Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES CC 2019 3792 2019 0306 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-3792 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-02 FOR A CHANGE OF LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (M) AND RURAL LOW RESIDENTIAL (RL) TO VH — VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR A 390-UNIT SENIOR COMMUNITY ON 49.52 ACRES NORTH OF CASEY ROAD AND WEST OF WALNUT CANYON ROAD, ON THE APPLICATION OF ERNIE MANS! FOR ALDERSGATE INVESTMENT, LLC. WHEREAS, on September 3, 2013, applications for General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02, Zone Change No. 2013-02, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2013-01, and Development Agreement No. 2013-01 were filed by Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC, for property owned by Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC, for a proposed development for a 390-Unit Senior Community on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West of Walnut Canyon Road; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-2018-634, recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02, to amend the General Plan land-use designation from Medium Residential (M) and Rural Low Residential (RL) to Very High (VH) Density Residential, on 49.52 Acres North of Casey Road and West Of Walnut Canyon Road, on the application of Ernie Mansi for Aldersgate Investment, LLC.; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on January 16, 2019, February 6, 2019, and March 6, 2019, the City Council considered the agenda report for General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02 and any supplements thereto and written public comments, opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal, and reached a decision on this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above together with any comments received during the public review process and determined that, with the incorporation of changes to the project or conditions of approval to mitigate potentially significant impacts with respect to biological resources and transportation/traffic, there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment and a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 2 SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for the project are complete and have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and City CEQA Procedures. B. The Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the project conditions of approval for the accompanying Residential Planned Development Permit. C. With the incorporation of the Mitigation Measures into the project conditions, the City Council finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed development of a 390-unit senior community on 49.52 acres north of Casey Road and west of Walnut Canyon Road, which includes General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02; Zone Change No. 2013-02; Residential Planned Development No. 2013-01; and Development Agreement No. 2013-01, will have a significant effect on the environment. D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed development of a 390-unit senior community on 49.52 Acres north of Casey Road and west of Walnut Canyon Road, which includes General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02; Zone Change No. 2013-02; Residential Planned Development No. 2012-02; and Development Agreement No. 2013-01, along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein, are hereby adopted. SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: General Plan Amendment 2013-02 is approved, amending the General Plan Land Use Map as proposed in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02 shall be concurrent with the effective date of the Ordinance for Zone Change No. 2013-02 and the Ordinance for Development Agreement No. 2013-01, whichever occurs last. SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: 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. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 2019. irk 14' 1 riP61,44r)t.„—, J ice S. Parvin, Mayor ATTEST: 0.411111 -4b• 211.01,rAilv apreuxik. Deborah Traffenstedt :141120447 Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Exhibit A: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit B: General Plan Amendment Map Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 4 EXHIBIT A oop1s `. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF MOORPARK 1Xt47 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 Tfn y (805) 517-6200 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION On the basis of an initial study, and in accordance with Section 15070 of the California Code of Regulations, the City of Moorpark has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. Attached is the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the finding of no significant effect on the environment. Mitigation measures are included in the Initial Study to reduce the identified potential effects to a less than significant level: I. PROJECT Project Title: Aldersgate Senior Living Apartments GPA No. 2013-02; ZC No. 2013-02; RPD No. 2013-01; DA No. 2013-01 Location: North of Casey Road and West of Walnut Canyon Road Assessor Parcel Number(s): 511-0-110-115, 511-0-110-035, 511-0-110-125, 511-0-030-180 Parcel Size: 49.52 acres Applicant/Owner: Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC (Mansi) General Plan Designation: Rural Low (RL) and Medium Density Residential (M) Proposed General Plan Designation: Very High Residential (VH) Zoning: Rural Exclusive (RE) and Rural Exclusive (RE-5) Proposed Zoning: Very High; 7.9 units/acre Responsible or Trustee Agencies: California Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), South Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (SCRWQCB), and Ventura County Water Protection District (VCWPD) Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 5 Project Description: A request for development of a proposed 390-unit senior continuing care retirement community on 49.52 acres. The project will include independent living, assisted living, and memory care as well as associated amenities. The required entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Residential Planned Development, and Development Agreement. The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the general plan from the designation of Rural Low (RL) and Medium Residential (M) to Very High (VH) Residential. The proposed Zone Change would amend the zoning designation from Rural Exclusive (RE) and Rural Exclusive (RE-5) to VH — Very High Density; 7.9 units/acre. The project site consists of a 49.52-acre irregularly-shaped parcel north of Casey Road and west of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark, as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The site is topographically situated principally within a south- trending canyon bound by the south-trending low-lying ridges on east and west. Maximum relief across the site is approximately 200 feet. Walnut Canyon Elementary School is located on the south side of Casey Road, and residential housing exists between the project site and Walnut Canyon Road to the east. The proposed Aldersgate Senior Living Project will comprise a 390-unit continuing care senior retirement community. Site development will include grading and the construction of approximately 40 single-story and two-story structures, a main paved access road extending from Casey Road, internal paved roadways and parking areas, and related new utilities and infrastructure, as shown on the project map. The remainder of the site will be landscaped and paved, with active and, primarily, passive recreation areas. Structures are expected to be conventional wood frame construction. Site grading for the apartment complex will consist of cut and fill for the proposed structures, related new utilities, access road, internal roadways, parking and yard/recreational areas, and site drainage for the apartment complex. The Project site consists of disturbed open space bordered on the north by previously graded residential pads that are reverting back to coastal sage scrub, and on the west by open space. The Project site is dominated by Venturan California Sagebrush Scrub with non-native annual grassland and disturbed or developed areas. The site is divided by a ridge which runs north to south. The western portion of the site currently drains into a small defined natural drainage that flows south to Casey Road. A small retention basin, with a concrete spillway, is located near the center of the site in this drainage. Sediment has accumulated in this basin over time and Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian vegetation has become established in and around this basin and, for this reason, this basin currently qualifies as a jurisdictional wetland area with the riparian areas north of this basin also qualifying as jurisdictional streambed areas. Grading will consist of cut and fill to allow for development of the proposed residential buildings, internal roadways, parking and yard/recreational areas, access road, utilities, Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 6 and drainage facilities. The proposed grading and development would alter the existing drainage patterns and involve filling the existing natural drainage on the western portion of the site and removal of the retention basin in this drainage. The Project includes creating 1.24 acres of riparian and wetland habitat west of the access road and around the drainage retention basin proposed at the southern end of the site to compensate for the loss of 1.02 acres of riparian and wetland habitat associated with this existing drainage and retention basin. A habitat restoration plan will be developed as part of the CDFW, USACE, and SCRWQCB process to issue permits to allow the proposed alterations to this existing drainage feature. II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS State law requires the lead agency for the proposed project, to prepare an Initial Study to determine if the proposed project could significantly impact the environment. Based on the findings contained in the attached Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment; however, mitigation measures are available that would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and the applicant has agreed to implement the mitigation measures. III. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN INITIAL STUDY: Section IV: Biology Section XVI: Traffic and Transportation IV. PUBLIC REVIEW Document Posting and Comment Period: January 31, 2018 to March 1, 2018 The MND/Initial Study was previously circulated and made available to the public and responsible agencies. Although there are revisions made to the Initial Study, the revisions and additional language only provide more clarification and make insignificant modifications based on comments received. No new impacts or mitigation were identified to require recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. V. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Prior to approving the project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency must consider this Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Those decision-makers may approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration if they find that all of the significant impacts have been identified and that the proposed mitigation measures will reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. Prepared By: Joseph Fiss, Planning Manager Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 7 Environmental Significance Responsible Im act Recommended Mitigation Measure after Party p Mitigation Biological BIO-1: Less than Applicant, Resources Significant Planning The replacement trees to be planted on the site This mitigation (approximately 1,200 trees) shall have a value addresses equal to, or greater, than the appraised value of Impact IV. (e) $72,231,64 to the removed trees, as identified in the Oak Tree Report(Tree Life Concern Inc. (TLC), January 31, 2014). The replacement trees planted shall include at least two (2)24"- box Quercus agrifolia, four(4) 24" box Black Walnut, and ten (10) sycamore trees. Prior to approval of building permits, applicant shall submit a tree planting and 5-year maintenance plan showing the tree planting including the required trees as listed. The five-year maintenance plan for the mitigation trees is required, consistent with the City's Tree Protection Ordinance. Trees and their irrigation system shall be monitored at quarterly intervals for the first two years and biennially for the next three years. A Letter of Compliance shall be submitted by the Project Arborist to the Community Development Department at the end of each time period describing the condition of each tree and recording their chances for long-term survival. The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the mitigation trees for the five-year period and no longer. The proposed landscape plan must specify that mitigation trees are properly installed, staked/guyed and watered to help ensure their survival. An irrigation system designed for newly planted trees is mandatory for successful tree establishment. Drip-system irrigation is ideal for managing water distribution near newly planted trees." (TLC Report#3) Protective fencing shall be installed around or along all trees listed to remain (see TLC report for fence placement recommendations). Place protective fencing at the Protective Zone(PZ) or as shown on the TLC. Orange construction fencing is sufficient and its position must be approved by the Project Arborist, who must be Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 8 present during the fence placement or repositioning. An Oak Tree Information Packet including the City's Tree Protection Municipal Code and the Oak Tree Report must be available during on-site construction. The applicant and contractor should be familiar with the contents of these documents. No oaks outside the property line are to be impacted by this construction project. The information tags numbering each oak on this site shall not be removed No construction materials are to be stored or discarded within the PZ of any oak. Rinse water, concrete residue, liquid contaminates (paint, thinners, gasoline, oils, etc.) of any type shall not be deposited in any form at the base of an oak. Biological BIO-2: Less than Applicant, Resources Significant Planning Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (VCCS) Habitat: This mitigation 10.82 acres of VCCS habitat shall be created addresses and enhanced as shown in Figure 6 of the Impacts IV. (a, Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused b, d) Survey(BioResource Consultants Inc., July 23, 2015, updated June 1, 2018). Prior to final occupancy clearance, verification of the restoration of 10 82 acres shall be field verified by a qualified biologist. Mitigation plantings may not be removed or modified without prior City approval. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a conservation easement shall be recorded over the restoration area. Biological BIO-3: Less than Applicant, Resources Significant Planning Riparian/Wetlands: To offset impacts to U.S. This mitigation and State Wetland and Waters, onsite addresses mitigation will be implemented in the southern Impacts IV. (a, portion of the proposed Project with 1.24 acres b, c, d) of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the pre- construction conditions in the northern reach of the drainage on the site shall be created. Prior to grading permits, applicant will be required to show proof of permits from ACE (404 Permit), SCRWQCB (401 permit), and CDFW (1602 permit)that will require full approval of a habitat restoration plan, wetlands restoration plan and Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 9 the required 5-year mitigation and monitoring plan for the project. Mitigation plantings may not be removed or modified without prior City approval. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a conservation easement shall be recorded over the restoration area Traffic and TRA-1: Transportation • Prior to issuance of first building permit, the This mitigation applicant shall pay to the City Traffic addresses Mitigation Fund to mitigate cumulative traffic Impacts XVI (a, impacts as determined by the Community b, c) Development Director and City Engineer/ Public Works Director • Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall pay the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts as determined by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works Director. • Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall submit a driveway plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/ Public Works Director. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 10 >�= MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION zatippr CITY OF MOORPARK ettIO 799 MOORPARK AVENUE • 11 MOORPARK, CA 93021 kt,• 40'4 (805) 517-6200 INITIAL STUDY FOR Aldersgate Senior Living Apartments This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) of 1970, in accordance with Section 15063(c)of the CEQA Guidelines. Project Title: Aldersgate Senior Living Apartments GPA No. 2013-02; ZC No. 2013-02; RPD No. 2013-01; DA No. 2013-01 Location: North of Casey Road and West of Walnut Canyon Road Assessor Parcel Number(s): 511-0-110-115, 511-0-110-035, 511-0-110-125, 511-0-030-180 Parcel Size: 49.52 acres Applicant/Owner: Grand Pacific Asset 2 LLC (Mansi) General Plan Designation: Rural Low(RL)and Medium Density Residential (M) Proposed General Plan Designation: Very High Residential (VH) Zoning: Rural Exclusive (RE)and Rural Exclusive(RE-5) Proposed Zoning: Very High; 7.9 units/acre Responsible or Trustee Agencies: California Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), South Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (SCRWQCB), and Ventura County Water Protection District (VCWPD) Project Description: A request for development of a proposed 390-unit senior continuing care retirement community on 49.52 acres The project will include independent living, assisted living, and memory care as well as associated amenities. The required entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Residential Planned Development, and Development Agreement. The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the general plan from the designation of Rural Low (RL) and Medium Residential (M) to Very High (VH) Residential The proposed Zone Change would amend the zoning designation from Rural Exclusive (RE) and Rural Exclusive(RE-5)to VH—Very High Density; 7.9 units/acre. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 11 The project site consists of a 49.52-acre irregularly-shaped parcel north of Casey Road and west of Walnut Canyon Road in the City of Moorpark, as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1 The site is topographically situated principally within a south-trending canyon bound by the south-trending low-lying ridges on east and west. Maximum relief across the site is approximately 200 feet. Walnut Canyon Elementary School is located on the south side of Casey Road, and residential housing exists between the project site and Walnut Canyon Road to the east. The proposed Aldersgate Senior Living Project will comprise a 390-unit continuing care senior retirement community. Site development will include grading and the construction of approximately 40 single-story and two-story structures, a main paved access road extending from Casey Road, internal paved roadways and parking areas, and related new utilities and infrastructure, as shown on the project map. The remainder of the site will be landscaped and paved, with active and, primarily, passive recreation areas. Structures are expected to be conventional wood frame construction. The Project site consists of disturbed open space bordered on the north by previously graded residential pads that are reverting back to coastal sage scrub and on the west by open space. The Project site is dominated by Venturan California Sagebrush Scrub with non-native annual grassland and disturbed or developed areas. The site is divided by a ridge which runs north to south. The western portion of the site currently drains into a small defined natural drainage that flows south to Casey Road A small retention basin, with a concrete spillway, is located near the center of the site in this drainage. Sediment has accumulated in this basin over time and Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian vegetation has become established in and around this basin and, for this reason, this basin currently qualifies as a jurisdictional wetland area with the riparian areas north of this basin also qualifying as jurisdictional stream bed areas. Grading will consist of cut and fill to allow for development of the proposed residential buildings, internal roadways, parking and yard/recreational areas, access road, utilities, and drainage facilities. The proposed grading and development would alter the existing drainage patterns and involve filling the existing natural drainage on the western portion of the site and removal of the retention basin in this drainage. The Project includes creating 1.24 acres of riparian and wetland habitat west of the access road and around the drainage retention basin proposed at the southern end of the site to compensate for the loss of 1.02 acres of riparian and wetland habitat associated with this existing drainage and retention basin A habitat restoration plan will be developed as part of the CDFW, USACE, and SCRWQCB process to issue permits to allow the proposed alterations to this existing drainage feature. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 12 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is a vacant 49.52 acre site surrounded by urban development. EXISTING LAND USES Location General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use Designation Designation Project site Medium Residential (M) Rural Exclusive / (RE)/ Rural Low Rural Exclusive Unimproved Residential 5 acre minimum (RL) (RE-5ac) North Medium Low Open Space Residential / (OS)/ Residential Open Space RPD-1.8U South SP-9/ Rural Exclusive Very High / Institutional Density RPD-19.0U / Residential Institutional East Medium Density Rural Exclusive Residential Residential West SP-1 Hitch Agricultural Open Space Ranch Exclusive Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 13 AGREEMENT TO PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 6), this agreement must be signed prior to release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review. I, THE UNDERSIGNED PROJECT APPLICANT, HEREBY AGREE TO MODIFY THE PROJECT DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE ABOVE- LISTED MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE PROJECT -77\k/G Signature of Project Applicant Date i Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 14 Methodology for Evaluating Cumulative Impacts: The methodology used to analyze cumulative impacts of the proposed project, in the Initial Study was the list approach. The following pending and recently approved projects located within the City of Moorpark have been evaluated for this Initial Study. See below: Pending and Recently Approved Projects within the City of Moorpark Number Project Land Use Size 1 Toll Brothers SFR 50 Units 2 Pacific Communities SFR 284 Units 3 Hitch Ranch SFR/Apartments 755 Units 4 Senior Independent 260 Units Aldersgate Senior Housing Living Senior Assisted Living 130 Units 5 Toll Brothers SFR 132 Units 6 City Ventures SFR 110 Units 7 John C.Chiu,FLP-N Condos 60 Units 8 K.Hovnanian Homes SFR 248 Units 9 Essex Moorpark Apartments 200 Units 10 Birdsall Group,LLC SFR 21 Units 11 Grand Moorpark Condos 66 Units 12 Housing Authority SFR 24 Units 13 Spring Road,LLC Condos 95 Units 14 West Pointe Homes SFR 133 Units 15 Moorpark Hospitality Hotel 108 Rooms 16 Patriot Commerce Center Industrial 350,000 sf 17 A-B Properties Industrial 36 acres 18 Triliad Development Movie Studio 37 acres 19 Wayne J.Sand&Gravel Quarry N/A 20 Grimes Rock Quarry N/A 1 Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 15 EXHIBIT 1 VICINITY MAPS • 01111111.1.1.1 . --- - .1.1_ 111011111 ilar'Uomirik1PI \VS\ W.- 11P1-111111°-;.....---AO-...tay.----- -_, --;„,',A-7 is.7 I 1-•.;;-,,-1.-- .....or 1 --io. --101:_r___,_:1-t-Ais_21--- ‘ itAglip.,4‘4111Niii itTI 40", ,i i *. ...,,- 7,--00,--.41-4-11".4,041;;..iri to I p ;\‘ 4"....,,-; c ,,, •,........, „ `� 1 1 mg lir rl ++ ,. . 4.. 1 r. _ Nrh.... , +Y . ,, ,,, , ; ,, ,, ,i, 4 do„, „„, ,,,,,„ i..„ ,.. .... . ...:?..4,4‘,i,::,. ',.': _Zig tilVill.,: """""40;),7:40‘127.-,-.10:,.,. e r , 111.11•0 amor=.01•1•11 ri.4.1.1 .. , .44.11! ilAf L.F.-- -•-'=?;" At row: ,,,,/ r , t:, .....r �.��•••.• _ 1i `,�� ROAD soAS E I'nttl N DESIGN Stl{HITTAL site won , Applkant: [now! 11:1111'111 i A �+�+^�'�"�^. �...- ...it -I.i 1. ,R50.w:-.Alit tit AlMrsyMa YrwSNirnts,LLC Grad Pacific Assaf 2,LLC r,,,,,,,.rn,;,,wan foo r,r.rMwr r,.,Sym'33D cm canna F.vy. oMK ..2! mn ur7./to rian 11011>M 41 14 N1My1 NbCA•')1, � Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 16 General Plan Amendment No. 2013-02: Zoning Change No. 2013-02; Residential Planned Development No. 2013-01: and Development Agreement No. 2013-01 "Insc Lv n crlf u.•. .. l legend PMtNS CIN 8ounoary `;. !timmitoth t I+1ltrf NQ'sy" 0 - *p 4$ y .N.t. 1 J • — T — ,, ' I-' -. 401, .....e... st o i r` �� I - r ..� llA' AI j l 1A ` j �f l"1i Et `� -.. _to O a ... ..'..` 5 ,uczn l __._.._ _, .l. ._.. yrs�ipp i T i f•r It ? +� . _ w i. '1:1,7141 - r t I , �o- = 1.505 ft Location Map 06/05/2014 I " 0: i ` Ise map reptesert,a V 7,11 G SF'-ij rt 'r'd�U !'r yldp'ln;If.If itlr'I I..,'11- rm.'.1 t r I I r ` 4 1 31.1 .i'I'r- it i.1.n -I u:t I'I, tr ;1r • 1 - it 1 ni .'r 1..11 it y. ase contact Moore art,stmt rar rte most up- . ate inform 33c Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 17 GPA No. 2013-02. ZC No. 2013-02. RPD No. 2013-01. DA No. 2013-01 . ',.:.,„.., r `; 1 200 ft P / _......41:70.,100„ t'vim'" •; __ ' „ .-��Iffl `.r.�, . . .� ,+�^.,i111r a -1 ti5... a 1 ' 4rl i Y M y 7,...,---,,,, i • "'♦ '9'._�. a ,. �.. /^r.^ .,"'4',A_____,...• `a, a '‘''• i • -.."4, 1 ..k. .� 4r ! • . . ' 4 ,y '413= a` 4:7- .4 , Y r m i V -. 1`rII� � A. ). 7-- 1 10 . "•:--1 ):4 h• it 4 . _644-04Cif , 4,,,,,,,;4- i ,. - tte‘; 4 ,_ 9 14:: - ,.> •..I.`.14.i 10 •a.. If R r r- d4. I Googl WISDOM,02018 0000100 20Y420 • 0•.1.1--e t s 1 *dowel StIY!!r tf3i)0.Finn 8H1IlC!44dlq ° T4419.1 tit+ w a trip 1"-762 R Aerial pf10100 11/19/2018 - a et1 ,map-r iv'Q. ... t. ,v$UaI O SOIdr of IQI;:e.:UQJU'aDI1iC 910"ralC/i Data CfOvic :f04: 15 Wit7tlt.i of QC.:.i tQ.:co lc•Crs T.DQ,,,IF cif:.-,:WI@..Co a.i CVi$0 CO-1U CT CW -•re—"."..1 F`• ', -• .Di°Cate mtormafln'1 Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 18 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. El Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture/Forestry ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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 An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. February 7, 2019 Jos_'.r iss Pla Man.ger Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 19 Initial Study Checklist AESTHETICS Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ LSI outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ® ❑ surroundings? d) Create a source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ❑ views in the area? Discussion: a) The project area is situated in a small valley within a ridge and valley system, which is part of the Little Simi Valley. Panoramic views associated with vantage points, which provide a sweeping geographic orientation, are not commonly available to or from the site. Therefore, impacts to panoramic views would be less than significant. The Site is not located within an identified scenic corridor and scenic resources on site are limited to typical open rolling land with little vegetation. Views along Walnut Canyon Road are the chief concern. There, the upslope is steepest at the east side, continuing further onto the site at a reduced gradient. The result is that the true ridgeline is generally not visible from Walnut Canyon, while the apparent ridgeline resulting from the change from very steep to less steep upslopes is This apparent ridgeline is very low, forming a stark backdrop to the scattered and highly exposed houses in the area. It is open country, but compromised by the low profile of the apparent ridgeline and the nature of the existing development to the point that it is not deemed scenic. b) The project will not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Neither Walnut Canyon Road nor Casey Road is a state scenic highway. c) Conversion of the site from its current undeveloped condition to a senior assisted housing use would alter the existing setting by grading the site and developing the proposed buildings, site improvements, and landscaping. The project site is bordered by existing residential development on the north and east and the Walnut Canyon School and Boys &Girls Club on Casey Road immediately south of the site. The site currently contains a mix of non-native and native vegetation The existing vegetation was burned in the 2007 Moorpark Fire. The proposed grading complements the existing topography and the design of the project, including the site plan, which groups the groups the residential buildings on the northern portion of the site, the architectural design of the residential buildings, and the landscaping, will complement the existing residential development around the site and will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The applicant will be developing a habitat restoration plan to mitigate for the loss of wetland habitat and vegetation that will restore a wetland on site and establish new vegetation The applicant will also be contributing to the City's open space by payment of a parks fee The City uses these funds to purchase land to preserve as parks and open space to maintain the visual character of the community. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 20 d) Normal street lighting and residential light sources will not have a significant impact on vistas and will be evaluated and be consistent with the City's lighting ordinance. Architecture and landscaping will be evaluated for consistency with City standards Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013), Moorpark Municipal Code, General Plan Land Use Element(1992) Mitigation Measure(s). None Required Monitoring. None Required II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES/FORESTRY Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p 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 nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ❑ ❑ ❑ or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion: a-d)The subject site is not located within prime farmland, is not under agricultural use, and is zoned for residential use The Ventura County Important Farmland Map classifies the site as a combination of Farmland of Local Importance (L) and Grazing Land (G). Farmland of Local Importance(L) is defined as land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. In Ventura these are soils that are listed as Prime or Statewide that are not irrigated, and soils growing dryland crops--beans, grain, dryland walnuts, or dryland apricots Grazing Land (G) is defined as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 21 A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to result in the conversion of state-designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Protection, lists Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance under the general category of"Important Farmland."The Extent of Important Farmland Map Coverage maintained by the Division of Land Protection indicates that this property is not included in the Important Farmland category No impact on farmland or agricultural resources would occur as a result of conversion of this land to suburban uses. Sources. Project Application (September 3, 2013), Biological Resources Technical Report(1/22/14); Archaeological Survey(1/22/14); California Dep't of Conservation. Ventura County Important Farmland Map (2000) Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Monitoring: None Required III. AIR QUALITY Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment 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 substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations?) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people? Discussion: a-d)The City of Moorpark and the proposed project are located within the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District(VCAPCD). The project would not have a significant impact on regional air quality, because its operational emissions (14 5 pounds/day reactive organic compounds, 11 pounds/day oxides of nitrogen)would be below the 25 pounds/day threshold of significance established by the VCAPCD for these pollutants.While this impact is not significant and no mitigation is required for this reason, a standard condition of approval has been added as part of the project for the developer to pay a contribution to the City's Air Quality fund. The City uses these funds for programs that reduce emissions by promoting programs such as ridesharing. Sources: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Memorandum to City(Stratton, 7/8/14); Rincon Consultants Inc., Greenhouse Gas Study(12/31/13); Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Project Application (September 3, 2013), Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2000), URBEMIS 2001. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 22 Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Monitoring. None Required IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. 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 resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native ❑ ® ❑ ❑ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: The primary vegetation communities on the 49.5 acre project site are disturbed Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (VCCS) (23.8 acres)and non-native grasslands (17.2 acres). Arroyo Willow Thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland alliance), Mulefat Thickets (Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance), Non-Native Annual Grassland and Upland Mustard—Semi Natural Herbaceous Stand are present along the natural drainage located on the western portion of the site. The 0 69 acres of Mulefat Thicket vegetation is Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 23 located upstream of a small retention basin in this drainage that includes 0 34 acres of Arroyo Willow Thicket vegetation. that meets the regulatory definition of a wetland The VCCS on the site is distributed in patches on the site separated by areas of non-native grassland. Characteristic plants found in VCCS on the site include California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), purple sage(Salvia leucophylla), California The density of the VCSS plants is uneven and varied across the site. The existing vegetation communities have a moderate potential to contain two sensitive plant and five wildlife species. These species were not observed on the site during biological surveys A pair of non- nesting Coastal California Gnatcatchers was observed in VCSS on the site during protocol surveys conducted for this sensitive species. There are 168 trees scattered throughout the site. The majority of these trees are non-native varieties such as California Pepper, Olive, and Blue and Red Gum Eucalyptus. Native trees on the site are limited to 5 black walnut and 1 oak tree. The trees on the site are generally in poor health and vigor. Many are re-sprouts or re-growth stumps from trees damaged in a 2007 fire. Most of the trees on the site have been rated in fair-to-poor condition and 28 are listed as nearly dead. The site is bordered on the north by graded residential lots, Meridian Hills Drive, and residential uses north of Meridian Hills Drive, on the east by existing homes along Walnut Canyon Road, on the south by Casey Road, Walnut Canyon School, and the Boys and Girls Club, and on the west by a single family home and open space between the railroad tracks, Los Angeles Avenue, Grimes Canyon Road and Championship Drive. The existing natural drainage on the western portion of the site drains under Casey Road at the southern end of the Project site and ends approximately 600 feet south of Casey Road. As a result, there is no downstream riparian or wetland habitat that would be affected by changes to this drainage feature on the project site The Proposed project would result in the removal of 92 mature living trees, both native and non-native, Removal of three native trees consisting of two black walnut trees and 1 oak tree is proposed. The removal of mature trees is regulated by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance The project will also include the planting of approximately 1,200 new trees of various species and size, including oak, black walnut, and sycamore trees in conformance with the City's tree ordinance, to compensate for the proposed removal of 92 mature living trees. The removal of the mature trees is considered a significant impact that will be mitigated by planting the proposed replacement trees in accordance with the mitigation measure below. Project grading would impact 17 acres of the VCCS habitat on the site and 1 02 acres of riparian/wetland habitat in the existing drainage on the western portion of the site. The proposed project includes a revegetation plan that includes habitat restoration and enhancement on the project site by creating 10.82 acres of high quality VCSS habitat to compensate for the loss of 17 acres of lower quality VCCS habitat presently on the site. This habitat will consist of large continuous bands of VCSS habitat along the edges of the site with improved habitat value as it will include not only shrub species associated but also Mulefat, coyote bush, and blue elderberry found in the higher quality VCSS habitat on the site. This higher quality replacement VCSS vegetation will mitigate the impact of the project by providing habitat with similar value for wildlife to the lower quality habitat being impacted. In addition, the project includes the creation of 1.24 acres of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the existing conditions in the northern reach of the drainage to compensate for the impact to 1.02 acres of riparian/habitat area. A detention basin will be constructed at the southern end of the site, immediately west of the access road This basin will surrounded by wetland and riparian habitat with additional new wetland and riparian habitat located south of the development area and west of the access road. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 24 Implementation of the revegetation plan and the mitigation measures below will reduce impacts to biological resources, including the loss of avian and wildlife nesting and foraging habitat for common and sensitive species, to less than significant. Sources: Oak Tree Report (Tree Life Concern Inc., 1/31/14); Biological Resources Technical Report (Seven Elk Ranch Design Incorporated, 1/22/14), Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey and Amendment(BioResource Consultants Inc., 7/23/15 and 5/12/16); Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report(BioResource Consultants Inc., 5/12/16) Project Application (September 3, 2013), California Department of Fish and Game: Natural Diversity Data Base-Moorpark and Simi Valley Quad Sheets (1993). Mitigation Measure(s): BIO-1: This mitigation addresses Impact IV(e). The replacement trees to be planted on the site (approximately 1,200 trees)shall have a value equal to, or greater, than the appraised value of$72,231,64 to the removed trees, as identified in the Oak Tree Report(Tree Life Concern Inc. (TLC), January 31, 2014) The replacement trees planted shall include at least two (2) 24"-box Quercus agrifolia, four(4)24" box Black Walnut, and ten (10) sycamore trees. Prior to approval of building permits, applicant shall submit a tree planting and 5-year maintenance plan showing the tree planting including the required trees as listed The five-year maintenance plan for the mitigation trees is required, consistent with the City's Tree Protection Ordinance. Trees and their irrigation system shall be monitored at quarterly intervals for the first two years and biennially for the next three years. A Letter of Compliance shall be submitted by the Project Arborist to the Community Development Department at the end of each time period describing the condition of each tree and recording their chances for long-term survival. The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the mitigation trees for the five-year period and no longer. The proposed landscape plan must specify that mitigation trees are properly installed, staked/guyed and watered to help ensure their survival.An irrigation system designed for newly planted trees is mandatory for successful tree establishment. Drip-system irrigation is ideal for managing water distribution near newly planted trees " (TLC Report#3) Protective fencing shall be installed around or along all trees listed to remain (see TLC report for fence placement recommendations) Place protective fencing at the Protective Zone(PZ)or as shown on the TLC Orange construction fencing is sufficient and its position must be approved by the Project Arborist, who must be present during the fence placement or repositioning. An Oak Tree Information Packet including the City's Tree Protection Municipal Code and the Oak Tree Report must be available during on-site construction The applicant and contractor should be familiar with the contents of these documents. No oaks outside the property line are to be impacted by this construction project. The information tags numbering each oak on this site shall not be removed No construction materials are to be stored or discarded within the PZ of any oak. Rinse water, concrete residue, liquid contaminates (paint, thinners, gasoline, oils, etc.)of any type shall not be deposited in any form at the base of an oak. BIO-2: This mitigation addresses Impacts IV(a, b, d). Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (VCCS) Habitat: 10.82 acres of VCCS habitat shall be created and enhanced as shown in Figure 6 of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey(BioResource Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 25 Consultants Inc., July 23, 2015, updated June 1, 2018). Prior to final occupancy clearance, verification of the restoration of 10.82 acres shall be field verified by a qualified biologist. BIO-3: This mitigation addresses Impacts IV(a, b, c, d) Riparian/Wetlands: To offset impacts to U.S. and State Wetland and Waters, onsite mitigation will be implemented in the southern portion of the proposed Project with 1.24 acres of emergent wetlands, an ephemeral drainage, and associated Arroyo Willow and Mulefat Thicket riparian habitat similar to the pre- construction conditions in the northern reach of the drainage on the site shall be created Prior to grading permits, applicant will be required to show proof of permits from ACE (404 Permit), SCRWQCB (401 permit), and CDFW (1602 permit)that will require full approval of a habitat restoration plan, wetlands restoration plan and the required 5-year mitigation and monitoring plan for the project. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pursuant to §15064 5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑ geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources: Archaeological Survey(W&S Consultants, 1/12/2014); Project Application (September 3, 2013). Discussion. a-d)An Archaeological Survey was prepared for the site by W&S Consultants (1/12/2014). There was no evidence found in a records search for any expected cultural resources on the project site. Furthermore the archeological survey that was conducted on site found no evidence of archeological or cultural resources. The City has provided notice to Native American Tribes of the opportunity to consult on the potential effects of the project on Tribal Cultural Resources in conformance with Section 21080.3.1(d)of the Public Resources Code and has not received any requests to consult on the Project. As part of the standard conditions, a condition will be imposed that states if any archeological or historical finds are uncovered during grading or excavation operations, all grading or excavation shall immediately cease in the immediate area and the find must be left untouched The applicant, in consultation with the project paleontologist or archeologist, shall assure the preservation of the site and immediately contact the Community Development Director by phone, in writing by email or hand delivered correspondence Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 26 informing the Director of the find. In the absence of the Director, the applicant shall so inform the City Manager. The applicant shall be required to obtain the services of a qualified paleontologist or archeologist, whichever is appropriate to recommend disposition of the site The paleontologist or archeologist selected must be approved in writing by the Community Development Director The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the investigation and disposition of the find. Another project condition will be prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a grading permit, a paleontological mitigation plan outlining procedures for paleontological data recovery must be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The development and implementation of this Plan must include consultations with the Applicant's engineering geologist as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered under any scenario will be through a qualified institution selected by the City of Moorpark. All specimens become the property of the City of Moorpark unless the City chooses otherwise. If the City accepts ownership, the curation location may be revised. The monitoring and data recovery should include periodic inspections of excavations to recover exposed fossil materials. The cost of this data recovery is limited to the discovery of a reasonable sample of available material The interpretation of reasonableness rests with the Community Development Director. Therefore, through standard conditioning of the project, impacts to archeological and cultural resources are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s). None Required Monitoring: None Required. VI. GEOLOGY&SOILS Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Impact Impact With Impact p Mitigation p a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the ❑ ❑ ❑ State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ El iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ .1 b) Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss ofEl ❑ ❑ ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- ❑ ❑ ❑ or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 27 VI. GEOLOGY&SOILS Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Impact Impact p Mitigation p d) Be located on expansive soil, as 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 alternative waste ❑ ❑ ❑ water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Sources: Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report(Workman Engineering &Consulting, 3/7/2014); Preliminary Soils Report Project Application and Exhibits (September 3, 2013), Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map (Simi Valley West, 1999), Seismic Hazard Zone Map (Simi Valley, 1997) General Plan Safety Element(2001) Discussion: a-e) This project will be built subject to compliance with building codes and compliance with all project conditions of approval All plans will be subject to the review and approval of the City prior to issuance of building permits The site is not located in an earthquake fault zone or liquefaction hazard zone The site is not located in an area designated as subject to landslide risk on the Seismic Hazard Zone Map prepared by the California Geologic Survey The proposed slopes are designed to provide an acceptable factor of safety. Mitigation Measure(s). None Required. Monitoring. None Required VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing ❑ ❑ ❑ the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion: a-b) The project would be consistent with applicable state, regional, and local plans and policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as presented in Tables 8 and 9 in the Greenhouse Gas Study completed for the project, including incorporation of features into the project to conserve water and energy, reducing solid waste and locating Senior Housing use in proximity to commercial and other services, which will reduce vehicle mile traveled In addition, the SCAQMD recommends a quantitative threshold for all land use types of 3,000 metric tons CO2e/year(SCAQMD, "Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds—Option 1", September 2010) At 2,181 metric tons per year, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions is below this threshold For these reasons, the impact is not significant and no mitigation is needed. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 28 Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013); Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Memorandum to City(Stratton, 7/8/14); Greenhouse Gas Study(Rincon Consultants, Inc , 12/31/13). Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Monitoring: None Required. VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than project: Potentially Significant No Less than Would the P 1 Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use ❑ ❑ ❑ or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ❑ /1 release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 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 included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑ /1 result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of 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 physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a 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? Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Safety Element(2001) Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 29 Discussion: a-h) the site is not identified on any lists of hazardous materials site. The proposed residential use would not involve the handling, use, or storage of any hazardous materials that would pose a hazard to uses near the project site. The nearest airports to the project site are the Santa Paula Airport, located approximately 11 miles northwest of the site and Camarillo Airport, and located approximately 12 miles southwest of the site. There are also no private airstrips located within the vicinity of the site. The site is not located on a designated emergency route and would not physically interfere with emergency evacuation in this portion of the City The project site is not located in a wildland area, as it is bordered by existing residential development to the north and east and by institutional, residential and commercial uses to the south. Additional residential uses and agricultural uses are located west of the site There are no known hazards on the project site, nor will new hazards be created as a result of the project. No significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures have been identified Mitigation Measure(s): None Required Monitoring. None Required Potentially Less Than Less than IX. HYDROLOGY &WATER QUALITY Significant Sig WThant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact p a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 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 drainage pattern of the site or area, 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 substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm ❑ ❑ ® ❑ water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 30 Potentially Less Than Less than IX. HYDROLOGY&WATER QUALITY No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ El Sources: Hydrology and Hydraulics Study(LC Engineering Group, Inc., 2/25/2014); Memorandum (Ventura County Watershed Protection District [VCWPD], 7/7/2014), Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Safety Element(2001), Moorpark Municipal Code Discussion: a-f) The eastern portion of the site currently drains to the existing Walnut Creek Channel and the western portion of the site drains to a defined natural channel that drains south to Casey Road and conveyed to the Walnut Creek Channel. A small retention basin, with a concrete spillway, is located in the channel near the center of the site This basin would retain flows from small events while flows from larger events would pass over the spillway and are not detained. Sediment has accumulated in this basin over time and riparian vegetation has become established and, for this reason, this basin currently qualifies as a jurisdictional wetland area. The proposed grading and development would alter the existing drainage patterns The existing small retention basin in the center of the site would be removed as part of the project. The proposed project includes storm drain improvements that will collect runoff from the project site and discharge this runoff to the Walnut Creek Channel A detention basin with a capacity of 3.6 acre feet will be constructed at the southern end of the site, immediately west of the access road. This basin will surrounded by wetland and riparian habitat created to mitigate for the loss of habitat associated with the existing small retention basin and drainage this basin is located in. Additional new wetland and riparian habitat will also be located south of the development area and west of the access road The detention basin will detain flows during a 100-year storm event. The inflow to this basin will be 103.4 cubic feet per second (cfs)and the outflow will be 42 6 cfs, resulting in the peak flow discharged from the site being reduced from 527.3 cfs to 504 cfs The 42 6 cfs outflow from the detention basin is lower than the 100-year outflow rate of 65 cfs identified by the Ventura Watershed Protection Basin as the design standard for the Walnut Creek Drainage Area as defined in Section 8 1.3• Basin No. 1 (Casey Road)of the adopted 2006 Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Floor Control Deficiency Study(pages 8-4 and 8-5, and figures A and B). The Ventura County Watershed Protection District holds a flood control easement within Walnut Canyon across the southeast corner of the site, and District's conditions will be included as conditions of approval on the project. The project will not, therefore, result in any significant onsite erosion/siltation impacts or offsite flooding impacts and no mitigation is needed Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 31 g., h ) The site is not within a within a FEMA identified 100-year flood hazard area i) The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam as there is no dam or levee on the site and site is not subject to flooding j)There is no risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow as the project is not next to a coastal area. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required Monitoring. None Required. X. LAND USE & PLANNING PotentiallyLess Than Less than SignificanSignificant Significant No Impact Would the project: With Impact Mitigation Impact a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ �� community? b) Conflict with any applicable land 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) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? Sources. Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Land Use Element(1992) Discussion: a-c) The Residential Planned Development Application was filed concurrently with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change The current General Plan designations for the Project site are Rural Low Residential (RL) and Medium Residential (M). The current Zoning designation is RE (Rural Exclusive)and RE-5ac(Rural Exclusive-5 acre minimum). The proposal would result in a gross density of 7.9 dwelling units per acre for the entire site before dedication of streets. The proposed amendment would change the General Plan designation for the site to Very High Density(VH) Residential. The General Plan designation of Medium (M)allows a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre, while the requested VH designation allows up to 15 dwelling units per acre The project is consistent with the applicable Goals and Policies of the General Plan Specifically, the proposed senior continuing care retirement community is consistent with the following Land Use and Housing Element goals: Land Use Element: GOAL 1• Attain a balanced City growth pattern which includes a full mix of land uses. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 32 GOAL 3 Provide a variety of housing types and opportunities for all economic segments of the community Housing Element: GOAL 2: Provide residential sites through land use, zoning and specific plan designations to provide a range of housing opportunities GOAL 3• Expand and protect housing opportunities for lower income households and special needs groups The proposed Project will provide housing opportunities for a special needs group, seniors requiring living assistance services, and add to the range of housing opportunities available in the City The requested zoning designation to RPD-8U (Residential Planned Development—8 units per acre) would accommodate the proposed density. The purpose of the Residential Planned Development zone is to provide areas for communities to be developed using modern land planning and unified design techniques This zone provides a flexible regulatory procedure in order to encourage. 1. Coordinated neighborhood design and compatibility with existing or potential development of surrounding areas, 2. An efficient use of land particularly through the clustering of dwelling units and the preservation of the natural features of sites, 3. Variety and innovation in site design, density and housing unit options, including garden apartments, townhouses and single-family dwellings; 4 Lower housing costs through the reduction of street and utility networks, and 5. A more varied, attractive and energy-efficient living environment, as well as, greater opportunities for recreation than would be possible under other zone classifications This zoning designation is consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation and is appropriate for the site, allowing the development of a site plan that provides opportunities for habitat restoration after grading while creating a cohesive and logical plan. Mitigation Measure(s): None required Monitoring. None required. Potentially Less Than Less than Xl. MINERAL RESOURCES Significant SignificantfhaNo Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the El ❑ ❑ region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 33 Sources. Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element(1986) Discussion: a., b ) There are no known mineral resources onsite Therefore, there are no impacts anticipated for this project to mineral resources Mitigation Measure(s): None required. Monitoring: None required. XII.NOISE Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project result in Im act With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Exposure of persons to or generation 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 of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ El noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ ® ❑ existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels without the project? e) For a project located within an 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources: Noise Study(Veneklasen Associates, 1/16/14), Project Application (September 3, 2013); General Plan Noise Element(1998) Discussion. a-f) There will be a temporary increase in noise during grading and construction Noise generators will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and allowed hours of construction as part of the Conditions of Approval Grading traffic will be minimized through the balancing of cut and fill onsite prior to the development of the North Hills Parkway Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 34 Future residents on site may hear traffic on Walnut Canyon Road, but the noise analysis study indicates a measured noise level of 59 5 CNEL on the east property line, below the threshold for an acoustical analysis The project proposes conventional residential use within a sheltered area isolated from adjacent uses by upward slopes Nothing indicates any significant impact on surrounding properties from the permanent use itself It will be in compliance with all acoustical codes and requirements of Title 24 and the Uniform Building Code. Mitigation Measure(s1 None required. Monitoring. None required. XIII. POPULATION & HOUSING Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Impact With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for ❑ ❑ ® ❑ example, through an extension of roads or other infra-structure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ housing elsewhere? Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013). Discussion. a-c) This project will have beneficial impacts of helping to achieve housing goals in support of the Housing Element of the General Plan, and of providing housing for an unserved segment of the population -- elderly seeking a continuum of care. There will be no negative impacts related to population growth or housing. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. Monitoring. None required Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 35 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES* Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project result in substantial adverse Significant With Significant Impact physical impacts to the following Impact Impact p Mitigation a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sources. Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Safety Element(2001), General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element(1986) Discussion. a-e) The proposed continuing care community for seniors is located less than one-half mile from Ventura County Fire Station No. 42 on E High Street and less than one mile from the Ventura County Sheriff's Station on Spring Road and response time for any calls for service will be acceptable. The project includes assisted care living units that will have full time staff, which will reduce calls for emergency services. The incremental increase in calls for emergency services will not create a need for additional fire or police facilities The project plans and information were provided to the Ventura County Sheriff and Fire Departments for review and comment. No comments were received by the City indicating the project would have a significant impact on police and fire services that would require new facilities or alterations to existing facilities to maintain acceptable levels of service that would result in significant impacts. This senior housing project will not generate students and will have no impact on school facilities for this reason Impacts to existing parks and recreation facilities will be minimized by the inclusion of onsite recreational facilities designed to meet the needs of the senior residential. The incremental impact on public services is less than significant. The Project site Development fees and increased property taxes will be paid to fund required public services. Mitigation Measure(s). None required Monitoring. None required XV. RECREATION Less Than Potentially Less than Significant Signio Wificant Significant Im act Impact Mitigation Impact P a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ /1 physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ �� recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 36 Sources. Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element(1986) Discussion. a-b) Onsite recreational facilities are proposed such as a pool facility and tennis courts for the residents on site Park and recreation fees will be also be paid as part of the developer fees Mitigation Measure(s): None Required Monitoring: None Required XVI. TRANSPORTATION &TRAFFIC Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Cause an increase in traffic, which 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 cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ® ❑ intersections)or incompatible uses e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs ❑ ❑ ® ❑ supporting alternative transportation Sources. Traffic and Circulation Study, Associated Traffic Engineers (3/26/2014); Review of Traffic Study(Linscott Law& Greenspan Engineers (6/10/2015), Project Application (September 3, 2013), General Plan Circulation Element(1992) Discussion. a-g) The proposed project will not reduce the level of service (LOS) of intersections in the area. The project would contribute to a significant cumulative traffic impact at the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road, as the LOS at this intersection would degrade from LOS C to LOS D with cumulative Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 37 traffic conditions. The project would also contribute traffic to other intersections projected to operate at LOS D or worse without project traffic. The City has established traffic mitigation fee programs for purposes of funding traffic improvements as needed to maintain the City's desired Level of Service C operating conditions on the local street system. The Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee and Gabbert/Casey Roads Areas of Contribution Fee Programs apply to this project. The City has identified and programmed construction of improvements to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of the addition of through lanes at the intersections of Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts Improvements have also been identified at the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of adding additional phases to the existing traffic signal that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts Payment of these traffic mitigation fees by the project will mitigate the project's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts to less than significant Mitigation: TRA-1 (XVI a,b,c): The City has established traffic mitigation fee programs for purposes of funding traffic improvements as needed to maintain Level of Service C operating conditions on the local street system. The Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee and Gabbert/Casey Roads Areas of Contribution Fee Programs apply to this project. The City has identified and programmed construction of improvements to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of the addition of through lanes at the intersections of Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Improvements have also been identified at the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road/Casey Road to be funded by these mitigation fees, consisting of adding additional phases to the existing traffic signal, that will mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. • Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall pay to the City Traffic Mitigation Fund to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts as determined by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works Director. • Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall pay the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts as determined by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/ Public Works Director • Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall submit a driveway plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works Director. Monitoring: Fees need to be paid as per above and Development Agreement. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 38 XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant SignificantiSignificant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)of Public Resources Code Section 5024 1 In applying the criteria set ❑ ❑ ❑ El forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Sources. Discussion. a) The project is a vacant site and has no listed structures in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020 1(k) b) There are no known cultural resources that would be of significance to a California Native American tribe Mitigation Measure(s). None Required Monitoring: None Required. XVIII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ❑ El Board? Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 39 XVIII. UTILITIES &SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant SignificantNo Would the project: Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve ❑ ❑ ❑ El the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? Sources: Project Application (September 3, 2013), Ventura County Watershed Protection District: Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (2002). Discussion. Utilities and service systems within the area are adequate to serve the project. Development fees will be paid to fund required utilities and service systems, or improvements needed to serve the project will be constructed by the developer Utilities and service systems within the area are adequate to serve the project. Development fees will be paid to fund required utilities and service systems, or improvements needed to serve the project will be constructed by the developer Mitigation Measure(s): Development Fees will be required. Monitoring: Development Fees will be paid as per Development Agreement Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 40 XVIV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OFpotential) Less Than Less than SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant Significant No Impact With Impact Mitigation Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ❑ ❑ animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of 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 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 effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources: The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended. Discussion: a)The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history of prehistory. The site has been largely disturbed by vehicle use and is surrounded on three sides by urbanized uses reducing its potential as a habitat. b)The project will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Impacts on Biological Resources and Transportation/Traffic will be mitigated to less than significant as discussed above in IV. Biological Resources and XVI. Transportation/Traffic. Impacts to trees and native habitat on the site that will be impacted by the project will be mitigated by providing replacement tree and habitat onsite as part of the project, which will also mitigate the contribution of the project to the loss of these resources in the area. The project will pay traffic mitigation fees to the City that will be used to make improvements to intersections impacted by cumulative traffic conditions to mitigate these impacts to less than significant. c)The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project has been designed to eliminate any potential substantial adverse effects on human beings and to provide a needed residential resource. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. Monitoring: None required. Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 41 REFERENCES 1. Project Application (September 3, 2013) 2 Environmental Information Form application and materials submitted on September 3, 2013 3 The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended 4. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended. 5. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 2004-2224 6. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15000 et. seq. 7. Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, October 31, 2003 8. General Plan Safety Element(2001) 9. General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element(1986) 10. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Memorandum to City(Stratton, 7/8/14) 11. Rincon Consultants Inc., Greenhouse Gas Study(12/31/13) 12. Oak Tree Report(Tree Life Concern Inc., 1/31/14) 13 Biological Resources Technical Report(Seven Elk Ranch Design Incorporated, 1/22/14) 14 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey and Amendment(BioResource Consultants Inc., 7/23/15 and 5/12/16) 15 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report(BioResource Consultants Inc., 5/12/16) 16. Archaeological Survey(W&S Consultants, 1/12/2014) 17. Hydrology and Hydraulics Study(LC Engineering Group, Inc., 2/25/2014) 18. Memorandum (Ventura County Watershed Protection District[VCWPD], 7/7/2014) 19 Traffic and Circulation Study, Associated Traffic Engineers (3/26/2014) 20. Review of Traffic Study, Linscott Law&Greenspan Engineers (6/10/2015) 21. Acoustical Analysis Report Veneklasen Associates (1/16/2014) 22. Soils Report, Workman and Associates (3/7/2014) 23 Cut and Fill Report, Cook(3/10/2014) 24. Ventura County Watershed Protection District: Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (2002) 25. General Plan Noise Element(1998) 26 General Plan Circulation Element(1992) Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 42 EXHIBIT B . 8,, ______/,iii. ,,,,,,,,,,,si rri. _,::.,... I I I I _ u. 4 , ' A 1 1 —0/ .42 i -404"...'-` `'-------. — ;-",,r , , ‘ -- or ---4....IN:0_ lit ' \'',''., WPIIII i \ "2:4111$'/. -------''.----------' --'' -------L-til,..--------- --- ‘16%1---441--; --7"-a Will IP 1 i , _--, . 0.1 #.40., ,-- : _ --- -----,--..--..-_____,.....- ,•-:-i,us'41)f 4__;1- ‘ - f :' I- -_1011"'• '` +�� 1 ,,0111..: �'�1 i -_moi i,� Y 1Y"�' ,';�fh� 1 iii ter.. -\ • -ia•,.\ �vl.',I I. tx�•. =�e.� �� ,� V li JI�� I kr Ot , zit il 7, 1 ,, ... !'r"! �.ki,.... ..„ . ' Ra �n e.�� „...,.__,/ . ,..,...- , LEGEND VH—VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 15.D.U./AC ,•� ,, :'�,�-L67 a_y � � --4 ©' 250 , \ `�. 1� a 1` i SCALE: 1" — 250' - Resolution No. 2019-3792 Page 43 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss. CITY OF MOORPARK ) I, Deborah Traffenstedt, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 2019-3792 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of March, 2019, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Enegren, Mikos, Pollock, Simons, and Mayor Parvin NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 2nd day of May, 2019. Deborah Traffenstedt, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk (seal) PPARK Q W el t 4S� i �� Ilwebt Y L