HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2001 1017 CC REG ITEM 09BITEM y • 13 -
C.7Un Cfi
Jp
A,_,;�a f eonsensus an Ad hba
MOORPARK CITY COUNCI p- e"nplY►henSluG
AGENDA REPORT G omen .ri"r� hrses�l
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Wayne Loftus, Director of Community DevelopmentaW
John Libiez, Planning Manager/ Advanced
DATE: October 8, 2001 (For Meeting of 10/17/2001)
SUBJECT: Consider a Revised Open Space, Conservation and
Recreation Element (OSCAR) to the Moorpark General
Plan
BACKGROUND
The Planning Corporation as the principal consultant in
cooperation with Planning Staff has prepared this update to the
OSCAR Element. Several preliminary drafts were prepared and
revised. The draft OSCAR prepared in October 1997 reflected
changing dynamics in the community at that time, but was not
taken to hearings. A major rewrite was required in August 1998,
following the adoption of a local land use initiative [SOAR]
affecting open space and development of the City.
State Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code,
Sections 65300 et. seq.) requires that cities and counties
prepare and adopt a long term general plan for the physical
development of the city or county and of any lands outside its
boundary which in the planning agency's judgement bears relation
to its planning. A General Plan contains seven elements: Land
Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, Safety, and
Housing. Each element has a relationship to the others and
therefore the general plan must be internally consistent.
Although General Plan elements are frequently prepared
separately, State Planning Law allows elements to be combined.
Also, jurisdictions may include any additional elements that are
believed to be important and relevant to the development of the
community. Thus, Moorpark has incorporated a Recreation Element
with its Open Space and Conservation Elements, forming the OSCAR
Element.
M:\ JLibiez\ M\ GenPlan \CCStfrptOSCAR10.17.01.doc
City Council Agenda Report
OSCAR Amendment to General Plan
October 17, 2001
Page 2
The OSCAR draft recommended for adoption by the Planning
Commission in Resolution PC-2001-414 dated September 24, 2001,
reflects comments and suggestions received from the Planning
Commission (PC) and the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) at
a joint workshop held on May 8, 2000 . The revision also
addresses the issues discussed by the PRC at their July 17,
2000, meeting at which time the PRC recommended that the
Planning Commission proceed with further discussion and hearings
on the OSCAR. The PRC concurred in the policy and strategies
framework noted in the draft OSCAR element . The PRC
understanding is that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan must
be updated as a separate and distinct action and document
following OSCAR adoption by City Council .
DISCUSSION
Open space, conservation and recreation are integral to the life
style of a community and are among the amenities that define the
quality of life and contribute to a long-term sustainable
community. The policy framework proposed in the Draft OSCAR
Update includes policies and strategies that address such
matters as the following:
Protection of viewsheds.
Preservation and expansion of greenbelts .
Inventory and designation of resource management areas
• Preservation and protection of biological,
paleontological and cultural resources .
• Conservation and protection of ground water aquifers .
• Open space resource set-asides for specific plans .
• Dedications or easement rights to conserve open space
resources .
• Management of mineral resources within the designated
General Plan Planning Area.
In conjunction with the Land Use Element, provide for
land use designations that preserve, protect and
manage open space resources and permit reasonable
development while implementing any adopted land use
initiatives .
Establish parkland ratios.
Provide equal access to facilities .
Provides for adoption of a Master Parks and Recreation
Plan.
Ensure a variety of recreational opportunities for
community residents.
:^OOOO6
City Council Agenda Report
OSCAR Amendment to General Plan
October 17, 2001
Page 3
The primary focus elements in a General Plan are Land Use and
Circulation. As updates to other elements occur, amendments to
these two elements will be prepared to maintain the internal
consistency of the General Plan required by State Law. The
Safety Element has been updated and was adopted on March 21,
2001, under City Council Resolution No. 2001 -1823. The
consultant, Cotton /Bridges /Associates has completed the Housing
Element and the Planning Commission has forwarded a
recommendation to City Council to be considered in November
2001, after the State Office of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has completed a second review of the element.
An environmental assessment as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was prepared, reviewed and
recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission prior to its
adoption of a resolution recommending approval of the OSCAR to
the City Council. A copy of the draft OSCAR Element was
previously transmitted to the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMNDATION
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close
the public hearing.
2. Consider the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the
updated OSCAR Element; adopt the Negative Declaration.
3. Adopt Resolution 2001- to Amend the General Plan of the
City of Moorpark by adopting an updated OSCAR Element.
Attachment:
1. Planning Commission Resolution PC- 2001 -414
2. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
3. Draft Resolution 2001- Adopting Updated OSCAR Element to
the General Plan with Draft OSCAR attached as Exhibit "A"
yvq ��'li'C Ot ��
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2001 -414
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE
ADOPTION OF THE REVISION TO THE OPEN SPACE,
CONSERVATION AND RECREATION ELEMENT (OSCAR) OF
THE CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, at duly noticed public hearings /workshops
conducted on May 8, 2000, by the Planning Commission and Parks
and Recreation Commission in joint session, on July 17, 2001, by
the Parks and Recreation Commission and continued to the
Planning Commission meetings of June 25, August 27, and
September 24, 2001, regarding consideration of a revision to the
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element (OSCAR) of the
City of Moorpark General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 2001-
04) ; and,
WHEREAS, at each of the above - referenced public meetings,
the Planning Commission conducted the public hearings /workshops,
took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and continued
to receive testimony at the September 24, 2001, meeting at which
time the Planning Commission closed the pubic hearing; and,
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the information
contained in the staff reports of record, along with testimony
received on May 8, and July 17, 2000, June 25, August 27, and
September 24, 2001, the Planning Commission closed
considerations on September 24, 2001, and made a recommendation
to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission hereby
determines that the revision to the OSCAR Element of the City of
Moorpark General Plan does not have the potential to create a
significant effect upon the environment and that a Negative
Declaration in accordance with the provisions of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) may be issued, pursuant to
Section 15074 of the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council, the approval of the Revised
OSCAR Element of the Moorpark General Plan (attached as Exhibit
XffACHMEN �
S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan Elements \OSCAR \PC 92401 Reso v �� 0
OSCARElement.d2.9.20.01.doc L
Planning Commission Resolution
PC -2001-
Recommending Adoption of OSCAR Element
Page 2
A and incorporated herein by reference), based upon the
following findings:
A. The Revised OSCAR Element establishes the policy and
strategy framework for enhancing the overall quality of
life for Moorpark residents.
B. The Revised OSCAR Element satisfies and is consistent with
provisions for OSCAR Elements, as contained within Article
10.5 (Open Space Lands) of the Government Code regulating
requirements for Open Space, Conservation and Recreation
Elements.
C. The Revised OSCAR Element is consistent with the General
Plan and other Elements thereof.
THE ACTION WITH THE FOREGOING DIRECTION WAS APPROVED BY THE
FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstaining:
Absent:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th, DAY OF September, 2001.
Janice Parvin, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Celia LaFleur
Secretary
Attachment:
Exhibit A: Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element
of the Moorpark General Plan
S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan Elements \OSCAR \PC 92401 Reso
OSCARElement.d2.9.20.01.doc :i � �� 1 05
CITY OF MOORPARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021
_X NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
1. Entitlement: General Plan Amendment 2000 -05
Adoption of an Update to the Open Space,
Conservation and Recreation Element of the
Moorpark General Plan
2. Applicant: City of Moorpark
3. Proposal: Adopt update to the City General Plan related
to Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element.
4. Responsible
Agencies: None.
II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
An initial study was conducted by the Community Development
Department to evaluate the potential effects of this project
upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained in
the attached initial study, it has been determined that this
project would not have a significant effect upon the
environment.
III. PUBLIC REVIEW:
1. Public Notice: Publication of a notice in a newspaper
of general circulation in the area.
2. Document Posting Period: 8/29/01 - 9/21/01
Initially Prepared on: August 27, 2001
Prepared by: John Libiez, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENT 2
S:1Community DevelopmentlEveryonelGeneral Plan ElementslOSCARIOSCAR - NegDecOSCAR8.01.doc Page 1 of 3
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially
affected by this project, involving impacts that have a
"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist
on the following pages.
ARE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING STUDIES REQUIRED:
Noise Study
Tree Study
Archaeological Report
Biology Report
Geotechnical Report
Soil borings and assessment
for liquefaction potential
Traffic Study
Other: (identify below)
IV. DETERMINATION:
Yes No —X— N/A
Yes No X N/A
Yes No —X N/A
Yes No X N/A
Yes No —X— N/A
Yes No —X— N/A
Yes No —X— N/A
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
• I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will 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 have been added to
the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared. 0
• I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required. O
p1 oc-- _1
&\Community Development\Everyone\General Plan Elements\OSCARIOSCAR - NegDecOSCAR8.01.doc
Page 2 of 3
• I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect (s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
a
• 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 all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. O
V. REFERENCE LIST:
The references used in preparing this questionnaire include the
following:
Standard References
1. EIR for Moorpark Land Use and Circulation Element Update
and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study (1992).
2. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate
Map, Community Panel Number 060712 0005 A, September 29,
1986 and revision dated August 24, 1990.
3. General Plan of the City of Moorpark, as amended through
2001.
4. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,
1987.
5. Moorpark Municipal Code, including Title 17, Zoning.
6. Moorpark Traffic Analysis Model, Model Description and
Validation, June 1994.
7. Technical Appendices for the General Plan Noise Element,
November 1994.
8. U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle Maps for Moorpark.
9. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Guidelines
for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, 1989.
10. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura
County Air Quality Management Plan, 1991.
11. General Plan and Ventura Council of Governments population
projections, 1992, 1998, and 2000 respectively.
&\Community Development\Everyone\General Plan Elements\0SCAMOSCAR - NegDecOSCAR8.01.doc
Page 3 of 3
INITIAL STUDY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
2000 -05
ADOPTION
OF
AN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE
OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION AND
RECREATION ELEMENT
(OSCAR) OF THE MOORPARK GENERAL
PLAN
September, 2001
INITIAL STUDY CHECK LIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR
AESTHETICS
a) Have a substantial
a scenic vista?
rotentiall
Y
Significan
t
Impact
adverse effect on ❑
Lees than Less No Impact
Significan than
t Signific
with ant
Mitigation
incorporat
ion
❑ ❑ x
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited v
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and 1:1 El El X
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c)Substantially degrade the existing ❑ El v
X
visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial ❑ E] El v
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ El
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c)Involve other changes in the existing ❑ E] ❑ v
environment which, due to their 1�
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY - Where available, the
significance criteria established by
the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would
the project?
a) Conflict with or obstruct
❑
❑ ❑ v
1�
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
❑
1�•
11 v
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality
violation?
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable
❑
❑ El
increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
❑
1�
1:1 El v
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors
❑
1�
1:1 v
affecting a substantial number of
people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 1:1 ❑ ❑
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYOscar.doc
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
107
-I
01
EM
10
10
100
X
K4
M
e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ v
ordinances protecting biological 1�
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ 11 ❑ X
adopted Habitat conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change ❑ ❑ ❑ X
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
M:\ JLibiez\ M\ CEQA\ INITIALSTUDYOscar .doc4Q�li�iv.K7
b) Cause a substantial adverse change ❑ ❑ ❑ X
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a 1:1 El El X
unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ El X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the
project:.
a) Expose people or structures to ❑ 1:1 El X
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
1:1
El
El
X
as delineated on the most recent
Aiquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
v
iii) Seismic - related ground failure,
El
v
1�
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
v
b) Result in substantial soil erosion
❑
1:1
E]
v
1�
or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
❑
E]
1:1
soil that is unstable, or that would
X
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYOscar.doc
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ X
defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑
supporting the use of septic tanks or X
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to
public or the environment thr
reasonably foreseeable upset
accident conditions involving
release of hazardous materials into
environment?
the
augh ❑ ❑ ❑ X
and
the
the
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle El 1:1 1:1 X
hazardous Or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is El E] 1:1 X
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an ❑ 1:1 El X
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYOscar.doc "% () 0C` i 6
f) For a project within the vicinity of El ❑ X
a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a El ❑ ❑ X
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ X
or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ X
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table levels (e.g. the
production rate of preexisting nearby
wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on, or
off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
y r
M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYOscar.doc £1110,, �'
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ❑ X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) otherwise substantially degrade 1:1 El El X
water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year ❑ 1:1 El X
flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard ❑ X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 11 El El X
mudflow?
j) Expose people or structures to a ❑ 1:1 El X
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established El ❑ r-1 X
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land ❑ ❑ ❑ X
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
M:\JLibiez\M\CEQA\INITIALSTUDYOscar.doc
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any Habitat El Conservation Plan [HCP] or Natural X
Community Conservation Plan [NCCP]?
MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability ❑ E] El X
of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability ❑ 1:1 El X
of a locally- important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
NOISE --
Would the project result in:
a)
Exposure of persons to
or generation
❑
X
of
noise levels
in excess
of standards
established
in the local
general plan
or
noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of
other agencies?
b)
Exposure
of persons to
or generation
El
El El X
of
excessive
groundborne
vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ 1:1 El X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an ❑ El ❑ X
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
M:\ JLibiez \M \C 'EQA \INITIALSTUDYOscar.doc �'0.`000
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity E] El r-1 X
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth E] 1:1 El X
in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of 1:1 E] 1:1 X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of El El El X
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in ❑ a X ❑
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYOscar.doc e 6 0(.)2,z
Fire protection? ❑
0
El
V
Police protection? ❑
❑
❑
x
Schools? ❑
❑
❑
X
Parks? 0
El
x
El
Other public facilities? ❑
0
❑
x
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use El ID F1 X
of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include El El ❑ x
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC -- Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which ❑ 1:1 El X
is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ x
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ F1 E3 including x
M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYOscar.doc ate^00 0 2 3
either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due
11
❑
❑
X
to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
El
1:1
1:1
X
access?
f)Result in adequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies,
❑
El
El
X
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
FO-1
IN]
❑ El X
❑ ❑ X
d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYOscar.doc ! ?,00 0 2.4
e) Result in a determination by the ❑ 1:1 El wastewater treatment provider which X
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with
❑
❑
❑ X
to
sufficient permitted capacity
accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentiall
y
w„ than
Sigaif
a No Impact
an
than
Significan
t
signific
t
with
ant
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporat
ion
a) Does the project have the potential ❑ 1:1 El X
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self- sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ X
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental ❑ ❑ v
effects which will cause substantial 1�
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYOscar.doc `�
CITY OF MOORPARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
COMMENTS RELATED TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
OSCAR ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project consists of the review and consideration for
adoption of a revision to the City General Plan Open Space,
Conservation, and Recreation Element consistent with
requirements of Article 5, Section 65302(d) and Section 65302
(e) of the Government Code of the State of California. Local
jurisdictions are required by law to include Open Space and
Conservation Elements within the General Plan. Section 65303
permits inclusion of any optional elements the jurisdiction
believes it requires for the physical development of the
community. The City of Moorpark has included a recreation sub -
element and has designated the combined element as the Open -
space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (OSCAR)
The element proposes policies and strategies to enable the City
to identify and to effectively avoid conflicts between the
developing community and the natural environment as well as
guide disposition and development of man made open spaces. it
suggests measures and strategies for the identification and
preservation of natural and community developed open spaces,
conservation areas and recreational uses.
CHECKLIST RESPONSES:
Aesthetics:
The OSCAR element may have positive benefits to the community
through identification of natural conditions that offer
potential enhancements to the quality of life in the community.
Such identification can provide mechanisms to reduce growth
related impacts through site analysis and mitigation by
restricting, avoiding or mitigating impacts through designation
as open space.
Agricultural Resources:
No prime or regionally significant agricultural lands are
affected by the element. These uses are enhanced through
policies and strategies which favor preservation and retention.
Air Quality: b. /d.
No impact to air quality will occur from the adoption of the
OSCAR element since the thrust of the combined element is to
preserve natural features and limit areas for development.
M:\ JLibiez\ M\ CEQA\ OSCARElementInitialStudyCommentsS .01.doc u; () 001jje'6
Initial Study Comments
OSCAR Element
Page 2
Biological Resources:
Development of the community within identified undisturbed areas
places pressure upon biological resources. The city's
development review process incorporates requirements to evaluate
species and resource issues such that resulting impacts be less
than significant. The OSCAR element when used in connection
with other elements of the General Plan aids in the avoidance of
developing in areas which may constitute some level of hazard to
future residents and which provide the greatest opportunities
for aesthetics.
Cultural Resources:
Application processing and review procedures provide for the
identification and mitigation of potential impacts for
local /regionally significant resources. No impacts are
anticipated as the OSCAR element augments decisions which seek
to avoid intrusion to culturally significant areas.
Geology and Soils:
Southern California and the Simi Valley area are active seismic
areas. The community contains active faulting such as the Santa
Rosa fault and a variety of non - active fault areas identified by
geotechnical studies. Areas susceptible to land slides,
liquefaction, erosion, and expansive soils have been identified
and are known to exist within this region. The city requires
extensive geotechnical studies and analysis to insure projects
are not subject to these impacts or that these impacts can be
mitigated to less than significant. The OSCAR element in
concert with the Safety element aids in determining acceptable
development locations and levels of risk for decision makers and
provides an inventory of potential conservation, habitat and
open space areas within the community.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
The OSCAR element supports the
analysis of potential hazards
element.
procedures for the review and
identified within the Safety
Hydrology and Water Quality:
The OSCAR element proposes and anticipates that areas within the
community suitable for trail, cultural, biological and species
protection and permissive uses will include drainage corridors
and limited flood protection basins. This will result in
improved community aesthetics and recreational and nature study
opportunities.
Initial Study Comments
OSCAR Element
Page 3
Land Use and Planning:
The OSCAR element works in consort with the land use element to
identify suitable sites for development and recreation and
preservation. The city has provided sufficient lands in various
categories and densities to accommodate a diversity of
development. The OSCAR element aids in determining the intensity
of development consistent with potential impact.
Mineral Resources:
No impacts.
Noise:
No direct correlation exists between the OSCAR element and noise
production.
Population and Housing:
The OSCAR element provides an inventory of potential man made
and natural resources that affect quality of life in community
development. The purpose of the element is to help decision -
makers avoid decisions that place segments of the community
population and land use at risk or remove vital aesthetic and
functional open space lands from the community palette.
Public Services:
The OSCAR element aids in siting determinations that serve to
protect or minimize impacts to all public services and
utilities.
Recreation:
The city maintains an active parks development and planning
function that considers the need for new facilities, expansion
of facilities or the need for off - setting private facilities to
insure recreational experiences for all citizens. The OSCAR
provides a framework for inclusion of open space planning in
determining the community fabric.
Transportation /Traffic:
No impacts directly related to the adoption of the OSCAR element
will occur.
Utilities and Service Systems:
Currently regional service providers and utility companies have
indicated that the general plan capacity for development can be
met. No impacts are anticipated.
Initial Study Comments
OSCAR Element
Page 4
Mandatory Findings of Significance:
The adoption and maintenance of an OSCAR element provides
beneficial guidance to decision makers with respect to balancing
of uses and needs within the community.
0 011
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
AN UPDATE TO THE OPEN SPACE,
CONSERVATION AND RECREATION ELEMENT
(OSCAR) OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL
PLAN
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing conducted on
October 17, 2001, regarding consideration of an update to
the Open Space Conservation and Recreation Element of the
City of Moorpark General Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the meeting of October 17, 2001 the City
Council of the City of Moorpark opened the public hearing,
took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and
closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the
information contained in the Planning Commission staff
reports dated May 8, 2000, June 25, August 27, and
September 24, 2001, along with the Planning Commission
Resolution PC- 2000 -414 making a recommendation to the City
Council on the adoption of said element.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby determines
that the Revision to the OSCAR Element of the City of
Moorpark General Plan does not have the potential to create
a significant effect upon the environment, and that a
Negative Declaration in accordance with the provisions of
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) may be issued,
pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Code of
Regulations.
SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby adopts and
approves the Updated OSCAR Element of the Moorpark General
Plan, attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by
reference), based upon the following findings:
A. The Updated OSCAR Element establishes goals, policies
and implementation strategies that address the public
health, safety, and general welfare of the community,
ATTACHMENT 3.
U g. VW ;; ' 0
Resolution No. 2001 -
Page 2
and are consistent with the other elements of the
General Plan.
B. The Updated OSCAR Element satisfies and is consistent
with provisions for the Open Space and Conservation
Element as contained within Sections 65560 and 65302
(d) of the State of California Government Code
regulating inclusion of an Open Space Element and a
Conservation Element within the community General
Plan.
C. The Updated OSCAR Element provides current technical
and general information related to open space uses and
conservation uses that may affect development within
the defined community.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified
resolution to be filed in the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October 2001.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
Attachment:
Exhibit "A ": OSCAR Element of the City of Moorpark General
Plan 2001.
S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan Elements \OSCAR \RESOCcOscar10.17.0l.doc
q-%-P `
At. rrE M
CITY OF MOORPARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: John Libiez, Planning Manage %'�
DATE: October 12, 2001
SUBJECT: Revised Figure 6 for Open Space, Conservation and
Recreation (OSCAR) Element Update to the General Plan
Attached is a revised Figure 6 for the OSCAR Element Update to
the General Plan. The revision places Miller Park as an existing
facility rather than proposed.
The revision was made as a result of Planning Commission review
and comment at their September 24, 2001 meeting. The change is
incorporated into the Planning Commission recommendation to the
City Council for adoption of the OSCAR Element Update to the
General Plan. Please insert this illustration in place of the
Figure 6 in the OSCAR previously transmitted to you.
C. Honorable Planning Commission, w/ attachment
Steven Kueny, City Manager, w /attachment
Deborah Traffenstedt, ATCM /City Clerk /Personnel Officer,
w /attachment
Wayne Loftus, Community Development Director
M: \LStringer \M\ Memos \memocc.oscar.10.12.0l.doc
�0�t ,�,'.� sti L� ;?:q }° jaj,i'1r7-f,�,°' K• fa`'
// ��i�{�y� S i ''•' � /✓ 1t� ° lei a lf, ! t
vt ./ - '7 I -+ --\t j I�� � "i ' :•r .a, Cr F i(' f �1,f - ! `(' .. I',a'
Happy
r��- 1 .3r -� • >E Tt ham.. �f i }'� ll L f. °.y �i 1..7III t)
i� .m r,•� ' *`�. 1 r.F '�'. X` t I v "�• - iC' Park t • \' _,: .F t yt �•3"�_A.',.7`
lta \ •\c .t Y �.. _.
�`� { >, r r � � \ V ' `j • �a"S +`7p' \' �,,,' � -�; ..a_ `V� ' .. .. : - _4 � '- ' � ,�, _'iI� X 'l�jNr t t��r'V'...
7
C 111pus
{. •0gg - Canyon
r,�`'• _yy _.f' F t,' y 1 \.:� ° Park
` /'' w � •Y , /•' 1' f \\ / �a��•l}1.4.. ',' '/ - _�.,.. _J °s �r - �l�a\ .� 1\• Kv e
�PTI3. � + t �° �, i'ar_ ,N c , �' � \�\.:.' { �a ,till ,K- _ w � 'Q '>I � �•-
� .�. lJ.• _ �' • .ti 'k'1�• i r .. 4 , 1. I � -v' < ti` It .,�. ''+r ' �w ,ice � {Ir,
1. '' \ YY:'a',..,/°�'i -••, r ♦. i
Proposed i`• -i -d ��5. �.?.. ' .Aim r,'r- �.
Park
Campus a ,.Grlttith Park`
��• \1_ ., .� r,r• _ �. (" `.+ •,� ".. >: •1 _.a, W .•%&:... _Y_ .. 4 ti
'
Palk •S 5:_F /1 e �S,_ ,a x(11 m�
1°}`4' - .5r -r w_x. i\ I � :ti�i.i �+`'� "`�- {�c�t. {� l'.� ci ., f',�� s.:N._:� \',tA:+i 'ill g? - �_t ^rf 1. � •.'L'
f -wF
JA -1 (. �1 1. ,_f,a;.,11 ' + }vFy'1cj' S
F4 ,,g
c`' ,! �, t ; t ': r.' �t4`i'.• y *�
Park
..- ��` Ir , +. +�; y'�' \ vttJ•y._
�. �,.:_ �. � : a 1 i ;� ( r.'4i'' ,. , �C i, r ... s; .� ..z� �'�` rz I` _ c s9 ": ` r •�c
I
` l
/ ?1• , t�� � � �� / t �<�i •�. l_i � -.Y; Y ,k,K 1 _ �Y _ * �1j " ;� \' Moorpark Community :
R l + x J ( l
\ - 3' _ 'tea Center ,-^- — .:Yy.' , r. {r .f'
ti Poindexter ��yV. �, w *a:•, �� :L4 OF
:�-
d� k Park :, .Y 1._
ir"� x �, - ,;.,�. t�f a,!r ". •t� y�. _�s-/.,f >r tc��:''� .,r 1. i }Ii7�•''YN' l� :�. +' .,:''E '.I%': rr`:��..��+ ''� R«
� � '� •.ia'Y.r• /. •L•' i�s� ,t �..d, � 4.1i� r `�j�l� \ .. Vii'• 'i •( x•. .'ti, n
\ `7, -0 ^4+ -�.±." :7�' S' � ���... -w , F',t,.��; �ii�i �� :va'r � •� ..'{�: ,.!f {
F r_.1�•
tss , G
�' .?xy.+ ' �. .tJ .l ■ FN, :.� - +, Zv ,.,gym.• - a.
.a
4
'Z , .,`,,ls 'y};:r: .� "�, y��. =!'j .. ,s.r -'"' i =,`'> �; '>:a:u �a.ty>.::.•.e is ,r'� :�,•.1' r' k 'r,,"*:��°�r�s9
• '., Y+.. :.s• -��" _I F. .> .. � . ^ _ �-.•i� •'�� }'A_.�`•'_ •+W. $A� i>a•wn )il \„ A`-�I, `s "� .. , +: • j ;u,?� ���,
. •�.✓%! _�.. -ay... .:a..t.•.`'/..Z . i- . -.4.. (•lit r L' §�.t� t j� '.:'j(')1 'i �lij� `1t'1,,�:a.,. _ - s - v. �S.''�' _ �:.,
:.� ` _ ` \' iu " =r,: 'n '•tti `erx + f�SFnAr ,2 r to aI q 1
)>r.? �.�� 1 • "�?� .,, s _- s� -.ripw r... ; ' *,;, ,.�t•.i "mot \) , r ,�` � -
, ` �• ,.9",kr r `+ice'. - .. a.- 'firms ':,� ... '�`r,, � ";��s y Irl, �+ . \'�•. _ r.cFl _ �, . ..
` • \. vj.'�'" i. to \, ^:•� . "{ t _1 j t'1; • Arroyo Vistr7 �.`i• - �!� - �` �' t yi `- (1j�3,, .r +..:.fi e,
A-
vt
- Conln1andyPark
ip •.i- I f t: it a w�.. ,.ar`-sF"
1 �. 7 N,��
b3sr1"- , :e +"Y - i ' f •�'- ..,t rf .s.: '� . 4 ' ir•^rC�r �y'. v, Y•,R.Rti, :i <`�. l .. �� •. ' 1. - .. C'\ �* • t � � il�•�
\ `" a \._ -� ;y� `try >a .:k: .R �•.-_ -,r. -' el \.J �'� I \NW, I T.i�
d \ - / \ , _- rv.,�l '> i'• �. 571 1` !: - 'a_ Mh+.,
�� 7� 1�., .i Mkt:: w. +,� - •�:;��„ -.a �. ..t� y, ��:
/'� d'r. a11c. L� ( ;-, :.�:, ^:�•'. -s ` -' ...r. >5�`,\ f ? •4 r•«- ,1 �o:
Miller Park
.,•.
�.... •S . i -. :�. a -.a„�f t;''k:F. ., ..Y: t.. `t ii�.tr�r .•-�" ,;�" '".1`i, t. °`�
•.:m. -rte r i ` �� r.• • �1 - `,�t�: i> t� ""dd�„„7 ,Q f r .. • - > - -;e.. )_' v
• J( +r�-' �: •; - ,a� •�
Monte Vista �� n .a�. :�� ,
��,�¢ 5tf . _. ; / . ... ... r � . CAL- i�� �' ,P',.:'sc .Y„ "w.c,a \t 1.yt •, F �' \ a'Fc,:• \"" ) ` -- : ' '^qrs� -` a .Y� - z.
'
.l /'�,. f•' s t •_Vic ,thi ��':ci}a. -;$Y' ,y' 4 i..S? 'L 3'Y � 'i.
r •i_ !; r�,:7 •YV ab\..••.1. d., �.-a cs. -,:..V •' {c' ; +.,o..�;;. Nature Park •��
Mountain
s> ±-t5ri)
�' •`` . 'i . •r1 ;� � - � �,.t \l,' -, :. .1(.a.'iS•.. ^..7� . • � h i,: yr t ? „ 't I •t'A •, •.!� \. di I +t' � -F { I ^ `•?' - ` - .-e r.
�� ,Jw , :7L - ~.✓"v` ..Y•,...`',C,•.... `�, `.y �.I '�+t .' .v�' "7 'f \ f F 'F.:.•,i I. •5.;�• + ��'�•l `ZI
Meadows
rWf� i. 3'� •r v'' f:lf: !' 4� '4�
4 - Country Trail .a -< Tierra Rejada Peach Hill > .t.'.,� j
rfc Park ; ��•~ �:�; Park v .r,l;;,•- .a "�.: ,
1 Park ti < e J
•:G, -..� -
•l
S' f
1..
Y - {
•Y
R
.. -. '. _,_ --ee � �\ "�: }' x[14 �;.. r- .. �,..� __ - I'. •:.�Y -.....
Tierra Greenbelt a r ;,
uo-
t...x.rywr 1.it Rtli r . 5
Lao
' r • t \ c . '•,a• : x'� �:... ,''Y.:•, %. !. h +. Sic- rl -s T - { :ka!' ..
S .~t -.. -r ••@ .r ��" _.=',
•r' �� :`y �. '''•" In i ,�..^ 1 s,' I
4L
Recreational Open County Regional
1 Parklands :;:Aug:_ . 1 . I I I + 1 1 1 - / I•] It