Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 1129 CC SPC ITEM 03A% /off , /90(7, 3A "Z ITS • MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Developme Paul Porter, Senior Planner DATE: November 14, 1995 (CC meeting of November 29, 1995) SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MAJOR MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO CPD 90 -2 ON THE APPLICATION OF AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC. Background Due to a lack of quorum, the above captioned project was continued to November 1, 1995 at which time the public hearing was opened. The public hearing on this matter was continued to November 29, 1995 to allow staff and the applicant additional time to obtain answers to several Council concerns regarding: 1. The Council was concerned regarding possible increased noise levels along Tierra Rejada Road and to the rear of the proposed project as a result of increased truck traffic from the proposed shopping center. Is there a need to place sound barriers between residential properties and Tierra Rejada Road? Response Staff has received information from Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc (Acoustics and Air Quality Specialists) regarding the potential noise emission levels for delivery trucks circulating around the perimeter of the project site. Noise from heavy and median trucks were monitored at a Lucky Store Facility located in Petaluma, California. The noise of a heavy truck leaving a loading dock was measured at a distance of 100 feet from where the truck was parked. The noise of the engine starting and the truck accelerating out of the dock reached a maximum of 69dBA. A second truck was monitored with the level reaching a maximum of 61dBA. When the truck exited the driveway and then passed about 15 feet from the microphone, it generated a maximum A- weighted noise level of 82 dBA. Noise measurements were also made 100 feet from the small truck parking and unloading area. Truck movements, including engine starts and slow speed maneuvering, generated maximum noise levels of 65 -70 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. The distance from the residences to the midrange of the travel way at the rear of the shopping center is approximately 80 feet at the closest point. PP11:14:95110:50aM: \29NOV95.CC 1 Maximum instantaneous noise levels of 75 -80 dBA would be expected intermittently at the proposed site's western property boundary behind the proposed Lucky Store adjacent to the pedestrian bike trail. Noise levels at the end of Sagewood Drive would be lower because the distance between these homes and the truck circulation area is greater. Predicted maximum instantaneous noise levels at the Sagewood Drive residences would be about 55 -60 dBA. This according to the Noise Element Appendices could be considered "intrusive noise" which intrudes over and above the ambient noise at a given location and considered to be acceptable as long as the allowable weighted Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) levels remain within acceptable limits. The CNEL is the average equivalent A- weighted sound level during a 24 -hour period, obtained after the addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and after the addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7 a.m. and after 10 p.m. The City of Moorpark Technical Appendix for the General Plan Noise Element addresses the issue of acceptable noise levels for residential areas adjacent to highways within the City. Exhibit No. 11 (attached) shows Future Traffic Noise Contours for 2010. The Noise contours adjacent to Tierra Rejada Road adjacent to residences are within normal limits. Exhibit No. 8 of the Appendix indicates that a Community Exposure of 45 to 60 CNEL is within normally acceptable noise limits for single family and does not require special noise insulation. Noise levels between 65 to 70 CNEL would require that new construction provide noise insulation features. Normally closed windows with fresh air design or air conditioning will suffice as the mitigation for noise buffering. Therefore, according to the City's noise regulations, there is no need for sound barriers in the area of Tierra Rejada road as a result of this proposed project. 2. How many additional trips would the proposed shopping center generate? Response Various traffic analyses have been completed for the proposed project and provide a "worst case" evaluation of expected traffic impacts. The following can be expected to be considered "worst case" since all traffic to and from the project site was assigned to the surrounding street system as "new Trips" (ie. no recognition was given to traffic already "passing by" the site). The proposed project is expected to increase Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on Tierra Rejada Road west of Mountain Trail Street by approximately 1,000 vehicles and by 2,250 vehicles per day east of Mountain Trail Street (These figures consider pass -by and PP11:14 :95110:50amA:\29NOV95.CC 2 diverted trips). Without considering pass -by or diverted trips, these figures would approximately double. The traffic engineer will be available to discuss this issue in more detail at the City Council meeting. 3. The Council wanted an explanation regarding the dual left hand turn pocket into the center. Response The City Engineer has previously submitted a summary of this issue to the City Council and will be prepared to verbally summarize the information to the Council at the public hearing. 4. There was a concern regarding the type of trees that would be planted in the landscaped areas. Response Staff intends to make the following modification to the conditions of approval requiring that the landscape plan be subject to approval of the City Council: Landscaping Submittal of Landscape Plans Response Prior to approval of lighting for a parking lot, staff requires the submittal of a photometric plan which indicates the amount of foot candles outside the property line within 20 feet. Staff reviews the lighting plan to ensure that there is a sharp cutout of lighting at the property line. The following information has been received from Dalan Engineering (Electrical Engineers) regarding parking lot lighting. A parking lot is required to be lighted to certain minimum standards (which according to the conditions of approval is a minimum of one and a maximum of two foot candle illumination with a 1.5 foot candle average, or as otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development) to allow safe pedestrian and vehicular traffic throughout the lot. Retailers as well as the Police Department PP11:14:95110:50amA:\29NOV95.CC 3 require well lit parking lots because they provide an additional degree of safety to the citizens. A.S.P.I. has a standard practice of lighting their parking lots to a 5 foot candle minimum on the parking surface. They have found that this intensity to be the most advantages to their customers and their liability insurance carriers. However, in this case, A.S.P.I. has agreed to the City recommendation of 2fc. When lighting a parking area, the electrical designers have a number of fixtures (luminare) types to choose from as well as a number of lamp resources. In choosing a fixture, a designer must consider the foot candle level desired, the geometry of the lot, the amount of glare produced, the aesthetics of the fixture and the proximity of other structures neighboring the area in question. In an ideal situation aesthetics aside, the best lighting would emulate daylight, that is to install one very intense light source very high in the air. This type of lighting can be seen in large stadium parking lots in which light rings are installed on 60 -100 foot high poles. In this situation, the lamps are not shielded because they are high enough not to cause a glare problem unless a person looks directly into the light source. This type of lighting design is not appropriate for a commercial shopping area. In commercial parking lots the light source is lowered to bring it in scale with the architecture of the buildings in the center, as well as the surrounding structures. As the light sources are lowered (mounting height) the design of the fixture housing becomes critical. The lower the light source, the greater the opportunity of producing undesirable glare which would detract from the public's ability to view objects comfortably, even with a uniform lighting design. To properly light a parking lot, the designer attempts to achieve the following: 1. Determine the lighting levels required for the task (in this case 2fc. minimum). 2. Provide uniform lighting level that is light to dark spots (for a quality design the designer would like to achieve a uniformity level of 6 to 1 average /minimum), 3. Provide control of undesirable glare (the designer prefers to use cutoff fixture which will cut off all light above 30 degrees horizontal). 4. The light source should produce light with good efficiency lumen /watt ratio and provide good color rendering ability to the users of the center. PPI1:14:95/10:50aM: \29NOV95.CC 4 5. The aesthetic design of the fixtures itself based on city and other restrictions placed on the project (in this case the theme lantern type fixture which may according to the electrical engineer create potential glare problems). The actual design is a trade off of all of the above factors. As the fixture is lowered, the uniformity starts to go away (hot spots are created directly under the sources) and the efficiency of the fixture is severely diminished. The City in this case requires the following basic design requirements: 1. 2fc. minimum 2. 20 foot maximum mounting height 3. Lantern theme fixture The electrical engineer indicates that the above can be accomplished; however, the lantern type fixture will create potential glare problems because it is not a true cut -off type fixture. Furthermore, the vertical glass sides of the fixture will produce a hot focus point which uncontrolled light will be emitted producing a uncomfortable effect when viewed. The engineer has indicated that it is imperative that the lantern type light sources not be installed at a height less than 20 feet. The engineer indicates that the best solution would be to install quality cutoff type shoe box fixtures with flat glass lens flush with the bottom of the fixture so that no visible light is admitted beyond the 30 degree mark. The fixture would be designed with a metal halide lamp in the vertical position rather than in the horizontal position (as in the lantern type). By utilizing the lamp in a vertical position, very little light will be emitted directly down under the fixture dramatically reducing the hot spot under the fixture thereby improving the uniformity ratio of the design. The metal halide light source although not as energy efficient as high pressure sodium lamps produces superior color rendering ability. Based on previous studies the most advantageous mounting height for the fixture would be between 30 and 33 feet with a 400 watt shoe box on a 30 foot pole being in good scale with the architectural elements of the proposed project. PPI1:14:95110:50amA:\29NOV95.CC 5 As part of the study, the electrical engineer reviewed the existing pole lighting on sites adjoining or near the proposed project. The following is a summary of his observations: 1. Fire Station No. 40. Shoe box type fixture mounted at approximately 25 foot high. Horizontal lamp position 2. Park Shoe box type fixture mounted at approximately 35 foot high Horizontal lamp position 3. High School Shoe box type fixture mounted at approximately 35 foot high Horizontal lamp position 4. Vista Community Center Shoe box type fixture mounted at approximately 30 feet high Vertical lamp position The surrounding parking areas are presently lit with the type of fixtures and the mounting heights recommended by the electrical engineer. The engineer indicated that the Vista Community Center with the vertical lamp position is probably the best designed of the four. Cut sheets are attached to this report of the two proposed fixtures as well as photometric curves for the council's review. The electrical engineer indicates that they will have a point by point illumination print out of a small portion of the parking lot available at the Council meeting showing both systems. Given the information by this and other lighting engineers, staff has concluded that requiring a height limit of 14 feet for the poles would create a situation of uneven distribution of light within the parking area due to the additional number of lighting fixtures required to meet the City's required lighting standards and would create a number of hot spots. However, if 14 foot poles were required, the "head" would need to be changes to a shoe box type. 6. There was a concern that the noise from vacuuming the parking lot area would infringe on the residences in the area. Response Staff has modified Condition No. 7 to address this issue. PP11:14:9511O:5OamA:\29NOV95.CC 6 Hours of Operation 7. That the hours of operation for the shopping center be from 6:00 a. m. to 10:00 D. m. > >vf ?'ae5i rurzner requests to the extena the hours of operation shall require public notification to property owners within 1,000 feet of the site. 7. The proposed drain for cart washing should have a separator to ensure that contaminants not be washed into the sewer system. Response Staff recommends the following modification to the existing condition regarding this matter: Drain for Grocery Cart Cleaning 21. The applicant shall provide an area with a drain at the rear of the market '" .>: >r for the purpose of cleaning grocery carts. Cart cleaning shall only take place in this designated area. e B. What is the effect of increased truck traffic on the bridge at the arroyo? Response The City Engineer will be ready to give a verbal response regarding this issue at the City Council meeting. 9. If deemed necessary by the Police Department, a security guard should be located on -site. Response Staff suggests that the following Condition of Approval be imposed on the project: ...,. .. .......................... PP11:14:95110:50amA :\29NOV95.CC 7 10. What is the effect of the proposed commercial shopping center on the high school? Staff has discussed this matter with the school district who has informed staff that the school district's comments regarding the proposed project are the same as those submitted for the original approved project. The school district had no issues or concerns with the originally approved project. 11. What are the store sizes of other stores in the area? 1. Approved Ralph's Market (CPD 90 -2) in Mountain Meadows 45,000 square feet 2. Proposed Lucky's in Mountain Meadows 63,300 square feet 3. Proposed Albertson's located in adjacent to the K -Mart on Los Angeles Avenue in the City of Moorpark. 49,774 square feet 4. Existing Hughes Market located on Los Angeles Avenue in the City of Moorpark. 32,313 square feet. 5. Existing Vons superstore located at Erringer and Cochran in Simi Valley 102,400 square feet. In addition, staff has received the attached information from Nadel Partnership, Inc. indicating that the proposed Lucky Market square footage is considered average with the current market industry at this time. The information submitted shows the market building sizes ranging from approximately 54,000 square feet to approximately 74,000 square feet (See exhibit No. 1). 12. How close will the Alcoholic Beverage Control allow the sale of alcoholic beverages from school site? Response Staff has contacted the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) in Santa Barbara who has indicated that alcohol may be sold within 500 feet of a school, but that the ABC or the City (under AB2897) would have the ability to deny the permit. The applicant would be required to obtain a permit to sell alcoholic beverages from ABC who would subject the application to a review process prior to issuance or denial of the permit. The City will need to make a determination that alcohol sales is a public necessity or convenience. The proposed Lucky market is within 500 feet of the school property. PPII:I4:95 120:50amA:\29NOV95.CC 8 13. How many trucks per day will result from the proposed project? Response According to the Traffic Engineer, there will be approximately 20 daily truck deliveries as a result of this project. The traffic engineer will be prepared to discuss this matter in more depth at the City Council meeting. 14. What is the Police Department's opinion regarding the elimination of the Sagewood pedestrian access? Response Ed Tumbleson, Senior Deputy has indicated that placing a pedestrian access in an area that is by design or placement out of the normal access pattern to the shopping center provides concealment for criminals and criminal activity. By doing so provides a place for juveniles to congregate. This often times leads to malicious mischief and other forms of crime. These types of accesses also tend to become crime corridors. These corridors allow criminals to move from point to point without detection. Even though this idea would make it easier to reach the center on foot, the Police Department recommendation is that the corridor not be constructed to protect residents that might use the corridor from victimization and to eliminate a potential crime corridor. Attachments: 1. Lighting Fixtures 2. Store Footprints 3. Noise /Land Use Compatibility Matrix 4. Future Traffic Noise Contours Recommendations: 1. Open the hearing and accept public testimony. 2. Prior to making a decision on this project make a determination that: a. The effects of the proposed project were analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for CPD 90 -2; and b. There will not be a significant effect in this case because Major Modification No. 1 is for a reduction in size from the originally approved project of 122,400 sq. PPII:I4:95 1I0:50amA:\29N0V95.CC 9 ft. to 118,873 sq. ft., and that the mitigation measures applied to CPD 90 -2 have been incorporated into Major Modification No. 1. 3. Make the appropriate findings (Exhibit No. 1 in Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 1995). 4. Direct staff to prepare a resolution approving Major Modification No. 1 to CPD 90 -2 and rescinding Resolution No. 90 -729 with any City Council directed changes. PP11:I4:95110:50amA:\29NOV95.CC 10 �1 LIGHTING FOR STREETS, PARKS AND SQUARES PARK GRANDE ,$ en Lenses in UV- resistant acrylic Plastic. Luminaires and brackets in PolySealed aluminum. 25 1/4 640 LUMINAIRE COLORS i + i �~ FOR THE FULL RANGE OF MODELS /BRACKETS AVAILABLE, PLEASE SEE PAGES 130 -133. �i Luminaires provided complete and ready for installation. including all electrical components and ancho- 'i- CPt. WEIGHT (LESS BALLAST) Weight of luminaire 16 kg/35 lbs. WIND EXPOSURE SURFACE Exposed surface TT of luminaire m'11.04 sq. sq. ACHMENI 0.32 Models/brackets Posts available _ Anchoring Accessories _ Combinations: Park Park Crown _ Qo'� t ,EMO�� p. 130 p. 168 p. 166 p. 178 _p. 84 p. 148 Loll WHEN ORDERI PLEASE SPECIE Model/Bracket Luminaire color Light source/WIVAC,,,- Optics Lens color Ballast location Light point height (LPF Post type Accessories For complete ordering i see supplement 93 -11 5 Nt bit �0�W& VM w `l O ✓ ,0776 4(- LEI 44t-i © 30 Nth J TwI'J �c 6,t#d Idcolia ^1 00 �a 3c M v° N1 c GAO 4EnIs d^I yoo tjAr 111114 Ve7rc4c. LAwP c 701 M//. ii; o' I I II T 17 ND�° RQ)4[gg� ��JUVUUVUG= JL.r=,S U PL.Ar BUILDING SUMMARY �M- CODE: 1994 UNIFORIV BUILDING CODE OCCUPANCY: B2 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V —N, FULLY SPRINKLERED I I N AREA BUILDING EA ANA Y I L S S BASIC ALLOWABLE 8,000 S.F. SEPARATION ON 4 SIDES OF 60' -0" FULLY SPRINKLERED UNLIMITED AREA ACTUAL BUILDING AREA �4S FLOOR AREA 61 , OCCUPANT TABULATION � MARKET ONLY 1 USE /AREA SQ.FT. 0/C OCCUPIED WA FACTOR LOAD A. SALES AREA = 1�% of � 45,658 — 30 1,522 i B. OFFICES, TOILET ROOMS BREAK ROOM, CASH ROOM & SECURITY ROOM 1 ,29F — 100 13 C. MEAT, PRODUCE, DELI / BAKERY PREP. AREA 10 � 2,080 — 100 21 D. ELECTRICAL AND Y _ MECHANICAL ROOM 1 ,505 — 300 r E. RECEIVING / STAGING 7,557 — 300 25 F. COOLERS / FREEZERS 5,320 — 300 18 CO TOTAL OCCUPANCY LOAD 1,605 TOTAL EXITING WIDTH REQUIRED: OCCUPANT LOAD X .20 1 ,605 X 0.20 = 312" (26 L.F.) EXITING PROVIDED (SALES AREA) 14' + 1 4' + 6' + 3' -- 444" (37 L.F. ) NUMBER OF EXITS: NUMBER OF EXITS REOUIRED: 4 C NUMBER OF EXIT'_, PROVIDED: 7 ATTACHMENT 2 COMPACTOR P 140' WN. TRUCK CLEARI "DO CURB ORE PROPERTY YYESLINE R PER LFUJISH11 CRAApES N $ LIkIf YP.) �� 1 TRAIVORUE +� ri6 - : 7P.UCK eo . r . SLAB. N O N m , 84 ELECTRICAL 11 PANELS ENCLOSURE it— EMERGENCY EXITS z z ALBERTSONS u w c 3� 57,232 S.F. ox ENTRY /EXIT D r**] - EMERGENCY EXITS �r r 40• 4 , 01A 232' z AR75. :CARTS CART - -- - -- m w !STORAGE e � / r Y sa• `� TYPICAL 42- r.y aD =CO M _ co n�co rn D X5 �° nz o 7.> L (D (" O [f! rzzo p >;:L) -0 Z C0Z 5 m --j Fn co C) n Z z oo 0n m• TYP. PARCEL LINE e ADJACENT "a BUILDING AREA Ln `D C < , � - cr a oA HIC � z 275'-0* CONCRETE CUR6 50 -0" 20 -0" CONCRETE PAD MIN. FOR TRASH - COWACTOR LOADING D CK r -- i 1% { A D.S.D. DELIVERY 12$ -4' o d DOOR P TYP DOOR LOCATION TYPICAL a 1 0 r a i N C4 PAVILIONS ADJACENT ti1JiL0INC AREA • 147• -0' CART STORAGE c AREA a 1:1 0 KHTA 12' —G' WIDE hAMP SHOPPING CART CORRAL TYP. i EM., OF PARKING SAY O � A d co cn 0 w N w 0 a z r- Mell r m cn y m 0 co N W rn W .aL co -o 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 A.P - R 54,000 SF -Ij ;I m � , m f a 54,000 SF I ; M R1V1 o. Tx X 0 T - =-- -1 54,000 SF j I M j CA 54,000 SF r r fi I i im n 0 66,592 sP -0 6.. MT-41' 1"1 326• -1" , c m ss.s[9 SF .o , 0 EL 5MfH'5 POGV & M CMt 5 1 y5o 5. wvwoov W. 5A ,f f LAM Cfty, uf. 81101 (60D-914-1400 09102193 N 74,4'58 SF L7 t U -- _ r IM 0 DD , 74,954 SF u- 309 4t1 3av� lot E b `S 74.352 SF lll�-17 I N � �, 74,3b8 SF RMSIONS M A W /17 /YiY \ E Scala: 1" _ 4 (r °o f ATTACHMENT 3 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Interpretation E:%t. Normally Acceptable Specified band Use is Satisfactory, Based Upon the Assumption that Any Buildings Involved are of Normal Conventional Construction, Without Any Special Noise Insulation Requirements. ® Conditionally Acceptable New Construction or Development Should be Undertaken only After a Detailed Analysis of the Noise Reduction Requirement is Made and Needed Noise Insulation Features Included in the Design. Conventional Construction. but with Closed Windows and Fresh Air Supply Systems or Air Conditioning, Wit] Normally Suffice. Normally Unacceptable New Construction or Development Should Generally be Discouraged. If New Construction or Development Dbes Proceed, a Detailed Analysis of the Noise Reduction Requirements Must be Made and Needed Noise Insulation Features Included in the Design ® Clearly Unacceptable New Construction or Development Should Generally not be Undertaken. Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix Community Noise Exposure Land Use Category .: .0 65 70 75 :0 Residential - Low Density Single Family, Duplex, % / / / /// •.. Multiple Residential - Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels 01111111111 Schools, . ari Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls. Amphitheatres Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds. Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables Water Recreation, Cemeteries ter: > �,m• Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Residential Industr� Manufacturing Utilities Agriculture ATTACHMENT 3 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Interpretation E:%t. Normally Acceptable Specified band Use is Satisfactory, Based Upon the Assumption that Any Buildings Involved are of Normal Conventional Construction, Without Any Special Noise Insulation Requirements. ® Conditionally Acceptable New Construction or Development Should be Undertaken only After a Detailed Analysis of the Noise Reduction Requirement is Made and Needed Noise Insulation Features Included in the Design. Conventional Construction. but with Closed Windows and Fresh Air Supply Systems or Air Conditioning, Wit] Normally Suffice. Normally Unacceptable New Construction or Development Should Generally be Discouraged. If New Construction or Development Dbes Proceed, a Detailed Analysis of the Noise Reduction Requirements Must be Made and Needed Noise Insulation Features Included in the Design ® Clearly Unacceptable New Construction or Development Should Generally not be Undertaken. Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix C.D (z C) LLI 2 r ,c ti O