HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0418 CC REG ITEM 09B MOORPARK ITEM 1 4 B.
PAUL W. LAWRASON,Jr. o,a� ��, STEVEN KUENY
Mayor a>P��° City Manager
SCOTT MONTGOMERY � A � �o CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tern �/w City Attorney
ELOISE BROWN gr-��iy�•� PATRICK RICHARDS,A.I.C.P.
Councilmember o r ` a Director of
e° " Community Development
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. 9 R. DENNIS DELZEIT
Councilmember
BERNARDO M. PEREZ City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V.GILLESPIE
LILLIAN KELLERMAN CITY OF MOORPARK Chief of Police
City Clerk CITY COUNCIL RICHARD T. HARE
STAFF REPORT City Treasurer
APRIL 18, 1990
SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. HEARING DATE: B. HEARING TIME:
APRIL 18, 1990 7.00 P.M.
C. HEARING LOCATION: D. CASE NO. :
City Council Chambers MAJOR MODIFICATION NO. 1
799 Moorpark Avenue to Planned Development
Permit No. 1062
E. STAFF CONTACT: F. APPLICANT:
Winnie Wilson Embassy Plaza no. 16
Associate Planner
G. PROPOSED PROJECT:
On November 29, 1989, the applicant filed a major modification to
Planned Development Permit No. 1062 to add a freestanding, single-
story, 7,886 square foot building pad to the northwest portion of
the proposed 4 .5 acre neighborhood commercial center. The building
would be intended for retail and/or office uses only with
restaurant use being confined to the 25,332 square foot main
building (building no. 1) .
H. PROJECT LOCATION:
The project site is located at the northwest corner of Spring
Road and Tierra Rejada Road. The Assessor's Parcel Number is
500-39-85, & -35.
I. The application was deemed complete: February 20, 1990.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
2
J. REQUESTED ACTION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony.
2 . Review and consider the proposed mitigation measures and
monitoring program.
3 . Make the appropriate findings .
4. Direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial
of the requested major modification for adoption at the
City Council's meeting of May 2, 1990.
K. ALTERNATIVE CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
1. Recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program, and
conditional approval of the requested major modification.
SECTION II - PROJECT SITE BACKGROUND
A. SITE ZONING: C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
B. VICINITY ZONING:
North: RE-1/RPD-4 .5
South: OS-10 (Open Space-10 acre, County zoning)
East: RE-1
West: RPD-4.5u
C. VICINITY GENERAL PLAN:
North: Specific Plan(Carlsberg)
South: AG -1 10 -40 acres/du
East: Specific Plan
West: M - Medium Density Residential (4du/acre/av)
D. PROJECT SITE HISTORY:
On July 6, 1987, the applicant requested the commercial development
of two parcels, approximately 3. 8 acres and 0.7 acres, under
Planned Development Permit Nos. 1062 and 1063 respectively. The two
parcels were involved in a Parcel Map subdivision (LDM NO. 11) of
a 4 .5 acre site located at the intersection of Spring Road and
Tierra Rejada Road. The two Planned Development Permits and the
land division were recommended for denial by the Planning
Commission on July 6, 1987 but were conditionally approved by the
City Council on September 16, 1987 . The City Council 's approval
for Planned Development No. 1062 was for a 25, 332 square foot
building (building 1) along the western portion of the 4 .5 acre
site. However, the City Council has prohibited gasoline sale as one
of the conditions of approval for this entitlement permit.
3
On December 7, 1989, the City entered into an agreement with the
applicant (Embassy Plaza no. 16, Ltd. ) so that the entitlement
permits for PD 1062 and PD 1063 would not expire until February 28,
1991. As this agreement relates to PD 1062, the City allowed an
addition of a minimum 7,500 square foot, one-story, free-standing
building to the 3.8 acre commercial site. The new building must
have a minimum 30 foot setback from the right-of-way of Spring
Road. Moreover, the building plans and exterior elevations must be
consistent with the buildings originally approved under PD 1062 .
The first submittal of the site plan showed the location of the
proposed building (building 3) on the Spring Road frontage.
However, the revised site plan, which was submitted on February 6,
1990 indicated a change in the size and the location of said
building. The freestanding building, is now located to the north
of the main building (building no. 1) , almost in alignment with the
main building. The size of the building would be increased slightly
to 7,918 square feet in floor area.
F. EXISTING SETTING:
The 3.8 acre commercial site is currently vacant. It is surrounded
by vacant land to the south. To the west and north of the site
there are existing single family residential homes while to the
east is the Carlsberg property which incorporates approximately 500
acres of vacant lands at the present time.
SECTION 111 - ANALYSIS
A. ISSUES:
As previously stated, the proposed modification would involve the
addition of a 7,918 square foot building (building 3) to the
proposed 3.8 acre neighborhood commercial center. The building
would be used for retail and/or office uses with no restaurant use
being proposed. In evaluating this proposed major modification,
staff is concerned primarily with the architectural design of the
neighborhood commercial center and the location of this new
building.
1. HUMAN SCALE
All building design should reflect a sense of human scale and
proportion. The placement and siting of building no. 3 in close
alignment with the 453 feet long main building would tend to
project an impression of a long, extensive, and monotonous
blockface which tends to be out of proportion to human scale. Staff
believes that a neighborhood shopping center, which primary
function is to serve the shopping needs of the immediate
residential neighborhood, should have the siting and orientation
of its building reflect not only human scale but also orient more
4
toward the pedestrian. In addition, in order to reinforce
pedestrian scale, staff feels that the proposed building needs to
be separated from the main building.
2. VARIETY OF BUILDING
All building on the same site should have strong architectural and
spatial relationships . A project containing many buildings should
have variety in building size and massing. There should be a
transition from low buildings on street frontages to larger and
taller structures on the interior of the property. The applicant's
original location for building no. 3 on the Spring Road frontage
(shown in the first submittal) would be more appropriate because
the different building sizes and massing and the alternating
building placement and open space would create more visual interest
and variety. If this modification is approved by the City Council,
staff suggests that building 3 should be reduced slightly in mass
and size, and relocated to front Spring Road with the narrower
end or side of the building to position toward the driveway
entrance to reduce mass.
Moreover, staff believes that the present building arrangement
would promote a "strip" or linear commercial development which the
City's General Plan generally discourages .
3. LOCAL DEMAND/PEDESTRIAN INTEREST
The applicant contended that the buildings on the project site,
being located at a highly visible arterial intersection, should be
visible from the major streets and no one building should be
blocked by another. Staff does not agree that high visibility
should be the focal point of this commercial development. The
primary function of this proposed commercial center, as previously
mentioned, is not to serve the regional market or satisfy commuter
needs but to provide for the local shopping needs of the immediate
residential neighborhood. Therefore, it is important that all the
buildings on the project site should have architectural and spatial
relationships that would accommodate more toward the local market
in the immediate neighborhood than the commuters on the major
streets . The siting and orientation of building no. 3 should
therefore respond to the pedestrian nature of the street (Spring
Road) by facing on and be directly accessible from the sidewalk
with minimal interruption by parking areas.
4. OFFSTREET PARKING LOCATION
Another reason why the proposed siting and orientation of building
no. 3 contribute to poor design image is the extensive asphalt and
concrete pavings of the parking stalls that would be visible from
Spring Road and the approximately 40. 1 acres of proposed single
family residences on the Carlsberg project. In addition, some of
the parking stalls are located too far from the two buildings .
5
Also, staff feels that, with certain exceptions, off-street parking
facilities should not always be located along the street frontage.
Street frontages should be devoted to building architecture and
landscaping. The placement of building no. 3 on Spring frontage
would relieve , to some extent, the "sea of pavement" . In
addition, some of the parking stalls are located too far from the
two buildings. To avoid the long distances that the handicapped
would have to travel, staff suggests that the two handicapped
parking spaces in the center of the parking areas be moved close
to a building.
5. INTERFACE
Finally, the proposed building would appear to lack an adequate
interface to reconcile potential land use conflict. While the main
25,332 square foot building would have the abutting cut slope, with
which it blends harmoniously, as a solid buffer against adverse
impacts on the abutting residential homes, the proposed building
(building no. 3) would only have the existing Eucalyptus trees to
act as a noise or visual screen. Moreover, since these mature trees
are located on the adjacent property, there is no assurance that
they would be preserved.
6. INTERNAL CIRCULATION
With the exception of the issues just mentioned, staff believes
that the site design would have adequate onsite circulation system
and would provide more parking spaces than the minimum required by
the City. However, to make for better and smoother internal traffic
flows, staff recommends that the three parking spaces at the
southwest corner of the project site be removed to minimize backing
out and maneuvering problems. The eliminated spaces would allow
the landscape planters to be expanded.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed modification is considered inconsistent with the
following goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan.
Commercial
Goal 2 To concentrate business facilities in compact areas and
discourage them in linear strings along major and
secondary traffic arterials.
Policy 2 New commercial development should incorporate good design
standards. Design standards include landscaping,
circulation, off-street parking, architectural
compatibility with the surroundings, and others. New
strip commercial development should be discouraged.
6
SECTION IV - ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
Review of pertinent environmental documents has disclosed that the
proposal, if approved, may have adverse environmental impacts.
Mitigation measures have been added to the proposal which would
reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. A discussion
of these potential impacts and mitigation measures are attached.
Proposed mitigation measures have been included as conditions of
project approval. A proposed Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring
Program is included with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
must be adopted prior to project approval to comply with Assembly
Bill no. 3180 .
Assembly Bill no. 3180 was adopted by the State Legislature in
1988. To summarize, this new Law requires a local agency to adopt
a reporting and monitoring program in conjunction with the adoption
of a Negative declaration or in conjunction with the adoption of
the findings for an Environmental Impact report.
SECTION V - CONDITION REVIEW
Because staff 's position is to recommend denial of the major
modification, conditions of approval for PD 1062 Major Modification
No. 1 are not attached to this staff report as one of the exhibits.
However, if this project is approved, the conditions for the major
modification which would supercede all the existing PD1062
conditions could be made available upon request to the City
Council.
Pursuant to the development Agreement made between the City and
the applicant on December 7, 1989, the City agrees not to make
changes to the conditions of approval for PD 1062 as approved by
Resolution No.87-416 with some exceptions as specified below.
These exceptions include existing Community Development Department
Condition No.s 10 . 13, 27, 30, 39 and additional conditions
relating to a performance bond, mitigation monitoring measure,
and fees for parks and art in public places . The following is a
list of the aforementioned conditions:
Community Development Department Conditions
10 . That prior to the issuance of a zone clearance, a landscaping
and planting plan (3 sets) , together with specifications and
maintenance program, prepared by a State Licensed landscape
architect in accordance with County Guidelines for Landscape
Plan Check, shall be submitted to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval. The applicant shall bear
the total cost of such review and of final installation
inspection. The landscaping and planting plan shall be
accompanied by a fee specified by the city of Moorpark. all
landscaping and planting shall be accomplished and approved
prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit. Staff intends
7
to modify this condition to increase landscaping on the
subject site.
13 . That trash disposal areas shall be provided in a location
which will not interfere with circulation, parking or access
to the building and shall be screened with a six (6) foot
high, solid wall enclosure with metal gates, final design of
said enclosure shall be subject to the approval of the
Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of
zone clearance. Staff intends to upgrade the trash areas or
even relocate them if needed.
27 . That signs are subject to the Moorpark Municipal code, chapter
50, of title 9, sign Ordinance. A sign permit is required.
The applicant shall create a sign program which will cause a
common sign letter, type and color to be used throughout the
site. Such program shall be approved by the Director of
Community Development. Staff intends to limit signs facing the
street and the number of monument signs.
30 . For all exterior lighting, a lighting plan shall be prepared
by an electrical engineer registered in the State of
California and submitted to the Department of Community
Development for review and approval prior to the issuance of
a zone clearance. The lighting plan shall achieve the
following objectives.
A. Avoid interference with reasonable use of adjoining
properties .
B Minimize on-site glare;
C. Provide adequate on-site lighting. Limit electroliers
height to avoid excessive illumination. Provide
structures which are compatible with the total design of
the proposed facility.
These plans shall include the following:
1. A photometric plan showing a point by point foot
candle layout to extent a minimum of twenty (20)
feet outside the property lines. Layout plan to be
based on a ten (10) foot grid center.
2 . Maximum overall height of fixtures shall be not more
than fourteen (14) feet in or adiacent to
residential areas and not more than twenty (20) feet
in non-residential areas.
3. Fixtures must possess sharp cut-off qualities at
property lines.
8
4. There shall be no more than a seven to one (7 :1)
ratio of level of illumination shown. (Maximum to
minimum ratio between Lighting Standards. )
5. Low pressure energy efficient light fixtures shall
be used.
6 . Minimum of one-foot candle illumination.
Staff is concerned with the residential interface and
intends to review this condition once again.
39 . The applicant shall prior to the issuance of a zone clearance
execute a covenant agreement running with the land on behalf
of itself and its successors, heirs and assigns agreeing to
participate in the formation of and be subject to any
assessment district or other financing technique including but
not limited to the payment of traffic mitigation fees, which
the City mat implement or adopt, to fund public street and
traffic improvements directly or indirectly affected by he
development. Traffic mitigation fees shall be used for
project in Moorpark/Tierra Rejada Area of Contribution.
Staff intends to modify to reflect the latest needs of the
City.
Additional Conditions
1. No use for which this permit is granted shall be commenced
until Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Building
and Safety division. In addition, no certificate of Occupancy
may be issued until all onsite improvements specified in this
permit have been completed or the applicant has provided some
form of financial security to guarantee the agreement such as
a faithful Performance Bond. Said onsite improvements shall
be completed within 120 days of issuance of the Certificate
of Occupancy. In case of failure to comply with any term or
provision of this agreement, the City Council may by
resolution declare the surety forfeited. Upon completion of
the required improvements to the satisfaction of the Director
of Community Development, the surety may be exonerated by
action of the Director of Community Development.
2 . The applicant shall contribute to the City of Moorpark an
amount of $.25 per square foot of gross floor area for PD 1062
to support the City's current and future park system.
3. The applicant shall contribute to the City of Moorpark's Art
in Public Places fund, an amount of $100 per each 1,000 square
feet of building floor area.
9
4 . The applicant shall comply with all the mitigation measures
and reporting and monitoring program as shown on exhibit no.
4 .
5. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, a Surety Performance
Bond in the amount of $10,000 shall be filed and accepted by
the Director of Community Development. The Director of
Community Development, may, through a public hearing to be
heard before the City Council recommend that any or all of the
funds in the Performance Bond be forfeited for noncompliance
of the Conditions of Approval or for some other just cause.
This condition shall automatically be superseded by a related
resolution or ordinance regarding condition compliance for
entitlement approvals as adopted by the City Council.
SECTION V1 - AGENCY REVIEW
Agencies and Departments which reviewed Major Modification no. 1
include the County Fire Department, County Sheriff's Department,
Caltrans district 7, County environmental Health Department, county
environmental Health, flood control & Water resources Department,
County Planning, Resource Management Agency, Moorpark Unified
school district. Staff has included the proposed conditions
generated through the agency review as conditions of project
approval.
SECTION Vii - STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City council direct staff to draft a resolution to be
considered at the next regular meeting of April 18, 1990,
recommending that the City Council deny PD1062 Major Modification
no. 1 to allow the addition of a 7,918 square foot building because
the required findings cannot be made.
SECTION V11 - EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Findings
3. Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures.
4 . Mitigated negative Declaration and mitigation reporting and
Monitoring Program
5. Initial Study
6 . Site Plan MOORPARK, CALIFOR\G,
7 . Elevation Plan COC (Meeting
Date: March 27, 1990 of 199
Prepared by.: _0 ACRON;__/ ! As •rove• . . .
00111/Pit k? a ,/VMG
Winnie Wilson . . ! at> _ , Patr. • J. Richards
Associate Planner cadet,, 2 Dir- or of Community
Development
r
's.*, __
LOGA
,
'140 1 - , a. ' sor•o
4111 P 111 rit.,s 32 PM 48
. lip op -vitk
`iii uiuinn. S 4£a`N
'UROW17
TIissialtr:SulkolS•rr '�rr
' 001 01A
s11111110111 111111"is.
finimilliffihw.iffr ein
anal MUD w %.1%
11111,11 Elltra *AP V _
r-i---1 t ''- \ 3 porri,
s 4 41
� iiiiiiboIoiipa„IQs
"Naar mai
�� r•%j ��1161.4) ,4000
111 LOCATION
♦o asell asap
•. 4 Villr 00
re MA: T4 4e0VgliO
a ilia ate :1 • 4!-1 0*
1114VIW-**' *� . �� ��i�* *OWL.'. ��
i1� �II1�� ♦ �Ite' 0
►��•.��� 7:011•00 0
i ,c - ,
iieiat 0
�, FiatRp`
IWL1 IN. 111111i I
1f
/ I
KAMM
- - - -- - --�-- -- �- EXHIBIT I
//
a4
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
If the City council chooses to recommend denial, the following
findings may be used:
a. The proposed modification would not be consistent with the
intent, guidelines, policies, and goals of the City's General
Plan.
b. The architectural design and location of the proposed building
would not be compatible with existing and future land uses
within the zone and the general area in which the proposed
use is located by promoting "strip"or linear commercial
development.
c. The proposed use would be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located
in the vicinity of the site.
d. The proposed use, because of its poor design, would impair
the integrity and character of the zone in which they are to
be located.
EXHIBIT 2
/a
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. a. , e. EARTH
Construction of the project would not result in unstable earth
conditions or in changes to geologic substructures.
1. b. , c.
The topography on the site would change dramatically with the
cutting back of an existing 2:1 slope. However, since the
total volume of soil to be moved (62,00 cu.yards) is to be
disposed onsite, the grading for this building (building 3)
is anticipated to be balanced. Building code requirements
related to grading would minimize the potential erosional
hazards . Some displacement, compaction would result from the
grading of the proposed building.
Mitigation
Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall
submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a
grading plan prepared by a registered Civil engineer; shall
obtain a grading permit; and shall post sufficient surety
guaranteeing completion. If grading is to take place during
the rainy season (October through March) , an erosion control
plan shall be submitted with the grading plan to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to the start of
construction. A required erosion control measure shall be
that all graded slopes would be hydroseeded or landscaped
within 60 days of the completion of grading. To minimize
compaction of soils a detailed soils report shall be submitted
by the applicant prior to Zoning Clearance and in addition,
the building pad area must be compacted per City Code to
support the structure.
1. e. , f, and g.
Based on the City's Safety Element, no erosional, geologic or
seismic hazards are known to exist on site or in the immediate
vicinity. Therefore, no significant effect is anticipated.
2. a. ,b. ,c. , and d. AIR
The proposed project is not expected to result in substantial
deterioration of the ambient air quality. The anticipated
movement of vehicles and trucks to and from the site would not
generate enough air emissions to degrade the ambient air
quality.
3. a. through j . WATER
EXHIBIT 3
/3
The development of building 3 would increase the rate and
amount of surface runoff, lower the infiltration rate and may
change drainage patterns as a result of an increase in
impervious surfaces.
Mitigation:
The use of a storm drain system, cross-gutters, and surface
streets would reduce potential impacts to a level of
insignificance. Moreover, prior to issuance of a Zoning
Clearance, the applicant is required to submit a drainage plan
to the City Engineer for review and approval.
4. & 5 PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE
The proposed project would not change the diversity and number
of plant and animal species or affect the wild life habitat
because no rare or endangered species are known to exist
onsite. The existing vegetation on the site consists
substantially of non-native plants (weeds and grass) .
6. a. NOISE
The commercial center in which building (3) is located is in
close proximity to residential homes. Use within the center
may slightly increase the ambient noise level in the general
area. All uses and activities are conditioned to be conducted
within the enclosed building thus reducing any future noise
impacts to the residential community nearby.
Mitigation
To mitigate the potential noise impact on the adjoining
residential properties, all roof top mechanical equipment and
other noise generation sources onsite shall be attenuated to
55 dBA at the property line, or to the ambient noise level at
the property line measured at the time of the occupancy
request. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning clearance for
initial occupancy or any subsequent tenant occupancy, the
Director of Community Development may request that a noise
study or a certificate from a Licensed acoustical Engineer
be submitted for review and approval which demonstrates that
all onsite noise generation sources would be mitigated to the
required level.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
The proposal would generate new light or glare on the
adjoining residential neighborhood.
Mitigation
To mitigate this impact, the applicant is required to shield
all lighting onsite and to design lighting so that there is
no glare or adverse spillover of light on the adjacent
residential homes. The following requirement should be
included as a condition of approval for the project. For all
exterior lighting a lighting plan shall be prepared by an
Electrical Engineer registered in the State of California and
submitted to the Department of Community Development for
review and approval. The lighting plan shall achieve the
following objectives: Avoid interference with reasonable use
of adjoining properties; minimize onsite and offsite glare;
provide adequate onsite lighting; limit electroliers height
to avoid excessive illumination; and provide structures which
are compatible with the total design of the proposed facility.
The lighting plan shall include the following:
a. A photometric plan showing a point-by-point foot candle
layout to extend a minimum of twenty (20) feet outside
the property lines. Layout plan to be based on a ten
(10) foot grid center.
b. Maximum overall height of fixtures shall be fourteen (14)
feet.
c. Fixtures must possess sharp cut-off qualities with a
maximum of one foot candle illumination of property lines
d. Average maximum of one foot candle illumination.
e. There shall be no more than a seven-to-one (7 : 1) ratio
of level of illumination shown (maximum to minimum ration
between light standards) .
f. Energy efficient lighting fixtures shall be provided
which are compatible with adjacent properties.
g. No light shall be emitted above the 90 degree or
horizontal plane.
8. LAND USE
The proposed project would not encourage the development of
presently undeveloped areas or increase the development
intensity in developed areas. The proposed project is located
in an area which is predominantly developed with residential
properties. All public services and utilities are currently
in place and no expansion to the infrastructure would result
from the project. Therefore, no potential significant impact
6-1on /(6-
1 -
on
land use is anticipated.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project is not expected to result in a
significant increase in the rate of any natural resource, or
result in substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource.
10. RISK OF UPSET
There is no potential risk that hazardous materials would be
generated and/or stored onsite because this project is for
retail and/or office use only.
11. POPULATION
The proposed project is not expected to significantly alter
the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the
human population in Moorpark. The proposal would be for a
freestanding commercial building.
12 . HOUSING
The creation of additional jobs generated by this proposed
development would increase the demand for new housing in the
Community. However, new housing is still being provided in
the Community and surrounding areas to help satisfy the
demand.
13 . a. through f. CIRCULATION
The proposed development of a 7, 918 square foot freestanding
building would generate less traffic impact than the original
proposal (PD 1062) of a 25, 332 square foot building.
Moreover, according to a new traffic impact analysis submitted
by the applicant, the two new commercial projects (PD No. 1063
Minor Modification and a proposed PD No. 1062 Major
Modification) on the 4. 5 acre site, even with an increase in
total square footage of 5, 310 square feet, would still
generate less average daily traffic (ADT) than the original
development proposals. This is because of the deletion of a
fast food restaurant, and the reduced floor area of the
proposed convenience store (with the elimination of gasoline
service) from the project site, both of which have high daily
trip generator rates.
14 . PUBLIC SERVICES. The proposed project would not require
additional fire protectin or police protection personnel, and
schools are not expected to be affected. Fees related to fire
and police protection and school fees would have to be paid
/6
prior to issuance of a building permit.
The project is also not expected to impact park and
recreationg facilities. The City typically imposes a park and
recreation fee condition of approval requiring the developer
to contribute an amount of $.25 per square foot of gross floor
area to support the City's current and future park system.
15. ENERGY. The proposed project is not expected to use
substantial amounts of fuel or energy, and would not
substantially increase demand upon existing sources of energy
or require the development of new sources ofenergy. As this
project would involve an addition of 7,918 square foot
building.
16 . UTILITIES. The proposal may result in the need for new
connections to existing electrical, natural gas, telephone,
water, sewer, and storm water drainage facilities, but would
not create excessive demands on the existing systems . Solid
waste collection and disposal would be contracted out to a
private collection service.
17. HUMAN HEALTH. The proposed project is not expected to result
in the creation of any health hazard or exposure of people to
potential health hazards.
18. AESTHETICS. The placement of the proposed building in close
proximity and in alignment with the main building would create
a harsh, and a monotonous blockface. Moreover, such building
design would not be consistent with the goals and policies of
the General Plan by creating and promoting strip commercial
development which would detract from the residential character
of the immediate neighborhood.
19 . RECREATION. The project would not be expected to affect the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities.
(Refer to discussion on Item No. 14 . Public Services) .
20. a. through c. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL.
There is a very low probability that the site has
archaeological or historical significance due to previous
grading activities and existing development onsite.
21 . MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. As identified in the preceding responses, the project
is not expected to significantly degrade the quality of
biological and cultural environments.
b. Both short term and long term impacts in terms of noise,
/ 7
13
visual, traffic, human health, light and glare, may
result but are not expected to be significant if
mitigation measures previously identified are included
as conditions of project approval.
c. The proposal is expected to result in cumulative traffic
impacts when considered with other past, present, and
future projects in the vicinity of the site. However,
the Tierra Rejada Road full width improvements and Spring
Road half-width improvements to be constructed along the
street frontage as part of the conditions of approval
for PD 1062 would reduce these impacts to a level of
insignificance.
d. The project would not have environmental effects which
would adversely impact on human beings directly or
indirectly because no hazardous materials would be used
for the retail and/or office building.
/8
EXHIBIT +
14
MITIGATION MEASURES AND REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
1. EARTH
Mitigation
Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall
submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a
grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer; shall
obtain a grading permit; and shall post sufficient surety
guaranteeing completion. If grading is to take place during
the rainy season (October through March) , an erosion control
plan shall be submitted with the grading plan to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to the start of
construction. A required erosion control measure shall be
that all graded slopes would be hydroseeded or landscaped
within 60 days of the completion of grading. To minimize
compaction of soils a detailed soils report shall be submitted
by the applicant prior to Zoning Clearance and in addition,
the building pad area must be compacted per City Code to
support the structure.
Reporting and Monitoring
Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance, the case planner shall
contact the City Engineer' s office to determine conformance
with the grading plan requirement. The City Engineer shall
be responsible for determining whether an erosion control plan
is required prior to issuance of a grading permit. The City
Engineer, or his designee, shall monitor the project during
construction to ensure that any required hydroseeding is
accomplished, and shall document compliance by preparing a
memorandum for the project file prior to approval of
occupancy.
2 . WATER
Mitigation
The use of a storm drain system, cross-gutters, and surface
streets would reduce potential impacts to a level of
insignificance. Moreover, prior to issuance of a Zoning
Clearance, the applicant is required to submit a drainage plan
to the City Engineer for review and approval.
Reporting and Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a Zoning clearance, the staff planner
shall contact the City Engineer' s office to determine
compliance with this condition, and shall document compliance
by placing a note in the project file.
/9
lb
3 . NOISE
Mitigation
To mitigate the potential noise impact on the adjoining
residential properties, all roof top mechanical equipment and
other noise generation sources onsite shall be attenuated to
55 dBA at the property line, or to the ambient noise level at
the property line measured at the time of the occupancy
request. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning clearance for
initial occupancy or any subsequent tenant occupancy, the
Director of Community Development may request that the noise
study or a certificate from a Licensed acoustical Engineer be
submitted for review and approval which demonstrates that all
onsite noise generation sources would be mitigated to the
required level.
4. LIGHT AND GLARE
Mitigation
Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, a lighting plan shall
be prepared by an electrical engineer registered in the State
of California and submitted to the Department of Community
Development for review and approval. The lighting plan shall
achieve the following objectives: Avoid interference with
reasonable use of adjoining properties; minimize onsite and
offsite glare; provide adequate onsite lighting; limit
electroliers height to avoid excessive illumination; and
provide structures which are compatible with the total design
of the proposed facility.
The lighting plan shall include the following:
a. A photometric plan showing a point-by-point foot candle
layout to extend a minimum of twenty (20) feet outside
the property lines. Layout plan to be based on a ten
(10) foot grid center.
b. Maximum overall height of fixtures shall be fourteen (14)
feet.
c. Fixtures must possess short cut-off qualities with a
maximum of one foot candle illumination at property
lines.
d. Average maximum of one foot candle illumination.
e. There shall be no more than a seven-to-one (7: 1) ratio
of level of illumination shown (maximum to minimum ratio
ao
between light standards) .
f. Energy efficient lighting fixtures shall be provided
which are compatible with adjacent properties.
g. No light shall be emitted above the 90 degree or
horizontal plane.
Reporting and Monitoring
Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the Director of
Community Development shall review and approve the required
lighting plan. The staff planner shall document this approval
in the file.
3 . AESTHETICS/VISUAL IMPACTS
If the proposed modification is approved, the proposed
building (Building No. 3) should be relocated to the vacant
site fronting Spring Road. The placement of the building on
the frontage of Spring Ropad will create a more aesthetically
interesting design, and eliminate a long and continuous
blockface.
WW/90321A
c::7• /
CITY OF MOORPARK
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM EXH I BIT 5
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Applicant Embassy Plaza No. 16
2. Project Description Planned Development Permit No. 1062 Major Modification
3. Date of Checklist submittal 3/15/90
4. Project Location Intersection of Tierra Rejada and Spring Road
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes X
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or X
overcovering of the soil? —
c. Change in topography or ground surface X _
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of X
any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, X _
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, _ X
or changes in situation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic X_
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
YES MAYBE NO
2. AIR. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or X
temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
d. Is there a potential for cumulative adverse X
impacts on air quality in the project area?
3. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction X
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, X
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood X
waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in X
any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any X
alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of X
ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
h. Degradation of ground water quality? X
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
j . Exposure of people or property to water related x
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
2
a3
YES MAYBE NO
4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species or number of x
any species of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or x
endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, _ x
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? x
5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of X
any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
b. Restrict the range of or otherwise affect any x
rare or endangered animal species?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an x
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife x
habitat?
6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? x
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? x
7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? x
8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area? x
9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in:
x
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural --
resources?resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable x
resource?
Q
YES MAYBE NO
10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous x
substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, x
distribution, density or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, X
or create a demand for additional housing?
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular X
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand x
for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation x
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, x
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental servies in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? x
b. Police protection? x
c. Schools? x
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x
e. Other governmental services? x
15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
0? S
YES MAYBE NO
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources _ x
of energy or require the development of new sources
of energy?
16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? x
b. Communications system? X
c. Water? X
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal? x
g. Street lighting annexation and/or improvements? X
17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health x
hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? x
18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- X
tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact x
upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities?
20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal:
a. Affect possible unknown archaeological or historic- _ x
al sites?
b. Result in destruction or alteration of a known X
archaeological or historical site within the
vicinity of the project?
c. Result in destruction or alteration of a known x
archaeological or historical site near the
vicinity of the project?
YES MAYBE NO
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
thequality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory? —
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into x
the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are individu-
ally limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where impact on ea .h resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
LII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
IV. DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
In conformance with Section15060 of the State EIR Guidelines, I find with
certainity that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the
environment.
I find the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to class
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet could be applied
to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD BE PREPARED.
_ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared.
x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet could be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SHOULD BE PREPARED.
I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ADDENDUM to an existing certified Environmental
Impact Report is required.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and this effect is adequately addressed in a certified
Environmental Impact Report, and thus SUBSEQUENT USE of the existing
EIR is required.
, ....M..".... ..
EXHIBIT
--..,..."----
-----. '
-----__,1 *eve*.
.44AL40,
., --190--"--
•••••-'7 -
•
7-.....--•- / "'i i....,........41 -'--
__- .-•
•
r ., -4.. :•••
•• I . .
.. ..
ErLDo
.
. 2
141- 1-'—'--;''''''''--•-tt;-:.-.."":—H' ----.7.----. ---,..,---
6.780sttp i :.• ---/ i i ' " . --- -='-'2.:'---:•... ..----- _---.
•--. /1 -.--..----.
--11 i . ..,,,,._PN--el..;'. ' .\\ ..."`Z`Zsz-'•..,.
. 4'..... IZ -
, .
* '
z •
‘ i'4,-L...,;. ,i if- /1 . - . ,,, •.:-' ,/,/
f: --t iit // i,41* • I/
if:k ...... ..., &WI "'/1 / •
VL./ ),.11.-.-il ...,. .. .. .. !/./... r: •4/,
It
, s„,..:.....
. ....... , ....„. .._ . ..., . ..k
11 .
• i
'L• - '-i, x-4: .2 I ; /
... m" ,' - .4•••••t":.• i ,• .•
I ..4 1- i 111/410,.':•4:::.,;
1 i .
-
./
i• N.1.,,,, \ /A*: i;t• .
"Atik4.." \- .
• 'I 4"‘,". .`.. ,449c. • /
A '
'R' ,' „:.• \'`ks /
[Pt.: ill" 4 PI E. r
Vi 1 11
x i? r-
III 94,1 @• F, : - R
I t t :ri' ? *,-..-- `‘--,,./
• "".' N,
H ,q11 E:1
, t'i S z 3. A '" ' .—.r.
V! AP Ili
.1... I El 4.,.\
11 I 'a '17;
1 1.==•7'„,' ,..,
I '' i I! !.i a --i*.
•ti • §1
kl I---' ---"'-'-—1 I--"P'•.
LW
7.-T. i, ,!•:, !i
1.• ttm
* a .
___
il,
t I
)
_ -.
PEACH HILL PLAZA, ,54U'vA
- - - MOORPARK9 CA.
,
a/7'd ASSUE143/09UDIHO 96:2.0 06, 2.2 dUk
c„,.7q
.•_ ---
1q
-0i k OnD T I
0 i Nmil
•.
1.;
y
sou.. or
?�1� i 1n otti
i�1111 ai E 0
7;--M7-1
=I 1 ' i
Ai zr.
C) ) , _
,'elf _, -
" I
yy
6. 11
S fir w,I '1
ii r 1=
I I= 1 _I_,;
nyq'lull '� -
x "mil ,
I ,
tw-
a
j p Alm
z Si KC a roil -72
i IP!au" O.
g2g - i; h S
O =i1'IL
sp
I:
IC A91
jr. ift:I
1,fi, EXHIBIT ii
` n ! --7.... -- PEACH HILL PLAZA
Ca I r" MOORPARK,CA.
E/E'd ;455H3143/nce:IIHS .L: -0 07