Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2005 0119 CC REG ITEM 08ANOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF OPEN PUBLIC HEARING A duly noticed public hearing regarding: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02, for 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0 -120 -065; 500- 0 -170- 135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -145, -155, -165, -175, -185, - 195, -205, -215, -225, -235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, - 175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -145, -195, -215, -225; 615- 0 -110- 205, -215; 615 -0- 150 -185) was held at a regular Meeting on January 19, 2005, at which time the City Council continued the open public hearing to the regular City Council meeting to be held on March 16, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., in the Community Center located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. Dated: January 20, 2005. Deborah S. Traffenst t City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss CITY OF MOORPARK ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Deborah S. Traffenstedt, declare as follows: That I am the City Clerk of the City of Moorpark and that a Notice of Continuance of Open Public Hearing regarding: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02, for 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0- 120 -065; 500- 0 -170- 135; 500 -0 -180 -125, -135, -145, -155, -165, -175, -185, - 195, -205, -215, -225, -235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, - 175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -145, -195, -215, -225; 615- 0 -110- 205, -215; 615 -0 -150 -185), continued from January 19, 2005, to March 16, 2005, was posted on January 20, 2005, at a conspicuous location near the place of the meeting: Moorpark Community Center 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 20, 2005. Deborah S. Traffenstdft City Clerk ITEM 8'A CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of /-�9-a9�4✓r' MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 4 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Mana 7 DATE: January 6, 2005 (CC Meeting of 1/19/2005) SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02, for 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0- 120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0 -180 -125, -135, - 145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, - 235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, - 145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0- 110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150- 185) BACKGROUND On November 17, 2004, the City Council took additional testimony on the North Park project and discussed project issues related to the mitigation monitoring report and Environmental Tmpact Report findings. Other topics scheduled for discussion on November 17, 2004, included the development agreement and ballot issues. Discussion on these issues was deferred to the January 19, 2005 Council meeting. DISCUSSION Issues Raised The following information is provided in response to the questions raised on October 20, 2004 and November 17, 2004. S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \11 -North Park \Agenda Reports \050119 CC Report.doc 000001 Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 2 Project Description 1. How many lots could allow the construction of second dwelling units? - The City's Zoning Ordinance restricts second dwellings to residentially -zoned lots one - fourth acre (10,890 square feet) or larger in size. The proposed North Park Specific Plan, with 1,500 market rate lots proposed, has approximately 700 lots (470) that would be large enough for second dwelling units. The current draft Specific Plan does not restrict the construction of second dwelling units, however the applicant has offered to accept a prohibition on the construction of second dwelling units in this project. The City Attorney has reviewed the issue of restricting second dwelling units in this Specific Plan project and has provided the following information: First, 2nd units must be distinguished from Granny units. Granny units are age- restricted units, the approval of which can be limited by a CUP or other approval process. (GC 65852.1). The language of section 65852.1 makes the approval permissive (a City "may" approve . ) , so eliminating Granny units may be possible. Regardless, however, any prohibition in North Park Village on second units should expressly include Granny units. Second units, on the other hand, are not age restricted, and where permitted, must be approved through a simple over the counter administrative permits process. (GC 65852.2) . Government Code section 65852.2 was amended in 2002 to eliminate much of a City's discretion in the area of restricting 2nd units. In response, several cities revised their 2nd unit ordinances to be as restrictive as possible under the new legislation. The legislature in turn responded with more restrictive legislation —which was vetoed by the Governor. However, the question of how restrictive cities can be under the new legislation is still up in the air. Up and down the state, second unit ordinances that purportedly conform to the 2002 legislation vary in how aggressive an approach they take to continued restrictions on second units. Section 65852.2 indicates that cities may designate "areas" within the City where second units may be permitted. That section also indicates that a city may Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 3 provide for the creation of second units in single - family and multifamily residential zones. Finally, 65852.2 provides that a city may not totally preclude second units within single- family or multifamily zoned areas without making findings that allowing such uses would create specific adverse impacts on public health, safety and welfare. Nowhere is the term "areas" defined in section 65852.2. Thus, while 65852.2 indicates a City can designate "areas" in which second units may be permitted, it also indicates that a City cannot totally preclude second units from within single - family or multifamily zoned "areas." Presumably this means a City cannot preclude second units from all of a City's single- family or multifamily zoned "areas," but could preclude them from some such "areas." But, it could mean that within each single - family or multifamily zoned "area" there need be some segment where second units are allowed (admittedly a more tortured reading of the section). However, without any interpretive case law, or a definition of "area" the full scope of a City's authority under 65852.2 in this regard is uncertain. Bottom line, if the City were to preclude second units from the project, findings should be made concerning potential public health, safety and welfare issues associated with not prohibiting them. Further, the City should ensure that second units are allowed elsewhere in this City. Finally, the City should be prepared for the fact that were the restriction to be challenged, there is a possibility that the prohibition could be overturned given the ambiguity in section 65852.2's use of the undefined term "area." Since June 2002, only eight applications for second dwelling units have been requested in Moorpark. Most of these were in older developments. The Toll Brothers project, Tract 4928, with similar lot sizes and density as proposed in North Park, has approximately 90 completed houses without a single second dwelling unit. Based on the City's experience, it is not reasonably foreseeable that many second dwelling units would be requested in the North Park project. In the September 15, 2004 agenda report, staff had calculated the current development potential of the site Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 4 under County zoning. This report included the number of houses possible with and without second units on the lots. The County's experience with permits for second dwelling units has been similar to that of Moorpark, and very few of these permits have been issued in Open Space or Agricultural Exclusive zones. It would also not be reasonably foreseeable that many second units would be built on the site if subdivided under current zoning. 2. If building permits are stopped before 500th house, will the grading have covered a larger area? - The project design calls for mass grading of the entire area of Phase A (first 500 houses) at one time. The City could require bonding on the grading permit to ensure that any land that isn't constructed within a certain time period is planted for aesthetic reasons and to avoid soil erosion. Such a condition has been required on previous projects. The Mitigation Monitoring Program would prevent vegetation removal and grading in the land designated for Phases B and C until the freeway interchange and access road from the interchange are fully permitted, fully funded, at least 500 constructed, and not more than 12 months from expected completion. 3. Can additional visual simulations be provided? - Staff met with the consultant who prepared the original visual simulations contained in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, and surveyed the area around the project site for potential additional view locations that would improve the information on the project's visual impacts. Five additional visual simulations of the project were prepared from four locations - from the eastbound SR -118 freeway just past the Princeton Avenue exit, from the Collins Avenue exit of the eastbound SR -118 freeway, from the far northeastern boundary of the project site, and views to the east and southwest from the proposed observatory site on the project site. These new visual simulations are attached to this report as Attachment 1. Views from the SR -118 freeway at both Princeton Avenue and Collins Drive reveal the buildout phase of the project barely visible in the background of the view. From the drive along the eastbound SR -118, the project would be visible for a very short distance just past the Princeton Avenue off -ramp, and then foreground views would block the visibility of the project. The project would also be Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 5 visible for a short distance on the Collins Drive off -ramp, but the view would be blocked before reaching Collins Drive. Viewpoints C and D on Exhibit 3.2 -11 in the Revised Draft EIR, along with an additional one included in the October 20, 2004 agenda report, were taken in close proximity to the new visual simulation locations along the SR -118 freeway, however, the project was not visible from these three previously selected locations. Views from the northeast boundary of the project site, as well as views from the proposed observatory site looking to the southeast and southwest, provide a good perspective of the boundary between the proposed development and the nature preserve. The northeast boundary of the project site is currently accessible as part of the Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park trail system. A trail system proposed as part of the project would provide views similar to those seen from the proposed observatory site. Traffic Improvements 4. Could the SR -118 freeway interchange be developed on the north side of freeway for construction access and what alternative routes are available? - The proposed Specific Plan calls for completion of the interchange and freeway access road prior to the issuance of the 501St building permit. Initial research by the applicant concluded that while Caltrans may permit phased interchange construction (westbound on /westbound off), Caltrans is reluctant to permit construction and use of such improvements for interim or temporary private use for construction traffic. A westbound on /westbound off ramp open to the general public may pose conflicts with construction safety and security before the access road is completed to Moorpark College. A potential construction access route through an existing approximately 16 -foot high by 13 -foot wide concrete box culvert underneath the SR -118 freeway near the Park and Ride lot on Los Angeles Avenue was also evaluated. The culvert provides access to Ventura County Water Works District No. 1 water tanks north of the freeway. The applicant prepared a preliminary study (Attachment 2) to determine the feasibility of using this road and undercrossing for construction access. The study concluded that the underpass and roadway could serve some Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 6 construction traffic, but could not accommodate larger trucks. The applicant has had preliminary discussions with the Ventura County Public Works Agency (the owner of the existing WWD# 1 easement) and was informed that the proposed use for construction access would be beyond the uses permitted under their easement. To take full advantage of the route, the applicant would have to obtain additional permission from Caltrans, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (railroad property) and Waste Management. Assuming permission can be secured, this route would have the advantage of removing some construction traffic from the Collins /Campus Park interchange. That traffic would still be required to travel near a few of the homes south of Campus Park Drive. Larger trucks would still need to take access from Campus Park Drive. The Planning Commission, in its deliberations on the project, recommended that a construction access route be provided to the site from the easterly terminus of Campus Park Drive. Since this time, the Ventura County Watershed Protection District realigned and significantly improved an easement road at this location. The utility of the easement as a construction access road has been enhanced as the area available for staging construction vehicles has been widened, leveled, and lengthened. This would allow staging to occur away from the homes along Campus Park Drive. Attachment 3 shows this route. The applicant prefers this option and has offered the following conditions to minimize construction traffic impacts on Campus Park Drive: • Temporary signalization of the intersection of Campus Road, Campus Park Drive, and Beragan Street; • Locating a construction access gate and staging area a minimum of 1,000 feet beyond the terminus of Campus Park Drive (past the newly constructed debris basin); • Requiring 24 -hour security to ensure that the construction traffic flows onto the site and designated staging area; • Prohibiting parking or idling near the adjacent neighborhood; and • Working with City Staff to identify and provide additional appropriate neighborhood mitigation, Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 7 including but not limited to enhanced landscaping in the project vicinity. It should be noted that the applicant has also offered to complete improvements at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive /SR -118 interchange prior to the issuance of the first building permit as part of Specific Plan implementation. 5. What is the process for eminent domain if the applicant is unable to obtain property for the access road? - In response to this question, the following information is provided by the City Attorney: Government Code section 66462.5 provides that a City cannot refuse to approve a final map that is otherwise consistent with an approved tentative map due to the developer's failure to acquire necessary offsite property. However, the City can require that the developer enter into a reimbursement agreement to pay the City's costs in attempting to acquire that offsite property. If the City is unable to obtain the property, or has not commenced eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property within 120 days of the filing of the final map with the City, the condition for construction of the offsite improvement is deemed waived. With regard to North Park Village, if the developer were unable to acquire the necessary offsite property for the off -ramp and access road, the City would be asked to acquire the property. If the City were unsuccessful in negotiating an acquisition, the City Council would have to consider — in its sole discretion — whether or not to adopt Thus, if the property were a resolution of necessity to initiate acquisition via eminent domain. If the City Council did not adopt a resolution, the property would not be acquired and the condition requiring the offsite roadway would be waived by operation of law. If the City Council adopted the resolution, litigation would be filed. It is likely the litigation would be successful, but there is always a possibility that the litigation would be unsuccessful, in which case the condition would again be deemed waived. The project description in the EIR indicates that Phases B and C would not be able to be built without construction of the off -ramp and access road. Thus, if the property were not acquired, only Phase A could be constructed. Notwithstanding the statutory language that failure to Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 8 acquire property would be a waiver of the condition to build the road, this eventuality could be addressed in the Development Agreement and Specific Plan. If the Development Agreement prohibits construction of Phases B and C without the road, and indicates that the City's election to condemn is entirely within the City's discretion, and further a decision to not condemn is not a breach of the agreement, the City should be able to avoid any waiver of the condition. However, as currently contemplated, the Developer would still be able to construct Phase A under any circumstance. 6. What is the total cost to fix the Collins /Campus Park 1SR- 118 intersection /interchange above and beyond the improvements being made as part of the Campus Plaza Project? - Attachment 4 is a figure showing the improvements proposed for the Collins /Campus Park /SR -118 interchange as part of the North Park project. A cost estimate for the improvements (Attachment 5) shows a total cost of approximately $870,000. These cost estimates have been reviewed by the City Engineer. The City Engineer believes the cost estimate to be somewhat conservative (high), but in the ballpark given the need to obtain Caltrans approval. Estimated costs for improvements that will be performed as part of the Campus Plaza shopping center are $125,000, leaving approximately $745,000 in additional costs as part of the North Park project. The City Engineer is currently in the process of working with the City's traffic signal timing consultant to determine if existing conditions at the intersection of Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive can be improved by changing the signal timing. Water Quality, Groundwater, and Lake Management 7. How much water will be drained from the lake? - As previously reported, drainage from the lake is not necessary to sustain the fish population. However, in order to avoid groundwater quality impacts from percolation of lake water with increasing salinity, some of the water would need to be removed and replaced with potable water. Attachment 6 is a letter from the applicant providing an analysis of this issue. This analysis shows an estimated need to remove and replace approximately 170 acre -feet of water each year. The removed lake water could be used for irrigation. This letter was reviewed by Fox Canyon Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 9 Groundwater Management Agency staff. The Fox Canyon staff concurs with the conclusion that the monitoring and management of the salinity in the lake by periodic replacement of some of the lake water with potable water would avoid groundwater degradation. S. How long does it take for the lake to become a balanced ecosystem? - Full documentation of the ecosystem establishment process has been provided by the applicant in the Lake Management Plan. According to the author of this plan, it takes a year or more for the ecosystem to stabilize. 9. Any studies showing animal activity as a result of artificial lakes? - Bonterra Consultants researched this question and has provided the following response: Artificial lakes have the potential to attract a variety of both native and non - native wildlife species depending on their proximity to natural lands, access for wildlife use (i.e., open space linkages like a golf course or open natural lands that provide connectivity to the lake or reservoir), and operation and management. Most of these facilities are located in areas are surrounded by development with little or no direct connectivity to open natural lands and only attract migratory and resident water fowl or the most urban - adaptive species. Migrating shorebirds use habitats opportunistically, as they are available (Skagen and Knopf, 19-94). Because this lake will not be fully drained, shorebirds such as sandpipers are not expected to occur in any substantial numbers. There are artificial lakes /open water features that support moderate to high wildlife use. One of the most productive is the San Joaquin Marsh, in the City of Irvine, which is owned and operated by the Irvine Ranch Water District and the University of California. Most artificial urban lakes do not contain a great deal of habitat by design and may even be operated and managed to preclude wildlife use (i. e. , Lake Mission Viejo) . The San Joaquin Marsh is managed in a manner that serves to treat and improve water quality along with efforts to establish wildlife habitat to attract wildlife (wetlands and upland habitats) . For this reason, the marsh is one of the top birding locations in the region. Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 10 In summary, waterbirds are expected to lake during migration; bats may drink nights; deer and other thirsty wildlife during dry times; and gulls are expect& year -round but primarily during winter roosting. use the proposed there on summer may use the lake J to use the lake for loafing and 10. What if City or Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy were to manage the lake? - The Specific Plan proposes that the homeowners association, a landscape maintenance district, a community facility district, or a similar funding mechanism assume funding responsibility for the management of the lake. The draft Lake Management Plan calls for the Homeowner's Association to make overall lake policies (within the bounds of the Specific Plan and any City conditions of approval), appoint a lake committee, and hire a lake manager. Specific roles of each are defined in the plan. Management of an artificial lake would not be within the mission of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which focuses on natural land. Management by the City would be a policy question that could be considered by the Council as part of this project. 11. What will be done if centrifugal separators and grassy swales do not work in order to achieve water quality performance measures? - The following information supplements the information provided in the October 17, 2004 staff report related to the performance of the water quality devices. The water quality devices will be installed as part of the construction of storm drain improvements. The storm drain system would be completed well before all the building permits are issued. In addition, bonds would be required for any improvements required as part of this project. If the water quality devices did not perform as required, the developer would be held responsible to correct the problem. The City could stop issuing building permits until such corrections are made if needed. If the applicant abandoned the project, the City would then use the forfeited funds to correct the problem. Hazardous Materials, Oil Wells and Health Issues 12. is mitigation available to protect residents from Valley Fever? - Bonterra Consulting has provided the following information in response to this question; Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 11 San Joaquin Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) is a lung infection. Approximately 60 percent of primary infections are asymptomatic or develop benign flu -like symptoms and never seek medical attention. Va11ey Fever is not transmitted from person to person. Approximately 40 percent of infected persons can develop a spectrum of illnesses ranging from mild to moderate flu -like symptoms to pneumonia. The most common symptoms for persons seeking medical attention are fatigue, cough, chest pain, fever, rash, headache, and joint aches. Approximately 0.5 percent of cases are persons developing disseminating disease where the infection spreads to other areas of the body; the most serious manifestation of disseminated Valley Fever is meningitis. (Primary sources: Centers for Disease Control; University of Arizona, Arizona Research Laboratories Valley Fever Center for Excellence.) The upper ±11.8 inches (30 centimeters) of soil is the primary area where Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever) spores are typically found. The spores are most typically associated with arid or semiarid climate, hot summers, few winter freezes, low altitude, and alkaline soils. It is a natural part of the desert microflora and spores can be inhaled anywhere they exist. (Source: Arizona Department of Health Services.) Cultivation for field crops would have an average depth of 18 inches (source: Ventura County Agriculture Commission office). The following additional research was provided to determine: 1) Are there measures for Valley Fever that the City has imposed on other projects in the City that are applicable to the currently proposed project? ; and 2) Are other jurisdictions imposing mitigation measures on proposed projects with respect to Valley Fever and would such measures be applicable to the proposed North Park project and other projects in the City of Moorpark? The Valley Fever measures proposed for North Park are at least as restrictive as those placed on other projects in Moorpark. The results of the research are that no additional measures have been found that could be applied to the proposed project at this time. The research has included Internet searches and review of the web sites for the districts, agencies, and organizations including, but not limited to, the following: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 12 Ventura County Kern County Department of Public Health Fresno County Stanislaus County www.valleyfever.com Valley Fever Center for Excellence at the University of Arizona U.S. Environmental Protection Agency In a conversation with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Southern Region Office, staff indicated that they do not impose any specific measures on development projects directed specifically at Valley Fever (telephone conversation, November 1, 2004) . They do have a Rule 4550, Conservation Management Practices - adopted on August 19, 2004, intended to limit fugitive dust from agricultural sites. The listed practices in this rule were reviewed and would not be applicable to a hillside grading operation. 13. What are the boundaries of the land recently acquired by Waste Management from Unocal? - Attachment 7 is a map showing the extent of the property acquired by Waste Management from Unocal. The 2800 -acre parcel of land extends from the easterly terminus of Campus Park Drive in Moorpark on the west to a point north of Erringer Road in Simi Valley on the east. 14. Is the Simi Valley Landfill a superfund site? - This statement was made in error in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and was subsequently corrected in the Revised Draft EIR. 15. Can it be certified that Vintage is the only oil operator on the project site? - A title company has confirmed that Vintage Petroleum Company is the only holder of easements for drilling, wells, tanks, pipelines and other purposes related to oil extraction on the project site. 16. Could Phase 2 mitigation result in a reduced footprint of number of housing units? - Should Phase 2 mitigation identify areas that should not be developed, the footprint of development will be reduced. In general, however, if soil contamination related to the oil extraction exists on the project site, it usually can be remediated without Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 13 affecting the development. Vintage Petroleum has prepared two maps detailing all the oil facilities on the project site. These maps (Attachment 8) are transmitted under separate cover. Schools and Other Public Facilities 17. What is the status of the applicant's negotiations with the Moorpark Unified School District? - The applicant is still negotiating with the district as of the date of this report. An update will be provided at the City Council meeting. 18. What is the status of the Moorpark College Master Plan EIR? - The Draft EIR has not been released for public review as of the date of this report. However, it is expected early this year. An update will be provided at the City Council meeting. 19. Are more details available on the plan to build a new observatory for Moorpark College? - The Specific Plan includes a graded site and access road for relocation of the Moorpark College Observatory. Further details are not available at this time. 20. What are the Fire Protection District's plans for a new fire station in the project vicinity if the project is not built? - Long -term plans of the Fire Protection District have identified the need for an additional fire station in the vicinity of eastern Moorpark /western Simi Valley. However, a specific location and timing of construction have not been determined. Fire Protection District staff has committed to building a station on the North Park project site if the project is approved, but the timing of the construction has not yet been determined as of the date of this report. An update will be provided at the City Council meeting. Biology 21. Has the EIR Consultant contacted the National Park Service and reviewed other studies on wildlife corridors in the area? - The City's EIR Consultant (Bonterra Consulting) has contacted National Park Service staff, who suggested that two recent wildlife movement studies be reviewed for additional information. Attachment 9 is an assessment of these two studies in light of the information in the North 1) ()0 91 Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 14 Park Village Revised Draft EIR. The conclusion of Bonterra Consulting is that these two studies support the findings of the EIR and that no additional mitigation is needed. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy staff also met with City staff to discuss their concerns over the wildlife movement impacts of the project. Attachment 10 reiterates the Conservancy's position that the project does not have sufficient mitigation for wildlife movement impacts. Citing one of the same studies reviewed by Bonterra Consulting, the Conservancy believes that the study supports their position. The Conservancy's letter was approved by Resolution of the Conservancy Board on December 6, 2004. Topics for Discussion Topics for discussion at the January 19, 2005 City Council meeting include the Development Agreement and Ballot Issues: Development Agreement A draft Development Agreement prepared by the developer was previously provided to the City Council under separate cover. The City's practice in processing Development Agreements is for the terms of the Development Agreement to be drafted by a Council Ad -Hoc Committee and presented to the City Council. The Council, if it wishes to consider the Development Agreement, would refer the document to the Planning Commission for recommendation. It would then return to the City Council for a decision. Terms of this Development Agreement are currently being discussed with the North Park Ad -Hoc Committee (Mayor Hunter, Mayor Pro Tem Harper). An update will be provided at the City Council meeting. Ballot Issues The following information has been provided by the City Attorney on decision options and CEQA considerations on this project: Decision Options The SOAR measure approved by the Moorpark voters created the CURB line, generally coterminus with the current City boundaries. The provision of public services outside of the CURB line requires a vote of the Moorpark electorate to amend the City's general plan. The proposed North Park Village project also necessitates several other discretionary entitlements that could be approved either by the City Council, "WO914 Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 15 or by the voters. Accordingly, the City Council will have a few options in determining what should go to the voters: a. The most narrowly defined ballot measure would simply submit a general plan amendment to the voters, extending the CURB line to include North Park Village. Under this scenario, the City Council would either approve all entitlements subject to the successful General Plan amendment vote, or have the vote, and then consider the entitlements for approval. This approach presents certain problems in that if the General Plan amendment language is too broad, other projects could be submitted once the General Plan amendment is approved. It also creates a circumstance where the entitlements approved by the Council would be subject to referendum, effectively allowing two or more votes on the project. b. A second approach would be to submit to the voters all entitlements that are subject to ordinance and /or resolution: General Plan amendment, Zoning amendment, approval of the Specific Plan, and approval of the Development Agreement. These would be submitted in the form of one ordinance to be approved by the voters. This approach has the benefit of providing the voters with the most say in approving the project. It also confines the amendment of the General Plan to the project at issue — North Park Village. Further, rather than being potentially the subject of a referendum action, the vote by Moorpark resident registered voters would resolve approval or denial of the project definitively — barring any problems with the LAFCO annexation of North Park Village to Moorpark. With this option, the Specific Plan and /or Development Agreement will need to clearly set forth those circumstances where modification to the project can be approved without a vote of the people. Every project has some level of modification that becomes necessary once design progresses and work in the field commences — so some level of discretion for modifications will have to be preserved to eliminate the need for voter approval of every minor modification to the project. C. A third approach would be submittal of some, but not all, of the entitlements to the voters. The Council could, in its discretion, decide to reserve to itself approval of one or more of the discretionary entitlements, for example, the Development Agreement. While this is certainly an option, there does not appear to be much logic in such an approach. If the Council wishes to control the entitlements for the project, option "a" above would provide that control —voter approval of some, but not Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 16 all, of the entitlements would only tie the Council's hands with regard to discretion over the entitlements. d. The fourth approach would be a voter - initiated ballot measure. Were the Council to decide not to submit the project to the voters, the developer (or others) could collect signatures to force the project to be placed on the ballot. Under that circumstance, the developer (or others) would define the project, and could eliminate certain aspects of land use control, for example the Development Agreement, as part of its project. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Considerations Voter - initiated ballot measures do not require compliance with CEQA procedures. Thus, option "d" above does not require an EIR or any CEQA review for that matter. Matters placed upon the ballot by the City Council (options "a ", "b ", or "c ") , however, do require CEQA compliance. In the instance of this project, the City Council will have to certify the EIR for the project, make findings on significant effects, adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for unmitigated significant impacts, in order to place the project on the ballot. While the Council may wish to leave a decision on this project entirely up to the voters of the City (as described in option "b" for example) , the Council will have to determine that the benefits of the project outweigh any unmitigated significant impacts on the environment prior to submitting the project to the voters for their consideration. Future Meetings The applicant is currently working with the Ad -Hoc Committee (Mayor Hunter, Mayor Pro Tem Harper) in attempting to resolve project issues. Additional time is needed by the applicant. Staff is recommending that the agenda item be continued to allow sufficient time for the applicant to resolve these issues before returning to the public hearing. It is staff's goal to return with enough information for Council to close the public hearing and provide direction to staff on how it wishes to proceed. 900916 Honorable City Council January 19, 2005 Page 17 STAFF RECObMNDATION 1. Continue to take testimony in the open public hearing. 2. Continue the agenda item with the hearing open to a date certain. ATTACHMENTS 1. Visual Simulations 2. Box Culvert Construction Access Route 3. Campus Park Drive Construction Access Route 4. Collins /Campus Park /SR -118 Intersection Improvements 5. Intersection Improvement Cost Estimate 6. North Park Village Lake Water Quality Letter 7. Waste Management Property 8. Vintage Petroleum Facilities (Under Separate Cover) 9. January 4, 2005 Memo from Bonterra Consulting 10. December 6, 2004 Letter from Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy `� 0 040 1"t-f A. 10 C. a E ATTACHMENT 1 Visual Simulations View from SR -118 at Princeton Avenue (Existing View) (Proposed View) View from Collins Avenue Off -ramp (Existing View) (Proposed View) View from Northeast Corner of Project Site (Existing View) (Proposed View) View to the East from Proposed Observatory Site View to the West from Proposed Observatory Site (Existing View) (Proposed View) (Existing View) (Proposed View) Existing View m Proposed View NORTHPARK �tr,orpark.( 4 V S:CFSCd]E Visual Simulation` l i t y .r t -- -- 1517f SC d Proposed View Visual \ON'I HPkRK �Lmrpark,(4 Simulation1�' I Existing View ` 1 CdJF Proposed View NOR'I'NP%RK Visual Simulation1 l '%ORIIIPkRK Existing View Proposed View Visual Simulation Existing View Proposed View NOWIlP4RK �iFFF�n r ,c,% y n � y \ �1 k, 1 Yisiar5cdje Visual Simulation1l i a so' im, mn' PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: North Park Village L.P. 350 West Ash Street Suite 730 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 234 -4050 urysAC.rtl AtsOMAiv NORTH PARK STUDY #1 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CC ATTACHMENT 2 O: \rvartn Par4 �i�iage \E.nibiti \Gons�r�.ct:an Access \Study 1_LOnstruct�bnACC!ss.�wg 0 0 E., TIE TO DUSTING CONSTRUCTION ACCESS T PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: North Park Wage L.P. 350 Wes Ash Street 'bA Suite 730 Son Diego, CA 92101 (6 19 ) 234-4050 NORTH PARK STUDY #3 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS Camps Park Drive .7� _ yam \ 4 Add a 2nd Wes eouM Left Turn Lnno . Moddy the Ea stng Traffic Sgnel to Provide " an Easmound Right Turn Overlap wen a Nodhbound Left Tom. Convect the E - t g Eastbowsd Though tare b a Righf Tum Only Lane and a —C .... d the En51 ng Right Tum Lane 6' Bike Lane.' to a Free Right Tum Lane. l A aaA.r.A l ��o li 1 0 U j ' Y Convert the Evishng Westbound Right Twn Lane to a Free Right Tum lane. frll 11 SR 118 C s�gnarae tna mtal5selon. �? Comert the Eaislirg WeslbouM Through Lane j to a Shared Weslbwhd Through Lane jand Right Tum Lane. —' SR or,(4 Park CC ATTACHMENT 4 Proposed Lane Configurations SR 118, Collins Drive, Campus Park Drive cauin. odw al Campus Part ddw wY0 L N aFAx% 31 1 PMV A (too d.1 1oN Seedac Pia. w�qe 9 IWx BCdllna gdw al aR'I VhslDOUrtl Rani» 'I ft A P x NPv �a�a�aaa C EaaimawdwR+„mps I'U Aw. sai Poi- o .am P- D D x _ carts Alwo auJ mxo 5paofic way -- sm I T.t. L...I Of l.rvic. (tnsl.•vla«.0 muaaPwa . Phaa• Nora' NurlM1 ParX tle "uRwing ConyNafe T�aS meow f woro am ur• oc�wmy ma r;,v'aaP• IM spa.., A. 7 AusanF f A - Ma I Tra(flc Engirswrs — _ - ^° ° aM.v s zw. '_)O0 eJ2E4 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. Preliminary Cost Estimate for Bonding Purposes Project Name: North Park Village Location: City of Moorpark, California Type of plan: Proposed Lane Configurations ITEM IDESCRIPTION I QUANTITY I UNIT I UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST Summary SECTION„ A ......................................................... ............................... $199,160.00 SECTION„ B ......................................................... ............................... $94,536.00 SECTION„ C•• ....................................................... ............................... $315,120.00 IN- DIRECT COSTS ............................................... ............................... $260,788.42 GRAND TOTAL $869,604.42 Note: This estimate is based on a 50 -scale plan prepared by Design Fusion Int'I, dated 1/5/04 which is not approved and is subject to revision. CC ATTACHMENT 5 Prepared by: Jim Tsutsui 949 -768 -2554 g /cost/1860 -13X North Park Intersection Revisions.XLS BONDate of Plan Plot: 01 -05 -04 on 01 -04 -05 Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 1/7/2005 - 12:07 PM 00092`9 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES I R V I N E, I N C. Preliminary Cost Estimate for Bonding Purposes Project Name: North Park Village Location: City of Moorpark, California Type of plan: Proposed Lane Configurations ITEM IDESCRIPTION I QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST SECTION "A" 1. MOVE -IN 2. SANDBLAST EX. STRIPING 3. NEW STRIPING 4. LEFT TURN ARROWS 5. RIGHT TURN ARROWS 6. MODIFY TRAFFIC SIGNAL 7. ACCESS RAMPS 8. TRAFFIC CONTROL SUB -TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONTINGENCY TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1 SECTION "B" 1. SANDBLAST EX. STRIPING 2. NEW STRIPING 3. LEFT TURN ARROWS 4. RIGHT TURN ARROWS 5. MODIFY TRAFFIC SIGNAL 6. NEW PAVEMENT 7. NEW CURB & GUTTER 8. LAND ACQUISTION 9. ACCESS RAMPS 10. TRAFFIC CONTROL $112,500.00 SUB -TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS 2 CONTINGENCY $500.00 TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 1,150 LF $8.00 $9,200.00 2,300 LF $2.00 $4,600.00 4 EA $150.00 $600.00 2 EA $150.00 $300.00 1 EA $112,500.00 $112,500.00 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $153,200.00 30% $45,960.00 $199,160.00 238 LF 476 LF 2 EA 2 EA - EA 2,856 SF 238 LF 2,856 SF - EA 1 LS $8.00 $2.00 $150.00 $150.00 $112,500.00 $15.00 $12.00 $3.00 $500.00 $15,000.00 $1,904.00 $952.00 $300.00 $300.00 $0.00 $42,840.00 $2,856.00 $8,568.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $72,720.00 30% $21,816.00 $94,536.00 Prepared by: Jim Tsutsui 949 - 768 -2554 g /cost/1860 -13X North Park Intersection Revisions.XLS BONDate of Plan Plot: 01 -05 -04 on 01 -04 -05 Page 2 of 3 Printed on: 1/7/2005 - 12:07 PM i) () () 91Zt- I HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. Preliminary Cost Estimate for Bonding Purposes Project Name: North Park Village Location: City of Moorpark, California Type of plan: Proposed Lane Configurations ITEM DESCRIPTION I QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS SECTION "C" $315,120.00 IN- DIRECT COSTS 1. SANDBLAST EX. STRIPING 150 LF $8.00 $1,200.00 2. NEW STRIPING 450 LF $2.00 $900.00 3. LEFT TURN ARROWS - EA $150.00 $0.00 4. RIGHT TURN ARROWS 2 EA $150.00 $300.00 5. 100% TRAFFIC SIGNAL 1 EA $225,000.00 $225,000.00 6. NEW PAVEMENT - SF $15.00 $0.00 7. NEW CURB & GUTTER - LF $12.00 $0.00 8. LAND ACQUISTION - SF $3.00 $0.00 9. ACCESS RAMPS - EA $500.00 $0.00 10. TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 SUB -TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS $242,400.00 CONTINGENCY 30% $72,720.00 TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS $315,120.00 IN- DIRECT COSTS 1. PERFORMANCE BOND 2% LS $608,816.00 $12,176.32 2. CITY PERMIT & PLAN CHECK 1 LS $5,785.36 $5,785.36 3. CAL TRANS CONSULTANT 15% LS $608,816.00 $91,322.40 4. CIVIL ENGINEERING & FIELDWORK 15% LS $608,816.00 $91,322.40 SUB -TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS $200,606.48 CONTINGENCY 30% $60,181.94 TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS $260,788.42 Prepared by: Jim Tsutsui 949 - 768 -2554 g /cost/1860 -13X North Park Intersection Revisions.XLS BONDate of Plan Plot: 01 -05 -04 on 01 -04 -05 Page 3 of 3 Printed on: 1/7/2005 - 12:07 PM ICY November 15, 2004 Mayor Hunter and Members of the City Council City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mayor Hunter and Members of the City Council: RE: North Park Village Lake Water Quality The purpose of this correspondence is to address the question if there is a need to drain the lake in order to maintain the lake's water quality for biological purposes or to balance the lake's salinity in order to maintain groundwater quality. There are a variety of technical reports that address issue of water quality from differing perspectives. Reviewed separately the reader could conclude that the report's reach conflicting conclusions. The purpose of this correspondence is to reconcile ostensible conflicts. It is important to emphasis the fundamental conclusion supported by all the technical analysis - While the lake's water supply and quality must be managed and monitored to ensure a healthy and viable recreation lake that does not degrade groundwater quality, there is no need to drain the lake. The technical report in question are: the Lake Water Management Plan, Dudek and Associates, J. Harland Glenn Engineers, November 15, 2002; the Water Master Plan for North Park Village, Hunsaker and Associates, September 27, 2002; North Park Nature Preserve and Village Lake Water Supply Feasibility Assessment, Kennedy /Jenks Consultants, prepared for Calleguas Municipal Water District, October 7, 2002; Addendum to the October 7, 2002 Final Lake Water Supply Feasibility Study, Kennedy /Jenks Consultants, prepared for Calleguas Municipal Water District, February 3, 2003; North Park Water Supply Assessment, Kennedy /Jenks Consultants, prepared for Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1, March 2003, the Recycled Water Master Plan for North Park Village, Hunsaker and Associates, September 27, 2002; and the North Park Village Groundwater Quality Analysis, Kennedy /Jenks Consultants, February 12, 2004. The Issue The North Park Plan proposes that the lake be filled and maintained through the use of potable water. It is recognized that lake water will slowly be depleted through evaporation and through percolation. The plan anticipates that the depleted water would be replaced with potable water. CC ATTACHMENT 6 690 Moorpark CA 93021 Phore (805 ) 378 -!'50 Fax (805'! 529 -7360 E -Mail No thParKVil��eaho�ma�co The plans also recognize that the salinity in the lake will gradually increase over time as water is lost through evaporation and percolation. The question has been asked if the lake would have to be occasionally drained in order to reestablish the desired salinity, either to protect the lake's biology or the groundwater. The Lake's Biology The Lake Water Management Plan concluded that the lake will remain healthy and viable without draining the lake. This conclusion was recently confirmed by J. Harland Glenn the author of the Lake Management Report. He concluded "In similar lakes with no storm drain water from streets, the TDS build -up has been slow. For example, the TDS build -up at the East Lake Village lake in Yorba Linda has been from the TDS level of 50 to 500 milligram per liter supply water to about a TDS level of about 2100 milligrams per liter over the 25 years the lake has been in operation. Fish can stand up to several times this amount of build -up easily. The species of algae and other plants may change slightly with increased TDS, but the overall effect is very small. Therefdre, we see very little justification for draining the lake based on TDS build -up." However, North Park Village Groundwater Quality Analysis, February 12, 2004 seemed to offer a somewhat different perspective about the lake's biology. The analysis stated "...because the lake has limited ability to export dissolved constituents it is conceivable that salts could continue to accumulate within the lake. This is counter to the intention of supporting a lake biosystem. In practice, water from the lake would need to be periodically removed to export constituents to maintain a stable water quality within the lake." It is foreseeable that the reader could interpret this to mean that the lake should be occasionally drained to maintain the lakes biosystem. The author of this section has clarified that "This does not imply that the lake would need to be drained, but rather that a balance be achieved between exporting the higher TDS lake water and importing lower TDS replenishment water." It should be emphasized that the author's conclusion about the biology of the lake was based on his experience with smaller scale systems, and that he specifically recommends that questions related to salinity management should be answered to J. Harlan Glenn with Dudek. As reviewed above. J. Harlan Glenn concluded the viability of the lake should not be impacted by the elevated salinity. Thus, there is no need to drain the lakes in response to concerns about the lake's biology. Groundwater The North Park Village Groundwater Quality Analysis, February 12, 2004, details the methodology used to estimate the lake water quality resulting from water losses due to percolation, evaporation balanced by water additions from rainfall. The analysis concluded that over time the salinity of the lake water will increase. The lake water with heightened TDS levels would percolate into the groundwater system potentially impacting the quality of the groundwater. Thus the report recommends that the lake's water quality should be balanced by continually removing some of the lake water and replenishing with fresh water. Again, the author emphasis that this is not a recommendation that the lake be occasionally drained but rather that the lake's water quality be monitored and managed. 2 In preparation of this correspondence Kennedy /Jenks more precisely calculated the build -up of salinity in the lake and the corresponding need to manage the lake's water quality on an ongoing basis to ensure that the quality of the groundwater is not degraded. Year Starting Volume Evaporative Loss Rainfall Inflow Percolative Loss Removed Ending TDS AF AFY AFY AFY AFY m /l 1 417 212 67 48 170 300 2 417 212 67 48 170 404 3 417 212 67 48 170 454 4 417 212 67 48 170 478 5 417 212 67 48 170 489 6 417 212 67 48 170 495 7 417 212 67 48 170 497 8 417 "' 212 67 48 170 498 9 417 212 67 48 170 499 10 417 212 67 48 170 499 11 417 212 67 48 170 499 12 417 212 67 48 170 499 13 417 212 67 48 170 500 14 417 212 67 48 170 500 15 417 212 67 48 170 500 16 417 212 67 48 170 500 17 417 212 67 48 170 500 18 417 212 67 48 170 500 19 417 212 67 48 170 500 20 417 212 67 48 170 500 21 417 212 67 48 170 500 22 417 212 67 48 170 500 23 417 212 67 48 170 500 24 417 212 67 48 170 500 25 417 212 67 48 170 500 26 417 212 67 48 170 500 27 417 212 67 48 170 500 28 417 212 67 48 170 500 29 417 212 67 48 170 500 30 417 212 67 48 170 500 The analysis above concludes that approximately 170 acre feet of water a year be removed and replenished as part of the routine management of the lake. Based upon rates of evaporation and rainfall the amounts would vary through -out the year. At no time would the lake be drained. 3 "ioo 3'0.* � Use of Removed Lake Water With the clarification that approximately 170 acre feet of lake water should be removed from the lake on an ongoing basis, the question arises is to how best use the removed water. Two options emerge according to Hunsaker and Associates the authors of the Water Master Plan for North Park Village and the Recycled Water Master Plan for North Park Village. 1. The exported lake water (170 acre feet per year) would be used as a source for a separate irrigation system that would serve the exterior needs of the homes in the lake area. Each of the homes would have two water services; one domestic for normal interior use; and a second water service from the Lake Irrigation Water System for normal landscape uses. The irrigation water would be used to supplement normal domestic water use and would therefore reduce normal domestic water supplies. It would take approximately 315 homes to 325 homes to use the additional 170 acre feet per year. With a market of approximately 1500 homes in the area, the 170 acre feet water demand could be easily expanded to whatever the water replenishment needs of the Lake would be. 2. Alternatively, water can be pumped from the Lake directly into the recycled water irrigation system and used for irrigation throughout the project or for offsite recycled water demands as the recycled water irrigation system is expanded to offsite uses. In this case, North Park Village would be expanding the community's recycled water supply by recycling the water from the lake to be used for irrigation. Under either of these scenarios, the overall water demands of the project remain the same as the total demand identified in the Water Supply Assessment and Water Verification approved by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District. Sincerely, NORTH PARK VILLAGE L.P. i John Kil y Vice President Cc Dudek and Associates, J. Harland Glenn Engineers Kennedy /Jenks Consultants Hunsaker and Associates 0 $)oo93: 0 0 �o 0 1 z H -j ea tk ALTA /ACSM SURVEY JURISDICTIONAL 8OUNDARIES 615-0-110 h COUNTv .......................... .......... .......................... ........... 9 ............... 29 2. sizz 500-0-292 I 11 Tr 4 al �11� 615-0-150 615-0-160 -0 32 33 31 500-0-02 p" ccL4 14. 1 PIRCEL 2 22 : 11 ............ ................. ... ..... PIRCEL 6 MOORPARK 4 A A, < no I vi SEMI VALLEY 500-0-291 r. ................................ ........... SIMI VALLEY FGFN 615-0-171 .................................... ..... ......... N -- O�T 4 t ASSESSOR PARCEL MAP SHEET BORDER JURISDICTIONAL 6 OUN D ARY 579-0-050 500-0-291 ASSESSOR PAR L K AND PACE 0 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER ....... ..................... CE 800 ATTACHMENT 8 (under separate cover) MAMQ�= January 4, 2005 To: David Bobardt From: Brian Daniels Planning Manager Senior Biologist City of Moorpark BonTerra Cons3- )Ring Subject. Review of Recent Wildlife Movement Reports As you requested, we reviewed the two recent studies of wildlife movement in the region that encompassed the North Park Village project site. The first study was titled "Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California" and was published in 2004 in the journal of Biological Conservation by Sandra Na, .Jim Dale, Raymond Sauvajot, Seth Riley, and Thomas Valone. The second study is the Final Wildlife Corridor Assessment Report of Ventura State Route 118 that was conducted by LSA Associates (2004). The 15 State Route 118 (SR -118) undercrossings studied in the first report (Ng et al., 2004; included the crossing at the mouth of Hidden Creek Canyon that we studied for the North Park Village project site. Only three of the 15 SR -118 undercrossings were used by deer and the Hidden Creek Canyon undercrossing was not one of these three undercrossings used by deer. The study found that deer only used the larger undercrossings that had lots of opens space (natural habitat) on both sides of the passage. This study found that Alamos Canyon and two other well -known crossings fit these characteristics, but that the Hidden Creek Canyon crossing does not. The LSA Associates (2004) study also found that deer do not use the undercrossing at the mouth of Hidden Creek Canyon (referred to as the Collins Avenue Tunnel and Equipment Passage at the mouth of Faulkner Canyon in the report). This report's conclusion for the Collins Crossing is that it "does riot provide a viable large -sized mammal habitat linkage between the Santa Susana Mountains and the Simi Hills." Even with the "linkage enhancements" identified for this crossing, the report still concluded that "several obstacles that limit its usefulness as a medium to large -sized wildlife corridor" would remain. As a result, the Collins Crossing wasn't even one of the eight undercrossings selected in this study for enhancement based on importance to wildlife corridor viability. Both of these studies clearly support BonTerra Consulting's conclusions regarding wildlife movement in the Environmental Impact Report for the North Park Village project site. 320 North Halstead Street, Suite 930 Pasadena, CA 91107 (626) 351 -2000 (626) 351 -2030 F;3;< Ai�ll �.. STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY RAMIREZ CANYON PARK 5750 RAMIREZ CANYON ROAD MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265 PHONE (310) 589 -3200 FAX (310) 589 -3207 December 6, 2004 Hon. Patrick Hunter, Mayor Councilmembers City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93012 North Park Village Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 (scH No. 20201114) Dear Mayor Hunter and Councilmembers: This letter is to clarify the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy's position on the North Park Village Project. The Conservancy stated in its previous comment letter (September 22, 2003) that the currently proposed North Park project will result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources resulting from compromised wildlife movement, loss of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat, development abutting remaining oak woodlands, and loss of other sensitive habitat. It is the Conservancy's opinion that the North Park Village revised Draft Environmental Impact Report still does not accurately describe the significant adverse impacts to biological resources that will be caused from this development project. The concerns expressed in comments provided to the City in the letter of September 22, 2003 remained unresolved. The responses the to the Conservancy's comments have not demonstrated that the adverse significant impacts to biological resources will be reduced to less than a significant level. The Environmental Impact Report consultant's refutation of the significance of the adverse impacts result in a lack of adequate project modifications to mitigate or avoid the loss of these important biological resources. The Conservancy is prepared to support the proposed project - but only if it is modified consistent with the Conservancy's comment letter dated September 22, 2003. Specifically: The project footprint should be modified by the elimination of planning areas 1,2, and 3, and most of planning areas 4-8,28-31, 57, and 58 (as shown on Exhibit 2 -8 of the July 9, 2003 Draft Program EIR). While this would greatly reduce the number of units (our September 22, 2003 letter called for the reduction of somewhat more CC ATTACHMENT 10 1 j Hon. Partrick Hunter and Councilmembers December 6, 2004 Page 2 than 800 homes), the infrastructure cost would be reduced as well, and perhaps the need for an entirely new —and expensive— freeway interchange. The lots eliminated, which would now be open space lots, should be dedicated in fee, as part of the Nature Preserve, to a recognized conservation entity for permanent preservation, and while we commend the City for requiring a funding mechanism, it should be clear that the funding needs to be provided for ranger and /or other law enforcement and firefighter patrol as well as routine maintenance. We remain willing to engage in constructive dialogue with you and the city staff, as well as the project applicant, however, without these modifications, the Conservancy cannot support the project at this time. Subsequent to circulation of the DEIR, significant new information supports the Conservancy's position about the biological significance of this land as core habitat and as a significant wildlife movement area between the Santa Susana Mountains, Simi Hills, and Santa Monica Mountains. (See Caltrans' new study entitled Wildlife Corridor Assessment Report, State Route 118 (2004). If the North Park project footprint is not substantially reduced, as recommended, then the Conservancy strongly urges the City of Moorpark to (1) acknowledge in its final EIR the additional significant adverse biological impacts of the proposed project, over and above those presently acknowledged by the EIR consultant; and, (2) require as much additional mitigation as possible to further minimize or avoid more of the adverse impacts than are presently being minimized /avoided. Thank you for you serious consideration of our comments. Please direct any questions or future documents to Paul Edelman of our staff at (310) 589 -3200 ext. 128 and at the above Ramirez Canyon Park address. Sincerely, I xEPH T. EDMISTON, FAICP ecutive Director _a „