Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES CC 2020 3887 2020 0219 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-3887 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2014-01 FOR A CHANGE OF LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) TO VERY HIGH RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (VH) FOR A 69 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, RECREATION CENTER, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 635 LOS ANGELES AVENUE, ON THE APPLICATION OF MENASHE KOZAR FOR SKY LINE 66, LLC WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, applications for General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01, Zone Change No. 2014-01, Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03 were filed by Menashe Kozar for Sky Line 66, LLC, for the construction of a 69 unit multi- family residential condominium development, including a recreation center and associated site improvements, located at 635 Los Angeles Avenue; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2020-647, recommending to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration and conditional approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01, Zone Change No. 2014- 01, Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2020 the City Council considered the agenda report for General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01 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 Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above together with any comments received during the public review process and determined that there is no evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the project are complete and have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City CEQA Procedures. B. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 2 SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS: The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. A commercial demand study was prepared and concluded that commercial use development was not viable, in favor of residential development on the subject property. B. The proposed Project will help to increase the variety of housing types within the City and will provide affordable housing units in furtherance of the City's Housing Element. SECTION 3. ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Negative Declaration as proposed in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein for the proposed development of a 69 unit multi-family residential condominium, including a recreation center and associated site improvements, located at 635 Los Angeles Avenue is hereby adopted. SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01 is approved, amending the General Plan Land Use Map as proposed in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01 shall be concurrent with the effective date of the Ordinance for Zone Change No. 2014-01 and the Ordinance for Development Agreement No. 2014-03, whichever occurs last. SECTION 6. 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of February, 2020. nice S. Parvin, Mayor ATTEST: cot 04c, 444.1411, 4iktfPWPANy K S 1)4.6. 1443.0040i City Clerk oo OW ''/ Exhibit A: Initial Study and Negative Declaration Exhibit B: Proposed General Plan Designation Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 3 EXHIBIT A INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 4 '''�r�►iCITYOFMOORPARK 0 01 1 CO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 ���" Main City Phone Number(805)517-6200 I Fax(805)532-2540 I www.moorparkca.gov 4 re, 3J`' 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. PROJECT Project Title: Green Island Villas Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02, Zone Change No. 2014-01; General Planned Amendment No 2014-01; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 5869 for Condominium Purposes; and Development Agreement No 2014-03 Address: 635 Los Angeles Avenue (north of Los Angeles Avenue, east of Shasta Avenue) Assessor Parcel Number(s): 511-0-141-130 Parcel Size: 4 01 acres Applicant: Menashe "Manny" Kozar for Sky Line 66, LLC Owner: Sky Line 66, LLC General Plan Designation: General Commercial (C-2) Proposed General Plan Designation: Very High Density Residential (VH15U/AC) Zoning: Commercial Office (C-O) Proposed Zoning: Residential Planned Development (RPD17.2/AC) Responsible or Trustee Agencies:The County of Ventura and California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Project Description: The project consists of a request to develop 69 multi-family residential condominiums, a two-story recreational center proposed to include a community clubhouse, day- care, fitness center and restrooms, an outdoor swimming pool, dog park and associated landscape and hardscape site improvements on a previously-developed 4.01-acre lot The project includes 16 two-story residential buildings, with a total of 18 two-bedroom units and 51 three-bedroom units. Each unit will include a two-car garage. A total of 35 surface guest parking spaces will be dispersed throughout the site. Amenities include a tot-lot, recreational center with a multi-purpose room and gymnasium, and a swimming pool. Primary street access to the property is provided by Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 5 California State Route 118 (Los Angeles Avenue) and residents will have secondary access to the east, through the adjacent Mission Bell Plaza shopping center. 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 will not have a significant effect on the environment. III. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN INITIAL STUDY: None. IV. PUBLIC REVIEW Document Posting and Comment Period: July 2, 2019 and August 6, 2019 The Initial Study was previously circulated and made available to the public and responsible agencies. Three comment letters were subsequently received from the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; California Department of Transportation; and Ventura County Watershed Protection. None of the comments received resulted in changes to the Initial Study. V. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Prior to approving the project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency must consider this Negative Declaration and all comments received on the Initial Study. Those decision-makers may approve a Negative Declaration if they determine that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Prepar-d By: Karen Vaughn,AICP 411P Community Development Director No. 20 887 F° - ITY OF MOORPARK fv,� m 799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark,California 93021 Main City Phone Number(805)517-6200 I Fax(805)532-2205 I moorpark@moorparkca.gov INITIAL STUDY Green Island Villas This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, CEQA Guidelines as revised, in accordance with Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. Project Entitlements: Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02; Zone Change No. 2014-01; General Planned Amendment No 2014-01; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869 for Condominium Purposes, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03 Location/Address: 635 Los Angeles Avenue (north of Los Angeles Avenue, east of Shasta Avenue) Assessor Parcel Number(s): 511-0-141-130 Parcel Size: 4.01 acres Applicant: Manny Kozar for Sky Line 66, LLC Owner: Sky Line 66, LLC Existing General Plan Designation: General Commercial (C-2) Proposed General Plan Designation: Very High Residential Density Residential (VH) Existing Zoning Designation: Commercial Office (C-O) Proposed Zoning Designation: Residential Planned Development (RPD) Responsible or Trustee Agencies: The County of Ventura and California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Tribal Consultation Requested: ® YES ❑ NO Has any California Native American Tribes traditionally or culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1? Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 7 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 2 of 34 Project Description: The project consists of a request to develop 69 multi-family residential condominiums, a two-story recreational center proposed to include a community clubhouse, day-care, fitness center and restrooms, an outdoor swimming pool, dog park and associated landscape and hardscape site improvements on a previously-developed 4.01-acre lot. The project includes 16 two-story residential buildings, with a total of 18 two-bedroom units and 51 three-bedroom units. Each unit will include a two-car garage. A total of 35 surface guest parking spaces will be dispersed throughout the site. Amenities include a tot-lot, recreational center with a multi-purpose room and gymnasium, and a swimming pool. Primary street access to the property is provided by California State Route 118 (Los Angeles Avenue) and residents will have secondary access to the east, through the adjacent Mission Bell Plaza shopping center. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The unimproved 4.01-acre lot is located on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue. The Mission Bell Plaza shopping center is located to the east and single-family homes are located to the north and west. The following table provides an overview of existing land use designations on the subject property and vicinity. EXISTING LAND USES Location Existing General Existing Zoning Existing Plan Designation Land Use Designation General Commercial Commercial Office Site Vacant Lot (C-2) �_ (C-O) Medium Density Single Family Residential Detached Single Family North Residential (R-1-8) Homes (4DU/AC) • High Density Residential Planned Development South Residential Vacant Lot (RPD 7U/AC) (7DU/AC) General Commercial Commercial Planned Mission Bell Plaza East Development (C-2) (CPD) Shopping Center Medium Density Single Family Residential Detached Single Family West Residential (R-1-8) Homes (4DU/AC) Methodology for Evaluating Cumulative Impacts: The methodology used to analyze the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project in the Initial Study was the list approach, pursuant to Section 15130(b)(1)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines. The list approach identifies all past, present, and probable future projects contributing to the related or cumulative impacts. The following pending and recently approved projects located within a five-mile radius of the proposed project have been evaluated for this Initial Study. 1 Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 8 Initial Study Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 3 of 34 Pending and Recently Approved Projects within the City of Moorpark Number Project Land Use Size Status 1 Pacific Communities Single Family Residential 284 Units Approved 2 Hitch Ranch Single Family Residential/Multi-Family 755 Units Proposed Residential 3 Approved Aldersgate Senior Housing Senior Housing Units 390 Units 4 City Ventures Single Family Residential 110 Units Approved 5 John C.Chiu,FLP-N Single Family Residential 60 Units Proposed Condominiums 6 Essex Moorpark Multi-Family Residential 200 Units Approved 7 Birdsall Group,LLC Single Family Residential 21 Units Approved 8 Spring Road,LLC Condominiums 95 Units Approved 9 West Pointe Homes Single Family Residential 133 Units Proposed 10 Moorpark Hospitality 108 Under Hotel (Fairfield Inn) Rooms Construction 11 Triliad Development Movie Studio 37 acres Approved EXHIBIT 1 VICINITY MAP Location Map I i T — " - i 1 Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 9 Initial Study Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 4 of 34 Aerial Map .c- < l n,•�i.'a - • - n x _44 gyp' ,, �, i o� a _ ° '' te—" '' t A� �. _ 4 Li , -- li r°'!IllIr au #• 171P'.... . v f ID "' sfwl ., ...ALAN Site Plan -------=7---_,....-2+_—=_f____________ r f, � j t M» � if . P TS �LD(3 CJ BLDG-F a.e - �'m 4 t a, „0__741_•- 1 a q, 4:111111y i t + ro ti Inttil -vr�r:rs su.s rs,v°rs.-a; rr.-a ra ra a .- > ;' G 44 �, M r x �_4 e lAa b J y -O as S. ~- 14 Mt Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 10 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 5 of 34 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 ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture/Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ 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 ❑ Wildfire ❑ 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 pursuan to th- earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revision' or mitis-tion me- .t are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further requir- . I February 14, 2020 I Freddy A. Car i Io Associate Planner II Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 11 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 6 of 34 Initial Study Checklist I. AESTHETICS 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 on a ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ® ❑ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? In urbanized areas, would ❑ ❑ ❑ the project conflict with applicable zoning and/or other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ nighttime views in the area? Discussion: a) The subject property is not located within a scenic viewshed, as identified in Figure 8 of the General Plan Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element. Furthermore, the project is not located near a horizon line, as identified in General Plan — Horizon Lines (Exhibit 17). Therefore, the project will have no impact on a scenic vista. b) The subject property is not located within a designated state scenic highway. The project will remove 23 mature trees to accommodate the proposed development. Pursuant to City policy and uniformly applied development conditions, a Protected Tree Report prepared by Paul A. Lewis, dated September 15, 2014, was submitted to establish the value and condition of the trees to be removed Conditions of approval are imposed so that the value of the removed trees will be applied to enlarge the size of proposed landscaping on the project site Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact related to scenic resources. c) The project site is located within an urbanized area and complies with all development standards and aesthetic requirements applicable to the proposed RPD zoning designation Therefore, the project will have no impacts related to scenic quality. d) Uniformly applied conditions of approval will be imposed on the project, including compliance with applicable lighting regulations of the Moorpark Municipal Code (Chapter 17.30). Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on daytime or nighttime views in the area. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 12 Initial Study Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 7 of 34 Source(s): Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), Moorpark Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning and General Plan - Horizon Lines (Exhibit 17) 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? 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) Pursuant to Exhibit 6 of the General Plan — Important Farmlands Inventory Map and the 2006 Ventura County Important Farmland Map, the subject property and vicinity are not identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impacts on agricultural resources. b) The subject property is not zoned for agriculture or commercial farming, nor is it subject to a Williamson Act Agreement. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impacts on any existing agricultural zoning or properties secured by the Williamson Act. c) The subject property is a vacant lot surrounded by urban uses. It is not zoned for forest land or timberland as identified in the Public Resources Code, or timberland production identified in the Government Code Therefore, the proposed project will have no impacts on forest land or timberland d) No forest land exists on the project site, therefore no impacts to or conversion of forest land would occur. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 13 Initial Study Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 8 of 34 e) Pursuant to Exhibit 6 of the General Plan and the Ventura County Important Farmland Map referenced above, the subject property is surrounded by urban uses and is not within the vicinity of designated farmland or forests. Thenafony, the proposed development of the subject property will not result in the conversion of farmland or forests Source(s): Prjeot/\pp|icaUonandEzhibito ({}ctober14. 2O14). Ca|ifornimQeportmentof Conservation: Ventura County Important Farmland Map (2006). General Plan Important Farmlands Inventory (Exhibit 6). III. AIR QUALITY The City of Moorpark and the proposed project are located within the jurisdiction Less Than of the Ventura County Air Pollution Potentially Significant SLiegmnsifitchaonnt No Control District/\CAPCD'. The Significant With Impact VCAPCD has established ai �oance Impact Impact ��� Mitigation criteria to evaluate air quality impacts. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the prject region is nonattainment under El an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial �� pollutant concentrations? �� d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a El substantial number of people? Discussion: a) Uniformly applied conditions of approval will be imposed on the project, including compliance with all existing requirements of the VCAPCD. Accordingly, the proposed project will be developed in a manner consistent with the VCAPCD Air Quality Management Plan and will be required to follow the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Rules and Regulations for pernnittinQ, development and operation and receive all required permits. Therefone, the proposed project will have no impact on the implementation of the air quality plan. b) Staff consulted with the VCAPCD during review of the entitlement and calculated the projected emissions associated with the project using California Emissions Estimator Model (Ca|EEPWod). Potential impacts to air quality associated with the proposed development are classified as either long-term operational impacts or short-term construction impacts. The VCAPCD establishes thresholds of 25 pounds-per-day (ppd) for emission of reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NC)x) for long-term operational impacts. The VCAPCD's 25 ppd thresholds for ROG and NOx do not apply to construction emissions. An Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 14 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 9 of 34 analysis of both construction and operational-related impacts associated with the project are provided below: Long-term Operational Impacts. Based on an analysis of operational air quality impacts reported by CaIEEMod, The operational emissions resulting from the project is projected to be 4 21 ppd ROC and 2.74 ppd NOx. These modelled emissions do not exceed the threshold and therefore, impacts to air quality anticipated with the project are less than significant. Short-term Construction Impacts: Short-term impacts to air quality will likely result from grading and other construction activities associated with the project (e.g., earth-moving and heavy equipment vehicle operations) According to the VCAPCD, any combustion equipment on-site that is rated at 50 horsepower or greater must have either an APCD Permit to Operate (PTO), or be registered with the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP). The applicant is responsible for contacting APCD to verify compliance with any permitting requirements of the APCD. Based on an analysis of air quality impacts reported by CaIEEMod, air quality impacts associated with the construction of the project result in maximum daily emissions estimate of 78.93 ppd ROC and 45.62 ppd NOx. As stated previously, the VCAPCD has not established thresholds for construction emissions. Nevertheless, for construction impacts, VCAPCD requires that construction activities minimize fugitive dust through dust control measures required by Rule 55. Rule 55 includes methods such as securing tarps over truck loads and watering to treat bulk material to minimalize fugitive dust. Compliance with Rule 55 would ensure that construction emissions would not be generated in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public or that may endanger the comfort, health or safety of any such person or the public Air quality impacts due to construction emissions would be less than significant. c) The subject property is located approximately 1,200 feet to the southwest of Chaparral Middle School. No other sensitive receptors are located within the vicinity. The Uniformly applied conditions of approval applicable to new developments requires that proposed project comply with the VCAPCD Air Quality Management Plan and VCAPCD Rules and Regulations for permitting, development and operation and receive all required permits. Therefore, the proposed project will have less than significant impact on expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations d) The proposed multi-family residential development does not include any facilities that are likely to create unusual emissions or odors Therefore, no impacts related to odors are proposed. Source(s): Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003), California Air Resources Board, CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 15 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 10 of 34 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 the state or federally protected wetlands (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. a) Pursuant to Exhibit 18 of the General Plan - Biological Resource Map, there are no sensitive habitat areas identified on or near the subject property. Additionally, the project site is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded by commercial and residential developments Therefore, the project will not have an impact or 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. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 16 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 11 of 34 b) Pursuant to Exhibit 18 of the General Plan - Biological Resource Map, there are no identified riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities on or in the vicinity of the subject property. Furthermore, the subject property is not located within the wildlife corridor shown in the County of Ventura Tierra Rejada Critical Wildlife Passage Area Map. Therefore, the project will not have an impact on 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) The subject property is not located within state or federally protected wetland. Therefore, the project will not have an impact on substantial adverse effect on the state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Pursuant to Exhibit 18 of the General Plan - Biological Resource Map there are no sensitive natural community or sensitive natural community identified on or near the subject property. Furthermore, the subject property is not located within the wildlife corridor shown in the County of Ventura Tierra Rejada Critical Wildlife Passage Area Map. Therefore, the project will not have an impact 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) Pursuant to Exhibit 18 of the General Plan - Biological Resource Map there are no biological resources located on or in the vicinity of the subject property. 23 mature trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed development. Pursuant to City policy and uniformly applied development conditions, a Protected Tree Report prepared by Paul A. Lewis, dated September 15, 2014, was submitted to establish the value and condition of the trees to be removed. Conditions of approval are imposed so that the value of the removed trees will be applied to enlarge the size of proposed landscaping on the project site. Therefore, the project is designed and conditioned to comply with all applicable ordinances and policies related to biology and natural resources and would have a less than significant impact. f) The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Source(s): County of Ventura Tierra Rejada Critical Wildlife Passage Area Map (https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/HCWC/Tierra_Rejada_CWPA.pdf). General Plan - Biological Resource Map (Exhibit 18). Protected Tree Report prepared by Paul A. Lewis (Dated September 15, 2014). Natural Community Conservation Plan (https://nrm.dfd.ca.dov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=68626&inline). Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 17 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 12 of 34 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Impact With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as ❑ ❑ ❑ El pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ /1 ❑ pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: a) The subject property has been previously disturbed and is currently a vacant lot surrounded by urban uses developed within the past 30 years. Furthermore, the subject property is not identified in the Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Point of Interest as historic. Therefore, no impacts to historical resources are proposed. b) The subject property and vicinity are not identified as a unique archaeological resources. However, archaeological and cultural resources have been discovered during other development within the City and uniformly applied conditions of approval will be imposed that require cultural and/or archaeological monitoring of all subsurface work to be performed during grading and earthmoving activities associated with construction of the project. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact to any potential archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5. c) The proposed project is not located within a cemetery. However, archaeological and cultural resources have been discovered during other development within the City and uniformly applied conditions of approval will be imposed that require cultural and/or archaeological monitoring of all subsurface work to be performed during grading and earthmoving activities associated with construction of the project. Therefore, the proposed project will be less than significant impact to any potential human remains on the project site. Sources: Project Application and Exhibits. Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Point of Interest (October 14, 2014). https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/programs/chb/Points_of Interest.pdf VI. ENERGY Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Impact With p Mitigation p Im act Impact a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ energy resources, during project construction, or operation? Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 18 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 13 of 34 VI. ENERGY Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: With Impact Impact Mitigation Impact b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan ❑ ❑ ® ❑ for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion. a) Construction will utilize conventional methods and equipment. The proposed project would result in consumption of fuels from vehicle trips and electricity. Best Management Practices (BMP) would be required to prohibit the entry of pollutants from the construction site into the storm drain system during construction. Therefore, the proposed project will result in less than significant impact regarding consumption of energy resources, during project construction, or operation b) The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable state and local regulations related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, including Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards of the California Energy Code. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency VII.GEOLOGY& SOILS Potentially Less Than Significant Significant SignificantLessthan No Would the project: Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p a) Directly or indirectly cause 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of 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. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 19 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 14 of 34 VII.GEOLOGY& SOILS Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Impact 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 direct or indirect 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? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or an ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ unique geologic feature? Discussion: a) (i) Pursuant to Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, the proposed project is not located within a known earthquake fault. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact or potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving an earthquake fault. (ii) Pursuant to the Earthquake Shaking Potential for California map, the proposed project is located between minor and major active earthquake faults that can have an impact on seismic ground shaking. All new construction is required to comply with the California Building Code, which includes measures to minimize damage to structures and occupants related to seismic events. Therefore, the proposed project will have less than a significant impact regarding risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic ground shaking. (iii) Pursuant to the Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation — Moorpark Quadrangle, the subject project is located within a liquefaction zone. However, based on the Geotech Report, the likelihood that surface effects of liquefaction would occur on the subject property is characterized as very low to non-existent. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction present is less than significant impact. (iv) Pursuant to the Landslide Hazard Mapping for Selected California Highway Corridors Phase 2, the subject property is not located within a landslide zone. Therefore, no impact will result from the proposed project. b) The construction of the project would result in ground surface disturbance during site clearance and grading. Uniformly applied conditions of approval imposed on the project require stockpiles, excavation, and exposed soil to be covered with secured tarps, plastic sheeting, erosion control fabrics, or treated with a bio-degradable soil stabilize. Furthermore, applicant will be required to obtain a California State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit, which requires development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Therefore, the subject property will have a less than significant impact on soil erosion, or the loss of topsoil. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 20 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 15 of 34 c) Pursuant to the Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation — Moorpark Quadrangle, the subject project is located within a liquefaction zone. Geotechnical measures will be incorporated into the project design as required by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act as a uniformly applied condition of approval. As a result, development of the subject property will have a less than significant impact on 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. d) According to the Geotech Report, the proposed project may be located on expansive soil. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on expansive soil. e) The project will be served by existing wastewater facilities and no septic tanks or systems are proposed. Therefore, no impact on the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. f) The subject property is within a developed, urban area and has previously been disturbed. No existing unique geological features are known to exist on-site. Furthermore, a conditions of approval for new development will require the monitoring of all subsurface work by a qualified archaeologist or Native American monitor and a Paleontological Identification Report be prepared if a resource or feature is identified. Therefore, development of the subject project presents a less than significant impact on directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or an unique geologic feature. Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), Nobel System Geoviewer (City's GIS), U.S. Quaternary Faults and Folds Database, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cqs/alquist-priolo). Earthquake Shaking Potential for California Map (https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cqs/Documents/MS 48.pdf). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation — Moorpark Quadrangle (http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/MOORPARK EZRIM.pdf). Landslide Hazard Mapping for Selected California Highway Corridors Phase 2 (ftp://ftp.conservation.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR 243/SR 243 sans Plates.pdf) Advance Geotechniques- Geotech Report for 635 Los Angeles Avenue VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Im act 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) Potential Carbon Dioxide Equivalent greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) associated with the project were modeled using CaIEEMod. The VCAPCD has not yet adopted a threshold of significance for GHG emissions. To assist in the analysis, the South Coast Air Quality Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 21 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 16 of 34 Management District (SCAQMD) GHG threshold recommendation was used in this analysis. The most recent proposed thresholds issued in 2008 applicable to this project suggest that it would be appropriate for a lead agency to use a threshold of 3,000 million tons per year (MTPY) of CO2e for stationary sources. CaIEEMod modeling of the proposed project estimates a preliminary emissions rate of 229.37 MTPY CO2e for stationary sources. Therefore, the projected impacts to greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project are anticipated to be less than significant. b) The California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan describes the approach California will take to reduce GHGs to achieve the goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The proposed project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and therefore would have no impact. Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003). California Air Resources Board, Scoping Plan (https://ww3.arb.ca.qov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm), South Coast Air Quality Management District — Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources (2008) (http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cepa-significance- thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2). IX. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 22 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 17 of 34 IX. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving wildland fires? Discussion: a) through c) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and associated site improvements that will not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project will not be releasing hazardous material into the environment nor does it present a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. d) According to the Department of Toxic Substance Control, the subject property is not identified on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 Therefore, no impact will result from the proposed project. e) The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan, or where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Furthermore, the proposed project site is located within an urban, residential and commercial area and consists of infill development of a vacant lot. Therefore, no impacts will result from the proposed project. f) The subject property is located within an urban, residential and commercial area and consists of infill development of a vacant lot. The project site has direct access along State Highway 118, a five-lane thoroughfare. Therefore, the proposed project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g) The subject property is an infill lot surrounded by developed urban uses. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impacts on exposing people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Sources. Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan Safety Element (2001) Department of Toxic Substance Control —EnviroStor(www.envirostor.dtsc.ca gov). X. HYDROLOGY&WATER QUALITY Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 23 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 18 of 34 X. HYDROLOGY&WATER QUALITY Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant SignificantNo Would the project: Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project ❑ ❑ ® ❑ may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ on- or off-site?, ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which would result in flooding on- or off- site?, iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems ❑ ❑ // ❑ or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?, iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project ❑ ❑ ❑ inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable ❑ ❑ ❑ groundwater management plan? Discussion. a-b) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality because the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (i.e., the Clean Water Act or CWA) requires that discharges do not substantially degrade the physical, chemical or biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Specifically, Section 402 established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Regulations for wastewater and other pollutant discharges. Congress amended the CWA in 1987 to require the implementation of a two-phased program to address storm water discharges. The Phase II regulations became effective on February 7, 2000, and require NPDES permits for storm water discharges from regulated small MS4s and for construction sites disturbing more than 1 acre of land. In addition, Section 401 and 404 established regulations for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States and water quality impacts associated with these Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 24 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 19 of 34 discharges. In California, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes waste discharge standards pursuant to the Federal NPDES progrann, and the state has the authority to issue NPDES permits to individua|o, busineaaes, and municipalities. The protection of water quality is under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB is a state regulatory agency whose purpose is to protect the quality of surface and ground water within the region for beneficial uses. In order to address specific issues of the various groundwater basins in the State, the SWRCB is divided into nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RVVQCBs), one for each of the major groundwater basins/surface water flow systems in the State. The City of Moorpark falls within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The RWQCB establishes requirements prescribing the quality of point sources of discharge and establishes water quality objectives through the Water Quality Control Plan for the local basin (Basin Plan). Water quality objectives are established based on the designated beneficial uses for a particular surface water or groundwater basin. There are few uses of groundwater in the City of Moorpark. The development will utilize County water services and therefona, will not adversely impact the groundwater conditions. Hoxvexer, the impact of increased impermeable surface will decrease groundwater recharge. Implementation of the Project would involve c|8ariDg, grading, p3xing, utility inota||ation, building construction, and landscaping activities, which could result in the generation of water quality pollutants such aedirnant, solid and sanitary vvaato, concrete truck vvashout, hydrouorbone, nnato|s, and construction debris. In addition, grading activities loosen and unconsolidated ooi|e, which easily erode and could result the sedimentation of surface waters. Vertical construction and landscaping will general addition pollutants including soluble solids, oedinlent, nutri8nto, various touins, pathoQens, thermal atnaaa, oil and Qremee, and gross pollutants and floatable. These materials have the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. /\ddiUonaUy, runoff from under post-development conditions could contain pollutants in the absence of protective or avoidance measures. The Project's potential to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during short-term construction and/or long-term operational activities can have an adverse impact on- and off-site Implementation of the State of California Construction General Permit, the County MS4, and the City Grading Ordinance during grading and post construction/LID measures permnonenUy, will reduce the risk to less than significant with mitigation. i-ii) The site mass grading aotivitieo, pennoval of native vaga[ation, and the increased impervious surfaces will increase the risk of erosion and sedimentation on- and off-site. Uniformly applied conditions of approval require a complete hydrology and hydraulics report as part of the site development in conjunction with a Water Quality Report and approved by the City in order to verify compliance with established criteria and best practices. The reports and plans will include temporary (during construction) and permanent measures with Dat|xe, drought resistant plants can be implemented based on the State of California Construction General Permit, the County M84, and the City ordinances and requirements during grading and post construction/ LID measures perDl3nenUy, that will reduce the risk of erosion and siltation to less than significant with mitigation Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 25 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 20 of 34 iii-iv) The proposed project will alter the landform and concentrate drainage to the existing streets and storm drain pipes The effects of increased impervious surface area will would increase stormwater runoff and potentially result in downstream flooding and degraded water quality. A site-specific hydrology study will be prepared to evaluate whether the Project would result in a substantial change in the rate or amount of runoff exiting the site. An increase in the rate or amount of runoff from the site could result in increased potential for flooding on downstream properties The site will be required to intercept a 100-year developed flow rate, and provide suitable detention that restricts flows to a undeveloped 10 year event from the site or into the storm drain system. In addition, a dry access lane will be provided in the streets for emergency first responders. Water Quality report will be prepared to address all pollutants of concern and suitable mitigation in accordance with the County MS4 Permit and applicable State requirements The reports and proposed improvements will demonstrate that historic drainages are not adversely impacted. The reports and plans will identify all associated hazards and appropriate mitigations. The mitigation measures will be implemented based on the State of California Construction General Permit, the County MS4, and the City ordinances and requirements that will reduce the risk of substantial increase in rate or amount of surface runoff as well as adverse impacts of pollutants of concern to less than significant with mitigation d-e) The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The Project site is; however, located in an area that is between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floods, also known as the moderate flood hazard area. Sources. Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette (FEMA Flood Map). Xl. LAND USE & PLANNING Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant No Significant Would the project: Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Discussion. a) The subject property is located within an urban, residential and commercial area and consists of infill development of a vacant lot. Therefore, the proposed project will not physically divide an established community and is consistent with adjacent uses b) Pursuant to Exhibit 4 of the General Plan — Planning Area Land Use Plan, the subject property is vacant. The current zoning of this property is Commercial Office and the General Plan designation is Commercial Office. The proposed project will require a Zone Change (Commercial Office to Residential Planned Development), and General Plan Amendment (Commercial Office to Very High Residential Density). With approval of the general plan amendment and zone changes, the site will comply with all applicable land use regulations and therefore no impact is proposed. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 26 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 21 of 34 Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan Land Map and Zoning Map. General Plan — Planning Area Land Use Plan (Exhibit 4) XII.MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to ❑ ❑ ❑ the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion a) Pursuant to the Geologic Map of California — Los Angeles Sheet, the subject property has alluvium derived predominantly from sedimentary rocks. The proposed project will not create a unique demand on available mineral resources in the City, since the project site is not located in an area of importance for mineral deposits. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on mineral resources. b) Pursuant to the Mineral Land Classification Map, the subject property is not located in a significant mineral deposit area. Therefore, the subject property will have no impact on the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan - Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986). Mineral Land Classification Map (ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_145/SR_145_Platel-11.pdf), Geologic Map of California (Los Angeles Sheet) (ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/gam/GAM 008 Los Angeles/GAM 008 Map 1969.pdf). XIII. NOISE Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project result in: Im act With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of LI LI standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 27 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 22 of 34 XIII. NOISE Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project result in. Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? Discussion: a) Construction activities would generate ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project from active construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. However, all noise sources would be temporary and would cease once construction is completed. All construction activities would be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance, which allows construction to occur between 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m Monday through Saturday. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. b) Construction activities would generate noise and groundborne vibration from active construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. However, all noise sources would be temporary and would cease once construction is completed All construction activities would be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance, which allows construction to occur between 7 a m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels c) The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, or airport land use plan, or where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Furthermore, the proposed project site is located within an urban, residential and commercial area and consists of infill development of a vacant lot. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated from the proposed project. Sources. Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014) City of Moorpark - Noise Ordinance. XIV. POPULATION & HOUSING Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant No Significant Would the project: Impact With Impact Impact p Mitigation p a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)? Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 28 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 23 of 34 XIV. POPULATION & HOUSING Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: a) According to the California Department of Finance (DOE), the current population of Moorpark is estimated at 37,027 (DOE 2019) with a forecasted population of 43,000 for the year 2040 (SCAG 2016-2040). The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot. Based on the DOF estimate of an average of 3.34 persons per household in the City of Moorpark, the addition of 69 units would generate approximately 230 residents. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would increase the City's estimated existing population of 37,027 to 37,257, which would still be within SCAG's 2040 population forecast of 43,000 (SCAG 2040). Impacts relating to substantial population growth would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project will have a beneficial impact of helping to achieve housing goals in support of the Housing Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will result less than significant impact on the unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. b) The subject property is currently vacant. Therefore, the proposed project will not displace numbers of existing people or housing and no impact would occur. Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014). Department of Finance (http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/). Southern California Association of Government — 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (http://www.scaq.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Pages/GrowthForecastinq.aspx). General Plan - Housing Element. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES* Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental potentially Less Than Less than facilities, or the need for new or physically Significant Significant Significant No altered governmental facilities, the construction Im act With Im act Impact of which could cause significant environmental p Mitigation p impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 29 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 24 of 34 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES* Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental potentially Less Than Less than facilities, or the need for new or physically Significant Significant Significant No altered governmental facilities, the construction Im act With Im act Impact of which could cause significant environmental p Mitigation p impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion: a) Fire protection services are provided to the City of Moorpark through an agreement with the County of Ventura Fire Protection District. Funds are provided to the district through a fire protection tax on property tax bills. The project site is located approximately 4,050, feet from the nearest fire station (297 High Street). The proposed project would not impact service response time to the point that would require the alteration/expansion of existing fire facilities or the construction of new facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on fire protection services b) The Moorpark Police provides police services to the City of Moorpark through a contract with the Ventura County Sheriffs Department. Funds are provided to the property tax and sales revenue. The project site is located approximately 4,730, feet from the police station (610 Spring Road). In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, development fees and property taxes will be paid to fund required police protection facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on police protection services. c) The Moorpark Unified School District has 15 school sites within the City of Moorpark, including 4 preschools, 5 elementary schools, 1 K-8 school, 2 middle schools, 2 high schools and 1 alternative to high school. The increase of population may increase student enrollment. Funding for new school facilities generally occurs through the district's assessment of development fees, which will be paid to the District prior to development. Therefore, the proposed project will be a less than significant impact on school services d) There are presently 19 parks within the City of Moorpark, totaling 150 acres Facilities at these sites include picnic areas, ball fields, dog park, skatepark, restrooms and parking. Although on-site amenities, such as a tot-lot, recreational center and a swimming pool are included in the proposal, additional development fees will be paid to fund increase park space and offset impacts to parks and recreation facilities Therefore, the proposed project will post no impact on park facilities. e) The City of Moorpark has one public library, which is open Monday to Sunday. The project site is approximately 3,340 feet away from the public library (699 Moorpark Avenue). Although the proposed project may increase the use of this facility, additional library fees will be paid to offset any impacts to library services. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on public facilities Resolution No. 2020-3887 PaPage 30 Initial Study 9 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 25 of 34 Sources. Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014). XVI. RECREATION Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No With Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which ❑ ❑ ® ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: a) There are presently 19 parks within the City of Moorpark, totaling 150 acres. According to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Moorpark provides 4.1 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents. Facilities at these sites include picnic areas, ball fields, dog park, skatepark, restrooms and parking. On-site amenities, such as a tot-lot, recreational center and a swimming pool are proposed with the project site and additional development fees will be paid to offset the potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. b) The proposed project includes a tot-lot, recreational center and a swimming pool The applicant will also be required to pay appropriate parks impact fees. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. Sources. Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986). Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2019) XVII. TRANSPORTATION PotentiallyLess Than Less than Significant Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 31 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 26 of 34 XVII. TRANSPORTATION PotentiallyLess Than Less than Significant Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air 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 use (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion: a) According to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the goals and policies emphasize the need for a circulation system that is capable of serving both existing and future residents while preserving community values and character. Pursuant to Figure 2 of the General Plan Circulation Element — Los Angeles Avenue is considered to be a six-lane arterial The primary access to the site will be provided from Los Angeles Avenue with a secondary access from the Mission Bell Plaza shopping center parking lot. A uniformly applied condition of approval will require the developer to pay Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee to fund core improvements to the Los Angeles Avenue corridor, and the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee to fund street improvements and offset any potential impacts associated with development of the project. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur for this project. b) Pursuant to General Plan - Circulation Element; Level of Service (LOS), Policy 2.4. All new development shall participate in a transportation improvement fee program. This fee enables circulation improvements to be funded by new development in a manner that maintains the performance objectives specified in Policy 2 1. The proposed project will not reduce the Level of Service (LOS) of intersections in the area The primary access to the site will be provided from Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) with a secondary access from the Mission Bell Plaza shopping center parking lot. A condition of approval will require the developer to pay Traffic Mitigation and Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee in effect at the time to fund core improvements to the Los Angeles Avenue corridor, and the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee in order to fund street improvements Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur for this project. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 32 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 27 of 34 c) The project is not located within an area regulated by an airport land use plan and therefore will not have an impact to air traffic patterns, traffic levels, nor results in substantial safety risks. Therefore, no impact will occur for the proposed project. d) The project has been designed in a manner that eliminates any potential hazardous design features. In addition, Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. conducted a trip generation assessment for this project and concluded a full traffic study would not be needed. Furthermore, uniformly applied conditions of approval will require the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) to review accessibility to the subject property at Los Angeles Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact in the increase of hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use e) The circulation plan for the proposed project has been reviewed by the Fire Department and City Engineer to ensure that sufficient access is provided for emergency services. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated from the project. f) As designed and conditioned, the project complies will all applicable policies and plans related to public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Pursuant to Figure 2 of the General Plan Circulation Element — Los Angeles Avenue is considered to be a six-lane arterial The primary access to the site will be provided from Los Angeles Avenue with a secondary access from the Mission Bell Plaza shopping center parking lot. A condition of approval will require the developer to pay Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee to fund core improvements to the Los Angeles Avenue corridor, and the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee to fund street improvements. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur for this project. Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan Circulation Element (1992). Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (Trip Generation Assessment for the 635 Los Angeles Avenue Residential Project, 2018). General Plan - Circulation Element. XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significanto iSignificant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact p Would the project: a) 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: i) Listed or eligible for listing 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), or Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 33 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 28 of 34 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No With Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ii) 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 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. Discussion: a) (i) The subject property is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1. Furthermore, the subject property in vicinity is not identified in the Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Point of Interest. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on the adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. (ii) The subject property is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1. Furthermore, the subject property in vicinity is not identified in the Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Point of Interest. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024. Sources: California Register of Historical Resources (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/). XIX. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant No Significant Would the project: Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably ❑ ❑ ® ❑ foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 34 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 29 of 34 XIX. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Would the project: Im act With Impact Impact p Mitigation p c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair ❑ ❑ ❑ the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local waste management and reduction statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: a) The project will not require construction of any new water or wastewater treatment facilities that will result in a significant impact to the environment. The project site is located in an area planned for residential development and existing water and wastewater treatment facilities have been sized to accommodate the proposed project. Uniformly applied conditions of approval for new development will require the provision of a "Will Serve" letter from both the water and wastewater purveyors. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact in the relocation or construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facility. b) Ventura County Waterworks District Number 1 is the agency responsible for providing water to the city. Approximately 75 percent of the water supplied to the district comes from the Calleguas Municipal Water District and the remaining 25 percent comes from local groundwater supplies. Uniformly applied conditions of approval for new development will require the provision of a "Will Serve" letter from both the water and wastewater purveyors. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact in water supply. c) The proposed project will be located within an urbanized area and connect to a publicly maintained wastewater treatment system. An uniformly applied conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a "Will Serve" letter from from both the water and wastewater purveyors 1. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on this project. d) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot. Therefore, the project will not generate excessive solid waste. e) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational facility on a previously developed 4 01 acre lot. The proposed project will comply with federal, Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 35 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 30 of 34 state, and local waste management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impact will result from this project. Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), XX. WILDFIRE Less Than If pr �ec� io |noa�adinorn�araot��a Potentially Less than -" ��i��i����t responsibilityareosor|�ndac|aonifi�doovary Significant Significant No Impact -With severityhigh fire hazard vwould �he Impact Impact zones, Mitigationproject: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency [l 0 evacuation plan? b) Due to o|ope, prevailing vvinds, and other fnotora, exacerbate wildfire rioko, and thereby expose prject occupants to, 0 pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may Fl exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant rioka, including downslope or downstream flooding or |andn|ides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope inotobi|ih/, or drainage changes? Discussion: a) through d) According to the Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, the subject project is not located in or near a state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, no impacts related to wildfire are will result from development of the proposed project. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 36 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 31 of 34 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less than SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant Significant No Im act With Im act Impact p Mitigation p a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially reduce the El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: a) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot. The proposed project will not have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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. Therefore, no impact will result from the proposed project. b) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot. The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited or cumulatively considerable. Therefore, no impact will result from the proposed project. c) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot. The proposed project will not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, no impact will result from the proposed project. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 37 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 32 of 34 REFERENCES 1. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo 2. California Air Resource Board, Scopinq Plan (2006) https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping plan.htm 3. California Air Resources Board, CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2 4. California Building Standards Code (2016) 5. California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of California (Los Angeles sheet) (1981) ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/gam/GAM_008_Los_Angeles/GAM_008_Map_19 69.pdf 6. California Department of Conservation, Mineral Land Classification Map (2011) ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_145/SR_145_Platel-11.pdf 7. California Department of Conservation, Ventura County Important Farmland Map (2006). 8. California Department of Conservation, Landslide Hazard Mapping for Selected California Highway Corridors Phase 2 (2019) 9. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Community Conservation Plan https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=68626&inline 10. California, Department of Finance http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/ 11. California Register of Historical Resources http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ 12. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Biological Resource Map 13. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Circulation Element(1992) 14. City of Moorpark, General Plan — Housing Element (2014) 15. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Land Use Element (1992) 16. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Noise Element (1998) Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 38 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 33 of 34 17. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986) 18. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Safety Element (2001) 19. City of Moorpark, Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2019) 20. City of Moorpark, Moorpark Municipal Code 21. City of Moorpark- Noise Ordinance. 22. County of Ventura Tierra Relada Critical Wildlife Passage Area Map 23. Department of Toxic Substance Control, EnviroStor (Date management system). www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov 24. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California Map https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/MS_48.pdf 25. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation — Moorpark Quadrangle http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/MOORPARK_EZRIM.pdf 26. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map (2007) 27. Green Island Villas, Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014) ftp://ftp.conservation.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_243/SR_243_sans_Plates.pdf 28. Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., Trip Generation Assessment for the 635 Los Angeles Avenue Residential Project (2018). 29. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette (FEMA Flood Map) 30. Southern California Association of Government—2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy http://www.scaq.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Paqes/G rowth Forecastinq.aspx 31. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources (2008) (http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cepa-significance- thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2). 32. U.S. Geological Survey, Quarternary Faults and Folds Database 33. U.S. Quaternary Faults and Folds Database 34. Ventura County, Historical Landmarks and Point of Interest (October 14, 2014). https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/programs/chb/Points_of Interest.pdf Resolution No. 2020-3887 Initial Study Page 39 Green Island Villas February 14, 2020 Page 34 of 34 35. Ventura County Watershed Protection District: Technical Guidance Manual for Storm water Quality Control Measures (2002) 36. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003) Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page Ventura County 669 County Square Dr till 805/645-1400 Michael Villegas Air Pollution Ventura, California 93003 fox 805/645.1444 Air Pollution Control Officer Control District www.vcopcd.org VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Memorandum TO: Freddy Carrillo, City of Moorpark Planning DATE: July 25,2019 FROM: Nicole Collazo, Planning Division SUBJECT: Public Review Comment for Green Villa Islands Air Pollution Control District(APCD)staff has reviewed the Initial Study and Negative Declaration(IS,ND)for the project referenced above.The proposed project is for a new residential development in previously developed 4.01-acre vacant lot. The project location is 635 Los Angeles Avenue in the City of Moorpark. The Lead Agency for the project is the City of Moorpark. APCD is acting as a Commenting Agency and is providing recommendations and comments to environmental document prepared by the Lead Agency, pursuant to the California CEQA State Guidelines Section 15073 and Section 1.1 of the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines(AQAG). GENERAL COMMENTS As a Commenting Agency for the CEQA review of the subject project, APCD concurs with the findings determined in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sections of the IS and ND. However, the following sections of the IS checklist require some attention,as listed below. Item 1-Page 8, Item a.The environmental document did not conduct a consistency analysis with the most recent Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP)adopted. The proposed project must address consistency with the APCD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) if estimated operational emissions exceed 2 lbs./day or greater for ROG or NON,as described in the District's AQAG,Section 4.2, Procedures for Determining Consistency with the AQMP. The 2016 AQMP presents Ventura County's strategy(including related mandated elements) to attain the 2008 federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2020,as required by the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and applicable U.S. EPA clean air regulations.The 2016 AQMP uses an updated 2012 emissions inventory as baseline for forecasting data, SCAG RTP 2016 data,and CARB's EMFAC2014 emission factors for mobile sources. The 2016 AQMP uses SCAG 2016 RTP population growth projection of 40,806 by 2020 for the City of Moorpark. The latest population estimation for the City of Moorpark was 39,223 (March 2019,County of Ventura RMA). An inconsistency with the AQMP would imply an additional 1,583 residents would relocate to the City of Moorpark as a result of this project alone. Using the proposed number of Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 41 units of the project(69)and the average number of residents per dwelling unit of 3.45 (County RMA March 2019 Jurisdictions Report),and assuming all of the residents of proposed project are not residents of the city,the population will grow by about 238 residents. This projection is less than the amount needed to be inconsistent with the AQMP. Therefore,the project will be consistent with the AQMP and population growth forecasts. Item 2-Page 9, Short-Term Construction Impacts.As previously recommended in an informal consultation with the Lead Agency, due to the proximity of sensitive receptors and lengthy construction time,we recommend all off-road construction equipment to be of Tier 3 rating and ROC content of architectural coatings to be used for the construction phase to be of low to zero- VOC(0-25 g/L ROC); this may reduce your construction emissions by about 85%to below threshold levels and can be remodeled in CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 for a more accurate mitigation quantification.Additionally, including more accurate information regarding the proposed type and amount of construction equipment into the air emissions model than the default input settings may further reduce the construction emissions. Item 3-Page 16, GHGs. The interim South Coast Air Quality Management District GHG numerical threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 Metric Tons of CO2e per Year(MT/Yr CO2e).The 3,000 MT/Yr CO2e numerical threshold applies to residential/commercial sources. Please make this change in item a. Thank you for the opportunity to review your project's IS and ND and provide recommendations. If you have any questions,please call me at(805)645-1426 or email nicole@vcapcd.org. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 42 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7-OFFICE OF REGIONAL PLANNING 100 S. MAIN STREET,SUITE 100 010 LOS ANGELES,CA 90012 Making Conservation PHONE (213)897-0067 a California Way of Life. FAX (213)897-1337 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov August 1, 2019 Freddy A. Carrillo City of Moorpark, Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 RE: Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ND) —Green Island Villas SCH#2019079018 GTS#07-VEN-2016-00308 Vic. VEN-118/PM 17.07 Dear Freddy A. Carrillo: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project.The project consists of a request to develop 69 multi-family residential condominiums, a two-story recreational center proposed to include a community clubhouse, day-care, fitness center and restrooms, an outdoor swimming pool, dog park and associated landscape and hardscape site improvements on a previously- developed 4.01-acre lot, at 635 Los Angeles Avenue. A two-car garage will be included with each unit and a total of 35 surface guest parking spaces will be dispersed throughout the site for a total of 173 parking spaces. Primary street access to the property is provided by California State Route 118 (Los Angeles Avenue) and residents will have secondary access to the east, through the adjacent Mission Bell Plaza shopping center. After reviewing the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Caltrans has the following comments: 1. Primary street access to the property is provided by SR-118 (Los Angeles Ave.), which generally runs in an east-west direction and is located just south of the Project Site. SR- 118 (Los Angeles Ave.)is a six-lane arterial; however,the segment of SR-118 adjacent to the project site consists of two travel lanes in each direction. 2. Since the proposed project would increase the population at the project site as well as the overall population in Moorpark community, an increase in traffic volume on SR-118 is anticipated. Please include the Trip Generation Assessment conducted by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. referenced in the Initial Study in your response so that it can be reviewed, If the study assumes that occupants of the development will not be using the state transportation system, please provide Caltrans with a more detailed justification on why a full traffic study is not needed. 3. As required by SB 743, Caltrans is moving towards replacing Level of Service(LOS) with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)when evaluating traffic impacts. For any future project we encourage the Lead Agency to develop a verifiable performance-based VMT criteria. "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 43 Freddie A.Carrillo August >'%0l0 Page 2 of 3 a. Senate Bill 743 (2013)mandates that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)as the primary metrics in identifying impacts for all future development projects. You mreference to The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR)for more information: http://opr.oe.gov/cecio/updmten/guide|inmo/. b. Developing a verifiable performance VMT criteria is critical as the TIS will be based on VMT metrics. 4. There are multiple references to the developer paying into a"Los Angeles Avenue Area ofContribution Fee"1hroughout the |niUa| Study. Los Angeles/\vonuaioaState F(oute (8R-118)through the p ' ctanaaandvv|th|nColtnane' RightofVVay. |ftheoefundnare being used to improve the corridor and mitigate transportation impacts, then please share these details with Caltrans, as a high level of collaboration will be required for any improvements on SR-118. 5. Please provide full details on the driveway layout access to and from SR-118. G. As the project is adjacent to Caltrans Right of Way and will require driveway construction and access directly onto SR-118, multiple Caltrans permit and design approvals will be required. 7. Any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods. 8. Please also provide a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). Construction Traffic Manaqement Plan. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits for the p 'ectm|t$' theepp|ioantnha|| pnyporaoConatrunUmnTroffioyNanagernmntP|an (CTK8P)for review and approval by City staff. The CTMP would include street closure information, detour plans, haul nouteo, staging plans, parking management plans and traffic control plans. The CTMP would formalize how construction would be carried out and identify specific actions that would be required to reduce adverse effects on the surrounding community. The CTMP should be based on the nature and timing of the specific construction activities and account for other concurrent construction pjects near the pject site. The following elements shall be implemented, as appropriate: • Schedule construction activities to reduce the effects on traffic flows on surrounding arterial streets during peak hours. • Obtain the required permits for truck haul routes prior to issuance of any permit for the project. • The projectconboo1orshm|| |dmnUfvandonfornaUonkhau| rnuU*ndaamedamzaptab|mby the City and Caltrans for construction trucks. • Signs shall be posted along roads identifying construction traffic access or flow limitations due to single lane conditions during periods of truck traffic, if needed. • Accommodate all equipment and worker parking on-site to the extent feasible. • Provide safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing and protection barriers. "Provide a safe,sustatnable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 44 Freddie A.Carrillo August 1,2019 Page 3 of 3 • Provide for temporary traffic control during all construction activities adjacent to the public right-of-way to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag men). • Schedule construction-related deliveries to reduce travel during commuter peak hours. • We recommend approval from Caltrans for any lane closures during construction period. • We recommend the design of all construction underneath the State Route and Caltrans Right of Ways be approved by Caltrans. • Permits from Caltrans will be required for heavy trucks and machinery/vehicles travelling on the State Route. Further information included for your consideration; Caltrans seeks to promote safe, accessible multimodal transportation. There are multiple methods to reduce pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to vehicles. These methods include the construction of physically separated facilities such as sidewalks, raised medians, refuge islands, or a reduction in crossing distances through roadway narrowing. Visual indicators such as, but not limited to, pedestrian and bicyclist warning signage, flashing beacons, crosswalks, signage, and striping should be used to indicate to motorists that they can expect to see and yield to pedestrians and people on bikes. Visual indication from signage can be reinforced by road design features such as narrow lane widths, landscaping, street furniture, and other design elements. With regards to parking, Caltrans supports reducing the amount of parking whenever possible. Research on parking suggests that abundant car parking enables and encourages driving. Research looking at the relationship between land-use, parking, and transportation indicates that the amount of car parking supplied can undermine a project's ability to encourage public transit use. For any project to better promote public transit and reduce vehicle miles traveled, we recommend the implementation of Transportation Demand Management(TDM)strategies. If you have any questions, please contact project coordinator Anthony Higgins, at anthony.higgins do.ca.gov and refer to GTS#07-VEN-2016-00308. / r; Sincerely'f, MI/4,EA-ON/S(E)N IG,R/ E A Branch q`ief c9: Scott Morgan,estate Clearinghouse "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 45 PUBLIC WATERSHED PROTECTION VENTURA COUNTY WATERSHED PLANNING AND PERMITS DIVISION WORKS 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California 93009 Sergio Vargas, Deputy Director— (805) 650-4077 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 23, 2019 TO: Freddy Carrillo Case Planner City of Moorpark FROM: Nathaniel Summerville, Engineer III-Advanced Planning Section SUBJECT: GREEN ISLAND VILLAS APN(s) 511-0-141-130 ZONE 3 WATERSHED PROTECTION PROJECT NUMBER: WC2019-0052 INCOMPLETE Pursuant to your request dated July 5, 2019, this office has reviewed the submitted materials and provides the following comments: PROJECT LOCATION: 635 Los Angeles Ave., Moorpark, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a request to develop 69 multi-family residential condominiums, a two-story recreational center proposed to include a community clubhouse, day- care, fitness center and restrooms, an outdoor swimming pool, dog park and associated landscape and hardscape site improvements on a 4.01-acre unpaved lot, at 635 Los Angeles Avenue. The project would include 16 two-story residential buildings, with a total of 18 two-bedroom units and 51 three-bedroom units. Each unit would include a two-car garage. A total of 35 surface guest parking spaces would be dispersed throughout the site. Amenities would include a recreational center with a multi-purpose room and gymnasium, and a swimming pool. Primary street access to the property would be provided by California State Route 118 (Los Angeles Avenue) and residents would have secondary access to the east, through the adjacent Mission Bell Plaza shopping center. APPLICATION COMPLETENESS: INCOMPLETE -from our area of concern. WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMENTS: Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 46 Green Island Villas July 23, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Comments from Advanced Planning Section: The project is located immediately adjacent to Moorpark Storm Drain No. 2, which is a Ventura County Watershed Protection District(District)Jurisdictional redline channel. The project proponent is hereby informed that it is the District's standard that a project cannot impair, divert, impede, or alter the characteristics of the flow of water running in any District jurisdictional red line channel under the requirements of Ordinance WP-2. Please be aware that Moorpark Storm Drain No. 2 has been identified as having limited flood carrying capacity and no increase in peak runoff will be allowed. The Project must provide adequate mitigation measures to comply with the District's standard for peak attenuation, which is that the runoff after development shall not exceed the peak flow under existing conditions for any frequency of event or, alternatively, apply the city standard; whichever is most restrictive shall apply. Analysis should consider the 100-year, 50-year, 25-year, and 10-year design storm frequencies. Additionally, project findings should verify compliance with the Ventura County Watershed Protection District hydrology data and the 2017 Hydrology Manual and follow the Watershed Protection District"Guide for Hydrology and Hydraulic Study Report"found at following website: http://pwaportal.ventura.orq/WPD/onestop/quidelines/Guide%20for%20Hydra.pdf Please submit a complete Drainage Report that, at a minimum, includes the following items: • Sign and Seal from Licensed Engineer • Figures/Hydrology Maps • Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations • Stormwater Calculations • Mitigation Measures • Offsite Flows • Stormwater Quality Treatment Devices • FEMA Maps • Storm Drainage Plan (showing outlets and complete storm drain network) WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT CONDITIONS: Mitigation: The proposed development shall incorporate mitigation measures to address cumulative impacts due to the proposed increase in imperviousness. Project shall not increase peak storm runoff in any frequency of storm events consistent with District policy and WP-2 Ordinance or, alternatively, apply the city standard; whichever is most restrictive shall apply. END OF TEXT Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 47 MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Freddy A. Carrillo, Associate Planner II DATE: October 22, 2019 SUBJECT: Green Island Villas Initial Study and Negative Declaration: Summary of Comments Received and Staff Response The Green Island Villas Initial Study and Negative Declaration was circulated for public review between July 2, 2019 and August 6, 2019. Three comment letters were subsequently received from the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; California Department of Transportation; and Ventura County Watershed Protection District. None of the comments received resulted in changes to the Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/ND). These comments and Staffs response to each are provided below. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Comment: The environmental document needs to include analysis using the 2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). In addition, include the South Coast Air Quality Management District greenhouse gas numerical threshold for residential sources of 3,000 Metrics Tons per year (MTPY) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Lastly, due to the proximity of sensitive receptors and lengthy construction time, VCAPCD recommends all off-road construction equipment to be Tier 3 rating and reactive organic compounds (ROC) content of architectural coating to be used for construction phase to be low to zero-volatile organic compounds (VOC) (0-25 g/L ROC). • The IS/ND did not identify any significant air quality impacts associated with the project, however a condition of approval is included that requires off-road construction equipment to be Tier 3 rating and ROC content of architectural coating to be used for construction phase to be low to zero- VOC (0-25 g/L ROC). The Applicant will also be required to obtain permits from VCAPCD. No changes to the project resulted from this comment. California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Comment: Caltrans has requested a copy of the revised Trip Generation Assessment report conducted by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., and a site plan showing full details on the driveway layout access to and from Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118). Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 48 • Staff submitted a copy of the revised Trip Generation Assessment report and site plan showing full details of the driveway layout. The Applicant will also be required to obtain Caltrans permit and design approvals, and submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) for the review and approval of Caltrans. Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) Comment: The VCWPD has concerns on the flow of water running into the District's Moorpark Storm Drain No. 2 red line channel. This storm drain has been identified as having limited flood carrying capacity. Also, the project finding should verify compliance with the VCWPD hydrology data and 2017 Hydrology Manual and follow the Watershed Protection District "Guide for Hydrology and Hydraulic Study Report". • Staff has added a condition of approval to obtain permits required by the VCWPD prior to issuance of a building permit. No changes to the project are proposed and no significant hydrology/water quality issues have been identified in the IS/ND. Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 49 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION I, O 3 Sierra Ave D C, O 3 Very High Residential Density(VH) rr D is W Los Angeles Ave N A Very High Residential Density (VH) Resolution No. 2020-3887 Page 50 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA ss. CITY OF MOORPARK I, Ky Spangler, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 2020-3887 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of February, 2020, 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 19th day of February, 2020. Ky Spa/4451r, itaylriKc (seal) ovew„.400.44:14,.. 0 Amilliller&Ps 4.004110P 41911)0V AsS, IP 410 vNlft'ev dr 04:4