.ision is mentioned. Access to
the proposed development to the north and adjoining our
land has been ass.ired to us by the present owners.
Access to the sou'11 will be provided with the develop-
ment of the Liek:, ropert, and the disposition of our
suit _i_n the Vent r ° r County Superior. Court (Case 108091) .
All road, utility and fire protection will be addressed
when development rues
CONCLUSIONS OF STAFF:
Section V Under
project hit_ory, how many parcels that were
dcwn-
zoned
have been ;;!
-zoned or developed? How many
are
still
owned by th.:r
original owners? The return
of the
Latunski proper.t,,
to it.s previous zoning will not
be
precedent- sett inC.
No development will be allowed
before
a lot
split and I
ri 1dinc approval are granted by
the
City.
Again, the proper:t.y 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 l' lots on 6.1 acres presently zoned RE
and RE -5 acres.. With this proposal, the lot size would
be less than 1/3 icre. A lis pendens document has been
filed and it is liccepted and recorded in the Court
(Case # 108091) ,Iai.nst the Lieb property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Section VI The General Plan 1pdate soon to be released will contain
vast changes in ,:l..l the land use of the land north of
Los Angeles Ave. ind west of Spring St. The one acre
zoning will be cc ipat.ibl <2 with the surrounding land use.
Examples: The re- .on:Lng .:)f the high school property, the
Lieb /Guny proposf:1 development, the Walnut Ranches 227
acres north bor_dcr-ing the Tom Schleve and John Newton
properties are b(A.'ore the Planning Department for in-
corporation into !.he General Plan Update. Access and
public service w: L I)e av-ailable before any development.
Anyone interested in bringing ul:: any of these points will be welcomed.
I have spent a great deal of time pro�par..ing this information for your use.
I hope that some of you do speak in avor of my property being restored to
its original one acre designation th,v we had 30 years ago when we bought our
property.
Thank you for coming to this he, -in,l. Merry Christmas to you all.
Joe and Evie Latunski
LAY. F 1, C F_.5
Bumm, WILL] M4 8c SORENSEN
ONE ,Mi •R E HUI L C.
950 COUNTY SQUARE DRIVE 524 SOUTH -BRA- I Vr_N J - FLOOR
SUITE 207 _ LOS ANGE1._E.t "-AL F -ORP, , A 1.40017
VENTURA. CALIFORNIA 93003
48051 644 -7400 1 2 1
Decembe- 28, 1987
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Latunski
289 Casey Road
P.O. Box 456
Moorpark, CA 93020
Re: Your Letter of Augu :,t 21, L987
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Latunski:
ATTACHMENT 5
3200 PARK CENTER GRIVE
SUITE 650
COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92628
(714) 545-5559
�C�iC11%%
DEC 2 9 1�.�-
CITY OF MOORPA
This letter is in response to your letter of August
21, 1987 to the City of Moorl.)ark.
claim fo
normally
optional
905.1.)
like any
It appears your let %er was intended to be a damages
r inverse condemnation. Although filing a claim is
a prerequisite for 3ueing the City, a claim is only
for inverse condemnation claims. (Gov. Code §
However, once filed an optional claim is treated
other claim.
The law provides that claims not responded to after
45 days are automatically reected by operation of law.
(Gov. Code § 912.4.) Conseq.ently, your claim which you
presented to the City Counci , Planning Commission, and City
Manager on August 21, 198 ", a< i rep cted by operation of law
on October 5, 1987.
In addition, the fo m of your claim was
insufficient. Because your etter is lacking any amount of
damages claimed, it is inade,uat:e. 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
does
substance of your claim. open
a'l
space - 5 acre zoning
reasonable use of your
not deny you substantially
property, and consequently,
ou have not been damaged.
Although the City h,,s
not "taken" your property,
the General
you certainly are free to se -k an amendment to
the ity is presently processing a
Plan. As you may know,
General Plan update. As par"
of the update, the City
suggests that all interested
landowners file applications
for General Plan amendments""
However, we decline
the suggestion in your August
21st letter that all filinc
ees be waived for your
application. It would be c.r:`air
to favor you over other
has n ot determined the scope
c:
landowners. The City COMIC
of the update, but if indiv:.ival
properties are included in
the process, City Staff wil';.
recommend that each landowner
fair share of the cost
included in the update be ct -arged
his
if are included in the
of the update. of course, even
there can b�-
you
no assurance that your request
update process,
for a General Plan amendn•en'
wil, ` °e granted.
Finally, you are -4
icome to file an amended claim
stating the amount of your 'amages.
However, you should be
aware that filing an amender:
claim will not extend any
Rather,
applicable limitation peri-
on your time to sue.
we are legally required °:c
iti,E rc "i the following notice:
DARNING
Subject to CE, ta:n exceptions, you have only
six (6) months frc- the caate this notice was
deposited in the 1- ail to file a court action on
this claim. See v" code Section 945.6.
You may seek, he advice of an attorney of your
choice in connec, n 41t'- this matter. If you
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Latunski
December 28, 1987
Page 3 "
desire to consult: a attorney, you should do so
immediately.
Sincerely,
Scott 7F,. 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:
µ
�Oq
CITI OV MOORPARK
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPOR'l - NOVEMBER 28, 1989
SECTION 1 GENERAL, INFORMATION
December 18, 1989
C. HEARING LOCATION:
City Council Chambers
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
E. STAFF CONTACT:
Deborah Traffenstedt
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
13. HEARING TIME:
7:00 p.m.
0. CASE NO.:
1. General Plan Amendment
No. GPA -88 -1A
2. Zone Change No. I -88 -2A
4. . APPLICANT:
Joseph Latunski
1. Amend General Plan land .se dosrgnation from Residential Rural
Low (5 acre /du) to Rural Q i i ` -i :ro /du).
2. Rezone subject property im 11?-; a re to RE -] acre.
The project site is approximi fly + : acres in size; therefore, a
maximum of four lots could cl'afo"l if the proposed General Plan
amendment and zone change nrt. o , v, (l
H. PROJECT LOCATION:
The property location is ah,pr( 7ir,u iv ],800 feet north of Casey Road
and 1,500 foet west of 1ia.'n l u vc,ii Rond (Assessoi-s Parcel No.
500 - 260 -06). T110 property idd t�) Casey Izond.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
4. Direct staff to prepare a 1—soLotion recommending denial of
GPA -88 -1A and ZC -88 -2A tc,opt. )n at the Planning Commission's
next regular meeting ci ala-y 990.
J. ALTERNATE PLANNING COMMISSION y(71`10NS:.
Recommend approval of the r- f :-riera 1 Plan amendment and zone
change.
SECTION 11 - PRt j IF.(71' SITE BACKGROUNI)
A. SITE ZONING: RE -5 Ac r - to r t I
B. SITE GENERAL PLAN
C. VICINITY ZONING:
North: RE -5
South: RE -5
East: RE -5
West; RE -5
Resident -r R t -a W (5 acre /du)
Acre - -Rura ;c 1
Acre
Acre
Acre and Al.- 1gr �.ul'.�tral Exclusive
D. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED PR0.1+ CT WITH SURROUNDING 'ZONING:
Incompatible
E. VICINITY GENERAL PLAN:
North: RL- -Rural Low (`
South.: Rh
East RL
West RI, and AG- 1 - -Agi
r- d
�1l, , 10 -40 acres;;
= �FProject Site
i 4
,
j L 42"1
1
-
I. REQUESTED ACTION AND STAFF REC;IMMENDATION:
1.
Open the public hear_ii�g t
i ;i ; +.-pt .)ublic
testimony.
2.
Review and consider the
i <> mtt. i >rt in the Negative Declaration
(Exhibit 1).
3.
Make the appropriate i it c
iKs;
4. Direct staff to prepare a 1—soLotion recommending denial of
GPA -88 -1A and ZC -88 -2A tc,opt. )n at the Planning Commission's
next regular meeting ci ala-y 990.
J. ALTERNATE PLANNING COMMISSION y(71`10NS:.
Recommend approval of the r- f :-riera 1 Plan amendment and zone
change.
SECTION 11 - PRt j IF.(71' SITE BACKGROUNI)
A. SITE ZONING: RE -5 Ac r - to r t I
B. SITE GENERAL PLAN
C. VICINITY ZONING:
North: RE -5
South: RE -5
East: RE -5
West; RE -5
Resident -r R t -a W (5 acre /du)
Acre - -Rura ;c 1
Acre
Acre
Acre and Al.- 1gr �.ul'.�tral Exclusive
D. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED PR0.1+ CT WITH SURROUNDING 'ZONING:
Incompatible
E. VICINITY GENERAL PLAN:
North: RL- -Rural Low (`
South.: Rh
East RL
West RI, and AG- 1 - -Agi
r- d
�1l, , 10 -40 acres;;
F. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED
DESIGNATIONS: Incompatible
G. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION:
The topography of the site is
northwest corner of the propert.,
lowest elevation on the site, at tl,
feet. Based on the J.S. Geologic.a
the property exceed 20 percent,
elevation than the lands to the no
and review of aerial photography
the site has been disturbed.
PR0.1FC-l' WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE
IrtiNf,i flat. The elevation at the
s approximately 675 feet and the
southeast corner, is approximately 640
Su•vey ml-ip for Moorpark, no slopes on
he slnbjec:t property is at a lower
h, Gist, and west. A site inspection
ntif - that much of the vegetation on
The applicant has identified tha OX istiiig structures on the property
include a single - family resident: t„ith < four -car garage. Existing
utilities include electric, teleph� e, .rible television, and public water
facilities, and there are threo t r i k on the property for sewage
disposal.
H. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
Currently, the land immediately rrcuridii.g Mr. Latunski's property is
undeveloped and is used only for g 'zing purposes. A tentative tract map
(Tract 4652) has been filed by Abe utwy 17r the 51.5 -acre site immediately
south and east of Mr. Latunski's ,)i perty Only the southern portion (7.1
acres) of the 51.5 -acre site is, lick— er, proposed to be subdivided by Mr.
Guny at this time. Mr. Guny has he- 1 u(fot iting to purchase the 51.5 -acre
property from Harry L ieb ( the cu r i — , t r q e i � owner) .
I. PROJECT SITE HISTORY:
July 20 1982: The County of
changing the zone classification
County Zone Change No. Z- 2688).
prepared for this zone change, l
be consistent with the Moorpar:
adopted on December 18, 1979.
the zone changes processed by
Moorpark into conformance with thy,
total of six rezoning phases prot-o
Exhibit 3 identifies all of the jir�,ci
Avenue that were rezoned under Pha,o
County. Mr. Latunski's property
Exhibit 3 and 4. Examination l
Latunski's property was not the o�i
about compliance witl, the Moorlla�
alone, 100 properties were downzcnr
Vovtnrr, adopted Ordinance No. _�604
oil] H1:- acre to RE -5 acre (Ventura
According to the County staff report
kit"n-ki's property was rezoned to
;< mmur, i t y Plan Land Use Element,
se ;han�,e No. Z -2688 was Phase V of
re t_y to bring the zoning in
oc:rhr�,rk Community Plan. There were a
1 1 � '1': lounty (Exhibit 2).
i,l,ti F roperti.es north of Los Angeles
zone changes processed by the
issed in Subarea 6 as shown on
s clearly identifies that Mr.
1 t (:T-1 y drat was downzoned to bring
11 1111 TI ti Pl, -]n. ,Just for Phase V
The County staff report points out .
result of many hours of effort iz
Committee in developing den: .-Les
numerous public hearings were :>eId
of Supervisors addressing speci.fi;
adopted. The criteria utilized in
subarea were: 1) Reflection of ave
Existing and adjacent land uses ar:d
County of Ventura files contain e
letter of opposition to the Board o
rezone his property from RE--I
considering all comments and the .a
the determination that the zoni-ng
changed from RE -1 Acre to RE -5 Acr(
Community Plan and consistency witi
rat the loorpark Community Plan was the
meetings by the General Plan Update
ariCi laird use designations, and that
,Ifoio the Planning Commission and Board
omruw i , y (,oncerns before the Plan was
letc r ^ii.ring the proposed zones for each
rgO 1 .,t ;e, 2) Community Plan, and 3)
'on ri.
der�cc, r. hat Mr. Latunski did submit a
Sul- y1 , ;ors prior to their decision to
crO ro RE -5 Acre. However, after
feria identified above, the Board made
lot- Mr. l,atunski's property should be
based (it consistency with the Moorpark
rd �; c pan' 1 and uses and zoning.
SECTION III - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposal is to amend the Gener
Low (5 acre /du) to Rural High ;1
acre to RE -1 acre. Staff reviewed
to determine consistency. It is st
designation amendment/ rezoning
Use Element goals and policies:
Residential
P air land use designation from Rural
(,re, dcr) and rezone the site from RE -5
e hand Ise Element of the General Plan
c >P rion that the proposed land use
t Sri, stent with the following Land
Goal 2 To discourage urban spraw anc s.(,t+ tered development.
Goal 3 To provide esidential de lopment�+ with properly planned and
adequate services and fa�: i + i r,r
Policy 3 Establish a phasing plan +., i(l) wil prevent scattered urban
development: and will prof,' e f ,)1 c ° derly growth.
Policy 4 Encourage residential dev, 017 (-�Ilt ti,� i th properly planned and
adequate public services
Policy 7 To ensure that the locatr( cf r(-s denti.al land uses provides a
harmonious relationship 1. w11 ,'Id joining uses, natural features
and the total environmeri�
Discussion: The proposed land use i�signati:)n of Rural High and zoning of
RE -1 acre is riot consistent W',L11 ho identified Residential goals and
policies because scattered urban-t. .,P development will result, extensive
water and sewer line extensions w�} d )e required, access is inadequate,
and there would not be a harmonious, l,a;.ionship between adjoining uses. A
spot zoning and land use designati -esult. The following Analysis
and Conclusions discussion section C:ttlrel identify why staff finds the
proposed land use designation amc�i�i Ti rn,ll sorre change to be inconsistent
with the aforementioned General !I, d ,30li -ies.
Public Facilities and Services
Goal 3 To reinforce controlled, We . nci phased development while
discouraging urban sprat,;
Policy 1 Permit urban development niy is :nose locations where adequate
public services are a ;ii1abie (functional), under physical
construction, or will bt vaiinhir in the near future (5 years).
Discussion: The proposed project
oil l no_ result in controlled,
orderly
and phased development. If the !wjuested
„eneral
plan amendment
and zone
change are approved, the Latunski
property could
be subdivided
into one
acre lots, with all of the surrounng
proport:ies
required to be five acre
lots or greater. The approval of
spct zoning for the Latunski
property
would, therefore, be growth indt: c: i :
and p rc codent
setting.
SECTION IV PROJECT ANALYSIS
Traffic:
A Focused Traffic St.u,v leas Completed by the
Cazy Traffic
Engineer
for the Latunski proposa
(E;chilriv 5). The conclusion of that
study was
that the proposed Gener
P an imendment and zone
change would
result in
an insignificant impa"t
4o t tffic circulation
system within
the City
of Moorpark. However, th
sn dy dEd identify a concern regarding
the lack
of legal access to the pt;
ct q t
Site Access /Circulation: Current
private, unimproved road which cons
road is approximately 1,800 feat
request that he provide proof oF
provide this documentation, and
there is no legal access to ttc
letter from First American Title
which identified that they were a:
take legal action to prove a pro
opinion that it is inappropriate.
does not have legal access.
Staff contacted the Ventura Goa .
informed that the maximum acceptah
is considered to be 800 feet when
Also, staff was informed that -
area. It is considered poor p.
increase the density of developmer.,
no second access to a property.
difficult to obtain as adequate lc
scattered and occurs in an unord -i
, 9( :,F �s to the property is from a
Uts t0 'asey Road. The private access
rnn 1 aff contacted Mr. Latunski to
,a ac or s to his property. He did not
up understanding that currently
rcp-�r! -y Mr. Latunski. did forward a
utan(- ;ompany dated February 1, 1989,
mptih4 o wither obtain an easement or
r Ft vc nccess right. It is staff's
n 4 the density of a property that
v Are Irotect:ion District and was
engt.:h of a dead -end residential road
ear 4 io second access to a property.
r , e t q i to is in a high fire hazard
Ai j fc fire protection purposes to
h•, q t h i o is a long dead -end road and
p oh ] ens with spot zoning is that it is
1a ion system when development is
T 1! 1 ,.
Currently there is an access pro blew
Walnut Canyon Road. The alignment
distance problem at the Casey Road
for the proposed 18 -lot Gully subdi
land identifies a traffic operation
and Walnut Canyon Roads and also Ide
be proposed for this intersection
Latunski proposal, as any future su
further traffic impact analysis
contributions for needed improvemen
intersection.
at the intersection of Casey Road and
of Waln!rt Canyon Road creates a sight
ntersect ion. Caltrans' comment letter
ision t(, the sou "h of Mr. Latunski's
problem it the intersection of Casey
to fies that mitigation measures should
ihcs: comments also apply to the
ii-isior: of the property would require
'c dptermine necessary developer
_c tfw Casey Road /Walnut Canyon Road
Sewer and Water: Staff contacted '4-ntura (aunty Waterworks District 1 to
determine where the nearest water a.i sewer E- icilities 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 <me -inch water meter on Casey
Road. Ventura County Waterworks Dis ric. .ommented that if the property
is subdivided the applicant would ,e -equirecl to extend the District's
water mains to the property linc- >f r,(1, parcel created and would be
required to provide for water storag,
If the proposed spot zoning and i.�i d uses iesignation are approved and a
parcel map is subsequently filed, the necessary water and sewer line
extensions and water storage r.equ:ii ient.; wo..ld most likely be economically
infeasible at this time. When sic �lopmc�nt is directed to occur in an
orderly manner, the necessary ill T_ ruc.ture car be constructed
incrementally. If the subject profs^ ty f.s rezoned to RE -1, the City may be
requested to approve a subdivisioi wi.h wie acre lots with individual
septic systems. Staff would not r ommend approval of the use of septic
systems on one acre lots. The ti'E n rr,r t;ourity sewer policy requires that
new subdivisions provide public �ivi, 1-r � ookrrps if there is a sewer line
within one -half mile of the pro s the case for the Latunski
property.
Fire Protection:
As mentioned
)us ,y under the
Access discussion, an
1,800 foot long
dead -end road
1 inconsistent
with Fire District
requirements and is
considered poor
iansi,:g For fire
protection purposes.
SECTION V' - ONCLUSIONS
As discussed in the Project Site 1' -;t)-y - (�cti.on of this report, in the
early 1980's, the County processes^ si;; re..cning phases to bring about
compliance with the Moorpark Commu tV 1'1an (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 d ti�n;cc iwd as a result of the Phase V
rezoning effort by the County (r-e� ( i,,xi ihits 3 and 4). If the City
approves a General Plan amendment �i i r�zonsrrg for Mr. Latunski to return
the RE -1 Acre zoning his propert,, r,c :r '1979, we will be setting a
precedent for hundreds of propert i r.. h • . �nf;h� it the City
For example, Harry Lieb's 51.5 -acr,
Latunski's lot was also downzoned
Whatever decision the City makes
obviously be precedent setting
previously, Abe. Guny has made an
has filed a subdivision map for
51.5 -acre property,
property to the south and east of Mr.
From RE 1 Acre to RE-5 Acre in 1982.
) r the Latunski property will very
Ir tlie. 1, ieb property. As discussed
urchase the Li.eb property, and
e eau *, }err. ,1 acres of the subject
Staff considers the requested Gerie it 'Ian land use designation amendment
and zone change to be inconsistei with ridopted General Plan goals and
policies. Scattered urban development. with inadequate public services and
access may result. Spot zoning, uc:l as tha' requested, is considered
inappropriate because development ioF>�_ riot occur in an orderly, phased
manner. Staff, therefore, consider the proposal to be premature and that
the County of Ventura acted correct ,l in 1982 when the Board of Supervisors
rezoned Mr. Latunski's property frc,n RE-] E:,re to RE -5 acre. No change in
the land use designation and zoriinF flc.) Mr Latunski's 4.12 -acre property
should occur until the surrounding:, proper'�es to the east and south are
also analyzed collectively regar P�, h- appropriateness of allowing
one -acre minimum lots.
SECTION VI - S'FAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission dire- �-tafi t:o draft a resolution to be
considered at the next regular „ :nmir,sioii meeting of January 2, 1990,
recommending that the City Council +any lAie ,)roposed General Plan amendment
and zone change based on the fox lcw ,g is ri
1. The proposed land use desigrin ion amendment and zone change are not
consistent: with the Land Use rrwi , the General Plan.
2. Access and public services ,3 ,
zoning.
Prepared by:
Dom. S.T .t��af
Deborah S. Traffenstedt�
Senior Planner
aa3e•rlu t��r to accommodate the proposed
Approved by:
Patri J. Richards
)irec,,tor of Community
Development
SECTION V [ -- EXHIBITS
1. Negative Declaration
2. Phasing Schedule for Moorpark lei P'.aai fezoni -ng
3. Phase V Rezoning - -List of Prop tio.s ani Zone Change Description
4. Phase V Rezoning Map
5. Traffic Analysis Report
CITY C M00RPAkK
COMMUNITY DEVE )PM4?N'I i )EPARTM�' t
799 MOC , PARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, r IJFMNIr 'i�,021
NEGAT I VI a*,(' ARA I "N
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
EXHIBIT 9
1. Entitlement: General Plan Amw 'mert No (,PA-88-IA and Zone Change No.
Z- 88 -2A.
2. Applicant: Joseph Latunski
3. Proposal: Amend General 1 "I
Rural Low (5 acre /du) to Rum
Acre to RE -1 Acre.
4. Location & Parcel Number(s_I:
Road and 1,500 feet west of Wr
5. Responsible ARencies: None
lanri ise designation from Residential
ll i f,,h ( 1 ticre /du) , and rezone from RE -5
ppr xx imritely 1,800 feet north of Casey
2n,t. t',ur nn Road (APN 500- 260 -06).
II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL F': *< ING`i:
An initial study was conducted "5
evaluate the potential effects of
upon the findings contained it
determined that this project ccii
environment.
lit, Comm in i ty Development Department to
i-, ,irnj(�ct upon the environment. Based
,c,' -d initial study, it has been
« t i% ri significant effect upon the
III. PUBLIC REVIEW:
1. Legal Notice Method: Direct mailing to property owners within 300
feet.
2. Document Postinjz Period: No v,,r rri 'tI t? rough December 18, 1989.
Prepared by:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt (Date)
Senior Planner
App oved by:
I' -it ick i-hards (Date)
is i i -ctor �o Community
I' - % Ic)pment
CITY Cti ?ORPA f:
INITIAL STUD`, IEI,F_L P S 'i I'0RM
I. BACKGROUND
1.
Name of Applicant Joseph '_.'
sic
2.
Project Description Amend G, -t ,
it ] l in Lund
use designation from
Rural
Los (5 acre/du) to Rural High t
3c!rE,,r,tu and
rezone from RE -.5 Acre to
RE -1 Acre.
3.
Date of Checklist submittal `"'
iboi '9 1989
4.
Project Location Approxirria'
y 7�0O feet
north of Casey Road
and
1,500 feet west of Walnut Can:,
c
II. ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
(Explanations
of all "'es" and "m._ivr
irswer> are
required on attached
sheets.)
YES MAYBE
NO
1.
EARTH. Will the proposal restil:
7
a. Unstable earth conditions o
n chin ; •!s,
x
in geologic substructures'
b. Disruptions, displacement: ;,
overcovering of the soil'?
C. Change in topography or g -ori
relief feature:;?
d. The destruction, covering or
any unique geologic or ph,rsi
e. Any increase in wind or wat
either on or off the site
mpact is 1 or x
:,urt sc, X
ouifica ion of
1 fc -at.�. es? —
,210si.)r of soils,
f. Changes in deposition or er, ion of teach sands,
or changes in situation, ?e; tti -Jn 11 erosion
which may modify the channe t a riv r or
stream or the bed of the
inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or prope t to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, nr_i iIides, mud-
slides, around a,arJs?
YES MAYBE NO
2. AIR.
Will the proposal result. .
a.
Substantial air emissions O!
-:i,,r
t' - -n
X
of ambient ii.r quality"
__
�.
The crewion of object -Lontib
C.
Alteration of air movement, :,
ist ire
r
temperature, or any change
1i nna, e.
zither
locally or regionally?
d.
Is there a potential -'-'or cunt
iti✓e averse
impacts ,gin ii:r quality in 1.1k.
-area?
3. WATER.
Will the proposal rest_!-
a. Changes in currents, or tle,
of water movements, in eithEi
waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates,
or the rate and amount of !;,.i
c. Alterations to the course c
waters?
srs 2 0f
lia r [ n,,
rai la4;e
ace rrin
;cw
direction X
r fresh
patterns, X
1 ,od
d. Change in the amount of st..: j it-er i i
any water body?
e. Discharge into surface water: or in ny )(
alteration of surface water cli,y, ncluding
but not limited to temper<et :, , , :l i s >o? v,�d oxygen
or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction ra.:e c }! Flow of
ground waters? --
g. Change in the quantity of gi, „1d aaL.eis, either
through direct additions cr ,. thdrawais, or
through .interception of ar fr_ y c,.its
or excavations?
h. Degradation of ground watt : - _I i ::y ' X
i. Substantial reduction in th, !cou it o! _
otherwise available for pu.h wa::_er ups plies?
j. Exposure of people or prope!t to w.it-r related
hazards r ;uch as, f looding k 1 'a 1 w iv s
YES MAYBE NO
4.
PLANT LIFE. Will the proposa'.
uit
a. Changes in the diversity of
ecie.!� c number of
any species of plants (incl.,,
ng tr_E;, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic
b. Reduction of the numbers z
,rnigi , rare or
endangered species of plant
C. Introduction of new species
plants into an area,
Y_
or in a loarrier to the noi-,rn
r«-- p'lenj: hment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of arty
rrcultr: a1 crop?
X
5.
ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal
sult it
a. Change in the diversity of ;l
cies or numbers of
X
any species of animals (bir,::r
land animals
including reptiles, fish ,iii
ht l if ish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
b. Restrict the range of or ot;it-
wise if ° ect any
X
rare or endangered animal s,p�
ics?
C. Introduct=ion of new
,Inim31:. into an
X
area, or result in a barr
the Tilgration
or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing t �
i.r wil[life
habitat?
6.
NOISE. Will the proposal result
n:
a. Increases in existing nose>1
X
b. Exposure of people to sever
Is4 ieNels?
7.
LIGHT AND GLARE, kill the props
pr.o(3uc e new
light or glare?
8.
LAND USE. Will the proposal ,e_.
ii . ubstantial
alteration o the present or
11.ind use of an
area?
9.
NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the j,ri,;
sal rest It in:
a. Increase in the rate of u: o
role naturtil
x
resource,?
b. Substantial depletion of <n�.
)nr nrw�b1.e
�(
resource'
10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the propo�,,
a. A risk of an explosion or t.
substances (including, bi.t.
pestic.es, chemical or T,' c
of an accident or upset nor (°
11. POPULATION. Will the proposal <1
distribution, density or growt!
population of an area?
12. HOUSING. Will the proposal ai:c
or create a demand for addition,,
13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. W I
in:
n 7 Lv
re l -eas of hazardous
l unit_3 to, oil,
it i )n'; i : he event
:.10 1S
ter the location,
to or the human
e cistins; housing,
ho is in ?
t h,� pro posal result
a.
Generation of substantial r;(i
iti�)nal
vehicular
movement?
b.
Effects on existing parkin,
c':it_s
or demand
for new parking?
C.
Substantial impact upon e:c_:
n�; t_a,sportation
systems' -
d.
Alterations to present p,� t l ,
i�
rculation o-
movement of people and /oi ,�
e.
Alterations to waterborne., r
1 ,r air
traffic?
f.
Increase in traffic hazards
motor
vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrian`
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the pro,,
11 ha�-e
an effect
upon, or result in a need for r,
C,!- su t _
rc,d
governmental servies in any
areas
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
C.
Schools.,
d.
Parks or other recreation,::'
,c i i.
e.
Other governmental. service °:
15. ENERGY.
Will the proposal r(,:,i
i
a.
Use of substantial amount ,
f�i(,l o-
cnergy?
YES MAYBE NO
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
X-
X
a. Affect possible unknown a-(, ) cf, c ccr historic-
al sites?
b. Result in destruction or il: a; ion c a known
archaeological or histori :.{ i°( the
vici-nity of tho project?
C. Result in destruction or al_ a,iori c a known X
archaeological or histori .:'. i' c ner - the
vicinity of thy, project?
YES
MAYBE
NO
b. Substantial increase in demat
upon e:;isting sources
X
of energy or require the de,_'(
�)pment i f new sources
of energy?
16.
UTILITIES. Will the proposal r:
i_t it need for ned
systems, or substantial alterat
;;k 1'ollc win,y
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications system?
c. Water?
�(
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
X
e. Storm water drainage?
X
f. Solid waste and disposal?
X
g. Street lighting annexation
ii?/or improvements?
1 Ix
17.
HUMAN HEALTH. Wii.l the proposa
e2 <ult i!i:
a. Creation of any health haza-
of potential health
X
hazard (excluding mental he
n, ?
b. Exposure of people to potion
1 healt'x hazards?
X
18.
AESTHETICS. Will the proposal :,
u'.t in the obstruc—
X_
tion of any scenic vista or view
per; to °:he public,
or will the proposal result in :
i.reatdon of an
aesthetically offensive site )p,,
_ publ'c view?
19.
RECREATION. Will the proposati -
u t 'n in impact
upon the quality or quantity )f
L tiis,,r ecreational
opportunities?
20.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL. Wi!
;1,. VFJT sal:
a. Affect possible unknown a-(, ) cf, c ccr historic-
al sites?
b. Result in destruction or il: a; ion c a known
archaeological or histori :.{ i°( the
vici-nity of tho project?
C. Result in destruction or al_ a,iori c a known X
archaeological or histori .:'. i' c ner - the
vicinity of thy, project?
YES MAYBE NO
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCI.
a. Does the project have the poten
ial to
degrade
the quality of the environment,
3ub3tantially
reduce the habitat of a fist of
ws l it Lf
t species,
cause a fish or wildlife pop l<
icr t a
t rop
below self -- sustaining levels, t
r( atcq
o
eliminate a plant or anima; &"I
unit'.
educe.
the number or restrict the i AA,
4 -f , i
;re or
endangered plant or animal "r
iminntt
important
examples of the major perioa,
W
history or prehistory?
--
—
b. Does Does the project have the p"t-
1 1
1chieve
short -- term, to the disadvan' n j
Yh n;,
term,
environmental goals? (A shoi 1
errs .MP
u. t on
the environment is one whic>
ur: n
r
relatively brief, definitive ?
0t f
nime
while long -- term impacts will
u
f into
the future.)
-- —
C. Does the project have impact:
QQi tr
individu-
ally limited, but cumulativEl'
on:,ideiable?
(A project may impact on tuo
un .e s,
pirate
resources where ;:::pact on . a
s Wye
1�
relatively small, but wher_� 1
c t_ , r t.
of the
total of those i npacts on : f:
significant.)
--
—
d. Dons the project have envir o-i
nt a l of
' ects
which will cause substantial
'vni nn c
Wets
on human l,eings, either dive
v t r is
Arectly.
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EV"! JN
Refer to Attachment ;.
IV. DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial eyes t:cn
- -- In conformance with Section1500 tle Stite EIR Guidelines, I find with
certainity th.it the proposal woui i o- h vf n significant impact on the
environment.
I find the proposed project is :Avl y exempt pursuant to class
I find the proposed project COULI, aOT Have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVF 1A, ;I.ARATIO'v should bc. prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed" reject could have a significant
effect on the environment, there V 111 not `:ie a significant effect in
this case because the mitigaticn , ar,urk,:;, described on an attached
sheet could be applied to the pri, 'tTTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SHOULD BE' PREPARED.
_ I find proposed project MAY have Jg-iifi,.ant effect on the
environment, ,.nd an ENVIRONMENTAL RI PORT is required.
_ I find proposed project MAY have ,ig iiw ii ant:. effect on the
environment, :end an ADDENDUM tc , iat'. .ertified Environmental
Impact Report is required.
I find the proposed project MAY h< e a significant effect on the
environment, and this effect i:= :ic quately addressed in a certified
Environmental. Impact Report, ard t u�- SliBSI'QUENT USE of the existing
EIR is required.
G.
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
Senior Planner
Case No.: GPA88-- 1A /Z88 -2A
Applicant: Joseph Latunski
Staff Contact: Deborah Traffenstont
Senior Planner
Attachmerrt cc I n i t a 1 Study
DISCUSSION OF ENI RONIENTAL EVALUATION
EART1
la-1f. The proposed amendment t.
would not result in: a) Unstable en
substructures; b) Disruptions, disl
the soil; c) Change in topography
destruction, covering or modific.at
features; e) Any increase in wind
off the site; or f;)Modification
However, approval of the request., w
subsequent approval of a parcel
development and associated lot.
anticipated as site grading would i
map and issuance of a zone deal&
Standard parcel map conditions ,t
plan for review and approval, regal
to take place during the ra.n�
landscaping of all graded slop"
grading. Grading associated wi
structures would be reviewed prior
taw and use designation and rezoning
t_h :orrd i t ions or in changes to geologic
acameuts, compaction or overcovering of
>r r"und surface relief features; The
>n o f m y unique geologic or physical
w itor erosion of soils, either on or
f t c hrrnne I of a river or stream.
Vw a parcel map to be filed, and
+p �lK allow additional residential
icing No significant impacts are
r, nwwol prior to approval of a parcel
f) ii Wing permit.
)pr"v , l require submittal of a grading
in crni on control plan if grading is
ti;or snn, rnd require hydroseeding or
i L i i q 41 days of the completion of
a.:t1i construction of residential
; — of a building permit.
ig. Based on the City's Safety Elp ,n < oologic or seismic hazards are
known to exist m"site or within, f, m We vicinity of the Latunski
property.
AIR
2a -2d. The proposed General Plan
in an inconsistency with the adoPr(
Plan. The Ventura County Air Poll
the Preparation of Air Quality Im
which would emit 13.7 tons per N
individually and cumulatively haa,
quality. The proposed project woul
per year or more of either ROC o- 4
in any substantial change in pop A.
mendmen,_ and rezoning would not result
Voitww county Air Quality Management
ion Ko; trol District's Guidelines for
ac• Analyses states that all projects
rrc o of either ROC or NOx would
a �0 ficant adverse impact on air
It in an emission of 13.7 tons
°� the proposal would not result
WATER
3a -3j. Because no development wow
1e
ciirictly permitted by
the approval
of the proposed General Plan amend3
>�nt
trod zone change., no water impacts
would result. Any future parc,e
map
p�>posal would need
to include
conditions of approval to ensure
ha
tics degradation of ground water
quality would result from subdivi:
on
of the property. If
the subject
property is proposed to be subdit
del
int:> one acre lots,
a necessary
mitigation measure to minimize watei
gii0
ity impacts would be a
requirement
for the subdivider to provide pul
service to each
new parcel
created.
PLANT LIFE
4a -4d. There are no known uniquo, rar,�, o endangered species of plants
located on the Latunski property. utur-e subdivision of the project site
would result in removal of som, c?f +_hf, existing vegetation on the
property; however, no signific.an p ant species would be affected.
Existing trees on the property wou', he protected by existing City policy
which requires protection or replac nertt „f_ trees with a trunk 4 inches in
diameter or greater. New plants ii he introduced into the area if the
property is subsequently subdividrt ilr �> r, the existing vegetation on
the property is substantially non- ,
ANIMAL LIFE
5a -5d. The proposal is not exl e> t rf ,u,I t in any impacts to animal
species.
NOISE
6a -6b. No significant increase
proposal, and no increased exposur
result.
LIGHT AND GLARE
tcisr- levels would result from the
F to severe noise levels would
7. Subsequent subdivision of the pr l>er -a.y wool d result in the introduction
of new lighting and glare. Coed ..i)tts approval would need to be
included for any future parcel map minimize cumulative light and glare
impacts from increased residentiro
LAND USE
8. While the requested General F'l.r amcandme tit /zone change would result in
an alteration of the present and pl�1111t'd k1116 Lase of the area and would be
inconsistent with several General an i,o;il,; and policies, the potential
change in land use is not viewed 3s tnnte,iI" due to the limited number
of new lots whic1l could be create,i i,rcl.,csal is approved.
NATURAL RESOURCES
9a -9b. The proposal would not -es <ir, increase in the rate of use of
any natural resources, nor woule ". st;'t n substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable resource.
RISK OF UPSET
10. The proposal would not result. n rn in xeased risk of an explosion or
the release of hazardous substance.
POPULATION
11. If the requested General P to amendment /zone change is approved,
the Latunski property could be subs ! v iced into one acre 'Lots, with all of
the surrounding properties requir,d to be five acre lots or greater.
Approval of the proposal may, there >r, 'o growth inducing.
The proposal could result in an ri .eriit.ion i)f the location of the human
population in Moorpark; however, a� t6e to�tdA size of the subject property
is only 4.12 acres, only a minor (:�i g n, pq)tilation would result.
HOUSING
12. The proposal could result e- ,icid _ional housing units.
TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
12a -12f. A Focused Traffic Stue;, w,ts completed by the City Traffic
Engineer for the Latunski proposal. I'h - Oictusion of that study was that
the proposed General Plan amendmei acrd zone change would result in an
insignificant impact to the traffic r_irc.itiai_ ion system within the City of
Moorpark. That report: did not, how( ell, tina €.yze circulation issues related
to a future subdivision of the prop rt.y Ci.,rrently access to the property
is from a private, unimproved ron� which connects to Casey Road. The
private access road is approximat(, 1,poo feet long. It is considered
poor planning for fire protection E>urpuscr to increase the density of
development where there is a long-,It, ,ki cnci i -ad over 800 feet in length and
no second access to a property. A!iy fist ii,, ubdi.vision Rroposal would need
to include a second emergency ac(,!(; -!- roperty.
Another access problem is at t,,e
Canyon Road. The alignment of Walrn
problem at the Casey Road intersel
property would require furthei
necessary developer contributions
Road /Walnut Canyon Road intersects ,
�tc�� sect ion of Casey Road and Walnut
;.uiv or Road creates a sight distance
my future -� subdivision of the
ttfi� mpact analysis to determine
>1 1(,,i 'ci improvements to the Casey
PUBLIC SERVICES
14a -14e.
The proposal
would not 1<<
significant effect upon or result
in a need
for new or
altered gov�Inment
=al services due to the limited
number of
residential
structures i,
ich fould ultimately be constructed.
However, conditions of
approval ma4
Fz refu red for any future parcel map
to ensure
adequate fire
protecticra
w lots created.
ENERGY
15. The proposal would not result
UTILITIES
an; tiulstantial change in energy use.
16. No substantial alterations to tilit:ies would result. The proposal
could result in a need for new extesions for water and sewer service. No
problem with accommodating the few a,idittonal hookups to existing water and
sewer facilities is expected. Necisary storm water drainage facilities
would be analyzed in conjunction wit ant future parcel map submittal.
HUMAN HEALTH
17a -17b. The proposal would not res It rt a,iy health hazard or exposure of
people to potential health hazards.
AESTHETICS
18. The project site is screened f- >m view from all major roadways and is
surrounded by undeveloped property, therefcre, no visual impact would be
expected from additional residential levol�pment. The project site is at a
lower elevation than the 'land to tlic- o-,h. east, and west.
RECREATION
19. A Quimby fee would be require or any future parcel map proposal;
therefore, no impact on parks car rf,( i oit i onal opportunities would be
expected.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL
20a -20c. There are no known arch o'cgECr or historical sites on the
project site. Because the site liar, of-it dig, urbed by existing residential
development, no sites are expected.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE;
21a -21d. The "No" responses M� 1) 1� i ri the answers to Checklist
Questions numbered 1 -20.
CITY (i1 +)i)i��?'E ",R1�:
DEPARTMENT OF U_ __'1 Y DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
(To Be Complet-i By Applicant)
Date Filed 10 - 2 7 - F'���
General Information
I. Name and address of developer or p,, -)ject sponsor:
no r n k C i Cc.r � A, .; . S= ,� �Lp b
2. Address of project: 2.89
Assessor's Block and Lot Number:
3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning
this project: �ct�ricf� �c� �Z0-5) .52-?
J
4. Indicate number of the permit, application for the project to which this
form pertains: G P)c1 - f (�!,_ 2, � E1
5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals
required for this project, including thos required by city, regional,
state and federal agencies:
6. Existing zoning district: R F -
x
7. Proposed use of site (Project for w°,ich this form is filed):
Project Description
8. Site size. 4, 12-
ac
9. Square footage.
10. Number of floors of construction„ V)
11. Amount of off - street parking provid, Yi. AL.Irl
12. Attach plans. Rcsre.- to (occ. r
13. Proposed scheduling.
14. Associated project. AY)
15. Anticipated incremental development:
16. If residential, include the number
oaf` sale prices or rents, and type ;
I
r r, c A,
4S ,
f remits, :schedule of unit sizes, range
household size expected.
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally
oriented, square footage of sales o ea, and load ;.g facilities.
MA
18. If industrial, indicate type, estinkktod employment per shift, and loading
facilities. A),q
19. If institutional, indicate the maj,�r function, estimated employment per
shift, estimated occupancy, loadi ,sg facilities, and ccxmiunity benefits to.
be derived frcAn the project.
MC)
20. If the project involves a varian e, conditional use or rezoning applica-
tion, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required.
�ro�cc� ir,vv� ✓cs ca- .reoc7r -Y� .:� �r�_5c rc C�n9��t�r.cc� ivit}� G�r,�rc�l P/
Are the following items applicable to'tho project or its effects? Discuss below
all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary) .
Yes No
21.
Change in existing features of any
-gays, tidelands, beaches,
2.
29.
or hills, or substantial alteration
of ground contours.
22.
Change in scenic views or vistas fr)m existing residential
30.
areas or public lands or roads.
services (police,
X
23.
Change in pattern, scale or character
of general area of
—'
31.
project. Vr0ffn —J cJ-,a rq e LyJ.
c f� ° cc�� +_
:A1 •.
—
ZOlilr'1Q • S�.TTOUnpinc] prJOO�r � -.r..,
-solid
��7r�
C3. 7'C Zor-i�d /1�" L1G.•
24.
Significant amounts of wa_stc�
)r litter.
X
25.
Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes c;
odors '.n vicinity..
26.
Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream
ar ground water quality or
X
quantity, or alteration of existtnf-°
drainage patterns.
27.
Substantial change in existing noi.:,
or vibration levels in
X
-
. the vicinity.
28.
Site on filled land or on slope of
.0 percent or more.
X
29.
Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
30.
Substantial change in demand for ntiricipal
services (police,
X
fire, water, sewage, etc.).
—'
31.
Substantially increase fossil fuel
onsumptt_on (electricity,
oil, natural gas, etc.).
32.
Relationship to a larger project on
series of projects.
Environmental Setting
33. Describe the project site as it exi ?ts before the project, including infor-
mation on topography, soil stabi.lit,,, plants and animals, and any cultural,
historical or scenic aspects. E scribe any existing structures on the
site, and the use of the stru, .ures. Attach photographs of the site.
Snapshots or polaroid photos wi bc, <icc; opted .
34. Describe the surrounding propertLes, inciuding information on plants and
animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type
mn
of land use (residential, comer-ial, etc:.), intensity of land use (one -
family, apartment houses, sho,;)s, department stores, etc.), and scale of
development ('cieight, frontage !,et-- b-tck, rear yard, etc.) . Attach
Photographs of the vicini_t,, ;
i
\� -
Lo
36 PV
ILI
-
\ �l
1 � x
LLL
- t��--t�•s��y�♦ • 1 t • • • s • !� }!"•�� -r♦-y� l l}�i�- �1t- �+s{�•y ♦Y + ♦ • jT• {''1Y
�+_T + +L- 1- 1-tv.1 i+. - ��� - {'YTT '�1 • i + } +�+J -.+_ ._._1~ _.Y_ �� Y .� _ y'1 F14'
�- }`.-n' ;tom tea- _{ �'/�� •� - �- �-Y f�.. -1-i Y-�.�� � _� � - 1 -
,
J r y t— T
_ Ii IJr ( � } � v T V FV
ER
_T
— y i A vk r T o f
2M +.k 179
--• T
LOCATION MAP
GPA -88 -1 A /Z -88 -2
(No Scale)
�I
1
\
5a
RA – 1 Q
- -- -_ -- - - -- - -, > =cam
— - -- - - - - --
0-�<Prpject Site
�(R
0
—–' Rm 5 ac
AC Ly 1 —
RE
i
r 1TTU . FFP
M -2 c.. i
If
M -1
- IRPD -15u
cpb
-- _.
H -1 -13 J _ PD
r�1— RPO
UE
rte ~ .9 1 -
- - — t7
F-, r
SURROUNDING ZONING
GPA -88•- 1 A / Z -88 -2A
(No Scale)
EXHIBIT 2
1
y
RUF•, .L OPEN SPACE
Tnl. Plan (.opl It pert of 1M C.n.rdi plan odppl.d punuenf h
Ploanind La. of the Slat. of Cohtornia, pa..,.d by raolu lr ael
Pronn,np Ca—.Uan on 12 -17 -79 and IN. Boord of Sup.r•,
Of v9nl Yon �12 -M -79-
)cord svoo V 0"' c"""an
►�annlnd Commlulon, Ireton
Ventura County 1
Resource PHASING SCHEDULE FOR
Management
Agency
h100RPARK AREA PLAN REZONIN
EXHIBIT 3
'1CORF APti AREA PL;,,, REZCNE
PHASE. V
Z -2688
Subarea
Existing Zone
-- - ---- -_
Proposed Zone
1
A -E
2
P -E -lAc
R -E- SAc
3
R- '-!Ac, R -E
A -E
4
R -E, -20
R -E -lAc
A -E
6
-E - lAc
R -E -SAc
-E- 20Ac
R -E -SAc
8
E -2 SAc, R. -E -SAc, R- E. -lAc
R- A -10Ac
9
-- �nA.,: , F. P:' RPD -20U
R -E -SAc
10
�i C -20U
11
R -F_- SAc
A -E
12
E `;qr ,- A -2Ac, R -A -lAc
A -E
13
"---SAC
A -E
14
_`..._Ttc
R- A -lOAc
E:,:1 7 1 ':': "2" of Ordinance
SE.SCR'S PARCEL LST
r4 Rezone (Fhase V)
AssesSorls
e
Proposed Zcne
(Sub3rca
c
A-E
Subarea
500--5c,
c
500 -250
F.-E- lAc
5 A c
500-
R E-5Ac
500-2 0
,,c
5 A c
500 -330
c
F-SAc
500-330
R-E-SAc
500-11 30
1, A c
R-E-5Ac
500 -3 >0
F, E-!Ac
R-E-5Ac
R-F-5Ac
(Subarea 3)
500-30•
R----]Ac
500-330-
R-E - lAc
A-E
500-330 -
F---- lAc
A-E
500 -3. >0
R -E
A-E
500-31+0-
P-E-lAc, R-E
A-E
500-3�,O-
R-E-lAc, R-E.
A-E
A-E
(Subarea 4)
511-010-,'
R-E-20
511-010 -,
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511-0i0• -
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511 -010 -.
R r._ 20
R-E-lAc
511-Oic)-
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511-010-
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511-010-
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511 -01C-
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511-010-,
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511-0l0-
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511-010-
R-R-20
R-E-:Ac
511-0110-
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511-010-
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511-010- ,
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
51:-0:)-
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
511-07)-
R-E-20
R-E-lAc
R-E-lAc
(Subarea 5)
5 11-02�)-,
R-E-lAc, R-E
511-02)—
R-E
A-E
A-E
(Subarea 6)
500-26o-(
R-R-iAc
, SOO-26o-
R-E-lAc
R-E-5Ac
500-27(,-
R-E-lAc
R-E-5Ac
500-27C,-
R-E-lAc
R-E-SAc
R-E-lAc
R-E-SAc
R-E-lAc
R-E-5Ac
511-04(-,
R-E-lAc
R-E-5Ac
R-E-3Ac
,R-!:-5Ac
(,Subarea 7)
500-231 -
R"'-20Ac
'100-23—
R"'-20Ac
R-E-5Ac
SOG-23r''
R-E-20Ac
I-E-,`)Ac
R-E-20Ac
R-E-S.
R-E-5Ac
(Subare., 8)
500-240 -i,
R-L-5Ac
500- 24G -G"
R-E-SAc
R-A-IOAc
500-240-C
R-E-5Ac
R-A-IDAc
500-240 -;
R-E-5Ac
R-A-IOAc
500-24o-
R-E-5A(-
R-A-IOAc
500-270-,
R-E-20Ac
R-A-:OAc
500-270-C
R-E-lAc
R-A-10Ac
500-270—,
R-F.-5Ac
R-A-IOAc
500-2710 -.
R-L-SAc
R-A-IOAc
500-270-:
R-E-5Ac
R-A-IDAc
500-270-:
R-F-20Ac, R -E-lAc
R-A-IOAc
R-A-10Ac
)CO-27C
R-1 - jA( . R -E- lAr
I OA,
nr
1sscS:or's Parcel
loorpirk Rezone
P�Re %.O
Assessor e,;o
Snlne: cj
512
512 -1i�:
.J 12-1;
5i2 -O._1
5i2 -0 .0
512 -it,0-
512-1t.0-
512 -1t 0- , �u
512 -1f,0-
572 -1f,(,
512 -1 r. ( +- '
(Subarea 10) 512 -0':C
(Subarea 11) 500-2-,C-
(Subarea 12) 500 -21G
500 -21C
500- 210 -
500- 211 -
500 -21)
500 -21)
500- 2l) -,i
500-21)-
500 -2'. )-
500-21) -
500 -'2:
(Subarea 13) 500-211, -
(Subarea 14) 500 -16(,
500 -16(,
502- 05(- -(,
502 - 05(-1'
502-05(-,,
i
502-05(--i
502 -05(-
502- 05( -:,.
502 -050-.
502-050
502 -0.5
RA /E1`.i
F.xistinr Zone
Proposed -cne
R -A -lAc
R -E -SAc
- 1 -:'OAv
I,-E -SAc
::- i -20Av
R -E -5Ac
i- 1 -2OAv
R -E -5Ac
%-'-'OAv, R- P -D -20U
-E -5Ac
F. -P -li -20'1)
P, -E -5Ac
F -P -D-
-5Ac
R- P- D -20(:, ,R- P -D -5U
R -E -5Ac
R- P -D -5U
R -E -SAc
R- P -D-5U
R-E-5Ac
F- P -D -SU
R -E -5Ac
R- P -D -SU
R -E -SAc
R -0-D -2011
R -E -5Ac
R -P -E -201'
R -E -SAc
R-E -IAc
R -E -5Ac
F- 1 -20Av
R -E -SAc
R -E -lAc
R -E -5Ac
R-E -1Ac
R -E -5Ac
R -E -lAc
R -E -5Ac
R- F. -lAc
R -E -5Ac
R- P -D -20U
R -E -]Ac
R -E -SAc
A -E
R -E -5Ac
A -E
R -A -lAc
A -E
R -A -lAc
A-E
R -A -2Ac
A -E
R -A -lAc
A -E
R -A -lAc
A -E
R -A -2Ac
A -E
R -A -2Ac
A -E
R-A -2Ac
A -E
R -A -2Ac
A -E
R -A- -2Ac
A-E
R -E -5Ac
A-E
R -E -5Ac
R- A -IOAc
R -E -5Ac
R- A -10Ac
R -E -5Ac
R- A -IOAc
R -E -5Ac
R- A -10Ac
R -E -5Ac
R- A -IOAc
R-E -5Ac
R- A -IOAc
R -F. -5Ac
R- A -IOAc
R -F. -5Ac
R- A -IOAc
R -E -5Ac
R- A -IOAc
R -E -5Ac
R- A -l0Ac
R -E-SAc
R- A -lOAc
R -A- 110Ac
I L 2 441 If— —4
_CW
I J/
.. . . .......... 12111111131113111 nor
or
j7 �1
:zr
. X:
pp
/7
. ... .......
J:
3•
-11' so
- : q
7
IIJ
W-1
R ANCHO: jM1, ti
2 GN1
—T 2 N
k 10
77
7
all 1111111
46 2
re
P 60 31
0 -C
A's
Ventura County
Resource
PROPOSED REZONING
------ Management 4Ph
I All ?a
- i : ; LOST ki E ES AVE2 Agency PHASE 7 Z-2688
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:
Subject:
MOORPARK EttHIeir IF
MEMORANDUM
Pat Richards, Direct of C(_mmunity Development
Mark Wessel, City Tr
November 13, 1989
f i , E°-gineer �1 S [ti)
GPA -88 -1A AND Z- 88--21' (LATUNSKI)
FOCUSED TRAFFIC STUD"
This focused traffic study wa: prepazed in conjunction with the
General Plan Amendment (GPA- fa -lA) and Zone Change (Z- 88 -2A)
requested for the Latunski property. The proximity of the Latunski
property to the possible extei, ;ion of the Route 118 Freeway is
identified, traffic generati -i volumes for proposed versus
currently approved land uses art quantified, and cumulative traffic
analyses from a recent traff]..(" .tudy ,ire summarized.
As shown in Exhibit "A ", t;
approximately 1,800 feet north
of Walnut Creek Road. The pr.ol
260 -06) totals 4.12 acres and
Road. However, it is import,_,;
legal access to the Latunski � �.
Latunski property is located
Df Casey Road and 1,500 feet west
,rt'F (Assessors Parcel Number 500 -
i; currently accessed from Casey
to that there is no known
,p. -t Y
As shown in Exhibit "B ", the prc,:osed f it:.ure extension of the Route
118 Freeway will pass just_ ot.it h the Latunski property.
Consequently, the current acre s roadway would be. eliminated and
an alternative access roadway, � u 1,i hiive to be established.
— RECEIVED _
NOV i 4 1989
City of Moorpark
r. ....
_
F „venu. ��, ...
-- - - (,'95) 529-6864
- -�.�
STEVEN KUENY
a
City Manager
CHERYL J. KANE
.`{
{
P
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, Direct of C(_mmunity Development
Mark Wessel, City Tr
November 13, 1989
f i , E°-gineer �1 S [ti)
GPA -88 -1A AND Z- 88--21' (LATUNSKI)
FOCUSED TRAFFIC STUD"
This focused traffic study wa: prepazed in conjunction with the
General Plan Amendment (GPA- fa -lA) and Zone Change (Z- 88 -2A)
requested for the Latunski property. The proximity of the Latunski
property to the possible extei, ;ion of the Route 118 Freeway is
identified, traffic generati -i volumes for proposed versus
currently approved land uses art quantified, and cumulative traffic
analyses from a recent traff]..(" .tudy ,ire summarized.
As shown in Exhibit "A ", t;
approximately 1,800 feet north
of Walnut Creek Road. The pr.ol
260 -06) totals 4.12 acres and
Road. However, it is import,_,;
legal access to the Latunski � �.
Latunski property is located
Df Casey Road and 1,500 feet west
,rt'F (Assessors Parcel Number 500 -
i; currently accessed from Casey
to that there is no known
,p. -t Y
As shown in Exhibit "B ", the prc,:osed f it:.ure extension of the Route
118 Freeway will pass just_ ot.it h the Latunski property.
Consequently, the current acre s roadway would be. eliminated and
an alternative access roadway, � u 1,i hiive to be established.
— RECEIVED _
NOV i 4 1989
City of Moorpark
r. ....
_
F „venu. ��, ...
-- - - (,'95) 529-6864
November 13, 1989
Page 2
The requested General Plan Land A;,,endment. (GPA- 88 -1A) is from land
use description Residential Rura Low (> acre /du) to Residential
Rural High (1 acre /du) and the RE'quested :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 b, constructed if the General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change are af)J - cv' ?c]i
Traffic generation volumes for the proposed versus currently
approved land uses are shown i Exhibit "C". It is readily
apparent from the exhibit that: t,e additional traffic that could
be generated as a result of the equested General. Plan Amendment
and Zone Change would be insignifi ant. Consequently, because only
3 additional morning peak hour tr PS and only 4 additional evening
peak hour trips could be genE�r3tf?d, o intersection level of
service analyses were deemed
Cumulative traffic analyses from ne of the most recently approved
traffic studies are summarized in
Ixhibits "D ", "E"
and "F ".
These
exhibits reflect projected concf i'�
Dns an(] kevels of
service
at four
critical intersections within --..
cit.; :,. Exhibit
"D" shows
total
future (1993 ) traffic den, a r. #r
Ex ibi t "E"
shows
future
intersection levels of service,
and Exhibit "F"
shows
assumed
cumulative improvements at the "(
r :r it :ic :al intersections.
In conclusion, the proposed Gerier,L Flan Amendment (GPA- 88 -1A) and
Zone Change (Z- 88 -2A) would res,r in an insignificant impact to
the traffic circulation system within the City of Moorpark.
However, the lack of legal acce . t) t thcr ] -latunski property should
be addressed.
copy: Steve Kueny, City Mana(lor
R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer
John F. Knipe, Assistanr_ City Engineer
Jim Biega, Project Engi�ee-
Chris Lynch, Associate ngineer-
MSW:JB:ts
01745/3001
AM01363.MEM (WP)
T 14 5'
7
r P
I I
II
=�' ATUNSKI
PROPERTY .........
:ROUTE 118, FREEWAY
II
II
II
R
II
2
_oQOS�o
Q�'
ppp_
L
O
D
Fl UNION
HIGH
S C H 0 0
• a• a• . . . . a• .
36 Pm "?
aS
-7-TF-F (NOT EXACT)
)IrrC ----------
L
,,<E u 5 D.
N.T.S
5 MR 18 '1/2
r7, -/I-
7 P4
i
HL il E 'd
Ella
li M
r 7 a
L
. . . . . . . . . . .
Vl:qT VUILE
11 TLA Wft0EITrj 40LN
25 1 W
I I TIA I \Fmcc 12,1 Hoo 1 1 17
T77 17 9
EXHIBIT B
t4
a- ¢I
21
POI DEXJER
C H004
Vl:qT VUILE
11 TLA Wft0EITrj 40LN
25 1 W
I I TIA I \Fmcc 12,1 Hoo 1 1 17
T77 17 9
EXHIBIT B
LAND USE
DESCRIPTION
Single Family
Dwelling Unit
T.Ann TT -qP
Proposed
(4 du)
Current
(1 du)
Additional
Traffic
TRAFFIC GENERATION FACTORS
AM PEAK HOUR_..
IN OUT ? 'TAIL
27% 7306 i 00
PM PEAK HOUR
IN OUT TOTAL ADT
63% 37% 1.25 12.5
TRAFFIC GENERA'T'ION
VOLUMES FOR
PROPOSED
VERSUS
CURRENTLY
APPROVED LAND
USES
AM PEAK
HOUP _
PM
PEAK
HOUR
IN
OUT
"I TAL
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 TransportatioT Engineers (ITE)
Trip GenerationL Fourth F.c' do n.
EXHIBIT C
y
\
m
W
Al
13
Rd. o
0
on
01
a"1-
n
x
C)
j
240/470
1100/1280
ITJ
ti
Nigh S1, 14100
A L.A. Ave.
5/20
395/ 570
b
70/130- -
�c°
H
n
y
00 \
H
�
O
N
O
O
"Cl
x
n
H
d
�A
C
1
co
U
co
N4
I
1
W
Gabber! Rd
1�
goo
�I
4i n °
��—
1 32,2001 1 1 1
60/40
L.A. / t
4 -- 920 /1380
2 ^5/575
A ve
�—_ v
(S R
,,a) 90,70 —�
1150/1165 - -f-
14 r
155/245
m�v
O
O
')m
O
w
N
N V
Tierra Ri/odo Rd,
TMA
Lam,
NO SCA"
Sprinp
Rd. o
0
on
01
a"1-
n
65/105
j
240/470
1100/1280
f
s :65 /8r,"
Nigh S1, 14100
A L.A. Ave.
5/20
395/ 570
(S. R. / /B)
70/130- -
�c°
r
�m�
00 \
tivo
M
O
N
,14w,pork Ave
r—
Y7 \ hn
200/405
1235/1555
30/80 - - -�
r N N
O n-n n
LEGEND
• 00 /" Abl /PM Peak Flow
Tralfit Yoluara
r0001 Daily Traffic
Volume
�'' v
1
f
s :65 /8r,"
New
L.A. Ave
675/740--)
715 /665 —+r-
26,900
255/495
11
r-m-
�� O
\
O
O O
O
mo
N v
0
TOTAL S=UTURE (1993)
TRAFFIC DEMANDS
TaGle L
FUTURE VOLUME/ (:A i' A C= RELA rI ONSHIPS
Study Intersection
Spring Road & Los Angeles Avenue /New
Los Angeles Avenue
Los Angeles Avenue &-Moorpark Avenue
Los Angeles Avenue & Tierra Rejada Road/
Gabbert Road
Spring Road & High Street /Los Angeles
Avenue
EXCERPT FROM IPD -88 -3
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
(TMA, 6/16/89)
F-ak
,.oc Exi °sing Plus
Sit Traffic
i
�i
J. 94/E
'!
1.00 /E
s
0.62/B
).54/A
�!
).66 /B
0.67/B
0.53/A
"
-z'5 /A
'.
J.66 /B
"!
0.79 /C
V/C - LOS Values
1993 Traffic Conditions
Without With
Site Traffic I Site Traffic
1.03 /F
1.03 /F
1.16 /F
1.17 /F
0.62/B
0.62/B
0.83 /D
0.83/D
0.67/B
0.68/B
C.73 /C
0.73/C
0.89/D
0.89/D
1,.13 /F
1.13 /F
EXHIBIT E
1. � •
EXHIBIT a