Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RES CC 2022 4104 2022 0706
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-4104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT INCLUDING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2019-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2020-01, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR TRACT NO. 5708 (2019-01) FOR THE PROPOSED TRACT, MASTER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF 755 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, APPROXIMATELY 29 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, A 7-ACRE PUBLIC PARK AND 7-ACRE PASSIVE PARK, AS WELL AS ROADWAYS, STORMWATER AND DETENTION FACILITIES, AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON 277 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF POINDEXTER AVENUE, WEST OF CASEY ROAD, AND EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 1 ,700 FEET WEST OF GABBERT ROAD ON THE APPLICATION OF HARRIET RAPISTA ON BEHALF OF COMSTOCK HOMES WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019, the Applicant submitted a formal development application for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, general plan amendment, zone change, a tentative tract map, and development agreement for the subdivision, master planning and development of 755 residential units, approximately 29 acres of open space, a 7-acre public park and 7-acre passive park, as well as roadways, stormwater and detention facilities, and associated improvements on a 277-acre of property general located north of Poindexter Avenue, west of Casey Road, and extending approximately 1,700 feet west of Gabbert Road and inclusive of Assessor Parcel Numbers 511-0-200-245, 511-0-020- 130, -110, -160, -170, -180, and -195 (the "Project") on the application of Harriet Rapista on behalf of Comstock Homes (the "Applicant"); and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2019, the City of Moorpark Community Development Department published pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) related to the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan to receive input from interested public and private parties on issues to be addressed in the EIR between July 10, 2019, and August 8, 2019. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on July 23, 2019, to provide information on the Project and receive additional comments on issues to be addressed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2020, the City Council and Planning Commission jointly held a publicly noticed workshop to review the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan and provide preliminary direction regarding the proposed development; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2022, the City of Moorpark Community Development Department published pursuant to CEQA a Notice of Availability and the Draft EIR for the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070253) analyzing the Project's potential impacts on the environment and accepted public comments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105 for a period of 45 days between February 18, 2022, and April 4, 2022. Additionally, on March 14, 2022, the Planning Commission held a publicly noticed meeting to review the Draft EIR and receive public comments; and WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR and those responses to comments are incorporated into the Final EIR. The Responses to Comments were distributed with the Final EIR to all public agencies that submitted comments on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final FIR; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR dated February 2022 and all appendices thereto, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, the clarifications, revisions, and corrections to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the May 2022 Final EIR; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on May 24, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR and proposed Project, including the agenda report 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, adopting Resolution No. PC-2022-671 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on June 15, 2022, the City Council considered the Final EIR and proposed Project, including public testimony both for and against the proposal; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal and reached a decision on this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings and in the record of the proceedings. The Final EIR, agenda reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the City of Moorpark Community Development Department, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. Each of these documents is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council finds that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and Project. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 3 SECTION 3. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered the information and data in the record, including oral and written testimony presented for and during public hearings. The City's independent environmental consultants, City staff, and the Project Applicant's environmental consultants reviewed and analyzed the comments received on the Project's environmental review. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional environmental review or re-circulation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, nor was any substantial increase in the severity of any previously disclosed environmental impacts identified. SECTION 4. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City Council, before approving the Project, make one or more written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the Final EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each findings. These findings and the associated rationale are incorporated by reference in Exhibit B. SECTION 5. The City Council, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, certifies that the Final EIR: 1) reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis; 2) was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the City Council; and 3) has been completed in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included herewith in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and adopt each mitigation measure set forth therein, and impose each mitigation measure as a Condition of the Project's Approval. SECTION 7. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. For all significant and unavoidable impacts, including air quality and aesthetics, associated with the Project, the City Council adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by CEQA attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council finds that each of the overriding benefits by itself, and considered as cumulative Project benefits, would justify proceeding with the Project, despite any significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts findings as required pursuant to CEQA, included herewith in Exhibit B, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and incorporated herein by reference. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 4 SECTION 8. FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission provided on May 24, 2022, and via Resolution No. PC-2022-671, the City Council hereby finds the Project and all associated actions to be consistent with the General Plan based upon the information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying studies, the Project Final EIR and appendices, and oral and written public testimony, including but not limited to the General Plan Consistency Analysis provided in Section 3.10 (Land Use and Planning) of the Draft EIR incorporated by reference. SECTION 9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS: Based upon the information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying studies, the Project Final EIR and appendices, and oral and written public testimony, the City Council makes the following findings: A. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed in that the site has been engineered to allow for all required utilities to be brough to the site, adequate ingress and egress can be obtained, and the site will be provided with public and emergency access because of the analysis contained in the Final EIR and associated appendices. B. The site is physically suitable for the proposed intensity of development, in that all City development standards, including access and those standards proposed with the Project have been met by the Project, as outlined in the Project record, including the agenda report, Final EIR, and associated appendices. C. The design of the tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that adequate sanitation, water, fire protection, drainage systems, and related infrastructure and services are both feasible, proposed, and required as a condition of the Project, as outlined in the Project record, including the agenda report, Final EIR and associated appendices. D. The design of the tract and the proposed improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access, including streets and trails, through or use of the property within the proposed tract because full public access to and from adjacent streets has been incorporated in the design of this Project and required by Conditions of Approval and as described in the project record including the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, tentative map, and Final EIR. E. There will be no discharge of waste from the proposed tract into an existing community sewer system in a manner that violates existing water quality control requirements pursuant to Water Code Section 13000 et seq, as outlined in the Final EIR and associated appendices. F. Adequate water supplies exist to meet existing demands, anticipated demands from approved projects and tentative maps, and the anticipated demands of the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 5 proposed Project, as outlined in the Water Supply Assessment included in the Project Final EIR. G. The proposed tract is consistent with regulations adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Sections 4290 and 4291 of the Public Resources Code and with the requirements of the Ventura County Fire Protection District Ordinance regulating fire land life safety for new developments as outlined in the Project record, including the agenda report, conditions of approval, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, Final EIR, and associated appendices. H. The proposed tract will have structural fire protection and suppression services provided by the Ventura County Fire Department, a publicly funded, full-time fire protection district, as outlined in the Project record, including the agenda report, conditions of approval, Final EIR, and associated appendices. SECTION 10. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS: Based upon the information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying studies, the Project Final EIR and appendices, and oral and written public testimony, the City Council finds that this Project is exempt from the provisions of the Hillside Management Ordinance as permitted by Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.38.030(M) because of the proposed Development Agreement associated with the Project. SECTION 11. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL - THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A. The City Council certifies the Final EIR for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2019070253), including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA Findings of Facts, and Statement of Overriding Considerations as depicted in Exhibits A and B; B. The City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 2020-01 as depicted in Exhibit C; C. The City Council approves Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 5708 (2019-01) as depicted in Exhibit D and subject to the Conditions of Approval included in Exhibit F; and D. The City Council approves the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan as depicted in Exhibit E and subject to the Conditions of Approval included in Exhibit F. SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2020-01, Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 5708 (2019-01), and Specific Plan No. 2020-01 shall be concurrent with the effective date of the Ordinance for Zone Change No. 2019-01 and Development Agreement No. 2019-01, whichever occurs last. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 6 SECTION 13. 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. SECTION 14. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Community Development Deputy Director to prepare and file a Notice of Determination pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act within five days of this action. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 2022. (C4'<i-e / J GtAA/14 --) Janice S. Parvin, Mayor ATTEST: Pr"�K C,q P� < 4*' C'(°7 Ky Spangler, City Clerk ' p, �rFQ sto:` Attachments: EXHIBIT A: Final Environmental Impact Report, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program EXHIBIT B: CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations EXHIBIT C: General Plan Amendment No. 2020-01 Exhibits EXHIBIT D: Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 5708 (2019-01) EXHIBIT E: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan No. 2019-01 EXHIBIT F: Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan No. 2019-01 and Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 5708 (2019-01) Prepared for: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 May 2022 Prepared by: 811 W. 7th Street Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 EXHIBIT A Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Hitch Ranch Specific Plan SCH # 2019070253 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 7 Impact Sciences, Inc. i Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1.0-1 2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ...................................2.0-1 2.1 Index to Comments ..................................................................................................................2.0-1 2.2 Responses to Comments .........................................................................................................2.0-3 2.3 Planning Commission Meeting .......................................................................................... 2.0-243 2.4 Comments received after the Comment Period Closed .................................................. 2.0-248 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ........................................................................................................3.0-1 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .....................................................4.0-1 5.0 LIST OF EIR PREPARERS .....................................................................................................................5.0-1 Appendices A.March 2019 Water Supply Assessment B.1 Revised Fire Protection Plan- Redline version B..2 Revised Fire Protection Plan – Clean version LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3.10-4a Project Traffic Volume - Weekday AM Peak Hour ......................................................................... 3.0-19 3.18-3 Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan ................................................................................................... 3.0-36 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 8 Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-1 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR” or “EIR”) for the City of Moorpark Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (Proposed Project). This document together with the Draft EIR and its technical appendices comprise the Final EIR. The document has been prepared by the City of Moorpark in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Final EIR is required under Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines to include the Draft EIR, comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental issues raised by those comments in the review and consultation process, and any other relevant information added by the lead agency (including minor changes to the EIR). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is also required; it can be a separate document, or, as in this case, included in the Final EIR. The evaluation and response to comments is an important part of the CEQA process as it allows the following: (1) the opportunity to review and comment on the methods of analysis contained within the Draft EIR; (2) the ability to detect any omissions which may have occurred during preparation of the Draft EIR; (3) the ability to check for accuracy of the analysis contained within the Draft EIR; (4) the ability to share expertise; (5) the ability to discover public concerns. This document provides revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to written comments, staff review, and/or changes to the Proposed Project. These revisions also correct, clarify, and amplify the text of the Draft EIR, as appropriate, and do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR. 1.1 PROCESS In accordance with Section 15050 of the State CEQA Guidelines the City of Moorpark is the lead agency that prepared both the Draft EIR and Final EIR for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan. The City prepared and circulated the Draft EIR for a period of 45 days, extending from February 18, 2022 and ending on April 4, 2022. A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was transmitted to responsible and trustee agencies, regulatory agencies, and others to request comments on the Draft EIR, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086. The Draft EIR was available for review at the City of Moorpark City Hall, Development and Community Services Building, at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021, and the Moorpark Library, at 699 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark California, 93021. In addition, an electronic copy of the Draft EIR was posted on the City’s website at http://www.moorparkca.gov/hitchranch. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 9 1.0 Introduction Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 The City of Moorpark hosted a public meeting to gather public comments about the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan on March 14, 2022, at 7:00 PM at City Hall in the Apricot Room, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021; the meeting was also available to join via a Zoom link at: https://www.moorparkca.gov/358/PlanningCommission Comments on the Draft EIR were received during the comment period and the public meeting, and those comments are responded to in this Final EIR. The Final EIR, together with the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, will be submitted to the City Council for review, and the Council will consider certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan. 1.2 CONTENT OF THE FINAL EIR As discussed above, the primary intent of the Final EIR is to provide a forum to air and address comments pertaining to the analysis contained within the Draft EIR. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has reviewed and addressed all comments received on the Draft EIR by the comment period deadline. Included within the Final EIR are the written and oral comments that were submitted during the public comment period and during the public meeting. In order to adequately address the comments provided by interested agencies and the public in an organized manner, this Final EIR includes the following chapters and appendices: •Section 1.0: Introduction: This chapter provides a brief introduction to the Final EIR and its contents. •Section 2.0: Responses to Comments: This chapter provides a list of commenting agencies, organizations, and individuals. Responses to all comments on the Draft EIR are also included in this chapter. •Section 3.0: Corrections and Revisions: This chapter provides a list of corrections and revisions to the Draft EIR. None of the changes significantly impact the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. •Section 4.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: This chapter includes the MMRP prepared in compliance with the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15091(d) and 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR also incorporates by reference the previously circulated Draft EIR. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 10 1.0 Introduction Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-3 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 1.3 REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR Consistent with CEQA (Public Resource Code Section 21092.5), responses to agency comments are being forwarded to each commenting agency no less than 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR. In addition, responses are also being distributed to all commenters who provided an address. The Final EIR is available for public review at the following locations: City of Moorpark City Hall, Development and Community Services Building, 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Moorpark Library 699 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 The Final EIR can also be downloaded or reviewed via the Internet at: http://www.moorparkca.gov/hitchranch After completing the Final EIR, and before approving the project, the Lead Agency must make the following three certifications as required by Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines: •That the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; •That the Final EIR was presented to the decision‐making body of the Lead Agency, and that the decision‐making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and •That the Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), if an EIR that has been certified for a project identifies one or more significant environmental effects, the lead agency must adopt “Findings of Fact.” For each significant impact, the lead agency must make one of the following findings: 1.Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 11 1.0 Introduction Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-4 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 2.Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3.Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Each finding must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for the finding. In addition, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), the agency must adopt, in conjunction with the findings, a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes that it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. This program is referred to as the MMRP. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, when a lead agency approves a project that would result in significant unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the Agency must state its reasons for supporting the approved action in writing. This Statement of Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial information in the record, which includes both the Draft and Final EIRs. Since implementation of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan would result in significant unavoidable impacts, the decision-making body (the Moorpark City Council) would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if it approves the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 12 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-1 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 2.1 INDEX TO COMMENTS As described in Section 1.0, Introduction, this chapter includes copies of written comments received by hand-delivered mail or electronic mail or provided at the public meeting held during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR between February 18, 2022, and April 4, 2022. A recording of the public meeting held on March 14, 2022, is available for viewing on the City’s website at the following link: https://moorpark.granicus.com/player/clip/2481?view_id=141&redirect=true All agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR are listed in Table 2.0-1, Index to Comments, below. All comments received have been numbered, and the numbers assigned to each comment are indicated on the written responses that follow. Each correspondence is identified by an alphabetical designator to define the group the correspondence belongs to (e.g., “A” = “Agency”). Multiple letters from the same senders are labeled with the alphabetic designator, and the name of the sender, and a numeric designator (e.g., “A- Sender-1”). Specific comments within each communication are identified by a numeric designator that reflects the numeric sequence of the specific comment within the correspondence (e.g., “A-Sender-1” for the first comment in Comment Letter A-Sender). Responses focus on comments that pertain to the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR or to other aspects pertinent to the potential effects of the Project on the environment pursuant to CEQA. Comments that address topics beyond the purview of this EIR or CEQA are noted as such for the public record. Where comments have triggered changes to the Draft EIR, these changes are indicated in the response, and all changes to the Draft EIR are consolidated in Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Table 2.0-1 Index to Comments Commenter Number Agency/Organization/Individual – Date State Agencies A-CDFW-1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife – 04/04/22 A-CDFW-2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife – 04/04/22 A-DWR California Department of Water Resources – 04/01/22 Local Agencies A-FCGMA-1 Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency – 03/29/22 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 13 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Commenter Number Agency/Organization/Individual – Date A-FCGMA-2 Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency – 03/29/22 A-LA_RWQCB-1 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board – 04/04/22 A-LA_RWQCB-2 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board – 04/04/22 A-VCAPCD-1 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District – 04/04/22 A-VCAPCD-2 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District – 04/04/22 A-VCFD-1 Ventura County Fire Department – 04/01/22 A-VCFD-2 Ventura County Fire Department – 03/30/22 A-VCFD-3 Ventura County Fire Department – 03/31/22 A-VCPW TD Ventura County Public Works, Transportation Division – 04/01/22 A-VCPW WP Ventura County Public Works, Watershed Protection – 04/04/22 A-VCPW WRD Ventura County Public Works, Water Resources Division – 03/24/22 A-VCPW W&S-1 Ventura County Public Works, Water and Sanitation – 03/24/22 A-VCPW W&S-2 Ventura County Public Works, Water and Sanitation – 03/24/22 A-VCRMA EHD Ventura County Resource Management Agency, Environmental Health – 03/09/22 A-VCTC-1 Ventura County Transportation Commission – 03/28/22 A-VCTC-2 Ventura County Transportation Commission – 03/28/22 Organizations O-SYB Chumash-1 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians – 02/25/22 O-SYB Chumash-2 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians – 02/25/22 Individuals I-Anonymous Anonymous – 04/04/22 I-Bracken Shane Bracken – 03/19/22 I-Bradley Dale Bradley – 03/21/22 I-Bruckner-1 Gayle Bruckner – 04/04/22 I-Bruckner-2 Gayle Bruckner – 04/04/22 I-Bruckner-3 Gayle Bruckner – 04/04/22 I-Diamond Jennifer Diamond – 04/03/22 I-Diana Diana S – 03/21/22 I-Hartley Connie Hartley – 03/16/22 I-Jacobs Robert Jacobs – 03/31/22 I-Jarvis Ryan Jarvis – 04/03/22 I-Leavitt Adam Leavitt – 04/02/22 I-Mayfield William Mayfield – 04/04/22 I-Mikos Roseann Mikos – 04/04/22 I-Miller-1 Doris Miller -004/04/22 I-Miller-2 Doris Miller – 04/04/22 I-Miller-3 Doris Miller – 04/04/22 I-Moffat-Ducharme-1 Patricia Moffat-Ducharme – 03/14/22 I-Moffat-Ducharme-2 Patricia Moffat-Duchame – 04/03/22 I-Morser Laura Morser – 03/16/22 I-Noel-1 Sharon Noel – 04/01/22 I-Noel-2 Sharon Noel – 04/04/22 I-Osipian-1 Armen Osipian – 03/14/22 I-Osipian-2 Armen Osipian – 03/16/22 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 14 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-3 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Commenter Number Agency/Organization/Individual – Date I-Perreyclear-1 Wes Perreyclear – 03/13/22 I-Sierra Christopher Sierra – 03/07/22 I-Stratton Chad Stratton – 04/03/22 I-Tamayo Salvador Tamayo – 04/04/22 I-Wagenbach-1 Nancy Wagenbach – 04/04/22 I-Wagenbach-2 Nancy Wagernbach – 04/04/22 I-Wareham Martin and Barbara Wareham – 04/04/22 Planning Commission Hearing – Oral Comments – March 14, 2022 1 Rene Mayfield 2 Barbara Wareham 3 Patricia Ducharme 4 Gail Bruckner 5 Sharon Noel 6 Sharon Schieltz 7 Mark Taillon 8 Marisela Morales (via Zoom) 9 Salvador Tamayo (via Zoom) Comments Received after the Closing of the Comment Period I-Dimberg Erin Dimberg – 04/06/22 I-Miller-4 Doris Miller – 04/05/22 I-Miller-5 Doris Miller – 04/05/22 I-Sinutko Nicole Sinutko -04/04/22 I-Terjimanian Alin and Ayk Terjimanian - 04/04/22 2.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS This section presents all written comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 15 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: CA Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments- Hitch Ranch DEIR (SCH# 2019070253)Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 4:00:34 PMAttachments:2019070253 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIR.pdfFYIDouglas Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.gov<mailto:dspondello@moorparkca.gov> www.moorparkca.gov<http://www.moorparkca.gov/> http://moorparkgeneralplan.com/ [8d34b513-3cc5-4b73-847e-019d97b3c15f]<http://moorparkgeneralplan.com/> ________________________________ From: Castanon, Angela@Wildlife [Angela.Castanon@Wildlife.ca.gov] Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:40 PM To: Douglas Spondello Cc: Gibson, Steve@Wildlife; Hailey, Cindy@Wildlife; Galli, Emily@Wildlife; Wildlife CEQA Comment Letters; OPR State Clearinghouse Subject: CA Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments- Hitch Ranch DEIR (SCH# 2019070253) Hello Mr. Spondello, Attached are the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s comments on the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIR, (SCH No. 2019070253). Please let me know if you have any questions. Angela Castanon Environmental Scientist Habitat Conservation and Planning 4665 Lampson Ave. Suite C Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Angela.castanon@wildlife.ca.gov Mobile: 562-640-0443 1 A-CDFW-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 16 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-5 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter A-CDFW-1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Response to Comment A-CDFW-1-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 17 State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov April 4, 2022 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 DSpondello@moorpark.ca.gov Subject: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2019070253 Ventura County, City of Moorpark Dear Mr. Spondello: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW ) has reviewed the City of Moor Park’s (City) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (Project). The City, as Lead Agency, prepared a DEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et. seq.) with the purpose of informing decision- makers and the public regarding potential environmental effects related to the Project . Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife or be subject to Fish and Game Code. CDFW’s Role CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust for the people of the state [Fish & Game Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, [§ 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). CDFW is also directed to provide biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect state fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Public Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game Code, § 1600 et seq.). To the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.), or CESA- listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & Game Code, §1900 et seq.), CDFW recommends the Project proponent obtain appropriate authorization under the Fish and Game Code. 1 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 18 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 2 of 26 Project Description and Summary Objective: The City of Moorpark has proposed a Project which will develop over 270 acres of land will include 755 dwelling units, newly paved roads, multiple water detention basins, private recreation areas, greenbelts, and public multi-use trails. The surrounding land use areas include residential and open space to the north; institutional, residential, light industrial and commercial use to the south; residential and commercial to the east; and single-family residential, rural and open spaces to the west. The Project also provides three other alternatives to the proposed plan. Location: The Project is proposed in the City of Moorpark, in southeastern Ventura County between the Simi Hills and Little Simi Valley. The site is approximately 277.30 acres and located approximately 900 feet west of State Route 23 and extends approximately 1,400 feet west of Gabbert Road. Land uses within the project footprint include grazing land (172 acres), farmland of local importance (96.4 acres), urban/built-up land (5 acres), and “other” land (4 acres). Comments and Recommendations CDFW commends the City in its attempt to adequately address the impacts facing biological resources within the DEIR. CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying, avoiding, and/or mitigating significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife biological resources based on the planned activities of this proposed Project. CDFW recommends the measures below be included in a science-based monitoring program with adaptive management strategies as part of the Project’s CEQA mitigation, monitoring and reporting program (Public Resources Code, § 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). Additional comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document. Specific Comments Comment #1: Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species Issue: A nine-quad review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) revealed several special status plants that have potential to occur in the geographical area(s). Focus surveys were conducted in 2016. Without more current surveys the Project may result in a significant impact to special-status plants. Specific impact: CDFW considers plant communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S1, S2, S3, and S4 as sensitive and declining at the local and regional level (Sawyer et al. 2008). An S3 ranking indicates there are 21-80 occurrences of this community in existence in California, S2 has 6-20 occurrences, and S1 has less than 6 occurrences. The Project may have direct or indirect effects to these sensitive species. The following special status plants were included in the nine-quad CNDDB review: Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii); Santa Susana tarplant (Deinandra minthornii); Conejo dudleya (Dudleya parva); marcescent dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens); Agoura Hills dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. gourensis); Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. 2 1 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 19 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 3 of 26 Blochmaniae); Verity's dudleya (Dudleya verity); Braunton's milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii); California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica); and Conejo buckwheat (Eriogonum crocatum). Why impact would occur: Although multiple focus surveys have been conducted at the Project site the most recent focus surveys occurred in 2016. Thus, 2016 observations may not be representative of current conditions. Rare plants may have established in the Project site since the 2016 survey. Presence/absence determinations of rare plants in the Project area, specifically areas that would be impacted due to Project implementation (e.g., existing facilities), should be determined based on recent surveys. CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for rare plants valid for a period of up to three years. Moreover, the DEIR focuses mainly on replacement of vegetation and does not offer any mitigation measures in the event a rare plant is discovered on-site. Disclosure, avoidance, and mitigation measures should all be provided within the DEIR. Take of CESA-listed rare plants may only be permitted through an incidental take permit (ITP) or other authorization issued by CDFW pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section, 786.9 subdivision (b). CDFW is concerned the loss of CESA-listed rare plants may occur if appropriate avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation for these species is not adopted. Evidence impact would be significant: Impacts to special-status plant species should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to these sensitive plant species will result in a Project(s) continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative 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 CDFW or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Additionally, plants that have a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B are rare throughout their range, endemic to California, and are seriously or moderately threatened in California. All plants constituting CRPR 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B meet the definitions of CESA and are eligible for State listing. Impacts to these species or their habitat must be analyzed during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA, as they meet the definition of rare or endangered (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Please see CNPS Rare Plant Ranks website (https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks) for additional rank definitions (CNPS 2020). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends including avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measure language articulating the need to perform focused surveys for sensitive/rare plants on-site and disclosing the results prior to the implementation of Projects. Based on the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW a 2018) (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959), a qualified biologist should “conduct surveys in the field at the time of year when species are both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting.” Final CEQA documentation, for a specified Project(s), should provide a thorough discussion on the presence/absence of sensitive plants on-site and identify measures to protect sensitive plant communities from Project-related direct and indirect impacts. 2 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 20 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 4 of 26 Mitigation Measure #2: If rare or sensitive plants are found on or near the footprint of the Project, CDFW recommends the DEIR provide measures to fully mitigate the loss of individual ESA- and CESA-listed plants and habitat. The DEIR should provide a map showing which plants or populations will be impacted and provide a table that clearly documents the number of plants and acres of supporting habitat impacted, and plant composition (e.g., density, cover, abundance) within impacted habitat (e.g., species list separated by vegetation class; density, cover, abundance of each species). Mitigation Measure #3: If rare or sensitive plants are found on or near the footprint of the Project, the DEIR should provide species-specific measures to fully avoid impacts to all ESA- and CESA-listed plants. This may include flagging all plants and/or perimeter of populations; no- work buffers around plants and/or populations (e.g., flagged perimeter plus 50 feet); restrictions on ground disturbing activities within protected areas; relocation of staging and other material piling areas away from protected areas; restrictions on herbicide use and/or type of herbicide and/or application method within 100 feet of sensitive plants; and worker education and training. Mitigation Measure #4: CDFW recommends the Plan be conditioned to provide mitigation ratios depending on the sensitivity of the species. This should be for the number of plants replaced to number impacted, including acres of habitat created to acres of habitat impacted. Rare plants are habitat specialists that require specific conditions to persist such as vegetation composition (species abundance, diversity, cover), soils, substrate, slope, hydrology, and pollinators. Mitigation Measure #5: The Plan should provide species-specific measures for on-site mitigation. Each species-specific mitigation plan should adopt an ecosystem-based approach and be of sufficient detail and resolution to describe the following at a minimum: 1) identify the impact and level of impact (e.g., acres or individual plants/habitat impacted); 2) location of on- site mitigation and adequacy of the location(s) to serve as mitigation; 3) assessment of appropriate reference sites; 4) scientific [Genus and species (subspecies/variety if applicable)] of plants being used for restoration; 5) location(s) of propagule source; 6) species-specific planting methods (i.e., container or seed); 7) measurable goals and success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g. percent survival rate, absolute cover); 8) long-term monitoring, and; 9) adaptive management techniques. Recommendation #1: CDFW recommends the City perform a Regional Landscape Interconnectivity Assessment and incorporate the findings into the Plan to avoid habitat fragmentation. Comment #2: Mitigation for Sensitive Vegetation Communities Issue: Mitigation ratios for ranked sensitive vegetation communities provided in the DEIR are too low for the proposed Project impacts. Specific Impacts: Replacement ratios of 1:1 and 2:1 are more appropriate for temporary project impacts, permanent impacts dictate higher mitigation ratios. The vegetation communities found within the Project footprint and the surrounding area provide important foraging and nesting areas for a variety of special status species. Development of the area and thinning of 2 3 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 21 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 5 of 26 vegetation for fuel modification will result in the loss of these resources. Rare plants within 1,000 meters from these activities are considered impacted. Why impacts would occur: CDFW considers plant communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S1, S2, S3, and S4 as sensitive and declining at the local and regional level (Sawyer et al. 2008). An S3 ranking indicates there are 21-80 occurrences of this community in existence in California, S2 has 6-20 occurrences, and S1 has less than 6 occurrences. The Projects may have direct or indirect effects to these sensitive species. The following ranked vegetation classifications are found within the project footprint: California sagebrush-deerweed scrub (Artemisia californica-Acmispon glaber/Lotus scoparius shrubland alliance, S5); cactus scrub (Cylidropuntia prolifera shrubland alliance, S3); blue elderberry stands (Baccharis salicifolia shrubland alliance, S4) and chaparral yucca scrub (Hazardia squarrosa shrubland alliance, S3). The DEIR states a combined 48.32 acres of these sensitive vegetation communities would be permanently impacted due to construction and development. Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, trail/road construction, soil compaction, utilities construction, road maintenance, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of vegetation communities. These communities offer habitat and resources to a multitude of species, including specially listed species. Evidence impacts would be significant: Impacts to special-status plant species should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to these sensitive plant species will result in a Project(s) continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative 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 CDFW or USFWS. Pursuant under CEQA Guidelines, section 15125(c), CDFW considers southern California coastal sage scrub habitats as locally significant. The absence of mitigation for many of the habitats listed above will result in significant loss of viable and valuable habitat. As a result, the Project may continue to have a significant change on the environment absent appropriate mitigation for the unavoidable direct and indirect, permanent or temporal losses, of native and undisturbed vegetation and habitat (CEQA Guidelines, § 15382). Collectively, Upland Scrub and Grassland habitats currently support or provide suitable habitat for plants and wildlife, including a rare plant and wildlife, including California Species of Special Concern (SSC). Inadequate or lack of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to special status plant and wildlife species and sensitive vegetation communities will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative 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 CDFW and the USFWS. Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW commends the efforts of the City/Applicant to properly categorize vegetation, however some terminology used within the DEIR may be dated. Categorizations such as “blue elderberry stands, cactus scrub,” and so forth do not adequately describe vegetation to determine uniqueness, rareness, value in the landscape, or base 3 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 22 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 6 of 26 restoration planting appropriateness. These terms are used in the 2009 printed version of the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), which has since been updated and reformatted. In 2007, the State Legislature required CDFW to develop and maintain a vegetation mapping standard for the state (Fish & Game Code, § 1940). This standard complies with the National Vegetation Classification System, which utilizes alliance and association-based classification of unique vegetation stands. CDFW utilizes vegetation descriptions found in the MCV, found online at http://vegetation.cnps.org/. To determine the rarity ranking of vegetation communities on a specific Project site(s), the MCV alliance/association community names should be provided as CDFW only tracks rare natural communities using this classification system. Mitigation Measure #2: CDFW recommends avoiding any sensitive natural communities found on the Project. If avoidance is not feasible, the Project proponent should mitigate at a ratio sufficient to achieve a no-net loss for impacts to special status plant species and their associated habitat. CDFW recommends all impacts to the S3 sensitive vegetation communities (cactus scrub, chaparral yucca scrub Association) (2.19-acres) should be mitigated at a 4:1 ratio and impacts to the S4 and S5 communities (CA sagebrush-deerweed scrub and blue elderberry stands) (46.13-acres) be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. All revegetation/restoration areas that will serve as mitigation should include preparation of a restoration plan, to be approved by CDFW prior to any ground disturbance. The restoration plan should include restoration and monitoring methods; annual success criteria; contingency actions should success criteria not be met; long-term management and maintenance goals; and a funding mechanism for long-term management. Areas proposed as mitigation should have a recorded conservation easement and be dedicated to an entity which has been approved to hold/manage lands (AB 1094; Government Code, §§ 65965-65968). Mitigation Measure #3: Success criteria should be based on the specific composition of the vegetation communities being impacted. Success should not be determined until the site has been irrigation-free for at least 5 years and the metrics for success have remained stable (no negative trend for richness/diversity/abundance/cover and no positive trend for invasive/non- native cover for each vegetation layer) for at least 5 years. In the revegetation plan, the success criteria should be compared against an appropriate reference site, with the same vegetation alliance, with as good or better-quality habitat. The success criteria should include percent cover (both basal and vegetative), species diversity, density, abundance, and any other measures of success deemed appropriate by CDFW. Success criteria should be separated into vegetative layers (tree, shrub, grass, and forb) for each alliance being mitigated, and each layer should be compared to the success criteria of the reference site, as well as the alliance criteria in MCV ensuring one species or layer does not disproportionally dominate a site but conditions mimic the reference site and meets the alliance membership requirements. CDFW does not recommend topsoil salvage or transplantation as viable mitigation options. Several studies have documented topsoil salvage had no effect on the recolonization of the target plant species (Hinshaw 1998). Based on the scientific literature available, relying on topsoil salvage alone to mitigate impacts to CEQA-rare plant species does not appear to provide any value to mitigate impacts to the plant. Recommendation #1: CDFW recommends taking an inter-disciplinary approach, inclusive of wildlife biologists and restoration professionals, to restore scrub and grassland habitats. The 3 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 23 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 7 of 26 City should replace acreage of Mediterranean Scrub and Grassland, Warm Semi-Desert Scrub and Grassland, and Coastal Bluff Scrub at no less than the total acres impacted and use only native grasses or forbs indigenous to grasslands in region/watershed. Restoration should consider habitat requirements (e.g., refugia, structure, variation in plant density and cover) of wildlife that could occur in these two vegetation communities. CDFW recommends that the location of the mitigation site avoid the conversion of other habitats (e.g., scrubland to grassland). Scrub and grassland restoration should occur in areas appropriate abiotic and biotic conditions to support each habitat type. Comment #3: Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii) Issue: The Project may impact Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) (an invertebrate of conservation and an SSC) through the removal of California sage brush communities. No mention of surveys or mitigation measures were included within the DEIR. Specific impacts: Crotch’s bumble bees are generalist foragers and have been reported visiting a wide variety of flowering plants (Biesmeijer et al. 2006; Xerces 2018). They are known to occur in laurel sumac scrub, grassland, meadows, and coastal sage scrub, among other vegetation communities. The Project as proposed would develop approximately 270 acres, of which 48.32 acres are comprised of ranked California native vegetation communities and grasslands including California sagebrush-deer weed scrub, cactus scrub, and chaparral yucca scrub. Why impacts would occur: Project as proposed would grade and/or develop habitat that could support Crotch’s bumble bee. The Project may result in temporal or permanent loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee. Crotch’s bumble bees are generalist foragers and have been reported visiting a wide variety of flowering plants (Biesmeijer et al. 2006; Xerces 2018). They are known to occur in laurel sumac scrub, grassland, meadows, and coastal sage scrub, among other vegetation communities. The Project ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal may cause death or injury of adults, eggs, and larva, burrow collapse, nest abandonment, and reduced nest success. Suitable Crotch’s bumble bee habitat includes areas of grasslands and scrub that contain requisite habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows. Crotch’s bumble bee primarily nest in late February through late October underground in abandoned small mammal burrows but may also nest under perennial bunch grasses or thatched annual grasses, under-brush piles, in old bird nests, and in dead trees or hollow logs (Williams et al. 2014; Hatfield et al. 2018). Overwintering sites utilized by Crotch’s bumble bee mated queens include soft, disturbed soil (Goulson 2010), or under leaf litter or other debris (Williams et al. 2014). Despite the presence of suitable Crotch’s bumble bee habitat on site, the DEIR does not provide information as to what criteria would be used to conclude that the species is not present. Without adequate presence/absence surveys, ground disturbance and vegetation removal associated with Project implementation during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of breeding success or otherwise lead to nest abandonment in areas adjacent to the Project site. Project activities may result in temporal or permanent loss of colonies, and suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Evidence impact would be significant: Crotch’s bumble bee is listed as an invertebrate of conservation priority under the California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority (CDFW b 2017). Crotch’s bumble bee has a State ranking of S1/S2. This 4 3 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 24 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 8 of 26 means that the Crotch’s bumble bee is considered critically imperiled or imperiled and is extremely rare (often 5 or fewer populations). Also, Crotch’s bumble bee has a very restricted range and steep population declines make the species vulnerable to extirpation from the State (CDFW b 2017). Accordingly, Crotch’s bumble bee meets the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Therefore, take of Crotch’s bumble bee could require a mandatory finding of significance by the City (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends that measures be taken, primarily, to avoid Project impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee. Surveys should be performed by a qualified entomologist familiar with the species behavior and life history to determine the presence/absence of Crotch’s bumble bee and within one year prior to vegetation removal and/or grading. Surveys should be conducted during flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 to September 1 (Thorp et al. 1983). Survey results, including negative findings, should be submitted to CDFW prior to implementing Project-related ground-disturbing activities. At minimum, a survey report should provide the following: a)A description and map of the survey area, focusing on areas that could provide suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee. CDFW recommends the map show surveyor(s) track lines to document that the entire site was covered during field surveys. b)Field survey conditions that should include name(s) of qualified entomologist(s) and brief qualifications; date and time of survey; survey duration; general weather conditions; survey goals, and species searched. c)Map(s) showing the location of nests/colonies. d)A description of physical (e.g., soil, moisture, slope) and biological (e.g., plant composition) conditions where each nest/colony is found. A sufficient description of biological conditions, primarily impacted habitat, should include native plant composition (e.g., density, cover, and abundance) within impacted habitat (e.g., species list separated by vegetation class; density, cover, and abundance of each species). Mitigation Measure #2: If “take” or adverse impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be avoided either during Project activities or over the life of the Project, the City should consult CDFW to determine appropriate avoidance and/or minimization measures for the species. Recommendation #1: CDFW recommends the City update their CEQA document to reflect the possibility of Crotch’s bumble bee within the Project site and discuss the local and regional significance of impacts to the species. Focus surveys should be conducted in order to determine presence/absence, identify potential nest sites, and to further evaluate the quality of habitat present for Crotch’s bumble bee. The updated analysis should include appropriate avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures to offset any impacts to below a level of significance. 4 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 25 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 9 of 26 Comment #4: Monarch Butterfly Issue: Project(s) activities have the potential to impact overwintering monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus), which is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) candidate listed species and has been documented to occur in throughout the region (CDFWc 2021). Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for monarch butterflies, potential significant impacts associated with tree trimming, vegetation removal, and ground disturbance activities could occur. Potential impacts include roost destruction, inadvertent entrapment, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of eggs and/or larvae, and direct mortality of individual monarchs. Why impacts would occur: Project(s) activities have the potential to impact monarch butterflies, which have been documented to occur in the region. Protocol surveys are necessary to identify the presence of monarch butterflies and supporting habitat necessary for their survival. A lack of protocol surveys will likely result in avoidable, direct and/or indirect impacts to monarch butterflies. During the last decade, overwintering monarch populations have decline by nearly 90-percent (Jepsen et al 2015). Habitat loss and fragmentation is among the primary threats to the population (USFWS 2020). Ground clearing and construction activities could exacerbate this issue and lead to the direct mortality of monarch butterflies. Habitat loss could lead to a loss of foraging potential, nesting sites, or refugia and would constitute a significant impact absent appropriate mitigation. Evidence impact would be significant: CDFW considers impacts to rare species a significant direct and cumulative adverse effect without implementing appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures. Project(s) activities have the potential to significantly impact the species by reducing possible roosting habitat. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment, within 30 days of Project(s) implementation, to determine if the Project(s) area or its immediate vicinity contain habitat suitable to support monarchs. Mitigation Measure #2: If suitable habitat is present, CDFW recommends assessing presence of monarchs by conducting protocol surveys consistent with USFWS recommendations (see https://xerces.org/publications/planning-management/western-monarch-butterfly-conservation- recommendations). Mitigation Measure #3: If monarch butterflies are detected within or in the vicinity of Project(s) areas, The City will consult CDFW and USFWS, prior to Project(s) implementation to discuss how to implement ground-disturbing activities and avoid take. Comment #5: Lake and Streambed Agreement (LSA) Issue: CDFW is concerned with impacts to streams near the Project site. CDFW is also concerned that some drainage features in the northern portion of the site may have been missed during delineation surveys in 2019 and 2021. 6 5 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 26 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 10 of 26 Specific Impact: The Project as presented has multiple jurisdictional waters along its borders. Most notably is its proximity to the Walnut Canyon channel, a concrete-lined channel that drains into Arroyo Las Posas Creek. The proposed Project may diminish on-site and downstream water quality, alter the hydrologic and geomorphic processes, and impact specially listed downstream fish. Additionally, within the appendices of the DEIR it states, “In the northeastern portion of the site, storm water flows, partially originating from the southern terminus of Meridian Hills Drive, have eroded a gully into the slopes [an] additional soil erosion of the gully was observed from recent rainfalls [in 2018]…[h]owever, the presence of hydric soils in both, and the presence of a defined bed and bank in the eastern drainage suggest the CDFW would take jurisdiction over each.” However, within the provided DEIR the jurisdictional status was never definitively confirmed for this feature (“Erosional Feature 1”). CDFW would like confirmation that this feature does not fall within State jurisdiction. Why impacts would occur: Run-off from the project site could introduce higher levels of pollutants to downstream water bodies and potentially result in the degradation of water quality and riparian habitat. Debris, soil, silt, sawdust, rubbish, raw cement/concrete, or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances which could be hazardous or deleterious to aquatic life, wildlife, or riparian habitat resulting from Project related activities may enter the stream. Construction activities and development may also result in changes to the streams, altering hydrologic and geomorphic processes that may impact plant and wildlife species. Project activities may also cause direct and/or indirect impacts to the bed, bank, or channel of the stream may occur. Project impacts may result in the loss of streams and associated watershed function and biological diversity. It is also unclear if all drainage features have been appropriately defined such as “Erosional Feature 1” and other drainage features in the northern portion of the Project site. Therefore, appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigations have not been determined. Inadequate investigation may result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct and cumulative 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 CDFW. Evidence impact would be significant: Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires any person, State or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify CDFW prior to beginning any activity that may do one or more of the following: Divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; Change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; Use material from any river, stream, or lake; or, Deposit or dispose of material into any river, stream, or lake. Additionally, CDFW considers most natural drainages to be streambeds unless it is demonstrated otherwise. The Project may substantially adversely affect existing stream patterns, which absent specific mitigation, could result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site of the Project. In addition, impacts to biological resources off site, such as Calleguas Creek and the Mugu Lagoon, may occur. 6 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 27 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 11 of 26 Recommended potentially feasible mitigation measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: The Project applicant (or “entity”) must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW shall determine whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required prior to conducting the proposed activities. A notification package for a LSA may be obtained by accessing CDFW’s web site at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/lsa. If necessary, CDFW’s issuance of an LSA Agreement for a Project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW may consider the CEQA document of the Lead Agency for the Project. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to streams or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA Agreement. Mitigation Measure #2: Any LSA Agreement issued for the Project by CDFW may include additional measures protective of streambeds on and downstream of the Project such as additional erosion and pollution control measures. To compensate for any on-site and off-site impacts to riparian resources, additional mitigation conditioned in any LSA Agreement may include the following: avoidance of resources, on-site or off-site creation, enhancement, or restoration, and/or protection and management of mitigation lands in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure #3: Jurisdiction surveys should evaluate all rivers, streams, and lakes including culverts, ditches, and storm channels that may transport water, sediment, and pollutants that discharge into rivers, streams, and lakes. CDFW would like confirmation that “Erosional Feature 1” does not fall within State jurisdiction as well as the other drainage features along the northern border of the site. Recommendation 1: CDFW recommends disclosing any vernal pools found within the project footprint and the surrounding area to assess potential impacts and recommend meaningful mitigation. Vernal pools offer habitat to several specially listed species and are afforded protections pursuant to CEQA. CDFW recommends avoidance of vernal pools, if avoidance is not possible preservation of existing vernal pool complexes should be mitigated at appropriate ratios. If not feasible, restoration and preservation of damaged pools and associated upland habitat that support vernal pools should be mitigated to an appropriate ratio. CDFW does not recommend or support the creation of vernal pools. Comment #6: Spreading Invasive Pests and Diseases Issue: CDFW is concerned that the DEIR does not describe procedures for disposal of removed trees which may be infested with invasive pests and disease. For example, the environmental document should address the presence or absence of goldspotted oak borer (Agrilus auroguttatus), Polyphagus shot-hole borer (Euwallacea sp.), and thousand canker fungus (Geosmithia morbida) in on-site trees and, if present, describe how any effected trees would be disposed of as part of the Project. 6 7 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 28 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 12 of 26 Specific impacts: Improper disposal of vegetation may result in the spread of tree insect pests and disease into areas not currently exposed to these stressors. This could result in expediting the loss of oaks and other trees in California which support a high biological diversity including special status species. Why impacts would occur: The Project may remove tree species that could host insect pests and diseases. Trees will be removed and presumably hauled to off-site locations for disposal thereby potentially exposing off-site oak and other tree species to infestation and disease. Evidence impact would be significant: The Project may have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. The Project may result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS that are dependent on habitats susceptible to insect and disease pathogens. Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends the City work with the certified arborist to identify all trees and species for removal from the Project site and inspect those trees for contagious tree diseases including but not limited to: thousand canker fungus (https://thousandcankers.com/), Polyphagous shot hole borer (https://ucanr.edu/sites/eskalenlab/?file=index.html), and goldspotted oak borer (http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74163.html). A summary report documenting inspection methods, number and species of trees inspected, results, and conclusions, including negative findings, should be submitted to CDFW for review and included as an appendix in final environmental documents. The summary report should also include photographic documentation of entry/exit holes and evidence of pests/disease. Mitigation Measure #2: If invasive pests and/or diseases are detected, the City should provide an infectious tree disease management plan and describe how it will be implemented to avoid significant impacts under CEQA. To avoid the spread of infectious tree diseases, diseased trees should not be transported from the Project site without first being treated using best available management practices relevant for each tree disease observed. A management plan should be submitted to CDFW for review and included as an appendix in the final environmental document. Comment #7: Impacts to Non-Game Mammals and Wildlife Issue: Wildlife may still move through the Project site during the daytime or nighttime. CDFW is concerned that any wildlife potentially moving through or seeking temporary refuge on the Project site may be directly impacted during Project activities and construction. Any final fence, or other design features, design should allow for wildlife movement. Specific impacts: Project activities and construction equipment may directly impact wildlife and birds moving through or seeking temporary refuge on site. This could result in wildlife and bird mortality. Furthermore, depending on the final fencing design, the Project may cumulatively restrict wildlife movement opportunity. 7 8 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 29 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 13 of 26 Why impacts would occur: Direct impacts to wildlife may occur from: ground disturbing activities (e.g., staging, access, excavation, grading); wildlife being trapped or entangled in construction materials and erection of restrictive fencing; and wildlife could be trampled by heavy equipment operating in the Project site. Evidence impact would be significant: Mammals occurring naturally in California are considered non-game mammals and are afforded protection by State law from take and/or harassment (Fish & Game Code, § 4150; Cal. Code of Regs, § 251.1). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): CDFW recommends the following four mitigation measures to avoid and minimize direct impacts to wildlife during Project construction and activities. Mitigation Measure #1: If fencing is proposed for use during construction or during the life of the Project, fences should be constructed with materials that are not harmful to wildlife. Prohibited materials include, but are not limited to, spikes, glass, razor, or barbed wire. Fencing should also be minimized so as not to restrict free wildlife movement through habitat areas. Mitigation Measure #2: To avoid direct mortality, a qualified biological monitor should be on site prior to and during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way special status species or other wildlife of low mobility that would be injured or killed by grubbing or Project-related construction activities. Salvaged wildlife of low mobility should be removed and placed onto adjacent and suitable (i.e., species appropriate) habitat out of harm’s way. It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on-site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting Program impacts associated with habitat loss. Mitigation Measure #3: Grubbing and grading should be done to avoid islands of habitat where wildlife may take refuge and later be killed by heavy equipment. Grubbing and grading should be done from the center of the Project site, working outward towards adjacent habitat off site where wildlife may safely escape. Additional Recommendations Alternatives. CDFW recommends the City consider an alternative that would fully avoid or minimize impacts to streams, sensitive plants and wildlife. CDFW recommends the City recirculate the environmental document after including alternative locations in order to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making [CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15088.5, 15126.6(f)]. If the City concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, or the use of alternative locations as a mitigation measures is infeasible, the City must disclose the reasons in the final environmental document and recirculate [CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15088.5(a)(3), 15126.6(f)(2)]. Fuel Modification. If the Project includes fuel modification, CDFW recommends that the final environmental include avoidance and mitigation measures for any fuel modification activities conducted within and adjacent to the Project area. A weed management plan should be developed for all areas adjacent to open space that will be subject to fuel modification disturbance. CDFW also recommends that any irrigation proposed in fuel modification zones drain back into the development and not onto natural habitat land as perennial sources of water 8 9 10 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 30 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 14 of 26 allow for the introduction of invasive Argentine ants. Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has provided the City with a summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; Attachment A). A final MMRP should reflect results following additional plant and wildlife surveys and the Project’s final on and/or off-site mitigation plans. Filing Fees The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the County and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). Conclusion We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City in adequately analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project [CEQA Guidelines, § 15073(e)]. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Angela Castanon, Environmental Scientist, at Angela.Castanon@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Erinn Wilson-Olgin Environmental Program Manager I South Coast Region ec: CDFW Steve Gibson, Los Alamitos – Steve.Gibson@wildlife.ca.gov Emily Galli, Fillmore – Emily.Galli@wildlife.ca.gov Cindy Hailey, San Diego – Cindy.Hailey@wildlife.ca.gov CEQA Program Coordinator, Sacramento – CEQACommentLetters@wildlife.ca.gov State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research – State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov References: Biesmeijer, J. C., S. P. M Roberts, M. Reemer, R. Ohlemiller, M. Edwards, T. Peeters, A. P. Schaffers, S. G. Potts, R. Kleukers, C. D. Thomas, J. Settele, and W. E. Kunin. 2006. Parallel Declines in Pollinators and Insect-Pollinated Plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313(5785): 351-354. [CalEPA] California Environmental Protection Agency, California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, California Air Resources Board, and 11 10 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 31 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 15 of 26 California Strategic Growth Council. 2019. January 2019 Draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan. Available from: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/natandworkinglands/draft-nwl-ip-040419.pdf [CDFWa] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Available from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959 [CDFWb] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority. Accessed at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=157415&inline [CDFWc] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. Monarch Butterfly. Accessed at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=157415&inline [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2020. Rare Plant ranks. Available from: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks. EcoAdapt. 2017. Southern California Sage Scrub Habitats Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Synthesis. Available from: http://ecoadapt.org/data/documents/EcoAdapt_SoCalVASynthesis_SageScrub_FINAL2 017.pdf Francis, C. D., C. P. Ortega, and A. Cruz. 2009. Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Current Biology 19:1415–1419. Gillam, E. H., and G. F. McCracken. 2007. Variability in the echolocation of Tadarida brasiliensis: effects of geography and local acoustic environment. Animal Behaviour 74:277–286. Goulson, D. 2010. Bumblebees: behavior, ecology, and conservation. Oxford University Press, New York. 317pp. Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Foltz Jordan, S., Blackburn, M., Code, Aimee. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List Four Species of Bumblebees as Endangered Species. Hinshaw, J.M., Holmstead, G.L., Cypher, B.L., Anderson D.C. 1998. Effects of Simulated Field Disturbance and Topsoil Salvage on Eristrium Hooveri. Accessed from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41425279 Kight, C. R., and J. P. Swaddle. 2011. How and why environmental noise impacts animals: An integrative, mechanistic review. Ecology Letters 14:1052–1061. Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Front Ecological Environment 2(4):191-198. Patricelli, G., and J. J. L. Blickley. 2006. Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. Auk 123:639–649. Quinn, J. L., M. J. Whittingham, S. J. Butler, W. Cresswell, J. L. Quinn, M. J. Whittingham, S. J. Butler, W. Cresswell, and W. Noise. 2017. Noise, predation risk compensation and vigilance in the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. Journal of Avian Biology 37:601–608. Rabin, L. A., R. G. Coss, and D. H. Owings. 2006. The effects of wind turbines on antipredator behavior in California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Biological Conservation 131:410–420. Sawyer, J.O., Keeler Wolf, T., and Evens J.M. 2009. A manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. ISBN 978 0 943460 49 9. Slabbekoorn, H., and E. A. P. Ripmeester. 2008. Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: Implications and applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology 17:72–83. Sun, J. W. C., and P. M. Narins. 2005. Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biological Conservation 121:419–427. A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 32 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 16 of 26 Thorp, Robbin W., Horning Jr, Donald S., and Dunning, Lorry L. 1983. Bumble Bees and Cuckoo Bumble Bees of California. Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23. [TCD] Thousand Cankers Disease. 2021. What is Thousand Cankers? Available from: https://thousandcankers.com/ [UCCE] UC California Cooperative Extension. 2022. Eskalen’s Lab. Available from: https://ucanr.edu/sites/eskalenlab/?file=index.html [UCIPM] UC Integrated Pest Management Program. 2021. Goldcpotted Oak Borer. Available from: http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74163.html [USACE] Unites States Army Corps of Engineers. National Wetland Plant Lis Indicator Rating Definitions. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/National-Wetland- Plant-List-Indicator-Rating-Definitions.pdf Xerces Society. 2021. Petition to the State of CA Fish and Game Commission to List four Bumblebees under CESA. Available from: vhttps://www.xerces.org/publications/policy- statements/california-esa-bumble-bee-petition-2018 A-CDFW-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 33 State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov Attachment A: Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan CDFW recommends the following language to be incorporated into a future environmental document for the Project. A final MMRP should reflect results following additional plant and wildlife surveys and the Project’s final on and/or off -site mitigation plans. Biological Resources (BIO) Mitigation Measure (MM) or Recommendation (REC) Timing Responsible Party MM-BIO-1- Impacts Rare Plants CDFW recommends including avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measure language articulating the need to perform focused surveys for sensitive/rare plants on-site and disclosing the results prior to the implementation of Projects. Based on the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW a 2018) (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959), a qualified biologist should “conduct surveys in the field at the time of year when species are both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting.” Final CEQA documentation, for a specified Project(s), should provide a thorough discussion on the presence/absence of sensitive plants on-site and identify measures to protect sensitive plant communities from Project- related direct and indirect impacts. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-2- Impacts Rare Plants If rare or sensitive plants are found on or near the footprint of the Project, CDFW recommends the DEIR provide measures to fully mitigate the loss of individual ESA- and CESA-listed plants and habitat. The DEIR should provide a map showing which plants or populations will be impacted and provide a table that clearly documents the number of plants and acres of supporting habitat Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant A-CDFW-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 34 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 18 of 26 impacted, and plant composition (e.g., density, cover, abundance) within impacted habitat (e.g., species list separated by vegetation class; density, cover, abundance of each species). MM-BIO-3- Impacts Rare Plants If rare or sensitive plants are found on or near the footprint of the Project, the DEIR should provide species-specific measures to fully avoid impacts to all ESA- and CESA-listed plants. This may include flagging all plants and/or perimeter of populations; no-work buffers around plants and/or populations (e.g., flagged perimeter plus 50 feet); restrictions on ground disturbing activities within protected areas; relocation of staging and other material piling areas away from protected areas; restrictions on herbicide use and/or type of herbicide and/or application method within 100 feet of sensitive plants; and worker education and training. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-4- Impacts Rare Plants CDFW recommends the Plan be conditioned to provide mitigation ratios depending on the sensitivity of the species. This should be for the number of plants replaced to number impacted, including acres of habitat created to acres of habitat impacted. Rare plants are habitat specialists that require specific conditions to persist such as vegetation composition (species abundance, diversity, cover), soils, substrate, slope, hydrology, and pollinators. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-5- Impacts Rare Plants The Plan should provide species-specific measures for on-site mitigation. Each species-specific mitigation plan should adopt an ecosystem-based approach and be of sufficient detail and resolution to describe the following at a minimum: 1) identify the impact and level of impact (e.g., acres or individual plants/habitat impacted); 2) location of on-site mitigation and adequacy of the location(s) to serve as mitigation; 3) assessment of appropriate reference sites; 4) scientific [Genus and species (subspecies/variety if applicable)] of plants being used for restoration; 5) location(s) of propagule source; 6) species-specific planting methods (i.e., container or seed); 7) measurable goals and success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant A-CDFW-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 35 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 19 of 26 (e.g. percent survival rate, absolute cover); 8) long-term monitoring, and; 9) adaptive management techniques. MM-BIO-6- Impacts to Sensitive Plant Communities CDFW commends the efforts of the City/Applicant to properly categorize vegetation, however some terminology used within the DEIR may be dated. Categorizations such as “blue elderberry stands, cactus scrub,” and so forth do not adequately describe vegetation to determine uniqueness, rareness, value in the landscape, or base restoration planting appropriateness. These terms are used in the 2009 printed version of the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), which has since been updated and reformatted. In 2007, the State Legislature required CDFW to develop and maintain a vegetation mapping standard for the state (Fish & Game Code, § 1940). This standard complies with the National Vegetation Classification System, which utilizes alliance and association-based classification of unique vegetation stands. CDFW utilizes vegetation descriptions found in the MCV, found online at http://vegetation.cnps.org/. To determine the rarity ranking of vegetation communities on a specific Project site(s), the MCV alliance/association community names should be provided as CDFW only tracks rare natural communities using this classification system. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-7- Impacts to Sensitive Plant Communities CDFW recommends avoiding any sensitive natural communities found on the Project. If avoidance is not feasible, the Project proponent should mitigate at a ratio sufficient to achieve a no-net loss for impacts to special status plant species and their associated habitat. CDFW recommends all impacts to the S3 sensitive vegetation communities (cactus scrub, chaparral yucca scrub Association) (2.19-acres) should be mitigated at a 4:1 ratio and impacts to the S4 and S5 communities (CA sagebrush- deerweed scrub and blue elderberry stands) (46.13-acres) be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant A-CDFW-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 36 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 20 of 26 All revegetation/restoration areas that will serve as mitigation should include preparation of a restoration plan, to be approved by CDFW prior to any ground disturbance. The restoration plan should include restoration and monitoring methods; annual success criteria; contingency actions should success criteria not be met; long-term management and maintenance goals; and a funding mechanism for long-term management. Areas proposed as mitigation should have a recorded conservation easement and be dedicated to an entity which has been approved to hold/manage lands (AB 1094; Government Code, §§ 65965-65968). MM-BIO-8- Impacts to Sensitive Plant Communities Success criteria should be based on the specific composition of the vegetation communities being impacted. Success should not be determined until the site has been irrigation-free for at least 5 years and the metrics for success have remained stable (no negative trend for richness/diversity/abundance/cover and no positive trend for invasive/non-native cover for each vegetation layer) for at least 5 years. In the revegetation plan, the success criteria should be compared against an appropriate reference site, with the same vegetation alliance, with as good or better-quality habitat. The success criteria should include percent cover (both basal and vegetative), species diversity, density, abundance, and any other measures of success deemed appropriate by CDFW. Success criteria should be separated into vegetative layers (tree, shrub, grass, and forb) for each alliance being mitigated, and each layer should be compared to the success criteria of the reference site, as well as the alliance criteria in MCV2, ensuring one species or layer does not disproportionally dominate a site but conditions mimic the reference site and meets the alliance membership requirements. CDFW does not recommend topsoil salvage or transplantation as viable mitigation options. Several studies have documented topsoil salvage had no effect on the recolonization of the target plant species (Hinshaw 1998). Based on the scientific literature Prior to /During/ After Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant A-CDFW-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 37 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 21 of 26 available, relying on topsoil salvage alone to mitigate impacts to CEQA-rare plant species does not appear to provide any value to mitigate impacts to the plant. MM-BIO-9- Impacts to Crotch’s Bumble Bee CDFW recommends that measures be taken, primarily, to avoid Project impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee. Surveys should be performed by a qualified entomologist familiar with the species behavior and life history to determine the presence/absence of Crotch’s bumble bee and within one year prior to vegetation removal and/or grading. Surveys should be conducted during flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 to September 1 (Thorp et al. 1983). Survey results, including negative findings, should be submitted to CDFW prior to implementing Project-related ground-disturbing activities. At minimum, a survey report should provide the following: 1.A description and map of the survey area, focusing on areas that could provide suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee. CDFW recommends the map show surveyor(s) track lines to document that the entire site was covered during field surveys. 2.Field survey conditions that should include name(s) of qualified entomologist(s) and brief qualifications; date and time of survey; survey duration; general weather conditions; survey goals, and species searched. 3.Map(s) showing the location of nests/colonies. 4.A description of physical (e.g., soil, moisture, slope) and biological (e.g., plant composition) conditions where each nest/colony is found. A sufficient description of biological conditions, primarily impacted habitat, should include native plant composition (e.g., density, cover, and abundance) within impacted habitat (e.g., species list separated by Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant A-CDFW-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 38 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 22 of 26 vegetation class; density, cover, and abundance of each species). MM-BIO-10- Impacts to Crotch’s Bumble Bee If “take” or adverse impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be avoided either during Project activities or over the life of the Project, the City should consult CDFW to determine appropriate avoidance and/or minimization measures for the species. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-11- Impacts to Monarch Butterfly CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment, within 30 days of Project(s) implementation, to determine if the Project(s) area or its immediate vicinity contain habitat suitable to support monarchs. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-12- Impacts to Monarch Butterfly If suitable habitat is present, CDFW recommends assessing presence of monarchs by conducting protocol surveys consistent with USFWS recommendations (see https://xerces.org/publications/planning-management/western- monarch-butterfly-conservation-recommendations). Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-13- Impacts to Monarch Butterfly If monarch butterflies are detected within or in the vicinity of Project(s) areas, The City will consult CDFW and USFWS, prior to Project(s) implementation to discuss how to implement ground- disturbing activities and avoid take. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-14- Lake and Stream Bed Alteration Agreement The Project applicant (or “entity”) must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW shall determine whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required prior to conducting the proposed activities. A notification package for a LSA may be obtained by accessing CDFW’s web site at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/lsa. If necessary, CDFW’s issuance of an LSA Agreement for a Project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW may consider the CEQA document of the Lead Agency for Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant A-CDFW-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 39 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 23 of 26 the Project. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to streams or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA Agreement. MM-BIO-15- Lake and Stream Bed Alteration Agreement Any LSA Agreement issued for the Project by CDFW may include additional measures protective of streambeds on and downstream of the Project such as additional erosion and pollution control measures. To compensate for any on-site and off-site impacts to riparian resources, additional mitigation conditioned in any LSA Agreement may include the following: avoidance of resources, on- site or off-site creation, enhancement, or restoration, and/or protection and management of mitigation lands in perpetuity. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-16- Lake and Stream Bed Alteration Agreement Jurisdiction surveys should evaluate all rivers, streams, and lakes including culverts, ditches, and storm channels that may transport water, sediment, and pollutants that discharge into rivers, streams, and lakes. CDFW would like confirmation that “Erosional Feature 1” does not fall within State jurisdiction as well as the other drainage features along the northern border of the site. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-17- Spread of Invasive Pests and Diseases CDFW recommends the City work with the certified arborist to identify all trees and species for removal from the Project site and inspect those trees for contagious tree diseases including but not limited to: thousand canker fungus (https://thousandcankers.com/), Polyphagous shot hole borer (https://ucanr.edu/sites/eskalenlab/?file=index.html), and goldspotted oak borer (http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74163.html). A summary report documenting inspection methods, number and species of trees inspected, results, and conclusions, including negative findings, should be submitted to CDFW for review and included as an appendix in final environmental documents. The summary report should also include photographic documentation of entry/exit holes and evidence of pests/disease. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant A-CDFW-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 40 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 24 of 26 MM-BIO-18- Spread of Invasive Pests and Diseases If invasive pests and/or diseases are detected, the City should provide an infectious tree disease management plan and describe how it will be implemented to avoid significant impacts under CEQA. To avoid the spread of infectious tree diseases, diseased trees should not be transported from the Project site without first being treated using best available management practices relevant for each tree disease observed. A management plan should be submitted to CDFW for review and included as an appendix in the final environmental document. Prior to/During/ After Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-19- Impacts to Non- Game Mammals and Wildlife If fencing is proposed for use during construction or during the life of the Project, fences should be constructed with materials that are not harmful to wildlife. Prohibited materials include, but are not limited to, spikes, glass, razor, or barbed wire. Fencing should also be minimized so as not to restrict free wildlife movement through habitat areas. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-20- Impacts to Non- Game Mammals and Wildlife To avoid direct mortality, a qualified biological monitor should be on site prior to and during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way special status species or other wildlife of low mobility that would be injured or killed by grubbing or Project-related construction activities. Salvaged wildlife of low mobility should be removed and placed onto adjacent and suitable (i.e., species appropriate) habitat out of harm’s way. It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on-site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting Program impacts associated with habitat loss. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant MM-BIO-21- Impacts to Non- Game Mammals and Wildlife Grubbing and grading should be done to avoid islands of habitat where wildlife may take refuge and later be killed by heavy equipment. Grubbing and grading should be done from the center of the Project site, working outward towards adjacent habitat off site where wildlife may safely escape. Prior to/During construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant A-CDFW-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 41 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 25 of 26 REC-1- Plant impacts CDFW recommends the City perform a Regional Landscape Interconnectivity Assessment and incorporate the findings into the Plan to avoid habitat fragmentation. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant REC-2- Vegetation Mitigation and Restoration CDFW recommends taking an inter-disciplinary approach, inclusive of wildlife biologists and restoration professionals, to restore scrub and grassland habitats. The City should replace acreage of Mediterranean Scrub and Grassland, Warm Semi- Desert Scrub and Grassland, and Coastal Bluff Scrub at no less than the total acres impacted and use only native grasses or forbs indigenous to grasslands in region/watershed. Restoration should consider habitat requirements (e.g., refugia, structure, variation in plant density and cover) of wildlife that could occur in these two vegetation communities. CDFW recommends that the location of the mitigation site avoid the conversion of other habitats (e.g., scrubland to grassland). Scrub and grassland restoration should occur in areas appropriate abiotic and biotic conditions to support each habitat type. During Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant REC-3- Crotch’s Bumble Bee CDFW recommends the City update their CEQA document to reflect the possibility of Crotch’s bumble bee within the Project site and discuss the local and regional significance of impacts to the species. Focus surveys should be conducted in order to determine presence/absence, identify potential nest sites, and to further evaluate the quality of habitat present for Crotch’s bumble bee. The updated analysis should include appropriate avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures to offset any impacts to below a level of significance. During construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant REC-4- Vernal Pools CDFW recommends disclosing any vernal pools found within the project footprint and the surrounding area to assess potential impacts and recommend meaningful mitigation. Vernal pools offer habitat to several specially listed species and are afforded protections pursuant to CEQA. CDFW recommends avoidance of vernal pools, if avoidance is not possible preservation of existing vernal pool complexes should be mitigated at appropriate ratios. If Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant A-CDFW-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 42 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark April 4, 2022 Page 26 of 26 not feasible, restoration and preservation of damaged pools and associated upland habitat that support vernal pools should be mitigated to an appropriate ratio. CDFW does not recommend or support the creation of vernal pools. REC-5- Alternatives CDFW recommends the City consider an alternative that would fully avoid or minimize impacts to streams, sensitive plants and wildlife. CDFW recommends the City recirculate the environmental document after including alternative locations in order to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making [CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15088.5, 15126.6(f)]. If the City concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, or the use of alternative locations as a mitigation measures is infeasible, the City must disclose the reasons in the final environmental document and recirculate [CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15088.5(a)(3), 15126.6(f)(2)]. Prior to/During Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant REC-6- Fuel Modification If the Project includes fuel modification, CDFW recommends that the final environmental include avoidance and mitigation measures for any fuel modification activities conducted within and adjacent to the Project area. A weed management plan should be developed for all areas adjacent to open space that will be subject to fuel modification disturbance. CDFW also recommends that any irrigation proposed in fuel modification zones drain back into the development and not onto natural habitat land as perennial sources of water allow for the introduction of invasive Argentine ants. Prior to Project construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant REC-7- Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has provided the City with a summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; Attachment A). A final MMRP should reflect results following additional plant and wildlife surveys and the Project’s final on and/or off-site mitigation plans. Prior to construction and activities City of Moorpark/ Applicant A-CDFW-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 43 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-32 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter A-CDFW-2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-1 Thank you for your comment. The comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. The comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-2 Impacts to Special-Status Plants: As summarized in Table 3.3-2 of the DEIR, the site lacks suitable habitat or is outside of the known geographic and elevational range for most of the special-status plant species documented in the region by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The comment identifies Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii), Santa Susana tarplant (Deinandra minthornii), Conejo dudleya (Dudleya parva), marcescent dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens), Agoura Hills dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. gourensis), Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. Blochmaniae); Verity's dudleya (Dudleya verity), Braunton's milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii), California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), and Conejo buckwheat (Eriogonum crocatum) as species that are potentially occurring based on the CNDDB. As stated on pages 3.23-3.28, most regionally occurring rare plant species have no potential to occur on site based on the absence of suitable soils, vegetation communities, rock formations, and/or other microhabitats. Each of these species are discussed accordingly in Table 3.3-2 and their required habitat features are absent from the site. Additionally, a field visit was conducted in 2021 to further evaluate vegetation communities and habitat suitability for rare plants on the site (page 3.3-7). As documented during the field surveys and described in the DEIR (page 3.3-11), native plant communities present on site are substantially disturbed by ongoing grazing. Therefore, the quality of the habitat onsite for rare plants is considered to be extremely degraded due to this grazing regime. As described in Table 3.3-2 of the DEIR, only three rare plant species (white rabbit-tobacco, Plummer’s mariposa lily, and round-leaved filaree) were identified as having low potential to occur onsite based on their distribution, presence of adequate soils, and on-site vegetation classifications. However, all three species are highly unlikely to be present due to the extremely disturbed site conditions. Furthermore, as described on page 3.3-22, special-status species with “Low Potential” to occur are not likely to be found on the Project site, because few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. As observed during recent site assessments, the required vegetation assemblages are considered unsuitable as habitat for these species due to heavy grazing. As such, no impacts to rare plant species would occur as a result of the project, and the inclusion of additional mitigation measures is not warranted under CEQA. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 44 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-33 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-3 Thank you for providing reference to the updated state vegetation community naming and ranking conventions. Updates to the document are not necessary as the scientific names and rankings associated with the dominant species in each community/alliance is included in the vegetation community descriptions (page 3.3-12 - 3.3-16). As documented during the field surveys and described in the DEIR (page 3.3-11, 3.3-62-63), native plant communities present on site are substantially disturbed by ongoing grazing. Nonetheless, the Project proposes in-kind 1:1 replacement of the disturbed/grazed scrub communities that provide low quality habitat (MM BR-6). The higher quality habitats west of Gabbert Road are avoided with the exception of 2.36 acres of California sagebrush-deerweed scrub. MM BR-6 proposes a 2:1 mitigation ratio for the replacement of this more intact native habitat. The Project is required to prepare a Native Habitat Restoration Plan for the habitat mitigation area that will be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to issuance of a grading permit. This mitigation area will be managed long-term for habitat purposes to meet agency approved performance standards and success criteria. Therefore, it will be of higher quality than the degraded habitats that are to be impacted by the project. Moreover, the lower mitigation ratio would compensate impacts to areas that have been continuously degraded by grazing activities and the quality of the impact site (even in the case of sensitive communities) would be far exceeded by the functional lift and habitat values provided by the mitigation site. Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-4 As documented during the field surveys and described in the DEIR (page 3.3-11), native plant communities present on site are substantially disturbed by grazing. The quality of the habitat on site is considered to be extremely degraded and unlikely to support endemic species such as the Crotch’s bumble bee that rely on intact, native vegetation due to the grazing regime. Crotch’s bumblebee was not observed on site during field surveys. If Crotch’s bumble bee is present in the vicinity of the project site, there is relatively undisturbed, intact habitat, located to the west and north of the site that would be preferred over the degraded vegetation that is onsite. Thus, the Project site is not expected to be attractive to the species for foraging and nesting. Additionally, the project will compensate for the loss of native vegetation communities as described on pages 3.3-82 and 3.3-83 of the DEIR under MM BR-6. Habitat mitigation areas will not be subject to the same disturbance levels as the Project site, providing higher quality habitats for native species than that which will be impacted by the project. Given the extremely low habitat quality and mitigation already proposed, the inclusion of additional mitigation measures for Crotch’s bumblebee is not warranted under CEQA. Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-5 Monarch butterflies are known to over-winter in blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) forests in California and require the forest to be dense enough to provide wind protection from prevailing coastal winds. The Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 45 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-34 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Eucalyptus trees need to be tall (at least 60 feet) because they roost in the intermediate level of the canopy where wind protection is greatest. Most of the approximately 250 monarch roosting sites recorded in California are within 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) of the ocean.1 The blue gum trees on the project site are scattered among other tree species do not form a dense Eucalyptus Forest, and the project site is more than 16 miles from the ocean. Additionally, no monarch butterfly occurrences were identified in the California Natural Diversity Database query for the Moorpark U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, in which the Project site is located, as well as the eight surrounding quadrangles: Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park, Santa Paula, Santa Paula Peak, Camarillo, Simi, Piru, and Fillmore. Based on the above information, the scattered Eucalyptus trees on the project site are not expected to provide monarch butterfly over- wintering habitat and no impacts to monarch butterfly are expected to occur. Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-6 In accordance with the Standard Conditions and Requirements Mitigation Measure on pages 3.3-78 and 3.3-79, the Project will apply for a Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFW prior to the start of construction. This measure also requires that any additional mitigation measures set forth in the Agreement will be implemented by the Project. A delineation of CDFW jurisdictional waters will be submitted as part of the permit application package. Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-7 As required by MM BR-10 on page 3.3-85 of the DEIR, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the City prior to the removal of trees at the site. MM BR-10 has been revised to require proper disposal methods of removed trees that are determined to be diseased or infested with insect pests. Removed trees that are determined to be diseased and/or infested with insect pests shall be chipped onsite to prevent the spread to offsite trees. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.3, Biological Resources. Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-8 As described under Wildlife Movement on pages 3.3-19 and 3.3-20, the Project site is almost surrounded by various densities of development, with open space and residential development to the north; a railroad, Poindexter Avenue, and light industrial and residential uses to the south; rural residential and Walnut Canyon School to the east, and rural residential and agricultural uses to the west. The surrounding developments and roadways, which include Championship Drive, and Meridian Hills Drive to the north, Walnut Canyon Road/State Route 23/Moorpark Avenue to the east, Poindexter Avenue to the south, fenced 1 Conservation Sense and Nonsense [November 1, 2013], milliontrees.me/2013/11/01/monarch-butterflies-in- california-need-eucalyptus-trees-for-their-winter-roost/. Accessed April 18, 2022. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 46 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-35 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Gabbert Road separating the western portion, and Grimes Canyon Road to the west, separate the Project site from the remnant open space outside of the City of Moorpark. Due to the degree of disturbance on site and barriers created by the surrounding development, the Project site is not expected to be used as a movement corridor by wildlife, and the drainage that traverses the western portion of the site does not connect to other open space; therefore, it would not serve as a movement corridor. Nonetheless, as required by MM BR-11 on page 3.3-85 through 3.3-86, the development’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) must state that no structures shall be constructed within the open space areas. Therefore, there will be no restrictions on wildlife movement in habitat areas. Fencing and signage to be installed between the development and open space areas, to prevent domestic animal and human encroachment, is to be determined/designed in coordination with a qualified biologist. Input from the biologist will facilitate use of wildlife friendly materials. During construction, any site perimeter fencing will consist of standard stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) best management practices (BMP) materials (i.e., silt fencing) that are not considered harmful to wildlife. Wildlife pre-construction surveys as required by BR-1 (amphibians and reptiles), BR-2 (burrowing owl), BR-3 (woodrat and jackrabbit), BR-4 (American badger), MM BR-9 (nesting birds), as well as biological monitoring and worker awareness training during construction (MM BR-15), will reduce the potential for impacts to Non-Game Mammals and Wildlife. As indicated in the Specific Plan, split rail fencing will be used for multi-use trails. This type of fencing material would not impede local wildlife movement through the project site. Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-9 As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparable merits of the alternatives. However, an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. The Draft EIR provides a range of potential alternatives to the proposed project which includes those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. See Section 4.0, for a comparison of the major components associated with the Project and three alternatives that include Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative, Alternative 2: RPD 20U-N-D Alternative, and Alternative 3 – 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative. Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-10 As required by MM BR-7 on page 3.3-38 and 3.3-39 of the DEIR, the fuel management zone will be revegetated with native species during the fall/winter immediately following grading and construction. Establishment of native vegetation will limit opportunities for weed establishment in this zone. As required by MM BR-12, landscaping plans may not include invasive species and weed removal will occur as part of Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 47 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-36 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 ongoing landscape maintenance activities. Landscaping plans are required to adhere to water efficiency guidelines in the City’s Municipal Code, limiting the potential for excessive water runoff that could attract Argentine ants. Response to Comment A-CDFW-2-11 Comment noted. A final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be prepared by the City, for adoption by the City Council, based on the mitigation measures in the DEIR and any changes made as part of the responses to comments incorporated in the Final EIR. Responses to all comments, including those from the CDFW, will be made available for review as part of the Final EIR document at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR. All fees required by State statute, including those due to the CDFW, will be paid by the City as part of the CEQA Notification of Determination process. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 48 STATE OF CALIFORNIA – CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES P.O. BOX 942836 SACRAMENTO, CA 94236 -0001 (916)653-5791 Mr. Doug Spondello City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Hitch Ranch Specific Plan SCH# 2019070253 Ventura County Dear Mr. Spondello: The Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) has reviewed the Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (Plan), which describes the proposed subdivision of approximately 277 acres of property in the City of Moorpark. The Plan would provide for the master-planned development of 755 residential homes, a public park, infrastructure, open space, detention basins, and debris basins. Insufficient information is provided in the project description to make an accurate jurisdictional determination with regard to the detention basins and debris basins, and whether some or all of the work will be subject to State jurisdiction for dam safety. Therefore, the City of Moorpark needs to submit preliminary plans of the proposed work so that DSOD can make a jurisdictional determination. As defined in Sections 6002 and 6003, Division 3, of the California Water Code, dams 25 feet or higher with a storage capacity of more than 15 acre-feet, and dams higher than six feet with a storage capacity of 50 acre-feet or more are subject to State jurisdiction. The dam height is the vertical distance measured from the maximum possible water storage level to the downstream toe of the barrier. If some or all of the proposed work is subject to State jurisdiction, a construction application, together with plans, specifications, and the appropriate filing fee must be filed with DSOD for this project. All dam safety related issues must be resolved prior to approval of the application, and the work must be performed under the direction of a Civil Engineer registered in California. Erik Malvick, our Design Engineering Branch Manager, is responsible for the application process and can be reached at (916)565-7840. 1 A-DWRResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 49 Mr. Spondello Page 2 If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact Area Engineer Cameron Lancaster at (916) 565-7830 or me at (916) 565-7827. Sincerely, Rick G. Draeger, Regional Engineer Southern Region Field Engineering Branch Division of Safety of Dams cc: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov A-DWR Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 50 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-39 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter A-DWR California Department of Water Resources Response to Comment A-DWR-1 As discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and in Appendix 3.9, build-out of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan will include four detention basins. As stated on page 42 of the Hitch Ranch Hydrology Study Report 2020 Update, prepared by Kasraie Consulting and included in Appendix 3.9 to the Draft EIR, the design for each of the proposed detention basins was evaluated based on the interpretations of California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) definitions as outlined in the regional flood control/regional master plan (RMP). Basins 2 and 3 will be constructed by significantly excavating below the existing surface, creating a “pit” style impoundment. The previous RMPs and 2009 Basis of Design Study, Commonwealth Studios – Interim Condition Flood Control Improvements, Walnut and Gabbert Canyon Watershed all discuss this type of design to maximize detention without becoming a “Jurisdictional Dam” as defined by DSOD. The purpose of the 2020 report was to outline proposed stormwater facilities to be used to meet required Regional Flood Control (RFC) Objectives and Local Flood Requirements (LFR) and included conceptual schematic plans of the four detention basins to demonstrate conceptual feasibility for the overall system. Subsequent design phases will include additional discussions with City and County staff to ensure compliance with all agency and regulatory requirements. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 51 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: FCGMA comments RE Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIRDate:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 7:44:46 PMAttachments:20220329_Ltr_to_City of Moorpark_Hitch Ranch DEIR_comments.pdfFYI Comment from Fox CanyonDouglas Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.gov<mailto:dspondello@moorparkca.gov> www.moorparkca.gov<http://www.moorparkca.gov/> http://moorparkgeneralplan.com/ [8d34b513-3cc5-4b73-847e-019d97b3c15f]<http://moorparkgeneralplan.com/> ________________________________ From: Riedel, Kathleen [Kathleen.Riedel@ventura.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 3:54 PM To: Douglas Spondello Cc: Royas, Keely; Maxwell, James Subject: FCGMA comments RE Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIR Good Afternoon Mr. Douglas Spondello, Appended are the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) staff comments regarding the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIR. Please confirm receipt of this e-mail and appended letter containing comments. Best Regards, Kathleen Riedel Kathleen Riedel, PG, CEG Groundwater Specialist Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, and VC Public Works Agency - Watershed Protection (805) 654-2954 kathleen.riedel@ventura.org<mailto:kathleen.riedel@ventura.org> 1 A-FCGMA-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 52 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-41 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter A-FCGMA-1 Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Response to Comment A-FCGMA-1-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 53 1 A-FCGMA-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 54 1 3 2 A-FCGMA-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 55 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-44 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter A-FCGMA-2 Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Response to Comment A-FCGMA-2-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment A-FCGMA-2-2 Comment noted. A copy of the March 2019 Water Supply Assessment is included as Appendix A to this Final EIR. Response to Comment A-FCGMA-2-3 As stated in the FCGMA comment in paragraph 4 on page 1, “…the (February 2020) Revised Water Supply Assessment (2020 WSA) was prepared utilizing the available information known at the time and is consistent with the 2015 version of the VCWWD-1 Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP).” The 2015 UWMP was the most applicable (and adopted) reference document to use at the time of preparation of the WSA. The information provided in the District’s 2020 UWMP does not substantially change the availability of potable water and recycled water available for the Project. The 2020 UWMP identifies 11,102 acre feet per year (AFY) of “Reasonably Available Volume” in 2025 and 12,662 AFY of “Reasonably Available Volume” in 2045, while the projected water use is estimated to be 9,502 AFY in 2025 and 10,462 AFY in 2045. The 2020 WSA was prepared utilizing the available (and adopted) information and most applicable reference documents known at the time. The 2007 FCGMA Management Plan was the most applicable (and adopted) document to use at the time of preparation of the 2020 WSA. The District’s groundwater allocation was approved in September 2020 by the Courts in a settlement. The settlement gives the District 10.6% of the East Las Posas Basin Safe Yield. Effective starting in 2021, the District’s groundwater allocation will be 2,195 AFY which is 439 AFY higher than the projected groundwater supply of 1,756 AFY identified in the 2015 UWMP. The Safe Yield of the basin and the District’s allocation will be examined every five years and adjusted accordingly by FCGMA to meet the goals in the GSP by 2040. See the District’s 2020 UWMP, Chapter 6, for additional details. As previously stated, the 2020 WSA was prepared utilizing the available (and adopted) information and most applicable reference documents known at the time. The District’s 2020 UWMP identifies 11,102 AFY Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 56 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-45 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 of “Reasonably Available Volume” in 2025 and 12,662 AFY of “Reasonably Available Volume” in 2045, while the projected water use is estimated to be 9,502 AFY in 2025 and 10,462 AFY in 2045. Similarly, the 2020 UWMP does not identify a water shortage for any year within the period 2025-2045 under normal water year supply and demand comparisons, single-dry water year supply and demand comparisons, or multiple-dry water year supply and demand comparisons. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 57 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR - Comment LetterDate:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 10:12:40 AMAttachments:image001.pngimage002.pngHitchRanchSpecificPan_Moorpark_DEIRReviewLetter_04012022.pdfFYIDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 |dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Cuevas, Veronica@Waterboards <Veronica.Cuevas@waterboards.ca.gov> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 4:54 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Cc: Purdy, Renee@Waterboards <Renee.Purdy@waterboards.ca.gov>; Newman, Jenny@Waterboards <Jenny.Newman@waterboards.ca.gov>; Lim, Jeong-Hee@Waterboards <Jeong-Hee.Lim@waterboards.ca.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR - Comment Letter Attached please find correspondence from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles Water Board) regarding the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR. The Los Angeles Water Board Watershed Regulatory Section sends our correspondence with PDF format through email. You will not receive a hard copy unless you are the addressee of the correspondence or you do not have an email address. If you are no longer the responsible party, nor interested in receiving correspondence regarding the subject facility, please kindly reply to this email and we'll remove you from the cc list. The attached document is in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. You can obtain an Acrobat Reader free of charge at http:///www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html Veronica Cuevas 1 A-LA_RWQCB-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 58 Water Resource Control EngineerLos Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Permitting Unit320 West 4th Street Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90013telephone (213) 576-6662| fax (213) 576-6660Veronica.Cuevas@waterboards.ca.gov A-LA-RWQCB-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 59 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-48 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter A-LA_RWQCB-1 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-1-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 60 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board April 4, 2022 Mr. Dough Spondello, AICP Planning Manager City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 COMMENTS REGARDING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT REPORT – HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 2019070253) Dear Mr. Spondello, The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles Water Board) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project. Los Angeles Water Board Staff reviewed the DEIR and have the following comments regarding this project: 1. Section 1.5, mitigation Measure HYD-3 (page 1.0-48) discusses Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) guidelines contained in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Ventura County. However, the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permit for Ventura County (Order No. R4- 2010-0108) is no longer in effect because Order No. R4-2021-0105, adopted by Los Angeles Water Board on July 23, 2021, went into effect on September 11, 2021. Please revise the references to the MS4 permit throughout the DEIR and revise the discussion regarding any applicable requirements. The same comment applies for Section 3.9 on page 3.9-29 of the DEIR. 2. Section 1.5, mitigation Measure HYD-4 (page 1.0-50) discusses dewatering operations in reference to the State Water Board’s General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. However, dewatering operations are regulated under the General NPDES Permitting ORDER NO. R4-2018-0125 GENERAL NPDES PERMIT NO. CAG994004, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Groundwater from Construction and Project Dewatering to Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Please submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Los Angeles Water Board prior to initiating dewatering operations. Also, in Section 2.6.1 of the DEIR, consider adding “Dewatering Permit” to the list of permits. 2 1 3 A-LA-RWQCB-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 61 Mr. Dough Spondello, AICP - 2 - April 4, 2022 3. Section 2.5.5 (page 2.0-13) discusses constructing Retention Basin 2 in the arroyo adjacent to Gabbert Road and Walnut Canyon Channel, and Retention Basin 3 along Walnut Canyon Channel. However, grading activity in a streambed may require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements for dredge and fill activities. Please submit a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) to the Los Angeles Water Board at RB4- 401Certification@waterboards.ca.gov, to request a pre-filing meeting for the retention basins. In Section 2.6.1 of the DEIR, consider adding “401 Certification and WDRs for Retention Basins” to the list of permits. 4. Section 3.3.8.2 (page 3.3-84) discusses the California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 for impacts to waters of the United States and streambeds, but does not mention the requirement to obtain a CWA Section 401 Certification/WDRs from the Los Angeles Water Board. Please revise the discussion to mention the 401 Certification and WDRs comment described in Comment 3 above. 5. Section 3.10, Public and Facility Service Goal 12 (page 3.10-19) discusses that the Project Applicant will enter into an agreement with the Ventura County Waterworks District to fund recycled water infrastructure within the District to increase the recycled water infrastructure to offset irrigation of common areas, open space, and landscaped areas. However, prior to the expansion of the recycled water use area, a Title 22 Engineering Report would need to be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW) for approval and to the Los Angeles Water Board for concurrent review. 6. Section 3.17, Potential Uses of Recycled Water (page 3.17-10) discusses that the Project would utilize the recycled water for on-site irrigation once that service is made available by the District. However, prior to utilizing recycled water for irrigation, the Ventura County Health Department would need to inspect the recycled water purple pipe distribution line to assess compliance with plumbing code requirements, DDW would need to approve the Title 22 Engineering Report and write a letter stating the conditions of approval, and the Los Angeles Water Board would need to revise the Water Reclamation Requirements/WDRs to incorporate DDW’s conditions of approval. 7. Section 3.17.3.1, Wastewater (page 3.17-17) discusses that the treatment plant is permitted to discharge directly into the Arroyo Simi. However, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (District) has requested termination of its NPDES permit. It is expected that by the end of 2022, the Moorpark WWTP would no longer have the ability to discharge treated effluent to Arroyo Las Posas. Please revise the discussion to reflect the District’s plans. 8. Section 3.17.3.3 (page 3.17-19) discusses that the Moorpark Water Reclamation Facility is in the process of constructing tertiary treatment system upgrades that 4 6 7 8 9 5 A-LA-RWQCB-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 62 Mr. Dough Spondello, AICP -3 -April 4, 2022 will allow the recycled water system to be operated with more flexibility and efficiency, and concludes that, therefore, no significant project impacts are expected to occur. In footnote 4 of that page, the DEIR references the following Ventura County Public Works, Engineering and Development website: https://www.vcpublicworks.org/wsd/engineeringanddevelopment/. However, the website mentions that the Piru Wastewater Treatment Plant, not the Moorpark WWTP, will be upgraded to include tertiary treatment facilities. Please correct the error or provide a different reference for the planned upgrades to the Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Plant. If you have any questions, please contact Veronica Cuevas at Veronica.Cuevas@waterboards.ca.gov. Sincerely, Renee Purdy Executive Officer 9 A-LA-RWQCB-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 63 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-52 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter A-LA_RWQCB-2 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-2 Comment noted. The analysis was prepared utilizing the available (and adopted) information and the most-applicable reference documents known at the time of the publication of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) on July 10, 2019. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements. No reference to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permit for Ventura County Order No. is included in the mitigation measure, so no revision is required. Revisions have been made in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality to reflect the new permit number. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-3 Comment noted. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements. No reference to the specific permit number is included in the mitigation measure, so no revision is required. The need for a dewatering permit has been added to the listing of permits on page 2.0-27. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-4 Comment noted. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements. Revisions will be made in the Final EIR reflecting the need for a 401 Certification and WDRs for Retention Basins permit. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 2.0, Project Description. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 64 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-53 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-5 Comment noted. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements. Revisions will be made in the Final EIR reflecting the need for a 401 Certification and WDRs for Retention Basins permit in mitigation measure BR-8. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.3, Biological Resources. Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-6 Comment noted. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements. As a condition of approval for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan project will require the project applicant to enter into an agreement with the District to fund recycled water infrastructure.. Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-7 Please refer to Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-6. Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-8 The analysis regarding the Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was prepared utilizing the available (and adopted) information and most applicable reference documents known at the time. Notwithstanding, the discussion has been revised. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.17, Utilities. Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-9 The analysis regarding the Moorpark Water Reclamation Facility was prepared utilizing the available (and adopted) information and most applicable reference documents known at the time. Notwithstanding, the discussion and the footnote have been revised. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.17, Utilities. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 65 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: APCD Public Comment Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIRDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 3:17:21 PMAttachments:22-003 City of Moorpark Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIR APCD.pdfFYIDouglas Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.gov<mailto:dspondello@moorparkca.gov> www.moorparkca.gov<http://www.moorparkca.gov/> http://moorparkgeneralplan.com/ [8d34b513-3cc5-4b73-847e-019d97b3c15f]<http://moorparkgeneralplan.com/> ________________________________ From: Nicole Collazo [nicole@vcapcd.org] Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:09 PM To: Douglas Spondello Cc: John Henkelman; Wunna Aung; Ciuffetelli, Anthony Subject: APCD Public Comment Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIR Good afternoon Doug, Our comments for the DEIR for project referenced above are attached, using the County RMA’s project number assigned (22-003). We will continue our communications to obtain the more detailed modeling files and offer more feedback on this or concurrence after review by our toxics engineer. You can contact me if you have any questions on any comments in the letter. Thank you, Nicole Collazo Air Quality Specialist VCAPCD Planning Division 4567 Telephone Rd. Ventura, CA 93003 www.vcapcd.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1rgOrPfLlaeswzScwz-V_O6otX0OPEZYM91_hlfKLH7bYkT30zUHiES-voqT2PGKQjxHbpzfB_eQtZXFgK7SDPGby0yu04fCbkffRiCnpIZjo- kUYBR4CjT3UlcnZaVBmuFwyDysMCYzjI1Sv4cW471Xzaimqk358l5ZMB9PfdT1XVSGQDohj6-YqydOmbBtvKRNneo9lpmfcMTKm5EQdo9VychRNH9XulfULSgbJhYA-a4zq73W0h- JtrpKwQPsSzuI01uiykaQqSo7oNo6XPwVCt4mSwFgxVd-cGtWMSj9aqV-HkR4yEZ-fIua- olJ0_45FHTqKsovoopm0HQUYRy75MRv1GT6R2Wt262nP7kgl2Q_w_zbDuBNzDZ6FMV36vKp3ktFOAw6gMymOLymiWynDNvknW1rTZalVkyYHnAjUEmb9Fql2IhZ_1wQt0zHm/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vcapcd.org%2F> nicole@vcapcd.org<mailto:nicole@vcapcd.org> | 805-303-3674 [logo w text] 1 A-VCAPCD-1Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 66 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-55 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter A-VCAPCD-1 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-1-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 67 VENTURA COUNTYAIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Memorandum TO:Doug Spondello, City of Moorpark DATE:April 4, 2022 FROM:Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist, VCAPCD Planning Division SUBJECT:City of Moorpark Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Report Public Comment (RMA 22-003) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)staff has reviewed the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan project (project). The project proposes to develop a residential tract consisting of 755 dwelling units on approximately 92gross acres including approximately 427 single-family units, and approximately 328 multi- family units. Of the approximately 328 multi-family units, approximately 135 units would be affordable apartment units.The project location is generally located north of Poindexter Avenue, west of Casey Road, and extending approximately 1 700 feet to the west of Gabbert Road. The Lead Agency for the project is the City of Moorpark. General Comments APCD submits the following comments based on the DEIR available for public review for the Air Quality environmental impact section. 1)Page 3.2-7. The last sentence of the second paragraph may need further clarification. The statement says “The Proposed Project would be subject to the APCD rules and regulations to reduce project-related emissions and minimize potential air quality impacts.”The only rules and regulations the project would be subject to are related to the construction phases for nuisance and dust impacts, not the operational side of the project. The APCD does not regulate emissions from residential projects nor does it regulate mobile emissions such as those from automobiles. 2)Page 3.2-12.Ventura County does not have an Oxnard Plain Airshed. This term was used in an outdated AQMP (1987) and is no longer subdivided into these categories. Please remove from the discussion. It is, however,still correct that VCAPCD is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCAAB). 3)Page 3.2-14. APCD no longer has a monitoring station in San Nicolas Island and Ventura . Please remove these station locations from the discussion. 4)Page 3.2-15.The DEIR states “Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the 4 5 2 3 1 A-VCAPCD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 68 region. There are no large stationary sources that would impact the residents of the Proposed Project in the vicinity of the Project site.” (paragraph 4). We would also like to note that another potential source of emissions is highway 118, located approximately a half-mile from the closest sensitive receptor on the project site, which potentially may be the park that will be directly adjacent to the railroad line on the southern boundary of the site map. We recommend conducted a screening analysis to quantify the potential toxic impact SR-118 may have on the closest sensitive receptors on the project site. If the toxic impact is significant, we recommend any or all of the following mitigation measures: relocating the park location away from the source of toxics, construction a solid wall or natural vegetative barrier along the southern border, weather proofing the home windows and doors, locating the air intake on the opposite side of the source of toxics. 5) Table 3.2-5. Data provided on the monitoring stations is over 5 years old. We suggest updating the table with more current monitoring data (2016-2017), preferably years that do not reflect the COVID-19 state and county shutdown timeframes, to reflect more accurate air pollution data of the region. 6)Page 3.2-15. The statement is incorrect when describing Tables 3.2-5 and Table 3.2-6 (underlined): “A summary of the monitored values for O3 and PM2.5 at the Thousand Oaks monitoring station for the past three years is presented in…”. 7)Page 3.2-17. The statement “The existing light-industrial uses located to the south of the southwestern portion of the Project site are the primary source of potential TAC emissions in the vicinity the Project site.” may be incorrect if the potential TAC emissions from SR-118 are higher. As previously suggested, we recommend an HRA or screening analysis to quantify the toxics impact of an existing source to potential sensitive receptors of the project. This was also recommended in the APCD comment letter for the NOP comment period dated August 8, 2019 (page 109 of 6199 of combined Appendices document). 8)Page 3.2-17 The previous comment also applies to the last sentence in the paragraph regarding existing potential sources of TACs. According to CARB, air pollution studies indicate that living close to high traffic and the associated emissions may lead to adverse health effects beyond those associated with regional air pollution in urban areas. The CARB 2005 Land Use Handbook recommends not siting residential areas near freeways for at least 500 feet. Many of these epidemiological studies have focused on children. A number of studies identify an association between adverse non-cancer health effects and living or attending school near heavily traveled roadways. These studies have reported associations between residential proximity to high traffic roadways and a variety of respiratory symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and decreases in lung function in children. According to the CDC, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that minority populations and persons of lower socioeconomic status experience higher residential exposure to traffic and traffic-related air pollution than non-minorities and persons of higher socioeconomic status (CDC, Residential Proximity to Major Highways 2010). In addition to the respiratory health effects in children, proximity to freeways increases potential cancer risk and contributes to total particulate matter exposure. There are three carcinogenic toxic air 6 7 8 9 5 A-VCAPCD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 69 contaminants that constitute the majority of the known health risk from motor vehicle traffic – diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) from trucks, and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles. On a typical urban freeway (truck traffic of 10,000-20,000/day), diesel PM represents about 70 percent of the potential cancer risk from the vehicle traffic. Diesel particulate emissions are also of special concern because health studies show an association between particulate matter and premature mortality in those with existing cardiovascular disease. 9)Page 3.2-18. The following statement is incorrect. “In addition, the nearest freeways (State Routes 23 and 118) are over 1-mile from the Project site. For these reasons, no significant impacts to on-site sensitive receptors are anticipated with respect to existing mobile source TACs.” The project’s most southern boundary is less than 1 mile away, as seen below from a Google satellite imagery with distance indicated (approximate location of proposed park). The project boundary for 1 mile away from the 118 is on the northernmost boundary of the proposed project, also below. 10)CM AQ-1. We recommend adding an additional measure here to include the APCD Complaints Hotline phone number 805-303-3700 on-site during construction phases on a sign that is viewable to the public. APCD has seen an increase in dust complaints in recent years due to increased drought conditions and during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic where most employees were working from home and were being exposed to fugitive dust from construction projects nearby. 11)CM AQ-2. In the first measure listed, we recommend adding “to no more than 5 minutes, as required in Title 13, CCR §2485, §2449(d)(3), respectively. The idling limit does not apply to: (1) idling when queuing; (2) idling to verify that the vehicle is in safe operating condition; (3) idling for testing, servicing, repairing or diagnostic purposes; (4) idling necessary to accomplish 9 11 12 10 A-VCAPCD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 70 work for which the vehicle was designed (such as operating a crane); (5) idling required to bring the machine system to operating temperature, and (6) idling necessary to ensure safe operation of the vehicle.”. 12) We would like to obtain the HRA modeling files to perform a more technical review of the HRA performed and results and memo attached in the Appendix. We are currently in communication with the applicant consultant and are in the process of obtaining these files for a more thorough review. 13) The DEIR quantified the project’s operational emissions and found that the total operational emissions exceeds the numerical threshold of 25 lbs./day for reactive organic compounds (ROC) (DEIR Table 3.2-9) by (14 lbs./day mobile source category). It then suggests mitigation but only on the mobile emissions sources as “Feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce operational area source emissions” (DEIR, Page 3.2-39). After proposing to mitigate the mobile emissions by contributing to a TDM Fund, which is recommended in our guidelines and is considered feasible mitigation, it is concluded Significant and Unavoidable Impacts will still occur. We would like state that this methodology is not common practice. The project’s operational emissions should be analyzed as a whole, combining all project emission sources (Air Quality Assessment Guidelines AQAG, Section 5.3.3). If the total combined emissions are over the significance threshold, feasible mitigation measures are then proposed, but not necessarily separated by emission source. For example, in the case of this project, the operational emissions exceed the significance threshold by 16 lbs./day (41 total lbs./day ROC – 25 lbs./day ROC threshold). You may propose feasible and quantifiable mitigation measures, such as constructing a certain amount of electric vehicle charging stations for residential on-site use (you can quantify this reduction by reducing the amount of vehicle trips per day or VMT per year in the model just as was done for percentage assumed to use the Metrolink station), installing bicycle racks along all proposed lots, providing a shuttle service to major nearby destinations, providing bike lanes that connect to the existing roadway system, requiring landscape equipment to be electric if an HOA service is provided, etc., and if after some or all of these are proposed, the difference left over, if any, can be offset by contributing to a TDM Fund, as outlined in MM AQ-3. After contribution to a TDM Fund, mitigation will be less than significant, and therefore, a Significant and Unavoidable Impact will not occur, because the emissions were either mitigated on-site or off-site. On a side note, a thorough review of the CalEEMod model was conducted. It was seen that most of the ROC emissions that were contributing to a significant air quality impact were from the Consumer Products category. We believe the emission factor that is pre-programmed in to the model is slightly outdated. The CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 User Guide Appendix E3 outlines the methodology behind the assumptions used to calculate ROC from Consumer Products. The emission factor is from a 2003 CARB Emissions Inventory, which is approximately 15 years old. The user guide also suggests 2 other emission factors, one of them being from an emission factor used in South Coast AQMD’s Rule 1143, Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose Solvents (1.98E‐05 lbs. ROC/building sq. ft.; 25 g/L ROC limit is still indicated in existing Rule 1143, Page 5 located here; Appendix E-3 located here, Page E-9). Since APCD shares a boundary with SCAQMD, usage, production and consumption is very similar and if we use this updated emission factor from this rule, the ROC emissions from Consumer Products go down to 21.7 lbs./day ROC. We recommend using standard methodology 12 14 13 A-VCAPCD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 71 and combine all emissions, suggest mitigation measures not proposed before mentioned above, quantify mitigation, update emission factor for Consumer Products, and re-evaluate against the significance threshold. If still over 25 lbs./day, contributing to a TDM Fund for off-site mitigation projects (public E/V charging station, Park-n-Ride, community transit programs, incentives for bus passes, etc.) is still considered mitigation to a Less than Significant Impact for Air Quality (AQAG, Section 7.5.3). Note- the TDM Fund fee formula aggregates the difference of all combined emission sources against the threshold, not one specific emission source category over the other. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. If you have any questions, you may contact me at nicole@vcapcd.org. 14 A-VCAPCD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 72 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-61 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter A-VCAPCD-2 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-2 Comment noted. The section discussing rules and regulations that the Proposed Project would be subject to on page 3.2-7 is revised. Text added to the Draft EIR is shown in underline format, and deleted text is shown in strikethrough, as follows: To implement these strategies, the VCAPCD Board has adopted specific rules and regulations to limit emissions from stationary and mobile sources and activities within the County. These rules and regulations identify specific pollution-reduction measures, which must be implemented in association with various uses and activities. These rules not only regulate the emissions of criteria pollutants, but also emissions of TACs and HAPs. The rules and regulations are subject to ongoing refinement by the VCAPCD. Enforcement of these rules and regulations is carried out through a permitting process that monitors emissions generated by stationary sources, such as power plants, manufacturing operations, and large and small businesses, that use products that release ozone-forming precursors or TACs into the atmosphere. The Proposed Project would be subject to the VCAPCD rules and regulations to reduce project-related emissions and minimize potential air quality impacts. Specifically, the Proposed Project would be subject to rules and regulations related to construction regarding nuisance dust impacts, equipment exhaust, and architectural coating. In addition, operational activities associated with the proposed residences would be required to comply with rules and regulations related to nuisance, natural gas-fired water heaters, and architectural coatings. These rules and regulations are discussed in further detail below. The VCAPCD does not regulate mobile emissions such as those from automobiles. Please also refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.2, Air Quality. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-3 Comment noted. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 73 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-62 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 The section discussing geographical air basins on page 3.2-12 is revised as follows: There are four main meteorological conditions that affect air quality in the valley: a regional, semi-permanent high-pressure system; wind currents created or affected by local topography; Santa Ana winds; and seasonal storms. The dispersion of air pollutants in the Oxnard Plain Airshed, in which the City of Moorpark is located, is often restricted by frequent temperature inversions created by the semi-permanent high-pressure system. The temperature inversion is normally just below the summit areas of the surrounding mountains, which tend to trap air pollutants in a limited, near-surface atmospheric volume. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-4 Comment noted. The section discussing air monitoring stations within the VCAPCD on page 3.2-14 is revised as follows: To identify ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants, the VCAPCD operates air quality monitoring stations throughout Ventura County. These stations are located in El Rio, Ojai, Piru, San Nicolas Island, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks, and Ventura. Please also refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.2, Air Quality. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-5 Comment noted. The discussion on page 3.2-15 in the Draft EIR notes that motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the region, which includes motor vehicles on nearby highways. In addition, a screening analysis of potential project impacts related to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions is included on pages 3.2-17 and 3.2-18 of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein (and further clarified with revisions noted in Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-10), the project would not site new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day consistent with CARB’s recommendations in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005). The section discussing local sources of air pollutant emissions on page 3.2-15 is revised as follows: Motor vehicles, including those traveling on nearby highways such as SR 23 and SR 118, are the primary source of pollutants in the region. There are no large stationary sources that would impact the residents of the Proposed Project in the vicinity of the Project site. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 74 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-63 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-6 Comment noted. As NO2 no longer exceeds the health-based standard levels it has been removed from the monitoring data.2 Table 3.2-5 and Table 3.2-6 on page 3.2-16 to 3.2-17 are revised as follows: Table 3.2-5 Simi Valley-Cochran Street Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Pollutant Standards1 Year 20162017 20172018 20182019 OZONE (O3) Maximum 1-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.1010.103 0.1030.101 0.1010.089 Maximum 8-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.0830.094 0.0940.092 0.0920.078 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.09 ppm 13 32 20 Number of days exceeding federal/state 8-hour standard 0.070 ppm 720 2014 147 NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) Maximum 1-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.039 0.046 0.043 Annual average concentration monitored (ppm) 0.008 0.008 0.008 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10) Maximum 24-hour concentration monitored (µg/m3) 156.3149.8 149.8107.6 107.6124.3 Annual average concentration monitored (µg/m3) 22.924.0 24.023.5 23.519.5 Number of samples exceeding state standard 50 µg/m3 49 96.1 6.14.0 Number of samples exceeding federal standard 150 µg/m3 10 0 0 FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5) Maximum 24-hour concentration monitored (µg/m3) 34.931.3 31.329.6 29.620.0 Annual average concentration monitored (µg/m3) 8.79.2 9.28.7 8.77.6 Number of samples exceeding federal standard 35 µg/m3 0 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, “Air Quality Data Statistics,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. 2019. NA = not available 1 Parts by volume per million of air (ppm), micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3), or annual arithmetic mean (aam). 2 The 8-hour federal O3 standard was revised from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm in 2015. The statistics shown are based on the 2015 standard of 0.070 ppm. Table 3.2-6 Thousand Oaks-Moorpark Road Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Pollutant Standards1 Year 20162017 20172018 20182019 OZONE (O3) Maximum 1-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.0800.090 0.0900.080 0.0800.082 2 California Air Resources Board, iADAM Frequently Asked Questions, 5. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 75 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-64 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Pollutant Standards1 Year 20162017 20172018 20182019 Maximum 8-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.0760.073 0.073 0.0730.074 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.09 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding federal/state 8-hour standard 0.070 ppm 16 61 1 FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5) Maximum 24-hour concentration monitored (µg/m3) 35.232.0 32.041.5 41.524.5 Annual average concentration monitored (µg/m3) 9.68.9 8.99.2 9.27.2 Number of samples exceeding federal standard 35 µg/m3 0 01 10 Source: California Air Resources Board, “Air Quality Data Statistics,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. 2019. NA = not available 1 Parts by volume per million of air (ppm), micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3), or annual arithmetic mean (aam). 2 The 8-hour federal O3 standard was revised from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm in 2015. The statistics shown are based on the 2015 standard of 0.070 ppm. Please also refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.2, Air Quality. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-7 Comment noted. The section discussing air monitoring data within the VCAPCD on page 3.2-15 is revised as follows: The monitoring stations located closest to the Proposed Project site and most representative of air quality within the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan area are the Simi Valley–Cochran Street and Thousand Oaks–Moorpark Road stations. Both stations monitor O3 and PM2.5 while the Simi Valley monitoring station also monitors NO2 and PM10. CO monitoring was eliminated in Ventura County in 2004 as part of network changes in response to the proposed National Monitoring Strategy set forth by the U.S. EPA. The decision to eliminate CO monitoring was approved by both the U.S. EPA and CARB. Ventura County has met the CO standard for some time now. In addition, SO2 monitoring in Ventura County was eliminated in 2004 and ambient concentrations for lead and sulfate are well below the state standards.3 NO2 also no longer exceeds the health-based standard levels and is not listed in the monitoring data.4 A summary of the monitored values for O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 at the Simi Valley monitoring station for the past three years prior to the Coronavirus pandemic which began in 2020, is presented in Table 3.2-5, Simi Valley-Cochran Street Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant 3 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Final 2009 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, (2009) 13. 4 California Air Resources Board, iADAM Frequently Asked Questions, 5. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 76 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-65 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Concentrations. The values show that the Simi Valley monitoring station has registered values above state and/or federal standards for O3, and PM10. A summary of the monitored values for O3 and PM2.5 at the Thousand Oaks monitoring station for the past three years prior to the start of the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, which began in 2020, is presented in Table 3.2-6, Thousand Oaks-Moorpark Road Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations. The values show that the Thousand Oaks monitoring station has registered values above state and federal standards for O3. Please also refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.2, Air Quality. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-8 See Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-9. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-9 This comment summarizes and expands on the discussion presented on pages 3.2-17 and 3.18 of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein (and further clarified with revisions noted in Response to Comment A-VCAPCD- 10), the Draft EIR adequately determined the project would be consistent with CARB’s recommendation to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Specifically, the Project Site is located more than 2,100 feet from SR-118 and more than one mile from SR-23. The health studies referenced in the comment and the CARB guidance document Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (CARB 2005), indicate the association of traffic-related emissions with adverse health effects was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. This demonstrates that the adverse effects diminished with distance (CARB 2005, pages 8-9). As the Project Site is located more than one mile from SR-23 and more than 2,100 feet from SR-118, the receptors associated with the Proposed Project would not be subject to the adverse health effects identified in CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005). In addition, regarding health risks from existing emissions sources, the California Supreme Court ruling in California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (December 17, 2015) held that, “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. But when a proposed project’s risks exacerbate those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment – and not the environment’s impact on the project – that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” As such, assessing health risks from existing sources equates to assessing the environment’s impact on the project and the California Supreme Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 77 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-66 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Court ruled that this analysis would not be consistent with CEQA. With respect to the Project’s potential to exacerbate existing environmental conditions, the Draft EIR included a thorough evaluation of the Project’s generation of air quality emissions including an assessment of potential health risks. See Appendix 3.2 to the Draft EIR. No further analysis is required. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-10 Comment noted (see also Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-9). The section discussing proximity to SR-118 on page 3.2-18 is revised as follows: In addition, the nearest freeways (State Routes 23 and 118) are located over 1-mile and over 2,100 feet, respectively, from the Project site. Thus, the project would be consistent with CARB’s recommendation to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. For these reasons, no significant impacts to on-site sensitive receptors are anticipated with respect to existing mobile source TACs. Please also refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.2, Air Quality. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-11 Comment noted. The section discussing mitigation measure CM-AQ-1 starting on page 3.2-36 is revised as follows: CM AQ-1: The following control measures provided in the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines to minimize the generation of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5), ROC, and NOX during construction activities shall be implemented during construction of the Proposed Project: •The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust. •Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the areas to be graded or excavated before grading or excavation operations commences. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. •Fugitive dust produced during grading excavation and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 78 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-67 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 •All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization material, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. •Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll-compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants to prevent excessive fugitive dust. •Signs limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less shall be posted on site. •During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off site or on site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use discretion in conjunction with the VCAPCD in determining when winds are excessive. •Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. •Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. •During the construction phase, signs shall be posted on site and viewable to the public with the VCAPCD Complaints Hotline phone number 805-303-3700. Timing/Implementation: During construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Moorpark Community Development and Public Works Departments Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 79 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-68 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Please also refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.2, Air Quality. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-12 Comment noted. The section discussing mitigation measure CM-AQ-2 starting on page 3.2-36 is revised as follows: CM AQ-2: During construction contractors shall comply with the following measures to reduce NOx and ROC from heavy equipment as recommended by the VCAPCD in its Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines: •Minimize equipment idling time to no more than 5 minutes, as required in Title 13, CCR §2485, §2449(d)(2), respectively. The idling limit does not apply to: (1) idling when queuing; (2) idling to verify that the vehicle is in safe operating condition; (3) idling for testing, servicing, repairing or diagnostic purposes; (4) idling necessary to accomplish work for which the vehicle was designed (such as operating a crane); (5) idling required to bring the machine system to operating temperature, and (6) idling necessary to ensure safe operation of the vehicle. •Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer’s specifications. •Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October) to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. •Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible. Timing/Implementation: During construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Moorpark Community Development Department Please also refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.2, Air Quality. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-13 Comment noted. All Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling files were provided to the VCAPCD on April 5, 2022 and no further comment has been received. Response to Comment A-VCAPCD-2-14 The commenter: Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 80 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-69 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 A)States that the impact analysis methodology used to determine the operational criteria pollutant air quality impact of the proposed Specific Plan (under Impact AQ-2 on Draft EIR pages 3.2-25 through 3.2-30) to be significant and unavoidable is not common practice. The commenter recommends analyzing the proposed Specific Plan’s operational criteria pollutant emissions as a whole (mobile and stationary emissions combined). B)Recommends including mitigation measures to mitigate total impacts in excess of the significance threshold, but not separating mitigation measures by emission source. The commenter states that feasible and quantifiable mitigation measures could be proposed for the Specific Plan prior to requiring contribution to the City of Moorpark Transportation System Management (TSM) Fund (per Mitigation Measure [MM] AQ-3 on pages 3.2-38 and 3.2-39 in Section 3.2, Air Quality) of the Draft EIR), such as installing a certain quantity of electric vehicle charging stations within the Specific Plan area for future residents, installing bicycle racks on all proposed lots, providing a shuttle service to major nearby destinations, providing bicycle lanes to connect to the existing roadway system, and requiring landscaping equipment to be electric. The commenter states that after the remaining emissions are mitigated through contribution to the City of Moorpark TSM Fund, the impact would be less than significant, and a significant and unavoidable impact would not occur. C)Recommends updating the reactive organic compounds (ROC) emissions factor for consumer products used in the air pollutant emissions modeling to be consistent with the emission factor for consumer paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents as published in South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1143. A – Impact Analysis Methodology In accordance with the Ventura Quality Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003), the operational criteria pollutant emissions of the proposed Specific Plan were analyzed as a whole by calculating total combined (area, energy, and mobile source) emissions and comparing these total emissions estimates to the VCAPCD-recommended thresholds of 25 pounds per day for ROC and nitrogen oxides (NOX). As shown in Table 3.2-9 in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, total combined operational emissions of ROC upon buildout of the proposed Specific Plan were found to exceed the threshold. As a result, the Draft EIR proposed mitigation for this impact, specifically MM AQ-3, which requires contribution to the City of Moorpark TSM Fund to offset the mobile source emissions generated by buildout of the proposed Specific Plan. No feasible stationary emissions mitigation was identified in the Draft EIR. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 81 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-70 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 B – Impact Mitigation Measures Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15041(a), the City of Moorpark as the CEQA lead agency has the authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the Specific Plan in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable California constitutional requirements, such as the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards established by case law. As further clarified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(4)(A-B), there must be an essential nexus (i.e., connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest, and the mitigation measures must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the Specific Plan. In addition, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(2), mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. Given the requirements of CEQA outlined above, mitigation measures for air quality impacts should address the specific emission sources that result in an exceedance of the significance threshold in proportion to their contribution to the impact. In this case, ROC emissions associated with the proposed Specific Plan are comprised primarily of stationary (i.e., area source) emissions (27 pounds per day) and mobile source emissions (14 pounds per day). As discussed in Section 3.2.7, Level of Significance after Mitigation, in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, MM AQ-3 would mitigate the Specific Plan’s mobile source emissions through contribution to the City of Moorpark TSM Fund in an amount equivalent to offset 14 pounds of mobile ROC emissions per day. This mitigation measure meets both the nexus and rough proportionality standards established by CEQA case law and would reduce the Specific Plan’s mobile source criteria pollutant emissions to net zero, as stated in Section 3.2.7, Level of Significance after Mitigation, in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Requiring an additional contribution to the City of Moorpark TSM Fund to mitigate the Specific Plan’s area source emissions would not meet the nexus standard under CEQA, because there is not a clear connection between the Specific Plan’s area source emissions (e.g., emissions generated by architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment) and payment into a fund that reduces Moorpark’s citywide mobile source emissions. Therefore, the City, in its role as CEQA lead agency, has decided to take a conservative approach in its analysis of the Specific Plan’s operational criteria pollutant air quality impact and conclude that this impact would be significant and unavoidable because feasible mitigation is not available to reduce the Specific Plan’s remaining area source emissions of ROC (27 pounds per day) to a level below the VCAPCD-recommended threshold of 25 pounds per day. The City appreciates the suggestions made by the commenter for potential mitigation measures to address the proposed Specific Plan’s operational air quality impact. However, the City, in its role as CEQA Lead Agency, has determined that there is not substantial evidence regarding the effectiveness of installing additional electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle racks for residential units within the Specific Plan Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 82 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-71 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 area beyond those already required by the California Building Code in order to conclude that operational criteria pollutant impacts specific to area source emissions (and, thus, overall emissions) would be less than significant. Although the installation of additional electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle racks would facilitate future residents’ use of electric vehicles and bicycles, it does not guarantee a certain number of residents would purchase and use electric vehicles and/or bicycles beyond those already assumed in the unmitigated emissions estimate for the Specific Plan’s mobile source emissions. The Specific Plan’s mobile source emissions estimate is based on the California Air Resources Board’s EMissions FACtor (EMFAC) 2017 database which alreadyincorporates the assumption that a certain proportion of vehicle miles traveled would be made by electric vehicles in the year of Specific Plan buildout due to evolving market trends and consumer adoption. Therefore, calculating emissions reductions for these suggested mitigation measures would be speculative, because their operational effectiveness cannot be guaranteed or enforced at the resident or consumer level. Similarly, suggested mitigation measures to provide a shuttle service and/or bicycle lanes would expand future residents’ opportunities to utilize alternative transportation options; however, quantifying the criteria pollutant emissions reductions achieved by these features would also be speculative, because the City cannot guarantee a certain level of usage of these features by future residents. As a result, the City has determined that the contribution of the applicant for the proposed Specific Plan to the City of Moorpark TSM Fund in accordance with VCAPCD guidance is the most effective and enforceable means of mitigating the operational air quality impact of the proposed Specific Plan, even if not to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, as stated in Section 3.2.7, Level of Significance after Mitigation, in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the City does not have the authority to regulate future residents’ use of certain types of landscaping equipment through the Specific Plan. As the commenter suggests, the Homeowners’ Association may have a mechanism to require the use of electric landscaping equipment within the Specific Plan area, however there would be no way to quantify the reductions resulting from the use of this equipment, and further, the on-going enforcement of this requirement would be difficult at best, requiring a body of ‘deputized’ members of the HOA to monitor their neighbors in their own backyards. C – Emissions Factor Utilization The City appreciates the commenter’s suggestion to utilize a different, lower emissions factor for consumer products based on SCAQMD Rule 1143. However, although usage, production, and consumption of consumer products may be similar when comparing SCAQMD and VCAPCD jurisdictions, data is not readily available to substantiate this assumption, and the VCAPCD has not yet adopted a rule or regulation comparable to SCAQMD Rule 1143 to require a lower ROC content for such products. Should the VCAPCD choose to adopt a comparable rule or regulation to SCAQMD Rule 1143, area source emissions associated with Specific Plan buildout would be lower than those estimated and analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 83 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-72 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 at this time, the City cannot guarantee that the specifications of consumer products utilized by future residents of the Specific Plan area would be consistent with the lower emission factor contained in SCAQMD Rule 1143 as recommended for use by the commenter. Instead, the City has chosen to utilize the higher, default value provided by the statewide California Emissions Estimator Model to quantify area source criteria pollutant emissions in order to provide a conservative estimate of the air quality impacts of the proposed Specific Plan. As a result, the City of Moorpark, as the CEQA lead agency, has determined that the operational criteria pollutant air quality impact of the proposed Specific Plan remains significant and unavoidable, as concluded in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 84 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIR - VCFD Response and Comments & VCFD Development Conditions MemoDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:17:26 AMAttachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngHitch Ranch Specific Plan DIER - VCFD Cover Letter and Comments.pdfHitch Ranch Fire Conditions Memo Mar 2022.docxPlease see DEIR comments attached. The conditions will be discussed as part of our DevelopmentReview Committee. Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Williams, Larry <Larry.Williams@ventura.org> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2022 1:25 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Cc: Williams, Larry <Larry.Williams@ventura.org>; Cagley, Corina <Corina.Cagley@ventura.org>; Amaro, Carlos <carlos.amaro@ventura.org>; Hernandez, Alejandro <Alejandro.Hernandez@ventura.org>; VandenBossche, Marnel <Marnel.VandenBossche@ventura.org> Subject: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIR - VCFD Response and Comments & VCFD Development Conditions Memo Hello Doug, Please see the attached DEIR comments and our conditions memo. Please contact myself or Carlos if you have any questions. Regards, Larry G. Williams, 1 A-VCFD-1Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 85 Fire Prevention Supervisor Fire Hazard Reduction Program Manager Fire Prevention Bureau 165 Durley Avenue Camarillo, CA 93010 (805) 947-8543, Fax (805) 388-4356 larry.williams@ventura.org FHRP@ventura.org A-VCFD-1Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 86 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-75 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCFD-1 Ventura County Fire Department Response to Comment VCFD-1-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 87 1 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 88 2 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 89 2 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 90 2 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 91 2 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 92 2 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 93 2 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 94 2 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 95 2 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 96 2 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 97 2 A-VCFD-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 98 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-87 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCFD-2 Ventura County Fire Department Response to Comment VCFD-2-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment VCFD-2-2 Comments noted. Revisions have been made in the Final EIR reflecting the requested revisions to information. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 3.13, Public Services, and Section 3.18, Wildfire. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 99 Page 1 of 6 Ventura County Fire Department MEMORANDUM DATE: March 31, 2022 TO: Douglas Spondello, Planner AGENCY: City of Moorpark Planning Dept. FROM: Carlos Amaro, Fire Inspector FIRE DEPT. ID FPLN19-00333 APPLICANT: Comstock Homes LOCATION: 0 North Hills Parkway, Moorpark / 511-0-020-110 DESCRIPTION: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 2019-01, TTN-5708, Development Agreement 2019-01, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change The following are the Fire Department conditions for Phase One of this project and are subject to change if the project is revised. Any previously issued conditions are null and voided. State Fire Safe Regulations - The project is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and shall comply with the minimum standards of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Article 6, Subchapter 2, “SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations” (CCR T-14 FSR), unless modified by more restrictive local ordinances and requirements. Access Road Width, Private Roads and Driveways - Private roads shall comply with Public Road Standards. 2.5-foot wide easements shall be provided on each side of any private access road/driveway to allow for curbs and fire lane signage. Access road width of 36 feet shall be provided for residential use with parallel parking permitted on both sides. Access road width of 32 feet shall be provided for residential use with parallel parking permitted on one side. Access road width of 24 feet shall be required with no on-street parking permitted, or per Public Road Standards whichever is stricter. Driveways serving up to two (2) single family dwellings shall have a minimum clear 1 A-VCFD-3Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 100 Page 2 of 6 width of 15 feet with no parking along the common portion serving the two (2) dwellings. Construction Access - Prior to combustible construction, a paved all-weather access road / driveway suitable for use by a 20-ton Fire Department vehicle shall be installed at locations approved by the Fire Department. A minimum 20-foot clear width shall remain free of obstruction during any construction activities within the development once combustible construction starts. Construction Access Utilities - Prior to combustible construction, all utilities located within the access road and the first lift of the access road pavement shall be installed. Turning Radius FHSZ - All access roads and driveways shall be of sufficient width to allow for a 50-foot inside turning radius at all turns in the road or driveway. Vertical Clearance - All access roads / driveways shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches (13' 6"). Clear of building to sky. Access Road and Driveway Grade – All access roads and driveways shall not exceed a 16% grade. Vertical Curve - The vertical curve of a road or driveway shall not allow for transitions between grades that exceed 6% elevation change along any 10 foot section. These transitions shall include; angle of approach, angle of departure and high centering of fire apparatus. Turnarounds - Approved turnaround areas for fire apparatus shall be provided when dead-end Fire Department access roads / driveways exceed 150 feet. Turnaround areas shall not exceed a 5% cross slope in any direction and shall be located within 150 feet of the end of the access road / driveway. Turnaround areas shall not be used for parking and shall be kept free of obstructions at all times. Turnaround areas shall be posted as Fire Lanes in accordance with Fire Department Fire Lane Standards. Parking Prohibited - The property owner(s) are hereby advised that parking on access roads / driveways and fire department turnarounds is prohibited. Access Road Location - The access / driveway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building and shall be in accordance with Fire Department access standards. Where the access roadway cannot be provided, approved fire protection system or systems shall be installed as required and acceptable to the Fire Department. Site Access - Two (2) separate means of ingress/egress shall be provided to all areas the development in accordance with CCR T-14 FSR and Fire Department access standards. Required secondary ingress/egress (secondary access) shall be provided and maintained at all times starting with the first occupancy of any building within the project area. This includes within each Planning Area and the project area as a whole. If the required secondary access travels through a construction area, provisions shall be implemented to separate the construction area such that the required secondary access in available through the construction area at all times, day and night. Dead-end roads A-VCFD-3Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 101 Page 3 of 6 shall not exceed 800 feet. Private Access Road and Driveway Certification - That the access road(s)/driveway(s) shall be certified by a registered civil engineer as having an all-weather surface in conformance with Public Works and / or Fire Department standards. This certification shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to occupancy. Fire Lanes / Access Review (Submit prior to issuance of the first fire department clearance to start construction) - the applicant shall submit two (2) site plans to the Fire Department for review and approval of access road / driveways and location of fire lanes. Prior to occupancy, all fire lanes shall be posted “NO PARKING-FIRE LANE-TOW AWAY” in accordance with California Vehicle Code, the International Fire Code and current VCFD Fire Lane Standards. All signs and or Fire Lane markings shall be within the public right a way or recorded access easements. Traffic Calming / Speed Control Devices: Any proposed traffic calming or speed control devices (speed humps, pillows, etc) require approval of the fire department prior to installation. Speed bumps are prohibited. Access Road Gates - Any gates to control vehicle access are to be located to allow a vehicle waiting for entrance to be completely off the intersecting roadway (minimum 40 foot setback). A minimum clear open width of 15 feet in each direction shall be provided for separate entry / exit gates and a minimum 20 for combined entry / exit gates. Roadway spikes of any type are prohibited. If gates are to be locked, a Knox system shall be installed. The method of gate control, including operation during power failure (battery back-up), shall be subject to review by the Fire Prevention Division. Gate plan details shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. A final acceptance inspection by the Fire Department is required prior to placing any gate into service. Road / Street Name Required - Public and private roads shall be named if serving more than four (4) parcels or as required by the Fire department. Street Names - Prior to recordation of street names, proposed names shall be submitted to the Fire Department's Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. Walkways - Approved walkways shall be provided from all building openings to the public way or fire department access road / driveway. Walk and Pedestrian Gates - If gates are to be locked, a Knox system shall be installed. The method of gate control, including operation during power failure (battery back-up), shall be subject to review by the Fire Prevention Division. Gate plan details shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. A final acceptance inspection by the Fire Department is required prior to placing any gate into service. Address Numbers (Commercial, Industrial, Multi-family buildings) - Building address numbers, a minimum of ten inches (10") high, shall be installed prior to occupancy, shall be of contrasting color to the background, and shall be readily visible at night. Brass or gold-plated numbers shall not be used. Where structures are set back more than 150 feet from the street, larger numbers will be required so that they are distinguishable from the street. In the event a structure(s) is not visible from the street, the address number(s) A-VCFD-3Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 102 Page 4 of 6 shall be posted adjacent to the driveway entrance on an elevated post. Individual unit numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches in height and shall be posted at the front and rear entrance to each unit. Additional address directional signs may be required at common building entrances and stairways. Address Numbers (Single Family Homes) - Address numbers, a minimum of 4 inches (4") high, shall be installed prior to occupancy, shall be of contrasting color to the background, and shall be readily visible at night. Brass or gold-plated numbers shall not be used. Where structures are set back more than 150 feet (150') from the street, larger numbers will be required so that they are distinguishable from the street. In the event the structure(s) is not visible from the street, the address number(s) shall be posted adjacent to the driveway entrance on an elevated post. Address Number Plan - A plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review indicating the method in which buildings are to be identified by address numbers. Fire Hydrant Plan - Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans to the Fire Department for placement of fire hydrants. On plans, show existing hydrants within 500 feet of the development. Indicate the type of hydrant, number and size of outlets. Fire Hydrant(s) Required - Fire hydrant(s) shall be provided in accordance with current adopted edition of the Ventura County Fire Code, Appendix C and adopted amendments. On-site fire hydrants may be required as determined by the Fire Department. Fire hydrants shall be installed along any road adjacent to Wildland fuels, at locations determined by the Fire Department. Fire Hydrant Design (Commercial, Industrial, Multi-family buildings) - Fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to combustible construction and shall conform to the minimum standard of the City of Moorpark Water Works Manual and the following. a. Each hydrant shall be a 6 inch wet barrel design and shall have ( 1 ) 4 inch and ( 2 ) 2 ½ inch outlet(s). b. The required fire flow per VCFC Appendix B shall be achieved at no less than 20-psi residual pressure. c. Fire hydrants shall be spaced 300 feet on center and so located that no structure will be farther than 150 feet from any one hydrant. d. Fire hydrants shall be set back in from the curb face 24 inches on center. e. No obstructions, including walls, trees, light and signposts, meter, shall be placed within three (3) feet of any hydrant. f. A concrete pad shall be installed extending 18 inches out from the fire hydrant. g. Ground clearance to the lowest operating nut shall be between 18 to 24 inches. Fire Hydrant Design (Single Family Homes) - Fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to combustible construction and shall conform to the minimum standards of the City of Moorpark Water Works Manual and the following. a. Each hydrant shall be a 6-inch wet barrel design and shall have one (1) 4 inch and one (1) 2 ½ inch outlet. b. The required fire flow of 1000 gpm shall be achieved at no less than 20-psi A-VCFD-3Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 103 Page 5 of 6 residual pressure. c.Fire hydrants shall be spaced 500 feet on center, and so located that no structure will be farther than 250 feet from any one hydrant. d.Fire hydrants shall be set back from the curb face 24 inches on center. e. No obstructions, including walls, trees, light and signposts, meter, shall be placed within three (3) feet of any hydrant. f.A concrete pad shall be installed extending 18 inches out from the fire hydrant. g. Ground clearance to the lowest operating nut shall be between 18 to 24 inches. Fire Hydrant Installation - Prior to combustible construction on any parcel, a fire hydrant capable of providing the required fire flow and duration shall be installed and in service along the access road / driveway at a location approved by the Fire Department. The owner of the combustible construction is responsible for the cost of this installation. Fire Hydrant Protection – The developer shall implement measures approved by the Fire Department to prevent obstruction of fire hydrants during construction. Hydrant Location Markers - Prior to occupancy of any structure, blue reflective hydrant location markers shall be placed on the access roads in accordance with Fire Department standards. If the final asphalt cap is not in place at time of occupancy, hydrant location markers shall still be installed and shall be replaced when the final asphalt cap in completed. Fire Flow - The minimum fire flow required shall be determined as specified by the current adopted edition of the Ventura County Fire Code Appendix B with adopted Amendments and the applicable Water Manual for the jurisdiction (with ever is more restrictive). The applicant shall verify that the water purveyor can provide the required volume and duration at the project prior to obtaining a building permit. Water System Plans – Plans for water systems supplying fire hydrants and / or fire sprinkler systems and not located within a water purveyor’s easement, shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits or signing of Mylar plans, whichever is first. Plans shall reflect only dedicated private fire service lines and associated appurtenances. Plan shall be design in accordance with VCFD Standards and submitted with the appropriate fees. Fire Sprinklers - All structures, including any future Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with current VCFPD Ordinance at time of building permit application. Fire Protection System Plans - Plans for all fire protection systems (sprinklers, dry chemical, hood systems, etc.) shall be submitted, with payment for plan check, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. Note: Fire sprinkler systems with 6 or more heads shall be supervised by a fire alarm system in accordance with Fire Department requirements. Building Plan Review (Submit prior to Building & Safety approval) - Building plans of all A, E, I, H, R-1, R-2 or R-4 occupancies shall be submitted, with payment for plan check, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit. A-VCFD-3Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 104 Page 6 of 6 Hazardous Fire Area - This development is in a Hazardous Fire Area and all structures shall meet hazardous fire area building code requirements. Contact the Building Department for requirements. Hazard Abatement - Structures All grass or brush exposing any structure(s) to fire hazards shall be cleared for a distance of 100 feet prior to construction of any structure and shall be maintained in accordance with State Law and VCFPD Ordinance. The proposed Hitch Ranch Project will include up to 200 feet of fuel modification in accordance with the approved Fire Protection Plan incorporated within the project’s approved EIR and Specific Plan. Provisions shall be made by the applicant to maintain the portion of the existing 100 foot defensible space zone that occurs on this project from existing homes adjacent to the project boundaries. Hazard Abatement – Off-site. Provisions shall be made by the project applicant to clear and maintain any portion of the required 100-foot defensible space zone that occurs off- site of the project’s eastern boundaries until such time those unimproved parcels construct buildings subject to defensible space regulations. Hazard Abatement – Roads and Driveways All grass and brush shall be cleared to a distance of ten (10) feet on each side of all access roads / driveways. Fuel Modification Zone and Landscape Plans - The developer shall provide Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) and or Landscape plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect to VCFD for review and approval as follows: A. Tracts and multiple lot projects: Plans shall be submitted for approval before the start of construction. This includes slopes, common areas, and individual lot landscaping install by the developer. B. Individual Parcels: Plans shall be submitted for approval prior to installation and or modification of any vegetation / landscape. This includes owner installed landscaping after original purchase of a parcel or building from the developer. Spark Arrester - An approved spark arrester shall be installed on the chimney of any structure. Fire Department Clearance (Submit prior to Building & Safety approval) - Applicant shall obtain VCFD Form #610 "Fire Permit Application” and Form #625 “Fire Flow Verification” prior to obtaining a building permit for any new structures or additions to existing structures. Phasing Plan - Applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction. Map Approval - At least 14 days prior to recordation of any maps, including parcel map waivers, the applicant shall submit two copies of the map to the Fire Prevention Division for approval. Recorded Map - A copy of all recorded maps shall be provided to the Fire Prevention Division within seven (7) days of recordation of said map. A-VCFD-3Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 105 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-94 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCFD-3 Ventura County Fire Department Response to Comment VCFD-3-1 Comment noted. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements, and the VCFD Conditions of Approval. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 106 50$ &LW\RI0RRUSDUN&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW 5RDGV 'UDIW(,5DQGIHHOWKDWLWLVZLWKLQRXUUHVSRQVLELOLW\WRSURYLGHFRPPHQWV 1 A-VCPW TDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 107 2 A-VCPW TDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 108 3 A-VCPW TDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 109 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-98 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCPW TD Ventura County Public Works Transportation Department Response to Comment VCPW TD-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment VCPW TD-2 Please refer to Response to Comment A-VCTC-2-2 and Response to Comment A-VCTC-2-3. Response to Comment VCPW TD-3 As noted on page 3.15-1 of the Draft EIR, roadway Level of Service (LOS) data is provided in the Draft EIR for informational purposes only since LOS is no longer a threshold/criteria for CEQA analysis. LOS information for key intersections within the City of Moorpark is provided in the Draft EIR in Section 3.10, Land Use, beginning on page 3.10-27. While the operational performance of County and State highways as noted in the comment letter is a matter of regional importance that is affected by many factors, this comment does not fall under the purview of the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 110 WATERSHED PROTECTION WATERSHED PLANNING AND PERMITS DIVISION 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California 93009 Peter Sheydayi, Deputy Director – (805) 650-4077 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 4, 2022 TO: Anthony Ciuffetelli, Planner County of Ventura FROM: Sergio Vargas, Deputy Director, Operations and Maintenance SUBJECT: RMA22-003 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Watershed Protection (WP) Project Number: WC2022-0014 Pursuant to your request dated February 22, 2022, this office has reviewed the submitted materials and provides the following comments. PROJECT LOCATION: Subdivision of approximately 277 acres of property generally located north of Poindexter Avenue, west of Casey Road, and extending approximately 1,700 feet to the west of Gabbert Road, Moorpark, CA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Hitch Ranch Specific Plan would provide for the master-planned development of 755 residential homes of various densities and building types, a public park, associated roadways and infrastructure, as well as expansive open space, stormwater detention basins, and manufactured slopes. WATERSHED PROTECTION COMMENTS: 1.Watershed Protection has provided several rounds of review for the project and the memo issued on June 30, 2020 (attached) indicated that the proposed mitigation strategy for peak flows is acceptable, but that a funding strategy for Walnut Canyon recapitalization is still lacking. 1 A-VCPW WPResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 111 RMA22-003 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan April 4, 2022 Page 2 of 2 WATERSHED PROTECTION CONDITIONS: 1.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 WP policy and WP-2 Ordinance or, alternatively, apply the city standard; whichever is most restrictive shall apply. 2.Funding: The Property Owners will not object to the establishment of a special assessment district to fund drainage system improvements, including but not limited to; technical study development, engineering design, construction, rehabilitation, replacement, and long-term maintenance of the Gabbert/Walnut drainage facilities. The limited hydraulic conveyance and deficiencies are documented in the 2005 Technical Addendum to Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Flood Control Deficiency Study by PACE, which has been adopted by the City of Moorpark. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email at Sergio.Vargas@ventura.org or by phone at (805) 672-2106. END OF TEXT cc: Glenn Shephard, Director, Watershed Protection Attachments: Memo, Hitch Ranch Development in the Gabbert-Walnut Watershed 1 A-VCPW WPResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 112 Hall of Administration L #1600 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 x (805) 654-2018 x FAX (805) 654-3952 x www.VCPublicWorks.org June , 2020 Mr. Douglas Spondello City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 SUBJECT: Hitch Ranch Development in the Gabbert – Walnut Watershed Dear Mr. Spondello Thank you for inviting Watershed Protection to participate in the Development Review Committee’s review of the Hitch Ranch development project. We have done several reviews of the project under CEQA and as part of our permitting process. At this time, we agree that the project design will meet the mitigation requirements of Watershed Protection and the City and alleviate some of the concerns about the lack of channel capacity in the Walnut-Gabbert jurisdictional drainage facility. However, we are increasingly concerned DV the aging concrete channel system has reached the end of its 50-yr design life and is experiencing ongoing failures due to its age. The proposed mitigation does not directly address the critical need to replace and upgrade the channelV\VWHP in the near future WR PLQLPL]H the threats to life and safety and adjacent infrastructure. Therefore, we are proposing that Watershed Protection and the City work together RQWKLV issue. A Walnut-Gabbert channel replacement project has been included in the Integrated Watershed Protection Program list of projects for some years now. However, it competes with all of the other :DWHUVKHG3URWHFWLRQZone 3 projects for ranking and funding, some of which are projects on the Arroyo Simi with major impacts on life and safety issues. Therefore, the Walnut-Gabbert Channel replacement project is unlikely to rise to the top of the rankings and be included in our 5-yr Capital Improvement Project planning list in the near future. From our understanding, the first step in the collaborative process would be to develop a complete picture of the proposed development for the Gabbert/Walnut watershed based on the current General Plan and available Specific Plans. Of interest is the total number of equivalent dwelling units expected within the City of Moorpark that would benefit from the Gabbert-Walnut regional drainage system. Watershed Protection has reviewed the Hitch Ranch Specific 3lan as well as other information available on the City’s websit A-VCPW WPResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 113 Page 2 of 2 Hall of Administration L #1600 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 x (805) 654-2018 x FAX (805) 654-3952 x www.VCPublicWorks.org however, we would like to work with the City to better use the available information and gain a more realistic understanding of proposed and expected future development. :DWHUVKHG 3URWHFWLRQ UHFRPPHQGV ZHdevelop equitable funding strategies to address the cost involved in designing and constructing the channel replacement. WH YHperformed a planning-level cost estimate for the V\VWHP UHFDSLWDOL]DWLRQ projectUHVXOWLQJ LQ cost HVWLPDWHRI $29 million for WKH PLOHchannel project length WDWHUVKHG3URWHFWLRQ DQWLFLSDWHV discussions with the City would result in a funding plan that is acceptable to the City’s electorate whether it is a development fee attached to new structures in the watershed, a general bond issue for the project, or a drainage assessment, as well as some FRQWULEXWRU\6WDWHgrant funding. We understand this issue will be challenging and request the opportunity to meet with you at your convenience DQG Oook forward to working with you and any interested stakeholders on this project. Please contact me to share your thoughts on this proposal and your ideas for moving ahead. Sincerely, Sergio Vargas, P.E. Deputy Director Watershed Protection Watershed Planning and Permits cc: Glenn Shephard, Director, Watershed Protection A-VCPW WPResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 114 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-103 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCPW WP Ventura County Public Works Watershed Protection Response to Comment VCPW WP-1 Comment noted. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements. Further, the project applicant will be entering an agreement with Ventura County Public Works Watershed Protection to establish a special assessment district to fund drainage system improvements, including but not limited to; technical study development, engineering design, construction, rehabilitation, replacement, and long-term maintenance of the Gabbert/Walnut drainage facilities. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 115 1 A-VCPW WRDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 116 2 1 3 A-VCPW WRDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 117 4 5 3 A-VCPW WRDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 118 6 A-VCPW WRDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 119 7 A-VCPW WRDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 120 8 9 12 11 10 A-VCPW WRDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 121 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-110 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCPW WRD Ventura County Public Works Water Resources Division Response to Comment VCPW WRD-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment VCPW WRD-2 The current drainage report anticipates addressing storm water quality by implementing Bioinfiltration for over half the developed site and a combination of Bioretention with underdrain and Proprietary Biotreatment for the remaining portion of the development. Lot AC will utilize an infiltration basin (INF- 1) water quality treatment measure which will have the capacity to increase the amount of infiltration such that it will reduce the Effective Impervious Area (EIA) to less than or equal to five percent (<5%) of the total project area. This will render the impervious areas "ineffective", and impacts would be less than significant. Response to Comment VCPW WRD-3 The 2020 WSA was prepared utilizing the available (and adopted) information and most applicable reference documents known at the time. The District’s 2015 UWMP was the most applicable (and adopted) document to use at the time of preparation of the WSA. The revised Project includes a lower potable water demand of 244.1 AFY, lower recycled water demand of 94.5 AFY, and lower total water demand of 338.6 AFY. A Will Serve Letter will be requested by the City / Project Applicant following the approval of the Specific Plan. Response to Comment VCPW WRD-4 There is a total of 5.5 million cubic yards of grading anticipated. Assuming 30 gallons of water would be required per cubic yard this will require 506 acre-feet of water for grading the site. The site is anticipated to have the grading done in phases with Phase 1 including 3.9 million cubic yards of grading and Phase 3 including 1.5 million cubic yards of grading. Phase 1 will require 359 acre feet and Phase 3 will require 138 acre feet of water. Phase 2 will include construction of 250 single family units. These 250 units will require 124 acre of water when occupied. Phases 1-3 are anticipated to take place over a two-year period with Phase Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 122 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-111 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 1 occurring over a 12 month period, Phase 2 occurring over an 18 month period while overlapping Phases 1 and 3 and Phase 3 would occur over 12 months with the grading taking place in the last four months of that period. The DEIR anticipates 392.1 acre feet of annual potable and irrigation water use. The water use for phases 1-3 that will occur in a two year period is 630 acre feet or 315 acre feet per year on average which is less than the total 392.1 acre feet of water use anticipated during the construction period. Response to Comment VCPW WRD-5 Comment noted. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements. Please also refer to Response to Comment LA_RWQCB-2-8, and Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.17, Utilities. Response to Comment VCPW WRD-6 Comment noted. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements. Response to Comment VCPW WRD-7 As discussed on page 3.8-23 of Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, if any of the water wells with a status of ‘Can't Locate Indeterminable’ are found during grading or development of the property, the applicant must destroy the well. Without proper abandonment, impacts to groundwater from potential on- site contamination would be considered significant. However, this impact will be reduced to a less than significant level by implementing Mitigation Measure HM-1. The mitigation measure has been revised to include the permitting requirements. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Response to Comment VCPW WRD-8 Please refer to Response to Comment VCPW WRD-3 Response to Comment VCPW WRD-9 Please refer to Response to Comment VCPW WRD-3 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 123 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-112 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Response to Comment VCPW WRD-10 Please refer to Response to Comment VCPW WRD-2 Response to Comment VCPW WRD-11 Please refer to Response to Comment VCPW WRD-6 Response to Comment VCPW WRD-12 Please refer to Response to Comment VCPW WRD-7 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 124 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Notice of Availability for Draft Environments Impact Report for Hitch Ranch MoorparkDate:Thursday, March 24, 2022 3:57:40 PMAttachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.png2022-3-24 PWA W&S Hitch DEIR Comments.pdfFYI. Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Bandagski, Amy <Amy.Bandagski@ventura.org> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 3:55 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Cc: Meckstroth, Scott <Scott.Meckstroth@ventura.org>; Kim, Jeewoong June <Jeewoong.Kim@ventura.org> Subject: Notice of Availability for Draft Environments Impact Report for Hitch Ranch Moorpark Hello Doug, Ventura County Water & Sanitation has reviewed the Hitch Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please see our prepared comments on the DEIR attached. Regards, Amy Bandagski Engineering Tech II Water and Sanitation 6767 Spring Road / #6000 Moorpark, CA 93020 P: 805.378.3023 VCPWA Online | Facebook | Twitter 1 A-VCPW W&S-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 125 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-114 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCPW W&S-1 Ventura County Public Works Water and Sanitation Response to Comment VCPW W&S-1-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 126 Hall of Administration L #1600 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 x (805) 654-2018 x FAX (805) 654-3952 x www.VCPublicWorks.org March 24, 2022 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Attn: Douglas Spondello Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Review (DEIR) Hitch Ranch Specific Plan SCH#2019070253 The Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (District) has reviewed the submittal for the Draft EIR with respect to issues under the District’s purview and determined the following: x 3.17.2.1 Existing Condition – The District has historically never been nearly 100 percent reliant on imported water to meet local water supply demands. x 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems – DEIR does not take into consideration the District’s requirements to either construct or help pay for the extension of the recycled water distribution system to serve the subject development, and to construct a new reservoir for the development as set forth by the Water Availability Letter issued July 13, 2021. Project impacts (3.17.2.3) to be updated accordingly. x 3.17.2.1 District Wells – District allocation has increased to 2,195 AFY in 2020. DEIR references outdated information from 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and should reference data and values from the updated 2020 UWMP. Table 3.17-1 assumes additional groundwater pumping up to 5,000 AFY from future groundwater desalter facilities and a representative reduction in imported surface water. The District’s desalter facilities proposed in 2018 in the 2015 UWMP have been replanned to be constructed in 2030 per the 2020 UWMP. x 3.17.2.1 Recycled Water – Recycled water produced by the Moorpark Wastewater Reclamation Facility (MWRF) only serves Incorporated & unincorporated Moorpark. The DEIR makes multiple references to Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Facility which should be corrected to the MWRF. The MWRF’s capacity and tertiary capacity are not previously mentioned in the DEIR as stated. Recycled water forecasts to be updated to 2020 UWMP values. 1 3 2 4 A-VCPW W&S-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 127 Page 2 of 2 Hall of Administration L #1600 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 x (805) 654-2018 x FAX (805) 654-3952 x www.VCPublicWorks.org x 3.17.2.3 Project Impacts – Until such a time that recycled water could be guaranteed, it would be prudent to additionally assume recycled water demand be supplied instead with potable water. References to Table 3.17-2 are incorrectly listed as Table 3.14-2. x 3.17.2.3 & 3.17.3.3 Project Impacts – Estimated water demands in table 3.17.2 for multi-family population per dwelling unit are inconsistent with table 3.17-6 sewer generation loads for multi-family. More sewer is generated than supplied. x DEIR makes multiple references to a non-existent 2016 UWMP. x 3.17.2.5 & 3.17.3.5 Mitigation Program – Include standard condition to have recorded easements dedicated to the District for water and sewer facility improvements. Contract to installs have been replaced with Agreement to Installs. If you have any questions concerning this item, please contact the undersigned at (805) 378-3023. Sincerely, Ryan Lippincott Amy Bandagski Engineering Technician II, PWA Water & Sanitation 5 7 6 8 A-VCPW W&S-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 128 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-117 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCPW W&S-2 Ventura County Public Works Water and Sanitation Response to Comment VCPW W&S-2-1 The Ventura County, Department of Public Works, Waterworks District No. 1 (District) provides its customers with a mix of local groundwater, imported water from Calleguas Municipal Water District, and local recycled water (for nonpotable demands). In 2020, water supplies included 7,117 acre-feet (AF) imported water (71.0 percent), 1,966 AF groundwater (19.6 percent), and 941 AF recycled water (9.4 percent). See the District’s 2020 UWMP, Chapter 6, for additional details. Response to Comment VCPW W&S-2-2 In order to ensure a supply of recycled water to the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan project site, a condition of approval for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan project will require the project applicant to enter into an agreement with the District to fund recycled water infrastructure. Response to Comment VCPW W&S-2-3 The District’s groundwater allocation was approved in September 2020 by the Courts in a settlement. The settlement gives the District 10.6 percent of the East Las Posas Basin Safe Yield. Effective starting in 2021, the District’s groundwater allocation will be 2,195 acre-feet per year (AFY) which is 439 AFY higher than the projected groundwater supply of 1,756 AFY identified in the 2015 UWMP. The Safe Yield of the basin and the District’s allocation will be examined every five years and adjusted accordingly by FCGMA to meet the goals in the GSP by 2040. See the District’s 2020 UWMP, Chapter 6, for additional details. Response to Comment VCPW W&S-2-4 The Moorpark Wastewater Reclamation Facility (MWRF) provides recycled water to customers within the District. The MWRF has a capacity of 5.0 million gallons per day (MGD) (5,601 AFY) for primary and secondary treatment and can treat approximately 3.0 MGD (3,360 AFY) to tertiary levels, but currently is only permitted to treat 1.5 MGD (1,680 AFY) to tertiary levels that meet Title 22 requirements. In FY 2020, the MWRF produced 966 AF of tertiary treated recycled water and sold approximately 941 AF to District customers (25 AF was used at the MWRF for in-plant purposes and landscape irrigation). See the District’s 2020 UWMP, Chapter 6, for additional details. Response to Comment VCPW W&S-2-5 The Project may include dual water connections (potable and recycled) for all locations that plan to use recycled water. Maximum recycled water demand will not be required to be provided to the entire Project Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 129 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-118 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 from the start of construction. Although, recycled water could be used for many elements of construction. The Project is anticipated to be built in phases with several areas that plan to use recycled water to be built up to five years after the start of construction. The maximum recycled water anticipated at Project build- out is approximately 95 AFY. The District’s 2020 UWMP indicates that the MWRF has the capacity to treat 3,360 AFY of recycled water to tertiary levels but is only permitted to treat 1,680 AFY. In 2020, the District produced 966 AFY of recycled water. Therefore, it appears that the District is permitted to and has the capacity to distribute recycled water to the Project. The third paragraph on page 3.17-12 will be revised in the Final EIR to correct the Table citation. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.17, Utilities. Response to Comment VCPW W&S-2-6 It is anticipated that residential units within the Hitch Ranch Project will maximize the use of water conservation measures both inside and outside the dwellings. Residential homes will be built to the current California Plumbing Code including indoor water conservation fixtures which will reduce indoor demands compared to most current housing. Residential lots with landscaped areas will meet the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The majority of the residential lots will include less than 400 square feet of landscaped area. The use of these measures throughout the Project will reduce the water demand as compared to residential units that do not implement water conservation measures. The Hitch Ranch Project will include the use of recycled water for all non-residential landscape irrigation demands, including parks, medians, slopes, and other irrigated areas. The District agreed that customers in newer housing units within the District use less water per person than older housing units, while future housing (i.e., Hitch Ranch Project) is anticipated to use even less. The District approved for the Hitch Ranch Project to use a residential potable water demand rate of 135 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for single-family homes and 60 gpcd for multiple-family homes. These potable water demands for single-family and multiple-family residential lots were approved by the District’s Director Susan Pan and staff via in-person meetings in February and May of 2018. Generally, a sewer system experiences between 65 and 85 percent return rates of water use to the sewer, depending on the type of land use and extent of outdoor water use. The estimated wastewater generation rates for multiple-family residential and single-family residential as needed have been adjusted as shown in revised Table 3.17-6 using a return rate of 65 percent for the single family units and an 85 percent return Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 130 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-119 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 rate for the multi-family units,5 to reflect the approved potable water demand rates agreed to and noted above. Table 3.17-6 Proposed In-Tract Average Sewer Generation Loads Dwelling Type VCWW Sewer Criteria Proposed Average Sewer Load Dwelling Density Per Capita Sewer Load (gallons/day) Dwelling Units Sewer Load (Gallons/day) Sewer Load (cfs) AFY Single family 3.5 8878 427 131,516116,571 147.30.180 Multiple family 2.2 5178 328 36,80256,285 41.20.087 Total 755 168,318172,856 188.50.267 Source: Encompass Consultant Group, December 2019, and April 2022 Response to Comment VCPW W&S-2-7 The District’s current 2020 UWMP was adopted in 2021. The District’s prior 2015 UWMP was adopted in 2016. References to the 2015 UWMP are corrected in the Final EIR. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.17, Utilities. Response to Comment VCPW W&S-2-8 The Standard Conditions and Requirements on pages 3.17-16 and 3.17-20 are revised in the Final EIR to reflect the District’s requests. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.17, Utilities. 5 The 65 percent return rate applied to the single-family units is due to the larger yards, such that more of the water usage will be expended for irrigation than for the multi-family units. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 131 2 1 A-VCRMA EHDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 132 A-VCRMA EHDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 133 A-VCRMA EHDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 134 A-VCRMA EHDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 135 A-VCRMA EHDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 136 A-VCRMA EHDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 137 A-VCRMA EHDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 138 A-VCRMA EHDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 139 A-VCRMA EHDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 140 A-VCRMA EHDResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 141 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-130 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCRMA EHD Ventura County Resources Management Agency Environmental Health Division Response to Comment VCRMA EHD -1 Comment noted. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements. Response to Comment VCRMA EHD -2 Comment noted. The City and project applicant will comply with all state, regional and local agency regulatory and permitting requirements. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 142 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch DEIR - Comments from VCTCDate:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 3:15:19 PMAttachments:image002.pngMoorpark_Hitch Ranch DEIR_Comment Letter_03.28.2022.pdfFYI – comment from VCTCDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Amanda Fagan <afagan@goventura.org> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 2:17 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Cc: Caitlin Brooks <cbrooks@goventura.org>; Andrew Kent <akent@goventura.org> Subject: Hitch Ranch DEIR - Comments from VCTC Mr. Spondello (Doug), Please see attached comment letter on the Hitch Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Kindest regards, Amanda Fagan Director of Planning and Sustainability Ventura County Transportation Commission 751 E. Daily Drive, Suite 420 Camarillo, CA 93010 (805) 642-1591 ext. 103 afagan@goventura.org 1 A-VCTC-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 143 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-132 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCTC-1 Ventura County Transportation Commission Response to Comment VCTC-1-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 144 March 28, 2022 Mr. Douglas Spondello Planning Manager City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Transmitted via Email to: dspondello@moorparkca.gov Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Dear Mr. Spondello, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report on behalf of the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). Please accept the following comments: Baseline Vehicle Miles Traveled (3.15-8) & City of Moorpark Threshold Criteria (3.15-18) The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan DEIR states that “The Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) has drafted, although not yet adopted guidance in accordance with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) that suggests the minimum reduction standard threshold for residential, office and industrial projects be 15% below the existing per capita VMT.” The draft guidance cited in the DEIR was produced by the County of Ventura Public Works Agency, not VCTC, and is intended to provide guidance for the unincorporated area. VCTC is a regional transportation planning agency separate from the County of Ventura and cannot establish or adopt VMT thresholds for the County or local jurisdictions. VCTC’s role is to assist local agencies to implement the changes to CEQA under Senate Bill (SB) 743 by providing data and tools, such as the Ventura County Traffic Model (VCTM) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) mapping available on the VCTC website. VCTC is also currently coordinating a VMT Adaptive Mitigation Program for the benefit of local agencies. All references in the DEIR to VCTC establishing VMT thresholds, guidance or protocols should be amended. Impact TRA-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b). (3.15-28) The DEIR estimates the average daily VMT per capita for Ventura County is 18.6, and based on the OPR guidance, uses a threshold of 15.8, or 15% less than the County average. The DEIR estimates the Project will generate 46,342 daily VMT using the data from SCAG and EMFAC air quality model. The EIR states that 102 daily vehicle trips from single family homes and 266 daily vehicle trips from multi-family homes would be shifted to Metrolink due to the project’s proximity to the Metrolink station. This assumes a 1 2 3 A-VCTC-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 145 VCTC Comments re: Hitch Ranch Draft EIR 2 Metrolink model share of 2.5% for single family and 5% for multi-family homes. As stated in the DEIR, the project does not fall within a High-Quality Transit Area and is not subject to screening from VMT analysis. The DEIR estimates that the Hitch Ranch Project’s proximity to the Metrolink station would reduce project average daily VMT by 12,757 or 27.1%. This reduction would result in a project VMT per capita rate of 13.6, below the estimated threshold for VMT mitigation. We believe that this large of a VMT reduction is unlikely and the methodology may overestimate the shift in mode share to rail transit. The major Metrolink destinations on the Ventura County Line are in the San Fernando Valley and Downtown Los Angeles. From the Ventura County Traffic Model, about 12% of total daily trips originating in the City of Moorpark are destined for Los Angeles County (about half as much could be reasonably served by the Metrolink corridor) or 24% of commuter trips according to the Census Transportation Planning Products. When the Origin-Destination data is factored into the analysis, the number of trips and overall VMT reduced from a mode shift to Metrolink is significantly lower than the DEIR concludes. Furthermore, the City of Moorpark is generally a high VMT generating jurisdiction and surrounding Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) with similar residential developments tend to have a higher-than-average VMT per Capita according to the data from the VCTM. Therefore, it is possible that the project should require VMT mitigation. Ventura County Traffic Model 2016 Base Year Jurisdiction/TAZ Home-based VMT/Capita Work-based VMT/Employee Total VMT/Service Population Overall Ventura County 16.48 19.09 27.25 Moorpark 21.33 23.13 35.26 60124101 Existing Hitch Ranch TAZ 25.21 34.89 37.34 60129700 Mammoth Highlands TAZ 23.18 22.14 26.67 The DEIR utilizes data from the EMFAC sketch air quality model to estimate project VMT generation. For large projects, VCTC recommends performing a traffic model scenario run. Unlike sketch models, VCTM captures the interactions between the project, road and transit network and regional land use, producing more accurate VMT estimates. The Ventura County Traffic Model is available upon request for all Ventura County agencies to use for VMT analysis. The 2016 Base Year VMT data and maps from VCTM are also available on the VCTC website: https://www.goventura.org/work-with-vctc/traffic-model/. Goal 5 (3.15-24 & 3.15-26) Finally, VCTC encourages the DEIR consider Section 3 of the Ventura County Bicycle Wayfinding Plan prior to implementing Goal 5 (3.15-24 and 3.15-26), when designing bicycle wayfinding signage and infrastructure. The Wayfinding Plan can be accessed at https://www.goventura.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/VCTC_Bicycle_Wayfinding__Plan_April_2017_FINAL.pdf. 3 4 A-VCTC-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 146 VCTC Comments re: Hitch Ranch Draft EIR 3 Should you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (805) 642-1591 (ext. 103) or by email at: afagan@goventura.org. Respectfully Submitted, Amanda Fagan Director of Planning and Sustainability 3 4 A-VCTC-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 147 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-136 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter VCTC-2 Ventura County Transportation Commission Response to Comment VCTC-2-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment VCTC-2-2 The commenter clarifies the role of VCTC in developing VMT thresholds and guidance. The Final EIR is revised to reflect this change (See Section 3.0, Revisions to the EIR). Response to Comment VCTC-2-3 The commentor provides an alternative approach to the VMT calculation provided within the DEIR, including suggestions regarding mode shift (discussed further below). As stated by the commenter, VCTC’s role is to assist local agencies to implement the changes to CEQA under Senate Bill (SB) 743 by providing data and tools, such as the Ventura County Traffic Model (VCTM) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) mapping available on the VCTC website. It should be noted that VCTC was consulted prior to release of the DEIR, however at the time, VCTC had not yet developed any guidance regarding VMT.6 In the absence of such guidance, the City appropriately used Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) threshold and suggested methodology. This approach is supported by CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, which indicates an EIR should use the best available data at the time an NOP is published. In this case, the NOP for the project was published on July 10, 2019. Prior to conducting the VMT analysis, both the City and VCTC were consulted regarding available guidelines and VMT data. Absent local guidelines and VMT data from the VCTC model, the methodology and data utilized in the DEIR VMT analysis was the most current and available at that time. Therefore, the data utilized for the VMT analysis is appropriate and reasonable for use in the DEIR. Regarding the estimates in the DEIR for mode shift, the project’s DEIR analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimated a mode shift due to the project’s close proximity to the Metrolink station that is equivalent to approximately 12,757 average daily VMT (equates to 27.1% of the total baseline daily project VMT). Subsequent to the preparation of the DEIR, VCTC and the County of Ventura Public Works Transportation 6 Email correspondence from Caitlin Brooks, Program Manager, Transportation Planning, Ventura County Transportation Commission, dated January 17, 2020. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 148 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-137 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Department have provided in their respective comment letters the current data from the regional travel demand model, which was not available at the time of the DEIR’s NOP published on July 10, 2019.7 The comment letters also state that the 27.1% mode shift reduction in project VMT is overestimated given the project’s location. VCTC and the County of Ventura also suggests the use of the VCTC model for the VMT analysis (which, as noted above, was not available at the time of the DEIR’s NOP). Although VCTC has indicated mode shift from car to rail transit that is due to the project’s proximity to the Moorpark Metrolink station may be less than stated in the EIR, the EIR’s finding of a less than significant transportation impact is not dependent on the specific mode shift assumption used in the DEIR. The DEIR VMT analysis assumed a transit mode shift of 2.5% and 5% of daily trips for single family and multifamily residences, respectively. However, when a more modest 1% mode shift is applied to the project’s daily trips 8 with an average trip length for Metrolink users at 34.3 miles 9, a reduction of 2,206 VMT is estimated 10. This results in a 4.8% reduction in project VMT11. The 1% mode share is reasonable given the project’s proximity to the Metrolink station, which results in an average walking distance from the project to the Metrolink station that is approximately 1.25 miles (approximately a 25-minute walk 12), and 100 percent of the project is within a reasonable 7 to 8-minute e-bike ride to the station 13. In addition to the project’s proximity to the Metrolink station, the project will construct and/or implement the following VMT reducing measures: • 135 affordable housing units • pedestrian facilities • bicycle facilities • multi-use trails • roadways that will increase the bus transit network • traffic calming features such as roundabouts 7 Email correspondence from Caitlin Brooks, Program Manager, Transportation Planning, Ventura County Transportation Commission, dated January 17, 2020. 8 6,432 ADT x 1% = 64 ADT reduction 9 Source: Metrolink 2018 Origin-Destination Study Trip Length for Ventura County 10 64 ADT x 34.3 miles = 2,206 VMT mode shift reduction 11 2,206 VMT / 46,342 Total Project VMT = 4.8% VMT reduction 12 Assumes 20 minute walk per mile 13 Assumes e-bike speed of 15 mph and distance of 1.8 miles (15 mph/60 min = .25 miles/min and 1.8 miles / .25 miles/min = 7.2 min.) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 149 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-138 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 •public charging stations at parks, HOA recreations areas, multi-family neighborhoods •secured bicycle parking at multi-family neighborhoods, trailheads, recreation areas, and parks •pre-wired residential units with high-speed internet and co-working spaces to encourage telecommuting •land donation to the city to be used for the construction of additional affordable housing units •community based travel planning services for residents As provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association GHG Handbook,14 VMT reductions can be achieved by construction or implementation of the project features listed above. While not all listed above will result in a quantifiable VMT reduction, those with quantifiable reductions are calculated as follows. The construction of affordable housing units can achieve a 5.1% reduction in VMT 15. The construction of pedestrian sidewalks can achieve a 6.4% VMT reduction.16 The construction of bicycle facilities can achieve a 0.1% VMT reduction 17. The expansion in the transit network due to bus stops on the newly constructed roadways within the project can result in a 0.3% VMT reduction.18 Lastly, implementation of a community-based travel planning program can result in a 2.3% reduction in VMT.19 Combined with the transit mode shift discussed above, a 17.7% reduction in VMT 20 is achievable and the Project’s VMT rate is reduced to 15.3 21 VMT/capita, which is below the countywide threshold of significance of 15.8 VMT per capita utilized in the DEIR VMT Analysis. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines provide that either a citywide average VMT/capita or the regional average VMT/capita can be used to establish the threshold of significance.22 The City of Moorpark has a higher average VMT/capita than the countywide average, so as such, using the countywide average is a more conservative approach as it represents a tougher standard to meet. Further, 14 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021. 15 T-4 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing: 135 affordable housing units/ 755 total units = 17.9% x -28.6 = -5.1% VMT reduction 16 T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement: ((5.36 miles/.84 miles) – 1) x -0.05 = -26.9% however, maximum VMT reduction = -6.4% VMT reduction 17 T-19A Construct or Improve Bicycle Facility: 75% x (((334 days / 365 days) x (.0038+.0005) x 1 x 1.7) / 9.7) = -.1% VMT reduction 18 T- 25 Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours: -1 x (23.75 – 22.5/22.5) x .0137 x .7 x .578 x 1 = -0.3% VMT reduction 19 T-23 Provide Community-Based Travel Planning: (755 units / 755 units) x 19% x -12% x 1 = -2.3% VMT reduction 20 Incremental sum: 1-(1-5.1%) x (1-6.4%) x (1-.1%) x (1-2.3%) x (1-.3%) x (1-4.8%) = 13.6% VMT reduction 21 17.71 VMT per capita – 13.6% = 2.41 and 17.71 – 2.41 = 15.31 VMT per capita 22 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, page 15, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California, December 2018. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 150 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-139 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 data for Moorpark’s citywide average VMT/capita was not available at the time of the NOP, and when the analysis being undertaken. Cumulative VMT Analysis and Consistency with RTP/SCS. Per the OPR Technical Advisory 23, “a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa”. Therefore, since the project has a less than significant impact at the project level, the project has less than significant cumulative impact. Consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS is also reviewed. During SCAG’s RTP/SCS development, local agencies are consulted during the Local Input and Envisioning Process. The SCAG Data/Map Book for the City of Moorpark shows that Hitch Ranch Specific Plan is included in the General Plan Land Use assumed by SCAG. Therefore, the project is consistent with the growth assumptions applied in the RTP/SCS. Response to Comment VCTC-2-4 Comment noted. The City of Moorpark is currently undergoing the City’s General Plan Update. The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan is included in the City’s General Plan Update and revisions to the City’s Circulation Element - Bikeway Element will be addressed with the General Plan update. 23 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, page 6, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California, December 2018. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 151 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, Moorpark CADate:Friday, March 4, 2022 8:21:12 AMAttachments:image001.pngHitch Ranch Specific Plan Response Letter.pdfGood Morning Lynn,Please see attached for the project records.Thank you,DougDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Crystal Mendoza <cmendoza@santaynezchumash.org> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 10:33 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Cc: Kelsie Shroll <kshroll@santaynezchumash.org> Subject: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, Moorpark CA Good morning, Please find attached a formal letter stating that no further consultation is needed for the above- mentioned project. Thank you, Crystal Mendoza Administrative Assistant | Cultural Resource Management Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians | Tribal Hall cmendoza@santaynezchumash.org www.sycculture.com 1 O-SYB Chumash-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 152 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-141 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter O-SYB Chumash-1 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Response to Comment O-SYB Chumash-1-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 153 February 25, 2022 City of Moorpark Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Att.: Doug Spondello, Planning Manager Re: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Dear Mr. Spondello: Thank you for contacting the Tribal Elders’ Council for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. At this time, the Elders’ Council requests no further consultation on this project; however, we understand that as part of NHPA Section 106, we must be notified of the project. Thank you for remembering that at one time our ancestors walked this sacred land. Sincerely Yours, Kelsie Shroll Administrative Assistant | Elders’ Council and Culture Department Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians | Tribal Hall (805) 688-7997 ext. 7516 kshroll@santaynezchumash.org Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Tribal Elders’ Council P.O. Box 517 Santa Ynez CA 93460 Phone: (805)688-7997 Fax: (805)688-9578 Email: elders@santaynezchuhmash.org 1 O-SYB Chumash-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 154 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-143 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter O-SYB Chumash-2 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Response to Comment O-SYB Chumash-2-1 This comment is states that the Tribal Elders’ Council for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians requests no further consultation on this project. The comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 155 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:Hitch Anon CommentsDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 4:52:06 PMHi Lynn, I received the following anonymous comments: ----------------------- Traffic- We know the project will create traffic. However, what impact will it really have given the limited access to the project? Especially the Gabbert Road piece. Are there further mitigations that can be done to improve the road size (lanes) or access into the area? People spoke about traffic movement during a wildfire. Some indicated that to leave to the east would be to have them head toward the fire (typical direction of travel they say). How can that be addressed? I know there is no one right answer. The people of the Ranch's up Gabbert Road, who are more than 1000 feet from the project should be included in the messaging, as it is their access road and I think the city would look good if they informed All of the residents up Gabbert, not just those within 1000' of the project. I've heard that "Union Pacific will not allow for an upgrade to the Gabbert crossing". Is that true? What traffic impact will the other approved projects on LA Ave have that will likely be built out prior to this project? Oh, the great unknowns..... If the Hitch project is reduced in scale, I still don't think people will like it. It is more about all or none, not scaled back from what I hear. Water Some spoke of how, with our drought, they face water rationing, yet here come 700+ new residences. I, for one, really don't understand how water entitlements work and how there really can be unlimited water for new projects. I just need more info so I'm clear about how it all works. Air Quality I don't hear a lot about this and this is not high on my list. I figure the same people who are living life making pollution will just now do it within the city boundaries. As much as this is important, the complaining about this isn't significant out there. Yes there will be more pollution in our city, but it is a necessary part of development. Aesthetics As important as this is, it is a necessary off shoot of development. Now, if it were in my daily line of sight, it may be more important to me, however it think it is something that you learn to live with. I need to drive out there and look for myself, but for the vast majority of people, it won't be big and tall, on a ridgeline, or on the top of a hill and the vegetation will likely obscure some of it. What about solar panels installed on homes after they are built? That to me might look worse than the terracotta roofs they may offer to blend in, but that is well down the road. Having a few more Before and After photo illustrations from more points of view will be helpful to the decision making. Wildfires This is really about traffic, but on the surface they look like they have done what they could to protect the homes as much as possible. Getting Fire Equipment in and people out are my greatest concerns. Both in the new community as well as the existing ones. Especially with the animal trailers. 1 I-AnonymousResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 156 Public Transportation stops I didn't see anything about this, but again, it doesn't seem to be part of the EIR. Other I would hope the business community steps up and talks about the benefits to the City Businesses and the School district steps up to discuss enrollment. Again, not a part of the EIR but part of the greater conversation. Douglas Spondello, AICP Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Department City of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.gov<mailto:dspondello@moorparkca.gov> www.moorparkca.gov<http://www.moorparkca.gov/> http://moorparkgeneralplan.com/ [8d34b513-3cc5-4b73-847e-019d97b3c15f]<http://moorparkgeneralplan.com/> 1 I-AnonymousResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 157 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-146 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Anonymous Anonymous Response to Comment I-Anonymous-1 This comment provides a series of questions but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is provided for the record. Regarding project traffic and circulation, as well as cumulative projects that were included in Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), please refer to Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Introduction, Section 3.15, Transportation and Section 3.10, Land Use, which include full discussions of the City’s Circulation Element, as well as project improvements to the multi-modal circulation through the project site. Regarding the Union Pacific railroad crossing – as discussed on page 3.15-24 of Section 3.15, Transportation, there will be no changes required to the Gabbert Road railroad crossing as the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), provided as Appendix 3.10 to the Draft EIR, demonstrates that the build-out of the proposed project along with future traffic increases in traffic volumes do not warrant any improvements at this crossing. Regarding water supply, please refer to Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, beginning on page 3.18- 4. Regarding air quality impacts, please refer to Section 3.2, Air Quality. Regarding impacts to aesthetics and visual quality, please refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 158 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: New development in MoorparkDate:Monday, March 21, 2022 11:41:02 AMAttachments:image001.pngFYIDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Shane Bracken <sbrackenlax@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 3:14 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: New development in Moorpark Hello I have been told this is the place to voice my opinion of the new development purposed off pointdexter and gabbert. I would like to just introduce myself my names Shane I live in the butter creek estates in Moorpark Off LA and Tierra rejada I’m a merchant marine who is gone for 6 months of the year and love returning to the semi rural peaceful Moorpark. LA and Tierra rejada are majorly crowded already at school time in the mornings and 4-6 pm by our house it’s nearly impossible to make a left turn on Tierra rejada at these times. LA ave is already far too busy with semi trucks using it as a short cut to skip the grade. I believe this new development will only exacerbate these problems. I believe it will also ruin the semi rural feel of Moorpark. The open spaces that Moorpark provides is the reason we choose to buy a house here after growing up in the conejo valley, which is now filled with over developed city’s like Thousand Oaks and Simi, which have a feel more closely to the valley. Following with it homeless problems, litter, rivers of concrete, over crowded streets filled with traffic, and poor air quality. The open field off pointdexter is a favorite of our family who loves the walk which surrounded by nature, being able to see cattle roaming the field as the train goes by is something that brings a charm to Moorpark. When every hill is dotted with more square homes and every corner has apartments on it we will surely miss the views, open space, clean air, and peace that Moorpark provides us and that we love so well, and the reasons many of us choose to live here. I’m not against change, but some times I believe preserving what we have is better in the long run. Thanks for your time, Shane Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 1 I-Bracken Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 159 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-148 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Bracken Shane Bracken Response to Comment I-Bracken-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks and expresses opposition to the proposed project, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Regarding impacts to aesthetics and visual quality, please refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics. Regarding air quality impacts, please refer to Section 3.2, Air Quality. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 160 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch DEIR Public CommentDate:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:14:49 AMAttachments:image001.pngFYI Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Trey Bradley <tbradley3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 4:26 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch DEIR Public Comment Mr. Spondello, In regards to the Hitch Ranch Project and DEIR I would like to voice concern and questions concerning the specific aspect of the railway crossing at Gabbert Road. In summary I believe that the stated Project's plan to not upgrade the railway crossing at Gabbert Road should be changed to require upgrades, or at the least more information needs to be considered in this recommendation. After having reviewed the DEIR and all the traffic assessment support material below are my comments concerning this specific aspect of the project; 1. The DEIR states in several places, notably on pages 3.15-23 & 3.15-30 that the traffic impact analysis (TIA) concludes that no changes are required at the Gabbert railroad crossing. However the TIA reports appear to just be assessing the actual intersections/traffic flow. These reports provide very little in an actual physical assessment of the railroad crossing, how it impacts traffic and how capable the actual crossing is. A more thorough evaluation of the crossing's traffic handling ability in its proposed configuration is at minimum warranted. Some form of rail crossing safety assessment and potential upgrade recommendations would likely also be in order at minimum. 2. As can not be understated and barely covered in the traffic reports is the large number of people that will need to use the railroad crossing in a fire emergency should the Project move forward. The most likely fire event will involve the fire front approaching from the NE/N from Santa Ana winds during fire season, potentially forcing use of numbered insections 7/47 as opposed to the east side Project exits that would be heading towards a potential fire. Currently there are +/- 50 housing units on Gabbert Road needing to exit in an emergency, this Project calls for another 755 units plus an additional 200-300 units in the city affordable housing lot. This is simply too many people for this railway crossing in an emergency in its current state. Yes, a long term fix of a North Hills Parkway connection to LA Avenue would also be a solution, but that does not appear to be happening any time soon. 3. The current condition of the railroad crossing is ok ok but not suited to heavy use. The approach from the south has a moderate dip that causes many cars to "bottom out" and the westbound north turn lane approach from Poindexter is a difficult turn to make without swinging wide into the oncoming traffic that is traveling south on Gabbert. Most importantly if the traffic increases and a queue forms at the Gabbert & Poindexter intersection then cars will often be left awkwardly stopped across the rail tracks. This rail crossing in its current state is just ill suited for high traffic volumes. 4. The traffic assessments do not include the housing units from development of the parcel within Hitch Ranch that will be donated to the city for affordable housing, see DEIR Appendix 3.15 Table A-1 for a list of included future projects. It is my understanding this city parcel will likely add another 200-300 housing units within the project site to at least consider as cumulative development if CEQA does not allow it to be included as part of the actual project. 5. The traffic projections appear to show a very high percentage of the Project only traffic coming & going from the eastern intersections (35, 36 & 40) and disproportionately low traffic in the single western intersection (47). For example see DEIR Appendix 3.10, Figure 3.10-4e & 5e showing Project trips only. 4e (AM Peak) shows 65 trips exiting the site from intersection 47 while showing 258 trips exiting the site from intersections 35+36+40. Similar results are seen in Figure 5e of 68 trips vs 149. The traffic assessment may be understating the number of vehicles traveling to the western exodus of the project vs the eastern exodus. 6. It is my opinion that projected Project only traffic that will cross the Gabbert & Poindexter railroad crossing is too low. Intersection 7 (Gabbert & Poindexter) shows current peak volumes of 55 (AM, Figure 3.10-6a) and 50 (PM, Figure 3.10-7b) crossing the rail tracks from both directions as of existing 2019 with no Project. This compares to Project only volumes of 92 (AM, Figure 3.10-4a) and 126 (PM, Figure 3.10-5a). While the Project forecasts almost double the new trips in the AM and slightly over double in the PM the project is approaching x20 the size of the current Gabbert community that makes up the 2019 baseline. I believe the traffic assessment to be underestimating the volume increase at insection 7 and the railroad crossing if the Project were to move forward. 7. The projected Project traffic assumes an increased use of public transport (Metrolink) compared to current city average, see DEIR page 3.15-29. At best this is a reach for assuming a project impact baseline, I suggest a more standard level of public transport be used for analysis, which will increase Project vehicle trips. 8. Note DEIR Appendix 3.10 is missing Figure 3.10-4a, as Figure 3.10-4b is included twice in consecutive pages in likely error. Regards, 1 2 3 4 5 I-Bradley Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 161 forward. The most likely fire event will involve the fire front approaching from the NE/N fromSanta Ana winds during fire season, potentially forcing use of numbered insections 7/47 asopposed to the east side Project exits that would be heading towards a potential fire.Currently there are +/- 50 housing units on Gabbert Road needing to exit in an emergency,this Project calls for another 755 units plus an additional 200-300 units in the city affordablehousing lot. This is simply too many people for this railway crossing in an emergencyin its current state. Yes, a long term fix of a North Hills Parkway connection to LA Avenuewould also be a solution, but that does not appear to be happening any time soon. 3. The current condition of the railroad crossing is ok ok but not suited to heavy use. Theapproach from the south has a moderate dip that causes many cars to "bottom out" and thewestbound north turn lane approach from Poindexter is a difficult turn to make withoutswinging wide into the oncoming traffic that is traveling south on Gabbert. Most importantly ifthe traffic increases and a queue forms at the Gabbert & Poindexter intersection then carswill often be left awkwardly stopped across the rail tracks. This rail crossing in its currentstate is just ill suited for high traffic volumes. 4. The traffic assessments do not include the housing units from development of the parcelwithin Hitch Ranch that will be donated to the city for affordable housing, see DEIR Appendix 3.15 Table A-1 for a list of included future projects. It is my understanding this city parcel will likely add another 200-300 housing units within the project site to at least consider as cumulative development if CEQA does not allow it to be included as part of the actual project. 5. The traffic projections appear to show a very high percentage of the Project only traffic coming & going from the eastern intersections (35, 36 & 40) and disproportionately low traffic in the single western intersection (47). For example see DEIR Appendix 3.10, Figure 3.10-4e & 5e showing Project trips only. 4e (AM Peak) shows 65 trips exiting the site from intersection 47 while showing 258 trips exiting the site from intersections 35+36+40. Similar results are seen in Figure 5e of 68 trips vs 149. The traffic assessment may be understating the number of vehicles traveling to the western exodus of the project vs the eastern exodus. 6. It is my opinion that projected Project only traffic that will cross the Gabbert & Poindexter railroad crossing is too low. Intersection 7 (Gabbert & Poindexter) shows current peak volumes of 55 (AM, Figure 3.10-6a) and 50 (PM, Figure 3.10-7b) crossing the rail tracks from both directions as of existing 2019 with no Project. This compares to Project only volumes of 92 (AM, Figure 3.10-4a) and 126 (PM, Figure 3.10-5a). While the Project forecasts almost double the new trips in the AM and slightly over double in the PM the project is approaching x20 the size of the current Gabbert community that makes up the 2019 baseline. I believe the traffic assessment to be underestimating the volume increase at insection 7 and the railroad crossing if the Project were to move forward. 7. The projected Project traffic assumes an increased use of public transport (Metrolink) compared to current city average, see DEIR page 3.15-29. At best this is a reach for assuming a project impact baseline, I suggest a more standard level of public transport be used for analysis, which will increase Project vehicle trips. 8. Note DEIR Appendix 3.10 is missing Figure 3.10-4a, as Figure 3.10-4b is included twice in consecutive pages in likely error. Regards, Dale Bradley Moorpark Resident 6 7 8 9 I-Bradley Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 162 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-151 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Bradley Dale Bradley Response to Comment I-Bradley-1 The comment expresses an opinion that the project should be required to upgrade the railway crossing at Gabbert Road, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is provided for the record: Regarding the Union Pacific railroad crossing – as discussed on page 3.15-24 of Section 3.15, Transportation, there will be no changes required to the Gabbert Road railroad crossing as the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), provided as Appendix 3.10 to the Draft EIR, demonstrates that the build-out of the proposed project along with future traffic increases in traffic volumes do not warrant any improvements at this crossing. Response to Comment I-Bradley-2 The comment expresses an opinion that there should be an evaluation of the railway crossing at Gabbert Road traffic handling ability, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is provided for the record: As discussed in above, the build-out of the proposed project along with future traffic increases in traffic volumes do not warrant any improvements at the railway crossing. Response to Comment I-Bradley-3 The comment raises concerns regarding wildfire hazards and the lack of an ‘adequate evacuation route’, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 163 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-152 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is provided for the record: The Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) has thoroughly reviewed the Draft EIR, particularly Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 3.13, Public Services, and Section 3.18, Wildfire, including their related appendices. The VCFD also tendered a 6-page memorandum which includes the VCFD’s conditions for approval for the proposed project (refer to Comment A-VCFD-3, included above). In addition, the following information is included on page 3.13-6, in Section 3.13, Public Services: Anticipated Frequency and Nature of Emergency Occurrence (Special Fire Protection Problems). The frequency and nature of future emergency calls is difficult to predict. No uses allowed in the Specific Plan are unusual or have the potential to generate an unusual number or type of calls for service. However, the Specific Plan site is located in an area designated as a “Hazardous Fire Area.” Construction would, therefore, be required to comply with all applicable building and fire code requirements. These requirements may include items such as types of roofing materials, building construction, brush clearance, fire hydrant flows, hydrant spacing, access and design, and other hazard reduction programs, as set forth by VCFD. With the implementation of standard conditions and requirements as outlined below, potential fire hazard impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Refer also to Section 3.18, Wildfire in this EIR. The VCFD has not disputed these statements. Response to Comment I-Bradley-4 This comment states an opinion that the current condition of the railroad crossing is ‘ill suited to heavy traffic volumes,’ but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Bradley-1 and Response to Comment I-Bradley-2. Response to Comment I-Bradley-5 The commenter’s assertion that the TIA does not include the 333 housing units proposed for the City Donation parcel is incorrect. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 164 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-153 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 This housing is included as project 1 on Table 3.0-2, Cumulative Development Projects Including the Proposed Project on page 3.0-7, and identified on Figure 3.0-1a, Map of Cumulative Development Projects on page 3.0-5, of Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, as well as provided in Table 2 on page 3 of the Supplemental Traffic Analysis for the Hitch Ranch Project in the City of Moorpark, conducted by Stantec, December 2021, provided in Appendix 3.15 of the Draft EIR. In both cases, the project is identified as ‘Casey Road City Parcel’. As such, the city donation parcel, and the anticipated affordable housing project was included in both the original and supplemental traffic analyses. Response to Comment I-Bradley-6 The comment expresses an opinion that the TIA understates the direction of travel for future traffic in the analysis, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment I-Bradley-7 The comment expresses an opinion that the TIA underestimates the future traffic volumes at the intersection of Gabbert and Poindexter in the analysis, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment I-Bradley-8 The comment expresses an opinion that a different level of public transport use should have been used in the analysis, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 165 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-154 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Please also refer to Response to Comment VCTC-2-3. Response to Comment I-Bradley-9 Comment noted. A revision will be made in the Final EIR to include the figure. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 3.10, Land Use. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 166 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch Development concernsDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:03:55 AMAttachments:image001.png1 of 3 Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: GAYLE BRUCKNER <wynnranch@prodigy.net> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 2:42 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>; Gayle Bruckner <wynnranch@prodigy.net> Subject: Hitch Ranch Development concerns Dear Douglas, One of Many concerns: Hitch Ranch Project Concerns: Aesthetics per the Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element 1) How does the Hitch Ranch Project fit into the Moorpark General Plan? It appears the plan violates the Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element and it’s goals and the policies. The plans intent is to take the hills down to 70 feel and to bring the low areas up to 61 feet. This does not meet the intent of the following: a. Goal 16 stated that we will ‘Enhance and maintain the suburban/rural identity of the community”. i. Policy 16.2 “Hillside development standard shall be adopted which restrict grading on slopes greater than 20 percent and which will encourage the preservation of visual horizon lines and significant hillsides as prominent visual features”. 1 I-Bruckner-1Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 167 ii. Policy 16.4 “New Residential development should complement the overall community character of the City, establish a sense of place, and ensure capability with important existing local community identities”. iii. Policy 17.1 “New Development shall be compatible with the scale and visual character of the surrounding neighborhood.” iv. Policy 17.7 “Design features which provide relief and separation shall be required between land uses of conflicting character.” 1 I-Bruckner-1Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 168 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-157 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Bruckner-1 Gayle Bruckner Response to Comment I-Bruckner-1-1 The comment expresses an opinion that the project violates the Moorpark General Plan, specifically Goal 16, which calls for the City to ‘Enhance and maintain the suburban/rural identity of the community’. Analysis in Section 3.10, Land Use, on page 3.10-23 finds that: The Specific Plan creates a community that enhances Moorpark’s identity by concentrating higher density residential areas near the historical downtown while transitioning to more suburban and rural residential areas in the hills. The Specific Plan landscape and architectural design guidelines reflect the historic Early California and rural architectural character that distinguishes the Moorpark community. A discussion of the projects impacts to the site topography is included in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, beginning on page 3.1-18 and includes the following: From a visibility/view perspective, most of the "prominent" slopes or ridgelines are preserved; the larger slopes north of Planning Area 1 (Area B on Figure 3.1-15, Hillside Grading Area Identification Map), the larger slopes west of Gabbert Road (Area A on Figure 3.1-15, Hillside Grading Area Identification Map), and the existing ridgeline/knoll southwest of Planning Area 2 (Area C on Figure 3.1-15, Hillside Grading Area Identification Map). Much of the site was graded for ranching and farming purposes sometime in the last century so most impacts to the existing topography are not impacts to natural slopes because the natural grade has long since been disturbed. The project overall would largely be consistent with the Hillside Management Ordinance. Further, Chapter 17.38.030 M of the Hillside Management Ordinance allows the City to approve a Development Agreement to exempt a project from the requirements of the Ordinance. The applicant will be requesting a Development Agreement for this project and an exemption will be required. Once negotiated and granted, impacts related to the Hillside Management Ordinance would be considered less than significant. It should be noted that the analysis in the Draft EIR finds that certain impacts to aesthetics would be significant and unavoidable, i.e., scenic vistas. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 169 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch Development concernsDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:04:01 AMAttachments:image001.png2 of 3 Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: GAYLE BRUCKNER <wynnranch@prodigy.net> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 3:07 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>; GAYLE BRUCKNER <wynnranch@prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Hitch Ranch Development concerns Douglas, Additional concerns: 2) How does Moorpark plan to mitigate the significant impact with respect to Valley Fever? 3) How does Moorpark plan to measure success as it relates to AQMP? It claims success in the Environmental impact report but none of the listed programs are actually used by the general public. 4) This plan adds over 1000 homes - How does Moorpark plan to meet the requirements of Page 3-2-10 of the Environmental Impact report? The report calls out the Land Use Element which states the following air quality goals and policies of the city of Moorpark General Plan that are applicable to the proposed Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project: a. Goal 15: “Maintain a high quality environment that contributes to and enhances the quality of life and protects public health, safety, and welfare.” i. Policy 15.4: Development which will not result in a negative impact on air quality shall be encouraged in order to maintain and enhance air quality for the health and well-being of City 2 1 3 I-Bruckner-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 170 residents. 5) This plan adds over 1000 homes (which will equate to at least 2000 additional cars on our streets) - How does Moorpark plan to meet the requirements of Page 3-2-10 of the Environmental Impact report? The report calls out the Circulation Element which states the following Traffic goal and policy in the city of Moorpark General Plan that are applicable to the proposed Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project: a. Goal 7: “Develop and encourage a transportation demand management system to assist in mitigating traffic impacts and in maintaining a desired level of service on the circulation system.” On Monday, April 4, 2022, 02:41:47 AM PDT, GAYLE BRUCKNER <wynnranch@prodigy.net> wrote: Dear Douglas, One of Many concerns: Hitch Ranch Project Concerns: Aesthetics per the Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element 1) How does the Hitch Ranch Project fit into the Moorpark General Plan? It appears the plan violates the Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element and it’s goals and the policies. The plans intent is to take the hills down to 70 feel and to bring the low areas up to 61 feet. This does not meet the intent of the following: a. Goal 16 stated that we will ‘Enhance and maintain the suburban/rural identity of the community”. i. Policy 16.2 “Hillside development standard shall be adopted which restrict grading on slopes greater than 20 percent and which will encourage the preservation of visual horizon lines and significant hillsides as prominent visual features”. ii. Policy 16.4 “New Residential development should complement the overall community character of the City, establish a sense of place, and ensure capability with important existing local community identities”. iii. Policy 17.1 “New Development shall be compatible with the scale and visual character of the surrounding neighborhood.” iv. Policy 17.7 “Design features which provide relief and separation shall be required between land uses of conflicting character.” 4 5 3 I-Bruckner-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 171 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-160 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Bruckner-2 Gayle Bruckner Response to Comment I-Bruckner-2-1 The comment expresses an opinion that the project will cause a significant impact with regard to Valley Fever, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is provided for the record. Pages 3.2-20 and 3.2-28 of Section 3.2, Air Quality provide a discussion and disclosure of the potential impacts of Valley Fever as a result of project implementation; implementation of construction mitigation measure MM AQ-1 would mitigation potential impacts to a less than significant level. Response to Comment I-Bruckner-2-2 The comment expresses an opinion with the claim that as it relates to the AQMP, ‘none of the listed programs are actually used by the general public’, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment I-Bruckner-2-3 Page 3.10-22 in Section 3.10, Land use provides the following discussion about the project’s consistency with Goal 15: The quality of life in a community is shaped by factors including natural environment, built environment, cultural and social environments. The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan composes these elements to contribute to the quality of life for all Moorpark residents. Specifically, the Specific Plan concentrates development areas to preserve natural features and open space. The plan focuses the highest density development in the closest proximity to the downtown commercial core, civic center and Metrolink transportation hub. Cognizant of the rural nature toward the west and north Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 172 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-161 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 of the project boundary, larger lots have been purposefully placed to create a softer transition from open space to the built environment. Landscape and lighting features will be sensitive to the environment, as well as comply with Moorpark standards and Title 24 CalGreen codes The network of trails, parks and natural open space create an active, outdoor-oriented community that creates opportunities for social interaction benefiting existing and future residents of Moorpark. Residents of neighborhoods that are currently underserved would have access to the network of trails in the Specific Plan area. Response to Comment I-Bruckner-2-4 Page 3.10-32 in Section 3.10, Land use provides the following discussion about the project’s consistency with Goal 7: The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan includes bikeways and trails that will encourage the use of alternative transportation by connecting to the City’s bike and trail system. Additionally, the Project will provide housing in close proximity to transit (bus and Metro) and employment opportunities. Response to Comment I-Bruckner-2-5 Please refer to Response to Comment I-Bruckner-1-1. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 173 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch Development concernsDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:04:11 AMAttachments:image001.png3 of 3 Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: GAYLE BRUCKNER <wynnranch@prodigy.net> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 3:15 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>; GAYLE BRUCKNER <wynnranch@prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Hitch Ranch Development concerns And More: 6) Why does North Hills Parkway exist in this plan??? It is my understanding that the Truck Bypass which has been referred to as North Hills Parkway in the past, has been relocated behind ‘Pinnacle’ near the Rustic Hills Golf Course. So why is this still on this project map? And What is the purpose of dumping an additional 2000+ cars onto Gabbert Road which is already stressed and has a hard limitation for exiting of only two lanes over the railroad tracks?! This is not only a traffic issue, it is a HUGE safety issue for our community! On Monday, April 4, 2022, 03:07:05 AM PDT, GAYLE BRUCKNER <wynnranch@prodigy.net> wrote: Douglas, Additional concerns: 2) How does Moorpark plan to mitigate the significant impact with respect to Valley Fever? 1 I-Bruckner-3Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 174 3) How does Moorpark plan to measure success as it relates to AQMP? It claims success in the Environmental impact report but none of the listed programs are actually used by the general public. 4) This plan adds over 1000 homes - How does Moorpark plan to meet the requirements of Page 3-2-10 of the Environmental Impact report? The report calls out the Land Use Element which states the following air quality goals and policies of the city of Moorpark General Plan that are applicable to the proposed Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project: a. Goal 15: “Maintain a high quality environment that contributes to and enhances the quality of life and protects public health, safety, and welfare.” i. Policy 15.4: Development which will not result in a negative impact on air quality shall be encouraged in order to maintain and enhance air quality for the health and well-being of City residents. 5) This plan adds over 1000 homes (which will equate to at least 2000 additional cars on our streets) - How does Moorpark plan to meet the requirements of Page 3-2-10 of the Environmental Impact report? The report calls out the Circulation Element which states the following Traffic goal and policy in the city of Moorpark General Plan that are applicable to the proposed Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project: a. Goal 7: “Develop and encourage a transportation demand management system to assist in mitigating traffic impacts and in maintaining a desired level of service on the circulation system.” On Monday, April 4, 2022, 02:41:47 AM PDT, GAYLE BRUCKNER <wynnranch@prodigy.net> wrote: Dear Douglas, One of Many concerns: Hitch Ranch Project Concerns: Aesthetics per the Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element 1) How does the Hitch Ranch Project fit into the Moorpark General Plan? It appears the plan violates the Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element and it’s goals and the policies. The plans intent is to take the hills down to 70 feel and to bring the low areas up to 61 feet. This does not meet the intent of the following: a. Goal 16 stated that we will ‘Enhance and maintain the suburban/rural identity of the community”. i. Policy 16.2 “Hillside development standard shall be adopted which restrict grading on slopes greater than 20 percent and which will encourage the preservation of visual horizon lines and significant hillsides as prominent visual features”. I-Bruckner-3Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 175 ii.Policy 16.4 “New Residential development should complement the overall community character of the City, establish a sense of place, and ensure capability with important existing local community identities”. iii. Policy 17.1 “New Development shall be compatible with the scale and visual character of the surrounding neighborhood.” iv. Policy 17.7 “Design features which provide relief and separation shall be required between land uses of conflicting character.” I-Bruckner-3Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 176 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-165 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Bruckner-3 Gayle Bruckner Response to Comment I-Bruckner-3-1 This comment asks a series of questions regarding North Hills Parkway and the City’s circulation system but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 177 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch DEIRDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:04:46 AMAttachments:image001.png Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Jennifer Diamond <jndiamond@att.net> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2022 8:53 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch DEIR Dear Doug, Thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns about the Hitch Ranch project. I have been a resident of Gabbert Road since 1998. I have a lot of concerns about the project in regards to the DEIR, but I will focus on my greatest concern and safety issue. Traffic! The amount of increased traffic and the proposed traffic pattern at Gabbert Road, will cause a huge safety issue for evacuating during wild fires. I truly hope that you will consider a different traffic pattern, including an alternative exit for the existing residence on Gabbert Road. I have had to evacuate my family and my horses several times since living here, and it is already terrifying enough without having to deal with a bottle neck at the bottom of the road, and a huge increase in traffic. Thank you for considering my safety concern. Jennifer Diamond 6151 Gabbert Road 805-377-5560 1 I-DiamondResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 178 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-167 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Diamond Jennifer Diamond Response to Comment I-Diamond-1 This comment expresses concern regarding increased traffic and the City’s circulation system but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 179 From: Diana S. <dianas101@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 9:02 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov>; Diana S. <dianas101@hotmail.com> Subject: So many new homes in Moorpark would overload our traffic as well as overuse water with our extreme drought situation that is ongoing. Thanks, Diana S. Sent from Mail for Windows 1 I-Diana Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 180 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-169 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Diana Diana S Response to Comment I-Diana-1 This comment expresses concern regarding increased traffic water supply but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation. Regarding water supply, please refer to Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, beginning on page 3.18- 4. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 181 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch ProjectDate:Wednesday, March 16, 2022 1:24:29 PMAttachments:image001.pngFYI – public comment Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Connie Hartley <conniehartley9@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 1:04 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Project To Whom it may concern: I moved to Moorpark 33 years ago from Thousand Oaks specifically for the small town feel. I have been pleased that previous proposed projects surrounding Moorpark have been denied as I do not want to live in an area similar to the San Fernando Valley. Traffic on LA Avenue through Moorpark has been horrendous for quite awhile as it is, and our exits, with respect to fire and emergency situations are questionable. I could go on and on! Bottom line I am NOT in favor of these proposed projects. Let the developers put their money elsewhere! Thank You, Connie Hartley Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device 1 I-Hartley Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 182 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-171 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Hartley Connie Hartley Response to Comment I-Hartley-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks and expresses opposition to the proposed project but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Regarding impacts related to fire protection, please refer to Section 3.13, Public Services, beginning on page 3.13-2. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 183 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch ProjectDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 8:18:24 AMAttachments:image001.pngFYI Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Robert Jacobs <rjacobs1013@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 9:59 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch Project Doug, It was a pleasure speaking with you today about the Hitch Ranch Project. I am a member ofGPAC whose goal is to consider how Moorpark will look in 2050. Included in our goals andobjectives are the esthetics of Moorpark and to not replicate the urban development /blight of the San Fernando Valley. The Hitch Ranch Project, adding a possible 755 homesplus additional low income housing, will crowd our city unless there are improvements inthe following areas. These include infrastructure, increased traffic, lack of emergency escape routes (one road inand one road out over a railroad crossing), increased demand for water, police, fire andschools. As we move toward sustainable resources, the Hitch Project will only take a stepbackward. Additionally, Hitch Ranch is in a liquefaction zone, subject to wildfires, flooding,and power outages (as we have already seen in Moorpark numerous times). I highly recommend EIR alternatives including a reduction in the number of proposedhomes to 400. There is no doubt that Moorpark needs more housing but it needs to be safeand practical for all residents, current and future.Any future developments in Moorpark need to enhance the city and not produce undueburden on its resources and residents. 1 I-JacobsResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 184 Thank you,Bob Jacobs -- Robert Jacobs 818-389-3797 I-JacobsResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 185 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-174 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Jacobs Robert Jacobs Response to Comment I-Jacobs-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks and recommends the implementation of one of the alternatives to the proposed project but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following is provided for the record: As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparable merits of the alternatives. However, an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. The Draft EIR provides a range of potential alternatives to the proposed project which includes those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. See Section 4.0, for a comparison of the major components associated with the Project and three alternatives that include Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative, Alternative 2: RPD 20U-N-D Alternative, and Alternative 3 – 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative. Regarding impacts related to liquefaction and other geotechnical issues, please refer to Section 3.6, Geology and Soils. Regarding impacts related to stormwater and flooding, please refer to Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Regarding impacts related to fire and police protection and local schools, please refer to Section 3.13, Public Services. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation. Regarding water supply and the electrical grid, please refer to Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, beginning on page 3.18-4. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 186 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch Specific PlanDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 8:08:10 AMAttachments:image001.pngGood Morning Lynn and happy comment-closure day! FYIDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Ryan Jarvis <redjar83@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2022 10:42 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hello Mr. Spondello, I am emailing you in regards to the proposed Hitch Ranch Plan. My name is Ryan Jarvis and I am a resident of Moorpark living off of Charles St. I want to express my opinion on this plan. I am opposed this plan. My concerns are: higher population for a city that prides itself on being small and personable; removes the beauty of what is mostly untouched scenic land (the rolling hills) to be replaced by structures; exacerbates an already congested commute through Moorpark (i.e. Fillmore via Spring, old 118 to the rest of Ventura County, Santa Rosa pass etc); and to first focus on improving what is already established in Moorpark to attract people to come shop, eat, and seek entertainment as a destination. In short, I do not want the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan to move forward. I do not want the hills carved out as a trade off for higher population and congestion. Thank you for the time and consideration of my comments and thoughts on this matter. -- Ryan Jarvis 1 I-JarvisResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 187 "For wisdom is far more valuable than rubies. Nothing you desire can compare with it." -Proverbs 8:11 I-JarvisResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 188 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-177 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Jarvis Ryan Jarvis Response to Comment I-Jarvis-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks and expresses opposition to the proposed project but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Regarding impacts to aesthetics and visual quality, please refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 189 From: Adam Leavitt <leavitt.adam@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2022 9:45 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch project Mr. Spondello- My family and I are very much against the project. Please add my name to the list of people who will be informed of the next meeting. Adam 1 I-LeavittResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 190 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-179 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Leavitt Adam Leavitt Response to Comment I-Leavitt-1 The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 191 April 4, 2022 D. Spondello City of Moorpark Planning Dept. I want to address an issue not adequately addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project includes 755 homes to be built by the developer and another 333 built by the City of Moorpark for a total of 1,088 homes in this one project. There have also been an additional 800 units approved already that will directly access the same roads for a total of an additional 1,888 homes in downtown Moorpark. All of the planned roads in this project exit onto State Highway 23 (Walnut Canyon Rd/Moorpark Avenue) on the east or onto Gabbert Road at the west. The project will result in over 10,000 trips onto State Highway 23 and Gabbert each day. Both State Highway 23 and Gabbert are two lane roadways. On the west side 6 lanes of travel from the project will be reduced to the existing 2 lanes and on the east side 10 lanes of travel will be reduced to the 2 lanes on State Highway 23. There are no plans to widen State Highway 23 any time in the near future. There are also no plans to widen Gabbert at the railway crossing, nor Gabbert south to State Highway 118. This project dumping onto a state highway is SIGNIFICANTLY important. Because State Highway 23 belongs to the State of California, the City has very limited control on this roadway. $QGOHW¶VQRWIRUJHW6WDWH+LJKZD\LVDOUHDG\DVLJQL¿FDQWDUWHU\IRUURFNDQGVDQGSODQWV WUDI¿FIURP)LOOPRUH:DOQXW&DQ\RQ6FKRRO&LW\+DOO/LEUDU\&KDSDUUDO0LGGOH6FKRROWKH Boys and Girls Club, as well as all of the downtown neighborhoods. And on the west side of WKHSURMHFW*DEEHUWLWVHOILVFXUUHQWO\EXV\ZLWKWUDI¿FIURPWKHLQGXVWULDODUHD&KDSDUUDO0LGGOH School, the Moorpark Estates, and Poindexter Park. Further impacting both State Highway 23 on the east and Gabbert on the west is the railway cutting thru the center of town and both roadways. This Draft EIR describes the project as helping with circulation within Moorpark. The circulation RQO\EHQH¿WVWKHSURMHFWLWVHOI$OORIWKHUHVWRI0RRUSDUNZLOOEHVWXFNZLWKWKHQHZWUDI¿F2Q social media sites, the number one reason residents say they don’t shop downtown is because WKH\GRQ¶WZDQWWRGHDOZLWKWKHWUDI¿F6RQRZHYHQUHVLGHQWVZLOOLQJWRWDFNOHWKHWR FRPHWRWKHGRZQWRZQ+LJK6WUHHWDUHDWRVKRSDQGGLQHZLOOKDYHWRFRQWHQGZLWKKHDY\WUDI¿F there as well. 1 I-Mayfield Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 192 In order for a project of this size to be developed, much of the arterial infrastructure in other parts of the &LW\ZRXOGQHHGWREHDGGUHVVHG¿UVW7KHUHDVRQUHVLGHQWVRI0RRUSDUNYRWHGWREHFRPHDFLW\ZDV to take control of our growth because under the County of Ventura’s control, projects were approved without road, school and other infrastructure in place. This caused our community a lot of grief and ¿QDQFLDOUHVRXUFHVIRUPDQ\GHFDGHV I know I don’t have to remind this Commission of the 30 years it has taken so far simply to get the Princeton repaving project to move forward because it was state highway. And for decades the City KDVEHHQWHOOLQJUHVLGHQWVWKDWWKH\FDQ¶WGRDQ\WKLQJDERXWWUDI¿FRQ+LJKZD\EHFDXVHLWVDVWDWH KLJKZD\,WLVQRWIDLUWRDVNWKHUHVLGHQWVRI0RRUSDUNWRWROHUDWHWUDI¿FSUREOHPVLQGRZQWRZQIRU DQRWKHU\HDUVDVWKH&LW\KDVWRWU\WRZRUNZLWKWKH6WDWHWRPLWLJDWHWKHWUDI¿FSUREOHPVWKLVSURMHFW will create. :LOOLDP00D\¿HOG 6085 Darlene Lane Moorpark, CA 93021 1 I-Mayfield Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 193 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-182 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Mayfield William Mayfield Response to Comment I-Mayfield-1 The comment raises concerns regarding the TIA for the proposed project and states that the ‘project will result in over 10,000 trips onto State Highway 23 and Gabbert each day’, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- making bodies for their review and consideration. Further, for the record, Table 3.10-5 found on page 13 of the updated TIA in Appendix 3.10 of the Draft EIR shows that daily Project Traffic Generation for the proposed project would be a total of 6,436 trips, 4,301 attributed to the single-family residences, 2,401 attributed to the multi-family residences, and 4 attributed to the public park. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 194 Roseann Mikos, Ph.D. 14371 E. Cambridge Street Moorpark, CA 93021 805-529-4828 or 805-878-3300 April 4, 2022 City of Moorpark Doug Spondello, Deputy Community Development Director 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Comment Letter: Hitch Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Mr. Spondello and other interested parties, Please accept this letter as part of the official record for the above referenced project. First of all, let me make it clear that I am not opposed to the project, per se, as it is the last parcel left from the original Moorpark General Plan and it should be built in some form. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS However, it appears that the DEIR has not taken into consideration (and should do so) certain comments in crafting alternatives to the project as proposed, specifically as noted in the August 26, 2019 letter from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) to include alternatives that would: “….“reduce the extensive grading footprint by 20 and 50 acres respectively, and add commensurate acres of permanent natural open space to the upper northwest region of the property with connectivity to other natural lands.” Take into consideration the analysis of “alternatives that include higher capacity and/or more numerous detention basins and designate detention basin(s) that will be allowed to accrue natural debris and support native vegetation for habitat. DEIR alternatives with reduced impervious surface area would better recharge groundwater and require less basin area and basin maintenance and must be included in the DEIR…. …Despite habitat fragmentation this project proposes, ‘naturalized’ detention basins can provide multiple benefits: slow storm water rates allowing for increased infiltratiohn, improved water quality via soil filtration and micro-organism activity, habitat refugia amidst urbanization, reduce heat-islanc effects of urbanization, and provide scenic resources for passibe recreation.” As also stated by the SMMC: “…every opportunity to retain storm flows that would normally support riparian habitat and recharge impacted groundwater basins must be evaluated in the DEIR “ (emphasis added). I would like to point out that whether the proposed North Hills Parkway is to be a four-lane or a two- lane road needs to be addressed as well, since if only a two lane road, it would allow for more open space, as requested by the SMMC. When the North Hills Parkway was originally envisioned it was prior to learning other considerations that might only require a two-lane road. This needs to be evaluated in light of this project. Why does Alterative 3 as proposed have NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING? That is unacceptable! The alternatives in general are weak and do not try to meet the project objectives! If there was a smaller footprint for some of the homes that are the higher end homes (assuming a lesser footprint for North Hills Parkway), you could get more market rate housing on a smaller footprint to meet more developer 4 2 1 3 I-MikosResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 195 To: City of Moorpark Page 2 of 2 From: Dr. Roseann Mikos Date: April 4, 2022 RE: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Document(s) project objectives while also being more sensitive to the environment. YET, there is NO alternative that even contemplates that! This is surprising, to say the least, and more than unacceptable. RE: Donation Parcel for Basin 3 (Passive Park) Why is this a “donation” parcel (7.23 acres)? This should be part of the main project of the developer! And the HOAs should have to include it in maintenance, NOT the city for the affordable housing part of the donation parcel. There is something wrong with that picture and it needs to be re-evaluated. The developer appears to want to offload the detention basin costs onto the city instead of paying for them with the project. I hope that is not the case, but that is what is seems. If so, that is unacceptable, to say the least! This should NOT be part of the “by right” affordable housing donation parcel. RE:LIGHTING ALTERNATIVES The DEIR is proposing high pressure sodium lights, instead of mercury vapor! Why are they not proposing LED lights for a more environmentally friendly kind of lighting? It is as if the OLD DEIR from 20 years ago is being regurgitated when we have come a long way since then for lighting. This needs to be revisited and changed to join the modern world! SUMMARY There are probably other things that I should have brought up, but these are perhaps the most important. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and I look forward to your responses to them. Sincerely, Roseann Mikos, Ph.D. Former Moorpark City Councilmember and Interested Private Citizen 4 6 7 5 I-MikosResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 196 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-185 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Mikos Roseann Mikos Response to Comment I-Mikos-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks and expresses guarded support for the proposed project but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment I-Mikos-2 As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparable merits of the alternatives. However, an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. The Draft EIR provides a range of potential alternatives to the proposed project which includes those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. See Section 4.0, for a comparison of the major components associated with the Project and three alternatives that include Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative, Alternative 2: RPD 20U-N-D Alternative, and Alternative 3 – 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative. Further, as discussed in Section discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and in Appendix 3.9, build-out of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan will include four detention basins, which will retain storm flows on site for percolation into groundwater. Response to Comment I-Mikos-3 As discussed and disclosed in the Section 2.0, Project Description, on page 2.0-15, and Section 3.10, on page 3.10-31: North Hills Parkway would be developed as a four-lane road, consisting of two vehicle-travel lanes plus bike lanes (in each direction) with a total right-of-way corridor dedication width of 200 feet with controlled access and restricted parking. A 14-foot wide landscaped median would be provided. The roadway also includes a 14-foot wide parkway section. The north side of the parkway would provide for a 12-foot wide multi-use trail. Bike racks will be installed at all active park and recreation areas. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 197 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-186 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 As discussed on page 2.0-21 of Section 2.0, Project Description, the General Plan Amendments to be adopted as part of implementation of the proposed project would include the following amendment to the Circulation Element: Circulation Element: Amend to include the extension of High Street to Gabbert Road. Under the current General Plan Circulation Element High Street terminates east of Hitch Ranch at Moorpark Avenue. The High Street roadway presently extends westerly approximately 700 feet beyond Moorpark Avenue to provide access to the United States Post Office. The additional extension to connect to the Hitch Ranch property will provide a secondary access point for the Post Office and improve east/west circulation within the portion of the City north of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. High Street will be built as a two-lane collector roadway with traffic calming roundabouts within the Specific Plan. The Circulation Element is also to be amended to reduce North Hills Parkway from a six-lane arterial roadway to a four-lane arterial roadway, along with the deletion of a traffic signal at North Hills Parkway and Gabbert Road. The current General Plan Circulation Element also shows a conceptual alignment for Casey Road that would not be feasible due to the hilly landforms of the Hitch Ranch property. The current Circulation Element Casey Road conceptual alignment also terminates on the west end at an impractical location too near to the intersection with the currently-designated six-lane and signalized North Hills Parkway. With the proposed Circulation Element Amendment both “A” Street and Meridian Hills Drive will be added as Local Collector roads originating at Walnut Canyon Road on the north and terminating at High Street extension on the south. Casey Road will terminate on the west at “A” Street. These General Plan Circulation Element Amendments will create additional routes of vehicle circulation through interconnection that was not anticipated at the time that the 1992 General Plan Circulation Element was last updated. Response to Comment I-Mikos-4 Please refer to Response to Comment I-Mikos-2 Response to Comment I-Mikos-5 The comment takes issue with the donation of land by the project applicant to the City for a public park, however, it does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 198 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-187 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Response to Comment I-Mikos-6 The comment takes issue of the type of lighting recommended in the mitigation measure; however, it does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. For the record, mitigation measure AES-3 requires that: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a lighting plan prepared by a lighting consultant consistent with the Specific Plan Design Guidelines Lighting Concept shall be submitted to the City of Moorpark Department of Community Development for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall incorporate 0.5 foot-candle as a threshold for spill and the minimum streetlamp glare level of 2.0 foot-candles. All fixtures shall utilize shields to direct light downward, and the lighting plan shall also incorporate other “dark sky” friendly measures to the extent feasible. Review and approval of the lighting plan by the City of Moorpark Department of Community Development would ensure that current lighting concepts would be utilized by the proposed project. Response to Comment I-Mikos-7 The comment is a conclusory remark and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 199 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: DEIR Specific Plan IDate:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 12:39:33 PMAttachments:image001.pngLetter to Spondello on DEIR for Specific Plan I.pdfDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Doris Miller <dorisdebby@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 3:26 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: DEIR Specific Plan I Mr. Spondello: I am attaching a PDF of my comments addressing what I consider inadequacies of the DEIR. I exceeded your 500 word request and I’m sorry. I felt what I said was necessary to explain my analyses. Please let me know if you received this. I sent an email through my gmail account and it just disappeared. If you end up getting 2, sorry to waste your time. Doris Miller Sent from Mail for Windows 1 I-Miller-1Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 200 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-189 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Miller-1 Doris Miller Response to Comment I-Miller-1-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 201 April 4, 2022 Doug Spondello, Deputy Community Development Director City of Moorpark Moorpark, CA Re: Specific Plan I: Hitch Ranch DEIR According to the City of Moorpark Safety Element for 2000-2005, “CEQA provides a means by which City officials and the public can identify the potential impacts a project will have on a community, and to allow for mitigation or avoidance of such impacts.” I have reviewed the DEIR very carefully and find it to be deficient in those areas pertaining to hazard management and mitigation, water availability, and electrical availability. I do not believe the analyses given are current or appropriate for the proposed population density for this project plus the changes to the circulation pattern servicing this project. Therefore, neither City officials nor the public can garner a true picture of the actual costs associated with this project. The Ventura County Multi- Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan Update 2022 makes the following deficiencies very apparent: 1. Extent of wildfire hazard, especially the lack of an adequate evacuation route for the northwestern side of the city. All reliable sources point to continued and increasing chances for wildfire particularly in the northwestern part of the city. Evacuation of approximately an additional 2000 residents, if this project is approved, plus the current residents of Gabbert Canyon and their animals, amount to newspaper headline disaster nightmares that make the deaths in Paradise, CA seem minor in comparison. Dumping traffic from a four-lane arterial, without signalization, onto what becomes a narrow two- lane road over a railroad track, with a raging wildfire and dense smoke is, in my opinion, highly negligent. If I can see the inherent dangers, engineers should certainly be able to see them! 2. Climate Change has not been depicted to have near the expected impacts in the report as has been predicted by reliable sources. All indications are that Santa Ana Winds, storms, drought, and environmental dryness will play key roles in the welfare of our community. The ten hottest years since 1880 have occurred since 2005. These warmer temperatures also cause greater evaporation to our plant life, soils, and reservoirs. 3. Train derailments are quite possible due to human caused track interference, poor operator behaviors, or traffic accidents. Three very critical areas are on Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road, and Gabbert Road. If the trains are carrying hazardous chemicals, the disaster simple increases in size and health and safety effects. 4. Aircraft incidents have increased in likelihood with Edison’s use of helicopters to assess power equipment issues and complete changes to their equipment. In addition, there appears to be much greater military activity lately. 5. Water Availability: It is difficult to believe there will be adequate water for a new development of this size when on 03/17/2022, NOAA forecasters predicted that the drought gripping California and much of the West will persist and worsen …there will also be hotter-than-normal temperatures, reduced chances of rain, and increased fire risks likely.” CA now has 87% of its area in a severe drought category with 35% in an 4 5 2 1 3 I-Miller-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 202 extreme drought category. The current U.S. Drought Monitor places Ventura County, as of February 2022, as the 3rd driest year to date over the past 128 years.98.75% of Ventura County considered severe drought status. In addition, groundwater reserves are decreasing and groundwater quality shows increasing nitrates and TDS. How is it possible to say we have enough water for 2000 more people and all the landscaping detailed in the Specific Plan I? All 58 CA counties are not under a drought emergency proclamation. DWR will reduce State Water Project allocations to 5% of requested supplies for 2022. Statewide reservoir levels are decreasing. Some reservoirs are at a mere 35% of capacity. Governor Newsom has asked every user to voluntarily reduce water consumption by 15%. 6.Electrical Capacity: Reduced water levels in reservoirs, along with Colorado River volume reduction, will place increasing strains on the electrical grid. When I review the public safety shutoffs we’ve had in the area over the last few years, it makes me very nervous about future cut backs. Should all homes be required to install solar panels and battery walls to provide for themselves when increasing population size strains the system even more? Analyses must be flawed to say “no problem providing electrical service”. I have limited my discussion to the DEIR since I understand that is the objective. Thank you for including my concerns. Please keep me on the list of those wanting to be informed of further actions on this project. Doris Miller 6395 Gabbert Road Moorpark, CA 93021 (805)529-3388 6 7 5 I-Miller-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 203 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-192 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Miller-2 Doris Miller Response to Comment I-Miller-2-1 This comment cites several ‘deficiencies’ in the Draft EIR but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment I-Miller-2-2 The comment raises concerns regarding wildfire hazards and the lack of an ‘adequate evacuation route’, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is provided for the record: The Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) has thoroughly reviewed the Draft EIR, particularly Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 3.13, Public Services, and Section 3.18, Wildfire, including their related appendices. The VCFD also tendered a 6-page memorandum which includes the VCFD’s conditions for approval for the proposed project (refer to Comment A-VCFD-3, included above). In addition, the following information is included on page 3.13-6, in Section 3.13, Public Services: Anticipated Frequency and Nature of Emergency Occurrence (Special Fire Protection Problems). The frequency and nature of future emergency calls is difficult to predict. No uses allowed in the Specific Plan are unusual or have the potential to generate an unusual number or type of calls for service. However, the Specific Plan site is located in an area designated as a “Hazardous Fire Area.” Construction would, therefore, be required to comply with all applicable building and fire code requirements. These requirements may include items such as types of roofing materials, building construction, brush clearance, fire hydrant flows, hydrant spacing, access and design, and other hazard reduction programs, as set forth by VCFD. With the implementation of standard conditions and requirements as outlined below, potential fire hazard impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Refer also to Section 3.18, Wildfire, in this EIR. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 204 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-193 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 The VCFD has not disputed these statements. Response to Comment I-Miller-2-3 This comment cites concerns related to ‘Climate Change,’ but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is provided for the record: The Draft EIR provides a robust discussion and analysis of the potential for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan to impact greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Please refer to Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Response to Comment I-Miller-2-4 This comment cites concerns related to train derailments and ‘aircraft incidents,’ but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Further, the likelihood of this to occur is speculative; per CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 an EIR need not engage in "sheer speculation" as to future environmental consequences. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment I-Miller-2-5 The comment raises concerns regarding water availability, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is provided for the record: Section 3.17, Utilities, provides a discussion regarding the availability of potable and reclaimed water and Appendix 3.17, Utilities, includes a Water Supply Assessment. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 205 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-194 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Response to Comment I-Miller-2-6 The comment raises concerns regarding electrical capacity and strains on the electrical grid, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is provided for the record: Page 2.0-18 states that: In accordance with Section 150.1(b)14 of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, all new residential uses of three stories or less would install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels that generate an amount of electricity equal to their expected electricity usage. In addition, although not required by Title 24, the Project would include a rooftop solar system sized at approximately 112 kilowatts for the proposed four-story building that would accommodate the electricity needs of the approximately 135 affordable apartment units. Further, as discussed on page 3.7-38 o Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions: As shown in Table 3.7-5, the Plan would achieve GHG reductions to reach less-than-significant levels (represented by equal to or less than 2.10 per capita MTCO2e per resident per year by 2030). The Plan would result in 2.03 per capita MTCO2e per resident per year through 2030. The Plan’s conformance within this threshold is primarily due to the Plan’s requirement to comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and 2019 CALGreen, requiring 100 percent of electricity usage for the proposed residential uses to be supplied by solar PV panels, a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use, and the use of water-efficient irrigation systems. As such, the Plan would also be in line with the state’s 2030 and 2045 targets per SB 32 and EO B-55-8 respectively. Therefore, operational and total (construction plus operational) GHG emissions from buildout of the Plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Response to Comment I-Miller-2-7 This comment is conclusory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 206 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-195 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 207 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Specific plan IDate:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 12:39:44 PMAttachments:image001.pngFYI submitted after close of comments Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: D Miller <dorisronm@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2022 2:24 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Specific plan I So sorry. I hate spell check. It never catches words that are used incorrectly. In the section on water availability in the letter I emailed yesterday, I mistakenly said "all 58 counties are not under an emergency proclamation". The 'not' should be changed to a now. Totally different meaning. I normally proof read better but the 5 o'clock deadline was looming. Doris Miller 1 I-Miller-3Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 208 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-197 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Miller-3 Doris Miller Response to Comment I-Miller-3-1 This comment includes some corrections to an earlier comment letter; the corrections noted have been incorporated in the earlier comments. As the comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 209 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Proposed Hitch DevelopmentDate:Monday, March 14, 2022 10:51:57 AMAttachments:image001.pngFor fileDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 |dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Patricia Moffat-Ducharme <patricia.ducharme@pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 10:21 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Proposed Hitch Development I am concerned about the proposed Hitch development. I understand the need for housing and I’m not anti development, but specifically this parcel has serious transportation access issues. The number of houses and the dumping of traffic onto Gabbert and Walnut Canyon as those 2 roads are currently configured are a disaster waiting to happen in a fire. Moorpark already has evacuation issues and people have died in the current Gabbert area trying to evacuate a fire and since that time considerable population has been added above High Street all of which is blocked off by narrow 2 lane roads and 3 train crossings. My concern is we could end up the next Paradise if Gabbert, Walnut Canyon and the 3 train crossings aren’t widened https://www.streetlightdata.com/limited- emergency-evacuation-routes-map/ 1 I-Moffat-Ducharme-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 210 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-199 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Moffat-Ducharme-1 Patricia Moffat-Ducharme Response to Comment I-Moffat-Ducharme-1-1 The comment presents concerns regarding evacuation during a wildfire emergency but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Miller-2-2. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 211 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Proposed Hitch DevelopmentDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:03:10 AMAttachments:image001.pngFYI Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Patricia Moffat-Ducharme <patricia.ducharme@pacbell.net> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2022 8:49 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed Hitch Development I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak at the public meeting and while there were many of safety reasons to not allow such an extensive development, it appears neither the developer, the city, the railroad or probably the potential homeowners understand or care of the danger a development of that size could mean in a fire. Moorpark is severely constrained in terms or access and egress. The railroad tracks and crossing are narrow (one lane each way) and can’t be widened without the railroad’s approval; The 118 and Moorpark road, while bisecting the town can’t be widened without state approval. A plan for one thousand residences (two thousand plus cars) all trying to exit onto Moorpark and Gabber roads is a recipe for disaster. I understand the desire of the landowner and developer to maximize profits and the city to collect property taxes, but a development of this size is simply too dangerous without significant infrastructure improvement, which the city can neither force the state or railroads to commit to. The plan and the EIR address traffic inside the development, but do not take into account the impact of dumping traffic from North Hill Parkway onto Gabbert a narrow two lane road and the traffic that must stop at the railroad crossing and the 3 away stop after the crossing. Parents on their way to school drop offs will paralyze traffic on Gabbert and Moorpark Road. There simply has to be a better way to use the property or I would ask the city to obtain the infrastructure improvements prior to putting so many lives in jeopardy. 1 I-Moffat-Ducharme-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 212 On Mar 14, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Patricia Moffat-Ducharme <Patricia.Ducharme@pacbell.net> wrote: I am concerned about the proposed Hitch development. I understand the need for housing and I’m not anti development, but specifically this parcel has serious transportation access issues. The number of houses and the dumping of traffic onto Gabbert and Walnut Canyon as those 2 roads are currently configured are a disaster waiting to happen in a fire. Moorpark already has evacuation issues and people have died in the current Gabbert area trying to evacuate a fire and since that time considerable population has been added above High Street all of which is blocked off by narrow 2 lane roads and 3 train crossings. My concern is we could end up the next Paradise if Gabbert, Walnut Canyon and the 3 train crossings aren’t widened https://www.streetlightdata.com/limited-emergency-evacuation-routes-map/ 1 I-Moffat-Ducharme-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 213 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-202 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Moffat-Ducharme-2 Patricia Moffat-Ducharme Response to Comment I-Moffat-Ducharme-2-1 The comment presents concerns regarding evacuation during a wildfire emergency but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Miller-2-2. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 214 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Development of land above Poindexter and other area of Moorpark.Date:Wednesday, March 16, 2022 5:05:12 PMAttachments:image001.pngFYI Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Mike and Laura Morser <bearnbug@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 4:25 PM To: City Council & City Manager <CityCouncil@MoorparkCA.gov>; John Bandek <JBandek@MoorparkCA.gov>; Shanna Farley <SFarley@moorparkca.gov>; Tamar R. Gantt <TGantt@MoorparkCA.gov>; Carlene Saxton <CSaxton@MoorparkCA.gov>; Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Development of land above Poindexter and other area of Moorpark. Hello. I want to talk about your housing development plan for around Poindexter in Moorpark. Unfortunately I missed Monday night's meeting, and I wanted to express my concern. I moved to Moorpark in 1986 with my mother after she remarried. My sister went to Chaparral and Moorpark High School, while I went to Moorpark College. I moved away upon marrying in 1993, but have since moved back in 2017. I hated it the first time I lived here. I hated it because I was used to the busyness of the SF Valley; the bussel, my friends, the restaurants, the proximity to LA, etc. Do you know why I moved back here? I moved back here to have my daughter go to a great high school. I moved back here to NOT have the bussel or the proximity of LA! I moved back here because it's really so lovely, beautiful, nice air quality, and relatively less crowded. I understand improvements and staying relative. You don't want it to be Akhiok Alaska, I get it. However when you look at development and urban growth in a city, shouldn't you look at supporting the infrastructure to absorb it. The Truck traffic alone on LA Ave is usually a disaster from 8am- 7pm. Tierra Rejada and Spring Rd turn into expressways from 3-7pm. The traffic is becoming a nightmare! Have you been to the intersection of Tierra Rejada and LA at 3:30pm lately. BUMPER TO BUMPER trying to go toward Camarillo! What is going to happen when you build those new houses, condos, and or apartments? More people, more traffic, more more more. STOP! You don't need to build new homes here. Who told you should? We like our Moorpark the way it is! If you want to improve something, fix the potholes on LA Ave going East between Tierra Rejada and Spring. Or redesign the electric grids so the power doesn't have to be shut off all the time. Come on elected officials! Say it with me! "No more new homes in Moorpark!" Thank you, Laura Morser 1 I-Morser Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 215 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-204 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Morser Laura Morser Response to Comment I-Morser-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks, raises concerns regarding traffic and wildfire evacuation, and expresses opposition to the proposed project, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Miller-2-2. Regarding impacts to aesthetics and visual quality, please refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 216 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Citizen CommentsDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 10:46:42 AMAttachments:image001.pngFYI Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Douglas Spondello Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 10:46 AM To: 'Sharon Noel' <4sharonnoel@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Citizen Comments Good Morning Sharon, First and foremost thank you for the great meeting on Thursday. The GPAC really engaged with the policy recommendations, and I feel we have a better product as a result. Previous written comments from the EIR scoping period are included in the DEIR Appendix C (pdf page 62 of 6,199) linked here: https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12892/Hitch- Ranch-Appendices-DEIR?bidId= Please note that this document is very large and takes a long time to load. The Appendix also include Comments provided by public speakers at previous meetings are included on the project site here: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan | Moorpark, CA - Official Website (moorparkca.gov) Comments made during the current DEIR review period and our responses will be published with the Final EIR later this month/early next month. Wildfire is analyzed in Section 3.18 of the DEIR based on the technical review included in the 2021 Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan which is Appendix 3.18 within the larger Appendix document linked above. I hope that helps but welcome questions/input. Thank you, Doug I-Noel-1Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 217 Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Sharon Noel <4sharonnoel@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2022 3:46 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Citizen Comments Hello Douglas, Can you please tell me where prior citizen statements, specifically concerning wildfire and evacuation concerns related to this project can be viewed? Additionally, where will the current comments, (from February 17, to April 4 be viewable in their documentation? In the draft EIR there is a section containing the concerns known to the lead agency. Yet the agency didn't make mention of wildfire. Thanks Sharon Noel 1 I-Noel-1Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 218 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-207 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Noel-1 Sharon Noel Response to Comment I-Noel-1-1 The comment raises concerns that public scoping comments were not addressed in the DEIR but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please note that City of Moorpark Deputy Community Development Director Douglas Spondello provided the requested information to the commenter via email. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 219 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch Draft E.I.R.Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 10:46:34 AMAttachments:image001.pngFYI Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Sharon Noel <4sharonnoel@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 10:14 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Cc: Troy Brown <TBrown@MoorparkCA.gov>; Janice S. Parvin <JParvin@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch Draft E.I.R. Good Afternoon Mr. Spondello and the Lead Agency, The work that has gone into this E.I.R. is impressive. Also, I want to acknowledge Mr. Spondello's politeness and willingness to be helpful on pertinent matters. However, there are some conditions that do exist that have ramifications that aren't being adequately addressed by the mitigations on this project. First, on page 19, 1.3.2, titled Areas of Concern Known To The Lead Agency. This list consists of specific matters that were brought up during the scoping process by citizens and attending agencies, as opposed to the standard checklist covered by CEQA. The fact that the project lies within the States identified Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, should be an area of concern, that I must assume you, and the Lead Agency, know about. However for some unknown reason, this fact, and the MANY comments of the citizens during the scoping process, on the matter of wildfire and evacuation, have gone unmentioned in the lists summary. Apparently, they don't concern the Lead Agency. It is of concern to the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods from the project, and likely would concern the future residents of the project. Because no matter how much high tech information we have regarding the prediction of the movement of a fire, if it's heading our way, we will evacuate. Since the fires in the area of great concern (to some), historically move from east 2 1 I-Noel-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 220 to west, as such, people have evacuated onto Gabbert Road. Gabbert Road terminates a short distance to the north. To try to move away from the path of the fire, people move south-west and cross the constriction at the train crossing. Page 134 has a picture of the train crossing that I'm referring to. A dangerous situation in the past, as many residents did attest to during the scoping process. Consider the addition of 2,492 people. A tad disconcerting to say the least! If they get across the tracks, and across Poindexter Ave, in the next block they approach L.A. Ave./118 as they move away from the direction of the fire. This intersection is identified as one of the two locations in the city that operates below standards even on a good day. Picture the sudden addition of a couple thousand cars. The EIR makes reference to the addition of evacuation exit opportunities in the project, however they are either on the east, which is the direction that the fire comes from, due to Santa Ana Winds, (not a help),or the other two from the western terminal of North Hills Parkway, or the new High Street, both of which lead to the location I was just describing. The Lead Agency may not consider it to be an area of concern however Wildfire is one of the standard items on the CEQA checklist. One mitigation brought forth addresses it by saying that since there isn't an evacuation plan in place, no plan will be impaired by the project. It's true, as of yet there is no official evacuation plan. This won't stop people from needing to go somewhere to get away from the oncoming fire. This will be an impact of the project due to the population increase. Albeit an indirect impact, it still deserves (and requires) addressing. Regarding Cumulative Impacts 3.0.3.2.. North Hills Parkway has been adopted in our current General Plan as a Six-Lane Arterial. The project shows it as a Four-Lane Arterial. Wouldn't it be required to disclose the potential of it becoming Six-Lanes, since it is in the current General Plan? Regarding Aethstetics 3.1 The Land Use Element Goal 1, Page 139. Preserve and enhance the unique aesthetic and visual qualities of Moorpark. Policy 1.1 Protect the scenic viewshed both to and from Moorpark. To this I say that Hitch Ranch is the only area left, to and from Moorpark, that still has its rural and unique qualities of Moorpark. It can be seen from the trains all day long. It deserves to be protected, in reality, not just goals and policies. As the EIR states, the grading, or one could say, degradation of the hills and the landscape will go on for several years. Additionally, both schools nearby will deal with air pollution and noise pollution from the construction for years. The renderings on 146-151 show the ultimate ruination to follow. The view from the train won't show anyone anything "with special Moorpark appeal". Just another developers pocketful of cash. Regarding Biological Resources: The list of Flora and Fauna that deserves protection, either legally or ideally, is staggering. Can the mitigation tasks actually perform efficiently enough to provide protection? Doubtful in my opinion. Looks good on paper. Regarding Growth Management: The project does induce growth. Most of us who have enjoyed life as we know it, would be moving out, due to the effects of this development. After the city tells us not to let the gate hit us on our way out, these large properties will be rezoned into the same thing as the development. Please keep me informed as to the next meeting. Also, I'd like to know who in the Lead Agency, will have the responsibility of addressing, or at least reading this letter? Where will I be able to locate 4 6 7 5 2 3 I-Noel-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 221 it, once it has been filed? Thank You Sharon Noel 7 I-Noel-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 222 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-211 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Noel-2 Sharon Noel Response to Comment I-Noel-2-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment I-Noel-2-2 The comment raises the concern that wildfire was not included as an ‘Area of Concern Known to the Lead Agency,’ but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is included for the record: While wildfire was not originally included on the listing of ‘Areas of Concern Known to the Lead Agency’ beginning on page 1.0-11, wildfire hazards and risks were analyzed in three sections of the Draft EIR, Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 3.13, Public Services, and Section 3.18, Wildfire. The Final EIR will be revised to include wildfire on the listing of ‘Area of Concern Known to the Lead Agency’. Please refer to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Section 1.0, Executive Summary. Response to Comment I-Noel-2-3 North Hill Parkway is no longer envisioned as a six-lane arterial roadway. As such, approval of the proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment, including an amendment to the Circulation Element: Circulation Element: Amend to include the extension of High Street to Gabbert Road. Under the current General Plan Circulation Element High Street terminates east of Hitch Ranch at Moorpark Avenue. The High Street roadway presently extends westerly approximately 700 feet beyond Moorpark Avenue to provide access to the United States Post Office. The additional extension to connect to the Hitch Ranch property will provide a secondary access point for the Post Office and improve east/ west circulation within the portion of the City north of the Union Pacific Railroad Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 223 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-212 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 tracks. High Street will be built as a two-lane collector roadway with traffic calming roundabouts within the Specific Plan. The Circulation Element is also to be amended to reduce North Hills Parkway from a six-lane arterial roadway to a four-lane arterial roadway through the Hitch Ranch project, along with the deletion of a traffic signal at North Hills Parkway and Gabbert Road. The current General Plan Circulation Element also shows a conceptual alignment for Casey Road that would not be feasible due to the hilly landforms of the Hitch Ranch property. The current Circulation Element Casey Road conceptual alignment also terminates on the west end at an impractical location too near to the intersection with the currently-designated six-lane and signalized North Hills Parkway. With the proposed Circulation Element Amendment both Street “A” and Meridian Hills Drive will be added as Local Collector roads originating at Walnut Canyon Road on the north and terminating at High Street extension on the south. Casey Road will terminate on the west at Street “A”. These General Plan Circulation Element Amendments will create additional routes of vehicle circulation through interconnection that was not anticipated at the time that the 1992 General Plan Circulation Element was last updated. Response to Comment I-Noel-2-4 The comment raises concerns regarding aesthetic impacts but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Bruckner-1-1. Response to Comment I-Noel-2-5 The comment expresses an opinion that the mitigation measures included in the EIR to protect and preserve biological resources are not sufficient, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment I-Noel-2-6 The comment expresses an opinion regarding growth management, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 224 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-213 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment I-Noel-2-7 Responses to all comments received during the public comment period on the Draft EIR, including those from the commenter, will be made available for review as part of the Final EIR document at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 225 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Development ProjectDate:Tuesday, March 15, 2022 9:53:39 AMAttachments:image002.pngFYI Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Armen <housephiliac@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 5:19 PM To: Planning <planning@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Development Project Hello, Our household would like to add our voices to the support for the proposed housing development north of Poindexter. We will certainly hear resounding calls to block development from fellow residents and we have to make sure infrastructure work will be done to alleviate their concerns but I really hope they don’t succeed in cutting the project or reducing the scope. Housing supply issue is devastating. Thanks, Armen Osipian 1 I-Osipian-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 226 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-215 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Osipian-1 Armen Osipian Response to Comment I-Osipian-1-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks and expresses support for the proposed project but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 227 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch projectDate:Thursday, March 17, 2022 9:33:36 AMAttachments:image001.pngFYIDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Armen <housephiliac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 3:50 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch project Hello, Our household would like to add our voices to the support for the proposed housing development north of Poindexter. The infrastructure adjustments do have to be made though. People are making good points regarding roads and water supply. But the housing supply issue is devastating so maybe there's a compromise solution. Thanks, Armen Osipian 1 I-Osipian-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 228 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-217 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Osipian-2 Armen Osipian Response to Comment I-Osipian-2-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks and expresses support for the proposed project but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation. Regarding water supply, please refer to Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, beginning on page 3.18- 4. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 229 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch - Traffic AnalysisDate:Monday, March 14, 2022 9:57:25 AMAttachments:image001.pngHi Lynn,Please see comment below on the DEIR Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Perreyclear <perreyclearhouse@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2022 12:33 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch - Traffic Analysis The EIR traffic analysis stated on page 28, ‘there would be a reduction in the level of service at (3) intersections”, within Moorpark. This is because the level of service is no longer an environmental impact consideration under CEQA ? Moorpark is not being fairly represented under CEQA to protect its city residents from the already over burdened traffic on Los Angeles Street, less the future addition of traffic impacting it. Since CEQA no longer considers ‘level of service’ in its analysis it is contributing to the reduction of the future environmental quality of life in Moorpark. Please stand and protect the environmental quality of life as it relates to additional traffic and the reduction in the level of service at the (3) intersections on Los Angeles Street for all city residents by voting down the Hitch Ranch project. Wes Perreyclear 15033 Marquette Street, Moorpark perreyclearHouse@yahoo.com 1 I-Perreyclear Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 230 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-219 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Perreyclear Wes Perreyclear Response to Comment I-Perreyclear-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks, raises concerns regarding traffic, and expresses opposition to the proposed project, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Regarding impacts related to traffic and Level of Service, please refer to Section 3.10, Land Use. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 231 2. Future roadway improvements are identified and budgeted in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. The2021/2022 Capital Improvement Program is available as part of the budget at the following link andincludes details for each project. We're also in the process of updating our General Plan CirculationElement that will evaluate future roadway priorities Citywide. That said, the DEIR establishes that theroadways and improvements associated with this project are adequate to mitigate the impacts of theproject. https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12594/Operating-and-Capital-Improvement-Projects-Budget-Fiscal-Year-21-22?bidId=https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12594/Operating-and-Capital-Improvement-Projects-Budget-Fiscal-Year-21-22?bidId= 3. My understanding of the development and potential traffic impacts is based on the traffic analysis andEIR, which includes surveys and projections based on approved and pending development projects in theCity and region. To that extent, we determined that there were no significant impacts and the reasons forthat are clearly outlined in the DEIR. Again, if you have concerns regarding the validity of this analysis,please communicate them during the comment period. We will review and respond to all comments.You're also welcome to provide verbal comments at the Planning Commission Meeting to discuss theDEIR on March 14th at 7:00pm. Finally, thank you very much for your time and interest in our City! Douglas Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.govhttp://moorparkgeneralplan.com/8d34b513-3cc5-4b73-847e-019d97b3c15f From: Chris Sierra [mpchriss@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 2:35 PM To: Douglas Spondello Cc: Jesse Sierra Subject: Hitch Ranch Development Good Afternoon, Douglas, I am a 35-year resident located off of Poindexter Ave., and I have a few questions/concerns regarding the Hitch Ranch Development proposal. I have reviewed the plan on the Moorpark Website. Within the plan, I do not see any plan to build more main roads and infrastructure to support the additional 755 units. I see one road (North Hills Parkway) that will potentially connect between Gabbert Road and Moorpark Avenue, which along with Poindexter Avenue, these are the only three main roads to support the existing residents that live around these three roads. If you are a Moorpark Resident, residents are aware of the existing heavy traffic on Poindexter Avenue and Moorpark Avenue during morning peak hours Monday through Friday due to Chapparral Middle School and commuters leaving Moorpark for work within this area. This is the same for the afternoon peak hours as well. My questions are: 1. Is the Moorpark Community Development Office aware of the logistical, infrastructure nightmare that this Development will bring to the Moorpark Downtown area? 2. Is there a road infrastructure plan in place to build more roads outside of this development besides North Hills Parkway? 3. Are you a resident of Moorpark, and if so, how do you feel about the impact this development might have on the three main roads listed above and the Downtown surrounding areas? Thank you for your time, a response would be greatly appreciated. Best Regards, Christopher Sierra 1 I-Sierra Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 232 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-221 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Sierra Christopher Sierra Response to Comment I-Sierra-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks and expresses concerns regarding the traffic impacts and infrastructure development for the proposed project but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Regarding impacts related to traffic and Level of Service, please refer to Section 3.10, Land Use. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation. Regarding impacts related to public infrastructure, please refer to Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 233 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch EIR: Concerning Hazardous MaterialsDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:00:26 AMAttachments:image001.pngHITCH_RANCH_ORE_SAMPLE_RADIOLOGY.mp4oresample_rad_level_Hitch_Ranch.pngGrimes Canyon_survey_1954.pngEpigenetic uranium deposits in Tertiary sedimentary rocks 17.pdfFYIDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: therisingphoenix@sbcglobal.net <therisingphoenix@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2022 11:36 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch EIR: Concerning Hazardous Materials MR. Spondello, My name Chad Stratton. As a 50 year resident of Moorpark / Gabbert Canyon, I am concerned with the inevitable exposure to radioactive Isotopes, carried by ‘east wind’ events, during the grading process of the ‘Hitch Ranch’ project. The EIR discusses RADON but not the actual minerals below the surface. The minerals, if ingested, will lead to serious health issues. I have discovered ore samples within the scope of the project that have raised my concerns. I have included media to substantiate my claim. The design of this project is fantastic. I studied the design…Unfortunately it puts this 100 year old community in peril. The video added shows a radiological survey of the ore samples, the high value is 10 clicks per second. (see translation in attachment: oresample_rad_lvel_Hitch_Rach.png) There is so much more I wish to add. I will be in contact to arrange a meeting so we can discuss this 1 I-StrattonResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 234 in further detail. Best Regards, Chad I. Stratton 1.Disintegrations per second | Radiology Reference Article | Radiopaedia.org 2.Disintegrations per Second to Picocurie (unitsconverters.com) 3.report.pdf (usgs.gov) 1 I-StrattonResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 235 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-224 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Stratton Chad Stratton Response to Comment I-Stratton-1 The commenter expresses concern regarding potential off-property migration of dust during site grading and construction, particularly dust derived from local geologic strata that may contain radioactive isotopes. Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR evaluates the impact the project, including its construction phase, on ambient air quality, including emissions from the combustion of motor fuels and the generation of dust. Subsection 3.2.1.3 Local Regulations describes the authority and responsibility of local government with respect air quality, specifically in this case to changes in air quality associated with construction and site development. Reference to Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust) is made in this section on page 3.2-8 of the DEIR. Rule 55 establishes standards for dust control during ground disturbance, a methodology for measurement, and protocol for reporting and upset control. The Rule 55 standard is rigorous, and adherence during site preparation, grading and construction will mitigate the concern articulated in the referenced comment. The measures in this section are reiterated here for convenience: 3.2.6.1 VCAPCD Construction Control Measures CM AQ-1: The following control measures provided in the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines to minimize the generation of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5), ROC, and NOX during construction activities shall be implemented during construction of the Proposed Project: The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the areas to be graded or excavated before grading or excavation operations commences. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. Fugitive dust produced during grading excavation and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 236 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-225 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization material, and/or roll- compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll-compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants to prevent excessive fugitive dust. Signs limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less shall be posted on site. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off site or on site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use discretion in conjunction with the VCAPCD in determining when winds are excessive. Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. During the construction phase, signs shall be posted on site and viewable to the public with the VCAPCD Complaints Hotline phone number 805-303-3700. Timing/Implementation: During construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Moorpark Community Development and Public Works Departments Additionally, while the DEIR does not enumerate all the negative health consequences potentially associated with the uncontrolled generation of dust during grading, it does include a section that speaks specifically to the potential for transmission of Valley Fever by dust and the associated need to mitigate. On page 3.2-28, the DEIR states: Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 237 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-226 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 … the Project is conservatively assumed to have a potentially significant impact with respect to Valley Fever and mitigation is required. See Construction Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1, Section 3.2.6.2. The Valley Fever-specific mitigation described in Section 3.2.6.2 referenced above builds on the measures documented in Section 3.2.6.1 (above). Taken together, the DEIR measures for compliance with the VCAQMD Rule 55 and the exposure-specific mitigation protocol for transmission of Valley Fever by uncontrolled emission of dust establish measures that should adequately control for any dust-borne condition of potential concern. Further, project-specific construction management plans shall be prepared for each phase of site preparation, grading and development. These plans must include, but not necessarily be limited to, a description of dust monitoring equipment, station placement, monitoring frequency, agency oversight/reporting and stop-work protocol. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 238 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Salvador Tamayo - Public Comment regarding Hitch Ranch Specific PlanDate:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 12:43:00 PMAttachments:image001.pngFYI Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Salvador Tamayo <tc.salvador@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 3:46 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Cc: City Manager <CityManager@MoorparkCA.gov>; Troy Brown <TBrown@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Salvador Tamayo - Public Comment regarding Hitch Ranch Specific Plan I plan to live in Moorpark many more decades. Do you? Do they? If I did not see myself living in Moorpark in the future, I would not be expressing my opinion. You should base your approval or denial of the Hitch Ranch project based on the opinion of those who are young and plan to live their lives in Moorpark. The people who will have to live with a decision you made. Smart move would be build what’s already approved and 5 years from now reassess if the Hitch Ranch development is needed. Hello my name is Salvador Tamayo. I was born in Simi Hospital and have lived in Moorpark my entire life, 24 years and counting. My life is deeply rooted in Moorpark. My dad moved to Moorpark back in early 70s. He’s been here ever since. Being of Hispanic descent my family is enormous. I have family scattered near and far all throughout Moorpark. From Villa Del Arroyo, Campus Park, all of downtown, Peach Hill, near glenwood park, and home acres. I know every household in downtown Moorpark, from Spring Rd to Chaparral middle school and they know my family. None of these families have any plans to leave moorpark. Building hitch ranch will not solve the overcrowding in Moorpark. There are enough approved projects as is. Build those approved projects then reassess. People have to overcrowd in order to survive. If families overcrowd because they can not afford a single dwelling rent, how do you expect them to be able to afford a new development where single family homes will easily 1 I-TamayoResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 239 be in the 700k plus range. Hitch Ranch homes will be expensive and majority of people in Moorpark who would like to buy in Moorpark, won’t be able to. Moorparkians will be priced out by transplants. There is no public need for this housing development in this specific area. The Moorpark community wants preservation of landscape, therefore the Chamber of Commerce has to push forth that. Historic preservation of Moorpark. People don’t know and won’t get to know the mountain range, hills of moorpark. The current landscape is what people have fallen in love with. It’s a scenic drive on the way home. The landscape does not move, it is not rushed, it stays constant, consistent. Why not push to develop in these areas that are already surrounded by housing? 1055 Marine View Ln, Moorpark, CA 93021 : Instead of building 21 homes, push to build 24+ homes. Beltramo Ranch 11930 W Los Angeles Ave, Moorpark, CA 93021 : Provides 47 single family residences. One major concern for this development is entering and existing from a major highway. Semi trucks always drive on the right lane that runs directly along this development entrance/exit. Green Island Villas is already approved for 63 units. Everett State Terraces is a good use of empty land, it provides no use of landscape. Its development would fit in with the landscape around it. Providing 60 units. High Street Depot is approved for 79 units. Totaling 270 residences ranging from detached residences to apartments. Plus the 128 ADUs that the city expects will be built between 2021-2029. Out of these 270 residences, how many will be available for affordable housing? Why not build the housing named above and revisit building Hitch Ranch 5+ years from now? This so called “Current demand for more housing” does not mean that will be same demand a decade or more from now. Lives change everyday, every year. Families come and go. What are the consequences for not meeting the state’s RHNA for Moorpark? Let’s say all the approved developments are built plus Hitch Ranch and Pacific Communities. Going forward from the year 2029, where does the city plan to build in order to meet then Moorpark’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation? Has the Chamber of Commerce asked themselves what to do for meeting RHNA for years 2029-2038? How does Hitch Ranch development go around the SOAR initiative? What about developing more of the highlands? For example this land located alongside Spring Rd & north of Charles St. gps coordinates that can be copy & pasted into google maps: 34.290996, -118.871694 I say build in the outskirts of Moorpark before you develop downtown Moorpark. What new companies have been brought to Moorpark? Amazon? The majority of Amazon workers will not be able to afford new housing in Moorpark. Furthermore causing overcrowding in single family dwellings. 1 I-TamayoResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 240 Questions to ask yourself: What is the penalty by not meeting the states demand for housing over the next 9 years? What is the rush with approving so many projects so early into the RHNA 2021-2029? We’ve started the year 2022 only a few months ago. Why not look into using existing empty commercial buildings and turning them to accommodate housing? What guarantee is there that the Hitch Ranch development will not be sold to investment firms, real estate firms? The properties can be sold to investment firms before the first hole is dug and in turn they leverage to rent the properties at high rents or they increase the sale price, pushing out local homebuyers. What guarantee is there that the properties will be affordable? Why not request more affordable housing to be allocated out of the total sum of units? If you think that building hitch ranch will be good for the updated high street, then you are wrong. Moorpark has thousands of people that will go to high street. No need to build 755+ homes thinking it will be good for high street. Just go ahead and develop high street first. See how High Street Depot is received then plan around that. Other Concerns: fire evacuation, increased water usage of already “high risk” water sources, increased pollution from more homes, can Moorpark K-12 handle hundreds of new enrollees?, Hopefully you took the time to read all of this. If you need to get ahold of me, My phone number is 805-630-2977 My email is tc.salvador@yahoo.com Best regards, Salvador Tamayo Preserve the Moorpark we have all gotten to know and love. 1 I-TamayoResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 241 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-230 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Tamayo Salvador Tamayo Response to Comment I-Tamayo-1 The comment presents some introductory information, and expresses opinions regarding regional growth, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is included for the record: The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a requirement of State housing law and is a process that determines projected and existing housing need for all jurisdictions (city or unincorporated county) in California. The process to determine a RHNA allocation is conducted by a council of governments, such as SCAG, every eight (8) years. Every jurisdiction must plan for its RHNA allocation in its housing element of its General Plan by ensuring there is enough sites and zoning to accommodate their RHNA allocation. Consequences for not meeting RHNA can include the shortening of the time-frame that the City would have to adopt a new housing element to every four years instead of eight; the requirement to find accommodation for ‘unmet need’ sites from the previous cycle in the first year of the next housing element, in addition to their newest assigned RHNA allocation; ineligibility for certain funding opportunities; and legal action, including legal challenges from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). As discussed on page 5.0-4 of Section 5.0. Other CEQA Considerations, Save Open and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) is a set of laws adopted by the local governments of Ventura County in order to control urban sprawl in the county. In Ventura County’s unincorporated lands, SOAR requires the County Board of Supervisors to receive approval from voters all over the county before any up-zoning of the unincorporated lands currently designated for agricultural, open space, or rural land uses can occur. SOAR establishes city-urban restriction boundaries (CURBs) around the perimeters of each incorporated city in Ventura County. If City leadership seeks to expand their CURB beyond its existing limits, they must have the approval of a majority of voters in the city before the expansion can occur. Each community in Ventura County voted in 2016 to extend their participation in SOAR past the original initiative’s expiration date of 2020. In Moorpark, SOAR was re-extended by Measure E to continue until 2050. As shown in Figure 5.0-1, SOAR-CURB Boundary within Moorpark, the Project site is well within the SOAR-CURB boundary, and thus would not induce/cause growth outside of an area intended for urban development. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 242 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-231 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Regarding air quality impacts, please refer to Section 3.2, Air Quality. Regarding water supply, please refer to Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, beginning on page 3.18- 4. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Regarding impacts to local schools please refer to Section 3.13, Public Services, Schools, beginning on page 3.13-14. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 243 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Comments Concerning Hitch RanchDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:02:13 AMAttachments:image001.pngDEIR Hitch Ranch.docxFYIDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Nancy Wagenbach <ntwagen@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 8:28 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Comments Concerning Hitch Ranch Mr. Spondello, The attached file contains my comments and concerns pertaining to the DEIR on the proposed Hitch Ranch development. Nancy Wagenbach 1 I-Wagenbach-1Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 244 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-233 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Wagenbach-1 Nancy Wagenbach Response to Comment I-Wagenbach-1-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of the project and ways to reduce or avoid these impacts. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 245 Comments On DEIR-Proposed Hitch Ranch Development The following are concerns I have concerning the proposed Hitch Ranch development: 1. Air Quality – 755 housing units – associated construction and emissions from future vehicles. How can that not have a major impact in a negative way on the air quality? There is no vehicular traffic currently associated with the proposed site. 2. Fugitive Dust – Due to the apparent increase in high wind days, keeping dust generation and spread under control during construction is a concern. 3. Local Vicinity Emissions – Labeling an intersection EOS E or F doesn’t convey the fact that these intersections may take 3 or 4 light cycles – or possibly more depending on the circumstances- to get through the intersection. The intersections of Walnut Cyn/High St. and Moorpark Ave/Poindexter are already highly impacted intersections due to the short distance between them which is further impacted by the UP rail line bisecting the roadway and the constant stream of sand and gravel trucks that use this roadway to get to Los Angeles Ave to the south. The builder assumes elementary students will attend Walnut Canyon. This is not a valid assumption since all elementary schools are magnet schools and each has a different focus. In Moorpark, it seems that most children are driven to school, so there will be a very significant increase in traffic at all the roadways that exit this proposed development as children are driven to Walnut Canyon on Casey, Chaparral Middle school on Poindexter or Moorpark High on Tierra Rejada. The traffic on Poindexter already comes to a standstill at the start and end of the school day as vehicles wait in traffic lanes to enter the school grounds. Vehicles trying to get through can be delayed 5 minutes or more because the road is not wide enough to get around the waiting traffic. Gabbert is the most expedient way to get to Tierra Rejada to get to the high school. There is already high usage of this corridor getting students to and from the school. 4. Draft Specific Plan – The proposed development exits onto roads that are all one lane in each direction without the possibility of widening. 755 housing units has the potential of 3 vehicles (or more) each which is an increase of 2,265. With only 2 trips per day, that’s 4,530 more vehicles through 3 initial intersections. 5. Roundabouts – will there be adequate street signage and night time lighting? Roundabouts are still an unexpected traffic layout for most people. 6. With the density increase in population, any type of mass evacuation could result in complete grid lock. Even without this housing development, there have been traffic situations that have completely grid locked the Walnut Cyn/High St., Moorpark Ave/Poindexter and Moorpark Ave/ Los Angeles intersections. When Moorpark Ave backs up from Los Angeles Ave to High St, no traffic can move until the Los Angeles light turns green. If the Southbound light at Walnut Cyn/ High St turns green before the westbound light turns green, the roadway fills again and the westbound as well as the east bound traffic are unable to turn onto Moorpark Ave. The westbound traffic must turn right onto Moorpark Ave and right onto Charles St to back track to Spring Rd. The eastbound traffic must illegally turn around and exit through the library and civic center parking lots and cross Moorpark Ave through stopped traffic to Charles St to back track to Spring Rd. 4 6 5 2 1 3 I-Wagenbach-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 246 7. Where does the North Hills Pkwy connect past Gabbert, or is it only proposed to extend at some time in the future, so all traffic will dump onto Gabbert which again becomes a 2 lane road? 8. Landscaping – Plants were listed for common and housing areas with references to drip irrigation. There was one mention of turf. Considering California is facing the reality of less water and higher demand, might this be a good time to eliminate turf wherever possible? A front yard of turf is now a luxury that our rainfall can’t defend. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Nancy Wagenbach 7 8 I-Wagenbach-2Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 247 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-236 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Wagenbach-2 Nancy Wagenbach Response to Comment I-Wagenbach-2-1 The comment expresses concerns regarding traffic impacts related to air quality but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is included for the record: Regarding air quality impacts, please refer to Section 3.2, Air Quality, this section includes analysis of both mobile (traffic) and stationary impacts to air quality. Response to Comment I-Wagenbach-2-2 The comment expresses concerns regarding fugitive dust but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is included for the record: Potential impacts related to fugitive dust are discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Stratton-1. Response to Comment I-Wagenbach-2-3 The comment expresses concerns regarding traffic delays and schools but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Notwithstanding the above, the following information is included for the record: Impacts to traffic related to level of service are addressed in Section 3.10, Land Use, and Appendix 3.10. Regarding impacts to local schools please refer to Section 3.13, Public Services, Schools, beginning on page 3.13-14. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 248 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-237 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Response to Comment I-Wagenbach-2-4 The comment raises concerns regarding an increase in traffic, but does not provide data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Therefore, further response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. For the record, Table 3.10-5 found on page 13 of the updated TIA in Appendix 3.10 of the Draft EIR shows that daily Project Traffic Generation for the proposed project. Table 3.10-5 Project Traffic Generation (Weekday AM and PM Hours) Proposed Land Use Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Single-Family Residences 4,301 316 79 237 423 266 157 Multi-Family Residences 2,401 151 35 116 184 116 68 Public Park 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total 6,436 467 114 353 608 382 226 Source: Impact Sciences, 2021 Response to Comment I-Wagenbach-2-5 The comment expresses concerns regarding traffic roundabouts but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. For the record, all intersections within the hitch Ranch Specific Plan area will meet all of the requirements and safety standards of the City of Moorpark City Engineer and the Ventura County Fire Department. Response to Comment I-Wagenbach-2-6 The comment expresses concerns regarding gridlock during evacuation but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 249 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-238 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Response to Comment I-Wagenbach-2-7 The comment expresses concern regarding the termination of North Hills Parkway at Gabbert Road but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. For the record, it is anticipated that additional portions of North Hills Parkway west of Gabbert Road will be completed by a future project. Response to Comment I-Wagenbach-2-8 The comment expresses concern regarding landscaping but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. For the record, residential lots with landscaped areas will meet the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The majority of the residential lots will include less than 400 square feet of landscaped area. The use of these measures throughout the Project will reduce the water demand as compared to residential units that do not implement water conservation measures. The Hitch Ranch Project will include the use of recycled water for all non-residential landscape irrigation demands, including parks, medians, slopes, and other irrigated areas. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 250 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch Ranch ProjectDate:Monday, April 4, 2022 8:09:52 AMAttachments:image001.pngFYIDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Douglas Spondello Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 8:10 AM To: 'Martin Wareham' <mewareham@yahoo.com> Cc: Janice S. Parvin <JParvin@MoorparkCA.gov>; Chris Enegren <CEnegren@MoorparkCA.gov>; David Pollock <dpollock@MoorparkCA.gov>; Daniel Groff <DGroff@MoorparkCA.gov>; Antonio Castro <ACastro@MoorparkCA.gov>; Carlene Saxton <CSaxton@MoorparkCA.gov>; Carlene Saxton <CSaxton@MoorparkCA.gov>; Troy Brown <TBrown@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: RE: Hitch Ranch Project Good Morning Dr. and Mrs. Wareham, Thank you for your comments regarding the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). We will respond to your comments in the Final EIR and will include you in notices regarding future public meetings for this project. Best, Doug Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov I-WarehamResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 251 -----Original Message----- From: Martin Wareham <mewareham@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2022 9:28 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Cc: Janice S. Parvin <JParvin@MoorparkCA.gov>; Chris Enegren <CEnegren@MoorparkCA.gov>; David Pollock <dpollock@MoorparkCA.gov>; Daniel Groff <DGroff@MoorparkCA.gov>; Antonio Castro <ACastro@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch Project Dear Mr Spondello, As an adjacent neighbor to the Hitch Ranch, we appreciate being included in the early discussions of the Project. We have owned our 3.2 acre property bordering Hitch Ranch since 1984. In that year the property in question was zoned agricultural 40 acres. When we began challenging this development the number of houses proposed was much lower and we have seen the proposed project expanded from around 320 homes to over 1000 when built out with low income housing. We have experienced several fires during this time—some of them coming through our community necessitating the emergency evacuation of livestock and human lives. Many of us have driven through burning trees on Gabbert just to get to the other side of the railroad tracks. Our biggest concern about the Hitch Ranch Project is one of safely evacuating during the next major fire. We were able to evacuate during previous fires because the road was clear to the railroad crossing. Adding 1000 homes and two connections between Walnut Canyon and Gabbert Rd but not building additional RR crossings will cause a bottleneck that would potentially trap people and livestock in the canyon with no way out. Multiple lanes on the Parkway and widening part of Gabbert Rd will not facilitate evacuation over the railroad tracks. This will back up the traffic both in the project and our ranches placing livestock and human lives at great risk. We understand there will be several outlets for the Ranch but all of these converge on narrow streets and roads that are already busy. Moorpark streets are not conducive for rapid evacuation during fires. The direction of major fires will force residents to take evacuation routes south and west. The 118 highway is 2 lanes just past Gabbert and will have to absorb traffic from Tierra Rejada Rd, Gabbert, and the 118 from the East. The only other outlet will be the 23 Fwy West but previous fires have shut down that exit path in the past. We request the City of Moorpark carefully consider the risks to its community by building so many homes in the path of inevitable fires without adequate evacuation routes in place. Moorpark has unique hurdles to it’s traffic flow but to ignore them could be catastrophic. Before considering any 1 I-WarehamResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 252 more building North of the RR tracks think of the people and livestock that already live here. Gabbert Rd is our ONLY choice for an evacuation and with all the livestock it is not something that can be accomplished in one trip. Sincerely, Martin and Barbara (Toby) Wareham 11905 Elwin Ln 805-427-2865 Sent from my iPad 1 I-WarehamResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 253 Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-242 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Letter I-Wareham Martin and Barbara Wareham Response to Comment I-Wareham-1 The comment provides some introductory remarks, raises concerns regarding traffic and wildfire evacuation, and expresses opposition to the proposed project, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Regarding project traffic and circulation, as well as cumulative projects that were included in Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), please refer to Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Introduction, Section 3.15, Transportation and Section 3.10, Land Use, which include full discussions of the City’s Circulation Element, as well as project improvements to the multi-modal circulation through the project site. Regarding the Union Pacific railroad crossing – as discussed on page 3.15-24 of Section 3.15, Transportation, there will be no changes required to the Gabbert Road railroad crossing as the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), provided as Appendix 3.10 to the Draft EIR, demonstrates that the build-out of the proposed project along with future traffic increases in traffic volumes do not warrant any improvements at this crossing. Regarding impacts related to fire protection, please refer to Section 3.13, Public Services, beginning on page 3.13-2. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 254 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-243 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 2.3 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING A special meeting of the City of Moorpark Planning Commission was held on March 14, 2022, in the City of Moorpark Apricot Room. A comment period followed City of Moorpark Planning Manager Douglas Spondello’s presentation on the Project. Public comments mainly related concerns regarding potential impacts to aesthetics, infrastructure, traffic, and wildfire evacuation. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 255 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-244 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Comments from Rene Mayfield 1. Inadequate transportation infrastructure 2. Impacts to State highway and railway crossing Response to Rene Mayfield The commenter raised concerns regarding transportation infrastructure, impacts to state highway and the railway crossing, but did not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Regarding project traffic and circulation, as well as cumulative projects that were included in Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), please refer to Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Introduction, Section 3.15, Transportation and Section 3.10, Land Use, which include full discussions of the City’s Circulation Element, as well as project improvements to the multi-modal circulation through the project site. Regarding the Union Pacific railroad crossing – as discussed on page 3.15-24 of Section 3.15, Transportation, there will be no changes required to the Gabbert Road railroad crossing as the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), provided as Appendix 3.10 to the Draft EIR, demonstrates that the build-out of the proposed project along with future traffic increases in traffic volumes do not warrant any improvements at this crossing. Comments from Barbara Wareham 1. Wildfire evacuation hazards Response to Barbara Wareham The commenter raised concerns regarding wildfire evacuation routes but did not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Miller-2-2. Comments from Patricia Ducharme 1. Wildfire evacuation hazards Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 256 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-245 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Response to Patricia Ducharme The commenter raised concerns regarding wildfire evacuation routes but did not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Miller-2-2.Comments from Gail Bruckner 1. Wildfire evacuation hazards 2. Traffic infrastructure 3. Aesthetics/Slopes 4. Water Supply 5. Air Quality Response to Gail Bruckner The commenter raised concerns regarding wildfire evacuation routes, traffic infrastructure, aesthetics/slopes, water supply, and air quality, but did not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision- making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Miller-2-2. Regarding impacts to aesthetics and visual quality, please refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics. Regarding impacts related to air quality, please refer to Section 3.2, Air Quality. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.10, Land use and Section 3.15, Transportation. Regarding water supply, please refer to Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, beginning on page 3.18- 4. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Comments from Sharon Noel 1. Wildfire evacuation hazards Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 257 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-246 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 2.Traffic congestion, North Hills Parkway as truck lane 3.Notification of Project and Hearings 4.Equestrian Use conflicts Response to Sharon Noel The commenter raised concerns regarding wildfire evacuation routes, traffic congestion, public hearing notifications, and potential conflicts with equestrian land uses, but did not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Miller-2-2. Regarding impacts related to transportation and traffic, please refer to Section 3.10, Land use and Section 3.15, Transportation. Regarding equestrian use conflicts, please refer to Section 3.10, Land Use. Regarding impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. Comments from Sharon Schieltz 1.Aesthetics and visual resources impacts 2.Alternatives. Response to Sharon Schieltz The commenter raised concerns regarding aesthetics/slopes, and the selection of project alternatives, but did not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Mikos-2. Regarding impacts to aesthetics and visual quality, please refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics. Comments from Mark Taillon 1.Notification of Project and Hearings Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 258 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-247 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 2.Wildfire evacuation hazards 3.Water Supply Response to Mark Taillon The commenter raised concerns regarding public hearing notifications, wildfire evacuation routes, and water supply, but did not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Miller-2-2. Regarding water supply, please refer to Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, beginning on page 3.18- 4. Comments from Marisela Morales (via Zoom) 1.Wildfire evacuation hazards Response to Marisela Morales (via Zoom) The commenter raised concerns regarding wildfire evacuation routes but did not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Miller-2-2. Comments from Salvador Tamayo (via Zoom) 1.Development Process, overdevelopment Response to Salvador Tamayo (via Zoom) The commenter raised concerns regarding regional overdevelopment but did not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a response is not required pursuant to CEQA. However, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-Tamayo-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 259 2.0 Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-248 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 2.4 COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED The following Comments were received by the City after the public Comment Period closed on April 4, 2022, at 5:00 pm. Similar to the concerns raised by other commentors, these comments mainly relate to concerns regarding aesthetics, infrastructure, traffic, and wildfire. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 260 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn Kaufman Subject:FW: hitch project Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 12:40:53 PM Attachments:image001.png FYI received after close Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Erin Dimberg <ecdimberg@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2022 11:03 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: hitch project I am writing to share my support of the Hitch Ranch project. Moorpark needs more housing options to help increase our population, support vacant business properties and our school district which has declining enrollment. My concern for this and other projects is that I do not see infrastructure and transportation plans accompanying these projects. Current roads do not support those who reside in Moorpark and travel these roads today. The city cannot build these housing projects without addressing traffic. Thank you, -- Erin Dimberg Mountain Meadows Secretary Chaparral PTSA Financial Secretary Moorpark Council PTA Secretary 1 I-DimbergResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 261 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Corrected comment lett Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 12:39:57 PM Attachments:image001.png Letter to Spondello on DEIR for Specific Plan I rev.pdf FYI submitted after close of comments Doug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Doris Miller <dorisdebby@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2022 11:23 AM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Corrected comment lett Mr. Spondello: Please use this copy of the comment letter I submitted yesterday. I changed one significant word (a now for a not) and made a few other small changes, none of which affect actual content. They are highlighted in yellow so you can see I did not add any additional thoughts. I apologize for any inconvenience I am causing. I just got home from visiting my sister in Oregon who has been placed into hospice care and am not quite “home” yet mentally. Doris Miller Sent from Mail for Windows 1 I-Miller-4Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 262 April 4, 2022 Doug Spondello, Deputy Community Development Director City of Moorpark Moorpark, CA Re: Specific Plan I: Hitch Ranch DEIR According to the City of Moorpark Safety Element for 2000-2005, “CEQA provides a means by which City officials and the public can identify the potential impacts a project will have on a community, and to allow for mitigation or avoidance of such impacts.” I have reviewed the DEIR very carefully and find it to be deficient in those areas pertaining to hazard management and mitigation, water availability, and electrical availability. I do not believe the analyses given are current or appropriate for the proposed population density for this project plus the changes to the circulation pattern servicing this project. Therefore, neither City officials nor the public can garner a true picture of the actual costs associated with this project. The Ventura County Multi- Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan Update 2022 makes the following deficiencies very apparent: 1.Extent of wildfire hazard, especially the lack of an adequate evacuation route for the northwestern side of the city. All reliable sources point to continued and increasing chances for wildfire particularly in the northwestern part of the city. Evacuation of approximately an additional 2000 residents, if this project is approved, plus the current residents of Gabbert Canyon and their animals, amount to newspap er headline disaster nightmares that make the deaths in Paradise, CA seem minor in comparison. Dumping traffic from a four-lane arterial, without signalization, onto what becomes a narrow two - lane road over a railroad track, with a raging wildfire and dense smoke is, in my opinion, highly negligent. If I can see the inherent dangers, engineers should certainly be able to see them! 2.Climate Change has not been depicted to have near the expected impacts in the report as has been predicted by reliable sources. All indications are that Santa Ana Winds, storms, drought, and environmental dryness will play key roles in the welfare of our community. The ten hottest years since 1880 have occurred since 2005. These warmer temperatures also cause greater evaporation to our plant life, soils, and reservoirs. 3.Train derailments are quite possible due to human caused track interference, poor operator behaviors, or traffic accidents. Three very critical areas are on Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road, and Gabbert Road. If the trains are carrying hazardous chemicals, the disaster simply increases in size and health and safety effects. 4.Aircraft incidents have increased in likelihood with Edison’s use of helicopters to assess power equipment issues and complete changes to their equipment. In addition, there appears to be much greater military activity lately. 5.Water Availability: It is difficult to believe there will be adequate water for a new development of this size when on 03/17/2022, NOAA forecasters predicted that “the drought gripping California and much of the West will persist and worsen…there will also be hotter-than-normal temperatures, reduced chances of rain, and increased fire risks likely.” CA now has 87% of its area in a severe drought category with 35% in an I-Miller-5Submitted after Comment PeriodResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 263 extreme drought category. The current U.S. Drought Monitor places Ventura County, as of February 2022, in the 3rd driest year to date over the past 128 years. 98.75% of Ventura County considered as severe drought status. In addition, groundwater reserves are decreasing and groundwater quality shows increasing nitrates and TDS. How is it possible to say we have enough water for 2000 more people and all the landscaping detailed in the Specific Plan I? All 58 CA counties are now under a drought emergency proclamation. DWR will reduce State Water Project allocations to 5% of requested supplies for 2022. Statewide reservoir levels are decreasing. Some reservoirs are at a mere 35% of capacity. Governor Newsom has asked every user to voluntarily reduce water consumption by 15%. 6.Electrical Capacity: Reduced water levels in reservoirs, along with Colorado River volume reduction, will place increasing strains on the electrical grid. When I review the public safety shutoffs we’ve had in the area over the last few years, it makes me very nervous about future cut backs. Should all homes be required to install solar panels and battery walls to provide for themselves when increasing population size strains the system even more? Analyses must be flawed to say “no problem providing electrical service”. I have limited my discussion to the DEIR since I understand that is the objective. Thank you for including my concerns. Please keep me on the list of those wanting to be informed of further actions on this project. Doris Miller 6395 Gabbert Road Moorpark, CA 93021 (805)529-3388 I-Miller-5Submitted after Comment PeriodResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 264 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: Hitch RanchDate:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 12:46:30 PMFYIDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov -----Original Message----- From: nsinutko <nsinutko@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 8:54 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: Hitch Ranch To Whom It May Concern, Thank you, for reaching out to the community in regards to the Hitch Ranch project. On paper, it is very appealing. In reality, this is a danger to all who live there and north of. As far as I know, the city has zero plans in the infrastructure to widen the streets and accommodate thousands of more vehicles. This is already a problem on the streets to the ingress and egress to this development. I’m addition to, have you all taken into account the fire danger and getting citizens out, with adequate timing, during a brush fire? Brush fires have come through before and I have been here to help evacuate citizens while impending doom. I literally drove through the fire and was blinded by the smoke and felt the heat into the car. We had no vehicles in front of us, but imagine if we did??? I’m speaking of evacuating from the Moorpark Country Club to give you perspective. Without plans for infrastructure, this plan is dead in the water. It is dangerous and at some point, the liability will fall back on the city for approving this. Thank you for your time regarding this matter. Regards, Nicole Sinutko Sent from my iPhone 1 I-SinutkoSubmitted after Comment PeriodResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 265 From:Douglas SpondelloTo:Lynn KaufmanSubject:FW: New Homes to be built in Moorpark (Hitch Ranch)Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 12:44:25 PMAttachments:image001.pngDoug Spondello, AICPDeputy Community Development DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Moorpark | 799 Moorpark Ave. | Moorpark, CA 93021(805) 517-6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.govwww.moorparkca.gov From: Alin Terjimanian <alinterjimanian@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 11:11 PM To: Douglas Spondello <DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov> Subject: New Homes to be built in Moorpark (Hitch Ranch) To Whom It May Concern, Our primary concern regarding the potential future developments is having access to evacuate during emergency situations. We certainly hope the city takes this into consideration and adds additional lanes into and out of Moorpark. Sincerely, Alin and Ayk Terjimanian Submitted after Comment Period 1 I-TerjimanianResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 266 Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-1 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Revisions have been made to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in response to comments on the Draft EIR. This chapter provides the location, chapter or section number, title, and page number from the Draft EIR, and shows the complete sentence(s) where the change was made. Text added to the Draft EIR is shown in underline format, and deleted text is shown in strikethrough. This chapter, in combination with the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) constitutes the Final EIR. Due to the nature of the text changes that are presented below, the changes are cited individually rather than in a reproduction of the entire Draft EIR. This presentation of revisions to the Draft EIR is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 detailing required Final EIR contents. Section 1.0, Executive Summary The section discussing Areas of Concern Known to the Lead Agency starting on page 1.0-11 is revised as follows: 1.3.2 Areas of Concern Known to the Lead Agency This Draft EIR identifies the areas of environmental concern and environmental issues to be resolved, which are known to the City of Moorpark or were raised by agencies and the public during the scoping process. The City has identified many of these concerns during the preparation of the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation. It should be noted that not all of these issues are related to environmental effects of the Project. The following summarizes the primary areas of concern that have been identified and where they are addressed in this Draft EIR: •Project compatibility with on-site and surrounding land uses (Section 3.1, Aesthetics; Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning) •Regional and local traffic (Section 3.15, Transportation; Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning) •Provision of adequate infrastructure and services (Section 3.13, Public Services, Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems) •Effects on biological resources (Section 3.3, Biological Resources) •Appropriateness/intensity of proposed land uses (Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 267 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 • Effects on groundwater and surface water quality (Section 3.7, Geology and Soils; Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality) • Aesthetic changes to the site associated with project implementation (Section 3.1, Aesthetics) • Hillside Ordinance analysis (Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Section 3.6, Geology and Soils) • Concerns regarding exposure to radon (Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) • Concerns regarding wildfire (Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 3.13, Public Services, and Section 3.18, Wildfire) The section discussing mitigation measure CM-AQ-1 starting on page 1.0-17 is revised as follows: CM AQ-1: The following control measures provided in the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines to minimize the generation of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5), ROC, and NOX during construction activities shall be implemented during construction of the Proposed Project: • The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the areas to be graded or excavated before grading or excavation operations commences. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. • Fugitive dust produced during grading excavation and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: • All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization material, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. • Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 268 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-3 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 roll-compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants to prevent excessive fugitive dust. •Signs limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less shall be posted on site. •During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off site or on site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use discretion in conjunction with the VCAPCD in determining when winds are excessive. •Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. •Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. •During the construction phase, signs shall be posted on site and viewable to the public with the VCAPCD Complaints Hotline phone number 805-303-3700. Timing/Implementation: During construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Moorpark Community Development and Public Works Departments The section discussing mitigation measure CM-AQ-2 starting on page 1.0-19 is revised as follows: CM AQ-2: During construction contractors shall comply with the following measures to reduce NOx and ROC from heavy equipment as recommended by the VCAPCD in its Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines: •Minimize equipment idling time to no more than 5 minutes, as required in Title 13, CCR §2485, §2449(d)(2), respectively. The idling limit does not apply to: (1) idling Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 269 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-4 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 when queuing; (2) idling to verify that the vehicle is in safe operating condition; (3) idling for testing, servicing, repairing or diagnostic purposes; (4) idling necessary to accomplish work for which the vehicle was designed (such as operating a crane); (5) idling required to bring the machine system to operating temperature, and (6) idling necessary to ensure safe operation of the vehicle. •Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer’s specifications. •Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October) to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. •Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible. Timing/Implementation: During construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Moorpark Community Development Department The text for mitigation measure BR-8 on page 1.0-26 has been modified as shown below: BR-8: In order to comply with city, state, and federal regulations regarding impacts to USACE, CDFW and RWQCB jurisdictional areas permitting must be executed pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1602), for all impacts to WOTUS and streambeds. All conditions of the agreements with these agencies designed to minimize impacts to biological resources shall be implemented. The text for mitigation measure BR-10 on page 1.0-28 has been modified as shown below: BR-10: A tree removal permit must be obtained from the City prior to removal of trees that meet the mature tree criteria within the City’s tree ordinance (No. 101). Permits will not be issued until the project has been approved by the City. Removed trees that are determined to be diseased and/or infested with insect pests shall be chipped onsite to prevent the spread to offsite trees. The loss of trees shall be mitigated by using the appraised value of each removed tree and then applying the value towards upgrading the size of the tree plantings associated with the project. The proposed replacement tree species shall emphasize native species and must be consistent with the City’s Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines to ensure that invasive species will not be Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 270 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-5 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 used. In accordance with the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, ‘enhanced landscaping’ shall be installed that is equal to the value of the trees removed. The text for mitigation measure HM-1 on page 1.0-43 has been modified as shown below: HM-1 Water Well Mitigation If any water wells are found during grading or development of the property, the following minimum conditions for well destruction shall be met: •An application for a permit for the destruction of the well shall be filed with the County of Ventura Public Works, per County Ordinance No. 4468 (Well Ordinance) and per the City of Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 8.40. •Pump and motor shall be removed, and the interior of the well shall be filled with inert material (clean sand or gravel) from total depth to within 40 feet of ground surface or remove debris in well casing to a depth of 40 feet. •Well casing shall be perforated at least every foot opposite the sealing zone from a depth of 40 feet to within 10 feet of finish grade. Perforations shall be placed on alternating sides of the casing. •Neat cement sealing material shall be applied from a depth of 40 feet to within 5 feet of finish grade by means of a grout pipe placed within 2 feet of the base of the sealing zone. If static water level is deeper than 40 feet, grout pipe is not necessary. •Casing shall be removed to a depth of 5 feet below finish grade, and work area backfilled with native materials. •County of Ventura Public Works Inspector shall be present during casing perforation work and placement of all sealing material. 24 hour advance notice is required for Public Works Inspections. •All work shall be performed by a well contractor licensed in the State of California and registered with the County of Ventura. Timing/Implementation: During ground moving activities in event wells are discovered Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 271 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-6 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Moorpark Community Development and/or Public Works Department and Ventura County Public Works The second bullet of mitigation measure WF-2 on page 1.0-77 is revised as follows: •Provide a noncombustible, 6-foot high concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall at the top of the manufactured slopes behind the units within PA3 along the eastern property boundary. These walls will be installed to function as heat-deflecting walls; vining plants will be established as landscape screening. Note: the use of vining plants may be restricted in FMZ Zones 0, 1, and 2. Mitigation Measure WF-3 on page 1.0-78 is revised as follows: WF-3: A fully irrigated landscape, planted with drought-tolerant, fire-resistive plants shall be implemented in accordance with VCFD Fire Hazard Reduction Program Plant Reference Guide (Appendix D of Appendix 3.18 of this EIR). No undesirable, highly flammable plant species shall be planted, as listed in the VCFD Prohibited Plant List (Appendix E of Appendix 3.18 of this EIR). All landscape and fuel modification plans are required to be submitted to the City of Moorpark Community Development Department and the Ventura County Fire Department for review and approval. This includes developer installed landscaping and any landscape installed by individual property owners. The landscaping shall be routinely maintained and shall be watered by an automatic irrigation system that will maintain healthy vegetation with high moisture contents that would minimize ignition by embers from a wildfire. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Ventura County Fire Department, City of Moorpark Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 272 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-7 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Mitigation Measure WF-4 on page 1.0-78 is revised as follows: WF-4: The project HOA shall hire a qualified coordinate with the Ventura County Fire Department-approved third-party fuel modification zone inspector to provide annual inspections. A copy of each inspection report should shall be provided to the City of Moorpark Community Development Director. Timing/Implementation: Annually, following project occupancy. Enforcement/Monitoring: Ventura County Fire Department, City of Moorpark Community Development Department Section 2.0, Project Description Paragraph five on page 2.0-27 is revised as follows: State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board. Pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (Section 402(g)) and state General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be required for the Project- related construction activities, including a dewatering permit and 401 Certification and WDRs for Retention Basins, in addition to a General Storm Water Permit for Construction and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Section 3.2, Air Quality The section discussing rules and regulations that the Proposed Project would be subject to on page 3.2-7 is revised as follows: To implement these strategies, the VCAPCD Board has adopted specific rules and regulations to limit emissions from stationary and mobile sources and activities within the County. These rules and regulations identify specific pollution-reduction measures, which must be implemented in association with various uses and activities. These rules not only regulate the emissions of criteria pollutants, but also emissions of TACs and HAPs. The rules and regulations are subject to ongoing refinement by the VCAPCD. Enforcement of these rules and regulations is carried out through a permitting process that monitors emissions generated by stationary sources, such as power plants, manufacturing operations, and large and small businesses, that use products that release ozone-forming precursors or TACs into the atmosphere. The Proposed Project would be subject to the VCAPCD rules and regulations to reduce project-related emissions and minimize Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 273 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-8 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 potential air quality impacts. Specifically, the Proposed Project would be subject to rules and regulations related to construction regarding nuisance dust impacts, equipment exhaust, and architectural coating. In addition, operational activities associated with the proposed residences would be required to comply with rules and regulations related to nuisance, natural gas-fired water heaters, and architectural coatings. These rules and regulations are discussed in further detail below. The VCAPCD does not regulate mobile emissions such as those from automobiles. The section discussing geographical air basins on page 3.2-12 is revised as follows: There are four main meteorological conditions that affect air quality in the valley: a regional, semi-permanent high-pressure system; wind currents created or affected by local topography; Santa Ana winds; and seasonal storms. The dispersion of air pollutants in the Oxnard Plain Airshed, in which the City of Moorpark is located, is often restricted by frequent temperature inversions created by the semi-permanent high-pressure system. The temperature inversion is normally just below the summit areas of the surrounding mountains, which tend to trap air pollutants in a limited, near-surface atmospheric volume. The section discussing air monitoring stations within the VCAPCD on page 3.2-14 is revised as follows: To identify ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants, the VCAPCD operates air quality monitoring stations throughout Ventura County. These stations are located in El Rio, Ojai, Piru, San Nicolas Island, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks, and Ventura. The section discussing air monitoring data within the VCAPCD on page 3.2-15 is revised as follows: The monitoring stations located closest to the Proposed Project site and most representative of air quality within the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan area are the Simi Valley–Cochran Street and Thousand Oaks–Moorpark Road stations. Both stations monitor O3 and PM2.5 while the Simi Valley monitoring station also monitors NO2 and PM10. CO monitoring was eliminated in Ventura County in 2004 as part of network changes in response to the proposed National Monitoring Strategy set forth by the U.S. EPA. The decision to eliminate CO monitoring was approved by both the U.S. EPA and CARB. Ventura County has met the CO standard for some time now. In addition, SO2 monitoring in Ventura County was eliminated in 2004 and ambient Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 274 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-9 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 concentrations for lead and sulfate are well below the state standards.1 NO2 also no longer exceeds the health-based standard levels and is not listed in the monitoring data.2 A summary of the monitored values for O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 at the Simi Valley monitoring station for the past three years prior to the Coronavirus pandemic which began in 2020, is presented in Table 3.2-5, Simi Valley-Cochran Street Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations. The values show that the Simi Valley monitoring station has registered values above state and/or federal standards for O3, and PM10. A summary of the monitored values for O3 and PM2.5 at the Thousand Oaks monitoring station for the past three years prior to the start of the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, which began in 2020, is presented in Table 3.2-6, Thousand Oaks-Moorpark Road Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations. The values show that the Thousand Oaks monitoring station has registered values above state and federal standards for O3. The section discussing local sources of air pollutant emissions on page 3.2-15 is revised as follows: Motor vehicles, including those traveling on nearby highways such as SR 23 and SR 118, are the primary source of pollutants in the region. There are no large stationary sources that would impact the residents of the Proposed Project in the vicinity of the Project site. As NO2 no longer exceeds the health-based standard levels it has been removed from the monitoring data.3 Table 3.2-5 and Table 3.2-6 on page 3.2-16 to 3.2-17 are revised as follows: Table 3.2-5 Simi Valley-Cochran Street Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Pollutant Standards1 Year 20162017 20172018 20182019 OZONE (O3) Maximum 1-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.1010.103 0.1030.101 0.1010.089 Maximum 8-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.0830.094 0.0940.092 0.0920.078 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.09 ppm 13 32 20 Number of days exceeding federal/state 8-hour standard 0.070 ppm 720 2014 147 NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) Maximum 1-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.039 0.046 0.043 Annual average concentration monitored (ppm) 0.008 0.008 0.008 1 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Final 2009 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, (2009) 13. 2 California Air Resources Board, iADAM Frequently Asked Questions, 5. 3 California Air Resources Board, iADAM Frequently Asked Questions, 5. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 275 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-10 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Pollutant Standards1 Year 20162017 20172018 20182019 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10) Maximum 24-hour concentration monitored (µg/m3) 156.3149.8 149.8107.6 107.6124.3 Annual average concentration monitored (µg/m3) 22.924.0 24.023.5 23.519.5 Number of samples exceeding state standard 50 µg/m3 49 96.1 6.14.0 Number of samples exceeding federal standard 150 µg/m3 10 0 0 FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5) Maximum 24-hour concentration monitored (µg/m3) 34.931.3 31.329.6 29.620.0 Annual average concentration monitored (µg/m3) 8.79.2 9.28.7 8.77.6 Number of samples exceeding federal standard 35 µg/m3 0 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, “Air Quality Data Statistics,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. 2019. NA = not available 1 Parts by volume per million of air (ppm), micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3), or annual arithmetic mean (aam). 2 The 8-hour federal O3 standard was revised from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm in 2015. The statistics shown are based on the 2015 standard of 0.070 ppm. Table 3.2-6 Thousand Oaks-Moorpark Road Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Pollutant Standards1 Year 20162017 20172018 20182019 OZONE (O3) Maximum 1-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.0800.090 0.0900.080 0.0800.082 Maximum 8-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.0760.073 0.073 0.0730.074 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.09 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding federal/state 8-hour standard 0.070 ppm 16 61 1 FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5) Maximum 24-hour concentration monitored (µg/m3) 35.232.0 32.041.5 41.524.5 Annual average concentration monitored (µg/m3) 9.68.9 8.99.2 9.27.2 Number of samples exceeding federal standard 35 µg/m3 0 01 10 Source: California Air Resources Board, “Air Quality Data Statistics,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. 2019. NA = not available 1 Parts by volume per million of air (ppm), micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3), or annual arithmetic mean (aam). 2 The 8-hour federal O3 standard was revised from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm in 2015. The statistics shown are based on the 2015 standard of 0.070 ppm. The section discussing air monitoring data within the VCAPCD on page 3.2-15 is revised as follows: The monitoring stations located closest to the Proposed Project site and most representative of air quality within the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan area are the Simi Valley–Cochran Street and Thousand Oaks–Moorpark Road stations. Both stations monitor O3 and PM2.5 while the Simi Valley monitoring station also monitors NO2 and PM10. CO monitoring was eliminated in Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 276 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-11 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Ventura County in 2004 as part of network changes in response to the proposed National Monitoring Strategy set forth by the U.S. EPA. The decision to eliminate CO monitoring was approved by both the U.S. EPA and CARB. Ventura County has met the CO standard for some time now. In addition, SO2 monitoring in Ventura County was eliminated in 2004 and ambient concentrations for lead and sulfate are well below the state standards.4 NO2 also no longer exceeds the health-based standard levels and is not listed in the monitoring data.5 A summary of the monitored values for O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 at the Simi Valley monitoring station for the past three years prior to the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic which began in 2020, is presented in Table 3.2-5, Simi Valley-Cochran Street Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations. The values show that the Simi Valley monitoring station has registered values above state and/or federal standards for O3, and PM10. A summary of the monitored values for O3 and PM2.5 at the Thousand Oaks monitoring station for the past three years prior to the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic which began in 2020, is presented in Table 3.2-6, Thousand Oaks-Moorpark Road Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations. The values show that the Thousand Oaks monitoring station has registered values above state and federal standards for O3. The section discussing local sources of air pollutant emissions on page 3.2-15 is revised as follows: Motor vehicles, including those traveling on nearby highways such as SR 23 and SR 118, are the primary source of pollutants in the region. There are no large stationary sources that would impact the residents of the Proposed Project in the vicinity of the Project site. The section discussing proximity to SR-118 on page 3.2-18 is revised as follows: In addition, the nearest freeways (State Routes 23 and 118) are located over 1-mile and over 2,100 feet, respectively, from the Project site. Thus, the project would be consistent with CARB’s recommendation to avoid citing new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. For these reasons, no significant impacts to on-site sensitive receptors are anticipated with respect to existing mobile source TACs. 4 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Final 2009 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, (2009) 13. 5 California Air Resources Board, iADAM Frequently Asked Questions, 5. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 277 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-12 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 The section discussing mitigation measure CM-AQ-1 starting on page 3.2-36 is revised as follows: CM AQ-1: The following control measures provided in the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines to minimize the generation of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5), ROC, and NOX during construction activities shall be implemented during construction of the Proposed Project: •The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust. •Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the areas to be graded or excavated before grading or excavation operations commences. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. •Fugitive dust produced during grading excavation and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: •All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization material, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. •Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll-compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants to prevent excessive fugitive dust. •Signs limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less shall be posted on site. •During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 278 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-13 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off site or on site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use discretion in conjunction with the VCAPCD in determining when winds are excessive. •Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. •Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. •During the construction phase, signs shall be posted on site and viewable to the public with the VCAPCD Complaints Hotline phone number 805-303-3700. Timing/Implementation: During construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Moorpark Community Development and Public Works Departments The section discussing mitigation measure CM-AQ-2 starting on page 3.2-36 is revised as follows: CM AQ-2: During construction contractors shall comply with the following measures to reduce NOx and ROC from heavy equipment as recommended by the VCAPCD in its Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines: •Minimize equipment idling time to no more than 5 minutes, as required in Title 13, CCR §2485, §2449(d)(2), respectively. The idling limit does not apply to: (1) idling when queuing; (2) idling to verify that the vehicle is in safe operating condition; (3) idling for testing, servicing, repairing or diagnostic purposes; (4) idling necessary to accomplish work for which the vehicle was designed (such as operating a crane); (5) idling required to bring the machine system to operating temperature, and (6) idling necessary to ensure safe operation of the vehicle. •Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer’s specifications. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 279 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-14 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 •Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October) to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. •Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible. Timing/Implementation: During construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Moorpark Community Development Department Section 3.3, Biological Resources The text for mitigation measure BR-8 on page 3.3-84 has been modified as shown below: BR-8: In order to comply with city, state, and federal regulations regarding impacts to USACE, CDFW and RWQCB jurisdictional areas permitting must be executed pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1602), for all impacts to WOTUS and streambeds. All conditions of the agreements with these agencies designed to minimize impacts to biological resources shall be implemented. The text for mitigation measure BR-10 on page 3.3-85 has been modified as shown below: BR-10: A tree removal permit must be obtained from the City prior to removal of trees that meet the mature tree criteria within the City’s tree ordinance (No. 101). Permits will not be issued until the project has been approved by the City. Removed trees that are determined to be diseased and/or infested with insect pests shall be chipped onsite to prevent the spread to offsite trees. The loss of trees shall be mitigated by using the appraised value of each removed tree and then applying the value towards upgrading the size of the tree plantings associated with the project. The proposed replacement tree species shall emphasize native species and must be consistent with the City’s Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines to ensure that invasive species will not be used. In accordance with the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, ‘enhanced landscaping’ shall be installed that is equal to the value of the trees removed. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 280 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-15 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials The following is added to 3.8.2.2, State Regulations on page 3.8-3: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection The project is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and shall comply with the minimum standards of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Article 6, Subchapter 2, "SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations" (CCR T-14 FSR), unless modified by more restrictive local ordinances and requirements. These regulations are enforced by the local fire authority — Ventura County Fire Protection District. Paragraph five on page 3.8-4 is revised as follows: Ventura County Fire Protection District The Proposed Project would be subject to requirements of the Ventura County Fire Department Protection District (VCFPD), which sets enforces State and local standards for water supplies, access, hazard abatement, and fire protection equipment. CCR T-14 FSR, VCFPD Ordinance 29 and 31, VCFPD Standard 501, and sets standards for these items including the requirement for secondary access. Fire Prevention Standards 14.6. sets access road standards and includes requirements for secondary access. Paragraph four on page 3.8-15 is revised as follows: The City of Moorpark Municipal Code identifies Hazardous Fire Areas high fire hazard areas as any area within 500 feet of uncultivated brush, grass, or forest-covered land wherein an authorized representative of the VCFPD determines that a potential fire hazard exists due to the presence of such flammable growth. Potential fire hazards are an important safety concern associated with the vegetation surrounding the specific plan site. Portions of the site are currently covered with highly combustible chaparral vegetation. In the summer and autumn, these areas of the site are highly susceptible to uncontrollable fire hazards because of reduced soil and vegetation moisture, compounded by dry Santa Ana winds that accelerate and intensify wildland fires. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 281 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-16 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Paragraph four on page 3.8-27 is revised as follows: According to the Fire Protection Division of the Ventura County Fire Protection District, the specific plan area is a designated “Hazardous Fire Area”. high fire hazard area.” A “Hazardous Fire Area” “high fire hazard area” is defined as any area or structure within 500 feet of standing brush or grass. In addition, the site is categorized as being within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Paragraph three on page 3.8-28 is revised as follows: According to the Fire Protection Division of the Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD), fire protection services in the City of Moorpark are adequate, and will be able to serve future growth in the City. Paragraph four on page 3.8-28 is revised as follows: The frequency and nature of future emergency calls is difficult to predict. No uses allowed in the specific plan are unusual or have the potential to generate an unusual number or type of calls for service. However, the specific plan site is located in an area designated as a “Hazardous Fire Area”. “high fire hazard area.” Construction would, therefore, be required to comply with all applicable building and fire code requirements. These requirements may include items such as types of roofing materials, building construction, brush clearance, fire hydrant flows, hydrant spacing, access and design, and other hazard reduction programs, as set forth by VCFD. The second bullet on page 3.8-29 is revised as follows: • Prior to combustible construction, an all-weather access road/driveway and the first lift of the access road pavement must be installed. Once combustible construction starts a minimum 20-foot clear width access road/driveway must remain free of obstruction during any construction activities within the development. All access roads/driveways must have a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches and a minimum inside turning radius of 50 feet.outside turning radius of 40 feet. Ventura County Fire Protection District, Fire Prevention Bureau, Ordinance Number 29 and CCR T-14 FSR Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 282 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-17 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 The second bullet on page 3.8-30 is revised as follows: •When only one access point is provided, the maximum length of the access road may not exceed 800 feet. Ventura County Fire Protection District, Fire Prevention Bureau, Ordinance Number 29 and CCR T-14 FSR Mitigation measure HM-1 on page 3.8-31 is revised as follows: HM-1 Water Well Mitigation If any water wells are found during grading or development of the property, the following minimum conditions for well destruction shall be met: •An application for a permit for the destruction of the well shall be filed with the County of Ventura Public Works, per County Ordinance No. 4468 (Well Ordinance) and per the City of Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 8.40. •Pump and motor shall be removed, and the interior of the well shall be filled with inert material (clean sand or gravel) from total depth to within 40 feet of ground surface or remove debris in well casing to a depth of 40 feet. •Well casing shall be perforated at least every foot opposite the sealing zone from a depth of 40 feet to within 10 feet of finish grade. Perforations shall be placed on alternating sides of the casing. •Neat cement sealing material shall be applied from a depth of 40 feet to within 5 feet of finish grade by means of a grout pipe placed within 2 feet of the base of the sealing zone. If static water level is deeper than 40 feet, grout pipe is not necessary. •Casing shall be removed to a depth of 5 feet below finish grade, and work area backfilled with native materials. •County of Ventura Public Works Inspector shall be present during casing perforation work and placement of all sealing material. 24 hour advance notice is required for Public Works Inspections. •All work shall be performed by a well contractor licensed in the State of California and registered with the County of Ventura. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 283 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-18 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Timing/Implementation: During ground moving activities in event wells are discovered Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Moorpark Community Development and/or Public Works Department and Ventura County Public Works Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality Paragraph five on page 3.9-7 is revised as follows: The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (LARWCB) has established numeric sizing criteria for post-construction best management practices (BMPs) for new development within Ventura County and the incorporated cities under Order No. R4-2021-01052010-0108. The proposed numeric sizing criteria is intended to reduce adverse impacts to Los Angeles regional waters caused by new sources of urban pollution and increased volumes of storm water and non-storm water flows resulting from new development. Paragraph one on page 3.9-29 is revised as follows: The established NPDES Phase II Stormwater Program in effect for the Project site is in compliance with the mandates of NPDES Permit No. R4-2021-01052010-0108. The design and performance requirements of this permit are detailed in the Ventura Countywide Water Quality manual. Paragraph one on page 3.9-30 is revised as follows: The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (LARWCB) has established numeric sizing criteria for post-construction BMPs for new development within Ventura County and the incorporated cities under Order No. R4-2021-01052010-0108. The proposed numeric sizing criteria is intended to reduce adverse impacts to Los Angeles regional waters caused by new sources of urban pollution and increased volumes of storm water and non-storm water flows resulting from new development. Section 3.10, Land Use Appendix 3.10 - Figure 3.10-4a Project Traffic Volume - Weekday AM Peak Hour is presented below. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 284 0RRUSDUN$YHQXHDQG3RLQG*DEEHUW5RDGDW3RLQGH[WHU6SULQJ5RDGDW+LJK6WUHHW0RRUSDUN$YHQXHDW+LJK6WU :DOQXW&DQ\RQ5RDGDW&DV:DOQXW&DQ\RQ5RDGDW6SUL:DOQXW&DQ\RQ5RDGDW&KD:DOQXW&DQ\RQ5RDGDW%URD Project Traffic Volume - Weekday AM Peak Hour FIGURE 3.10-4a 1318.003•01/21 SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc., 2021 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 285 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-20 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Section 3.13, Public Services The third paragraph on page 3.13-1 is revised as follows: California Fire Code The California Fire Code (Title 24 CCR, Part 9) establishes minimum requirements to safeguard public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings. Chapter 33 of the California Fire Code (CFC)CCR contains requirements for fire safety during construction and demolition. The last paragraph on page 3.13-2 is revised as follows: Two fire stations are near the specific plan area, Fire Station 42 and Fire Station 40. Fire Station 42 is located at 295 High Street, approximately 0.5 mile east of the specific plan area. Fire Station 42 would be the primary response engine company. Response time from this station to the specific plan area would be approximately 3-minutes (travel time only). Fire Station 42 is staffed with a crew of three per 24-hour shift. The station is equipped with an engine, a reserve engine and a brush engine. The fifth paragraph on page 3.13-3 is revised as follows: According to the Fire Protection Division of the Ventura County Fire Department (VCFFD), the Specific Plan Area is a designated “Hazardous Fire Area”. “high fire hazard area.” A “Hazardous Fire Area” “high fire hazard” area is defined as any area or structure within 500 feet of standing brush or grass. The last paragraph on page 3.13-3 is revised as follows: Emergency Assistance. The Ventura County Fire Department is a part of the State of California Master Mutual Aid Response Program. VCFD has 3337 facilities Countywide, from which resources can be drawn. The second paragraph on page 3.13-4 is revised as follows: According to the Fire Protection Division of the Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD), fire protection services in the City of Moorpark are adequate, and will be able to serve future growth in the City. Future fire service needs are evaluated annually, based upon the current population, projected population, and proposed new development. A fee is assessed by VCFD Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 286 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-21 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 on all new development at the time building permits are issued to ensure that VCFD grows in concert with the City’s population. The final paragraph on page 3.13-5 is revised as follows: Staffing Needs. Fire protection prevention services within the City of Moorpark are currently adequate, and are expected to serve the City for the future. The second paragraph on page 3.13-6 is revised as follows: Response Distance/Time. As previously mentioned, Fire Stations 42 and 40 are located 0.5 and 1.5 miles from the Project site, respectively. These distances are considered by VCFD to be reasonable to serve the Project site, given that the stations serve the entire City of Moorpark. Fire Station 42 would provide primary response services to the Project site and Station 40 would provide supplemental response services. Fire Station 42 would be able to respond to the specific plan site in approximately 3-minutes (travel time only), which is under the VCFD performance goal of 4- to 7-minutes. The proposed specific plan is, therefore, not anticipated to result in significant impacts to fire protection response times in the City of Moorpark. Refer also to Section 3.18, Wildfire in this EIR. The final paragraph on page 3.13-6 is revised as follows: Anticipated Frequency and Nature of Emergency Occurrence (Special Fire Protection Problems). The frequency and nature of future emergency calls is difficult to predict. No uses allowed in the Specific Plan are unusual or have the potential to generate an unusual number or type of calls for service. However, the Specific Plan site is located in an area designated as a “Hazardous Fire Area”. “high fire hazard area.” Construction would, therefore, be required to comply with all applicable building and fire code requirements. These requirements may include items such as types of roofing materials, building construction, brush clearance, fire hydrant flows, hydrant spacing, access and design, and other hazard reduction programs, as set forth by VCFD. With the implementation of standard conditions and requirements as outlined below, potential fire hazard impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Refer also to Section 3.18, Wildfire in this EIR. The second bullet on page 3.13-7 is revised as follows: • Prior to combustible construction, an all-weather access road/driveway and the first lift of the access road pavement must be installed. Once combustible construction starts a minimum 20-foot Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 287 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-22 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 clear width access road/driveway must remain free of obstruction during any construction activities within the development. All access roads/driveways must have a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches and a minimum inside turning radius of 50 feet. outside turning radius of 40 feet. The last bullet on page 3.13-8 is revised as follows: • The developer shall provide landscape/fuel modification plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect to VCFD for review and approval prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. The use of drought-tolerant, fire-resistant, native vegetation shall be incorporated into the landscape/fuel modification plans. • The developer shall provide Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) and or Landscape plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect to VCFD for review and approval as follows: A. Tracts and multiple lot projects: Plans shall be submitted for approval before the start of construction. This includes slopes, common areas, and individual lot landscaping install by the developer. B. Individual Parcels: Plans shall be submitted for approval prior to installation and or modification of any vegetation / landscape. This includes owner installed landscaping after original purchase of a parcel or building from the developer. The use of drought-tolerant, ignition resistant, native vegetation shall be incorporated into the landscape/fuel modification plans. Plants and trees listed on the VCFD Prohibited Plant List shall not be used. Section 3.15, Transportation The second paragraph on page 3.15-8 is revised as follows: The City of Moorpark has not adopted a local VMT threshold but anticipates establishing a threshold as part of a comprehensive General Plan update and Program EIR currently underway. The Ventura County Public Works Agency Transportation Department (VCPW TD)Transportation Commission (VCTC) has drafted, although not yet adopted, guidance in accordance with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) that suggests the minimum reduction standard threshold for residential, office and industrial projects be 15% below the existing per capita VMT.2 The project’s operational year would begin in 2027. Based Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 288 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-23 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 on SCAG’s 2020 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal) Growth Forecast projections and California Air Resources Board’s EMFAC model, the 2027 baseline VMT per capita for Ventura County would be 18.6 miles. This will be used as the baseline per capita VMT to determine if the project would be below the 15% threshold. 2: Ventura County Public Works. 2021. Available at: https://s29422.pcdn.co/wp- content/uploads/2020/06/VMT-Draft-for-Public-Review-Clean-Version.pdf The second paragraph on page 3.15-18 is revised as follows: The City of Moorpark has not currently adopted a local VMT significance threshold. However, the Ventura County Public Works Agency Transportation Department (VCPW TD) (VC Transportation Commission (VCTC) released draft VMT thresholds that align with OPR’s SB 743 Guidance and CEQA Guidelines. Using VMT as a performance metric instead of LOS is intended to discourage suburban sprawl, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and encourage the development of smart growth, complete streets, and multimodal transportation networks. As such, VCPW TD VCTC is proposing to adopt OPR guidance that suggests the minimum reduction standard threshold for residential, office and industrial projects be 15% below the existing per capita VMT.9 9: Ventura County Public Works. 2021. Available at: https://s29422.pcdn.co/wp- content/uploads/2020/06/VMT-Draft-for-Public-Review-Clean-Version.pdf The fourth paragraph on page 3.15-28 is revised as follows: For land use projects, the intent of this threshold is to assess whether a land use or plan causes substantial vehicle miles traveled. The Plan would have a significant impact if the Plan’s VMT exceeds the threshold. OPR issued proposed updates to the CEQA guidelines in November 2017 and an accompanying technical advisory guidance finalized in December 2018 (OPR Technical Advisory) that amends the Appendix G question for transportation impacts to delete reference to vehicle delay and level of service and instead refer to Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines asking if the project will result in a substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines in December of 2018 and are now in effect. In the absence of any formal guidelines and data from the City of Moorpark, VCPW TD VCTC, or SCAG, this analysis summarizes an approach that is consistent with OPR Guidance for implementing SB 743. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 289 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-24 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Section 3.17, Utilities The last paragraph on page 3.17-11 is revised as follows: Additional details regarding District, CMWD, and MWD planned water supply programs are provided in the District's 2015 UWMP, which was adopted in 2016. The third paragraph on page 3.17-12 is revised as follows: Anticipated project specific water demands are provided in Table 3.17-23.14-2, Estimated Water Demands. As indicated in Table 3.17-23.14-2, potable water demand at buildout would be approximately 286.4 afy while recycled water demand at buildout would be about 105.7 afy for an overall demand of approximately 392.1 afy. The first paragraph on page 3.17-13 is revised as follows: That determination is consistent with the analysis provided in the District’s 20152016 UWMP. Consequently, impacts under normal year conditions are co nsidered to be less than significant. The last paragraph on page 3.17-14 is revised as follows: A summary of the District’s projected 20-year water supplies for multi dry year conditions is provided in Table 3.17-5, Multi Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison. The District’s total projected single multi dry year water supplies available during the ensuing 20 years will meet the projected water demands associated with the Hitch Ranch Project and existing and other planned uses within the District’s service area. That determination is consistent with the analysis provided in the District’s 20152016 UWMP. Consequently, impacts under multi dry year conditions are considered to be less than significant. The first paragraph on page 3.17-15 is revised as follows: As indicated above, water demands for the Proposed Project were included in the water demand projections in the District’s 20152016 UWMP. As indicated in the VCWWD No. 1’s UWMP, the District’s total projected water supplies available over the next 20 years will meet the projected water demands associated with the Proposed Project and existing and other planned uses within the District’s service area under most scenarios. Therefore, the impact of the Proposed Project on water supplies under normal year and multiple dry year scenarios would be less than significant. In addition, the amount of production relied upon in the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 290 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-25 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 supply-demand analysis to meet future demands will necessitate an expansion of treatment facilities, with or without the Proposed Project. As such, the impact on the expansion of facilities would be less than significant as well. The last paragraph on page 3.17-15 is revised as follows: Water demands for the Proposed Project and cumulative development were included in the water demand projections in the District’s 20152016 UWMP. As indicated in the VCWWD No. 1’s UWMP, the District’s total projected water supplies available over the next 20 years will meet the projected water demands associated with the Proposed Project and existing and other planned uses within the District’s service area under normal and dry year scenarios. Impacts under the single dry year scenario would be reduced to a less-than-significant level once the water conservation strategies are implemented and potential additional water sources are secured. Therefore, the impact of the Proposed Project and cumulative development on water supplies under all scenarios would be less than significant. The expansion of water treatment facilities, necessary to meet future demands, presents a potentially significant cumulative impact, as does the possibility of needing additional groundwater extraction facilities as demand increases in the future. The Standard Conditions and Requirements on page 3.17-16 are revised as shown: Standard Conditions and Requirements •The applicant shall comply with the applicable provisions of Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 standard procedures for obtaining domestic water and sewer services for applicant’s projects within the District. •Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide Ventura County Waterworks District with: a.Water and sewer improvement plans in the required format. b.Hydraulic analysis by a registered Civil Engineer to determine the adequacy of the proposed and existing water and sewer lines. c.Copy of fire hydrant location approvals by Ventura County Fire Protection District. d.Copy of District Release and Receipt from Calleguas Municipal Water District. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 291 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-26 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 e.Cost estimates for water and sewer improvements. f.Plan check, construction inspection, capital improvement charge, sewer connection few and water meter charge. g. Signed Contract Agreement to Install all improvements and a Surety Bond. h.Recorded easements dedicated to the District for water and sewer facility improvements. The discussion on page 3.17-17 is revised as follows: •The MWWTP has a design capacity of 5.0 mgd and has a state discharge permit for 1.5 mgd. The current average flow is 2.1 mgd. The treatment plant is currently permitted to discharge directly into the Arroyo Simi. However, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (District) has requested termination of its NPDES permit. It is expected that by the end of 2022, the Moorpark WWTP would no longer have the ability to discharge treated effluent to Arroyo Las Posas. To reduce dependence on imported water, the District is in the planning phases of the Moorpark Desalter Project. This multi-million-dollar project will include constructing production water wells in the shallow aquifer and extracting the brackish groundwater, which is high in salts and dissolved solids. Once extracted, this groundwater will be filtered through a membrane treatment process and disinfected, resulting in treated water which will meet State drinking water quality standards. The treated water will then be delivered to the District’s water distribution system. The brine waste from the treatment process will then be discharged into the Calleguas Municipal Water District’s Salinity Management Pipeline to be transported to the Pacific Ocean. (Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, page 3.5. Available online at: https://www.vcpublicworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/DRAFT- VCWWD-No.-1-2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan-Update.pdf ) The discussion on page 3.17-19 is revised as follows: Further, the Moorpark Water Reclamation Facility is in the process of constructing constructed tertiary treatment system upgrades in the early 2000s. This will allowed the recycled water system to be operated with more flexibility and efficiency. This upgrade will works in Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 292 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-27 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 conjunction with the District’s newly expanded recycled water distribution system.6 Therefore, no significant project impacts are expected to occur. Table 3.17-6 on page 3.17-19 is revised as shown: Table 3.17-6 Proposed In-Tract Average Sewer Generation Loads Dwelling Type VCWW Sewer Criteria Proposed Average Sewer Load Dwelling Density Per Capita Sewer Load (gallons/day) Dwelling Units Sewer Load (Gallons/day) Sewer Load (cfs) AFY Single family 3.5 11578 427 171,868116,571 192.50.180 Multiple family 2.2 8178 328 58,45056,285 65.50.087 Total 755 230,317172,856 258.00.267 Source: Encompass Consultant Group, December 2019 The Standard Conditions and Requirements on page 3.17-20 are revised as shown: Standard Conditions and Requirements •The applicant shall comply with the applicable provisions of Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 standard procedures for obtaining domestic water and sewer services for applicant’s projects within the District. •Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide Ventura County Waterworks District with: a.Water and sewer improvement plans in the required format. b.Hydraulic analysis by a registered Civil Engineer to determine the adequacy of the proposed and existing water and sewer lines. c.Copy of fire hydrant location approvals by Ventura County Fire Protection District. d.Copy of District Release and Receipt from Calleguas Municipal Water District. e.Cost estimates for water and sewer improvements. f.Plan check, construction inspection, capital improvement charge, sewer connection few and water meter charge. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 293 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-28 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 g. Signed Contract Agreement to Install all improvements and a Surety Bond. h.Recorded easements dedicated to the District for water and sewer facility improvements. Section 3.18, Wildfire Paragraph one on page 3.18-10 is revised as follows: The Ventura County Fire Protection District (also known as Ventura County Fire Department) provides contract fire protection services to the City, including wildfire protection and suppression. On page 3.18-16 following is revision is made: International Fire Code Created by the International Code Council, the International Fire Code (IFC) addresses a wide array of conditions hazardous to life and property, including fire, explosions, and hazardous materials handling or usage (although not a federal regulation, but rather the product of the International Code Council). The IFC places an emphasis on prescriptive and performance-based approaches to fire prevention and fire protection systems. Updated every 3 years, the IFC uses a hazards classification system to determine the appropriate measures to be incorporated to protect life and property (often times these measures include construction standards and specialized equipment). The IFC uses a permit system (based on hazard classification) to ensure that required measures are instituted (International Code Council 2017). International Wildland–Urban Interface Code The International Wildland–Urban Interface Code is published by the International Code and is a model code addressing wildfire issues. On page 3.18-17 the following revision is made: California Health and Safety Services Code Fire regulations for California are established in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Services Code and include regulations for structural standards (similar to those identified in the California Building Code); fire protection and public notification systems; fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms; standards for high-rise structures Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 294 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-29 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 and childcare facilities; and fire suppression training. The State Fire Marshal is responsible for enforcement of these established regulations and building standards for all state-owned buildings, state-occupied buildings, and state institutions within California. The last paragraph one on page 3.18-17 is revised as follows: Public Resource Code Section 4291 requires a reduction of fire hazards around buildings located adjacent to a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands or land that is covered in flammable material. It is required to maintain a minimum 100 feet of vegetation management around all buildings and is the primary mechanism for conducting fire prevention activities on private property within CAL FIRE jurisdiction. Further, PRC 4291 requires the removal of dead or dying vegetative materials from the roof of a structure, and trees and shrubs must be trimmed from within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe. Exemptions may apply for buildings with an exterior constructed entirely of nonflammable materials. Government Code Section 51182 calls for defensible space clearance and other wildland fire safety practices for buildings. Note: Changes to GC 51182 were made by AB 3074 (2019) requiring a 0-5 foot ember-resistant zone around buildings (new building starting Jan 1, 2023 and existing building starting Jan 1, 2024). AB 63(2021) also made some changes that are now in effect. The full text of the Code can be accessed online here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum =51182 The second paragraph one on page 3.18-17 is revised as follows: California Fire Code The 2016 2022 California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety for and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 295 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-30 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 throughout California. The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistance-rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire services features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland-urban interface areas. The last paragraph one on page 3.18-17 is revised as follows: California Code of Regulations - Title 14 Natural Resources Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Fire Hazard, also sets forth requirements for defensible space if the distances specified above cannot be met. For example, options that have similar practical effects include noncombustible block walls or fences, 5 feet of noncombustible material horizontally around the structure, installing hardscape landscaping or reducing exposed windows on the side of the structure with a less-than-30-foot setback, or additional structure hardening such as those required in the California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 7A. State Fire Safe Regulations - The project is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Severity Zone (VHFSZ) and shall comply with the minimum standards of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Article 6, Subchapter 2, "SRA/VHFSZ Fire Safe Regulations" (CCR T-14 FSR), unless modified by more restrictive local ordinances and requirements. The first paragraph on page 3.18-18 is revised as follows: Senate Bill 1241 In 2012, Senate Bill 1241 added Section 66474.02 to Title 7 Division 2 of the California Government Code, commonly known as the Subdivision Map Act. SB 1260, passed in 2019, has updated Section 66474.02. The statute prohibits subdivision of parcels designated very high fire hazard, or that are in a State Responsibility Area, unless certain findings are made prior to approval of the tentative map. The statute requires that a city or county planning commission make three new findings regarding fire hazard safety before approving a subdivision proposal. The three findings are, in brief: (1) the design and location of the subdivision and its lots are consistent with defensible space regulations found in PRC Section 4290-91, (2) structural fire protection services will be available for the subdivision through a publicly funded entity, and (3) ingress and egress road standards for fire equipment are met per any applicable local ordinance and PRC Section 4290. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 296 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-31 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 The first paragraph on page 3.18-18 is revised as follows: California Emergency Services Act (AB 38) AB 38, approved by the Governor on September 27, 2008, gave Cal EMA responsibility for overseeing and coordinating emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and homeland security activities in the state. The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) mission statement is “Protect lives and property, build capabilities, and support our communities for a resilient California.” The second paragraph on page 3.18-20 is revised as follows: Utility Wildfire Mitigation Plans (SB 901) After record-breaking drought in California from 2011 to 2017, perfect wildfire conditions allowed faulty PG&E utility lines to spark devastating fires that would scorch over 4,000 square miles of land across the state. In response to the deadly season, the California Legislature developed SB 901 as the “centerpiece measure” in its attempt to rectify damages from the 2017 wildfires and prevent future wildfire disasters. SB 901, approved by the Governor on September 21, 2018, mandates all electric utilities to prepare and submit wildfire mitigation plans that describe the utilities’ plan to prevent, combat, and respond to wildfires affecting their service territories. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will review and refine the plans before implementing and enforcing them The last paragraph on page 3.18-20 is revised as follows: Forestry and Fire Prevention: Joint Prescribed Burning Operation (AB 2551) Approved in 2018, AB 2551 authorizes CAL Fire to collaborate with private landowners on controlled burns to reduce wildfire fuel. Mismanagement of the forests can lead to a build-up of forest underbrush that serves as a perfect fuel for wildfires. By allowing small, non-industrial landowners to choose to individually implement various fire prevention programs, such as prescribed burns, AB 2551 promotes good, local forest management in the state. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 297 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-32 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 The first and second paragraphs on page 3.18-21 are revised as follows: Price Gouging: State of Emergency (AB 1919) AB 1919, approved by the Governor on September 21, 2018, was one of the bills introduced to deal with insurance issues relating to, or originating from, wildfire. The bill prohibits landlords from increasing rental housing rates by more than 10 percent in the wake of a designated emergency. For renters affected by wildfire, a substantial increase in housing rates could be devastating and has the potential to result in homelessness. By stabilizing rental rates, AB 1919 protects current and future renters from being charged unfair prices in the wake of a disaster. Forest Resources: Fire Prevention Grant Fees (SB 1079) SB 1079, approved by the Governor on September 28, 2020, builds from existing laws establishing grants to private entities, Native American tribes, and public agencies to assist in the implementation and administration of projects and programs relating to improving forest health and reducing GHG emissions. SB 1079 authorizes CAL Fire to make advance payments to grantees (such as fire safe councils, Native American tribe, or special district), which receive funds from the healthy forest and local fire-prevention grant programs. The first paragraph on page 3.18-22 is revised as follows: County of Ventura General Plan As indicated above, implementation of the fire hazard reduction goals and policies set forth in the Ventura County General Plan is Policy 6.1 of the Moorpark General Plan Safety Element. Therefore, the following goals and policies from the Ventura County General Plan Hazards Element have been included. The Hazards Element of the Ventura County General Plan contains a Fire Hazards chapter. The Fire Hazards chapter focuses on the rural or wildland areas of the County. The goals and policies that apply to fire hazards and may be applicable the project are as follows. Goals 1. Minimize the risk of loss of life injury, damage to structures, and economic and social dislocations resulting from fire hazards. 2. Ensure that development in high fire hazard areas is designed and constructed in a manner that minimizes the risk from fire hazards. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 298 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-33 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Policies 1. All applicants for discretionary permits shall be required, as a condition of approval, to provide adequate water supply and access for fire protection and evacuation purposes. 2. All discretionary permits in fire hazard areas shall be conditioned to include fire-resistant vegetation, cleared firebreaks, or a long-term comprehensive fuel management program as a condition of approval. Fire hazard reduction measures shall be incorporated into the design of any project in a fire hazard area. 3. New residential subdivisions shall provide not less than two means of access for emergency vehicles and resident evacuation. A deviation from this policy is only allowed when the proposed road conforms to the County Road Standards and when the County Fire Chief approves the proposed road. 4. All applicants for subdivisions, multi-unit residential complexes, and commercial and industrial complexes shall be required to obtain, prior to permit approval, certification from the Fire Protection District that adequate fire protection is available, or will be available prior to occupancy. Ventura County Municipal Code Per Section 5111, Ventura County Fire Code, the Ventura County Code of Ordinances adopts by reference the 2019 California Fire Code, portions of the 2018 International Fire Code, and portions of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations, with additions, deletions, and amendments. A county, city, or county and city may establish more restrictive building standards reasonably necessary because of local, climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. The third paragraph on page 3.18-26 is revised as follows: The project would be required to comply with the County’s City of Moorpark’s development review process, including review for compliance with the Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code - Ordinance 29 as well as compliance with applicable emergency access standards that would facilitate emergency vehicle access during project construction and operation. Additionally, an adequate water supply and an approved paved access roadway shall be installed prior to any combustibles on site. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 299 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-34 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 The fourth paragraph on page 3.18-26 is revised as follows: The Project Applicant would be required to design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities to comply with applicable local, regional, state, and federal requirements related to emergency access. Drive aisles, turning radii, and all access points would be designed with adequate emergency access. The project would be required to provide fire apparatus turnarounds on all dead-end fire apparatus access roadways over 150 feet in length., although the Fire Code Official is authorized to increase the length of a dead-end fire apparatus access roadway to a length of 250 feet, and provide a 40-foot horizontal turning radius of a fire apparatus access road, measured at the center line of the access road. All access roadways designed for one-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet; all access roadways designed for two- way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. Fire access roadways designed to allow parking shall provide a minimum clear width of not less than 32 feet for parking on one side and a clear width of not less than 36 feet for parking on both sides. All fire access roadways would have a vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6-inches for the full road width to allow access for fire apparatus. The proposed site plan is subject to approval by the County and the VCFD. Further, the project would be required to provide walking access to the rear of buildings, and ladder access for any windows facing the rear of the buildings. The first paragraph on page 3.18-27 is revised as follows: The City of Moorpark, the County of Ventura, and the VCFD will review proposed modifications to existing roadways to ensure that adequate emergency access or emergency response would be maintained. Additionally, emergency response procedures would be coordinated through the County in coordination with the police and fire departments. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that that the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No mitigation is required, and impacts would be less than significant. The second paragraph on page 3.18-30 is revised as follows: As required by the Fire Code, a FMZ is a strip of land where combustible vegetation has been removed and/or modified and partially or totally replaced with more adequately spaced, drought-tolerant, fire resistant plants in order to provide a reasonable level of protection to structures from wildland fire. Per VCFD standards (Standards 515 and 517), which are consistent with the 2019 California Fire Code (Section 4907 — Defensible Space), Government Code 51175 – 51189, and Public Resources Code 4291A, which require that fuel modification zones be provided around every building that is designed primarily for human habitation or use within a VHFHSZ. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 300 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-35 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Fuel modification consists of at least 100 feet, measured in a horizontal plane, from the exterior façade of all structures towards the undeveloped areas. A typical landscape/fuel modification installation per the County’s Fire Code consists of a five-foot Zone 0 (0 to 5 feet around the structures), a 3025-foot-wide Zone 1A (5 to 30 feet from the structures and decks), and a 70-foot wide Zone 2B (30 to 100 feet from the structures and decks) for a total of 100 feet in width. An additional 100-foot wide thinning zone (Zone 3C) is required for the areas adjacent to natural- vegetated, open space areas (north of PA1). Per VCFD, the full 100-foot defensible space zone from project buildings is required by the VCFPD Ordinance 31. Any portion off-site will be the responsibility of that affected property owner. VCFD is proposing a development condition to have the Hitch Ranch Project be responsible for the potion of the 100-foot zone off-site until such time the affected off-site properties develop. a FMZ is required around every building that is designed primarily for human habitation or use within a VHFHSZ. A typical landscape/fuel modification installation per the County’s Fire Code consists of a 30-foot-wide irrigated zone (Zone A) and a 70-foot wide irrigated zone (Zone B) for a total of 100 feet in width on the periphery of the Project site, beginning at the structure. An additional 100-foot wide thinning zone (Zone C) is required for the areas adjacent to natural-vegetated, open space areas, such as is found north of the Project site. Page 3.18-31 – Figure 3.18-3, Conceptual Fuel modification Plan has been revised. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 301 Da t e : 4 / 1 2 / 2 0 2 2 - L a s t s a v e d b y : l t e r r y - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 2 7 1 0 0 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ F P P \ F i g 5 C o n c e p t u a l F u e l M o d P l a n 2 0 2 2 0 4 1 2 . m x d Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan SOURCE:AERIAL -BING MAPPING SERVICE 2018; SITE PLAN - ENCOMPASS CONSULTANT GROUP 2021 0 460230Feet FIGURE 5 Project Boundary Land Use Development WQ Basin Roadway Manufactured Slope Fuel Modification Zone 0 - Irrigated (0-5') Zone 1 - Irrigated (5'-30') Zone 2 - Irrigated (30'-100') Zone 3 - 50% Thinned (100'-200') 10-Ft Roadside Zone OffsiteAdjacent Property Owner Maintained FMZ* FMZ Dimensions 6-Ft Fire Wall SEE INSET RIGHT FMZ DIMENSIONS* Section 1.4 of Standard 515 states:Any person owning, leasing, controlling, operating, or maintaining any building in, upon, or adjoining any Hazardous FireArea, and any person owning, operating, leasing, or controlling any landadjacent to such building shall provide around and adjacent to such building an effective defensible spacing on the property for a distance not less than 100 feet from all portions of the building. Distance may be increased by the Fire Depart ment because of a site-specific analysis, based on local conditions and, whenrequired based on a Fire Protection Plan. Reference: Public Resource Code (PRC) 4291, Government Code (GC) 51182, and current Ventura CountyFire Code, Section W105.1. Da t e : 4 / 1 2 / 2 0 2 2 - L a s t s a v e d b y : l t e r r y - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 2 7 1 0 0 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ F P P \ F i g 5 C o n c e p t u a l F u e l M o d P l a n 2 0 2 2 0 4 1 2 . m x d Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan SOURCE:AERIAL -BING MAPPING SERVICE 2018; SITE PLAN - ENCOMPASS CONSULTANT GROUP 2021 0 460230Feet FIGURE 5 Project Boundary Land Use Development WQ Basin Roadway Manufactured Slope Fuel Modification Zone 0 - Irrigated (0-5') Zone 1 - Irrigated (5'-30') Zone 2 - Irrigated (30'-100') Zone 3 - 50% Thinned (100'-200') 10-Ft Roadside Zone OffsiteAdjacent Property Owner Maintained FMZ* FMZ Dimensions 6-Ft Fire Wall SEE INSET RIGHT FMZ DIMENSIONS* Section 1.4 of Standard 515 states: Any person owning, leasing, controlling, operating, or maintaining any building in, upon, or adjoining any Hazardous FireArea,and any person owning, operating, leasing, or controlling any land adjacent to such building shall provide around and adjacent to such building an effective defensible spacing on the property for a distance not less than 100 feet from all portions of the building. Distance may be increased by the Fire Depart ment because ofa site-specific analysis, based on local conditions and, when required based on a Fire Protection Plan. Reference: Public Resource Code (PRC) 4291,Government Code (GC) 51182, and current Ventura County Fire Code, Section W105.1. Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan FIGURE 3.18-3 1318.001•04/2022 SOURCE: Dudek; Aerial Bing Mapping Service, 2018; Encompass Consultant Group, 2021. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 302 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-37 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 The second paragraph on page 3.18-32 is revised as follows: Further, in accordance with Mitigation Measure WF-3, project landscaping would be implemented according to the VCFD Fire Hazard Reduction Program Plant Reference Guide and the VCFD Prohibited Plant List identified in the mitigation measure (as recommended by the Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan, Appendix 3.18). All landscape and fuel modification plans are required to be submitted to VCFD for review and approval. This includes developer install landscaping and any landscape installed by individual property owners. Table 3.18-4 on page 3.18-33 is revised as follows: The first paragraph on page 3.18-39 is revised as follows: The Project would involve construction of access roads by extending existing roads into the Project site, as well as an internal circulation network. The on-site roadway network would be integrated into the broader roadway network in the Project area. The presence of increased human activity and vehicles along newly installed roads would introduce new potential ignition sources to the Project area. However, vegetation management would be required along roadways within the Very High FHSZ for roads internal and external to the Project site. On-site roads would be constructed to current Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code standards (Ordinance Number 29) and 2019 CFC (or then current edition), including all fire access Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 303 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-38 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 roadways designed for one-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet; all access roadways designed for two-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. Fire access roadways designed to allow parking shall provide a minimum clear width of not less than 32 feet for parking on one side and a clear width of not less than 36 feet for parking on both sides and shall be improved with asphalt paving materials that support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (not less than twenty-tons or 80,000 lbs. after a 10-year storm). Turning radius for fire apparatus access roads will be a 50 foot inside radius per CCR T-14 FSR. 40 feet as measured at the center line of the access road. The first paragraph on page 3.18-40 is revised as follows: Roadside fuel modification consists of mowing grasses to 63-inches in height and/or maintaining ornamental landscapes, including trees, clear of dead and dying plant materials (VCFD Standard). Roadside fuel modification would be maintained by the HOA. Therefore, installation and maintenance of site access roads in accordance with all relevant development codes would not exacerbate wildfire risk and would improve emergency access to the site and surrounding areas. The second paragraph on page 3.18-45 is revised as follows: Furthermore, other cumulatively considerable projects would be required to comply with the County’s vegetation clearance requirements, as outlined in the County Municipal Code. The Ventura County Fire and Building Codes, along with project-specific needs assessments and fire prevention plan requirements, ensure that every project approved for construction includes adequate emergency access. Roads for all proposed projects are required to meet minimum widths, have all-weather surface, and be capable of supporting the imposed loads of responding emergency apparatus. The Hitch Ranch project and all other future development projects in the service area would be subject to discretionary review by the VCFD and would be required to comply with the County Fire Code and other relevant County Code requirements and other applicable local codes (e.g., City of Moorpark Fire Code) and regulations related to fire safety, building construction, access, fire flow, and fuel modification. Therefore, because all projects are required to comply with these requirements, cumulative impacts related to increased wildfire hazards and emergency response and access would be less than significant. The second bullet on page 3.18-46 is revised as follows: •The project design incorporates the establishment and maintenance of up to 200 feet of Zone 0A, Zone 1B, Zone 2, and Zone 3C fuel modification zones (FMZs) for the Project site. The Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 304 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-39 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 FMZs will consist of irrigated and maintained landscapes that will be subject to regular “disturbance” in the form of maintenance and will not be allowed to accumulate excessive biomass over time, which results in reduced fire ignition, spread rates, and intensity. The second bullet of mitigation measure WF-2 on page 3.18-48 is revised as follows: • Provide a noncombustible, 6-foot high concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall at the top of the manufactured slopes behind the units within PA3 along the eastern property boundary. These walls will be installed to function as heat-deflecting walls; vining plants will be established as landscape screening. Note: the use of vining plants may be restricted in FMZ Zones 0, 1, and 2. Mitigation Measure WF-3 on page 3.18-48 is revised as follows: WF-3: A fully irrigated landscape, planted with drought-tolerant, fire-resistive plants shall be implemented in accordance with VCFD Fire Hazard Reduction Program Plant Reference Guide (Appendix D of Appendix 3.18 of this EIR). No undesirable, highly flammable plant species shall be planted, as listed in the VCFD Prohibited Plant List (Appendix E of Appendix 3.18 of this EIR). All landscape and fuel modification plans are required to be submitted to the City of Moorpark Community Development Department and the Ventura County Fire Department for review and approval. This includes developer installed landscaping and any landscape installed by individual property owners. The landscaping shall be routinely maintained and shall be watered by an automatic irrigation system that will maintain healthy vegetation with high moisture contents that would minimize ignition by embers from a wildfire. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Ventura County Fire Department, City of Moorpark Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 305 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-40 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Mitigation Measure WF-4 on page 3.18-48 is revised as follows: WF-4: The project HOA shall hire a qualified coordinate with the Ventura County Fire Department-approved third-party fuel modification zone inspector to provide annual inspections. A copy of each inspection report should shall be provided to the City of Moorpark Community Development Director. Timing/Implementation: Annually, following project occupancy. Enforcement/Monitoring: Ventura County Fire Department, City of Moorpark Community Development Department Appendix 3.18, Fire Protection Plan A redline/strikeout copy and a clean version of the revised Fire Protection Plan are provided as Appendix B.1 and Appendix B.2, respectively, to this Final EIR. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 306 City of Moorpark, California Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021 Project Name: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan File Number: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. This document has been developed to ensure implementation of mitigation measures and proper and adequate monitoring/reporting of such implementation. CEQA requires that this MMRP be adopted in conjunction with project approval, which relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The purpose of this MMRP is to: (1) document implementation of required mitigation; (2) identify monitoring/reporting responsibility, be it the lead agency (City of Petaluma), other agency (responsible or trustee agency), or a private entity (applicant, contractor, or project manager); (3) establish the frequency and duration of monitoring/reporting; (4) provide a record of the monitoring/reporting; and (5) ensure compliance. The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in conjunction with project approval, the implementation action, timeframe to which the measure applies, the monitoring/reporting responsibility, reporting requirements, and the status of compliance with the mitigation measure. Implementation The responsibilities of implementation include review and approval by City staff including the Engineering, Community Development, and Building divisions. Responsibilities include the following: 1. The applicant shall obtain all required surveys and studies and provide a copy to the City prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals of improvements plans. 2. The applicant shall obtain all required permits, agreements, and approvals from State and Federal regulatory agencies, as applicable and provide copies to the City prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals of improvements plans. 3. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvement plans and specifications for the project. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 307 City of Moorpark 2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2022 4. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, subcontractor, and agents involved in the project implementation of mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. 5. The applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation measure that involves on-going operations on the site or long-range improvements. 6. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and conditions of approval and provide name, address, and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 7. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 8. All mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of project approval. 9. The applicant shall arrange a pre-construction conference with the construction contractor, City staff and responsible agencies to review the mitigation measures and conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Monitoring and Reporting The responsibilities of monitoring and reporting include the engineering, planning, and building divisions, as well as the fire department. Responsibilities include the following: 1. The Building, Community Development, and Engineering Departments and Fire Department shall review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans, grading plans, or building permits. 2. The Community Development Department shall ensure that the applicant has obtained applicable required permits from all responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform to the permit requirements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the project description, permit conditions, and approved development or improvement plans. 4. City inspectors shall ensure that construction activities occur in a manner that is consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. MMRP Checklist The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with project approval, the timeframe to which the measure applies, the person/agency/permit responsible for implementing the measure, and the status of compliance with the mitigation measure. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 308 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED AESTHETICS AES-1: To help minimize the short-term visual effects of mass grading, all manufactured slopes shall be hydro-mulched in conjunction with the grading process to prevent soil erosion and provide an environment conducive to plant growth. The seed mix used in the hydro-mulch slurry shall consist of a blend of fast-growing annual grasses and summer flowering forbs. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During grading activities •Community Development Department •Public Works Department •Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department AES-2: To minimize the change in the visual character of the site landscape screens must be placed around detention and debris basins in Planning Area 1, and below Planning Area 4 to limit views of these areas. These plantings must emphasize native species and shall comply with the City’s Landscape Guidelines. At maturity, the landscaping shall be of a sufficient size to screen the detention basins. •Incorporate into project design •Prior to grading permit issuance •Community Development Department AES-3: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a lighting plan prepared by a lighting consultant shall be submitted to the City of Moorpark Department of Community Development for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall incorporate 0.5 foot-candle as a threshold for spill and the minimum streetlamp glare level of 2.0 foot-candles. All fixtures shall utilize shields to direct light downward, and the lighting plan shall also incorporate other “dark sky” friendly measures to the extent feasible. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following or other comparable measures: •Use lighting fixtures that are adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector and that prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. •Restrict the operation of outdoor lighting for construction and operation activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to grading permit issuance •Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 309 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED •Use high pressure sodium and/or cut-off fixtures instead of typical mercury-vapor fixtures for outdoor lighting. •Use unidirectional lighting to avoid light trespass onto adjacent properties. •Design exterior lighting to confine illumination to the project site, and/or to areas which do not include light-sensitive uses. •Provide structural and/or vegetative screening from light-sensitive uses. •Shield and direct all new street and pedestrian lighting away from light- sensitive off-site uses. •Architectural lighting shall be directed onto the building surfaces and have low reflectivity to minimize glare and limit light onto adjacent properties. AES-4: When installed, all street lighting fixtures shall be tested and adjusted to ensure that light levels do not exceed 2.0 foot-candles of glare and 0.5 foot- candle of spill at the project boundaries. Testing of street lighting fixtures shall be conducted by factory-trained and -employed technicians only, contracted for by the master developer and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Following street lighting installation •Community Development Department AIR QUALITY CM AQ-1: The following control measures provided in the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines to minimize the generation of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5), ROC, and NOX during construction activities shall be implemented during construction of the proposed project: •The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust. •Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the areas to be graded or excavated before grading or excavation operations commences. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During construction activities •Community Development Department •Public Works Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 310 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. •Fugitive dust produced during grading excavation and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: •All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization material, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. •Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants to prevent excessive fugitive dust. •Signs limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less shall be posted on site. •During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off site or on site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 311 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED discretion in conjunction with the VCAPCD in determining when winds are excessive. • Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. • Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. • During the construction phase, signs shall be posted on site and viewable to the public with the VCAPCD Complaints Hotline phone number 805-303-3700 CM AQ-2: During construction contractors shall comply with the following measures to reduce NOx and ROC from heavy equipment as recommended by the VCAPCD in its Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines: • Minimize equipment idling time to no more than 5 minutes, as required in Title 13, CCR §2485, §2449(d)(2), respectively. The idling limit does not apply to: (1) idling when queuing; (2) idling to verify that the vehicle is in safe operating condition; (3) idling for testing, servicing, repairing or diagnostic purposes; (4) idling necessary to accomplish work for which the vehicle was designed (such as operating a crane); (5) idling required to bring the machine system to operating temperature, and (6) idling necessary to ensure safe operation of the vehicle. • Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer’s specifications. • Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October) to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. • Incorporate into project design and construction documents • During construction activities • Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 312 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED •Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible. MM AQ-1: During heavy grading, construction contractors shall comply with the following measures to reduce potential Valley Fever impacts: •Hire crews from local populations where possible, since it is more likely that they have been previously exposed to the fungus and are therefore immune. •Require crews to use respirators during project clearing, grading, and excavation operations in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. •Require that the cabs of grading and construction equipment be air- conditioned or enclosed with sufficient ventilation and particulate matter filtration systems. •Require crews to work upwind from excavation sites where possible. •Where acceptable to the fire department, control weed growth by mowing instead of disking, thereby leaving the ground undisturbed and with a mulch covering. •During rough grading and construction, the access way into the Project site from adjoining paved roadways should be paved or treated with environmentally safe dust control agents. Implementation of VCAPCD CM-AQ-1 (above), control measures provided in the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines will also serve to minimize the generation of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5). •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to issuance of building permits •Community Development Department •Public Works Department MM AQ-2: For the entire duration of construction period, all off-road equipment greater than 25 horsepower shall have engines rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as complying with Tier 4 final emission limits. The construction contractors shall provide quarterly summaries of compliance with this measure to the City. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 313 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED • Prior to issuance of building permits MM AQ-3: The Project Applicant shall submit payment of fees to the City of Moorpark’s Transportation System Management Fund (Resolution No. 2006-2461). The fees shall be calculated using the procedure outlined in Resolution No. 2006-2461, which relies on the recommendation of the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. As such, the fees shall be based on the unit cost for ROC in effect at the time the fee is to be paid using the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines formula of: (14 lbs excess mobile source ROC emissions) x (unit cost of ROG) x (365 days of operation) x (3 years) = total cost The unit cost of ROG shall be calculated by adjusting the year 2000 unit cost of $5.18 per pound of ROC reduced with an inflation factor calculated by dividing the most recent January Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers [All Items 1982-1984=100]) value for the Los Angeles area by the January 2000 Consumer Price Index value for this region of 167.9. The City of Moorpark shall spend or commit the mitigation fees to a mitigation project within five years of receipt of the funds. The funds shall be prioritized for mitigation projects within Moorpark, or if not feasible to be located within Moorpark, shall be used for mitigation projects in other locations within Ventura County. The mitigation funds shall not be used for traffic engineering projects, including but not limited to signal synchronization, intersection improvements, or channelization. The City shall provide a report to the City Council annually on the collection, expenditure, and use of these mitigation fees. Each future entitlement, including but not limited to subdivision maps, planned development permits, and conditional use permits, related to the Proposed Project may be conditioned to pay its proportionate share of the cost to reduce ROC emissions. • Incorporate into project design and construction documents • Prior to the issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for each future entitlement, including but not limited to subdivision maps, planned development permits, and conditional use permits, related to the Proposed Project. • Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 314 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BR-1: The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist with a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Scientific Collection Permit and Memorandum of Understanding to conduct preconstruction surveys for the western spadefoot, coastal western whiptail, coast horned lizard, and coast patch-nose snake in areas that would be disturbed within the project site. All western spadefoot, coastal western whiptail, coast horned lizard, and coast patch-nose snake observed within the project site during preconstruction surveys must be relocated, at the approval of the City and CDFW, to an approved site with suitable habitat for these species. Surveys and relocation of spadefoots, lizards, and snakes may occur prior to construction; however, focused surveys must occur within 30 days prior to construction initiation to ensure that no special-status reptiles or amphibians are present within the project site during construction. Survey methods and relocation areas must be reviewed and approved by the CDFW prior to commencement of grading. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Implement within 30 days prior to grading activities •Community Development Department BR-2: Within thirty days prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct CDFW protocol surveys to determine whether the burrowing owl is present at the site. The surveys shall consist of up to three site visits and shall be conducted in areas dominated by field crops, disturbed habitat, grasslands, and along levee locations, if such habitats occur within 500 feet of a construction zone. If located, occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If a burrowing owl is detected but nesting is not occurring, construction work can proceed after any owls have been evacuated from the site using CDFW- approved passive relocation and burrow closure procedures and after alternative nest sites have been provided in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (10-17-95). •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Implement within 30 days prior to grading activities •Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 315 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED Unless otherwise authorized by CDFW, a 500-foot buffer, within which no activity will be permissible, will be maintained between project activities and nesting burrowing owls during the nesting season. The buffer area may be reduced if there is no evidence of indirect impairment to owls based on direct observations by a monitoring biologist. The protected area will remain in effect until August 31 or at CDFW's discretion and based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently. BR-3: Within thirty days prior to construction activities in grassland and scrub vegetation a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit and San Diego desert woodrat. If San Diego black-tailed jackrabbits are present, non-breeding rabbits shall be flushed from areas to be disturbed. Dens, depressions, nests, or burrows occupied by pups shall be flagged and ground-disturbing activities avoided within a minimum of 200 feet during the pup-rearing season (February 15 through July 1). This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den upon consultation with CDFW. Occupied maternity dens, depressions, nests, or burrows shall be flagged for avoidance, and a biological monitor shall be present during construction. If unattended young are discovered, they shall be relocated to suitable habitat by a qualified biologist. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits. If active San Diego desert woodrat nests (stick houses) are identified within the disturbance zone or within 100 feet of the disturbance zone, a fence shall be erected around the nest site adequate to provide the woodrat sufficient foraging habitat at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. If young are present, clearing and construction within the fenced area will be postponed or halted until young have left the nest. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent • Incorporate into project design and construction documents • Implement within 30 days prior to grading activities • Community Development Department • Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 316 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 11 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED impacts to these nests will occur. If avoidance is not possible, the applicant will take the following sequential steps: 1.All understory vegetation will be cleared in the area immediately surrounding active nests followed by a period of one night without further disturbance to allow woodrats to vacate the nest; 2.each occupied nest will then be disturbed by a qualified wildlife biologist until all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge off site; and 3.the nest sticks shall be removed from the Project site and piled at the base of a nearby hardwood tree (preferably a coast live oak or California walnut). Relocated nests shall not be spaced closer than 100 feet apart, unless a qualified wildlife biologist has determined that a specific habitat can support a higher density of nests. The applicant shall document all woodrat nests moved and provide a written report to CDFW. All woodrat relocation shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in possession of a scientific collecting permit. BR-4: Within thirty days prior to construction activities in grassland, scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, riverbank, and agriculture habitats, or other suitable habitat a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for American badger. If American badgers are present, occupied habitat shall be flagged and ground disturbing activities avoided within 50 feet of the occupied den. Maternity dens shall be avoided during the pup-rearing season (February 15 through July 1) and a minimum 200-foot buffer established. This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den upon consultation with CDFW. Maternity dens shall be flagged for avoidance, identified on construction maps, and a qualified biologist shall be present during construction. If avoidance of a non-maternity den is not feasible, badgers shall be relocated either by trapping or by slowly •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Implement within 30 days prior to grading activities •Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 317 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED excavating the burrow (either by hand or mechanized equipment under the direct supervision of the biologist, removing no more than 4 inches at a time) before or after the rearing season (February 15 through July 1). Any relocation of badgers shall occur only after consultation with CDFW. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits. BR-5: Disturbed vegetation located on the east-side of Gabbert Road that includes California sagebrush-deerweed scrub, cactus scrub, and blue elderberry stands, which are unsuitable for CAGN nesting but used as foraging habitat, shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1. Although no individuals or breeding territories have been observed within the undisturbed California sagebrush-deerweed scrub to the west of Gabbert Road, impacts to this vegetation shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio due to its potential to support foraging and nesting CAGN. CAGN habitat shall be restored on-site. If a suitable on-site location is not feasible, restoration may occur at a mitigation bank, approved by USFWS prior to issuance of a grading permit or any ground disturbing activities on the Project site. If mitigation requirements cannot be met on-site and/or through the purchase of credits at a mitigation bank, a suitable off-site location may be identified and utilized subject to City and USFWS approval. Moreover, consultation with USFWS in accordance with FESA will occur prior to issuance of a grading permit or any ground disturbing activities and their recommendations followed. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary regulatory agency permits for compliance with the FESA. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Implement prior to issuance of a grading permit or any ground disturbing activities •USFWS •Community Development Department BR-6: Sixty (60) days prior to scheduled site mobilization, the applicant shall submit a Native Habitat Restoration Plan for the restoration of a native habitat on the site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, CDFW, and USFWS, which shall be approved by the aforementioned prior to issuance of a building permit or ground disturbing activities at the Project site. At a minimum, the Restoration Plan shall identify all responsible parties/stakeholders, performance standards, success criteria, plant pallet and planting methods, irrigation details and watering schedule, maintenance •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Plan submittal 60 days prior to scheduled site mobilization. Prior to issuance of grading permits (review of •Community Development Director Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 318 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 13 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED measures and schedule, monitoring and reporting requirements, contingencies, adaptive management strategies, and funding sources, such as an endowment for long-term management. Native vegetation on the Project site shall be incorporated in the plan at the ratios indicated below: Plant Community Replacement Ratio (area replaced : area impacted) California sagebrush -deerweed scrub (west of Gabbert Rd) 2:1 California sagebrush -deerweed scrub (east of Gabbert Rd) 1:1 Blue elderberry stands (disturbed/grazed) 1:1 Cactus scrub 1:1 Source: Rincon Consultants, Inc., November 2021 Once approved, implementation of the Native Habitat Restoration Plan shall be required as a condition of approval of the Tract Map and RPD. The restoration shall be performed in accordance with current best available restoration practices and the applicant (or designee) shall be responsible for maintaining the restoration areas for a period of five years to ensure the successful establishment of the plantings, which shall be extended an additional three years if determined necessary by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall pay the costs for monitoring restoration of the Native Habitat for the full and complete restoration time period, which if extended shall require further payment. If a suitable on-site restoration is not feasible, restoration may occur at a mitigation bank, approved by CDFW and USFWS prior to issuance of a grading permit or any ground disturbing activities on the Project site. If restoration requirements cannot be met on-site and/or through the purchase of credits at a mitigation bank, a suitable off-site location may be identified and utilized. The off-site location and restoration Plan shall be plan), prior to issuance of occupancy permits (site inspection) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 319 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit and secured prior to any ground disturbing activities on the Project site. BR-7: All areas temporarily impacted by project grading and construction activities but within the fuel management zone must be revegetated with California native plant species, with densities and spacing consistent with the intent of maintaining fuel management zones as described in the City’s Landscape Standards and Guidance and the Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan (refer to Appendix 3.18-A). •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Seeding shall occur within the fall/winter season immediately following the completion of grading and construction activities to maximize successful plant establishment. •Community Development Department BR-8: In order to comply with city, state, and federal regulations regarding impacts to USACE, CDFW and RWQCB jurisdictional areas permitting must be executed pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1602), for all impacts to WOTUS and streambeds. All conditions of the agreements with these agencies designed to minimize impacts to biological resources shall be implemented. Impacts associated with permanently disturbed areas within regulated waters would be mitigated in-kind at a minimum ratio of 1:1. Mitigation will be completed by providing adequate funding to a conservation bank for re- establishment, rehabilitation or enhancement. Mitigation lands should be located in the regional vicinity of the Project site or within the Calleguas Creek Watershed. Note: the final mitigation ratios required by regulatory agencies during the permitting process may differ from those identified above. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary regulatory agency permits for compliance with the Clean Water Act and California Fish and Game Code. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to issuance of grading permits •Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 320 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 15 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED BR-9: Within seven (7) days prior to construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically January 15 through August 30 for raptors and February 15 through September 15 for migratory passerines), the applicant shall have a field survey conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the construction zone or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors or federally listed endangered or threatened bird species) of the construction zone. If active nests are found, all construction activities within the 300-500-foot buffer zones must be postponed or halted, until the biologist determines that the nest is vacated, juveniles have fledged, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The biological monitor shall be able to adjust the size of the buffer zone dependent on the species involved (i.e., non-raptors and common species) and/or allow certain activities within the buffer zone if it can be shown that the activity will not interfere with nesting. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts occur to these nests. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •No earlier than 7 days and no later than 5 days prior to construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season •Community Development Department BR-10: A tree removal permit must be obtained from the City prior to removal of trees that meet the mature tree criteria within the City’s tree ordinance (No. 101). Permits will not be issued until the project has been approved by the City. Removed trees that are determined to be diseased and/or infested with insect pests shall be chipped onsite to prevent the spread to offsite trees. The loss of trees shall be mitigated by using the appraised value of each removed tree and then applying the value towards upgrading the size of the tree plantings associated with the project. The proposed replacement tree species shall emphasize native species and must be consistent with the City’s Landscape Standards and Guidelines to ensure that invasive species will not be used. In accordance with the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, ‘enhanced landscaping’ shall be installed that is equal to the value of the trees removed. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Tree removal permit application and replacement plan submittal at least 30 days prior to scheduled site mobilization and grading •Community Development Department •Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 321 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 16 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED BR-11: Following construction, pets and other domestic animals must be prohibited from the remaining open space areas and from any revegetation areas on the Project site unless restrained by leash and accompanied at all times by the owner or responsible party. Fencing of sufficient height and design or acceptable landscaping must be constructed between the residential areas and natural areas to the north to discourage domestic animals from entering open space habitat areas. Human access into the open space areas may occur in designated areas along the perimeter of the habitats. Prohibitions against human and domestic animal use in sensitive habitat areas must be established by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A brochure must be prepared by the developer and distributed to all home buyers that explains the purpose and sensitivity of the mitigation area and reasons why residents and their pets are discouraged from using this area. Signage shall be provided at the entrance of trails that are nearby sensitive habitat areas to notify users of the nature of the area and it’s sensitivity. The CC&Rs must also state that no structures shall be constructed within the open space areas. As determined by a qualified biologist, interpretative signs that explain the sensitivity of natural habitats and the need to minimize impacts on these adjacent areas are to be constructed and placed in appropriate areas. The project applicant shall be responsible for installation of interpretive signs (at 200-foot intervals) and fencing along the perimeter of the mitigation area. • Incorporate into project design and construction documents • Prior to issuance of first occupancy permits • Community Development Department BR-12: The landscaping plans within the project area (residential and common areas) shall be prepared by a licensed California landscape architect, and shall provide appropriate provisions to prohibit using invasive plant species, especially those listed by the California Invasive Plants Council (their website provides a current invasive plants list), to prevent those species from colonizing remaining natural areas. Landscaping plans shall be consistent with the City of Moorpark Municipal Code Section 15.23 Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Title 17, Zoning. These provisions may include the following: (a) review and screening of proposed plant palette and planting plans to identify and avoid • Incorporate into project design and construction documents • Prior to landscaping plan approval • Community Development Department • Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 322 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 17 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED the use of invasive species; (b) weed removal during the initial planting of landscaped areas; and (c) the monitoring for and removal of weeds and other invasive plant species as part of ongoing landscape maintenance activities. The frequency and method of monitoring for invasive species shall be determined by the City of Moorpark Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. BR-13: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a lighting plan prepared by a lighting consultant consistent with the Specific Plan Design Guidelines Lighting Concept shall be submitted to the City of Moorpark Department of Community Development for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall incorporate 0.5 foot candle as a threshold for spill and the minimum streetlamp glare level of 2.0 foot-candles. All fixtures shall utilize shields to direct light downward, and the lighting plan shall also incorporate other “dark sky” friendly measures to the extent feasible. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following or other comparable measures: •Use lighting fixtures that are adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector and that prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. •Restrict the operation of outdoor lighting for construction and operation activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. •Use high pressure sodium and/or cut-off fixtures instead of typical mercury-vapor fixtures for outdoor lighting. •Use unidirectional lighting to avoid light trespass onto adjacent properties. •Design exterior lighting to confine illumination to the project site, and/or to areas which do not include light-sensitive uses. •Provide structural and/or vegetative screening from light-sensitive uses. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to grading permit issuance •Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 323 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 18 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED •Shield and direct all new street and pedestrian lighting away from light- sensitive off-site uses. •Architectural lighting shall be directed onto the building surfaces and have low reflectivity to minimize glare and limit light onto adjacent properties. BR-14: When installed, all street lighting fixtures shall be tested and adjusted to ensure that light levels do not exceed 2.0 foot-candles of glare and 0.5 foot-candle of spill at the project boundaries. Testing of street lighting fixtures shall be conducted by factory-trained and -employed technicians only, contracted for by the master developer and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Following street lighting installation •Community Development Department BR-15: A City-approved biologist must be retained by the applicant as a construction monitor to ensure that incidental construction impacts on retained biological resources are avoided or minimized. Responsibilities of the construction monitor include the following: •Attend all pre-grading meetings to ensure that the timing and location of construction activities do not conflict with mitigation requirements. •A pre-construction Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training shall be conducted for all construction employees. Prior to the start of construction activities, the WEAP shall be presented to inform construction supervisors, workers, and inspectors of sensitive resources that have a moderate to high potential of occurrence on the Project site, to explain their importance and sensitivity, to review regulatory protections afforded to these resources, and to describe the project design features and mitigation measures adopted to avoid and reduce impacts. Training shall identify individual responsibilities regarding these resources, and communication procedures should sensitive resources exist or be found in the project area. Training participation shall be documented and kept as a log on site. Workers will receive a hard hat decal to show •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During grading and construction activities •Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 324 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 19 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED completion and receive a reference resource (i.e., wallet card, brochure, etc.) for later review as needed. •Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel, describing the importance of restricting work to within the project boundaries and outside of the preserved areas. The monitor shall also discuss staging/storage areas for construction equipment and materials. The biological monitor shall investigate all on-site storage areas to minimize impacts to biological resources. •Guide the contractor in marking/flagging the construction area, in accordance with the final approved grading plan. Any construction activity areas immediately adjacent to special-status plant populations or other special-status resources may be directed to be flagged or temporarily fenced at the discretion of the monitor. •Periodically and routinely visit the site during construction to coordinate and monitor compliance with the above provisions. BR-16: The construction contractor shall install temporary erosion control measures, if necessary, to reduce impacts to and protect off-site drainages from excess sedimentation, siltation, and erosion. These measures shall consist of minimization of existing vegetation removal; the use of temporary soil covers, such as hydroseeding, mulch/binder, and erosion-control blankets to protect exposed soil from wind and rain erosion; or the installation of silt fencing, coirs, berms, and dikes to protect storm drain inlets and drainages. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During grading and construction activities •Public Works Department BR-17: Refueling, changing of oil or other fluids, and vehicle maintenance may be allowed in designated areas located a minimum of 50 feet away from any drainages or proposed mitigation areas. The contractor shall be responsible for providing, and maintaining covered trash bins or dumpsters for any trash or other construction waste materials generated on the site during the project. Vehicles carrying supplies, such as concrete, may not empty, clean out, or otherwise place materials into any mitigation or opens space areas on or •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During grading and construction activities •Public Works Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 325 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 20 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED immediately adjacent to the site. Any spills or trash on the site, whether accidental or not, must be cleaned up at the end of each working day. BR-18: Any equipment or vehicles driven or operated within or adjacent to drainages must be checked and maintained daily, to prevent leaks of materials that if introduced to water could be deleterious to aquatic life. (Vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling or operated beyond periods needed to accomplish approved tasks.) •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During grading and construction activities •Public Works Department BR-19: Construction personnel are prohibited from entry into areas outside the designated construction area, except for necessary construction related activities, such as surveying. All such construction activities including access in or adjacent to remaining open space areas must be coordinated with the project biologist. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During grading and construction activities •Public Works Department BR-20: Standard dust-control measures of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District must be implemented to reduce impacts to nearby plants and wildlife. This includes a variety of options to reduce dust including replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible, using tackifiers in watering trucks on active sites regularly, and suspending all excavating and grading operations during periods of high winds. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During grading and construction activities •Public Works Department BR-21: Upon completion of construction, the contractor shall be held responsible for scarifying and hydroseeding, using native plant seeds, on any haul roads, access roads, or staging areas that are outside of approved grading limits. This restoration must be done in consultation with the project biologist. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Following grading and during construction activities •Public Works Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 326 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 21 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1: Due to the potential that archeological resources may be present on the Project site, the City of Moorpark shall require a note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources, including prehistoric Native American artifacts. Construction personnel associated with earth moving equipment, drilling, grading, and excavating, shall be provided with basic training conducted by a qualified archaeologist, to be retained and compensated by the development team, with the approval of the City of Moorpark. Issues that shall be included in the basic training will be geared toward training the applicable construction crews in the identification of archaeological deposits, further described below. Training will include written notification of the restrictions regarding disturbance and/or removal of any portion of archaeological deposits and the procedures to follow should a resource be identified. The construction contractor, or its designee, shall be responsible for implementation of this measure. A Native American monitor shall be provided an opportunity to attend the pre-construction briefing if requested. A Native American monitor from a consulting Tribe under AB 52 and a qualified archeologist, to be compensated by the development team, shall be available on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction in native soil to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. If archaeological remains or tribal cultural resources are uncovered, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius shall be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall evaluate whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the Applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If any previously undiscovered resources are found during construction the City of Moorpark Community Development Department shall be contacted, and the resource shall be evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include but •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During ground disturbing construction activities •Community Development Department •Qualified archeologist retained by development team Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 327 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 22 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED are not limited to: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include but are not limited to: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). If City and the qualified archaeologist determine the resource to be significant under CEQA, they shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. Contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient for recovering an archeological sample or to employ an avoidance measure may be required. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) which will include a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. Development and implementation of the AMP will be determined by the City of Moorpark and treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the project applicant, and the City. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System [CHRIS]), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. The City of Moorpark and/or development team shall, in good faith, consult with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and consulting Tribes on the disposition and treatment of any recovered materials. A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City of Moorpark at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological resources were encountered and/or recovered. After the find has been appropriately mitigated (as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)), work in the area may resume. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 328 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 23 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED CUL-2: If human remains or funerary objects are unearthed during any activities associated with the project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur within a 100-foot buffer of the find until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, and consulting Tribes. The NAHC will then contact the deceased Native American’s most likely descendant, who will then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains (i.e., avoid, rebury). •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During ground disturbing construction activities •Community Development Department •Qualified archeologist retained by development team GEOLOGY AND SOILS GS-1: The applicant shall conduct additional geotechnical work, consisting of soil borings and laboratory analysis, within the areas of the structures to better define the severity of liquefaction, settlement, and expansiveness conditions. Once the severity of these soil characteristics are determined, then appropriate measures contained within the geotechnical reports will be incorporated into the design of the project. Feasible techniques to mitigate any defined liquefaction, settlement, and expansive soils could include, but would not be limited to, (1) in-situ densification; (2) vibro replacement; (3) compaction grouting or chemical stabilization; or (4) deep foundations and self supporting structural slabs, (5) over-excavation and replacement with properly compacted fill, and/or (6) design of foundation systems with appropriate thickness and reinforcing. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to grading permit issuance and as part of Improvement Plan approvals •Public Works Department •Building Safety Department GS-2: All cut-and-fill slopes must be designed at a 2:1 [2(h) to 1(v)] gradient or less. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to grading permit issuance •Public Works Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 329 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 24 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED GS-3: Cut slopes exposing rock that exposes locally-adverse geologic conditions, expose sandy bedrock materials that are friable and prone to erosion, or where possible nuisance seepage issues could occur may require replacement with stabilization fill slopes. Stabilization fill slopes typically consists of removing the exposed slope face in a swath 10 to 15 feet wide (extending in from the slope face) and rebuilding the slope with compacted fill. All cut slopes shall be evaluated to confirm that no adverse geologic conditions are exposed at slope locations. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During on-site grading activities •Public Works Department GS-4: Due to the potential that paleontological resources may be present on the Project site, the City of Moorpark shall require a note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried paleontological resources. Construction personnel associated with earth moving equipment, drilling, grading, and excavating, shall be provided with basic training conducted by a qualified paleontologist, to be retained and compensated by the development team. Issues that shall be included in the basic training will be geared toward training the applicable construction crews in the identification of areas with the potential for containing paleontological deposits, further described below. Training will include written notification of the restrictions regarding disturbance and/or removal of any portion of paleontological deposits and the procedures to follow should a resource be identified. The construction contractor, or its designee, shall be responsible for implementation of this measure. All project-related ground disturbances that could potentially impact the Saugus Formation and Quaternary older alluvium on site will be mapped by a qualified paleontological monitor and provided to the construction crews during the aforementioned training. The paleontological monitor shall be available on-call as needed, when ground disturbing work is occurring in these areas, as these geologic units are determined to have a high paleontological sensitivity rating. Since younger alluvial and colluvial deposits cover the majority of the site and are considered to have a low paleontological sensitivity, monitoring of excavation activities in these units will be conducted •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During ground moving activities •Community Development Department •Qualified paleontologist retained by development team Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 330 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 25 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED on a part time/on-call basis to ensure that no underlying sensitive units are being impacted. GS-5: A qualified paleontologist as defined by the SVP Guidelines (2010) will be retained, and compensated by the development team, to supervise monitoring of construction excavations and to produce a mitigation plan for the Proposed Project. Paleontological monitoring will include inspection of exposed rock units during active excavations. The monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading away from exposed fossils in order to professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The qualified paleontologist will prepare monthly progress reports to be filed with the applicant and the lead agency. • Incorporate into project design and construction documents • During ground moving activities in event resources are discovered • Community Development Department • Qualified paleontologist retained by development team GS-6: At each fossil locality, field data forms will be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections will be measured, and appropriate sediment samples collected and processed for analysis. • Incorporate into project design and construction documents • During ground moving activities in event resources are discovered • Community Development Department • Qualified paleontologist retained by development team GS-7: Recovered fossils will be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and reposed in a designated paleontological curation facility. Potential repositories include the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the Museum of Ventura County as determined by the Moorpark City Council. • Incorporate into project design and construction documents • During ground moving activities in event resources are discovered • Community Development Department • Qualified paleontologist retained by development team Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 331 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 26 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED GS-8: The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be filed with the applicant, the lead agency, and the repository. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During ground moving activities in event resources are discovered •Community Development Department •Qualified paleontologist retained by development team HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HM-1: If any water wells are found during grading or development of the property, the following minimum conditions for well destruction shall be met: •An application for a permit for the destruction of the well shall be filed with the County of Ventura Public Works, per County Ordinance No. 4468 (Well Ordinance) and per the City of Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 8.40. •Pump and motor shall be removed, and the interior of the well shall be filled with inert material (clean sand or gravel) from total depth to within 40 feet of ground surface or remove debris in well casing to a depth of 40 feet. •Well casing shall be perforated at least every foot opposite the sealing zone from a depth of 40 feet to within 10 feet of finish grade. Perforations shall be placed on alternating sides of the casing. •Neat cement sealing material shall be applied from a depth of 40 feet to within 5 feet of finish grade by means of a grout pipe placed within 2 feet of the base of the sealing zone. If static water level is deeper than 40 feet, grout pipe is not necessary. •Casing shall be removed to a depth of 5 feet below finish grade, and work area backfilled with native materials. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During ground moving activities in event wells are discovered •Community Development Department •Public Works Department •Ventura County Public Works Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 332 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 27 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED •County of Ventura Public Works Inspector shall be present during casing perforation work and placement of all sealing material. 24 hour advance notice is required for Public Works Inspections. •All work shall be performed by a well contractor licensed in the State of California and registered with the County of Ventura. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYD-1: During site preparation and construction, the contractor shall minimize disturbance of natural groundcover on the Project site until such activity is required for grading and construction purposes. During grading operations, the developer shall employ a full-time superintendent for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance. If determined necessary by the City Engineer/Public Works Director, the NPDES superintendent shall be present on the Project site Monday through Friday and on all other days when the probability of rain is 50 percent or higher and prior to the start of and during all grading or clearing operations until the release of grading bonds. The NPDES superintendent shall have full authority to hire personnel, bind the developer in contracts, rent equipment, and purchase materials to the extent needed to effectuate Best Management Practices (BMPs). The NPDES superintendent shall provide proof to the City Engineer/Public Works Director of attendance and satisfactory completion of courses satisfactory to the City Engineer/Public Works Director totaling no less than 8 hours directed specifically to NPDES compliance and effective use of BMPs. Proof of such attendance and completion shall be provided to the City Engineer/Public Works Director prior to employment of the NPDES superintendent. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During site preparation and construction •Public Works Department HYD-2: Prior to issuance of the initial grading permit, the applicant shall have prepared a Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) and include Non- Structural, Source Control, and Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs). A certified erosion and sediment control professional or qualified civil engineer shall prepare the PCSMP. The PCSMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Moorpark Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to grading permit issuance •Public Works Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 333 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 28 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED Director. The development of the PCSMP shall conform to the Ventura County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, the PCSMP standards, and the Technical Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Control Measures. The following are the minimum required mitigation from the Technical Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Control Measures. The PCSMP portion of the drainage master plan shall address: •Storm Drain Message and Signage. The appropriate locations for the signage regarding discharge prohibitions at storm drain inlets and a standard message to be used throughout the specific plan site. •Outdoor Material Storage Area Design. General design criteria for outdoor material storage area design. •Outdoor Trash Storage and Waste Handling Area Design. General design criteria for outdoor trash storage and waste handling area design. •Outdoor Loading/Unloading Dock Area Design. General design criteria for outdoor loading/unloading dock area design. •Outdoor Repair/Maintenance Bay Design. General design criteria for outdoor repair and maintenance bay design. •Outdoor Vehicle/Equipment/Accessory Washing Area Design. General design criteria for outdoor vehicle, equipment, and accessory washing area design. •Fueling Area Design. General design criteria for fueling area design. •Proof of Control Measure Maintenance. To ensure that maintenance is provided, the City of Moorpark Public Works Department (PWD) will require a maintenance agreement and a maintenance plan, including an Storm Water Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual), from the owner/operator of the storm water control measures. The PCSMP and O&M Manual shall identify the party(ies) responsible for maintenance of control Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 334 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 29 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED measures and shall be submitted to the PDW for review and acceptance. A Stormwater O&M Covenant shall be recorded for the property. HYD-3: The PCSMP/O&M Manual shall include structural and/or treatment BMPs. The structural BMPs shall focus on meeting potential TMDL and pollutant standards for residential developments. The treatment BMPs shall conform to the Technical Guidance Manual for Storm Water Control Measures. The PCSMP guidelines contained in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Ventura County state that structural BMPs are required for all new developments. The structural BMPs shall be sized to comply with one of the following numeric sizing criteria, unless an alternative is considered by the permittees to provide equivalent or better treatment. Groundwater quality must be evaluated based on the amount of water and the potential pollutants that may be introduced associated with the buildout of the specific plan site. Volume (SQDV) shall be calculated using the following four allowable methodologies: a.The 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event determined as the maximized capture stormwater volume for the area using a 48 to 72-hour draw down time, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998); or b.The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage water quality volume to achieve 80 percent or more volume treatment; or c.The volume of runoff produced from a 0.75 inch storm event; or d.Eighty (80) percent of the average annual runoff volume using an appropriate public domain continuous flow model [such as Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) or Hydrologic Engineering Center – Hydrologic Simulation Program – Fortran (HEC-HSPF)], using the local rainfall record and relevant BMP sizing and design data. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to building permit issuance •Public Works Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 335 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 30 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED Volume-based BMPs shall be designed to infiltrate or treat either: a.The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage water quality volume, to achieve 80 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook–Industrial/ Commercial (1993), the Ventura Countywide Storm Water Quality Management Program Land Development Guidelines; or b.The 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event determined as the maximized capture storm water volume for the area, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87 (1998); or c.The volume of runoff produced for a 0.75-inch storm event, prior to its discharge to a storm water conveyance system; or d.The volume of runoff produced from a historical-record based reference 24-hour rainfall criterion for “treatment” that achieves approximately reduction in pollutant loads achieved by the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event. The volume of runoff produced from the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record. Flow-based BMPs shall be designed to infiltrate or treat either: a.Ten percent of the 50-year design flow rate, or b.A flow that will result in treatment of the same portion of runoff as treated using volumetric standards, or c.A rain event equal to at least 0.2 inch per hour intensity; or d.A rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for Ventura County. The Technical Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Control Measures requires that treatment controls measures be used for any new development. The following is a partial list of treatment control measures that may be used by the applicant: •Grass Strip Filter •Grass Swale Filter Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 336 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 31 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED •Extended Detention Basin •Wet Detention Basin •Constructed Wetland •Detention Basin/Sand Filter •Porous Pavement Detention •Porous Landscape Detention •Infiltration Basin •Infiltration Trench The following discussion identifies treatment control measures that are appropriate for use on the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan site: •Grass Strip and Swales. An appropriate treatment is either vegetative swales, enhanced vegetated swales utilizing check dams and wide depressions, a series of small detention facilities designed similarly to a dry detention basin, or a combination of these treatment methods into a treatment train (a series of Structural BMPs). It is essential that the PCSMP address treatment for Hitch Ranch to assure that the runoff from the site be treated to the “maximum extent practicable.” In order for the vegetation swales to be effective in the removal of potential pollutants, the swales must be treated as water quality features and must be maintained differently than grass areas. Specifically, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, which may be used on the grass areas, must not be used in the vegetation swales. Anticoagulant rodenticides are not to be used in any areas within the project. •Infiltration Trenches and Basins. Infiltration trenches and/or basins may be used on site to meet potential future TMDLs for noxious aquatic plants and nutrients. Infiltration trenches and basins treat storm water runoff through filtration. A typical infiltration trench is essentially an excavated trench, which is lined with filter fabric and backfilled with stones. Depth of the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 337 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 32 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED infiltration trench ranges from 3 to 8 feet and functions best in areas with permeable soils, and water table and bedrock depth situated well below the bottom of the trench. Trenches should not be used to trap coarse sediments, because large sediment will likely clog the trench. Grass buffers can be installed to capture sediment before it enters the trench to minimize clogging. Infiltration basins are generally used for drainage areas between 5 and 50 acres. Infiltration basins can be either in-line or off-line and may treat different volumes such as the water quality volume or the 2-year or 10-year storm. •All structural BMPs shall be included in the Storm Water O&M Manual. HYD-4: Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and as a part of the project’s compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the California State Water Resources Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be completed for on-site and associated off-site construction activities. A copy of the SWPPP must be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP outlines the source control and/or treatment control best management practices (BMPs) that will avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the “maximum extent practicable.” A listing of these BMPs from the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook-Construction Activity is provided below. •Dewatering Operations. This operation requires the use of sediment controls to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutant to storm water from dewatering operations. •Paving Operations. Prevent or reduce the runoff of pollutant from paving operations by proper storage of materials, protecting storm drain facilities during construction, and training employees. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to grading permit issuance •Public Works Department •Qualified SWPPP Designer (QSD) and qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 338 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 33 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED •Structural Construction and Painting. Keep site and area clean and orderly, use erosion control, use proper storage facilities, use safe products, and train employees to prevent and reduce pollutant discharge to storm water facilities from construction and painting. •Material Delivery and Storage. Minimize the storage of hazardous materials on the site. If stored on site, keep in designated areas, install secondary containment, conduct regular inspections, and train employees. •Material Use. Prevent and reduce the discharge of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, detergents, plaster, petroleum products, and other hazardous materials from entering the storm water. •Solid Waste Management. This BMP describes the requirements to properly design and maintain trash storage areas. The primary design feature requires the storage of trash in covered areas. •Hazardous Waste Management. This BMP describes the requirements to properly design and maintain waste areas. •Concrete Waste Management. Prevent and reduce pollutant discharge to storm water from concrete waste by providing on-site and off-site washouts in designated areas and training employees and consultants regarding their use. •Sanitary Septic Water Management. Provide convenient, well-maintained facilities, and arrange regular service and disposal of sanitary waste. •Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning. Use off-site facilities or wash in designated areas to reduce pollutant discharge into the storm drain facilities. •Vehicle and Equipment Fueling. Use off-site facilities or designated enclosed coverings to reduce pollutant discharge into the storm drain facilities. •Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance. Use off-site facilities or designated on- site enclosed areas with coverings to reduce pollutant discharge into the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 339 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 34 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED storm drain facilities. In addition, run a “dry site” to prevent pollution discharge into storm drains. •Employee and Subcontractor Training. Have training sessions for employees and subcontractors to understand the need for implementation and usage of BMPs and the need and purpose for keeping the site clean. •Preservation of Existing Vegetation. Minimize the removal of existing trees and shrubs because they serve as erosion control. •Seeding and Planting. Provide soil stability by planting and seeding grasses, trees, shrubs, vines, and ground cover. •Mulching. Stabilize cleared or freshly seeded areas with mulch. •Geotextiles and Mats. Natural or synthetics material can be used for soil stability. •Dust Control. Reduce wind erosion and dust generated by construction activities by using dust control measures. •Construction Road Stabilization. All on-site vehicle transport routes should be stabilized immediately after grading and frequently maintained to prevent erosion and control dust. •Stabilized Construction Entrance. Stabilize the construction entrance area to reduce amount of sediment tracked off the site. •Earth Dikes. Construct earth dikes of compacted soil to divert runoff or channel water to a desired location. •Temporary Drains and Swales. Use temporary drains and swales to divert off-site runoff around the construction site, stabilized areas, and direct it into sediment basins or traps. •Outlet Protection. Use rock or grouted rock at outlet pipes to prevent scouring of soil caused by high velocities. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 340 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 35 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED •Check Dams. Check dams reduce velocities of concentrated flows, thereby reducing erosion, and promoting sedimentation behind the dams. Check dams are small and placed across swales and drainage ditches. •Silt Fence. Composed of filter fabric, which have been entrenched, attached to support poles, and sometimes backed by wire fence support. Silt fences promote sedimentation behind the fence of sediment-laden water. •Straw Bale Barrier. Place straw bales end to end in a level contour in a shallow trench and stake them in place. The bales will detain runoff and promote sedimentation. •Sand Bag Barriers. By stacking sand bags on a level contour, creates a barrier to detain sediment-laden water. The barrier will promote sedimentation. •Brush or Rock Filter. Made of 0.75-inch to 3-inch diameter rocks place on a level contour or composed of brush wrapped in filter cloth and staked to the toe of the slope will provide a sediment trap. •Storm Drain Inlet Protection. Devices that remove sediment from sediment laden storm water before entering the storm drain inlet or catch basin. •Sediment Trap. A sediment trap is a small, excavated, or bermed area where runoff for small drainage areas can pass through allowing sediment to settle out. HYD-5: The Hitch Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) and/or a Community Facilities District (CFD) shall be responsible for the maintenance of the basin embankments and structures so that it does not become a public liability. This information shall be included in the HOA Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs). •Incorporate measures into HOA Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions •Review of CC&Rs prior to issuance of first building permit •Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 341 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 36 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED NOISE NOI-1 When construction operations occur within 100 feet of occupied residential areas and the Walnut Canyon Elementary School, the construction contractor(s) shall implement appropriate noise reduction measures. The following construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: •Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be provided to surrounding land uses within 1,000 feet of a Project site disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period. •Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and in good working condition. •Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, i.e., nearby off-site residences, and the faculty, staff, and students of Walnut Canyon Elementary School, where feasible. •Schedule high noise-producing activities, such as large earth-grading equipment that would generate over 85 dB(a), between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM to minimize disruption to sensitive uses. •Schedule grading when school is not in session, to the extent feasible. •Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources. •Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible. •Conduct construction in conformance with measures herein. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents. •During grading and construction activities •Community Development Department •Public Works Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 342 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 37 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED •Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 30 minutes. •Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the Moorpark School District or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party. NOI-2 The construction contractors during grading and earthmoving activities shall adjust vibration amplitudes of the construction equipment used on site, such as by limiting the number of pieces operating in one location at the same time in areas where conditions would affect structures, sensitivity of vibration sensitive equipment, and/or human tolerance. •Conduct construction in conformance with measures herein. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents. •During grading and earthmoving activities •Community Development Department •Public Works Department NOI-3 Prior to commencing grading and earthmoving activities, provide notification to Walnut Canyon School, and the residential land uses within 1,000 feet of the project at least 10 days in advance of construction activities that are anticipated to result in vibration levels above the 0.09 in/sec PPV threshold, i.e., days when large bulldozers would be in use. •Conduct construction in conformance with measures herein. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents. •Prior to grading and earthmoving activities •Community Development Department •Public Works Department NOI-4 Storage, maintenance, and operation of earthmoving equipment on the construction site shall be as far from vibration-sensitive sites (i.e., Walnut Canyon School and residential use surrounding the Project site) as possible or practical; •Conduct construction in conformance with measures herein. •Community Development Department •Public Works Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 343 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 38 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED use wheeled or rubber-tracked equipment; and small pieces of equipment such as smaller bulldozers when possible. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents. •During grading and earthmoving activities PUBLIC SERVICES FP-1: To reduce emergency vehicle delays during construction, the applicant shall implement standard construction traffic control procedures, such as the use of flaggers, and signage showing traffic detour plans, haul routes, hours of operation, protective devices, warning signs and access to abutting properties would further reduce any potential impact. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents. •Prior to building permit issuance •Community Development Department •Public Works Department PP-1: Open spaces shall be designed to facilitate easy viewing from patrol cars and by citizens on adjacent streets. To the extent possible, and without destroying the character of the open space areas, access streets and trails shall be incorporated into open spaces for occasional patrols and other emergency vehicles. In no event does this require an all-weather surface to be provided on open space trail areas located away from project roadways. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents. •Prior to approval of Tentative Tract Map •Community Development Department •Public Works Department PP-2: To reduce emergency vehicle delays during construction, the applicant shall implement standard construction traffic control procedures, such as the use of flaggers, and signage showing traffic detour plans, haul routes, hours of operation, protective devices, warning signs, and access to abutting properties would further reduce any potential impact. (This mitigation measure is identical to FP-1) •Incorporate into project design and construction documents. •Prior to building permit issuance •Community Development Department •Public Works Department TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1: Due to the potential that archeological resources may be present on the Project site, the City of Moorpark shall require a note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources, including prehistoric Native American artifacts. Construction •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Community Development Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 344 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 39 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED personnel associated with earth moving equipment, drilling, grading, and excavating, shall be provided with basic training conducted by a qualified archaeologist, to be retained and compensated by the development team, with the approval of the City of Moorpark. Issues that shall be included in the basic training will be geared toward training the applicable construction crews in the identification of archaeological deposits, further described below. Training will include written notification of the restrictions regarding disturbance and/or removal of any portion of archaeological deposits and the procedures to follow should a resource be identified. The construction contractor, or its designee, shall be responsible for implementation of this measure. A Native American monitor shall be provided an opportunity to attend the pre-construction briefing if requested. A Native American monitor from a consulting Tribe under AB 52 and a qualified archeologist, to be compensated by the development team, shall be available on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction in native soil to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. If archaeological remains or tribal cultural resources are uncovered, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius shall be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall evaluate whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the Applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If any previously undiscovered resources are found during construction the City of Moorpark Community Development Department shall be contacted, and the resource shall be evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include but are not limited to: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, •During ground disturbing construction activities •Qualified archeologist retained by development team Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 345 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 40 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include but are not limited to: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). If City and the qualified archaeologist determine the resource to be significant under CEQA, they shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. Contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient for recovering an archeological sample or to employ an avoidance measure may be required. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) which will include a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. Development and implementation of the AMP will be determined by the City of Moorpark and treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the project applicant, and the City. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System [CHRIS]), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. The City of Moorpark and/or development team shall, in good faith, consult with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and consulting Tribes on the disposition and treatment of any recovered materials. A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City of Moorpark at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological resources were encountered and/or recovered. After the find has been appropriately mitigated (as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)), work in the area may resume. CUL-2: If human remains or funerary objects are unearthed during any activities associated with the project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur within a 100-foot buffer of the find until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •During ground disturbing construction activities •Community Development Department •Qualified archeologist retained by Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 346 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 41 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, and consulting Tribes. The NAHC will then contact the deceased Native American’s most likely descendant, who will then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains (i.e., avoid, rebury). development team UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS SW-1: All Tract Map and RPD approvals shall require a waste management plan, consistent with Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, prepared by the applicant. At a minimum, the waste management plan shall address the following: •Require that the demolition and construction wastes be recycled or re-used to the extent technically and economically feasible. •Require that recycled content building materials be used during construction to the extent technologically and economically feasible. •Conform to the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy •Community Development Department WILDFIRE WF-1: Pre-Construction Requirements. Vegetation management shall be conducted prior to the start of construction and throughout all construction phases by a qualified Ventura County Fire Department-approved third-party fuel modification zone inspector hired by the project applicant. Perimeter fuel modification shall be implemented and approved by the VCFD prior to bringing combustible materials on site. Adequate firebreaks at least 50 feet wide shall be created around all grading, site work, and other construction activities in areas where there is flammable vegetation. Existing flammable vegetation shall be reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of construction. Firebreaks and fuel modification shall be implemented in accordance with Appendix 3.18, Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan, and approved by VCFD. The Project shall comply with the following risk reducing vegetation management guidelines: •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to issuance of building permits, during grading and construction activities •Public Works Department •Ventura County Fire Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 347 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 42 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED •All new power lines shall be underground for fire safety. Temporary construction power lines may be allowed in areas that have been cleared of combustible vegetation. Existing 16 KV power lines within the project may be undergrounded or relocated to the extent practical. •Caution must be used to avoid causing erosion or ground (including slope) instability or water runoff due to vegetation removal, vegetation management, maintenance, landscaping or irrigation. WF-2: In order to provide compensating structural protection in the absence of a 100- foot wide FMZ along the eastern property boundary, the structures along the entire eastern side of the development within Planning Area 3 shall include the following features for additional fire prevention, protection, and suppression: •The proposed Triplex structures along the eastern edge of the development within PA3 that are adjacent to existing homes off Casey Road, shall be constructed with multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane, and a fire resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257, or be tested to meet the performance requirements of State Fire Marshal Standard 12-7A-2 (see Figure 3.18-3). •The remaining Triplex structures along the eastern edge of the development within PA3 are exposed to natural vegetation. Depending on the timing of development of the proposed Senior Living project which currently is not developed, the remaining Triplex structures within the Hitch Ranch development along the eastern edge of the development shall implement either; a.) if the proposed Senior Living development begins construction prior to the Hitch Ranch Project development begins construction, then dual pane single tempered windows will be acceptable, or b.) if the Senior Living development has not begun construction prior to Hitch Ranch Project construction at this site, then dual pane, dual tempered windows will be required for the Hitch Ranch developments that are north of the existing homes off Casey Road up to proposed North Hills Parkway, exceeding the CBC Chapter 7A code requirement (see Figure 3.18-3). •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to issuance of building permits, during grading and construction activities •Community Development Department •Ventura County Fire Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 348 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project - City of Moorpark Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 43 of 43 May 2022 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION/ TIMING RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMPLETION OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY DATE COMPLETED •Provide a noncombustible, 6-foot high concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall at the top of the manufactured slopes behind the units within PA3 along the eastern property boundary. These walls will be installed to function as heat-deflecting walls; vining plants will be established as landscape screening. Note: the use of vining plants may be restricted in FMZ Zones 0, 1, and 2. WF-3: A fully irrigated landscape, planted with drought-tolerant, fire-resistive plants shall be implemented. All landscape and fuel modification plans are required to be submitted to the City of Moorpark Community Development Department and the Ventura County Fire Department for review and approval. This includes developer installed landscaping and any landscape installed by individual property owners. The landscaping shall be routinely maintained and shall be watered by an automatic irrigation system that will maintain healthy vegetation with high moisture contents that would minimize ignition by embers from a wildfire. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Prior to issuance of building permits •Community Development Department •Ventura County Fire Department WF-4: The project HOA shall coordinate with the Ventura County Fire Department to provide annual inspections. A copy of each inspection report shall be provided to the City of Moorpark Community Development Director. •Incorporate into project design and construction documents •Annually, following project occupancy •Community Development Department •Ventura County Fire Department Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 349 Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-1 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 5.0 LIST OF EIR PREPARERS INTRODUCTION Impact Sciences, Inc. has prepared this environmental document for the City of Moorpark. Persons directly involved in the review and preparation of this report include: 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS City of Moorpark – Lead Agency Troy Brown, ICMA-CM, City Manager Carlene Saxton, Community Development Director Douglas Spondello, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director Shanna Farley, Principal Planner Daniel Kim, P.E., City Engineer / Public Works Director Jeremy Laurentowski, Parks and Recreation Director Mackenzie Douglass, Program Manager Jessica Sandifer, Community Services Manager RWC Hitch Ranch, LLC – Project Applicant Debra Geiler, Esq., Vice President, Entitlements & Forward Planning Harriet Rapista, Senior Project Manager Development Planning Services Dennis Hardgrave Gordon Jenewein Impact Sciences, Inc. – EIR & Transportation Study Preparation Jessica Flores, AICP, Managing Principal Lynn Kaufman, Associate Principal Brett Pomeroy, Associate Principal Raul Castillo, Planner Annalie Sarrieddine, Associate Planner Kara Yates Hines, Director of Operations & Publications Manager Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 350 5.0 List of EIR Preparers Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 FirstCarbon Solutions – Specific Plan Consistency Review Barbara Nelson, AICP, Senior Project Manager Barringer Biological Services – Biological Survey Debra Barringer, Principal Rincon Consultants, Inc. – Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions modeling Kelsey Bennett, MPA, LEED-AP, Environmental/Sustainability Sr. Program Manager Annaliese Miller, Environmental Planner Rincon Consultants, Inc. – Biological Survey, Vegetation Mapping, and Jurisdictional Delineation Greg Ainsworth, Natural Resources Director Steven J. Hongola, Principal Biologist Robin Murray, Senior Biologist/Botanist L. Newman Design Group – Tree Report John Oblinger, ISA Certified Arborist First Carbon Solutions – Cultural and Paleontological Resources Records Search and Assessment Dr. Dana DePietro, Director of Cultural Resources Dr. Joe Stewart, Principal Paleontologist Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. – Geologic Assessment Michael O. Spira, Principal Engineering Geologist Amicus Strategic Environmental Consulting - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Markus B. Niebanck, PG, Principal Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 351 5.0 List of EIR Preparers Impact Sciences, Inc.5.0-3 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR 1318.001 May 2022 Kasraie Consulting – Hydrology Study Report Hassan Kasraie, President Water Resource Engineering Associates (WREA) – Water Hydraulic Analysis Lou Nagy, PE, Principal Stantec - Transportation Study Preparation Daryl Zerfass PE, PTP, Principal, Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Encompass Consulting Group – Sewer Study Greg Musser, Senior Engineer Milner-Villa Consulting – Water Supply Assessment Brad Milner, President Dudek – Wildfire Protection Plan Michael Huff, Fire Protection Planner / Project Manager Noah Stamm, Fire Protection Planner / Fire Behavior Modeling and Plan Preparer Lesley Terry, CADD Specialist Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 352 APPENDIX A March 2019 Water Supply Assessment Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 353 FINAL WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT HITCH RANCH PROJECT MARCH 2019 Prepared for: COMSTOCK, CROSSER & ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY EL SEGUNDO, CA Prepared by: MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 354 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 355 FINAL WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT HITCH RANCH PROJECT MARCH 2019 Prepared for: COMSTOCK, CROSSER & ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Harriet Rapista, Senior Project Manager 2301 Rosecrans Ave, #1150 El Segundo, California, 90245 310-546-5781 Prepared by: MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Brad Milner, President 1746 S. Victoria Ave. #F126 Ventura, California, 93003 805-551-3294 www.milnervilla.com Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 356 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page i March 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Water Supply Assessment ................................................... 1 1.2 Hitch Ranch Project ............................................................................... 1 1.3 City of Moorpark Housing Project......................................................... 5 1.4 Service Area Characteristics .................................................................. 5 1.4.1 Climate...................................................................................... 5 1.5 Demographic Factors ............................................................................. 5 1.6 District’s Urban Water Management Plan ............................................. 6 1.7 Water Supply Assessment Update ......................................................... 7 1.8 Report Organization ............................................................................... 7 SECTION 2: WATER SUPPLY................................................................... 8 2.1 Existing Water Supplies ......................................................................... 8 2.2 Local Groundwater Supply .................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 8 2.2.2 East Las Posas Basin ................................................................ 9 2.2.3 South Las Posas Basin .............................................................. 9 2.2.4 Groundwater Extractions .......................................................... 10 2.3 Imported Surface Water ......................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Calleguas Municipal Water District ......................................... 11 2.3.2 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ................. 12 2.4 Water Quality ......................................................................................... 13 2.5 Recycled Water ...................................................................................... 13 2.6 Future Water Supplies ............................................................................ 13 2.6.1 Groundwater Supplies .............................................................. 14 2.6.2 Additional Imported Surface Water Purchases ......................... 14 2.6.3 Recycled Water Expansion ....................................................... 15 2.6.4 Other Water Resources ............................................................. 15 2.7 Effects of Global Climate Change ......................................................... 15 2.7.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 15 2.7.2 Potential Impacts of Climate Change ....................................... 15 2.7.3 Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Water Demands ....... 16 2.7.4 Mitigation and Adaptation ........................................................ 16 2.7.5 Local Strategies ........................................................................ 17 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 357 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page ii March 2019 SECTION 3: WATER DEMAND ................................................................ 18 3.1 Historic/Current Water Use ................................................................... 18 3.2 Factors Affecting Water Usage ............................................................. 18 3.3 Projected District Water Demands ........................................................ 19 3.4 Estimated Water Demands for Hitch Ranch Project ............................. 19 3.5 Estimated Water Demands for Moorpark Housing Project ................... 21 SECTION 4: WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY .................................... 23 4.1 Reliability ............................................................................................ 23 4.1.1 Plan to Assure Reliable Water Supply ................................... 23 4.2 Reliability Comparison ....................................................................... 23 4.2.1 Normal Water-Year Supply and Demand .............................. 23 4.2.2 Single Dry Water-Year Supply and Demand ......................... 24 4.2.3 Multiple-Dry Water-Years Supply and Demand ................... 24 SECTION 5: WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN .............. 26 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 26 5.2 District Water Shortage Response ....................................................... 26 5.3 Rationing Stages and Reduction Goals ............................................... 27 5.3.1 Level 1 Supply Shortage ....................................................... 27 5.3.2 Level 2 Supply Shortage ....................................................... 27 5.3.3 Level 3 Supply Shortage ....................................................... 27 5.4 Catastrophic Supply Interruption ........................................................ 28 5.4.1 Earthquake or Other Natural Disaster ................................... 28 5.4.2 Contamination of Water Supply ........................................... 28 5.4.3 Power Failure ........................................................................ 28 SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 29 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 31 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 358 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page iii March 2019 List of Tables 1-1 Hitch Ranch Project Statistical Summary ..................................................................... 3 1-2 Local Historical Climate Characteristics ........................................................................... 6 1-3 District Population Projections 2020-2040 ........................................................................ 6 2-1 District Groundwater Production 2011-2015 ................................................................. 11 2-2 District Projected Groundwater Production 2020-2040 ................................................ 11 2-3 District Current and Projected Imported Surface Water Purchases 2015-2040 .......... 13 2-4 District Projected Water Supplies 2020-2040 ................................................................ 14 3-1 District Historical Total Water Demands 1990-2015 ...................................................... 18 3-2 District Current and Projected Water Demands by Sector 2015-2040 ............................ 19 3-3 District Annual Consumption Rates by Service Type ..................................................... 20 3-4 Estimated Water Demands for the Hitch Ranch Project – 755...................................... 21 3-5 Estimated Water Demands for the Moorpark Housing Project ..................................... 22 4-1 District Normal Water-Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2020-2040 .................. 24 4-2 District Single Dry Water-Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2020-2040.............. 24 4-3 District Multiple Dry Water-Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2020-2040 ........ 25 5-1 Stages of District Water Shortage Contingency Plan ..................................................... 27 List of Figures 1-1 Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 2 1-2 Project Layout – 755 .......................................................................................................... 4 List of Appendices A California Water Code - Water Supply Assessment B FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan C District’s 2017 Annual Water Quality Report D Ventura County Waterworks District Nos. 1, 16,17, and 19 Rules and Regulations (Part 1 only) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 359 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page iv March 2019 Frequently Used Acronyms ac acre AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year ASR aquifer storage and recovery BMP best management practice City City of Moorpark CADWR California Department of Water Resources CMWD Calleguas Municipal Water District County Ventura County CRA Colorado River Aqueduct District Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (also VCWWD1) du dwelling unit EPM Emergency Procedures Manual ETo evapo-transpiration FCGMA Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency GHG greenhouse gas gpacpd gallons per acre per day gpcd gallons per capita per day gpm gallons per minute hr hour MAF million acre-feet MCL maximum contaminant level MGD million gallons per day MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWRF Moorpark Water Reclamation Facility ppdu persons per dwelling unit Project Hitch Ranch Project SB Senate bill sf square feet SWP State Water Project TDS total dissolved solids UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WSA Water Supply Assessment WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan WSDMP Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 360 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 1 March 2019 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Water Supply Assessment The purpose of this Water Supply Assessment is to demonstrate that future water supplies are sufficient to meet the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (District) projected water demands, inclusive of the Hitch Ranch Development Plan. This assessment has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of California Law including the following: Public Resources Code Section 21151.9; Water Code Sections 10910-10912, 10915; and Water Code Sections 10608-10656 (original text approved from California Senate Bill 610, Costa). This law places additional requirements on a public agency (in this case the District as the water purveyor for the Hitch Ranch Project) regarding land use and planning and water supply availability. SB 610 took effect on January 1, 2002 and requires that retail water providers demonstrate that sufficient and reliable sources are available for local agencies to approve large-scale developments and complete the environmental review process for projects. See Appendix A for a copy of the California Water Code – Water Supply Assessment. SB 610 requires cities and counties, which determine a project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment to be included in any environmental document prepared for the project. This assessment includes, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and contracts. If the assessment concludes that water supplies are or will be insufficient, the public water system would be asked to submit plans for acquiring additional water supplies. 1.2 Hitch Ranch Project The Hitch Ranch Project (Project) is located in southeastern Ventura County, within the boundaries of the City of Moorpark (City). Boundaries of the project site include north of Poindexter Avenue, approximately 1,600 feet west of Moorpark Avenue (State Route 23), approximately 4,500 feet south of Championship Drive, and approximately 1,400 feet west of Gabbert Road. Figure 1-1 indicates the approximate location of the Project. Development of the entire project as planned will include a maximum of 755 residential units (approximately 261 single-family units and 494 multiple-family units) on approximately 271.8 acres. Construction and occupation of the residential component of the proposed project would result in a theoretical population increase of approximately 2,515 persons based on 3.33 persons per dwelling unit (District, 2015 UWMP, page 3-5). Also included in this development are approximately 12.4 acres of recreational space, 102.8 acres of open space/slopes, and 58.1 acres of public facilities and roads. Figure 1-2 provides an overview of the proposed Project. Table 1-1 provides a statistical summary of the Project. Adjacent land uses include residential and open space to the north, residential and institutional to the east, residential and industrial to the south, and residential and open space to the west. The Hitch Ranch Project may include one of three alternative layouts, named “415”, “620”, “755”. The alternative layout with the highest number of residential units (“755” Project”) includes up to 755 residential units and various parks, open spaces and public facilities. The “415” Project includes up to 415 residential units and various parks, open spaces, and public facilities. The “620” Project includes up to 620 residential units and various parks, open spaces, and public facilities. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 361 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 2 March 2019 FIGURE 1-1 PROJECT LOCATION Source: Development Planning Services, 2018 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 362 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 3 March 2019 TABLE 1-1 HITCH RANCH PROJECT STATISTICAL SUMMARY Notes: All data rounded. Source: Development Planning Services, 2019 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 363 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 4 March 2019 FIGURE 1-2 PROJECT LAYOUT - 755 Source: Development Planning Services, 2019 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 364 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 5 March 2019 The District will be the retail water purveyor for the Project. The District distributes potable water (combination of imported surface water and groundwater from local wells) to local customers. The District also began serving recycled water in 2003. Estimated water demands for the Project are summarized in Section 3.3. 1.3 City of Moorpark Housing Project The City of Moorpark Housing Project (Moorpark Housing Project) will be located in the southeast corner of the Hitch Ranch property. The Moorpark Housing Project will not be part of the Hitch Ranch Project and will be built by a separate entity. For purposes of this WSA, water demands for the Moorpark Project will be evaluated separately. Boundaries of the Moorpark Housing Project site include Casey Road (future) to the north, Walnut Canyon Road (Moorpark Avenue/State Route 23) 1,200 feet to the east, High Street (future) approximately 500 feet to the south, and the Hitch Ranch Project to the west. Figure 1-1 indicates the approximate location of the Project. Adjacent land uses include residential units to the north, school to the east, open space to the south, and residential units to the west. Development of the Moorpark Housing Project is anticipated to include a maximum of 110 residential units on approximately 5.5 acres. Construction and occupation of the residential component of the proposed project would result in a theoretical population increase of approximately 367 persons based on 3.33 persons per dwelling unit (District, 2015 UWMP, page 3-5). The Moorpark Housing Project is not anticipated to include additional recreational space, open space, nor public facilities. 1.4 Service Area Characteristics The District’s service area encompasses the City and contiguous portions of the unincorporated County. Moorpark is located in the eastern portion of Ventura County, approximately five miles west of the City of Simi Valley and five miles north of the City of Thousand Oaks. Figure 1-1 provides a location map for the Project. 1.4.1 Climate The local climate is characterized by hot summer days, cool summer nights, cool winter days, and cool winter nights. Table 1-2 summarizes local historical climate data including average maximum monthly temperature, average minimum monthly temperature, average monthly precipitation, and standard monthly average evapotranspiration (ETo). Annual average monthly temperatures range from 48oF to 75oF. Annual average precipitation is approximately 10.44 inches per year, most of which occurs during the winter season (December to March), based on 2010-2015 data. The value of 10.44 inches per year for local precipitation may be significantly lower than actual as the result of limited years (2010-2015) of data from these data sources. Annual average evapotranspiration is 55.14. 1.5 Demographic Factors Historically, land uses within the District’s service area have focused primarily on municipal and industrial uses (M&I) with agricultural use being secondary. Population in Moorpark was 25,623 in 1990 (US Census, 1990). Estimated current population within the District is approximately 35,782 (District, 2015 UWMP). Increases in future water demands are expected to come primarily from the residential sector as the District’s service area builds out. Estimated population projections are provided in Table 1-3. The projected population for the year 2040 is 45,000. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 365 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 6 March 2019 TABLE 1-2 LOCAL HISTORICAL CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Average Max Temperature (ºF)(a) 69 69 71 74 75 77 Average Min Temperature (ºF)(a) 41 43 44 46 50 53 Average Precipitation (in)(b) 1.65 1.61 1.89 0.64 0.20 0.03 Standard Monthly Average ETo (in)(c) 2.17 2.80 4.03 5.10 5.89 6.60 Parameter Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max Temperature (ºF)(a) 81 83 82 79 74 69 75 Average Min Temperature (ºF)(a) 57 56 55 50 44 41 48 Average Precipitation (in)(b) 0.13 0.01 0.12 0.59 0.84 2.72 10.44 Standard Monthly Average ETo (in)(c) 7.44 6.82 5.70 4.03 2.70 1.86 55.14 Notes: All data rounded. Source: District, 2015 UWMP. (a)Weather.com: http://www.weather.com/weather/monthly/l/USCA0728:1:US. (b)Ventura County, Moorpark Station 126A: http://vcwatershed.net/hydrodata/php/getstation.php?siteid=126A#top; and Moorpark Station 508: http://vcwatershed.net/hydrodata/php/getstation.php?siteid=508#top. (c)CIMIS Reference Evapotranspiration Zones, Zone 9 for Moorpark area: http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/App_Themes/images/etozonemap.jpg. TABLE 1-3 DISTRICT POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2020-2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population 38,000 40,000 41,700 43,300 45,000 Notes: All data rounded up. Source: District, 2015 UWMP. 1.6 District’s Urban Water Management Plan SB 610 provides that if the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) adopted by the retail water purveyor, then relevant information from that UWMP may be incorporated into the SB 610 water supply assessment. The District adopted its 2015 UWMP in June 2016. The Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD), supplier of imported surface water to the District, finalized their UWMP in June 2016. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), supplier of imported surface water to CMWD, also finalized their updated UWMP in June 2016. The District’s 2015 UWMP analyzed the water supply needs of a 2015 population of approximately 35,782 and a projected population of 45,000 for the year 2040. The majority of the District’s population and water demand is located within the City of Moorpark. Residential water demand accounts for the largest water use sector within the District at 62 percent (see Section 3 for additional details). The Hitch Ranch development was Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 366 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 7 March 2019 accounted for in the City’s General Plan and the District’s 2015 UWMP. Information in the District’s UWMP relevant to this Water Supply Assessment will be identified and incorporated into this Assessment. 1.7 Water Supply Assessment Update This Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared in July 2018 following two meetings with staff from Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. In general, water supply assessments are prepared utilizing data and information from local UWMPs and other relevant sources. The District’s 2015 UWMP used available information known at the time. Therefore, data and information presented in this WSA regarding availability and reliability of the District’s drinking water is consistent with the District’s 2015 UWMP and supplemented by additional information provided by the District. 1.8 Report Organization The remainder of this Water Supply Assessment is organized as follows: ●Section 2 – Water Supply ●Section 3 – Water Demand ●Section 4 – Water Supply Reliability ●Section 5 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan●Section 6 – Conclusions. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 367 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 8 March 2019 SECTION 2 WATER SUPPLY This section defines the current and projected water supplies within the District’s service area. 2.1 Existing Water Supplies The District provides its customers a mix of local groundwater, imported water from Calleguas Municipal Water District, and recycled water (for nonpotable demands). Historically, imported water has made up approximately 80 percent of the District’s water supply. The District’s current sources of supply are described below. 2.2 Local Groundwater Supply 2.2.1 Introduction The District’s water service area overlies groundwater basins in Ventura County that are managed by Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA), whose jurisdictional area encompasses about 118,000 acres (185 square miles). The FCGMA was established in Ventura County by a special act of the State Legislature in 1982. The FCGMA was initially created to manage the groundwater in both over-drafted and potentially seawater-intruded areas within Ventura County. The prime objectives and purposes of the FCGMA are to preserve groundwater resources for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses in the best interests of the public. Protection of water quality and quantity along with maintenance of long-term water supply are included in those goals and objectives. A copy of the FCGMA 2007 Groundwater Management Plan is provided as Appendix B. The basins within the FCGMA are part of the Transverse Ranges geologic province, in which the mountain ranges and basins are oriented in an east-west rather than the typical northeast-southwest trend in much of California and the western United States (District, 2015 UWMP). Active thrust faults border the basins of the Santa Clara River, causing rapid uplift of the adjacent mountains and down-dropping of the basins. The alluvial basins are filled with substantial amounts of Tertiary and Quaternary sediments deposited in both marine and terrestrial (non-marine) settings. The basins beneath the Oxnard Plain are filled with sediments deposited on a wide delta complex formed at the terminus of the Santa Clara River and was heavily influenced by alternating episodes of advancing or retreating shallow seas that varied with world-wide sea level changes over many millions of years. There are seven main or significant groundwater basins within the FCGMA. These groundwater basins include the Oxnard Plain Basin, the Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin, the Pleasant Valley Basin, the Santa Rosa Basin, and the Las Posas Valley Basin (East, West and South). These basins generally contain two major aquifer systems, the Upper Aquifer System (UAS) and the Lower Aquifer System (LAS). The Las Posas Valley Basin is bounded on the south by the Camarillo and Las Posas Hills and on the north by South Mountain and Oak Ridge (California Water Resources Board, CAWRB, 1956). The Las Posas Valley Basin has been subdivided into West, East, and South basins (Hanson, 1998). Productive aquifers in this Basin include a shallow, unconfined aquifer that is most transmissive along the Arroyo Las Posas and a lower confined aquifer system considered to be the equivalent of the Lower Aquifer System on the Oxnard Plain. The Las Posas Valley Basin is not adjudicated. The Las Posas Valley Basin is not specifically identified as a Basin in an overdraft condition based on California Groundwater Bulletin No. 118 (California Department of Water Resources, CADWR, 2003) and California Water Plan (CADWR, 2013). FCGMA maintains that the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 368 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 9 March 2019 Las Posas Valley Basin is in overdraft relative to the native water supply of the Basin. While the Basin has been sustained in some areas by non-native inflows from wastewater treatment plant discharges, urban runoff, and shallow groundwater dewatering discharges from upstream areas. Since 1992, FCGMA has incrementally reduced groundwater allocations Agency-wide by 25 percent. On April 11, 2014, FCGMA further imposed a Temporary Extraction Allocation (TEA) reduction of 20 percent and implemented high penalties for over- pumping. 2.2.2 East Las Posas Basin The District has historically produced groundwater from the East Las Posas Basin, which is separated from the West Las Posas Basin by a north-trending, unnamed fault running through Somis, across which groundwater levels differ by as much as 400 feet (CH2MHill, 1993; Hanson, 1998). The fault also acts as a barrier to transport of saline waters from the East Las Posas Basin to the West Las Posas Basin (Bachman, 1999). The source of recharge to the East Las Posas Basin has changed significantly since urban development of the Simi Valley and Moorpark areas over the last 30 years. Prior to this time, recharge was predominantly from rainfall on outcrop areas and from percolation of winter floodwater along the Arroyo Las Posas. Geochemical studies show that groundwater in the central portion of the East Las Posas Basin is hundreds to thousands of years old, indicating a slow rate of historical recharge along the flanks of the basin (Izbicki, 1996). Urban development has brought increased discharges of both treated wastewater (including treated discharges from the District’s Moorpark Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF) and shallow groundwater into Arroyo Las Posas, providing a year-round recharge source for the South Las Posas Basin and East Las Posas Basin (CH2MHill, 1993; Bachman, 2002). This increased percolation from the arroyo has created a recharge mound that extends northward into the East Las Posas Basin, where groundwater levels have risen by 125 feet to 200 feet during the past 30 years. Conversely, pumping in the Basin has resulted in falling groundwater levels in the eastern portion of the Basin, away from the recharge mound (District, 2015 UWMP). The largest drop in groundwater levels (190 feet) over the period 1973 to 1998 occurred in this region (Bachman, 1999). Groundwater levels have stabilized somewhat across the Basin since the late 1990s, at least in part because of the addition of in-lieu and injected recharge by Calleguas as part of the Las Posas Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Project. Increasing concentrations of salts (chloride, sulfate, sodium) in the portion of the Basin along the Arroyo Las Posas continue to be a problem in the East Las Posas Basin. Chloride concentrations in the shallow aquifer beneath the arroyo can reach 360 mg/L, whereas chloride concentrations in the surface waters in the arroyo are in the range of 120 to 180 mg/L (Bachman, 2002). These increased chloride concentrations in the shallow aquifer are associated with historically-high groundwater levels (that apparently leach salts from previously-unsaturated sediments in the shallow aquifer along the arroyo). Groundwater that contains these chloride-rich salts recharges the Lower Aquifer System by moving downward from the shallow aquifer into the LAS, then northward into the Basin. This recharge has formed a chloride-rich recharge mound beneath the Arroyo Las Posas and northward into the main portion of the East Las Posas Basin (Bachman, 2002). Individual wells along the south flank of the Basin show a progression of filling of the shallow aquifer, with a coincident increase in chloride concentration. 2.2.3 South Las Posas Basin The South Las Posas Basin is separated from the East Las Posas Basin by an east-trending anticline (fold) that affects all but the shallowest alluvium (District, 2015 UWMP). This fold may affect groundwater flow between the East and South Las Posas Basins at some aquifer depths, although recharge from the South Las Posas Basin flows readily into the East Las Posas Basin at Lower Aquifer System (LAS) depths. To the south, the Springville and Santa Rosa fault zones produce disrupted and tightly folded rocks along the edge of the basin, restricting groundwater flow to the south (CAWRB, 1956). There is a shallow alluvial aquifer that follows the trend of Arroyo Las Posas as it crosses the South Las Posas Basin; this shallow aquifer is in hydrologic connection with the underlying LAS and is the main source of recharge to the LAS. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 369 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 10 March 2019 There has been a significant change in average groundwater levels over the past 40 years in the South Las Posas Basin, with groundwater levels rising more than 100 feet during this period (District, 2015 UWMP). The mechanism for this rise in groundwater elevations is the increased recharge from percolation beneath the Arroyo Las Posas as discharges from the Moorpark and Simi Valley wastewater treatment plants and dewatering wells in Simi Valley have increase year-round flow in the Arroyo Las Posas. The entire alluvial aquifer near the Arroyo Las Posas has progressively filled to the surface of the Basin, starting in the easternmost portion of the Basin in the 1960s and moving westward through the 1990s (Bachman, 2002). Water from the filled alluvial aquifer has percolated into the underlying Lower Aquifer System, creating a recharge mound in the Lower Aquifer System that extends from the Arroyo Las Posas northward into the East Las Posas Basin (CH2MHill, 1993; Bachman, 1999). Salts (i.e., chloride, sulfate) in the groundwater have increased in the South Las Posas basin and the southwestern portion of the East Las Posas basin as the shallow aquifer filled along Arroyo Las Posas (District, 2015 UWMP). These salts apparently were leached from the shallow aquifer as groundwater levels reached record highs, saturating sediments that have been unsaturated for the historic period. These salts apparently migrated vertically with percolating groundwater into the LAS and then laterally into the main portion of the East Las Posas Basin as the recharge mound developed. Some of this groundwater is unsuitable. 2.2.4 Groundwater Extraction The District produces groundwater from the East Las Posas Groundwater Basin via five wells owned and operated by the District with a total system capacity of approximately 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm; 2,170 AFY). District wells provide redundant extraction facilities should one or more existing wells become inoperative and will allow for increased extraction capacity during emergency situations. Table 2-1 summarizes the groundwater pumped by the District for the period 2011 to 2015. Table 2-1 indicates that the District pumped a low of 1,808 AFY in 2015 and a high of 3,519 AFY in 2013. The groundwater meets all State and Federal water quality standards for drinking water with the exception that treatment is required at one of the well sites (Well No. 20) to lower iron and manganese levels below the State Title 22 Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for these two minerals. The groundwater is chlorinated at each well site before being pumped into the potable water distribution system. As mentioned above, the District has a groundwater allocation from FCGMA. Although each well has an associated allocation, the District has opted to combine the individual well allocations into one allocation for the District. This combined allocation provides the District with some flexibility by allowing them to pump different amounts of water from any given well or wells (up to the total allocation amounts) based on system demands. The FCGMA, the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), has reduced the District’s maximum allocation to 1,756 AFY for groundwater pumping in 2016. Regardless of system capacity, the District will not be allowed to exceed 1,756 AFY from the East Las Posas Basin going forward without paying a significant penalty. Therefore, as noted in Table 2-2, the District’s projected groundwater production is 1,756 AFY for 2020-2040. The District is planning the Moorpark Desalter Project, which is a groundwater production and treatment system that could provide up to 2,500 AFY of potable water for customers in the District’s water service area by the end of 2023 (District, 2015 UWMP; Pan, 2018). However, implementation of the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (2014) may impact future plans for and construction of the Moorpark Desalter. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 370 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 11 March 2019 TABLE 2-1 DISTRICT GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION 2011-2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Existing Groundwater Pumping (a) 2,347 2,796 3,519 2,505 1,808 Total 2,347 2,796 3,519 2,505 1,808 Notes: All data in AFY and rounded. (a)Source: District, 2015 UWMP. Table 2-2 indicates that estimated total groundwater extracted will be 1,756 AFY for 2020-2040, excluding additional groundwater pumping associated with the Moorpark Desalter Project (Pan, 2018). Additional details are provided in Section 2.6.1. TABLE 2-2 DISTRICT PROJECTED GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION 2020-2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Existing Groundwater Pumping (a) 1,756 1,756 1,756 1,756 1,756 Future Additional Groundwater Pumping (b) 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1,756 1,756 1,756 1,756 1,756 Notes: All data in AFY and rounded. (a)Source: District, 2015 UWMP. (b)Projected groundwater extractions for 2020-2040 were reduced as per District email dated July 2, 2018 (Pan, 2018). These values represent a decrease of 5,000 AFY (2020-2040) compared to the District’s 2015 UWMP. 2.3 Imported Surface Water 2.3.1 Calleguas Municipal Water District The District purchases imported surface water from the CMWD. The CMWD is an enterprise special district that was formed by the voters of Ventura County in 1953 to provide a safe, reliable water supply. Named for the watershed in which it is located, CMWD is a public agency established under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911. It is governed by a five-member board of directors elected by voters to represent each of the five geographic divisions within the District. In 1960, CMWD became a member agency of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which provides wholesale water from the Colorado River via the Colorado Aqueduct and Northern California via the State Water Project (SWP). Calleguas distributes high quality drinking water on a wholesale basis to 19 local purveyors, including the District, who in turn deliver water to area residents, businesses, and agricultural customers. Approximately three-quarters of Ventura County residents (roughly 630,000 people) depend on CMWD for all or part of their water (District, 2015 UWMP). Water supplied by CMWD currently represents approximately 73 percent of the total municipal and industrial water demand within its service area. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 371 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 12 March 2019 2.3.2 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Metropolitan is a wholesale water agency serving approximately 19 million people in six southern California counties. Metropolitan was formed in 1928 and is composed of 26-member agencies, including CMWD which is the fifth largest member agency in terms of average annual water deliveries. As a wholesaler, Metropolitan has no retail customers, and distributes treated and untreated water directly to its 26-member agencies. MWD provides water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project, and obtains additional supplies from numerous storage facilities, water transfers, exchanges, water banking, and land fallowing projects. The CMWD receives treated water from MWD’s Joseph Jensen Filtration Facility in Granada Hills. CMWD receives the treated water via MWD’s West Valley Feeder and either stores the treated water in Lake Bard to be treated later or distributes the water among its purveyors. Metropolitan has a legal entitlement to receive water from the Colorado River under a permanent service contract with the Secretary of the Interior. The Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) transports water from Lake Havasu, at the border of the states of California and Arizona, approximately 242 miles to its terminus at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. The CRA is owned and operated by Metropolitan and has a capacity of 1.2 million acre feet (MAF) per year (MWD, 2016). Metropolitan also receives water from the Sacramento River and San-Joaquin River Delta (Delta) in Northern California via the 444-mile-long California Aqueduct (State Water Project, SWP), which is managed by the CADWR. The SWP provides imported water to the MWD service area and has provided from 25 percent to 50 percent of MWD’s water supplies. In accordance with its contract with the CADWR, the MWD has a State Water Project Table A allocation of 1.9 MAF per year. The CMWD primarily receives SWP water through MWD with Colorado River water normally available as a backup imported water supply. MWD’s total average water-year supplies from the CRA and SWP are estimated to be 2.8 MAF per year in 2040. MWD’s total minimum water supplies for a single dry water-year are estimated to be 2.0 MAF per year in 2040. MWD’s total minimum water supplies for a multiple dry water-years are estimated to be 1.9 MAF per year in 2040 (MWD, 2016). In April 2015, citing continued drought conditions and reduced allocations from the State Water Project and Colorado River, the MWD Board of Directors approved implementing their Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) at a Regional Shortage Level 3 starting July 1, 2015, to cut imported water deliveries to its member agencies by 15 percent. Under a Level 3 WSAP, MWD could impose a surcharge, ranging from $1,480 to $2,960/AF of additional water for any member agency that failed to meet the 15 percent reduction. The allocation plan limits water usage for its 26-member agencies based on their dependency on MWD supplies, local supply conditions, and past water-saving actions. The Tier 1 threshold for CMWD was set at 13.7 percent. The CMWD would pass the surcharge on to CMWD’s retail customers exceeding this water allocation threshold. On May 10, 2016, the MWD Board of Directors reduced the WSAP to a Level 2, which is a 10 percent reduction in imported water deliveries, effective immediately, due to lower demands achieved through the region’s water saving efforts and improved supply conditions, particularly in northern California; and declared there would be no WSAP set forth for FY 2017. The CMWD also rescinded their surcharge in May 2016. Table 2-3 indicates that in 2015 the District purchased 7,717 AF of imported surface water (District, 2015 UWMP). Table 2-3 also summarizes the projected imported surface water anticipated to be purchased by the District for 2020 to 2040. The District estimates a range of 10,204 AFY to 10,943 AFY for 2020-2040 (Pan,2018). Thus, the District anticipates an increase in imported surface water purchases for 2020-2040. Existing agreements the District has with CMWD do not guarantee the quantity of water the District may purchase. However, to the extent that water is available to CMWD, then CMWD has an obligation to provide water to meet demands of its member agencies, such as the District, by the CMWD’s enabling statute, and governing regulations and applicable agreements with the member agencies. CMWD has served the needs of the District without fail, except for a few days following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 372 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 13 March 2019 TABLE 2-3 DISTRICT CURRENT AND PROJECTED IMPORTED SURFACE WATER PURCHASES 2015-2040 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Imported Surface Water (a,b) 7,717 10,204 10,870 10,911 10,880 10,943 Total 7,717 10,204 10,870 10,911 10,880 10,943 Notes: All data in AFY and rounded. (a)Source: District, 2015 UWMP. (b)Projected surface water purchases for 2020-2040 were increased as per District email dated July 2, 2018 (Pan, 2018). These values for 2020-2040 represent an increase of 2,500 AFY (2025-2040) to 5,000 AFY (2020) compared to the District’s 2015 UWMP. 2.4 Water Quality The District provides water of good quality to its customers. Imported surface water supplied by CMWD meets all State and Federal drinking water quality standards. The District’s pumped groundwater meets all State and Federal water quality standards for drinking water with the exception that treatment is required at one of the well sites (Well No. 20) to lower iron and manganese levels below the State Title 22 Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for these two minerals. The groundwater is chlorinated at each well site before being pumped into the potable water distribution system. A copy of the District’s 2016 Annual Water Quality Report (also known as Consumer Confidence Report), which summarizes the District’s potable water quality, is provided in Appendix C. Groundwater from the South Las Posas Basin has high levels of TDS and chlorides and requires treatment prior to potable use and as such has not been utilized by the District. However, with the implementation of the future District desalter facilities, this supply will become available. 2.5 Recycled Water The District collects sanitary wastewater flows within the District’s water service area and conveys the flows to the Moorpark Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF). The District operates and maintains the wastewater collection system and the MWRF. Metered wastewater flows averaged 2.0 MGD (2,240 AFY) for 2015 (District, 2015 UWMP). MWRF is located along California State Route 118 just west of the Moorpark city limits. The MWRF, which provides advanced primary and secondary treatment, has a total treatment capacity of 5.0 MGD and a tertiary treatment capacity of 1.5 MGD. The MWRF is required to discharge a portion of its treated effluent to percolation basins for groundwater recharge, which totaled 0.76 MGD (851 AFY) in 2015. The District provides recycled water to eight customers for agricultural and landscape irrigation, and to the MWRF for facilities operations and landscape irrigation. In 2015, the MWRF provided 599 AFY (0.54 MGD) of recycled water for agricultural (lemon) irrigation, landscape irrigation, grading, and dust control uses. Recycled water supply will increase to approximately 1,100 AFY in 2017 with the conversion of an existing golf course to the recycled water customer base (District, 2015 UWMP). The District forecasts that recycled water demand will increase to 1,400 AFY by 2020, necessitating an expansion of the MWRF’s tertiary treatment capacity, and to 2,200 AFY by 2040. Additional details are provided in the District’s 2015 UWMP. 2.6 Future Water Supplies The District anticipates providing its customers a mix of local groundwater, imported water from CMWD, and recycled water (for nonpotable demands) to meet future water demands. The District continually reviews practices that will provide its customers with adequate and reliable supplies. District staff continue to ensure Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 373 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 14 March 2019 the water quality is safe and the water supply will meet present and future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible manner. The District consistently coordinates its long-term water shortage planning with CMWD and FCGMA. The District projects water demand will remain relatively constant over the next 25 years due to slow growth combined with water conservation efforts. Water demands within the District are currently 10,125 AFY (2015) and projected to increase to 13,893 AFY by 2040. The District anticipates that major water supply projects will be implemented to better manage and take advantage of the South Las Posas Groundwater Basin resource (Moorpark Desalter Project, see Section 2.6.1), and to increase recycled water use (see Section 2.6.2). Additional details regarding District, CMWD, and MWD planned water supply programs are provided in the District's 2015 UWMP. Table 2-4 provides a summary of the District’s projected water resources through 2040. The District anticipates approximately 14,899 AFY of total water resources in 2040 (District, 2015 UWMP). These water resources will include up to a maximum of 1,756 AFY from District wells, 10,943 AFY from imported surface water, and 2,200 AFY from recycled water. TABLE 2-4 DISTRICT PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES 2020-2040 Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Existing Groundwater Pumping (a) 1,756 1,756 1,756 1,756 1,756 Future Additional Groundwater Pumping (b) 0 0 0 0 0 Imported Surface Water (c) 10,204 10,870 10,911 10,880 10,943 Recycled Water (a) 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 Total 13,360 14,226 14,467 14,636 14,899 Notes: All data in AFY and rounded. (a)Source: District, 2015 UWMP. (b)Projected groundwater extractions for 2020-2040 were reduced as per District email dated July 2, 2018 (Pan, 2018). These values represent a decrease of 5,000 AFY (2020-2040) compared to the District’s 2015 UWMP. (c)Projected surface water purchases for 2020-2040 were increased as per District email dated July 2, 2018 (Pan, 2018). These values represent an increase of 5,000 AFY (2020-2040) compared to the District’s 2015 UWMP. 2.6.1 Groundwater Supplies Table 2-4 indicates that estimated District total groundwater extracted will be 1,756 AFY for 2020-2040, excluding additional groundwater pumping associated with the Moorpark Desalter Project (Pan, 2018). The FCGMA reduced the District’s maximum allocation to 1,756 AFY for groundwater pumping from the East Las Posas Basin. 2.6.2 Additional Imported Surface Water Purchases The District noted that the amount of imported water purchased will increase to meet the growth in water demand for years with insufficient supplies from groundwater extractions and recycled water (Pan, July 2, 2018). Table 2-4 summarizes the projected imported surface water anticipated to be purchased by the District for 2020 to 2040 (range of 8,380 AF in 2035 to 10,204 AF in 2020). Thus, the District anticipates an increase in imported surface water purchases for 2020-2040. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 374 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 15 March 2019 2.6.3 Recycled Water Expansion The existing tertiary treatment capacity of the District’s MWRF is currently 1.5 MGD. Potential expansion of the recycled water distribution system may serve additional tertiary treated effluent from the MWRF to additional agricultural irrigation and landscape irrigation customers in the service area (District, 2015 UWMP). While this improvement will not impact the District’s potable water system, it will enhance water supply within the District by reducing the need for imported water. The District will continue to convert existing uses currently being served from the potable water system to the recycled water system. In 2015, the District distributed 599 AFY of recycled water. The District anticipates distributing approximately 1,100 AFY by 2018 with the conversion of an existing golf course to the recycled water customer base. Table 2-4 indicates that the estimated demand for recycled water supply will increase to 1,400 AFY by 2020, necessitating an expansion of the MWRF’s tertiary treatment capacity by 2025. Table 2-4 also indicates that estimated recycled water demand will reach 2,200 AFY by 2040 (District, 2015 UWMP). 2.6.4 Other Water Resources The District does not plan to use self-supplied surface water, storm water, nor desalinated water to supplement existing water resources. 2.7 Effects of Global Climate Change 2.7.1 Introduction Current climate change projections suggest that California will continue to enjoy a Mediterranean climate with the typical seasonal pattern of relatively cool and wet winters and hot, dry summers. However, climate patterns are different now and may continue to change at an accelerated pace. Increases in global emissions of greenhouse gases are leading to serious consequences for California including, but not limited to, the following: higher air and water temperatures, rising sea levels, increased droughts and floods, decreased amount and duration of snow pack, and extreme variability in weather patterns (CADWR, 2013; California Natural Resources Agency, CANRA, 2009). These changes are anticipated to intensify over the 20-year planning horizon of this Assessment. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases ceased today, some of these developments would be unavoidable because of the increase in greenhouse gases recorded over the last 100 years and the fact that the climate system changes slowly (Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, 2011). Many of these climate changes would affect the availability, volume, and quality of California water supplies. 2.7.2 Potential Impacts of Climate Change State and local water supplies and water demands may be impacted by climate change via one or more processes including precipitation, air temperature, runoff, sea level change, and flooding. Rainfall variability is expected to increase, leading to more frequent droughts and floods. Runoff from snowpack may be earlier and less predictable, and precipitation may fall as more rain and less snow. Air temperatures in California are anticipated to increase by 2 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100 (CANRA, 2009). Higher air temperatures may result in more rain and less snow, diminishing the reserves of water held in the Sierra Nevada snowpack (CANRA, 2009). Spring runoff from snowpack is occurring earlier now than it did in the first part of the 20th century. This change in runoff could affect availability of spring and summer snowmelt from mountain areas, including State Water Project water from the Sacramento Delta and local rivers and streams. Total annual exports from the Delta for State and Federal contractors may also decrease by 20 to 25 percent by the year 2100 (California Climate Change Center, CCCC, 2009). Sea levels have risen by as much as 7 inches along the California coast over the last century (CANRA, 2009). According to some estimates, sea level is projected to rise an additional 2 to 5 feet by 2100 (PPIC, 2011; Pacific Institute, 2009; CANRA, 2009; Climate Action Team, CAT, 2008). These sea level increases could significantly impact infrastructure within coastal areas and affect quantity and timing of State Water Project water exports from the Sacramento Delta. Effects of sea level rise in the Delta would be two-fold: (1) problems Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 375 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 16 March 2019 with weak levees protecting the low-lying land, many already below sea level; and (2) increased salinity intrusion from the ocean which could degrade fresh water transfer supplies pumped at the southern edge of the Delta or require more fresh water releases to repel ocean salinity. The CADWR Water Plan includes an assessment of the impacts of global climate change on the State’s water supply was conducted using a series of computer models based on decades of scientific research. Model results for California indicate a significant likelihood of increased temperature, reduction in Sierra snow depth, early snow melt, and a rise in sea level (CADWR, 2013). These changing hydrological conditions could affect future planning efforts which are typically based on historic conditions. Difficulties in water supplies planning that may arise include, but are not limited to, the following: •hydrological conditions, variability, and extremes that are different than what current water systems were designed to manage. •changes occurring too rapidly to allow sufficient time and information to permit managers to respond appropriately. •special efforts or plans to protect against surprises and uncertainties. As such, CADWR will continue to provide updated results from these models as further research is conducted and new information becomes available. 2.7.3 Potential Effects of Climate Change on Water Demand Climate change may increase daytime and nighttime temperatures and seasonal temperatures. This change may impact the length of the growing season. This general increase in temperatures coupled with greater variability and unpredictability in precipitation is expected to lead to increases in evapotranspiration resulting from warmer seasons; thereby creating an increase in demand for irrigation water and an increase in the year-to-year variability of demand. Temperate fruit and nut trees such as almonds, pistachios, and apples require adequate winter chill to produce economically viable yields. Increased temperatures daytime, nighttime, and season temperatures may reduce winter chill hours thereby causing adverse effects on the yield of some crops. Some farmers are beginning to overcome this change by planting trees closer together and using new varieties. Studies are now underway to prepare farmers for the likely impacts of climate change. Such efforts include breeding varieties of fruit trees which can withstand the decreased water chill hours, developing tools to aid the crops in coping with insufficient chill, and researching the temperature responses of orchard crops to better understand potential long-term effects. However, some solutions such as replanting orchards with altered crop varieties or the installation of aiding tools may not be feasible for many irrigators. 2.7.4 Mitigation and Adaptation Responding to climate change generally takes two forms: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is taking steps to reduce human contribution to the causes of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Adaptation is the process of responding to the effects of climate change by modifying our systems and behaviors to function in a warmer climate (CADWR, 2013). In the water sector, climate change mitigation is generally achieved by reducing energy use, becoming more efficient with energy use, and/or substituting renewable energy sources in place of fossil fuel based energy sources. Because water requires energy to move, treat, use, heat, and discharge, water conservation is also energy conservation. As each water supplier implements water conservation measures and determines its water conservation targets, it can also calculate conserved energy and GHGs not-emitted as a side benefit. Once a water supplier has calculated the water conserved by a best management practice (BMP), it is straightforward to convert that volume to conserved energy, and GHGs not-emitted. Additionally, water suppliers may want to Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 376 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 17 March 2019 focus on implementing water conservation measures that conserve water but do so at a significant decrease in GHG emissions as compared with other measures (CADWR, 2013). Climate change means more than hotter days. Continued warming of the climate system has considerable impact on the operation of most water districts. Snow in the Sierra Nevada provides 65 percent of California’s water supply. Predictions indicate that by 2050 the Sierra snowpack will be significantly reduced. Much of the lost snow will fall as rain, which flows quickly down the mountains during winter and cannot be stored in our current water system for use during California’s hot, dry summers. The climate is also expected to become more variable, bringing more droughts and floods. Water districts will have to adapt to new, more variable conditions (CADWR, 2013). Principles of climate change adaptation include the following: •As more mitigation is completed now, the less adaptation we may have to do in the future, because climate impacts could be less severe. •Mitigation is much less expensive than adaptation. •Mitigation should happen globally. •Adaptation must happen locally. •Adaptation strategies should be implemented according to future conditions, regular assessment and recalibration. •Some adaptation strategies have benefits that can be realized today. 2.7.5 Local Strategies As climate change continues to unfold in the coming decades, water agencies may need to mitigate and adapt to new strategies, which may require reevaluating existing agency missions, policies, regulations, facilities, funding priorities, and other responsibilities. Examples of mitigation and adaptation strategies include, but not limited to, the following: •Prepare long-term facility and sustainability master plans including specific elements for climate change adaptation. •Increase ground water recharge using additional surface water and recycled water. •Increase recycled water demands. •Promote additional water use efficiency for urban, commercial, and industrial best management practices. •Increase investments in infrastructure that promotes adaptation strategies (such as ground water recharge, and recycled water) and existing principal facilities susceptible to impacts of climate change. Notwithstanding the above strategies for dealing with climate change, the reality is that current environmental regulations place a very high priority on releasing additional water for endangered species (i.e., Sacramento River and San Joaquin River) and the environment. The potential for increased water demand for environmental resources and the possibility of reduced water supplies will be one of the biggest challenges confronting water agencies. The goal of the District is to utilize the available surface water and groundwater supplies as effectively as possible in meeting the requirements of the District’s water users. It is worth noting, however, that the District’s control over water supplies is limited; thus, management practice changes will need to be adaptive in nature. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 377 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 18 March 2019 SECTION 3 WATER DEMAND This section defines historic and current water usage and the methodology used to project future demands within the District’s service area. Water usage is divided into sectors such as: residential, industrial, institutional/governmental, landscape/recreational, agricultural, and other purposes. 3.1 Historic/Current District Water Use Average District annual water demands (groundwater production and imported water purchases) were 12,970 AF in 1990 and decreased to 10,124 AF in 2015 as shown in Table 3-1. These data indicate that water demand within the District has decreased by 22 percent upon comparison of 1990 demands and 2015 demands, while the local population increased by approximately 40 percent. Significant changes in total demands (such as the decrease observed in 1995) were likely due to changes in local precipitation which affect residential landscape watering and agricultural irrigation. The decrease in water demands in 2015, compared to the period 2000 to 2010, are likely due to District water conservation programs and State-mandated demand reduction requirements. TABLE 3-1 DISTRICT HISTORICAL TOTAL WATER DEMANDS 1990-2015 Calendar Year Total Water Demands (AFY) (a) 1990 12,970 1995 9,694 2000 11,570 2005 11,872 2010 (b) 11,774 2015 (b) 10,124 Notes: All data rounded. (a)Source: District, UWMP, 2005, 2011, and 2015. (b)Includes recycled water. 3.2 Factors Affecting Water Usage Water demand is a function of several factors. Geographic location, topography, land use, demography, and water system characteristics (i.e., system pressures, water quality and metering of connections) all influence water usage. Water demand characteristics within the District will therefore differ from water demands of other areas in California according to one or more of these factors. Two major factors that affect water usage are weather and water conservation. Historically, when the weather is hot and dry, water usage within the District increases. The amount of increase varies according to the number of consecutive months and years of hot dry weather and the conservation activities imposed. During cool-wet Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 378 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 19 March 2019 years, historical water usage within the District has decreased mainly due to less water usage for external landscaping. In recent years, water conservation has become an increasingly important factor in water supply planning in California. In 2014, the State Water Resources Control Board mandated significant water demand reductions for all urban water agencies. In addition, the California Plumbing Code has instituted requirements for new construction that mandate the installation of ultra-low-flow toilets and low-flow showerheads. Additional information is available from the District regarding local water conservation programs (District, 2015 UWMP). 3.3 Projected District Water Demands The District’s population projections were presented in Section 1. Current population within the District is estimated to 35,782 (District, 2015 UWMP). Projected population for the year 2040, is estimated to be 45,000. Residential (single-family and multiple-family) accounted for 93 percent of the total water connections in 2015. Table 3-2 summarizes the projected water demand by water use sector. Projected demands increase to 13,893 AFY by 2040. Residential demands within the District are currently the largest water use sector, and projected to be the highest water use sectors through 2040. Table 3-2 includes the water demands for the Hitch Ranch Project. TABLE 3-2 DISTRICT CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS BY SECTOR 2015-2040 Water Use Sector Current 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Potable Water Demand Residential (single-fam. + multiple-fam.) 5,869 6,777 7,076 7,212 7,316 7,429 Commercial 533 617 631 640 647 654 Industrial 135 156 160 162 164 166 Institutional 341 395 404 410 414 419 Agricultural 2,384 2,615 2,615 2,615 2,615 2,615 Loss 263 386 395 400 405 409 Recycled Water Demand 599 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 Total Water Demand 10,124 12,345 12,880 13,240 13,560 13,893 Notes: All data in AFY and rounded. Source: District, 2015 UWMP. Agricultural water demands in the District’s service area are met with interruptible supplies from CMWD. This designation means that potable water supplied to these users are at a reduced water rate, however the supplies can be curtailed at any time at the discretion of the supplier. 3.4 Estimated Water Demands for Hitch Ranch Project It is anticipated that all residential units within the Hitch Ranch Project will maximize use of water conservation measures both inside and outside the dwellings. Use of these measures throughout the Hitch Ranch Project will reduce the water demand as compared to residential units that do not implement water conservation measures. The Hitch Ranch Project will include use of recycled water for all non-residential landscape irrigation demands, including parks, medians, slopes, and other irrigated areas. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 379 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 20 March 2019 Table 3-3 indicates that the current average District residential water demand is 0.53 acre-feet per connection (146.4 gallons per capita per day, gpcd), for all types and ages of housing in the District. This value is 18 percent less than the average in 2005 (District, 2015 UWMP; Table 4-1B, page 4-3). The District indicated that customers in newer housing units use less water per person than older housing units, and future housing is anticipated to use even less. The District indicated that for new housing projects, such as the Hitch Ranch Project, the estimated residential water rate is 135 gpcd for single-family homes and 60 gpcd for multiple- family homes (District, 2018). TABLE 3-3 DISTRICT ANNUAL CONSUMPTION RATES BY SERVICE TYPE Service Type Estimated Annual Consumption Rate Residential (a) 0.53 acre-feet per connection Commercial (b) 3.69 acre-feet per connection Institutional (b) 7.25 acre-feet per connection Industrial (b) 3.89 acre-feet per connection Agricultural (b) 17.67 acre-feet per connection Construction (b) 0.53 acre-feet per connection Others (Fire and Hydrant) (b) 1.30 acre-feet per connection Notes: (a) District, 2015 UWMP; 146 gallons per person per existing dwelling unit per day for total indoor and outdoor demands; includes 3.33 persons per dwelling unit. However, the District approved new home residential water rate of 135 gpcd for single-family homes and 60 gpcd for multiple-family homes (District, 2018). (b) District, 2005 UWMP. The Hitch Ranch Project may include one of three alternative layouts, named “415”, “620”, and “755”. The alternative layout with the highest number of residential units is the “755” Project. For purposes of this WSA, details will be provided regarding the water demands of the 755 Project. The 755 Project includes construction of approximately 755 residential units, with 261 single-family units, 494 multiple-family units, and a variety of open space areas. Estimated specific water demands for the 755 Project are provided in Table 3-4. Total potable water demand for the 755 Project will be approximately 242.4 AFY, while recycled water demand will be approximately 103.7 AFY. Total potable and nonpotable demand will be approximately 346.2 AFY. As indicated previously, water demands for the Hitch Ranch Project were included in the total water demand projections in the District’s 2015 UWMP (District, 2015 UWMP, Section 3.4.2). For comparison, the total potable water demand for the 415 Project will be approximately 202 AFY, recycled water demand will be approximately 112 AFY, and total water demand will be approximately 314 AFY (rounded up). Total potable water demand for the 620 Project will be approximately 263 AFY, recycled water demand will be approximately 112 AFY, and total water demand will be approximately 375 AFY (rounded up). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 380 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 21 March 2019 TABLE 3-4 ESTIMATED WATER DEMANDS FOR THE HITCH RANCH PROJECT - 755 Sector Quantity Factor Water Demand Rate Estimated Water Demand (AFY) POTABLE WATER DEMAND (a) Single Family Residence 261 du 3.33 ppdu 135 gpcd 131.4 Multi-Family Residence 494 du 3.33 ppdu 60 gpcd 110.6 Institutional (b) 0 people 20 gpcd 0 City Park (c) 200 people 2 gpcd 0.4 Total Potable Water Demand 242.4 RECYCLED WATER DEMAND (d) Landscape Irrigation - Residential 0 ac 0 AFY/ac 0 Landscape Irrigation – Slopes/fire suppression 38.8 ac 1.886 AFY/ac 73.1 Landscape Irrigation – Parks 12.4 ac 1.886 AFY/ac 23.4 Landscape Irrigation – Road medians/strips 3.8 ac 1.886 AFY/ac 7.2 Natural open space 69.7 ac 0 AFY/ac 0 Total Recycled Water Demand 103.7 TOTAL WATER DEMAND 346.2 Notes: All values rounded. Abbreviations: du = dwelling units; ac = acre; ppdu = persons per dwelling unit; gpcd = gallons per capita per day; gpacpd = gallons per acre per day; AFY/ac = acre feet per year per acre (a)Potable water demands based on single-family total residential demand of 135 gallons per capita per day, and multiple-family residential demand of 60 gallons per capita per day (District, 2018). (b)No project element at this time. (c)Approximately 12.43 acres total at 4 sites; 100% potable demand for drinking fountains and restrooms; estimate of 200 visitors per day that use water x 2 gallons per visitor that use water. (d)Landscape irrigation based on proposed land use estimates in the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, 2016. 3.5 Estimated Water Demands for Moorpark Housing Project As noted in Section 1.3, development of the Moorpark Housing Project is anticipated to include a maximum of 110 residential units on approximately 5.5 acres. Construction and occupation of the residential component of the proposed project would result in a theoretical population increase of approximately 367 persons. It is anticipated that all residential units within the Moorpark Housing Project will maximize use of water conservation measures both inside and outside the dwellings. Use of these measures throughout the Moorpark Housing Project will reduce the water demand as compared to residential units that do not implement water conservation measures. The Moorpark Housing Project will include use of recycled water for all non-residential landscape irrigation demands, including parks, medians, and other irrigated areas. Table 3-3 indicates that the current average District residential water demand is 0.53 acre-feet per connection (146.4 gallons per capita per day, gpcd), for all types and ages of housing in the District. This value is 18 percent Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 381 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 22 March 2019 less than the average in 2005 (District 2015 UWMP; Table 4-1B, page 4-3). The District indicated that customers in newer housing units use less water per person than older housing units, and future housing is anticipated to use even less. The District indicated that for new housing projects, such as the Moorpark Housing Project, the estimated residential water rate is 135 gpcd for single-family homes and 60 gpcd for multiple- family homes (District, 2018). The Moorpark Housing Project includes construction of approximately 110 multiple-family residential units. Estimated specific water demands for the Moorpark Housing Project are provided in Table 3-5. Total potable water demand for the Moorpark Housing Project will be approximately 24.6 AFY, while recycled water demand will be approximately 1.0 AFY. Total potable and nonpotable demand will be approximately 25.6 AFY. TABLE 3-5 ESTIMATED WATER DEMANDS FOR THE MOORPARK HOUSING PROJECT Sector Quantity Factor Water Demand Rate Estimated Water Demand (AFY) POTABLE WATER DEMAND (a) Single Family Residence 0 du 3.33 ppdu 135 gpcd 0 Multi-Family Residence 110 du 3.33 ppdu 60 gpcd 24.6 Institutional 0 people 20 gpcd 0 City Park 0 people 2 gpcd 0 Total Potable Water Demand 24.6 RECYCLED WATER DEMAND Landscape Irrigation - Residential 0.5 ac 2 AFY/ac 1.0 Landscape Irrigation – Slopes/fire suppression 0 ac 1.886 AFY/ac 0 Landscape Irrigation – Park/institutional 0 ac 1.886 AFY/ac 0 Landscape Irrigation – Road medians/strips 0 ac 1.886 AFY/ac 0 Natural open space 0 ac 0 AFY/ac 0 Total Recycled Water Demand 1.0 TOTAL WATER DEMAND 25.6 Notes: All values rounded. Abbreviations: du = dwelling units; ac = acre; ppdu = persons per dwelling unit; gpcd = gallons per capita per day; gpacpd = gallons per acre per day; AFY/ac = acre feet per year per acre (a)Potable water demands based on single-family total residential demand of 135 gallons per capita per day, and multiple-family residential demand of 60 gallons per capita per day (District, 2018). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 382 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 23 March 2019 SECTION 4: WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY This Section provides a discussion of the reliability of the water supply within the District’s service area. A comparison between the water supply and demand for an average water year, single-dry water year, and multi- dry water years is also provided. 4.1 Reliability Reliability is “how much one can count on a certain amount of water being delivered to a specific place at a specific time” and depends on the availability of water from the source, availability of the means of conveyance and level and pattern of water demand at the place of delivery. 4.1.1 Plan to Assure Reliable Water Supply Recognizing its dependence on imported water supplies and the need to improve water supply reliability during drought events, the District anticipates use of the following sources of supply for the period 2020 to 2040: •Groundwater from the District’s wells •CMWD imported surface water •Recycled water from the District •Desalted Groundwater (after the project is complete). 4.2 Reliability Comparison The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires an assessment of water supply reliability and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage. Reliability is a measure of a water service system’s anticipated success in managing water shortages. This assessment must include a comparison of the total projected water demand with the total water supply available for the following conditions: (1) average/normal water-year, (2) single dry water-year, and (3) three consecutive dry water-years. Additional details are provided in the District's 2015 UWMP. 4.2.1 Normal Water-Year Supply and Demand Comparison A summary of the District’s projected 20-year water supplies and demands for normal water-year conditions is provided in Table 4-1. As noted in Table 4-1, the District’s total projected normal water-year water supplies available through 2040 are projected to exceed water demands associated with existing and planned uses within the District’s service area, including the Hitch Ranch Project, by 1,007 to 1,345 AFY. District anticipates meeting its normal water-year demands from 2020 to 2040 via use of existing supplies (local ground water and imported surface water), implementation of the Moorpark Desalter, and increased use of recycled water to meet future water demands in normal water-years (District, 2015 UWMP). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 383 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 24 March 2019 TABLE 4-1 DISTRICT NORMAL WATER-YEAR SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON 2020-2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Total Supply 13,360 14,226 14,467 14,636 14,899 Total Demand 12,345 12,881 13,239 13,561 13,892 Difference 1,015 1,345 1,228 1,075 1,007 Notes: All data in AFY and rounded. Source: District, 2015 UWMP. 4.2.2 Single Dry Water-Year Supply and Demand Comparison A summary of the District’s projected 20-year water supplies for a single dry-year condition is provided in Table 4-2. The District anticipates supplies to exceed demands from 2020 to 2035 in a single dry water-year by 31 to 314 AFY via use of existing supplies, implementation of the Moorpark Desalter, and increased use of recycled water (District, 2015 UWMP). However, for the year 2040, the District anticipates a deficit of approximately 66 AFY. The District may need to consider additional water supplies (purchase additional imported surface water, future potable and recycled water programs administered by the District, CMWD, and MWD) and implementation of additional conservation measures to meet future water demands in single dry water-years. TABLE 4-2 DISTRICT SINGLE DRY WATER-YEAR SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON 2020-2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Total Supply 12,932 13,687 13,950 14,115 14,365 Total Demand 12,890 13,373 13,750 14,084 14,431 Difference 42 314 200 31 (66) Notes: All data in AFY and rounded. Source: District, 2015 UWMP. 4.2.3 Multiple Dry Water-Years Supply and Demand Comparison A summary of the District’s projected 20-year water supplies and demands for multiple dry water-year conditions is provided in Table 4-3. Water supplies available through 2040, during multiple dry water-year conditions, are projected to exceed water demands associated with existing and planned uses within the District’s service area, including the Hitch Ranch Project, by 513 to 1,039 AFY. The District anticipates use of existing supplies, implementation of the Moorpark Desalter, increased use of recycled water, and implementation of additional conservation measures to meet future water demands in multiple dry water-years (District, 2015 UWMP). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 384 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 25 March 2019 TABLE 4-3 DISTRICT MULTIPLE DRY WATER-YEARS SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON 2020-2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 First Year Total Supply 13,149 14,143 14,442 14,606 14,918 Total Demand 12,636 13,104 13,472 13,798 14,138 Difference 513 1,039 970 808 780 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Second Year Total Supply 13,149 14,143 14,442 14,606 14,918 Total Demand 12,636 13,104 13,472 13,798 14,138 Difference 513 1,039 970 808 780 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Third Year Total Supply 13,149 14,143 14,442 14,606 14,918 Total Demand 12,636 13,104 13,472 13,798 14,138 Difference 513 1,039 970 808 780 Notes: All data in AFY and rounded. Source: District, 2015 UWMP. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 385 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 26 March 2019 SECTION 5 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN 5.1 Introduction Water shortages arise not only from drought, but shortages resulting from earthquakes, fires, system failures, and water quality contamination as well. California’s extensive system of water supply infrastructure, its reservoirs, groundwater basins, and inter-regional conveyance facilities, mitigates the effect of short-term dry periods. Defining when a drought begins is a function of drought impacts to water users. Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Droughts occur slowly, over a multiyear period. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought, as carry-over supplies in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in groundwater basins decline. Section 2 of this WSA summarizes the District supplies. Section 3 defines the water demands. Section 4 defines the water supply reliability. In addition, the District’s water demand management measures will play an essential role in limiting water use during drought times. Additional details available in the District’s 2015 UWMP. 5.2 District Water Shortage Response To meet short-term water demand deficiencies, and short-term or long-term drought requirements, the District has included a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), which is included as Part 1, Section K of the Ventura County Waterworks Districts Rules and Regulations (copy of Part 1 provided in Appendix D). The District has also adopted permanent water conservation measures included in Section L of their Rules and Regulations. In the event of a water shortage, the Director of the County of Ventura Public Works Agency (Agency Director) is authorized and directed to implement provisions of the District’s WSCP, subject to ratification by the District Board at its first regularly scheduled meeting (District, 2015 UWMP). The Agency Director determines the extent of conservation or water use efficiency required through the implementation and/or termination of conservation stages or levels consisting of three levels for the District to prudently plan for and supply water to its customers. However, in the case of local emergencies, the Director of the Water and Sanitation Department has the authority to order the implementation of the appropriate stage of water conservation. Stages of the District’s WSCP are summarized in Section 5.3. Provisions of the District’s WSCP will be implemented in congruence with the policy of the MWD and CMWD water shortage/drought activities. The CMWD policy will be based on one or more of MWD’s adopted planning documents including, but not limited to, the following: •Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan (WSDMP) •Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) •Regional Integrated Water Resources Plan •Urban Water Management Plan •Long Term Conservation Plan. The MWD’s WSDMP is designed to guide management of regional water supplies to achieve reliability goals for southern California. The Water Supply Allocation Plan is designed to provide a framework for administering an allocation should a water shortage be declared. The City of Moorpark, which encompasses much of the District, has adopted the CADWR’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that set forth standards for landscape irrigation during drought and non-drought times, and acknowledges the constant need to establish long-term water efficiency (City Ordinance 10-383, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 386 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 27 March 2019 Chapter 15.23). This ordinance covers all landscaping within new developments as well as rehabilitated landscape (District, 2015 UWMP). 5.3 Rationing Stages and Reduction Goals To meet short-term water demand deficiencies and short-term or long-term drought requirements, the District will implement its own water shortage policy in accordance with the District’s Water Conservation Program. In addition, the District will consider the policy of CMWD, which is anticipated to be based on MWD’s policies and planning documents. It is important to note that agricultural water service is interruptible at all times. Mandatory allocations are avoided to the extent practicable, however, in the event of an extreme shortage, an allocation plan will be adopted in accordance with the principles of the MWD’s WSDMP and WSAP. The three stages of the District’s WSCP are shown in Table 5-1 and described below. 5.3.1 Level 1 Water Supply Shortage A Level 1 water supply shortage is declared when the Agency Director determines in his or her sole discretion that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists, and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. TABLE 5-1 STAGES OF DISTRICT WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN Level Percent Supply Reduction (a) Water Supply Condition 1 NA A water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists, and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water 2 NA A water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists, and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water. Additional prohibited water uses are identified relative to Level 1 prohibitions 3 NA A significant reduction in consumer demand is necessary to maintain sufficient water supplies for public health and safety Notes: (a) Percent supply reduction is not used by the District to signal a level of the WSCP; rather, it is up to the discretion of the Agency Director or other authorized person to determine the severity of the water shortage and the appropriate level of the WSCP. 5.3.2 Level 2 Water Supply Shortage A Level 2 water supply shortage is declared when the Agency Director determines in his or her sole discretion that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists, and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Additional prohibited water uses are identified relative to Level 1 prohibitions. 5.3.3 Level 3 Water Supply Shortage A Level 3 water supply shortage condition is also referred to as an “Emergency” condition. A Level 3 condition is declared when the Agency Director determines that a significant reduction in consumer demand is necessary to maintain sufficient water supplies for public health and safety. The Agency Director declares a water shortage emergency and notifies District residents and businesses of the emergency. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 387 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 28 March 2019 Additional details regarding the District's WSCP are available in the District’s 2015 UWMP and the County Rules and Regulations (see copy of Part 1, Section K included in Appendix D). 5.4 CATASTROPHIC SUPPLY INTERRUPTION A water shortage emergency could be the result of a catastrophic event such as result of drought, failures of transmission facilities, a regional power outage, earthquake, flooding, supply contamination from chemical spills, or other adverse conditions. These emergencies and the District’s method for handling them are described below. County Rules and Regulations regarding water shortages (see copy of Part 1, Section K included in Appendix D) includes actions for any event which results in loss of supply. In addition, the District prepared an Emergency Procedures Manual (EPM, Ventura County, 2010). The County’s EPM (Section VII) describes responses to emergency situations resulting from natural disasters, system failures, and other unforeseen circumstances. The EPM provides guidelines for evaluating an emergency situation and procedures for activating an emergency response. The EPM identifies various levels of emergencies (Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3), and provides examples of response to several emergencies, including but not limited to local flooding, power failures, earthquakes, and hazardous material releases. Examples of the District’s response procedures to an emergency are summarized below. 5.4.1 Earthquakes or Other Natural Disasters The District is located in an earthquake zone. In the event of an earthquake or natural disaster, the District has the potential of losing its imported water supply and or ground water supply. If such a loss occurs, the District could temporarily increase its ground water production (if available) to meet water demand until repairs to the imported water supply facilities were completed and the supply restored. In addition, the District would follow the procedures outlined in their EPM and or County of Ventura Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Ventura County, 2010; Ventura County, 2015). In the event of a prolonged loss of imported water and or groundwater, the District could implement their established Water Shortage Plan from the County Rules and Regulations (Appendix D) to substantially reduce demands until supply is restored. 5.4.2 Contamination of Water Supply Contamination of water supply can result from several different events including a water main break, cross- connection condition, water source pollution, or covert action. Water supplies for the District are generally of good quality and no foreseeable permanent contamination issues are anticipated. In the event of a toxic spill or major contamination, the District would follow the procedures outlined in their EPM (Ventura County, 2010). The District would isolate the problem and reduce the impact to the water supply. Once the problem has been isolated, the contamination would be cleaned up using chlorination or other necessary procedures and the water supply returned to service as soon as possible. The EPM also includes an Emergency Disinfection Plan. In the meantime, alternative supply would be utilized to meet demand. Implementation of additional demand management measures could also be utilized if the outage is anticipated to be of longer duration. If necessary, the District would implement the procedures outlined in the County Rules and Regulations regarding water shortages (see copy of Part 1, Section K included in Appendix D). 5.4.3 Power Failure In the event of a regional power failure, the District would follow the procedures outlined in their EPM (Ventura County, 2010). Standby generators are available at each of the District’s well and pump station sites to maintain operation should an interruption of power occur. The EPM lists all of the stationary and mobile generators located at the various District facilities, with model numbers, kilowatt rating, and fuel tank capacity. If necessary, the District would implement the procedures outlined in the County Rules and Regulations regarding water shortages (see copy of Part 1, Section K included in Appendix D). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 388 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 29 March 2019 SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this Water Supply Assessment is to demonstrate that future water supplies are sufficient to meet the District’s projected water demands, inclusive of the Hitch Ranch Development Plan. The Hitch Ranch Project is located in southeastern Ventura County, within the boundaries of the City of Moorpark. The Hitch Ranch Project may include one of three alternative layouts, named “415”, “620”, and “755”. As proposed, the 755 Project as planned will include a maximum of 755 residential units (approximately 261 single-family dwellings and 494 multiple-family dwellings) on approximately 272 acres. Construction and occupation of the residential component of the proposed project would result in a theoretical population increase of approximately 2,515 persons (based on 3.33 persons per dwelling unit; District, 2015 UWMP). Also included in this development are approximately 12.4 acres of recreational space, 102.8 acres of open space/slopes, and 58.1 acres of public facilities and roads. It is anticipated that all residential units within the Hitch Ranch Project will maximize use of water conservation measures both inside and outside the dwellings. Use of these measures throughout the Hitch Ranch Project will reduce the water demand as compared to existing residential units that do not implement water conservation measures. The Hitch Ranch Project will include infrastructure for use of recycled water for all non-residential landscape irrigation demands, including water for parks, medians, and open spaces. The District will be the retail water purveyor for the Project including potable (drinking) water and nonpotable (recycled) water. The District distributes potable water via a combination of imported surface water purchased from the CMWD and groundwater from the District’s local wells. The District also distributes recycled water for nonpotable demands. The District, CMWD, and its wholesaler, MWD, have taken significant steps to diversify their existing and future water supply resources to enhance service reliability to the District’s water customers. The District’s plans to enhance water supply reliability include expanding the recycled water distribution system, constructing a Moorpark Groundwater Desalter to create additional local potable water, and expanding the District’s MWRF tertiary facilities to increase the volume of available recycled water supplies. In addition, the District continues to support extensive water conservation programs for customers in the service area. The Hitch Ranch Project layout with the highest water demand is the “755” Project. The 755 Project total potable water demand will be approximately 242.4 AFY, while recycled water demand will be approximately 103.7 AFY. Total potable and nonpotable demand will be approximately 346.2 AFY. As indicated previously, water demands for the Hitch Ranch Project were included in the total water demand projections in the District’s 2015 UWMP (District, 2015 UWMP, Section 3.4.2). The Moorpark Housing Project includes construction of approximately 110 multiple-family residential units on approximately 5.5 acres. The Moorpark Housing Project will not be part of the Hitch Ranch Project and will be built by a separate entity. For purposes of this WSA, water demands for the Moorpark Project will be evaluated separately. Total potable water demand for the Moorpark Housing Project will be approximately 24.6 AFY, while recycled water demand will be approximately 1.0 AFY. Total potable and nonpotable demand will be approximately 25.6 AFY. Based on the analysis summarized in this Water Supply Assessment (and supported by the District’s 2015 UWMP), the District’s total projected normal water-year water supplies available through 2040 are projected to exceed water demands associated with existing and planned uses within the District’s service area, including the Hitch Ranch Project, by 1,007 to 1,345 AFY. Under single dry water-year conditions, the District’s water supplies available through 2040 are projected to exceed the projected water demands associated with existing and planned uses within the District’s service area, including the Hitch Ranch Project, by 31 to 314 AFY (with one exception). This potential exception is the year 2040 when demands may exceed supplies by 66 AFY. Water Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 389 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 30 March 2019 supplies available through 2040, during multiple dry water-years conditions, are projected to exceed water demands associated with existing and planned uses within the District’s service area, including the Hitch Ranch Project, by 513 to 1,039 AFY. As previously noted, the District, CMWD, and its wholesaler, MWD, have taken significant steps to diversify their existing and future water supply resources to enhance service reliability to the District’s water customers during normal and drought conditions. On the supply side, the District plans to enhance local potable water supplies and recycled water supplies (District, 2015 UWMP). On the demand side, the District will continue to support extensive water conservation programs for customers in the service area. These conservation measures will continue to reduce the average residential water use per household for existing and new customers. The District noted that the amount of imported water purchased will increase to meet the growth in water demand for years with insufficient supplies from groundwater extractions and recycled water (Pan, July 2, 2018). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 390 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 31 March 2019 REFERENCES Bachman, Steve. 2002. Note: full citation not available when preparing final document. Bachman, Steve. 1999. Note: full citation not available when preparing final document. California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2009. Using Future Climate Projections to Support Water Resources Decision Making in California. California Department of Water Resources (CADWR). 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013. CADWR. 2003. California Groundwater Bulletin No. 118. California Irrigation Management Information System. 2016. Evapotranspiration data for Moorpark, Zone, 9. Web page: http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/monthlyEToReport.doc. California Natural Resources Agency (CANRA). 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy. California Water Resources Board (CAWRB). 1956. Ventura County Investigation. Bulletin 12, v. 1. Calleguas Municipal Water District. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Black and Veatch. CH2MHILL. 1993. Hydrogeology and Three-Dimensional Groundwater Flow Model of the Las Posas Basin, Ventura County, California. Climate Action Team (CAT). 2009. Draft Biennial Report. Comstock Homes. Anticipated 2018. Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Impact Sciences. Hanson. 1998. Note: full citation not available when preparing final document. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2008. Climate Change and Water. Izbicki. 1996. Source, Movement, and Age of Ground Water in a Coastal California aquifer. U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 126-96. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan . Moorpark, City of. 2014. City of Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element. All elements updated separately. Pacific Institute. 2009. The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast. Pan, Susan. 2018. Email communication, July 2. Pan, Susan. 2018. Telephone communication, April. Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). 2011. Managing California's Water - From Conflict to Reconciliation. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 391 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project Page 32 March 2019 Ventura County. 2016. Precipitation data for Moorpark Station 126A. Web page: http://vcwatershed.net/hydrodata/php/getstation.php?siteid=126A#top Ventura County. 2016. Precipitation data for Moorpark Station 508. Web page: http://vcwatershed.net/hydrodata/php/getstation.php?siteid=508A#top Ventura County. 2015. Ventura County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Prepared by AECOM. Ventura County Water and Sanitation Division. 2010. Emergency Procedures Manual. Ventura County Waterworks District (District) No. 1. 2018. Meetings with Susan Pan and staff, February 2018 and May 2018. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Psomas. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Psomas. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. 2005. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. Weather.com. 2016. Temperature data for Moorpark area. Web page: http://www.weather.com/weather/monthly/l/USCA0728:1:US Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 392 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project March 2019 APPENDICES A – California Water Code – Water Supply Assessment B – FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan C – District’s 2017 Annual Water Quality Report D – Ventura County Waterworks District Nos. 1, 16, 17, and 19 Rules and Regulations (Part 1 only) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 393 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project March 2019 Appendix A California Water Code – Water Supply Assessment Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 394 CALIFORNIA WATER CODE SECTION 10910-10915 October 14, 2016 10910. (a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part. (b) The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall identify any water system that is, or may become as a result of supplying water to the project identified pursuant to this subdivision, a public water system, as defined in Section 10912, that may supply water for the project. If the city or county is not able to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, the city or county shall prepare the water assessment required by this part after consulting with any entity serving domestic water supplies whose service area includes the project site, the local agency formation commission, and any public water system adjacent to the project site. (c) (1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610). (2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g). (3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 395 (4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. (d) (1) The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts. (2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following: (A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system. (C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply. (D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply. (e) If no water has been received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall also include in its water supply assessment pursuant to subdivision (c), an identification of the other public water systems or water service contractholders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, to the same source of water as the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has identified as a source of water supply within its water supply assessments. (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment: Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 396 (1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. (2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. (3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631. (g) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the governing body of each public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request was Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 397 received. The governing body of each public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this act pursuant to subdivision (b), shall approve the assessment prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting. (2) Prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, if the public water system intends to request an extension of time to prepare and adopt the assessment, the public water system shall meet with the city or county to request an extension of time, which shall not exceed 30 days, to prepare and adopt the assessment. (3) If the public water system fails to request an extension of time, or fails to submit the assessment notwithstanding the extension of time granted pursuant to paragraph (2), the city or county may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the governing body of the public water system to comply with the requirements of this part relating to the submission of the water supply assessment. (h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, if a project has been the subject of a water supply assessment that complies with the requirements of this part, no additional water supply assessment shall be required for subsequent projects that were part of a larger project for which a water supply assessment was completed and that has complied with the requirements of this part and for which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has concluded that its water supplies are sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses, unless one or more of the following changes occurs: (1) Changes in the project that result in a substantial increase in water demand for the project. (2) Changes in the circumstances or conditions substantially affecting the ability of the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), to provide a sufficient supply of water for the project. (3) Significant new information becomes available which was not known and could not have been known at the time when the assessment was prepared. 10911. (a) If, as a result of its assessment, the public water system concludes that its water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, the public water system shall provide to the city or county its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. If the city or county, if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), concludes as a result of its assessment, that water supplies are, or will be, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 398 insufficient, the city or county shall include in its water supply assessment its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. Those plans may include, but are not limited to, information concerning all of the following: (1) The estimated total costs, and the proposed method of financing the costs, associated with acquiring the additional water supplies. (2) All federal, state, and local permits, approvals, or entitlements that are anticipated to be required in order to acquire and develop the additional water supplies. (3) Based on the considerations set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), the estimated timeframes within which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), expects to be able to acquire additional water supplies. (b) The city or county shall include the water supply assessment provided pursuant to Section 10910, and any information provided pursuant to subdivision (a), in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (c) The city or county may include in any environmental document an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document provided pursuant to subdivision (b). The city or county shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. If the city or county determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, the city or county shall include that determination in its findings for the project. 10912. For the purposes of this part, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Project" means any of the following: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) (A) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), a proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 399 of floor area. (B) A proposed photovoltaic or wind energy generation facility approved on or after October 8, 2011, is not a project if the facility would demand no more than 75 acre-feet of water annually. (6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. (b) If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then "project" means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections, or a mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections. (c) "Public water system" means a system for the provision of piped water to the public for human consumption that has 3,000 or more service connections. A public water system includes all of the following: (1) Any collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facility under control of the operator of the system that is used primarily in connection with the system. (2) Any collection or pretreatment storage facility not under the control of the operator that is used primarily in connection with the system. (3) Any person who treats water on behalf of one or more public water systems for the purpose of rendering it safe for human consumption. (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date. 10914. (a) Nothing in this part is intended to create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service. (b) Nothing in this part is intended to either impose, expand, or limit any duty concerning the obligation of a public water system to provide certain service to its existing customers or to any future potential customers. (c) Nothing in this part is intended to modify or otherwise change existing law with respect to projects which are not subject to this part. (d) This part applies only to a project for which a notice of preparation is submitted on or after January 1, 1996. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 400 10915. The County of San Diego is deemed to comply with this part if the Office of Planning and Research determines that all of the following conditions have been met: (a) Proposition C, as approved by the voters of the County of San Diego in November 1988, requires the development of a regional growth management plan and directs the establishment of a regional planning and growth management review board. (b) The County of San Diego and the cities in the county, by agreement, designate the San Diego Association of Governments as that review board. (c) A regional growth management strategy that provides for a comprehensive regional strategy and a coordinated economic development and growth management program has been developed pursuant to Proposition C. (d) The regional growth management strategy includes a water element to coordinate planning for water that is consistent with the requirements of this part. (e) The San Diego County Water Authority, by agreement with the San Diego Association of Governments in its capacity as the review board, uses the association's most recent regional growth forecasts for planning purposes and to implement the water element of the strategy. (f) The procedures established by the review board for the development and approval of the regional growth management strategy, including the water element and any certification process established to ensure that a project is consistent with that element, comply with the requirements of this part. (g) The environmental documents for a project located in the County of San Diego include information that accomplishes the same purposes as a water supply assessment that is prepared pursuant to Section 10910. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 401 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project March 2019 Appendix B FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 402 2007 Update to the Groundwater Management Agency Groundwater Management Plan Fox Canyon Prepared by Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency United Water Conservation District Calleguas Municipal Water District May 2007 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Groundwater Management Plan was prepared by Steven Bachman, with extensive advice and reviews by Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency staff (Jeff Pratt, Gerhardt Hubner, Gerard Kapuscik, Christian Laber, David Panaro, and Sheila Lopez) and United Water Conservation District staff (Dana Wisehart, Ken Turner, Dan Detmer, Jim Kentosh, Murray McEachron, Pete Dal Pozzo, and John Dickenson). Lowell Preston (formerly of FCGMA), Curtis Hopkins (for Municipal and Industrial [M&I] providers), Rob Saperstein (for City of Oxnard), John Mathews (for Pleasant Valley County Water District), Tony Emmert (City of Oxnard), Lucia McGovern (City of Camarillo), John Powell (Saticoy Country Club), David Borchard (FCGMA Board Member), and Lawrence (Larry) Fuller provided additional comments and reviews. i Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 403 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) was initially cre the groundwater in both overdrafted and potentially seawater-intruded areas County. The prime objectives and purposes of the FCGMA are to prese resources for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses in the bes ated to manage within Ventura rve groundwater t interests of the public and antity along with es. e Upper Aquifer ar 2010. These ay. The initial current document is an update to that initial Plan. Since preparation of the initial Plan, significantly more is now through focused time to observe ter conditions. gement objectives for rvation facilities, and policies that FCGMA acts as e Agency. awater intrusion and new water pumping from the Upper Aquifer System to the Lower Aquifer System, the construction of the Freeman ne systems, has ifers. The most r System at Port on has retreated near Port Hueneme, with groundwater in one well improving from near-seawater back to drinking-quality water. alley and south d sediments have expanded the area of saline intrusion since 1985. This increase occurred in the Upper Aquifer System near Point Mugu and the Lower Aquifer System in the Port Hueneme and Point Mugu areas. Thus, continuation of current strategies and the implementation of additional strategies are required to fully contain saline intrusion. Additional water quality problems have also been identified since the original FCGMA Plan was adopted. These include increasing chlorides and other salts in the South Las Posas basin and locally in the Pleasant Valley basin, as well as increased nitrates in the Forebay basin during periods of reduced rainfall and groundwater recharge. for the common benefit of all water users. Protection of water quality and qu maintenance of long-term water supply are included in those goals and objectiv Initial goals of the FCGMA included balancing water supply and demand in th System (UAS) by the year 2000 and in the Lower Aquifer System (LAS) by ye goals and the FCGMA’s basic purpose remain relatively unchanged tod Groundwater Management Plan for the FCGMA was prepared in 1985. This known about the occurrence of the seawater intrusion and basin overdraft monitoring programs, studies, and modeling. There has also been a period of how FCGMA policies and water conservation facilities have improved groundwa The goals of this Management Plan are to set specific, measurable mana each basin, identify strategies to reach these goals, and set future FCGMA policy to help implement these strategies. The FCGMA cannot itself build and operate conse so the focus of this Plan is both on potential FCGMA policies and on strategies can assist in implementing conservation projects by other agencies. Thus, the a partner with the other agencies in improving conditions in the aquifers within th The main focus of the initial Groundwater Management Plan was to contain se in the south Oxnard Plain basin. The combination of FCGMA policies conservation facilities, which included the FCGMA pumping reductions, shifting of Diversion, and the operation of the Pumping Trough and Pleasant Valley pipeli had a significant effect on seawater intrusion in at least a portion of the aqu significant effect was the reduction of the lobe of seawater in the Upper Aquife Hueneme. Monitoring wells drilled into this lobe indicate that seawater intrusi and is no longer detectable in some areas However, the containment of saline waters is not complete. In the Pleasant V Oxnard Plain basins, saline waters both from the ocean and from adjacent fine-graine ii FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 This 2007 Update to the FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan discusses and reviews a basins; ly and basin-by-basin, the health of the basin and the efficacy of ir effectiveness; s under development and their potential effectiveness; ectiveness; and uifers; sed to evaluate ific to that basin FCGMA in this ty goals that, if problems. The water conditions MO criteria in some, but not all of the basins. They fail to meet BMOs in the Lower Aquifer and portions of the Upper Aquifer in the Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins, a basins. Using of management meet BMOs for f the time in the 20,000 acre-feet e 1985 Groundwater Management Plan. Current pumping within the FCGMA has eing met in key in the previous as progressively time. Pumping would have to be reduced to 100,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) to meet the BMOs, providing that these additional reductions were accomplished largely in the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins. Because current management strategies are not sufficient to meet BMOs and pumping needs to be reduced to 100,000 AFY, additional management strategies need to be implemented. A series of these additional strategies are proposed in this Plan. Some of these strategies are currently being developed, whereas others would be implemented in the future. For strategies number of aspects of groundwater management: background information on the groundwater history of groundwater extractions within the FCGMA; water quality issues, both general basin management objectives to indicate current and future management strategies; the yield of the groundwater basins; current management strategies and the management strategie potential future management strategies and their potential eff recommended actions to be taken by the FCGMA. n addition, three appendices include: I progression of saline intrusion in the Upper and Lower Aq description of the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model that was u management strategies, as well as details of those evaluations; and East Las Posas Basin Management Plan, which deals with issues spec and that will be adopted as part of this Groundwater Management Plan. Basin Management Objectives (BMOs) are defined for the basins within the Plan. The BMOs are measurable groundwater elevation and water quali reached, protect the aquifers from further saline intrusion and other water quality BMOs are set at particular key wells in the groundwater basins. Current ground meet the B periodically in the Forebay basin, and locally in the Las Posas and Santa Ros the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model to evaluate the effectiveness strategies into the future, current management strategies are predicted to groundwater elevations 51% of the time in the Upper Aquifer and only 5% o Lower Aquifer *. The annual yield of the basins within the FCGMA was calculated to be about 1 (AF) for th decreased to something close to that number, however, and BMOs are not b areas – which is consistent with the groundwater model results discussed paragraph. To recalculate the yield of the basin, groundwater pumping w reduced in the model until BMOs were met on average 50% or more of the *Percentage is based on the average number of quarters when BMOs are met at each BMO well during the 55-year modeling period of the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model. For an initial target, it is proposed that groundwater elevation BMOs be met at least 50% of the time, thus taking into account that climatic cycles will cause groundwater elevations to rise and fall periodically above and below these objectives. iii Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 404 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 that were amenable to being evaluated using the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model, the d initially by when they could be implemented and secondarily within each time increment by their potential s and meeting BMOs. effectiveness in meeting BMOs was calculated. The following table summarizes the proposed strategies; the strategies are groupe effectiveness in managing the basin Strategies Currently Under Development GREAT Project (recycled water for in-lieu delivery and direct injection) South Las Posas Pump/Treat (pump poor quality water and blend/treat i Development B t) rackish Groundwater, Pleasant Valley (similar to previous, pumping northern Pleasant Valley basin) from Non-Export FCGMA Water (water pumped withi outside the Agency) n FCGMA and applied in adjacent areas ation of 25% Pump ReductionContinu (continue original Plan strategy of 25% reductions by 2010) RiverPark Recharge (additional Santa Clara River recharge) 5-Year Strategies 5-Year Update of Plan Shift Pumping to UAS (prepare technical basis and policy) Protect Recharge (protect current sources of recharge) Limit Nitrates in the Forebay (land use, Best Management Practices) Recovery of Credits from the Forebay (uniform policy) Verification of Extraction Reporting (verify accuracy of reporting) Separate Strategies for Each Basin (as needed) FCGMA Boundary (adjust slightly to reflect new hydrogeologic understanding) EfficiencyIrrigation (determine if warrants modifications) Additional Storage Projects (to help fill overdrafted basins) Penalties Used to Purchase Replacement Water (refill overpumped areas) Additional Water Conservation (encourage local agencies) Shelf Life for Conservation Credits (limit the long-term accumulation o lim f credits and/or it number of credits pumped in any one year) gies Plain 10-Year Strate Additional In-lieu Deliveries to South Oxnard Import Additional State Water (for direct or in-lieu recharge) Further Destruction of Abandoned or Leaking Wells Additional Monitoring Needs (as needed to track saline intrusion or other groundwater issues) 15-Year Strategies Barrier Wells in South Oxnard Plain Injection of Treated River Water into Overdrafted Basins Increase Diversions from Santa Clara River (additional water rights from peak storm flows) Shift Pumping to Northwest Oxnard Plain iv FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Greater Than 15-Year Strategies Additional Reductions in Pumping Allocations (if strategies are not fully implemented or if ct of individual implemented as del predicts that uifer will be met 67% of the time and BMOs for the Lower Aquifer will be degradation of ded strategies. policy additions built, will be largely the responsibility of other organizations. To ensure that all the strategies are joint Strategic t will help implement the three potential ers: jor improvement of groundwater peration, lack of ductions in pumping allocations. Reductions of an additional 85% of pumping in the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins would be required to meet BMOs; or No effective management strategies are implemented and there are no further reductions in pumping allocations – the Lower Aquifer in the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins will degrade until it can no longer be pumped without expensive treatment prior to delivery of the groundwater. they fail to meet BMO targets) The Ventura Regional Groundwater Model was used to evaluate the effe strategies, as well as the combination of strategies. If all the strategies are recommended (especially those ranked highest in each time horizon), the mo BMOs for the Upper Aq met 76% of the time – a major improvement that would likely halt further groundwater quality. This management plan calls for a set of actions to implement the recommen Some of these strategies can be implemented directly by the FCGMA through or modifications. Other strategies, especially those requiring infrastructure to be implemented as seamlessly as possible, it is recommended that there be a Planning and Implementation effort with the other agencies tha strategies in this Plan. The importance of implementing the strategies in this Plan is illustrated by choices that are available to the FCGMA, organizations, and groundwater pump Implementation of recommended strategies in this Plan –resulting in ma in overdraft conditions and the potential halt in further degradation quality; or Most effective strategies not implemented because of cost, lack of coo will – resulting in further FCGMA re v Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 405 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................I ......II ....................... VI .0 .........................1 .0 FCGMA..........2 .0 .........................7 .......................17 5 W .......................18 .......................18 .......................19 1.2 .......................22 1.3 EVELS..........22 1.4 .......................22 .......................23 2.1 .......................23 .......................23 28 .......................29 .......................29 2.6 .......................30 2.7 .......................30 .......................32 .......................33 6 .......................33 6 .......................34 6 .......................35 6 .......................36 6 .......................36 .......................37 ......................38 7 Yi .......................39 7.1 .......................39 7.2 DEFINITION OF BASIN YIELD..................................................................................40 7.3 METHOD OF CALCULATING BASIN YIELD............................................................40 7.4 BASIN YIELD..............................................................................................................43 8.0 Current Groundwater Management Strategies...........................................................44 8.1 DESCRIPTION OF 1985 FCGMA MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGIES.................45 8.1.1 LIMITATION OF GROUNDWATER EXTRACTIONS..........................................45 8.1.2 ENCOURAGE BOTH WASTEWATER RECLAMATION AND WATER CONSERVATION................................................................................................45 E cutive Summary..............................................................................................................xe Table of Contents............................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 2 Background of Groundwater Management and Overdraft within the 3 Groundwater Basins & Hydrogeology ................................................. 4Gr.0 oundwater Extractions ...................................................................... .0 ater Quality Issues.............................................................................. 5.1 CURRENT WATER QUALITY ISSUES............................................... 5. SEAWATER INTRUSION.............................................................1.1 5. SALINE INTRUSION FROM SURROUNDING SEDIMENTS...... 5. HIGH SALINITY ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH GROUNDWATER L 5. NITRATE IN GROUNDWATER.................................................... 5.2 WATER QUALITY ISSUES BY BASIN............................................... 5.OXNARD PLAIN FOREBAY BASIN............................................. 5..2.2 OXNARD PLAIN BASIN.................. ............................................ 5.2.3 PLEASANT VALLEY BASIN ............................................................................... 5.2.4 SANTA ROSA BASIN .................................................................. 5.2.5 WEST LAS POSAS BASIN.......................................................... 5. EAST LAS POSAS BASIN........................................................... 5. SOUTH LAS POSAS BASIN........................................................ 5.3 POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER QUALITY THREATS ........................ 6.0 Basin Management Objectives ............................................................. .1 CURRENT OBJECTIVES.................................................................... .1.1 OXNARD PLAIN BASIN............................................................... .1.2 PLEASANT VALLEY BASIN ........................................................ .1.3 OXNARD PLAIN FOREBAY BASIN............................................. .1.4 LAS POSAS BASINS................................................................... 6.1.5 SANTA ROSA BASIN .................................................................. 6.2 ASSESSMENT OF BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ................ .0 eld of the Groundwater Basins.......................................... ORIGINAL FCGMA CALCULATION................................................... ................ vi FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 8.1.3 TEMENT QUIFER ......................46 ......................46 1.5 AQUIFER .......................47 1.6 ......................47 1.7 .......................48 PUMPING .......................48 .9 RE THAT T BASIN ........48 NS...............49 .......................49 .......................49 2.1 ......................49 2.2 .......................49 2.3 .......................49 2.4 .......................50 8 .......................50 .......................50 50 .......................51 2.9 .......................51 EGIES..........51 9 M .......................53 .......................54 1.1 .......................54 .......................55 .......................55 2.1 .......................56 .......................56 LLEY BASIN 56 .......................57 3.2 .......................58 .......................58 .......................58 9 .......................59 .......................59 .1 .......................59 .2 .......................59 9.6 RIVERPARK RECHARGE PITS.................................................................................60 9.6.1 DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................60 9.6.2 POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS..........................................................................60 10.0 Potential Future Management Strategies ...................................................................60 10.1 5-YEAR STRATEGIES...............................................................................................61 10.1.1 5-YEAR UPDATE OF FCGMA MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................61 10.1.2 A PLAN TO SHIFT SOME PUMPING BACK TO UPPER AQUIFER SYSTEM..61 10.1.3 PROTECT CURRENT SOURCES OF RECHARGE...........................................62 OPERATION OF THE OXNARD PLAIN SEAWATER INTRUSION ABA PROJECT (UWCD’S PUMPING TROUGH PIPELINE, LOWER A ........SYSTEM WELLS, FREEMAN DIVERSION) –...................... 8.1.4 OPERATING CRITERIA FOR THE OXNARD PLAIN –................ 8. CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATION RESTRICTIONS ON UPPER SYSTEM WATER WELLS –......................................................... 8. ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM.............. ......8. CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR LAS SEAWATER INTRUSION 8.1.8 NORTH (NOW CALLED EAST AND WEST) LAS POSAS BASIN RESTRICTIONS........................................................................... 8.1 MONITOR FCGMA GROUNDWATER EXTRACTIONS TO ENSU THEY DO NOT EXCEED ADOPTED PROJECTIONS FOR THA 8.1.10 IMPLEMENTATION OF DRILLING AND PUMPING RESTRICTIO 8.1.11 METERING OF GROUNDWATER EXTRACTIONS.................... 8.2 DESCRIPTION OF OTHER CURRENT STRATEGIES....................... 8.FOX CANYON OUTCROP EXPANSION AREA........................... 8. NOBLE SPREADING BASINS..................................................... 8. LAS POSAS BASIN ASR PROJECT ........................................... 8. CONEJO CREEK DIVERSION PROJECT................................... .2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL M&I WATER PROGRAM................................ 8.2.6 SATICOY WELLFIELD................................................................. 8.2.7 IMPORTATION OF STATE WATER................................................................... 2.88. ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING.......................... 8. CALIBRATION OF GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION METERS . 8.3 EFFECTIVENESS TO-DATE OF CURRENT MANAGEMENT STRAT .0 anagement Strategies Under Development...................................... 9.1 GREAT PROJECT (RECYCLED WATER) ......................................... 9.DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 9.1.2 POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS................................................... 9.2 SOUTH LAS POSAS BASIN PUMP/TREAT ...................................... 9. DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 9. POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS...................................................2.2 9.3 DEVELOPMENT OF BRACKISH GROUNDWATER, PLEASANT VA 9.3.1 DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 9. POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS................................................... 9.4 NON-EXPORT OF FCGMA WATER................................................... 9.4.1 DESCRIPTION............................................................................. .4.2 POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS................................................... 9.5 CONTINUATION OF 25% PUMPING REDUCTION ........................... 9.5 DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 9.5 POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS ................................................... vii Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 406 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 10 FOREBAY BASIN ........................................................................ .1 XNARD PLAIN .......................62 FOREBAY .......................63 .......................64 ....................64 .......................65 .......................66 NS.................67 1 ......................68 .......................69 .......................69 .......................70 ....................71 .......................71 LLS ..............72 .......................72 .......................73 .......................73 D BASINS....74 .......................75 ......................76 .......................76 .......................77 1 c .......................77 .......................77 .......................77 .......................78 .......................78 1 .......................78 .......................78 UPPER .......................79 .......................79 .......................79 ......................80 ......................80 .......................80 80 .......................80 1 LOCATION ...80 11.3.5 BARRIER WELLS ...............................................................................................81 11.3.6 PROTECTING RECHARGE SUPPLIES.............................................................81 11.3.7 NITRATE SOURCES IN OXNARD PLAIN FOREBAY BASIN............................81 11.3.8 ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION MEASURES....................................................81 11.3.9 VERIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR EXTRACTION REPORTING....................82 11.3.10 CONSIDERATION OF FURTHER PUMPING REDUCTIONS............................82 12.0 Summary of FCGMA Management Strategies............................................................82 12.1 CURRENT STRATEGIES...........................................................................................82 .4 LIMITATION ON NITRATE SOURCES IN PORTIONS OF THE O 10.1.5 POLICY ON RECOVERY OF CREDITS FROM OXNARD PLAIN BASIN........................................................................................... 10.1.6 VERIFICATION OF EXTRACTION REPORTING........................ 10.1.7 SEPARATE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR SOME BASINS 10.1.8 FCGMA BOUNDARY................................................................... 10.1.9 IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS.............................. 10.1.10 ADDITIONAL STORAGE PROJECTS IN OVERDRAFTED BASI 0.1.11 PENALTIES USED TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT WATER... 10.1.12 ADDITIONAL WATER CONSERVATION.................................... 10.1.13 SHELF LIFE FOR CONSERVATION CREDITS.......................... .10.2 10-YEAR STRATEGIES.......... ........................................................... 10.2.1 ADDITIONAL IN-LIEU RECHARGE TO SOUTH OXNARD PLAIN 10.2.2 IMPORT ADDITIONAL STATE WATER ...................................... 10.2.3 FURTHER DESTRUCTION OF ABANDONED OR LEAKING WE 10.2.4 ADDITIONAL MONITORING NEEDS.......................................... 10.3 15-YEAR STRATEGIES...................................................................... 10.3.1 BARRIER WELLS IN SOUTH OXNARD PLAIN .......................... 10.3.2 INJECTION OF TREATED RIVER WATER INTO OVERDRAFTE 10.3.3 INCREASE DIVERSIONS FROM SANTA CLARA RIVER .......... 1..0.3.4 SHIFT PUMPING TO NORTHWEST OXNARD PLAIN .............. 10.4 GREATER THAN 15-YEAR STRATEGIES......................................... 10.4.1 ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS IN PUMPING ALLOCATIONS....... 1.0 A tion Plan to Attain Basin Management Objectives......................... 11.1 PLANNING/IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS........................................ 11.1.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING ............................................................. 11.1.2 IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................... 11.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO EXISTING FCGMA POLICIES...... 1.2.1 CONTINUATION OF 25% PUMPING REDUCTION.................... 11.2.2 CREDITS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO FOREBAY BASIN.......... 11.2.3 SHIFT SOME PUMPING FROM LOWER AQUIFER SYSTEM TO .AQUIFER SYSTEM.............................................................. ....... 11.2.4 IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY CALCULATION................................ 11.2.5 ADDITIONAL MONITORING........................................................ 11.2.6 USE PENALTIES TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT WATER ..... 11.3 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONS TO FCGMA POLICIES....................... 11.3.1 5-YEAR UPDATE OF FCGMA MANAGEMENT PLAN................ 11.3.2 SEPARATE MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR SOME BASINS ............................... 11.3.3 ADOPTION OF BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES............... 1.3.4 EXTRACTIONS OF POOR-QUALITY WATER WITHOUT AN AL viii FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 12.2 STRATEGIES UNDER DEVELOPMENT...................................................................83 .......................83 .......................84 85 1 .......................85 .......................86 Oxnard Plain89 .....................105 .....................105 AN...............106 .....................107 EXTRACTIONS .....................108 .....................108 .....................109 .....................110 ....................111 .....................111 ....................112 .....................113 .....................113 ASINS.........114 ....................114 .....................115 .....................................116 A3......................117 A3.1 EXHIBIT “A”................................................................................................................122 A3.2 EXHIBIT “B”................................................................................................................124 A3.3 EXHIBIT “C”................................................................................................................125 A4.0 Appendix D. Response to public Comments on the FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan........................................................................................................126 12.3 FUTURE STRATEGIES – 5 YEARS ................................................... 12.4 FUTURE STRATEGIES – 10 YEARS ................................................. 12.5 FUTURE STRATEGIES – 10 TO 15 YEARS ............................................................. 2.6 FUTURE STRATEGIES – GREATER THAN 15 YEARS.................... 13.0 References.............................................................................................. A 1.0 Appendix A - Progression of Seawater Intrusion Beneath the South A.2.0 Appendix B - Ventura Regional Groundwater Model........................... A2.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... ODELING FOR THE FCGMA GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLA2.2 M A2.2.1 BASE CASE ..................................................................................... A2.2.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS – UNDERSTATEMENT OF REPORTED ..................................................................................................... A2.2.3 CONTINUATION OF 25% PUMPING REDUCTION........................ A2.2.4 RIVERPARK RECHARGE PITS....................................................... A2.2.5 GREAT PROJECT............................................................................ A2.2.6 SHIFT SOME PUMPING FROM LAS TO UAS ................................. A2.2.7 IMPORT ADDITIONAL STATE WATER........................................... A2.2.8 INCREASE DIVERSIONS FROM SANTA CLARA RIVER................ A2.2.9 ADDITIONAL IN-LIEU DELIVERIES TO SOUTH OXNARD PLAIN. A2.2.10 SHIFT SOME PUMPING TO NORTHWEST OXNARD PLAIN...... A2.2.11 INJECTION OF TREATED RIVER WATER IN OVERDRAFTED B A2.2.12 SWITCH LOCATION OF CITY OF CAMARILLO PUMPING .......... A2.2.13 FULL-TIME BARRIER WELLS IN SOUTH OXNARD PLAIN......... A2.2.14 COMBINED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES.................. 0 Appendix C. East Las Posas Basin Management Plan......................... ix Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 407 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) (Figure 1 and P in Ventura County and encompasses several coastal basins that underlie the Port Hueneme, Camarillo, and Moorpark. The Agency overlies about 118,00 mi). The FCGMA was initially created to manage the groundwater in both potentially seawater-intruded areas within Ventura County. The prime objectiv of the FCGMA are to preserve groundwater resources for agricultural, municip uses in the best interest late 1) is located cities of Oxnard, 0 acres (185 sq overdrafted and es and purposes al, and industrial s of the public and for the common benefit of all water users. Protection of water quality and quantity along with maintenance of long-term water supply are included in those goals and objectives. undary. The Annotated California Codes Water Appendix, Chapter 121-102 et seq. required the FCGMA to develop, adopt, and implement a plan to control groundwater extractions from the Upper Aquifer System (UAS) to achieve a balanced water supply and demand in the Upper Aquifer System by the year 2000. Additionally, the Water Code required the FCGMA to adopt a Lower Aquifer System (LAS) Management Plan for future extractions from the Lower Aquifer System, including a policy for issuing well permits and a Contingency Plan for seawater intrusion into the Lower Aquifer System. The FCGMA adopted its original Groundwater Management Plan in 1985. The original FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan specified several major items or tasks for accomplishment. Figure 1. Location map of Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency bo 1 ca l - 0 1 9 u- 2 0 6 u- 2 1 0 u- 2 0 7 u- 2 0 8 u- 2 0 2 ca l - 0 4 2 ca s - 0 6 5 u- 2 0 2 ca l - 1 9 5 u- 2 0 0 u- 2 0 4 ca l - 0 2 2 u- 2 0 9 u- 2 0 3 ca l - 0 1 5 u- 0 8 7 ca l - 0 2 3 ca l - 0 1 6 u- 0 8 9 ca s - 0 4 9 u- 0 9 1 u- 0 9 2 ca l - 0 1 7 u- 0 9 3 u- 0 7 9 u- 0 9 5 u- 0 9 6 ca l - 0 2 0 u- 0 9 9 u- 1 0 1 u- 1 4 5 ca s - 0 5 1 u- 1 8 7 u- 1 0 2 u- 1 0 2 u- 1 8 5 ca s - 0 5 2 ca l - 0 2 4 ca l - 1 9 6 w- 1 6 3 ca s - 0 5 3 ca l - 0 2 5 w- 1 6 4 u- 1 0 8 ca s - 0 5 4 u- 1 1 0 u- 1 1 1 ca s - 0 5 6 u- 1 1 2 u- 0 9 7 ca l - 0 2 7 u- 1 1 4 ca s - 0 5 7 ca s - 0 5 8 ca s - 0 5 9 u- 1 1 5 u- 1 8 1 ca l - 0 2 9 ca l - 0 3 1 ca s - 0 6 0 ca s - 0 6 1 ca l - 0 3 0 u- 1 2 1 u- 1 9 1 u- 2 0 5 u- 1 2 8 ca s - 0 6 4 u- 1 3 2 u- 1 8 6 ca s - 0 6 6 u- 1 3 0 u- 1 3 3 u- 1 3 1 ca s - 0 6 9 w- 1 7 4 u- 1 3 5 ca l - 0 3 6 ca s - 0 7 0 u- 1 3 8 u- 1 3 9 ca s - 0 7 1 u- 1 4 0 u- 1 4 1 ca s - 0 7 3 u- 1 4 7 u- 1 4 9 u- 1 4 4 u- 1 4 6 u- 1 5 0 w- 1 5 3 w- 1 7 8 u- 0 8 4 u- 1 0 3 u- 0 8 6 ca l - 0 0 6 u- 1 9 2 ca l - 0 0 7 u- 0 8 0 ca s - 0 4 7 u- 0 8 1 u- 0 7 6 ca l - 0 0 4 ca l - 1 7 9 u- 0 7 4 u- 0 7 5 u- 0 7 5 u- 0 7 5 ca l - 0 0 2 ca l - 1 9 0 ca l - 0 0 3 ca l - 0 0 1 ca l - 0 1 1 ca l - 0 1 1 ca s - 0 6 7 u- 1 1 3 ca s - 0 6 8 ca l - 0 1 4 ca l - 0 1 4 ca s - 0 7 2 ca l - 0 1 2 u- 1 1 8 u- 0 8 2 u- 0 8 3 u- 0 8 3 ca l - 0 1 3 ca s - 0 4 8 ca l - 0 3 5 ca l - 0 3 5 ca l - 0 3 8 ca l - 0 3 9 ca l - 0 3 9 ca l - 0 4 0 ca l - 0 4 1 ca l - 0 0 5 w- 1 6 8 u- 1 0 6 ca s - 0 6 2 w- 1 5 7 w- 1 6 6 w- 1 8 8 u- 1 3 7 ca l - 0 2 6 ca s - 0 6 3 w- 1 5 6 La k e C a s i t a s La k e P i r u Mu g u L a g o o n We s t l a k e Ba r d R e s e r v o i r Ch a n n e l I s l a n d s H a r b o r Ven t u r a H a r b o r Lak e S h e r w o o d Po r t o f H u e n e m e Ma t i l i j a L a k e Ed i s o n C a n a l Mc G r a t h L a k e Ca m i n o L a k e La k e E l e a n o r Ple a s a n t V a l l e y C a n a l JH ROSE LEWIS FIFTH LYN N SOUTHE RN PACIFIC LOS A NGELE S FO O TH ILL C TE LE G R A PH HARBOR VENT U R A RICE H U EN E ME WOOD CREEK MARIC OPA ROY AL SANTA ROS A OL S EN C AS I T AS P A S S WE S T LA KEERBES GU I B E R S O N LAS POSAS COCHRAN OJAI-SANTA PAULA VICTORIA PACI F I C C OAST VIN E Y A R D BRADLEY ALAMO LA G UNA PO T R E R O LA LOM A CENTRA L SANTA ANA TIE RRA R EJA DA KANAN REINO SO UT H M O UNT A IN GRAND BALCOM CANYON SAVIERS SY CA MO R E WE NDY MAIN DO RIS PL E AS AN T VA LLE Y BALD W IN PRICE ADOLFO A SA N TA PAU LA GONZA LE S BO RC HA R D STURGIS UP L AN D FIRST STOCKTON WE LL S AGGEN HA RV A RD OJAI PIRU CAYNYON GRIMES CANYON LA LUNA SINALOA LOMA VISTA HIL LC RE S T SAN TA CL A RA YOSEMITE OLIVAS PAR K MADERA FIT Z G ERALD SPRING JOHNSON RE EV E S TAPO BRIGGS ERRINGER BR OAD W A Y MI SS I ON OA KS PECK TH I RD TE AL C L U B POLI GOODENOUGH TICO AVENIDA DE LOS ARBOLES RIN C ON MARKET BU R NH A M GRIDLEY RONALD R EAGAN SEQUOIA BEA R DS L EY KIMBALL WALNUT PE TIT TA P O C A NY O N ARNEILL KIM BER THO MPS O N BRI S TOL SA TICOY SIGNAL DAY PED ER S O N BARD MILLS MOORPARK TEMPLE CRES TVIEW LOOP McNELL FA IR V IE W CARMEN OCEAN SUNSET HILLS TH A CH E R O LIV E OLD TELEGRAPH DON LO N SEAWARD HO W E CALLE YUCCA BOX CANYON RAL ST ON PO NDE R O S A TO WNSHIP THOUSAND OAKS LO MITA CE N T E R WOOLEY WOOD RANCH KUEHNER PAIGE WALNUT CANYON CU MMING S SESPE CHANNEL ISLANDS VEN TU PARK BE RYLWO OD LOMA LO N G CA N YON GA IN SB O R O UG H TORREY RAMELLI HAMPSHIRE CARNE HILL TENTH LAWRENCE McANDREW KAD OTA CEDAR OX NA RD HIG H DEL NOTRE BATES CHAMBERSBURG AV ENID A S IMI CU YA MA LA VISTA HE M L O C K LA G RANA DA FAIRWAY PE AC H HILL LINDERO CANYON GORHAM MONTGOMERY FO UR T H VALENT INE PALM ASHWOOD AUTO CENTER ARNA Z AGOURA ROBIN CA M IN O D E L S O L OLD CONEJO TELEPHONE DA RL IN G NORT H BAN K JANSS CENTER SCHOOL RANCHO CONEJO B CA M P U S P A R K SE COND VENTURA COUNTY SHE L L NEW L OS A NGE LES STAN L EY CO LONIA PA TTE RS ON MISSION KELLOG G PRINCETON GARDEN OAK VALLEY VICTORIA SO U T H ERN PACIFIC SOU T H E R N P A CIFIC C TE L EG R AP H BAR D COC H RA N DORIS MOORPARK WO OLE Y C SATICOY BARD LOMA A SA N TA PA U LA E RB E S TAPO CANYON KANAN PO LI TAPO CANYON J GRA N D C PATTERSON FIFTH HILL CR EST TEL EGRA P H GONZALES SA N T A P A U LA SOUTHERN PACIFIC VENT UR A CO U N TY J FO U R TH PO T R ERO LOS ANG ELES BATES J MO OR PARK FIF T H BR ISTO L VENTURA TORREY SEQUOIA SYCAMORE MADERA FOOTHILL FIRST ER R I N GER WOOD RANCH AV ENID A S IMI TEL E G RAPH VE N TU R A TE L E G RA PH VENTURA COCHRAN C V EN TUR A MOORPARK TE LE PHONE PATTERSON BA RD JA NSS RICE OJA I S O U TH ER N PACIFIC WO OL E Y SOUTHERN PACIFIC GRI M ES CANY ON MAIN HE M LO CK KIMBALL OLIVE AL A MO LOS A NGELE S MADERA PATTERSON POLI J TE LE P HONE SOUTHERN PACIFIC C LA S PO SAS JANSS SO UTH E RN P ACIFIC LAS POSAS MA I N MOORPARK T E LE G R A PH TE L E G RAPH PL E A S A NT V A L L EY SA NT A P AU L A RALSTON SYCAMORE A TAPO OJAI SE SP E KIMBALL VICTORIA A OCE A N LOS A NGELES WOOLEY D ARLI N G Ve n t u r a C o u n t y W a t e r P u r v e y o r s W- 1 8 2 Sa n N i c o l a s I s l a n d I n s e t MARIC OPA LO C K W O OD VA LLE Y CUDDY V A LLE Y FRAZIE R MOUNTAIN P ARK Py r a m i d L a k e Cas t a c l a k e w- 1 5 2 w- 1 5 4 w- 1 9 3 w- 1 6 0 w- 1 5 9 w- 1 5 5 w- 1 9 4 w- 1 7 0 w- 1 7 0 w- 1 7 1 No r t h e r n V e n t u r a C o u n t y I n s e t Pa c i f i c Oc e a n DI S C L A I M E R : T h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w a s c r e a t e d b y t h e V e n t u r a C o u n t y Wa t e r s h e d P r o t e c t i o n D i s t r i c t s o l e l y f o r i t s o w n u s e . T h e V C W P D a s s u m e s n o l i a b i l i t y f o r da m a g e s i n c u r r e d d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y a s a r e s u l t o f e r r o r s , o m i s s i o n s o r d i s c r e p a n c i e s . Cr e a t e d : F e b 2 0 0 6 By : J P D Ve n t u r a C o u n t y W a t e r s h e d P r o t e c t i o n D i s t r i c t Wa t e r & E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s o u r c e s D i v i s i o n Gro u n d w a t e r S e c t i o n 80 0 S o u t h V i c t o r i a A v e . Ve n t u r a , C A 9 3 0 0 9 - 1 6 0 0 Ph : ( 8 0 5 ) 6 5 4 - 2 0 8 8 Fx : ( 8 0 5 ) 6 7 7 - 8 7 6 2 Le g e n d DW R B u l l . 1 1 8 G W B a s i n s Fo x C y n G M A - b d y Ro a d s Ca l l e g u a s M W D Ca s i t a s M W D UW C D Wa t e r B o d i e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r y μ ca l - 0 2 8 u- 1 8 4 u- 1 8 4 u- 1 0 7 ca s - 0 7 2 u- 1 8 3 u- 1 8 3 u- 1 8 3 u- 1 8 3 u- 1 2 7 u- 1 0 9 ca l - 0 2 8 ca l - 0 2 8 u- 1 3 4 u- 1 4 8 u- 1 2 2 u- 1 2 3 u- 1 0 4 ca l - 0 0 8 ca l - 0 4 4 u- 1 0 7 u- 1 2 6 u- 1 2 6 u- 0 9 4 u- 0 9 4 u- 1 3 6 w- 1 5 1 03 6 1. 5 Mi l e s 1: 8 7 , 5 0 0 In v e n t o r y o f P u b l i c & P r i v a t e Wa t e r P u r v e y o r s I n V e n t u r a C o u n t y Fi g u r e 3 . 0 1 i n c h e q u a l s 3 m i l e s u- 0 9 4 ca l - 0 0 8 1 DW R B u l l e t i n 1 1 8 G r o u n d w a t e r B a s i n s 1 - L a s P o s a s V a l l e y 2 - A r r o y o S a n t a R o s a V a l l e y 3 - P l e a s a n t V a l l e y 4 - S a n t a C l a r a R i v e r V a l l e y - S a n t a P a u l a 5 - S a n t a C l a r a R i v e r V a l l e y - M o u n d 6 - S a n t a C l a r a R i v e r V a l l e y - O x n a r d Pl a t e 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 4 5 623 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 408 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 At the time of the initial Management Plan development in 1984-1985, the prim aquifers of western Ventura County was seawater intrusion in the Upper Aquife that time, a number of studies have identified other water quality problems, intrusion in the Lower Aquifer System (LAS) in the Pleasant Valley basin, and in th ary threat to the r System. Since including saline e Las Posas basin. This update to the groundwater management plan is designed to look at a broader range GMA, the most one by the U.S. ducted with the dividual casings ater model, and coastline of the d by the United ncies. These studies have helped characterized seawater intrusion along the coastline, saline contamination in more inland areas, W groundwater ariety of projects ll previous work ng process. The ollowed by an evaluation of both or the FCGMA. first by FCGMA istrict (CMWD) MA. Extensive nagement Plan s between CMWD and the Las Posas Basin Users Group (farm well owners, mutual water companies, and the Ventura and others). The ELPBMP serves as a more detailed sub-basin management planning document grounded in the FCGMA February 23, 1994 approval of CMWD’s Application for Injection/Storage Facilities in he ELPBMP y (ASR) project ect. T WITHIN THE FCGMA of problems and to suggest potential solutions to these problems. Since 1985, there have been a number of studies conducted within the FC comprehensive being the Regional Aquifer System Analysis (or RASA Study) d Geological Survey (USGS) in the late 1980s and 1990s. This study, con cooperation of local agencies, consisted of drilling monitoring wells with in perforated in selected aquifers or water-bearing zones, constructing a groundw conducting hydrogeologic studies. Monitoring wells, most constructed along the Oxnard Plain, continued to provide critical information on the status of sali addition, a number of more specific or follow-up studies have been conducte Water Conservation District (UWCD) and other age ne intrusion. In and nitrate contamination in the Upper Aquifer System. The USGS MODFLO model has been used and refined by the groundwater staff at UWCD to test a v that could help mitigate the water quality problems within the FCGMA. This 2007 Update to the FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan incorporates a and the specific studies that were undertaken as part of this most-recent planni Plan is organized with the results of past and current studies f current management strategies and potential future management strategies f Various groundwater management ideas and strategies have been evaluated staff, and UWCD staff, and then reviewed by Calleguas Municipal Water D management and staff and consultants from the water purveyors within the FCG public review by stakeholders was also a critical part of the planning process. Appendix C includes a document entitled, the East Los Posas Basin Ma (ELPBMP). The ELPBMP was developed through ongoing discussion County Water Works Districts that supply water to the City of Moorpark the North Los Posas Groundwater Basin. (Appendix C - Exhibit A). As such, t particularly addresses the interaction of CMWD’s Aquifer Storage and Recover with other basin pumpers regarding both basin-wide and local effects of the proj 2.0 BACKGROUND OF GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AND OVERDRAF Although high chloride levels were first documented near Port Hueneme in the 1930s (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 1954), the conditions for widespread seawater intrusion on the Oxnard Plain were initiated as early as the 1940s, when groundwater levels beneath the southern portion of the Oxnard Plain basin dropped below sea level (see Appendix A). Within 5 to 10 years, chloride concentrations in wells in the Port Hueneme area started to increase rapidly. At that time, seawater had only affected a few wells in the Port Hueneme area, encompassing an area less than one square mile (Appendix A). 2 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Within 20 years, seawater intrusion in the Port Hueneme area had extended as inland. In some of the affected wells, chloride concentrations were as high as th (just less than 20,000 mg/L). Appendix A documents the progression of se beneath the southern portion of the Oxnard Plain basin. This seawater intrusio Aquifer System was located adjacent to the Hueneme Submarine Canyon offshore of Port Hueneme ( much as 3 miles ose of seawater awater intrusion n into the Upper that is directly oint Mugu area, o the Mugu Submarine Canyon that extends offshore from Mugu Lagoon. This s in late 1950s its farthest point , chloride levels UAS. Coupled , this improving ions was accelerated in the 1990s, as the Freeman Diversion was eased recharge seawater back n the late 1950s. 0s (Appendix A). th the Upper Aquifer System, the intrusion in the Lower Aquifer System spread into the e drops in stem – partly in ent wells were d Upper Aquifer d subsidence of on by the early uced hydrostatic ence is permanent – refilling of the sand and gravel aquifers cannot force water back into the dewatered clay layers. In the Point Mugu area (Figure 2), chlorides have not lessened over the past two decades. Instead, chloride concentrations continued to increase in the area of Mugu Lagoon, reaching concentrations almost as high as seawater in some wells. The CM1A monitoring well in that area showed an increase in chloride concentrations from several hundred mg/L to 4,600 mg/L in a little more than one decade. Figure 2). Seawater intrusion also occurred in the P adjacent t intrusion in the Point Mugu area first impacted Upper Aquifer System well (Appendix A). In the Port Hueneme area, seawater in the Upper Aquifer System reached inland in the early 1980s (Appendix A). Following the high rainfall year of 1983 began to decrease in many of the Port Hueneme area wells perforated in the with pumping allocations and management strategies imposed by the FCGMA trend in chloride reduct completed by UWCD and several wet years occurred, which allowed incr available from the diversion, helping restore aquifer pressures and pushing toward the coast. Groundwater levels in the Lower Aquifer System also dropped below sea level i This Lower Aquifer System intrusion was first detected in wells in the late 198 As wi aquifer both near Port Hueneme and at Point Mugu. Further exacerbating th groundwater levels in the LAS was an increase in production in the Lower Sy search of better quality water supplies and partly because new or replacem required to be drilled in the LAS as a strategy to lessen pumping in the intrude System. The overpumping of the aquifers that led to seawater intrusion also created lan up to 2.2 feet in the Pleasant Valley area north and northwest of Mugu Lago 1970s as dewatered clay layers between aquifer zones collapsed from red pressures. This subsid 3 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 409 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 he sources of hat the increase ut also from the of saline waters being pulled from surrounding sediments and from deeper depths 1.1 Seawater as for seawater ontamination of ive groundwater ility that saline are particularly f the producing wells were simply detecting high chloride waters flowing downward from failed well casings. To ensure monitoring results were accurately depicting saline intrusion, a series of monitoring wells were drilled along the coastal portions of the Oxnard Plain. These multiple-completion wells consist of a single well bore containing several smaller-diameter PVC wells completed at varying aquifer depths. These monitoring wells give discrete depth-dependent data from the aquifers and form the basis of much of the current monitoring program. Several trends in saline intrusion are evident on the south Oxnard Plain. The Port Hueneme lobe of seawater intrusion has decreased considerably in size and chloride concentration in the Figure 2. Areas of saline intrusion beneath the Oxnard Plain basin in 2006. T the saline intrusion are discussed in section 5.1.1 Seawater Intrusion. As the USGS began their work in Ventura County in late 1980s, they proposed t in chlorides in the UAS and LAS was caused not just from seawater intrusion b intrusion along fault zones (Izbicki, 1991, 1992; discussed in more detail in section 5. Intrusion). The cause of this additional saline contamination was the same intrusion, that is, very low groundwater levels. This additional saline c groundwater inland from the lobes of seawater intrusion was caused by excess pumping and lowered groundwater levels. This finding raised the possib contamination could occur in inland areas wherever groundwater levels depressed. There was some initial concern chloride concentrations measured in some o 4 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Upper Aquifer System. However, Lower Aquifer System chloride conc somewhat increased in this Port Hueneme lobe. In the more southeastern P concentrations of chloride are generally higher than in the past both in the UA areal extent of the intrusion of seawater is not known with precision. The a saline intrusion from surrounding sediments has increased both in entrations have oint Mugu lobe, S and LAS; the rea affected by size and in chloride concentration. This increase in size has prompted United Water Conservation District to drill of salts. the State Water result that local nd institutions to echarge capability for the pumpers. The ment Agency to tions. 2, State Senate gency (FCGMA). preserving, and agency.” That ot involve itself in activities normally and historically undertaken by its member agencies, such as the construction and operation of dams, spreading wholesale and ilities along with rs of the various nty of Ventura 1983, Ordinance in the agency to register and begin reporting s (at $0.50/AF), inor penalty or No. 2 (October ual groundwater with statements lp guide FCGMA 3 was adopted to require flow meters on all but aquifer outcrop s the North Las tailed rules than those in any previous ordinance. The adoption of Ordinance No. 5 in August 1990 completed the first steps for the FCGMA by setting up a system of scheduled extraction reductions, allowing for the use of Historical, Baseline, and Agricultural Efficiency Allocations, and establishing a credit system to encourage cutbacks in pumping, along with a penalty system for overpumping beyond the established annual allocation. Agencies’ responsibilities - Several agencies are responsible for managing water resources in Ventura County. The FCGMA has responsibility for groundwater management planning, managing pumping allocations and credits, and developing policies related to groundwater new monitoring wells inboard of this saline intrusion to detect further movement Local and State Actions – The increasing seawater intrusion prompted Resources Control Board to consider adjudication in the early 1980s, with the agencies, working with the State Board, created a series of physical solutions a tackle the problem. The physical solutions included adding artificial r aquifers and providing additional in-lieu surface water to groundwater institutional solution was the formation of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Manage bring water usage into balance with recharge sources to prevent overdraft condi Formation of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency – In 198 Bill 2995 was approved creating the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management A The agency’s activities were defined as “planning, managing, controlling, regulating the extraction and use of groundwater within the territory of the directive also went on to say, “shall n grounds, pipelines, flood control facilities, and water distribution facilities, or the retail sale of water.” This prohibition of water conservation and distribution fac water sales by the FCGMA was clearly meant to delineate the separate powe agencies within the County (see following section). The FCGMA officially began operations on January 1, 1983 with the Cou contracting to provide staffing and related services to the new agency. In May No. 1 was adopted requiring all wells with groundwater extractions. This ordinance also set extraction management fee becoming the sole source of income to the fledgling agency sans any m surcharge fees that would be instituted in later ordinance revisions. Ordinance 1983) was a short amendment to Ordinance No. 1 establishing semi-ann extraction reporting to cover the first and second half of each calendar year, due within 30 days following each period. A groundwater management plan was adopted in 1985 to set goals and to he policies. In February 1987, Ordinance No. domestic wells. Ordinance No. 4 (July 1987) soon followed that protected the areas in the East and West Las Posas basin (formerly collectively referred to a Posas basin) and regulated groundwater extractions in the basin via more de 5 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 410 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 extractions and recharge. United Water Conservation District (UWCD) has managing groundwater resources in seven basins in the county, including mo within the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) (Plate responsibilities include groundwater and surface water monitoring, constructing water conservation and recharge facilities, reporting on groundwater groundwater management and planning activities. Groundwater manageme functions overlap between the FCGMA, UWCD, and other local agencies, w focusing on extractions and policy and UWCD focusing on planning and implem Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD) is responsible for providing State W of Ventura County and providing water management strategies to ensure a r water for its customers (Plate 1). The Ventura County Watershed Protection D is responsible for flood control functions, groundwater/surface water monitoring permitting. The water purveyors (c responsibility for st of the basins 1). UWCD's and maintaining conditions, and nt and planning ith the FCGMA enting projects. ater to portions eliable source of istrict (VCWPD) , and water well ities and water districts) decide how much and from where fit the aquifers. ns in addressing groundwater issues over the last 20+ years. FCGMA are re conducted by UWCD, with the within UWCD orts on groundwater conditions within the West, as Basin Users se and supplies evaluate basin ter conservation lling, well Groundwater Management Plan (September 1985) prepared by the FCGMA to help bring the ater intrusion by s for the period ) formulated an extraction allocation for all groundwater pumpers within the FCGMA, based on average extractions during the years 1985 to 1989. Starting in 1990, these pumping or “Historical” allocations were to be reduced by 5% every five years, with a planned 25% total reduction by the year 2010. A program of “Conservation” and “Storage” credits allows well operators to vary their annual pumping in accordance with crop changes and/or annual hydrologic conditions. In addition, agricultural pumpers are allowed the option of using Irrigation Efficiency instead of the allocation/credit program. Agricultural efficiency for individual pumpers (later deemed as their groundwater supplies are extracted, as well as plan projects that bene There has been a remarkable amount of cooperation among these organizatio pIn ions within the boundaries of the performed in the following ways: ractice, groundwater management funct 1. Groundwater levels and groundwater quality sampling and analysis a UWCD, VCWPD, and individual water purveyors; 2. Groundwater extraction records are collected by both the FCGMA and FCGMA maintaining records on extraction allocations and credits; 3. An annual report on groundwater conditions is prepared by UWCD boundaries and CMWD prepares rep East, and South Las Posas basins (in conjunction with the Las Pos Group; 4. Water purveyors prepare regular plans on current and future water u (e.g., Urban Water Management Plans); 5. The FCGMA prepares this Groundwater Management Plan to management objectives, strategies, and policies; 6. UWCD and some of the water purveyors construct and operate wa facilities; and 7. The VCWPD (and the City of Oxnard within its boundaries) oversees all well dri destruction, and monitoring well requirements and permitting. The initial recommended groundwater pumping be reduced by 25% over a 20-year period aquifers into balance or to reach safe yield by year 2010 and to mitigate seaw that same target date. This plan was based on groundwater demand projection between 1980 and 2010. Subsequent Board ordinances (Ordinance No. 5 6 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 “operators” of one or more wells) is required to be at least 80% or better (20% leaching, deep percolation, or runoff), when compared to FCGMA allowed wa crop water demand based on daily evapotranspiration and precipitation measu series of weather stations installed throughout the FCGMA. A surcharge fee extraction reporting, was formulated to penalize individual pumping above allocations or not meeting the required irrigation or less going to ter for particular rements from a , based on the allowed annual efficiency percentage minimum. These widespread elped formulate awater intrusion. zed Federal 319(h) grant funds coupled with matching local funds helped destroy a number of abandoned wells across the Oxnard Plain which, had er mixing. A total of 49 old abandoned or leaking wells were destroyed under this program. penalties have been seldom used since their inception, largely because of cooperation among pumpers to reduce groundwater extractions. In cooperation with the Watershed Protection District, the FCGMA also h requirements that new wells be completed in specific aquifers to help control se A similar cooperative program that utili the potential to act as conduits allowing inter-aquif 3.0 GROUNDWATER BASINS & HYDROGEOLOGY The basins within the FCGMA are part of the Transverse Ranges geologic pr the mountain ranges and basins are oriented in an east-west rather than the t southwest trend in much of California and the western United States. Active thr the basins of the Santa Clara River, causing rapid uplift of the adjacent downdropping of the b ovince, in which ypical northeast- ust faults border mountains and asins. The alluvial basins are filled with substantial amounts of Tertiary e) settings. The e delta complex d by alternating level changes igure 3). These y; this Plan uses nd early 2000s y of the basins. ay, the Pleasant These basins , the Upper Aquifer System (UAS) and the Lower Aquifer System (LAS). Separate aquifers locally named within these systems include the Canyon aquifers ers and creeks. “semi-perched he surface to no Oxnard Aquifer which generally protects the underlying aquifers from contamination from surface land uses. The Semi-perched zone is rarely used for water supply. The aquifers are comprised of sand and gravel deposited along the ancestral Santa Clara River, within alluvial fans along the flanks of the mountains, or in a coastal plain/delta complex at the terminus of the Santa Clara River and Calleguas Creek. The aquifers are recharged by infiltration of streamflow (primarily the Santa Clara River), artificial recharge of diverted streamflow, mountain-front recharge along the exterior boundary of the basins, direct infiltration of precipitation on the valley floors of the basins and on bedrock outcrops in adjacent mountain and Quaternary sediments deposited in both marine and terrestrial (non-marin basins beneath the Oxnard Plain are filled with sediments deposited on a wid formed at the terminus of the Santa Clara River and was heavily influence episodes of advancing or retreating shallow seas that varied with world-wide sea over many millions of years. There are seven main or significant groundwater basins within the FCGMA (F groundwater basins have been called by somewhat different names historicall the terminology of the U.S. Geological Survey from their work in the 1990s a (e.g., Hanson et al., 2003) because it is the most recent comprehensive stud These groundwater basins include the Oxnard Plain, the Oxnard Plain Foreb Valley, the Santa Rosa, and the East, West and South Las Posas basins. generally contain two major aquifer systems Oxnard and Mugu aquifers (UAS) and the Hueneme, Fox Canyon, and Grimes (LAS). A shallower, unconfined aquifer is also present locally underlying riv Underlying the Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins are sand layers of the zone,” which may locally contain poor-quality water. This zone extends from t more than 100 ft in depth. These sands overlie confining clay of the upper 7 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 411 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 fronts, return flow from agricultural and household irrigation in some areas, and in varying of the Grimes deepest to the mations of Plio- t Las Posas and uifer (California r underlies all of st and West Las asant Valley, Oxnard Plain Forebay, and Oxnard Plain basins. The Hueneme aquifer is considered to underlie most coastal areas of the southern Oxnard Plain (Hanson et al, 2003), and is an important source of water in the Oxnard Plain, Pleasant Valley, and the West Las Posas basins. degrees by groundwater underflow from adjacent basins. LOWER AQUIFER SYSTEM – The Lower Aquifer System (LAS) consists Canyon, Fox Canyon, and Hueneme aquifers (e.g., Figure 6) from the shallowest. The LAS is part of the Santa Barbara, San Pedro, and Saugus for Pleistocene age (Hanson et al, 2003). The lowest water-bearing unit of the Eas Pleasant Valley basins is commonly referred to as the Grimes Canyon aq Department of Water Resources, 1954; Turner, 1975). The Fox Canyon aquife the groundwater basins beneath the FCGMA, but is most significant in the Ea Posas, Ple Figure 3. Groundwater basins within the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. The aquifers within the LAS are commonly isolated from each other vertically by low- permeability units (silts and clays) and horizontally by regional fault systems. There is active tectonism (faulting and folding) within the area of the FCGMA, caused by compressional and lateral forces as the Transverse Ranges are caught in a vise between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. As a result, the LAS is folded and tilted in many areas, and has been eroded along an unconformity separating the Upper and Lower aquifer systems. 8 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 UPPER AQUIFER SYSTEM – The Upper Aquifer System (UAS) within the FC the Mugu and Oxnard aquifers ( GMA consists of shallow, of Late Aquifer System, ard Plain, these ner, 1975). The d surface. The rd aquifer is the for groundwater supply on the Oxnard Plain. This highly-permeable 100 ft to 220 ft Lower aquifers he Oxnard Plain rine shelf, where outer edges of the aquifer are in direct contact with seawater. In areas near Port Hueneme and Point Mugu where Figure 5, Figure 6), from deepest to most Pleistocene and Holocene age. The UAS rests unconformably on the Lower with basal conglomerates in many areas (Hanson et al, 2003). In the Oxn coarse-grained basal deposits have been referred to as the Mugu aquifer (Tur Mugu aquifer is generally penetrated at a depth of 255 ft to 425 ft below lan younger Oxnard aquifer is present throughout the Oxnard Plain. The Oxna primary aquifer used assemblage of sand and gravel is generally found at a depth of approximately below land surface elevation. OXNARD PLAIN FOREBAY AND OXNARD PLAIN BASINS – Both Upper and are present in the Oxnard Plain Forebay and Oxnard Plain basins (Figure 4). T basin extends several miles offshore beneath the ma submarine canyons extend nearly to the coastline (Figure 2, Figure 7), the fresh-water aquifers are in direct contact with seawater only a short distance offshore. Figure 4. Map of Oxnard Forebay, Oxnard Plain, and Pleasant Valley basins. Contours of Lower Aquifer groundwater elevations in the Fall of 2006 indicate that the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins have significant areas below sea level. The locations of geologic sections B-B’ (Figure 5) and C-C’ (Figure 6) are indicated on map. The Oxnard Plain Forebay basin is the main source of recharge to aquifers beneath the Oxnard Plain. The absence of low-permeability confining layers (no continuous clay or silt layers) 9 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 412 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 between surface recharge sources and the underlying aquifers (sand and grav Forebay basin allows for effective recharge of the basin and subsequent rech further to the south and southwest (e.g., el layers) in the arge of aquifers sin comes from e from United’s on return flows, n the area of the ifer System has t with the Upper s may enter both the Upper Aquifer System and the underlying Lower Aquifer System. It is estimated that about ith the remainder single year, and veral recent wet years (UWCD, 2003). High hydraulic head ughout the Plain ard in basin is from rface sources on ere may also be discharge areas System (LAS) water levels are substantially lower than Upper Aquifer System (UAS) water S water into the the Oxnard Plain Some amount of ifer systems and rd Plain basin is m that extends e south flank of nt is apparently epth of the Lower Aquifer System (e.g., UWCD, 2003). This zone, likely a fault or other structural feature, reduces recharge flowing from the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin to the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley. This zone may be an extension of the Simi-Santa Rosa fault that extends along the southern flank of the Camarillo Hills. The presence of this subsurface feature that reduces groundwater flow also limits the effectiveness of management strategies that rely on groundwater flowing in the LAS from recharge areas in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin to the south Oxnard Plain and to Pleasant Valley. This Management Plan proposes specific strategies to overcome this geologic hurdle to recharging the LAS in these southern areas of the FCGMA. Figure 6). Recharge to the Forebay ba a combination of percolation of Santa Clara River flows, artificial recharg spreading grounds at Saticoy and El Rio, agricultural and household irrigati percolation of rainfall, and lesser amounts of underflow from adjacent basins. I Forebay between the El Rio and Saticoy spreading grounds, the Lower Aqu been folded and uplifted and then truncated (eroded away) along its contac Aquifer System (Figure 5, Figure 6). In this area, recharge from surface source 20% of the water recharged to this area reaches the Lower Aquifer System, w recharging the Upper Aquifer System (Hanson, 1998). The Oxnard Plain Forebay basin accepts large quantities of recharge water in a the basin was filled to near-capacity during se groundwater elevations in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin increase the (pressure) in the confined aquifers of the Oxnard Plain, raising water levels thro and promoting natural offshore flow in coastal areas. The Oxnard Plain Forebay basin is hydrologically connected with the aquifer Plain basin (e.g., s of the Oxn Figure 6). Thus, the primary recharge to the Oxnard Pla underflow from the Forebay rather than the deep percolation of water from su the Plain. When groundwater levels are below sea level along the coastline, th significant recharge by seawater flowing into the aquifers (from the historic shown in Figure 7 where the aquifers are exposed on the sea floor). When Lower Aquifer levels (creating a downward gradient), there may be substantial leakage of UA LAS both through discontinuities within the silts and clays between aquifers on and as slow vertical percolation directly through the silt and clay material itself. downward percolation can also occur via wells that are perforated in both aqu via compromised (failed or leaking) well casings. One of the more recent findings associated with groundwater beneath the Oxna a zone with a steeply-dipping groundwater gradient in the Lower Aquifer Syste across the Oxnard Plain from just south of Port Hueneme northeastward to th the Camarillo Hills (Figure 4, just south of section C-C’). This steep gradie caused by a lower-conductance zone that bisects the Oxnard Plain at the d 10 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 5. Geologic section B-B’. Simplified from Mukae and Turner (1975). Note ten times vertical exaggeration to accentuate stratigraphic units. ote ten times PLEASANT VALLEY BASIN – The Pleasant Valley groundwater basin (Figure 4) has been historically differentiated from the Oxnard Plain basin by a general lack of Upper Aquifer System aquifers (Turner, 1975). However, there may be local water-producing Upper Aquifer System units within the Pleasant Valley basin (Turner, 1975; Hanson et al, 2003). The Pleasant Valley basin is confined by thick fine-grained deposits overlying the aquifers of the basin. The Fox Canyon aquifer is the major water-bearing unit in the basin. Despite the fault barrier to the west, the Lower Aquifer System is in hydrologic continuity with the adjacent southern portion of the Oxnard Plain basin. Figure 6. Geologic section C-C’. Simplified from Mukae and Turner (1975). N vertical exaggeration to accentuate stratigraphic units. 11 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 413 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 ortions of the aquifers are ssion. Basin latively confined rillo Hills to Port in the northern acent basins. The City of Camarillo has two existing wells in the northeast portion of the Pleasant Valley Basin (hereafter called the Somis Area) and these wells confirm that rising uality, and water uplift and folding is indicated as leasant Valley basin on Figure 7 to reflect the uncertainty of the extent of this area of recharge. It is recommended that additional monitoring and studies be conducted to determine the dimensions and nature of this apparent recharge area. The groundwater hydrology of the portion of the Pleasant Valley basin east of the city of Camarillo is not well understood because there are not many wells drilled in the area. Along Calleguas Creek near California State University Channel Islands, water has been produced historically from aquifer depths that are shallower than the typical LAS well, suggesting that water-bearing strata are not limited to the LAS in this area. Figure 7. Recharge and discharge areas of coastal aquifers, with confined p aquifers indicated. The offshore discharge area is the location where the exposed on the ocean bottom and in submarine canyons. See text for discu designations: OP-Oxnard Plain, FB-Oxnard Forebay, PV-Pleasant Valley. Historically it was assumed that the LAS of the Pleasant Valley Basin was re and received little overall recharge across the fault that extends from the Cama Hueneme. However, since the early 1990s, water levels have begun to rise adj water levels in northern adjacent basins directly impact recharge rates, water q levels in the Somis Area. The recharge in the Somis Area may be a result of of Lower Aquifer units that allow rapid stream flow percolation. This area “Recharge-uncertain” at the north end of the P 12 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 It is clear that the eastern and northeastern portions of the Pleasant Valley b better understood (indicated as “Unknown” along the eastern edge of the Pleas on asin need to be ant Valley basin perhaps some gy that was the lusions from these studies. As suggested above, additional monitoring and studies are needed to better determine the del. basin within the Conejo Creek; and Oaks have clude a shallow of this basin is edro and Santa r flow in the San Pedro Formation. The Santa Rosa fault zone forms a barrier to groundwater flow into the basin ay be caused by Elevated nitrate on the south by and Oak Ridge ly subdivided into North and South basins (e.g., Tur 1998). The U.S. lan. Productive issive along the the equivalent of osas basin by an ). This fold may e aquifer depths, charge from the South Las Posas basin flows readily into the East Las Posas basin anta Rosa fault asin, restricting ifer that follows llow aquifer is in arge to the LAS as Posas basins There has been a significant change in average groundwater levels over the past 40 years in the South Las Posas basin, with groundwater levels rising more than 100 ft during this period. The mechanism for this rise in groundwater elevations is the increased recharge from percolation beneath the Arroyo Las Posas as discharges from the Moorpark and Simi Valley wastewater treatment plants and dewatering wells in Simi Valley have increase year-round flow in the arroyo. The entire alluvial aquifer near the arroyo has progressively filled to the elevation of the arroyo, starting in the easternmost portion of the basin in the 1960s and moving westward through the 1990s (Bachman, 2002). Water from the filled alluvial aquifer has percolated downward into the underlying Lower Aquifer System, creating a recharge mound in the Lower Figure 7). Past studies have considered the basin as largely confined, with perched water along a portion of its eastern edge. The conceptual hydrogeolo basis for the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model used the conc hydrogeology of the area, with these results integrated into the groundwater mo SANTA ROSA BASIN – The Santa Rosa basin (Figure 8) is the smallest FCGMA. Groundwater levels are heavily influenced by flows in the overlying discharges from a wastewater treatment plant and dewatering wells in Thous considerably increased year-round flows in the creek. Aquifers in the basin in alluvium aquifer and portions of the Lower Aquifer System. The structure dominated by the east-trending Santa Rosa syncline that folds the San P Barbara Formations (CSWRB, 1956). This syncline helps direct groundwate from the north. A sharp change in water level in the western part of the basin m a roughly north-trending fault that restricts groundwater flow (CDWR, 2003). and sulfate have been a problem in the basin. LAS POSAS BASIN –The Las Posas groundwater basin (Figure 8) is bounded the Camarillo and Las Posas Hills and on the north by South Mountain (CSWRB, 1954). The basin has been various ner and Mukae, 1975) or by West, East, and South basins (e.g., Hanson, Geological Survey terminology (Hanson, 1998) is used in this Management P aquifers in this basin include a shallow unconfined aquifer that is most transm Arroyo Las Posas and a lower confined aquifer system that is considered to be the Lower Aquifer System on the Oxnard Plain (Figure 9). South Las Posas Basin – This basin is separated from the East Las P east-trending anticline (fold) that affects all but the shallowest alluvium (Figure 9 affect groundwater flow between the East and South Las Posas basins at som although re at Lower Aquifer System (LAS) depths. To the south, the Springville and S zones produce disrupted and tightly folded rocks along the edge of the b groundwater flow to the south (CSWRB, 1956). There is a shallow alluvial aqu the trend of Arroyo Las Posas as it crosses the South Las Posas basin; this sha hydrologic connection with the underlying LAS and is the main source of rech (indicated as the recharge area along the south edge of the East and South L on Figure 10). 13 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 414 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Aquifer System that extends from the arroyo northward into the East Las Posas basin (CH2MHill, 1993; Bachman, 1999). wer Aquifer as Posas and ary between (Figure 9) is Salts (i.e., chloride, sulfate) in the groundwater have increased in the South Las Posas basin and the southwestern portion of the East Las Posas basin as the shallow aquifer filled along Arroyo Las Posas. These salts apparently were leached from the shallow aquifer as groundwater levels reached record highs, saturating sediments that have been unsaturated for the historic period. These salts apparently migrated vertically with percolating groundwater into the LAS and then laterally into the main portion of the East Las Posas basin as the recharge mound developed. Some of this groundwater is unsuitable for irrigation without being blended with better-quality water. Figure 8. Map of Las Posas and Santa Rosa basins. Contours of Lo groundwater elevations in 2006 indicate the recharge mound along Arroyo L the change in groundwater elevations across the fault that forms the bound the West and East Las Posas basins. The location of geologic section D-D’ indicated on the map. 14 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 ote ten times ate stratigraphic units. m the West Las H2MHill, 1993; (Figure 8). The sas basin to the ntly since urban rior to this time, lation of winter Arroyo Las Posas. Geochemical studies show that groundwater in the central portion of the East Las Posas basin is hundreds to thousands of years old (Izbicki, n. As discussed charges of both ng a year-round achman, 2002). rom the arroyo has created a recharge mound that extends northward into the East Las Posas basin, where groundwater levels have risen by 125 ft to 200 ft during the past 30 years. Conversely, pumping in the basin has resulted in falling groundwater levels in the eastern portion of the basin, away from the recharge mound. The largest drop in groundwater levels (190 ft) over the period 1973 to 1998 occurred in this region (Bachman, 1999). Groundwater levels have stabilized somewhat across the basin since the late 1990s, at least in part because of the addition of in-lieu and injected recharge by CMWD as part of the Las Posas Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) project. Figure 9. Geologic section D-D’. Simplified from Mukae and Turner (1975). N vertical exaggeration to accentu East Las Posas Basin – The East Las Posas basin is separated fro Posas basin by a north-trending unnamed fault running through Somis (C Hanson, 1998), across which groundwater levels differ by as much as 400 feet fault also acts as a barrier to transport of saline waters from the East Las Po West Las Posas basin (Bachman, 1999). The source of recharge to the East Las Posas basin has changed significa development of the Simi Valley and Moorpark areas over the last 30 years. P recharge was predominantly from rainfall on outcrop areas and from perco floodwater along the 1996b), indicating a slow rate of historical recharge along the flanks of the basi for the South Las Posas basin, urban development has brought increased dis treated wastewater and shallow groundwater into Arroyo Las Posas, providi recharge source for the South and East Las Posas basins (CH2MHill, 1993; B This increased percolation f 15 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 415 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 basins, with designations: sa. solated from the Posas basins by the north-south fault discussed in onnected to the rising and falling re interpreted to as Posas basin, in. Instead, the as Posas Valley In the eastern portion of the basin, just to the west of the north-trending fault at Somis, a groundwater level trough that was 35 ft below sea level in 1973 had dropped to 150 ft below sea level by 1998 (the trough has since stabilized, with a slight rise in groundwater levels during the last several years). Groundwater elevations slope from their highest point at the western end of the basin to their lowest point at the eastern end of the basin, indicating that recharge water flows from the Oxnard Plain eastward into the basin. There is a flow component from the northern flank of the basin, suggesting that there is also significant mountain-front recharge. Figure 10. Recharge and discharge areas of Las Posas and Santa Rosa confined portions of the aquifers indicated. See text for discussion. Basin WLP-West Las Posas, ELP-East Las Posas, SLP-South Las Posas, SR-Santa Ro West Las Posas Basin – The West Las Posas basin (Figure 8) is i recharge sources of the East and South Las the previous paragraphs. Instead, the West Las Posas basin is hydrologically c Oxnard Plain basin, with groundwater levels in the western portion of the basin with wet and dry climatic cycles of recharge. Groundwater elevation contours a extend continuously in the LAS from the Oxnard Plain basin into the West L suggesting that there is no hydrologic boundary at the western end of the bas western boundary of the basin is defined by surface features – the end of the L and the beginning of the flat terrain of the Oxnard Plain. 16 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 4.0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTIONS The FCGMA has collected records of extraction for wells within the Agency periods since 1985. These extraction records are entered into a compute individual wells that reported any pumping between 1985 and 1989 (known “Base Period”) have for semi-annual r database, and as the FCGMA been assigned Historical Allocations based on those extractions. These ng (Figure 12) and d water ordered ompare pumping . However, now 20-year period, . For instance, a 1987 and 2002 (the two driest years during the 20-year period, Figure 12) indicates that overall reported pumping declined by about 37,000 acre-feet per year (164,700 to 127,700 AFY) within the Agency. Likewise, comparing average precipitation years 1988 and 2000 (Figure 12) indicates that reported pumping was reduced by 36,800 acre-feet per year (160,500 to 123,700 AFY). extraction records are also used to calculate Conservation Credits and to determine pumpi trends within the FCGMA. Extractions vary from year to year (Figure 11) based largely on the amount patterns of rainfall for agricultural uses and the ratio of groundwater to importe by M&I providers in any year. This year-to-year variation makes it difficult to c from one year to the next without factoring in these climate and policy variations that there are historic records available that were gathered over at least a similar climatic years can be compared to determine general trends in pumping comparison of the dry years GMA Extractions 1985-2005 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 2003 2004 2005 Ex t r a c t i o n s ( A F Y ) 60,000 80,000 - 20,000 40,000 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Municipal&Industrial Agriculture Domestic Other/Unclassified g trend in FCGMA pumping occurred in different fashions for agriculture and M&I. Agricultural pumping decreased earliest, following the end of the 1986-1991 drought. This decrease in agricultural pumping has also been documented by UWCD (2002) in a study of agricultural efficiencies within the FCGMA. The increased irrigation efficiency is likely the result of improved irrigation systems such as drip tape and micro sprinklers that were installed within that time frame. A portion of the decrease in agricultural pumping can also be attributed to land conversion to urban uses (see discussion below) and increased yields from the Freeman Diversion and the Conejo Creek project that supplied growers an alternative water source to pumped groundwater. Figure 11. Reported extractions within the FCGMA for years 1985 to 2005. This apparent decreasin 17 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 416 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 FCGMA Extraction 1985-2005 vs Annual Precipitation 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 1 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 An n u a l E x t r a c t i o n s ( A F Y ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 An n u a l P r e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n / y r ) - 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 199 Extractions Precipitation e the general rainfall changes e of 40,000 AFY d an average of end creased (with an accompanying increase in potential water demand) as agricultural land has converted to urban use. An analysis of changes in land use ial photos taken in 1998 and 2002 indicates that about 1,150 acres converted from agriculture to M&I in the Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley areas. At the 0 AFY of new 0 Figure 12. FCGMA extractions plotted against annual precipitation to indicat correlation between rainfall and extractions. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) pumping is somewhat less affected by annual than agricultural irrigation. M&I pumping has been relative flat, with an averag pumped during the first decade of FCGMA reported pumping (1985-1994) an 38,300 AFY pumping during the past five years (2001-2005). However, this fla occurred as overall urban acreage in t pumping tr during the period between aer FCGMA conversion rate of two AFY per acre, that represents about 2,30 allocation to M&I during this four-year period. 5. WATER QUALITY ISSUES Water quality issues are discussed in two parts: current issues that are ev potential future threats that could occur within the basins of the FCGMA if pro not taken now through management strategies. 5.1 CURRENT WATER QUALITY ISSUES Seawater intrusion has long been the primary water concern within the FCGM problem for which the FCGMA was origina ident today and active steps are A and was the lly formulated to help fix. The intrusion occurs ical Survey also oving from the surrounding marine clays and older geologic units as pressure in the aquifers is reduced from overpumping. This type of intrusion may also be occurring on a minor scale in the Pleasant Valley basin. Chloride has also become a problem along Arroyo Las Posas, where groundwater from an area in the East and South Las Posas basins must be blended with lower-chloride water to meet irrigation suitability. This problem appears to have migrated downstream, with some of the City of Camarillo’s wells now affected. Chloride is also a problem in the Piru basin near the Los Angeles County line, where high chlorides from discharge of wastewater treatment plants along the Santa Clara River have exclusively along the coastline in the Oxnard Plain basin. The U.S. Geolog identified another type of saline intrusion on the Oxnard Plain – salts m 18 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 degraded the recharge water for the basin. This chloride problem is currentl Piru basin, although long-term recharge of poorer quality water could y isolated to the eventually move through ersion. d Plain Forebay jacent to the Forebay, nitrates affect drinking water wells of UWCD’s Oxnard-Hueneme wellfield, mutual water companies, and the City of Oxnard, dry periods. water levels that n 1989, the U.S. A) study in a series of 14 nested well sites with three or more wells installed at each site, were drilled and completed at specific depths in the Oxnard Plain, Oxnard Plain Forebay, Pleasant Valley, and Las Posas basins (Densmore, 1996). Figure 14 shows the locations of the RASA well sites on the Oxnard Plain. the groundwater basins along the Santa Clara River and reach the Freeman Div High nitrate concentrations in groundwater are a localized problem in the Oxnar and Santa Rosa basins. In and ad particularly during and following 5.1.1 Seawater Intrusion High chloride levels from intrusion of seawater were induced by lowered ground formed a distinct pumping trough in the southern Oxnard Plain (Figure 13). I Geological Survey initiated their Regional Aquifer-System Analysis (RAS cooperative effort with local agencies. As part of this and companion cooperative studies, a Figure 13. Groundwater elevations in the Upper Aquifer System in Fall 1978, indicating the large pumping trough in the south Oxnard Plain (water levels as much as 30 feet below sea level). This pumping trough, created by overpumping, pulled in seawater from the ocean. Saline intrusion is recognized in monitoring wells by concentrations of chloride and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) that are several times higher than the Basin Plan Objectives of 150 19 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 417 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 mg/L and 1,200 mg/L, respectively. In practice, the leading edge of the intrusi the Oxnard Plain as the first occurrence of chloride in excess of 500 mg/L. In have been intruded, chloride exceeds 10,000 mg/L. Th on is mapped on some wells that e increase in chloride concentration has 3 miles north of as intruded by mical analysis of on the extent of outhern Oxnard production wells ating the aquifer findings, many rative FCGMA- by the City of Oxnard, UWCD, FCGMA, and the County of Ventura. Figure 14 delineates the approximate extent of high-chloride water in the Oxnard aquifer (Upper Aquifer System). Figure 15 delineates the approximate extent of high-chloride water in the Lower Aquifer System. been rapid in some wells, increasing 1,000s of mg/L in a year or two. Prior to the RASA study, it was believed an area extending from approximately Port Hueneme to well SCE (near Highway 1) and south to Point Mugu w seawater. The installation of a dedicated monitoring network and detailed che water samples from the new wells and other wells yielded new interpretations seawater intrusion on the Oxnard Plain. It is now known some areas of the s Plain are not intruded by seawater, but that high chloride readings from older were the result of perched water leaking down failed well casings and contamin (Izbicki, 1992; Izbicki et al., 1995; Izbicki, 1996 a,b). As a partial result of these of the older wells on the Oxnard Plain have since been destroyed via a coope initiated program using Federal 319(h) grant money and matching funds contributed Figure 14. Areas of saline intrusion in the Upper Aquifer System of the Oxnard Plain in 2005-0 Contours of chloride concentrations indicate the maximum extent of the UAS saline intrusion 6. – individual aquifers within the UAS may be less intruded. Contour lines are dashed where inferred and queried where uncertain. Bathymetric contour lines indicate the offshore submarine canyons where the aquifers are eroded along the canyon walls and exposed to seawater. In addition to drilling and installing the nested monitoring wells, the USGS conducted geophysical surveys to determine the general extent of the high-saline areas (Stamos et al., 1992; Zohdy et al., 1993). This work indicated high-saline areas consisted of two distinct lobes, 20 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 with relatively fresh water separating the lobes (Izbicki, 1996a). The lobes identified by the maps. of the lobes are s of permeable rs are impacted, , the interpretation of high-chloride areas shown on the maps combine measured concentrations from the monitoring wells, geophysical measurements, and study results about the nature of the intrusion front. USGS form the basis of the areas of high chloride concentration shown on UWCD Additional down-hole conductivity surveys by the USGS indicate the edges relatively distinct, with the first saline intrusion occurring in thin individual bed sand and gravel. As intrusion continues, more individual beds or geologic laye resulting in increasing chloride levels within the affected aquifer. Thus 6. f chloride concentrations indicate the maximum extent of the LAS saline intrusion – in e inferred and qu anyons where th alls and exposed to seawater. In a roundwater samples fro e elevated chloride levels varies in the Oxnard Plain basin (Izbicki, 1991, 1992). Four major types of chloride degradation were documented: Lateral Seawater Intrusion - the inland movement of seawater adjacent to the Hueneme and Mugu submarine canyons. Cross Contamination - the introduction of poor-quality water into the fresh water supply via existing well bores improperly constructed or improperly destroyed, or via corroded casings caused by poor-quality water in the Semi-Perched zone. Figure 15. Areas of saline intrusion in the Lower Aquifer System of the Oxnard Pla Contours o in in 2005-0 dividual aquifers within the LAS may be less intruded. Contour lines are dashed wher eried where uncertain. Bathymetric contour lines indicate the offshore submarine c e aquifers are eroded along the canyon w ddition to monitoring wells and geophysical measurements, isotope studies of g m the nested wells indicate that the cause of th 21 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 418 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Salt-Laden Marine Clays - the dewatering of marine clays, interbedded and gravel-rich aquifers and containing salts from their marine depos concentrations of chloride-enriched water. This dewatering is the res within the sand ition, yields high ult of decreased ons - the lateral ter from older geologic formations caused by uplift along faults. in contact with younger aquifers across a revious section. ater intrusion in itigation measures are similar to those for seawater intrusion (i.e., raising groundwater levels). In more inland areas such as the Pleasant h only a few wells showing any in the Pleasant the Arroyo Las t Valley basins in groundwater gmented by the reated wastewater and aquifer dewatering projects along s, which are higher than any historic levels, reviously unsaturated portions of the aquifer. The problem rroyo Las Posas sin, where water ll likely be based ta Rosa basins. concentrations groundwater by man’s aquifers. Nitrate recharge water available for dilution. Nitrate concentrations commonly increase during dry periods when there is less recharge water for dilution. In groundwater away from recharge areas, nitrates have generally been diluted and are at concentrations well below drinking water standards. An exception to this occurred in the 1990s, when nitrate occurred in City of Oxnard wells in the Oxnard Plain basin, just outside of the Forebay basin. This nitrate may have migrated downward from the Semi-Perched zone through improperly abandoned private wells. The primary sources of nitrate are septic systems (especially if they are poorly maintained or being used above design capacity) and agricultural fertilizer. These are both being addressed. pressure in the aquifers, caused by regional pumping stresses (excessive groundwater withdrawals). Lateral Movement of Brines from Tertiary-Age Geological Formati movement of saline wa An example is where older Tertiary rocks are buried fault face near Pt. Mugu. 5.1.2 Saline Intrusion from Surrounding Sediments A significant portion of the salinity in the aquifers of the Oxnard Plain basin is c (primarily chloride) pulled from the surrounding sediments, as discussed in the p When this saline intrusion occurs near the coastline, it largely resembles seaw concentration and movement in the aquifer, and m oming from salts Valley basin, chloride concentrations are generally less, wit increase in chloride. It is too early to know whether chloride concentrations Valley basin will escalate to a problem affecting local pumpers. 5.1.3 High Salinity Associated with High Groundwater Levels Increased salt concentrations (chloride, sulfate, sodium) in aquifers underlying Posas in the East Las Posas, South Las Posas, and northern Pleasan correspond in time with rising groundwater levels along the arroyo. This rise levels has been created by increased recharge as natural streamflow was au addition of the upstream discharge of t the arroyo. The shallow groundwater level apparently leach salts from the p caused by high groundwater levels in the shallow aquifer has migrated down A across the Las Posas basin and into the northern part of the Pleasant Valley ba levels have risen and salts have increased. Solutions to this salinity problem wi on removing and treating the high-salinity water. 5.1.4 Nitrate in Groundwater High nitrates in groundwater primarily affect the Oxnard Plain Forebay and San Nitrate is a primary drinking water standard (45 mg/L as NO3), so high nitrate directly affect the potable water supply. Nitrate is largely introduced into activities in overlying recharge areas where the nitrate travels directly into the concentrations typically are a balance between nitrate input and the amount of 22 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 As discussed below, septic systems have been prohibited in the Oxnard Plain In addition, agricultural nitrate, contributed largely from fertilizers, will be moni part of the Agricultural Irrigated Lands Conditional Waiver program adopted by Regional Water Quality Control Board. If nitrates are shown to be entering groundwater from Forebay basin. tored in 2006 as the Los Angeles agricultural fertilizers through the monitoring program, the waiver requires the implementation of UES BY BASIN e concentrations e concentrations when there is primary drinking se much of the ay delivers potable water through the Oxnard-Hueneme (O-H) pipeline (a xnard and Port m has been able shutting down application) and ill continue to be continue to contribute this mineral salt into the groundwater resources. As a result of the high nitrate ater Quality Control Board enacted in 1999 a prohibition on sal systems be e, disconnecting as been a high usion from both irectly related to nd the offshore water recharge, in the recharge Oxnard Plain Forebay basin exert a positive pressure on the confined aquifers of the Oxnard Plain, and water flows from the recharge areas toward the coast (Figure 17). Whereas the pressure exerted by high water levels in the Forebay propagates rapidly through the aquifers, the actual movement of the water itself is slow, at approximately 3 feet per day or less in the Forebay (Izbicki et al, 1992). The pressure (piezometric) surface of the confined aquifer is diminished by the extraction of water from the system. If pressure heads at the coast fall below sea level, the lateral intrusion of seawater will occur. The dewatering of marine clays can occur if heads in the surrounding sediments remain below their historic levels for prolonged periods. Best Management Practices. 5.2 WATER QUALITY ISS 5.2.1 Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin The primary water quality concern in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin is nitrat above the Department of Health Services’ Maximum Contaminant Level. Nitrat in the Upper Aquifer System spike in the Forebay basin during dry periods reduced recharge to the basin. Nitrate concentrations periodically exceed the water standard of 45 mg/L (as NO3) in individual wells (Figure 16). Becau pumping in the Foreb potable water delivery line that provides groundwater to the cities of O Hueneme), the drinking water standard is of prime importance. The O-H syste to deliver potable water by blending lower-nitrate water and by temporarily impacted high-nitrate wells. These nitrates have been attributed to both agricultural activities (fertilizer adjacent septic systems (leach-line effluent discharges). The nitrate problem w a water quality issue for drinking water wells as long as the sources of nitrate concentrations, the Regional W septic systems in portions of the Forebay, with orders that most such dispo eliminated from the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin before 2008. Since that tim the nearby El Rio septic tanks and connecting to a sanitary sewer system h priority water quality improvement project for the County. 5.2.2 Oxnard Plain Basin The significant water quality issue in the Oxnard Plain basin is saline intr seawater and from surrounding marine sediments. Chloride degradation is d groundwater levels in the basin. The water balance of the Oxnard Plain a component of the aquifer units is a dynamic balance between ground groundwater extraction, and change in aquifer storage. High groundwater levels zone in the 23 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 419 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 200 20 40 60 80 100 0 2002 2004 2006 Ni t r a t e ( m g / L ) Figure 16. Nitrate concentrations (as NO3) in Oxnard-Hueneme El Rio well #5. Note that nitrate increases during dry portion of year, when nitrate input from overlying land uses is less diluted by low-nitrate recharge water. When nitrate levels are high, this well is either not used or the produced groundwater is diluted with low-nitrate water from other wells in the system. Figure 17. Groundwater elevation contours in the Upper Aquifer System, Fall 2006. Note that southeastern portion of Oxnard Plain remains below sea level (line labeled “zero”) and is susceptible to continued seawater intrusion. 24 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Chloride levels in coastal monitoring wells in the Upper Aquifer System relationship to groundwater levels – with groundwater levels below sea leve increased in the early 1990s (e.g., well A1 in show a direct l, chloride levels eman Diversion rs followed, the e area increased xnard Plain and n Figure 18). In rned to its pre-intrusion water quality levels and is currently (2006) within drinking water standards. This may be the first documented instance of such a reversal of seawater intrusion in a coastal basin. Figure 18). However, as the Fre on the Santa Clara River began operation in 1991 and a series of wet yea amount of recharge to the former pumping trough area and to the Port Huenem significantly. This has resulted in a rise in groundwater elevations on the O drastic reduction in seawater in some coastal monitoring wells (e.g., well A1 i fact, the significantly intruded well A1 has retu Figure loride leve loride leve bes are indicated in Figure 14. 18. Chloride levels in two Upper Aquifer System coastal monitoring wells. Note that ch ls have improved to drinking water quality in the A1 well (Port Hueneme lobe), whereas ch ls continue to increase in the Point Mugu lobe. Uncertainties in exact configuration of saline lo Monitoring Well A1-195 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 1989 1991 1 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t i o n ( f t m s l ) 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) 993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 0 WLE Chloride Monitoring Well CM6-200 40 60 2007 m s l ) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) -60 -40 -20 0 20 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t i o n ( f t WLE Chloride 25 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 420 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 26 not completely m the Freeman e and the higher ls are still at or rn portion of the pumping trough namely, that this r direct recharge d used in-lieu of he Oxnard Plain quifer System in 1950s (Mann, e Lower Aquifer least a portion of the cause for the low water levels and high chlorides depths. These Aquifer System om anics and older l as chloride-rich marine clays that serve as the aquitard between the Upper r, the County of nly replacement ells would have into the 2000s to the city of epest portion as 1990s. Despite ugh was still as ilt over the last 20 years have significantly improved conditions in the Upper Aquifer System, the Lower Aquifer System continues to experience intrusion by saline waters. This saline intrusion comes both from seawater entering the aquifers along the coastline and from saline waters intruded from surrounding sediments. Any solution to this saline intrusion must include raising water levels in the Lower Aquifer System while concurrently keeping water levels in the Upper Aquifer System at their current elevations. One of the biggest groundwater challenges is to provide either additional recharge or an alternative source of water to the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley to prevent further water quality degradation in the Lower Aquifer System. Despite some encouraging gains, however, the Upper Aquifer System is restored. Although high recharge rates related to the increased flows fro Diversion have improved water levels and water quality south to Port Huenem water levels appear to have eliminated the pumping trough, groundwater leve below sea level (Figure 17) and water quality continues to degrade in the southe Oxnard Plain near Point Mugu (e.g., well CM6 in Figure 18). It is likely that the situation is similar to the one discussed next for the Lower Aquifer System – portion of the Upper Aquifer System may be too far from the recharge areas fo to be effective, and must rely on artificial or in-lieu (surface water delivered an pumping groundwater) recharge methods to transport replacement water from t Forebay basin or other sources of supply. Groundwater levels in the Lower A the south and southeast Oxnard Plain and central and southern portions of the areas have been consistently below sea level since at least the early 1959)( Pleasant Valley Figure 19). The strategy to switch pumping from the Upper Aquifer to th has apparently been at that were encountered when the RASA monitoring wells were completed at LAS high chloride levels occur in several wells at the position of the two Upper seawater lobes (Figure 20). U.S. Geological Survey studies indicated that the chloride in the LAS occurr seawater intrusion, but also from slow dewatering of the surrounding volc sediments, as wel ed not just fr and Lower aquifer zones. After the U.S. Geological Survey findings became known and there was the realization the shift in pumping was actually mining LAS groundwate Ventura took action to change the County Well Ordinance (May 1999) so that o wells or special situations would be allowed to draw water from the LAS; new w to be drilled in the UAS. The decline in Lower Aquifer System water levels from the late 1980s exacerbated a pumping trough extending from the coastline northeastward Camarillo (Figure 19). This trough is typically well below sea level, with the de much as 180 feet below sea level during the drought of the late 1980s and early above-average rainfall in many of the preceding ten years, this pumping tro much as 100 feet below sea level in the fall of 2006 (Figure 19). Although FCGMA policies and new UWCD recharge facilities bu FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 19. Groundwater elevation contours in the Lower Aquifer System, Fall 2006. Note the distinct series of troughs that extend from the ocean in the south Oxnard Plain northeastward toward Camarillo. These troughs are entirely below sea level. The dashed line indicates the approximate trend of the steep groundwater flow gradients that separate the recharge area in the Forebay from the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley pumping trough. 27 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 421 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 ells. Chloride to be drilled f high-chloride in Figure 15. igh groundwater he potential for saline intrusion exists in the depressed groundwater elevations in the Lower Aquifer System of the Pleasant Valley basin (see previous section for discussion of these depressed groundwater levels). The area of depressed groundwater elevations extends from the City of Camarillo to the ocean (Figure 19). Chloride levels within the Pleasant Valley basin are generally less than 150 mg/L, but several wells have shown an increase in chloride. City of Camarillo wells near the Camarillo airport have been affected by the rising chlorides, with one well taken out of service. Increasing chlorides in other wells in the Pleasant Valley basin have recently been shown to have the geochemical signature of “oil-field production water” that underlies the fresh-water bearing aquifers in the basin (Izbicki et al., 2005). This poor-quality water likely was pulled up Figure 20. Chloride levels in two Lower Aquifer System coastal monitoring w levels continue to rise in the Point Mugu lobe, requiring new monitoring wells inland of current wells to determine the extent of landward movement o groundwater. Uncertainties in exact configuration of saline lobes are indicated 5.2.3 Pleasant Valley Basin Saline intrusion from surrounding sediments and salinity associated with h levels are the primary water quality concern in the Pleasant Valley basin. T Monitoring Well CM2-760 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t i o n ( f t m s l ) 8,000 10,000 12,000 ( m g / L ) 2005 2007 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Ch l o r i d e WLE Chloride Monitoring Well Q2-640 -40 -20 0 9 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 va t i o n ( f t m s l ) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) -120 -100 -80 -60 198 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e WLE Chloride 28 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 29 nduits towards the lower pressures of the LAS aquifer that were along fault zones or other co created by overpumping of the basin. 2N/20W-19F4 (City of Camarillo Well B) -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -200 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Wa t e r L e v e l E l e v a t i o n ( F t a b o v e m s l ) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Co n c e n t r a t i o n ( m g / L ) Water Level Elevation Chloride Sulfate TDS ey basin. area of the City arroyo have raised groundwater levels in the area to historic highs (Figure 21). Coincident with this, water quality has degraded, especially for the ride (Figure 21), iron, and manganese. As in the South Las Posas se. The City of while reducing .3 Development Basin). ere well above n the basin are 200 mg/L. High 5.2.5 West Las Posas Basin The water quality of the West Las Posas basin currently meets standards for irrigation and drinking water use. Within the pumping depression in the far eastern portion of the basin, samples from two wells have had increased chloride concentrations since 2004. It is not clear if this is the beginning of a trend or if these chlorides were transported into the basin from the shallow aquifer that is generally located along Arroyo Las Posas in the East Las Posas basin (the wells themselves are not along the arroyo). Figure 21. Salts increasing with groundwater elevations, northern Pleasant Vall Where Arroyo Las Posas crosses into the Pleasant Valley basin in the northern of Camarillo, the increased flows in the constituents sulfate, chlo basin, this higher-salinity water will need to be treated for potable or irrigation u Camarillo has evaluated the feasibility of treating this poor-quality water, pumping in the areas of depressed groundwater levels (discussed in section 9 of Brackish Groundwater, Pleasant Valley 5.2.4 Santa Rosa Basin The Santa Rosa basin has had long periods where nitrates in some areas w drinking water standards (as high as 200 mg/L). Chloride concentrations i generally between 100 and 150 mg/L, although they have spike locally above chloride concentrations can affect crop production. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 422 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 5.2.6 East Las Posas Basin Increasing concentrations of salts (chloride, sulfate, sodium) in the portion of the Arroyo Las Posas continue to be a problem in the East Las Posas b concentrations in the shallow aquifer beneath the arroyo can reach 360 mg/L, whereas chloride concentrations in the surface waters in the arroyo are in the range of 120-180 2002). These increased chloride concentrations in the shallow aquifer are historically-high groundwater levels (see discussion in section 5.1.3 High Sa with High Groundwater Levels) that apparently leach salts from previo sediments in the shallow aquifer along the arroyo. The groundwater that chloride-rich salts recharges the Lower Aquifer System by moving downward f aquifer into the LAS, then northward into the basin. This recharge has forme recharge mound beneath the Arroyo Las Posas ( basin along the ide mg/L (Bachman, associated with linity Associated usly-unsaturated contains these rom the shallow d a chloride-rich the main portion basin (Bachman, 2002). Individual wells along the south flank of the lling of the shallow aquifer, with a coincident increase in chloride e following section on the South Las Posas basin discusses the alts discussed in asin progressed ediments, water Two wells completed in the shallow aquifer beneath the arroyo that have had elevated salts for 20 years have shown a lessening of salinity in the past two years. It is not yet clear if these wells may be a precursor of further salt reduction as salts in the sediments are dissolved and the shallow aquifer begins to reflect the chemistry of surface water in the arroyo (which is higher in chlorides than pre-development conditions, but lower than the groundwater with dissolved salt). asin. Chlor Figure 22) and northward into of the East Las Posas basin show a progression of fi concentration (Figure 23). Th age progression of this filling. 5.2.7 South Las Posas Basin Water quality in the South Las Posas basin is dominated by the movement of s the previous section. The filling of the shallow aquifer of the South Las Posas b from the upstream to the downstream portions of the basin ( Figure 24). With continuing dissolution of salts in the previously-unsaturated s quality could improve as the salts are expended. 30 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 22. Chloride concentrations (2005-06) in aquifers beneath the Arroyo Las Posas in the East and South Las Posas basins. These concentrations have increased during the last two decades as the shallow aquifer beneath the arroyo has filled to its spill point, caused by increased flow in the arroyo from discharges from dewatering wells and wastewater treatment plants. (Bachman, 2002). Figure 23. Coincidence of groundwater level rise (blue line with squares) and chloride concentrations (red line with diamonds) in a well in the shallow aquifer along Arroyo Las Posas (Bachman, 2002). Chloride Chloride Chloride 2/20/9F1 (Lower) 906-1290' 0 50 150 200 250 1970 1980 1990 2000 lo r i d e 50 100 150 250 300 350 400 Wa L e v e l E l e v a t i o n 100Ch 200 te r 31 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 423 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 ’’8800ss ’’7700ss ’’6600ss g the Arroyo Las is the year when POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER QUALITY THREATS problems in the sea level, there om surrounding d/or petroleum- re water quality portion of the Pleasant Valley basin, within the City of Camarillo, increasing chloride concentrations could migrate into the main portion of the basin. However, the details of the hydrogeologic connections from the shallow aquifer to the Lower Aquifer System are still somewhat unclear. Likewise, salt-laden groundwater in proximity to California State University Channel Islands could also migrate from the shallow aquifers to deeper aquifers. This connection is also not well known and the mechanics of transport have yet to be adequately determined, although water level and quality monitoring from wells in the vicinity of the university suggests that the water quality in Lower Aquifer System wells is not affected by poor- quality water in the shallow aquifers. This suggests some barrier to vertical flow between the aquifers in this area. Figure 24. Beginning time of the progressive filling of the shallow aquifer alon Posas in the South and East Las Posas basins. The number next to each well groundwater levels started to rise during the filling episode. 5.3 An area of concern, discussed in the previous section, is potential water quality Pleasant Valley basin. With groundwater elevations as low as 160 feet below exists the potential to pull significant amounts of lower-quality water fr sediments, across or along faults, and from deeper depths (high salinity an tainted water). Mitigation of these low water levels is important to avoid futu problems. In the northern 32 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 There are also several other potential water quality concerns within the FCGM is a number of leaking underground tanks, some of which have polluted the ma basins. Past contamination has been localized and has been addressed throug up operations mandated by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Contro Ventura County Environmental Health Department. Water purveyors have involved to ensure rapid cleanup operations in some areas. The FCGMA has some of these efforts by water purveyors. There are also possibilities of m contamination by plumes of such contaminants as perchlorate. Large release have occurred in the Santa Susana Mountains adjacent to Simi Valley and A basins. There in aquifers in the h various clean- l Board and the become directly lent it support to ore-widespread s of perchlorate along the Santa proactive in fect the FCGMA rge projects that ra River and its the potential for reducing useable water resources – the amount of water available from stored water in Lake Piru and river water at the Freeman Diversion. Since rrent FCGMA water management strategies, any loss of yield from these projects would likely reduce some of the gains used in mitigating saline Clara River in Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County). The FCGMA may have to be the future in ensuring that these and other potential sources do not adversely af aquifers. A matter of future water quality concern is the maintenance of current recha positively affect the Oxnard Plain. Environmental issues in the Santa Cla tributary Piru Creek have these projects play an integral role in the cu intrusion within the Oxnard Plain. 6.0 BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 6.1 CURRENT OBJECTIVES Basin Management Objectives (BMOs) are quantitative targets established in basin to measure and evaluate the health of the basin. For groundwater basin intrusion, a critical BMO is maintaining groundwater levels along the coastline further intrusion of seawater. In addition, another BMO would be to concentrations, to the extent possib a groundwater s with seawater to prevent the maintain low le, of chloride at critical coastal monitoring wells. In inland areas, a BMO would be to ensure groundwater levels prevent conditions that cause oncentrations of de, at or below ops. Within the h of the basins. wn in Figure 25 . As part of the BMO attainment process, additional wells may be added to the monitoring process to provide early indications of improving or degrading aquifer conditions at critical locations. An example of such location would be at the north end of the Pleasant Valley Basin where poor quality water from the Las Posas Basin is apparently beginning to enter the Pleasant Valley Basin. This will be an iterative process that will allow the FCGMA to monitor both the current conditions and the relative success of basin management strategies implemented to control water quality in these areas. groundwater quality degradation. A concurrent BMO would be to maintain c deleterious chemical constituents in groundwater, such as nitrate and chlori levels that are harmful to human or animal health or damaging to irrigated cr FCGMA, several BMOs are appropriate to measure and evaluate the healt Wells used as monitoring points for the Basin Management Objectives are sho and described in the following paragraphs 33 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 424 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 6.1.1 Oxnard Plain Basin The BMO most critical for coastal areas of the FCGMA is the maintenance elevations high enough to prevent further seawater intrusion. Because the sou is likely from offshore submarine canyons where the aquifers are truncated and seawater, coastal aquifers must have groundwater elevations high eno movement of seawater from the canyons to nearby onshore areas (see discu 5.1.1 Seawater Intrusion and section 5.2.2 Oxnard Plain Basin). However, sea than fre of groundwater rce of seawater in contact with ugh to prevent ssions in section water is denser sh water and the heavier seawater exerts pressure on the fresh water aquifers exposed on the canyon walls – much like water pressure pushes on a diver’s mask when the diver descends. . the ocean depth where the aquifer is truncated along the canyon wall – there is the equivalent of 2.5 ft of head (pressure) exerted for every 100 ft of ocean depth. Therefore, an aquifer that is exposed on a submarine canyon wall at 200 ft ocean depth has 5 ft of head exerted on the aquifer by the more-dense seawater. To prevent seawater from intruding from the canyon wall and flowing through the aquifer to the coastline, coastal groundwater elevations must be, on average, at least as high as the head exerted by seawater. Thus, for the example given above, groundwater elevations in monitoring wells at the coastline must average at least 5 ft above sea level to prevent seawater intrusion. The greater ocean depth where the aquifer is exposed to seawater, the higher the average groundwater elevation required to prevent seawater intrusion. Figure 25. Wells used as monitoring points for Basin Management Objectives The pressure differential exerted on the fresh water aquifer depends upon 34 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 A set of wells was selected to establish the BMOs for the Oxnard Plain basin (F of these are coastal monitoring wells, completed at different aquifer depths w ( igure 25). Many ithin the Upper wells to detect if ssion in the LAS the groundwater water elevation gradient from the inland existing saline tions. ater levels are the Regional Wate lity C oard sin jective of 150 mg/L for chloride. bje ppe ifer S wells he Oxnard Plain basin. ths e We mber Table 2. Basin Management Objectives for Lower Aquifer System wells in the Oxnard Plain basin. Well name and perforation depths follow State Well Number. 6.1.2 Pleasant Valley Basin In the Pleasant Valley basin, groundwater elevation objectives were calculated to be slightly higher than coastal objectives to prevent landward migration of existing saline intrusion, and to Table 1) and Lower Aquifer Systems (Table 2). There are also several inland a new pumping depression forms in the UAS and if the existing pumping depre dissipates. Coastal groundwater elevation objectives were determined using elevation and water quality criteria in the preceding paragraph. Inland ground objectives were determined such that there is a slight groundwater areas to the coastline, thereby preventing further landward migration of the intrusion. The tables list the management objectives for each of the well comple The Ventura Regional Groundwater Model suggests that if these groundw maintained for an adequate period of time, additional saline intrusion will likely be minimized. Water quality objectives for chloride at these wells are also listed in the tables. These objectives follow r Qua ontrol B ’s Ba Plan Ob Well BMO Gro Current BMO Ch Current und r wate Le Table 1. Basin Management O ctives for U r Aqu ystem in t Well name and perforation dep follow Stat ll Nu . * Groundwater levels are average for last 10 years; chemical concentrations are average for last 3 years. vel ) (msl Level loride (m Chloride )*(msl g/L) (mg/L) 1N/23W-1C5 (CM3-145, 120-145) Average 3’ 9.2’<150 41 1N/22W-20J8 (A1-195, 155-195) Average 4’ 14.6’<150 177 1N/22W-20J7 (A1-320, 280-320) Average 8’ 15.5’<150 81 1N/22W-28G5 (CM4-200, 180-200) Average 5’ 9.0’<150 237 1N/22W-28G4 (CM4-275, 255-275) Average 7’ 8.4’<150 6,536 1N/21W-19L12 (SCE-220, 200-220) Average 5’ 11.3’<150 67 1S/22W-1H4 (CM6-200, 180-200) Average 5’ 1.8’<150 4,089 1S/22W-1H3 (CM6-330, 310-330) Average 8’ -12.5’<150 1,630 1S/21W-8L4 (CM1A-220, 200-220) Aver age 5’-4.9’<150 16,917 Well BMO Current BMO Current Groundwater Level (msl) Level (msl)* Chloride Chloride (mg/L) (mg/L) 1N/2 0-695) 3W-1C4 (CM3-695, 63 Average 17’ 15.4’<150 36 1 2W-29D2 (CM2-760, 7N/2 20-760) Average 19’ 0.2’<150 9,783 1S/22W-1H1 (CM6-550, 490-550) Average 13’ -33.3’<150 3,512 1S/21W-8L3 (CM1A-565, 525-565) Average 14’ -42.3’<150 4,161 1N/21W-7J2 (PTP #1, 590-1280) Average 20’ -52.0’<150 42 35 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 425 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 minimize vertical groundwater gradients that pull salts from encasing ma surrounding older marine and volcanic rocks, or from deeper waters within th basin. An additional BMO is to maintain chloride concentrations at or below the Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan rine clays, from e oil fields of the Regional Water Objective of 150 mg/L. These objectives are indicated in Table 3. Well BMO Ground water Level (msl) Current Level (msl)* BMO Chlo Current ride Chloride (mg/L) (mg/L) 1N/21W-3K1 (PV #4, 403-1433) Average 20’ -47.2’<150 107 1N/21W-21H2 (PV #10, 503-863) Average 20’ -51.9’<150 93 Table 3. Basin Management Objectives in the Pleasant Valley basin. Well name and perforation standards have tection of public e management UWCD) because t objectives will t one-half or less of the Maximum Contaminant Level for drinking is ncentrations higher than the BMO of ate the California Department o Serv e TD tive is the Regional Board’s Basin Plan Objective of 1,200 mg/L. These BMOs are set at two representative pumping wells ( Wellfi ble 4). depths follow State Well Number. 6.1.3 Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin In the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin, nitrate concentrations above drinking water historically been a recurring problem. BMOs in the Forebay basin focus on pro drinking water wells (nitrate and TDS) and irrigation suitability (TDS). Th objectives are chosen for wells in the Oxnard-Hueneme wellfield (operated by this is the largest potable water system in the Forebay. The managemen maintain nitrate concentrations a water (45 mg/L of NO3 which 22.5 mg/L, w f Health a primary drinking-water standard); at co r purveyors must increase monitoring and reporting to ices. Th S objec set at Figure 25) in the O-H eld (Ta Well BMO Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L) Current Nitrate (mg/L)* BMO Current TDS TDS (mg/L) (mg/L) 2N/22W-23B2 (135-277) <22.5 13 <1200 1044 2N/22W-23C5 (140-310) <22.5 8 <1200 1010 Table 4. Basin Management Objectives for the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin. Pe follow State Well Number. rforation depths tly to observed groundwater levels, because the Ca direct injection into the aquifer) creates artificially high groundwater levels that are not indicative of the state of the basin. Instead, the proposed East Las Posas Basin Management Plan (Appendix C) contains a method to use groundwater levels along with a computerized groundwater model to monitor the health of the basins. The recharge mound that is moving northward from the Arroyo Las Posas (Bachman, 2002) has mobilized salts from the shallow aquifer (primarily located along the Arroyo) vertically downward into the Lower Aquifer System and then north into the main portion of the basin. This 6.1.4 Las Posas Basins In the South and East Las Posas basins, BMOs cannot be linked direc lleguas MWD aquifer storage project (in-lieu deliveries and * Groundwater levels are average for last 10 years; chemical concentrations are average for last 3 years. 36 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 subsurface movement of groundwater occurs because the head (pressure) in th than in the UAS. Therefore, an appropriate BMO for the East and West Las P maintain a chloride concentration tha e LAS are lower osas basins is to t is suitable for agricultural irrigation use (this concentration cted both in the migrating salts. mg/L to protect noted that salt as Posas basin. y dissolving salts linity Associated the South Las in the South Las e concentration of the surface water in Arroyo Las Posas, which is the concentration that wo ly be whe dis rom sediments are either removed or have migrated re, a roun r the cts the chemistry of its primary recharge source. is well below the standard for drinking water). Monitoring points for these BMO chloride concentrations (Figure 25) were sele degraded southern portion of the basin, as well as in areas unaffected by the The East and West Las Posas basins’ objective for the chlorides is set at 100 salt-sensitive crops such as avocados and berries (Table 5). It should be concentrations, and especially chloride, are already high within the South L This chloride is caused by groundwater at historically high elevations apparentl from sediments that were historically unsaturated (see section 5.1.3 High Sa with High Groundwater Levels). Specific management strategies to address Posas basin are discussed later in this Plan. The BMOs for chloride and TDS Posas basin are set at the averag uld like attained nd the g n salts solved f n refle elsewhe dwate Well BMO Chloride (mg/L) Current Chloride (mg/L)§ BMO T Current DS (m TDS g/L) (mg/L) 2N/20W-9F1 (906-1290)(ELP) <100 164 <500 1,196 2N/20W-9R1 (456-724)(ELP) <100 187 <500 1,330 2N/20W-1E1 (567-907)(ELP) <100 28 <500 638 2N/20W-6R1 (1090-1512)(WLP) <100 12 <600 520 2N/20W-8F1 (752-1406)(WLP) <100 34 <600 410 2N/19W-6N3 (101-121)(SLP) <160 150 <1500 1,500 Table 5. Basin Management Objectives for the Las Posas basins. Perforation d identifier follow State Well Number. epths and basin ater quality criteria for water injected into the East Las Posas basin as letter from the injection/extraction facility. These criteria include: sodium absorption ratio 1-4 meq/L, TDS 100- 800 mg/L, electrical conductivity not to exceed 1100 uMHO, chloride not to exceed 120 mg/L, boron not to exceed 1 mg/L, and nitrate (presumably as NO3) less than 45 mg/L. 6.1.5 Santa Rosa Basin Basin Management Objectives for the Santa Rosa basin follow the Regional Board’s Basin Plan Objectives (Table 6). There are also specific w part of the Las Posas Basin ASR project. These criteria are included in a FCGMA to Calleguas MWD dated July 12, 1994 that approved the project as an §Groundwater levels are average for last 10 years, chemical concentrations are average for last 3 years. 37 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 426 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Well BMO Nitrate (mg/L) Current Nitrate (mg/L)* BMO Chlori Current de Chloride (mg/L) (mg/L) 2N/20W-25C5 (Unknown) <45 116 <150 145 2N/20W-25D1 (UAS) <45 60 <150 78 Table 6. Basin Management Objectives for the Santa Rosa basin. Aquifer designation (if known) llow ) are currently PD and UWCD. e being met only System (see description and discussion of the Oxnard Plain uifer System, r levels are well to the Pleasant eness of current hese results are thin the sections model results were compared to the groundwater level goals el. For instance, umping can be ter quality, such roundwater flow oundwater levels del period for the are at or above e Lower Aquifer ndwater levels meet or exceed the BMOs at least half the time – meeting BMOs all the time is a more conservative es not take into before the basin MOs during dry during wet periods as groundwater levels rose above the BMOs. This has been the experience in the Upper Aquifer near Port Hueneme, where seawater moved inland and then receded with climatic variations in groundwater elevations below and above the BMOs for that area. BMOs for LAS groundwater elevations are not being met in the Pleasant Valley basin because of this wide trough of depressed groundwater elevations (see map and discussion in section 3.0 Groundwater Basins and Hydrogeology). BMOs for chloride concentrations are not currently being met in all portions of the basin, with chlorides increasing in several wells. A study fo s State Well Number. 6.2 ASSESSMENT OF BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES The parameters for the proposed Basin Management Objectives (BMOs monitored on a regular frequency throughout the FCGMA, primarily by the VCW Along the coastline of the southern portion of the Oxnard Plain basin, BMOs ar in a portion of the Upper Aquifer basin in section 3.0 Groundwater Basins and Hydrogeology). Within the Lower Aq BMOs are significantly different than observed measurements. Groundwate below sea level both near the coastline and in a wide trough that extends in Valley basin beneath the City of Camarillo. The Ventura Regional Groundwater Model was used to determine the effectiv and future management strategies in meeting BMOs for groundwater levels. T reported under each management strategy and are summarized in Table 8 wi on management strategies. The set in the BMOs for each strategy that was amenable to evaluation by the mod strategies that involve shifting the place or amount of recharge and/or p effectively simulated using the model. Strategies that deal exclusively with wa as reductions in nitrate sources, are not amendable to evaluation using the g model. When current management strategies are applied in the model, BMOs for gr are met or exceeded in 51% of the quarterly time-steps during the 55-year mo Upper Aquifer System (meaning that about half of the time groundwater levels the BMO values and half the time they are below) and only 5% of the time for th System. Successful management strategies are those where grou approach, but requires much larger and more expensive strategies and do account the natural climatic variations in groundwater levels that occurred even was pumped extensively. When coastal groundwater elevations are below the B periods, seawater could be pulled into the aquifers, but would then be pushed out 38 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 conducted by UWCD (see following section) indicate some of these chlorides from depth with “oil-field production water” might be pulled aring aquifers in (Izbicki et al, 2005). Chloride concentrations are being carefully monitored in the However, nitrate ically been at or ates have been ns were at their erous individual high nitrate levels in the Forebay, as ed to be caused thin the FCGMA. each-line septic n Forebay basin he adjacent City s is being put into effect in 2005-2006 by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. ll likely decrease education. By e percolating to in management 9R1, Figure 25). lls. Farther into 0 mg/L, well below the BMO. In the West Las Posas basin, chloride concentrations remain below the BMO rge est and East Las Posas basins appears to be an poor-quality water in the East Las Posas basin does not flow into the western basin. Of concern, however, is the recent transient occurrence of west of the fault. It is not yet known if this is the g of the fault by ** that underlies the fresh-water be the basin Pleasant Valley basin. In the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin, BMOs are being met most of the time. concentrations in individual wells in the Oxnard-Hueneme wellfield have period above the drinking water standard during drought. Currently, these high nitr evident only during the driest portions of the year when pumping water elevatio maximum depth. Both fertilizers from overlying agriculture operations and num septic tanks are likely contributors to the recurring discussed in the following section. Nitrate problems continue to plague the Santa Rosa basin as well. The high nitrate concentrations in the Santa Rosa basin are also believ by excessive fertilizer use and numerous individual septic systems. Two emerging processes could significantly improve source control of nitrate wi Ventura County is in the process of eliminating hundreds of concentrated l systems located in the El Rio area of the southern portion of the Oxnard Plai and the northern Oxnard Plain basin; the homes will be connected instead to t of Oxnard wastewater system. In addition, the Conditional Discharge Waiver for Irrigated Land This process, with sub-watershed sampling of runoff from agricultural lands, wi the loading of nitrates from fertilizer through Best Management Practices and 2010, the required monitoring will likely extend to agricultural waters that ar groundwater, in addition to the current emphasis on surface waters. In the East Las Posas basin, chloride concentrations are higher than the bas objective in the two wells closest to the Arroyo Las Posas (wells 9F1 and Chloride concentrations as high as 273 mg/L have been detected in these we the main portion of the basin, well 1E1 has chloride concentrations of less than 3 la ly because the fault that separates the W effective barrier to groundwater flow and the higher chlorides in two wells just to the beginning of wider-spread degradation or if this is caused by periodic overtoppin poor quality waters in the shallow aquifer along the Arroyo Las Posas. 7.0 YIELD OF THE GROUNDWATER BASINS 7.1 ORIGINAL FCGMA CALCULATION The approximate yield of all basins within the FCGMA was calculated for the original management plan as approximately 120,000 AFY. This yield was based on a water budget for the year 1980, with estimates of the water balance for every fifth year to 2010. In the year 2010, there were estimated to be extraction rates 25% higher than recharge rates. This calculation is **Izbicki compared the isotopic composition of the sampled groundwater with that of water produced with the oil that was pumped from nearby shallow oil wells. 39 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 427 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 the origin of the 25% pumping reduction required by the FCGMA. The potentia the assumptions that went into the original balance calculation were not d previous Management Plan, but they are likely to be relatively hig l inaccuracies in iscussed in the h (e.g., Bachman et al, 2005). discussed in more detail below. m an aquifer or ts. Undesirable adation of water from the basin does not mean that the same amount ove or below the t plans. If water s determined by ently interpreted by courts to define the legal rights to in Bachman et al, 2005). Outside of judicial oce re commonly used for basin yield. For the nial yield” which rable result (i.e., a basin’s water levels are evaluated over at least hydrologic conditions vary throughout determine if the yield has been e trend suggests a continual drop in water levels irable results are likely to eventually occur e in a state of overdraft. hman et al, 2005): average hydrologic base period, • Groundwater modeling, • Annual retained inflow and change in groundwater levels, • Pumping trough in a coastal aquifer (basin yield is exceeded if pumping trough at the ocean creates conditions for seawater intrusion). The yield calculation for the 1985 FCGMA Management Plan used the hydrologic balance method – summing up all the water inputs and outputs to determine how much could be extracted from the basins. The calculation was not done over a period of wet and dry years, which is the current standard. The basin yield for this Management Plan was calculated using Note that this yield is not basin-specific, which is 7.2 DEFINITION OF BASIN YIELD The yield of a basin is the average quantity of water that can be extracted fro groundwater basin over a period of time without causing undesirable resul results include permanently lowered groundwater levels, subsidence, or degr quality in the aquifer. A basin is in overdraft if the amount of water pumped exceeds the yield of the basin over a period of time. This of water must be pumped each year – pumping in individual years may vary ab yield of the basin during drought or wet years, or as part of basin managemen management in the basin changes, the yield of the basin may change. The term “safe yield” is often used in judicial proceedings for basin yield; it i technical professionals and subsequ extract groundwater in a basin (further discussion pr edings, terms such as “perennial yield” a purpose of this Management Plan, the term “yield” is synonymous with “peren follows the definition in the previous paragraph. 7.3 METHOD OF CALCULATING BASIN YIELD To evaluate whether falling groundwater levels are likely to cause an undesi whether the basin is presently in overdraft), one complete hydrologic cycle to establish a trend. Since long periods of time spanning multiple years, conditions must be analyzed each year and over over a long period (generally several decades) to accurately exceeded such that overdraft is present. If th over time, even after wet year conditions, then undes and the basin is considered to b Methods to determine basin yield include (e.g., Bac • Hydrologic balance, • Change in groundwater levels over an • Zero net groundwater level fluctuation, • The correlation between groundwater levels and extractions, • Change of storage vs. extractions, • Calculation of groundwater inflow, 40 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 the groundwater modeling method. This method integrates aspects of some of the other erage hydrologic d •A pumping trough in a coastal aquifer is one of the criteria to determine if the basin yield rologic balance d outputs (Table ntly. The groundwater model also has similar inputs and outputs, but the groundwater model is calibrated to match actual measured groundwater levels over a long period o and d . This calibration of some of the potential errors in a water budget calculation. methods: •A hydrologic balance is calculated in the model; •One of the model outputs is a change in groundwater levels over an av base period; an has been exceeded. The groundwater model technique is more rigorous than the 1985 hyd calculation because the calculation of a water budget depends upon inputs an 7) to the groundwater basins which can be difficult to estimate independe f wet ry years the groundwater model lessens Model Parameter Input Output Aquifer geometry Yes Recharge, discharge areas Yes Aquifer properties (e.g., transmissivity, storage coefficient) Yes itions at edge of model YesBoundary cond Faults Yes n YesRainfall percolatio Streamflow Yes Recharge from adjacent bedrock Yes Irrigation return flow Yes Artificial recharge Yes Pumping Yes Groundwater elevations For calibration Yes Groundwater flow from one area to another (horizontal & vertical) Yes Table 7. Inputs and outputs from groundwater flow model (Ventura Regional Gro The groundwater model used was constructed by the U.S. Geological Survey RASA study (Hanson et al, 2003), which has since been updated and undwater Model). as part of their upgraded by UWCD. The groundwater model is described in more detail in Appendix B. The model was also used to test model runs was also used as a during the last he 55-year period – modern and future man-made inputs and outputs such as water facilities, pumping, and artificial recharge are added to the model to determine both the current state of the basin and the future state of the basin with new management strategies applied. There is little doubt that the coastal basins within the FCGMA have exceeded their yield and been in overdraft for several decades. The over-arching undesirable result of lowered groundwater levels has been seawater and other saline intrusion. A key aspect of the modeling was to determine the basin yield such that these undesirable results caused by lowered groundwater levels were eliminated. the efficacy of various management strategies. The base period used for the 1944 to 1998, which encompasses several wet and dry cycles; this period was base period in the Santa Paula basin and Santa Maria basin adjudications decade. The base period is only used in the model to simulate the natural hydrology over t 41 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 428 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Basins within the FCGMA that do not abut the coastline and do not themselv intrusion cannot be evaluated directly for this undesirable result. The Management Plan handled this by treating all the basins of the FCGMA as a co action in one of the basins would also affect the other basins – so pumping in o groundwater levels in adjacent basins. There is ample evidence that this prop to be correct, with potentially two exceptions (East and South Las Posas basin Plain Forebay, Pleasant Valley, West Las Posas, and Santa Rosa basins are connected to the coastal basins, evidenced by the continuity of groundwater ele across their boundaries. The East and South Las Posas basins appear to b disconnected within the subsurface from the other basins, separated from ad either the north-south fault between the East and West Las Posas basins discontinuity between the basins and the northern Pleasant Valley basin at LAS in this Management Plan, the East and South Las Posas basins are combine basin yield and the remaining basins are combined for the same purpose. An combination is the Oxnard Plain F es have saline 1985 FCGMA mmon pool – an ne basin affects osition continues s). The Oxnard all hydrologically vation contours e hydrologically jacent basins by or a structural depths. Thus, d in determining example of this orebay basin – although the basin regularly fills during wet drologic barriers etermining basin lculated by the ter model for the 55-year forward model period were then compared to the section 6.0 Basin Management Objectives in the various basins to determine how close the modeled ater levels. Because the model simulates con ater levels were com esults of these com The nfiguration (see led groundwater than half of the ely to occur and the basins were r decreased by et the criteria of ove BMOs for more than half of the time, but not exceed, BMOs. Extraction were modified in two ways: a) changes were made proportionately to all wells in the basins within the FCGMA, and b) changes were made only in portions of the basins that were tailored to prevent undesirable effects (e.g., extractions were reduced in the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley only). 3) As an additional calculation, all of the management strategies in this Management Plan were combined in one model scenario to simulate whether Basin Management Objectives can be met when all the strategies were applied – in other words, can these objectives be met with the tools that may be available. periods, it is so directly connected to the Oxnard Plain basin (there are no hy preventing flow between the basins) that it is not considered separately in d yield. To determine the yield of the two sets of basins, groundwater levels ca groundwa groundwater levels were to the objective groundw ditions over several wet and dry climatic cycles, average modeled groundw pared to the objectives. The following section summarizes the r parisons. basin yield calculation was accomplished in several steps: 1) The groundwater model was run in its 55-year forward model co Appendix B) with current management strategies included. If mode levels were at or higher than Basin Management Objectives for more time, then undesirable effects such as seawater intrusion were less lik the basins were considered to be operated within their yield. If not, then considered to be operating in excess of their yield. 2) Groundwater extractions in the basins were either increased o stepwise amounts to determine the amount of pumping that would me modeled groundwater levels being at or ab 42 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 7.4 BASIN YIELD n (see Appendix 51% of the time nt with observed s in the Upper Os in the Lower e that the basins not being operated within their yield under the current pumping patterns effects such as the forward model until BMOs , two methods of xnard Plain and . plied to all wells e when FCGMA ping. When the e south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins, overall FCGMA pumping is reduced to about 100,000 AFY to attain the same Lower Aquifer BMO goals. Because the significant lowering of groundwater levels has occurred in the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley areas, it is appropriate that this is where pumping reductions should occur, as they have through historic in-lieu water deliveries. Thus, 100,000 AFY appears to be an appropriate number for basin yield. When current strategies were applied in the Base Case groundwater model ru B), groundwater levels in the Upper Aquifer System met or exceeded BMOs and in the Lower Aquifer System 5% of the time. These results are consiste groundwater conditions today, where groundwater levels are close to BMO Aquifer (and seawater is largely being held back) and significantly below BM Aquifer. Thus, both the model results and observed groundwater levels indicat within the FCGMA are and management strategies – lowered groundwater levels create undesirable saline intrusion. To determine basin yield, pumping was then reduced step-wise in were met at least half the time during the model simulation. As indicated above pumping reductions were used – GMA-wide and targeted only to the south O Pleasant Valley basins. The results of these model runs are shown in Figure 26 Figure 26 indicates that when progressively greater pumping reductions are ap within the FCGMA, Lower Aquifer BMOs are attained at least 50% of the tim pumping is reduced to about 65,000 AFY – about half of current average pum reductions are limited to th Basin Management Objectives at Varying Pumping Reductions R2 = 0.9977 R2 = 0.9971 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Average Annual GMA Pumping (AFY) in m e n t o f B M O s , L o w e r A q u i f e r 10% 20% At t a GMA-Wide Targeted Curve fit Figure 26. Groundwater model results from progressively reducing FCGMA pumping both agency-wide (diamond symbol) and targeted to the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins (square symbol). Results are indicated as percent of time that BMOs are met or exceeded in the Lower Aquifer System. R2 values are indicated for the two curve fits. 43 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 429 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 The was reduced by s to achieve this primary historic his Plan. n the projects in ases the yield of hould be no net there would be radients. Thus, back during wet t Hueneme). To e Lower Aquifer goal that would rge quantities of . The 50% attainment of BMOs should be considered as an initial target level, but should be revisited as that goal is If water quality in the ,000 AFY that is into one simulation o t strategies discussed in section 9.0 Management Strategies Under Development and section 10.0 Potential Future Management be met 67% of plication of the FCGMA. re are three caveats to this calculation of basin yield: 1) Overall pumping in the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley areas about 25,000 AFY (an 85% reduction). There are several approache reduction, with replacing the pumping with in-lieu deliveries being the method that is also favored in the management strategies discussed in t 2) The yield of the basins is not a forever-fixed number, but depends upo the basin – increasing the amount of recharge in the basins also incre the basins. Therefore, the yield of the basins must be recalculated periodically as new projects become operational and conjunctive use is increased. 3) When Lower Aquifer BMOs are attained 50% of the time, there s movement of seawater within the aquifers. However, during dry periods onshore gradients and during wet periods there would be offshore g seawater may move landward during the dry periods and be pushed periods (which has been evident over the past 15 years at coastal Por create conditions such that seawater could never move landward, th goals would have to be met nearly 100% of the time – an unrealistic require very large pumping reductions and create conditions where la fresh water were flowing to the ocean almost all the time approached to ensure that it is sufficiently protective of the aquifers. problems continue as the 50% attainment level is approached, an increase attainment level should then be considered. Thus, the basin yield of 100 tied to the 50% attainment level may have to be adjusted in the future. An additional basin yield task was to apply all the future management strategies f the model to determine whether Basin Management Objectives could be met if these strategies were in place. After applying the managemen Strategies, the groundwater modeling indicates that Upper Aquifer BMOs could the time and Lower Aquifer BMOs could be met 76% of the time. Thus, ap management strategies in this Plan apparently can solve the overdraft within the 8.0 CURRENT GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES This Plan evaluated three types of management strategies for effectivenes implemented management strategies; 2) strategies under development where s already been taken to design and implement those strategies; and 3) management strategies. Current strategie s: 1) currently ome action has potential future s were evaluated by measuring their effect on changing groundwater levels and improving groundwater quality. Proposed and future strategies were evaluated using the Ventura County Regional Groundwater Model (an empirical computer simulation of groundwater flow described in Appendix B). Several management strategies were adopted as part of the original 1985 FCGMA Management Plan. In addition, several other strategies were also implemented in the ensuing period since 1985. The previously-adopted 1985 FCGMA management strategies are discussed first, followed by the additional strategies. The effectiveness of these management strategies is then evaluated in the following discussion. 44 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 8.1 DESCRIPTION OF 1985 FCGMA MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGIES agement strategies that wing general strategies. ping within the Ordinance No. via phased 5% rategy, pumping llowances were orical Allocation from farming to blished for lands ed in 1989 and t allows farmers % efficient (less . Baseline and re exempt from the mandatory 25% reductions. To discourage ater pumped in 00/AF under a at rate that was nce No. 8.1, also has a provision for establishing Conservation Credits by extracting less groundwater than the Historical Allocation. ions exceed the and applied to r. Conservation dits are allowed to accumulate with no restrictions, allowing some pumpers to accumulate credits for tens of thousands of acre-feet of water. rent reduction of d additional 5% have asked for a is Management vation nagement Plan” conserve water. Many farmers, individual households, and cities have adopted voluntary agricultural and urban water conservation programs. For several years, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the County Planning Department designated Planner positions as “Water Conservation Coordinators.” This program no longer has funding, but the water conservation program created material that continues to be distributed to schools and the public. A Countywide Wastewater Reuse Study, prepared in 1981, identified wastewater reuse opportunities in the Las Posas Valley from either the Simi Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant or the Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Plant, and identified an opportunity to use recycled The original 1985 FCGMA Management Plan specified several man would be implemented. These included the follo 8.1.1 Limitation of Groundwater Extractions The most visible of the FCGMA strategies was the phased reduction in pum FCGMA, implemented under FCGMA Ordinance No. 5 (now Chapter 5 within 8.1). This strategy called for a 25% pumping reduction over a 20-year period incremental cutbacks to Historical Allocations every 5 years. As part of this st allocations, conservation credits, and agricultural irrigation efficiency a implemented. To allow inherent flexibility, the Ordinance provides for Hist adjustments of no more than two acre feet per acre when land use changes municipal/industrial. A Baseline Allocation of one acre foot per acre was esta without allocations or lands that were developed after the baseline period end were dependent upon groundwater. In addition, an Efficiency Allocation tha sufficient allocation to grow different crops as long as they remain at least 80 than 20% of irrigation water runs off, leaches, or goes to deep percolation) Efficiency allocations a overpumping, the FCGMA Ordinance imposes an extraction surcharge on all w excess of the annual allocation. The penalty initially ranged from $50/AF to $2 four-tiered system; however, that system was modified in favor of a single fl adjusted upward to $725/AF. Ordinance No. 5, now part of Ordina Conservation Credits can be used to avoid paying penalties when extract allocation. A second type of credit, Injection or Storage, may be established future extractions when foreign water is injected or percolated into the aquife cre The required phased 5% reductions occurred in 1992, 1995, and 2000 for a cur 15% of allocation for pumpers using their Historical Allocation. The planne reduction for 2005 has been delayed per a request from M&I well owners who re-evaluation of the effectiveness of such reductions as part of formulating th Plan. 8.1.2 Encourage Both Wastewater Reclamation and Water Conser The Ventura County Planning Department prepared a “Water Conservation Ma which recommended various voluntary measures that could be employed to 45 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 430 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 wastewater from the Thousand Oaks/Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plan the Oxnard Plain. Since that report, the Moorpark Wastewater Treatment plant tertiary disinfection and a portion of the recycled water is supplied for irrigatio courses. The Thousand Oaks/Hill Canyon project (now known as the Conejo project) has been in opera t for irrigation on has upgraded to n to nearby golf Creek Diversion tion for several years; it is discussed in the following section. In addition, the City of Oxnard’s proposed recycled water project is discussed in section 9.1 Oxnard Plain Seawater Intrusion Abatement Project Wells, ted Santa Clara the amount of 7). When river pipeline. The sion dikes in the re, now allows for diversion of river storm version helped ion caused by in-stream gravel mining. The ontrol Project by ng Criteria for the Oxnard Plain – The combination of FCGMA policies and water conservation facilities have effectively moved pumping away from the coastline and from the Upper Aquifer System to the Lower Aquifer System. The switch in aquifer pumping is discussed in the next FCGMA strategy. The effectiveness of these criteria is discussed in section 8.3 Effectiveness To-Date of Current Management Strategies. GREAT Project (Recycled Water). 8.1.3 Operation of the (UWCD’s Pumping Trough Pipeline, Lower Aquifer System Freeman Diversion)– The Pumping Trough Pipeline (PTP) was constructed in 1986 to convey diver River water to agricultural pumpers on the Oxnard Plain, thus reducing groundwater extractions in areas susceptible to seawater intrusion (Figure 2 water is not available, five Lower Aquifer System wells pump water into the Freeman Diversion (1991), which replaced the former use of temporary diver Santa Clara River with a permanent concrete structu flows throughout the winter rainy season. As a side benefit, the Freeman Di stabilize the riverbed after years of degradat permanent Freeman Diversion increased the yield of the Seawater Intrusion C about 6,000 AFY over the previous means of temporary diversion. 8.1.4 Operati 46 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 El Rio Spreading Grounds, Oxnard Hueneme Wellfield (potable)Freeman Diversion Saticoy and Noble Spreading Grounds Pleasant Valley Pipeline (irrigation) Oxnard- Hueneme Pipeline (potable) Pumping Trough Pipeline (irrigation) ain. fication Restrictions on Upper Aquifer System Water Wells – Plain basin, the er System in the ed in the Lower ffectiveness To- cause overdraft are called Sealing Zones 1 opted by the County. This new well ordinance, S beneath the Oxnard Plain, instead requiring S. This shift in a complete reversal in which aquifers are targeted for production based on findings from the U.S. Geological Survey RASA study and observations from the network of monitoring wells. Since the County Well Ordinance was revised in 1998, only replacement wells or situations with no other water supply option available may tap into the LAS beneath the Oxnard Plain. 8.1.6 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Program The FCGMA and UWCD participated with the USGS in installing (circa 1990) a series of multiple-completion nested monitoring wells along coastal areas of the Oxnard Plain basin and Figure 27. Elements of the Seawater Intrusion Control Project on the Oxnard Pl 8.1.5 Construction/Modi In areas where they could cause overdraft or seawater intrusion in the Oxnard County adopted a well ordinance that prohibited new wells in the Upper Aquif Oxnard Plain basin, instead requiring new and replacement wells to be drill Aquifer System. The effectiveness of this strategy is discussed in section 8.3 E Date of Current Management Strategies. This policy has now been shifted. A new policy for areas where pumping could or seawater intrusion in the Oxnard Plain basin (especially in what and 2 where multiple aquifer layers exist) was ad adopted in 1998, prohibited new wells in the LA new and replacement wells to be drilled into the more-easily replenished UA pumping was effected by a change in the County Well Ordinance to institute 47 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 431 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 in a few inland areas. These wells allow measurement of groundwater levels water quality at two to six discrete aquifer depths at each well site. These wells wide range of productions wells, are now being monitored at regular intervals UWCD. The VCWPD findings are entered into a database and published as su various reports on water quality, groundwater basins, or special subject or area enters its monitoring data into a database that is then augmented by moni VCWPD and California Department of Health Se and sampling of , in addition to a by VCWPD and pporting data in studies. UWCD toring data from rvices (public supply wells). UWCD conducts s database and prepares an annual report er.org). aff developed an le measures that were only to be a severe water estions such as ions in LAS well ictions by maximum volume per acre nit in the case of urbanized r circumstance, monetary or s to encourage LAS well owners to destroy wells in favor of other g 8) that prohibits ndary, especially rop Zone is that uifers reach the des use of any ms, pesticides, uit to the usable er stored at depth. The Expansion Area was defined as that portion of land from the nsion of the Aquifer n and prevention of O (Local Area ited single family restrictions and 8.1.9 Monitor FCGMA Groundwater Extractions to Ensure That They Do Not Exceed Adopted Projections for That Basin The FCGMA requires semi-annual reporting of extractions from pumpers within the Agency as part of the measures instituted within Ordinance No. 5 (now Ordinance No. 8). These data are entered into a database maintained by the FCGMA. Individual operator annual extractions are compared against allowed allocations or irrigation efficiency at the end of each calendar year to determine whether well operators are within their allowed pumping. As discussed under the first an annual evaluation of all the monitoring results in it that is available on UWCD’s website (www.unitedwat 8.1.7 Contingency Plan for LAS Seawater Intrusion Although it was hoped that such a plan would never be needed, the FCGMA st as-yet-unfinished and informal contingency plan that consists of a list of possib could be instituted to address intrusion of seawater into the LAS. The list items offered to the FCGMA Board as possible countermeasures in the event of quality decline in a significant number of LAS wells. This list included sugg managing the intruded basin in a separate management scheme, further reduct Historical Allocations, possible groundwater use restr served (in the case of irrigated lands or per resident or dwelling u areas), a complete ban on all future LAS wells regardless of need o other potential incentive possible water sources, and other such means of LAS management. 8.1.8 North (now called East and West) Las Posas Basin Pumpin Restrictions The FCGMA adopted Ordinance No. 4 (now Chapter 4 within Ordinance expansion of water use outside the Las Posas Basins and/or the Agency bou on the sensitive Aquifer Outcrop Zone or Expansion Area. The Aquifer Outc land or geographic area where the Fox Canyon and/or Grimes Canyon aq ground surface and are exposed as outcrops. Ordinance 4 restricts or preclu harmful land uses in this zone (such as impervious surfaces, septic syste fertilizers, or groundwater withdrawals), because this area acts as a direct cond aquifer wat crest of the hill or 1.5 miles beyond the Agency boundary (northernmost exte Outcrop) that drains into the Agency. Because groundwater quality protectio volume exports are the prime subjects of these laws, the Expansion Area was officially designated as an official Sphere of Influence zone by the Ventura LAFC Formation Commission). No wells, no additional agriculture, and only very lim home development is allowed in these areas, and only under special circumstances. 48 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 strategy on limitations of groundwater pumping, penalties are assessed for overpumping, and credits are posted for conservation or storage. This strategy is discussed as part of several of the strategies above and is supported by the on of water districts and well owners. GMA on a semi- uired water flow mestic users on t extractions. Resolution 2006-1 requires periodic accuracy calibration of every water flow meter tightened requirements and imposed adding more strict penalties for non- 8.2 DESCRIPTION OF OTHER CURRENT STRATEGIES anagement strategies that have been implemented ment plan was op Expansion Area anyon aquifers, d in 1997. This ency that might y. g Basins 95), across Los Angeles Avenue opposite UWCD’s Saticoy lara River water These relatively igured as water System and the individual years The FCGMA in 1994 approved Calleguas MWD’s Las Posas Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) project as an Injection/Storage Facility. This allowed Calleguas MWD to receive Storage Credits for water recharged as part of the project. Conditions of the approval included registration of the injection/extraction wells, monthly reporting of injection/extraction volumes, water quality requirements for injected water, a limit on the amount of water in storage (300,000 AF), required points of extraction, a limitation to use the stored water only within Ventura County, periodic review of injection/extraction effects, and an agreement to halt operations if any conditions are not met. As of 2006, Calleguas MWD has stored over 60,000 8.1.10 Implementation of Drilling and Pumping Restrictions County Well Ordinance and the cooperati 8.1.11 Metering of Groundwater Extractions As part of the original Ordinance No. 5, extractions must be reported to the FC annual basis. Ordinance No. 3 (now Chapter 3 within Ordinance No. 8) req meters to be installed at owners’ expense on all groundwater pumps except do one acre or less. Not all pumpers have installed meters or use their meter readings to repor by independent testing agents. This Resolution also restrictions on well extraction reporting in addition to compliance. There are several other groundwater m within the FCGMA area that were not foreseen when the original manage formulated some 20 years ago. These include: 8.2.1 Fox Canyon Outcr A buffer zone (“Expansion Area”) along the outcrops of the Fox and Grimes C which are adjacent to and outside of the FCGMA boundaries, was establishe zone was established to protect any land uses on the outcrop or within the Ag adversely affect groundwater recharge, groundwater extractions, or water qualit 8.2.2 Noble Spreadin The Noble Spreading Basins (19 Spreading Grounds, were constructed to store and recharge additional Santa C diverted at the upstream Freeman Diversion, particularly during wet periods. shallow basins were reclaimed gravel pits purchased by UWCD and reconf spreading basins. Water placed in the facility recharges both the Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer System. The ten-year average for the facility is 6,000 AFY, with varying from 0 AF to 17,800 AF. 8.2.3 Las Posas Basin ASR Project 49 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 432 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 AF of water through in-lieu deliveries to basin pumpers and direct injection. extractions have been for testing and maintenance purposes, full-scale extra during January 2007 to supply customer Although most ctions occurred s during a scheduled maintenance shut-down of the alleguas MWD. trict just south of livers the water the overdrafted f natural stream lants upstream. alley basin. The ion is 3,000 AFY (if available), although an average e first four years of operations. These diversions may ecycled water is Hueneme (O-H) edits earned by t to supplement wer Aquifer System pumping in the Pleasant r Aquifer System pumping in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin. The dwater levels in . The program reek project, a r from the recharge mound underlying the spreading grounds in ter to users along United’s existing agricultural pipeline system Forebay basin charge from the y replaces LAS ant Valley (PV) inistered by the ong UWCD, the a sub-allocation of UWCD’s portion), and Casitas MWD. UWCD uses its allocation to supplement recharge to the aquifers along the Santa Clara River within Ventura County. UWCD’s 3,150 AFY allocation (UWCD’s allocation was 5,000 AFY, but the Port Hueneme Water Agency acquired 1,850 AFY of the allocation) is ordered from DWR during normal and dry years for delivery to Lake Piru via stream releases from the DWR-operated Lake Pyramid downstream along Piru Creek. This State Water is then released from Lake Piru as part of UWCD's normal conservation release in the late summer and fall. As this water flows down Piru Creek and the Santa Clara River, a portion of it percolates into the groundwater basins along the river (Piru, Fillmore, and Santa Paula) and a portion reaches the Freeman Diversion for recharge to the Oxnard Plain. supply line bringing State Water to C 8.2.4 Conejo Creek Diversion Project The Conejo Creek Diversion Project (2002), constructed by Camrosa Water Dis where Highway 101 crosses Conejo Creek, diverts flows from the creek and de to Pleasant Valley County Water District to meet local irrigation demands within Pleasant Valley basin. The water diverted from the creek is a combination o flow and recycled water released into the creek from wastewater treatment p This diverted water replaces Lower Aquifer System pumping in the Pleasant V contractual amount of water from the divers of 5,300 AFY has been diverted in th increase temporarily, but are likely to decrease over the next 20 years as the r used elsewhere by Camrosa Water District customers. 8.2.5 Supplemental M&I Water Program The Supplemental M&I Water Program is operated through the Oxnard- Pipeline system. The joint UWCD-Calleguas MWD project uses FCGMA cr Pleasant Valley County Water District from the Conejo Creek Diversion Projec O-H water supply. This project effectively shifts Lo Valley basin to Uppe program is capped at 4,000 AFY and is only implemented in years when groun the Forebay are sufficiently high to prevent harm to other Forebay pumpers effectively reimburses Calleguas MWD for their investments in the Conejo C precedent that may allow similar types of projects in the future. 8.2.6 Saticoy Wellfield The UWCD Saticoy Wellfield (2005) was constructed adjacent to the UWCD Saticoy Spreading Grounds to pump shallow wate wet years and deliver the wa (Pleasant Valley and PTP pipelines). This pumping from the Oxnard Plain decreases the recharge mound, allowing more spreading and groundwater re basins during wet periods. The water produced by the pumping in the Foreba groundwater pumping along the Pumping Trough Pipeline (PTP) and Pleas Pipelines. 8.2.7 Importation of State Water The County of Ventura holds a State Water allocation of 20,000 AFY adm California Department of Water Resources (DWR). This allocation is divided am City of Ventura, Port Hueneme Water Agency (as 50 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 This recharge is not credited by the FCGMA to UWCD directly, but based on study, measurement, and computer modeling, the portion of the DWR purch ultimately reaches the Freeman Diversion is credited as new or foreign water. placed in a UWCD-held trust fund that may be used in the future to solve c management issues that are beneficial to the aquifers within the Agency. The Water Agency’s 1,850 AFY is delivered via Calleguas MWD’s conveyance facil 2,000 AF imported in 2002, no other portion of the 20,000 AFY entitlement imported to Ventura County, alt many years of ased water that The credits are ommon FCGMA Port Hueneme ities. Except for has ever been hough annual capital costs continue to be paid to DWR to portation of State Water is discussed in section 10.0 in, saline waters well network in some areas. In 2006, UWCD tes north of Mugu Lagoon, with funds obtained incorporated into ing wells. 8.2.9 Calibration of Groundwater Extraction Meters meter calibration e required to be TRATEGIES er intrusion have in the FCGMA ith groundwater impacted water er, water quality Lower Aquifer System (LAS) have worsened over this same time period. nt Valley Basin sea level and occurred for two eded levels the itching pumping eased the stress aquifers. For een a pumping reduction in excess of the 15% currently required by the FCGMA. There have been only isolated incidents of pumping in excess of allocation, reflecting both the general acceptance of the pumping reductions and the stiff monetary penalty for overpumping. For agricultural pumpers using an Irrigation Efficiency calculation, pumping reductions have been even more dramatic. In a study using the FCGMA weather stations to calculate daily crop water demand, Agency-wide irrigation efficiency (measured by less reported water use compared to FCGMA- computed crop water demand) improved by about 30% during the first several years of the FCGMA pumping reductions (UWCD, 2002). The increased efficiency is consistent with the decreased extractions reported to the FCGMA over the last decade (see section 4.0 maintain this Allocation. Additional im Potential Future Management Strategies. 8.2.8 Additional Groundwater Monitoring As saline intrusion has encroached further inland beneath the south Oxnard Pla have moved eastward of the existing monitoring will install two additional nested monitoring well si from a Department of Water Resources grant. These monitoring wells will be the monitoring network and sampling protocol for the existing dedicated monitor Resolution 2006-1 was adopted by the FCGMA Board that will phase-in a flow and inspection program over three years. After the phase-in, each meter will b checked at 3-year intervals. 8.3 EFFECTIVENESS TO-DATE OF CURRENT MANAGEMENT S The management strategies applied over the past 20 years to combat seawat resulted in significant changes in water levels and in water quality indicators aquifers. Conditions in the Upper Aquifer System (UAS) have improved w elevations increasing to, or exceeding, acceptable levels and chloride- decreasing in both concentration and geographic extent in most areas. Howev conditions in the Specifically, LAS groundwater elevations in the southern portion of the Pleasa and southern Oxnard Plain Basin have decreased and remained well below salinity has increased in both concentration and geographic extent. This has reasons. First, the combined UAS and LAS extraction in this area has exce resource can support. Second, policies adding recharge to the UAS and sw from the UAS to the LAS have relieved the stress on the Upper Aquifer but incr on the Lower Aquifer. The FCGMA policy of reduced pumping has had positive effects in all the pumpers using their Historical Allocation under Ordinance No. 5, there has b 51 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 433 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Groundwater Extractions). Widespread acceptance and installation of d sprinklers, mini sprinklers, leak repairs, computer controlled watering cycles weather stations to assist with irrigation frequency and duration, various ground sensors and lysimeters, farmer and irrigation crew education, and a shift away f rip tape, micro , farm-operated -based moisture rom wasteful furrow irrigation or high volume sprinkler heads, along with reduction of tailwater losses have all a zone of lower rillo Hills to Port Camarillo Hills) in into the south e Lower Aquifer into the Upper ge, resulting in nd to the City of tically overdrafted areas: diverted Santa Clara River water is delivered via the Pleasant Valley and Pumping Trough pipelines and e three projects s (the delivered mixed effects in River supplies ous benefits in elping eliminate ells that provide lies in the Santa ted in the LAS e the UAS has e large pumping Thus, one of the mping trough of AS pumping for the PTP project d in the Oxnard cycled water for f using recycled ects are not yet The Ventura Regional Groundwater Model was used to test the future effectiveness of current projects to reduce the overdraft in the FCGMA basins. This analysis assumes that hydrological conditions of the past 50 years are similar to future conditions, that projects continue to be implemented as designed, and that FCGMA reported pumping is relatively accurate. This modeling indicates that when all current projects that implement the FCGMA Management Plan are operational, there will still be an overdraft in the basins within the Agency. With only current strategies in place, BMOs for groundwater levels would be met 51% of the time in the Upper Aquifer and 5% of the time in the Lower Aquifer (see Appendix B). This analysis is derived from the model Base Case, which uses reported pumping over the past 10 years as the basis for contributed to the reduction in groundwater use. One of the key hydrogeologic findings over the last 10 years indicated that conductivity (such as a fault or some other deformation) extends from the Cama Hueneme (aligned with the known location of the Simi-Santa Rosa fault in the limiting the amount of recharge that can flow from the Oxnard Plain Forebay bas Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley areas. This zone appears to be limited to th System, with no evidence that the lower conductivity zone extends upward Aquifer System. In these areas of the LAS, extractions far exceed rechar groundwater levels that have fallen to well below sea level from the ocean inla Camarillo. Three current projects recharge these cri diverted Conejo Creek water is delivered via the Conejo Creek project. Thes deliver in-lieu recharge to the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basin surface water is used for irrigation in-lieu of pumping groundwater). However, the Pumping Trough Pipeline (PTP) operated by UWCD provides reducing pumping in the Lower Aquifer System. The diverted Santa Clara delivered to PTP customers in-lieu of pumping groundwater have unambigu helping to eliminate the pumping trough in the Upper Aquifer System and h overdraft in the Lower Aquifer System. But the PTP project also has five LAS w irrigation water to customers along the pipeline when there are insufficient supp Clara River available for diversion and delivery. These wells were comple because at the time the LAS was in better shape than the UAS. Sinc substantially recovered from overpumping but the LAS has been severely depleted, these five LAS wells are no longer optimally-located; they now pump from the flank of th depression in the LAS of the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins. previously-assumed solutions to reduce groundwater extractions within the pu the UAS has created new problems in the LAS. Some of this L is being replaced by UAS pumping from the UWCD Saticoy Wellfield (locate Plain Forebay basin); this strategy should be maximized in the future. One of the FCGMA strategies historically underutilized is the substitution of re groundwater pumping. The Conejo Creek project has begun the process o water which originates in the City of Thousand Oaks. Other recycled proj operational (e.g., see later discussion of the City of Oxnard's GREAT project). 52 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 modeled extractions. If actual pumping was higher than reported, then the mod be recalibrated to reflect this. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to exami understated pumping in the model (Appendix B, section A2.2.2 Sensiti Understatement of Reported Extractions), which indicated that if agricultur understated by 15% (caused by poorly-calibrated meters or inaccuracies in methods), results from the current model could be up to 15 el would have to ne the effect of vity Analysis – al pumping was other reporting feet too high in the Lower Aquifer recalibrated It is clear both from the modeling results and from the observation that BMOs are not being met s and projects must be initiated to dress this need. (the aquifers would be in worse shape than modeling suggested). If the model was to reflect this understatement of pumping, these results would be corrected. in many areas, and that additional management strategie alleviate this continued overdraft. The following sections ad 9.0 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES UNDER DEVELOPMENT There are several projects at various stages of development that will furth supply and water quality problems within the FCGMA. Some of these pro original management strategies of the Agency, whereas others deal w contemplated in the original management plan. The strategies are presented their impact on the aquifer (high impact strategies are discussed firs er reduce water jects follow the ith issues not in the order of t), with projects under development discussed in this section and future strategies discussed in the following section. The ranking tegies under d t and future strategies that were amenable to t oundwater el is in d in Table 8. For strategies that could not be re was no change in the place or pumpin ther ran factors iscuss th each strategy. of both stra ith the gr evelopmen dicateesting w directly evaluated with the groundwater model (because the mod amount of recharge or g), o king are d ed wi Strategy UAS WL Mee S t UA BM Os LAS W Meet LAS L BMOs Current Strategies 51% 5% Barrier Wells +11’63%+46’48% GREAT Project -1’51%+38’36% Injection River Water +1’53%+7’11% Shift Pumping UAS -1’50%+8’9% Increase River Diversions +3’54%+3’8% Addtl Recharge S Oxnard +1’53%+4’7% Continue 25% Reduction +1’53%+2’7% Import State Water +2’54%+1’7% RiverPark Recharge <1’52%<1’6% Shift Pumping NW Oxnard <1’51%<1’5% All Strategies +15’67% 100’76% Table 8. Ranked results of groundwater modeling of management strategies amenable to evaluation with the groundwater model. The table indicates the average change in groundwater levels expected in each aquifer at the wells for which there is a BMO for each strategy. The table also indicates the average amount of time that groundwater levels were at or above BMOs for each aquifer (see discussion of this technique in section 6.0Basin Management Objectives). 53 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 434 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 9.1 GREAT PROJECT (RECYCLED WATER) anked highest of Aquifer overdraft (see Table 8). However, the most effective portion of the project would occur at 10 to 15 years ponents of the project are scheduled to be in place. roject has three recycled water nard, to deliver as a barrier to through a brine coastal wetland the Forebay by earned from both direct recharge (barrier wells) and in-lieu recharge e pumped from City wells. The plement policies ime from around upon projected egy of pumping aquifer readily recharged and reducing pumping in areas of the aquifer that are more difficult to recharge. In addition to offsetting existing potable water ieu and injected needed most. A in. This strategy d to the easily- and agricultural demand is lower in the winter and recycled water is necessary to ction wells along undwater Model; (City of Oxnard, an with full-time as another Two FCGMA policy issues need to be addressed relative to the GREAT project. The FCGMA has allowed a one-for-one earning of storage credits – one acre-foot of stored water equals one acre-foot of storage credits – that has been applied to such projects as Calleguas MWD’s Las Posas ASR project. When water is injected into a groundwater barrier to contain saline intrusion, however, some of the injected water will likely be tainted by the saline waters. The policy question then becomes whether the entire injected water should earn one-for-one storage credits; this is largely a policy decision rather than a technical decision. The GREAT (Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment)project is r the projects under development because of its effectiveness in reducing Lower from now, when all com 9.1.1 Description The project is being designed and implemented by the City of Oxnard. The p major components: 1) a new regional groundwater desalination facility; 2) a system to deliver water to M&I non-potable water uses within the City of Ox water to agricultural users in the Pleasant Valley area, and to inject water seawater intrusion; and 3) conveyance of desalination backwash concentrates line to either the City’s existing ocean outfall or the Ormond Beach area for restoration. Potable water supplies for the City would then be pumped from utilizing FCGMA credits (M&I non-potable and agricultural deliveries). This Forebay supply could b existing Oxnard-Hueneme system UAS wells, existing City wells, and/or new FCGMA would have to approve recharge and pumping facilities, as well as im discussed later in this section. The project will be constructed in phases, with project yield ramping up over t 5,000 AFY to more than 21,000 AFY. Actual timing of construction will depend growth in water demand and funding. This project implements the strat groundwater from areas of the demands with recycled water supplies, this is accomplished by supplying in-l recharge to the Pleasant Valley basin and south Oxnard Plain areas where it is similar amount of water would be pumped from the Oxnard Plain Forebay bas moves a considerable amount of extractions from areas that are overpumpe recharged Oxnard Plain Forebay basin. Because M&I non-potable cannot be effectively utilized during that time, a direct recharge component accommodate the winter quantities of recycled water. A configuration of inje Highway 1 and Hueneme Road was examined using the Ventura Regional Gro this conceptual configuration is discussed in the EIR for the GREAT Project 2005). Injecting water during only a portion of the year is less effective th injection; the addition of supplemental waters to use for injection is discussed strategy of this management plan. 54 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 The other FCGMA policy issue relates to pumping the storage credits from t Forebay basin. Moving the location of pumping to the Forebay is beneficial Valley and Oxnard Plain basins, providing that the added pumping stress in the accommodated. For other strategies that involve pumping in the Foreba Wellfield, Supplemental M&I Water Program), there is a caveat that pumping groundwater levels have dropped below a threshold that applies to the use o Freeman Diversion as a grant condition from the State Water Resources (available Forebay storage of 80,000 AF, using two index wells). Such a appropriate for the GREAT project. The City of Oxnard can accommodate suc he Oxnard Plain to the Pleasant Forebay can be y (e.g., Saticoy not occur when f water from the Control Board caveat is also h an operational requirement by shifting its pumping to wells in the Oxnard Plain just outside of the Forebay ment a general r. The GREAT ered by the ty Control Board with input from the California Department of . be successful in s part of the EIR the project. The effectiveness of ter levels in the ls in the Oxnard AS beneath the uch as 70 feet, feet during wet ds and 20 feet during dry periods. Thus, the project will have to carefully balance the positive and negative effects on water levels. Potential mitigation of lowered water levels in the tential increased odeling suggest uifer (compared Lower Aquifer anagement strategies) with full construction of the GREAT project. If current recharge is reduced in the Forebay because of required fish flows or other reasons, g, particularly in t of the GREAT ve a written agreement on operation of the GREAT project to ensure long-term operation of the project would continue to meet Agency strategies. 9.2 SOUTH LAS POSAS BASIN PUMP/TREAT This management strategy is ranked high because it is in a mature stage of design and the problem that it aims to help solve is an ongoing problem for the Las Posas basin that needs a rapid solution to prevent further water quality degradation. when groundwater levels are low in the Forebay. The FCGMA should imple policy for all projects that shift pumping from overdrafted areas to the Forebay. In addition, there are water quality concerns with injection of recycled wate project will be performing a Title 22 analysis to permit this injection, which is administ Los Angeles Regional Water Quali Health Services. Water quality monitoring will be required by the permit; the FCGMA should review any proposed monitoring and comment to the Regional Board as needed 9.1.2 Potential Effectiveness This planned GREAT project would implement one of the strategies likely to restoring groundwater levels in the Pleasant Valley and Oxnard Plain basins. A for this project, the Regional Groundwater Model was used to test the effects of project was tested both at the lower initial yield and at full implementation. The the project must be judged by balancing raising Lower Aquifer System wa Pleasant Valley basin and south Oxnard Plain areas against lowering water leve Plain Forebay basin. The groundwater model indicated water levels in the L southern Oxnard Plain basin and the Pleasant Valley basin would rise by as m whereas UAS water levels in the Forebay basin would only drop by about 5 perio Forebay include inducing more recharge from existing facilities and from po diversion rights at the Freeman Diversion. The results of the groundwater m that BMOs for groundwater levels would be met 51% of the time in the Upper Aq to 51% with current management strategies) and 36% of the time in the (compared to 5% with current m then the Forebay basin may not be able to accommodate increased pumpin dryer periods. The City of Oxnard will conduct a monitoring program as par project to measure effects of the project. It would be prudent for the FCGMA to ha 55 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 435 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 9.2.1 Description As discussed in section 5.1.3 High Salinity Associated with High Groundwa groundwater levels in the South Las Posas basin have apparently dissolved unsaturated portions of the shallow aquifer and created a mound of water m ambient groundwater. One potential mitigation measure would be to p groundwater from the shallow aquifer, creating space in the aquifer thus allo winter storm water to percolate into the aquifer. Under the current conditions these winter flows now bypass the recharge areas because there ter Levels, high salts from the ore saline than ump the saline wing less-saline , the majority of is no available storage in the line water being . orking with the sas basin. The allocations and Under FCGMA ution 2003-03, the Board indicated that upon its review and approval, it may change or alter an allocation for pumping from the South Las Posas basin to accommodate a responsible this groundwater usable. A general FCGMA policy for these itions to FCGMA . The first is the y groundwater is ter quality in the nd the amount of water al dissolved own the shallow drawdown could nto the basin. It eral factors that removing salts by pumping and treating the groundwater. ine overall potential ter quality, although it is likely that dissolved salts removed during extraction and ther analysis of example, mass cessary to estimate the potential success of this strategy. 9.3 DEVELOPMENT OF BRACKISH GROUNDWATER, PLEASANT VALLEY BASIN This strategy is also highly ranked because it can be implemented relatively quickly, may prevent water quality degradation in the northern Pleasant Valley basin, and would reduce pumping in the middle of the largest pumping depression in the Pleasant Valley basin. shallow aquifer. If implemented, this strategy would involve the pumped sa blended with low-chloride water and/or desalinated before delivery to customers Ventura County Waterworks Districts #1 (Moorpark) and #19 (Somis) are w Calleguas MWD to design and fund such a pilot project in the South Las Po pumping associated with such a project would be in excess of current FCGMA would require approval of the FCGMA Board prior to implementation. Resol entity that submits a plan to render types of projects in the future is discussed in section 11.3 Recommended Add Policies. 9.2.2 Potential Effectiveness The effectiveness of this particular strategy can be evaluated using two criteria overall reduction in salts in the South Las Posas basin because higher-salinit extracted and treated, removing salts from the system. The improvement in wa basin would depend upon the amount of groundwater extracted a recharged versus the ability of the aquifer or other sources to contribute addition salts. Another measurement of effectiveness would be the efficacy of drawing d groundwater to create space for recharge of better quality rain water. Greater create conditions more favorable to recharge thus allowing more “fresh water” i could also create space for addition salt-impacted waters. Thus, there are sev control the effectiveness of It is not possible at this time to adequately combine the factors to determ changes in wa treatment would remove at least a portion of the salt load in the basin. Fur nature and extent of the of the salts, quantification of the salt inputs (for balance), and evaluation of potential removal efficacy may be ne 56 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 9.3.1 Description There are additional areas along Calleguas Creek besides the South Las Pos groundwater has elevated salinity. Base flow from the Arroyo Las Posas completely across the South and East Las Posas basins and into the norther Valley basin, providing a source of recharge to this portion of the Pleasa However, this recharge water has created water quality problems for ground There are additional areas along Calleguas Creek besides the South Las Pos groundwater has elevated salinity. Base flow from the Arroyo Las Posas completely across the South and East Las Posas basins and into the northe Valley basin, providing a source of recharge to this portion of the Pleasa However, this recharge wate as basin where has migrated nmost Pleasant nt Valley basin. water pumpers. as basin where has migrated rnmost Pleasant nt Valley basin. r has created water quality problems for groundwater pumpers. ndwater levels d in section 9.2 ound of poorer- ant Valley basin recharge area is considering ng depression in sin where rise in lity water would project. water Treatment asin (Black and nd would allow ater levels and evelops the use alley basin near ia State University, Channel Islands along Calleguas Creek, Camrosa has been g it, and putting lly, has risen to of the Pleasant e Lower Aquifer pumped without ide the FCGMA Previously, both the potential Camarillo and Camrosa projects would have to be pumped using existing allocations if the well was within the FCGMA boundary. However, as FCGMA policy has evolved over time, pumping of poorer quality groundwater without an allocation has been evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A coordinated effort between the FCGMA and proponents of such projects in the Pleasant Valley basin should be undertaken to determine whether these projects are within this policy. Also, a feasibility analysis of these projects may be necessary to determine the potential net effects to the area and evaluate whether additional pumping would improve or degrade current water quality conditions. This FCGMA policy issue is discussed in more detail in Section 11.3 Recommended Additions to FCGMA Policies. City of Camarillo wells in this area have experienced increased salts as grou have risen over the last decade (Figure 21), similar to the condition describe South Las Posas Basin Pump/Treat. It is not yet clear if this recharge water from the Arroyo Las Posas will create a m quality groundwater that would move out into the main portion of the Pleas under recharge conditions. This would depend upon how well-connected the to the main portion of the LAS in the Pleasant Valley basin. The City of Camarillo is a strategy to move some of its current pumping from the area of the LAS pumpi the central portion of the Pleasant Valley basin to the northern portion of the ba poorer-quality groundwater is being observed. Under this plan, the poorer-qua be extracted and desalinated in a similar manner to the South Las Posas basin The City of Camarillo has assessed the feasibility of constructing a Ground Facility that would be located in the Somis Gap area of the Pleasant Valley B Veatch, 2005). The study determined the project to be technically feasible a Camarillo to halt pumping from an area of the LAS with depressed groundw instead pump in an area of rising groundwater levels. Camrosa Water District is considering another type of project that potentially d of brackish groundwater. In an area of the eastern portion of the Pleasant V Californ studying the possibility of extracting poor-quality Upper Aquifer(?) water, treatin it in their delivery system. This water, some of which was used historica relatively high levels. Water quality monitoring in the adjacent main portion Valley basin indicates that this poorer-quality water may not be migrating into th of the Pleasant Valley basin. Thus, there is the possibility this water could be lessening the supply to the Pleasant Valley basin. Some of this area is outs boundary. 57 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 436 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 9.3.2 Potential Effectiveness Pumping and removing salts from groundwater is an effective means of reducin a watershed. If the areas from which the salts are removed are hydrologically c main portions of the groundwater basins within the FCGMA, then this remov also have a positive impact. If the pumping of this poorer-quality groundwate the main groundwater basins, then these projects would have a neutral effe groundwater basins while increasing the supply of available water. However, reduce the recharge to the FCGMA groundwater basins without also provid benefit to water quality in these basins, than the projects could have a g the salt load in onnected to the al of salts could r does not affect ct on the main if these projects ing a significant negative impact on the onitoring of both basin. umping from the most-depressed as Posas. The sing the Ventura worst portion of aller depression of the project, increasing pumping be tested effectively with the model. The model does northernmost portion of the Pleasant Valley basin – a ata needs to be RT OF FCGMA WATER FCGMA basins, groundwater basins within the Agency. Any such projects would require m water levels and water quality to determine their effect on adjacent areas of the The potential City of Camarillo project also has an element of moving existing p area of the Pleasant Valley basin near the Camarillo airport, which has the groundwater levels, to an area more favorable for recharge along Arroyo L portion of the potential project related to the pumping reduction was tested u Regional Groundwater Model (see Appendix B). Model results indicate that the the pumping depression would be decreased considerably in size, leaving a sm in the southern Pleasant Valley basin. The other element along the Arroyo Las Posas, cannot yet not now capture the hydrogeology of the recharge area of the basin near Somis that is now apparent from monitoring d better understood and integrated into the model. 9.4 NON-EXPO This strategy is important in preventing additional un-authorized pumping within where additional strategies are required to mitigate current pumping. The stra implemented rather rapidly through FCGMA actions. 9.4.1 Description Current policies and ordinances limit the use of groundwater produced from w to only those areas within the boundaries of the Agency with only rare exce original or prior historical uses outside the FCGMA tegy can also be ithin the FCGMA ptions. In 1997, boundary that were not known in 1985 were allowed through grandfathering of these uses. Since 1997, however, recent aerial photo oundary indicate undary that are In most cases, ndary to outside oundary. Some of these crops may have been planted in earlier years, but air photo analyses indicate that a portion of the crops have been planted in the last several years. When the FCGMA was formed, it was envisioned that some undeveloped acreage within the FCGMA would be developed in the future and would create a new water use. A baseline allocation of one acre-feet per acre of water was to be allocated to any newly-developed lands. However, this baseline allocation was only for land within the FCGMA boundaries. If groundwater produced from inside the FCGMA boundaries was used on adjacent hillsides outside of the FCGMA boundary, this new irrigation would provide considerable extra draft on analysis of new developments and additional crops grown near the FCGMA b that there is a “fringe” of crops or additional lands being irrigated outside the bo apparently being irrigated by groundwater produced from within the FCGMA. these crops are contiguous across the FCGMA boundary from inside the bou the boundary; in some cases, the crops are grown on a parcel that spans the b 58 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 the groundwater basins. This additional draft on the aquifers is counter to all the FCGMA nagement plan. t to deal with its ocedure to both olicy and to identify areas where this policy has been violated. A developed such a procedure and determine how to address olicy. s equivalent in orted across the re lowered ore, much of this additional draft on the ifer that can least sustain them. This fact TION OF 25% PUMPING REDUCTION e 25% reduction in pumping allocation that was called for in the original management plan. This management strategy is to continue the originality intended -- the planned reduction to 20% of ction occurring FCGMA basins pensate for the &I pumping and nt Management reduction was io assumed that currently using their reduced pumping allocation for FCGMA reporting would simply shift to an efficiency calculation, rather than further reduce pumping. The results of the modeling suggest that these additional pumping reductions, which amount to 3,800 acre-feet per year throughout the FCGMA, would raise groundwater levels in the Upper Aquifer System by a little over one foot at the Port Hueneme coastline and raise Lower Aquifer System groundwater levels by an average of a little over two feet. BMOs for groundwater levels would be met 53% of the time in the Upper Aquifer (compared to 51% with current management strategies) and 7% of the time in the Lower Aquifer (compared to 5% with current management strategies). policies aimed at reducing pumping in the overdrafted aquifers. Preventing this additional draft on the aquifers is clearly a high priority of this ma It appears that current ordinances and policies of the FCGMA may be sufficien export issue, but this should be reviewed. What is needed is a regular pr educate pumpers of the export p It is recommended that the FCGM past and current violations of this p 9.4.2 Potential Effectiveness Preventing additional draft on the groundwater basins of the FCGMA i effectiveness to pumping reductions. Many of the areas where water is exp FCGMA boundary are adjacent to the Pleasant Valley and Las Posas basins whe groundwater levels are particularly apparent. Theref groundwater basins is occurring in the areas of the aqu increases the effectiveness of preventing these water exports. 9.5 CONTINUA This strategy is already in place, but is being reviewed by the FCGMA Board. 9.5.1 Description Current FCGMA management strategies include th planned reductions as they were allocation occurring during 2007 (delayed from 2005) and the 25% redu according to the 2010 schedule. These reductions were to stay in force until the are no longer in overdraft and there is sufficient water for recharge to com increased pumping created when the restrictions are removed. 9.5.2 Potential Effectiveness The original 25% pumping reduction has had the effect of reducing both M agricultural pumping (see section 8.3 Effectiveness To-Date of Curre Strategies). The effect of continuing the phased reductions to the full 25% modeled using the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model. This model scenar pumping reductions beyond the current 15% reduction were applied only to M&I pumping; it was assumed that any agricultural wells 59 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 437 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 9.6 RIVERPARK RECHARGE PITS rough a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of eated a series of ithin the Oxnard s to evaporation ard, a developer g stabilized and rk on the pits is a recharge and diverted at the Freeman Diversion to be transported to the RiverPark pits for recharge. These iver water could s to the ocean cilities will allow at the Freeman of the Forebay recharge further down-gradient forms in the upgradient portions of the Forebay Spreading Grounds. Thus, more recharge water will infiltrate the upgradient No FCGMA ectiveness of the RiverPark recharge project by combining UWCD's s diversion rate at to 11,500 AF in basin, which helps pressurize the greater Oxnard Plain. In addition, higher water levels in the Forebay basin in this management plan that rely on increased pumping in the Forebay. levels would be nt management ent management strategies). 10.0 POTENTIAL FUTURE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES This strategy is being implemented th Oxnard and United Water Conservation District. 9.6.1 Description Decades of relatively unrestricted deep gravel mining beginning in the 1950s cr large open pits (formerly owned by S.P. Milling) along the Santa Clara River w Plain Forebay basin that are now unused and expose groundwater in the pit and potential contamination. As part of an agreement between the City of Oxn (RiverPark), the FCGMA, County of Ventura, and UWCD, these pits are bein urban surface drainage is being diverted away from the pits. If all the wo accomplished appropriately, the plan is to have UWCD operate the pits as storage facility. UWCD would build a water conveyance system that would allow flood flows facilities would allow increased diversions of the Santa Clara River; silt-laden r be diverted and recharged, water that now must be bypassed and which flow following large rainstorms. Use of the RiverPark pits serves two purposes for the aquifer. First, the fa additional recharge to the aquifers from silty water that is now bypassed Diversion. Second, the project moves a portion in the basin, away from the recharge mound that basin beneath the UWCD Saticoy into the Forebay during wet years, a time when a recharge mound builds in portion of the basin and reduces recharge rates in existing spreading facilities. policy changes would be required to implement this project. 9.6.2 Potential Effectiveness UWCD has analyzed the eff surface water model with the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model. This modeling suggest the yield of the project could be as much as 4,000 AFY (combined with a higher the Freeman Diversion), with the annual yield ranging from 400 AF in dry years wet years. This additional recharge in the Forebay will raise water levels in the will help mitigate the effects of other projects described The results of the groundwater modeling suggest that BMOs for groundwater met 52% of the time in the Upper Aquifer (compared to 51% with curre strategies) and 6% of the time in the Lower Aquifer (compared to 5% with curr Groundwater modeling indicates that additional management strategies are required to eliminate overdraft in both Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer System aquifers and to prevent further seawater intrusion along the coastline and saline intrusion in more inland areas. A variety of potential future strategies are ranked below, with those that are the most effective and 60 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 can be implemented the soonest discussed first. Because of the large numb they are separate er of strategies, d into those that can be implemented within 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, and greater than 15 years. The following strategies that can be implemented within five years are ranked by order of 10.1 5-YEAR STRATEGIES effectiveness and/or importance. 10.1.1 5-Year Update of FCGMA Management Plan 10.1.1.1 Description It is recommended that this Plan be updated every five years. This update should include a being met, effectiveness of strategies that have been implemented, nal management 10.1.1.2 Potential Effectiveness status of how the BMOs are status of other recommended strategies, and recommendations for any additio strategies. e FCGMA to evaluate and urse of action. This will keep the FCGMA’s goals and its successes and em Updating the Plan every five years will be an effective milestone for th re-evaluate its co failures front and center where they belong. 10.1.2 A Plan To Shift Some Pumping Back to Upper Aquifer Syst 10.1.2.1 Description One of the initial groundwater management strategies for the FCGMA was to shift pumping to ng stresses that mplished by ear that the LAS me of the LAS vent a shift that the UAS has already been initiated through County well permitting asins within the charge sources, in-lieu recharge al Groundwater 10.1.2.2 Potential Effectiveness the Lower Aquifer System from the Upper Aquifer System to relieve pumpi created a pumping trough in the UAS on the Oxnard Plain basin. This was acco requiring new and replacement wells to be drilled in the LAS. Now that it is cl cannot accommodate all this new pumping, it would be prudent to move so pumping back to the UAS. However, this must be done very carefully to pre would again create problems in the UAS. A shift in pumping back to requirements. However, this shift cannot be uniformly enforced across the b FCGMA. A detailed plan must be formulated that takes into account local re hydrologic connection between portions of the basin, and current/future projects. This should be accomplished through use of the Ventura Region Model in fine-tuning the details of this plan, with the FCGMA, VCWPD, and UWCD working together. By shifting pumping from the LAS to the UAS in areas where the Lower Aquifer System is not readily recharged could substantially raise groundwater levels in critical areas of the basins. This strategy only works, however, if the increased UAS pumping can be accommodated by the shift in pumping. For this reason, a sophisticated tool such as the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model is required to predict where and how much pumping should be shifted. For an indication of how this strategy might work, 5,000 AFY of Lower Aquifer pumping was moved to the Upper Aquifer in the triangular area of the south Oxnard Plain from the Port 61 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 438 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Hueneme zone of low conductance (fault?) to the western edge of the Pleasa The results of the groundwater modeling suggest that BMOs for groundwater met 50% of the time in the Upper Aquifer (compared to 51% with curre strategies) and 9% of the time in the Lower Aquifer (compared to 5% with current management nt Valley basin. levels would be nt management ls at BMO wells an average of 8 feet (Table 8). t Current Sources of Recharge strategies) – raising Lower Aquifer water leve 10.1.3 Protec 10.1.3.1 Description Protecting current sources of recharge to the FCGMA basins is particularly impo additional groundwater management problems. Maintaining Santa Clara River quality has been a focus for Ventura County over the past decade. The Count UWCD went to court in the late 1990s to ensure that increasing land develop use in the Santa Clarita area of Los Angeles County did not jeopardize Santa C across the County line in rtant as we face flows and water y of Ventura and ment and water lara River flows to Ventura County. More recently, local water agencies and especially the farming community have expressed concerned about rising chlorides from waste water A to continue to al agencies who es produced by ased flows in the oyo Santa Rosa Posas provide d by discharges from the Simi Valley and Moorpark wastewater ewatering of shallow groundwater in western Simi Valley. Similar to the downstream extraction in the for the potential 10.1.3.2 Potential Effectiveness discharges coming from Los Angeles County. It is very important to the FCGM protect this important source of groundwater recharge through support of loc deal directly with these issues. On Calleguas Creek, where a portion of the flow originates from discharg wastewater treatment plants, downstream users have come to rely on the incre Creek for recharge. Agreements on wastewater discharges flowing down Arr resulted in the Conejo Creek project. Similar flows along the Arroyo Las recharge to the Las Posas basins and the northern Pleasant Valley basin. The Arroyo Las Posas flows are augmente treatment plants and from d the Santa Clara River, maintenance of these flows is necessary to recharge groundwater basins. As such, the quantitative effects of shallow groundwater Las Posas and northern Pleasant Valley Basins may need to be evaluated impacts to downstream surface water flows. A are essential not only in ining current management strategies but also in implementing future strategies. current recharge sources, the overdraft within the FCGMA could increase have been very ucing overdraft, in Forebay Basin 10.1.4.1 Description The current sources of recharge to the groundwater basins within the FCGM mainta Without protecting and negate some of the benefits realized by projects and strategies that successful to date. Therefore, this strategy is one of the most effective in red and is an essential FCGMA strategy. 10.1.4 Limitation on Nitrate Sources in Portions of the Oxnard Pla High nitrate concentrations are present in groundwater in portions of the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin (see section 5.1.4 Nitrate in Groundwater). The source of a portion of this nitrate is from fertilizer use on overlying crops. A thick vadose zone (unsaturated zone) between the crops and the groundwater table allows natural processes to degrade some of the nitrate before it percolates with irrigation waters down to groundwater. Gravel pits within the Forebay were generally mined to five feet above historic groundwater levels, with reclamation plan restrictions 62 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 on growing high-nitrate use crops within the mined pits where the vadose zone reclamation is completed, however, there are no longer crop is so limited. As restrictions. Thus, high-nitrate mination in the should work with land use planners and the Regional Water Quality at high-nitrate crops are not grown in areas with a limited vadose crops could be grown in these former gravel basins with a limited vadose zone. The FCGMA should take a leading role in preventing further nitrate conta Forebay. The FCGMA Control Board to ensure th zone caused by gravel mining. 10.1.4.2 Potential Effectiveness Limiting sources of nitrate is the most effective method of reducing nitrate in groundwater. Because nitrate is a primary drinking water contaminant that can cause serious adverse health for consumers across the ting sources of nitrate should be a high priority for the FCGMA. asin effects and because the Forebay is a primary source of drinking water Oxnard Plain, limi 10.1.5 Policy on Recovery of Credits from Oxnard Plain Forebay B 10.1.5.1 Description There are several management strategies that involve increased pumping in t Forebay basin to either supply water to overdrafted areas (e.g., Saticoy Wellfie FCGMA credits earned by reducing pumping in overdrafted areas (e.g., Su Water Program, GREAT project). Using the Forebay in such a manner is defin both the Pleasant Valley and Oxnard Plain basins – however, it must be done in that the added pumping stress in the Forebay can be accommodated. For the Saticoy Wellfield he Oxnard Plain ld) or to recover pplemental M&I itely beneficial to a manner such and the Supplemental M&I Program, there is a caveat that pumping not occur when the same as the the State Water e storage in the vels of two index all projects that s recommended criteria discussed above and delineated in Table 9, or equivalent criteria if these wells are not available in the future. In addition, pumping using these credits v are defined will depend upon the specifics of each project and will have to be detailed when indi nded that the FCGMA establish a policy for prioritizing the types of projects that can use transferred credits to pump in the Forebay. This will be especially important if there is more demand for these transfer projects than the Forebay can accommodate. groundwater levels have dropped below a certain threshold. This threshold is grant condition applied to the use of water from the Freeman Diversion by Resources Control Board – that there is no more than 80,000 AF of availabl Forebay. In practice, this means that the average of combined groundwater le wells in the Forebay be above a certain level. To assure a uniform policy, the FCGMA should implement a general policy for use FCGMA credits to shift pumping from overdrafted areas to the Forebay. It i that this policy follow the State Board should not ad ersely impact other pumpers in the basin. How these adverse impacts vidual projects are approved by the FCGMA. It is also recomme Wells Used Groundwater Elevations 2N/22W-12R1 >17 ft above msl for combined groundwater elevations 2N/22W-22R1 Table 9. Criteria for using Credits for extraction in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin. 63 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 439 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 10.1.5.2 Potential Effectiveness Shifting pumping from an impacted area to the Forebay through the use of FC very effective strategy, providing that this pumping doesn’t adversely impact GMA credits is a the Forebay. Using ph, Forebay impacts can be avoided or mitigated. ation of Extraction Reporting the criteria outlined in the previous paragra 10.1.6 Verific 10.1.6.1 Description Meters are required to be installed on all but domestic wells by Chapter 3 although not all pumpers have installed meters or use their meters for reportin addition, all extractions are self-reported and the accuracy of FCGMA extractio on correct self-reporting. To ensure the accuracy of extraction records, which FCGMA and others to determine the changing pumping str of Ordinance 8, g extractions. In n records relies are used by the ess on the aquifers in the FCGMA, it GMA make periodic random checks on a small number of meters ons reported by is recommended that the FC annually to ensure that meters are correctly installed and that the extracti pumpers to the FCGMA correctly reflect actual meter readings. 10.1.6.2 Potential Effectiveness The accuracy of FCGMA reporting records is important credits and efficiency, and overall compliance with pump for extraction trends, determination of ing reductions. It is essential that all that everyone is “playing by the rules” and a verification procedure could help pumpers believe ensure that pumpers continue to believe that everyone is in this together. 10.1.7 Separate Management Strategies for Some Basins 10.1.7.1 Description The initial FCGMA Management Plan treated all the FCGMA basins the same rules applied to all basins. We now know more about how these basins are interco in that the same nnected and whether some of the basins have unique circumstances. For example, we know that the East Posas basin and mmon elements; hare a common as. One element common to all the FCGMA basins is that g reductions are as Posas basin, ation has been oastal areas applies largely to the Oxnard plain basin. New strategies in this Management Plan are also applied to specific situations in each basin. The Management Plan for the East Las Posas basin, included as Appendix C, addresses issues specific to the operation of Calleguas’ ASR project. This plan is adopted as part of the overall FCGMA Management Plan and the FCGMA Board will consider how its elements will be integrated into FCGMA ordinances. Likewise, the strategies for potentially pumping shallow groundwater along Calleguas Creek are also specific to the Pleasant Valley basin. The basin management objectives of this plan are also specific to each basin. Las Posas basin is largely hydraulically disconnected from both the West Las the northern Pleasant Valley basin. However, these basins also share some co for instance, the East Las Posas basin and northern Pleasant Valley basin s recharge source, the Arroyo Las Pos they are overdrafted. Current FCGMA management strategies such as pumpin thus appropriate to all the basins. The FCGMA has considered localized management strategies. In the South L for instance, a project to pump and treat poor-quality water without an alloc considered by the FCGMA Board. The strategy of moving pumping away from c 64 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 The FCGMA-wide strategy of pumping reductions across all FCGMA basins most discussion of whether this is appropriate in all cases. As discussed Continuation of 25% Pumping Reduction, these reductions are appropriate a basins as long as there is overdraft in all basins. It would be appr engenders the in section 9.5 cross all FCGMA opriate, however, to re- al pumping reductions by examining each basin separately. evaluate any future addition 10.1.7.2 Potential Effectiveness The current strategy of allowing most effective means of addr specific policies to address individual basin problems is the essing the overdraft and water quality problems within the FCGMA. 10.1.8 FCGMA Boundary 10.1.8.1 Description The FCGMA boundary is defined as the outer edge of Fox Canyon Aquifer. In outer edge is either the outcrop of the Fox Canyon Aquifer (such as along the flanks of the Las Posas basin) or is the point where the Fox Canyon Aquifer on (such as along the east side of the most areas, this north and east laps older rocks Pleasant Valley basin). However, along the western in Forebay and ed). Thus, this d basins or the has moved the e current known as agreed to by including UWCD, n.In addition, n wells on both elevations south rd Plain Forebay addition, there is ary to the other. y is that there is now a and new boundary of the Santa Paula basin (Figure 28) that is not GMA rules and the Oxnard Plain orth and east to the reality of the that the FCGMA ble. 10.1.8.2 Potential Effectiveness boundary of the FCGMA, it is defined as the western edge of the Oxnard Pla Oxnard Plain basins (west of which the Fox Canyon Aquifer is not identifi western boundary is also the boundary between the Oxnard Plain and Moun Oxnard Plain Forebay and Santa Paula basins. Recent work done as part of the Santa Paula Basin Stipulated Judgment southern boundary of the Santa Paula basin farther north to coincide with th location of the Oak Ridge fault. This boundary of the Santa Paula basin w experts working for the parties in the Santa Paula Basin Stipulated Judgment, the city of San Buenaventura, and the Santa Paula Basin Pumpers Associatio UWCD groundwater staff have carefully monitored groundwater elevations i sides of this Santa Paula basin boundary and have confirmed that groundwater of the adjudicated basin boundary respond to recharge operations in the Oxna basin, whereas groundwater elevations to the north of the boundary do not. In a significant discontinuity in groundwater elevations from one side of this bound The practical effect of this change in the Santa Paula basin boundar small region between the old managed under either the Santa Paula Basin Stipulated Judgment or FC regulations. Because this area is in hydrologic continuity with the remainder of Forebay basin, it would be appropriate to move the FCGMA boundary slightly n coincide with the reinterpreted boundary of the Santa Paula basin and to reflect continuity of this area with the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin. It is recommended consider making this boundary change based on the technical information availa By allowing a strip of land to be unmanaged through either the Santa Paula Stipulated Judgment or the FCGMA, it is possible to site wells on this strip of land and directly benefit from the significant recharge that takes place in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin, meanwhile adversely affecting downgradient portions of the aquifers that rely on this recharge to repel seawater intrusion. By bringing this area into the FCGMA, wells sited in a strip of land will appropriately be subject to FCGMA extraction allocations and other management strategies. If the land described here is not brought into the FCGMA, it could invite unmanaged pumping that would adversely affect the basins within the FCGMA. 65 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 440 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 outheast of Santa Paula basin where FCGMA boundary is not coincident with Forebay basin Figure 28. Area s current basin boundaries. The yellow area represents the portion of the Oxnard which is currently outside of the FCGMA. 10.1.9 Irrigation Efficiency Calculations 10.1.9.1 Description Current FCGMA policies allow agricultural pumpers to meet a crop efficiency s irrigation as an alternative to the Historical or Baseline allocation and credit option is called the Irrigation Efficiency allocation. FCGMA efficiency calculatio daily information from a set of weather information gathering stations mainta FCGMA. Water demand for an index crop (cool season grass) is calculated da is then app tandard for their program. This ns are based on ined across the ily. A crop factor lied to this index water demand to adjust the required water demand downward for calculating crop al allowed water demand for each of the four major crop types and allowing an extra 20% water use for salt leaching and irrigation-system inefficiencies. The Irrigation Efficiency allocation was intentionally designed to make it possible for growers to sustain profitable agriculture within the FCGMA, but at the same time raise awareness of water conservation. The FCGMA should review the effectiveness of the efficiency allocation periodically to ensure that it being equitably applied. In practice, Irrigation Efficiencies that pumpers report to the FCGMA are as a rule quite high – 100% to as much as 300% (water use as little as one third of estimated demand). This four major categories of crops grown within the FCGMA. The final step in irrigation efficiency is to adjust for 80% irrigation efficiency by taking the annu 66 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 suggests the method of calculating Irrigation Efficiency may not be appropriate. method would not affect the vast majority of pumpers who now report h However, it may identify any pumpers who are not using irrigation water efficien more difficult for them to reach the minimum required efficiency. It is recomm FCGMA Board consider a strategy to examine the method of calculating Irrig Topics to consider might i Improving the igh efficiencies. ended that the ation Efficiency. nclude adjusting crop demand for more specific crops, re-examining ent, and ensuring that acreages reported be actual irrigated acreage tly by making it the 80% efficiency requirem rather than total owned acreage. 10.1.9.2 Potential Effectiveness It is not clear exactly what amount of reduction in agricultural pumping would oc the Irrigation Efficiency calculation. As documented elsewhere in this Ma agricultural pumping reported to the FCGMA has been reduced by as much a FCGMA pumping restrictions were initiated. Thus, most agricultural pumpers have apparently increased their irrigation efficiency substantially over the last cur by adjusting nagement Plan, s 30% since the 15 years. As discussed above, the be affected by any changes in the Irrigation Efficiency calculation. However, changes in the efficiency calculation might affect o have not already improved their irrigation efficiency. vast majority of those efficient pumpers are unlikely to those pumpers wh 10.1.10 Additional Storage Projects in Overdrafted Basins 10.1.10.1 Description Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) projects, such as the Las Posas Bas provide benefits to an overdrafted basin because water stored in the basin rai levels above what they would be without the project. The water is not perman the basin, but is r in ASR project, ses groundwater ently devoted to emoved from time to time, generally during periods of water shortage in g-term benefit to rge nor recovery use a significant is operated in a en substantially gic formation are A, the Pleasant th Oxnard Plain areas are both candidates for ASR projects under current permeability and trategy effective, e hydrologically and to prevent additional intrusion of saline waters during extraction of the stored water. An ASR project could potentially be paired with a barrier well project (discussed in section 10.3.1 Barrier Wells in South Oxnard Plain). The available storage space in the Pleasant Valley and southern Oxnard Plain basins has not been rigorously calculated. The amount of water that has been extracted from coastal areas in excess of recharge has been calculate as about one million acre-feet since the 1950s (UWCD, 2006), with permanent loss of aquifer storage capability from resulting subsidence of about 200,000 AF. The remaining 800,000 AF of potential storage space in the aquifer has been droughts or emergencies. In practice, the water generally remains in storage for multiple years and is not completely removed during extraction periods. Thus, there is a lon the basin. Such projects need to be carefully designed so that neither recha adversely affects other users in the basin. The recovery periods generally ca decline in water levels in the vicinity of the ASR wellfield, especially if the ASR confined aquifer setting. ASR projects are most effective in areas where groundwater levels have be lowered by overdrafting and where the physical properties of the in-situ geolo amenable to both efficient injection and efficient extraction. Within the FCGM Valley and sou conditions because groundwater elevations are continuously below sea level due to overpumping and the geologic formations in these areas have relatively high transmissivity (e.g., Densmore, 1996; Hanson et al., 2003). To make this s saline intrusion currently evident in the south Oxnard Plain would need to b isolated from any ASR project to protect the stored water from degradation 67 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 441 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 partially refilled by intruded seawater, but there remains a large amount of potential aquifer storage space available. 10.1.10.2 Potential Effectiveness Storage projects can be effective in restoring groundwater levels in ove However, the restoration only occurs during the period when water is stored in many storage project rdrafted basins. the basin. For s, the period of storage can be many years and not all the stored water re is a long-term that the project recharge to the rtificial recharge; her pumpers by ting large cones using their wells h potential impacts may be feasible. Higher groundwater levels from storage projects may also mask continuing overdraft in a basin, so it is essential to be without the storage project. Such rt of the East Las Posas Basin Management Plan (Appendix C) with regards may be removed during the extraction phase of the project – in that case, the positive effect on the basin. There are two issues that must be addressed with any storage project to ensure does not adversely impact a basin: 1) the storage project must not interfere with basin by creating groundwater levels so high that there is rejected natural and a and 2) extraction of stored water must not adversely affect the basin and ot pulling in poor-quality water, dewatering clays and creating subsidence, or crea of depression around project extraction wells that prevent nearby pumpers from efficiently. Mitigation of suc continually determine what the basin condition would safeguards are pa to the Las Posas Basin ASR project. 10.1.11 Penalties Used to Purchase Replacement Water 10.1.11.1 Description The FCGMA charges a penalty to pumpers for extracting more water than is a various allocations (Historical, Baseline, Irrigation Efficiency). Up to 2006 generated significant revenue because few pumpers have exceeded their allo may be circumstances in the future, however, where this may not be true. groundwater use caused by the over-pumping could be offset by using the fee penalties to purchase replacement water for the extracted groundwate llowed under the , this has not cation. There The increased s generated by r. This is a strategy used r District, where the penalty is called a Basin Assessment Fee. The portions of increase their grams from the other programs. eyance down the Santa Clara River or Calleguas MWD’s pipeline, depending upon how the water was purchased and used. 10.1.11.2 Potential Effectiveness by the Orange County Wate FCGMA has several options to obtain additional water, including purchasing unused Ventura County’s State Water Allocation, paying M&I users to imported/groundwater blend, and purchase of water through a variety of pro State or others such as turn-back pool water, Dry-Year Purchase Program, and This water could be delivered through either conv A FCGMA policy to purchase water to replace over-pumped groundwater would have a direct effect on the aquifers. If the replacement was done judiciously, more water could be purchased than was originally pumped and/or the water could be used for recharge particularly stressed areas such as the southern Oxnard Plain basin or the Pleasant Valley basin. Thus, the replacement water could actually improve groundwater conditions. 68 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 10.1.12 Additional Water Conservation 10.1.12.1 Description There is a growing move to require the use of recycled water to replace non- new developments in California. The FCGMA could encourage local cities an agencies to require a dual plumbing system (where it meets plumbing developments where it is practical to deliver recycled water of suitable quality could make this policy known to the permitting agencies through both a resolut organizations and by commenting on this issue when reviewing EIRs and documents potable uses in d other planning code) in new . The FCGMA ion sent to these other planning . This policy would be consistent with the requirements in some areas within the Agency, such as the County policy that requires all new golf courses to use 100% reclaimed in new larger Another water conservation strategy is to require maximum feasible infiltration of stormwater Low Impact Development). This strategy is only effective when the overlies perched quifers. water and the City of Camarillo that requires dual plumbing systems developments. within a new development ( development overlies a recharge area for the aquifer. When a development water or sealing clay near the surface, the infiltrated water does not benefit the a 10.1.12.2 Potential Effectiveness The effectiveness of this policy in reducing pumping depends upon the amoun that would otherwise be pumped from groundwater and delivered to the proje purveyors within the FCGMA serve a blend of groundwater a t of groundwater ct. Many water nd imported water, so the pumping epend upon the re is substantial would be more g system, there have been estimated savings of 30% to 40% in potable water use just from outdoor landscaping. ve, the effectiveness of maximizing recharge of stormwater can be variable. ercolation of rain here percolated savings would be in the groundwater component. The savings would also d amount of non-potable water needs or uses within these projects. Where the landscaping in a new project, for example, the savings in potable water substantial. In developments that require a dual plumbin As discussed abo When a development is located in a basin such as the Oxnard Plain Forebay, p is an important component of recharge and should be protected. In areas w surface water does not reach the aquifers, the strategy is not effective. 10.1.13 Shelf Life for Conservation Credits 10.1.13.1 Description The initial 1985 FCGMA Management Plan set the policy that when a well o less than his allocation in any particular year, Conservation Credits were a perator pumped warded for the unpumped portion of the allocation. The theory behind the Conservation Credit policy was that pumping would vary between wet and dry years; credits would be earned during wet years when pumping was reduced and the credits would then be used during the dry years when above-average pumping was required. With this scheme, pumping credits would theoretically zero-out at the end of each wet-dry cycle. However, no process was put in place to assure that large numbers of Conservation Credits were not accumulated beyond the end at each wet-dry cycle. The practical result of this policy is large numbers of Conservation Credits continue to accrue to some well owners – as many as tens of thousands of acre-feet of Conservation Credits have accrued to some organizations with multiple wells. 69 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 442 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 The current method of accumulating Conservation Credits with no expiration da left a large theoretical pumping debt on the aquifers (equivalent to several yea current extraction rates). This large debt complicates evaluation of the hea because current groundwater conditions do not reflect this unused pumping debt. This is no te has effectively rs of pumping at lth of the basin ary debt. ginally intended, ld be to have a stressed in any nta Paula basin, adjudication allows unpumped allocations to be year expire after ocations earned ave to reflect a s, which vary by t conditions and more-expensive ge in credit policy reflects these varying management strategies, the FCGMA should consider forming a rs) to study the sues that would shelf life on credits to be earned in the future and the fate of credits dry periods and a. No change is different than judging a company's financial condition without considering monet To bring FCGMA policy into line with the purpose for which credits were ori several approaches are available. Perhaps the most important approach cou limit on the annual use of these credits so that the aquifers would not be overly single year. Another approach could be similar to that used in the adjacent Sa where the Stipulated Judgment from the basin accumulated, but unlike in the FCGMA, any unpumped allocations for a single seven years. In this manner, accumulated debt is restricted to unpumped all within any single wet-dry cycle. If unused credits were to expire after a period of time, the strategy would h reasonable management strategy that takes into account the needs of pumper water use. For agricultural pumpers, credits are accrued for both future drough cropping changes. M&I pumpers may have accrued credits by substituting imported water to provide a drought or emergency buffer. To ensure that any chan committee (similar to the one that proposed the policy on calibration of mete issue and make recommendations on any policy changes. There are two is need to be addressed – the earned in the past. This policy is not appropriate for Storage Credits, where water is stored for both for emergencies such as earthquakes or levee failures in the Sacramento Delt recommended for Storage Credits. 10.1.13.2 Potential Effectiveness The current policy for Conservation Credits allowing continuing accumulation m determine the current health of the basin – especially when the current p equivalent to about three years’ total pumping within the FCGMA. Modifying th to expire older credits would allow a more accurate view of the health of the basin and would akes it difficult to umping debt is e FCGMA policy prevent a large pumping debt from accumulating. The effect a changed policy would have on MA is not clear. On one hand, credit holders might be tion. This might effectively increase FCGMA ing accumulated Alternatively, under the current policy of accumulating credits, many years-worth of accumulated credits could be pumped in a single dry year far exceeding any annual recharge, adversely impacting the groundwater basins through pulling in poor-quality waters and/or causing irreversible basin subsidence. 10.2 10-YEAR STRATEGIES The following strategies that can be implemented within ten years are ranked by order of effectiveness and/or importance. future extractions within the FCG encouraged to pump credits prior to their expira pumping over its current levels, because some of these credits are currently be instead of being pumped. 70 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 10.2.1 Additional In-Lieu Recharge to South Oxnard Plain 10.2.1.1 Description One of the most effective management strategies in reducing overdraft is directly to overdrafted areas. This in-lieu strategy has been very effective in th System, where Santa Clara River water delivered through the Pumping Trou helped to alleviate the pumping trough that has been present for several deca south Oxnard Plain. Because the Lower Aquifer System n to supply water e Upper Aquifer gh Pipeline has des beneath the ow has its own pumping trough g in water from uld extend the nt pipeline. The River water and Forebay basin. Another method rine line (under viding this water r from Oxnard's GREAT project either for direct delivery to pumpers or for injection into the Lower Aquifer red through an in-lieu program to this area should be eligible for asin as part of a 0.1.5 Policy on beneath the same area, extending the Pumping Trough Pipeline and/or bringin other sources to the south Oxnard Plain would likely be equally as effective. There are several options available to implement this strategy. UWCD co Pumping Trough Pipeline to supply water to pumpers who are south of the curre source of this water would likely be a combination of diverted Santa Clara groundwater pumped from the Saticoy Wellfield located in the Oxnard Plain UWCD has investigated such a project in the past, but costs were prohibitive. of bringing water to the area would be to use Calleguas MWD's regional b construction in 2006) to bring recycled or other water from upstream areas, pro was of sufficient irrigation suitability. A third option would be to use wate System. Any water delive credits. If there is any transfer of pumping back to the Oxnard Plain Forebay b project using this strategy, then the considerations discussed in section 1 Recovery of Credits from Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin would be applicable. 10.2.1.2 Potential Effectiveness Reducing pumping and/or injecting water into the aquifer in areas just inla intrusion can be a very effective strategy. Simulations of the Ventura Regio Model th nd of seawater nal Groundwater at implement this management strategy have been shown to be effective in reducing 00 AFY of additional water are delivered or injected in the Lower Aquifer System rise by an average of 7 of the groundwater modeling suggest that BMOs for groundwater levels would nt management nt management the overdraft. For example, when 3,0 south Oxnard Plain, groundwater levels in the feet. The results be met 53% of the time in the Upper Aquifer (compared to 51% with curre strategies) and 7% of the time in the Lower Aquifer (compared to 5% with curre strategies). 10.2.2 Import Additional State Water 10.2.2.1 Description As part of a joint integrated water management plan, UWCD and Calleguas MWD are considering expansion of State Water importation by obtaining additional amounts of Ventura County’s State Water allocation on a year-by-year basis when it is not used by other Ventura County agencies. This additional water would likely be delivered to Lake Piru and released as part of UWCD’s conservation release to benefit the Oxnard Plain. Currently, State Water is released from Lake Piru by UWCD as part of its conveyance of stored storm water to downstream basins. Typically, a portion of the released water percolates into basins upstream from the Freeman Diversions and the remainder of the water is diverted for recharge (direct and in-lieu). How this additional State Water is used and accounted for will likely depend upon how it is financed. 71 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 443 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 10.2.2.2 Potential Effectiveness The effectiveness of new water importation depends upon how the water is r aquifers or delivered. If this imported water could be delivered to FCGMA pu pumping groundwater, then there would be a direct benefit to the aquifer pumping proportional to the amount of imported water. If, instead, this water w pumpers and substituted for a like amount of the imported water that wo otherwise h echarged to the mpers in-lieu of s from reduced as extracted by uld they would ave delivered by Calleguas MWD, then the effects of the importation would be he effectiveness ss of importing ough Lake Piru, r, diverted at the For the model urchased in dry results of the groundwater modeling suggest that Upper Aquifer groundwater levels in the Forebay basin would rise by an average of 6 feet. BMOs for pper Aquifer (compared to 51% with ent strategies) and 7% of the time in the Lower Aquifer (compared to 5% with neutral. Thus, the ultimate fate of this additional imported water would govern t of the strategy. The Ventura Regional Groundwater Model was used to test the effectivene additional State Water. For the model scenario, the water was imported thr released with UWCD’s annual conservation release down the Santa Clara Rive Freeman Diversion, and recharged in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin. simulation, it was assumed that 10,000 AFY of additional State Water were p and average years. The groundwater levels would be met 54% of the time in the U current managem current management strategies). 10.2.3 Further Destruction of Abandoned or Leaking Wells 10.2.3.1 Description With grant support, the FCGMA destroyed 49 abandoned or leaking wells that were considered to have the highest potential for cross-contamination from perched o considered in at also have the riority to finding by the FCGMA and UWCD waters into the main aquifers within the FCGMA (cost and feasibility were als ranking the wells for destruction). There remains a long list of additional wells th potential for cross contamination of the aquifers. The FCGMA should give a p additional funds to continue this effort of well destruction. 10.2.3.2 Potential Effectiveness Destroying abandoned or leaking wells is very effective in preventing cross contamination of ched waters itions for cross of this cross red. aquifers within the FCGMA. In the Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins, per have a much higher head (elevation) than underlying aquifers, so the cond contamination are widespread. Although there are documented cases contamination occurring, it is not known how widespread this has actually occur 10.2.4 Additional Monitoring Needs 10.2.4.1 Description The current groundwater monitoring program has worked well in tracking saline intrusion beneath the Oxnard Plain. This monitoring network, along with a few other monitoring wells, were installed around 1990 by the US Geological Survey with financing provided by local agencies. Since the initial installation of the monitoring network, the continuing monitoring of these wells has been conducted by UWCD, VCWPD, and the City of San Buenaventura. As the saline intrusion on the south Oxnard Plain has moved inland, UWCD has sited and will drill two new multiple-completion monitoring wells inland of the saline intrusion. This increased monitoring program will adequately track water level and water quality trends on the south Oxnard Plain for the next several years. 72 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 In the Pleasant Valley basin, additional monitoring wells might be required i continue to increase. The location of these potential monitoring wells wou where the chloride increases occur. In the Las Posas basins, most of the exi utilizes existing production or injection wells. As part of the East Las Posas Ba Plan (Appendix C), new monitoring wells would provide information on the Calleguas Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) proje f chloride levels ld depend upon sting monitoring sin Management effects of the ct. Any such monitoring wells would likely ells would likely n Forebay basin, rsely affected or onitoring in the lfield. Additional will be shifted to ount of pumping proposes such ing that uses a iate to the location of increased pumping. At a minimum, de collection of monthly groundwater levels and quarterly water ) should include st to determine Potential Effectiveness be drilled by the Calleguas Municipal Water District. Monitoring of these w become a part of the overall Calleguas ASR monitoring program. As more management strategies rely on increased pumping in the Oxnard Plai increased monitoring will be required to ensure Forebay pumpers are not adve that pumping does not create additional groundwater problems. Increased m Forebay has already been planned during operation of the UWCD Saticoy Wel monitoring should be required by the FCGMA for other projects where pumping the Forebay basin. An example is the GREAT project, where a substantial am may be shifted to the Forebay; environmental documentation for the project increased monitoring. The exact monitoring required for any Forebay pump transfer of credits should be appropr this monitoring should inclu quality samples (to include constituents of concern such as nitrate and TDS both Forebay monitoring and monitoring between the Forebay and the coa potential effects in coastal groundwater levels. 10.2.4.2 e the overdraft problem, but it is essential in determining the gement strategies. In particular, monitoring provides the nd often serves ding of the dynamics of the multiple aquifer systems identified within the FCGMA. R STRATEGIES ked by order of Monitoring by itself does not solv effectiveness of the other mana continuing evaluation of whether basin management objectives are being met, a to increase the understan 10.3 15-YEA The following strategies that can be implemented within 15 years are ran effectiveness and/or importance. 10.3.1 Barrier Wells in South Oxnard Plain 10.3.1.1 Description Seawater barrier wells are used extensively in Los Angeles and Orange countie controlling seawater intrusion. A barrier project injects wate s as a means of r along a series of wells creating a mound of recharge water as protection against seawater moving inland. Barrier wells are both expensive and complex, with costs of maintaining a barrier several times higher than for typical facilities in Ventura County such as the Freeman Diversion, spreading ponds, and distribution pipelines. In Los Angeles and Orange counties, there is a significant component of recycled water in the injected water. Thus, special health regulations govern this type of injection and are a necessary component of plans and facilities. In Ventura County, an attempt to construct a seawater barrier in the late 1970s and 1980s by the California Department of Water Resources in the Port Hueneme area was not particularly successful. Since that attempt, barrier wells were not seriously considered again because lower-cost options were identified. 73 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 444 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 We now know portions of the aquifer on the south Oxnard Plain are very difficul particular, the Lower Aquifer System of the south Oxnard Plain has been large spreading operations in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin because this rech impeded from flowing into the areas of depressed groundwater levels by structural barrier (see discussion in section 3.0 Groundwater Basins and Oxnard Plain Basin). The City of Oxnard GREAT project has evaluated ba south Oxnard Plain as a method of delivering recycled water during winte agricultural irrigation deman t to recharge. In ly unaffected by arge is partially a fault or other Hydrogeology – rrier wells in the r months when d is low. It may be prudent to consider expanding winter injection to for this full-time uality to prevent uld likely be a nse of building, -time barrier project currently makes such a project for Ventura County a lower priority. If other projects to supply in-lieu water to the south Oxnard ime barrier was ject, then a full- GREAT Project (Recycled Water), FCGMA credits for recharge in a than 1:1 because the recharged water might mix with contaminated e Oxnard Plain essed in section more seasons of the year to create a full-time barrier. Additional source water barrier would need to be identified. A difficulty with barrier wells is that the injected water must be of very high q clogging of the well screens. Thus, the source water for the injection wo combination of highly-treated recycled water and potable water. The expe maintaining, and providing water to a full Plain fail to prevent the increasing intrusion of saline waters or if a full-t considered as an add-on to injection wells already built through the GREAT pro time barrier project might be economically feasible. As discussed in section 9.1 barrier project might be less saline groundwater. Likewise, if these credits are used for extraction from th Forebay basin, these extractions would have to follow uniform procedures addr 10.1.5 Policy on Recovery of Credits from Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin. 10.3.1.2 Potential Effectiveness Barrier wells could be very effective in preventing saline intrusion from movin Simulations of the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model indicate a barrier proj rates of 21,000 AFY into the Lower Aquifer System would raise Lower Aquifer average of 46 feet at the BMO wells, with an average groundwater elevation at ft msl. The rate of injection that was tested in the model was chosen to m injection rate of the GREAT project at full planned implementation. g further inland. ect with injection water levels an the barrier of 28 atch the winter ter levels would be met 63% of anagement strategies) and 48% Lower Aquifer (compared to 5% with current management strategies. The ). However, the within the LAS saline intrusion e depression. 10.3.2 Injection of Treated River Water into Overdrafted Basins 10.3.2.1 Description The groundwater modeling suggests that BMOs for groundwa the time in the Upper Aquifer (compared to 51% with current m of the time in the barrier project is the most effective strategy modeled in meeting BMOs (Table 8 barrier would not prevent saline intrusion in areas inland of the barrier groundwater depression in the Pleasant Valley basin; the only prevention for within the groundwater depression would be to raise groundwater levels within th A management strategy that is commonly suggested is taking diversions from the Santa Clara River when there is abundant river flow and injecting it into the aquifers that have depressed water levels. However, raw river water could not be injected without treatment that would bring the water to at least drinking water quality to prevent well clogging and potential health concerns; the cost of this treatment was generally considered to be prohibitive when compared 74 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 to other management strategies. This assumption may no longer be correct, as treatment costs nd the south Oxnard Plain already exists. The costs of the injection would be building a treatment ter in the Santa occur following periods (several be conveyed to rd Plain via the existing Pleasant Valley and PTP pipelines. e treated and injected. Unlike aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) ould not be Potential Effectiveness become more affordable when compared to alternatives. Much of the infrastructure to convey water from the Freeman Diversion to Pleasant Valley a facility, installing injection wells, and operating the treatment plant. This injection would logically operate during periods when there is more wa Clara River than recharge facilities can accommodate. These conditions rainstorms during many average precipitation years and can occur for extended months) during heavy precipitation years. The additional diversions could Pleasant Valley and the South Oxna The raw water would then b projects, the water would be placed in the aquifer for recharge purposes and w extracted at a later time as part of the project. 10.3.2.2 providing direct ng stresses and Injection of treated river water could be very effective in raising groundwater levels in the imulations of the into the Lower years would raise Lower eet at the BMO wells in the area of injection. modeling suggests that BMOs for groundwater levels would be met 53% of egies) and 11% tegies. Besides reducing groundwater pumping in areas of lowered groundwater levels, recharge to affected aquifers is the most effective method of reducing pumpi overdraft. pumping depression in the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins. S Ventura Regional Groundwater Model indicate an injection project with rates Aquifer System of 1,500 AFY during dry years to 5,000 AFY during wet Aquifer water levels an average of as much as 13 f The groundwater the time in the Upper Aquifer (compared to 51% with current management strat of the time in the Lower Aquifer (compared to 5% with current management stra 10.3.3 Increase Diversions from Santa Clara River 10.3.3.1 Description The Freeman Diversion was designed to divert more river water than cu However, the current water right for the Freeman Diversion permitted by t Resources Control Board is only 375 cfs (cubic feet per secon rrent diversions. he State Water d) because other conveyance Freeman Diversion were not designed for the higher flow rate. If e constructed to n rate could be re would have to es. In order to increase diversions at the Freeman Diversion, a modified water right would have to be obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board and appropriate State and Federal agencies would have to be consulted. UWCD is studying options for such an expansion. 10.3.3.2 Potential Effectiveness facilities downstream of the these conveyance facilities were modified and additional spreading facilities wer physically handle the additional volume of water, a right to a higher diversio beneficial during periods of high flow in the river. Any higher diversion procedu be designed so that there was sufficient water available for environmental us The Santa Clara River remains the primary recharge source for the Oxnard Plain basin and supplies significant recharge to the Pleasant Valley basin. It is clear that increased recharge since the Freeman Diversion was constructed has had a major positive impact in reducing seawater intrusion in the Upper Aquifer System. Likewise, many other strategies of this 75 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 445 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Management Plan rely on substituting pumping in areas of poor recharge to Oxnard Plain Forebay basin, which is easily recharged by water diverted from River. Additional diversions and re pumping in the the Santa Clara charge to the Forebay basin, therefore, are necessary to rsions that were urrent 1,000 cfs which uses daily an average of 3,000 AFY ater was largely its. tional diversions ise groundwater 0 ft, allowing the y-year pumping ed in other strategies in this Plan. At Upper and Lower Aquifer wells with BMOs, average groundwater levels would increase by about 3 ft. BMOs for groundwater levels would (compared to 51% with current management of the time in the Lower Aquifer (compared to 5% with current management make other management strategies possible. UWCD’s River Routing Model was used to predict the amount of additional dive possible from peak winter storm flows at the Freeman Diversion, within the c flow capacity limitation of key portions of the conveyance system. The model, flow data, predicted that additional potential diversions ranged from during dry years to an average of 43,000 AFY in wet years. This additional w recharged in hypothetical recharge facilities in the RiverPark and Ferro mining p The Ventura Regional Groundwater Model simulations suggest that the addi have several beneficial effects. The additional recharge from the diversions ra levels in the Upper Aquifer of the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin by more than 1 Forebay to fully fill during wet years and lessening the impact of the dr envision be met 54% of the time in the Upper Aquifer strategies) and 8% strategies. 10.3.4 Shift Pumping to Northwest Oxnard Plain 10.3.4.1 Description The northwest Oxnard Plain, in the area south of the Santa Clara River, has groundwater elevations that have rarely gone below sea level. There are historically had also no submarine rthwest Oxnard Plain, eliminating a short-circuit route for seawater System indicate re in the coastal some increased be shifted to this of pumping. canyons offshore of the no intrusion to reach coastal aquifers. Groundwater gradients in the Upper Aquifer that some of the water recharged to the UAS in the Forebay likely flows offsho northwest Oxnard Plain basin. Thus, this portion of the aquifer might sustain pumping without negative consequences. The amount of pumping that could area would depend upon the configuration of the pumping wells and the volume 10.3.4.2 Potential Effectiveness If pumping is shifted from areas that are difficult to recharge, such as the LAS in the southern portion of the Oxnard Plain basin and in the Pleasant Valley basin, to areas that are more-easily quifers. Simulations of the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model indicate that with a shift of pumping of 2,000 AFY from near the edge of the r levels improve ith BMOs, but drop less than a foot in the northwest Oxnard Plain. Because the current groundwater levels in the Upper Aquifer of the northwest Oxnard Plain are more than 6 ft above their BMO, a more substantial shift in pumping could be accommodated, with a like amount of improvement in other areas of the coastal basins. 10.4 GREATER THAN 15-YEAR STRATEGIES The following strategies that would be implemented later than 15 years are ranked by order of effectiveness and/or importance. recharged, the effect is beneficial to the a Oxnard Plain Forebay basin to the northwest Oxnard Plain basin, groundwate less than a foot at wells w 76 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 10.4.1 Additional Reductions in Pumping Allocations 10.4.1.1 Description After other feasible strategies for reducing the overdraft within the FCGMA pumping reductions beyond the 25% may have to be examined. As discus further pumping reductions may not be necessary if most of the strategies discu are implemented. These strategies are likely to be expensive, however, so the retain as a further strategy additional pumping reductions if the means a implement the strategies. Any additional required reductions should be eff current system of allocations and efficiencies. If this step is necessary, it wou revisit whether agricultural efficiency should be tightened up or continue to be u all pumpers should use the allocation/credit method of reporting. If significan strategies recommended in this Plan are not implemented, consideration sho applying further pumping reductions only in areas where groundwater levels are are considered, sed below, any ssed in this Plan FCGMA should re not found to ected using the ld be prudent to sed, or whether t portions of the uld be given to particularly as part of the evaluation of basin yield (section 7.0 Yield of the xnard Plain and ent Objectives. depressed. For instance, Groundwater Basins), a further reduction of 85% in pumping in the south O Pleasant Valley basins allowed groundwater elevations to meet Basin Managem 10.4.1.2 Potential Effectiveness The necessity of any further pumping reductions was evaluated using the V Groundwater Model. This modeling suggested that with all strategies impleme groundwater levels would be met 67% of the time in the Upper Aquifer (compa current management strategies) and 76% of the time in the Lower Aquifer (com current management strategies. Section 7.0 Yield of the Groundwater Basin issue of how often BMOs should be met to be protective of the basins in th above numbers suggest that implementation of all the management strateg improve the health of entura Regional nted, BMOs for red to 51% with pared to 5% with s discusses the e FCGMA. The ies would vastly the basins. Actual future observations of basin conditions, particularly the fate of sweater intrusion, will determine whether these strategies truly protect the basins. The ns would not be warranted until the effect of the other management strategies can be observed or unless may of the l or other reasons. However, implementation his Plan would be necessary to avoid ES modeling does suggest that further reductions in FCGMA extractio strategies are not implemented because of financia of a significant number of the strategies recommended in t further pumping reductions. 11.0 ACTION PLAN TO ATTAIN BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIV 11.1 PLANNING/IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS 11.1.1 Strategic Planning Many of the management strategies in this plan involve considerable cooperation among agencies within the FCGMA and come at considerable cost. The FCGMA is the common element among these agencies and is the appropriate forum in which to discuss the management strategies. Although many of the actual projects that would implement the management strategies would be built and managed by individual agencies within the FCGMA, the cost of the projects is likely to be spread to a wider group. Projects that have the most advantageous cost/benefit ratios would likely be supported by this wider group. The FCGMA should initiate the discussion of how all the strategies fit together with current and future project of individual agencies. The topics to be covered could include: 77 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 446 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 s of management strategies; ed; ojects; ion have already been generated through agency’s ther within agencies or as larger cooperative efforts, and these plans g point in these discussions. As a follow-up to the strategic planning effort, the FCGMA should take the results of the cus of this effort would be to assist in cooperative efforts to implement the FCGMA management strategies. S their conclusion t BMO indicator necessary to continue this policy because the ation of all of the strategies recommended in l strategies may not make large contributions, commended that nd of 2007 and umping in areas awater intrusion or overdrafted areas by moving those pumping stresses to areas that are Pipeline system, nt transfer is for e Oxnard Plain m has criteria to a restriction on pre-determined The FCGMA should establish a policy for future credit transfers to the Forebay. This policy should include both criteria to ensure that projects do not harm the Forebay and to prioritize future projects if there is more demand for these transfers than the Forebay can accommodate. The Conejo Creek-Supplemental M&I Water projects serve as a good model for future projects that would provide in-lieu recharge or injection through wells in overdrafted areas and then recover that water from the Forebay or other areas that are readily recharged. Any such pumping using FCGMA credits should be able to demonstrate that a plan for increased pumping would not adversely impact the basin pumped. The FCGMA should encourage these types of projects, as long as there is a net benefit to the aquifers and the pumping does not adversely 1) Cost/benefit analyse 2) Cooperative efforts need 3) Methods to finance the pr 4) Actions to implement the projects. Parts of the analyses needed for the discuss master planning efforts ei cold be used as the startin 11.1.2 Implementation strategic planning and facilitate their implementation. The main fo 11.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO EXISTING FCGMA POLICIE 11.2.1 Continuation of 25% Pumping Reduction Groundwater modeling of extending the phased FCGMA pumping reductions to at 25% reductions indicated that this policy results in modest improvements a wells. Despite these modest improvements, it is modeling also indicated that it will take the combin this Plan to reach BMO goals – although individua the sum of these strategies is the key to solving the overdraft problem. It is re the FCGMA Board implement the delayed reduction to 20% before the e implement the reduction to 25% on the 2010 scheduled date. 11.2.2 Credits to be Transferred to Forebay Basin Current water conservation facilities and FCGMA policies encourage reduced p of se more readily recharged. Examples of these projects are the Oxnard-Hueneme the Pumping Trough Pipeline, and the Pleasant Valley Pipeline. A more rece credits accrued by the Conejo Creek project to be used for extractions from th Forebay basin as part of the Supplemental M&I Water Program. The progra prevent adverse impacts from this increased pumping in the Forebay, including pumping when groundwater elevations in key wells in the Forebay are below levels. 78 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 affect that basin. Specific criteria that the FCGMA could use for future projects are discussed in section 10.1.5 Policy on Recovery of Credits from Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin. t Some Pumping from Lower Aquifer System to Upper Aquifer y well permitting asins within the charge sources, ogic connection between portions of the basin, and current/future in-lieu recharge projects. This should be accomplished through use of the Ventura Regional Groundwater lan, with the FCGMA, VCWPD, and UWCD working ation efficiency ate results. The to examine the mining crop demand, including recommending updated weather station technology if necessary. The the FCGMA by us on improving roundwater use cy. eview whether 80% irrigation efficiency is appropriate to current changed. The nagement Plan. A for possible nt strategies are ebay basin, as a f water delivery to areas that are not as readily recharged such as the south Oxnard ers are not a condition of lsewhere within Additional monitoring is also required as part of the East Las Posas Basin Management Plan (Attachment C). This additional monitoring is incorporated in the FCGMA Management Plan by reference. In addition, monitoring should also be required for projects in the future that pump poor-quality water without an allocation along Calleguas Creek. This monitoring would focus on detecting both improvements in water quality in the pumped area and un-anticipated changes in water levels or water quality in adjacent portions of the FCGMA aquifers. 11.2.3 Shif System A shift in pumping back to the UAS has already been initiated through Count requirements. However, this shift should not be uniformly enforced across the b FCGMA. A detailed plan must be formulated that takes into account local re hydrol Model in fine-tuning the details of this p together. 11.2.4 Irrigation Efficiency Calculation As discussed in section 10.1.9 Irrigation Efficiency Calculations, the irrig calculation should be revisited to ensure that the methodology gives appropri FCGMA Board should convene a committee of experts and stakeholders efficiency methodology. This committee would incorporate current methods of deter purpose of this exercise is to ensure that the efficiency calculations submitted to agricultural irrigators are accurate. Any changes to the methodology should foc actual irrigation efficiency by pumpers and ensuring pumpers reporting actual g against their allocation are on the same “level field” as those using irrigation efficien The committee would also r farm management methods or whether this efficiency percentage should be committee should be convened within six months of adoption of this Ma Recommendations of the committee would be presented to the FCGM modification of current ordinances. 11.2.5 Additional Monitoring Additional monitoring may be required by the FCGMA when certain manageme implemented. For instance, projects that rely upon new pumping from the For result o Plain, may require additional monitoring to ensure that other Forebay pump adversely impacted. It is recommended that this additional monitoring be approval for applying pumping credits to the Forebay when they are earned e the FCGMA. 79 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 447 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 11.2.6 Use Penalties to Purchase Replacement Water The FCGMA charges a penalty to pumpers for extracting more water than is al various allocations (Historical, Baseline, Irrigation Efficiency). The increased g caused by the over-pumping could be offset by using the fees generated purchase replacement water for the extracted groundwater. The FCGMA has s obtain additional water, including purchasing unused portions of Ventura Cou Allocation, paying M&I users to increase their imported/groundwater blend, a water through a variety of programs from the State or others such as turn-back Year Purchase Program lowed under the roundwater use by penalties to everal options to nty’s State Water nd purchase of pool water, Dry- , and other programs. This water could be delivered through either D’s pipeline, depending upon how the It is recommended that this Plan be updated every five years. This update should include a of strategies that have been implemented, al management umbrella of this Management Plan. al management MA Board adopt , the policies on should be incorporated A Management Plan. ctions that treat y in the future if FCGMA Board ue with additional pumping reductions. ould be adopted about individual s and/or to add 11.3.4 Extractions of Poor-Quality Water Without an Allocation There are additional areas along Calleguas Creek besides the South Las Posas basin where groundwater has elevated salinity. Base flow from the Arroyo Las Posas has migrated completely across the South and East Las Posas basins and into the northernmost Pleasant Valley basin, providing a source of new recharge to this portion of the Pleasant Valley basin. However, this new recharge water has created water quality problems for groundwater pumpers. City of Camarillo wells in this area have experienced increased salts as groundwater conveyance down the Santa Clara River or Calleguas MW water was purchased and used. 11.3 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONS TO FCGMA POLICIES 11.3.1 5-Year Update of FCGMA Management Plan status of how the BMOs are being met, effectiveness status of other recommended strategies, and recommendations for any addition strategies. 11.3.2 Separate Management Plans for Some Basins All of the basins within the FCGMA are managed under an However, there are circumstances in some of the basins that require addition policies, such as in the East Las Posas basin. It is recommended that the FCG the East Las Posas Management Plan (Appendix C) by resolution. In addition pumping and treating poorer quality groundwater without an allocation into FCGMA policy by adopting this overall FCGM It is recommended that no changes be made to current FCGMA pumping redu all the FCGMA basins the same. It would be appropriate to revisit this polic basin management objectives have been achieved in a particular basin; the might consider whether it is appropriate to contin 11.3.3 Adoption of Basin Management Objectives The basin management objectives recommended in this Management Plan sh by resolution by the FCGMA Board. As additional information becomes known groundwater basins, it may be appropriate to modify the recommended objective additional objectives. 80 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 levels have risen over the last decade, similar to what has already happened in the South and rategy providing the basin without es a new water re not met, then as Posas basin, prove the water w bypasses the Alternatively, if he main portion ater in the main ovide a new supply of water. This lack of would have to be demonstrated using standard geologic techniques. d include analysis of groundwater levels, water quality parameters, well ction of injection sion is one that has barrier redits that could As discussed in section 10.1.5 Policy on Recovery of Credits from Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin, there may be s recommended that any such FCGMA approval be improving water elsewhere does e effects of both 11.3.6 Protecting Recharge Supplies recharge sources for the aquifers and these recharge uence with other t include writing gencies, and testifying at hearings related to It is recommended that the FCGMA develop a policy to limit high-nitrate crops in reclaimed gravel basins where there is little or no vadose zone for degradation of the nitrate before it reaches groundwater. The particulars of this issue are discussed in section 10.1.4 Limitation on Nitrate Sources in Portions of the Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin. 11.3.8 Additional Conservation Measures It is recommended that the FCGMA Board adopt a policy encouraging all planning agencies within the FCGMA to require dual plumbing in new developments where treated wastewater is East Las Posas basins. Extraction of this groundwater is an appropriate groundwater management st that either: 1) extracting the groundwater improves the overall water quality in also causing overpumping of the basin or 2) extracting the groundwater provid supply outside of those currently allocated by the FCGMA. If these conditions a the extractions should be debited against an existing allocation. In the South L for example, pumping and treating the shallow groundwater would both im quality and not reduce supplies to the basin (better quality stormwater that no basin would then have the ability to infiltrate and replace the pumped water). shallow groundwater along Calleguas Creek was not hydraulically connected to t of the basin, and pumping that groundwater would have no effect on groundw basin, then pumping this groundwater could pr hydrologic connection These techniques woul logs, age-dating, geochemical analyses, or other techniques. 11.3.5 Barrier Wells As discussed in section 10.3.1 Barrier Wells in South Oxnard Plain, constru barrier wells near the coastline to prevent landward migration of saline intru management strategy. Under current FCGMA policy, any project in the future wells as a project component would need FCGMA approval to earn extraction c be used to pump a like amount of groundwater elsewhere within the FCGMA. issues related to the pump-back. It i contingent upon analysis of the potential effectiveness of the barrier in the quality, analysis showing that pumping credits earned by injection that are used not adversely affect the pumped area, and a monitoring program to measure th the barrier wells and the extraction wells. Because of the importance of preserving current potentially adding additional recharge, the FCGMA adopts a policy that protects sources. Although the FCGMA cannot determine water rights, it will use its infl agencies to ensure protection of the recharge sources. FCGMA actions migh letters of support, discussing the issues with other a these recharge sources. 11.3.7 Nitrate Sources in Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin 81 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 448 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 feasible for use. As part of this policy, the FCGMA should work with planners to incorporate these policies into general plans and other appropriate planning documents. nsure that self- This procedure could be as simple as an annual random inspection of a few meters to ensure that the meter is installed and e with the meter readings. nted because of e other factor, the FCGMA should consider further and the required reductions could be 11.3.9 Verification Procedure for Extraction Reporting It is recommended that the FCGMA establish a verification procedure to e reporting of extractions by pumpers to the FCGMA is accurate. that the readings that are reported to the FCGMA agre 11.3.10 Consideration of Further Pumping Reductions If most of the effective strategies recommended in this Plan are not impleme cost, lack of cooperation, lack of will, or som pumping reductions. The actual reductions required would depend upon how the basins have responded to the strategies that have been implemented, determined using the groundwater model at that time. 12.0 SUMMARY OF FCGMA MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FCGMA management strategies are separated into three categories – current, in development, and future. Each strategy has a short description. For a full discussion of each strategy, refer the n management strategies. Some of these strategies related directly to FCGMA ordinances and other actions. Many of these strategies are carried out by se projects or make h the credit program. EGIES Management Plan and those that have been to earlier three sections o agencies other than the FCGMA, but FCGMA policies either encourage the them possible throug 12.1 CURRENT STRAT Includes those within the original 1985 FCGMA developed since that time: Limitation of Groundwater Extractions – 25% phased reduction in pu 80% agricult mping, including ural efficiency. Encourage Both Wastewater Reclamation and Water Conservation – En recycled water and water co ation technique couraged use of nserv s. CD’s PumpingOperation of the Oxnard Plain Seawater Intrusion Control Project (UW Trough Pipeline, Lower Aquifer System Wells, Freeman Diversion) – Encourage UWCD projects. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Program – Conducted by VCWPD and UWCD. East and West Las Posas Basin Pumping Restrictions – Restricted water use outside La Posas basin and FCGMA boundary. Monitor FCGMA Groundwater Extractions – Program of reporting extractions to FCGMA. Implementation of Drilling and Pumping Restrictions – Various policies for aquifers used for water production and for well completions. 82 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Metering of Groundwater Extractions – Required meters on all except domestic wells. Fox Canyon Outcrop Expansion Area – Grandfathered some historic areas where ncy boundaries. ading Basins – groundwater pumped from within the FCGMA is delivered outside of Age Noble Spre Encouraged expanding UWCD historical artificial recharge areas. Las Posas Basin ASR Project – Set criteria for Aquifer Storage and Re Las Posas basin. covery project in Conejo Creek Diversion Project – Allowed credits for diversion and delivery of water to pumpers in-lieu of their pumping groundwater. Supplemental M&I Water Program – Allowed credits earned in Pleasan be pump t Valley basin to ed from Oxnard Plain Forebay basin which is more easily recharged. Saticoy Wellfield – Groundwater pumped by UWCD from Oxnard Plain delivered to pumpers in Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins in lieu Forebay basin is of pumping local Importation of State Water – groundwater. Credits earned by UWCD for importing State Water for to help solve management problems in the future. recharge are put in a special account Calibration of Groundwater Extraction Meters – Meters on wells will now be re-calibrated EVELOPMENT lace: every three years. 12.2 STRATEGIES UNDER D Includes strategies in which planning and design of projects is currently taking p RiverPark Recharge Pits – Encourage additional recharge facilities in Fo GREAT Project (Recycled Water) – rebay. Credits earned from in-lieu deliveries and injection of South Las Posas Basin Pump/Treat – recycled can be pumped from Forebay. Poor quality water can be pumped and treated without using credits. Development of Brackish Groundwater, Pleasant Valley Basin – Poor quality water may ble to be pumped and treated without using credits. be a Non-Export of FCGMA Water – Enforce current restrictions on water export; determine procedure for periodic evaluation of whether there are new water exports. 12.3 FUTURE STRATEGIES – 5 YEARS Includes strategies that could be implemented within the first 5 years (ranked in order of effectiveness): 5-Year Update of FCGMA Management Plan – Regular updating of plan, report on BMOs and progress 83 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 449 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Plan to Shift Some Pumping Back to Upper Aquifer System – Shift some to UAS, with area an new wells back d number to be determined jointly with UWCD using Ventura Regional Groundwater Model. Protect Current Sources of Recharge – Use FCGMA influence with regulatory agencies not degraded or on Nitrate Sources in Portions of the Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin – to ensure that sources of recharge such as the Santa Clara River are unduly dedicated to non-recharge uses. Limitation Limit high- e is either very sin – nitrate crops in reclaimed gravel basins in Forebay where a vadose zon thin or missing. Policy on Recovery of Credits from Oxnard Plain Forebay Ba Adopt a d Plain Forebay f Extraction Reporting – recommended policy for transfer of credits for pumping in the Oxnar basin. Verification o Annually check a few random wells for meter use or Some Basins – and accurate reporting of meter readings. Separate Management Strategies f Adopt East Las Posas Basin Management Plan. FCGMA Boundary – Adjust FCGMA boundary to conform to Oak R boundary with Santa Paula Basin Adjudication. Irrigation Efficiency Calculations – idge fault and Consider modifying calculations for Irrigation Efficiency Allocation. Additional Storage Projects in Overdrafted Basins – Consider sto Pleasant Valley and perhaps southern Oxnard Plain basins, ensurin rage projects in g that the storage n. ter – does not interfere with current groundwater uses or recharge to the basi Penalties Used to Purchase Replacement Wa Use penalties for pumping beyond arge to the aquifers. allocation to purchase water for rech Additional Water Conservation – Encourage agencies and cities to req in new developments, where possible, to replace groundwater use with re uire dual plumbing cycled water. Shelf Life for Conservation Credits – Allow Conservation Credits to expi cycle to bring credit polic re after a wet-dry y in line with goals of this program. STRATEGIES – 10 YEARS Includes strategies that could be implemented within 5 to 10 years (ranked in order of effectiveness): Additional In-Lieu Recharge to South Oxnard Plain – 12.4 FUTURE Deliver additional water to southern Oxnard Plain to offset pumping. Import Additional State Water – Import and recharge more of Ventura County’s State Water Allocation. 84 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Further Destruction of Abandoned or Leaking Wells – Seek grant fund program of destroying a ing to reinstate bandoned or leaking wells that pose a risk of cross contamination of FCGMA aquifers. Additional Monitoring Needs – Support UWCD and VCWPD in determining additional monitoring needs as contamination threats evolve. rder of 12.5 FUTURE STRATEGIES – 10 TO 15 YEARS Includes strategies that could be implemented within 10 to 15 years (ranked in o effectiveness): Barrier Wells in South Oxnard Plain – Develop a policy for credits for barrier w water injected in ells. Injection of Treated River Water into Overdrafted Basins – Treat divert drinking wate ed river water to r quality and recharge it through injection in Oxnard Plain and Pleasant ara River– Valley basin. Increase Diversions from Santa Cl Increase diversions of high-volume storm flows for recharge. Shift Pumping to Northwest Oxnard Plain – Shift some pumping to rech the more easily arged northwestern Oxnard Plain. 12. Incl ranked in order of effectiveness): Additional Reductions in Pumping Allocations 6 FUTURE STRATEGIES – GREATER THAN 15 YEARS udes strategies that could be implemented more than 15 years from now ( – As a last resort if the other strategies fail to meet Basin Management Objectives, consider reducing allocations beyond the required 25% reduction. Also consider focusing these reductions in the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins where groundwater levels are particularly depressed. 85 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 450 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 13.0 REFERENCES Bachman, S.B., 1999. , Joint report to ct, 35p. s and Bachman, S.B., Hauge, C., McGlothlin, R., Neese, K., Parker, T., Saracino, A., Slater, S., 2005. es Association, ity Study, August. Cal Plain of Ventura -1, 59p. ds in the coastal ground water basin of Oxnard Plain, Ventura County: California Department of Water Salinas Valley, Department of Water Resources San Joaquin District Technical Report, 42p. r,Bulletin 118, Las Posas basin groundwater elevations and water quality Calleguas Municipal Water District and United Water Conservation Distri Bachman, S.B., 2002. Water quality in the East and South Las Posas basin – problem solutions, Report to Calleguas Municipal Water District, 25p. California groundwater management, California Groundwater Resourc 270p. Black and Veatch, Inc., 2005. City of Camarillo Groundwater Treatment Facility Feasibil ifornia Department of Water Resources, 1954. Seawater intrusion: Oxnard County: Bulletin No. 63 California Department of Water Resources, 1971. Seawater intrusion: aquitar Resources Bulletin 63-4, 567p. California Department of Water Resources, 1973. Seawater intrusion lowers California California Department of Water Resources, 2003. California’s Groundwate http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/index.cfm. California State Water Resources Board (CSWRB), 1956. Ventura County Investigation, Bulletin 12, 2 volumes. CH al groundwater basin, Ventura County, California, Report to Metropolitan City of Oxnard, 2005, Environmental Impact Report for GREAT Project, 180 p. Den Santa Clara- 1989-95: U.S. Geological ETI tation of the Updated Santa Clara-Calleguas Groundwater Flow Model, 14p. January. Hanson, R.T., 1998. Draft Simulation of Groundwater/Surface-Water Flow in the Santa Clara- Calleguas Basin, Ventura County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Unpublished Water Resources Investigations Report. Hanson, R.T., Martin, Peter, Koczot, K.M., 2003. Simulation of ground-water/surface-water flow in the Santa Clara-Calleguas ground-water basin, Ventura County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4136. 2MHill, 1993. Technical memorandum hydrogeology and three-dimension flow model of the Las Posas Water District of Southern California, 58 p. smore, J.N., 1996. Lithologic and ground-water data for monitoring wells in the Calleguas ground-water basin, Ventura County, California, Survey Open-File Report 96-120, 179p. C Engineering, 2003. Task 2 Technical Memorandum: Documen 86 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Izbi Society of Civil m on Ground Water in the Pacific Rim, Honolulu, Hawaii, July Izbi lifornia, in Prince K.R. and Johnson, A.I., eds., Regional aquifer systems of the United States—Aquifers of , no.16, p.5-14. Izbi nd P. Martin, 1992. Tritium and carbon-14 as tracers of ground-water m ’92, ASCE, ta for the Santa rvey Open-File Report 95-315, 124p. Izbi alifornia Aquifer, United States Geologic Izbi l California Aquifer, United States Geologic Survey Fact Sheet 126-96. Izbi W., and Aiken, G.R., 2005. Inorganic, isotopic, oastal southern Ma ent, United Water Conservation District: Mu agement study – geologic formations, structures and history in the Santa Clara-Calleguas area, in nty Cooperative ty to map saline e, Water Forum , Proceedings, p.80-85. tura County,in entura County Cooperative Turner, J.M., and Mukae, M.M., 1975. Ventura County Water Resources Management Study - Effective Base of Fresh Water Reservoir in the Oxnard-Calleguas Area, Ventura County Department of Public Works Flood Control District, 14p. United Water Conservation District, 1998. Nitrate study of El Rio area Phase I: Report to United Water Conservation District, 17p. United Water Conservation District, 2001. Conjunctive use alternatives for overdraft reduction in the Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley: Report to United Water Conservation District, 36p. cki, J.A., 1991. Chloride sources in a California coastal aquifer: American Engineers, 1991 Symposiu 22-26, 1991, Proceedings, p.71-77. cki, J.A., 1992. Sources of chloride in ground water of the Oxnard Plain, Ca the Far West: American Water Resources Association Monograph Series cki, J.A., Michel, R.L., a recharge: Irrigation & Drainage Session Proceedings/Water Foru Baltimore, MD, p.122-127. Izbicki, J.A., P. Martin, Densmore, J.N. and Clark, D.A., 1995. Water-quality da Clara-Calleguas hydrologic unit, Ventura County, California, October 1989 through December 1993: U.S. Geological Su cki, J.A., 1996a, Seawater Intrusion in a Coastal C Survey Fact Sheet 125-96. cki, J.A., 1996b. Source, Movement, and Age of Ground Water in a Coasta cki, J.A., Christensen, A.H., Newhouse, M. and organic composition of high-chloride water from wells in a c California aquifer, Applied Geochemistry 20, p.1496-1517. nn, J.F., Jr., 1959, A plan for ground water managem Report to United Water Conservation District, 120p. kae, M.M. and Turner, J.M., 1975. Ventura County water resources man Compilation of Technical Information Records for the Ventura Cou Investigation: California Department of Water Resources, v.1. Stamos, C.L., Predmore, S.K., and Zohdy, A.A.R., 1992. Use of D-C resistivi ground water: American Society of Civil Engineers National Conferenc 1992, Baltimore, Maryland, August 2-6, 1992 Turner, J.M., 1975. Aquifer delineation in the Oxnard-Calleguas area, Ven Compilation of Technical Information Records for the V Investigation: California Department of Water Resources, 28p. 87 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 451 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Uni ricultural efficiency, Presentation to UWCD and United Water Conservation District, 2003. Coastal Saline Intrusion, Report to United Water ort, 19p. al Groundwater project working ent plan for the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. Ven d Private Water Ventura, California, 342 p. Zohdy A.A.R., Martin, Peter, and Bisdorf, B.J., 1993. A study of seawater intrusion using direct- current soundings in the southeastern part of the Oxnard Plain, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-524, 138p. ted Water Conservation District, 2002. Ag Association of Water Agencies of Ventura County. Conservation District, 32p. United Water Conservation District, 2006a. Annual Groundwater Conditions Rep United Water Conservation District, 2006b. Update of the Ventura Region Model. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1975. Ventura County water management document, Sacramento, CA, 211p. Ventura County Public Works Agency, 1985. Task 86-3 Groundwater managem tura County Watershed Protection District, 2006. Inventory of Public an Purveyors of Ventura County, County of 88 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 A 1.0 APPENDIX A - PROGRESSION OF SEAWATER INTRUSION BENEATH THE SOUTH OXNARD PLAIN Although seawater intrusion under the Oxnard Plain has been studied over seve details of the intrusion have not been analyzed until recently when United Wat District (UWCD) entered all historic data on water levels, water quality, and into digital databases and GIS coverages so the entire data set cou systematically. This new analysis uses all this digital information to construct a depicting groundwater levels and chloride concentrations in wells within the so from as far back as 1920. The analysis used 5-year time slices in ral decades, the er Conservation well construction ld be analyzed series of maps uth Oxnard Plain both the Lower Aquifer System and Upper Aquifer System to determine when groundwater levels first dropped below dient caused by t time. is recognized in monitoring wells by concentrations of chloride and Total n is mapped on ch is used in the e Upper Aquifer for some years 950-54 (Figure 35), groundwater levels increased to as me lag between s somewhere in rides increased d poorer-quality en from pumping pling (groundwater als in the well). tion of the areas n; it was only . Within the nd from the area sion is similar to WR, 1973). per Aquifer System in the Port Hueneme area was temporarily arrested during the mid 1980s following a wet climatic cycle (e.g., Figure 42). As the new FCGMA policies, the Freeman Diversion, and the PTP Pipeline came online, chloride levels in the Port Hueneme saline lobe in the Upper Aquifer System continued to decrease, with chloride concentrations in some wells near the coastline returning to drinking-water quality. However, chloride levels remain high in smaller lobes centered around both Port Hueneme Harbor and Mugu Lagoon (Figure 44). Unfortunately, some of the saline water intruded around Port Hueneme did not exit via the canyon when high water levels return. Unquantified amounts of saline water were transported to the southeast along the coast by the prevailing (non-drought period) groundwater gradient. sea level, when chloride levels first increased as a result of the landward gra these lowered groundwater levels, and the progression of saline water since tha Saline intrusion Dissolved Solids (TDS) that are several times higher than the Basin Plan Objectives of 150 mg/L and 1,200 mg/L, respectively. In practice, the leading edge of the intrusio the Oxnard Plain as the first occurrence of chloride in excess of 500 mg/L., whi following set of maps. Groundwater levels first dropped below sea level in the period 1945-49 in th System (Figure 34), although groundwater levels were scarce at the coastline prior to that time. In the following 5-year time slice of 1 dropped below sea level across much of the south Oxnard Plain, and chlorides much as 1,925 mg/L at the Port Hueneme coastline. Thus, the apparent ti groundwater dropping below sea level and the encroachment of seawater wa the range of 5 to 10 years. In the following 5-year time slice of 1955-59, chlo rapidly in coastal wells, reaching as high as 27,350 mg/L (Figure 36). Although a few sampled wells may have had corroded casings that allowe perched water to flow into the well, most of the early chloride readings were tak wells with a smaller chance of significant cross-contamination during sam flowing into pumping wells would likely come mostly from screened interv Outliers of wells with poorer quality water were not considered in the interpreta of saline intrusion to minimize random instances of cross-contaminatio concentrations of wells with poor quality water that were considered as significant first 20 years of intrusion, higher chloride levels were evident up to 3 miles inla of initial intrusion, an intrusion rate of about 800 feet per year. This rate of intru rates calculated for seawater intrusion in the Salinas groundwater basin (e.g., CD The intrusion of the Up 89 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 452 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Intrusion in the Lower Aquifer System lagged considerably in time behind th System. Groundwater levels near the coastline first went below sea level in t period ( e Upper Aquifer he 1955-59 time e period at Port truded from the nyon walls and until the USGS d in section 5.0 tion is that the majority of the saline intrusion in the Lower Aquifer System near Point Mugu is saline water being pulled from surrounding sediments rather than from the ocean itself (see Figure 56). Figure 48), but high chlorides were not detected until the 1985-89 tim Hueneme and the 1990-94 time period near Point Mugu (Figure 52, Figure 53), some 30 years later. This time lag is partially caused by the longer travel time for seawater in Lower Aquifer System outcrops along the offshore Hueneme Submarine Ca partially the result of the lack of monitoring points right at the coastline monitoring wells were drilled in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As discusse Water Quality Issues, the U.S. Geological Survey interpreta Figure 29. Legend for Figure 30 to Figure 44 for Upper Aquifer System time slices. Chloride concentrations are in mg/L, water level is elevation above or below mean sea level. All maps are oriented with north to the top of the page. Area of map coincides with location map in Figure 2 in section 2.0 Background of Groundwater Management and Overdraft Within the FCGMA. 90 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 30. Upper Aquifer System ground chloride levels, 1920 to 1929. Legend is shown in Figure 29. Line in title block is t water levels and wo miles in length. 91 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 453 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 31. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1930 to 1934. Legend is shown in Figure 29. Line in title block is two miles in length. Figure 32. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1935 to 1939. Legend is shown in Figure 29. Line in title block is two miles in length. 92 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 33. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1940 to 1944. Legend is shown in Figure 29. Line in title block is two miles in length. Figure 34. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1945 to 1949. Legend is shown in Figure 29. Line in title block is two miles in length. 93 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 454 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 35. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1950 to shown in 1954. Legend is w area is intruded by seawater near Hueneme Submarine Canyon. Line in title block is two miles in length. Figure 29. Bright yello Figure 36. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1955 to 1959. Legend is shown in Figure 29. Bright yellow areas are intruded by saline waters. Line in title block is two miles in length. 94 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 37. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1960 to shown in 1964. Legend is igure 29. Bright yellow areas are intruded by saline waters. Line in title block is two miles in length. F Figure 38. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1965 to 1969. Legend is shown in Figure 29. Bright yellow areas are intruded by saline waters. Line in title block is two miles in length. 95 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 455 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 39. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1970 to shown in 1974. Legend is igure 29. Bright yellow areas are intruded by saline waters. Line in title block is two miles in length. F Figure 40. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1975 to 1979. Legend is shown in Figure 29. Bright yellow areas are intruded by saline waters. Line in title block is two miles in length. 96 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 41. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1980 to shown in 1984. Legend is igure 29. Bright yellow areas are intruded by saline waters. Line in title block is two miles in length. F Figure 42. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1985 to 1989. Legend is shown in Figure 29. Bright yellow areas are intruded by saline waters. Line in title block is two miles in length. 97 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 456 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 43. Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1990 to shown in 1994. Legend is : reddish brown is from seawater; yellow- orange is from sediments. Line in title block is two miles in length. Figure 29. Source of saline intruded areas Figure 44 Upper Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1995 to 1999. Legend is shown in Figure 29. Source of saline intruded areas: reddish brown is from seawater; yellow- orange is from sediments. Line in title block is two miles in length. Figure 45. Legend for Figure 46 to Figure 56 for Lower Aquifer System time slices. Chloride concentrations are in mg/L, water level is elevation above or below mean sea level. All maps are 98 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 oriented with north to the top of the page. Area of map coincides with location map in Figure 2 in section 2.0 Background of Groundwater Management and Overdraft Within the FCGMA. Figure 46. Lower Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1945 to 1949. Legend i wn in Figure 45. Line in title block is two miles in length. s sho 99 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 457 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 47. Lower Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1950 to 1954. Legend is shown in Figure 45. Line in title block is two miles in length. Figure 48. Lower Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1955 to 1959. Legend is shown in Figure 45. Line in title block is two miles in length. 100 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 49. Lower Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1960 to 1964. Legend is shown in Figure 45. Line in title block is two miles in length. Figure 50. Lower Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1965 to 1969. Legend is shown in Figure 45. Line in title block is two miles in length. 101 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 458 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 51. Lower Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1970 to 1974. Legend is shown in Figure 45. Line in title block is two miles in length. Figure 52. Lower Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1975 to 1979. Legend is shown in Figure 45. Line in title block is two miles in length. 102 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Figure 53. Lower Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1980 to 1984. Legend is shown in Figure 45. Line in title block is two miles in length. Figure 54. Lower Aquifer System groundwater levels and chloride levels, 1985 to 1989. Legend is shown in Figure 45. Note start of seawater intrusion (red dot) at head of Hueneme Submarine Canyon. Line in title block is two miles in length. 103 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 459 | }2 ; [2 0 ° ! m G !2 = - - ; \ v ƒ \/,1 3c § 9 § | 9n . {\{ [ 0) m` . 3n\ G k 2cT _. MCP . - k 2 • CD #s \ • a0 ¢ | 9 .) `=| \ o \�/ • v / }o.\ 4. ( _!4 2 : . 2 E27 0 /�ro al \ / . /}\ }\} _? � ^ , \• \ , : \}� | £ / • - ! ` E 51 . of \5 ) 3\ ur * ¥ g { }\\ \CD 0 . IV E! m ! . e ; » 2»/ f59 » 2 § 9 3 ; 2{ +! _! , e - o 0 }#0 (§d %a} } a I \/. - E( //[ \_- ! -4 2 0 & a ` " © ; o m § ;j{ J . . }/ &zi / 1) = c § }¥/ % ` \A7 G~( 5 /°4 o x r _2£ _(} )/\ ) g- 2 ‹ } ] eea »0r \ ! ) ƒ9111 \ } \ \\ \{ \}\} 11 cb o . . I I +zo � {aa > } \ ; f_- R/\ Ea | \ § cu , _ a z � ) `a \io k('' 5 ▪ �r ( ( \ \� o§\ °;4 § /] f § _ —@ \/& \al.- }/}/ Ili \z$ o k• 0.}) \ ® -t` }\( }0g. c \)a ( . \ (} (�k 2 \k / / Vrag }£z a -I E{& E -00 S. [f/ \\/ q f%2 & : § ## Itot ` E( a C CDE ■ \/} I f@@ k/ `ƒ/ =� i k �� = E : z ■ -- (; ; r ) | � ° E (\ - ® \[ /\ E± JJE ak% �« EE \E; (\) §E Ef ); E ( FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 basins within the model include Piru, Fillmore, Santa Paula, Mound, Oxnard Oxn Plain Forebay, ard Plain, Pleasant Valley, East Las Posas, West Las Posas, South Las Posas, and Santa , onshore flow, mountain front outcrops, rainfall infiltration on the ter model. The e following: inates having to to more accurately be cells are active. drology. ing amarillo Hills anti-cline to Port Hueneme. This is to simulate on of the Lower Santa Paula to r, Sespe Creek, ions of the model over the period ave occurred in this ). d to a full 55 years that reflect the climate and eriod is a commonly-used base period several wet and dry cycles, and The regional groundwater flow model has been used in the following projects and analyses: gement Plan – UWCD and FCGMA A2.2 MODELING FOR THE FCGMA GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The Ventura Regional Groundwater Model was used to evaluate all FCGMA management strategies that change the water budget within the FCGMA – that is, all projects that have recharge and/or groundwater pumping components. The model is a groundwater flow model, not a chemical transport model, so water quality changes could not be directly tested. However, Rosa. Water resource inputs to the model include stream flow, artificial recharge effluent recharge, recharge on permeable valley floor, and groundwater storage within the permeable sand and gravel aquifers. Water resource outputs include offshore flow and pumping. The United Water Conservation District has recently modified the groundwa modifications include th Model was put on user friendly Groundwater Vistas platform. This elim run the model in DOS. Refinement of cell size from 1/2 mile x 1/2 mile to 1/6 mile x 1/6 mile for the alluvial basins. This, for example, enables the artificial recharge water input to the appropriate area instead of overlapping into the river. Reduction in grid size. In the original USGS model only 28% of the grid In the modified model 47% of grid cells are active (ETIC, 2003). Extension of the historical and forward model to include 1994 to 2000 hy Addition of a zone of lower hydraulic conductivity in the Lower Aquifer S in a linear trend from the C ystem extend the maximum uplift and truncation of the more permeable upper porti Aquifer System along this linear trend. Addition of an additional layer in the upper basins of Piru, Fillmore, and better simulate the more permeable alluvium along the Santa Clara Rive Santa Paula Creek and Piru Creek. Recalibration of the Forebay and Oxnard Plain port 1983 to 1998 to reflect the increased diversions and recharge that h el (UWCD, 2006barea since the USGS originally calibrated the mod Expansion of the forward model perio hydrology of the years 1944 to 1998. This p because it starts and ends in very wet years, spans represents zero cumulative departure for rainfall across the period. Oxnard Plain LAS and UAS overdraft analysis – UWCD (2001) GREAT Project EIR – UWCD and City of Oxnard Las Posas Basin ASR project operations – Calleguas MWD City of Fillmore water supply planning – UWCD and City of Fillmore Pleasant Valley AB303 grant study – UWCD Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Groundwater Mana 106 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 water quality changes could be inferred from the groundwater flows and ground in cases such as seawater intrusion – we know how water elevations high groundwater elevations need to be at ifers. The e aquifer using as run through ation all the strategies to determine if together they could solve the overdraft strategy was in e for the entire roundwater elevation results for all the time steps within the forward model tracted for each of the wells for which there are water-level BMOs. Water ting water-level the hydrology of odel inputs are Diversion allows itional diversions e been reduced To calculate the ry, average, and There were ntative data for odel period; the mping has been n. The average quivalent to the ears (adjusted for FCGMA pumping reductions). r recharge – it tatus quo over a ement strategies can be modeled and compared to the Base Case with no other changing conditions the coastline to prevent seawater from intruding into the aqu method of evaluation of management strategies was straightforward: 1) First, the forward model was used to determine conditions in th only existing strategies and facilities (Base Case). 2) Each strategy was independently added to the Base Case and w the forward model (one model run for each strategy). A final model simul combined conditions. For ease of evaluation, it was assumed that the new place at the beginning of the model period and remained in plac model period. 3) G were ex levels at the BMO wells were compared between the Base Case and the individual management strategy to determine the effect of the strategy in mee BMOs. A2.2.1 Base Case The Base Case included strategies and facilities currently in place. Although the 55 years of the forward model is based on historical data, several other m different than they were during the historic period. For instance, the Freeman greater diversions now than were possible before it was constructed; these add are factored into the forward model. Likewise, groundwater extractions hav during the past 15 years and the forward model must reflect these changes. correct extractions for the forward model, the 55-year period was divided into d wet years depending upon historical rainfall and stream flow for each model year. roughly equal numbers of dry, average, and wet years in the model. Represe dry, average, and wet years were used to approximate pumping during the m representative pumping included only the previous 15 years since FCGMA pu reduced and was adjusted to reflect the current 15% FCGMA pumping reductio pumping over the 55-year period of the forward model was calculated to be e actual average pumping of the past 15 y The Base Case does not include potential future changes in pumping o represents today’s social, economic, and water use conditions, but tests the s range of hydrologic conditions. In this manner, various groundwater manag to complicate the comparison. Additional model simulations could factor in such changes as potential land use conversion (e.g., agriculture to urban), but it is appropriate to have these model simulations separate from the Base Case. The Base Case is the starting point for each of the management strategies that were evaluated with the model. Each simulation discussed below simply adds the new management strategy to the Base Case for comparison. The only exception is the Combined Strategies simulation, where all the modeled strategies are combined in a single simulation. 107 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 461 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Base Case Evaluation Upper A rquife Lower Aquifer BMO Avg (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% Table 10. Results of Base Case groundwater model simulation. Groundwater elevations are averages for Upper and Lower Aquifer wells for which there is a groundwater elevation BMO. t groundwater elevations were understated by rly-calibrated water meters or inaccuracies in using other reporting methods. To test the effect of understated pumping on modeling results, the Base ease 5% during all hydrologic condit mode rs). This ified simulation yielded lower ground cted (Table 11). Also indicated is the percentage of time (weekly time steps) tha above the BMO elevation for each BMO well. A2.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis – Understatement of Reported Extractions Concerns have been voiced that pumping reported to the FCGMA may be agricultural irrigators because of either poo Case was modified to incr agricultural pumping by 1 ions (i.e., wet, average, and dry l yea mod water levels, as would be expe Pumping Sensitivity Analysis Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer Change in Avg BMO Water Levels (ft)-7.3 -15.0 Change in % of Time Above BMO -9%-3% Table 11. Change in model results for the Base Case if actual agricultural pumpin by 15%. The negative changes indicate that groundwater levels would be lower a the percentage of time that groundwater levels were above BMOs would be less. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the Base Case modeling results g was increased t BMO wells and may be overestimating re to correct for ch different than reased over the hat has not been ed pumping that rge. sensitivity analysis is that the current management ount that would ed, and because tive rather than calibration effort planned by the FCGMA proves that there is indeed understating of pumping, the model should be recalibrated to ensure that errors are marginalized. A2.2.3 Continuation of 25% Pumping Reduction This simulation compares attainment of BMOs between current 15% pumping reduction and full 25% pumping reduction. The 15% pumping reduction is the Base Case for the model. Thus, an additional 10% pumping reduction is applied for this comparison simulation. This reduction is applied only to M&I wells because agricultural wells have already taken actions that have reduced pumping in excess of 25% and it is unlikely that any additional steps in changing future groundwater levels. However, if the model was recalibrated in the futu any understatement of pumping, it is likely that the results would not look mu the present Base Case. This would happen because if pumping was inc calibration period, then this pumping must be balanced by additional recharge t accounted for. If the re-calibrated model has more recharge, then the increas would be added to the Base Case would potentially be offset by this increased recha The main conclusion to be drawn from the strategies for the basin may not be as effective as modeled, but not by any am change conclusions of this Plan. More management strategies are still requir most of the modeling effort compares one strategy against another (a compara an absolute analysis), errors will be relatively small. However, if the meter 108 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 irrigation methods will be undertaken before the 2010 date for full implementation of the 25% for the complete model pumping across the FCGMA. The resu dica 2 pumping reductions. . Pumping for each M&I well in the model is reduced by an additional 10% period. This results in 3,800 AFY of reduced ted in Table 1 .lts of this simulation are in 25% Reduction Evaluation Upper A rquife Lower Aquifer BMO Avg Level (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% 25% Pumping Reduction Avg Level (ft msl) 4.9 -37.8 Improve from Base Case (ft)1.2 2.2 % of Time Above BMO 53%7% Table 12. Results of ground pumping reduction. Groundw water model simulation for the continuation of the 25% FCGMA ater elevations are averages for Upper and Lower Aquifer wells for of time (weekly MO well. Case) and the model, available is diverted to the RiverPark This additional recharge is generally only available when river flow exceeds UWCD’s current recharge capabiliti e d quarter to the model for the RiverPar daily increme through t er routing model, and takes into account b vailability and recharge capacity in the pits. The extra recharge varies from an average of 400 AFY in dry years to an av e of 11,5 Y during wet years. The resu are indicated in ble 13. which there is a groundwater elevation BMO. Also indicated is the percentage time steps) that groundwater elevations were above the BMO elevation for each B A2.2.4 RiverPark Recharge Pits Compares attainment of BMOs between current recharge operations (Base addition of the RiverPark Recharge pits. Using UWCD’s daily river routing storm flow that is not already diverted by the Freeman Diversion Recharge Pits for percolation and recharge. during the winter and spring of wetter years es. The amount of recharg water applie in any one k pits is calculated in nts he riv oth water a erag 00 AF lts of this simulation Ta RiverPark Recharge Evaluation Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer BMO Avg Level (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% RiverPark Recharge Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 Improve from Base Case (ft) <0.1 <0.1 % of Time Above BMO 52%6% Table 13. Results of groundwater model simulation for the RiverPark Recharge project. Groundwater elevations are averages for Upper and Lower Aquifer wells for which there is a groundwater elevation BMO. Also indicated is the percentage of time (weekly time steps) that groundwater elevations were above the BMO elevation for each BMO well. 109 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 462 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 A2.2.5 GREAT Project This simulation compares attainment of BMOs between current basin operations (Base Case) and the addition of the GREAT project. This simulation was performed in two parts to reflect the two phases of the project that were evaluated in the City of Oxnard’s EIR for the project. Although the project phases are in reality scheduled sequentially, the model simulates each phase separately to determine the effectiveness of each. For model purposes, Phase I includes 5,000 AFY of reclaimed water, with one fourth of the water being injected in the Ocean view area of the south Oxnard Plain during the first quarter of each year when agricultural demand is low, and three fourths of the water delivered to agricultural irrigators within the PTP service area in-lieu of pumping their own wells. The City of Oxnard then retrieves the 5,000 AFY of injection/in-lieu recharge (as storage credits) equally from UWCD’s O-H well field in the Oxnard Plain Forebay and the City’s Water Yard wells located just outside the Forebay. The Phase II model simulation includes 21,000 AFY of reclaimed water delivered in the same proportions between direct injection and in-lieu deliveries. However, the area receiving reclaimed water for irrigation is expanded to include the Pleasant Valley County Water District delivery area. In addition, the winter injection is accomplished through a series of barrier wells located along Highway 1 and Hueneme Road. The City of Oxnard then retrieves one-third of the 21,000 AFY of injection/in-lieu recharge (as storage credits) from UWCD’s O-H well field in the Oxnard Plain Forebay and two-thirds from the City’s own wells located just outside the Forebay. Phase I Results: The results of this simulation are indicated in Table 1. The 8-foot improvement in Lower Aquifer groundwater levels at BMO wells is partially offset by the drop of less than one foot in Upper Aquifer BMO wells. The average drop in groundwater levels in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin resulting from the extraction of the FCGMA credits is 2 to 3 feet. GREAT Project Phase I Evaluation Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer BMO Avg Level (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% GREAT Project Phase I Avg Level (ft msl) 3.4 -31.9 Improve from Base Case (ft) -0.3 8.1 % of Time Above BMO 51%9% Table 1. Results of groundwater model simulation for Phase I of the GREAT project at full capacity. Groundwater elevations are averages for Upper and Lower Aquifer wells for which there is a groundwater elevation BMO. Also indicated is the percentage of time (weekly time steps) that groundwater elevations were above the BMO elevation for each BMO well. Phase II Results: The results of this simulation are indicated in Table 15. The 38-foot improvement in Lower Aquifer groundwater levels at BMO wells is partially offset by the one-foot drop in Upper Aquifer BMO wells. The average drop in groundwater levels in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin resulting from the extraction of the FCGMA credits is 6 to 11 feet. 110 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 GREAT Project Phase II Evaluation Upper A erquif Lower Aquifer BMO Avg Level (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% GREAT Project Phase II Avg Level (ft msl) 2.6 -1.5 Improve from Base Case (ft) -1.1 38.5 % of Time Above BMO 51%36% Table 15. Results of groundwater model simulation for Phase II of the GREAT project at full capacity. Groundwater elevations are averages for Upper and Lower Aquifer wells for which there ted is the percentage of time (weekly time steps) that ns (Base Case) Aquifer in critical a of the Oxnard ll below sea level (southwest of the he Camarillo Hills to Port Hueneme). Actual e model run demonstrates the effect of this policy change i the sim r Aquifer System pumping is moved to System w necessary). There is no shift in pumping in areas where UAS water quality is not suitable irrigation. The resu ndicated le 16. is a groundwater elevation BMO. Also indica groundwater elevations were above the BMO elevation for each BMO well. A2.2.6 Shift Some Pumping From LAS to UAS This simulation compares attainment of BMOs between current basin operatio and the shifting of some pumping from the Lower Aquifer back to the Upper areas. For purposes of the model scenario, pumping is shifted only in the are Plain basin where Lower Aquifer groundwater levels are we zone of low conductance that extends from t FCGMA policy might vary from this, but th n a discrete area. In ulation, 5,000 wel r ne AFY of Lowe UA ls if nearby Upper Aquifer ls (o S wel rfo lts of this simulation are i in Tab LAS to UAS Evaluation Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer BMO Avg Level (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% LAS to UAS Shift Avg Level (ft msl) 2.6 -31.8 Improve from Base Case (ft)-1.1 8.2 % of Time Above BMO 50%9% Table 16. Results of groundwater model simulation for shifting 5,000 AFY of p Lower to the Upper Aquifer in the south Oxnard Plain basin. Groundwater elevati for Upper and Lower Aquifer wells for which there is a groundwater elevat umping from the ons are averages ion BMO. Also indicated is the percentage of time (weekly time steps) that groundwater elevations were above the BMO elevation for each BMO well. A2.2.7 Import Additional State Water This scenario compares attainment of BMOs between current basin operations (Base Case) and the purchase and recharge of additional State Water. For the purposes of this model simulation, an additional 10,000 AF of State Water is purchased during average and dry years, delivered to Lake Piru, and then released down the Santa Clara River as part of UWCD’s 111 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 463 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 normal conservation release. The portion of this water that is likely to rea Diversion, as calculated separately using UWCD’s daily river routing model, is the ch the Freeman then diverted at Freeman Diversion and recharged in UWCD’s spreading ponds in the Oxnard Plain Forebay ter levels in the d Plain Forebay basin would be 4 to 6 ft higher than the Base Case, providing mitigation for other m ional groundwater from the Forebay. basin. The results of this simulation are indicated in Table 17. Average groundwa Oxnar strategies that have a co ponent of pumping addit Import State Water Evaluation Upper A rquife Lower Aquifer BMO Avg Level (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% Import SWP Avg Level (ft msl) 5.5 -38.7 Improve from Base Case (ft)1.8 1.3 % of Time Above BMO 54%7% Table 17. Results of groundwater model si Groundwater elevations are averages for Uppe mulation of importing additional State Water. r and Lower Aquifer wells for which there is a time steps) that ns (Base Case) igh storm flow. For d license of the ing times of high harged at UWCD’s facilities according to their unused capacity, as determined by UWCD’s daily river routing model. For purposes of the model scenario, it is assumed that the RiverPark recharge facility is available and that the Ferro gravel pit has been converted to use for recharge and storage. The results of this simulation are indicated in Table 18. Average groundwater levels in the Oxnard Plain Forebay basin would be 6 ft higher than the Base Case, providing mitigation for other strategies that have a component of pumping additional groundwater from the Forebay. groundwater elevation BMO. Also indicated is the percentage of time (weekly groundwater elevations were above the BMO elevation for each BMO well. A2.2.8 Increase Diversions from Santa Clara River This simulation compares attainment of BMOs between current basin operatio and increasing recharge from the Santa Clara River during periods of h purposes of this model simulation, it is assumed that the diversion rate an Freeman Diversion is increased to 1,000 cfs from its current 375 cfs. Thus, dur flow, up to 1,000 cfs could be diverted. These additional diversions are rec 112 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Increase Diversions Evaluation Upper A rquife Lower Aquifer BMO Avg Level (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% Increase Diversions Avg Level (ft msl) 6.4 -37.4 Improve from Base Case (ft)2.7 2.6 % of Time Above BMO 54%8% Table 18. Results of groundwater model simulation for increasing diversions from the Santa Clara River. Groundwater elevations are averages for Upper and Lower Aquifer wells for which there is rcentage of time (weekly time steps) that current basin operations (Base recharge water to the south Oxnard Plain. For purposes of this model simulation, it is assumed that there are 3,000 AFY of in-lieu water availabl s d of the PTP Pipeline. This in-lieu w d for changes uarterly agricultural demand. The res indicated in e 19. a groundwater elevation BMO. Also indicated is the pe groundwater elevations were above the BMO elevation for each BMO well. A2.2.9 Additional In-Lieu Deliveries to South Oxnard Plain This model scenario compares attainment of BMOs between Case) and the delivery of additional in-lieu e for delivery to irrigation irrigators in the area outh of the en ater delivery is adjuste in q ults of this simulation are Tabl In-Lieu S Oxnard Plain Evaluation Upper A rquife Lower Aquifer BMO Avg Level (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% In-Lieu S Oxnard Plain Avg Level (ft msl) 4.9 -35.9 Improve from Base Case (ft) 1.2 4.1 % of Time Above BMO 53%7% Table 19. Results of groundwater model simulation of delivering additional pumpers on the southern Oxnard Plain basin. Groundwater elevations are av and Lower Aquifer wells for which there is a groundwater elevation BMO. Also percentage of time (weekly time steps) that groundwater elevations were above th for each BMO well. in-lieu water to erages for Upper indicated is the e BMO elevation est Oxnard Plain This simulation compares attainment of BMOs between current basin operations (Base Case) and shifting some pumping to the northwest Oxnard Plain from areas less easily recharged. For this model simulation, it is assumed that 2,000 AFY of M&I pumping is moved from the portion of the Oxnard Plain near the Forebay basin to the northwest Oxnard Plain. This pumping is shifted from the City of Oxnard’s Water Yard and Blending Station to the area within 2 miles of the ocean along Gonzalez Rd. The results of this simulation are indicated in Table 20. A2.2.10 Shift Some Pumping to Northw 113 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 464 N d Nm ry O N °m o Doi �,� x OD y- > m 3.3 a O d n DOj 7 D N N W 1mD co m d (D m ^`C O a) (D F. N -m C'O m 0 r (D v p 'N-' N S=-•a N N O co 5 d 0 £ m 3 R 9, 3 0 D < "3 W c I v" E ° m a -S' g d £ o X 3 EeDoo (!f mcnc co c° m m am ` Dcm A - o y cN 03m� m COW �aicn� gom ^ Yet'^ m2 41 WW Co co 0) N o 3 m ci * ^ 0, c '• m �. S a m o m o .2 3 3 0» = N 3 ? a CD O £0o^ I =cDaw a\"D yammon y mCD moa<n?C 0, al.y p 1111 flllJJP E'^ 12O p10mca < n - N voy=.a2o m mo 74� ° °,W on; a 3 N° '<' a0 O m 3Ng y° rW rv,c, ° c m c ° 3 da �� � �=!. orA m vma<mco 6. .T .. '0 � .. .. - < cD = -'o-5 gym ,.-� m -.m •� em m N.p �.np �, m5dy C3m D ^ * m o 7*fStady O. co,owmd ° a3 ao^ a m Q 3 g d tll m 3 o > > n $5459 mdax1a m f,:°mmnd XI 0.D203 mb1N—.m<m " 3d 'D N 3'maom ,c mam3 Wm�� m` b — •wgmda<'y^- < £ °c o ,„ Zm` g £ a 0 ao .—. rt1 �° m !n '< o3 , mo m 3Co 3 m O IV y �03 tmmm pN O c n 5- -' m * , £ °cm om o m 0 N Oa £ o1a m m m 3 4Om7,� m o0;F3 m c` 1 O og a' '2. ^ d cccc x 6 m c° �� °io o , mmmm a A � m33o 'a> > : g aNcam ',St if ° O m m � m - imd9. U yg2` aom tD £ 3Fii^? U y N a o m = W A m 0 3 co (D i,Vi Q m W 3 mmm` w�U �w cn , omo �,3om 'o amo mow 0w cn , ° 0 mS -o ` mmA a wo a':1 wD ? ° oc° a vOm2 o Nio a v i, ., moz° ^.wm^ ° aC� ?.o p c a 3 (� C N 0- O N G d G a3 �°' of > >1» m 0 N.Nf Oo a mmm3 c`"o �p N N .D 3 < a,2,' C N D m m Ei N m p= g and m I- m m m-o °.m y Oo� '°y r 5aNco a0 a ° ce .m00. 'v3 3 3nm3 ° t1.W c N 0 � D m c A N o o 7-1 n O Q y c 0.50 o• o o v D c m W. } m mm rr o a m m' ° g- g m o c')� o �•Q mao� z° m £ ° m �5ao c o d .m m m CA o -012 0 3•a�o -0 maoA : co,< �m omvm A ° 3m ° 3n n3 om d m - m o aNa) N rn co Oa•OS 0a{o N mdaS m p 0133 'm ?. F d m 3 C C y m mo p co cp N ,G O C .m. O C 7 0 7 a C D(DO 3<CD m £ - O cif(O 3 )D aJ CD CD(0 CO`G (D mO m � V -1 m m v T'o < f o DC -I > sYg-r c. --�i N 3 3 a PA m a N N d d fD C 0 �.3 C . ' N O N W.) Q� N �'41 IV=, c c ofnomm0° . c'A 9.,g 9'D D m^ CO m ON O-O a Ol = T a a O ica2. ' QCDD - c_ g33w o c £ Q O ? _ m^C 3 C S 7 m a)0 O(O fD m °. -1 G ?C • O. m ? m 3w 3 ll m= o3. =a 51 im3 0-'< 0ao mom mmNO` El 20 3 £ W .Ela 90 £ '0 =3 �7 £ om=om A• o2-2n m y O C_ .-.m O5 J £ m g m£ 2 m m O' g 5' * p m S = 3 ?N m3m3 •o O a. 3 w J N a pp_3 . W - m m c m _ - 'O O C .2.. 9 3'30 < �. N O N m N O.2.'O p S OM c >>4 - _ .a- �; s m a a<aD N 0?.m0.0.7 Q W O a,7.°0 v s 7 ' 3:0 -n)D 7 0 w f0 7 O M : . £ o. Is.) s°:m� myc^ mF 0, umi3 m E'aeD , - - & 8;,. N., y ° F. c o$ c =S am .m � —may. F. -•macF°. o_ m 9m 0.0 7 7 c £ O-I a 3 3 3 y cp c .. If m m 7 m 3. S d i E w 0a ° -- Wm - Q m .p.A H C- N m a S N. .am N 07N• nd 3 E CD (D O y c n m 7 ,.' O O ^.co m N Z. O VC.< m • Zlc O y LT co W m,d.< c . D t�7 -1p N d •O 6 W a Y O-1 o 7 fA p 12S,,sc_ oa. £ cDc +` s emAo °-4aocr5m moN < -m _o0om .3.,m caDzo 3 6 N W 'n- w A N ° m `< O a 'S Co .Z1 £ G n a x O N 3. m D m m 3 0 d m o i N N -I m N O N a 6 5 V FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Barrier Wells Evaluation Upper A rquife Lower Aquifer BMO Avg Level (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% Barrier Wells Avg Level (ft msl) 15.2 6.5 Improve from Base Case (ft)11.5 46.5 % of Time Above BMO 63%48% Table 22. Results of groundwater model simulation for a barrier well project in the south Oxnard Plain. Groundwater elevations are averages for Upper and Lower Aquifer wells for which there is cated is the percentage of time (weekly time steps) that n a single model simulation is an e in this Plan. The results of this simulation are indicated in Table 23. The most important result is that the combine w he time in the Upper Aquifer and 76% of the time in the Lower Aquifer. This result ests that if all the management strategie plemented, the in would b tively safe from saline intrusion (see disc ld of the G water Ba attainment of BMOs). a groundwater elevation BMO. Also indi groundwater elevations were above the BMO elevation for each BMO well. A2.2.14 Combined Management Strategies The management strategies used in the previous simulations were combined i run to determine their overall combined effect in reaching BMOs. This model indicator of whether additional management strategies are needed beyond thos d management strategies allo BMOs to be met 67% of t su gg s in the Plan are im bas e rela sussion in section 7.0 Yie round ins on level of Combined Strategies Evaluation Upper A rquife Lower Aquifer BMO Avg Level (ft msl) 5.3 17.6 Base Case Avg Level (ft msl) 3.7 -40.0 % of Time Above BMO 51%5% Combined Strategies Avg Level (ft msl) 18.4 59.8 Improve from Base Case (ft) 14.7 99.8 % of Time Above BMO 67%76% Table 23. Results of groundwater model simulation of implementing the combination of all the management strategies evaluated using the groundwater model. Groundwater elevations are averages for Upper and Lower Aquifer wells for which there is a groundwater elevation BMO. Also indicated is the percentage of time (weekly time steps) that groundwater elevations were above the BMO elevation for each BMO well. 116 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 A3.0 APPENDIX C. EAST LAS POSAS BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN During the February 23, 1994 meeting, the Board of Directors of the FCGM approved CMWD’s Application for the Injection/Storage Facilities in the North L (Note: Th A conditionally os Posas Basin. e reference to the North Las Posas Basin stems from the FCGMA original he East Las : (1) a maximum raction schedule tinuous injection wells along with aximum storage /injection points (6) water stored the effects of the detrimental effect; (8) CMWD shall have an GMA approval conditions were rdinator, to Eric several years of of the East Las al Group, which potential issues os Posas Basin program for the ablishes action levels, sets stakeholder responsibilities for operation , and provides for a dispute resolution mechanism between the he ASR project in such a way as to minimize problems and maximize the beneficial use of groundwater within the East Las Posas Basin.. The ELPBMP is attached to the FCGMA Management Plan as Appendix C. It is understood by the parties that the East Las Posas Basin Management Plan will be reviewed and updated regularly as conditions warrant it. The Plan begins on the following page. Groundwater Management Plan adopted in 1985. The current correct reference is t Posas Basin). This approval was conditioned upon several factors including but not limited to of 20 injection/storage wells registered with the FCGMA; (2) well injection/ext determined by availability of water and needs of CMWD’s customers; (3) con period well testing and monthly reporting of acre-feet injected/extracted from water quality analysis for selected constituents to the FCGMA by CMWD; (4) m limit of 300,000 acre-feet without further approval of the FCGMA; (5) extraction shall be coterminous, or in proximate vicinity and coordinated with the FCGMA; in such facilities shall be used in Ventura County; (7) CMWD periodic review of injection on surrounding basins to ensure no affirmative obligation to mitigate any detrimental effects found; and (9) FC standards for the injection/storage wells shall be mandatory. These memorialized in a July 12, 1994 letter from Lowell Preston, Ph.D., Agency Coo Berg, Administrator, CMWD (See Appendix C - Exhibit A). Subsequently to FCGMA’s above mentioned approval, CMWD engaged in discussions about groundwater issues in the Las Posas basin with members Posas Basin Users Group (the Group) and individual pumpers. This inform meets every second month, discusses both basin-wide groundwater issues and related to Calleguas’ Las Posas Basin ASR project. As a result of those discussions, CMWD and the Group developed the East L Management Plan (ELPBMP). The ELPBMP, which outlines a monitoring injection/storage wells, est of the ASR project by CMWD parties, attempts to manage t 117 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 466 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 EAST LAS POSAS BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN T PLAN FOR THE EAST LAS POSAS BASIN (the “Plan”)is effective as of ______________, 2006, and is created with reference to the following recitals of rstandings and intentions: THIS MANAGEMEN fact, unde RECITALS A. and Recovery Project (“ASR”) for the benefit of its urban, industrial and a delivery customers in the Las Posas Basin (“Ba Calleguas Municipal Water District (“Calleguas”) operates an Aquifer Storage gricultural water sin”) in Ventura County, California. identified as a groundwater subsystem within the boundaries of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (“GMA”). in for use during D.The Las Posas Basin Pumpers extract groundwater from the Basin for beneficial as Posas Basin ther persons or ndwater from the East Las Posas Basin (within the boundaries of the the groundwater eneficial uses co-exist to A for operation A Agreement is and incorporated herein by reference. The Calleguas-GMA rate. G.Pursuant to the Calleguas-GMA Agreement, stored water is credited to the ASR ls or when water umpers in lieu of pumping gro t remains in the H.Calleguas and the Las Posas Basin Pumpers desire to have the GMA incorporate the terms of this Plan into the updated GMA plan. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits, covenants and promises set forth herein, the Management Plan for the East Las Posas Basin is as follows: 1. Monitoring Program B. The Basin is C.The ASR project stores potable water in the aquifers of the Bas emergencies and drought periods. uses that include agricultural, domestic, urban and industrial uses. The “L Pumpers” includes members of the Las Posas Basin Users Group and all o entities extracting grou GMA). E.Calleguas and the Las Posas Basin Pumpers desire to manage basin such that the ASR project and the Las Posas Basin Pumpers’ b the benefit of all. F. Calleguas has previously entered into an agreement with the GM of the ASR project (“Calleguas-GMA Agreement”). A copy of the Calleguas-GM attached hereto as Exhibit “A” Agreement describes the general principles within which the ASR project will ope project when Calleguas either injects potable water into the aquifer through wel is delivered by or through Calleguas to the Las Posas Basin P undwater. The storage credit pursuant to the Calleguas-GMA Agreemen Basin until the stored water is extracted. . Calleguas will maintain a monitoring program to track changes in groundwater levels and groundwater quality in the Basin. This monitoring program will consist of two parts: (1) a set of four representative key wells spaced throughout the Basin 118 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 (“baseline key wells”) will monitor the overall health of the Basin (Exhibit “B” a State Well number); and (2) a set of monitoring and producing wells on p adjacent to the ASR project (“lo nd identified by arcels within or cal vicinity wells”) will monitor the effects of the ASR injection and mp pu ing on the Basin (Exhibit “C”). 2. Report of Results of Monitoring Program. Calleguas will the monitoring program described in paragraph 1 above in writing to the L Pumpers at least every six (6) months during noticed meetings of the Las Po Group. In addit report results of as Posas Basin sas Basin Users ion, Calleguas will prepare a written report on ASR activities, monitoring results and s to the Las Posas the tate of the Basin annually, and that report will also be made available Basin Users Group. 3. Extractions and Storage Credits. Calleguas covenants and will only extract water consistent with the Calleguas-GMA Agreement and in a does not exceed Calleguas’ storage credits in the Basin, as they may ex Calleguas will apply for storage credits from the GMA annually based on promises that it n amount which ist at any time. the amount of water injected and e GMA will maintain the storage credit balance rs Group of the sas Basin Users occurred. in lieu water delivered that year; th for the ASR project and will give written notice to the Las Posas Basin Use amount of those credits annually and provide a report directly to the Las Po Group every six months as to the amount of storage and extractions which have 4. Operation of ASR Project. Calleguas will operate the A manner that does not adversely affect the Basin by creating, by way of exam declining water levels, increased levels of TDS or chlorides, significant increas or saline intrusion. It is acknowledged that all currently available information i Basin may be in overdraft. Although it is not projected that the ASR project overdraft, Calleguas will make a good faith effort to assist the Las Posas B reducing the overdraft. Additionally, it is recognized that there is a mound of hig TDS water migrating into the Basin from beneath the Arroyo Las Posas. Calleg mitigating this water quality problem by facilitating projects that will pump this poor-qu SR project in a ple only, chronic ed pumping lifts, ndicates that the will alleviate the asin Pumpers in h-chloride, high- uas will assist in ality water, e into a regional s, Calleguas will ns at every Las t no less than 4 ar). This summary will discuss, among other things, all injection, extraction and in- e provided to the treat it for agricultural and drinking water use and discharge the resulting brin brine line. To keep Las Posas Basin Pumpers informed of ASR operation provide a summary sheet of injections and extractions relating to ASR operatio Posas Basin Users Group meeting (held approximately every two months, bu times a ye lieu activities for the two months prior to the meeting. This summary will also b GMA. 5.Groundwater Levels. Calleguas will operate the ASR proj which will not significantly impact Las Posas Basin Pumpers’ ability to use grou Basin. Impacts will be measured on two levels – basin-wide and local. Basin- be measured using the four baseline key wells. Local impacts will be measure vicinity wells. ect in a manner ndwater from the wide impacts will d using the local Basin-Wide Effects: In order to establish groundwater levels that would exist without the ASR project (“baseline”), the USGS Santa Clara-Calleguas MODFLOW groundwater flow model, as updated by United Water Conservation District and Calleguas, will be used in conjunction with the four baseline key wells. The baseline will be established by running the groundwater model every two years using all available actual pumping and hydrologic data for the period, but excluding any ASR injection/extraction operations or water deliveries in-lieu of injection. The first run of the model for purposes of this Plan will be as follows: The modeled “no ASR project” groundwater levels determined as of September 1, 2006, at the four baseline key 119 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 467 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 wells would establish the baseline for the two-year period. If actual measured below the baseline in any of the baseline key wells during the applicable two-y the cause of the groundwater level decline below the baseline will be investigat within 45 days of Calleguas learning of the measured water level falling below the water level drop below baseline is determined to be caused by ASR Calleguas will present a written plan to the Las Posas Basin Pumpers to miti drawdo water levels fall ear period, then ed by Calleguas the baseline. If operations, then gate the excess wn. That written plan will be presented by Calleguas to the Las Posas Basin Users vels are below Group no later than 120 days after Calleguas learns that measured water le baseline. Local Effects: In the vicinity of the ASR injection/extrac recognized that groundwater levels will fluctuate depending upon rates of in and proximity to the wells. Nearby wells will see groundwater levels rise a decrease during and following injections of stored water. During extractions groundwater levels in the vicinity of the extraction may decrease below levels nearby wells, with this pumping effect dissipating when extraction is terminated use all reasonable efforts to insure that nearby wells can continue to be pum extraction period; if lowe tion wells, it is jection/extraction nd pumping lifts of stored water, normally seen in . Calleguas will ped during this red water levels create operational problems such as the inability to e pump breaks n mitigating the in-lieu water to pump groundwater because groundwater levels are below pump bowls or th suction in any nearby well, Calleguas will attempt to assist well owners i problem. Such mitigation measures may include, among other things, providing well owners at prevailing rates. 6. Disputes. If any dispute arises over the effects of the ASR p Plan, the specifics of the dispute will first be presented within 45 days of the d an advisory group of members of the Las Posas Basin Users Group numbering If the dispute is not resolved within 45 days after submittal to the advisory gr shall be presented to Calleguas in writing. Calleguas will then, within 45 d written notice of the dispute, investigate the issues in the dispute, including hydrogeologic investigation where appropriate. The disputing party will not u rogram and this ispute arising to not less than 5. oup, the dispute ays of receiving performing any nreasonably withhold access to historic groundwater data known to the party or access to wells for party which will ydrogeologic investigation. In the event that the party is not satisfied by this ce GMA. If the ithin 120 days of party can take monitoring. Calleguas will, within 120 days, give a written reply to the disputing include results of any h pro dure, the disputing party can deliver a copy of the written dispute to the GMA does not resolve the problem to the satisfaction of the disputing party w the delivery of a copy of the written dispute to the GMA, then the disputing whatever legal action it deems appropriate. 7. Term.This Plan shall remain in effect so long as the Calleguas-GMA Agr eneem t remains in effect. 8. Existing Water Rights Unaffected. This Plan and the ASR project shall in no way affect or alter existing water rights in the Basin or grant new or additional water rights to Calleguas or the Las Posas Basin Pumpers (other than the specific rights of injection and extraction granted herein). All injections or extractions are done with the knowledge and consent of the Las Posas Basin Pumpers and under no circumstances will any injections or extractions or pumping under this Plan ripen into a claim for prescriptive or superior rights. 9. Condition of Basin. This Plan is made with the express understanding and assumption that the Basin is of such condition that any water injected by Calleguas into the Basin will remain in the Basin until extracted by Calleguas (or by other pumpers). If this 120 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 understanding/assumption is determined to be incorrect or determined to be sub into question, then either Calleguas or the L stantially called as Posas Basin Pumpers may immediately proceed to dispute resolution as set forth in Section 6 above. END OF PLAN 121 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 468 W n 0 ,'cam) a • '$Y ,� oo z i = 8a j' .- ' a . X D 70 (XD 7.7 2 g �m� M0. F4 ;Q6 m -4 0., y 'L3 , W co fA gi t 5 Oil ; $4 o so a m .p C c$ S s i q " D a 3 :J O a f $ �n v a s m ga 34 a l °►F m I-g`F1 um a ',i° = Z s z ni aulg 9i `i`qo' AE g 3i i 3 O x 32 '2 K a� So r ? N S T s l m N ii q Yi g S�' °gin qs t• N c :5e g ao °gr' c�t 'p N .1 QE 1 i3i3 €s E. !E_=: §a = O s. e_ Y 1 WI li“: F • g1� C II M e. 2. 1y1na z 3 C n 1 gg 3' al li 8s �aQ ›o m --c 8 0 T C7 0 r nr 4<4 o- . a �. . - W. D 0m111 _ if al p si fi +o n C gg 0pp1,1 3' I¢e g 'Q8 g" 3": g f i 9 I. 32 R p t 2. p a 3 m `o pie .'E It-VI I. It 0 stF m 4' "1 aa B g at it , S N c@ GR f3; t Sr na z1 m sw § E S s< 3 ;= s e i • mF `ifs E Ric 2; f 0I Q m fi is, i 1 3as la �R faR 5 a a 1 S ill 'Q S sat t 2$ R 4 t 82 Bgi &- ; :� 1. ap . E0 s cg ig E L i i C O 8 4.1 } a a�; 11 k to a a5 T. 1 S R8c !8 k: M m ,c 8 0 V FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 A3.2 EXHIBIT “B” Key wells will be used to monitor the overall health of the basin (Figure B-1). These wells, which have a long historic monitoring record of groundwater levels, include State Well Numbers 2N/20W-8F1, 2N/20W-9F1, 3N/20W-34G1, and 3N/19W-29K4. Figure B-1. Key wells in the Las Posas basin. 124 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 A3.3 EXHIBIT “C” Calleguas Municipal Water District will monitor the effects of its Las Posas Ba using both its ASR wells and additional monitoring points surrounding the C-1) sin ASR project ASR project (Figure . These additional monitoring points will consist of existing production wells or, where necessary to complete the area 1 coverage, new monitoring well(s) installed by Calleguas MWD. Figure C-1. Locations (indicated by orange circular areas) of monitoring to track the effects of ASR injection and pumping. Dots represent Calleguas MWD ASR wells. 125 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 470 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 A4.0 APPENDIX D. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE FCGMA GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The development of the final FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan involve three separate written drafts between June 2006 and February 2007, presen three public workshops over the same time d the release of ting the Plan at period, and presenting the Final Plan at a special accepted public ncy a meeting for the Agency’s Board of Directors in March 2007. The Agency comments throughout the Plan development process. This section is a compilation of the written public comments to the Plan submitted to the Age between June 2006 and April 2007. The first part contains a verbatim transcription of each comment and a specific Agency response to each comment. The second part contains reproduction of the original public comment document. 126 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 FCGMA responses to written comments submitted on behalf of the City of Oxnard, City d Crestview Mutual Water Company (Crestview) by: rstein ENT A Law Corporation t the workshops. he Management t. It will guide GMA policy and decision-making for years to come. We issues and the board members his issue was workshops and the . Four Directors for this meeting lan. This Section is normally drafted chnical nature of e Executive Summary will be the most important Section of the Plan. It may summarize the plete. suggestion, the now includes an Throughout the o entities who se two entities. ould be proper and continue to Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #3: The final Fox Canyon any contributors n Groundwater unicipal Water nts, reviews, or ission of other result of simple oversight. 4. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Modeling. There needs to be a distinct Section that better describes the model details used for the technical analysis. This Section need not be long, but it should include mention of the software, construction, assumptions and details of the model construct. It ought to give enough information for the technically capable reader to understand its basics. Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #4: There is now a considerable discussion of the modeling approach, assumptions, limitations, and modeling of Camarillo, an Robert J. Sape HATCH & PAR Santa Barbara, CA 1. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: GMA Board attendance a While we understand the time commitment is extensive, this update to t Plan is very importan are not sure how the GMA Board can obtain adequate familiarity with all the constituents' concerns without some attendance at the workshops. No attended the first workshop. Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #1: T subsequently resolved by the Board member attendance at subsequent Special Groundwater Management Plan Workshop held on March 9, 2007 and two Alternate Directors were in attendance at this Workshop. Minutes have been included in this Appendix (D) to the Groundwater Management P 2. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Executive Summary. written as part introduction and part summary. An Executive Summary is when the remainder of the document is complete. Given the length and te the material, th be the only portion of the document many individuals read. It should purpose, issues and recommendations, once all of the technical work is com Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #2: Taking this Executive Summary was put on hold until the final draft. The final version Executive Summary 3. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Acknowledgements. document, there is repetitive recognition of United and Calleguas as the tw contribute to the GMA. This recognition is limited almost exclusively to the Either this self-congratulatory language should be eliminated, or there sh acknowledgement of the work of all the individuals and agencies who have contribute to the GMA's success. Groundwater Management Plan (Plan) acknowledges the contributions m including members of the three sponsoring agencies (Fox Canyo Management Agency, United Water Conservation District, Calleguas M District) as well as six other stakeholders who provided written comme provided other material input to the completion of the plan. Any other om individual who provided contributions to the completion of the FCGMP is the 127 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 471 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 results included as Appendix B of the final FCGMP. While not an exha discussion of model development and results, it provides a thorough summary of the model ustive technical and meaningful approach and its use in the development and analysis of various ndancy.There tion, it could be quantity issues in management ach basin or in e nonessential s. l Plan has been dexed to limit redundancies and improve the organizational structure. er quality, water the appropriate : Organization. plans. Perhaps d by basin for the three content subjects: strategies under need to be one those strategies that cross basin boundaries. You r each basin. A oal of, reducing the response to ebay priorities. owledged in the y perspective, to reliance on the conditions; the lied by Oxnard, that the Oxnard Plain ge and directly involving s 10.1.4, 10.1.5, 6, and 11.3.7. Through its discussion in these Sections as well as its implicit inclusion other strategies, the Plan acknowledges the significance and challenge of prioritizing use of the Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin. The Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin will remain a source of significant consideration and focus in the development of effective future strategies. 8. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Specific strategy: Transfers across basins. There is no direct mention that transfers (of allocation or credits) from challenged areas to areas of abundance may be the simplest method of mitigating problems. This has been a policy not favored in the past. However, this is an appropriate time to reconsider this policies developed in the Plan. 5. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Organization and Redu is tremendous redundancy in the report. Perhaps with different organiza slimmed down significantly. You might describe the water quality and generally applicable to all areas, along with the general concept of bas objectives. Then discuss all the issues comprehensively, separated for e some cases regions with multiple basins. As an alternative, some of th background and detailed technical information might be moved to appendice Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #5: The fina reorganized and in Due to the interrelated nature and technical complexity of many of the wat quantity, and public policy issues, some redundancy is necessary to provide context for specific topics. 6. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Management Strategies In a fashion, the Management Plan is really several separate management it should be organize development, future strategies and actions to attain BMO's. There may more general Section that addresses may be able to combine all the basin specific discussions in one Section fo couple different organizational approaches might be tested, with the g redundancy and volume of text. Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #6: See Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #5. 7. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Specific strategy: For The potential over-reliance on the Forebay under certain conditions is ackn document. However, there is no mention of the importance, from a polic establish some hierarchy for use of the Forebay. There will be increasing Forebay. To the extent access to the Forebay may be limited under certain GMA board must consider limiting certain uses before others. Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #7: As imp Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #7, the Plan acknowledges Forebay Basin represents one of the most significant sources of subsurface stora recharge within the FCGMA. Specific groundwater management strategies the use of the Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin have been addressed in Section 10.1.7. Other policy recommendations are addressed in Sections 11.2.2, 11.3. 128 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 question, particularly if the technical analysis suggests that a surgical approach is required ation or Credit physically move ay Groundwater gies move river either in-lieu deliveries that replace ntal concept of recycled water led water will be purified recycled ethod of solving mmunity to take ycled water, but oduct buyers that the crop was grown with cled water use may ted. The Board urrent reporting nt is noted. There appears &I use over the ay provide very veral significant Ag to M&I projects that are in ity's wastewater will be a shift in ells located far account these ch will occur. In he groundwater d to analyze the gement strategies (such as 5% reduction of historical allocation or implementation of an injection barrier). A typical model-based (VRGM), alters ten, if more than g land use), the ables is obscured. The effect of changing land-use was not one of the variables examined in this analysis; however, adding such a scenario would be instructive. As part of the Plan implementation process, this may be one of the recommendations to the Technical Analysis Group (TAG). 11. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Water Quality. It is somewhat troubling that the cornerstone of the Plan is the setting of Basin Management Objectives, some of which are water quality objectives. However, the model has no capability to predict water quality changes. Thus, we need to be very careful in how we set and monitor compliance with the Basin Management Objectives. to solve certain problem areas. Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #8: Alloc transfers are now discussed in relation to several strategies that would water from one basin to another, particularly moving credits to the Foreb Basin. In addition, many of the listed potential water management strate water or reclaimed water across basins to be used for groundwater pumping, or for direct groundwater recharge. The fundame localized management strategies is also discussed in Section 10.1.7. 9. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Specific strategy: Ag use. The draft Plan acknowledges (assumes) that larger volumes of recyc available for Ag use in the future. The assumption is correct that highly water will be available and recycled water use could be a very efficient m several regional problems. However, there is some resistance in the Ag co direct use of recycled water. The resistance is not over the quality of the rec over the required reporting to distributors and pr recycled water. As long as there is the Ag industry perception that recy harm the user's competitiveness, recycled water will not be widely accep may be able to help influence certain industry groups to alter the c requirements that create these problems for individual users. Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #9: The comme 10. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Analytic Methodology. to be no intent to model the expected (inevitable) conversion of Ag use to M period of the modeling run. Without this detail, the modeling exercise m misleading results. For example, there are se the planning stages located in the south Oxnard Plain area, nearby the C treatment plant and the military bases. The result of these conversions groundwater use from wells in a highly sensitive area, to City and United w from the coast (and imported water). If the model does not take into expected transitions, it will predict a materially different future than that whi this fashion, the modeling results may be very misleading. Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #10: T modeling purposely kept land use constant through the forward model perio quantitative effect of different groundwater mana quantitative analysis, including the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model only one variable at a time to determine its effect on the entire system. Of one variable is changed, (e.g., adding a management strategy plus changin quantitative effect of either vari 129 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 472 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #11: It groundwater model cannot directly predict water quality changes, althoug capacity to determine the effects of seawater intrusion in coastal areas. controlling seawater through management of groundwater elevations is a key component of the management plan, and is addressed in Sections 10.3.1. In other areas, the BMOs are the Regional Board’s Basin Pla Objectives Other water quality objectives and are discussed in Section 6.1, and 10.1.4. In the Forebay basin, nitrate BMO’s are set at th is true that the h there is some In these areas, priority goal and 9.1, 10.2.1, and n Groundwater 9.2, 9.3, 10.1.3, e Department of Health ntation process, AG). Either as a hould be a built difficult as useful a tool as is expected. ommendation for the Plan and is uch thing as "in- There are special credit transfer agreements/programs the GMA has approved that amount to "in-lieu” transfer eference to “In- used to refer to d groundwater. requires Ag to Plan does not ucing water use. porting requirements are not clear in requiring that the efficiency calculation is to be based on irrigated acreage, not total owned property. In some cases, otprint. In that y based on the icated in Section en as part of the is no mention of M&I return flows as a source of recharge. Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #13c: Return flows have been added as a nominal potential recharge source, with the caveat this only occurs in some areas. In fact, return flows can only reach the main FCGMA aquifers in a few areas where there is hydrologic continuity between surface uses and these aquifers – elsewhere, it is intercepted by impermeable layers and/or perched aquifers. 13d. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment:Two different definitions of basin yield are used and overdraft is not defined. Services notification level for drinking water. As part of the Plan impleme this may be one of the recommendations to the Technical Analysis Group (T 12. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Periodic update. component of the Plan, or as a Board measure in adopting the Plan, there s in requirement to update the Plan no less than every 5 years. This should not be so if the model proves to be Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #12: This rec periodic reviews and updates are now a strategy and action item in discussed in Section 11.1.3. 13a. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Pg. 12. There is no s lieu'" credits. Ordinance 8 only defines storage and conservation credits. of credits, but the term has no meaning in Ordinance 8. Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #13a: The r Lieu” credits have been eliminated or corrected and the term in-lieu is only imported, surface, or reclaimed water that could be used instead of extracte 13b. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment:Ordinance 8 demonstrate 80% efficiency, based on the individual crops grown. The propose tightening the efficiency percentage as a potential method of red Also, the current re the irrigated acreage may be materially smaller than the property fo circumstance, the user gets a substantial benefit in reporting efficienc property footprint instead of the irrigated acreage. Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #13b: As ind 11.2.4, an examination of the irrigation efficiency allocation will be undertak implementation of the Plan. 13c. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Pgs. 13, 16. There 130 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Response to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #13d: Section Plan addresses the 7.0 of the final concept of Yield of Groundwater Basins, its calculation, and the decreasing trend : (1) there is no ge in production l period against dry periods, Ag groundwater use tends to be greatest. Since those early years, we have been in a generally se simply based mand as a result fficiencies of use rior to the imposition of the cutback goals. The implication of the current as not. There is iscussion should cisions might be R guage has been ter conservation of ag to urban s also added. The discussion of reduction in pumping does not simply riod to document ry to dry, wet to nual extractions ping reductions 1 of increasing salt plete. It might lorides, so that it ing from aquifer R e was added to tions of surface waters (including POTW discharges) were considerably lower than those of the affected aquifer. While it is true that the problem was not generated by the quality of the discharge water, the problem appears to have been created by the increased quantity of discharge water (POTW’s plus Simi Valley Groundwater Basin dewatering and increased urban runoff throughout the watershed). The higher stream flows created by these discharges have apparently filled the shallow aquifer above historic levels, which may be dissolving salts in the previously unsaturated portion of the shallow aquifer. The Plan references a report done for Calleguas MWD for a more-detailed discussion of this water quality problem. associated assumptions. 13e. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: The discussion of the of extractions is incomplete and therefore misleading. As to the Ag side quantification of the reduction of Ag pumping resulting from reduced acrea over the past two decades, and (2) there is no recognition that the initia which we are measuring reduced usage was a very dry period. During wet period. Thus, we would expect a natural reduction in Ag groundwater u on the historical hydrology. As to the M&I side, there is no quantification of the increase in municipal de of conversion of Ag use to M&I use. There is no discussion of the relative e of water p discussion in the Plan is that Ag has done more than its share and M&I h insufficient information or analysis for this conclusion or implication. This d either be made complete and correct, or eliminated, especially if policy de influenced by it. esponse to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #13e: The lan changed to eliminate any implication that M&I has not done its share of wa or planned reductions in overall groundwater extractions. An example conversion wa compare the dry years of the base period to the wet years following that pe reductions in pumping. Instead, extraction in like years were compared (d wet), with the comparison included in the discussion of overall FCGMA an and any changes over time. Therefore, the language on FCGMA pum remains in the Plan. 3f. Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment: Pg.29. The discussion concentrations in the Las Posas basins is somewhat conclusory and incom help to actually provide the POTW discharge water quality for TDS and ch would be more clear to the reader that the problem is, in fact, generat conditions, not discharge water quality. esponse to Oxnard, Camarillo, and Crestview’s Comment #13f: Languag point out that chloride concentra 131 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 473 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 FCGMA responses to written comments submitted on behalf of the City of Oxnard by: anager discussed the roduction could ntial anecdotal ect because of ers or other faulty reporting mechanisms. For this reason, we recommend the quantity of erify the integrity Response to Oxnard’s Anthony Emmert Water Resources M City of Oxnard, California 1. Oxnard’s Comment: At the last workshop on the draft Plan, the group potential that incorrect assumptions about the quantity of groundwater p result in erroneous outcomes from the model. Indeed, there is substa evidence that groundwater production reporting may be materially incorr inaccurate met that the model be run to assume a band of uncertainty relating to groundwater production within FCGMA. Such sensitivity analysis will help v of the model results. Comment #1: A sensitivity analysis was added to the discussion of on of the meter revisit this issue essive review of duled to recommend that production data f review suspect ting to determine potential discrepancies. model results in Appendix B of the final Plan. Following implementati calibration program scheduled to begin in mid-2007, it would be prudent to to ensure the model is calibrated with the most accurate extraction data. 2. Oxnard’s Comment: As a related matter, the FCGMA will pursue an aggr meter calibrations over the next several years. However, this process is not sche start until 2007 and it will take three years to complete the first cycle. We the model be periodically rerun and updated with this new, more accurate when it becomes available. In the interim, we recommend that FCGMA staf accounts and perform a preliminary audit of groundwater production repor the scope of Response to Oxnard’s Comment #2: Periodic reviews and updates to both the Plan are now a strategy and action item in the Plan (Section 11.3.1) changes or additions to the Management Plan and/or changes to the the VRGM and . More frequent model could be be obtained for a management raction reporting ing the accuracy inal Plan. asis to identify, ing anomalies. and diligence of the FCGMA will ducation efforts encies to 3. Oxnard’s Comment: The Draft Plan sets forth several potential future management strategies that should be further explored for their potential effectiveness in addressing seawater intrusion and other adverse hydrogeologic conditions. We recommend that the next draft of the Plan prioritize these potential future strategies in terms of their potential effectiveness. We further recommend that the FCGMA develop procedure to apply a cost/benefit analysis to determine which of the prioritized strategies should be implemented. Response to Oxnard’s Comment #3 performed at the Board’s discretion, although additional funding may need to such efforts. The final Plan contains a discussion of verification of extraction reporting as strategy as well as a proposed procedure for verification. Verification of ext coupled with revised model inputs represents a fundamental step to enhanc and effectiveness of the model. Both are addressed in the f FCGMA staff has, and continues to, work diligently on an ongoing b research, and, to the extent practical, correct extraction report Fundamentally, the current system relies on the honesty, forthrightness, individual well operators. Given that the Agency has limited resources, need to continue to rely on self-monitoring reports from the operators, e highlighting the need for accurate reporting, and the contributions of its member ag enable it to capture the most accurate data available. : The final Plan (October 2006) prioritizes groundwater management strategies as suggested. At the March 2007 special Groundwater 132 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Management Plan Workshop, the FCGMA staff introduced a proposed approach that involves both technical and strategic advisory groups t together to evaluate each of the groundwater management strategies on and a cost/ implementation hat would work both a technical benefit basis. These groups will subsequently provide recommendations to the to consider more ource for future unty basins, are al and regional ncial benefits to pursue similar eologic and policy matters that must be resolved to nd that the Plan ities for active Board. 4. Oxnard’s Comment: As a general matter, we also encourage the FCGMA dynamic use of aquifers with dewatered storage space as a potential res conjunctive use programs. Other basins, such as the Chino and Orange Co currently planning and using available dewatered storage space for loc conjunctive use programs that yield better water supply reliability and fina support other necessary basin management programs. The FCGMA could programs. There are numerous hydrog implement a large scale groundwater storage program. Still, we recomme include additional and more detailed discussion of potential opportun conjunctive use programs within the FCGMA area. Response to Oxnard’s Comment #4: The final Plan includes several strate existing aquifer space for storage including the Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin 10.1.5, 10.2.2), the South and East Las P gies that utilize (Sections 9.6.6, osas Basins (Sections 9.2, 10.1.7, and 10.1.10) and the Pleasant Valley Basin (Sections 9.3, 10.1.7, and 10.1.10) In addition, the use of recycled water for injection is discussed in Section 9.1. Ultimately, the technical and cost/benefit of each of these strategies will have to be evaluated by the advisory group(s) and recommended to the Board for implementation. 133 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 474 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 FCGMA responses to written comments submitted on behalf of Pleasant Valley County Law, LLP A Legal Counsel for Pleasant Valley County Water District hird paragraph it s to increased agricultural efficiencies. We believe that somewhere in this paragraph roundwater may have also Water District (PVCWD) by: Mr. John Mathews Arnold, Bluel, Mathews, & Zirbel, Attorney’s at Oxnard, C Camarillo, CA 1. PVCWD’s Comment: Under the section "Groundwater Extractions", in the t refer reference should be made to the fact that extractions from the g decreased because increased yields from the Freeman diversion and the Conejo Creek project. Response to PVCWD’s Comment #1:A sentence has been added as sugges . PVCWD’s Comment: On page 43, in the section entitled ted. 2 "Assessment of Basin sin Management Objectives (BMO’s) for groundwater levels in the Pleasant Valley basin. In table 3, it makes ut does not set BMO’s. R2 Management Objectives", in the second paragraph it refers to Ba reference to Basin Management Objectives in the Pleasant Valley area, b forth what the current levels are, it would be helpful to state the groundwater esponse to PVCWD’s Comment #: Current levels have been added to all the BMO tables. 3 r LAS Seawater to address the ontingency Plan . PVCWD’s Comment: On page 48, under the Section "Contingency Plan fo Intrusion", it states that the GMA staff has developed a contingency plan intrusion of seawater into the LAS. It would be helpful if drafts of that C could be made available for public review. Response to PVCWD’s Comment #3: As stated in the final Plan (Section 8.1 Contingency Plan for LAS Seawater Intrusion exists. The original FCGM Management Plan completed in September 1985 contained a list of count could be employed either tempora ), no formalized A Groundwater ermeasures that rily or for longer periods of time to offset an extreme and h as a complete n, or monetary he present time. y Well proposed in the sion Project", the the yield of the diversion might decrease. There obviously is a spelling error there in that the word "net" should be "next". Furthermore, input should be sought from Camrosa Water District to determine whether or not their proposed plans will in fact reduce yield to Pleasant Valley. In discussions with Richard Hajas, it is our understanding that Camrosa's intent is to continue to provide current levels of diverted water to Pleasant Valley and in fact yields may be increased. Response to PVCWD’s Comment #4 threatening loss of fresh water resources. Some of the schemes listed, suc ban on all future LAS wells, forced urban and farm water conservatio incentives to encourage destruction of LAS wells, have limited feasibility at t Others such as implementing voluntary conservation measures, changing the Count Ordinance to limit new LAS wells, and additional monitoring efforts either current plan or already under development. 4. PVCWD’s Comment:On page 50, under the Section "Conejo Creek Diver last sentence references that over the "net 20 years" that : The typo has been corrected. The information in this Section was based on a conversation with Camrosa staff, who emphasized that yields of the Conejo Creek diversion project may not always be available to PVCWD. 134 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 5. PVCWD’s Comment: Under the Section "Great Project (Recycled W paragraph makes reference to the delivery of recycled water to the Pleas PVCWD has continued to express their concerns to the City of Oxnard abo of the recycled water for agricultural use. In particular, Pleasant Valley is the "stigma" that recycled water has in th ater)", the first ant Valley area. ut the suitability concerned about e market place. Many growers are now required to provide information on the source of their irrigation water. In the event that recycled water is r into the LAS. Plan). Because VCWD, Pleasant Valley will closely ter alternative to grounds. This used, the agricultural produce is often downgraded. Also, Pleasant Valley has concern about the injection of recycled wate Injection into the LAS is discussed on pages 65 and 66 (June 2006 Draft the LAS is the only groundwater source for the P scrutinize any injection of recycled water into the LAS. We feel that a bet injection would be the transportation of the recycled water to the spreading would enhance recharge and remove concerns relative to injection. Response to PVCWD’s Comment #5: The use of reclaimed water, as well the proposed strategies will need to be analyzed for both technica cost/ben as most or all of l feasibility and efit considerations prior to implementation. At that time, the proposed alternative, advisory groups GMA Staff at the March 2007 Special Groundwater Management Plan ter management uggested above vely effective or ing the water in as with lowered lley basins; and ading grounds would trigger a host of cluding a zone med water could s. Any directly e last paragraph the FCGMA are ces of the GMA e export issues. In particular, the enforcement provisions relating to export of "GMA" water should be closely reviewed. Response to PVCWD’s Comment #6 as well as other alternatives, will be considered. Indeed, the purpose of the proposed by the FC Workshop is to evaluate both the Plan-proposed and alternative groundwa strategies. With respect to the specifics of your proposal, the alternative to injection s has two major drawbacks: 1) Reclaimed water recharged in the spreading grounds is not as quantitati efficient in recharging the Lower Aquifer on a unit for unit basis as us place of extracted groundwater or injecting water directly into the are groundwater levels; specifically, the south Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Va 2) Reclaimed water delivered via pipeline to the spre California Department of Health Services (DHS) requirements, in surrounding the spreading grounds where no groundwater could be pumped for potable use. The DHS requirements for the spreading grounds with piped reclai significantly alter United Water’s operations of the spreading ground injected recycled water would be subject to existing or future DHS stringent water quality standards for domestic consumption, which are very stringent. 6. PVCWD’s Comment: Under the Section "Non-Export of FCGMA Water", th on that page states "It appears that current ordinances and policies of sufficient to deal with its export issue." In light of recent issues, the ordinan should be reviewed again to make sure that they are adequate to address th :A discussion about reviewing the sufficiency of current ordinances and policies was added to the Plan in Section 10.1.8. 7. PVCWD’s Comment: Under the Section "Increase Diversions from Santa Clara River, Potential Effectiveness". the first sentence states "The Santa Clara River remains a primary recharge source for the Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins." Based upon our understandings of various studies, it is a little misleading to suggest that the Pleasant Valley 135 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 475 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 basin gets much recharge from the Santa Clara River. Although there may be some imal at best. recharge, even that is disputed, it is clear that the amount of recharge is min Response to PVCWD’s Comment #7:PVCWD’s comment has merit and th text has been amended to indicate there is some uncertainty with regards to contribution of the Santa Clara River to the southern portion of the Oxnar Basin and the Pleasant Valley Basin. However, the Santa Clara Rive significant recharge to the northern Oxnard Plain Pressure Basin. It is proba to portray the recharge going to Pleasant Valley from the Santa Clara Rive best.” Although recharge to this basin is hampered by the zone of lower con e corresponding the quantitative d Plain Pressure r likely provides bly not accurate r as “minimal at ductivity (fault?) that separates it from the Santa Clara River, there is still recharge moving across the zone. livery of surface s", it is Pleasant of conservation Valley, but other the credits could equate surface mping from our ems to suggest r. ntives to look for asant Valley to nerated. The river also alleviates the need for some recharge through the pipeline de water as a replacement for extracted groundwater. 8. PVCWD’s Comment: Under the section "Shelf Life for Conservation Credit Valley's opinion that at the present time there is no need for "sunsetting" credits. While conservation credits have been built up by not only Pleasant entities, it was the very purpose of allowing for conservation credits so that be retained and used for future needs. Pleasant Valley sees no present need to "sunset" the conservation credits. Credits would only be used when there was inad water from the Freeman Diversion and the Conejo Creek Project, and pu wells were insufficient to meet our needs. Putting a shelf life on credits se that Pleasant Valley would utilize their credits to over-pump and waste wate It is also our opinion that putting a shelf life on credits, will also remove ince creative water solutions. For example, much of the impetus for Ple participate in the Conejo Creek Project, was the fact that credits would be ge Response to PVCWD’s Comment #8:Your comments are noted. Currently, there are no restrictions on the use of conservation credits, thus there is significant potential for over-use of the groundwater resource through the conservation credit program. The “sunsetting proposal” has been one of several proposals advanced by FCGMA stakeholders to mitigate the potentially negative consequences of the current credit program. Ultimately, current program will need to be evaluated in the context of the groundwater conditions and other groundwater management strategies to determine its potential benefit/consequences. 136 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 FCGMA responses to written comments submitted on behalf of Saticoy Country Club Water Committee Representative rts all efforts to uce our overall to increase our cy effort already ill continue that uctions to the full nd that the Draft d increases in s to also reduce ource and it is rs. ation efforts are r reductions in I Operators as in the final Plan ) and Additional on of M&I and . hat resulted from the many computer modeling d reductions in urces within the nction with other nt and effective nd the potential and that this quifers. Sunset this proposed he potential for Response to SCC’s Comment #2: As noted in a response to similar comments, there are no restrictions on the use of conservation credits, thus there is significant potential for over-use of the groundwater resource through the conservation credit program. The “sunsetting proposal” has been one of several proposals advanced by FCGMA stakeholders to mitigate the potentially negative consequences of the current credit program. As part of the implementation of the Plan, both the quantitative contribution and cost/benefit of all groundwater management strategies will be evaluated as part of the development process. (SCC) by: Mr. John Powell, Saticoy Country Club 1. SCC’s Comment: Continuation of 25% Pumping Reduction. SCC suppo bring the basins into safe yield and we not only have committed to red pumping but we also have committed significant capital resources efficiencies. As briefly described above we have made a significant efficien through our infrastructure alterations and water management practices and w effort in the future. As such it is our opinion that to continue the phased red 25% reduction (with possible further reductions) only to M&I users is unfair a Management Plan Update should either include provisions to rewar efficiencies by M&I users and/or to implement additional productive measure agricultural pumping. Agricultural users consume far more of the res completely unfair to place the burden of balancing the basin on the M&I use Response to SCC’s Comment #1:Your comments and continuing conserv very much appreciated. As a point of clarification, the proposed furthe groundwater extraction under historical allocation are not limited to M & suggested by your comment. Other extraction reduction strategies included include a change to the Irrigation Efficiency Calculation (Section 10.1.9 Water Conservation strategies (Section 10.1.12). A generic discussi agricultural conservation efforts has been added the final Plan (Section 4.0) One of the somewhat surprising conclusions t scenarios was that implementation of the remaining two 5% schedule Historical Allocations would not eliminate the overuse of groundwater reso FCGMA. Thus, reduction of allocation will have to be considered in conju groundwater management strategies. Ultimately, the responsibility for efficie groundwater use falls on all of the FCGMA stakeholders. 2. SCC’s Comment: Shelf Life for Conservation Credits. We understa concerns of accumulating Conservation Credits with no expiration date accumulation effectively has left a large theoretical pumping debt on the a provisions may be warranted in many cases. Our initial concerns with provision alteration is how it may impact different size users and also t removal of credits earned through our continued efficiency improvements. 137 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 476 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 FCGMA responses to written comments submitted on behalf of the City of Camarillo Govern, Deputy Public Works Director n)indicates the e of its current alley to this area uality rising groundwater. Under this plan, the poorer-quality water would be roject approved City of Camarillo ity that would be h, August 2005). Camarillo to halt instead pump in outh Las Posas y the FCGMA Board and consistent with Forebay) which rillo proposes to ring sub-basins (Camarillo) by: Ms. Lucia Mc City of Camarillo 1. Camarillo’s Comment: Page 58 (of the June 2006 Draft Plan Draft Pla following, "the City of Camarillo is considering a strategy to move som pumping from the area of the LAS pumping depression beneath Pleasant V of poorer-q extracted and desalted in a similar manner to the South Las Posas Basin p by the FCGMA.” Recommended Action: Consider replacing this text with the following, "The has assessed the feasibility of constructing a Groundwater Treatment Facil located in the Somis Gap area of the Pleasant Valley Basin (Black &Veatc The study determined the project to be technically feasible and would allow pumping from an area of the LAS with depressed groundwater levels and an area of rising groundwater levels. This plan is similar in nature to the S Basin project, which was previously approved b policy to move pumping to areas of known substantial recharge (i.e., Oxnard will create more storage space for future recharge events. The City of Cama coordinate pumping strategies between various stakeholders in the neighbo in order maintain replenishment of the Pleasant Valley Basin." Response to Camarillo’s Comment #1: Some of this language has been a Plan. Parenthetically, moving pumping away from Camarillo’s airport simulated using the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model, with resul Appendix B of the revised report and included in the discussion o management strategy. dded to the final wells has been ts discussed in f this particular umping without the potential for n allocation for accommodate a undwater usable”* To date, no rd. focuses on the dwater in the LAS of the Pleasant Valley Basin by means of Camarillo's Groundwater Treatment Facility project. However, the third paragraph awkwardly mixes in a brief discussion of an alternate subject in an area of the Pleasant Valley Basin that is far away from the observed recharge in the Forebay. Recommended Action: Please elaborate on the significance of this paragraph to Camarillo's Groundwater Treatment Facility Project or relocate this paragraph to an alternate location to maintain the continuity of the discussion regarding Camarillo's Groundwater Treatment Facility project which is in the Forebay. As a point of clarification, the Board has not, in fact, approved any plan for p allocation in the South Las Posas Basin, although the Board has addressed consideration of such a plan. Specifically, Resolution 2003-03 states that “a pumping from the South Las Posas Basin may be changed or altered to responsible entity that submits a plan to render this gro specific plan has been approved through ordinance or resolution by the Boa 2. Camarillo’s Comment: The majority of the discussion on page 58 development of brackish groun * FCGMA, 2003. Item 4: Minutes of the October 22, 2003 Board Meeting in: Full Agenda for the December 17, 2003 FCGMA Board Meeting. 138 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 Response to Camarillo’s Comment #2: The paragraph has been revise comment, however we cannot agree with Camarillo’s use of the term discussing a possible unconfined area near the town of Somis at the northe the Pleasant Valley Basin. There is at present, no comprehensive and con to support the concept that this area acts like a “Forebay” from a hydrogeol Further, the use of this term could be misleading when used in context wi FCG d to reflect this “Forebay” when astern corner of clusive evidence ogic standpoint. th the rest of the MA Management Plan where “Forebay” refers to the Oxnard Plain Forebay ure Groundwater e 2006 Draft Plan) provides the following description is in hydrologic ch is the primary Pleasant Valley eased flows in the irectly into the LAS, significantly raising groundwater of the Pleasant ey Basin and latively confined derstanding that lain Basin to the of a fault barrier in ater levels have existing wells in omis Area) and directly impact ult of the Saugus away in the Somis gap area that allows rapid rimary source of s in the adjacent rimary recharge hern basins. It is etermine if this Groundwater Basin adjacent to the northern end of the Oxnard Plain Press Basin. 3.Camarillo’s Comment: Page 17 (Jun of the Pleasant Valley Basin, "Despite the fault barrier to the west, the LAS continuity with the adjacent southern portion of the Oxnard Plain Basin, whi recharge source for the Pleasant Valley Basin.” Two paragraphs later, the following is stated, "At the northeast edge of the basin, where Arroyo Las Posas flows cross the basin boundary, incr arroyo have apparently percolated d levels in City of Camarillo wells. This recharge suggests that this portion Valley Basin is unconfined, contrary to current understanding of the basin. " Recommended Action: Consider the following definition of the Pleasant Vall explanation of recharge sources for this basin: Historically it was assumed that the LAS of the Pleasant Valley Basin was re and received little overall recharge. This assumption was based on the un the primary recharge source for this basin was from the adjacent Oxnard P south and recharge potential between these basins was low due to the low permeability the Pleasant Valley Basin aquifer in this region, as well as the presence of the lower portions of the Oxnard Plain. However, since the early 1990s, w begun to rise in the northern adjacent basins. The City of Camarillo has two .the northeast portion of the Pleasant Valley Basin (hereafter called the S these wells confirm that rising water levels in northern adjacent basins recharge rates, water quality, and water levels in the Somis Area. The recharge in the Somis Area (Pleasant Valley Forebay) may be a res Formation being folded upward and subsequently eroding covering the underlying bedrock with a predominantly sandy alluvial layer stream flow percolation. If this theory is correct, it is also likely true that the p recharge for the Pleasant Valley Basin prior to the decline of the water level northern basins was a forebay in the Pleasant Valley Basin and this p source is again prevalent due to the recent rise in water levels in the nort recommended that additional monitoring and studies be conducted to d theory is correct.” Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual location of the Pleasant Valley Forebay. Response to Camarillo’s Comment #3: Much of this suggested language has been included in the final Plan (Section 3.0). Section 3.0 significantly revises the text to indicate the degree of uncertainty in this area with respect recharge and hydrogeology. There is agreement that the northern portion of the Pleasant Valley basin south of Somis needs to be better understood and there is significant recharge occurring in this area of the basin. The details of how this recharge impacts the main portion of the Pleasant Valley basin needs further evaluation, with the result of the study integrated into the conceptual geology of the Ventura Regional Groundwater Model. The term “Pleasant Valley Forebay” is not used for the reasons cited in the response to the previous Camarillo’s Comment #2. 139 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 477 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 4. Camarillo’s Comment: Page 58 (June 2006 Draft Plan) indicates the follo from the Arroyo Las Posas has migrated completely across the South and Basins and into the northernmost Pleasant Valley Basin, providing a source wing, "Base flow East Las Posas of new recharge ies between the ater levels in the ay not be a recharge to the omis Gap was rior to pumping ent basins. to this portion of the Pleasant Valley Basin. Coordination in pumping strateg sub-basins is recommended in order to avoid negatively impacting groundw Fox Canyon Groundwater Basin.” As stated in Camarillo’s Comment #3, this m "new" source of recharge but instead reestablishing of an old source of Pleasant Valley Basin. Recommended Action: Consider revising the text to indicate that the S potentially the primary recharge source for the Pleasant Valley Basin p activities in the northern adjac Response to Camarillo’s Comment #4: See our response to Camarillo’s Co Section 3.0 significantly revises the text to indicate the degree of uncertainty respect recharge and hydrogeology. mment #3 above. in this area with alley Basin into sentence of the lack of current f the Pleasant asin and clarify how the basin is currently handled in the model. It is also into sub- evaluating the 5. Camarillo’s Comment: The Draft GMP does not segregate the Pleasant V sub-basins, it only describes the basin as a whole. Furthermore, the last second paragraph of page 17 (June 2006 Draft Plan) indicates a understanding of this basin. Recommended Action: Please elaborate on the current understanding o Valley B recommended that the authors consider sub-dividing the Pleasant Valley Basin basins (Pleasant Valley Forebay and Pleasant Valley Basin) to assist in different potential recharge sources for the basin. Response to Camarillo’s Comment #5: See responses to the previous Comments. two Camarillo’s 06 Draft Plan) e Pleasant Valley Basin. This is not true across the entire basin. Pleasant Valley ater levels in the above sea level 6. Camarillo’s Comment: The second paragraph on page 33 (June 20 indicates groundwater levels in the LAS have consistently been below sea level in th Recommended Action: Clarify that water levels in the southern portion of Basin have historically been below sea level since the 1950's. However, w northeastern portion of the basin near the Somis gap have historically been and continue to rise along with levels in the adjacent northern basins. Response to Camarillo’s Comment #6: The text has been amended appropr Plan. iately in the final 7 e 29 (June 2006 ant Valley Basin tated in the third e noted that two City of Camarillo wells (Wells A and B) have already been impacted by a rise in chlorides, which has prompted the City to discontinue use of Well A and to blend water from Well B with higher quality imported water to meet drinking water standards. Recommended Action: Revise the referenced sentences to indicate that chloride levels in the southern portion of the basin have risen marginally from rising water levels, but due to limited data, the marginal rise of chloride levels could be much higher. However, as shown on Figure 14 of the draft GMP, sulfate and TDS levels in the northern portion of the Pleasant Valley Basin have been rising steadily and have already exceeded secondary drinking water standards. Available data also indicate that concentrations of iron and manganese are also . Camarillo’s Comment: The last sentence of the second paragraph on pag Draft Plan) states that: "It is too early to know whether chlorides in the Pleas will escalate to a problem affecting local pumpers." This sentence is res sentence of the second paragraph on page 35. In both places it should b 140 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 rising in response to basin recharge and have risen to levels that impair M&I Response to Camarillo’s Comment #7 uses. : The text has been amended appropriately in the final 06 Draft Plan) provides discussion on increasing and indicates water lowing text: eatment Facility e salts from the n portion of the areas of major atment Facility, portion of the ter table in that Development of Plan. 8. Camarillo’s Comment: Page 35 (June 20 sulfate and chloride levels in the northern Pleasant Valley Basin treatment will be needed for potable or irrigation use. Recommended Action: Consider expanding the discussion to include the fol "Camarillo has evaluated the feasibility of constructing a Groundwater Tr that would intercept a portion of the poorer water quality surge and remov aquifer system. This would help protect the water quality in the souther basin and preserve higher quality water for use by other pumpers in overdraft. Furthermore, by utilizing the water from the Groundwater Tre Camarillo could curtail or eliminate pumping operations in the southern Pleasant Valley Basin, which would promote recovery of the depressed wa region. Further details of the project are provided in the Section titled, Brackish Groundwater, Pleasant Valley Basin." Response to Camarillo’s Comment #8: Appropriate language has been a 5.2.3 and Section 9.3 of the final Plan. Based on the data and analyses time, it is not known whether a groundwater treatment facility in the northern hal dded to Section available at this f of the Pleasant Valley basin would necessarily help to protect water quality in the southern portion ssociated with a Pleasant Valley ntitative analysis e speculative. e 43 (June 2006 oncentrations in ising slowly in a t. For example, dicate that well 01N/21W-01B04 screened from 820 to 1,150 feet has 16 feet rom 107 to 437 BMO’s are not of the basin. There is also significant potential for increased pumping a treatment facility to worsen water quality in the southern portion of the Basin. Given that there is limited study and data on the area and no qua regarding such a system, any statements regarding its success or failure ar 9. Camarillo’s Comment: The second sentence of the last paragraph on pag Draft Plan) indicates, "Basin Management Objectives (BMO’s) for chloride c the Pleasant Valley Basin are currently being met, although chlorides are r few wells in the basin.” There are a number of wells that indicate that the BMO’s are not being me County data in chloride greater than 200 mg/l, well 01N/21W-03C01 is screened from 956 to 1,2 has chloride greater than 260 mg/l, and well 01N/21W-01D02 is screened f feet with chloride greater than 450 mg/I. Recommended Action: Consider revising the statement to indicate that currently being met throughout the entire Pleasant Valley Basin. Response to Camarillo’s Comment #9: The text has been amended appropriately in Section 58·(June 2006 mping of poor- quality groundwater along Calleguas Creek would have to be pumped using existing allocations if the well was within the FCGMA boundary.” The City of Camarillo understands that current FCGMA policy has evolved over time and has previously allowed unrestricted pumping of poorer quality shallow groundwater, with the semi-perched zone in the Oxnard Plain and the South Las Posas along the Arroyo being two examples. Recommended Action: .Consider revising the last paragraph of page 58·(June 2006 Draft Plan) to say: "Previously, City of Camarillo pumping of poor-quality groundwater along Calleguas Creek would have to be pumped using existing allocations since the wells are within the FCGMA boundary. However, as FCGMA policy has evolved over time, 6.2 of the final Plan. 10.Camarillo’s Comment: The first sentence of the last paragraph on page Draft Plan) indicates, "Under current FCGMA policy, City of Camarillo pu 141 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 478 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 unrestricted pumping of poorer quality shallow groundwater has been a Camarillo Project, a coordinated effort between the FCGMA and City of Cam undertaken to define the potential benefits of operating the City of Camar llowed. For the arillo should be illo Groundwater are discussed in s.” Treatment Facility. Extractions of poor-quality water without allocations more detail in the Section titled "Recommended Additions to FCGMA Policie Response to Camarillo’s Comment #10: This comment is addressed in Section 9.3 of the s of projects is larification. First, s by the FCGMA for construction short-lived and cted pumping of n allocation, but r been met or pumping without d is willing to consider the accommodate a e”* To date, no rd. aft Plan) discuss aragraph in this rcent. The next tural uses, while orced pumping e M&I r to reflect the hile some M&I for conjunctive . We believe that the apparent 15 percent reduction in pumping is water use has creage irrigated n has occurred. discuss the likelihood that under recording meters, or agricultural wells with no meters at all, may be contributing to the apparent reduction in reported agricultural pumping. Response to Camarillo’s Comment #11 final Plan. A formal written policy that includes criteria for these type recommended as an addition to FCGMA policies. With regard to other as aspects of this comment, there are two points of c no actual pumping of poor-quality shallow groundwater has been authorize to date without an existing allocation. Resolution No. 98-1 provides dewatering without an established allocation since such work is typically occurs in the shallow subsurface. Resolution No. 99-3 allowed for unrestri “mounded groundwater” within the Oxnard Plain Forebay Basin without a only under very specific terms and conditions that to date, have neve authorized. Second, the Board has not, in fact, approved any plan for allocation in the South Las Posas Basin although the Boar submittal of a plan. Specifically, Resolution No 2003-03 states that “an allocation for pumping from the South Las Posas Basin may be changed or altered to responsible entity that submits a plan to render this groundwater usabl specific plan has been approved through ordinance or resolution by the Boa 11.Camarillo’s Comment: The last 3 paragraphs on page 23 (June 2006 Dr groundwater extraction reduction. The numbers presented in the second p Section indicates that the total reduction in pumping is about 22 to 23 pe paragraph indicates that the largest decrease in pumping is from agricul the last paragraph indicates that the first phase of the FCGMA enf reductions of 15 percent resulted in the reduction of 8,300 acre-feet of pumping by th users. However, the discussion on the reduced pumping does not appea transfer of allocation from agricultural uses to M&I service, or the fact that w providers are using all their allocation, others have been conserving them use with other sources somewhat coincidental and that the overall M&I allocation for ground increased substantially due to land use conversion. Recommended Action: This discussion should compare the changes in a and M&I acreage served over the same time period that pumping reductio This may also be the place to : The discussion of groundwater extraction has been expanded significantly and is located in Section 4.0 of the final Plan. The issue of potential under-reporting of groundwater extractions is addressed in Section 10.1.6 and Section 11.3.9 of the final Plan. In addition, an additional modeling scenario was performed to address potential under-reporting of groundwater extractions. A discussion of the results is provided in Section A.2.2.2 of Appendix B. * FCGMA, 2003. Item 4: Minutes of the October 22, 2003 Board Meeting in: Full Agenda for the December 17, 2003 FCGMA Board Meeting. 142 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 12.Camarillo’s Comment: The second paragraph of page 52 (June 2006 Dr that there is a universal acceptance of the pumping reductions and the stiff pumping. The City of Camarillo doesn't agree that there is a universal ac pumping reductions. It is the City's view, as well as other M&I users, that the reduction is aft Plan) implies penalty for over ceptance of the onjunction with ay be general . The reduction lving water level deficits in the basins. not equitable and recommends that the efficiency policy be reviewed in c production meter testing activities. Recommended Action: Consider revising the text to indicate there m acceptance of the pumping reduction policies but not universal agreement policies should consider equal distribution in sharing the burden in reso Response to Camarillo’s Comment #12: The language has been revised to but not universal, acceptance of mandated or scheduled Historical allocation 13.Camarillo’s Comment: The third paragraph on page 59 (June 2006 Draft Plan reflect general, reductions. ) states that erstands that the seline allocation. seline allocation is only one acre-foot of water per acre, and should be considered when the baseline allocation is two acre-feet per acre. The City of Camarillo und two acre-feet per acre may have been the historical allocation, not the ba Ba analyzing the baseline allocation policies. Response to Camarillo’s Comment #13: The baseline allocation number as corrected to one acre-foot per acre as provided by Section 5.6.1.1 of FCGMA Ordinance No stated has been . scussion on the ion of this 8.1. 14. Camarillo’s Comment: Page 63 (June 2006 Draft Plan) provides a di potential effectiveness of importing additional state water. Further clarificat paragraph would be very helpful in understanding this potential strategy. Response to Camarillo’s Comment #14: A discussion of the p importing California State Water is provided in Section 10.2.2 of the final Pla effects of importing California State Water was also addressed as a mod the VRGM and is discussed in Section A.2.2.7 of Appendix B. otential effectiveness of n. The potential el scenario using 15. Camarillo’s Comment: Page 73 (June 2006 Draft Plan) provides a discussion on penalties tage of s by switching to rically been very le benefit used to purchase replacement water. It should be noted that a large percen overpumping is by agricultural users who have the ability to escape penaltie irrigation efficiency and consequently the revenue from these fees has histo little. Therefore, using this revenue to purchase replenishment water may be of litt to the basins. Response to Camarillo’s Comment #15: The comment is noted. on "Extractions current FCGMA at would benefit licy implemented and would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft policy. Response to Camarillo’s Comment #16 16. Camarillo’s Comment: Page 79 (June 2006 Draft Plan) includes a Section of Poor-Quality Water Without an Allocation", which would be an addition to policy. The City of Camarillo supports such a strategy that allows projects th the overall aquifer system. The City of Camarillo would like to see this po : Please see the response to Camarillo’s Comment #10 above. 17. Camarillo’s Comment: FCGMA has reduced pumping and approved projects that provide some benefit to some portion of aquifers within the agency boundaries. However, this does not promote the implementation of projects in critical areas of the basin that are just outside of agency boundaries. Before implementing the next stage of pumping reductions on M&I users, the City of Camarillo recommends that the FCGMA evaluate larger picture projects 143 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 479 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 that could help solve groundwater impacts in the most critical areas and po solutions in-lieu of additional pumping reductions. Further pumping r possibly be avoided if the current basin by basin management approach w strategies were implemented based on the principal that downstream basins are im tentially provide eductions could as revised and pacted ultural and M&I 0/AF that would llow funding for would effectively r pumped areas in management Camarillo. by upstream uses and that the impact is therefore created by both agric users who pump from all basins. FCGMA could consider implementing a "mitigation fee" of approximately $1 be paid by all groundwater users in the FCGMA. This strategy would a agencies like UWCD, Oxnard, or Calleguas MWD to develop projects that improve the conditions of the basins as a whole by moving water to ove within FCGMA boundaries. This approach would help prevent basin by bas which could inordinately impact users in downstream basins, like the City of Response to Camarillo’s Comment #17: Section 11.1 of the final Plan propos a dialog on strategic planning within the water community that would projects and project proposals. FCGMA staff has proposed a Plan implementation strategy es that there be discuss specific that not only provides for, but encourages, significant stakeholder contribution and input. abling legislation e its boundary. . that there is a water being exported outside the FCGMA boundary from nd that itional pumping There are some inherent limitations to the influence of the FCGMA. The en for the FCGMA limits its ability to influence projects and conditions outsid The opportunity to expend FCGMA funds outside its boundary is also limited 18. Camarillo’s Comment: The City of Camarillo is under the impression quantifiable amount of ground Pleasant Valley and Las Posas Basins. The City of Camarillo would recomme FCGMA pursue controlling the exportation of groundwater before add reductions are approved. Response to Camarillo’s Comment #18: The exportation of groundwater out boundary is addressed in Section 9.4. 19. Camarillo’s Comment: The Draft GMP indicates that FCGMA is cons accumulated groundwater credits. It should be noted that M&I users conju surf side the FCGMA idering expiring nctively balance ace water and imported supplies with local groundwater thereby conserving groundwater g a time limit on reduction is an ses. Similar to nly impact M&I go on efficiency credits. M&I users do not have this eliveries have in urface water for he accumulation credit reduction strategy is believed to be of very little benefit to the overall basins but would have a significant impact to M&I users. If there is a desire to eliminate the perceived "groundwater debt", agricultural credit reduction should be the first consideration. Pages 71 and 72 (June 2006 Draft Plan) state that there are tens of thousands of acre-feet of accrued conservation credits. The credits that the City of Camarillo has accrued came at a high cost, when we purchase more expensive imported water. Poor quality groundwater has forced the City of Camarillo to blend groundwater with imported supplies, subsequently accruing groundwater credits. The City of Camarillo intends to retain its credits until such time they are needed to meet demands during a drought. Even though credits cannot be for use when surface and imported supply is not available. Therefore, settin credits works against this water supply management philosophy. Credit issue that should be reviewed separately for M&I uses and agricultural u implementing 25 percent pumping reductions, credit reductions would o agencies who conduct long-term planning, since agricultural users could allocation and would not be impacted by a loss of option. In regards to agricultural credits, please note that UWCD surface water d part allowed accumulation of credits by agricultural users that receive s irrigation. Those who funded the Freeman Diversion have in part funded t of these credits when surface deliveries were annually increased. The 144 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 sold, they have a value to M&I users that is equal to the over pumping surcharge. FCGMA ter credits. should reconsider the proposed strategy of expiring/reducing M&I groundwa Response to Camarillo’s Comment #19: The issue of M&I accrual of credit “shelf-life” fo s as well as the r conservations credits is discussed in extensive detail in Section 10.1.13 of the f abandoned or iated with well nsible for costs final Plan. 20. Camarillo’s Comment: Page 73 discusses proper filling and capping o leaking wells and states that FCGMA helps with the costs assoc abandonment. The owner of the land that the well is on should be respo associated with destruction of well(s). Response to Camarillo’s Comment #20: It is true the owner of the land is res destruction. Historically, the City of Oxnard, United Water, and the FCG provided funding to destroy wells for a variety of reasons including urgency threats to water supply, and i ponsible for well MA have each , difficult access, nability to find former owners. The Ventura County Watershed n of 40 to 50 wner’s expense sion of additional uctions not be A should require l to the modeling develop it. tegy of reducing 10.4.1, 11.2.1, ion of extraction ection A.2.2.2. ears as well as FCGMA are in a 06, the FCGMA Plan), and the ounty, California n support as the d water quality ment strategies ide additional sources of acceptable recharge. While the increased accuracy of extraction reporting may indirectly contribute to better management of the groundwater resource, the overwhelming body of data and analysis supports the conclusion the resource as whole is over-allocated and overused. Delaying the implementation of any strategy that either reduces overuse of the resource or limits the acquisition of additional recharge does not serve either the FCGMA or its stakeholders. Nevertheless, further extraction reduction will be considered in conjunction with other management strategies described in the Plan with the overarching purpose of comprehensively managing the groundwater resource. Protection District - Groundwater Section has pursued the destructio abandoned wells per year over the last several years at the property o without FCGMA financial assistance. 21. Camarillo’s Comment: Page 75 (June 2006 Draft Plan) provides a discus reductions in pumping allocations. It is recommended that further red implemented until after the meter testing effort is complete. Perhaps FCGM an initial testing of all meters within one year. This would be very beneficia effort because the model will only be as accurate as the information used to Response to Camarillo’s Comment #21: The groundwater management stra extraction allocations is discussed in extensive detail in Sections 9.5, 11.3.10, and Appendix Section A.2.2.3 of the final Plan. The verificat reporting is discussed in detail in Sections, 10.1.6, 11.3.9, and in Appendix S Many different and independent analyses performed over the last four y years of historic documentation demonstrate nearly all of the aquifers of the state of overdraft. Two FCGMA Staff reports prepared since October 20 2005 Annual Report, the output of the VRGM (Appendix B to the final UWCD’s 2003 Coastal Saline Intrusion Report, Oxnard Plain Ventura C universally identify extraction of groundwater beyond a level the resource ca sole reason for depressed groundwater elevations, seawater intrusion, an degradation throughout the FCGMA. Thus, there is an urgent need to imple that both limit use of the resource and prov 145 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 480 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 FCGMA responses to written comments provided by: wner/Well Operator in the FCGMA e case CITY OF elieve this case derstanding that to all of the Fox n of the law, if I he case law, are xporters. Thus, , and subject to ropriative rights. mping -ops, and small specifically in the Management Plan. In nsure that their Mr. Lawrence (Larry) Fuller Land O Somis, CA 1. Fuller’s Comment: Examining the FCGMA Management Plan in light of th BARSTOW et al, v. MOJAVE WATER AGENCY (21 August 2000), I b clarifies the California Supreme Court’s position on water rights. It is my un the FCGMA used the “equitable” (physical) concept for allocation pumping Canyon aquifer pumpers. This method of allocation is clearly a violatio understand the ruling cited above. The three levels of priority, as stated in t 1st priority Overlying Owners, 2nd in priority are Appropriators, and 3rd are E while the rights of all overlying owners in a groundwater basin are correlative cutbacks when the basin is overdrafted, overlying rights are superior to app It is my request that the FCGMA Board of Directors NOT make any further pu reductions until these legal issues can be resolved. Small water users, Co M&I agricultural systems are not addressed addition, the FCGMA Board has no small operation representative to e interests and concerns will be heard. Response to Fuller’s Comment #1:The history and responsibilities of summarized in Section 2.0 of the final Plan. The Agency was created by the State Legislature in 1982 [AB 2995] a certain powers and authority to manage groundwater resources. Include legislation (now codified as California Water Code Appendix Chapter 121) is develop, adopt, and implement a plan to control groundwater extractions (S also gra the FCGMA are nd granted with d in its enabling the directive to ect 601). It was nted the power to “Control extractions by regulating, limiting, or suspending ower to “Impose 01(c)]. SB 747 blish extraction al Plan nor the sue of water rights, which is beyond the scope of groundwater resource size. Since the resource, some le extraction or er management FCGMA Board districts. y understanding, the Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD) has been allowed to acquire Fox Canyon aquifer prescriptive pumping rights. The Board has already allowed the injection wells to be drilled and injection of imported water is progressing. It is imperative that CMWD be restricted in writing that they will not be allowed to extract water outside of their injection field. Response to Fuller’s Comment #2 extractions form extraction facilities…” [Ch. 121 Sect. 701 (b)]; and the p reasonable operating regulations on extraction facilities…”[Ch. 121 Sect. 7 (1991) amended AB 2995 and authorized the FCGMA Board to esta allocations and levy charges for groundwater extraction. Neither the fin FCGMA Ordinance No. 8.1 address the is the FCGMA. The final Plan was prepared to address the future management of the with respect to the needs of all of the FCGMA stakeholders, regardless of operational impacts of larger users have a greater impact on the common priority has necessarily been placed on strategies that effect large-sca recharge operations. However, almost all of the proposed groundwat strategies either directly or indirectly affect all users. With respect to the comment regarding representation, two of the five positions are established to represent agricultural operators and small water 2. Fuller’s Comment: According to m :A discussion of the Las Posas Basin ASR project as well as other proposed aquifer storage projects, a preliminary set of proposed conditions is provided in Section 9.1 and Section 10.1.10 of the final Plan. Specific aspects of the East Las Posas Basin ASR (formerly Identified as the North Las Posas Basin ASR) are provided in Appendix Section A.3.1 of the final Plan. 146 FCGMA Groundwater Management Plan May 2007 The FCGMA has no authority in either its enabling legislation or through its to grant prescriptive rights. When the FCGMA Board authorized and appro Posas Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project (or ASR Program) proposed by February 1994, certain restrictions were placed on both the operational lim water quality alterations that could result. A written list of conditions was general injection permit authorized by the FCGMA that included but we volume reporting, monthly water quality reports, water quality restrictions fo water and extracted water, total storage limitations, vicinity groundwater con requirements, as well as other standards and condition-dependent re Ordinance code ved the East Las CMWD back in itations and the attached to the re not limited to r both imported ditions reporting sponse actions (Appendix Section A.3.1 of the final Plan). A copy of these standards or conditions is of Water Quality njected for water into account the ugh the aquifer. es via underflow e FCGMA should not be providing free water to CMWD. available and included in an official policy sheet entitled “GMA Adoption Standards.” 3. Fuller’s Comment: A gallon for gallon or acre-foot for acre-foot of water i extracted allowance associated with the CMWD ASR field should take wetting factor of the dry sands and the drift factor of the water moving thro Fluid losses can be substantial due to wetting of a dry formation and loss out of the basin or injection area. Th Response to Fuller’s Comment #3: The comment regarding the equity of cr water compared to extracted water is addressed in Section 9.1 and Sectio final Plan. This is one of the many issues to be considere edits for injected n 10.1.10 of the d as part of implementation of all 4 il and rights of processes or procedures especially in light of recent rulings by the court. Response to Fuller’s Comment #4 FCGMA groundwater management strategies. . Fuller’s Comment: The court cases cited should be discussed in deta prescription should be examined as they might apply or effect FCGMA ordinances, :The Agency Counsel, supplied to the FCGMA under contract with the County of Ventura, reviews and provides legal counsel to the Staff and the Board for all decisions, Ordinances, and resolutions with respect to County, State, and Federal Codes. Historically, the Agency has also contracted external legal services to provide advice on both policy and legal issues. 147 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 481 1 s m2 - o3 ° 0 od •.. 0.8 E 8 084 S ' [�_ a o u C c`S n-. r= c ca 8 1.� 42 6m,SE uv',gouu u c a c u ; o'- a 3 o a 8 �d [O s E} uY -= m5-,3 s ° , A.F. 5, oS o O'erSm c,,. ?oS fl!U vc ° vu'° r2� y!!I >o_ 2flU It E >, 00 ti eE E o u v 2t °5 3 �w � , E= P, 0 1Eu viSW r5 pl '�ig5'g Eogo•S!D 0.,.$ ° C iG 0.2422 a.( }S?p r> g y y O V C N .� W '.7 V 6 L 9 'g m .- 0 S 2 E.8 C$ m o°�' E g O'S E ab o v V NE v a .n" u e'$ . 622.5 3 E T o 3 c9 oQ u g.=0 hIU ' m °._ E 8 v o �� 73.opp u n1V 2 ° w v u C O L C.... § ,° 5 Nl « W t O as v W "- E L 'L T a' O � Y... V ° u C.T .0=u E V tit .,, ,. 5 C O—^ o° d 3 5 � w E a. �t.a o S . E 1 =72- N 5.2 -- ay. - - a v. - Q e S ° fi " °. „ C 3 u,g.o o•� " v o c 'F p c. a. . u m r ° u � 5 P4 c u � 8 °•� 5 Te ° _u _ u v E II 11111 t' , ac IUII [ o xo ea 20rbtE,`°' muarF9m 2r,g— g �J5 -,22 �, ao9 y0 oocEiaEo o qvg ua Ei E on vimoSu °u E _5 °�E E $ a u 'vVu O v bh2 uY 5 4 CI 5 UuV a 1 O O 4 0°E C C „ 'sa7 GG'7C kC^ V V �" Ve1 C Y2 2 '" °mE Ot= >.F. ou c > , a2 a 5a � Y 9 g o E ?: 1111 '3; iI11I 111111 It1ViflhI .m v 4C V ui ni ij uo u w o 5'S -e >E 4 S g ' !..o. S 2 a E 1 ,0115 Ae N ' i: yy Y V K y 0. a NC 50 „ Ga o i _ ii LI! cgE 82 .o8y; °cva rC7 a21 . 5 Y O 8-vez s-.` 'y 4 1 y° m ' m^ a m- .01 ° H '2ag` u3.5 U5t = `offe o °' a -a d III ou ii;' m �Q , `° G„ > o, �S u a n e s V'a 7 V 3 E.6.. 551 V °°.� 3 t i.otoL ,9p S e DA ^u". g Ei' sou t 0 2> 3 EOh !:U ul auE 6 5 '>. _ o c ° > l •u P� O 1v '11 -§-gQ7 g ; E4w• 13AC 4 N -4+ 7C WN °gyp y 7? y b0 �� �° C C °V°C 0.1 . n Y O C p i cz I. 5 u° 3„ Fa E u o^ f $ E . m V47, o Z ( i a' p" no to.... H N . �yv° g- {�a,D 3 wCc U t 7ov w° c O (NI m¢ E z V J ? C.� ° ' L •5 m- 0 Q^ c g`o ooP,.. mo Rn PigTqIIj •ss UI -4 0 in .« E ,1 a eo ° qt4 chi H�i.� a! -0g> a U'a u U E c c•v C7 3S 0*'S • s6. �.to I) a v, qunit s cO.5 > •° b ", ba ao -S • O g C -u 3 i YYu E..C.N. a O m C in 77 (.J 'a oo*A e o 2 u 16 p= 3 0 '4 2 3 u 2 'a u'E o 0'ao .a ` L. AM °uE. gao $ b t.2'4 E ll'iE ssl1 5 £ ' Tou 4o =r u '1 ' o 2 v us 6 Qc A. E g .y v 0 = o me l s fic a xu a a, " a_ a a 0 a uc' a .5Y opGa c " o � a a-� > ^uE4C a. q; N V CV" Hu1H 9 . N A. U c �0 W ` Nv1 '_O 1.a •p NW C1LU2OL•a• F. gomE ggr O O .' TO W u= O8 -Q = ct wG p-4 f > : Ue . d g GOm SaaE2 " c8 gg Ru de " g, Fca . .: � ii I ahUh c 1141 b o o tDID' m _ cms c c. cotu AgIE .A .. ,t2 W .°'03-5 tL- b< $ m :vo for< O .oi -.0-,A DEED urn Gum Eayo3mAt 3 r.saoQ?'c ;oH °='omgig lig00 g EZ g co o pi a g m H t-• o� .41,0 a o.1 >'3 E"' •`n= c p oo• m Q 8 3 E r. m N F 00 U_ U yyu � O e.•j; g W O p 0 •Q¢ 0 'O 04 O!-�fl a E 0 u.d a mi y 3 g oa E o 6 i a o� c ch„-- c m' c o •a e� o0 € 3 a.g i a:VG R cry �g E.0 a,c-g 42 g o g2'1 o J'$ ` oo S 0 _ E m a Wx as aovuu $ eel' 'G > t'ccS ,gg 13 U Po'''' m'' • u C p t' g O > a V 0 0 u >, u A_ c§ - p u ry5s •� .° E Q.o� 3p a� 2 a EI3 g m E >+"+ r,i4 v< p ;, G>;zO, U =.c0, d$ 00 C ; $ cca91g - E'o u Qg g i elu a o t° 0g . 8 to a. vo^.° fi S a" o e G a� o ' Sh o u.g vC �z3 _ N u m C >.,O E m'J 2 0 u 0 0 V g E u 3 •n 0 0 p u N o g': 5 a o E • r g a o =2 id u `3 a E 0 o q 3 E g fi ) cis' �' `� ,xj �i a a s no y u s m x u x s u otroEa c5..5s�os, _ Eo == > uc - :E ° z o .0 Euw c o c G $ > a o - eA a bs a �� m Q$ or2 Ea "o• 5p `G� tOpf�1. 218. >28 BCaxi '2'E aZca .,'QJ ' ot�.o $ code F. yugc$ G $ vwmi� H Ew3Q o5" a t = a' my w , m@ c-:. w o G 3 .02 i EU Cc b a u o u "z =0 o "g o<- 0 'o�0 mCC G 0 o U pay '+`� 0. :E m E g r0ali m N O.'9 4 ' ? =e'g a g L U N ;'O C > "' a 00 222 G L t u C.-. .il F 0 o.. A e 0.- O= uE34 7, .eHhili .o3rd� � ¢-2 GcS G go .E a o> u a m 9 y 0 a o- 2 w o E 3 a ; c 't y� 4v m o �FQ G a� u om o 0 N 00 rd 5 g . E b-le c `3a 2'� o u[ g b , Lgp.g 4 2 '5 m. u O € .. BD --0 `5EEEa -prE V BE •toy e .I-E E 3 A N v cf."_ oou c. 0 E0. dm %N . E5Eca o9 ,,e8.2 E o .1..z28' `. 0 0 �03� �C7 mo oaag cmi �3$ E u 3 G a o E c � g o u :p c•a dbv Z `o _ 2g1,41) u g c_m S B u i >..'S? E C$o3 s° ,.. -i- , E 42,...2, IFI O I i H1Ii 1111111111 lID 11111 111111111 ^U') 1 �o c°� c lama >°.`mey �E^•3p .°'°� C `� 6ciSA �d uw tea) m I 014, cpui O o fi . . G .G O m E :d u O g u.w,d.q-8 2 y y w A LL a_ g C� tz R. m - a\ u,C u a.7 - E a 0.- _ 0 V u c 1-- T C)N o t2 „ c4 es ,.u S u x d a 3 .� .� u� °3 ° .0. 3 a u m o 0 0 ¢ y5 a m.E '� ,. m -'mw 4 Duo 00- 41 8= u3 LL w'a�ot°. �.�'3 � -'^ � 4 >$'5v3mfi '5•uv �'w55m3 8= E mi 1 1 "s N ux Ev 9c � fi oE _o Y a' 5m L 4 xaWc � a a , v5°�ll. _ x yy m v a EE m cp a u e3.2 pI a3S LL o .42 §i y0 cy 3.� sg _ 3 ig m ads o.aLaS g a `�' wa JR a a urnU in4;smuE9v $ o rd ®4Es�'r' ` m _ o ra, s 8 ° u.3 . L•} .m . r. 8 O C .....]u..10] . A 5g �.9 313 � 3 �— � ; gE B 3,'s m 8 E -- s E a= g• Y p m 4 t u y u U g Eu-Ua -5. I ° a c7 G v a u 110 m a g If CQ ill liiflih ° rUeaa a s = � � " w.. 9�p .. .. E� - °oE1EEo `s _ xx 2 tj ram?' -o - u°.,,M> f% n F C7 v$i� v� C.2 n•$ . — U 0 R .D c s 'T o u ft-c0 .s s a.9 a, 3 a ai o t = s F g, m 0. _ O F _ E 7 ,wg. a m O �s1. wa CVa_ OT X Z• = 2 V Y » o u f -o �� � ao2.60 m m CC 11 e U aN 1 t9 111 ° ai N InuM t7 R LL I 4 i ? :r. . E.E > U� E .c Y Z , = E l 7£!.. .c X=is O. ESE: U E. W C m C 3 0-c ri, n O. ..L0oy3'E - R �T >2t r4E ` V 8 C g �. 4 J C �'O C 3 3. �J T s m2 g _tz3 :R w �5 ^g ` a oSu -0 - ; q ?..—s = 5 Wiffi=9 E .. L 4113g. 'e 0 3 e a `.J y O E ". g g E -1 J a J C 3 _ 1 C 1 O C r .fine a Y U.RC 2 c s u7gg.5 u �� -g v 15 �c`o 0 e m J a y m m m 3 a v9 3 �R 7P*E gli f. 0 ` s " o&- UJZC 3 cQm -- v �'$>• ..,3 sot a JQ� . u . >.^L' EBY2E "34 tea... + !4I ' u ° g ,1gE 4"A m• S -tEE1 i 2 Qu- nEEQ a ?tx32.c $g+' a 1iih di, • 54 0Laa g- op<V icy ,-A� �_ a;ir X a y t ..c ,�+ CL gsiie_g • t L hIi' all° gog HO 4d;iH y3 filili U u S v.5 E a E 2 a E " i 7 N U w E 4 4y flll j ° "L a� c3 ..E r uoa ? o o '- 5 ° > aim c o"4 E „'? 3 � Et�aa°' §ac --p I •a 0 g..4 E 9 2.5 a 'd S E 0 u C � O" 2.�� " ', ;3 s U L� V 8 0�' .". eat M� � N C .� O ? N3 pp o E g GG p'a t—��J' a ,� o CroO Q Q o N e � E °X � m g � 3eu " cm�3 5aD ° �° u � E'TJ Ev o N e Q�� a•- L'.CQ "ro� oe Yr. my^ � � guu � U 4 flI3G " ; - 4Oo oo` y 3� 9 Ev g1 R T I to.= �8.2.1 . .6 °•d " 0 a I O9= 12 c — o.Q Y g U @ "$ °c > c C o E .o A < m S O O 6lb. r� E3 yE @a r� O o a'� 6 g';t $ti 1 E ,x E l .IA 000555DeI a) 030 0¢u �� Ywtt, 4'c-2a a .1 � bg ,4s EE , $ _ ke 8 U 8 1 ! fl.UH1 111 m e . W, s 4 .= c 2 F ' 9 :4 T i n E 4 > c ^J • I 7 ? C S .i j 2 1y . C[J s _ C - C i = ._ Q J o u �i' n 3.52 u: �= .� 4,1, - gF 4 3-- •I o cL k a r �j3 •° E! 1I 3 - ` :_ I ! a^ Ua C 9 U n C,, U c 2T4 :n9 ^ A• • a y t . L E 7 f. E i 3 a_a.� t g - u 3 t ° E -y a g E s N> 3 � .-fl ' v �y,2< 53 C... +� L Q , g o._ C5-2 4 m a c�.7n a._a.- 2 - Ec 3= A . .3 =_ .Jg a � i.� . tf,2 t. > AV 33 135 3 q yc =r g� 8 .2af aa' ui .E -, ur II!LL O r ta.24 a •t. U O D L C T U %. .4 ^ :. 6 esV' a.o- -0 : ' c3Y x v a u e C L > Va 6 > L <' 'V flI'I fflEaY '� 8t GG JX a '"rtrg r .5i` .-mt gip ^ zp = dai 5 , 1 u1 .a „� s>i E u `oa § u F . o: g" °` e' �- ` .52 3 w p a u = t o 0 � p .2. • : a •• Uih - o�3t fl E 1; 43 ! e u a ^cm. 2 u "3 N8N. Q rzy g A gp - 1 q . g R > m >..Y fS Y x.uc c .a 3 .g if 3 • E v` a c a - a Q,A 3' d g e d' a �7-1 E 9 a3cal ' u -64 48 c . c `> t E ' v e ^ r S - G n c O E ,5 3a'mA 3E $Cuc� ub v= 3 - ' a aat ' m o .. r ?.e Dung uu5 .E = j Tf2, T 3C .njwntV rC6.; n.:c i v E'` � + y✓.` 2io a< ' 0 = `e''- 0 ..•-�_ 5 Z I w L. N m o J 'y 0 = m Y o. 3 . cL , c L a ' u m 4 !' a...-- v U > Y v 000 E '4u cu Ye> . aoR e� � u YE 00 m 5 o e e u n oa o9 E -- ux Y' Eo ^ c ' yg2.'.rP o u ue•" u<0 x> r a o ., m 1CC 6 . > p vy� p 2us ZcEv 3 = � 7La O4w. -=20 _ o -a) (Q e = a RA .„ 1 n 'J qr� U G 2^ Y rs .�Sa.2a'<a v vi c r 8 , I 1 g Oi O t. I fill! a 3-5 m 2 ! t m m;2EES L YL L c ES00. � v �+ 2lE4• mm o L i `m a a a= cm L Y m m a= f 02 R.O�C ro m g a a m Q qq O E c U m g y y m A mm IA ° m_ m2� o EL `27a a'c C7 m '2c�a'Sc y v0;coc m UmE y c ro▪L m ¢e II a m c v w N° O 'U '- 2 m2 EaE m °' F S mceo tR 1 m '' g :i E m L E. 3 i 'o Cl 2 0 2 fTh \V y [b C. �1 0 2 E C O gi m G '. m 0 0 YC a O crib. �8 oa Ruth U o. m ?E T m E111 ij ':ffl E mE i5 m u „� aE a c m " mL z a m o, ,� L w c c' ;�wSEEA tumgE og 8 cam °1 o p U;:e342 4 $ UUiiH mn ca > E cE 2'` g m- m D m > r So`cc gam- ro TE0 `om 0 mm UENN°mc�L=CYL mLrn3 m.53 m2 a; cw��mm <S .mC >E m`SH Sao m nm�yrCp? a Cma$ 2mmLco E V o mac s23§ !,it, Q GOEmmm rtlT 3 $ OL2N LLLDN O m$ v Lcroica`imaa vmm ?mo.m at3�Ero m m �0in<2�Ttn 2 m _ .�c .t mmva v€ ,,-c r � ;° d UgcEE. §'gg am , -.E.�c'- �ca' '�' ,a m.Emr=ow3mm Em = 2mmgmrn°�' LS1-a c'fi 8ct 2 c E °2� sgs2E $ m m a o Oa- E m e 0.1 22 N a Iii 111111fl11 1.15. Urt¢ ¢.- cE o( oamicomi 0 E 8 m c d sc 4-RN°gym§3 m N.E . • — . . u $ ;u1 g no m m � E c Ern �_- +. 00 t Usy, c Y m2�m8 L� m m Ea= ro3Tm. D 7r' m x c QQ c m a m m�C7 m e an d m 0 cD < ti>u`5> < ran D uam¢ominLLmm m3 3 U 2maE6m E 0 0) 3 0 (o 'c CC d Ki ,b N 1 i,s A :.,:,, ,,,,: „. m 3i$2 n 1 I 1 d °p.y. -Y a,' y 3 5 ID a .O Ca y5t. az `_ j y 'p rf° n y : ?1 1 C y° v c`1 t • °°-" �' _ yE,,n.> n C >` `p nn C rca _ C e U 0 .` .� _v ` .• yi C 3"y m d 0 ? i 7. p L •▪ tl b�j Z C_W - - 2 : g n' v p w •C j i1.1 O o h E -h c y us c 'v°v r3 c a n •S e "= e ..- a �' n-yc v.::a, > a C 3 3 s in.— _ g %w Q _ a. _ E. Z3 ` a t ° Le• aoC ` o `t a` = cz my� __ • yv aan •:,. u •o c m -i; .13 oo °0$ y 9- . VE O* v o wz - . ,c . :o aC' c We •c - W 3 3 m• ' Ga cSc c., K �i ' r 3. n V O = aQ-.: i o tey 'E _ v G oGo :-0 a 4 w . .. „ C '�, y2 a • cyk .O H ¢ q'. n ' Ti s O o °• 3 `$ u y ` a' ko : _`h =G = .. y '+ ti � L• LC x�O` z C . c �` W r gLy C U U G y - o n.;Be - .a _ `b.. t o' ,-° Aoe :I. c ' GtA _5g.us v coc- - 84 c °�' c °1 r 3 Z h s S U flU c ti L • s r U Q R y C ` .' < u y`..- 1_t V 43.p a 3- • ti> V .. O S 7 y L a, al G. c= G+t M1 o c•. 1 ''O -. _ _ c lilt .• 9 , c1 DIII liii &Iii flflj ft � 9L: u ti1e 0 £ .. G �' w s 4 � s ,i r; 0 R °S =' m Lune, a p` 3A= `-3 4,- j 'x1 = 50.T y> C w y J O KI w �0. ' Z.Y o �� L = 7 E `u a 411. e= o - c eo �t o n Et a. 'a u O = Kg let 2 z q ._ E - a G o -i �, a I' I:- 6 e F. G w CRU c t y1. -0G � .E:c >CD > aL e pa ° aq aov Z _ c C ;n C J! !I 2 C N CD g N }/ IC; v •= R o a E 3 e `. - - C R L u y G.�` C 0 C - _ F c 2• O , In C m — w w J - C ZO xc _ = iC w c IU O L O t .. an U 9 rt' 00 O N m `t NIA -q'� C n �" F. `c.0 T,�, C ` y' 3 �. "dam W 3 C 6 E a>_., o IL c ^ _ N (0 o e-� 'r a:8 Q v o Z U a.- o a j _-- �: = u.? cca c v- :.so- - E F. 2 E ,. 'ter. —- ;,,.*:,' ;•i y — L O ` 0. L—15 d O = G - °Vi C �`�3 LI = i � uY7'°0 7 J] � w 0 2 w , p. ti Yr�J C = w 1 A S • � as C in ' J ^ 8 2 '!f1I -, ? J ci �eS ,_ .L J,� w y �1'�...� ti N q q ^ r O 2. e • ' - . 'v v _ -L - o E vc o HL>— ja' 'A C O E.Q C C C - 'o .;•„- .iy-6 C C L .. ` :o = co ti y V H O: O C c' E u 2 „ O - .� , J c .+ y a 1 m U C.5C .*E = L 7 C� C C O C ` 5 �` ��. �— y J u c 3 E .o u y c 0 4 c -j b L 1~ T 7'V`u m u _, oo = 3 • w $ e 8 ..t ? u o Y Y .5 • E _ c o T W z? ai m eJ G. m- c„ n x 'a tr 'c�Q ro� � n L k N ' _ ro 0 E C U C o a =. u A-t -2 " a _ Y 4 - J .J = C 1 441▪ ^% - C G N # =L m 3 " L Z 7 _.. G y a0�. Z 'U c :.?T.y 'n g P c • ' sa 3 `ii al 4'C y e • 7 g :, E m' R.- ,' a J• �� ` > c� -e' g •3 � � u � u _5 - La-mcsvti � =-0 m�� u ,gib o m y u v 7 .V. a F .1 L ,` L c- a Fa U y-O > e j y J u ao-.V1 J C �a = C y C Ci S y y ,_, L C C E a�E- c u o m ;71 N G 9 c c u '.C� Tgb ov �,a .. a p o _ .c• ° N y .=c' Z. - ~ ''� w O F "in c C.ti. Y4 4 L�1_'i -4_ _''~'. Z u ,O v '>..wa. _IV. C 61 °1 r, E a n E u 2, :o " g 3' v-c d ii L n C` v .^ '' . ` :c LA r, l m u .. .�. �. '�'?.o COC s mi • S 'U° `n b t3. y y C y ' y e -,G�n • y 4 •1. -c a. CC� O S y C °0.. ' M 43 C :2-'O tit-3 ' s i C C` u f`V .L 3 C'to '.7- O .�• a. u v 8 a u s C7'= :° > > CJ . i y C`C c C, c v c" ;_ c 3 a• > o 3 to E i c U • m C ruC Z i , n ,z Y.,", a .uN G• O.C ' O 0 o, a G M _ L.-L ' c .G- . a ^ fJCJO < = •5 > ' v C Q a' L8a -, V._�.± U— UQ E u- 'C '� ,9 W u ^C ofI3 el _' '' G C , c- y ` 9 y ..4 r 0 i h C C `C .. :J ti 'a ,a CI— 55 C �.`,- `�. Eg v v 55 f s E Ems_ ; _ E_ aim> � � �r _�.� •'-o o az• S`•� .. . •.. � _ E c c E g,c'a J .�� a�5; 3 sy4- 'c> x'= Uc.E cG" .. � cZa � L �QCnm ' Pi? uP ?Ci 7 � C CL, l•�^Yj CJ Ut C Url � :� r�C ao v C 1 U cl1 m C e! 9 U > R• c - _ 1 o s ,2.C o o a' SpE�e. u C v a nF 4" U a 60.,, C^i 4ti ? Y ' y�_Gue "C> m— AFy L o u E=4- 6� > 5 at v c ° "-s m r v 5 Ea----- > „ [a; - 2> .c • p ' E. • cg. a.= O >Lc �j 67 ' 4 y : " En 7 j 4 T - a 0 ..o0 -: - = c' ti C o:+ v ea a ug-c .2mc u C 2 4. O - t C W-` 'S G C 4 t It a.'i 2 O o L C O• • j �' y •r. N o = =� a ? y x a u N a ° ai e o - c O ' L ::: ^ i Q y E.C v.O 'N -0 C v p O_: c n G�. O C ,Sj .' x i-e i E e- 5 C E u .`= u ..o"> a C E fA n n r.T�''r Z a:n = i.r' C b u u h p ._ ' E = '6 — a m -fl >. .a-' -' _ - v >= - C0 i, 0 3 O CO Y3 ?� Ya ° fi4 c aab 'c - o o FE ^ ='. o > Pn� ez >.? on a W ti'^ .. >_ v o L Fg - S a o u c 2 O O w m o u A^m O m ..o E n.v -.n • d w•-• v a < o Y r Ct e N ▪ — toM,? ; ` �' F v z� o_ E- - C c� >.ea c o▪ ' > u '' i : w ''c v E' it: E E -,1 t, E E-z- E ' 3 a'c29 E ma c � �'� W. oot ^ y.^�. ti^k,,, L 3 °� o u n C e`5'•e� a G O e'- y ' C 7 0 rc'aac'� a a 3 oc �' -I �u 2 US v o � c 'n 8 >.L . O ., a - n m E aus o� v ac o v2 crva va� c n ° LL J " - < ' � > Q ° Y 0 , 4L u. V = 3 ,- L,— C ..'_ CO y = v'5 411 -c _ C > o c m - i_r F - cG c'c t, 2Co EER E _ >. N Ga ..1 . .2 ° 72 ` E m e UjL ` 7.0 6 b 7 uc O °- a3a . ,, ccr -8au85) 7Ing E EAg./ $cv cm °▪ i j_ G al ee = a dit - asS: v E s E.° E cy 2 o, = t ao- c E E .= c = a. F? c a ttm„ Ed aes u �s - y m oo ?s 7 �Faa °• •e •Evh � _ C. iJ C o v 7t a+ . ". v �L a 5' - E L 3 p C ° ° °y'u F„ o .. v 2 8_ !B 2 = c v t-A 3 3 w 3 - 4 c« - ^ O 4 iu C C -2..V C 'vl ��. a -at g C 1, 0 M C 1 ti U .Q .0 t^ d , V a ,i3.9._ O E 4 u E j 7 _ `i o C v = G Q.7'S u > C C .O L G G 4..__.L p V i S O G u O= L ._, l^7., ` c:_ .. ,^ V "a u C _ A T C :,t+. E'T . >, yE a aJa v > tGi o• U c w .5 m a y E. > v C •-' a a a j •3 5 �' ,c is - s`� e o ❑ ° a " 41 a.r- 3 '''e ,C m— a -3 y 7'O o .- = y air a O O .. O x 0- e ° : .11 1. c .s, mvs ^ g U =Fr cvnevc ac oa5- G u-a a ...el: m� C tV 7.0 = 6 u 70 T. C .- e 1 J a Q ° 2. 7- y ° _ 'C L" w m O C •pO �'L a� _ L u 7•C C_ E t E C C m 0-C L u T`� w c 3 u ° ? 3 C a T "07 ' T 2•-.^-' V ., 'A s.E yU v1 E)L L y :7 6J ,4 ,..1.... W C E C b .� 7, w a 5 o`n V a v y v Co v v a; E ,,S.! is = u .0 ` Oo. 7 ° 7 a G Z t.....0, a >i7 u ,5 • ^ 'd.D A E 7 C . N =) ...^ g 3 T o u O� a c.O; N Q r a. ,5_....- ;._ = `_ - '_U ^u.-c y r°j ? ;,O E n• 3 o ° o-_o o = og n ^ '" n 0 C c 'c . a C u7-a'>. a m g. L r a R e°ne = ; a m e ms g > J e-c 3 7 L „.: ... 3 .. .. '3. C U-5 _ G R U i Cut. G..E 9 .. .� `S n ° ^I ^. R C C Q O V' `.�I:. ,t '3 A'L eC E " J L' C 7 5,_ a 2 A'' p 5 q 7 C. >r ` _ a a� x ..t> e ra v L4 y�s * = id o � c E a ; a.->- ; '.°° ` CC -° ° g of ay43 '.3 1 gg u y v c _v E3 o3. 0 `av ,i2.ia4i 'o ' b,. v7s cC . v c e . .E. al •c' u _ le S'qur•g0inr 11° ° v� c ov .. • �- u u 3 L to Ti - c 3 E y ^t °-12 Et 2 I.! u -a°.. • o� c:�, mom ° 1' a v - c —,7 , = -}& �! o as p a5 6 �`d C-E L z• i -+ .i .0 u B u j ,,i 2 °'^ a _,r'O n > u R c cc E a' 5° ° ° c tia En U d g s ``u, o E. -0 c a 4 a 7�!`= c G C 7 a0 t `" L E{C. .�. - = ` A a T 4 =a :a g i u '�'C.C C'O L v, Z_a Z o d h 7 - ` h O?�i .. r, -� J 3 a c� e,;¢Cam. G c)-- .. V L f., M r 4 . L _ O c d uv 1 ° cam_ - 6 L !�w > °--, 71 u r:� Ce _ Nc .s-` n 3 i a, 5 3e g,t,- a'B .� c.6' ° a,c ° cco eva �� gC n� na.? uv e -1r. trd = - ao O a 2. - .A L o u a v -up- _ u r '�' n > > N. m 5 c5 _ . M ` C' In c ram ° 2 C 7 •O y :a-c m= x 4 t5 u ° ° 0 N o In a = ^ c'a ; 0 _E.- L 3 E . t 11.c?•e` z °.a te a'2 b�4 'E - .n N n `o , • c o a •a o I. v g S e^i u ° o ; = �a v T O v 'o F 5 c 3 e, i `p j p V O 1 c o _•1 u v -u ° mg.-. ..... -E ' `-�3= C N o aL °o `t cU � o. r3' =_ an a ^ :: $a — u o :.''� C.+ . a 33 v £' °'v c a. _ O G a 4 ° ° y " °EC q ° tv-t C°= a' °L•C c. '_°F, 4 �Ww C r e) " u z �." C' r�''' ti N G U O � na a E .`d u U .�t. 0 .7"A 3a p I U E E ° t.. - , 7 C.i j 4 = V C ea 7 d . y _ .°tt o o r v arfr t a.� `° 4 ti p a v a it r, e.E e'E 1 E t 2=ni - � a e u i ° 3-ac°> ° 4rc� ;4 ;.. o v_ " dn_ „ cEo 5 u'c yd'`. n c ' F r. N Cs 5) < V E � d w E C ? G . a)r).t'r. E:� O L. r O a T 0 co '-7 n ▪ C al aa C u 6- ° V Y Q r C CC 0_ S r. = l . n _ ) C ' = ^ a• •°= 'o' , Q aS . $ °LC^ = y j.N wF ' "4 vv g 6: UG ' ° >J A — J — uU Qn rS C�v E it, = ' = FI'g v ° A =.C5f= w y 5C e- E � im • I A c ea i - a ` = ,i 3 = = m 24 eJ 3 3 -.O T U -zo . C ti U"� m w� Et,' uL t; 3 =°� U O o c s E z m c c o 3` , o pu. ..; Lug _o .opff, o-° c° � =-E a - s o. u- °2 s 3 3 E t > c c o '°"' C i' L u 3 a ti E' - u ' 4 i'4 .r, :E 4 rua v Z. w 3 3 0 E- �b u s 6-• `-' o E 3 3' m U 2 E u 71-2 = 0 0 2 >illui:Ii UI !Jfl co` _ C E E �. ° E e°Qi _+, u o u 3 °� 3 c`-' > Ci =1 6 0 ° E • 0 -2 Es. ° d2i." ; >R ° a o � n � G c .n 3 �a.� G c � �_ E 3 a _E .5 n H z yy O .�`'r` .9 > 1L 01 > a C OO,, O u 3 s i E c J F'� t_ a l = v u c e g t W 4 0 o �? o c " w 9 t 3 E r i a - g Z. o D o c iiI u �.2 g' 2or C ',s c a a .11 c o p 'a m y$o �a� u 9 G v O J .C t u e-74 o 5 a t m-O Ci b v 71 e =� %q as Z r` '� E u 5 a O '� O R V Q ell - L ij : O j 52 E i Q� 5 a- u, E3 _ S A3 °a = sE ^ vEUa > � cU E. E » i . _'v a." s II us- p > _gR g . r 0c G, 00 v tlfilc.E tII6, g .' N` c 7-g 'u .' :> -.? ;EEs O L=.E ,�G.s `n O„C �O L-� C e� .� _O .Q 3 >. 'AV U n 'r �" t y�, .Q3 '-' E c `.`� �= �Q c•5 =-.0 5 Ep `'. 2 • G t u s =_i°a ffi n > a c 3 .. E 5522 c Sn 6 3 E LI b -zr '�C a 3 `° o n o E c . to d +� '� c =L c c v 4 - 0 C y ri L CyJ ,p o°10 V 7 V O E d m 4'E C U C >' L O•' > r R E h J ' " . L A b- L 8 O N n W c n ..l .= - n 0 a a E •L 5 c m e U a m a ^ ice-..-_ ,q c8a - d E 'a.E 1 v 'a c c P'�- N .0 .a . . = a E E = H . n c n 0. = N , n-z > cE `o-F > 3-' Svs 55 � E RL8 E N C 41°Cz3 u o y 3 c `c u '5 u o"v 0 , T'L 3 °r 0 4 a 3 .', °d -' 5 �U o o . 4 y c 5 x ..a' a �3 • Al, t F o m n o u _ E O % u - .� a`�' ° m x.o w' •a 3 u o n�.' ° u t-' .''c u Z - .4.8.3 Q i 0 -E G,.'r E.E v rr= t 3 y 7^ U p � ^' y ul O' 0 � anro.E.0 � 3 ^•5 � 5Q .Z .2aj, 3 � oamu y :. 3� E• � ,! Cu y... d� a y . '" e m y = u 2 `g O U - u ..o o a. g 3 c s `a ^ u :o D v g E.E E•O.a a 'J' >, u ' u A C so O -E L;v E 2' m C.� ? u t- 3 v O 4" In �� u °'EE c.,,- �� E--3 U F .m C.2E aE o ° Wo mao? -''y" CD asto o. ' i s E c y .o-' o a N E.E = .i c - -= =� 3 � - . . ... Ct i1 E o m- a= A t n G.^'Ty o y a'c c C�'3 u_EL?. !- li ,a c u 3 - s v v £ w'° 7 7 •0 "0 ', 3-- n'°c •• yy m U= o O `-' = m C U ,u._ 0.LL..0- u 4 r t o a >. U G 2. 4, C . 28A . 7 R t d� f� 6 G.V. -, - - s4 ^3 ". .U .A a L E-- I.0 3 m E E:.) I-, 2 r3 G ` J E.0-= C 'c..E t f- ? �° C� ! xi c: ° • 6Hl n,xo,rog vrle Li f . t ' f yiMidWI MOM_ — uoAueonaryd ar:';i I,. weed would art winos P j ` wwe*soy nue5 I; nBnjy id JimaAOIIe�WlO* .Itl I j \s.`.. JJAuen iWivanH wig Meld OAuxo o fog/eoa,oi yr.,.C, ly, \ � Re ins stead eel a . `^- ! 1-,,,,w aWivan4 U0 3NVN `e ik • suiseg ieteuipunoieJ !t r `. puaBai j—)0101r, . �niv pauiloi Aegamd AelleA lueseeld • 1 a .u^y._. { Jo ewy lenldeouop .- i2iT e/nlwA 7._, Ro�teg • c.,...--/...— deyj AegaJod Ica{{en;uesea{d toot Aew {. ain6{d weld fuaw6eueiN ialempunoJo VV1€3d i6 i F C.. O V m a R i73 N 0.1 g v O N c O 4 0. 4_• CN c av_ a -•,t°,3m m � Fy, C g418 j p'_Li O 4) k El.a-.1`op; - _ 3 co a) 2 �o M� r 3 U a_ n ii DL =.-.p^Y.4 L Y Y a 3 07 C C t -' $'La.3zo S. i"�' _r'f!' 8 i n V,A2A YH 1 -- la TO C y 21 !ilwitij H 1. _ i 9 A t l i. y ig l 11 teellijill s1 1. fro ! ° 1024 0 �r III �� 3 ii !jdfll uh 1i74I �yc q 141II oi z wiltliill plItiftut IA 41141 !I Olgoil li Dr 24ii ; IA ,.--. Ilulliar 14 R. ,.4. U . i lli fi iris / 4 1111 a LI ig) 4" 8110A 49. 4 Vi-Al 4: 4 641 Osila 011 ii 11114 a1s 4141141 ' g , i] 1 iflJI1Iii IT ql ! OW it Iift41M 3 qt"Iiiil Q5/ �lit t .6� hi! iilI U ,a1 i VII 1 w a+ ' Jr 4� , ass ° ; t. Ali olipla 0 2 ilmhl g-. . .ralik1141 g _ 1 VII 1[411 PinVii'll b t :E:.4. ' ii- g lAjg A. Lifq .g1 gg , 1-s J .1.1.2 / II1I 8c1Tr ci a3. a 3 OPileit liJII y ql]la `� a, y z6 a `S lig. uJ Y C p t1-1 ' ir o � �Qi YN coo aIn a $0 Cr) i " •P' fre cq- 43. pit it) g - P§ I i 114111 11114 111, a3111s1 CY C $ V 4 io n 4 �t �, • Q . 4 «> , ,, s' �_tA2— .:a e8 t F� '3! F l o V O � Nm O N Z Q 0) 2 Et 11' 1 it MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project March 2019 Appendix C District’s 2017 Annual Water Quality Report Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 495 Annual WATERQuality Reporting Year 2017 Report VE N T U R A COUN T Y W A T E R WORKS D I S TRICTS Presented by: Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 Where Does the District’s Water Come From? The District’s water supply comes from both imported and local sources. In 2017, 82% of our total water supply came from the State Water Project. The State water originates in Northern California where it is captured in reservoirs north of Sacramento and released into the Delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. It is transported via the 444-mile California Aqueduct to State Water Project contractors such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The District water is filtered and disinfected by MWD at its Jensen Filtration Facility in Granada Hills. MWD then delivers the water to its 26-member public agencies, including Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD), Ventura County’s regional wholesale purveyor and the District’s direct supplier. Local water is pumped from the Las Posas Basin by five (5) groundwater wells owned and operated by the District. The wells produced approximately 18% of our total supply in 2017. The District treats the water that is pumped from these wells, and then delivers it to our customers. Local and imported water is delivered to our customers through our distribution system, which consists of 19 reservoirs, 11 booster pump stations, and approximately 168 miles of water lines. Water service is provided through approximately 10,921 service connections. In 2017, the District supplied approximately 9,701 acre-feet of water to over 38,700 people in the city of Moorpark and the contiguous unincorporated areas to the north and west. The water supplied by the District was used for residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, institutional and fire protection purposes. Lead in Household Plumbing If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. The District is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. General Information About Water Sources The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: • Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock op- erations, and wildlife. • Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and met- als, that can be naturally-occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. • Pesticides and herbicides, that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses. • Organic chemical contaminants, including syn- thetic and volatile organic chemicals, that are by- products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, agricultural application, and septic systems. • Radioactive contaminants, that can be naturally- occurring or be the result of oil and gas produc- tion and mining activities. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. State Board regulations also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health. What Makes Water Hard? If substantial amounts of either calcium or magnesium, both nontoxic minerals, are present in drinking water, the water is said to be hard. “Hard” water does not dissolve soap readily, so making lather for washing and cleaning is difficult. Conversely, water containing little calcium or magnesium is called “soft” water. Water Main Flushing Distribution mains (pipes) convey water to homes, businesses, and hydrants in your neighborhood. The water entering distribution mains is of very high quality; however, water quality can deteriorate in areas of the distribution mains over time. Water main flushing is the process of cleaning the interior of water distribution mains by sending a rapid flow of water through the mains. Flushing maintains water quality in several ways. For example, flushing removes sediments like iron and manganese. Although iron and manganese do not pose health concerns, they can affect the taste, clarity, and color of the water. Additionally, sediments can shield microorganisms from the disinfecting power of chlorine, contributing to the growth of microorganisms within distribution mains. Flushing helps remove stale water and ensures the presence of fresh water with sufficient dissolved oxygen, disinfectant levels, and an acceptable taste and smell. During flushing operations in your neighborhood, some short- term deterioration of water quality, though uncommon, is possible. You should avoid tap water for household uses at that time. If you do use the tap, allow your cold water to run for a few minutes at full velocity before use and avoid using hot water, to prevent sediment accumulation in your hot water tank. Please contact us if you have any questions or if you would like more information on our water main flushing schedule. Information on Radon Radon is a radioactive gas that you cannot see, taste, or smell. It is found throughout the U.S. Radon can move up through the ground and into a home through cracks and holes in the foundation. Radon can build up to high levels in all types of homes. Radon can also get into indoor air when released from tap water from showering, washing dishes, and other household activities. Compared to radon entering the home through soil, radon entering the home through tap water will in most cases be a small source of radon in indoor air. Radon is a known human carcinogen. Breathing air containing radon can lead to lung cancer. Drinking water containing radon may also cause increased risk of stomach cancer. If you are concerned about radon in your home, test the air in your home. Testing is inexpensive and easy. You should pursue radon removal for your home if the level of radon in your air is 4 picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L) or higher. There are simple ways to fix a radon problem that are not too costly. For additional information, call your State radon program (1-800-745-7236), the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act Hotline (1-800-426-4791), or the National Safety Council Radon Hotline (1-800-767-7236). Maintaining High Standards Once again we are proud to present our annual water quality report. This report covers the testing performed between January 1 and December 31, 2017. We continue to maintain high standards in an effort to deliver a reliable water supply that meets Title 22 requirements. Please know that we will always work diligently to provide you with quality water at a reasonable cost. We will also remain vigilant in meeting the challenges of new regulations, new local source water production, water conservation, community outreach and education while continuing to serve all your water needs. We take our responsibility seriously for providing you and your family with quality drinking water. We encourage you to share your thoughts with us on the information contained in this report. Should you ever have any questions or concerns, we are always available to assist you. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). Community Participation You are invited to attend our public meeting to voice concerns about your drinking water. The Citizens’ Advisory Committee meets monthly at the District office located at 6767 Spring Road in Moorpark. If you wish to attend, please call (805) 378-3000 for the specific date and time. For more information about this report, or for any other questions relating to the quality of your drinking water, please contact Shane Dass, Water and Wastewater Laboratory Manager, at (805) 378-3089. Information for Customers with Special Water Needs Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. USEPA/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). Es t e i n f o r m e c o n t i e n e i n f o r m a c i ó n m u y i m p o r t a n t e so b r e s u a g u a p o t a b l e . T r a d ú z c a l o o h a b l e c o n al g u i e n q u e l o e n t i e n d a b i e n . Ve n t u r a C o u n t y W a t e r w o r k s D i s t r i c t N o . 1 67 6 7 S p r i n g R o a d P. O . B o x 2 5 0 Mo o r p a r k , C A 9 3 0 2 0 Annual WATERQuality Reporting Year 2017 Report VENTURACOUN T Y W A T E R WORKSDISTRICTS Presented by: Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 Where Does the District’s Water Come From?The District’s water supply comes from both imported and local sources. In 2017, 82% of our total water supply came from the State Water Project. The State water originates in Northern California where it is captured in reservoirs north of Sacramento and released into the Delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. It is transported via the 444-mile California Aqueduct to State Water Project contractors such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The District water is filtered and disinfected by MWD at its Jensen Filtration Facility in Granada Hills. MWD then delivers the water to its 26-member public agencies, including Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD), Ventura County’s regional wholesale purveyor and the District’s direct supplier.Local water is pumped from the Las Posas Basin by five (5) groundwater wells owned and operated by the District. The wells produced approximately 18% of our total supply in 2017. The District treats the water that is pumped from these wells, and then delivers it to our customers. Local and imported water is delivered to our customers through our distribution system, which consists of 19 reservoirs, 11 booster pump stations, and approximately 168 miles of water lines. Water service is provided through approximately 10,921 service connections.In 2017, the District supplied approximately 9,701 acre-feet of water to over 38,700 people in the city of Moorpark and the contiguous unincorporated areas to the north and west. The water supplied by the District was used for residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, institutional and fire protection purposes.Lead in Household PlumbingIf present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. The District is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. General Information About Water Sources The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: • Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock op- erations, and wildlife. • Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and met- als, that can be naturally-occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. • Pesticides and herbicides, that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses. • Organic chemical contaminants, including syn- thetic and volatile organic chemicals, that are by- products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, agricultural application, and septic systems. • Radioactive contaminants, that can be naturally- occurring or be the result of oil and gas produc- tion and mining activities. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. State Board regulations also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health. What Makes Water Hard? If substantial amounts of either calcium or magnesium, both nontoxic minerals, are present in drinking water, the water is said to be hard. “Hard” water does not dissolve soap readily, so making lather for washing and cleaning is difficult. Conversely, water containing little calcium or magnesium is called “soft” water. Water Main FlushingDistribution mains (pipes) convey water to homes, businesses, and hydrants in your neighborhood. The water entering distribution mains is of very high quality; however, water quality can deteriorate in areas of the distribution mains over time. Water main flushing is the process of cleaning the interior of water distribution mains by sending a rapid flow of water through the mains.Flushing maintains water quality in several ways. For example, flushing removes sediments like iron and manganese. Although iron and manganese do not pose health concerns, they can affect the taste, clarity, and color of the water. Additionally, sediments can shield microorganisms from the disinfecting power of chlorine, contributing to the growth of microorganisms within distribution mains. Flushing helps remove stale water and ensures the presence of fresh water with sufficient dissolved oxygen, disinfectant levels, and an acceptable taste and smell.During flushing operations in your neighborhood, some short-term deterioration of water quality, though uncommon, is possible. You should avoid tap water for household uses at that time. If you do use the tap, allow your cold water to run for a few minutes at full velocity before use and avoid using hot water, to prevent sediment accumulation in your hot water tank.Please contact us if you have any questions or if you would like more information on our water main flushing schedule.Information on RadonRadon is a radioactive gas that you cannot see, taste, or smell. It is found throughout the U.S. Radon can move up through the ground and into a home through cracks and holes in the foundation. Radon can build up to high levels in all types of homes. Radon can also get into indoor air when released from tap water from showering, washing dishes, and other household activities. Compared to radon entering the home through soil, radon entering the home through tap water will in most cases be a small source of radon in indoor air. Radon is a known human carcinogen. Breathing air containing radon can lead to lung cancer. Drinking water containing radon may also cause increased risk of stomach cancer. If you are concerned about radon in your home, test the air in your home. Testing is inexpensive and easy. You should pursue radon removal for your home if the level of radon in your air is 4 picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L) or higher. There are simple ways to fix a radon problem that are not too costly. For additional information, call your State radon program (1-800-745-7236), the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act Hotline (1-800-426-4791), or the National Safety Council Radon Hotline (1-800-767-7236).Maintaining High StandardsOnce again we are proud to present our annual water quality report. This report covers the testing performed between January 1 and December 31, 2017. We continue to maintain high standards in an effort to deliver a reliable water supply that meets Title 22 requirements. Please know that we will always work diligently to provide you with quality water at a reasonable cost. We will also remain vigilant in meeting the challenges of new regulations, new local source water production, water conservation, community outreach and education while continuing to serve all your water needs.We take our responsibility seriously for providing you and your family with quality drinking water. We encourage you to share your thoughts with us on the information contained in this report. Should you ever have any questions or concerns, we are always available to assist you.Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791).Community ParticipationYou are invited to attend our public meeting to voice concerns about your drinking water. The Citizens’ Advisory Committee meets monthly at the District office located at 6767 Spring Road in Moorpark. If you wish to attend, please call (805) 378-3000 for the specific date and time.For more information about this report, or for any other questions relating to the quality of your drinking water, please contact Shane Dass, Water and Wastewater Laboratory Manager, at (805) 378-3089.Information for Customers with Special Water NeedsSome people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. USEPA/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). Es t e i n f o r m e c o n t i e n e i n f o r m a c i ó n m u y i m p o r t a n t e so b r e s u a g u a p o t a b l e . T r a d ú z c a l o o h a b l e c o n al g u i e n q u e l o e n t i e n d a b i e n . Ve n t u r a C o u n t y W a t e r w o r k s D i s t r i c t N o . 1 67 6 7 S p r i n g R o a d P. O . B o x 2 5 0 Mo o r p a r k , C A 9 3 0 2 0 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 496 Annual WATERQuality Reporting Year 2017 Report VENTURACOUN T Y W A T E R WORKSDISTRICTS Presented by: Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 Where Does the District’s Water Come From? The District’s water supply comes from both imported and local sources. In 2017, 82% of our total water supply came from the State Water Project. The State water originates in Northern California where it is captured in reservoirs north of Sacramento and released into the Delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. It is transported via the 444-mile California Aqueduct to State Water Project contractors such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The District water is filtered and disinfected by MWD at its Jensen Filtration Facility in Granada Hills. MWD then delivers the water to its 26-member public agencies, including Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD), Ventura County’s regional wholesale purveyor and the District’s direct supplier. Local water is pumped from the Las Posas Basin by five (5) groundwater wells owned and operated by the District. The wells produced approximately 18% of our total supply in 2017. The District treats the water that is pumped from these wells, and then delivers it to our customers. Local and imported water is delivered to our customers through our distribution system, which consists of 19 reservoirs, 11 booster pump stations, and approximately 168 miles of water lines. Water service is provided through approximately 10,921 service connections. In 2017, the District supplied approximately 9,701 acre-feet of water to over 38,700 people in the city of Moorpark and the contiguous unincorporated areas to the north and west. The water supplied by the District was used for residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, institutional and fire protection purposes. Lead in Household Plumbing If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. The District is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. General Information About Water Sources The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: • Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock op- erations, and wildlife. • Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and met- als, that can be naturally-occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. • Pesticides and herbicides, that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses. • Organic chemical contaminants, including syn- thetic and volatile organic chemicals, that are by- products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, agricultural application, and septic systems. • Radioactive contaminants, that can be naturally- occurring or be the result of oil and gas produc- tion and mining activities. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. State Board regulations also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health. What Makes Water Hard? If substantial amounts of either calcium or magnesium, both nontoxic minerals, are present in drinking water, the water is said to be hard. “Hard” water does not dissolve soap readily, so making lather for washing and cleaning is difficult. Conversely, water containing little calcium or magnesium is called “soft” water. Water Main Flushing Distribution mains (pipes) convey water to homes, businesses, and hydrants in your neighborhood. The water entering distribution mains is of very high quality; however, water quality can deteriorate in areas of the distribution mains over time. Water main flushing is the process of cleaning the interior of water distribution mains by sending a rapid flow of water through the mains. Flushing maintains water quality in several ways. For example, flushing removes sediments like iron and manganese. Although iron and manganese do not pose health concerns, they can affect the taste, clarity, and color of the water. Additionally, sediments can shield microorganisms from the disinfecting power of chlorine, contributing to the growth of microorganisms within distribution mains. Flushing helps remove stale water and ensures the presence of fresh water with sufficient dissolved oxygen, disinfectant levels, and an acceptable taste and smell. During flushing operations in your neighborhood, some short- term deterioration of water quality, though uncommon, is possible. You should avoid tap water for household uses at that time. If you do use the tap, allow your cold water to run for a few minutes at full velocity before use and avoid using hot water, to prevent sediment accumulation in your hot water tank. Please contact us if you have any questions or if you would like more information on our water main flushing schedule. Information on Radon Radon is a radioactive gas that you cannot see, taste, or smell. It is found throughout the U.S. Radon can move up through the ground and into a home through cracks and holes in the foundation. Radon can build up to high levels in all types of homes. Radon can also get into indoor air when released from tap water from showering, washing dishes, and other household activities. Compared to radon entering the home through soil, radon entering the home through tap water will in most cases be a small source of radon in indoor air. Radon is a known human carcinogen. Breathing air containing radon can lead to lung cancer. Drinking water containing radon may also cause increased risk of stomach cancer. If you are concerned about radon in your home, test the air in your home. Testing is inexpensive and easy. You should pursue radon removal for your home if the level of radon in your air is 4 picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L) or higher. There are simple ways to fix a radon problem that are not too costly. For additional information, call your State radon program (1-800-745-7236), the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act Hotline (1-800-426-4791), or the National Safety Council Radon Hotline (1-800-767-7236). Maintaining High Standards Once again we are proud to present our annual water quality report. This report covers the testing performed between January 1 and December 31, 2017. We continue to maintain high standards in an effort to deliver a reliable water supply that meets Title 22 requirements. Please know that we will always work diligently to provide you with quality water at a reasonable cost. We will also remain vigilant in meeting the challenges of new regulations, new local source water production, water conservation, community outreach and education while continuing to serve all your water needs. We take our responsibility seriously for providing you and your family with quality drinking water. We encourage you to share your thoughts with us on the information contained in this report. Should you ever have any questions or concerns, we are always available to assist you. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). Community ParticipationYou are invited to attend our public meeting to voice concerns about your drinking water. The Citizens’ Advisory Committee meets monthly at the District office located at 6767 Spring Road in Moorpark. If you wish to attend, please call (805) 378-3000 for the specific date and time. For more information about this report, or for any other questions relating to the quality of your drinking water, please contact Shane Dass, Water and Wastewater Laboratory Manager, at (805) 378-3089. Information for Customers with Special Water Needs Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. USEPA/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). Es t e i n f o r m e c o n t i e n e i n f o r m a c i ó n m u y i m p o r t a n t e so b r e s u a g u a p o t a b l e . T r a d ú z c a l o o h a b l e c o n al g u i e n q u e l o e n t i e n d a b i e n . Ve n t u r a C o u n t y W a t e r w o r k s D i s t r i c t N o . 1 67 6 7 S p r i n g R o a d P. O . B o x 2 5 0 Mo o r p a r k , C A 9 3 0 2 0 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 497 Summary of Water Quality Results For 2017 During the past year, we have taken hundreds of drinking water samples in order to determine the presence of any radioactive, biological, inorganic, volatile organic, or synthetic organic contaminants. The tables below list all the drinking water contaminants that were detected in 2017. The State requires that we monitor for certain contaminants less than once per year because the concentrations of these contaminants do not vary significantly from year to year. Some of this data, though representative of water quality, are more than one year old. Local Water Supplied by: Waterworks District No. 1 Imported Water Supplied by: Calleguas Municipal Water District Major Sources in Drinking WaterPercent of Supply 18%82% Parameter (Unit of Measure)MCL [MRDL] PHG (MCLG) [MRDLG] Average Range Average Range Violation PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS--Mandatory Health-Related Standards CLARITY (a) Turbidity (NTU) (TT)Highest Single Value n/a 0.06 No Soil runoff% of samples <0.3 n/a 100%No DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS AND DISINFECTANT RESIDUALS Bromate (ppb) (b) 10 0.1 n/a n/a 7.4 3.3 - 8.9 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Haloacetic Acids (ppb) (c) 60 n/a 10.3 1 - 14 9.5 6 - 12 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Total Chlorine Residual (ppm)[4] [4] 1.47 0.92 - 1.77 2.3 1.5 - 2.6 No Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) (c)80 n/a 32.1 2 - 40.5 28.1 13.0 - 38.5 No By-product of drinking water chlorination INORGANIC CHEMICALS Aluminum (ppb)1,000 600 ND n/a 86 ND - 120 No Erosion of natural deposits, residual from water treatment process Arsenic (ppb)10 0.004 ND n/a 0.2 ND - 7 No Erosion of natural deposits, runoff from orchards Barium (ppm)1 2 ND n/a ND n/a No Erosion of natural deposits, discharge from oil & metal refineries Fluoride - Distribution System (ppm) (d) 2.0 1 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.8 0.7 - 1.3 No Water additive that promotes strong teeth Nitrate (as N) (ppm)10 10 ND n/a 0.6 ND - 0.6 No Runoff and leaching from fertilizer use, erosion of natural deposits Selenium (ppb)50 30 ND n/a 0.5 ND - 26 No Runoff and leaching from fertilizer use, erosion of natural deposits RADIOLOGICALS Gross Alpha Particle Activity (pCi/L)15 (0) 3.87 0.99 - 8.94 ND ND - 3.3 No Erosion of natural deposits Gross Beta Particle Activity (pCi/L)50 (0)n/a n/a ND n/a No Decay of natural and man-made deposits Uranium (pCi/L)20 0.43 1.0 0 - 2.8 ND ND - 1 No Erosion of natural deposits Home Tap Water Samples Collected for Lead and Copper Analyses Parameter (Unit of Measure)Year Sampled RAL PHG (MCLG)Amount Detected (90th %) # Sites Above AL / Total Sites Violation Major Sources in Drinking Water Lead (ppb)2015 15 0.2 1.6 0 / 30 No Corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits Copper (ppm)2015 1.3 0.3 0.25 0 / 30 No Corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits ABBREVIATIONS, DEFINITIONS, and NOTES n/a = not applicable NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units ppb = parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (µg/L) ppt = parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter (ng/L) ND = None Detected ppm = parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/L)pCi/L = PicoCuries per Liter NS = No Standard gpg = Grains per Gallon µS/cm = microSiemen per centimeter RAL = Federal Regulatory Action Level Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) = The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) = The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL) = The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial pathogens. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG) = The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants. Public Health Goal (PHG) = The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Primary Drinking Water Standard = MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements. Treatment Technique (TT) = A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Notification Level = The level at which notification of the public water system’s governing body is required. (a) The turbidity level of filtered water shall be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in 95% of the measurements taken each month and shall not exceed 1.0 NTU at any time. (b) Compliance for treatment plants that use ozone is based on a running annual average of monthly samples. (c) Compliance is based on a running annual average of quarterly distribution system samples. Values reported reflect the highest and lowest single value in the distribution system (range) and the highest running annual average. (d) MWD treats their water by adding fluoride to the naturally occurring level in order to help prevent dental caries in consumers. The fluoride levels in the treated water are maintained within a range of 0.7 - 1.3 ppm, as required by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Drinking Water (DDW). Formally known as the Department of Public Health, the DDW was created in 2014 when the drinking water program moved under the SWRCB. (e) Aluminum has both Primary and Secondary standards. (f) The monthly averages and ranges of turbidity shown in the secondary standards section are based on source elements. SECONDARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS--Aesthetic Standards Parameter Secondary MCL Notificatio Level Average Range Average Range Violation Major Sources in Drinking Water Aluminum (ppb) (e )200 ND n/a 86 ND - 120 No Erosion of natural deposits, residual from water treatment process Chloride (ppm)500 22 17 - 31 85 74 - 121 No Runoff and leaching from natural deposits, seawater influence Color (Units)15 ND n/a 2 ND - 5 No Naturally-occurring organic materials Odor Threshold (Units)3 5 5 - 16 2 ND - 2 Yes Naturally-occurring organic materials Iron (ppb)300 50 0 - 150 ND n/a No Leaching from natural deposits Manganese (ppb)50 25 2 - 70 ND n/a No Leaching from natural deposits Specific Conductance (µS/cm)1,600 757 600 - 1050 594 420 - 782 No Substances that form ions when in water, seawater influence Sulfate (ppm)500 194 139 - 302 71 61 - 107 No Runoff and leaching from natural deposits Total Dissolved Solids (ppm)1,000 533 430 - 720 347 316 - 440 No Runoff and leaching from natural deposits Turbidity (NTU) (f)5 1.0 0.5 - 1.7 ND 0 - 0.9 No Soil runoff ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS (Unregulated) Alkalinity (ppm)NS NS 160 140 - 190 87 85 - 110 Boron (ppb)NS 1,000 167 100 - 300 193 190 - 300 Calcium (ppm)NS NS 84 71 - 107 27 27 - 36 Chlorate (ppb)NS 800 n/a n/a 27 0 - 28 Hardness (Total Hardness) (gpg)NS NS 17 14 - 23 7.0 6.9 - 9.4 Magnesium (ppm)NS NS 20 13 - 32 13 12 - 17 N-Nitrosodimethylamine (ppt)NS 10 n/a n/a 0.0 ND - 3.2 pH (pH Units)NS NS 7.5 7.4 - 7.6 8.3 7.7 - 8.3 Potassium (ppm)NS NS 4 3 - 6 3.2 3.1 - 4.0 Sodium (ppm)NS NS 50 35 - 78 70 58 - 107 Total Organic Carbon (ppm)NS NS n/a n/a 2.5 2.2 - 3.1 Vanadium (ppb)NS 50 ND n/a 3.9 ND - 4 About Our Odor Exceedance Odor was found in one of the District’s groundwater sources at levels that exceeded the secondary MCL (SMCL) of 3 threshold odor units. The SMCL was set to protect you against unpleasant effects, such as color, taste, and odor. Exceeding the SMCL does not pose a health risk. The noted exceedance occurred at Well 20 at the sample location before filtration and chemical treatment. Regular sample testing however from the post treatment distribution system in that immediate area did not exceed the SMCL during 2017. PPCPs and How to Dispose of Them When cleaning out your medicine cabinet, what do you do with your expired pills? Many people flush them down the toilet or toss them into the trash. Although this seems convenient, these actions could threaten our water supply. Recent studies are generating a growing concern over pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) entering water supplies. PPCPs include human and veterinary drugs (prescription or over-the-counter) and consumer products, such as cosmetics, fragrances, lotions, sunscreens, and house cleaning products. Many of these drugs and personal care products do not biodegrade and may persist in the environment for years. The best and most cost-effective way to ensure safe water at the tap is to keep our source waters clean. Never flush unused medications down the toilet or sink. Instead, check to see if the pharmacy where you made your purchase accepts medications for disposal, or contact your local health department for information on proper disposal methods and drop-off locations. You can also go to www.Earth911.com to find more information about disposal locations in your area. Lead Sampling in SchoolsThe Division of Drinking Water (DDW), in collaboration with the California Department of Education, has taken the initiative to begin testing for lead in drinking water at all public K-12 schools. In early 2017, DDW and Local Primacy Agencies issued amendments to the domestic water supply permits of approximately 1,200 community water systems so that schools that are served by a public water system could request assistance from their public water system to conduct water sampling for lead and receive technical assistance if an elevated lead sample is found. To further safeguard water quality in California’s K-12 public schools, California Assembly Bill 746 published on October 12, 2017, effective January 1, 2018, requires community water system to test lead levels, by July 1, 2019, in drinking water at all California public, K-12 school sites that were constructed before January 1, 2010. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 498 MILNER-VILLA CONSULTING Final Water Supply Assessment, Hitch Ranch Project March 2019 Appendix D Ventura County Waterworks District Nos. 1, 16, 17, and 19 Rules and Regulations (Part 1 only) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 499 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 500 Page 1 of 3 RULES AND REGULATIONS VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NOS. 1, 16, 17, 19 AND 38 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND RULES I-1 PART 1 SECTION A RULES FOR DEFINITION OF TERMS I-1 PART 1 SECTION B SERVICE AREA MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS I-4 PART 1 SECTION C DESCRIPTION OF SERIVCE I-5 PART 1 SECTION D APPLICATION FOR SERVICE I-6 PART 1 SECTION E OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT CONTRACTS I-7 PART 1 SECTION F BILLING NOTICES I-8 PART 1 SECTION G NOTICES I-8 PART 1 SECTION H SERVICE RULES I-8 PART 1 SECTION I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CHARGES I-23 PART 1 SECTION J LOCAL SYSTEMS CHARGE I-26 PART 1 SECTION K WATER SHORTAGES I-28 PART 1 SECTION L PERMANENT WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES I-34 PART 2 WATER RATES AND CHARGES II-1 PART 2 SECTION A STANDARD RATES AND CHARGES II-1 PART 2 SECTION B MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES AND FEES II-2 PART 3 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICE III-1 PART 3 SECTION A TYPES OF CHARGES III-1 PART 4 STANDARD PLAN NOTES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER SYSTEMS OR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICTS IV-1 PART 5 OVERSIZING AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS V-1 PART 5 SECTION A OVERSIZING AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS V-1 PART 6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (MOORPARK) VI-1 PART 6 SECTION A VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO.1 (DISTRICT) VI-1 PART 6 SECTION B DEFINITIONS OF TERMS VI-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 501 Page 2 of 3 PART 6 SECTION C DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE VI-3 PART 6 SECTION D COMMENCEMENT OF SERVICE VI-5 PART 6 SECTION E CONDITIONS OF SERVICE VI-7 PART 6 SECTION F EXTENSION OF FACILITIES VI-9 PART 6 SECTION G CONTINUATION OF SERVICE VI-10 PART 6 SECTION H PROTECTIVE MEASURES VI-13 PART 6 SECTION I SANCTIONS VI-14 PART 7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM – (MOORPARK) VII-1 PART 7 SECTION A DEFINITION OF TERMS VII-1 PART 7 SECTION B GENERAL VII-2 PART 7 SECTION C ENFORCEMENT VII-8 PART 7 SECTION D MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS VII-9 PART 8 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL VIII-1 PART 8 SECTION A DEFINITIONS OF TERMS FOR SEWER DISPOSAL VIII-1 PART 8 SECTION B ADMINISTRATION OF SYSTEM VIII-9 PART 8 SECTION C WASTEWATER DISCHARGE INTO DISTRICT SEWERAGE SYSTEM VIII-13 PART 8 SECTION D PRETREATMENTS REQUIREMENTS VIII-22 PART 8 SECTION E INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM VIII-26 PART 8 SECTION F INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER MONITORING AND REPORTING VIII-30 PART 8 SECTION G FEES VIII-34 PART 8 SECTION H ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES VIII-35 PART 9 STANDARD CRITERIA FOR THE PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF PLANS AND ALL SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICTS NO. 1, 16, 17, & 19 IX-1 PART 9 SECTION A GENERAL IX-1 PART 9 SECTION B WATER SYSTEMS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT WHICH ARE NOT IN AN IMPROVEMENT ZONE IX-1 PART 9 SECTION C WATER SYSTEMS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN AN IMPROVEMENT ZONE IX-6 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 502 Page 3 of 3 PART 9 SECTION D PLAN CHECK FEES FOR DISTRICT WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IX-7 PART 9 SECTION E CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES FOR DISTRICT WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IX-8 PART 9 SECTION F ANNEXATION PROCEDURES IX-8 PART 10 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM (PIRU) X-1 PART 10 SECTION A DEFINITION OF TERMS X-1 PART 10 SECTION B GENERAL X-4 PART 10 SECTION C PUBLIC SEWER USE X-9 PART 10 SECTION D PUBLIC SEWER CONSTRUCTION X-12 PART 10 SECTION E ENFORCEMENT X-15 PART 10 SECTION F MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS X-16 PART 10 SECTION G STANDARD CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGN OF SEWER SYSTEMS AND IMPROVEMENTS X-18 PART 11 STANDARD DESIGNS AND PLAN NOTES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS XI-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 503 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 504 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 505 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 506 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 507 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 508 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 509 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 510 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 511 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 512 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 513 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 514 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 515 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 516 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 517 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 518 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 519 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 520 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 521 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 522 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 523 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 524 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 525 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 526 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 527 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 528 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 529 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 530 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 531 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 532 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 533 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 534 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 535 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 536 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 537 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 538 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 539 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 540 APPENDIX B Fire Protection Plan Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 541 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared for: Ventura County Fire Department 165 Durley Avenue Camarillo, California 93010 Applicant: Comstock Homes 2301 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 1150 El Segundo, California 90245 Contact: Ms. Harriet Rapista Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Michael Huff, Project Manager JULY 2021APRIL 2022 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 542 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 543 12271 i July 2021April 2022 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ V 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.2 Hitch Ranch Project Description .............................................................................................. 2 1.1.3 Current Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.4 Proposed Land Use ................................................................................................................... 3 2 HITCH RANCH PROPOSED PROJECT SITE RISK ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 1211 2.1 Environmental Setting and Field Assessment ............................................................................... 1211 2.2 Site Characteristics and Fire Environment .................................................................................... 1211 2.2.1 Topography ......................................................................................................................... 1211 2.2.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Vegetation (Fuels) .............................................................................................................. 1312 2.2.4 Vegetation Dynamics (Fuel Loads) ................................................................................... 1513 2.2.5 Fire History ......................................................................................................................... 1514 3 DETERMINATION OF PROJECT EFFECTS ................................................................................................. 1917 4 ANTICIPATED FIRE BEHAVIOR ................................................................................................................. 2421 4.1 Fire Behavior Modeling ................................................................................................................... 2421 4.1.1 Fuel Model Output Existing Results .................................................................................. 2421 4.2 On-Site Fire Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................... 2623 5 EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND SERVICE.................................................................................................. 3127 5.1 Emergency Response ...................................................................................................................... 3127 5.2 Emergency Service Level ................................................................................................................ 3228 5.2.1 Cumulative Impacts on Fire Response ................................................................................. 29 6 BUILDINGS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEFENSIBLE SPACE ...................................................................... 3531 6.1 Fire Access ....................................................................................................................................... 3531 6.1.1 Primary .............................................................................................................................. 3531 6.1.2 Gates .................................................................................................................................. 3632 6.1.3 Maximum Dead-End Road Length .................................................................................... 3733 6.1.4 Road Width and Circulation .............................................................................................. 3733 6.1.5 Grade .................................................................................................................................. 3834 6.1.6 Surface ............................................................................................................................... 3834 6.1.7 Vertical Clearance .............................................................................................................. 3834 6.1.8 Premise Identification ........................................................................................................ 3834 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 544 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 ii July 2021April 2022 6.2 Ignition Resistant Construction and Fire Protection Systems ...................................................... 3834 6.3 Fire Protection Systems .................................................................................................................. 3935 6.3.1 Water .................................................................................................................................. 4035 6.3.2 Fire Hydrants ...................................................................................................................... 4036 6.3.3 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems ..................................................................................... 4036 6.3.4 Residential Hazard Detectors ........................................................................................... 4036 6.4 Ongoing Building and Infrastructure Maintenance .............................................................................. 4036 6.5 Pre-Construction Requirements ..................................................................................................... 4036 6.6 Defensible Space and Vegetation Management ........................................................................... 4136 6.6.1 Fuel Modification Zones .................................................................................................... 4136 6.6.2 Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance ............................................................. 4741 6.6.3 Annual Fuel Modification Zone Compliance Inspection ...................................................... 41 6.6.4 Construction Phase Vegetation Management ..................................................................... 42 7 ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR NON-CONFORMING FUEL MODIFICATION ........................ 46 7.1 Additional Structure Protection Measures ......................................................................................... 47 8 HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION WILDFIRE EDUCATION PROGRAM ............................................................. 5649 9 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 5851 10 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................... 54 11 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 6356 APPENDICES A Representative Site Photograph Log B Hitch Ranch Vicinity Fire History Map C BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis D VCFD's Plant Reference GuideSuggested Plant List for a Defensible Space E Prohibited Plant List Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 545 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 iii July 2021April 2022 SECTION PAGE NO. FIGURES 1 Project Site Location ......................................................................................................................................... 65 2 Moorpark Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map ....................................................................................................... 87 3 Hitch Ranch Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 109 4 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis Map ...................................................................................................... 2925 5 Conceptual Fuel Modification Map .................................................................................................................. 44 TABLES 1 Project Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ................................................................................ 13 2 Fire History within Five Miles of the Hitch Ranch Project Site .................................................................... 1615 3 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results, Existing Conditions ............................................................. 2421 4 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results, Post-Project Conditions ...................................................... 2522 5 Ventura County Fire Department Responding Stations Summary ............................................................. 3228 6 VCFC Fuel Modification Zone Spacing Requirements .................................................................................... 38 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 546 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 iv July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 547 12271 v July 2021April 2022 Executive Summary This Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for t he proposed Hitch Ranch mixed-density residential community Project (Proposed Project) that incorporates land uses for housing and recreational purposes. The Proposed Project would consist of the construction of 755 dwelling units on approximately 277.30 acres including 328 single-family dwelling units on approximately 46.91 acres and 427 multi-family dwelling units on approximately 26.47 acres (191 medium density units and 236 high density units), 32 open space lots, two (2) recreation space lots, and one (1) public park lot located within the City of Moorpark in the County of Ventura, California. The Proposed Project site is currently undeveloped and is located in the rolling hills north of Poindexter, east of Gabbert Road and west of Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23). The Proposed Project site is located approximately 0.5 miles south of the Moorpark County Club and bordered to the south by the Union Pacific Railroad track ROW, a commercial development park, existing single-family residences, and a middle school; to the west by existing single-family residences; and to the east by single- family residences and an elementary school. The proposed development will be situated on seven parcels comprised of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN’s): APN’s 511-0-020-170, 511-0-020-110, 511-0-020- 130, 511-0-020-160, 511-0-020-180, 511-0-020-195, and 511-0-200-245. As part of the Proposed Project, access to the site will be improved by widening existing Casey Road to the east, extending High Street across the southern boundary of the Project site from Gabbert Road to the easterly boundary of the project, extending proposed North Hills Parkway across the center of the project site from Gabbert Road to the west to State Route 23 to the east, and from existing Meridian Hills Road to the north. As indicated in the Moorpark’s General Plan Circulation Element, access will be improved and area circulation and evacuation capabilities will be improved as the project eliminates three existing dead end roads by connecting them with project roads. The Hitch Ranch Proposed Project site lies within an area considered a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by the Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Fire hazard designations are based on topography, vegetation, and weather, amongst other factors. In summary, the project is located in the western portion of the City of Moorpark, adjacent to open space areas to the north, is currently undeveloped and vacant, and is covered primarily by flashy grass fuels. The terrain on, and within the vicinity of the project, is char acterized by relatively flat slopes, with gradients reaching up to roughly 9%. The area, like all of Ventura County, is subject to seasonal weather conditions that can heighten the likelihood of fire ignition and spread, and, considering the site’s terrain and vegetation, may result in a moderate to fast moving and moderate-intensity wildfire. This FPP evaluates and identifies the potential fire risk associated with the Proposed Project’s land uses and identifies requirements for water supply, fuel modification and defensible space, access, building ignition and fire resistance, and fire protection systems, among other pertinent fire protection criteria. The purpose of this plan is to generate and memorialize the fire safety requirements and standards of the VCFD along with project-specific measures based on the site, its intended use, and its fire environment. The Proposed Project site is within the jurisdiction of the VCFD. The VCFD operates two fire stations that would respond to an incident on the site, including Station Nos. 40 and 42. Based on the Hitch Ranch Project site location in relation to existing VCFD stations, travel time to the site for the first responding engine from Station 42 is less than 2 minutes to the proposed project entrance, on Casey Road. Travel within the development may reach up to 2 minutes, based on the longest proposed road stretch of approximately 0.80 miles, resulting in response time of less than 4 minutes for the entire development. Secondary response would arrive in less than 4 minutes. Based on these calculations, emergencies within the project can be responded to by VCFD’s first arriving unit Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 548 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 vi July 2021April 2022 (average maximum initial response of no more than 8.5 minutes for fire apparatus and 5 minutes for ambulance, 90% of calls) in accordance with the County’s emergency response standard. In addition, automatic/mutual aid agreements are in place with all surrounding communities and have been recently improved through the implementation of a computer aided dispatch system. As determined during the analysis of this site and its fire environment, the Proposed Project site, in its current condition, may include characteristics that, under favorable weather conditions, could have the potential to facilitate fire spread. Under extreme conditions, wind-driven wildfires from the east / northeast could cast embers onto the property. Once the Proposed Project community is built, the Hitch Ranch on-site fire potential will be lower than its current condition due to fire safety requirements that will be implemented on this site, including ignition resistant construction standards, requirements for water supply, fire apparatus access, fuel modification and defensible space, interior fire sprinklers and 8.5 minute or less fire response travel times were integrated into the code requirements and internal VCFD guidelines based on the County of Ventura Strategic Plan. When it became clear that specifics of how structures were built, how fire and embers contributed to ignition of structures, what effects fuel modification had on structure ignition, how fast firefighters coul d respond, and how much (and how reliable) water was available, were critically important to structure survivability, the Fire and Building codes were revised appropriately. Ventura County now boast some of the most restrictive codes for building within W ildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas that focus on preventing structure ignition from heat, flame, and burning embers. As detailed in this FPP, the Hitch Ranch Project site’s fire protection approach will include a redundant layering of protection methods that have proven to reduce overall fire risk. The requirements and recommendations included herein are performance based rather than a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach. The fire protection approach is designed to reduce the wildfire hazards on the site, to minimize risks associated with proposed uses, and aid the responding firefighters during an emergency. No singular measure is intended to be relied upon for the site’s fire protection, but rather, a system of fire protection measures, methods, and features combine to result in enhanced fire safety, reduced fire potential, and a prepared community. Early evacuation for any type of wildfire emergency at the Hitch Ranch Proposed Project site is the preferred method of providing for safety, consistent with the VCFD’s current approach for evacuation. As such, the Hitch Ranch Project residents will be provided information on, encouraged to practice, and implement a “Ready, Set, Go!” (Ventura County Fire Department 2016) approach to site evacuation. The “Ready, Set, Go!” concept is widely known and encouraged by the state of California and most fire agencies, including the VCFD. Pre-planning for emergencies, including wildfire emergencies, focuses on being prepared, having a well-defined plan, minimizing potential for errors, maintaining the site’s fire protection systems, and implementing a conservative (evacuate as early as possible) approach to evacuation and site uses during periods of fire weather extremes. Based on the results of this FPP’s analysis and findings, the following FPP implementation measures will be provided by the Hitch Ranch Proposed Project site. These measures are discussed in more detail throughout this FPP. • Project buildings will be constructed of ignition resistant1 construction materials and include automatic fire sprinkler systems based on the latest adopted Building and Fire Codes for occupancy types. 1 A type of building material that resists ignition or sustained flaming combustion sufficiently to reduce losses from wildland-urban interface conflagrations under worst-case weather and fuel conditions with wildfire exposure of burning embers and small flames, as prescribed in CBC, Chapter 7A and State Fire Marshal Standard 12-7A-5, Ignition-Resistant Materials. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 549 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 vii July 2021April 2022 • Project will provide up to 200 feet of Zone 0A, Zone 1B, Zone 2, and Zone C3 fuel modification, as described in VCFD Standard 515, Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones Standard, with additional fire protection measures, including dual-tempered dual pane window upgrade for facades facing the natural open space. The The project would also hire a qualified Ventura County Fire Department will conduct annual inspections to determine fuel modification zone compliance-approved 3rd party fuel modification zone inspector to provide annual inspections. • Landscape plantings will not utilize prohibited plants that have been found to be highly fla mmable (see Appendix E). • Fire apparatus access roads (i.e., public and private streets) will be provided throughout the development and will vary in width and configuration but will all provide at least the minimum required unobstructed travel lanes, lengths, turnouts, turnarounds, and clearances required by applicable codes. Primary access and internal circulation will comply with the requirements of the VCFD. • Buildings will be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems meeting requirements. • Water capacity and delivery provide for a reliable water source for operations and during emergencies requiring extended fire flow. • The Hitch Ranch residents will be provided information on, encouraged to practice, and implement a “Ready, Set, Go!” approach to site evacuation Formatted: Font: Italic Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 550 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 viii July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 551 12271 1 July 2021April 2022 1 Introduction This Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for the proposed Hitch Ranch Project (Proposed Project) in Moorpark, California, an incorporated city in Ventura County. The purpose of the FPP is to assess the potential impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards and identify the measures necessary to adequately mitigate those impacts. Additionally, the purpose of this plan is to generate and memorialize the fire safety requirements of the Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction (FAHJ), namely the VCFD. Requirements are based on site-specific characteristics and incorporate input from the project’s developer/applicant (Comstock Homes), project planners, engineers, and architects, as well as the VCFD. As part of the assessment, the plan has considered the fire risk presented by the site including the property location and its topography, geology, surrounding combustible vegetation (fuel types), climatic conditions, fire history and the proposed land use. This FPP addresses water supply, access, structural ignitability and ignition resistive building features, fire protection systems and equipment, impacts to existing emergency services, defensible space, and vegetation management. The plan identifies fuel modification zones and recommends the types and methods of treatment that will protect this project and its essential infrastructure. The FPP recommends measures that developer/builders will take to reduce the probability of structural ignition throughout the project. The following tasks were performed toward completion of this plan: • Gather site specific climate, terrain, and fuel data; • Collect site photographs; • Process and analyze Hitch Ranch Project data using the latest GIS technology; • Predict fire behavior using scientifically based fire behavior models, comparisons with actual wildfires (e.g., 2003 Simi, 2006 Shekell, and 2009 Guiberson Fires) in similar terrain and fuels, and experienced judgment; • Analyze and guide design of proposed infrastructure; • Analyze the existing emergency response capabilities; • Assess the risk associated with the proposed Hitch Ranch Project and the project site; and • Prepare this FPP detailing how fire risk will be mitigated through a system of fuel modificatio n, structural ignition resistance enhancements, and fire protection delivery system upgrades. This FPP is consistent with the uniform emergency access and installation standards used throughout the State as described in the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 7A (or then current edition), which focuses primarily on preventing ember penetration into homes, a leading cause of structure loss from wildfires; thus, it is an important component of the requirements of this FPP and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Titles 14 and 24 and the 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) (or then current edition) as well as the operational procedures and capabilities particular to the VCFD emergency vehicles and suppression personnel. In addition, the Ventura County Fire Code and the Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD) Ordinance No. 31 are even more restrictive. In most instances, this FPP requires inclusion of these local code requirements at the Proposed Project site. The purpose of this plan is to generate and memorialize the fire safety requirements of the FAHJ, namely the VCFD. Requirements are based on site-specific characteristics and incorporate input from project planners, engineers, biologists, architects, and the VCFD. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 552 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 2 July 2021April 2022 Field observations were utilized to augment existing digital site data in generating the fire behavior models and formulating the recommendations presented in this FPP. Refer to Appendix A for site photographs of existing site conditions . 1.1 Proposed Project Summary 1.1.1 Location The Proposed Project site is located within the west-northwest portion of the incorporated City of Moorpark in Ventura County, California. The Proposed Project site is currently undeveloped and is located in the rolli ng hills north of Poindexter Avenue, east of Gabbert Road and west of Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23). More specifically, the Hitch Ranch Project site is situated in Section 5 of Township 2 North, Range 19 West and Section 32 of Township 3 North, Range 19 West on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Moorpark, California quadrangle map (Figure 1, Project Site Location Map). Surrounding land uses include a residential community to the northwest, a Southern California Edison (SCE) Moorpark Substation to the southwest, a commercial and residential development to the south, Walnut Canyon Elementary School and residential developments to the east, a new residential community to the northeast, and naturally vegetated open space land separating the Proposed Project site from the Moorpark County Club approximately 0.5 miles to the north. The proposed development will be situated on seven parcels comprised of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN’s): APN’s 511-0-020-170, 511-0-020-110, 511-0-020-130, 511-0-020-160, 511-0-020-180, 511-0-020- 195, and 511-0-200-245. The entirety of the proposed property lies within the local responsibility area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as statutorily designated by CAL FIRE (2007) and the VCFD (Figure 2, Hitch Ranch Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map). 1.1.2 Project Description The Proposed Project consists of a mixed-density residential community that incorporates land uses for housing and recreational purposes. The Proposed Project would consist of the construction of 755 dwelling units on approximately 277.30 acres including 328 single-family dwelling units on approximately 46.91 acres and 427 multi-family dwelling units on approximately 26.47 acres (191 medium density units and 236 high density units), 32 open space lots, three (3) recreation space lots, and one (1) public park (Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan). The single-family residential units are proposed to be one and two stories in height, while the multi-family dwelling units would be two and three stories in height. Single-family dwelling units are proposed for Planning Areas (PA) 1, 2, and 3, and multi-family dwelling units are proposed for PA3 and PA4. Comstock plans to phase the land development of the project over two phases. In addition to the 755 proposed residential dwelling units, the project will include lots dedicated to recreation and fuel modification zones (FMZ) to be managed by the property owners and the Homeowners Association (HOA). Three private recreation areas are proposed, including The Outlook located in PA1 and two additional recreation lots are located in PA3 and PA 4. Landscaped areas may incorporate horticultural plantings. The proposed Hitch Ranch Project would include up to 200 feet of fuel modification, consisting of fourthree zones, a five-foot Zone 0 (0 to 5 feet from a structure), a 2530-foot Zone 1A (5 to 30 feet from a structure, a 70-foot Zone 2B (30 to 100 feet from a structure), and a 100-foot thinning Zone 3 (100 to 200 feet from a structure)C (as required by the VCFD Standard 515, Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones Standard). Public access to the site is currently available via Gabbert Road on the west and from Casey Road on the east. Access to the site will be improved by extending existing Casey Road from its terminus east of the project site to provide access to PA2, PA3, and PA4; by extending High Street from its current terminus east of the project site across the southern boundary of the Project site to Gabbert Road; by extending North Hills Parkway across the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 553 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 3 July 2021April 2022 center of the project site from Gabbert Road to State Route 118; and by extending Meridian Hills Drive from the existing terminus and would connect to Street “A” at North Hills Parkway. As indicated in the Moorpark’s General Plan Circulation Element, North Hills Parkway would ultimately be constructed as a four-lane roadway. Gabbert Road would be improved to a four-lane arterial roadway from the point of connection with Poindexter Avenue, crossing the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and continuing to North Hills Parkway . North of North Hills Parkway, Gabbert Road would taper back to its existing width. Appendix A provides photographs of the site in its current, undeveloped condition. 1.1.3 Current Land Use The Hitch Ranch Project site is currently undeveloped and vacant, consisting of naturally vegetated slopes and disturbed land. According to the Hitch Ranch 2019 Biological Update prepared for Impact Sciences, the existing site is comprised mainly of annual brome grassland (approximately 154 acres), California sagebrush-deerwood scrub (approximately 39 acres), and non-native woodlands (approximately 11 acres), and a variety of disturbed habitats on the relatively flat with gently rolling hills Project site. In 2003 and 2006, fires entirely burned these plant communities, but they have since grown back in similar proportions, because these communities are comprised of species largely adapted to periodic fires. Numerous dirt roads were observed throughout the site to accommodate existing land uses. The Project site exhibits signs of prior occupation in the form of foundations, fences, and water production. The existing ranch run cows within the fence line of the property to graze the grassland throughout the property. Overhead electrical transmission lines traverse the western portion of the site which are connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) Substation located just southwest of the Proposed Project site. The surrounding land uses include single-family residential developments to the northwest, east, and south, the Moorpark County Club to the north, and a commercial development to the south. Railr oad tracks and Poindexter Avenue borders the southern edge of the property. 1.1.4 Proposed Land Use The Hitch Ranch Project proposes to construct 328 single-family dwelling units on approximately 46.91 acres and 427 multi-family dwelling units on approximately 26.47 acres (191 medium density units and 236 high density units), 32 open space lots, three (3) recreation space lots, and one (1) public park . In addition to the 755 proposed residential dwelling units, the project will include lots dedicated to recreation and open space lands. Three private recreation areas are proposed, including The Outlook located in PA1 and two additional recreation lots are located in PA3 and PA 4. Approximately 104-acres of open space is proposed and would remain in its existing condition and would provide a buffer between existing residential uses west of the Proposed Project site and the single-family residences proposed in PA1 and PA2. Four detention basins are proposed within the project site to protect against flooding from the local drainage basin (i.e, Gabbert and Walnut Canyons). All four basins are designed as soft-bottom facilities, which would ultimately drain to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) channel located along the southern perimeter of the project site. An approximately 5.56-acre public park is proposed in the southeast portion of the project site that would be dedicated to the City of Moorpark, which tentatively will include athletic fields and an aquatic facility. A 100- to 200-foot fuel modification zone would occur between the open space areas and the on-site dwelling units to be managed by the property owners and the HOA. As indicated in Figure 3, public and private streets will provide access to the development, including a single entrance off Gabbert Road from the west, a single entrance from the proposed extension of High Street along the southern property boundary, and three proposed entrances from the north and east. In addition to the single and multi-family dwelling units, the project will include fuel modification zones. Access to the site will be improved as indicated in the Moorpark’s General Plan Circulation Element and area circulation and evacuation capabilities will Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 554 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 4 July 2021April 2022 be improved as the project eliminates three existing dead end roads by connecting them with project roads. Details are provided in Section 6.1.4. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 555 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 5 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 556 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 6 July 2021April 2022 Figure 1 Project Site Location Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 557 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 7 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 558 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 8 July 2021April 2022 Figure 2 City of Moorpark Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 559 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 9 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 560 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 10 July 2021April 2022 Figure 3 Hitch Ranch Proposed Site Plan Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 561 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 11 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 562 12271 12 July 2021April 2022 2 Proposed Project Site Risk Analysis 2.1 Environmental Setting and Field Assessment Dudek conducted a site evaluation on October 11, 2019, in order to confirm/acquire site information, document existing site conditions, and to determine potential actions for addressing the protection of the project’s structures. While on site, Dudek’s Fire Planners assessed the area’s topography, natural vegetation and fuel loading, surrounding land use and general susceptibility to wildfire. Among the field tasks that were completed included: • Topography evaluation • Vegetation/fuel assessments • Photograph documentation of the existing condition • Confirmation/verification of hazard assumptions • Off-site, adjacent property fuel and topography conditions • Surrounding land use confirmations • Necessary fire behavior modeling data collection • Ingress/egress documentation • Nearby Fire Station reconnaissance. Field observations were utilized to augment existing site data in generating the fire behavior models and formulating the recommendations detailed in this report. 2.2 Site Characteristics and Fire Environment Fire environments are dynamic systems and include many types of environmental factors and site characteristics. Fires can occur in any environment where conditions are conducive to ignition and fire movement. Areas of naturally vegetated open space are typically comprised of conditions that may be favorable to wildfire spread. The three major components of fire environment are topography, vegetation (fuels), and climate. The state of each of these components and their interactions with each other determines the potential characteristics and behavior of a fire at any given moment. It is important to note that wildland fire may transition to urban fire if structures are receptive to ignition. Structure ignition depends on a variety of factors and can be prevented through a layered system of protective features including fire resistive landscapes directly adjacent the structure(s), application of known ignition resistive materials and methods, and suitable infrastructure for firefighting purposes. Understanding the existing wildland vegetation and urban fuel conditions on and adjacent to the site is necessary to understand the potential for fire within and around the Hitch Ranch Project site. 2.2.1 Topography The project site is situated within the Transverse Ranges at the southern limit of the Simi Hills, between the Oak Ridge Mountains to the north and the Las Posas Hills to the south. The site is characterized by gently rolling hills and a series of north-south trending ridges and canyons. The topography ranges from moderately steep to relatively flat, and is highly variable; elevation at the site ranges from approximately 475 to 720 feet above mean sea level Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 563 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 13 July 2021April 2022 (AMSL). The site has been previously disturbed by agricultural operations and several fires in recent years. Numerous dirt roads, concrete foundations of old farm buildings, and culverts in old agricultural ditches are still present as well as a livestock shed and goats in a fenced pen. Several ephemeral drainages convey storm water down the steep slopes of the site, but no defined beds and banks or well-developed riparian plant communities were observed. Some evidence of erosion was noted in 2018 and 2019 at areas previously disturbed, such as where pipelines were installed and along Gabbert Road (Hitch Ranch Specific Plan EIR, Impact Sciences, Inc., 2019). 2.2.2 Climate The Proposed Project site, like much of Southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and a seasonal, migratory subtropical high-pressure cell known as the “Pacific High.” Wet winters and dry summers with mild seasonal changes characterize the Southern California climate. This climate pattern is occasionally interrupted by extreme periods of hot weather, winter storms, or dry, easterly Santa Ana winds. The average high temperature for the project area is approximately 74°F, with daily highs in the summer and early fall months (July–October) exceeding 95°F. Precipitation typically occurs between December and March with average rainfall of 18 inches (Western Regional Climate Center, 2019). The prevailing wind pattern is from the west (on-shore), but the presence of the Pacific Ocean causes a diurnal wind pattern known as the land/sea breeze system. During the day, winds are from the west–southwest (sea) and at night winds are from the northeast (land), averaging 2 miles per hour (mph). During the summer season, the diurnal winds may average slightly higher (approximately 19 mph) than the winds during the winter season due to greater pressure gradient forces. Surface winds can also be influenced locally by topography and slope variations. The highest wind velocities are associated with downslope, canyon, and Santa Ana winds. The Hitch Ranch Project site does not include topography that would create unusual weather conditions. However, the site is subject to periodic extreme fire weather conditions that occur throughout Ventura County. Typically, the highest fire danger is produced by the high-pressure systems that occur in the Great Basin, which result in the Santa Ana winds of Southern California. Sustained wind speeds recorded during recent major fires in Ventura County exceeded 30 mph and may exceed 50 mph during extreme conditions , as was the case during the most recent wildfire. The Santa Ana wind conditions are a reversal of the prevailing southwesterly winds that usually occur on a region-wide basis during late summer and early fall. Santa Ana winds are warm winds that flow from the higher desert elevations in the north through the mountain passes and canyons. As they converge through the canyons, their velocities increase. Consequently, peak velocities are highest at the mouths of canyons and dissipate as they spread across valley floors. Santa Ana winds generally coinci de with the regional drought period and the period of highest fire danger. The Hitch Ranch Project site is affected by strong winds, such as Santa Ana winds. 2.2.3 Vegetation (Fuels) Vegetation within the project site was identified, characterized, and mapped using geographic information system [GIS] technology (Impact Sciences, Inc., 2021). Vegetation nomenclature used to describe plant communities is Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 564 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 14 July 2021April 2022 based on the current list of vegetation types, available from the CDFW VCMP.2 Common plant names of plant taxa are taken from various informal sources. The majority of the site is disturbed by active cattle grazing and covered in non-native brome grasslands, specifically to the east of Gabbert Road. Native plant communities present on site are substantially disturbed by grazing and include California sagebrush-deerweed scrub, California sagebrush scrub, cactus scrub, blue elderberry stands, and chaparral yucca scrub. Also present are disturbed areas that are actively disced, developed areas, and nonnative woodland. The area proposed for development and within the project grading limits will be converted to roads, structures, and landscaped vegetation following project completion. Vegetative fuels within proposed fuel modification zones consist primarily of annual grasslands and California sage scrub, although these fuels will be modified as a result of development, altering their current structure and species composition. Areas outside of proposed development and fuel modification zones can be classified primarily as annual grasslands and sage scrub. Table 1, Project Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types, and the following discussion provide a description of the botanical characteristics of each of the plant communities found on the project site. Table 1. Project Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Vegetation Community or Land Cover Type Acres* Percent of Site (%) Annual brome grassland 1.35 0.47 Annual brome grassland (Disturbed/Grazed) 152.45 53.45 Total Annual brome grassland 153.79 54.01 Non-Native woodland 10.65 3.73 Blue Elderberry Stands 1.62 0.56 Blue Elderberry Stands (Disturbed/Grazed) 5.38 1.88 Total Blue Elderberry Stands 7.00 2.46 California sagebrush-deerwood scrub 23.85 9.20 California sagebrush-deerwood scrub (Disturbed/grazed) 12.92 4.53 Total California sagebrush-deerwood scrub 39.13 13.74 Cactus scrub (Disturbed/Grazed) 1.76 0.62 Developed 1.44 0.51 Disturbed/Disced 70.53 24.78 Total 284.73 100.0 2 California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. 2009. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program List of California Vegetation Alliances, December 28, 2009. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 565 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 15 July 2021April 2022 Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment Report 2021. Refer to Impact Sciences, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment Report for descriptions of the vegetation communities or land cover types. * Acreages include the 277.3-acre project site and off-site improvement areas associated with the development (e.g., roadway connections) as depicted in Figure 3.3-2 of the Biological Assessment Report. 2.2.4 Vegetation Dynamics (Fuel Loads) The vegetation described above translates to fuel models used for fire behavior modeling, discussed in Chapter 4 of this FPP. Variations in vegetative cover type and species composition have a direct effect on fire behavior. Some plant communities and their associated plant species have increased flammability based on plant physiology (resin content), biological function (flowering, retention of dead plant material), physical structure (bark thickness, leaf size, branching patterns), and overall fuel loading. For example, non-native grass dominated plant communities become seasonally prone to ignition and produce lower intensity, higher spread rate fires. In comparison, California sagebrush scrub can produce higher heat intensity and higher flame lengths under strong, dry wind patterns, but does not typically ignite or spread as quickly as light, flashy grass fuels. The corresponding fuel models for each of these vegetation types are designed to capture these differences. As described, vegetation plays a significant role in fire behavior, and is an important component to the fire behavior models discussed in this report. A critical factor to consider is the dynamic nature of vegetation communities. Fire presence and absence at varying cycles or regimes disrupts plant succession, setting plant communities to an earlier state where less fuel is present for a period of time as the plant community begins its succession again. In summary, high-frequency fires tend to convert shrublands to grasslands or maintain grasslands, and fire exclusion tends to convert grasslands to shrublands over time as shrubs sprout back or establish and are not disturbed by repeated fires. In general, biomass and associated fuel loading will increase over time, assuming that disturbance (e.g., fire, grazing, or farming) or fuel reduction efforts are not diligently implemented. It is possible to alter successional pathways for varying plant communities through manual alteration. This concept is a key component in the overall establishment and maintenance of the proposed FMZs for the project site. The FMZs will consist of irrigated and maintained landscapes that will be subject to regular “disturbance” in the form of maintenance and will not be allowed to accumulate excessive biomass over time, which results in reduced fire ignition, spread rates, and intensity. 2.2.5 Fire History Fire history is an important component of a site-specific FPP. Fire History data provides valuable information regarding fire spread, fire frequency, ignition sources, and vegetation/fuel mosaics across a given landscape. One important use for this information is as a tool for pre-planning. It is advantageous to know which areas may have burned recently and therefore may provide a tactical defense position, what type of fire burned on the site, and how a fire may spread. Fire history represented in this FPP uses the Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) database. FRAP summarizes fire perimeter data dating to the late 1800s, but which is incomplete due to the fact that it only includes fires over 10 acres in size and has incomplete perimeter data, especially for the first half of the 20th century (Syphard and Keeley 2016). However, the data does provide a summary of recorded fires and can be used to show whether large fires have occurred in the Project area, which indicates whether they may be possible Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 566 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 16 July 2021April 2022 in the future. According to available data from the CAL FIRE in the FRAP database3, twenty-nine (29) fires have burned in the vicinity of the project site since the beginning of the historical fire data record, including the most recent Easy Fire which burn approximately 1,700 acres in October 2019. Recorded wildfires within 5 miles range from 11 acres to 107,570 (2003 Fire) acres and the average fire size is 9,075 acres (not including the 2003 Simi Fire or fires smaller than 10 acres). The Easy Fire (approximately 1,700 acres) is the most recent fire, which occurred approximately 1 mile east of the Project Site (not included in FRAP data based because the fire occurred in October 2019). VCFD may have data regarding smaller fires (less than 10 acres) that have occurred on the site that have not been included herein. Two fires have burned on the project site. Table 2 summarizes the fire history for the area within 5 miles of the Hitch Ranch Project site. Fire history for the general vicinity of the project site is illustrated in the map in Appendix B. Table 2. Fire History within Five Miles of the Hitch Ranch Project Site Fire Year* Fire Name Interval (years) Total Area Burned (acres) 1940 Camarillo Rifle Range N/A 1,411 1943 Jones Canyon 3 522 1944 Long Canyon 1 462 1946 Wiley Canyon 2 21,266 1953 Shields Lease 7 11,775 1956 BI Brush 3 1,595 1957 Simi Valley Ranch 1 468 1958 Santa Rosa 1 1,138 1958 Calumet Canyon 0 17,214 1958 Brea Canyon 0 1,244 1967 Sence Ranch 9 18,354 1970 Clampitt Fire 3 115,537 1973 Santa Rosa 3 424 1976 Arroyo 3 206 1980 Hill Canyon 4 11,975 1984 Grimes Fire 4 11,305 1985 Peach Hill 1 1,992 1987 Tierra 2 759 1995 Wildwood 1 8 799 2001 Walnut Incident 6 36 2003 Simi Fire 2 107,570 2006 Shekell 3 13,618 2009 Guiberson 3 17,527 2011 Collins 2 60 2013 Happy Camp 2 45 2015 Princeton 2 44 3 Based on polygon GIS data from CAL FIRE’s FRAP, which includes data from CAL FIRE, USDA Forest Service Region 5, BLM, NPS, Contract Counties and other agencies. The data set is a comprehensive fire perimeter GIS layer for public and private lands throughout the state and covers fires 10 acres and greater between 1878–2018. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 567 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 17 July 2021April 2022 Table 2. Fire History within Five Miles of the Hitch Ranch Project Site Fire Year* Fire Name Interval (years) Total Area Burned (acres) 2018 Collins 3 11 2018 Olsen 0 28 2018 Hill 0 4,310 1 *CAL FIRE FRAP 2019 Based on an analysis of this fire history data set, specifically the years in which the fires burned, the average interval between wildfires in the area was calculated to be 3 years with intervals ranging between 0 to 9 years. Based on this analysis, it is expected that wildland areas in the vicinity of the project site will be subject to wildfire at least every 3 years with the realistic possibility of shorter interval occurrences, as observed in the fire history record. Based on fire history, wildfire risk for the project site is associated primarily with a Santa Ana wind-driven wildfire burning or spotting onto the site from the north or east, although a fire approaching from the south during more typical on-shore weather patterns is possible. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 568 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 18 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 569 12271 19 July 2021April 2022 3 Determination of Project Effects FPPs provide an evaluation of the adverse environmental effects a proposed project may have from wildland fire. The FPP describes the project design features that would ensure that the project would not unnecessarily expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Significance is determined by answering the following guidelines: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The wildfire risk in the vicinity of the Hitch Ranch Project site has been analyzed according to a standard used throughout Ventura County (County of Ventura Initial Study Assessment Guidelines – Fire Hazards (2011)). According to the CALFIRE Fire Severity Zone Map, the proposed project is located in an area considered a VHFHSZ, as designated by CALFIRE and the VCFD. The wildland fire risk in the vicinity of the project site has been analyzed and it has been determined that wildfires may occur in wildland or naturally vegetated areas north of the Proposed Project site and in areas off-site to the west, east, and northeast of the project site. However, wildfire occurrence would not be expected to be significantly increased in frequency, or size with the construction of the Hitch Ranch Proposed Project. The closest off-site fuels that form large fuel beds are located to the north of the site. The site currently includes a variety of potential vegetation that could serve as fuel sources. The types of potential ignition sources that currently exist in the area include vehicle and roadway, the Union Pacific ROW, off-site commercial areas, off-site residential neighborhoods, and arson related ignitions. Although the Proposed Project would introduce more people in the area and would include the development of 328 single-family dwelling units and 427 multi-family dwelling lots, the site would be largely converted from readily ignited fuels to ignition resistant structures and landscaped areas. The Proposed Project would be developed to meet all existing development building codes and fire codes, including landscaping and vegetation requirements as indicated in Ventura County Fire Protection District Ordinance Number 3130 (or current adopted ordinance) adopted California Fire Code and CCR Title 14 FSR. The project would include conversion of fuels to maintained urban development with designated landscaping and fuel modification areas. Fuel modification zones will be designed according to all applicable development codes and the Ventura County Fire Code, and indicated on the project site plan. The Project Developer will perform fuel modification work throughout the project site prior to construction and the Hitch Ranch HOA will conduct annual fuel modification (or more often as needed) to reduce the potential for fire ignition and spread. The Proposed Project would introduce potential ignition sources, but would include a variety of fire protection features that form a redundant system of protection to minimize the likelihood of wildfire exposing residents and visitors, as well as structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The Project will provide a fire hardened landscape, highly ignition resistant residential dwelling units, and conversion of flashy fuels (non-native grasslands) to maintained developed areas with designated review of all landscaping and maintenance of fuel modification areas. Fires from off-site would not have continuous fuels across this site and would therefore be expected to burn around and/or over the site via spotting. Burning vegetation embers may land on project structures, but are not likely to result in ignition based on ember decay rates and the types of non-combustible and ignition resistant materials that will be used on site. The site further provides multiple ingress/egress routes for evacuation for better access throughout the site and there will be more fire aware individuals on the ground to reduce the likelihood of arson, off-road vehicles, or other recreational based activity fires. If evacuation is not considered the preferred approach, such as during a short- notice evacuation, the Hitch Ranch Project offers a contingency option of temporarily sheltering on site to residents, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 570 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 20 July 2021April 2022 visitors, firefighters and law enforcement, as well as to neighboring property owners. These concepts are discussed further in the following sections. The project would comply with applicable ignition resistant fire and building codes and would include a layered fire protection approach which is designed to current codes and inclusive of site-specific measures that will result in a project that is less susceptible to wildfire than surroundi ng landscapes. Additionally, residential dwelling units are constructed to very high levels of ignition resistance and may be used as safe sites or temporary shelter if necessary . The Project’s single- and multi-family residential units will include reside ntial fire protection systems. This same fire protection system will provide protections from on-site fire spreading to off- site vegetation. As such, accidental fires within the maintained landscape or structures in the Hitch Ranch Project would have limited ability to spread. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Proposed Project would result in the development of a currently undeveloped area, including the development of site access. The project would involve the construction of new structures, roadways, and would generate new trips to and from the project site. The project site would be accessible from public roadways and access into the site would be provided via four entrances for vehicles and pedestrians. The project would be required to comply with the County’s development review process, including review for compliance with the Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code - Ordinance 29 as well as compliance with applicable emergency access standards that would facilitate emergency vehicle access during project construction and operation. Additionally, an adequate water supply and an approved paved access roadway shall be installed prior to any combustibles on site. The project applicant would be required to design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities to comply with applicable local, regional, state, and federal requirements related to emergency access. Drive aisles, turning radii, and all access points would be designed with adequate emergency access. The project would be required to provide fire apparatus turnarounds on all dead-end fire apparatus access roadways over 150 feet in length, although the Fire Code Official is authorized to increase the length of a dead-end fire apparatus access roadway to a length of 250 feet, and provide a 5040-foot insidehorizontal turning radius of a fire apparatus access road, measured at the center line of the access road (per CCR Title 14 FSR). All access roadways designed for one-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet; all access roadways designed for two-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. Fire access roadways designed to allow parking shall provide a minimum clear width of not less than 32 feet for parking on one side and a clear width of not less than 36 feet for parking on both sides. All fire access roadways would have a vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6-inches for the full road width to allow access for fire apparatus. The proposed site plan is subject to approval by the County and the VCFD. Further, the project would be required to provide walking access to the rear of buildings, and ladder access for any windows facing the rear of the buildings. The County and the VCFD will need to review proposed modifications to existing roadways to ensure that adequate emergency access or emergency response would be maintained. Additionally, emergency response procedures would be coordinated through the County in coordination with the police and fire departments. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that that the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 571 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 21 July 2021April 2022 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Fire protection would be provided to the proposed project via the VCFD. The VCFD consists of a staff of 395450 full-time safety (including safety Chief Officers) and 158133 full-time non-safety employees that provides fire protection and emergency medical services to more than 480,000850,000 people in the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. The VCFD response area covers 848 square miles including all unincorporated areasseven of its incorporated cities, including Ojai, Port Hueneme, Moorpark, Camarillo, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks (VCFD Overview and VCFD 20172020 District Snapshot ReportAnnual Report). The Hitch Ranch Project includes 328 single-family dwelling units 427 multi-family dwelling lots (191 medium density units and 236 high density units). Service level requirements can cause a decline in the response times and capabilities for existing residents. The Proposed Project estimated call volume generation is based on 2,3782,333 maximum persons living on site (based on 3.1509 persons per household) during any given time period during the week and on weekends. The entire population would be new to the VCFD’s response area. The Proposed Project is projected by call volume analysis (using VCFD per capita call generation factor of 0.05609/year or 9056 calls per 1,000 persons per year) to add approximately 210133 calls per year to the VCFD’s existing call load. This call volume (approximately 2 to 43 calls per week) is not considered enough of an increase to require additional resources. The primary response (first due in) would be provided by Station 42, located at 295 E. High Street, Moorpark, California, approximately 1 mile east of the project site. The station is staffed daily by three firefighters and houses one engine (Engine 42), one reserve engine (Reserve Engine 142), and one brush engine (Brush Engine 342). The Project is projected to add an estimated 133210 calls per year (0.3658 calls per day) for a Station that currently responds to an existing call load of approximately 3.13 calls per day (approximately 1,1041,129 calls per year in 20202017). The addition of approximately 2 to 34 calls per week is considered absorbable and the station’s capacity to respond to the additional calls is available. This level of impact is not expected to require the construction of additional Fire Station facilities based on that increase alone. The anticipated 3.683.36 calls per day (3.13.0 daily calls + 0.3658 additional calls per day) is below what would be considered a busy station. For perspective, urban fire stations that respond to five calls per day are considered average and 10 calls per day would be considered a busy station. Further, Station 42 can respond to the entire project within Ventura County’s target response time standard (8.5 minutes) for first arriving for all urban areas within Ventura County. Therefore, although there would be an incremental increase in call volume, it would not, according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), be considered to exceed significance thresholds. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The Proposed Project will be served by the Ventura County Waterworks District (VCWWD) No. 1 and sufficient water supplies will be available to serve the Proposed Project from the existing entitlements and resources, which will be consistent with VCFD requirements. The County of Ventura, and the VCWWD No. 1 require new developments to meet a minimum 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow. The water distribution system is designed to yield a minimum residual pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) during peak hour demands and a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi during maximum day demands plus fire flow. Each fire hydrant shall be capable of 1,500 gpm fire flow for minimum duration of three hours at 20 psi residual pressure. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 572 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 22 July 2021April 2022 The measures described in the responses to these significance questions are provided more detail in the following sections. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 573 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 23 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 574 12271 24 July 2021April 2022 4 Anticipated Fire Behavior 4.1 Fire Behavior Modeling Following field data collection efforts and available data analysis, fire behavior modeling was conducted to document the type and intensity of fire that would be expected on and adjacent to the project site given characteristic site features such as topography, vegetation, and weather. Dudek utilized BehavePlus software package (Andrews, Bevins, and Seli 2004) to analyze potential fire behavior for the Hitch Ranch Project site. As is customary for this type of analysis, three fire scenarios were evaluated, including one summer, onshore weather condition (west from the project site) and two extreme fall, offshore weather condition (north and east/northeast of the project site), with assumptions made for the pre- and post-project slope and fuel conditions. Results are provided below and a more detailed presentation of the modeling inputs and results is provided in Appendix C. 4.1.1 Fuel Model Output Results The results from the BehavePlus fire behavior modeling analysis for pre- and post-project conditions are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, and in Figure 4, BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis Map. As presented, wildfire behavior on the Hitch Ranch Project site is expected to be primarily of moderate to high intensity throughout the non-maintained grass dominated fuels north and northeast of the Proposed Project site. Table 3. BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results, Existing Conditions Fire Scenario Flame Length (feet) Spread Rate (mph)1 Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft./s) Spotting Distance2 (Miles) Scenario 1: 5% slope, Summer, Onshore, Summer Winds (Pre-Development) High Load Grass (Gr7) 29.1’ 3.5 8,616 1.1 Scenario 2: 9% slope, Fall, Offshore Extreme Winds (Pre-Development) High Load Grass (Gr7) 42.9’ (74.6’ & 87.1’) 6.0 (20.0 & 28.0) 20,054 (66,781 & 93,536) 1.2 (3.5 and 4.9) 3 Scenario 3: 5% slope, Fall, Offshore, Extreme Winds (Pre-Development) High Load Grass (Gr7) 43.0’ (74.6’ & 87.1’) 6.0 (20.0 & 28.0) 20,168 (66,846 & 93,591) 1.2 (3.5 & 4.9) Note: 1 mph = miles per hour 2 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire. 3 It should be noted that the wind mph in parenthesis represent peak gusts of 50 mph and 70 mph, respectively. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 575 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 25 July 2021April 2022 Table 4. BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results, Post-Project Conditions Fire Scenario Flame Length (feet) Spread Rate (mph)1 Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft./s) Spotting Distance2 (Miles) Scenario 1: 5% slope, Summer, Onshore, Summer Winds (Post-Development) FMZ Zones 0A and B (FM8) 1.8’ 0.1 20 0.2 FMZ Zones 1 and 2 (Gr1) 1.9’ 0.2 24 0.2 FMZ Zone 3C (Gr2) 7.2’ 1.1 420 0.4 Scenario 2: 9% slope, Fall, Offshore Extreme Winds (Post-Development) FMZ Zones 0A and B (FM8) 2.1’ (3.0’ & 3.0’) 0.1 (0.2 & 0.2) 29 (63 & 63) 0.2 (0.4 & 0.5) FMZ Zone 1 and 2 4.0’ (4.0’ & 4.0’) 0.7 (0.7 & 0.7) 115 (115 & 115) 0.2 (0.5 & 0.6) FMZ Zone 3C (Gr2) 10.9’ (18.0’ & 18.0’) 2.1 (6.2 & 6.2) 1,012 (3,037 & 3,037) 0.5 (1.3 & 1.6) Scenario 3: 5% slope, Fall, Offshore, Extreme Winds (Post-Development) FMZ Zones 0A and B (FM8) 2.1’ (3.0’ & 3.0’) 0.1 (0.2 & 0.2) 29 (63 & 63) 0.2 (0.4 & 0.5) FMZ Zone 1 and 2 4.0’ (4.0’ & 4.0’) 0.7 (0.7 & 0.7) 115 (115 & 115) 0.2 (0.5 & 0.6) FMZ Zone 3C (Gr2) 10.9’ (18.0’ & 18.0) 2.1 (6.2 & 6.2) 1,018 (3,037 & 3,037) 0.5 (1.3 & 1.5) Note: 1 mph = miles per hour 2 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire. 3 It should be noted that the wind mph in parenthesis represent peak gusts of 50 mph and 70 mph, respectively. The results presented in Tables 3 and 4 depict values based on inputs to the BehavePlus software and are not intended to capture changing fire behavior as it moves across a landscape. Changes in slope, weather, or pockets of different fuel types are not accounted for in this analysis. For planning purposes, the averaged worst -case fire behavior is the most useful information for conservative fuel modification design. Model results should be used as a basis for planning only, as actual fire behavior for a given location will be affected by many factors, including unique weather patterns, small-scale topographic variations, or changing vegetation patterns. Based on the BehavePlus analysis, worst-case fire behavior is expected in non-maintained grass north and northeast of the proposed Project site under Peak weather conditions (represented by Fall Weather, Scenario 3). The fire is anticipated to be a wind-driven fire from the north/northeast during the fall. Under such conditions, expected surface flame lengths reach 74 feet with wind speeds of 50+ mph. Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach 66,781 BTU/feet/second with fast spread rates of 20 mph and could have a spotting distance up to 3.5 miles away. Fires burning into brush thinning zones of the proposed FMZs are expected to be less intense and generate lower flame lengths. As previously mentioned, Dudek conducted modeling of the site for post -fuel modification zones. Typical fuel modification includes establishment of minimum 100-foot wide irrigated zone (Zone s 0, 1 and 2A and B) and up to a 100-foot wide thinning zone (Zone 3C) on the periphery of the project site, beginning at the structure. For modeling the post-FMZ treatment condition, the fuel model assignment for non-native grasslands was re- classified according to the specific fuels management (e.g., irrigated, fire resist ive landscaping and 50% thinning) treatment. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 576 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 26 July 2021April 2022 Based on the BeahvePlus analysis, post development fire behavior is expected in irrigated and replanted with plants that are acceptable with VCFD (Zone 0 – FM8 and Zones 1 and 2A and B -– Gr1FM8), as well in an area with 50% thinning of the existing shrubs (Gr2) under peak weather conditions (represented by Fall Weather, Scenario 3b). Under such conditions, expected surface flame length is expected to be significantly lower, with flames lengths reaching approximately 18 feet with wind speeds of 50+ mph. Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach 3,037 BTU/feet/second with relatively slow spread rates of 2.1 mph and could have a spotting distance up to 1.3 miles away. As depicted in Table 4, the FMZ areas experience a significant reduction in flame length and intensity. The 74- foot flame lengths predicted for non-native grassland fuels during pre-treatment modeling for fire scenarios 2 and 3 are reduced to approximately 18 feet by the time FMZ (Zone 3C) is reached and to approximately three - feet by the time FMZ (Zones 0, 1 and 2A and B) are reached. These reduction of flame lengths and intensities are assumed to occur within the 200 feet of fuel modification (an irrigated Zones 0, 1,and 2 A and B and 50% thinning Zone 3C). 4.2 On-Site Fire Risk Assessment Given the climatic, vegetative, topographic characteristics, and local fire history of the area, the project site, once developed, is determined to be subject to periodic wildfires that may start on, burn onto, or spot into the site. The most common type of fire anticipated in the vicinity of the Project Area is a wind-driven fire from the north/northeast during the fall. Potential for off-site wildfire encroaching on, or showering embers on the site is considered moderate, but risk of ignition from such encroachments or ember showers is considered low based on the type of construction and fire protection features that will be provided for the structures. Therefore, it will be critical that the latest fire protection technologies, developed through intensive research and real world wildfire observations and findings by fire professionals, for both ignition resistant construction and for creating defensible space in the ever-expanding WUI areas, are implemented and enforced. The Proposed Project will implement the latest fire protection measures, including fuel modification along the perimeter edges of the development. Wildland fires are a common natural hazard in most of southern California with a long and extensive history. Southern California landscapes include a diverse range of plant communities, including vast tracts of tracts of grasslands and shrublands, like those found adjacent to Hitch Ranch site. Wildfire in this Mediterranean-type ecosystem ultimately affects the structure and functions of vegetation communities (Keeley 1984) and will continue to have a substantial and recurring role (Keeley and Fotheringham 2003). Supporting this are the facts that 1) native landscapes, from forest to grasslands, become highly flammable each fall and 2) the climate of southern California has been characterized by fire climatologists as the worst fire climate in the United States (Keeley 2004) with high winds (Santa Ana) occurring during autumn after a six-month drought period each year. Based on this research, the anticipated growing population of Ventura County wildland urban interface (WUI) areas, including in the City of Moorpark, and the regions fire history, it can be anticipated that periodic wildfires will occur in the open space areas of Ventura County, with the natural open spaces north and northeast of the Hitch Ranch Project site being no exception. Two large wildfires have burned on to and several more have burned within a close proximity to the project site, including the 2003 Simi Fire which burnt approximately 107,500 acres and the most recent Easy Fire which burned approximately 1,700 acres 1 mile east of the Project site in October 2019. Both of these fires burned very similarly to the results found in the modeled fire behavior for non-native grasslands under extreme weather conditions. As such, wildlands near the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 577 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 27 July 2021April 2022 Proposed Project site are expected to be exposed to periodic wildfire ignition and spread and may be subject to nearby wildfire. However, the Hitch Ranch Proposed Project site, once developed, would not facilitate wildfire spread and would reduce projected flame lengths to levels that would be manageable by firefighting resources for protecting the site’s structures, especially given the ignition resistance of the structures and the planned ongoing maintenance of the entire site landscape. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 578 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 28 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 579 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 29 July 2021April 2022 Figure 4 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis Map Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 580 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 30 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 581 12271 31 July 2021April 2022 5 Emergency Response and Service 5.1 Emergency Response The Proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the VCFD, and consequently, VCFD provides initial response. The VCFD jurisdictional response area encompasses approximately 848 square miles including seven of its cities, including Ojai, Port Hueneme, Moorpark, Camarillo, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks with a population of more than 850,000480,000 people in the unincorporated areas of Ventura County (VCFD Overview, 2020 and VCFD 20202017 Snapshot Annual Report)4. The VCFD consists of a staff of 450395 full-time safety (including safety Chief Officers) and 133158 full-time non-safety employees that provides fire protection and emergency medical services. The Hitch Ranch Project includes 328 single-family dwelling units and 427 multi- family dwelling lots (191 medium density units and 236 high density units). Service level requirements can cause a decline in the response times and capabilities for existing residents. The Proposed Project estimated call volume generation is based on 2,3782,333 maximum persons living on site (based on 3.1509 persons per household) during any given time period during the week and on weekends. The entire population would be new to the VCFD’s response area. The Proposed Project is projected by call volume analysis (using VCFD per capita call generation factor of 0.05609/year or 5690 calls per 1,000 persons per year) to add approximately 133210 calls per year to the VCFD’s existing call load. This call volume (approximately 2 to 34 calls per week) is not considered enough of an increase to require additional resources. The VCFD currently operates 3433 Fire Stations, two of which are analyzed herein due to their proximity to the proposed project site and could respond to an incident at the Hitch Ranch Project site (Stations 40 and 42), although primary response would be from Station 42, with Station 40 responding shortly thereafter. Station 42 is located at 295 E. High Street, Moorpark, California, approximately 1 mile east of the project site. The station is staffed daily by three full-time firefighters and houses one engine (Engine 42), one reserve engine (Reserve Engine 142), and one brush engine (Brush Engine 342). Table 5 presents a summary of the location, fire apparatus equipment, staffing levels, maximum travel distance, and estimated time travel for the two closest VCFD stations that would respond to a fire or medical emergency within the Hitch Ranch Project site. Travel distances are derived from Google road data while travel times are calculated applying the nationally recognized RAND Corporation formula used by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public Protection Classification Program’s Response Time Standard: (T=0.65 + 1.7D), where T=time and D=distance). The ISO response travel time formula discounts speed for intersections, vehicle deceleration and acceleration, and does not include turnout donning time. 4 https://vcfd.org/about-vcfd/overview and https://vcfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AnnualReport2020.pdf Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 582 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 32 July 2021April 2022 Table 5. Ventura County Fire Department Responding Stations Summary Station Location Equipment Staffing Maximum Travel Distance Travel Time*** Station 40 4185 Cedar Springs Street, Moorpark, California, 93201 - Medic/Engine (Medic/Engine 40); - Reserve Engine (Engine 140); - Utility Pickup Truck (Utility 40); - USAR Tractor/Trailer (USAR 40). On duty: 3 2.30. 70 mi.** 14 minute 4831 secs.** Station 42 295 E. High Street, Moorpark, California, 93021 - Engine (Engine 42); - Reserve Engine (Engine 142); - Brush Engine (Engine 342). On-duty: 3 1.50 mi.* 3 minutes 10 secs.* * Distance measured to the proposed western entrance of the proposed development area off Gabbert Road. ** Distance measured to the proposed eastern entrance of the proposed development area off Casey Road. *** Assumes travel to the project entrance, and application of the ISO formula, T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35-mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time. Based on the Proposed Project site location in relation to existing VCFD stations, travel time to the site for the first responding engine from Station 42 is approximately 3 minutes and 10 secondsless than 2 minutes to the proposed project entrance, on Casey Road. Travel within the development may reach up to 2 minutes, based on the longest proposed road stretch of approximately 0.80 miles, resulting in response time of approximately 5 minutesless than 4 minutes for the entire development. Secondary response would arrive in approximately 4 minutes and 30 secondsless than 4 minutes. Based on these calculations, emergencies within the project can be responded to by VCFD’s first arriving unit (average maximum initial response of no more than 8.5 minutes for fire apparatus and 5 minutes for ambulance, 90% of calls) in accordance with the County’s standard. In addition, there are automatic aid agreements and dropped boundary agreements on first alarm or greater emergency calls with surrounding communities, ensuring that the closest unit will be dispatched, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. The VCFD is also part of the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreements. 5.2 Emergency Service Level The VCFD estimates approximately 44,74247,272 total annual calls (VCFD’s 20202017 Annual Report Snapshot) and Ventura County’s population of approximately 480850,000 (VCFD Overview, 20222019). The per capita call volume is roughly 0.5609 for the County of Ventura. Based on the proposed development plans, the project’s estimated 2,37833 residents (assumes an average of 3.1509 occupants per residence in the City of Moorpark for this type of community (U.S. Census, 2021SANDAG 2019) would generate roughly 133210 calls per year, most of which are expected to be medical-related calls, consistent with typical emergency call statistics. Service level requirements are not expected to be significantly impacted with the increase of approximately 133210 calls per year or 0.3658 calls per day for a station (VCFD Station 42) that currently responds to roughly 3 calls per day (1,1041,130 calls5 in 20202017) in its primary service area. Therefore, the project is not expected to cause a decline in VCFD’s emergency response times. Additional response, rounding out the 5 Data derived from VCFD’s 20202017 annual report snapshot which states that there were 2,20859 calls within the Moorpark service area. There are two stations within the Moorpark service area, so a rough estimate of 1,10430 calls in 20202017 was used for Station 42. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 583 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 33 July 2021April 2022 effective firefighting force (the manpower needed to effectively fight a structure fire and/or respond to serious medical emergency) would be provided by Stations 40 and 57. 5.2.1 Cumulative Impacts on Fire Response Cumulative impacts from multiple projects can cause fire response service decline and must be analyzed for each project. The Hitch Ranch Project and its proposed usage by up to 2,37833 residents is an increase in potential service demand of approximately 133210 calls per year, well within the capacity of the existing Fire Stations that will service the Hitch Ranch Project. Other future projects in the vicinity of Stations 40 and 42 are not known at the time of this FPPs preparation, but when considered cumulatively, the potential impact of multiple projects is considered less than significant, mitigated by increased funding available from each project to the VCFD through property taxes and other fees associated with each project, including the Hitch Ranch Project. This funding would be utilized to maintain or enhance fire response capabilities. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 584 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 34 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 585 12271 35 July 2021April 2022 6 Buildings, Infrastructure and Defensible Space The Ventura County Fire Protection District’s Fire Ordinance Number 31 (2018 International Fire Code and 2019 California Fire and Building Codes adopted by reference with several modifications) governs the building, infrastructure, and defensible space requirements detailed in this FPP. It should be noted that new State and local building and fire codes will be in effect starting January 1, 2023. The project will meet or exceed applicable codes or will provide alternative materials and/or methods. While these standards will provide a high level of protection to structures for the Proposed Project, there is no guarantee that compliance with these standards will prevent damage or destruction of structures by fire in all cases. A response map update, including roads and fire hydrant locations, in a format compatible with current department mapping shall be provided to the VCFD. The following summaries highlight important fire protection features. All underground utilities, hydrants, water mains, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will be installed, and the drive surface shall be approved prior to combustibles being brought on site. 6.1 Fire Access 6.1.1 Primary The Proposed Project would result in the development of a currently undeveloped area, including the development of site access. The project would involve the construction of new structures, roadways, and would generate new trips to and from the project site. Site access, including road widths and connectivity, will comply with the County’s development review process, including review for compliance with the Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code - Ordinance 29 as well as compliance with applicable emergency access standards that would facilitate emergency vehicle access during project construction and operation. Additionally, an adequate water supply and approved paved access roadways shall be installed prior to any combustibles on site and will include: • The project site would be accessible from public roadways and access into the site would be provided via four entrances, one northbound on Gabbert Road, another northbound on Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road, one westbound or eastbound on High Street, and one westbound or southbound on Meridian Hills Drive for vehicles and pedestrians. Primary access to the Project site via Gabbert Road will connect to the proposed extension of High Street (runs west to east) and North Hills Parkway (runs west to east/northeast). High Street will provide access to the southern portion of the Project site and will connect to Moorpark/Walnut Canyon (SR-23), while proposed North Hills Parkway is designed as an interior road and will facilitate access throughout the site. Primary access via Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road will connect to Casey Road, which will be extended from its current terminus and provide access to the eastern portion of the site. Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road also connects to Meridian Hills Drive, which will be extended from its current terminus and provide access to the northern portion of the site. • All perimeter roads comply with all fire apparatus access road standards; all fire access roadways designed for one-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet; all access roadways designed for Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 586 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 36 July 2021April 2022 two-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. Fire access roadways designed to allow parking shall provide a minimum clear width of not less than 32 feet for parking on one side and a clear width of not less than 36 feet for parking on both sides. The access roads shall be designed for the weight load requirements of the California Vehicle Code, City Road Standards, or 75,000 pounds, whichever is more restrictive.capable of supporting an imposed load of at least 20-tons or 80,000 pounds (lbs.) after a 10- year storm. • Interior circulation streets include all roadways that are considered common or primary roadways for traffic flow through the site and for fire department access serving all proposed structure. The project would be required to provide approved fire apparatus turnarounds on all dead-end fire apparatus access roadways over 150 feet in length, although the Fire Code Official is authorized to increase the length of a dead-end fire apparatus access roadway to a length of 250 feet. • Typical, interior Project roads, including collector and local roads, will be constructed to minimum 36-foot, unobstructed widths and shall be improved with aggregate cement or asphalt paving materials. Private or public streets that provide fire apparatus access to buildings three stories or more in height shall be improved to a minimum 24 feet unobstructed width. All interior residential streets will be designed for the weight load requirements of the California Vehicle Code, City Road Standards, or 75,000 pounds, whichever is more restrictiveto accommodate a minimum of at least 20-tons or 80,000-lb. fire apparatus load after a 10-year storm. • Private and public streets for each phase shall meet all project approved fire code requirements and/or mitigated exceptions for maximum allowable dead-end distance, paving, and fuel management prior to combustibles being brought to the site. • Vertical clearance of vegetation (lowest-hanging tree limbs), along roadways will be maintained at clearances of 13 feet, 6 inches to allow fire engines passage. Unobstructed vertical clearance must be clear to the sky to allow aerial ladder truck operation. • Roads with a median or center divider will have a minimum 20 feet unobstructed width on both sides of the center median or divider. Maximum road grade will not exceed 16%. • Cul-de-sacs and fire apparatus turnarounds will meet requirements and VCFD Standards. • Roadways and/or driveways will provide fire department access to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first floor of each structure. • Access roads shall be completed and paved prior to issuance of building permits and prior to the occurrence of combustible construction. 6.1.2 Secondary Access Roads and Gates Two secondary emergency vehicle access entry/exit roads are proposed within PA1 and PA2, to provide additional access to North Hills Parkway from PA1 and “A” Street from PA1. The secondary access roads will include a secondary access gate with knox box switches allowing emergency vehicles access into and out of PA 1 and PA2, as well as an automatic exit loop system allowing the residents of PA1 and PA2 to exit the communities. If the private/secondary access gates Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 587 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 37 July 2021April 2022 are to remain they will be required to be brought up to code and will comply with the Escondido Fire Code (Section 503.6) and EFD standards applicable at the time of building plan approval. Any access gates will comply with Ventura County Fire Department 501 Apparatus Access Code Standard – Ordinance Number 29. Gates across fire apparatus access roads shall not be limited to emergency exit only and shall provide for egress for all persons at all times without the use of keys, codes, remote controls, or special knowledge. Gates on private roads and secondary access roads will comply with VCFD standard for electric gates and will include a Knox box switch and automatic exit loops. 6.1.3 Maximum Dead-End Road Length Each planning area varies in the number of ingress/egress roads or streets. All areas shall include at least two ingress/egress streets. Dead end streets no longer than 150 feet shall have approved provisions for fire apparatus turnaround or cul-de-sac. The Fire Code Official is authorized to increase the length of a dead-end fire apparatus access roadway to a length of 250 feet. When only one (1) access point is provided, the maximum length of access roads shall not exceed 800 feet from the point of two (2) separate means of ingress/egress. Fire apparatus turnarounds to provide a 5040-foot insidehorizontal turning radius of a fire apparatus access road, measured at the center line of the access road, per CCR Title 14 FSR (VCFD Fire Apparatus Access Code). 6.1.4 Road Width and Circulation On-site roads will be constructed to current Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code standards (Ordinance Number 29) and 2019 CFC (or then current edition), including all fire access roadways designed for one-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet; all access roadways designed for two-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. Fire access roadways designed to allow parking shall provide a minimum clear width of not less than 32 feet for parking on one side and a clear width of not less than 36 feet for parking on both sides and shall be improved with asphalt paving materials that support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (not less than 420-tons or 80,000 lbs. after a 10-year storm). Turning radius for fire apparatus access roads will be 40 feet as measured at the center line of the access road. Access to the site will be improved as indicated in the Moorpark’s General Plan Circulation Element, North Hills Parkway would ultimately be constructed as a four-lane roadway. Gabbert Road would be improved to a four-lane arterial roadway from the point of connection with Poindexter Avenue, crossing the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and continuing to North Hills Parkway. North of North Hills Parkway, Gabbert Road would taper back to its existing width. The circulation upgrades not only benefit the Proposed Hitch Ranch Project, they also provide a public benefit to the surrounding communities and elementary school by providing additional access to these existing one-way in and out communities. Access to the Gabbert Canyon neighborhood to the northwest will be improved by expanding Gabbert Road to be a four-lane arterial roadway and by providing a new easterly evacuation route by extending High Street from its current terminus east of the project site across the southern boundary of the Project site north to the railroad track to Gabbert Road. The Meridian Hills neighborhood to the northeast will be improved by providing a southerly evacuation route through Hitch Ranch by extending Meridian Hills Drive from the existing terminus and connecting it to Street “A” at North Hills Parkway. Finally, Walnut Canyon Elementary school to the east is currently accessed by a dead end, two-lane road off Moorpark Avenue. There presently are no evacuation routes or secondary Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 588 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 38 July 2021April 2022 vehicle access roads to the school. However, the Proposed Project would provide an additional evacuation route through the Hitch Ranch community by extending Casey Road from its terminus east of the projec t site west into PA2, PA3, and PA4. 6.1.5 Grade There are no roads or driveways in the Hitch Ranch Project that exceed the 16% maximum grade for new roads and driveways. There are no roads or driveways that will require mitigation. 6.1.6 Surface All fire apparatus access and vehicle roadways shall be asphalt or concrete and designed and constructed in accordance with County Public Works standards 6.1.7 Vertical Clearance Minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches will be maintained for the entire required width for all streets, including driveways that require emergency vehicle access. 6.1.8 Premise Identification Identification of roads and structures will comply with CFC, Section 505.1, as follows: • Each Building shall have a minimum 12-inch address number, with 1-1/2 inch stroke. Number shall be mounted in visible locations and contrast in color to background. Each individual living unit shall have minimum 4-inch high address or unit numbers, ½-inch stroke, and 6 to 8 feet above grade. • Streets and roads shall be identified with approved signs. Temporary signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Signs shall be of an approved size, weather resistant and be maintained until replacement by permanent signs. 6.2 Ignition Resistant Construction and Fire Protection Systems All new structures within the Proposed Project will be constructed to Ventura County Fire Code, Ventura County Fire Protection District’s Fire Ordinance 31, and 2019 CFC standards (or then current edition). Each of the proposed dwelling units will comply with the enhanced ignition-resistant construction standards of the 2019 California Building Code (Chapter 7A) (or then current edition). These requirements address roofs, eaves, exterior walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in hardened structures that have been proven to perform at high levels (resist ignition) during the typically short duration of exposure to burning vegetation from wildfires. While these standards will provide a high level of protection to structures in this development, there is no guarantee that compliance with these standards will prevent damage or destruction of structures by fire in all cases. There are threetwo primary concerns for structure ignition: 1) radiant and/or convective heat and 2) burning embers, and direct flame contact (VCFD, 2022) (NFPA 1144 2008, Ventura County Fire Protection District 2011, IBHS 2008, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 589 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 39 July 2021April 2022 and others). Burning embers have been a focus of building code updates for at least the last decade, and new structures in the Wildland Urban Interface6 (WUI) built to these codes have proven to be very ignition resistant. Likewise, radiant and convective heat impacts on structures have been minimized through the Chapter 7A exterior fire ratings for walls, windows and doors. Additionally, provisions for modified fuel areas separating wildland fuels from structures have reduced the number of fuel-related structure losses. As such, most of the primary components of the layered fire protection system provided the project are required by the VCFD (Ventura County Fire Protection District Ordinance) Number 3130 and state codes, but are worth listing because they have been proven effective for minimizing structural vulnerability to wildfire and, with the inclusion of required interior sprinklers (required in the 2019 Building/Fire Code update), of extinguishing interior fires, should embers succeed in entering a structure. Even though these measures are now required by the latest Building and Fire Codes, at one time, they were used as mitigation measures for buildings in WUI areas, because they were known to reduce structure vulnerability to wildfire. These measures performed so well, they were adopted into the code. The following project features are required for new development in WUI areas and form the basis of the system of protection necessary to minimize structural ignitions as well as providing adequate access by emergency responders: 1. Application of Chapter 7A, ignition resistant building requirements 2. New class-A fire rated roof and associated assembly. With the proposed class-A fire rated roof, there will be attic or void spaces above the third level living spaces requiring ventilation to the outside environment. The attic spaces will require either ember-resistant roof vents or a minimum 1/16-inch mesh and shall not exceed 1/8-inch mesh for side ventilation (recommend BrandGuard, O’Hagin or similar vents) in accordance with the State Fire Marshal and Chapter 7A of the CBC. All vents used for this project will be approved by VCFDSMFD. 3. Multi- pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane, fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257 (such as SaftiFirst, SuperLite 20-minute rated glass product), or be tested to meet the performance requirements of State Fire Marshal Standard 12-7A-2 4. All buildings within the development are required to install an Automatic, Interior Fire Sprinkler System to code by occupancy type for all habitable, multi-family residential dwellings, in accordance with the CFC and VCFD Ordinance 31. 5. Modern infrastructure, access roads, and water delivery system. 6.3 Infrastructure and Fire Protection Systems Requirements The following infrastructure components are made in order to comply with the Ventura County requirements, the 2019 California Fire Code (or then current edition), VCFPD’s Fire Ordinance Standards (VCFD Ordinance Number 31), and nationally accepted fire protection standards, as well as additional requirements to assist in providing reasonable on-site fire protection. 6 The Wildland-Urban interface is the area where urban and suburban development meets the undeveloped areas containing natural vegetation Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 590 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 40 July 2021April 2022 6.3.1 Water Water service for the Proposed Project site will be provided by the VCWWD No. 1 and will be consistent with VCFD requirements. The public water system will be through connections to existing water mains running along Gabbert Road, Meridian Hills Drive, and Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road. The water distribution system is designed to yield a minimum residual pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) during peak hour demands and a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi during maximum day demands plus fire flow. Each fire hydrant shall be capable of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow for minimum duration of two hours at 20 psi residual pressure. 6.3.2 Fire Hydrants Hydrants shall be located along fire access roadways as determined by the VCFD Fire Marshal to meet operational needs, at the beginning radius of cul-de-sac streets, regardless of parcel size, pursuant to Sections 507.5.1 through 507.5.7 of the VCFPD Ordinance Number 31 and Appendix C of the 2019 CFC (or then current edition) for single- and multi-family residential units. Fire Hydrants will be consistent with applicable Design Standards. 6.3.3 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems All structures, of any occupancy type, will be protected by an automatic, interior fire sprinkler system. All structures Automatic internal fire sprinklers would be in accordance with NFPA 13, 13-D, or 13-R and VCFD installation requirements as appropriate. Actual system design is subject to final building design and the occupanc y types in the structure. 6.3.4 Residential Hazard Detectors All residences will be equipped with residential smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors and comply with current CBC, CFC, and California Residential Code standards. 6.4 Ongoing Building and Infrastructure Maintenance The project HOA shall be responsible for long term funding and maintenance of private roads and fire protection systems, including fire sprinklers and private fire hydrants. 6.5 Pre-Construction Requirements Prior to bringing lumber or combustible materials onto the site, site improvements within the active development area shall be in place, including utilities, operable fire hydrants, an approved, temporary roadway surface, and fuel modification zones established. These features will be approved by prior to combustibles being brought on site. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 591 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 41 July 2021April 2022 6.6 Defensible Space and Vegetation Management 6.6.1 Fuel Modification Zones An important component of a fire protection system for this Project is the provision for ignition resistant landscapes and modified vegetation buffers. FMZs are designed to provide vegetation buffers that gradually reduce fire intensity and flame lengths from advancing fire by strategically placing thinning zones, restricted vegetation zones, and irrigated zones adjacent to each other on the perimeter of the WUI exposed structures. FMZs are arguably more important when situated adjacent to older structures that were built prior to the latest ignition resistant codes and interior sprinkler requirements. All dwelling units within the Proposed Project site will be highly ignition resistant based on required construction design, materials, and methods. The Proposed Project will be exposed to naturally-vegetated open space areas to the northern, eastern, and western portions of the site. The rest of the proposed development is adjacent to residential communities to the northwest, south, and east, the Moorpark County Club Course approximately half a mile to the north, and commercial buildings to the south. FMZs will be provided for those portions of the proposed development that are adjacent to open space areas in accordance with the VCFD’s Ordinance 31 Appendix W, VCFD Standard 515 – Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones and Standard 517 – Application of Mulch and Chips in Defensible Space (revised February 2022), including all manufactured and maintained slopes. FMZs will include a minimum 200-foot fuel modification zones between the natural open space area to the north and on-site structures of PA1. Additionally, 100 feet of fuel modification (Zones 0, 1, and 2A and B only) along the western portions of the site. The eastern edge of the Proposed Project will receive 68 to 121 feet of FMZs to the top of the grading limits. FMZs less than 100 feet will be augmented with mitigations that meet or exceed the level of protection 100 feet of fuel modification provides. These mitigations include window upgrades that are code-exceeding, dual pane, both panes tempered and a six- foot noncombustible fire wall, while some of the east side FMZs tie into existing development and will not require additional fire protection measures. The fuel modification zones will be constructed from the structure outwards towards undeveloped areas. Figure 5 illustrates the FMZ Plan proposed for the Proposed Project Site, including a five-foot Zone 0 (0 to 5 feet around the structures), a minimum 2530-foot wide limited planting area Zone 1A (5 to 30 feet from the structures and decks), and a minimum 70-foot wide limited planting area Zone 3B extending from the structures towards the undeveloped areas. If provided, either by the conditions of the development, voluntarily by the property owner, or required by the VCFD, a minimum 100-foot wide more progressive 50% thinning zone (Zone 3C) would lessen the spread of fire as it approaches the primary FMZ adjacent to structures. A 10-foot wide roadside FMZ along each side of the roads adjacent to the open space shall be required as well. It should be noted that the full 100-foot defensible space zone from project buildings is required by the VCFPD Ordinance 31. Any portion off-site will be the responsibility of that affected property owner. VCFD is proposing a development condition to have the Hitch Ranch Project be responsible for the potion of the 100-foot zone off-site until such time the affected off-site properties develop. Based on the predicted fire intensity and duration along with flame lengths for this project site and the provided FMZs, the highest concern is considered to be from firebrands or embers as a principal ignition factor. To that end, this site, based on its location and ember potential, is required to include the latest ignition and ember resistant construction materials and methods for roof assemblies, walls, vents, windows, and appendages, as mandated by the VCFD and County’s Fire and Building Codes (e.g., Chapter 7A). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 592 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 42 July 2021April 2022 6.6.1.1 VCFD Fuel Modification Zone Standards A fuel modification zone (FMZ) is a strip of land where combustible vegetation has been removed and/or modified and partially or totally replaced with more adequately spaced, drought-tolerant, fire resistant plants in order to provide a reasonable level of protection to structures from wildland fire. The purpose of this section is to document VCFD’s standards (Standards 515 and 517) and make them available for reference. However, we are proposing a site-specific fuel modification zone program with additional measures that are consistent with the intent of the standards. VCFD is consistent with the 2019 California Fire Code (Section 4907 — Defensible Space) (or then current edition), Government Code 51175 – 51189, and Public Resources Code 4291, which require that fuel modification zones be provided around every building that is designed primarily for human habitation or use within a VHFHSZ. Fuel modification consists of at least 100 feet, measured in a horizontal plane, from the exterior façade of all structures towards the undeveloped areas. A typical landscape/fuel modification installation per the County’s Fire Code consists of a five-foot Zone 0 (0 to 5 feet around the structures), a 3025-foot-wide Zone 1A (5 to 30 feet from the structures and decks), and a 70-foot wide Zone 2B (30 to 100 feet from the structures and decks) for a total of 100 feet in width. An additional 100-foot wide thinning zone (Zone 3C) is required for the areas adjacent to natural-vegetated, open space areas (north of PA1). Per VCFD, the full 100-foot defensible space zone from project buildings is required by the VCFPD Ordinance 31. Any portion off-site will be the responsibility of that affected property owner. VCFD is proposing a development condition to have the Hitch Ranch Project be responsible for the potion of the 100-foot zone off-site until such time the affected off-site properties develop To ensure long-term identification and maintenance, a fuel modification area shall be identified by a permanent zone marker meeting the approval of VCFD. All markers will be located along the perimeter of the fuel modification area at a minimum of 500 feet apart or at any direction change of the fuel modification zone boundary. FMZs will be maintained on at least an annual basis or more often as needed to maintain the fuel modification buffer function. Zone 0 – from the structure outward 5 feet Zone 0 reduces the likelihood of structure ignition by reducing the potential for direct ignition of the structure from flame contact, by embers that accumulate at the base of a wall, and/or indirect ignitions when embers ignite vegetation, vegetation debris or other combustible materials located close to the structure that result in either a radiant heat and/or a direct flame contact exposure to the structure. Zone 0 is the horizontal area within the first five feet around the structure, any outbuildings, and attached decks, and stairs. Zone 0 is measured from the edge of a structure, attached decks, patio covers, balconies, and floor projections above grade. The zone also includes the area under attached decks and stair landings. The requirements and allowable items in the “lean” or no planting Zone 0 include the following: a. Ground cover not exceeding three-inches in height b. Non-woody small herbaceous or succulent plants not exceeding two (2) feet high. Plants shall be spaced a minimum of two-times the height from other plants. c. Plants shall have a minimum clearance of two-times the plant height below and adjacent to windows or other openings into the structure, including vents. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 593 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 43 July 2021April 2022 d. All ground cover and plants shall be set back from structures and decks one-time the height of the plant or 12-inches, whichever is greater. e. Vines and climbing plants are not allowed on structures, including decks, patio/shade structures, and any fences within 5 feet of a building. f. No combustible landscape mulch or wood chips. Use clear soil, rocks, gravel, or concrete. g. No trees. See Section 3.2.2a of VCFD Standard 515 regarding tree canopy setback from structures. h. Firewood is prohibited in Zone 0. i. Vegetation is prohibited underneath any deck. j. Other fuels underneath decks may be limited and shall not cause an ignition due to embers. k. Vegetation on decks shall meet the requirements of this zone regardless of the distance to the structure. l. VCFD highly recommends no combustible fences and gates within five (5) feet of a structure or deck. The new State Zone 0 Regulations currently under development may prohibit these in 2023 and also may require removal of existing installations starting in 2024. Note: As required by State Law, regulations for Zone 0 are under development by the State Board of Forestry and are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2023, for all new buildings and January 1, 2024, for all existing buildings. Any State regulation more restrictive than this standard will apply. Zone 1A – 5 feet from the structure outward to minimum 30 feet) Zone 1A reduces the likelihood of fire burning directly to the structure. This is accomplished by modifying fuels and creating a discontinuity between planting groups that limits the pathways for fire to burn to the structure and reduces the potential for near-to-building ember generation and radiant heat exposures. An additional purpose of this zone is to provide a defendable area for fire personnel to stage and take direct action. Zone 1 is an area within 5 to 30 feet of structures and decks with slopes not greater than 20 percent; 5 to 50 feet from buildings and decks when slopes are greater than 20 percent. is applicable site wide and is a limited planting area measured from the structure outward to 30 feet (horizontal), or to the property line in all directions. The requirements and allowable items in a minimal planting and very limited trees of a fire-resistive type Zone 1 include the following: a. Trees shall be spaced to allow a minimum 10-feet of clearance next to a structure. b. Firewood shall be relocated outside Zone 1 unless completely covered in a secured, fire-resistant enclosure or covered with a secured, fire-resistant material, and not exceeding 1,000-cubic feet. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 594 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 44 July 2021April 2022 a. 0 to 5 feet from structure includes very low growing (three-inch high), high water content ground cover and few small shrubs (two-foot high). No landscape mulch or wood chips. Use clear soils, rocks, gravel, or concrete. No trees. This is a recommended no planting zone. b.c. 5 to 30 feet from structure includes minimal plantings including ground cover and shrubs. Limited trees of a very fire resistive type and additional spacing. Trees should be spaced to allow a minimum 10-foot clearance to structure at full maturity. See Table 6, VCFD FMZ Spacing Requirements. c.d. Plants and trees identified as “Target” (undesirable plants) by VCFD shall not be planted within Zone 1A. See Appendix D – VCFD’s Suggested Plant Reference Guide and Appendix E – VCFD Prohibited Plant List. Zone 2B – from outer edge of Zone 1A to 100 feet from structure Zone 2 is designed to reduce the potential behavior of an oncoming fire in such a way as to drop an approaching fire from the crown of trees to the ground, reducing the flame heights, and the potential for ember generation and radiant heat exposure to structures. Additional benefits of the Zone 2include facilitating direct defense actions and improving the function of Zone 0 and 1. Zone 2 is the area from the outer edge of Zone 1 to 100 feet from structures and decks.B is applicable site wide and is the area measured from the outer edge of Zone A to 100 feet from the structure. This zone includes plantings including ground cover and shrubs. Limited trees of a very fire resistive type and additional spacing. Trees should be spaced to allow a minimum 10-foot clearance to structure at full maturity. See Table 36, VCFD FMZ Spacing Requirements of VCFD Standard 515.. Zone 3C – Thinning Zone (from outer edge of Zone 2B to 200 feet from structure) Zone 3 is considered a thinning zone and is any FMZ greater than 100 feet from structures and decks. When provided, either by condition of development, voluntary by the property owner, or required by the Fire Department, this zone is more of a progressive thinning zone to lessen spread of fire as it approaches the primary FMZ adjacent to structures. The amount of fuel reduction and removal should take into consideration the type and density of fuels, aspect, topography, weather patterns, and fire history.C is considered a thinning zone and is any FMZ greater than 100 feet from structures. When provided, either by conditions of development, voluntary by the property owner, or required by the VCFD, this zone is more of a progressive thinning zone to lessen spread of fire as it approa ches the primary FMZ adjacent to structures. The amount of fuel reduction and removal should take into consideration the type and density of fuels, aspect, topography, weather patterns, and fire history. Table 6. VCFD Fuel Modification Zone Spacing Requirements Type of Vegetation Maximum Height (H) Maximum Area / Diameter (W) Slope Percentage / Minimum Spacing (S) 1 Ground Cover 6-inches Max N/A N/A Mosaic Grouping of Ground Cover (GC) >6 - 18-inches Groupings shall not exceed 500 square feet without minimum spacing (S) to next grouping <20%: 2 x GC height (H) 20%-40%: 4 x GC height (H) >40%: 6 x GC height (H) Single Shrub 6 feet Max 4 feet diameter <20%: 2 x shrub height (H) 20%-40%: 4 x shrub height (H) Formatted Table Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 595 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 45 July 2021April 2022 >40%: 6 x shrub height (H) Grouping of Shrubs 4 feet Max Groupings shall not exceed 50 square feet without minimum spacing (S) to next grouping <20%: 20 feet 20%-40%: 40 feet >40%: Not allowed Single Tree N/A N/A <20%: 10 feet 20%-40%: 20 feet >40%: 30 feet 1 Spacing (S) Notes: a. Spacing measured canopy at maturity b. Ground cover up to 3-inches high, when approved, may be installed within the required clear space (S) between groups. If natural or annual grasses are used, they shall be mowed to a maximum height of 3-inches stubble with chippings removed. c. Ground cover under tree canopies, when approved, shall have a clear distance above the ground cover a minimum 3 times the height of the ground cover (3H) to the lowest branch of the tree canopy and shall not be within 3 feet of the trunk of the tree. Additional FMZ requirements: • Highly flammable trees are not allowed unless approved by the Fire Code Official • The horizontal distance between crowns of trees and crowns of adjacent trees, overhead electrical facilities, or unmodified fuel is not less than 15 feet. • The vertical clearance distance above any roof is not less than 3 feet. • The horizontal and vertical clearance to any chimney or heat producing device is not less than 10 feet. • Trees exceeding 6 feet in height shall be limbed up from the ground 5 feet or 1/3 t he height of the tree, whichever is less. • All plants and trees shall be maintained free of deadwood, leaves, and limbs that can increase ability to ignite and/or carry fire. This includes dried palm fronds. • Tree litter shall not exceed 2-inch depth underneath the canopies. • Where tree canopies touch or extend past the 100-foot defensible space zone, there shall be a clear area from the edge of the tree canopy to the brush of not less than 15 feet; which may require clearance outside the 100-foot zone. • Roofs and gutters on buildings shall be maintained free of any leaves, needles, or other vegetative materials. • Mulch and wood chips shall comply with VCFD Standard 517. Not allowed within 5 feet of structures. • Irrigation is not required for any defensible space or FMZ. 6.6.1.2 Other Vegetation Management Roadway-Adjacent Defensible Space As required under the Ventura County Fire Code, an area of 10 feet from each side of fire apparatus access roads and driveways in addition to an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6-inches above the roadways. Roadside fuel modification consists of mowing grasses to six-inches in height and/or maintaining ornamental landscapes, including trees, clear of dead and dying plant materials. Roadside fuel modification shall be maintained by the HOA. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 596 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 46 July 2021April 2022 Stormwater Basins Fire-safe vegetation management will be performed within the basins on a yearly basis in accordance with the following guidelines. 1. Any portion of the stormwater basin that is within 100 feet of a structure will be required to comply with the full regulations for defensible space. 1.2. Groundcovers or shrubs included in the basin shall be low-growing with a maximum height at maturity of 18-36 inches. Single tree specimens or groupings of two to three trees per grouping of fire resistive trees or tree form shrubs may exceed this limitation if they are located to reduce the chance of transmitting fire from vegetation to habitable structures and if the vertical distance between the lowest branches of the large, trees or tree form shrubs and the tops of adjacent plants are three times the hei ght of the adjacent plants to reduce the spread of fire through ladder fueling. 2.3. All trees shall be planted and maintained at a minimum of 10 feet from the tree’s mature drip line to any combustible structure. 3.4. The water detention basin area will be irrigated and maintained to brush management Zones 0, 1, and 2 standards. 4.5. Grasses must be maintained/mowed to 6 inches in height. 5.6. The water quality basins will not be re-vegetated with plant species that are found on the VCFD’s Prohibited Plant List (Appendix E). 6.7. This area shall be maintained annually free of dying and dead vegetation. 7.8. Trees adjacent to the basin’s access road shall be maintained at a vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6-inches for access into the interior of the basin. Special Fuel Management Issues On the Proposed Project site, tree planting in the fuel modification zones and along roadways is acceptable, as long as they meet the following restrictions as described below and in the County’s Fire Code and the VCFD’s Standard 515 – Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones spacing requirements: • For streetscape plantings, trees should be planted 10 feet from edge of curb to center of tree trunk. Care should be given to the type of tree selected, that it will not encroach into the roadway, or produce a closed canopy effect. • Crowns of trees located within defensible space shall comply with VCFD Standard 515 when located within Zones 0, 1, and 2; tree crowns must maintain a minimum horizontal clearance of 2015 feet for a single tree. Mature trees shall be pruned to remove limbs one-third the height or 65 feet, whichever is less, above the ground surface adjacent to the trees. • Dead wood and litter shall be regularly removed from trees. • Ornamental trees shall comply with VCFD Standard 515 when located within Zones 0, 1, and 2; ornamental trees shall be limited to groupings of 2–3 trees with canopies for each grouping separated horizontally as described in Table 3 of the VCFD Standard 5156. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 597 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 47 July 2021April 2022 Specific Landscaping Requirements The following requirements are provided for HOA-maintained fuel modification zones. All landscaping shall be maintained by the HOA. Plants used in the fuel modification areas or landscapes will include drought-tolerant, fire resistive trees, shrubs, and groundcovers; no invasive plants to be included in the landscape. The planting list and spacing will be reviewed and approved by VCFD, included on submitted landscape plans. The plantings will be consistent with VCFD’s Suggested Plant Reference Guide (Appendix D)7. The intent of the suggested plant reference guide is to provide examples of plants that are less prone to ignite or spread flames to other vegetation and combustible structures during a wildfire. Additional Plants can be added to the landscape plant material palette with the approval from VCFD. Pre-Construction Requirements • Perimeter fuel modification areas must be implemented and approved by the VCFD prior to combustible materials being brought on site. • Existing flammable vegetation shall be reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of construction. • Dead fuel, ladder fuel (fuel which can spread fire from ground to trees), and downed fuel shall be removed and trees/shrubs shall be properly limbed, pruned, and spaced per this plan. Undesirable Plants Certain plants are considered to be undesirable in the landscape due to characteristics that make them highly flammable. These characteristics can be physical or chemical. The plants included in the VCFD Prohibited Plant List (Appendix E) are unacceptable from a fire safety standpoint, and shall not be planted on the site unless otherwise approved by the VCFD8. 6.6.2 Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance All fuel modification area vegetation management shall be completed annually by May 1 of each year and more often as needed for fire safety, as determined by the VCFD. The individual homeowners shall be responsible for all fuel modification vegetation management on their lots in compliance with this plan and the VCFD requirements. The Hitch Ranch Community HOA shall be responsible for all fuel modification vegetation management for all common areas, roadsides clearance, fuel modification zones, any retention basins, medians, planters, parks, etc. The HOA will assure private homeowner lots comply with this plan initially and on an ongoing basis. Chapter 7A requirements for ongoing maintenance of fire resistive building materials and fire sprinkler systems will be included in the C, C and R's and Deed encumbrances for each lot. 7 Note that the current VCFD Plant Reference Guide may be updated, and the current versions must be used when designing and submitting landscape /fuel modification plans. 8 Note that the current VCFD Prohibited Plant List may be updated, and the current versions must be used when designing and submitting landscape /fuel modification plans. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 598 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 48 July 2021April 2022 Additionally, the project HOA shall be responsible for ensuring long-term funding and ongoing compliance with fuel modification and maintenance requirements with all provisions of this report. Maintenance of FMZ’s and Defensible Space is an important component for long term fire safety of the Project. Maintenance obligations will be as follows: Hitch Ranch HOA: • Maintenance of access roads, includes a minimum of 10 feet clearance on each side of road(s). • Annual Maintenance of FMZs (or as needed) • Maintenance of all common areas, including trees planted along roadways and in other areas throughout project. Resident/Homeowner: • Maintenance of vegetation on individual property lots. 6.6.3 Annual Fuel Modification Zone Compliance Inspection To confirm that the Proposed Project’s FMZs and landscape areas are being maintained according to this FPPs and the VCFD’s requirements, the VCFD will conduct annual inspections within the community to determine fuel modification zone compliance. Project HOA would obtain an FMZ inspection and report from a qualified VCFD- approved 3rd party inspector in May of each year certifying that vegetation management activities throughout the project site have been performed. If the FMZ areas are not compliant, the Hitch Ranch HOA will have a specified period to correct any noted issues so that a re-inspection can occur, and certification can be achieved. Annual inspection fees are subject to the current Fire Department Fee Schedule. 6.6.4 Construction Phase Vegetation Management Vegetation management requirements shall be implemented at commencement and throughout the construction phase. Vegetation management for the Proposed Project area shall be performed pursuant to this FPP and VCFPD Ordinance 31, Appendix V for fire safety requirements in Hazardous Fire Areas that will be applicable requirements on the property site prior to the start of work, and prior to any import of combustible construction materials, and during construction. Adequate firebreaks that are at least 50 feet wide shall be created around all grading, site work, and other construction activities in areas where there is flammable vegetation. Combustible Materials will not be brought on site without prior fire department approval. In addition to the requirements outlined above, the project will comply with the following important risk-reducing vegetation management guidelines: • All new power lines shall be underground for fire safety during high wind conditions or during fires on a right-of- way that can expose aboveground power lines. Temporary construction power lines may be allowed in areas that have been cleared of combustible vegetation. • Caution must be used not to cause erosion or ground (including slope) instability or water runoff due to vegetation removal, vegetation management, maintenance, landscaping, or irrigation. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 599 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 49 July 2021April 2022 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 600 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 50 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 601 12271 51 July 2021April 2022 Figure 5 Conceptual Fuel Modification Map Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 602 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 52 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 603 12271 53 July 2021April 2022 7 Alternative Materials and Methods for Non-Conforming Fuel Modification As previously mentioned, due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve the standard FMZ width on the entire east side of the development within Planning Area 3. The Project’s eastern property line can only provide an area between 68 and 121 feet of structural setback from off-site fuel beds. As such, this FPP describes additional measures that will be implemented to mitigate the non-conforming fire related threats and proposed reduced fuel modification zones. These measures are customized for this site based on the analysis results and focus on providing functional equivalency as a County-defined, full fuel modification zone. As experienced in numerous wildfires, including the most recent fire storms in Ventura and San Diego Counties, homes in the WUI are potential fuel. The distance between the wildland fire that is consuming wildland fuel and the home (“urban fuel”) is the primary factor for structure ignition (not including burning embers). The closer a fire is to a structure, the higher the level of heat exposure (Cohen 2000). However, studies indicate that given certain assumptions (e.g., 10 meters of low fuel landscape, no open windows), wildfire does not spread to homes unless the fuel and heat requirements (of the home) are sufficient for ignition and continued combustion (Cohen 1995, Alexander et al. 1998). Construction materials and methods can prevent or minimize ignitions. Similar case studies indicate that with nonflammable roofs and vegetation modification from 10 –18 meters (roughly 32–60 feet) in southern California fires, 85–95% of the homes survived (Howard et al. 1973, Foote and Gilless 1996). Similarly, San Diego County after fire assessments indicate strongly that the building codes are working in preventing home loss: of 15,000 structures within the 2003 fire perimeter, 17% (1,050) were damaged or destroyed. However, of the 400 structures built to the 2001 codes (the most recent at the time), only 4% (16) were damaged or destroyed. Further, of the 8,300 homes that were within the 2007 fire perimeter, 17% were damaged or destroyed. A much smaller percentage (3%) of the 789 homes that were built to 2001 codes were impacted and an even smaller percentage (2%) of the 1,218 structures built to the 2004 Codes were impacted (IBHS 2008 ). Damage to the structures built to the latest codes is likely from flammable landscape plantings or objects next to structures or open windows or doors (Hunter 2007). These results support Cohen’s (2000) findings that if a community’s homes have a sufficiently low home ignitability, the community can survive exposure to wildfire without major fire destruction. This provides the option of mitigating the wildland fire threat to homes/structures at the residential location without extensive wildland fuel reduction. Cohen’s (1995) studies suggest, as a rule-of-thumb, larger flame lengths and widths require wider fuel modification zones to reduce structure ignition. For example, valid SIAM results indicate that a 20-foot high flame has minimal radiant heat to ignite a structure (bare wood) beyond 33 feet (horizontal distance). Whereas, a 70-foot-high flame may require about 130 feet of clearance to prevent structure ignitions from radiant heat (Cohen and Butler 1996). This study utilized bare wood, which is more combustible than the ignition resistant exterior walls for structures built today. Fire behavior modeling conducted for this project indicates that fires in the moderate to high load shrub and chaparral north of the Project Site would result in roughly 42- to 87-foot flame lengths under fall, extreme weather conditions. The proposed FMZ is twice the length of the predicted flame length. As indicated in this report, the FMZs and additional fire protection measures proposed for the eastern portion of the development provide equivalent wildfire buffer but are not standard zones. Rather, they are based on a variety of analysis criteria including predicted flame length, fire intensity (Btu), site topography and vegetation, extreme and typical weather, position of structures on pads, position of roadways, adjacent fuels, fire history, current vs. proposed land use, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 604 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 54 July 2021April 2022 neighboring communities relative to the proposed project, and type of construction. The fire intensity research conducted by Cohen (1995) and Cohen and Butler (1996) supports the fuel modification alternatives proposed for this project. 7.1 Additional Structure Protection Measures The following additional measures will be implemented to “mitigate” potential structure fire exposure related to the provided reduced FMZs for the eastern edge of the development. These measures are customized for this site, its unique topographical and vegetative conditions, and focus on providing functional equivalency as a full fuel modification zone. It should be noted that a fully developed Senior Living Project is proposed for development along the eastern edge of the Hitch Ranch development, from the existing homes off Casey Road up to the proposed North Hills Parkway. If that project site is under development prior to Hitch Ranch beginning construction in this area, then additional mitigations would not be necessary. If Hitch Ranch begins construction prior to the neighboring Senior Living Project development, then compensating measures are proposed. In order to provide compensating structural protection in the absence of a 100-foot wide FMZ, and in addition to the residences being built to the latest ignition resistant codes, these structures will also include the following features for additional fire prevention, protection, and suppression: 1. The proposed Triplex structures along the eastern edge of the development within PA3 that are adjacent to existing homes off Casey Road, shall be constructed with multi- pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane windows (see Figure 5); 2. The remaining Triplex structures along the eastern edge of the development within PA3 are exposed to natural vegetation. Depending on the timing of development of the proposed Senior Living project which currently is not developed, the remaining Triplex structures within the Hitch Ranch development along the eastern edge of the development shall implement either; a.) if the proposed Senior Living development begins construction prior to the Hitch Ranch Project development begins construction, then dual pane single tempered windows will be acceptable, or b.) if the Senior Living development has not begun construction prior to Hitch Ranch Project construction at this site, then dual pane, dual tempered windows will be required for the Hitch Ranch developments that are north of the existing homes off Casey Road up to proposed North Hills Parkway, exceeding the CBC Chapter 7A code requirement (see Figure 5). 3. Provide a noncombustible, 6-foot high concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall at the top of the manufactured slopes behind the units within PA3 along the eastern property boundary. These walls will be installed to function as heat-deflecting walls. The information provided herein supports the ability of the proposed structures and FMZs to withstand the predicted short duration, low to moderate intensity wildfire and ember shower that would be expected from wildfire burning in the vicinity of the site or within the site’s landscape. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 605 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 55 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 606 12271 56 July 2021April 2022 8 Homeowner’s Association Wildfire Education Program The residents and visitors of the Proposed Project will be provided a proactive educational component disclosing the potential wildfire risk and this report’s requirements. This educational information must include maintaining the landscape and structural components according to the appropriate standards and embracing a “Ready! Set! Go!”9 stance on evacuation. The “Ready! Set! Go!” informational packet and other VCFD standards and ordinances can be found on the VCFD’s website at vcfd.org. VCFD will review and approve all wildfire educational material/programs before printing and distributing. 9 https://vcfd.org/images/ready-set-go/VCFD-RSG-Wildfire-Action-Plan-Booklet-2016.pdf Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 607 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 57 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 608 12271 58 July 2021April 2022 9 Conclusion This FPP is submitted in support of an application for project entitlement of the Hitch Ranch mixed-density residential development project. It is submitted in compliance with requirements of the VCFPD Ordinance’s and the Ventura County Fire Code. The requirements in this document meet fire safety, building design elements, fuel management/modification, and landscaping recommendations of the VCFD. Fire and Building Codes and other local, county, and state regulations in effect at the time of each building permit application supersede these recommendations unless the FPP recommendation is more restrictive. Where the project does not strictly comply with the Code, alternative materials and methods have been proposed that provide functional equivalency as the code intent. The recommendations provided in this FPP have been designed specifically for the proposed construction of residential dwelling units within the vicinity of a very high fire hazard severity zone on the Proposed Project site. The project site’s fire protection system includes a redundant layering of code compliant fire-resistant construction materials and methods that have been shown through post-fire damage assessments to reduce risk of structural ignition. Ignition resistant landscaping would occur throughout the site. Fuel modification will be installed on the Proposed Project’s perimeter which abuts open space located north and west of and adjacent to the project. The site’s landscaping will be maintained throughout each year and an inspection will be funded by the Hitch Ranch Community HOA to ensure compliance with this FPP and fire safe plant palettes, planting densities and spacing. The site improvements are designed to facilitate emergency apparatus and personnel access to all portions of the site. Three existing dead end roads that are adjacent to the site wo uld be eliminated through interconnections, improving overall circulation and evacuation options.Roads and driveways meeting the code width standards and including fire engine turnarounds provide access to within 150 feet of all sides of every building. Water availability and flow via the VCWWD No. 1 will be consistent with VCFD requirements including fire flow, residual pressure and hydrant distribution. These features along with the ignition resistance of all dwelling units, the interior sprinklers, and the pre-planning, training and awareness will assist responding firefighters through prevention, protection and suppression capabilities. Ultimately, it is the intent of this FPP to guide, through code and other project specific requirements, the construction of structures that are defensible from wildfire and, in turn, do not represent significant threat of ignition source for the adjacent communities. It must be noted that during extreme fire conditions in a VHFHSZ, there are no guarantees that a given structure will not burn. Precautions and mitigating actions identified in this report are designed to reduce the likelihood that fire would impinge upon the proposed structures. There are no guarantees that fire will not occur in the area or that fire will not damage property or cause harm to persons or their property. Implementation of the required enhanced construction features provided by the applicable codes and the mitigating fuel modification requirements provided in this FPP will accomplish the goal of this FPP to assist firefighters in their efforts to defend these structures and reduce the risk associated with this project’s WUI location. For maximum benefit, the developer, contractors, engineers, and architects are responsible for proper implementation of the concepts and requirements set forth in this report. Homeowners and HOA are responsible to maintain their structures and landscaping as required by this report, the applicable Fire Code, and the VCFD. While wildfires under extreme wind con ditions can be unpredictable, the project has been designed with a layered system of Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 609 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 59 July 2021April 2022 protections and would include the necessary features to perform well during wildfires. With these features, the project would be considered a “Fire Safe” project.” This FPP does not provide a guarantee that all residents or visitors will be safe at all times because of the advanced fire protection features it requires. There are many variables that may influence overall safety. This FPP provides requirements and recommendations for implementation of the latest fire protection features that have proven to result in reduced wildfire related hazard, resulting in reduced risk. Even then, fire can compromise the fire protection features through various, unpredictable ways. The goal is to reduce the likelihood that the system is compromised through implementation of the elements of this FPP and a regular occurring maintenance program It is recommended that the homeowners or other occupants who may reside within the Hitch Ranch development adopt a conservative approach to fire safety. This approach must include maintaining the landscape and structural components according to the appropriate standards and embracing a “Ready, Set, Go” stance on evacuation. This project is not to be considered a shelter-in-place development. However, the fire agencies and/or law enforcement officials may, during an emergency, as they would for any new development providing the layers of fire protection as Hitch Ranch development, determine that it is safer to temporarily refuge clients or visitors on the site. When an evacuation is ordered, it will occur according to pre-established evacuation decision points or as soon as notice to evacuate is received, which may vary depending on many environmental and other factors. Fire is a dynamic and somewhat unpredictable occurrence and it is important for anyone living at the WUI to educate themselves on practices that will improve safety. The goal of the fire protection features, both required and those offered above and beyond the Codes, provided for the Hitch Ranch Project is to provide the structures with the ability to survive a wildland fire with little intervention of firefighting forces. Preventing ignition to structures results in reduction of the exposure of firefighters and residents to hazards that threaten personal safety. It will also reduce property damage and losses. Mitigating ignition hazards and fire spread potential reduces the threat to structures and can help the fire department optimize the deployment of personnel and apparatus during a wildfire. The analysis in this FPP provides support and justifications for acceptance of the proposed fuel modification zones for Hitch Ranch development based on the site specific fire environment. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 610 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 60 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 611 12271 61 July 2021April 2022 10 List of Preparers Project Manager Michael Huff Fire Protection Planner; San Diego County California Environmental Quality Act Consultant List Dudek Fire Behavior Modeling and Plan Preparer Noah Stamm Fire Protection Planner Dudek Computer Aided Design/Drafting Lesley Terry CADD Specialist Dudek Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 612 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 62 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 613 12271 63 July 2021April 2022 11 References Albus-Keefe and Associates, Inc. 2019. Geologic Assessment of Surface Fault Rupture Potential, Hitch Ranch, Tentative Tract 5708, City of Moorpark, California. April 2019. Alexander, M.E.; Stocks, B.J.; Wotton, B.M.; Flannigan, M.D.; Todd, J.B.; Butler, B.W.; Lanoville, R.A. 1998. The international crown fire modeling experiment: an overview and progress report. In: Proceedings of the second symposium on fire and forest meteorology; 1998 January 12–14; Phoenix, Arizona. Boston, Massachusetts: American Meteorological Society; 20–23. Amicus – Strategic Environmental Consulting. 2017. Comstock Hitch Ranch Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. December 2017. Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report INT-122. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf. Andrews, P.L. 1980. Testing the fire behavior model. In Proceedings 6th confer ence on fire and forest meteorology. April 22–24, 1980. Seattle, WA: Society of American Foresters. Pp. 70 –77. Andrews, Patricia L.; Collin D. Bevins; and Robert C. Seli. 2008. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 3.0: User’s Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-106 Ogden, Utah: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 132p. Barringer Biological Services. 2019. Hitch Ranch Project. City of Moorpark, Ventura County. 2019 Biological Survey Update. Debra Barringer, April 2019. Brown, J.K. 1972. Field test of a rate-of-fire-spread model in slash fuels. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. Int-116. 24 p. Brown, J.K. 1982. Fuel and fire behavior prediction in big sagebrush. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT-290. 10p. Bushey, C.L. 1985. Comparison of observed and predicted fire behavior in the sagebrush/ bunchgrass vegetation- type. In J.N. Long (ed.), Fire management: The challenge of protection and use: Proceedings of a symposium. Society of American Foresters. Logan, UT. April 17–19, 1985. Pp. 187–201. CAL FIRE. 2018. Fire and Resource Assessment Program. California Department of Forestry and Fire. Website access via http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/select.asp?theme=5. Cohen, Jack D. 1995. Structure ignition assessment model (SIAM). In: Weise, D.R.; Martin, R.E., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the Biswell symposium: fire issues and solutions in urban interface and wildland ecosystems. 1994 February 1517; Walnut Creek, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-158. Albany, California: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 85–92 Cohen, J.D. 2000. Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. Journal of Forestry 98(3): 15–21. Cohen, J.D. and Butler, B.W. [In press]. 1996. Modeling potential ignitions from flame radiation exposure with implications for wildland/urban interface fire management. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on fire and Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 614 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 64 July 2021April 2022 forest meteorology. October 27–31; Lorne, Victoria, Australia. Fairfield, Washington: International Association of Wildland Fire. Cohen, J.D. and Saveland, J. 1997. Structure Ignition Assessment Can Help Reduce Fire Damages in the W-UI. Fire Management Notes 57(4): 19–23. Cohen, Jack and Steve Quarles. 2011. Structure Ignition Assessment Model; The Origins and Basis of SIAM. From presentation at the 2011 NFPA Wildland Fire - Backyard and Beyond Conference in October 2011. County of Ventura. 2019. Ventura County General Plan (March 19, 2019). Online at https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/plans/Goals-Policies-and-Programs.pdf FireFamily Plus 2008. http://www.firelab.org/project/firefamilyplus. Foote, Ethan I.D.; Gilless, J. Keith. 1996. Structural survival. In: Slaughter, Rodney, ed. California's I-zone. Sacramento, California: CFESTES; 112–121. FRAP (Fire and Resource Assessment Program). 2018. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/. Grabner, K., J. Dwyer, and B. Cutter. 1994. “Validation of Behave Fire Behavior Predictions in Oak Savannas Using Five Fuel Models.” Proceedings from 11th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. 14 p. Grabner, K.W. 1996. “Validation of BEHAVE fire behavior predictions in established oak savannas.” M.S. thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia. Grabner, K.W., J.P. Dwyer, and B.E. Cutter. 2001. “Fuel model selection for BEHAVE in Midwestern oak savannas.” Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 18: 74–80. Howard, Ronald A.; North, D. Warner; Offensend, Fred L.; Smart, Charles N. 1973. Decision analysis of fire protection strategy for the Santa Monica Mountains: an initial assessment. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute. 159 p. Hunter, Cliff. 2007. Personal communication with Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District Fire Marshal following after-fire loss assessments. Impact Sciences, Inc., 2013. Hitch Ranch Specific Plan EIR. January 2013. Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS). 2008. Megafires: The Case for Mitigation. 48 pp. Keeley, J.E. and S.C. Keeley. 1984. Post fire recovery of California coastal sage scrub. The American Midland Naturalist 111:105-117. Keeley, J.E. and C.J. Fotheringham. 2003. “Impact of Past, Present, and Future Fire Regimes on North American Mediterranean Shrublands.” In Fire and Climatic Change in Temperate Ecosystems of the Western Americas, edited by T.T. Veblem, W.L. Baker, G. Montenegro, and T.W. Swetnam, 218–262. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 615 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 65 July 2021April 2022 Keeley, J.E. 2004. “Invasive Plants and Fire Management in California Mediterranean-Climate Ecosystems.” Edited by M. Arianoutsou. In 10th MEDECOS-International Conference on Ecology, Conservation Management. Rhodes, Greece. Lawson, B.D. 1972. Fire spread in lodgepole pine stands. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 110 p. thesis. Linn, R. 2003. “Using Computer Simulations to Study Complex Fire Behavior.” Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS D401. Los Alamos, NM. Marsden-Smedley, J.B. and W.R. Catchpole. 1995. Fire behaviour modelling in Tasmanian buttongrass moorlands. II. Fire behaviour. International Journal of Wildland Fire. Volume 5(4), pp. 215–228. McAlpine, R.S. and G. Xanthopoulos. 1989. Predicted vs. observed fire spread rates in Ponderosa pine fuel beds: a test of American and Canadian systems. In Proceedings 10th conference on fire and forest meteorology, April 17–21, 1989. Ottawa, Ontario. pp. 287–294. NFPA 72. Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Signaling Systems for Central Station Service. NFPA 1144. Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire. 2008. Technical Committee on Forest and Rural Fire Protection. Issued by the Standards Council on June 4, 2007, with an effective date of June 24, 2007. Approved as an American National Standard on June 24, 2007. Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2019. Biological Resources Assessment Report. KB Home Coastal Property, San Marcos, California. January 2019. Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report INT-143. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment, Ogden, UT. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24635. Scott, Joe H. and Robert E. Burgan. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p. Shroeder, M.J. and C.C. Buck. 1970. Fire weather – A guide for application of meteorological information to forest fire control operation. USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 36D. Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2017. Ventura County Fire Protection District Ordinance Number 29. Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2019. Ventura County Fire Protection District Ordinance Number 31. Ventura County Fire Protection District. 202111. Ventura Unit Strategic Fire Plan. Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2019. Standard 501 – Fire Apparatus Access Standard. Revised February 24, 2022September 30, 2019. Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2020. Standard 515 – Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones. Revised November 20, 2020February 15, 2022. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 616 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 66 July 2021April 2022 Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2020. Standard 517 – Application of Mulch and Chips in Defensible Space. Revised February 24, 2022November 20, 2020. Ventura County Public Health Department. 2004. Emergency Medical Services Plan. Weise, D.R. and J. Regelbrugge. 1997. Recent chaparral fuel modeling efforts. Prescribed Fire and Effects Research Unit, Riverside Fire Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 5p. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 617 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 67 July 2021April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 618 Appendix A Representative Site Photograph Log Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 619 Appendix B Fire History Map Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 620 Appendix C BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 621 Appendix D VCFD’s Plant Reference Guide Suggested Plant List for a Defensible Space Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 622 Appendix E VCFD Prohibited Plant List Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 623 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared for: Ventura County Fire Department 165 Durley Avenue Camarillo, California 93010 Applicant: Comstock Homes 2301 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 1150 El Segundo, California 90245 Contact: Ms. Harriet Rapista Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Michael Huff, Project Manager APRIL 2022 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 624 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 625 12271 i April 2022 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ V 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.2 Hitch Ranch Project Description .............................................................................................. 2 1.1.3 Current Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.4 Proposed Land Use ................................................................................................................... 3 2 HITCH RANCH PROPOSED PROJECT SITE RISK ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 12 2.1 Environmental Setting and Field Assessment ................................................................................... 12 2.2 Site Characteristics and Fire Environment ........................................................................................ 12 2.2.1 Topography ............................................................................................................................. 12 2.2.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Vegetation (Fuels) .................................................................................................................. 13 2.2.4 Vegetation Dynamics (Fuel Loads) ....................................................................................... 15 2.2.5 Fire History ............................................................................................................................. 15 3 DETERMINATION OF PROJECT EFFECTS ..................................................................................................... 19 4 ANTICIPATED FIRE BEHAVIOR ..................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Fire Behavior Modeling ....................................................................................................................... 23 4.1.1 Fuel Model Output Existing Results ...................................................................................... 23 4.2 On-Site Fire Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................. 25 5 EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND SERVICE...................................................................................................... 30 5.1 Emergency Response .......................................................................................................................... 30 5.2 Emergency Service Level .................................................................................................................... 31 5.2.1 Cumulative Impacts on Fire Response ................................................................................. 32 6 BUILDINGS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEFENSIBLE SPACE .......................................................................... 34 6.1 Fire Access ........................................................................................................................................... 34 6.1.1 Primary .................................................................................................................................. 34 6.1.2 Secondary Access Roads and Gates.................................................................................... 35 6.1.3 Maximum Dead-End Road Length ........................................................................................ 36 6.1.4 Road Width and Circulation .................................................................................................. 36 6.1.5 Grade ...................................................................................................................................... 37 6.1.6 Surface ................................................................................................................................... 37 6.1.7 Vertical Clearance .................................................................................................................. 37 6.1.8 Premise Identification ............................................................................................................ 37 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 626 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 ii April 2022 6.2 Ignition Resistant Construction and Fire Protection Systems .......................................................... 37 6.3 Infrasture and Fire Protection Systems Requirements .................................................................... 38 6.3.1 Water ...................................................................................................................................... 39 6.3.2 Fire Hydrants .......................................................................................................................... 39 6.3.3 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems ......................................................................................... 39 6.3.4 Residential Hazard Detectors ............................................................................................... 39 6.4 Ongoing Building and Infrastructure Maintenance .................................................................................. 39 6.5 Pre-Construction Requirements ......................................................................................................... 39 6.6 Defensible Space and Vegetation Management ............................................................................... 40 6.6.1 Fuel Modification Zones ........................................................................................................ 40 6.6.2 Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance ................................................................. 45 6.6.3 Annual Fuel Modification Zone Compliance Inspection ...................................................... 46 6.6.4 Construction Phase Vegetation Management ..................................................................... 46 7 ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR NON-CONFORMING FUEL MODIFICATION ........................ 50 7.1 Additional Structure Protection Measures ......................................................................................... 51 8 HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION WILDFIRE EDUCATION PROGRAM ................................................................. 53 9 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 55 10 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................... 58 11 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 60 APPENDICES A Representative Site Photograph Log B Hitch Ranch Vicinity Fire History Map C BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis D VCFD's Plant Reference Guide E Prohibited Plant List Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 627 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 iii April 2022 SECTION PAGE NO. FIGURES 1 Project Site Location ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2 Moorpark Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map .......................................................................................................... 8 3 Hitch Ranch Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 10 4 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis Map .......................................................................................................... 28 5 Conceptual Fuel Modification Map .................................................................................................................. 48 TABLES 1 Project Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ................................................................................ 14 2 Fire History within Five Miles of the Hitch Ranch Project Site ........................................................................ 16 3 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results, Existing Conditions ................................................................. 23 4 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results, Post-Project Conditions .......................................................... 24 5 Ventura County Fire Department Responding Stations Summary ................................................................. 31 6 VCFC Fuel Modification Zone Spacing Requirements .................................................................................... 38 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 628 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 iv April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 629 12271 v April 2022 Executive Summary This Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for t he proposed Hitch Ranch mixed-density residential community Project (Proposed Project) that incorporates land uses for housing and recreational purposes. The Proposed Project would consist of the construction of 755 dwelling units on approximately 277.30 acres including 328 single-family dwelling units on approximately 46.91 acres and 427 multi-family dwelling units on approximately 26.47 acres (191 medium density units and 236 high density units), 32 open space lots, two (2) recreation space lots, and one (1) public park lot located within the City of Moorpark in the County of Ventura , California. The Proposed Project site is currently undeveloped and is located in the rolling hills north of Poindexter, east of Gabbert Road and west of Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23). The Proposed Project site is located approximately 0.5 miles south of the Moorpark County Club and bordered to the south by the Union Pacific R ailroa d track ROW, a commercial development park, existing single-family residences, and a middle school ; to the west by existing single -family residences; and to the east by single- family residences and an elementary school. The proposed development will be situated on seven parcels comprised of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN’s): APN’s 511-0-020-170, 511-0-020-110, 511-0-020- 130, 511-0-020-160, 511-0-020-180, 511-0-020-195, and 511-0-200-245. As part of the Proposed Project, access to the site will be improved by widening existing Casey Road to the east, extending High Street across the southern boundary of the Project site from Gabbert Road to the easterly boundary of the project, extending proposed North Hills Parkway across the center of the project site from Gabbert Road to the west to State Route 23 to the east, and from existing Meridian Hills Road to the north. As indicated in the Moorpark’s General Plan Circulation Element, access will be improved and area circulation and evacuation capabilities will be improved as the project eliminates three existing dead end roads by connecting them with project roads. The Hitch Ranch Proposed Project si te lies within an area considered a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by the Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Fire hazard designations are based on topogra phy, vegetation, and weather, amongst other factors. In summary, the pr oject is located in the western portion of the City of Moorpark, adjacent to open space areas to the north, is currently undeveloped and vacant, and is covered primarily by flashy grass fuels . The terrain on, and within the vicinity of the project, is char acterized by relatively flat slopes, with gradients reaching up to roughly 9%. The area, like all of Ventura County, is subject to seasonal weather conditions that can heighten the like lihood of fire ignition and spread, and, considering the site’s terrain and vegetation, may result in a moderate to fast moving and moderate -intensity wildfire. This FPP evaluates and identifies the potential fire risk associated with the Proposed Project’s land uses and identifies requirements for water supply, fuel modification and defensible space, access, building ignition and fire resistance, and fire protection systems, among other pertinent fire protection criteria. The purpose of this plan is to generate and memorialize the fire safety requirements and standards of the VCFD along with project-specific measures based on the site, its intended use, and its fire environment. The Proposed P roject site is within the jurisdiction of the VCFD. The VCFD operates two fire stations that would respond to an incident on the site, including Station Nos. 40 and 42. Based on the Hitch Ranch Project site location in relation to existing VCFD stations, travel time to the site for the first responding engine from Station 42 is less than 2 minutes to the proposed project entrance, on Casey Road. Travel within the development may reach up to 2 minutes, based on the longest proposed road stretch of approximately 0.80 miles, resulting in response time of less than 4 minutes for the entire development. Secondary response would arrive in less than 4 minutes. Based on these calculations, emergencies within the project can be responded to by VCFD’s first arriving unit Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 630 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 vi April 2022 (average maximum initial response of no more than 8.5 minutes for fire apparatus and 5 minutes for ambulance, 90% of calls) in accordance with the County’s emergency response standard. In addition, automatic/mutual aid agreements are in place with all surrounding communities and have been recently improved through the implementation of a computer aided dispatch system. As determined during the analysis of this site and its fire environment, the Proposed Project site, in its current condition, may include characteristics that, under favorable weather conditions, coul d have the potential to facilitate fire spread. Under extreme conditions, wind-driven wildfires from the east / northeast could cast embers onto the property. Once the Proposed Project community is built, the Hitch Ranch on-site fire potential will be lower than its current condition due to fire safety requirements that will be implemented on this site, including ignition resistant construction standards, requirements for water supply, fire apparatus access, fuel modification and defensible space, interior fire sprinklers and 8.5 minute or less fire response travel times were integrated into the code requirements and internal VCFD guidelines based on the County of Ventura Strategic Plan. When it became clear that specifics of how structures were built, how f ire and embers contributed to ignition of structures, what effects fuel modification had on structure ignition, how fast firefighters coul d respond, and how much (and how reliable) water was available, were critically important to structure survivability, the Fire and Building codes were revised appropriately. Ventura County now boast some of the most restrictive codes for building within W ildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas that focus on preventing structure ignition from heat, flame, and burning embers. As detailed in this FPP, the Hitch Ranch Project site’s fire protection approach will include a redundant layering of protection methods that have proven to reduce overall fire risk. The requirements and recommendations included herein are performance based rather than a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach. The fire protection approach is designed to reduce the wildfire hazards on the site, to minimize risks associated with proposed uses, and aid the responding firefighters during an emergency. No singular measure is intended to be relied upon for the site’s fire protection, but rather, a system of fire protection measures, methods, and features combine to result in enhanced fire safety, reduced fire potential, and a prepared community. Early evacuation for any type of wildfire emergency at the Hitch Ranch Proposed Project site is the preferred method of providing for safety, consistent with the VCFD’s current approach for evacuation. As such, the Hitch Ranch Project residents will be provided information on, encouraged to practice, and implement a “Ready, Set, Go!” (Ventura County Fire Department 2016) approach to site evacuation. The “Ready, Set, Go!” concept is widely known and encouraged by the state of California and most fire agencies, including the VCFD. Pre-planning for emergencies, including wildfire emergencies, focuses on being prepared, having a well-defined plan, minimizing potential for errors, maintaining the site’s fire protection systems, and implementing a conservative (evacuate as ear ly as possible) approach to evacuation and site uses during periods of fire weather extremes. Based on the results of this FPP’s analysis and findings, the following FPP implementation measures will be provided by the Hitch Ranch Proposed Project site. These measures are discussed in more detail throughout this FPP. •Project buildings will be constructed of ignition resistant1 construction materials and include automatic fire sprinkler systems based on the latest adopted Building and Fire Codes for occupancy types. 1 A type of building material that resists ignition or sustained flaming combustion sufficiently to reduce losses from wildland-urban interface conflagrations under worst-case weather and fuel conditions with wildfire exposure of burning embers and small flames, as prescribed in CBC, Chapter 7A and State Fire Marshal Standard 12-7A-5, Ignition-Resistant Materials. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 631 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 vii April 2022 •Project will provide up to 200 feet of Zone 0, Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 fuel modification, as described in VCFD Standard 515, Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones Standard, with additional fire protection measures, including dual-tempered dual pane window upgrade for facades facing the natural open space. The Ventura County Fire Department will conduct annual inspections to determine fuel modification zone compliance. •Landscape plantings wil l not utilize prohibited plants that have been found to be highly flammable (see Appendix E). •Fire apparatus access roads (i.e., public and private streets) will be provided throughout the development and will vary in width and configuration but will all provide at least the minimum required unobstructed travel lanes, lengths, turnouts, turnarounds, and clearances required by applicable codes. Primary access and internal circulation will comply with the requirements of the VCFD. •Buildings will be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems meeting requirements. •Water capacity and delivery provide for a reliable water source for operations and during emergencies requiring extended fire flow. •The Hitch Ranch residents will be provided information on, encouraged to practice, and implement a “Ready, Set, Go!” approach to site evacuation Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 632 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 viii April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 633 12271 1 April 2022 1 Introduction This Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for the proposed Hitch Ranch Project (Proposed Project) in Moorpark, California, an incorporated city in Ventura County. The purpose of the FPP is to assess the potential impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards and identify the measures necessary to adequately mitigate those impacts. Additionally, the purpose of this plan is to generate and memorialize the fire safety requirements of the Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction (FAHJ), namely the VCFD. Requirements are based on site-specific characteristics and incorporate input from the project’s developer/applicant (Comstock Homes), project planners, engineers, and architects, as well as the VCFD. As part of the assessment, the plan has considered the fire risk presented by the site including the property location and its topography, geology, surrounding combustible vegetation (fuel types), climatic conditions, fire history and the proposed land use. This FPP addresses water supply, access, structural ignitability and ignition resistive building features, fire protection systems and equipment, impacts to existing emergency services, defensible space, and vegetation management. The plan identifies fuel modification zones and recommends the types and methods of treatment that will protect this project and its essential infrastructure. The FPP recommends measures that developer/builders will take to reduce the probability of structural ignition throughout the project. The following tasks were performed toward completion of this plan: •Gather site specific climate, terrain, and fuel data; •Collect site photographs; •Process and analyze Hitch Ranch Project data using the latest GIS technology; •Predict fire behavior using scientifically based fire behavior models, comparisons with actual wildfires (e.g., 2003 Simi, 2006 Shekell, and 2009 Guiberson Fires) in similar terrain and fuels, and experienced judgment; •Analyze and guide design of proposed infrastructure; •Analyze the existing emergency response capabilities; •Assess the risk associated with the proposed Hitch Ranch Project and the project site; and •Prepare this FPP detailing how fire risk will be mitigated through a system of fuel modification, structural ignition resistance enhancements, and fire protection delivery system upgrades. This FPP is consistent with the uniform emergency access and installation standards used throughout the State as described in the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 7A (or then current edition), which focuses primarily on preventing ember penetration into homes, a leading cause of structure loss from wildfires; thus, it is an important component of the requirements of this FPP and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Titles 14 and 24 and the 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) (or then current edition) as well as the operational procedures and capabilities particular to the VCFD emergency vehicles and suppression personnel. In addition, the Ventura County Fire Code and the Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD) Ordinance No. 31 are even more restrictive. In most instances, this FPP requires inclusio n of these local code requirements at the Proposed Project site. The purpose of this plan is to generate and memorialize the fire safety requirements of the FAHJ, namely the VCFD. Requirements are based on site-specific characteristics and incorporate inpu t from project planners, engineers, biologists, architects, and the VCFD. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 634 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 2 April 2022 Field observations were utilized to augment existing digital site data in generating the fire behavior models and formulating the recommendations presented in this FPP. Refer to Appendix A for site photographs of existing site conditions . 1.1 Proposed Project Summary 1.1.1 Location The Proposed Project site is located within the west-northwest portion of the incorporated City of Moorpark in Ventura County , California. The Proposed Project site is currently undeveloped and is lo cated in the rolling hills north of Poindexter Avenue, east of Gabbert Road and west of Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23). More specifically, the Hitch Ranch Project site is situated in Section 5 of Township 2 North, Range 19 West and Section 32 of Township 3 North, Range 19 West on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Moorpark, California quadrangle map (Figure 1, Project Site Location Map). Surrounding land uses include a residential community to the northwest, a Southern California Edison (SCE) Moorpark Substation to the southwest, a commercial and residential development to the south, Walnut Canyon Elementary School and residential developments to the east, a new residential community to the northeast, and naturally vegetated open space land separating the Proposed Project site from the Moorpark County Club approximately 0.5 miles to the north. The proposed development will be situated on seven parcels comprised of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN’s): APN’s 511-0-020-170, 511-0-020-110, 511-0-020-130, 511-0-020-160, 511-0-020-180, 511-0-020- 195, and 511-0-200-245. The entirety of the proposed property lies within the local responsibility area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as statutorily designated by CAL FIRE (2007) and the VCFD (Figure 2, Hitch Ranch Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map). 1.1.2 Project Description The Proposed Project consists of a mixed-density residential community that incorporates land uses for housing and recreational purposes. The Proposed Project would consist of the construction of 755 dwelling units on approximately 277.30 acres including 328 single -family dwelling units on approximately 46.91 acres and 427 multi-family dwelling units on approximately 26.47 acres (191 medium dens ity units and 236 high density units), 32 open space lots, t hree (3) recreation space lots, and one (1) public park (Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan). The single-family residential units are proposed to be one and two stories in height, while the multi-family dwelling units would be two and three stories in height. Single-family dwelling units are proposed for Planning Areas (PA) 1, 2, and 3, and multi-family dwelling units are proposed for PA3 and PA4. Comstock plans to phase the land development of the project over two phases. In addition to the 755 proposed residential dwelling units, the project will include lots dedicated to recreation and fuel modification zones (FMZ) to be managed by the property owners and the Homeowners Association (HOA). Three private recreation areas are proposed, including The Outlook located in PA1 and two additional recreation lots are located in PA3 and PA 4. Landscaped areas may incorporate horticultural plantings. The proposed Hitch Ranch Project would include up to 200 feet of fuel modification, consisting of four zones, a five-foot Zone 0 (0 to 5 feet from a structure), a 25-foot Zone 1 (5 to 30 feet from a structure, a 70-foot Zone 2 (30 to 100 feet from a structure), and a 100-foot thinning Zone 3 (100 to 200 feet from a structure) (as required by the VCFD Standard 515, Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones Standard). Public access to the site is currently available via Gabbert Road on the west and from Casey Road on the east. Access to the site will be improved by extending existing Casey Road from its terminus east of the project site to provide access to PA2, PA3, and PA4; by extending High Street from its current terminus east of the project site across the southern boundary of the Project site to Gabbert Road; by extending North Hills Parkway across the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 635 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 3 April 2022 center of the project site from Gabbert Road to State Route 118; and by extending Meridian Hills Drive from the existing terminus and would connect to Street “A” at North Hills Parkway. As indicated in the Moorpark’s General Plan Circulation Element, North Hills Parkway would ultimately be constructed as a four -lane roadway. Gabbert Road would be improved to a four-lane arterial roadway from the point of connection with Poindexter Avenue, crossing the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and continuing to North Hills Parkway. North of North Hills Parkway, Gabbert Road would taper back to its existing width. Appendix A provides photographs of the site in its current, undeveloped condition. 1.1.3 Current Land Use The Hitch Ranch Project site is currently undeveloped and vacant, consisting of naturally vegetated slopes and disturbed land. According to the Hitch Ranch 2019 Biological Update prepared for Impact Sciences, the existing site is comprised mainly of annual brome grassland (approximately 154 acres), California sagebrush-deerwood scrub (approximately 39 acres), and non-native woodlands (approximately 11 acres), and a variety of disturbed habitats on the relatively flat with gently rolling hills Project site. In 2003 and 2006, fires entirely burned these plant communities, but they have since grown back in similar proportions, because these communities are comprised of species largely adapted to periodic fires. Numerous dirt roads were observed throughout the site to accommodate existing land uses. The Project site exhibits signs of prior occupation in the form of foundations, fences, and water production. The existing ranch run cows within the fence line of the property to graze the grassland throughout the property. Overhead electrical transmission lines traverse the western portion of the site which are connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) Substation located just southwest of the Proposed Project site. The surrounding land uses include single-family residential developments to the northwest, east, and south, the Moorpark County Club to the north, and a co mmercial development to the south. Railroad tracks and Poindexter Avenue borders the southern edge of the property. 1.1.4 Proposed Land Use The Hitch Ranch Project proposes to construct 328 single-family dwelling units on approximately 46.91 acres and 427 multi-family dwelling units on approximately 26.47 acres (191 medium density units and 236 high density units), 32 open space lots, three (3) recreat ion space lots, and one (1) public park . In addition to the 755 proposed residential dwelling units, the project will include lots dedicated to recreation and open space lands. Three private recreation areas are proposed, including The Outlook located in PA1 and two additional recreation lots are located in PA3 and PA 4. Approximately 104-acres of open space is proposed and would remain in its existing condition and would provide a buffer between existing residential uses west of the Proposed Project site and the single-family residences proposed in PA1 and PA2. Four detention basins are proposed within the pro ject site to protect against flooding from the local drainage basin (i.e, Gabbert and Walnut Canyons). All four basins are designed as soft-bottom facilities, which would ultimately drain to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) channel located along the southern perimeter of the project site. An approximately 5.56-acre public park is proposed in the southeast portion of the project site that would be dedicated to the City of Moorpark, which tentatively will include athletic fields and an aquatic facility. A 100- to 200-foot fuel modification zone would occur between the open space areas and the on-site dwelling units to be managed by the property owners and the HOA. As indicated in Figure 3, public and private streets will provide acces s to the development, including a single entrance off Gabbert Road from the west, a single entrance from the proposed extension of High Street along the southern property boundary, and three proposed entrances from the north and east. In addition to the single and multi-family dwelling units, the project will include fuel modification zones. Access to the site will be improved as indicated in the Moorpark’s General Plan Circulation Element and area circulation and evacuation capabilities will Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 636 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 4 April 2022 be improved as the project eliminates three existing dead end roads by connecting them with project roads. Details are provided in Section 6.1.4. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 637 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 5 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 638 0 2,5001,250 Feet Project Site 101 395 110 5 215710 105 605 10 15405 210 Project Site Project Location Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series, Moorpark Quadrangle 02,0001,000 Feet FIGURE 1 Da t e : 1 1 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 - L a s t s a v e d b y : l t e r r y - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 2 7 1 0 0 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ F P P \ F i g 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 639 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 7 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 640 FIGURE 2 Hitch Ranch Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map HITCH RANCH PROPOSED PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN SOURCE: CAL FIRE, 2019 Project Site Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 641 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 9 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 642 Proposed Site Plan FIGURE 3 HITCH RANCH PROPOSED PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN SOURCE: WiILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS AND ENCOMPASS CONSULTANT GROUP, 2020 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 643 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 11 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 644 12271 12 April 2022 2 Proposed Project Site Risk Analysis 2.1 Environmental Setting and Field Assessment Dudek conducted a site evaluation on October 11, 2019, in order to confirm/acquire site information, document existing site conditions, and to determine potential actions for addressing the protection of the project’s structures. While on site, Dudek’s Fire Planners assessed the area’s topography, natural vegetation and fuel loading, surrounding land use and general susceptibility to wildfire. Among the field tasks that were completed included: •Topography evaluation •Vegetation/fuel assessments •Photograph documentation of the existing condition •Confirmation/verification of hazard assumptions •Off-site, adjacent property fuel and topography conditions •Surrounding land use confirmations •Necessary fire behavior modeling data collection •Ingress/egress documentation •Nearby Fire Station reconnaissance. Field observations were utilized to augment existing site data in generating the fire behavior models and formulating the recommendations detailed in this report. 2.2 Site Characteristics and Fire Environment Fire environments are dynamic systems and include many types of environmental factors and site characteristics. Fires can occur in any environment where conditions are conducive to ignition and fire movement. Areas of naturally vegetated open space are typically comprised of conditions that may be favorable to wildfire spread. The three major components of fire environment are topography, vegetation (fuels), and climate. The state of each of these components and their interactions with each other determines the potential characteristics and behavior of a fire at any given moment. It is important to note that wildland fire may transition to urban fire if structures are receptive to ignition. Structure ignition depends on a variety of factors and can be prevented through a layered system of protective features including fire resistive landscapes directly adjacent the structure(s), application of known ignition resistive materials and methods, and suitable infrastructure for firefighting purposes. Understanding the existing wildland vegetation and urban fuel conditions on and adjacent to the site is necessary to understand the potential for fire within and around the Hitch Ranch Project site. 2.2.1 Topography The project site is situated within the Transverse Ranges at the southern limit of the Simi Hills, between the Oak Ridge Mountains to the north and the Las Posas Hills to the south. The site is characterized by gently rolling hills and a series of north-south trending ridges and canyons. The topography ranges from moderately steep to relatively flat, and is highly variable; elevation at the site ranges from approximately 475 to 720 feet above mean sea level Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 645 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 13 April 2022 (AMSL). The site has been previously disturbed by agricultural operations and several fires in recent years. Numerous dirt roads, concrete foundations of old farm buildings, and culverts in old agricultural ditches are still present as well as a livestock shed and goats in a fenced pen. Several ephemeral drainages convey storm water down the steep slopes of the site, but no defined beds and banks or well-developed riparian plant communities were observed. Some evidence of erosion was noted in 2018 and 2019 at areas previously disturbed, such as where pipelines were installed and along Gabbert Road (Hitch Ranch Specific Plan EIR, Impact Sciences, Inc., 2019). 2.2.2 Climate The Proposed Project site, like much of Southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and a seasonal, migratory subtropical high-pressure cell known as the “Pacific High.” Wet winters and dry summers with mild seasonal changes characterize the Southern California climate. This climate pattern is occasionally interrupted by extreme periods of hot weather, winter storms, or dry, easterly Santa Ana winds. The average high temperature for the project area is approximately 74°F, with daily highs in the summer and early fall months (July–October) exceeding 95°F. Precipitation typically occurs between December and March with average rainfall of 18 inches (Western Regional Climate Center, 2019). The prevailing wind pattern is from the west (on-shore), but the presence of the Pacific Ocean causes a diurnal wind pattern known as the land/sea breeze system. During the day, winds are from the west–southwest (sea) and at night winds are from the northeast (land), averaging 2 miles per hour (mph). During the summer season, the diurnal winds may average slightly higher (approximately 19 mph) than the winds during the winter season due to greater pressure gradient forces. Surface winds can also be influenced locally by topography and slope variations. The highest wind velocities are associated with downslope, canyon, and Santa Ana winds. The Hitch Ranch Project site does not include topography that would create unusual weather conditions. However, the site is subject to periodic extreme fire weather conditions that occur throughout Ventura County. Typically, the highest fire danger is produced by the high -pressure systems that occur in the Great Basin, whi ch result in the Santa Ana winds of Southern California. Sustained wind speeds recorded during recent major fires in Ventura County exceeded 30 mph and may exceed 50 mph during extreme conditions, as was the case during the most recent wildfire . The Santa Ana wind conditions are a reversal of the prevailing southwesterly winds that usually occur on a region-wide basis during late summer and early fall. Santa Ana winds are warm winds that flow from the higher desert elevations in the north through the mounta in passes and canyons. As they converge through the canyons, their velocities increase. Consequently, peak velocities are highest at the mouths of canyons and dissipate as they spread across valley floors. Santa Ana winds generally coincide with the region al drought period and the period of highest fire danger. The Hitch Ranch Project site is affected by strong winds, such as Santa Ana winds. 2.2.3 Vegetation (Fuels) Vegetation within the project site was identified, characterized, and mapped using geographic information system [GIS] technology (Impact Sciences, Inc., 2021). Vegetation nomenclature used to describe plant communities is Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 646 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 14 April 2022 based on the current list of vegetation types, available from the CDFW VCMP.2 Common plant names of plant taxa are taken from various informal sources. The majority of the site is disturbed by active cattle grazing and covered in non-native brome grasslands, specifically to the east of Gabbert Road. Native plant communities present on site are substantially disturbed by grazing and include California sagebrush-deerweed scrub, California sagebrush scrub, cactus scrub, blue elderberry stands, and chaparral yucca scrub. Also present are disturbed areas that are actively disced, developed areas, and nonnative woodland. The area proposed for development and within the project grading limits will be converted to roads, structures, and landscaped vegetation following project completion. Vegetative fuels within proposed fuel modification zones consist primarily of annual grasslands and California sage scrub, although these fuels will be modified as a result of development, altering their current structure and species composition. Areas outside of proposed development and fuel modification zones can be classified primarily as annual grasslands and sage scrub. Table 1, Project Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types, and the following discussion provide a description of the botanical characteristics of each of the plant communities found on the project site. Table 1. Project Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Vegetation Community or Land Cover Type Acres* Percent of Site (%) Annual brome grassland 1.35 0.47 Annual brome grassland (Disturbed/Grazed) 152.45 53.45 Total Annual brome grassland 153.79 54.01 Non-Native woodland 10.65 3.73 Blue Elderberry Stands 1.62 0.56 Blue Elderberry Stands (Disturbed/Grazed) 5.38 1.88 Total Blue Elderberry Stands 7.00 2.46 California sagebrush-deerwood scrub 23.85 9.20 California sagebrush-deerwood scrub (Disturbed/grazed) 12.92 4.53 Total California sagebrush-deerwood scrub 39.13 13.74 Cactus scrub (Disturbed/Grazed) 1.76 0.62 Developed 1.44 0.51 Disturbed/Disced 70.53 24.78 Total 284.73 100.0 2 California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. 2009. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program List of California Vegetation Alliances, December 28, 2009. * Acreages include the 277.3-acre project site and off-site improvement areas associated with the development (e.g., roadway connections) as depicted in Figure 3.3-2 of the Biological Assessment Report. Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment Report 2021. Refer to Impact Sciences, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment Report for descriptions of the vegetation communities or land cover types. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 647 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 15 April 2022 2.2.4 Vegetation Dynamics (Fuel Loads) The vegetation described above translates to fuel models used for fire behavior modeling, discussed in Chapter 4 of this FPP. Variations in vegetative cover type and species composition have a direct effect on fire behavior. Some plant communities and their associated plant species have increased flammability based on plant physiology (resin content), biological function (flowering, retention of dead plant material), physical structure (bark thickness, leaf size, branching patterns), and overall fuel loading. For example, non-native grass dominated plant communities become seasonally prone to ignition and produce lower intensity, higher spread rate fires. In comparison, California sagebrush scrub can produce higher heat intensity and higher flame lengths under strong, dry wind patterns, but does not typically ignite or spread as quickly as light, flashy grass fuels. The corresponding fuel models for each of these vegetation types are designed to capture these differences. As described, vegetation plays a significant role in fire behavior, and is an important component to the fire behavior models discussed in this report. A critical factor to consider is the dynamic nature of vegetation communities. Fire presence and absence at varying cycles or regimes disrupts plant succession, setting plant communities to an earlier state where less fuel is present for a period of time as the plant community begins its succession again. In summary, high-frequency fires tend to convert shrublands to grasslands or maintain grasslands, and fire exclusion tends to convert grasslands to shrublands over time as shrubs sprout back or establish and are not disturbed by repeated fires. In general, biomass and associated fuel loading will increase over time, assuming that disturbance (e.g., fire, grazing, or farming) or fuel reduction efforts are not diligently implemented. It is possible to alter successional pathways for varying plant communities through manual alteration. This concept is a key component in the overall establishment and maintenance of the proposed FMZs for the project site. The FMZs will consist of irrigated and maintained landscapes that will be subject to regular “disturbance” in the form of maintenance and will not be allowed to accumulate excessive biomass over time, which results in reduced fire ignition, spread rates, and intensity. 2.2.5 Fire History Fire history is an important component of a site-specific FPP. Fire History data provides valuable information regarding fire spread, fire frequency, ignition sources, and vegetation/fuel mosaics across a given landscape. One important use for this information is as a tool for pre-planning. It is advantageous to know which areas may have burned recently and therefore may provide a tactical defense position, what type of fire burned on the site, and how a fire may spread. Fire history represented in this FPP uses the Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) database. FRAP summarizes fire perimeter data dating to the late 1800s, but which is incomplete due to the fact that it only includes fires over 10 acres in size and has incomplete perimeter data, especially for the first half of the 20th century (Syphard and Keeley 2016). However, the data does provide a summary of recorded fires and can be used to show whether large fires have occurred in the Project area, which indicates whether they may be possible in the future. According to available data from the CAL FIRE in the FRAP database3, twenty-nine (29) fires have burned in the vicinity of the project site since the beginning of the historical fire data record, including the most recent Easy Fire which burn approximately 1,700 acres in October 2019. Recorded wildfires within 5 miles range from 11 acres to 107,570 (2003 Fire) acres and the average fire size is 9,075 acres (not including the 2003 Simi Fire or fires smaller than 10 acres). The Easy Fire (approximately 1,700 acres) is the most recent fire, which occurred approximately 1 mile east of the Project Site (not included in FRAP data based because the fire occurred in October 2019). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 648 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 16 April 2022 VCFD may have data regarding smaller fires (less than 10 acres) that have occurred on the site that have not been included herein. Two fires have burned on the project site. Table 2 summarizes the fire history for the area within 5 miles of the Hitch Ranch Project site. Fire history for the general vicinity of the project site is illustrated in the map in Appendix B. Table 2. Fire History within Five Miles of the Hitch Ranch Project Site Fire Year* Fire Name Interval (years) Total Area Burned (acres) 1940 Camarillo Rifle Range N/A 1,411 1943 Jones Canyon 3 522 1944 Long Canyon 1 462 1946 Wiley Canyon 2 21,266 1953 Shields Lease 7 11,775 1956 BI Brush 3 1,595 1957 Simi Valley Ranch 1 468 1958 Santa Rosa 1 1,138 1958 Calumet Canyon 0 17,214 1958 Brea Canyon 0 1,244 1967 Sence Ranch 9 18,354 1970 Clampitt Fire 3 115,537 1973 Santa Rosa 3 424 1976 Arroyo 3 206 1980 Hill Canyon 4 11,975 1984 Grimes Fire 4 11,305 1985 Peach Hill 1 1,992 1987 Tierra 2 759 1995 Wildwood 1 8 799 2001 Walnut Incident 6 36 2003 Simi Fire 2 107,570 2006 Shekell 3 13,618 2009 Guiberson 3 17,527 2011 Collins 2 60 2013 Happy Camp 2 45 2015 Princeton 2 44 3 Based on polygon GIS data from CAL FIRE’s FRAP, which includes data from CAL FIRE, USDA Forest Service Region 5, BLM, NPS, Contract Counties and other agencies. The data set is a comprehensive fire perimeter GIS layer for public and private lands throughout the state and covers fires 10 acres and greater between 1878 –2018. 2018 Collins 3 11 2018 Olsen 0 28 2018 Hill 0 4,310 1 *CAL FIRE FRAP 2019 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 649 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 17 April 2022 Based on an analysis of this fire history data set, specifically the years in which the fires burned, the average interval between wildfires in the area was calculated to be 3 years with intervals ranging between 0 to 9 years. Based on this analysis, it is expected that wildland areas in the vicinity of the project site will be subject to wildfire at least every 3 years with the realistic possibility of shorter interval occurrences, as observed in the fire history record. Based on fire history, wildfire risk for the project site is associated primarily with a Santa Ana wind-driven wildfire burning or spotting onto the site from the north or east, although a fire approaching from the south during more typical on-shore weather patterns is possible. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 650 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 18 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 651 12271 19 April 2022 3 Determination of Project Effects FPPs provide an evaluation of the adverse environmental effects a proposed project may have from wildland fire. The FPP describes the project design features that would ensure that the project would not unnecessarily expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Significance is determined by answering the following guidelines: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The wildfire risk in the vicinity of the Hitch Ranch Project site has been analyzed according to a standard used throughout Ventura County (County of Ventura Initial Study Assessment Guidelines – Fire Hazards (2011)). According to the CALFIRE Fire Severity Zone Map, the proposed project is located in an area considered a VHFHSZ, as designated by CALFIRE and the VCFD. The wildland fire risk in the vicinity of the project site has been analyzed and it has been determined that wildfires may occur in wildland or naturally vegetated areas north of the Proposed Project site and in areas off-site to the west, east, and northeast of the project site. However, wildfire occurrence would not be expected to be significantly increased in frequency, or size with the construction of the Hitch Ranch Proposed Project. The closest off-site fuels that form large fuel beds are located to the north of the site. The site currently includes a variety of potential vegetation that could serve as fuel sources. The types of potential ignition sources that currently exist in the area include vehicle and roadway, the Union Pacific ROW, off-site commercial areas, off-site residential neighborhoods, and arson related ignitions. Although the Proposed Project would introduce more people in the area and would include the development of 328 single-family dwelling units and 427 multi-family dwelling lots, the site would be largely converted from readily ignited fuels to ignition resistant structures and landscaped areas. The Proposed Project would be developed to meet all existing development building codes and fire codes, including landscaping and vegetation requirements as indicated in Ventura County Fire Protection District Ordinance Number 31 (or current adopted ordinance) adopted California Fire Code and CCR Title 14 FSR. The project would include conversion of fuels to maintained urban development with designated landscaping and fuel modification areas. Fuel modification zones will be designed according to all applicable development codes and the Ventura County Fire Code, and indicated on the project site plan. The Project Developer will perform fuel modification work throughout the project site prior to construction and the Hitch Ranch HOA will conduct annual fuel modification (or more often as needed) to reduce the potential for fire ignition and spread. The Proposed Project would introduce potential ignition sources, but would include a variety of fire protection features that form a redundant system of protection to minimize the likelihood of wildfire exposing residents and visitors, as well as structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The Project will provide a fire hardened landscape, highly ignition resistant residential dwelling units, and conversion of flashy fuels (non-native grasslands) to maintained developed areas with designated review of all landscaping and maintenance of fuel modification areas. Fires from off-site would not have continuous fuels across this site and would therefore be expected to burn around and/or over the site via spotting. Burning vegetation embers may land on project structures, but are not likely to result in ignition based on ember decay rates and the types of non-combustible and ignition resistant materials that will be used on site. The site further provides multiple ingress/egress routes for evacuation for better access throughout the site and there will be more fire aware individuals on the ground to reduce the likelihood of arson, off-road vehicles, or other recreational based activity fires. If evacuation is not considered the preferred approach, such as during a short- notice evacuation, the Hitch Ranch Project offers a contingency option of temporarily sheltering on site to residents, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 652 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 20 April 2022 visitors, firefighters and law enforcement , as well as to neighboring property owners. These concepts are discussed further in the following sections. The project would comply with applicable ignition resistant fire and building codes and would include a layered fire protection approach which is designed to current codes and inclusive of site -specific measures that will result in a project that is less susceptible to wildfire than surrounding landscapes. Additionally, residential dwelling units are constructed to very high levels of ignition resist ance and may be used as safe sites or temporary shelter if necessary . The Project’s single- and multi-family residential units will include residential fire protection system s. This same fire protection system will provide protections from on -site fire spreading to off- site vegetation. As such, accidental fires within the maintained landscape or structures in the Hitch Ranch Project would have limited ability to spread. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Proposed Project would result in the development of a currently undeveloped area, including the development of site access. The project would involve the construction of new structures, roadways, and would generate new trips to and from the project site. The project site would be accessible from public roadways and access into the site would be provided via four entrances for vehicles and pedestrians. The project would be required to comply with the County’s development review process, including review for compliance with the Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code - Ordinance 29 as well as compliance with applicable emergency access standards that would facilitate emergency vehicle access during project construction and operation. Additionally, an adequate water supply and an approved paved access roadway shall be installed prior to any combustibles on site. The project applicant would be required to design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities to comply with applicable local, regional, state, and federal requirements related to emergency access. Drive aisles, turning radii, and all access points would be designed with adequate emergency access. The project would be required to provide fire apparatus turnarounds on all dead-end fire apparatus access roadways over 150 feet in length and provide a 50-foot inside turning radius of a fire apparatus access road, measured at the center line of the access road (per CCR Title 14 FSR). All access roadways designed for two-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. Fire access roadways designed to allow parking shall provide a minimum clear width of not less than 32 feet for parking on one side and a clear width of not less than 36 feet for parking on both sides. All fire access roadways would have a vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6-inches for the full road width to allow access for fire apparatus. The proposed site plan is subject to approval by the County and the VCFD. Further, the project would be required to provide walking access to the rear of buildings, and ladder access for any windows facing the rear of the buildings. The County and the VCFD will need to review proposed modifications to existing roadways to ensure that adequate emergency access or emergency response would be maintained. Additionally, emergency response procedures would be coordinated through the County in coordination with the police and fire departments. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that that the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 653 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 21 April 2022 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Fire protection would be provided to the proposed project via the VCFD. The VCFD consists of a staff of 450 full- time safety (including safety Chief Officers) and 133 full-time non-safety employees that provides fire protection and emergency medical services to more than 850,000 people in Ventura County. The VCFD response area covers 848 square miles including all unincorporated areas cities, including Ojai, Port Hueneme, Moorpark, Camarillo, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks (VCFD Overview and VCFD 2020 District Snapshot Report). The Hitch Ranch Project includes 328 single-family dwelling units 427 multi-family dwelling lots (191 medium density units and 236 high density units). Service level requirements can cause a decline in the response times and capabilities for existing residents. The Proposed Project estimated call volume generation is based on 2,378 maximum persons living on site (based on 3.15 persons per household) during any given time period during the week and on weekends. The entire population would be new to the VCFD’s response area. The Proposed Project is projected by call volume analysis (using VCFD per capita call generation factor of 0.056/year or 56 calls per 1,000 persons per year) to add approximately 133 calls per year to the VCFD’s existing call load. This call volume (approximately 2 to 3 calls per week) is not considered enough of an increase to require additional resources. The primary response (first due in) would be provided by Station 42, located at 295 E. High Street, Moorpark, California, approximately 1 mile east of the project site. The station is staffed daily by three firefighters and houses one engine (Engine 42), one reserve engine (Reserve Engine 142), and one brush engine (Brush Engine 342). The Project is projected to add an estimated 133 calls per year (0.36 calls per day) for a Station that currently responds to an existing call load of approximately 3 calls per day (approximately 1,104 calls per year in 2020). The addition of approximately 2 to 3 calls per week is considered absorbable and the station’s capacity to respond to the additional calls is available. This level of impact is not expected to require the construction of additional Fire Station facilities based on that increase alone. The anticipated 3.36 calls per day (3.0 daily calls + 0.36 additional calls per day) is below what would be considered a busy station. For perspective, urban fire stations that respond to five calls per day are considered average and 10 calls per day would be considered a busy station. Further, Station 42 can respond to the entire project within Ventura County’s target response time standard (8.5 minutes) for first arriving for all urban areas within Ventura County. Therefore, although there would be an incremental increase in call volume, it would not, according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), be considered to exceed significance thresholds. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The Proposed Project will be served by the Ventura County Waterworks District (VCWWD) No. 1 and sufficient water supplies will be available to serve the Proposed Project from the existing entitlements and resources, which will be consistent with VCFD requirements. The County of Ventura, and the VCWWD No. 1 require new developments to meet a minimum 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow. The water distribution system is designed to yield a minimum residual pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) during peak hour demands and a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi during maximum day demands plus fire flow. Each fire hydrant shall be capable of 1,500 gpm fire flow for minimum duration of three hours at 20 psi residual pressure. The measures described in the responses to these significance questions are provided more detail in the following sections. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 654 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 22 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 655 12271 23 April 2022 4 Anticipated Fire Behavior 4.1 Fire Behavior Modeling Following field data collection efforts and available data analysis, fire behavior modeling was conducted to document the type and intensity of fire that would be expected on and adjacent to the project site given characteristic site features such as topography, vegetation, and weather. Dudek utilized BehavePlus software package (Andrews, Bevins, and Seli 2004) to analyze potential fire behavior for the Hitch Ranch Project site. As is customary for this type of analysis, three fire scenarios were evaluated, including one summer, onshore weather condition (west from the project site) and two extreme fall, offshore weather condition (north and east/northeast of the project site), with assumptions made for the pre- and post-project slope and fuel conditions. Results are provided below and a more detailed presentation of the modeling inputs and results is provided in Appendix C. 4.1.1 Fuel Model Output Results The results from the BehavePlus fire behavior modeling analysis for pre- and post-project conditions are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, and in Figure 4, BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis Map. As presented, wildfire behavior on the Hitch Ranch Project site is expected to be primarily of moderate to high intensity throughout the non-maintained grass dominated fuels north and northeast of the Proposed Project site. Table 3. BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results, Existing Conditions Fire Scenario Flame Length (feet) Spread Rate (mph)1 Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft./s) Spotting Distance2 (Miles) Scenario 1: 5% slope, Summer, Onshore, Summer Winds (Pre-Development) High Load Grass (Gr7) 29.1’ 3.5 8,616 1.1 Scenario 2: 9% slope, Fall, Offshore Extreme Winds (Pre-Development) High Load Grass (Gr7) 42.9’ (74.6’ & 87.1’) 6.0 (20.0 & 28.0) 20,054 (66,781 & 93,536) 1.2 (3.5 and 4.9) 3 Scenario 3: 5% slope, Fall, Offshore, Extreme Winds (Pre-Development) High Load Grass (Gr7) 43.0’ (74.6’ & 87.1’) 6.0 (20.0 & 28.0) 20,168 (66,846 & 93,591) 1.2 (3.5 & 4.9) Note: 1 mph = miles per hour 2 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire. 3 It should be noted that the wind mph in parenthesis represent peak gusts of 50 mph and 70 mph, respectively. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 656 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 24 April 2022 Table 4. BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results, Post-Project Conditions Fire Scenario Flame Length (feet) Spread Rate (mph)1 Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft./s) Spotting Distance2 (Miles) Scenario 1: 5% slope, Summer, Onshore, Summer Winds (Post-Development) FMZ Zone 0 (FM8) 1.8’ 0.1 20 0.2 FMZ Zones 1 and 2 (Gr1) 1.9’ 0.2 24 0.2 FMZ Zone 3 (Gr2) 7.2’ 1.1 420 0.4 Scenario 2: 9% slope, Fall, Offshore Extreme Winds (Post-Development) FMZ Zone 0 (FM8) 2.1’ (3.0’ & 3.0’) 0.1 (0.2 & 0.2) 29 (63 & 63) 0.2 (0.4 & 0.5) FMZ Zone 1 and 2 4.0’ (4.0’ & 4.0’) 0.7 (0.7 & 0.7) 115 (115 & 115) 0.2 (0.5 & 0.6) FMZ Zone 3 (Gr2) 10.9’ (18.0’ & 18.0’) 2.1 (6.2 & 6.2) 1,012 (3,037 & 3,037) 0.5 (1.3 & 1.6) Scenario 3: 5% slope, Fall, Offshore, Extreme Winds (Post-Development) FMZ Zone 0 (FM8) 2.1’ (3.0’ & 3.0’) 0.1 (0.2 & 0.2) 29 (63 & 63) 0.2 (0.4 & 0.5) FMZ Zone 1 and 2 4.0’ (4.0’ & 4.0’) 0.7 (0.7 & 0.7) 115 (115 & 115) 0.2 (0.5 & 0.6) FMZ Zone 3 (Gr2) 10.9’ (18.0’ & 18.0) 2.1 (6.2 & 6.2) 1,018 (3,037 & 3,037) 0.5 (1.3 & 1.5) Note: 1 mph = miles per hour 2 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire. 3 It should be noted that the wind mph in parenthesis represent peak gusts of 50 mph and 70 mph, respectively. The results presented in Tables 3 and 4 depict values based on inputs to the BehavePlus software and are not intended to capture changing fire behavior as it moves across a landscape. Changes in slope, weather, or pockets of different fuel types are not accounted for in this analysis. For planning purposes, the averaged worst-case fire behavior is the most useful information for conservative fuel modification design. Model results should be used as a basis for planning only, as actual fire behavior for a given location will be affected by many factors, including unique weather patterns, small-scale topographic variations, or changing vegetation patterns. Based on the BehavePlus analysis, worst-case fire behavior is expected in non-maintained grass north and northeast of the proposed Project site under Peak weather conditions (represented by Fall Weather, Scenario 3). The fire is anticipated to be a wind-driven fire from the north/northeast during the fall. Under such conditions, expected surface flame lengths reach 74 feet with wind speeds of 50+ mph. Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach 66,781 BTU/feet/second with fast spread rates of 20 mph and could have a spotting distance up to 3.5 miles away. Fires burning into brush thinning zones of the proposed FMZs are expected to be less intense and generate lower flame lengths. As previously mentioned, Dudek conducted modeling of the site for post -fuel modification zones. Typical fuel modification includes establishment of minimum 100-foot wide irrigated zone (Zone s 0, 1 and 2) and up to a 100-foot wide thinning zone (Zo ne 3 ) on the periphery of the project site, beginning at the structure. For modeling the post -FMZ treatment condition, the fuel model assignment for non-native grasslands was re- classified according to the specific fuels management (e.g., irrigated, fire resistive landscaping and 50% thinning) treatment. Based on the BeahvePlus analysis, post development fire behavior is expected in irrigated and replanted with plants that are acceptable with VCFD (Zone 0 – FM8 and Zones 1 and 2 – Gr1), as well in an area with 50% thinning of the existing shrubs (Gr2) under peak weather conditions (represented by Fall Weather, Scenario 3b). Under such Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 657 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 25 April 2022 conditions, expected surface flame length is expected to be significantly lower, with flames lengths reaching approximately 18 feet with wind speeds of 50+ mph. Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach 3,037 BTU/feet/second with relatively slow spread rates of 2.1 mph and could have a spotting distance up to 1.3 miles away. As depicted in Table 4, the FMZ are as experience a significant reduction in flame length and intensity. The 74- foot flame lengths predicted for non-native grassland fuels during pre -treatment modeling for fire scenarios 2 and 3 are reduced to approximately 18 feet by the time FMZ (Zone 3) is reached and to approximately three - feet by the time FMZ (Zones 0, 1 and 2) are reached. These reduction of flame lengths and intensities are assumed to occur within the 200 feet of fuel modification (an irrigated Zones 0, 1,and 2 and 50% thinning Zone 3 ). 4.2 On-Site Fire Risk Assessment Given the climatic, vegetative, topographic characteristics, and local fire history of the area, the project site, once developed, is determined to be subject to periodic wildfires that may start on, burn onto, or spot into the site. The most common type of fire anticipated in the vicinity of the Project Area is a wind-driven fire from the north/northeast during the fall. Potential for off-site wildfire encroaching on, or showering embers on the site is considered moderate, but risk of ignition from such encroachments or ember showers is considered low based on the type of construction and fire protection features that will be provided for the structures. Therefore, it will be critical that the latest fire protection technologies, developed through intensive research and real world wildfire observations and findings by fire professionals, for both ignition resistant construction and for creating defensible space in the ever-expanding WUI areas, are implemented and enforced. The Proposed Project will implement the latest fire protection measures, including fuel modification along the perimeter edges of the development. Wildland fires are a common natural hazard in most of southern California with a long and extensive history. Southern California landscapes include a diverse range of plant communities, including vast tracts of tracts of grasslands and shrublands, like those found adjacent to Hitch Ranch site. Wildfire in this Mediterranean-type ecosystem ultimately affects the structure and functions of vegetation communities (Keeley 1984) and will continue to have a substantial and recurring role (Keeley and Fotheringham 2003). Supporting this are the facts tha t 1) native landscapes, from forest to grasslands, become highly flammable each fall and 2) the climate of southern California has been characterized by fire climatologists as the worst fire climate in the United States (Keeley 2004) with high winds (Santa Ana) occurring during autumn after a six-month drought period each year. Based on this research, the anticipated growing population of Ventura County wildland urban interface (WUI) areas, including in the City of Moorpark, and the regions fire history, it can be anticipated that periodic wildfires will occur in the open space areas of Ventura County, with the natural open spaces north and northeast of the Hitch Ranch Project site being no exception. Two large wildfires have burned on to and several more have burned within a close proximity to the project site, including the 2003 Simi Fire which burnt approximately 107,500 acres and the most recent Easy Fire which burned approximately 1,700 acres 1 mile east of the Project site in October 2019. Both of these fires burned very similarly to the results found in the modeled fire behavior for non-native grasslands under extreme weather conditions. As such, wildlands near the Proposed Project site are expected to be exposed to periodic wildfire ignition and spread and may be subject to nearby wildfire. However, the Hitch Ranch Proposed Project site, once developed, would not facilitate wildfire spread and would reduce projected flame lengths to levels that would be manageable by firefighting resources for protecting the site’s Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 658 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 26 April 2022 structures, especially given the ignition resistance of the structures and the planned ongoing maintenance of the entire site landscape. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 659 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 27 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 660 Project Site FIGURE 4 BehavePlus Analysis Map Hitch Ranch Proposed Project Fire Protection Plan SOURCE: AERIAL-GOOGLE MAPPING SERVICE 2019 0 1000 2000500Feet SCENARIO RUN #2 SCENARIO RUN #3 SCENARIO RUN #1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 661 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 29 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 662 12271 30 April 2022 5 Emergency Response and Service 5.1 Emergency Response The Proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the VCFD, and consequently, VCFD provides initial response. The VCFD jurisdictional response area encompasses approximately 848 square miles including seven of its cities, including Ojai, Port Hueneme, Moorpark, Camarillo, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks with a population of more than 850,000 people in Ventura County (VCFD Overview, 2020 and VCFD 2020 Snapshot Annual Report)4. The VCFD consists of a staff of 450 full-time safety (including safety Chief Officers) and 133 full- time non-safety employees that provides fire protection and emergency medical services . The Hitch Ranch Project includes 328 single-family dwelling units and 427 multi-family dwelling lots (191 medium density units and 236 high density units). Service level requirements can cause a decline in the response times and capabilities for existing residents. The Proposed Project estimated call volume generation is based on 2,378 maximum persons living on site (based on 3.15 persons per household) during any given time period during the week and on weekends. The entire population would be new to the VCFD’s response area. The Proposed Project is projected by call volume analysis (using VCFD per capita call generation factor of 0.056/year or 56 calls per 1,000 persons per year) to add approximately 133 calls per year to the VCFD’s existing call load. This call volume (approximately 2 to 3 calls per week) is not considered enough of an increase to require additional resources. The VCFD currently operates 34 Fire Stations, two of which are analyzed herein due to their proximity to the proposed project site and could respond to an incident at the Hitch Ranch Project site (Stations 40 and 42), although primary response would be from Station 42, with Station 40 responding shortly thereafter. Station 42 is located at 295 E. High Street, Moorpark, California, approximately 1 mile east of the project site. The station is staffed daily by three full-time firefighters and houses one engine (Engine 42), one reserve engine (Reserve Engine 142), and one brush engine (Brush Engine 342). Table 5 presents a summary of the location, fire apparatus equipment, staffing levels, maximum travel distance, and estimated time travel for the two closest VCFD stations that would respond to a fire or medical emergency within the Hitch Ranch Project site. Travel distances are derived from Google road data while travel times are calculated applying the nationally recognized RAND Corporation formula used by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public Protection Classification Program’s Response Time Standard: (T=0.65 + 1.7D), where T=time and D=distance). The ISO response travel time formula discounts speed for intersections, vehicle deceleration and acceleration, and does not include turnout donning time. 4 https://vcfd.org/about-vcfd/overview and https://vcfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AnnualReport2020.pdf Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 663 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 31 April 2022 Table 5. Ventura County Fire Department Responding Stations Summary Station Location Equipment Staffing Maximum Travel Distance Travel Time*** Station 40 4185 Cedar Springs Street, Moorpark, California, 93201 - Medic/Engine (Medic/Engine 40); - Reserve Engine (Engine 140); - Utility Pickup Truck (Utility 40); - USAR Tractor/Trailer (USAR 40). On duty: 3 2.3 mi.** 4 minute 31 secs.** Station 42 295 E. High Street, Moorpark, California, 93021 - Engine (Engine 42); - Reserve Engine (Engine 142); - Brush Engine (Engine 342). On-duty: 3 1.50 mi.* 3 minutes 10 secs.* *Distance measured to the proposed western entrance of the proposed development area off Gabbert Road. ** Distance measured to the proposed eastern entrance of the proposed development area off Casey Road. *** Assumes travel to the project entrance, and application of the ISO formula, T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35-mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time. Based on the Proposed Project site location in relation to existing VCFD stations, travel time to the site for the first responding engine from Station 42 is approximately 3 minutes and 10 seconds to the proposed project entrance, on Casey Road. Travel within the development may reach up to 2 minutes, based on the longest proposed road stretch of approximately 0.80 miles, resulting in response time of approximately 5 minutes for the entire development. Secondary response would arrive in approximately 4 minutes and 30 seconds. Based on these calculations, emergencies within the project can be responded to by VCFD’s first arriving unit (average maximum initial response of no more than 8.5 minutes for fire apparatus and 5 minutes for ambulance, 90% of calls) in accordance with the County’s standard. In addition, there are automatic aid agreements and dropped boundary agreements on first alarm or greater emergency calls with surrounding communities, ensuring that the closest unit will be dispatched, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. The VCFD is also part of the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreements. 5.2 Emergency Service Level The VCFD estimates approximately 47,272 total annual calls (VCFD’s 2020 Annual Report Snapshot) and Ventura County’s population of approximately 850,000 (VCFD Overview, 2022). The per capita call volume is roughly 0.56 for the County of Ventura. Based on the proposed development plans, the project’s estimated 2,378 residents (assumes an average of 3.15 occupants per residence in the City of Moorpark for this type of community (U.S. Census, 2021) would generate roughly 133 calls per year, most of which are expected to be medical-related calls, consistent with typical emergency call statistics. Service level requirements are not expected to be significantly impacted with the increase of approximately 133 calls per year or 0.36 calls per day for a station (VCFD Station 42) that currently responds to roughly 3 calls per day (1,104 calls5 in 2020) in its primary service area. Therefore, the project is not expected to cause a decline in VCFD’s emergency response times. Additional response, rou nding out the effective firefighting 5 Data derived from VCFD’s 2020 annual report snapshot which states that there were 2,208 calls within the Moorpark service area. There are two stations within the Moorpark service area, so a rough estimate of 1,104 calls in 2020 was used for Station 42. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 664 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 32 April 2022 force (the manpower needed to effectively fight a structure fire and/or respond to serious medical emergency) would be provided by Stations 40 and 57. 5.2.1 Cumulative Impacts on Fire Response Cumulative impacts from multiple projects can cause fire response service decline and must be analyzed for each project. The Hitch Ranch Project and its proposed usage by up to 2,378 residents is an increase in potential service demand of approximately 133 calls per year, well within the capacity of the existing Fire Stations that will service the Hitch Ranch Project. Other future projects in the vicinity of Stations 40 and 42 are not known at the time of this FPPs preparation, but when considered cumulatively, the potential im pact of multiple projects is considered less than significant, mitigated by increased funding available from each project to the VCFD through property taxes and other fees associated with each project, including the Hitch Ranch Project. This funding would be utilized to maintain or enhance fire response capabilities. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 665 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 33 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 666 12271 34 April 2022 6 Buildings, Infrastructure and Defensible Space The Ventura County Fire Protection District’s Fire Ordinance Number 31 (2018 International Fire Code and 2019 California Fire and Building Codes adopted by reference with several modifications) governs the building, infrastructure, and defensible space requirements detailed in this FPP. It should be noted that new State and local building and fire codes will be in effect starting January 1, 2023. The project will meet or exceed applicable codes or will provide alternative materials and/or methods. While these standards will provide a high level of protection to structures for the Proposed Project, there is no guarantee that compliance with these standards will prevent damage or destruction of structures by fire in all cases. A response map update, including roads and fire hydrant locations, in a format compatible with current department mapping shall be provided to the VCFD. The following summaries highlight important fire protection features. All underground utilities, hydrants, water mains, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will be installed, and the drive surface shall be approved prior to combustibles being brought on site. 6.1 Fire Access 6.1.1 Primary The Proposed Project would result in the development of a currently undeveloped area, including the development of site access. The project would involve the construction of new structures, roadways, and would generate new trips to and from the project site. Site access, including road widths and connectivity, will comply with the County’s development review process, including review for compliance with the Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code - Ordinance 29 as well as compliance with applicable emergency access standards that would facilitate emergency vehicle access during project construction and operation. Additionally, an adequate water supply and approved paved access roadways shall be installed prior to any combustibles on site and will include: •The project site would be accessible from public roadways and access into the site would be provided via four entrances, one northbound on Gabbert Road, another northbound on Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road, one westbound or eastbound on High Street, and one westbound or southbound on Meridian Hills Drive for vehicles and pedestrians. Primary access to the Project site via Gabbert Road will connect to the proposed extension of High Street (runs west to east) and North Hills Parkway (runs west to east/northeast). High Street will provide access to the southern portion of the Project site and will connect to Moorpark/Walnut Canyon (SR-23), while proposed North Hills Parkway is designed as an interior road and will facilitate access throughout the site. Primary access via Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road will connect to Casey Road, which will be extended from its current terminus and provide access to the eastern portion of the site. Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road also connects to Meridian Hills Drive, which will be extended from its current terminus and provide access to the northern portion of the site. •All perimeter roads comply with all fire apparatus access road standards; all access roadways designed for two-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. Fire access roadways designed to allow Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 667 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 35 April 2022 parking shall provide a minimum clear width of not less than 32 feet for parking on one side and a clear width of not less than 36 feet for parking on both sides. The access roads shall be designed for the weight load requirements of the California Vehicle Code, City Road Standards, or 75,000 pounds, whichever is more restrictive. •Interior circulation streets include all roadways that are considered common or primary roadways for traffic flow through the site and for fire department access serving all proposed structure. The project would be required to provide approved fire apparatus turnarounds on all dead-end fire apparatus access roadways over 150 feet in length. •Typical, interior Project roads, including collector and local roads, will be constructed to minimum 36-foot, unobstructed widths and shall be improved with aggregate cement or asphalt paving materials. Private or public streets that provide fire apparatus access to buildings three stories or more in height shall be improved to a minimum 24 feet unobstructed width. All interior residential streets will be designed for the weight load requirements of the California Vehicle Code, City Road Standards, or 75,000 pounds, whichever is more restrictive. •Private and public streets for each phase shall meet all project approved fire code requirements and/or mitigated exceptions for maximum allowable dead-end distance, paving, and fuel management prior to combustibles being brought to the site. •Vertical clearance of vegetation (lowest-hanging tree limbs), along roadways will be maintained at clearances of 13 feet, 6 inches to allow fire engines passage. Unobstructed vertical clearance must be clear to the sky to allow aerial ladder truck operation. •Roads with a median or center divider will have a minimum 20 feet unobstructed width on both sides of the center median or divider. Maximum road grade will not exceed 16%. •Cul-de-sacs and fire apparatus turnarounds will meet requirements and VCFD Standards. •Roadways and/or driveways will provide fire department access to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first floor of each structure. •Access roads shall be completed and paved prior to issuance of building permits and prior to the occurrence of combustible construction. 6.1.2 Secondary Access Roads and Gates Two secondary emergency vehicle access entry/exit roads are proposed within PA1 and PA2, to provide additional access to North Hills Parkway from PA1 and “A” Street from PA1. The secondary access roads will include a secondary access gate with knox box switches allowing emergency vehicles access into and out of PA 1 and PA2, as well as an automatic exit loop system allowing the residents of PA1 and PA2 to exit the communities. If the private/secondary access gates are to remain they will be required to be brought up to code and will comply with the Escondido Fire Code (Section 503.6) and EFD standards applicable at the time of building plan approval. Any access gates will comply with Ventura County Fire Department 501 Apparatus Access Code Standard – Ordinance Number 29. Gates across fire apparatus access roads shall not be limited to emergency exit only and shall provide for egress for all persons at all times without the use of keys, codes, remote controls, or special knowledge. Gates Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 668 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 36 April 2022 on private roads and secondary access roads will comply with VCFD standard for electric gates and will include a Knox box switch and automatic exit loops. 6.1.3 Maximum Dead-End Road Length Each planning area varies in the number of ingress/egress roads or streets. All areas shall include at least two ingress/egress streets. Dead end streets longer than 150 feet shall have approved provisions for fire apparatus turnaround or cul-de-sac. When only one (1) access point is provided, the maximum length of access roads shall not exceed 800 feet from the point of two (2) separate means of ingress/egress. Fire apparatus turnarounds to provide a 50-foot inside turning radius of a fire apparatus access road, measured at the center line of the access road, per CCR Title 14 FSR. 6.1.4 Road Width and Circulation On-site roads will be constructed to current Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code standards (Ordinance Number 29) and 2019 CFC (or then current edition), including all fire access roadways designed for one-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet; all access roadways designed for two-way traffic shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. Fire access roadways designed to allow parking shall provide a minimum clear width of not less than 32 feet for parking on one side and a clear width of not less than 36 feet for parking on both sides and shall be improved with asphalt paving materials that support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (not less than 40-tons or 80,000 lbs. after a 10-year storm). Turning radius for fire apparatus access roads will be 40 feet as measured at the center line of the access road. Access to the site will be improved as indicated in the Moorpark’s General Plan Circulation Element, North Hills Parkway would ultimately be constructed as a four-lane roadway. Gabbert Road would be improved to a four-lane arterial roadway from the point of connection with Poindexter Avenue, crossing the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and continuing to North Hills Parkway. North of North Hills Parkway, Gabbert Road would taper back to its existing width. The circulation upgrades not only benefit the Proposed Hitch Ranch Project, they also provide a public benefit to the surrounding communities and elementary school by providing additional access to these existing one-way in and out communities. Access to the Gabbert Canyon neighborhood to the northwest will be improved by expanding Gabbert Road to be a four-lane arterial roadway and by providing a new easterly evacuation route by extending High Street from its current terminus east of the project site across the southern boundary of the Project site north to the railroad track to Gabbert Road. The Meridian Hills neighborhood to the northeast will be improved by providing a southerly evacuation route through Hitch Ranch by extending Meridian Hills Drive from the existing terminus and connecting it to Street “A” at North Hills Parkway. Finally, Walnut Canyon Elementary school to the east is currently accessed by a dead end, two-lane road off Moorpark Avenue. There presently are no evacuation routes or secondary vehicle access roads to the school. However, the Proposed Project would provide an additional evacuation route through the Hitch Ranch community by extending Casey Road from its terminu s east of the project site west into PA2, PA3, and PA4. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 669 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 37 April 2022 6.1.5 Grade There are no roads or driveways in the Hitch Ranch Project that exceed the 16% maximum grade for new roads and driveways. There are no roads or driveways that will require mitigation. 6.1.6 Surface All fire apparatus access and vehicle roadways shall be asphalt or concrete and designed and constructed in accordance with County Public Works standards 6.1.7 Vertical Clearance Minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches will be maintained for the entire required width for all streets, including driveways that require emergency vehicle access. 6.1.8 Premise Identification Identification of roads and structures will comply with CFC, Section 505.1, as follows: •Each Building shall have a minimum 12-inch address number, with 1-1/2 inch stroke. Number shall be mounted in visible locations and contrast in color to background. Each individual living unit shall have minimum 4-inch high address or unit numbers, ½-inch stroke, and 6 to 8 feet above grade. •Streets and roads shall be identified with approved signs. Temporary signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Signs shall be of an approved size, weather resistant and be maintained until replacement by permanent signs. 6.2 Ignition Resistant Construction and Fire Protection Systems All new structures within the Proposed Project will be constructed to Ventura County Fire Code, Ventura County Fire Protection District’s Fire Ordinance 31, and 2019 CFC standards (or then current edition). Each of the proposed dwelling units will comply with the enhanced ignition-resistant construction standards of the 2019 California Building Code (Chapter 7A) (or then current edition). These requirements address roofs, eaves, exterior walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in hardened structures that have been proven to perform at high levels (resist ignition) during the typically short duration of exposure to burning vegetation from wildfires. While these standards will provide a high level of protection to structures in this development, there is no guarantee that compliance with these standards will prevent damage or destruction of structures by fire in all cases. There are three primary concerns for structure ignition: 1) radiant and/or convective heat 2) burning embers, and direct flame contact (VCFD, 2022) . Burning embers have been a focus of building code updates for at least the last decade, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 670 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 38 April 2022 and new structures in the Wildland Urban Interface6 (WUI) built to these codes have proven to be very ignition resistant. Likewise, radiant and convective heat impacts on structures have been minimized through the Chapter 7A exterior fire ratings for walls, windows and doors. Additionally, provisions for modified fuel areas separating wildland fuels from structures have reduced the number of fuel-related structure losses. As such, most of the primary components of the layered fire protection system provided the project are required by the VCFD (Ventura County Fire Protection District Ordinance) Number 31 and state codes, but are worth listing because they have been proven effective for minimizing structural vulnerability to wildfire and, with the inclusion of required interior sprinklers (required in the 2019 Building/Fire Code update), of extinguishing interior fires, should embers succeed in entering a structure. Even though these measures are now required by the latest Building and Fire Codes, at one time, they were used as mitigation measures for buildings in WUI areas, because they were known to reduce structure vulnerability to wildfire. These measures performed so well, they were adopted into the code. The following project features are required for new development in WUI areas and form the basis of the system of protection necessary to minimize structural ignitions as well as providing adequate access by emergency responders: 1.Application of Chapter 7A, ignition resistant building requirements 2.New class-A fire rated roof and associated assembly. With the proposed class-A fire rated roof, there will be attic or void spaces above the third level living spaces requiring ventilation to the outside environment. The attic spaces will require either ember-resistant roof vents or a minimum 1/16-inch mesh and shall not exceed 1/8-inch mesh for side ventilation (recommend BrandGuard, O’Hagin or similar vents) in accordance with the State Fire Marshal and Chapter 7A of the CBC. All vents used for this project will be approved by VCFD. 3.Multi- pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane, fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257 (such as SaftiFirst, SuperLite 20-minute rated glass product), or be tested to meet the performance requirements of State Fire Marshal Standard 12-7A-2 4.All buildings within the development are required to install an Automatic, Interior Fire Sprinkler System to code by occupancy type for all habitable, multi-family residential dwellings, in accordance with the CFC and VCFD Ordinance 31. 5.Modern infrastructure, access roads, and water delivery system. 6.3 Infrastructure and Fire Protection Systems Requirements The following infrastructure components are made in order to comply with the Ventura County requirements, the 2019 California Fire Code (or then current edition), VCFPD’s Fire Ordinance Standards (VCFD Ordinance Number 31), and nationally accepted fire protection standards, as well as additional requirements to assist in providing reasonable on-site fire protection. 6 The Wildland-Urban interface is the area where urban and suburban development meets the undeveloped areas containing natural vegetation Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 671 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 39 April 2022 6.3.1 Water Water service for the Proposed Project site will be provided by the VCWWD No. 1 and will be consistent with VCFD requirements. The public water system will be through connections to existing water mains running along Gabbert Road, Meridian Hills Drive, and Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road. The water distribution system is designed to yield a minimum residual pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) during peak hour demands and a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi during maximum day demands plus fire flow. Each fire hydrant shall be capable of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) fire flow for minimum duration of two hours at 20 psi residual pressure. 6.3.2 Fire Hydrants Hydrants shall be located along fire access roadways as determined by the VCFD Fire Marshal to meet operational needs, at the beginning radius of cul-de-sac streets, regardless of parcel size, pursuant to Sections 507.5.1 through 507.5.7 of the VCFPD Ordinance Number 31 and Appendix C of the 2019 CFC (or then current edition) for single- and multi-family residential units. Fire Hydrants will be consistent with applicable Design Standards. 6.3.3 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems All structures, of any occupancy type, will be protected by an automatic, interior fire sprinkler system. All structures Automatic internal fire sprinklers would be in accordance with NFPA 13, 13-D, or 13-R and VCFD installation requirements as appropriate. Actual system design is subject to final building design and the occupancy types in the structure. 6.3.4 Residential Hazard Detectors All residences will be equipped with residential smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors and comply with current CBC, CFC, and California Residential Code standards. 6.4 Ongoing Building and Infrastructure Maintenance The project HOA shall be responsible for long term funding and maintenance of private roads and fire protection systems, including fire sprinklers and private fire hydrants. 6.5 Pre-Construction Requirements Prior to bringing lumber or combustible materials onto the site, site improvements within the active development area shall be in place, including utilities, operable fire hydrants, an approved, temporary roadway surface, and fuel modification zones established. These features will be approved by prior to combustibles being brought on site. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 672 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 40 April 2022 6.6 Defensible Space and Vegetation Management 6.6.1 Fuel Modification Zones An important component of a fire protection system for this Project is the provision for ignition resistant landscapes and modified vegetation buffers. FMZs are designed to provide vegetation buffers that gradually reduce fire intensity and flame lengths from advancing fire by strategically placing thinning zones, restricted vegetation zones, and irrigated zones adjacent to each other on the perimeter of the WUI exposed structures. FMZs are arguably more important when situated adjacent to older structures that were built prior to the latest ignition resistant codes and interior sprinkler requirements. All dwelling units within the Proposed Project site will be highly ignition resistant based on required construction design, materials, and methods. The Proposed Project will be exposed to naturally-vegetated open space areas to the northern, eastern, and western portions of the site. The rest of the proposed development is adjacent to residential communities to the northwest, south, and east, the Moorpark County Club Course approximately half a mile to the north, and commercial buildings to the south. FMZs will be provided for those portions of the proposed development that are adjacent to open space areas in accordance with the VCFD’s Ordinance 31 Appendix W, VCFD Standard 515 – Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones and Standard 517 – Application of Mulch and Chips in Defensible Space (revised February 2022), including all manufactured and maintained slopes. FMZs will include a minimum 200-foot fuel modification zones between the natural open space area to the north and on-site structures of PA1. Additionally, 100 feet of fuel modification (Zones 0, 1, and 2 only) along the western portions of the site. The eastern edge of the Proposed Project will receive 68 to 121 feet of FMZs to the top of the grading limits. FMZs less than 100 feet will be augmented with mitigations that meet or exceed the level of protection 100 feet of fuel modification provides. These mitigations include window upgrades that are code-exceeding, dual pane, both panes tempered and a six- foot noncombustible fire wall, while some of the east side FMZs tie into existing development and will not require additional fire protection measures. The fuel modification zones will be constructed from the structure outwards towards undeveloped areas. Figure 5 illustrates the FMZ Plan proposed for the Proposed Project Site, including a five-foot Zone 0 (0 to 5 feet around the structures), a minimum 25-foot wide limited planting area Zone 1 (5 to 30 feet from the structures and decks), and a minimum 70-foot wide limited planting area Zone 3 extending from the structures towards the undeveloped areas. If provided, either by the conditions of the development, voluntarily by the property owner, or required by the VCFD, a minimum 100-foot wide more progressive 50% thinning zone (Zone 3)would lessen the spread of fire as it approaches the primary FMZ adjacent to structures. A 10-foot wide roadside FMZ along each side of the roads adjacent to the open space shall be required as well. It should be noted that the full 100-foot defensible space zone from project buildings is required by the VCFPD Ordinance 31. Any portion off- site will be the responsibility of that affected property owner. VCFD is proposing a development condition to have the Hitch Ranch Project be responsible for the potion of the 100 -foot zone off-site until such time the affected off- site properties develop. Based on the predicted fire intensity and duration along with flame lengths for this project site and the provided FMZs, the highest concern is considered to be from firebrands or embers as a principal ignition factor. To that end, this site, based on its location and ember potential, is required to include the latest ignition and ember resistant construction materials and methods for roof assemblies, walls, vents, windows, and appendages, as mandated by the VCFD and County’s Fire and Building Codes (e.g., Chapter 7A). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 673 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 41 April 2022 6.6.1.1 VCFD Fuel Modification Zone Standards A fuel modification zone (FMZ) is a strip of land where combustible vegetation has been removed and/or modified and partially or totally replaced with more adequately spaced, drought-tolerant, fire resistant plants in order to provide a reasonable level of protection to structures from wildland fire. The purpose of this section is to document VCFD’s standards (Standards 515 and 517) and make them available for reference. However, we are proposing a site-specific fuel modification zone program with additional measures that are consistent with the intent of the standards. VCFD is consistent with the 2019 California Fire Code (Section 4907 — Defensible Space) (or then current edition), Government Code 51175 – 51189, and Public Resources Code 4291, which require that fuel modification zones be provided around every building that is designed primarily for human habitation or use within a VHFHSZ. Fuel modification consists of at least 100 feet, measured in a horizontal plane, from the exterior façade of all structures towards the undeveloped areas. A typical landscape/fuel modification installation per the County’s Fire Code consists of a five-foot Zone 0 (0 to 5 feet around the structures), a 25-foot-wide Zone 1A (5 to 30 feet from the structures and decks), and a 70-foot wide Zone 2 (30 to 100 feet from the structures and decks) for a total of 100 feet in width. An additional 100-foot wide thinning zone (Zone 3) is required for the areas adjacent to natural-vegetated, open space areas (north of PA1). Per VCFD, the full 100-foot defensible space zone from project buildings is required by the VCFPD Ordinance 31. Any portion off-site will be the responsibility of that affected property owner. VCFD is proposing a development condition to have the Hitch Ranch Project be responsible for the potion of the 100-foot zone off-site until such time the affected off-site properties develop To ensure long-term identification and maintenance, a fuel modification area shall be identified by a permanent zone marker meeting the approval of VCFD. All markers will be located along the perimeter of the fuel modification area at a minimum of 500 feet apart or at any direction change of the fuel modification zone boundary. FMZs will be maintained on at least an annual basis or more often as needed to maintain the fuel modification buffer function. Zone 0 – from the structure outward 5 feet Zone 0 reduces the likelihood of structure ignition by reducing the potential for direct ignition of the structure from flame contact, by embers that accumulate at the base of a wall, and/or indirect ignitions when embers ignite vegetation, vegetation debris or other combustible materials located close to the structure that result in either a radiant heat and/or a direct flame contact exposure to the structure. Zone 0 is the horizontal area within the first five feet around the structure, any outbuildings, and attached decks, and stairs. Zone 0 is measured from the edge of a structure, attached decks, patio covers, balconies, and floor projections above grade. The zone also includes the area under attached decks and stair landings. The requirements and allowable items in the “lean” or no planting Zone 0 include the following: a.Ground cover not exceeding three-inches in height b.Non-woody small herbaceous or succulent plants not exceeding two (2) feet high. Plants shall be spaced a minimum of two-times the height from other plants. c.Plants shall have a minimum clearance of two-times the plant height below and adjacent to windows or other openings into the structure, including vents. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 674 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 42 April 2022 d.All ground cover and plants shall be set back from structures and decks one-time the height of the plant or 12-inches, whichever is greater. e.Vines and climbing plants are not allowed on structures, including decks, patio/shade structures, and any fences within 5 feet of a building. f.No combustible landscape mulch or wood chips. Use clear soil, rocks, gravel, or concrete. g.No trees. See Section 3.2.2a of VCFD Standard 515 regarding tree canopy setback from structures. h.Firewood is prohibited in Zone 0. i.Vegetation is prohibited underneath any deck. j.Other fuels underneath decks may be limited and shall not cause an ignition due to embers. k.Vegetation on decks shall meet the requirements of this zone regardless of the distance to the structure. l.VCFD highly recommends no combustible fences and gates within five (5) feet of a structure or deck. The new State Zone 0 Regulations currently under development may prohibit these in 2023 and also may require removal of existing installations starting in 2024. Note: As required by State Law, regulations for Zone 0 are under development by the State Board of Forestry and are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2023, for all new buildings and January 1, 2024, for all existing buildings. Any State regulation more restrictive than this standard will apply. Zone 1 – 5 feet from the structure outward to minimum 30 feet Zone 1 reduces the likelihood of fire burning directly to the structure. This is accomplished by modifying fuels and creating a discontinuity between planting groups that limits the pathways for fire to burn to the structure and reduces the potential for near-to-building ember generation and radiant heat exposures. An additional purpose of this zone is to provide a defendable area for fire personnel to stage and take direct action. Zone 1 is an area within 5 to 30 feet of structures and decks with slopes not greater than 20 percent; 5 to 50 feet from buildings and decks when slopes are greater than 20 percent. The requirements and allowable items in a minimal planting and very limited trees of a fire -resistive type Zone 1 include the following: a.Trees shall be spaced to allow a minimum 10-feet of clearance next to a structure. b.Firewood shall be relocated outside Zone 1 unless completely covered in a secured, fire-resistant enclosure or covered with a secured, fire-resistant material, and not exceeding 1,000-cubic feet. c.. d.Plants and trees identified as “Target” (undesirable plants) by VCFD shall not be planted within Zone 1. See Appendix D – VCFD’s Plant Reference Guide and Appendix E – VCFD Prohibited Plant List. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 675 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 43 April 2022 Zone 2 – from outer edge of Zone 1 to 100 feet from structure Zone 2 is designed to reduce the potential behavior of an oncoming fire in such a way as to drop an approaching fire from the crown of trees to the ground, reducing the flame heights, and the potential fo r ember generation and radiant heat exposure to structures. Additional benefits of the Zone 2include facilitating direct defense actions and improving the function of Zone 0 and 1. Zone 2 is the area from the outer edge of Zone 1 to 100 feet from structures and decks. See Table 3, VCFD FMZ Spacing Requirements of VCFD Standard 515.. Zone 3 – Thinning Zone (from outer edge of Zone 2 to 200 feet from structure) Zone 3 is considered a thinning zone and is any FMZ greater than 100 feet from structures and decks. When provided, either by condition of development, voluntary by the property owner, or required by the Fire Department, this zone is more of a progressive thinning zone to lessen spread of fire as it approaches the primary FMZ adjacent to structures. The amount of fuel reduction and removal should take into consideration the type and density of fuels, aspect, topography, weather patterns, and fire history. 6.6.1.2 Other Vegetation Management Roadway-Adjacent Defensible Space As required under the Ventura County Fire Code, an area of 10 feet from each side of fire apparatus access roads and driveways in addition to an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6-inches above the roadways. Roadside fuel modification consists of mowing grasses to six-inches in height and/or maintaining ornamental landscapes, including trees, clear of dead and dying plant materials. Roadside fuel modification shall be maintained by the HOA. Stormwater Basins Fire-safe vegetation management will be performed within the basins on a yearly basis in accordance wi th the following guidelines. 1.Any portion of the stormwater basin that is within 100 feet of a structure will be required to comply with the full regulations for defensible space. 2.Groundcovers or shrubs included in the basin shall be low-growing with a maximum height at maturity of 18-inches. Single tree specimens or groupings of two to three trees per grouping of fire resistive trees or tree form shrubs may exceed this limitation if they are located to reduce the chance of transmitting fire from vegetation to habitable structures and if the vertical distance between the lowest branches of the large, trees or tree form shrubs and the tops of adjacent plants are three times the hei ght of the adjacent plants to reduce the spread of fire through ladder fueling. 3.All trees shall be planted and maintained at a minimum of 10 feet from the tree’s mature drip line to any combustible structure. 4.The water detention basin area will be irrigated and maintained to brush management Zones 0, 1, and 2 standards. 5.Grasses must be maintained/mowed to 6 inches in height. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 676 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 44 April 2022 6.The water quality basins will not be re-vegetated with plant species that are found on the VCFD’s Prohibited Plant List (Appendix E). 7.This area shall be maintained annually free of dying and dead vegetation. 8.Trees adjacent to the basin’s access road shall be maintained at a vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6-inches for access into the interior of the basin. Special Fuel Management Issues On the Proposed Project site, tree planting in the fuel modification zones and along roadways is acceptable, as long as they meet the following restrictions as described below and in the County’s Fire Code and the VCFD’s Standard 515 – Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones spacing requirements: •For streetscape plantings, trees should be planted 10 feet from edge of curb to center of tree trunk. Care should be given to the type of tree selected, that it will not encroach into the roadway, or produce a closed canopy effect. •Crowns of trees located within defensible space shall comply with VCFD Standard 515 when located within Zones 0, 1, and 2; tree crowns must maintain a minimum horizontal clearance of 20 feet for a single tree. Mature trees shall be pruned to remove limbs one-third the height or 6 feet, whichever is less, above the ground surface adjacent to the trees. •Dead wood and litter shall be regularly removed from trees. •Ornamental trees shall comply with VCFD Standard 515 when located within Zones 0, 1, and 2; ornamental trees shall be limited to groupings of 2–3 trees with canopies for each grouping separated horizontally as described in Table 3 of the VCFD Standard 515. Specific Landscaping Requirements The following requirements are provided for HOA-maintained fuel modification zones. All landscaping shall be maintained by the HOA. Plants used in the fuel modification areas or landscapes will include drought-tolerant, fire resistive trees, shrubs, and groundcovers; no invasive plants to be included in the landscape. The planting list and spacing will be reviewed and approved by VCFD, included on submitted landscape plans. The plantings will be consistent with VCFD’s Plant Reference Guide (Appendix D)7. The intent of the suggested plant reference guide is to provide examples of plants that are less prone to ignite or spread flames to other vegetation and combustible structures during a wildfire. Additional Plants can be added to the landscape plant material palette with the approval from VCFD. Pre-Construction Requirements •Perimeter fuel modification areas must be implemented and approved by the VCFD prior to combustible materials being brought on site. 7 Note that the current VCFD Plant Reference Guide may be updated, and the current versions must be used when designing and submitting landscape /fuel modification plans. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 677 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 45 April 2022 •Existing flammable vegetation shall be reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of construction. •Dead fuel, ladder fuel (fuel which can spread fire from ground to trees), and downed fuel shall be removed and trees/shrubs shall be properly limbed, pruned, and spaced per this plan. Undesirable Plants Certain plants are considered to be undesirable in the landscape due to characteristics that make them highly flammable. These characteristics can be physical or chemical. The plants included in the VCFD Prohibited Plant List (Appendix E) are unacceptable from a fire safety standpoint, and shall not be planted on the site unless otherwise approved by the VCFD8. 6.6.2 Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance All fuel modification area vegetation management shall be completed annually by May 1 of each year and more often as needed for fire safety, as determined by the VCFD. The individual homeowners shall be responsible for all fuel modification vegetation management on their lots in compliance with this plan and the VCFD requirements. The Hitch Ranch Community HOA shall be responsible for all fuel modification vegetation management for all common areas, roadsides clearance, fuel modification zones, any retention basins, medians, planters, parks, etc. The HOA will assure private homeowner lots comply with this plan initially and on an ongoing basis. Chapter 7A requirements for ongoing maintenance of fire resistive building materials and fire sprinkler systems will be included in the C, C and R's and Deed encumbrances for each lot. Additionally, the project HOA shall be responsible for ensuring long-term funding and ongoing compliance with fuel modification and maintenance requirements with all provisions of this report. Maintenance of FMZ’s and Defensible Space is an important component for long term fire safety of the Project. Maintenance obligations will be as follows: Hitch Ranch HOA: •Maintenance of access roads, includes a minimum of 10 feet clearance on each side of road(s). •Annual Maintenance of FMZs (or as needed) •Maintenance of all common areas, including trees planted along roadways and in other areas throughout project. Resident/Homeowner: •Maintenance of vegetation on individual property lots. 8 Note that the current VCFD Prohibited Plant List may be updated, and the current versions must be used when designing and submitting landscape /fuel modification plans. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 678 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 46 April 2022 6.6.3 Annual Fuel Modification Zone Compliance Inspection To confirm that the Proposed Project’s FMZs and landscape areas are being maintained according to this FPPs and the VCFD’s requirements, the VCFD will conduct annual inspections within the community to determine fuel modification zone compliance. If the FMZ areas are not compliant, the Hitch Ranch HOA will have a specified period to correct any noted issues so that a re-inspection can occur, and certification can be achieved. Annual inspection fees are subject to the current Fire Department Fee Schedule. 6.6.4 Construction Phase Vegetation Management Vegetation management requirements shall be implemented at commencement and throughout the construction phase. Vegetation management for the Proposed Project area shall be performed pursuant to this FPP and VCFPD Ordinance 31, Appendix V for fire safety requirements in Hazardous Fire Areas that will be applicable prior to the start of work, prior to any import of combustible construction materials, and during construction. Adequate firebreaks shall be created around all grading, site work, and other construction activities in areas where there is flammable vegetation. Combustible Materials will not be brought on site without prior fire department approval. In addition to the requirements outlined above, the project will comply with the following important risk-reducing vegetation management guidelines: •All new power lines shall be underground for fire safety during high wind conditions or during fires on a right-of- way that can expose aboveground power lines. Temporary construction power lines may be allowed in areas that have been cleared of combustible vegetation. •Caution must be used not to cause erosion or ground (including slope) instability or water runoff due to vegetation removal, vegetation management, maintenance, landscaping, or irrigation. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 679 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 47 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 680 Da t e : 4 / 1 2 / 2 0 2 2 - L a s t s a v e d b y : l t e r r y - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 2 7 1 0 0 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ F P P \ F i g 5 C o n c e p t u a l F u e l M o d P l a n 2 0 2 2 0 4 1 2 . m x d Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan SOURCE: AERIAL -BING MAPPING SERVICE 2018; SITE PLAN - ENCOMPASS CONSULTANT GROUP 2021 0 460230Feet FIGURE 5 Project Boundary Land Use Development WQ Basin Roadway Manufactured Slope Fuel Modification Zone 0 - Irrigated (0-5') Zone 1 - Irrigated (5'-30') Zone 2 - Irrigated (30'-100') Zone 3 - 50% Thinned (100'-200') 10-Ft Roadside Zone Offsite Adjacent Property Owner Maintained FMZ* FMZ Dimensions 6-Ft Fire Wall SEE INSET RIGHT FMZ DIMENSIONS* Section 1.4 of Standard 515 states: Any person owning, leasing, controlling, operating, or maintaining any building in, upon, or adjoining any Hazardous Fire Area, and any person owning, operating, leasing, or controlling any land adjacent to such building shall provide around and adjacent to such building an effective defensible spacing on the property for a distance not less than 100 feet from all portions of the building. Distance may be increased by the Fire Department because of a site-specific analysis, based on local conditions and, when required based on a Fire Protection Plan. Reference: Public Resource Code (PRC) 4291, Government Code (GC) 51182, and current Ventura County Fire Code, Section W105.1. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 681 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 49 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 682 12271 50 April 2022 7 Alternative Materials and Methods for Non-Conforming Fuel Modification As previously mentioned, due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve the standard FMZ width on the entire east side of the development within Planning Area 3. The Project’s eastern property line can only provide an area between 68 and 121 feet of structural setback from off-site fuel beds. As such, this FPP describes additional measures that will be implemented to mitigate the non-conforming fire related threats and proposed reduced fuel modification zones. These measures are customized for this site based on the analysis results and focus on providing functional equivalency as a County-defined, full fuel modification zone. As experienced in numerous wildfires, including the most recent fire storms in Ventura and San Diego Counties, homes in the WUI are potential fuel. The distance between the wildland fire that is consuming wildland fuel and the home (“urban fuel”) is the primary factor for structure ignition (not including burning embers). The closer a fire is to a structure, the higher the level of heat exposure (Cohen 2000). However, studies indicate that given certain assumptions (e.g., 10 meters of low fuel landscape, no open windows), wildfire does not spread to homes unless the fuel and heat requirements (of the home) are sufficient for ignition and continued combustion (Cohen 1995, Alexander et al. 1998). Construction materials and methods can prevent or minimize ignitions. Similar case studies indicate that with nonflammable roofs and vegetation modification from 10–18 meters (roughly 32–60 feet) in southern California fires, 85–95% of the homes survived (Howard et al. 1973, Foote and Gilless 1996). Similarly, San Diego County after fire assessments indicate strongly that the building co des are working in preventing home loss: of 15,000 structures within the 2003 fire perimeter, 17% (1,050) were damaged or destroyed. However, of the 400 structures built to the 2001 codes (the most recent at the time), only 4% (16) were damaged or destroyed. Further, of the 8,300 homes that were within the 2007 fire perimeter, 17% were damaged or destroyed. A much smaller percentage (3%) of the 789 homes that were built to 2001 codes were impacted and an even smaller percentage (2%) of the 1,218 structures built to the 2004 Codes were impacted (IBHS 2008). Damage to the structures built to the latest codes is likely from flammable landscape plantings or objects next to structures or open windows or doors (Hunter 2007). These results support Cohen’s (2000) findings that if a community’s homes have a sufficiently low home ignitability, the community can survive exposure to wildfire without major fire destruction. This provides the option of mitigating the wildland fire threat to homes/structures at the residential location without extensive wildland fuel reduction. Cohen’s (1995) studies suggest, as a rule-of-thumb, larger flame lengths and widths require wider fuel modification zones to reduce structure ignition. For example, valid SIAM results indicate that a 20-foot high flame has minimal radiant heat to ignite a structure (bare wood) beyond 33 feet (horizontal distance). Whereas, a 70-foot-high flame may require about 130 feet of clearance to prevent structure ignitions from radiant heat (Cohen and Butler 1996). This study utilized bare wood, which is more combustible than the ignition resistant exterior walls for structures built today. Fire behavior modeling conducted for this project indicates that fires in the moderate to high load shrub and chaparral north of the Project Site would result in roughly 42- to 87-foot flame lengths under fall, extreme weather conditions. The proposed FMZ is twice the length of the predicted flame length. As indicated in this report, the FMZs and additional fire protection measures proposed for the eastern portion of the development provide equivalent wildfire buffer but are not standard zones. Rather, they are based on a variety of analysis criteria including predicted flame length, fire intensity (Btu), site topography and vegetation, extreme and typical weather, position of structures on pads, position of roadways, adjacent fuels, fire history, current vs. proposed land use, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 683 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 51 April 2022 neighboring communities relative to the proposed project, and type of construction. The fire intensity research conducted by Cohen (1995) and Cohen and Butler (1996) supports the fuel modification alternatives proposed for this project. 7.1 Additional Structure Protection Measures The following additional measures will be implemented to “mitigate” potential structure fire exposure related to the provided reduced FMZs for the eastern edge of the development. These measures are customized for this site, its unique topographical and vegetative conditions, and focus on providing functional equivalency as a fu ll fuel modification zone. It should be noted that a fully developed Senior Living Project is proposed for development along the eastern edge of the Hitch Ranch development, from the existing homes off Casey Road up to the proposed North Hills Parkway. If that project site is under development prior to Hitch Ranch beginning construction in this area, then additional mitigations would not be necessary. If Hitch Ranch begins construction prior to the neighboring Senior Living Project development, then compensating measures are proposed. In order to provide compensating structural protection in the absence of a 100-foot wide FMZ, and in addition to the residences being built to the latest ignition resistant codes, these structures will also include the following features for additional fire prevention, protection, and suppression: 1.The proposed Triplex structures along the eastern edge of the development within PA3 that are adjacent to existing homes off Casey Road, shall be constructed with multi- pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane windows (see Figure 5); 2.The remaining Triplex structures along the eastern edge of the development within PA3 are exposed to natural vegetation. Depending on the timing of development of the proposed Senior Living project which currently is not developed, the remaining Triplex structures within the Hitch Ranch development along the eastern edge of the development shall implement either; a.) if the proposed Senior Living development begins construction prior to the Hitch Ranch Project development begins construction, then dual pane single tempered windows will be acceptable, or b.) if the Senior Living development has not begun construction prior to Hitch Ranch Project construction at this site, then dual pane, dual tempered windows will be required for the Hitch Ranch developments that are north of the existing homes off Casey Road up to proposed North Hills Parkway, exceeding the CBC Chapter 7A code requirement (see Figure 5). 3.Provide a noncombustible, 6-foot high concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall at the top of the manufactured slopes behind the units within PA3 along the eastern property boundary . These walls will be installed to function as heat-deflecting walls. The information provided herein supports the ability of the proposed structures and FMZs to withstand the predicted short duration, low to moderate intensity wildfire and ember shower that would be expected from wildfire burning in the vicinity of the site or within the site’s landscape. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 684 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 52 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 685 12271 53 April 2022 8 Homeowner’s Association Wildfire Education Program The residents and visitors of the Proposed Project will be provided a proactive educational component disclosing the potential wildfire risk and this report’s requirements. This educational information must include maintaining the landscape and structural components according to the appropriate standards and embracing a “Ready! Set! Go!”9 stance on evacuation. The “Ready! Set! Go!” informational packet and other VCFD standards and ordinances can be found on the VCFD’s website at vcfd.org. VCFD will review and approve all wildfire educational material/programs before printing and distributing. 9 https://vcfd.org/images/ready-set-go/VCFD-RSG-Wildfire-Action-Plan-Booklet-2016.pdf Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 686 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 54 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 687 12271 55 April 2022 9 Conclusion This FPP is submitted in support of an application for project entitlement of the Hitch Ranch mixed-density residential development project. It is submitted in compliance with requirements of the VCFPD Ordinance’s and the Ventura County Fire Code. The requirements in this document meet fire safety, building design elements, fuel management/modification, and landscaping recommendations of the VCFD. Fire and Building Codes and other local, county, and state regulations in effect at the time of each building permit application supersede these recommendations unless the FPP recommendation is more restrictive. Where the project does not strictly comply with the Code, alternative materials and methods have been proposed that provide functional equivalency as the code intent. The recommendations provided in this FPP have been designed specifically for the proposed construction of residential dwelling units within the vicinity of a very high fire hazard severity zone on the Proposed Project site. The project site’s fire protection system includes a redundant layering of code compliant fire-resistant construction materials and methods that have been shown through post-fire damage assessments to reduce risk of structural ignition. Ignition resistant landscaping would occur throughout the site. Fuel modification will be installed on the Proposed Project’s perimeter which abuts open space located north and west of and adjacent to the project. The site’s landscaping will be maintained throughout each year and an inspection will be funded by the Hitch Ranch Community HOA to ensure compliance with this FPP and fire safe plant palettes, planting densities and spacing. The site improvements are designed to facilitate emergency apparatus and personnel access to all portions of the site. Three existing dead end roads that are adjacent to the site would be eliminated through interconnections, imp roving overall circulation and evacuation options.Roads and driveways meeting the code width standards and including fire engine turnarounds provide access to within 150 feet of all sides of every building. Water availability and flow via the VCWWD No. 1 will be consistent with VCFD requirements including fire flow, residual pressure and h ydrant distribution . These features along with the ignition resistance of all dwelling units, the interior sprinkler s, and the pre-planning, training and awareness will a ssist responding firefighters through prevention, protection and suppression capabilities. Ultimately, it is the intent of this FPP to guide, through code and other project specific requirements, the construction of structures that are defensible from wildfire and, in turn, do not represent significant threat of ignition source for the adjacent communities. It must be noted that during extreme fire conditions in a VHFHSZ, there are no guarantees that a given structure will not burn. Precautions and mitigating actions identified in this report are designed to reduce the likelihood that fire would impinge upon the proposed structures. There are no guarantees that fire will not occur in the area or that fire will not damage property or cause harm to persons or their property. Implementation of the required enhanced construction features provided by the applicable codes and the mitigating fuel modification requirements provided in this FPP will accomplish the goal of this FPP to assist firefighters in their efforts to defend these structures and reduce the risk associated with this project ’s WUI location. For maximum benefit, the developer, contractors, engineers, and architects are responsible for proper implementation of the concepts and requirements set forth in this report. Homeowners and HOA are responsible to maintain their structures and landscaping as required by this report, the applicable Fire Code, and the VCFD. While wildfires under extreme wind cond itions can be unpredictable, the project has been desi gned with a layered system of Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 688 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 56 April 2022 protections and would include the necessary features to perform well during wildfires. With these features, the project would be considered a “Fire Safe” project.” This FPP does not provide a guarantee that all residents or visitors will be safe at all times because of the advanced fire protection features it requires. There are many variables that may influence overall safety. This FPP provides requirements and recommendations for implementation of the latest fire protection features that have proven to result in reduced wildfire related hazard, resulting in reduced risk. Even then, fire can compromise the fire protection features through various, unpredictable ways. The goal is to reduce the likelihood that the system is compromised through implementation of the elements of this FPP and a regular occurring maintenance program It is recommended that the homeowners or other occupants who may reside within the Hitch Ranch development adopt a conservative approach to fire safety. This approach must include maintaining the landscape and structural components according to the appropriate standards and embracing a “Ready, Set, Go” stance on evacuation. This project is not to be considered a shelter-in-place development. However, the fire agencies and/or law enforcement officials may, during an emergency, as they would for any new development providing the layers of fire protection as Hitch Ranch development, determine that it is safer to temporarily refuge clients or visitors on the site. When an evacuation is ordered, it will occur according to pre-established evacuation decision points or as soon as notice to evacuate is received, which may vary depending on many environmental and other factors. Fire is a dynamic and somewhat unpredictable occurrence and it is important for anyone living at the WUI to educate themselves on practices that will improve safety. The goal of the fire protection features, both required and those offered above and beyond the Codes, provided for the Hitch Ranch Project is to provide the structures with the ability to survive a wildland fire with little intervention of firefighting forces. Preventing ignition to structures results in reduction of the exposure of firefighters and residents to hazards that threaten personal safety. It will also reduce property damage and losses. Mitigating ignition hazards and fire spread potential reduces the threat to structures and can help the fire department optimize the deployment of personnel and apparatus during a wildfire. The analysis in this FPP provides support and justifications for acceptance of the proposed fuel modification zones for Hitch Ranch development based on the site specific fire environment. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 689 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 57 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 690 12271 58 April 2022 10 List of Preparers Project Manager Michael Huff Fire Protection Planner; San Diego County California Environmental Quality Act Consultant List Dudek Fire Behavior Modeling and Plan Preparer Noah Stamm Fire Protection Planner Dudek Computer Aided Design/Drafting Lesley Terry CADD Specialist Dudek Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 691 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 59 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 692 12271 60 April 2022 11 References Albus-Keefe and Associates, Inc. 2019. Geologic Assessment of Surface Fault Rupture Potential, Hitch Ranch, Tentative Tract 5708, City of Moorpark, California. April 2019. Alexander, M.E.; Stocks, B.J.; Wotton, B.M.; Flannigan, M.D.; Todd, J.B.; Butler, B.W.; Lanoville, R.A. 1998. The international crown fire modeling experiment: an overview and progress report. In: Proceedings of the second symposium on fire and forest meteorology; 1998 January 12–14; Phoenix, Arizona. Boston, Massachusetts: American Meteorological Society; 20–23. Amicus – Strategic Environmental Consulting. 2017. Comstock Hitch Ranch Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. December 2017. Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report INT-122. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf. Andrews, P.L. 1980. Testing the fire behavior model. In Proceedings 6th conference on fire and forest meteorology. April 22–24, 1980. Seattle, WA: Society of American Foresters. Pp. 70 –77. Andrews, Patricia L.; Collin D. Bevins; and Robert C. Seli. 2008. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 3.0: User’s Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-106 Ogden, Utah: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 132p. Barringer Biological Services. 2019. Hitch Ranch Project. City of Moorpark, Ventura County. 2019 Biological Survey Update. Debra Barringer, April 2019. Brown, J.K. 1972. Field test of a rate-of-fire-spread model in slash fuels. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. Int-116. 24 p. Brown, J.K. 1982. Fuel and fire behavior prediction in big sagebrush. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT-290. 10p. Bushey, C.L. 1985. Comparison of observed and predicted fire behavior in the sagebrush/ bunchgrass vegetation- type. In J.N. Long (ed.), Fire management: The challenge of protection and use: Proceedings of a symposium. Society of American Foresters. Logan, UT. April 17–19, 1985. Pp. 187–201. CAL FIRE. 2018. Fire and Resource Assessment Program. California Department of Forestry and Fire. Website access via http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/select.asp?theme=5. Cohen, Jack D. 1995. Structure ignition assessment model (SIAM). In: Weise, D.R.; Martin, R.E., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the Biswell symposium: fire issues and solutions in urban interface and wildland ecosystems. 1994 February 1517; Walnut Creek, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-158. Albany, California: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 85–92 Cohen, J.D. 2000. Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. Journal of Forestry 98(3): 15–21. Cohen, J.D. and Butler, B.W. [In press]. 1996. Modeling potential ignitions from flame radiation exposure with implications for wildland/urban interface fire management. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on fire and Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 693 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 61 April 2022 forest meteorology. October 27–31; Lorne, Victoria, Australia. Fairfield, Washington: International Association of Wildland Fire. Cohen, J.D. and Saveland, J. 1997. Structure Ignition Assessment Can Help Reduce Fire Damages in the W-UI. Fire Management Notes 57(4): 19–23. Cohen, Jack and Steve Quarles. 2011. Structure Ignition Assessment Model; The Origins and Basis of SIAM. From presentation at the 2011 NFPA Wildland Fire - Backyard and Beyond Conference in October 2011. County of Ventura. 2019. Ventura County General Plan (March 19, 2019). Online at https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/plans/Goals-Policies-and-Programs.pdf FireFamily Plus 2008. http://www.firelab.org/project/firefamilyplus. Foote, Ethan I.D.; Gilless, J. Keith. 1996. Structural survival. In: Slaughter, Rodney, ed. California's I-zone. Sacramento, California: CFESTES; 112–121. FRAP (Fire and Resource Assessment Program). 2018. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/. Grabner, K., J. Dwyer, and B. Cutter. 1994. “Validation of Behave Fire Behavior Predictions in Oak Savannas Using Five Fuel Models.” Proceedings from 11th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. 14 p. Grabner, K.W. 1996. “Validation of BEHAVE fire behavior predictions in established oak savannas.” M.S. thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia. Grabner, K.W., J.P. Dwyer, and B.E. Cutter. 2001. “Fuel model selection for BEHAVE in Midwestern oak savannas.” Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 18: 74–80. Howard, Ronald A.; North, D. Warner; Offensend, Fred L.; Smart, Charles N. 1973. Decision analysis of fire protection strategy for the Santa Monica Mountains: an initial assessment. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute. 159 p. Hunter, Cliff. 2007. Personal communication with Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District Fire Marshal following after-fire loss assessments. Impact Sciences, Inc., 2013. Hitch Ranch Specific Plan EIR. January 2013. Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS). 2008. Megafires: The Case for Mitigation. 48 pp. Keeley, J.E. and S.C. Keeley. 1984. Post fire recovery of California coastal sage scrub. The American Midland Naturalist 111:105-117. Keeley, J.E. and C.J. Fotheringham. 2003. “Impact of Past, Present, and Future Fire Regimes on North American Mediterranean Shrublands.” In Fire and Climatic Change in Temperate Ecosystems of the Western Americas, edited by T.T. Veblem, W.L. Baker, G. Montenegro, and T.W. Swetnam, 218–262. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 694 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 62 April 2022 Keeley, J.E. 2004. “Invasive Plants and Fire Management in California Mediterranean -Climate Ecosystems.” Edited by M. Arianoutsou. In 10th MEDECOS-International Conference on Ecology, Conservation Management. Rhodes, Greece. Lawson, B.D. 1972. Fire spread in lodgepole pine stands. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 110 p. thesis. Linn, R. 2003. “Using Computer Simulations to Study Complex Fire Behavior.” Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS D401. Los Alamos, NM. Marsden-Smedley, J.B. and W.R. Catchpole. 1995. Fire behaviour modelling in Tasmanian buttongrass moorlands. II. Fire behaviour. International Journal of Wildland Fire. Volume 5(4), pp. 215–228. McAlpine, R.S. and G. Xanthopoulos. 1989. Predicted vs. observed fire spread rates in Ponderosa pine fuel beds: a test of American and Canadian systems. In Proceedings 10th conference on fire and forest meteorology, April 17–21, 1989. Ottawa, Ontario. pp. 287–294. NFPA 72. Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Signaling Systems for Central Station Service. NFPA 1144. Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire. 2008. Technical Committee on Forest and Rural Fire Protection. Issued by the Standards Council on June 4, 2007, with an effective date of June 24, 2007. Approved as an American National Standard on June 24, 2007. Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2019. Biological Resources Assessment Report. KB Home Coastal Property, San Marcos, California. January 2019. Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report INT-143. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment, Ogden, UT. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24635. Scott, Joe H. and Robert E. Burgan. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p. Shroeder, M.J. and C.C. Buck. 1970. Fire weather – A guide for application of meteorological information to forest fire control operation. USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 36D. Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2017. Ventura County Fire Protection District Ordinance Number 29. Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2019. Ventura County Fire Protection District Ordinance Number 31. Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2021. Ventura Unit Strategic Fire Plan. Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2019. Standard 501 – Fire Apparatus Access Standard. Revised February 24, 2022. Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2020. Standard 515 – Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones. Revised February 15, 2022. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 695 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 63 April 2022 Ventura County Fire Protection District. 2020. Standard 517 – Application of Mulch and Chips in Defensible Space. Revised February 24, 2022. Ventura County Public Health Department. 2004. Emergency Medical Services Plan. Weise, D.R. and J. Regelbrugge. 1997. Recent chaparral fuel modeling efforts. Prescribed Fire and Effects Research Unit, Riverside Fire Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 5p. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 696 HITCH RANCH FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 12271 64 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 697 Appendix A Representative Site Photograph Log Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 698 PHOTOGRAPH LOG Hitch Ranch Proposed Project FPP Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 699 Photograph 1.View of southeastern corner of property. Photograph taken facing northwest. Photograph 2. View of southern property boundary standing along Poindexter Ave. Photograph taken facing north. Photograph 3. View looking northeast up hillside towards center of project site along southern boundary. Vegetation shown in photograph is non- native grassland. Photograph 4. Photograph looking east down Poindexter Ave. along southern boundary, looking towards southeastern corner of the property. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 700 Photograph 5. View facing northeast towards the center of the Hitch Ranch Project site, standing in the southwest corner of the property. Photograph 6. View facing northeast towards the center of the Hitch Ranch Project site, standing in the southwest corner of the property. Photograph 7. View looking east along southern project boundary and the proposed High street extension. Note the railroad track long the southern boundary. Photograph 8. Photograph looking west down Poindexter Ave. towards the intersection with Gabbert Road. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 701 Photograph 9. Photograph looking south down Gabbert Road, standing at the intersection of Gabbert Road and Poindexter Ave. Photograph 10. Photograph looking north up Gabbert Road, standing at the intersection of Gabbert Road and Poindexter Ave. Photograph 11. Photograph looking north up Gabbert Road, standing at the intersection of Gabbert Road and Poindexter Ave. Photograph 12. Photograph of the northwest portion of the project site, adjacent to existing residential community. Photograph taken facing northeast. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 702 Photograph 13. Photograph looking east towards center of the Hitch Ranch site. Photograph 14. Another view Photograph looking east towards center of the Hitch Ranch site. Photograph 15. Photograph of southeastern portion of the project site, standing along Poindexter Ave. Photograph facing northeast. Photograph 16. Non-native grass fuels that are present throughout the project site. Photograph taken facing north. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 703 Photograph 17. Another view of non-native grass fuels that are present throughout the project site. This photograph taken facing northeast along the eastern project boundary. . Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 704 Appendix B Fire History Map Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 705 5-Mile Buffer Project Site ALARM 1900 - 1934 1935 - 1965 1966 - 1989 1990 - 1999 2000 - 2018 Fire History Map Fire Protection Plan for the Hitch Ranch Project SOURCE: BASEMAP-ESRI;FIRE-CALFIRE 2018 021Miles APPENDIX B Da t e : 1 1 / 4 / 2 0 1 9 - L a s t s a v e d b y : l t e r r y - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 2 7 1 0 0 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ F P P \ A P P X B _ F i r e H i s t o r y 2 0 1 8 . m x d Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 706 Appendix C BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 707 APPENDIX C Fire Behavior Modeling Summary Hitch Ranch FPP, Moorpark, California 12271 C-1 April 2022 BEHAVEPLUS FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING Fire behavior modeling has been used by researchers for approximately 50 + years to predict how a fire will move through a given landscape (Linn 2003). The models have had varied complexities and applications throughout the years. One model has become the most widely used as the industry standard for predicting fire behavior on a given landscape. That model, known as “BEHAVE”, was developed by the U. S. Government (USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station) and has been in use since 1984. Since that time, it has undergone continued research, improvements, and refinement. The current version, BehavePlus 6.0, includes the latest updates incorporating years of research and testing. Numerous studies have been completed testing the validity of the fire behavior models’ ability to predict fire behavior given site specific inputs. One of the most successful ways the model has been improved has been through post- wildfire modeling (Brown 1972, Lawson 1972, Sneeuwjagt and Frandsen 1977, Andrews 1980, Brown 1982, Rothermel and Rinehart 1983, Bushey 1985, McAlpine and Xanthopoulos 1989, Grabner, et. al. 1994, Marsden-Smedley and Catchpole 1995, Grabner 1996, Alexander 1998, Grabner et al. 2001, Arca et al. 2005). In this type of study, Behave is used to model fire behavior based on pre-fire conditions in an area that recently burned. Real-world fire behavior, documented during the wildfire, can then be compared to the prediction results of Behave and refinements to the fuel models incorporated, retested, and so on. Fire behavior modeling conducted on this site includes a relatively high-level of detail and analysis which results in reasonably accurate representations of how wildfire may move through available fuels on and adjacent the property. Fire behavior calculations are based on site-specific fuel characteristics supported by fire science research that analyzes heat transfer related to specific fire behavior. To objectively predict flame lengths, spread rates, and fireline intensities, this analysis incorporated predominant fuel characteristics, slope percentages, and representative fuel models observed on site. The BehavePlus fire behavior modeling system was used to analyze anticipated fire behavior within and adjacent to key areas just outside of the proposed lots. Predicting wildland fire behavior is not an exact science. As such, the movement of a fire will likely never be fully predictable, especially considering the variations in weather and the limits of weather forecasting. Nevertheless, practiced and experienced judgment, coupled with a validated fire behavior modeling system, results in useful and accurate fire prevention planning information. To be used effectively, the basic assumptions and limitations of BehavePlus must be understood. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 708 APPENDIX C (Continued) 12271 C-2 April 2022 •First, it must be realized that the fire model describes fire behavior only in the flaming front. The primary driving force in the predictive calculations is dead fuels less than one- quarter inch in diameter. These are the fine fuels that carry fire. Fuels greater than one inch have little effect while fuels greater than three inches have no effect on fire behavior. •Second, the model bases calculations and descriptions on a wildfire spreading through surface fuels that are within six feet of the ground and contiguous to the ground. Surface fuels are often classified as grass, brush, litter, or slash. •Third, the software assumes that weather and topography are uniform. However, because wildfires almost always burn under non-uniform conditions, length of projection period and choice of fuel model must be carefully considered to obtain useful predictions. •Fourth, the BehavePlus fire behavior computer modeling system was not intended for determining sufficient fuel modification zone widths. However, it does provide the average length of the flames, which is a key element for determining “defensible space” distances for minimizing structure ignition. Although BehavePlus has some limitations, it can still provide valuable fire behavior predictions which can be used as a tool in the decision-making process. In order to make reliable estimates of fire behavior, one must understand the relationship of fuels to the fire environment and be able to recognize the variations in these fuels. Natural fuels are made up of the various components of vegetation, both live and dead, that occur on a site. The type and quantity will depend upon the soil, climate, geographic features, and the fire history of the site. The major fuel groups of grass, shrub, trees, and slash are defined by their constituent types and quantities of litter and duff layers, dead woody material, grasses and forbs, shrubs, regeneration, and trees. Fire behavior can be predicted largely by analyzing the characteristics of these fuels. Fire behavior is affected by seven principal fuel characteristics: fuel loading, size and shape, compactness, horizontal continuity, vertical arrangement, moisture content, and chemical properties. The seven fuel characteristics help define the 13 standard fire behavior fuel models1 and the five custom fuel models developed for Southern California2. According to the model classifications, fuel models used in BehavePlus have been classified into four groups, based upon fuel loading (tons/acre), fuel height, and surface to volume ratio. Observation of the fuels in the field (on site) determines which fuel models should be applied in BehavePlus. The following describes the distribution of fuel models among general vegetation types for the standard 13 fuel models and the custom Southern California fuel models: 1 Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report INT-122. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 2 Weise, D.R. and J. Regelbrugge. 1997. Recent chaparral fuel modeling efforts. Prescribed Fire and Effects Research Unit, Riverside Fire Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 5p. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 709 APPENDIX C (Continued) 12271 C-3 April 2022 •Grasses Fuel Models 1 through 3 •Brush Fuel Models 4 through 7, SCAL 14 through 18 •Timber Fuel Models 8 through 10 •Logging Slash Fuel Models 11 through 13 In addition, the aforementioned fuel characteristics were utilized in the recent development of 40 new fire behavior fuel models3 developed for use in BehavePlus modeling efforts. These new models attempt to improve the accuracy of the standard 13 fuel models outside of severe fire season conditions, and to allow for the simulation of fuel treatment prescriptions. The following describes the distribution of fuel models among general vegetation types for the new 40 fuel models: •Non-Burnable Models NB1, NB2, NB3, NB8, NB9 •Grass Models GR1 through GR9 •Grass-shrub Models GS1 through GS4 •Shrub Models SH1 through SH9 •Timber-understory Models TU1 through TU5 •Timber litter Models TL1 through TL9 •Slash blowdown Models SB1 through SB4 BehavePlus software was used in the development of this Hitch Ranch Project (Proposed Project) Fire Protection Plan (FPP) in order to evaluate potential fire behavior for the Project site. Existing site conditions were evaluated, and local weather data was incorporated into the BehavePlus modeling runs. FUEL MODELS Dudek utilized the BehavePlus software package to analyze fire behavior potential for the Hitch Ranch Project site in Moorpark, California. As is customary for this type of analysis, three fire scenarios were evaluated, including one summer, onshore weather condition (west from the Project Site) and two extreme fall, offshore weather condition (northt and northeast of the Project Site). Fuels and terrain at and beyond this distance can produce flying embers that may affect the project, but defenses have been built into the structures to prevent ember penetration and to extinguish fires that may result from ember penetration. It is the fuels adjacent to and within fuel modification zones that would have the potential to affect the project’s structures from a radiant 3 Scott, Joe H. and Robert E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel's surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS -GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 710 APPENDIX C (Continued) 12271 C-4 April 2022 and convective heat perspective as well as from direct flame impingement. BehavePlus software requires site-specific variables for surface fire spread analysis, including fuel type, fuel moisture, wind speed, and slope data. The output variables used in this analysis include flame length (feet), rate of spread (feet/minute), fireline intensity (BTU/feet/second), and spotting distance (miles). The following provides a description of the input variables used in processing the BehavePlus models for the Proposed Project site. In addition, data sources are cited and any assumptions made during the modeling process are described. Table 1 provides a description of the fuel model observed in the vicinity of the site that were subsequently used in the analysis for this project. Modeled areas include the high load grass ground fuels (Gr7) that occur throughout the Project site. A total of three fire modeling scenarios were completed for the Project site. These sites were selected based on the strong likelihood of fire approaching from these directions during a Santa Ana wind-driven fire event (fire scenarios 2 and 3) and an on-shore weather pattern (fire scenario 1). Table 1. Existing Fuel Model Characteristics Fuel Model Description Location Fuel Bed Depth (Feet) Gr7 High Load, Dry Climate Grass Fuel type is concentrated throughout the Project site. >5.0 ft. Gr2 Low Load, Dry Climate Grass Fuel type will occur post development within 50% thinning Zone 3. 1.0 ft. Gr1 Sparse, Dry Climate Grass Fuel type will occur post development within irrigated Zones 1 and 2 FM8 Irrigated Landscape Fuel type will occur post development within irrigated Zone 0. <1.0 ft. Topography Slope is a measure of angle in degrees from horizontal and can be presented in units of degrees or percent. Slope is important in fire behavior analysis as it affects the exposure of fuel beds. Additionally, fire burning uphill spreads faster than those burning on flat terrain or downhill as uphill vegetation is pre-heated and dried in advance of the flaming front, resulting in faster ignition rates. Slope values ranging from 5–9% were measured around the perimeter of the proposed project site from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. Weather Historical weather data for the Moorpark region was utilized in determining appropriate fire behavior modeling inputs for the Project area. 50th and 97th percentile moisture values were derived from Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) and utilized in the fire behavior Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 711 APPENDIX C (Continued) 12271 C-5 April 2022 modeling efforts conducted in support of this report. Weather data sets from the Cheeseboro Station RAWS4 were utilized in the fire modeling runs. RAWS fuel moisture and wind speed data were processed utilizing the Fire Family Plus software package to determine atypical (97th percentile) and typical (50th percentile) weather conditions. Data from the RAWS was evaluated from August 1 through N ovember 30 for each year between 1995 and 201 8 (extent of available data record) for 97th percentile weather conditions and from June 1 through September 30 for each year between 1995 and 2018 for 50th percentile weather conditions. Following analysis in Fire Family Plus, fuel moisture information was incorporated into the Initial Fuel Moisture file used as an input in BehavePlus. Wind speed data resulting from the Fire Family Plus analysis was also determined. Initial wind direction and wind speed values for the two BehavePlus runs were manually entered during the data input phase. The input wind speed and direction is roughly an average surface wind at 20 feet above the vegetation over the analysis area. Table 2 summarizes the wind and weather input varia bles used in the Fire BehavePlus modeling efforts. Table 2. BehavePlus Fine Dead Fuel Moisture Calculation Model Variable Summer Weather (50th Percentile) Peak Weather (97th Percentile) Fuel Models Gr7, Gr1, Gr2, and FM8 Gr7, Gr1, Gr2, and FM8 1 h fuel moisture 5% 1% 10 h fuel moisture 6% 2% 100 h fuel moisture 11% 4% Live herbaceous moisture 60% 30% Live woody moisture 90% 60% 20 ft. wind speed 24 mph (sustained winds) 19 mph (sustained winds); 50 and 70 mph (gusty winds) Wind Directions from upslope (degrees) 60 180, 235 Wind adjustment factor 0.4 0.4 Slope (uphill) 5% 5 and 9% Fire Behavior Modeling Effort As mentioned, the BehavePlus fire behavior modeling software package was utilized in evaluating anticipated fire behavior adjacent to the Proposed Project site. Three focused analyses were completed, each assuming worst-case fire weather conditions for a fire approaching the project site from the north, northeast, and west. Four fire behavior variables were selected as 4 https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/rawMAIN.pl?caCCHB Latitude: 34.1105 Longitude: -118.4302; Elevation: 1,650 ft.) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 712 APPENDIX C (Continued) 12271 C-6 April 2022 outputs from the BehavePlus analysis conducted for the project site, and include flame length (feet), rate of spread (mph), fireline intensity (BTU/feet/second), and surface fire spotting distance (miles). The aforementioned fire behavior variables are an important component in understanding fire risk and fire agency response capabilities. Flame length, the length of the flame of a spreading surface fire within the flaming front, is measured from midway in the active flaming combustion zone to the average tip of the flames (Andrews, Bevins, and Seli 2008). Fireline intensity is a measure of heat output from the flaming front, and also affects the potential for a surface fire to transition to a crown fire. Fire spread rate represents the speed at which the fire progresses through surface fuels and is another important variable in initial attack and fire suppression efforts (Rothermel and Rinehart 1983). Spotting distance is the distance a firebrand or ember can travel down wind and ignite receptive fuel beds. The information in Table 3 presents an interpretation of the outputs for two fire behavior variables as related to fire suppression efforts. The results of fire behavior modeling efforts are presented in Table 4. Identification of modeling run locations is presented graphically in Figure 4 of the FPP. Table 3. Fire Suppression Interpretation Flame Length (ft) Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft/s) Interpretations Under 4 feet Under 100 BTU/ft/s Fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by persons using hand tools. Hand line should hold the fire. 4 to 8 feet 100-500 BTU/ft/s Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons using hand tools. Hand line cannot be relied on to hold the fire. Equipment such as dozers, pumpers, and retardant aircraft can be effective. 8 to 11 feet 500-1000 BTU/ft/s Fires may present serious control problems -- torching out, crowning, and spotting. Control efforts at the fire head will probably be ineffective. Over 11 feet Over 1000 BTU/ft/s Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable. Control efforts at head of fire are ineffective. FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING RESULTS The results presented in Table 4 depict values based on inputs to the BehavePlus software and are not intended to capture changing fire behavior as it moves across a landscape. Changes in slope, weather, or pockets of different fuel types are not accounted for in this analysis. For planning purposes, the averaged worst-case fire behavior is the most useful information for conservative fuel modification design. Model results should be used as a basis for planning only, as actual fire behavior for a given location will be affected by many factors, including unique weather patterns, small-scale topographic variations, or changing vegetation patterns. Based on the BehavePlus analysis, worst-case fire behavior is expected in non-maintained grass north and northeast of the proposed Project site under Peak weather conditions (represented by Fall Weather, Scenario 3). The fire is anticipated to be a wind-driven fire from the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 713 APPENDIX C (Continued) 12271 C-7 April 2022 north/northeast during the fall. Under such conditions, expected surface flame lengths reach 74 feet with wind speeds of 50+ mph. Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach 66,781 BTU/feet/second with fast spread rates of 20 mph and could have a spotting distance up to 3.5 miles away. Based on the BeahvePlus analysis, post development fire behavior is expected in irrigated and replanted with plants that are acceptable with VCFD (Zone 0 - FM8) and (Zones 1 and 2 – Gr1), as well in an area with 50% thinning of the existing shrubs (Zone 3 - Gr2) under peak weather conditions (represented by Fall Weather, Scenario 3). Under such conditions, expected surface flame length is expected to be significantly lower, with flames lengths reaching approximately 18 feet with wind speeds of 50+ mph. Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach 3,037 BTU/feet/second with relatively slow spread rates of 2.1 mph and could have a spotting distance up to 1.3 miles away. Table 4. BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results, Existing Conditions Fire Scenario Flame Length (feet) Spread Rate (mph)1 Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft./s) Spotting Distance2 (Miles) Scenario 1: 5% slope, Summer, Onshore, Summer Winds (Pre-Development) High Load Grass (Gr7) 29.1’ 3.5 8,616 1.1 Scenario 2: 9% slope, Fall, Offshore Extreme Winds (Pre-Development) High Load Grass (Gr7) 42.9’ (74.6’ & 87.1’) 6.0 (20.0 & 28.0) 20,054 (66,781 & 93,536) 1.2 (3.5 and 4.9) 3 Scenario 3: 5% slope, Fall, Offshore, Extreme Winds (Pre-Development) High Load Grass (Gr7) 43.0’ (74.6’ & 87.1’) 6.0 (20.0 & 28.0) 20,168 (66,846 & 93,591) 1.2 (3.5 & 4.9) Note: 1 mph = miles per hour 2 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire. 3 It should be noted that the wind mph in parenthesis represent peak gusts of 50 mph and 70 mph, respectively. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 714 APPENDIX C (Continued) 12271 C-8 April 2022 Table 5. BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results, Post-Project Conditions Fire Scenario Flame Length (feet) Spread Rate (mph)1 Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft./s) Spotting Distance2 (Miles) Scenario 1: 5% slope, Summer, Onshore, Summer Winds (Post-Development) FMZ Zone 0 (FM8) 1.8’ 0.1 20 0.2 FMZ Zones 1 and 2 (Gr1) 1.9’ 0.2 24 0.2 FMZ Zone 3 (Gr2) 7.2’ 1.1 420 0.4 Scenario 2: 9% slope, Fall, Offshore Extreme Winds (Post-Development) FMZ Zone 0 (FM8) 2.1’ (3.0’ & 3.0’) 0.1 (0.2 & 0.2) 29 (63 & 63) 0.2 (0.4 & 0.5) FMZ Zone 1 and 2 (Gr1) 4.0’ (4.0’ & 4.0’) 0.7 (0.7 & 0.7) 115 (115 & 115) 0.2 (0.5 & 0.6) FMZ Zone 3 (Gr2) 10.9’ (18.0’ & 18.0’) 2.1 (6.2 & 6.2) 1,012 (3,037 & 3,037) 0.5 (1.3 & 1.6) Scenario 3: 5% slope, Fall, Offshore, Extreme Winds (Post-Development) FMZ Zone 0 (FM8) 2.1’ (3.0’ & 3.0’) 0.1 (0.2 & 0.2) 29 (63 & 63) 0.2 (0.4 & 0.5) FMZ Zone 1 and 2 (Gr1) 4.0’ (4.0’ & 4.0’) 0.7 (0.7 & 0.7) 115 (115 & 115) 0.2 (0.5 & 0.6) FMZ Zone 3 (Gr2) 10.9’ (18.0’ & 18.0) 2.1 (6.2 & 6.2) 1,018 (3,037 & 3,037) 0.5 (1.3 & 1.5) Note: 1 mph = miles per hour 2 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire. 3 It should be noted that the wind mph in parenthesis represent peak gusts of 50 mph and 70 mph, respectively. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 715 APPENDIX C (Continued) 12271 C-9 April 2022 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 716 Appendix D VCFD’s Plant Reference Guide Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 717 Updated April 2019 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 718 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 165 Durley Ave. Camarillo, ca 93010 805-389-9759 vcfd.org VCFHRP.org This Plant Reference Guide is intended as a reference guide for commonly used native and ornamental plants. This is not an approved plant list. This guide will give the user certain characteristics of each plant listed. Plants and trees on the VCFD Prohibited Plant List shall not be installed within any new defensible space or fuel modification zone. Defensible space and fuel modification zone provisions are intended to mitigate the risk to life and structures from intrusion of fire from wildland fire exposures, fire exposures from adjacent structures and to mitigate fires from spreading to wildland fuels that may threaten to destroy life, overwhelm fire suppression capabilities, or result in large property loss. Proper selection, installation, spacing and maintenance of plants and landscape is one of the key elements in the survivability of a structure during a wildfire. Please see VCFD Standard 515 – Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones for Zone designations, plant and tree spacing, and maintenance requirements. Fire-resistant does not mean fireproof! Even fire-resistant plants will burn if not well maintained. Keep your plants healthy with appropriate water, proper pruning and removal of dead material. LEGEND TYPE: GC – Ground Cover WATER: VL – Very Low SHRUB L – Low TREE M – Medium H- High SPACING: See VCFD Standard 515 -Defensible Space and Fuel Modification Zones N: Native E/D: Evergreen/Deciduous Ground Cover- Shrubs- Trees- TARGET (Undesirable Plants) SPECIES ARE DESIGNATED WITH AN *. They are NOT ALLOWED within 30’ of structures. Some may not be allowed within 50 -100’ of structures - designated with (50 /100) after name. It is highly recommended that these plants be removed from any existing defensible space zone. Plants highlighted in Green are known to be invasive species and have been known to degrade, change and/or displace native habitats. Vines and climbing plants are not allowed on combustible structures and are therefore not included in the plant reference guide. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 719 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Abelia grandiflora “Prostrata’ Prostrate Glossy Abelia GC M 1-2” 3-4” E Acacia redolens * Desert Carpet Acacia* GC VL 18’ 6’ E Achillia tomentosa Woolly Yarrow GC L 6-10” 6-12” E Ajuga reptans Carpet Bulge GC H 4-6” 2-4” E Aptenia cordifolia Red Apple Ice Plant GC M, L -12” Varies E Arctostaphylos “Pacific Mist” *(100) NCN GC L 1-2’ 5-6’ E Arctostaphylos e. “Emerald Carpet” *(100) Emerald Carpet Manzanita* GC L, VL 1’ 4-6’ E Arctostaphylos edmundsii *(100) Little Sur Manzanita* GC L, VL 1-2’ 4-6’ E Arctostaphylos hookeri *(100) Monterey Manzanita* GC L 1-2’ 4-6’ E Arctostaphylos uva-ursi * Bearberry* GC L 6-12” 5-6’ E Arctotheca calendula Cape Weed GC M, L -12” -18” E Artemesia caucasica *(100) Silver Spreader* GC L, VL 3-6” 2’ E Artemesia californica ‘cultivars’ *(100) Sagebrush – Prostrate forms* GC L, VL Varies Varies E Asarum caudatum Wild Ginger GC M, H 7-10” 2’ D Atriplex semibaccata *(100) Creeping Saltbrush* GC L, VL 1’ 1-5’ X E Baccharis p. ‘Pigeon Point’ *(100) Dwarf Coyote Brush* GC L, VL 12-24” 6’ E Baccharis p ‘Twin Peaks’ *(100) Dwarf Coyote Brush* GC L, VL 12-24” 6’ E Baccharis pilularis *(100) Coyote Brush* GC L, VL X C. s. ‘Repens’ * Pro. Willowleaf Contoneater* GC M, L -6” 6’ E C. Salicifolius ‘Emerald Carpet’ * Pro. Willowleaf Contoneater* GC M, L 12-15” 8’ E Carpobrotus species Sea Fig GC L 6-12” 24-30” E Ceanothus gloriosus * Point Reyes Ceanothus* GC L 1-2’ 4-5’ X E Ceanothus griseus varieties * Prostrate carmel creaper* GC L 2-3’ 8-10’ X E Ceanothus maritimus * Maritime Ceanothus* GC L 1-3’ 4-5’ X E Cerastium tomentosum Snow-in-summer GC M, L 6-8” 2-3’ E Chamaemelum nobile Chamonile GC M 6-8” -12” E Cistus ‘Sunset’ Rockrose GC L, VL 1-2’ 6-8’ E Cistus ‘Warley rose’ Rockrose GC L, VL 1’ 4’ E Cistus salviifolius Sage leaf Rockrose GC L, VL 1-2’ 6’ E Coprosma kirkii * No common name* GC M, L 2’ 6-8’ E Coreopsis auriculata ‘Nana’ No common name GC L, VL 5-8” 2’ X E Cotoneaster adpressus praecox * Cotoneaster* GC M, L -18” 6’ D Dalea Greggii * Trailing Indigo Bush* GC L, VL 12-18” 5-10” E Delosperma alba* (100) White Trailing Ice Plant* GC L -12” 2’ E Dichondra micrantha Dichondra GC H, M -6” 2’ E Drosanthemum hispidum Ice Plant GC L -12 1-2’ E Duchesnea indica Indian Mock Strawberry GC L -8” 4’ E Dymondia margaretae No common name GC M, L -3” 12-24” E Erigeron glaucus Seaside Daisy GC M, L 10-12” 2’ X E Erigeron karvinskianus Santa Barbara Daisy GC M, L 10-20” 3’ E Euonymus fortunei ‘Colorata’ Purple-Leaf Winter Creeper GC M 1-2’ 6’ E Festuca cinerea (ovin glauca) Blue Fescue GC M, L -12” 2’ E Festuca rubra Red Fescue GC M, L -16” -30” E Fragaria chiloensis Wild Strawberry GC L, VL 6-12” -24” E Gazania rigens var Leucolaena Trailing Gazania GC L 6-10” -24” E Geranium incanum Cranesbill GC M, L -12” 12” E Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 720 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Glechoma hederacea Ground Ivy GC M 3-6” -18” E/D Hedera helix & varieties *(100) English Ivy* GC M, L 6-18” 4’ E Heliaanthemum nummularium Sunrose GC L 6-8” 3’ E Herniaria glabra Green Carpet GC M 2-3” -16” E Hypericum calycinum Aaron’s Beard GC M, L 6-12” 3’ E Hypericum coris No common name GC M, L 6-12” 2’ E Iberis sempervirens Evergreen Candytuft GC M 6-12” 6-12” E Iva hayesiana * (100) Poverty Weed* GC L, VL 2-3’ 4-5’ X E Juniperus confeerta* (100) Shore Juniper* GC L 8-12” 4-5’ E Lampranthus spectabilis* (100) Trailing Ice Plant* GC L -12” 12-24” E Laurentia fluviatilis Blue Star Creeper GC M 2-4” 6-12” E Liriope spicata Big Blue Lilly Turf GC M 18” 12” E Lonicera japonica* (100) Japanese Honeysuckle* GC M 1-2’ 6-10’ E Lysimachia nummularia Moneywort GC H, M 2-6” 2’ E Mahonia aquifolium ‘Compacta’ Compact Oregon Grape GC M, L 1-2’ 2-3’ E Mahonia repens Creeping Mahonia GC M, L 2-3’ 2-3’ X E Myoporum ‘Pacificum’ Pacific Myoporum GC M, L 2-3’ 2-3’ E Myoporum parvifolium NCN GC L -3” 9’ E Nandina domectica ‘Harbour Dwarf’ Dwarf Heavenly Bamboo GC M, L 1.5-2’ 2-3’ E Oenothera berlandieri Mexican Evening Primrose GC L, VL 10-12” 4’ E Oenothera stubbei Baja Evening Primrose GC L, VL -5” 2’ E Ophiopogon japonicus Mondo Grass GC M 8-12” 12-24” E Osteosperumum fruticosum Trailing African Daisy GC M -18” 4’ E Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium GC M 2’ 4’ E Pelargonium tomentosum Geranium GC M -18” 2-4’ E Phyla nodiflora (Lippia repens) Lippia GC M, L 2-15” 3’ E/D Polygonium capitatum Pink Clover GC M, L -18” 2’ E Potentilla tabernaemontanii Spring Cinquefoil GC M, L 2-6” -12” E Ribes viburnifolium Catalina Perfume GC L, VL 3’ 3’ X E Rosmarinus officinalis ‘Huntington Blue’* No common name* GC L -18” 4’ E Rosmarinus officinalis ‘Prostratus’* Prostrate Rosemary* GC L -24” 6’ E Salvia sonomensis * (50) Creeping Sage* GC L 8-12” 3-4’ X E Santolina chamaecyparissus Lavender Cotton GC L -24” 3’ E Santolina rosmarinifolius (virens) Green Lavender Cotton GC L -24” 3’ E Scaevola ‘Mauve Clusters’ No common name GC M, L 4-6” 3-4’ E Sedum species Stonecrops GC L, VL Varies Varies E Senecio mandraliscae Blue Chalk Sticks GC M, L -18” 5’ E Senecio serpens Blue Chalk Sticks GC M, L -12” 3’ E Soleirolia solerirolii Baby;s Tears GC H, M 3-6” -18” E Teucrium T. cossonii Germander GC L 4-6” 2’ E Teucrium chamaedrys ‘Prostratum’ Prostrate Gemander GC M, L 4-6” 3’ E Thymus praecox arcticus Mother of Thyme GC M, L 2-6” -18” E Thymus pseudolanuginosus Woolly Thyme GC M, L 2-3” -12” E Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine GC M, L 2’ 4-5’ E Trifolium fragiferum “o’conner’s” * O’Connor’s Leegume* GC M, L 6-15” 6’ E Verbena hybrida Garden Verbena GC L, VL 6-12” 1.5-3’ E Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 721 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Verbena peruviana No common name GC L, VL -8” 2’ E Verbena pulchella gracilior Moss Verbena GC L, VL 12-15” 2-3’ E Verbena tenuisecta Moss Verbena GC L, VL 12-15” 2-3’ E Vinca Major *(100) Periwinkle GC M 12-24” 4-6’ E Wedelia trilobata * Wedelia* GC M, L -12” 4-6’ E Zauschneria californica * California Fuchsia* GC L, VL 1-2’ 3-5’ X E Zoysia tenuifolia Korean Grass GC M, L -6” -18” E Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 722 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Abutilon hybridum Chinese Lantern Shrub M 10’ 10’ E Acanthus mollis Bear’s Breech Shrub H, M 4’ 4-6’ E/D Achillea filipendulina * Fernleaf Yarrow* Shrub L, VL 4-5’ 2’ E Achmea species Bromeliaceae Shrub L 2’ 2’ E Adenostema fasciculatum * (100) Chamise * Shrub L 5-12’ 5-8’ X E Aeonium species Crassulaceae Shrub M, L 3’ 2’ E Agapanthus species Lily Of The Nile Shrub M Varies Varies E/D Agave species Agave Shrub L, VL Varies Varies E Alocasia macrorrhiza Elephant’s Ear Shrub H 5’ 4’ E Aloe species Aloe Shrub L, VL Varies Varies E Alyogyne huegelii * Blue Hibiscus * Shrub M, L 5-8’ 8’ E Anigozanthos flavidus Kangaroo Paw Shrub M, L 3-5’ 3’ E Anigozanthos manglesii No common name Shrub M, L 3’ 3’ E Arbutus unedo ‘Compacta’ * Dwarf Strawberry Tree * Shrub M, L 6-8’ 8’ E Arbutus unedo ‘Elfin King’ * Elfin King * Shrub M, L 3-5’ 6’ E Arbutus unedo ‘Octoberfest’ * No common name * Shrub M, L 6-8’ 8’ E Arctostaphylos species * Manzanita * Shrub L, VL Varies Varies X E Artemisia ‘Powis Castle’ * Powis Castle * Shrub L, VL 3’ 6’ E Artimisia californica * (100) California Sagebrush * Shrub L 3-5’ 3-5’ X E Artimisia stellerapa * (100) Beach Worm Wood * Shrub L, VL 3’ 3’ E Aspidistra elatior Cast Iron Plant Shrub M, L -30” 3’ E Asplenium bulbiferum Mother Fern Shrub H, M 4’ 4’ E Aucuba japonica Japanese Aucuba Shrub M, L 6’ 6’ E Baccharis p.ssp. Consanguinea * (100) Coyote Brush * Shrub L, VL Varies Varies E Begonia species Begonia Shrub H, M Varies Varies E Berberis thunbergii Japanese Barberry Shrub M, L 4-6’ 4-6’ D Berberis thunbergii ‘cultivars’ Barberry Shrub M, L Varies Varies D Bergenia crassifolia Winter Blooming Bergenia Shrub M, L -20” -20” E Bougainvillea species * (100) Bougainvillea * Shrub L 10-25’ 10-25’ Buddleia davidii * Butterfly Bush * Shrub M, L 10’ 12’ E/D Buxus microphylla japonica * Japanese Boxwood * Shrub M, L 4-6’ 4-6’ E Buxux microphylla koreana Korean * Korean Boxwood * Shrub M, L 4-6’ 4-6’ E Caesalpinia gilliesii * Bird Of Paradise Bush * Shrub L, VL 10’ 10’ E/D Caesalpinia mexicana * Mexican Bird Of Paradise * Shrub L, VL 10-12’ 15’ E/D Caesalpinia pulcherrima * Red Bird Of Paradise * Shrub L, VL 10’ 10’ E/D Calliandra californica * Baja Fairy Duster * Shrub L, VL 3’ 4-5’ X E/D Calliandra eriophylla * Fairy Duster * Shrub L, VL 3’ 4-5’ E/D Callistemon citrinus ‘Compacta’ * Bottlebrush * Shrub L, VL 5’ 5’ E Calycanthus occidentalis * Spice Bush * Shrub M, L 4-12’ 5’ D Carissa macrocarpa (grandiflora) Natal Plum Shrub M, L 7’ 7’ E Carpenteria californica * Bush Anemone * Shrub L 6-8’ 6-8’ X E Cassia artemisiojdes * Feathery Cassia * Shrub L, VL 3-6’ 6’ E Ceanothus species * Wild Lilac * Shrub L, VL Varies Varies X E/D Cercocarpus betuloides * Mountain Mahogany * Shrub L, VL 5-12’ 10’ X E Choisya ternate * Mexican Orange * Shrub M 6-8’ 8’ E Cistus species Rockrose Shrub L, VL Varies Varies X E Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 723 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Cleome spinosa * Spider Flower * Shrub L, VL 4-6’ 4-6’ E Clivia miniata Clivia Shrub H, M 2’ 2’ E Coleonema pulchrum Pink Breath of Heaven Shrub M, L 5-10’ 6’ E Colocasia esculenta (caladium) Elephant’s Ear Shrub H 6’ 6’ E/D Comarostaphylis diversifolia * Summer Holly * Shrub L, VL 6-10’+ 6-8’+ E Convolvulus cneorum * Bush Morning Glory * Shrub L 2-4’ 2-4’ E Coprosma pumila * (100) No common name * Shrub M 3’ 8’ E Coprosma repens *(100) Mirror Plant * Shrub M 10’ 6’ E Cortaderia selloana * (100) Pampas Grass * Shrub L 10-12’ 10-12’ E Cotoneaster species * Cotoneaster * Shrub M, L 2-18’ 3-15’ E/D Cotyledon species No common name Shrub L 1-3’ 1-3’ E Crassula species Jade Plant Shrub L 1-9’ 1-9’ E Cuphea hyssopifolia False Heather Shrub H, M 1-2’ 2’ E Cycas revolute Sago Palm Shrub M 2-10’ 3-6’ E Cyrtomium falcatum Holly Fern Shrub H, M 2-3’ 3-4’ E Dasylirion longissima * Mexican Grass Tree * Shrub L, VL 10’ 8’ E Dasylirion wheeleri * Sotol * Shrub L, VL 6’ 6’ E Dendromecon harfordii * Island Bush Poppy * Shrub L 20’ 20’ X E Dietes bicolor Fortnight Lily, African Iris Shrub M, L 2-3’ 2-3’ E Dodonaea viscose * (100) Hopseed Bush * Shrub L 12-18’ 10-12’ E Echium fastuosum * Pride of Madeira * Shrub L, VL 4-6’ 4-6’ E Elaeagnus pungens & cultivars * Silverberry * Shrub M, L 6-15’ 6-15’ E Encelia californica * Coast Sunflower * Shrub L, VL 3-5’ 3-5’ X E/D Encelia farinose * Brittle Bush * Shrub L, VL 3-5’ 3-5’ X E/D Eriogonum fasciculatum * Common Buckwheat * Shrub L 2-3’ 2-3’ X E Eriogonum giganteum * St. Catherine’s Lace * Shrub L, VL 8’ 8’ X E Escallonia species Escallonia Shrub M, L 2-15’ 2-10’ E Euonymus japonica & cultivars Evergreen Euonymus Shrub M 2-10’ 6’ E Euphorbia species Euphorbia Shrub L Varies Varies X Euryops pectinatus NCN Shrub L 6’ 5’ E Fatsia japonica Japanese Aralia Shrub M 5-12’ 6-10’ E Fouquieria splendens * Ocotillo * Shrub VL 8-25’ 8-15’ X E Fremontodendron species & cultivars *(100) Flannel Bush * Shrub L, VL 5-20’ 15’ X E Gardenia jasminoides Gardenia Shrub H 3-6’ 3-5’ E Garrya elliptica * Coastal Silktassel * Shrub M, L 4-8’ 4-8’ X E Grevillea ‘Noellii’ NCN Shrub M, L 4’ 4-5’ E Grewia caffra * Lavender Star Flower * Shrub H, M 6-10’ 6-10’ E Hakea suaveolens * Sweet Hakea * Shrub L 10-20’ 15’ E Hebe species & cultivars Hebe Shrub M 3-6’ 3-6’ E Helictotrichon sempervirens * Blue Oat Grass * Shrub L 2-3’ 2-3’ E Hemerocallis hybrids Daylilly Shrub M, L 1-6’ 2-6’ E/D Hesperaloe parviflora No common name Shrub VL 3-4’ 4-6’ E Heuchera Coral Bella Shrub M 1-2’ 1-2’ X P Hibiscus rosa – sinensis * Chinese Hibiscus * Shrub M 15’ 12’ E Iiex species Holly Shrub M, L Varies Varies E Iris douglasiana Douglas Iris Shrub M, L 2’ 2’ E Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 724 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Iris species Bearded Iris Shrub M -30” 2’ E Isomeris arborea * Bladderpod * Shrub L 3-10’ 3-10’ X E Juniperus species *(100) Juniper * Shrub L Varies Varies X E Justicia brandegeana Shrimp Plant Shrub M 3’ 4’ E Justicia californica * Chuparosa * Shrub L, VL 2-5’ 4’ X D Keckiella cordifolia Heart-Leaved Penstemon Shrub L, VL 5-6’ 8-10’ X E/D Kniphofia uvaria Red-Hot Poker Shrub L 2-3’ 3-4’ E Larrea tridentate *(100) Creosote Bush * Shrub VL 4-8’ 4-8’ X E Lavandula angustifolia English Lavender Shrub L 3-4’ 3-4’ E Lavandula dentate French Lavender Shrub L 3’ 3’ E Lavandula Intermedia Lavender Shrub L 1-2’ 2-3’ E Lavandula stoechas Spanish Lavender Shrub L 2-3’ 3’ E Lavatera assurgentifloria * California Tree Mallow Shrub L 8-12’ 8-12’ X E Leonotis Ieonurus * Lion’s Tail * Shrub L 3-6’ 4-6’ E Leucophyllum candidum * Violet Silverleaf * Shrub L, VL 4-5’ 4-5’ E Leucophyllum frutescens * Texas Ranger * Shrub L, VL 6-8’ 6-8’ E Leucophyllum laevigatum *(100) Chihuahuan Sage * Shrub L, VL 3-4’ 4-5’ E Ligustrum japonicum Privet Shrub H 10-12’ 10-12’ E Limonium perezii Sea Lavender Shrub L 2’ 2’ E Liriope muscari Big Blue Lily Turf Shrub M 1-2’ 1-2’ E Lobelia lanflora Mexican Bush Lobelia Shrub L 2-3’ 4-6’ E Lupinus species Lupine Shrub L, VL Varies Varies X E Mahonia ‘Golden Abundance’ *(100) No common name * Shrub M, L 5-6’ 6’ E Mahonia aquifolium *(100) Oregon Grape * Shrub M, L 6-8’ 6-8’ X E Mahonia fremontii *(100) Desert Mahonia * Shrub L 3-12’ 4-8’ E Mahonia Iomarifolia *(100) Venetian Blind Mahonia * Shrub M, L 6-10’ 6-10’ E Mahonia nevinii *(100) Nevin Mahonia * Shrub L 3-10’ 6-12’ X E Mahonia pinnata *(100) California Holly Grape * Shrub M, L 4-5’ 4-6’ E Malosma laurina *(100) Laurel Sumac * Shrub L 12-20’ 12-20’ X E Malva species * Mallow * Shrub L Varies Varies X E Melaleuca nesophila *(100) Pink Melaleuca * Shrub L 15-20’ 15-20’ E Mimulus species (Diplacus) Monkey Flower Shrub L 1-4’ 1-4’ E Muhlenbergia rigins * Dear Grass * Shrub L 5’ 4’ X Myrica californica * Pacific Wax Myrtle * Shrub L 10-15’ 10-15’ X E Myrsine Africana African Boxwood Shrub L 3-8’ 3-8’ E Myrtus communis ‘Compacta’ * Dwarf Myrtle * Shrub M 5-8’ 5-8’ E Nandina domestica*(100) Heavenly Bamboo* Shrub M 6-8’ 4-5’ E Nandina domestica ;Compacta’*(100) No Common Name* Shrub M 4-5’ 3-4’ E Nephrolepis cordifolia Southern Sword Fern Shrub M, L 2-3’ 3-6’ E Nerium oleander ‘Petite Salmon’ Petite Salmon Shrub L 3-4’ 3-4’ E Nerium species *(100) Oleander * Shrub M, L 8-20’ 10-20’ E Opuntia species Pricky Pear, cholla etc. Shrub L, VL Varies Varies X E Pelargonium species Geranium Shrub M, L Varies Varies E Pennisetum setaceum *(100) Fountain Grass * Shrub L -18” 1-2’ Penstemon species Beard Tongue Shrub L Varies Varies E/D Phlomis Fruticosa *(100) Jerusalem Sage * Shrub M, L 3-4’ 3-4’ E Phoenix roebelenii Pigmy Date Palm Shrub L 6’ 6’ E Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 725 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Phormium tenax * New Zealand Flax * Shrub M 5-9’ 6’ E Phormium tenax ‘cultivars’ No common name Shrub M Varies Varies E Photinia Fraseri * Photinia * Shrub M, L 10-15’ 10-20’ E Pittosporum tobira Tobira Shrub M, L 6-15’+ 8-15’ E Pittosporum tobira ‘Variegata’ No common name Shrub M 5-8’ 6-8’ E Pittosporum tobira ‘Wheeler’s Dwarf’ Dwarf Pittosporum Shrub M 1-3’ 2-4’ E Plumbago auriculata *(100) Cape Plumbago * Shrub L 6-8’ 8-12’ E Polystichum munitum Sword Fern Shrub M 2-4’ 2-4’ E Portulacaria afra Elephant’s Food Shrub L 5-12’ 6-12’ E Punica granatum ‘Nana’ Dwarf Pomegranate Shrub L 3’ 4’ D Pyracantha species * Firethorn * Shrub M Varies Varies E/D Rhamnus California * Coffeeberry * Shrub M, L 3-15’ 4-15’ X E/D Rhamnus crocea * Redberry * Shrub M, L 2-3’ 3’ E Rhamnus crocea ilicifolia * Hollyleaf Redberry * Shrub M, L 3-15’ 3-15’ E Rhaphiolepis indica India Hawthorn Shrub M, L 4-8’ 4-8’ E Rhaphiolepis indica ‘Cultivars’ No common name Shrub M, L Varies Varies E Rhus integrifolia *(50) Lemonade Berry * Shrub L 3-10’+ 6-20’ X E Rhus ovata * Sugar Bush * Shrub L 3-15’ 6-15’ X E Ribes aureum * Golden Currant * Shrub L 3-6’ 3-6’ D Ribes malvaceum * Chaparral Currant * Shrub L 6-8’ 5’ X D Ribes sanguineum & cultivars * Red Flowering Currant * Shrub M, L 4-12’ 4-8’ D Ribes speciosum Fuchsia-Flow.Gooseberry Shrub L 3-6’ 3-6’ X D Ribes viburnifolium Catalina Perfume Shrub L 3’ 12’ X E Romneya coulteri * Matilija Poppy * Shrub L 8’ 4’ X D Rosa species Rose Shrub M Varies Varies E/D Rosmarinus ‘Tuscan Blue’* Tuscan Blue* Shrub L 6’ 6’ Salvia greggii *(100) NCN* Shrub L 3-4’ 3-4’ E Salvia leucantha *(100) Mexican Bush Sage * Shrub L 3-4’ 3-4’ E Salvia leucophylla *(100) Purple Sage * Shrub L 2-6’ 2-6’ X E Salvia species * (100) (White & Black) Sage * Shrub L Varies Varies X E/D Simmondsia chinensis * Jojoba* Shrub L, VL 3-8’+ 4-8’ X E Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise Shrub M 5’ 4’ E Tecomaria capensis *(100) Cape Honeysuckle * Shrub L 6-8’ 12-15’ E Tetrapanax papyriferus Rice Paper Plant Shrub M 10-15’ 15’ E Tibouchina urvilleana * Princess Flower * Shrub M 5-18’ 5-18’ E Trichostema lanatum Wooly Blue Curls Shrub L, VL 3-5’ 5’ X E Tulbaghia violacea Society Garlic Shrub M 18’ 2’ E/D Viburnum species Viburnum Shrub M Varies Varies E/D Westringia fruticosa * Coast Rosemary * Shrub M, L 5-7’ 6-12’ X E Woodwardia fimbriata Giant Chain Fern Shrub L 9’ 5’ X E Xylosma congestum * Shiny Xylosma* Shrub M, L 15’+ 15’+ E Xylosma congestum ‘Compacta’ * Compact Xylosma* Shrub M, L 8-12’ 8-12’ E Yucca species * Yucca* Shrub L, VL Varies Varies E Zantedeschia aethiopica Calla Lilly Shrub M 1-3’ 3’ Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 726 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Acacia farnesiana * Sweet Acacia * Tree L 15-20’ 15-20’ D Acacia greggii * Catclaw Acacia * Tree L, VL 15-25’ 15-25’ E Acer macrophyllum * Bigleaf Maple * Tree M 30-95’ 30-95’ X D Acer negundo * Box Elder * Tree M, L 60’ 50’ D Acer palmatum Japanese Maple Tree M 20’ 20’ D Acer saccharinum * Silver Maple * Tree M 40-100’ 40-100’ D Adenostema sparsifolium *(100) Red Shanks * Tree L 12-15’ 12-15’ X E Aesculus californica * California Buckeye * Tree M, L 20’+ 30’ D Agathis robusta * Queensland Kauri * Tree H 75’ 25’ E Agonis flexuosa * Peppermint Tree * Tree M, L 25-35’ 25-35’ E Albizia julibrissin * Silk Tree * Tree M 40’ 40’ D Alnus cordata * Italian Alder * Tree M 40’ 25’ D Alnus rhombifloria White Alder Tree H, M 50-90’ 40’ X D Araucaria heterophylla * Norfolk Island Pine * Tree H, M 100’ 25’ E Arbutus’Marina’ No common name Tree M, L 40’ 40’ E Arbutus unedo * Strawberry Tree * Tree M, L 12-35’ 20-35’ E Archontophoenix cunninghamiana King Palm Tree M 50’ 10-15’ E Bauhinia variegate * Purple Orchid Tree * Tree M 20-35’ 35’ E/D Beaucarnea recuvata * Bottle Palm * Tree L 25’ 15’ E Betula pendula European White Birch Tree M 30-40’ 30’ D Brachychiton acerifolius * Flame Tree * Tree L 60’ 45-50’ D Brachychiton populneus Kurrajong Bottle Tree Tree L 30-50’ 30’ E Brahea armata * Blue Hesper Palm * Tree L, VL 40’ 10’ E Brahea edulis * Guadalupe Palm * Tree L, VL 30’ 10’ E Butia capitata * Pindo Palm * Tree L 10-20’ 15-20’ Callistemon citrinus * Lemon Bottlebrush * Tree M, L 25’ 15’ E Callistenom viminalis * Weeping Bottlebrush * Tree M, L 20-30’ 15’ E Calocedrus decurrens * Incense Cedar Tree L 40-80’ 10-20’ E Calodendrum capense * Cape Chestnut * Tree M 30’ 25-40’ D Carya illinoensis * River She-Oak * Tree M, L 70’ 70’ D Casuarina cunninghamiana * River She-Oak * Tree1 L 50-70’ 20-30’ E Catalpa speciosa * Western Catalpa * Tree M 40-70’ 40-70’ D Cedrus Species * Cedar * Tree L Varies Varies E Ceratonia siliqua * Carob Tree * Tree L 30-40’ 30-40’ E Cercidium floridum * Blue Palo Verde * Tree L, VL 30’ 30’ X D Cercidium microphyllum * Littleleaf Palo Verde * Tree L, VL 25’ 25’ X D Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud Tree M, L 20’ 20’ X D Chamaerops humilis * Mediterranean Fan Palm * Tree M 20’ 20’ E Chilopsis linearis * Desert Willow * Tree L 35’ 35’ X D Chionanthus retusus * Chinese Fringe Tree * Tree M 20’ 20’ X D Chitalpa tashkentensis * Chitalpa * Tree M, L 20-30’ 20-30’ D Chorisia speciosa Floss Silk Tree Tree M 30-60’ 30-40’ D Cinnamomum camphora * Camphor Tree * Tree M, L 50’+ 60’+ E Citrus species Citrus Trees Tree H, M Varies Varies E Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 727 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Cocculus Laurifolius * Laurel Leaf Snail Seed * Tree M 25’ 30’+ E Cordyline australis * Giant Dracanea * Tree M 30’ 15’ E Cornus kousa * Kousa Dogwood * Tree H 20’ 15’ D Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrot Wood Tree M 40’ 40’ E Cupressus sempervirens * Italian Cypress Tree L 60’ 10’ E Cupressus species * Cypress * Tree L 30-90’ 30-40’ E Cyathea cooperi Australian Tree Fern Tree M, L 20’ 6-12’ E Discksonia Antarctica Tasmanian Tree Fern Tree L 6-15’ 6’ E Dracaena draco * Dragon Tree * Tree M, L 20’ 20’ E Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat Tree M, L 20’ 20’ E Erythrina species Coral Tree Tree M, L Varies Varies D Eucalyptus citriodora * Lemon-Scented Gum * Tree M, L 75-100’ 40’ E Eucalyptus maculate * Spotted Gum * Tree M, L 60-80’ 40’ E Eucalyptus nicholii * Willow Peppermint * Tree M, L 40’ 50’ E Eucalyptus sideroxylon * Red Ironbark * Tree M, L 35-80’ 35’ E Eucalyptus species * Eucalyptus * Tree L Varies Varies E/D Eucalyptus torquata * Coral Gum Tree M, L 25’ 20’ E Feijoa sellowiana Pineaplle Guava Tree M, L 18-25’ 25’ E Ficus Species Fig Tree M, L Varies Varies E/D Fraxinus augustifolia * Raywood Ash * Tree M 25-35’ 30’ D Fraxinus dipetala Foothill Ash Tree L, VL 18-20’ 20-30’ D Fraxinus velutina * Arizona Ash * Tree M, L 20-50’ 30-50’ D Fraxinus velutina coriacea * Montebello Ash * Tree M, L 20-40’ 20-40’ D Geijera parviflora Australian Willow Tree M, L 25-30’ 20-30’ E Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Tree M, L 35-80’ 30-80’ D Gleditsia triacanthos * Honey Locust * Tree M, L 35-70’ 30’ D Grevillea robusta * Silk Oak * Tree M 50-60’ 30’ E/D Heteromeles arbutifolia * Toyon * Tree L, VL 15-30’ 15-30’ X E Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade Tree Tree M, L 20-40’ 15-20’ E Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda Tree M, L 25-40’ 30’ D Juglans californica * S, California Black Walnut * Tree L 20-35’ 30-45’ X D Koelreuteria bipinnata * Chinese Flame Tree * Tree M 20-40’ 45’ D Koelreuteria paniculata * Golden Rain Tree * Tree M, L 20-35’ 40’ D Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Tree M, L 30’ 20’ D Laurus nobilis * Sweet Bay * Tree L 12-40’ 15’ E Leptospermum laevigatum * Australian Tea Tree Tree L 15-25’ 15-25’ E Leptospermum scoparium New Zealand Tea Tree Tree L 10-12’ 8-10’ E Liquidambar formosana * Chinese Sweet Gum * Tree M 40-60’ 25’ D Liquidamber styraciflua American Sweet Gum Tree M 60’ 25’ D Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree Tree M 60-80’ 40’ D Lithocarpus densiflorus * Tanbark Oak * Tree L 60’ 40’ E Lyonothamnus floribundus * Catalina Ironwood * Tree L 30-60’ 20-40’ X E Magnolia soulangiana Saucer Magnolia Tree M 25’ 25’ D Magnolia species * Magnolia * Tree M Varies Varies E/D Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 728 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Maytenus boaria Mayten Tree Tree M, L 30-50’ 30’ E Melaleuca leucadendra *(100) Cajeput Tree * Tree L 20-40’ 25’ E Melia azedarach * Chinaberry * Tree L 30’ 30’ D Metasequoia glyptostroboides * Dawn Redwood * Tree H, M 80’ 40’ D Metrosideros exelsus * New Zealand Christams * Tree L, VL 30’ 30’ E Morus Alba White Mulberry Tree M, L 20-60’ 30-50’ D Musa species Banana Palm Tree H Varies Varies E Olea euopea * Olive Tree L, VL 35’ 20-30’ E Parkinsonia aculeate * Jerusalem Thorn * Tree L, VL 15-30’ 15-30’ D Phoenix canariensis * Canary Island Date Palm * Tree L 60’ 50’ E Phoenix dactylifera * Date Palm Tree L 80’ 15’ E Pinus brutia *(100) Calabrian Pine * Tree L 30-60’ 30’ E Pinus canariensis *(100) Canary Island Pine * Tree L 40-100’ 30’ E Pinus coulteri *(100) Coulter Pine * Tree L 30-60’ 25-40’ E Pinus eldarica *(100) Afghan Pine * Tree L 30-60’ 25-40’ E Pinus halepensis *(100) Aleppo Pine * Tree L 30-60’ 25-40’ E Pinus pinea *(100) Italian Stone Pine * Tree L 40-80’ 30-50’ E Pinus radiate *(100) Monterey Pine * Tree L 60-80’ 20-35’ X E Pinus species *(100) Pine Tree * Tree L Varies Varies E Pistacia chinensis * Chinese Pistache Tree M, L 60’ 50’ D Pittosporum phillyraeoides * Willow Pittosporum Tree L 15-25’ 10-15’ E Pittosporum rhombifolium * Queensland Pittosporum Tree M 15-35’ 25’ E Pittosporum undulatum * Victorian Box * Tree M 25’ 25’ E Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree Tree L 40-80’ 30-40’ D Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Tree L 50-100’ 50-100’ X D Podocarpus gracilior*(100) Fern Pine* Tree M 60’ 60’ E Podocarpus macrophyllus *(100) Yew Pine* Tree M 50’ 45’ E Populus fremontii * Fremont Cottonwood * Tree M 40-60’ 40-60’ D Prosopis glandulosa Honey Mesquite Tree L, VL 25-30’ 25-30’ D Prosopis juliflora Mesquite Tree L, VL 40-50’ 40-50’ X D Prunus ilicifolia * Hollyleaf Cherry * Tree L, VL 15-30’ 15-30’ X E Prunus lyonii * Catalina Cherry * Tree L, VL 20-45’ 30’+ X E Prunus species & cultivars Cherry Tree Varies Varies Varies E/D Punica granatum Pomegranate Tree L 12-18’ 20’ D Pyrus calleryana * Callery Pear * Tree L 25-50’ 25-50’ D Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen Pear Tree L 20-25’ 20-25’ E Quercus agrifolia* Coast Live Oak* Tree L, VL 30-70’ 70’+ X E Quercus chrysolepis* Canyon Live Oak* Tree M, L 30-60’ 20-60’ X D Quercus douglasii* Blue Oak* Tree M 50’ 50’ X D Quercus engelmanii* Engelmann Oak* Tree L 60’ 60’ X E Quercus ilex* Holly Oak* Tree M 40-70’ 40-70’ E Quercus kellogii* California Black Oak* Tree M 30-80’ 60’ X D Quecus lobate* Valley Oak* Tree L, VL 70’+ 70’+ X D Quercus palustris* Pin Oak* Tree H, M 50-80’ 5-70’ D Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 729 Plant Reference Guide BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE WATER HEIGHT SPREAD N E/D Quercus rubra* Red Oak* Tree H, M 90’ 90’ D Quercus suber* Cork Oak* Tree M 70-100’ 100’ E Quercus virginiana* Southern Live Oak* Tree M, H 60’ 100’ E/D Quercus wislizinii* Interior Live Oak* Tree M, L 30-75’ 75’+ E Rhus Lancea* African Sumac* Tree L 20-30’ 20-30’ E Robinia ambigua * Locust * Tree M, L 30-50’ 30’ D Robinia pseudoacacia * Black Locust * Tree L 75’ 30-40’ D Sambucus mexicana * Mexican Elderberry * Tree L 10-50’ 10-25’ X D Sapium sebiferum Chinese Tallow Tree Tree M 35’ 35’ D Schefflera actinophylla Queensland Umbrella Tree Tree H, M 20’+ 20’+ E Schefflera pueckleri Tupidanthus Tree H, M 20’+ 20’+ E Schinus molle * California Pepper Tree L 25-40’ 25-40’ E Schinus terebithifolius * Brazillian Pepper * Tree L 30’ 30’ E Sequoia sempervirens * Coast Redwood * Tree H, M 70-16’ 40’+ X E Sophora japonica * Japanese Pagoda Tree Tree M, L 40’ 40’ D Stenocarpus sinatus Firewheel Tree Tree M, L 30’ 15’ D Strelitzia nicolai Giant Bird of Paradise Tree L 30’ 15’ E Syagrus romanzoffianum* Queen Palm* Tree M 60’ 20’ E Tabebuia chrysotriha Golden Trumpet Tree Tree M 25-30’ 30’ E Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree Tree M 35’ 30’ E Taxodium mucronatum * Montezuma Cypress * Tree H, VL 75’ 35’ E/D Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree Tree M 50’ 50’ D Trachycarpus fortunei *(100) Windmill Palm * Tree M 30’ 6’ E Tristania conferta Brisbane Box Tree L, VL 30-60’ 40’ E Tupidanthus calyptratus Tupidanthus Tree M 20’ 15’ E Ulmus parvifolia * Chinese Elm * Tree M, L 40-60’ 50-70’ E Umbellularia californica * California Bay * Tree L, VL 30-75’ 30-75’ X E Washingtonia filifera *(100) California Fan Palm * Tree L 60’ 15’ X E Washingtonia robusta *(100) Mexican Fan Palm * Tree L 100’ 15’ E Zelkoza serrata * Sawleaf Zelkova * Tree M 60’ 60’ D Ziziphus jujuba * Chinese Jujube * Tree M, L 20-30’ 20-30’ D Note: The VCFD Suggested Plant Reference Guide may be updated, and the current version must be used when designing and submitting landscape/fuel modification plans. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 730 Appendix E VCFD Prohibited Plant List Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 731 VENTURA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 165 DURLEY AVENUE CAMARILLO, CA 93010 www.vcfd.org Office: 805-389-9738 Fax: 805-388-4356 410 – PROHIBITED PLANT LIST April 19, 2019 Prohibited Plant List 410-1 This list was first published by the VCFD in 2014. It has been updated as of April 2019. It is intended to provide a list of plants and trees that are not allowed with in a new required defensible space (DS) or fuel modification zone (FMZ). It is highly recommended that these plants and trees be thinned and or removed from existing DS and FMZs. In certain instances, the Fire Department may require the thinning and or removal. This list was prepared by Hunt Research Corporation and Dudek & Associates, and reviewed by Scott Franklin Consulting Co, VCFD has added some plants and has removed plants only listed due to freezing hazard. Please see notes after the list of plants. For questions regarding this list, please contact the Fire Hazard reduction Program (FHRP) Unit at 085-389-9759 or FHRP@ventura.org Prohibited plant list:Botanical Name Common Name Comment* Trees Abies species Fir F Acacia species (numerous) Acacia F, I Agonis juniperina Juniper Myrtle F Araucaria species (A. heterophylla, A. araucana, A. bidwillii) Araucaria (Norfolk Island Pine, Monkey Puzzle Tree, Bunya Bunya) F Callistemon species (C. citrinus, C. rosea, C. viminalis) Bottlebrush (Lemon, Rose, Weeping) F Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar F Casuarina cunninghamiana River She-Oak F Cedrus species (C. atlantica, C. deodara) Cedar (Atlas, Deodar) F Chamaecyparis species (numerous) False Cypress F Cinnamomum camphora Camphor F Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Cryptomeria F Cupressocyparis leylandii Leyland Cypress F Cupressus species (C. fobesii, C. glabra, C. sempervirens,) Cypress (Tecate, Arizona, Italian, others) F Eucalyptus species (numerous) Eucalyptus F, I Juniperus species (numerous) Juniper F Larix species (L. decidua, L. occidentalis, L. kaempferi) Larch (European, Japanese, Western) F Leptospermum species (L. laevigatum, L. petersonii) Tea Tree (Australian, Tea) F Lithocarpus densiflorus Tan Oak F Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 732 April 19, 2019 Prohibited Plant List 410-2 Prohibited plant list:Botanical Name Common Name Comment* Melaleuca species (M. linariifolia, M. nesophila, M. quinquenervia) Melaleuca (Flaxleaf, Pink, Cajeput Tree) F, I Olea europea Olive I Picea (numerous) Spruce F Palm species (numerous) Palm F, I, Pinus species (P. brutia, P. canariensis, P. b. eldarica, P. halepensis, P. pinea, P. radiata, numerous others) Pine (Calabrian, Canary Island, Mondell, Aleppo, Italian Stone, Monterey) F Platycladus orientalis Oriental arborvitae F Podocarpus species (P. gracilior, P. macrophyllus, P. latifolius) Fern Pine (Fern, Yew, Podocarpus) F Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir F Schinus species (S. molle, S. terebenthifolius) Pepper (California and Brazilian) F, I Tamarix species (T. africana, T. aphylla, T. chinensis, T. parviflora) Tamarix (Tamarisk, Athel Tree, Salt Cedar, Tamarisk) F, I Taxodium species (T. ascendens, T. distichum, T. mucronatum) Cypress (Pond, Bald, Monarch, Montezuma) F Taxus species (T. baccata, T. brevifolia, T. cuspidata) Yew (English, Western, Japanese) F Thuja species (T. occidentalis, T. plicata) Arborvitae/Red Cedar F Tsuga species (T. heterophylla, T. mertensiana) Hemlock (Western, Mountain) F Groundcovers, Shrubs & Vines Acacia species Acacia ( except dwarf/prostrate variety) F Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise F Adenostoma sparsifolium Red Shanks F Agropyron repens Quackgrass F, I Anthemis cotula Mayweed F, I Arbutus menziesii Madrone F Arctostaphylos species Manzanita. Also note that Eastwood Manzanita grows to 8’ F Arundo donax Giant Reed F, I Artemisia species (A. abrotanium, A. absinthium, A. californica, A. caucasica, A. dracunculus, A. tridentata, A. pynocephala) Sagebrush (Southernwood, Wormwood, California, Silver, True tarragon, Big, Sandhill) F Atriplex species (numerous)** Saltbush F, I** Avena fatua Wild Oat F Baccharis pilularis Coyote Bush F Bambusa species Bamboo F, I Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea F, I, FR Brassica species (B. campestris, B. nigra, B. rapa) Mustard (Field, Black, Yellow) Wild Turnip F, I Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 733 April 19, 2019 Prohibited Plant List 410-3 Prohibited plant list:Botanical Name Common Name Comment* Bromus rubens Foxtail, Red brome F, I Bromus carinatus California brome Grows to 5’, Dies if cut Castanopsis chrysophylla Giant Chinquapin F Cardaria draba Hoary Cress I Carpobrotus species Ice Plant, Hottentot Fig I Ceonothus griseus “ Louis Edmunds** Louis Edmunds Ceanothus Grow higher than 18”* Ceonothus griseus var. horizontalis** Carmel Creeper Ceonothus Grows higher than 18”** Ceonothus griseus var. horizontalis “yankee point”* Yankee Point Ceonothus Grows higher than 18”** Ceonothus megacarpus** Big pod ceonothus Grows higher than 18”** Cirsium vulgare Wild Artichoke F,I Codariocalyx motorius Telegraph Plant F Conyza bonariensis Horseweed F Coprosma pumila Prostrate Coprosma F Cortaderia selloana Pampas Grass F, I Cytisus scoparius Scotch Broom F, I Delosperma “alba” White trailing Ice Plant F Dodonaea viscosa Hopseed Bush F Drosanthemum Floribundum Rosea Ice plant F Eriodictyon californicum Yerba Santa F Eriogonum species (E. fasciculatum) Buckwheat (California) F Fremontodendron species Flannel Bush F Hedera species (H. canariensis, H. helix) Ivy (Algerian, English) I Helix Canariensis English Ivy F Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Plant F Hordeum leporinum Wild barley F, I Jasminum humile Italian Jasmine F Juniperus species Juniper F Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce I Lamprathus aurantiacus Bush Ice Plant F Lamprathus spectabilis Trailing Ice Plant F Larix species (numerous) Larch F Larrea tridentata Creosote bush F Lepidium virginicum Peppergrass F Leymus condensatus Giant Wild Rye Grows to 9’ tall Lolium multiflorum Ryegrass F, I Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle F Mahonia species Mahonia F Miscanthus species Eulalie Grass F Muhlenbergia species Deer Grass F Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 734 April 19, 2019 Prohibited Plant List 410-4 Prohibited plant list:Botanical Name Common Name Comment* Nassella ( stipa)leprida Foothill needlegrass Gets to 18” high. Cant cut to 4”. Nassella (stipa) pulchra Purple needlegrass Same comment as above Nerium Oleander Oleander Toxic Nicotiana species (N. bigelovii, N. glauca) Tobacco (Indian, Tree) F, I Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass F, I Perovskia atroplicifolia Russian Sage F Phoradendron species Mistletoe F Pickeringia montana Chaparral Pea F Plumbago auriculate Cape Plumbago F Rhus (R. diversiloba, R. laurina, R. lentii)** Sumac (Poison oak, Laurel, Pink Flowering) F**. Poison oak presents a health hazard Ricinus communis Castor Bean F, I Rhus Lentii Pink Flowering Sumac F Rosmarinus species Rosemary ( except dwarf/prostrate variety) F Salvia species (numerous) Sage F, I Salsola australis Russian Thistle F, I Senecio serpens No common name FR Solanum Xantii Purple Nightshade (toxic) I, Toxic Solanum Douglasii Douglas Nightshade Toxic Silybum marianum Milk Thistle F, I Tecoma capensis Cape Honeysuckle F Thuja species Arborvitae F Urtica urens Burning Nettle F Vinca major Periwnkle I *F = flammable, I = Invasive, NOTES: 1.Plants on this list that are considered invasive are a partial list of commonly found plants. There are many other plants considered invasive that shall not be planted in a fuel modification zone and they can be found on The California Invasive Plant Council’s Website www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php. Other plants not considered invasive at this time may be determined to be invasive after further study. 2.The absence of a particular plant, shrub, groundcover, or tree, from this list does not necessarily mean it is fire resistive. 3.Native, drought tolerant, plants are encouraged unless they are on this Prohibited Plant list or otherwise known as flammable or Invasive. 4.**: certain species of Ceonothus, Saltbush and Sumac need to be maintained free of dead materials, which builds up in the plant. Remove any poison oak (Sumac). 5. The VCFD Suggested Plant Reference Guide may be updated, and the current version must be used when designing and submitting landscape/fuel modification plans. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 735 Impact Sciences, Inc. i Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 City of Moorpark, California Hitch Ranch Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared by the City of Moorpark (City) for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (Project) consists of the Draft EIR (and Appendices), Revisions to the Draft EIR, and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Final EIR identifies significant environmental impacts that will result from implementation of the Project. However, the City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of project approval will reduce most impacts to less-than-significant levels. The impacts which are not reduced to less-than-significant levels are identified and overridden due to specific considerations that are described below. As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings), also adopts MMRP for the Project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these Findings included as Exhibit “A” to the Resolution adopting these Findings, meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these Findings as part of the certification of the Final EIR for the Project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the project. Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report The City Council certifies the following with respect to the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project Final EIR: A. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR. EXHIBIT BResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 736 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. ii Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 B. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. C. The Final EIR, and all related public comments and responses have been presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, and they have reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and testimony presented at the public hearings prior to approving the project. D. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City, acting as the lead agency for the project. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 737 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. iii Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Table of Contents Section Page Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Record of Proceedings ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Organization/Format of Findings ................................................................................................ 2 Section 2: Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project ........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Section 3: Effects Determined to Have No Impact or to be Less Than Significant ............................................ 5 3.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................ 5 3.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 6 3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 6 3.6 Energy .............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................... 6 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 7 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 7 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 7 3.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................. 7 3.12 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................... 8 3.14 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 8 3.15 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................ 8 3.16 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 8 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................ 9 3.18 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Section 4: Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less-Than-Significant Levels .............................................. 10 4.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 11 4.3 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................... 17 4.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 30 4.5 Energy ............................................................................................................................................ 33 4.6 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................... 34 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 37 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 39 4.9 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 50 4.10 Public Services .............................................................................................................................. 53 4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 55 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................... 56 4.13 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................................... 57 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 738 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. iv Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Table of Contents (continued) Section Page Section 5: Significant Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated to a Less-Than-Significant Level............................ 63 5.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................... 63 5.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 64 Section 6: Feasibility of Project Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 66 6.1 Project Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 66 6.1.1 Objectives of the Proposed Project .............................................................................. 67 6.1.2 No Project Alternative ................................................................................................... 68 6.1.3 RPD 20U-N-D Alternative ............................................................................................ 69 6.1.4 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative ............................................................ 71 6.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...................................................................................... 73 Section 7: Statement of Overriding Considerations ............................................................................................. 73 Section 8: General Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 77 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 739 Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that will otherwise occur with implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency. For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: “If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.’” Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 740 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 1.2 Record of Proceedings For the purposes of CEQA and the Findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the project consists of: a) matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, State and local laws and regulations; and b) the following documents which are in the custody of the City: The Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, dated July 10, 2019, and all responses submitted regarding the Notice of Preparation; and The Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated February 18, 2022; and All written and oral comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments (see Section 3.0 of the Final EIR, Responses to Comments); and The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and All Findings, Statements of Overriding Considerations, and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred therein; and All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, correspondence, and all planning documents pre- pared by the City, or the consultants to each, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to: a) the City’s compliance with CEQA; b) development of the Project site; or c) the City’s action on the project; and All documents submitted to the City by agencies or members of the public in connection with development of the Project. 1.3 Organization/Format of Findings Section 2 of these Findings contains a summary description of the project, sets forth the objective of the project and provides related background information. Section 3 identifies the project’s potential environmental effects that were determined to have no impact or be less than significant, and do not require mitigation. Section 4 identifies the potentially significant effects of the project that were determined to be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. All numbered references identifying specific mitigation measures refer to numbered mitigation measures found in the Final EIR. Section 5 identifies the significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level even though all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the Project. Section 6 discusses the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 741 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 3 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 feasibility of Project alternatives. Section 7 includes the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 8 includes a list of General Findings made and adopted by the City. These Findings summarize and incorporate by reference, the impacts and mitigation measures from the Draft EIR, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Responses to Comments. Full descriptions of the impacts and analyses are contained in the Draft EIR. SECTION 2: HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 2.1 Project Objectives The objectives of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan are: Develop the Project site with a financially feasible, residential project that meets the residential needs of the City of Moorpark. Provide residential development consistent with 2021-2023 City Council Goal 1: Identify options and solutions to barriers for housing for all economic and age ranges. Create a new community neighborhood that would allow for residential development, while preserving natural resources and open space. Contribute to the enhancement of Downtown High Street by providing a new residential customer base, bicycle, vehicle, and pedestrian connections to the downtown. Provide a range of housing opportunities with varying densities, types, styles, prices, and tenancy characteristics (for sale versus rental). Help to achieve Housing Element goals for affordable housing. Avoid leapfrog development and accommodate projected growth in a location, which is adjacent to existing infrastructure, urban services, and community facilities. Locate housing near to jobs and in close proximity to transit in order to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Transition development within the Project site with consideration for natural resource areas and open space. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that supports surrounding land uses. Designate sites for needed public facilities including flood control facilities, regional roadways, and trails. Provide residential opportunities to respond to economic and market conditions over several years. Provide a tax base to support public services associated with the proposed development to appropriately offset development impacts to city services. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 742 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 4 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Retain open space and natural vegetation to exist as a buffer between on-site land uses and the surrounding resources to the extent possible while providing fire protection to the proposed land uses. Improve safe and adequate vehicle circulation within the regional area. Provide pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails that connect to the local and regional trail systems in the surrounding hills. Promote water conservation through use of drought-tolerant, fire-resistive, and native plants as appropriate. 2.2 Project Description The proposed Hitch Ranch Specific Plan includes the subdivision of approximately 277 acres of property generally located north of Poindexter Avenue, west of Casey Road, and extending approximately 1,700 feet to the west of Gabbert Road in the City of Moorpark. The proposed Hitch Ranch Specific Plan would provide for the master-planned development of 755 residential homes of various densities and building types, a public park, associated roadways and infrastructure, as well as expansive open space, detention areas, and manufactured slopes. The applications filed include General Plan Amendment No. 2020-01, Rezoning No. 2019-01, Specific Plan No. 2019-01, Development Agreement No. 2019-01, Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 5708 (TTM No. 2019- 01), and Residential Planned Development Permits. A more detailed description of the Proposed Project is provided in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. 2.3 Alternatives Based on the Project objectives and anticipated environmental consequences, and pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following project alternatives were selected for analysis: The No Project alternative assumes the continuation of existing conditions within the Project site. The RPD 20U-N-D Alternative was evaluated to identify alternate development that could take place on the Project site without the application for any discretionary actions requiring approval from the City, as a practical result of the Project’s non-approval. This alternative would develop 468 Low and Very Low-Income Rental Units, and five (5) 40-acre parcels for the development of single-family units (473 total units) consistent with the current zoning. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 743 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 5 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 The 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative was analyzed in an effort to reduce the Proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable visual impacts, this alternative would include the construction of 415 single-family residential dwelling units, organized to avoid development on the most southerly, and publicly visible, areas of the Project Site. A more detailed description of these alternatives, and required findings, are set forth in Section 6: Feasibility of Project Alternatives. SECTION 3: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT OR TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the following environmental factors associated with the Project would have No Impact or a Less Than Significant Impact. 3.1 Aesthetics Implementation of the Specific Plan would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The Project is in an urbanized area, implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. The Project would not 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)). The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 744 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 6 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 3.3 Air Quality The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. 3.4 Biological Resources The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 3.5 Cultural Resources The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. 3.6 Energy The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. 3.7 Geology and Soils The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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 a known fault. The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The Project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems as sewers are available for the disposal of wastewater. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 745 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 7 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project construction and operation would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would not result in a significant impact associated with a location on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality The Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. 3.11 Land Use and Planning The Project would not physically divide an established community. The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 746 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 8 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 3.12 Mineral Resources The proposed project would not 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. The proposed project would not 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. 3.13 Population and Housing The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure). The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 3.14 Public Services The Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives. The Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives. 3.15 Recreation The Project would not 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. The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 3.16 Transportation The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 747 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 9 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b). The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves the project that it lacks adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. The Project would not 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. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. 3.18 Wildfire The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 748 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 10 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 SECTION 4: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS-THAN- SIGNIFICANT LEVELS The Draft EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from implementation of the Project. However, based upon substantial evidence in the record the City finds that for each of the significant or potentially significant impact identified in this section, that mitigations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR. Thus, adoption of these mitigation measures set forth below will reduce these significant or potentially significant effects to less-than-significant levels. Adoption of the recommended mitigation measures will effectively make the mitigation measures part of the Project. 4.1 Aesthetics Impact AES-4: Implementation of the Specific Plan could result in the creation of new sources of substantial light and glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Lighting of the proposed project would constitute a substantial new light source in the City and would alter the current character of the site. It is anticipated that there would not be any direct lighting into unshaded windows of surrounding residents that would disturb sleep. However, new street lighting associated with the project would still provide additional illumination in the area and, thus, would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-3 and AES-4 would require the preparation of lighting plans for City approval, and the inspection of any newly installed street lighting by a factory-trained and - employed technician, to reduce Project light and glare impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures AES-3: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a lighting plan prepared by a lighting consultant shall be submitted to the City of Moorpark Department of Community Development for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall incorporate 0.5 foot-candle as a threshold for spill and the minimum streetlamp glare level of 2.0 foot-candles. All fixtures shall utilize shields to direct light downward, and the lighting plan shall also incorporate other “dark sky” friendly measures to the extent feasible. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following or other comparable measures: Use lighting fixtures that are adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector and that prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 749 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 11 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Restrict the operation of outdoor lighting for construction and operation activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Use high pressure sodium and/or cut-off fixtures instead of typical mercury-vapor fixtures for outdoor lighting. Use unidirectional lighting to avoid light trespass onto adjacent properties. Design exterior lighting to confine illumination to the project site, and/or to areas which do not include light-sensitive uses. Provide structural and/or vegetative screening from light-sensitive uses. Shield and direct all new street and pedestrian lighting away from light-sensitive off-site uses. Architectural lighting shall be directed onto the building surfaces and have low reflectivity to minimize glare and limit light onto adjacent properties. (Identical to MM BR-13) AES-4: When installed, all street lighting fixtures shall be tested and adjusted to ensure that light levels do not exceed 2.0 foot-candles of glare and 0.5 foot-candle of spill at the project boundaries. Testing of street lighting fixtures shall be conducted by factory-trained and -employed technicians only, contracted for by the master developer and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. (Identical to MM BR-14) Finding for Impact AES-4: Mitigation Measures AES-3 and AES-4 would reduce Project light and glare impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures AES-3 and AES-4 will be incorporated into the Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact AES-4 to a less-than-significant level. 4.2 Air Quality Impact AQ-2: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. During the grading and construction phases of development, air emissions (ROC and NOX) would be generated by on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 750 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 12 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 and energy use during the construction phase. In addition to grading and construction vehicle emissions, fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would also be generated during grading and construction activities. While much of this airborne dust would settle out of, or near, the development area, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing existing particulate levels within the surrounding area. Regular watering of unpaved areas, which is one of the Ventura Quality Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) recommended measures, can reduce expected fugitive dust emissions, the level of dust suppression is dependent on the frequency of watering, amount of water added each application, the frequency of travel on the roadway, and meteorological conditions. With implementation of watering unpaved roads as well as the other recommended measures as identified by the VCAPCD, fugitive dust would be further reduced. The VCAPCD does not identify construction air quality impacts as the cause of significant air quality impacts assuming standard construction control measures, as called for by the VCAPCD, are implemented during construction activities. Therefore, although short-term construction impacts would be considered a nuisance, with the implementation of recommended construction control measures, construction air quality impacts would be considered less than significant. Some health problems, particularly those of the eye and respiratory tract may be aggravated by fugitive dust. Such health problems include Coccidioidomycosis (also known by its common name, Valley Fever). Valley fever is contracted through breathing spores that become airborne through disturbance of the soil. Ventura County is not recognized as an area where Coccidioidomycosis is highly endemic. However, the Project is conservatively assumed to have a potentially significant impact with respect to Valley Fever and mitigation is required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CM AQ-1, CM AQ-2, MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 requiring fugitive dust control measures and measures to reduce emissions from construction equipment would reduce Project construction phase impacts to less than significant. (Please refer to Section 5.0, Significant Effects that Cannot be Mitigated to a Less-Than-Significant Level for a discussion regarding the operational phase impacts of the proposed project.) Mitigation Measures VCAPCD Construction Control Measures CM AQ-1: The following control measures provided in the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines to minimize the generation of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5), ROC, and NOX Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 751 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 13 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 during construction activities shall be implemented during construction of the proposed project: The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the areas to be graded or excavated before grading or excavation operations commences. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. Fugitive dust produced during grading excavation and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization material, and/or roll- compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants to prevent excessive fugitive dust. Signs limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less shall be posted on site. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off site or on site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use discretion in conjunction with the VCAPCD in determining when winds are excessive. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 752 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 14 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. During the construction phase, signs shall be posted on site and viewable to the public with the VCAPCD Complaints Hotline phone number 805-303-3700. CM AQ-2: During construction contractors shall comply with the following measures to reduce NOx and ROC from heavy equipment as recommended by the VCAPCD in its Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines: Minimize equipment idling time to no more than 5 minutes, as required in Title 13, CCR §2485, §2449(d)(2), respectively. The idling limit does not apply to: (1) idling when queuing; (2) idling to verify that the vehicle is in safe operating condition; (3) idling for testing, servicing, repairing or diagnostic purposes; (4) idling necessary to accomplish work for which the vehicle was designed (such as operating a crane); (5) idling required to bring the machine system to operating temperature, and (6) idling necessary to ensure safe operation of the vehicle. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer’s specifications. Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October) to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible. Construction Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1: During heavy grading, construction contractors shall comply with the following measures to reduce potential Valley Fever impacts: Hire crews from local populations where possible, since it is more likely that they have been previously exposed to the fungus and are therefore immune. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 753 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 15 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Require crews to use respirators during project clearing, grading, and excavation operations in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. Require that the cabs of grading and construction equipment be air-conditioned or enclosed with sufficient ventilation and particulate matter filtration systems. Require crews to work upwind from excavation sites where possible. Where acceptable to the fire department, control weed growth by mowing instead of disking, thereby leaving the ground undisturbed and with a mulch covering. During rough grading and construction, the access way into the project site from adjoining paved roadways should be paved or treated with environmentally safe dust control agents. Implementation of VCAPCD CM-AQ-1 (above), control measures provided in the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines will also serve to minimize the generation of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5). MM AQ-2: For the entire duration of construction period, all off-road equipment greater than 25 horsepower shall have engines rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as complying with Tier 4 final emission limits. Finding for Impact AQ-2: Mitigation Measures CM AQ-1, CM AQ-2, MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 would reduce Project construction impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures CM AQ-1, CM AQ-2, MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 will be incorporated into the Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact AQ-2 to a less-than- significant level. Impact AQ-3: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Temporary project impacts related to health risk can occur from Project construction activity, which would generate dust and equipment exhaust that could affect nearby sensitive receptors. Construction of the Project would include site clearance and grading, placement of utilities, building construction, paving, application of architectural coatings, and interior finishing. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck trips generate exhaust which contains diesel particulate matter (DPM), known as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 754 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 16 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Operation would generate vehicle trips to and from residences. Since this is a residential project, most of the vehicle trips are expected to come from gasoline powered passenger cars. The site may attract some heavy-duty diesel trucks which emit DPM. A Health Risk Assessment Memorandum (HRA), included as Appendix 3.2-B to the Draft EIR, calculated construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 and were compared to the VCAPCD’s operational significance thresholds. The CalEEMod model provided annual PM2.5 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) from off-road construction equipment used during project construction and exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles (haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicles) for each phase of project construction. Additionally, the CalEEMod model provided the operational PM2.5 exhaust emissions upon full project buildout. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM at sensitive receptors near the Project site in order to calculate the cancer risk consistent with guidance from the Office of Environment Hazard Health Assessment (OEHHA) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). The HRA demonstrates that the 30-year residential cancer risk posed to the nearest residential receptor 200 feet from the site is approximately 5.77 in one million with implementation of Construction Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2. Finally, the risks posed to the maximally exposed school child was calculated as the Walnut Canyon Elementary School and Chaparral Middle School lie adjacent to the Project site. The risk posed to the maximally exposed school child, assuming nine years of exposure, is approximately 0.4 in a million and the risk posed to the on-site residential receptor from project construction and operation is approximately 5.77 in a million assuming that they would live on the site following Phase 2 of construction. Therefore, with mitigation, the risks posed to these receptors would be less than VCAPCD significance thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CM AQ-1, CM AQ-2, MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 (above, which include fugitive dust control measures and measures to reduce emissions from construction equipment) would reduce Project construction impacts to sensitive receptors to less than significant. Finding for Impact AQ-3: Mitigation Measures CM AQ-1, CM AQ-2, MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 will substantially reduce impacts to sensitive receptors from elevated TAC concentrations during construction. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures CM AQ-1, CM AQ-2, MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact AQ-3 to a less-than-significant level. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 755 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 17 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 4.3 Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: Would the Project 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 (CDFW) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on several 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service, particularly special status wildlife species, including, but not limited to Western spadefoot, coastal western whiptail, coast horned lizard, coast patch-nose snake, White-tailed kite, Cooper’s hawk, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, loggerhead shrike, grasshopper sparrow, Costa's hummingbird, Allen's hummingbird, Sharp-shinned hawk, ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, prairie falcon, Bell’s sage sparrow, California horned lark, Burrowing owl, Coastal California gnatcatcher, San Diego desert woodrat, and American badger. The proposed project would also result in the loss of areas of native vegetation and up to 267 mature trees. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-1, BR-2, BR-3, BR-4, BR-5, BR-6, BR-7, and BR-10 which require preconstruction surveys by qualified biologists to determine the presence or absence of special status species, the establishment of buffer zones during active construction operations where special status species are present, relocation of animals of where feasible in compliance with scientific handling and collecting permits, the restoration of certain areas of native vegetation, and the submission of landscaping plans for review and approval by the Community Development Director to increase the tree canopy on the Project site, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures BR-1: The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist with a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Scientific Collection Permit and Memorandum of Understanding to conduct preconstruction surveys for the western spadefoot, coastal western whiptail, coast horned lizard, and coast patch-nose snake in areas that would be disturbed within the project site. All western spadefoot, coastal western whiptail, coast horned lizard, and coast patch- nose snake observed within the project site during preconstruction surveys must be relocated, at the approval of the City and CDFW, to an approved site with suitable habitat for these species. Surveys and relocation of spadefoots, lizards, and snakes may occur prior to construction; however, focused surveys must occur within 30 days prior to construction Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 756 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 18 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 initiation to ensure that no special-status reptiles or amphibians are present within the project site during construction. Survey methods and relocation areas must be reviewed and approved by the CDFW prior to commencement of grading. BR-2: Thirty days prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct CDFW protocol surveys to determine whether the burrowing owl is present at the site. The surveys shall consist of up to three site visits and shall be conducted in areas dominated by field crops, disturbed habitat, grasslands, and along levee locations, if such habitats occur within 500 feet of a construction zone. If located, occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If a burrowing owl is detected but nesting is not occurring, construction work can proceed after any owls have been evacuated from the site using CDFW-approved burrow closure procedures and after alternative nest sites have been provided in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (10-17- 95). Unless otherwise authorized by CDFW, a 500-foot buffer, within which no activity will be permissible, will be maintained between project activities and nesting burrowing owls during the nesting season. This protected area will remain in effect until August 31 or at CDFW's discretion and based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently. BR-3: Thirty days prior to construction activities in grassland and scrub vegetation a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit and San Diego desert woodrat. If San Diego black-tailed jackrabbits are present, non-breeding rabbits shall be flushed from areas to be disturbed. Dens, depressions, nests, or burrows occupied by pups shall be flagged and ground-disturbing activities avoided within a minimum of 200 feet during the pup- rearing season (February 15 through July 1). This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den upon consultation with CDFW. Occupied maternity dens, depressions, nests, or burrows shall be flagged for avoidance, and a biological monitor shall be present during construction. If unattended young are discovered, they shall be relocated to suitable Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 757 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 19 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 habitat by a qualified biologist. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits. If active San Diego desert woodrat nests (stick houses) are identified within the disturbance zone or within 100 feet of the disturbance zone, a fence shall be erected around the nest site adequate to provide the woodrat sufficient foraging habitat at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. If young are present, clearing and construction within the fenced area will be postponed or halted until young have left the nest. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to these nests will occur. If avoidance is not possible, the applicant will take the following sequential steps: 1. All understory vegetation will be cleared in the area immediately surrounding active nests followed by a period of one night without further disturbance to allow woodrats to vacate the nest; and 2. Each occupied nest will then be disturbed by a qualified wildlife biologist until all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge off site; and 3. The nest sticks shall be removed from the project site and piled at the base of a nearby hardwood tree (preferably a coast live oak or California walnut). Relocated nests shall not be spaced closer than 100 feet apart, unless a qualified wildlife biologist has determined that a specific habitat can support a higher density of nests. The applicant shall document all woodrat nests moved and provide a written report to CDFW. All woodrat relocation shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in possession of a scientific handling and collecting permit. BR-4: Thirty days prior to construction activities in grassland, scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, streambank, and agriculture habitats, or other suitable habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for American badger. If American badgers are present, occupied habitat shall be flagged and ground-disturbing activities avoided within 50 feet of the occupied den. Maternity dens shall be avoided during the pup-rearing season (February 15 through July 1) and a minimum 200-foot buffer Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 758 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 20 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 established. This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den upon consultation with CDFW. Maternity dens shall be flagged for avoidance, identified on construction maps, and a qualified biologist shall be present during construction. If avoidance of a non-maternity den is not feasible, badgers shall be relocated either by trapping or by slowly excavating the burrow (either by hand or mechanized equipment under the direct supervision of the biologist, removing no more than 4 inches at a time) before or after the rearing season (February 15 through July 1). Any relocation of badgers shall occur only after consultation with CDFW. BR-5: Disturbed vegetation located on the east-side of Gabbert Road that includes California sagebrush-deerweed scrub, cactus scrub, and blue elderberry stands, which are unsuitable for California Gnat Catcher (CAGN) nesting but used as foraging habitat, shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1. Although no individuals or breeding territories have been observed within the undisturbed California sagebrush-deerweed scrub to the west of Gabbert Road, impacts to this vegetation shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio due to its potential to support foraging and nesting CAGN. CAGN habitat shall be restored on site. If a suitable on-site location is not feasible, restoration may occur at a mitigation bank, approved by USFWS prior to issuance of a grading permit or any ground disturbing activities on the Project site. If mitigation requirements cannot be met on-site and/or through the purchase of credits at a mitigation bank, a suitable off-site location may be identified and utilized subject to City and USFWS approval. Moreover, consultation with USFWS in accordance with the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) will occur prior to issuance of a grading permit or any ground disturbing activities and their recommendations followed. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary regulatory agency permits for compliance with the FESA. BR-6: Sixty (60) days prior to scheduled site mobilization, the applicant shall submit a Native Habitat Restoration Plan for the restoration of a native habitat on the site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, CDFW, and USFWS, which shall be approved by the aforementioned prior to issuance of a building permit or ground disturbing activities at the project site. At a minimum, the Restoration Plan shall identify all responsible parties/stakeholders, performance standards, success criteria, plant pallet and planting methods, irrigation details and watering schedule, maintenance measures and schedule, monitoring and reporting requirements, contingencies, adaptive management strategies, and funding sources, such as an endowment for long-term management. Native vegetation on the Project site shall be incorporated in the plan at the ratios indicated below: Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 759 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 21 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Plant Community Replacement Ratio (area replaced : area impacted) California sagebrush -deerweed scrub (west of Gabbert Rd) 2:1 California sagebrush -deerweed scrub (east of Gabbert Rd) 1:1 Blue elderberry stands (disturbed/grazed) 1:1 Cactus scrub 1:1 Source: Rincon Consultants, Inc., November 2021 Once approved, implementation of the Native Habitat Restoration Plan shall be required as a condition of approval of the Tract Map and RPD. The restoration shall be performed in accordance with current best available restoration practices and the applicant (or designee) shall be responsible for maintaining the restoration areas for a period of five years to ensure the successful establishment of the plantings, which shall be extended an additional three years if determined necessary by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall pay the costs for monitoring restoration of the Native Habitat for the full and complete restoration time period, which if extended shall require further payment. If a suitable on-site restoration is not feasible, restoration may occur at a mitigation bank, approved by CDFW and USFWS prior to issuance of a building permit or any ground disturbing activities on the Project site. If restoration requirements cannot be met on site and/or through the purchase of credits at a mitigation bank, a suitable off-site location may be identified and utilized. The off-site location and restoration Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit and secured prior to any ground disturbing activities on the Project site. BR-7: All areas temporarily impacted by project grading and construction activities but within the fuel management zone must be revegetated with California native plant species, with densities and spacing consistent with the intent of maintaining fuel management zones as described in the City’s Landscape Standards and Guidance and the Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan (refer to Appendix 3.18-A). BR-10: A tree removal permit must be obtained from the City prior to removal of trees that meet the mature tree criteria within the City’s tree ordinance (No. 101). Permits will not be issued until the project has been approved by the City. Removed trees that are determined to be diseased and/or infested with insect pests shall be chipped onsite to prevent the spread to offsite trees. The loss of trees shall be mitigated by using the appraised value of each removed tree and then applying the value towards upgrading the size of the tree plantings associated with the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 760 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 22 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 project. The proposed replacement tree species shall emphasize native species and must be consistent with the City’s Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines to ensure that invasive species will not be used. In accordance with the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, ‘enhanced landscaping’ shall be installed that is equal to the value of the trees removed. Finding for Impact BIO-1: Mitigation Measures BR-1, BR-2, BR-3, BR-4, BR-5, BR-6, BR-7, and BR-10 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures BR-1, BR-2, BR-3, BR-4, BR-5, BR-6, BR-7, and BR-10 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact BIO-1 to a less- than-significant level. Impact BIO-2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations of the CDFW or USFWS. The Project would result in the loss of 14.55 acres of California sagebrush-deerweed scrub, 5.29 acres of blue elderberry scrub (disturbed/grazed), and 0.08 acre of cactus scrub that total 19.92 acres. Impacts to these vegetation communities is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-6, and BR-7 would mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level through on-site restoration that will improve the biological diversity and provide higher quality habitat than the disturbed condition of these communities that currently exists. Finding for Impact BIO-2: Mitigation Measures BR-6, and BR-7 (above) would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures BR-6, and BR-7 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact BIO-2 to a less-than-significant level. Impact BIO-3: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. A jurisdictional delineation field survey was conducted identify potentially jurisdictional resources, including potential wetlands and non-wetland waters that exhibit an ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) and that may constitute WOTUS, waters of the State, and/or riparian resources subject to the jurisdiction of the CDFW. Based upon the findings of the jurisdictional delineation, the intermittent storm drain channel Walnut Canyon Channel, one unnamed ephemeral drainage (Drainage 1), and one unnamed erosional feature (Erosional Feature 1) are present in the study area. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 761 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 23 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Drainage 1 in the western portion of the Project site is an ephemeral drainage with a significant nexus to Walnut Canyon Creek. Therefore, this drainage may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and section 401 of the CWA by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). All the streambed and streambank habitats up to the top of bank are subject to the jurisdiction of the CDFW pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC. The loss of any waters or streambeds under the jurisdiction of CDFW would be considered significant and are subject to its regulatory and permitting authority. Drainage 1 is an ephemeral drainage that experiences surface flow during the winter/wet season and during storm events. It is classified by the National Wetlands Inventory as a R4SBC drainage (riverine, intermittent streambed, seasonally flooded). Drainage 1 flows south and converges with the Walnut Canyon Channel. Based on the hydrologic connectivity of Drainage 1 to Calleguas Creek, identified as TNW (i.e., territorial seas and traditional navigable waters), it is expected that Drainage 1 is subject to USACE, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-8 which requires permitting be executed pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1602), would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BR-8: In order to comply with city, state, and federal regulations regarding impacts to (US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW and RWQCB jurisdictional areas permitting must be executed pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1602), for all impacts to WOTUS and streambeds. All conditions of the agreements with these agencies designed to minimize impacts to biological resources shall be implemented. Impacts associated with permanently disturbed areas within regulated waters would be mitigated in-kind at a minimum ratio of 1:1. Mitigation will be completed by providing adequate funding to a conservation bank for re-establishment, rehabilitation or enhancement. Mitigation lands should be located in the regional vicinity of the project site or within the Calleguas Creek Watershed. Note: the final mitigation ratios required by regulatory agencies during the permitting process may differ from those identified above. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary regulatory agency permits for compliance with the Clean Water Act and California Fish and Game Code. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 762 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 24 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Finding for Impact BIO-3: Mitigation Measure BR-8 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure BR-8 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact BIO-3 to a less-than-significant level. Impact BIO-4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites The Project would not 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. However, the Project could interfere with nesting/breeding native or migratory birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-9, which requires a preconstruction survey by a qualified biologist to determine the presence or absence of qualifying migratory bird species, and the establishment of buffer zones during active construction operations where qualifying species are present, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BR-9: Within seven (7) days prior to construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically January 15 through August 30 for raptors and February 15 through September 15 for migratory passerines), the applicant shall have a field survey conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the construction zone or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors or federally listed endangered or threatened bird species) of the construction zone. If active nests are found, all construction activities within the 300/500 foot buffer zones must be postponed or halted, until the biologist determines that the nest is vacated, juveniles have fledged, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The biological monitor shall be able to adjust the size of the buffer zone dependent on the species involved (i.e., non-raptors and common species) and/or allow certain activities within the buffer zone if it can be shown that the activity will not interfere with nesting. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts occur to these nests. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 763 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 25 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Finding for Impact BIO-4: Mitigation Measure BR-9 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure BR-9 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact BIO-4 to a less-than-significant level. Impact BIO-5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Project site clearing and grading would result in the loss of up 267 mature trees. The loss of these trees would be in conflict with the City of Moorpark mature tree preservation ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-10, which requires that permits to remove any mature trees on-site shall be obtained from the City of Moorpark prior to project construction, and the submission of landscaping plans for review and approval by the Community Development Director to increase the tree canopy on the Project site, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BR-10 A tree removal permit must be obtained from the City prior to removal of trees that meet the mature tree criteria within the City’s tree ordinance (No. 101). Permits will not be issued until the project has been approved by the City. Removed trees that are determined to be diseased and/or infested with insect pests shall be chipped onsite to prevent the spread to offsite trees. The loss of trees shall be mitigated by using the appraised value of each removed tree and then applying the value towards upgrading the size of the tree plantings associated with the project. The proposed replacement tree species shall emphasize native species and must be consistent with the City’s Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines to ensure that invasive species will not be used. In accordance with the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, ‘enhanced landscaping’ shall be installed that is equal to the value of the trees removed. Finding for Impact BIO-5: Mitigation Measure BR-10 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure BR-10 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact BIO-5 to a less-than-significant level. Non-CEQA Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources Human and domestic animal presence could impact local biological resources. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 764 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 26 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 New landscaping could introduce invasive non-native plant species. The project would introduce new sources of light and glare which could impact wildlife. Construction grading activities could impact local biological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-11, BR-12. BR-13, BR-15, BR-16, BR-17, BR-18, BR-19, BR-20, and BR-21 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Operational Mitigation Measures BR-11 Following construction, pets and other domestic animals must be prohibited from the remaining open space areas and from any revegetation areas on the project site unless restrained by leash and accompanied at all times by the owner or responsible party. Fencing of sufficient height and design or acceptable landscaping must be constructed between the residential areas and natural areas to the north to discourage domestic animals from entering open space habitat areas. Human access into the open space areas may occur in designated areas along the perimeter of the habitats. Prohibitions against human and domestic animal use in sensitive habitat areas must be established by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A brochure must be prepared by the developer and distributed to all home buyers that explains the purpose and sensitivity of the mitigation area and reasons why residents and their pets are discouraged from using this area. Signage shall be provided at the entrance of trails that are nearby sensitive habitat areas to notify users of the nature of the area and its sensitivity. The CC&Rs must also state that no structures shall be constructed within the open space areas. As determined by a qualified biologist, interpretative signs that explain the sensitivity of natural habitats and the need to minimize impacts on these adjacent areas are to be constructed and placed in appropriate areas. The project applicant shall be responsible for installation of interpretive signs (at 200-foot intervals) and fencing along the perimeter of the mitigation area. BR-12 The landscaping plans within the project area (residential and common areas) shall be prepared by a licensed California landscape architect, and shall provide appropriate provisions to prohibit using invasive plant species, especially those listed by the California Invasive Plants Council (their website provides a current invasive plants list), to prevent Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 765 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 27 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 those species from colonizing remaining natural areas. Landscaping plans shall be consistent with the City of Moorpark Municipal Code Section 15.23 Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Title 17, Zoning. These provisions may include the following: (a) review and screening of proposed plant palette and planting plans to identify and avoid the use of invasive species; (b) weed removal during the initial planting of landscaped areas; and (c) the monitoring for and removal of weeds and other invasive plant species as part of ongoing landscape maintenance activities. The frequency and method of monitoring for invasive species shall be determined by the City of Moorpark Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. BR-13: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a lighting plan prepared by a lighting consultant consistent with the Specific Plan Design Guidelines Lighting Concept shall be submitted to the City of Moorpark Department of Community Development for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall incorporate (0.5 foot-candle) as a threshold for spill and the minimum streetlamp glare level of 2.0 foot-candles). All fixtures shall utilize shields to direct light downward, and the lighting plan shall also incorporate other “dark sky” friendly measures to the extent feasible. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following or other comparable measures: Use lighting fixtures that are adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector and that prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. Restrict the operation of outdoor lighting for construction and operation activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Use high pressure sodium and/or cut-off fixtures instead of typical mercury-vapor fixtures for outdoor lighting. Use unidirectional lighting to avoid light trespass onto adjacent properties. Design exterior lighting to confine illumination to the project site, and/or to areas which do not include light-sensitive uses. Provide structural and/or vegetative screening from light-sensitive uses. Shield and direct all new street and pedestrian lighting away from light-sensitive off-site uses. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 766 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 28 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Architectural lighting shall be directed onto the building surfaces and have low reflectivity to minimize glare and limit light onto adjacent properties. (Identical to MM AES-3) BR-14 When installed, all street lighting fixtures shall be tested and adjusted to ensure that light levels do not exceed 2.0 foot-candles of glare and 0.5 foot-candle of spill at the project boundaries. Testing of street lighting fixtures shall be conducted by factory-trained and - employed technicians only, contracted for by the master developer and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. (Identical to MM AES-4) Construction Monitoring Mitigation Measures BR-15 A City-approved biologist must be retained by the applicant as a construction monitor to ensure that incidental construction impacts on retained biological resources are avoided or minimized. Responsibilities of the construction monitor include the following: • Attend all pre-grading meetings to ensure that the timing and location of construction activities do not conflict with mitigation requirements. • A pre-construction Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training shall be conducted for all construction employees. Prior to the start of construction activities, the WEAP shall be presented to inform construction supervisors, workers, and inspectors of sensitive resources that have a moderate to high potential of occurrence on the project site, to explain their importance and sensitivity, to review regulatory protections afforded to these resources, and to describe the project design features and mitigation measures adopted to avoid and reduce impacts. Training shall identify individual responsibilities regarding these resources, and communication procedures should sensitive resources exist or be found in the project area. Training participation shall be documented and kept as a log on site. Workers will receive a hard hat decal to show completion and receive a reference resource (i.e. wallet card, brochure, etc.) for later review as needed. • Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel, describing the importance of restricting work to within the project boundaries and outside of the preserved areas. The monitor shall also discuss staging/storage areas for construction equipment and materials. The biological monitor shall investigate all on site storage areas to minimize impacts to biological resources. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 767 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 29 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 • Guide the contractor in marking/flagging the construction area, in accordance with the final approved grading plan. Any construction activity areas immediately adjacent to special-status plant populations or other special-status resources may be directed to be flagged or temporarily fenced at the discretion of the monitor. • Periodically and routinely visit the site during construction to coordinate and monitor compliance with the above provisions. BR-16 The construction contractor shall install temporary erosion control measures, if necessary, to reduce impacts to and protect off-site drainages from excess sedimentation, siltation, and erosion. These measures shall consist of minimization of existing vegetation removal; the use of temporary soil covers, such as hydroseeding, mulch/binder, and erosion-control blankets to protect exposed soil from wind and rain erosion; or the installation of silt fencing, coirs, berms, and dikes to protect storm drain inlets and drainages. BR-17 Refueling, changing of oil or other fluids, and vehicle maintenance may be allowed in designated areas located a minimum of 50 feet away from any drainages or proposed mitigation areas. The contractor shall be responsible for providing and maintaining covered trash bins or dumpsters for any trash or other construction waste materials generated on the site during the project. Vehicles carrying supplies, such as concrete, may not empty, clean out, or otherwise place materials into any mitigation or opens space areas on or immediately adjacent to the site. Any spills or trash on the site, whether accidental or not, must be cleaned up at the end of each working day. BR-18 Any equipment or vehicles driven or operated within or adjacent to drainages must be checked and maintained daily, to prevent leaks of materials that if introduced to water could be deleterious to aquatic life. (Vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling or operated beyond periods needed to accomplish approved tasks.) BR-19: Construction personnel are prohibited from entry into areas outside the designated construction area, except for necessary construction related activities, such as surveying. All such construction activities including access in or adjacent to remaining open space areas must be coordinated with the project biologist. BR-20 Standard dust-control measures of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District must be implemented to reduce impacts to nearby plants and wildlife. This includes a variety of options to reduce dust including replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 768 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 30 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 possible, using tackifiers in watering trucks on active sites regularly, and suspending all excavating and grading operations during periods of high winds BR-21: Upon completion of construction, the contractor shall be held responsible for scarifying and hydroseeding, using native plant seeds, on any haul roads, access roads, or staging areas that are outside of approved grading limits. This restoration must be done in consultation with the project biologist. Finding for Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources: Mitigation Measure BR-11, BR-12. BR-13, BR-15, BR-16, BR-17, BR-18, BR-19, BR-20, and BR-21 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BR-11, BR-12. BR-13, BR-15, BR-16, BR-17, BR-18, BR-19, BR-20, and BR-21 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources to a less-than-significant level. 4.4 Cultural Resources Impact CUL-2: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Based on the results of an updated records search and literature review, the potential for the Proposed Project to have an adverse effect on historic or prehistoric cultural resources is considered to be moderate. There is a possibility that cultural resources may be present within the boundaries of the Specific Plan which could be discovered during ground disturbing activities. As such the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which would require the training of construction personnel to recognize buried cultural resources, an on-call Native American monitor, the avoidance of further disturbance to cultural resources where feasible, and a recovery and curation program where avoidance is not feasible, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Due to the potential that archeological resources may be present on the Project site, the City of Moorpark shall require a note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources, including prehistoric Native American artifacts. Construction personnel associated with earth moving equipment, drilling, grading, and excavating, shall be provided with basic training conducted by a Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 769 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 31 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 qualified archaeologist, to be retained and compensated by the development team, with the approval of the City of Moorpark. Issues that shall be included in the basic training will be geared toward training the applicable construction crews in the identification of archaeological deposits, further described below. Training will include written notification of the restrictions regarding disturbance and/or removal of any portion of archaeological deposits and the procedures to follow should a resource be identified. The construction contractor, or its designee, shall be responsible for implementation of this measure. A Native American monitor shall be provided an opportunity to attend the pre-construction briefing if requested. A Native American monitor from a consulting Tribe under AB 52 and a qualified archeologist, to be compensated by the development team, shall be available on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction in native soil to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. If archaeological remains or tribal cultural resources are uncovered, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius shall be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall evaluate whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If any previously undiscovered resources are found during construction the City of Moorpark Community Development Department shall be contacted, and the resource shall be evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include but are not limited to: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include but are not limited to: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). If City and the qualified archaeologist determine the resource to be significant under CEQA, they shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. Contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient for recovering an archeological sample or to employ an avoidance measure may be required. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a formal Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 770 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 32 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) which will include a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. Development and implementation of the AMP will be determined by the City of Moorpark and treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the project applicant, and the City. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System [CHRIS]), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. The City of Moorpark and/or development team shall, in good faith, consult with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and consulting Tribes on the disposition and treatment of any recovered materials. A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City of Moorpark at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological resources were encountered and/or recovered. After the find has been appropriately mitigated (as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)), work in the area may resume. Finding for Impact CUL-2: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact CUL-2 to a less-than-significant level. Impact CUL-3: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. There is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure compliance with regulations related to the accidental discovery of human remains. Along with compliance with Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 Project impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If human remains or funerary objects are unearthed during any activities associated with the project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur within a 100-foot buffer of the find until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 771 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 33 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, and consulting Tribes. The NAHC will then contact the deceased Native American’s most likely descendant, who will then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains (i.e., avoid, rebury). Finding for Impact CUL-3: Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-2 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact CUL-3 to a less-than-significant level. 4.5 Energy Impact ENR-1: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Project construction would require grading, building construction, and paving in five project phases. All construction would be typical for the region and the nature of construction activity. During construction of the Proposed Project, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site, construction worker travel to and from the Project site as well as delivery truck trips; and to operate generators to provide temporary power for lighting and electronic equipment. Construction activity is not expected to consume significant amounts of energy due to the temporary nature of these activities. Due to the nature of construction activities, natural gas use would not be required. Therefore, electrical and natural gas use during construction is not considered to be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of petroleum-based fuel during construction would be mitigated with the implementation of VCAPCD Construction Control Measures CM AQ-1 and CM AQ-2, and Construction Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2. As discussed in Section 3.5, Energy in the Draft EIR, impacts related to operational use of petroleum- based fuel, electricity and natural gas would be less than significant without mitigation. Finding for Impact ENR-1: VCAPCD Construction Control Measures CM AQ-1 and CM AQ-2, Construction Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2, as listed above, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that VCAPCD Construction Control Measures CM AQ-1 and CM AQ-2, Construction Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact ENR-1 to a less-than-significant level. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 772 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 34 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 4.6 Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1c: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Most of the site is underlain by conditions that are not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. However, a limited portion of the site along the southern margin is underlain by liquefiable soils that could undergo ground failure. Depending on the estimated severity of liquefaction, which would be determined by conducting a design-level geotechnical investigation, mitigation would consist of providing sufficient setbacks from such areas to avoid adverse effects of these conditions. Impact GEO-1d: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Engineering analyses have identified these slopes have factors of safety for stability that are less than required by governing construction codes. Habitable structures are proposed to be setback from these slopes to where the factors of safety for stability meet or exceed governing construction codes, and impacts would be less than significant. Manufactured slopes within the development area are proposed to be constructed at a gradient of 2(h) to 1(v) or less, thus resulting in less than significant impacts. Cut slopes could exposed localized conditions of locally-adverse geologic structure, expose sandy bedrock materials that are friable and prone to erosion, or possible nuisance seepage issues, resulting in potentially significant impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GS-1, GS-2, and GS-3, which requires additional geotechnical work and laboratory analysis, to guide the design of manufactured slopes and the development of building siting and foundations, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures GS-1 The applicant shall conduct additional geotechnical work, consisting of soil borings and laboratory analysis, within the areas of the structures to better define the severity of liquefaction, settlement, and expansiveness conditions. Once the severity of these soil characteristics are determined, then appropriate measures contained within the geotechnical reports will be incorporated into the design of the project. Feasible techniques to mitigate any defined liquefaction, settlement, and expansive soils could include, but would not be limited to, (1) in-situ densification; (2) vibro replacement; (3) compaction grouting or chemical stabilization; or (4) deep foundations and self-supporting structural Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 773 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 35 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 slabs, (5) over-excavation and replacement with properly compacted fill, and/or (6) design of foundation systems with appropriate thickness and reinforcing. GS-2: All cut-and-fill slopes must be designed at a 2:1 [2(h) to 1(v)] gradient or less. GS-3: Cut slopes exposing rock that exposes locally-adverse geologic conditions, expose sandy bedrock materials that are friable and prone to erosion, or where possible nuisance seepage issues could occur may require replacement with stabilization fill slopes. Stabilization fill slopes typically consists of removing the exposed slope face in a swath 10 to 15 feet wide (extending in from the slope face) and rebuilding the slope with compacted fill. All cut slopes shall be evaluated to confirm that no adverse geologic conditions are exposed at slope locations. Finding for Impact GEO-1c and Impact GEO-1d: Mitigation Measures GS-1, GS-2, and GS-3 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures GS-1, GS-2, and GS-3 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact GEO-1c and Impact GEO-1d to a less-than- significant level. Impact GEO-3: Would the Project on a geologic unit or soil type that is unstable, or that could become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Portions of the Project site are 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. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GS-1, GS-2, and GS-3, as listed above, which requires additional geotechnical work and laboratory analysis, to guide the design of manufactured slopes and the development of building siting and foundations, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Finding for Impact GEO-3: Mitigation Measures GS-1, GS-2, and GS-3 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures GS-1, GS-2, and GS-3 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact GEO-3 to a less-than-significant level. Impact GEO-4: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 774 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 36 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Portions of the Project site are 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. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GS-1, as listed above, which requires additional geotechnical work and laboratory analysis, to guide the design of manufactured slopes and the development of building siting and foundations, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Finding for Impact GEO-4: Mitigation Measure GS-1 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure GS-1 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact GEO-4 to a less- than-significant level. Impact GEO-6: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Due to the high paleontological sensitivity of the Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Formation and the older Quaternary alluvium, excavations in these units within the Hitch Ranch project area are likely to have a negative impact on nonrenewable paleontological resources unless proper mitigation measures are implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GS-4, GS-5, GS-6, GS-7, and GS-8, which require that a qualified paleontological monitor be available on-call to provide paleontological monitoring, and provide for an appropriate recovery and curation program, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures GS-4: All project-related ground disturbances that could potentially impact the Saugus Formation and Quaternary older alluvium will be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor available on-call as needed, as these geologic units are determined to have a high paleontological sensitivity rating. Since younger alluvial and colluvial deposits cover the majority of the site and are considered to have a low paleontological sensitivity, monitoring of excavation activities in this unit will be conducted on a part-time basis to ensure that no underlying sensitive units are being impacted GS-5: A qualified paleontologist as defined by the SVP Guidelines (2010) will be retained to supervise monitoring of construction excavations and to produce a mitigation plan for the proposed project. Paleontological monitoring will include inspection of exposed rock units during active excavations. The monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 775 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 37 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 away from exposed fossils in order to professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The qualified paleontologist will prepare monthly progress reports to be filed with the applicant and the lead agency. GS-6: At each fossil locality, field data forms will be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections will be measured, and appropriate sediment samples collected and processed for analysis. GS-7: Recovered fossils will be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and reposed in a designated paleontological curation facility. Potential repositories include the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, and the Museum of Ventura County, as determined by the Moorpark City Council. GS-8: The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be filed with the applicant, the lead agency, and the repository Finding for Impact GEO-6: Mitigation Measures GS-4, GS-5, GS-6, GS-7, and GS-8 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures GS-4, GS-5, GS-6, GS-7, and GS-8 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact GEO-6 to a less-than-significant level. 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-2: Would the Project 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. The Project could 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. However, compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to transport, storage, disposal and sale of hazardous materials would minimize any potential for accidental release or upset of hazardous materials. A total of 15 water wells have historically been identified on the Project site. Five of the wells are known to have been destroyed; however, for the other ten the status is listed as ‘Can’t Locate Indeterminable’. The Ventura County Public Works Agency (VCPWA) has stated that if any of the wells with a status of ‘Can't Locate Indeterminable’ are found during grading or development of the property, the applicant must Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 776 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 38 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 destroy the well. If the existing wells are not properly abandoned, they could act as a conduit for contamination, if present, to migrate to an aquifer. Without proper abandonment, impacts to groundwater from potential on-site contamination would be considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HM-1, which sets forth the appropriate abandonment of any existing water wells discovered during construction operations on the Project site, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure HM-1 Water Well Mitigation If any water wells are found during grading or development of the property, the following minimum conditions for well destruction shall be met: An application for a permit for the destruction of the well shall be filed with the County of Ventura Public Works, per County Ordinance No. 4468 (Well Ordinance) and per the City of Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 8.40. Pump and motor shall be removed, and the interior of the well shall be filled with inert material (clean sand or gravel) from total depth to within 40 feet of ground surface or remove debris in well casing to a depth of 40 feet. Well casing shall be perforated at least every foot opposite the sealing zone from a depth of 40 feet to within 10 feet of finish grade. Perforations shall be placed on alternating sides of the casing. Neat cement sealing material shall be applied from a depth of 40 feet to within 5 feet of finish grade by means of a grout pipe placed within 2 feet of the base of the sealing zone. If static water level is deeper than 40 feet, grout pipe is not necessary. Casing shall be removed to a depth of 5 feet below finish grade, and work area backfilled with native materials. County of Ventura Public Works Inspector shall be present during casing perforation work and placement of all sealing material. 24-hour advance notice is required for Public Works Inspections. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 777 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 39 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 All work shall be performed by a well contractor licensed in the State of California and registered with the County of Ventura. Finding for Impact HAZ-2: Mitigation Measure HM-1 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure HM-1 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact HAZ-2 to a less-than-significant level. 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Grading activities associated with the construction of the Project will temporarily increase the amount of suspended solids from surface flows derived from the Plan area during a concurrent storm event due to sheet erosion of exposed soil. Construction activities that disturb more than one acre require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to mitigate construction-related water quality impacts. In addition, during excavation and grading, contaminated soils may be exposed and/or disturbed. The exposure of contaminated soils could impact surface water quality through contact during storm events. The applicant is required to satisfy all applicable requirements of the NPDES Program. These requirements include preparation of a Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing structural treatment and source control measures appropriate and applicable to the project. The SWPPP will incorporate BMPs by requiring controls of pollutant discharges that utilize best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) to reduce pollutants. In addition to the Project is constructing three detention basins, and one combination detention/debris basin, for the purpose of capturing runoff and will be required to implement BMPs consistent with water discharge requirements. In order to ensure that the project reduces the impact posed to surface and groundwater during project construction or operation, mitigation is required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, HYD-3, HYD-4 and HYD-5, which require the employment of a full-time superintendent for NPDES compliance, the preparation of a Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) which includes Non-Structural, Source Control, and Structural BMPs, the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the California State Water Resources Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit, the completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for on-site and associated off-site construction activities, and provisions for the on-going maintenance of the detention basins, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 778 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 40 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Mitigation Measures HYD-1: During site preparation and construction, the contractor shall minimize disturbance of natural groundcover on the project site until such activity is required for grading and construction purposes. During grading operations, the developer shall employ a full-time superintendent for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance. If determined necessary by the City Engineer/Public Works Director, the NPDES superintendent shall be present on the project site Monday through Friday and on all other days when the probability of rain is 50 percent or higher and prior to the start of and during all grading or clearing operations until the release of grading bonds. The NPDES superintendent shall have full authority to hire personnel, bind the developer in contracts, rent equipment, and purchase materials to the extent needed to effectuate Best Management Practices (BMPs). The NPDES superintendent shall provide proof to the City Engineer/Public Works Director of attendance and satisfactory completion of courses satisfactory to the City Engineer/Public Works Director totaling no less than 8 hours directed specifically to NPDES compliance and effective use of BMPs. Proof of such attendance and completion shall be provided to the City Engineer/Public Works Director prior to employment of the NPDES superintendent. HYD-2: Prior to issuance of the initial grading permit, the applicant shall have prepared a Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) and include Non-Structural, Source Control, and Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs). A certified erosion and sediment control professional or qualified civil engineer shall prepare the PCSMP. The PCSMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Moorpark Community Development Director and City Engineer/Public Works Director. The development of the PCSMP shall conform to the Ventura County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, the PCSMP standards, and the Technical Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Control Measures. The following are the minimum required mitigation from the Technical Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Control Measures. The PCSMP portion of the drainage master plan shall address: • Storm Drain Message and Signage. The appropriate locations for the signage regarding discharge prohibitions at storm drain inlets and a standard message to be used throughout the specific plan site. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 779 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 41 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 • Outdoor Material Storage Area Design. General design criteria for outdoor material storage area design. • Outdoor Trash Storage and Waste Handling Area Design. General design criteria for outdoor trash storage and waste handling area design. • Outdoor Loading/Unloading Dock Area Design. General design criteria for outdoor loading/unloading dock area design. • Outdoor Repair/Maintenance Bay Design. General design criteria for outdoor repair and maintenance bay design. • Outdoor Vehicle/Equipment/Accessory Washing Area Design. General design criteria for outdoor vehicle, equipment, and accessory washing area design. • Fueling Area Design. General design criteria for fueling area design. • Proof of Control Measure Maintenance. To ensure that maintenance is provided, the City of Moorpark Public Works Department (PWD) will require a maintenance agreement and a maintenance plan, including an Storm Water Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual), from the owner/operator of the storm water control measures. The PCSMP and O&M Manual shall identify the party(ies) responsible for maintenance of control measures, and shall be submitted to the PDW for review and acceptance. A Stormwater O&M Covenant shall be recorded for the property. HYD-3: The PCSMP/O&M Manual shall include structural and/or treatment BMPs. The structural BMPs shall focus on meeting potential total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and pollutant standards for residential developments. The treatment BMPs shall conform to the Technical Guidance Manual for Storm Water Control Measures. The PCSMP guidelines contained in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Ventura County state that structural BMPs are required for all new developments. The structural BMPs shall be sized to comply with one of the following numeric sizing criteria, unless an alternative is considered by the permittees to provide equivalent or better treatment. Groundwater quality must be evaluated based on the amount of water and the potential pollutants that may be introduced associated with the buildout of the specific plan site. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 780 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 42 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SQDV) shall be calculated using the following four allowable methodologies: a. The 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event determined as the maximized capture stormwater volume for the area using a 48 to 72-hour draw down time, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998); or b. The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage water quality volume to achieve 80 percent or more volume treatment; or c. The volume of runoff produced from a 0.75 inch storm event; or d. Eighty (80) percent of the average annual runoff volume using an appropriate public domain continuous flow model [such as Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) or Hydrologic Engineering Center – Hydrologic Simulation Program – Fortran (HEC- HSPF)], using the local rainfall record and relevant BMP sizing and design data. Volume-based BMPs shall be designed to infiltrate or treat either: a. The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage water quality volume, to achieve eighty (80) percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook–Industrial/ Commercial (1993), the Ventura Countywide Storm Water Quality Management Program Land Development Guidelines; or b. The 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event determined as the maximized capture storm water volume for the area, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87 (1998); or c. The volume of runoff produced for a 0.75-inch storm event, prior to its discharge to a storm water conveyance system; or d. The volume of runoff produced from a historical-record based reference 24-hour rainfall criterion for “treatment” that achieves approximately reduction in pollutant loads achieved by the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event. The volume of runoff produced from the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 781 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 43 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Flow-based BMPs shall be designed to infiltrate or treat either a. Ten percent of the 50-year design flow rate, or b. A flow that will result in treatment of the same portion of runoff as treated using volumetric standards, or c. A rain event equal to at least 0.2 inch per hour intensity; or d. A rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for Ventura County. The Technical Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Control Measures requires that treatment controls measures be used for any new development. The following is a partial list of treatment control measures that may be used by the applicant: • Grass Strip Filter • Grass Swale Filter • Extended Detention Basin • Wet Detention Basin • Constructed Wetland • Detention Basin/Sand Filter • Porous Pavement Detention • Porous Landscape Detention • Infiltration Basin • Infiltration Trench The following discussion identifies treatment control measures that are appropriate for use on the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan site: • Grass Strip and Swales. An appropriate treatment is either vegetative swales, enhanced vegetated swales utilizing check dams and wide depressions, a series of small detention Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 782 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 44 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 facilities designed similarly to a dry detention basin, or a combination of these treatment methods into a treatment train (a series of Structural BMPs). It is essential that the PCSMP address treatment for Hitch Ranch to assure that the runoff from the site be treated to the “maximum extent practicable.” In order for the vegetation swales to be effective in the removal of potential pollutants, the swales must be treated as water quality features and must be maintained differently than grass areas. Specifically, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, which may be used on the grass areas, must not be used in the vegetation swales. Anticoagulant rodenticides are not to be used in any areas within the project. • Infiltration Trenches and Basins. Infiltration trenches and/or basins may be used on site to meet potential future TMDLs for noxious aquatic plants and nutrients. Infiltration trenches and basins treat storm water runoff through filtration. A typical infiltration trench is essentially an excavated trench, which is lined with filter fabric and backfilled with stones. Depth of the infiltration trench ranges from 3 to 8 feet and functions best in areas with permeable soils, and water table and bedrock depth situated well below the bottom of the trench. Trenches should not be used to trap coarse sediments, because large sediment will likely clog the trench. Grass buffers can be installed to capture sediment before it enters the trench to minimize clogging. Infiltration basins are generally used for drainage areas between 5 and 50 acres. Infiltration basins can be either in-line or off-line, and may treat different volumes such as the water quality volume or the 2-year or 10- year storm. • All structural BMPs shall be included in the Storm Water O&M Manual. HYD-4: Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and as a part of the project’s compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the California State Water Resources Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be completed for on-site and associated off-site construction activities. A copy of the SWPPP must be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP outlines the source control and/or treatment control best management practices (BMPs) that will avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the “maximum extent practicable.” A listing of these BMPs from the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook-Construction Activity is provided below. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 783 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 45 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 • Dewatering Operations. This operation requires the use of sediment controls to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutant to storm water from dewatering operations. • Paving Operations. Prevent or reduce the runoff of pollutant from paving operations by proper storage of materials, protecting storm drain facilities during construction, and training employees. • Structural Construction and Painting. Keep site and area clean and orderly, use erosion control, use proper storage facilities, use safe products, and train employees to prevent and reduce pollutant discharge to storm water facilities from construction and painting. • Material Delivery and Storage. Minimize the storage of hazardous materials on the site. If stored on site, keep in designated areas, install secondary containment, conduct regular inspections, and train employees. • Material Use. Prevent and reduce the discharge of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, detergents, plaster, petroleum products, and other hazardous materials from entering the storm water. • Solid Waste Management. This BMP describes the requirements to properly design and maintain trash storage areas. The primary design feature requires the storage of trash in covered areas. • Hazardous Waste Management. This BMP describes the requirements to properly design and maintain waste areas. • Concrete Waste Management. Prevent and reduce pollutant discharge to storm water from concrete waste by providing on-site and off-site washouts in designated areas and training employees and consultants regarding their use. • Sanitary Septic Water Management. Provide convenient, well-maintained facilities, and arrange regular service and disposal of sanitary waste. • Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning. Use off-site facilities or wash in designated areas to reduce pollutant discharge into the storm drain facilities. • Vehicle and Equipment Fueling. Use off-site facilities or designated enclosed coverings to reduce pollutant discharge into the storm drain facilities. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 784 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 46 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 • Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance. Use off-site facilities or designated on-site enclosed areas with coverings to reduce pollutant discharge into the storm drain facilities. In addition, run a “dry site” to prevent pollution discharge into storm drains. • Employee and Subcontractor Training. Have training sessions for employees and subcontractors to understand the need for implementation and usage of BMPs and the need and purpose for keeping the site clean. • Preservation of Existing Vegetation. Minimize the removal of existing trees and shrubs because they serve as erosion control. • Seeding and Planting. Provide soil stability by planting and seeding grasses, trees, shrubs, vines, and ground cover. • Mulching. Stabilize cleared or freshly seeded areas with mulch. • Geotextiles and Mats. Natural or synthetics material can be used for soil stability. • Dust Control. Reduce wind erosion and dust generated by construction activities by using dust control measures. • Construction Road Stabilization. All on-site vehicle transport routes should be stabilized immediately after grading and frequently maintained to prevent erosion and control dust. • Stabilized Construction Entrance. Stabilize the construction entrance area to reduce amount of sediment tracked off the site. • Earth Dikes. Construct earth dikes of compacted soil to divert runoff or channel water to a desired location. • Temporary Drains and Swales. Use temporary drains and swales to divert off-site runoff around the construction site, stabilized areas, and direct it into sediment basins or traps. • Outlet Protection. Use rock or grouted rock at outlet pipes to prevent scouring of soil caused by high velocities. • Check Dams. Check dams reduce velocities of concentrated flows, thereby reducing erosion, and promoting sedimentation behind the dams. Check dams are small and placed across swales and drainage ditches. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 785 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 47 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 • Silt Fence. Composed of filter fabric, which have been entrenched, attached to support poles, and sometimes backed by wire fence support. Silt fences promote sedimentation behind the fence of sediment-laden water. • Straw Bale Barrier. Place straw bales end to end in a level contour in a shallow trench and stake them in place. The bales will detain runoff and promote sedimentation. • Sand Bag Barriers. By stacking sandbags on a level contour, creates a barrier to detain sediment-laden water. The barrier will promote sedimentation. • Brush or Rock Filter. Made of 0.75-inch to 3-inch diameter rocks place on a level contour or composed of brush wrapped in filter cloth and staked to the toe of the slope will provide a sediment trap. • Storm Drain Inlet Protection. Devices that remove sediment from sediment laden storm water before entering the storm drain inlet or catch basin. • Sediment Trap. A sediment trap is a small, excavated, or bermed area where runoff for small drainage areas can pass through allowing sediment to settle out. HYD-5: The Hitch Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) and/or a Community Facilities District (CFD) shall be responsible for the maintenance of the basin embankments and structures so that it does not become a public liability. This information shall be included in the HOA Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs). Finding for Impact HYD-1: Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, HYD-3, HYD-4 and HYD-5 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, HYD-3, HYD-4 and HYD-5 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact HYD-1 to a less-than- significant level. Impact HYD-2: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin The project will develop 755 residential units and supporting roadways over approximately 47% of the site, which will increase the total area of impervious surfaces. Hard surfaces significantly decrease groundwater recharge. The magnitude of this effect is reported by studies indicating that the volume of storm water washed off one-acre of roadway is about sixteen times greater than that of a comparably Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 786 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 48 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 sized meadow. Therefore, the increase in impervious surfaces due to project build out has the potential to affect groundwater recharge rates. The current drainage report anticipates addressing storm water quality by implementing Bioinfiltration for over half the developed site and a combination of Bioretention with underdrain and Proprietary Biotreatment for the remaining portion of the development. Lot AC will utilize an infiltration basin (INF-1) water quality treatment measure which will have the capacity to increase the amount of infiltration such that it will reduce the Effective Impervious Area (EIA) to less than or equal to five percent (<5%) of the total project area. This will render the impervious areas "ineffective", and impacts would be less than significant. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-3, as listed above, which require the inclusion of structural and/or treatment BMPs, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Finding for Impact HYD-2: Mitigation Measure HYD-3 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure HYD-3 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact HYD-2 to a less-than-significant level. Impact HYD-3a: Would the project 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impact HYD-3b: Would the project 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of flooding on- or off-site. Impact HYD-3c: Would the project 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 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. Impact HYD-3d: Would the project 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 impede or redirect flood flows. The Project will require increase the amount of impervious surface on the Project site which may alter the drainage pattern of the site. However, the project will include BMPs and mitigation to store and treat runoff in order to prevent the pollution of surface and ground water. BMP’s to address polluted runoff Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 787 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 49 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 are discussed in Impact HYD-1 and include infiltration basins, and extended detention basins to reduce runoff through infiltration, rainwater harvesting, and evapotranspiration. Additionally, Impact HYD-1 identifies BMPs practices aimed at reducing polluted runoff through treatment controls and bioinfiltration basins. While the Project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project site, the drainage pattern will not be altered in such a way to substantially increase erosion or siltation on- or off-site, increase the rate or amount of flooding on- or off-site, increase pollution runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows with the implementation of the BMPs. Further, mitigation measures HYD-1 to HYD-4 will implement water quality, erosion control, and BMPs to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, HYD-3, and HYD-4 as listed above, which require the employment of a full-time superintendent for NPDES compliance, the preparation of a Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) which includes Non-Structural, Source Control, and Structural BMPs, the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the California State Water Resources Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit, and the completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for on-site and associated off- site construction activities, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Finding for Impact HYD-3a, HYD-3b, HYD-3c, and HYD-3d: Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, HYD-3, and HYD-4 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, HYD-3, and HYD-4 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact HYD-3a, HYD-3b, HYD-3c, and HYD-3d to a less-than-significant level. Impact HYD-5: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. An increase in impervious surfaces would increase water runoff and potentially affect groundwater recharge rates and water quality in the basins. However, the project will implement BMPs, as described in Impact HYD-1, in an effort to reduce water runoff, increase groundwater recharge, and maintain water quality. The project will include permanent facilities that will treat stormwater before it is released from the site. The BMPs recommended include wet ponds, extended detention basins, vegetated swales, or water quality creeks, and vegetated buffer strips. Runoff from the Project site will flow through standard stormwater infrastructure (curbs, gutters, and underground pipes) into BMPs where it will be treated. After passing through BMPs runoff is discharged from the project. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 788 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 50 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 The Plan is proposed to include extended detention basins as the primary stormwater treatment BMPs. The primary stormwater treatment BMPs will be located in Lot AC. The BMPs will include bioinfiltration and/or biofiltration. Therefore, all stormwater runoff leaving a developed portion of the site will pass through a BMP before being discharged to the downstream channel. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, HYD-3, and HYD-4, as listed above, would implement water quality, erosion control, and BMPs, and would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Finding for Impact HYD-5: Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, HYD-3, and HYD-4 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, HYD-3, and HYD-4 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact HYD-5 to a less-than-significant level. 4.9 Noise Impact NOI-1: Would the Project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Development of the Proposed Project would require site preparation (i.e., land clearing and grading), subsurface excavation, and construction (i.e., infrastructure, buildings, and cleanup) of the proposed new features. These activities typically involve the temporary use of heavy equipment such as tractors, dozers, motor graders, loaders, and concrete mixers, trucks to deliver equipment and building materials, and to haul away waste materials, and smaller equipment such as pneumatic tools, saws, portable generators, and hammers. Noise levels generated during the construction phases would affect occupants of off-site residences, and the faculty, staff, and students of Walnut Canyon Elementary School, and would be considered significant. However, construction noise of the individual building areas would be of limited duration (i.e., short term), be restricted to daytime hours in accordance with the Moorpark Municipal Code, and with implementation of the Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which requires noise reduction measures and the use of construction noise BMPs, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 When construction operations occur within 100 feet of occupied residential areas and the Walnut Canyon Elementary School, the construction contractor(s) shall implement appropriate noise reduction measures. The following construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 789 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 51 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be provided to surrounding land uses within 1,000 feet of a project site disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period. Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and in good working condition. Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, i.e., nearby off-site residences, and the faculty, staff, and students of Walnut Canyon Elementary School, where feasible. Schedule high noise-producing activities, such as large earth-grading equipment that would generate over 85 dB(a), between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM to minimize disruption to sensitive uses. Schedule grading when school is not in session, to the extent feasible. Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources. Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible. Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 30 minutes. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the Moorpark School District or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party. Finding for Impact NOI-1: Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure NOI-1 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact NOI-1 to a less-than-significant level. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 790 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 52 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Impact NOI-2 Would the Project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but they can achieve the audible range and be felt in buildings very close to the Proposed Project site. The primary and most intensive vibration source associated with the development of the Proposed Project, under all three buildout scenarios, would be the use of bulldozers, and leveling equipment during construction. Depending on the location of construction equipment operations near these areas, project construction could result in vibration levels near sensitive receptors above 0.01 in/sec or between 0.003 and 0.09 in/sec at nearby structures containing sensitive receptors. However, grading, and construction activities would be limited to operation during the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Saturday, and not at any time on Sundays or any public holiday as described in the City of Moorpark Municipal Code. With these restrictions and implementation of the Mitigation Measures NOI-1, NOI-2, NOI-3, and NOI-4, which require the implementation of construction BMPs, the adjustment of vibration amplitudes, the advance notification of sensitive receptors of vibration producing construction activities, the storage of construction equipment as far from vibration-sensitive sites (as possible or practical, and the use wheeled or rubber-tracked equipment, and small pieces of equipment such as smaller bulldozers when possible, impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures NOI-2 The construction contractors during grading and earthmoving activities shall adjust vibration amplitudes of the construction equipment used on site, such as by limiting the number of pieces operating in one location at the same time in areas where conditions would affect structures, sensitivity of vibration sensitive equipment, and/or human tolerance. NOI-3 Prior to commencing grading and earthmoving activities, provide notification to Walnut Canyon School, and the residential land uses within 1,000 feet of the project at least 10 days in advance of construction activities that are anticipated to result in vibration levels above the 0.09 in/sec PPV thresholds, i.e., days when large bulldozers would be in use. NOI-4 Storage, maintenance, and operation of earthmoving equipment on the construction site shall be as far from vibration-sensitive sites (i.e., Walnut Canyon School and residential uses surrounding the project site) as possible or practical; use wheeled or rubber-tracked equipment; and small pieces of equipment such as smaller bulldozers when possible. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 791 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 53 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Finding for Impact NOI-2: Mitigation Measures NOI-2, NOI-3, and NOI-4 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures NOI-2, NOI-3, and NOI-4 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact NOI-2 to a less-than-significant level. 4.10 Public Services Impact PS-1: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. The Specific Plan site is located in an area designated as a “high fire hazard area.” Construction would, therefore, be required to comply with all applicable building and fire code requirements. These requirements may include items such as types of roofing materials, building construction, brush clearance, fire hydrant flows, hydrant spacing, access and design, and other hazard reduction programs, as set forth by VCFD. With the implementation of standard conditions and requirements, potential fire hazard impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Construction traffic would occur on and near the Project site during working hours associated with commuting construction workers, trucks, and other large construction vehicles. Slow-moving, construction-related traffic on local adjacent roadways may temporarily reduce optimal traffic flows on local roadways and could conceivably delay emergency service vehicles. This impact is not considered significant given the periodic and short-term nature of any construction-related traffic. With the use of flagmen and other standard construction practices such as traffic detour plans, haul routes, hours of operation, protective devices, warning signs, and access to abutting properties during construction as outlined in Mitigation Measure FP-1, impacts would be less than significant. Demand for fire protection service would incrementally increase above current levels. Calls for service are expected to be those typical of residential and recreational uses. Such calls may include kitchen/house fires, garbage bin fires, electrical fires, car fires, and medical emergencies. All such fires and medical emergencies can be adequately addressed with the types of equipment typically found at fire stations within VCFD. The Project would be required to pay VCFD facilities fees, currently $979.46 per single- family residential unit and $721.87 per multifamily residential unit, and operational impacts would be considered less than significant. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 792 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 54 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Mitigation Measure FP-1: To reduce emergency vehicle delays during construction, the applicant shall implement standard construction traffic control procedures, such as the use of flaggers, and signage showing traffic detour plans, haul routes, hours of operation, protective devices, warning signs and access to abutting properties would further reduce any potential impact. Finding for Impact PS-1: Mitigation Measure FP-1 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure FP-1 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact PS-1 to a less- than-significant level. Impact PS-2: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Construction activity would increase traffic both on and adjacent to the Project site during working hours because commuting construction workers, trucks, and other large construction vehicles would be added to normal traffic during the buildout period. Slow-moving, construction-related traffic along local roadways may reduce optimal traffic flows and could conceivably delay emergency vehicles or contribute to a vehicle accident. However, this potential is considered less than significant given the periodic and temporary nature of construction-related traffic. Implementation of standard construction traffic control procedures, such as the use of flagmen, and signage showing traffic detour plans, haul routes, hours of operation, protective devices, warning signs, and access to abutting properties during construction as outlined in Mitigation Measure PP-2, impacts would be less than significant. The Specific Plan would include approximately 55.11 acres of open space. The Moorpark Police Department has indicated that open space areas can become crime corridors if not properly designed. Residences normally back up to these spaces, and the ability of the police to conduct surveillance over these areas is impeded by fencing and landscaping. As such, a mitigation measure is would be required to address security issues associated with the open space component of the Specific Plan. In addition, the developer of the proposed project would be required to pay a police facilities fee, currently $1,167.00 per residential unit, that is required of all new developments to mitigate the increased need for police services. The developer would also be required to implement security recommendations regarding site security, lighting, landscaping, building access and visibility, street circulation, building design, and defensible space, which are identified in the form of planning department conditions Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 793 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 55 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 determined by the police department during the site plan review process. Compliance with these existing requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not significantly impact the police department's service abilities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures PP-1, which requires increasing the visibility of open space areas from patrol cars, and PP-2, which requires construction traffic controls, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures PP-1: Open spaces shall be designed to facilitate easy viewing from patrol cars and by citizens on adjacent streets. To the extent possible, and without destroying the character of the open space areas, access streets and trails shall be incorporated into open spaces for occasional patrols and other emergency vehicles. In no event does this require an all-weather surface to be provided on open space trail areas located away from project roadways. PP-2: To reduce emergency vehicle delays during construction, the applicant shall implement standard construction traffic control procedures, such as the use of flaggers, and signage showing traffic detour plans, haul routes, hours of operation, protective devices, warning signs, and access to abutting properties would further reduce any potential impact. Finding for Impact PS-2: Mitigation Measures PP-1, and PP-2 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures PP-1, and PP-2 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact PS-2 to a less-than-significant level. 4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TCR-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 794 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 56 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. a) Approximately 198.77 acres (71.7 percent) of the Project site would be graded under of implementation of the proposed specific for the construction of roadways and building foundations, and trenching for utilities and storm drains. This activity may affect undiscovered tribal cultural resources in the site, should there be any, this could cause a significant impact to a Tribal Cultural Resource. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, which would require the training of construction personnel to recognize buried cultural resources, an on-call Native American monitor, the avoidance of further disturbance to cultural resources where feasible, and a recovery and curation program where avoidance is not feasible, and CUL-2, would apply in the case that human remains are discovered during ground disturbing activities, which could be a tribal cultural resource, as listed above, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Finding for Impact TCR-1: Mitigation Measures CUL-1, and CUL-2 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures CUL- 1, and CUL-2 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact TCR-1 to a less-than-significant level. 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Impact USSW-1: Would the Project 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 The Project would not 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. No mitigation is required. However, Mitigation Measure SW-1, which requires the preparation of a waste management plan, consistent with Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, prepared by the applicant, would be implemented to further reduce the less than significant project impacts related to solid waste. Mitigation Measure SW-1: All Tract Map and RPD approvals shall require a waste management plan, consistent with Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, prepared by the applicant. At a minimum, the waste management plan shall address the following: Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 795 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 57 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Require that the demolition and construction wastes be recycled or re-used to the extent technically and economically feasible. Require that recycled content building materials be used during construction to the extent technologically and economically feasible. Conform to the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The above listed mitigation measures shall be binding on all construction and operation phases of development within the Specific Plan area. Finding for Impact USSW-1: Mitigation Measure SW-1 would further reduce the Project less than significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measure SW- 1 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval to further reduce Impact USSW-1 to a less-than-significant level. 4.13 Wildfire Impact WIL-2: Would the Project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The Project could result in an impact related to exacerbating wildfire risk and exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrollable spread of a wildfire if it would increase the risk of a wildfire occurring and the climatic, topographic, vegetation, weather conditions, and other factors that aid in increasing the severity of such an occurrence. Project construction would introduce potential ignition sources to the Project site, including the use of heavy machinery and the potential for sparks during welding activities or other hot work. However, the Project would be required to comply with City, State and VCFD requirements for construction activities in hazardous fire areas, including fire safety practices, to reduce the possibility of fires during construction activities. Further, the project would be subject to additional requirements, as required by VCFD, such as limiting or ceasing construction work during high-wind weather events. Additionally, as outlined in Mitigation Measure WF-1, vegetation management requirements would be implemented at the start of and would continue throughout all phases of construction, and combustible materials would not be brought on site until site improvements (e.g., utilities, access roads, fire hydrants, fuel modification zones) have been implemented and approved by VCFD. Additionally, all new permanent power lines would be undergrounded to the extent feasible for fire safety purposes. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 796 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 58 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve the standard FMZ width on the entirety of the eastern property boundary. The project’s eastern property line can only provide an area between 68 and 121 feet of structural setback from off-site fuel beds. Where the eastern property boundary abuts existing development, additional fire protection measures would not be required. However, where the Project site abuts open space areas and achievable FMZs are less than 100 feet, additional measures would be required to mitigate the non-conforming fire related threats and proposed reduced fuel modification zones. In order to provide compensating structural protection in the absence of a 100-foot wide FMZ, and in addition to the structures being built to the latest ignition-resistant codes, Mitigation Measure WF-2 would require window upgrades in exceedance of code requirements to be implemented on the side of structures abutting open space areas to reduce the risk of structural loss or damage due to a wildfire. Further, in accordance with Mitigation Measure WF-3, project landscaping would be implemented according to the VCFD Fire Hazard Reduction Program Plant Reference Guide and the VCFD Prohibited Plant List identified in the mitigation measure (as recommended by the Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan, Appendix 3.18). The Proposed Project, once developed, would not facilitate wildfire spread and would reduce projected flame lengths to levels that would be manageable by firefighting resources for protecting the site’s structures, especially given the ignition resistance of the structures and the planned ongoing maintenance of the entire site landscape. Therefore, wildfire occurrence, frequency or size would not be expected to be significantly exacerbated by construction of the Proposed Project.1 With adherence to all required building and fire codes, and with implementation of the fire prevention measures and design features as outlined in Mitigation Measures WF-1, WF-2, and WF-3 discussed above, WF-4 which requires annual inspections of the Project Site by the VCFD, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures WF-1: Pre-Construction Requirements. Vegetation management shall be conducted prior to the start of construction and throughout all construction phases by a qualified Ventura County Fire 1 A decision by the California Third District Court of Appeal, filed June 16, 2021, in the New Town Preservation Society vs. County of El Dorado, has reaffirmed precedent finding that the key question for hazards, such as wildfire, in the context of CEQA is not the impact that the existing environment presents to the project, but whether implementation of the project would exacerbate hazard risks. C092069.PDF (ca.gov), accessed July 21, 2021. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 797 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 59 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Department-approved third-party fuel modification zone inspector hired by the project applicant. Perimeter fuel modification shall be implemented and approved by the VCFD prior to bringing combustible materials on site. Adequate firebreaks at least 50 feet wide shall be created around all grading, site work, and other construction activities in areas where there is flammable vegetation. Existing flammable vegetation shall be reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of construction. Firebreaks and fuel modification shall be implemented in accordance with Appendix 3.18, Fire Protection Plan, and approved by VCFD. The Project shall comply with the following risk reducing vegetation management guidelines: • All new power lines shall be underground for fire safety. Temporary construction power lines may be allowed in areas that have been cleared of combustible vegetation. Existing 16 KV power lines within the project may be undergrounded or relocated to the extent practical. • Caution must be used to avoid causing erosion or ground (including slope) instability or water runoff due to vegetation removal, vegetation management, maintenance, landscaping or irrigation. WF-2: In order to provide compensating structural protection in the absence of a 100-foot wide FMZ along the eastern property boundary, the structures along the entire eastern side of the development within Planning Area 3 shall include the following features for additional fire prevention, protection, and suppression: The proposed Triplex structures along the eastern edge of the development within PA3 that are adjacent to existing homes off Casey Road, shall be constructed with multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane, and a fire resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257, or be tested to meet the performance requirements of State Fire Marshal Standard 12-7A-2 (see Figure 3.18-3). The remaining Triplex structures along the eastern edge of the development within PA3 are exposed to natural vegetation. Depending on the timing of development of the proposed Senior Living project which currently is not developed, the remaining Triplex structures within the Hitch Ranch development along the eastern edge of the development shall implement either; a.) if the proposed Senior Living development begins construction prior to the Hitch Ranch Project development begins construction, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 798 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 60 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 then dual pane single tempered windows will be acceptable, or b.) if the Senior Living development has not begun construction prior to Hitch Ranch Project construction at this site, then dual pane, dual tempered windows will be required for the Hitch Ranch developments that are north of the existing homes off Casey Road up to proposed North Hills Parkway, exceeding the CBC Chapter 7A code requirement (see Figure 3.18-3). Provide a noncombustible, 6-foot high concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall at the top of the manufactured slopes behind the units within PA3 along the eastern property boundary. These walls will be installed to function as heat-deflecting walls; vining plants will be established as landscape screening. Note: the use of vining plants may be restricted in FMZ Zones 0, 1, and 2. WF-3: A fully irrigated landscape, planted with drought-tolerant, fire-resistive plants shall be implemented. All landscape and fuel modification plans are required to be submitted to the City of Moorpark Community Development Department and the Ventura County Fire Department for review and approval. This includes developer installed landscaping and any landscape installed by individual property owners. The landscaping shall be routinely maintained and shall be watered by an automatic irrigation system that will maintain healthy vegetation with high moisture contents that would minimize ignition by embers from a wildfire. WF-4: The project HOA shall coordinate with the Ventura County Fire Department- to provide annual inspections. A copy of each inspection report shall be provided to the City of Moorpark Community Development Director. Finding for Impact WIL-2: Mitigation Measures WF-1, WF-2, WF-3, and WF-4 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures WF-1, WF-2, WF-3, and WF-4 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact WIL-2 to a less-than-significant level. Impact WIL-3: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Installation and maintenance of project roads, service utilities, fuel modification, drainage and water quality improvements, and other associated infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risks provided Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 799 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 61 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 that the appropriate fire prevention, access, and vegetation management activities are implemented as required by the VCFD, City code and state requirements.2 Given that the activities involved with installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would require ground disturbance and the use of heavy machinery associated with trenching, grading, site work, and other construction and maintenance activities, the installation of related infrastructure could potentially result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. However, the installation and maintenance of roads, service utilities, drainage and water quality improvements, and vegetation management activities are part of the Project analyzed herein. As such, any potential temporary or ongoing environmental impacts related to these components of the Proposed Project have been accounted for and analyzed in the Draft EIR as part of the impact assessment conducted for the entirety of the project. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with all regulatory requirements and mitigation measures outlined within the Draft EIR for the purposes of mitigating impacts associated with trenching, grading, site work, and the use of heavy machinery. Implementation of Mitigation Measures WF-1, WF-2, and WF-3, as listed as discussed above, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Finding for Impact WIL-3: Mitigation Measures WF-1, WF-2, and WF-3 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures WF-1, WF-2, and WF-3 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact WIL-3 to a less-than-significant level. Impact WIL-4: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. As discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology, an evaluation of the debris production with Ventura County was calculated in order to determine if the five proposed debris basins (DB1A, DB1B, DB2, DB3, and Basin 2B) would be adequate in a 100-year flooding event. The project includes debris basins that are anticipated to be adequate to support the sediment yield of a 100-year flood event. Moreover, the proposed facilities, including the retention basins, provide a significant benefit to the existing systems. Under existing conditions, there is a significant amount of flow overtopping the Union Pacific Railroad tracks 2 A decision by the California Third District Court of Appeal, filed June 16, 2021, in the New Town Preservation Society vs. County of El Dorado, has reaffirmed precedent finding that the key question for hazards, such as wildfire, in the context of CEQA is not the impact that the existing environment presents to the project, but whether implementation of the project would exacerbate hazard risks. C092069.PDF (ca.gov), accessed July 21, 2021. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 800 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 62 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 immediately upstream of Gabbert Road, which could impact the industrial/commercial area to the south. This issue will be completely eliminated under the Interim and Buildout Conditions. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-5, while the project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project site, the drainage pattern will not be altered in such a way to result in increases in downslope or downstream flooding. As discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, steep natural slopes are located within the southwestern area of the specific plan site. The slopes are about 70 to 80 feet in height. The slopes have gradients of 1-1/2 (horizontal [h]) to 1 (vertical [v]), and 2(h) to 1(v) or shallower. Engineering analyses have identified these slopes have factors of safety for stability that are less than required by governing construction codes. Habitable structures are proposed to be setback from these slopes to where the factors of safety for stability meet or exceed governing construction codes, and impacts would be less than significant. Manufactured slopes within the development area are proposed to be constructed at a gradient of 2(h) to 1(v) or less. The highest or maximum cut slope in the development area would be about 75 feet in height and would be situated just north of Poindexter Avenue. The highest or maximum fill slope in the development area would be about 61 feet in height and occur along a south-facing slope near the south-central portion of the specific plan site. Lastly, a fill over cut slope of about 89 feet in height is proposed in the southeastern portion of the specific plan site. Proposed manufactured slopes on the specific plan site would result in a static safety factor of greater than 1.5, thus resulting in less than significant impacts. Cut slopes could exposed localized conditions of locally-adverse geologic structure, expose sandy bedrock materials that are friable and prone to erosion, or possible nuisance seepage issues. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GS-1 through GS-3, would reduce potential impacts related to this issue to less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-5, and GS-1 through GS-3, as listed and discussed above, would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Finding for Impact WIL-4: Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-5, and GS-1 through GS-3 would reduce Project impacts to less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-5, and GS-1 through GS-3 will be incorporated into Project via conditions of approval and will reduce Impact WIL-4 to a less- than-significant level. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 801 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 63 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 SECTION 5: SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The Final EIR identifies two impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level even though the City finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and adopted as part of the Project. The significant and unavoidable impacts are discussed below. 5.1 Aesthetics Impact AES-1: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Implementation of the Specific Plan would substantially alter the currently available scenic vista, and the visual characteristics of the site. Grading activities would affect several of the significant ridgelines that transverse the Specific Plan site. The westernmost viewshed (Open Space) would be generally unaffected by development; under the proposed project, this portion of the Specific Plan site would be retained as open space. The remainder of the Project site would be converted from undeveloped open space to the development as provided for by the Specific Plan. Existing vacant land would be developed with residential and recreational uses that would be visible. As a result of the implementation of the Specific Plan, the project would have a significant impact to the existing scenic vista. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 would help mitigate the impacts both during and following construction by requiring the re-vegetation of the site following grading operations and erecting landscape screens around dentation basins. However, impacts to the existing scenic vista of the undeveloped site would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures AES-1: To help minimize the short-term visual effects of mass grading, all manufactured slopes shall be hydro-mulched in conjunction with the grading process to prevent soil erosion and provide an environment conducive to plant growth. The seed mix used in the hydro-mulch slurry shall consist of a blend of fast-growing annual grasses and summer flowering forbs. AES-2: To minimize the change in the visual character of the site landscape screens must be placed around detention and debris basins in Planning Area 1, and below Planning Area 4 to limit views of these areas. These plantings must emphasize native species and shall comply with the City’s Landscape Guidelines. At maturity, the landscaping shall be of a sufficient size to screen the detention basins. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 802 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 64 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Finding for Impact AES-1: Existing vacant land would be developed with residential and recreational uses that would be visible. As a result of the implementation of the Specific Plan, the Project would have a significant impact to the existing scenic vista. Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 would help mitigate the impacts both during and following construction. However, impacts to the existing scenic vista of the undeveloped site would remain significant and unavoidable. The above Finding is made in conjunction with a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is simultaneously being adopted for the Project (see Section 7). 5.2 Air Quality Impact AQ-2: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The day-to-day activities of the Project would exceed the VCAPCD threshold of significance for ROC emissions. In accordance with the Ventura Quality Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003), the operational criteria pollutant emissions of the proposed Specific Plan were analyzed as a whole by calculating total combined (area, energy, and mobile source) emissions and comparing these total emissions estimates to the VCAPCD-recommended thresholds of 25 pounds per day for ROC and nitrogen oxides (NOX). As shown in Table 3.2-9 in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, total combined operational emissions of ROC upon buildout of the proposed Specific Plan were found to exceed the threshold. As a result, the Draft EIR proposed mitigation for this impact, specifically MM AQ- 3, which requires contribution to the City of Moorpark Transportation System Management Fund to offset the mobile source emissions generated by buildout of the proposed Specific Plan. No feasible stationary emissions mitigation was identified in the Draft EIR. Further, the City, in its role as CEQA Lead Agency, has determined that there is not substantial evidence regarding the effectiveness of installing additional electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle racks for residential units within the Specific Plan area beyond those already required by the California Building Code in order to conclude that operational criteria pollutant impacts specific to area source emissions (and, thus, overall emissions) would be less than significant. Although the installation of additional electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle racks would facilitate future residents’ use of electric vehicles and bicycles, it does not guarantee a certain number of residents would purchase and use electric Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 803 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 65 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 vehicles and/or bicycles beyond those already assumed in the unmitigated emissions estimate for the Specific Plan’s mobile source emissions. The Specific Plan’s mobile source emissions estimate is based on the California Air Resources Board’s EMissions FACtor (EMFAC) 2017 database which already incorporates the assumption that a certain proportion of vehicle miles traveled would be made by electric vehicles in the year of Specific Plan buildout due to evolving market trends and consumer adoption. Therefore, calculating emissions reductions for these suggested mitigation measures would be speculative, because their operational effectiveness cannot be guaranteed or enforced at the resident or consumer level. Similarly, suggested mitigation measures to provide a shuttle service and/or bicycle lanes would expand future residents’ opportunities to utilize alternative transportation options; however, quantifying the criteria pollutant emissions reductions achieved by these features would also be speculative, because the City cannot guarantee a certain level of usage of these features by future residents. As a result, the City has determined that the contribution of the applicant for the proposed Specific Plan to the City of Moorpark TSM Fund in accordance with VCAPCD guidance is the most effective and enforceable means of mitigating the operational air quality impact of the proposed Specific Plan, even if not to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, as stated in Section 3.2.7, Level of Significance after Mitigation, in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the City does not have the authority to regulate future residents’ use of certain types of landscaping equipment through the Specific Plan. The VCAPCD suggests that the Homeowners’ Association (HOA) may have a mechanism to require the use of electric landscaping equipment within the Specific Plan area, however there would be no way to quantify the reductions resulting from the use of this equipment, and further, the on-going enforcement of this requirement would be difficult at best, requiring a body of ‘deputized’ members of the HOA to monitor their neighbors in their own backyards. The Proposed Project’s impacts related to operational air quality would be considered both individually and cumulatively significant without mitigation. Implementation of Operational Mitigation Measure MM AQ-3 would reduce Project level and cumulative impacts to the extent feasible; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM AQ-3: The Project Applicant shall submit payment of fees to the City of Moorpark’s Transportation System Management Fund (Resolution No. 2006-2461). The fees shall be calculated using the procedure outlined in Resolution No. 2006-2461, which relies on the recommendation of the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. As such, the fees shall be based on the unit cost for ROC in effect at the time the fee is to be paid using the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines formula of: Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 804 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 66 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 (14 lbs excess mobile source ROC emissions) x (unit cost of ROG) x (365 days of operation) x (3 years) = total cost The unit cost of ROG shall be calculated by adjusting the year 2000 unit cost of $5.18 per pound of ROC reduced with an inflation factor calculated by dividing the most recent January Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers [All Items 1982-1984=100]) value for the Los Angeles area by the January 2000 Consumer Price Index value for this region of 167.9. The City of Moorpark shall spend or commit the mitigation fees to a mitigation project within five years of receipt of the funds. The funds shall be prioritized for mitigation projects within Moorpark, or if not feasible to be located within Moorpark, shall be used for mitigation projects in other locations within Ventura County. The mitigation funds shall not be used for traffic engineering projects, including but not limited to signal synchronization, intersection improvements, or channelization. The City shall provide a report to the City Council annually on the collection, expenditure, and use of these mitigation fees. Each future entitlement, including but not limited to subdivision maps, planned development permits, and conditional use permits, related to the Proposed Project may be conditioned to pay its proportionate share of the cost to reduce ROC emissions. Finding for Impact AQ-2: The day-to-day operational activities of Project’s occupants would result in an exceedance of VCAPCD threshold of significance for ROC emissions, resulting in significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts. Implementation of Operational Mitigation Measure MM AQ-3 would reduce Project level and cumulative impacts to the extent feasible. However, no further feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce these air quality impacts to a level of less than significant. The above Findings is made in conjunction with a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is simultaneously being adopted for the Project (see Section 7). SECTION 6: FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Project Alternatives The Final EIR included three alternatives: the No Project Alternative, the RPD 20U-N-D Alternative, and the 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative. The City hereby concludes that the Final EIR sets forth a Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 805 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 67 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 reasonable range of alternatives to the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project so as to foster informed public participation and informed decision making. The City finds that the three alternatives identified and described in the Final EIR were considered and further finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21081. 6.1.1 Objectives of the Proposed Project The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) include a statement of the objectives sought by a proposed project (Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines). The objectives of the Plan are: Develop the Project site with a financially feasible, residential project that meets the residential needs of the City of Moorpark. Provide residential development consistent with 2021-2023 City Council Goal 1: Identify options and solutions to barriers for housing for all economic and age ranges. Create a new community neighborhood that would allow for residential development, while preserving natural resources and open space. Contribute to the enhancement of Downtown High Street by providing a new residential customer base, bicycle, vehicle, and pedestrian connections to the downtown. Provide a range of housing opportunities with varying densities, types, styles, prices, and tenancy characteristics (for sale versus rental). Help to achieve Housing Element goals for affordable housing. Avoid leapfrog development and accommodate projected growth in a location, which is adjacent to existing infrastructure, urban services, and community facilities. Locate housing near to jobs and in close proximity to transit in order to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Transition development within the Project site with consideration for natural resource areas and open space. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that supports surrounding land uses. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 806 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 68 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Designate sites for needed public facilities including flood control facilities, regional roadways, and trails. Provide residential opportunities to respond to economic and market conditions over several years. Provide a tax base to support public services associated with the proposed development to appropriately offset development impacts to city services. Retain open space and natural vegetation to exist as a buffer between on-site land uses and the surrounding resources to the extent possible while providing fire protection to the proposed land uses. Improve safe and adequate vehicle circulation within the regional area. Provide pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails that connect to the local and regional trail systems in the surrounding hills. Promote water conservation through use of drought-tolerant, fire-resistive, and native plants as appropriate. 6.1.2 No Project Alternative Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on consideration of the no project alternative. When examining a development project on a specific piece of property, the No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which the Proposed Project does not proceed. Under a No Project scenario, the discussion compares the environmental effects of the property remaining in its current state against the environmental effects that would occur if the Proposed Project were approved and constructed. The No Project Alternative assumes that no development would occur on the approximately 277.30-acre Project site. Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain in its present partially graded, highly disturbed condition. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, a portion of the Project site has been graded and, therefore, is either in an otherwise disturbed state (e.g., building pads, dirt roadways), or is presently open space. Under the No Project Alternative, the potential project-related impacts associated with development of the Project site and described in Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis would not occur. However, it also would not achieve any of the key objectives of the Project, as described above and in subsection 2.1 in the Project Description. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 807 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 69 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Finding: It is found pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social and technological, or other considerations, make the No Project Alternative infeasible. Therefore, the City finds that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Proposed Project and rejects this alternative for any and all of the following reasons: The No Project Alternative would not realize any of the Project Objectives because it would not develop a well-designed, economically feasible residential community that consists of a variety of residential products and unit types nor create a development of a scale and character that complements and is supportive of the surrounding uses. In addition, it would not assist the City of Moorpark in providing residential development consistent with 2021-2023 City Council Goal 1 to identify options and solutions to barriers for housing for all economic and age ranges.to the same extent as the proposed project. 6.1.3 RPD 20U-N-D Alternative Alternative 2 assumes development in accordance with the City’s current General Plan designation (Specific Plan 1) and Zoning regulations (AE, 1 dwelling unit/40 acres, and RPD 20U-N-D, 20 dwelling units/acre). This alternative would develop 468 Low and Very Low-Income Rental Units, and five (5) 40-acre parcels for the development of single-family units (473 total units) consistent with the current zoning. This Alternative would necessitate that the City purchase the approximately 26-acre portion of the Project site zoned RPD 20U-N-D from the Project Applicant to build out the infrastructure improvements and dwelling units for affordable housing project and detention basin. This is a reduction in 282 housing units and approximately 931 fewer residents. This Alternative was evaluated to identify alternate development that could take place on the Project site without the application for any discretionary actions requiring approval from the City, as a practical result of the Project’s non-approval. The RPD 20U-N-D Alternative would decrease the Project’s impacts related to air quality (construction phase), biological resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards, land use, noise, population and housing, public services (schools and library services), transportation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to aesthetics, air quality (operational), cultural resources, recreation, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to those of the Proposed Project. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality, public services (fire protection and police services), and wildfire would be greater under this Alternative, as compared to the Project. As such, this Alternative would not reduce the significant unavoidable impacts (aesthetic impacts to a scenic vista and operational air quality) of the Project. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 808 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 70 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 Finding: It is found pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social and technological, or other considerations, make the RPD 20U-N-D Alternative infeasible. Therefore, the City finds that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project and rejects this alternative for any and all of the following reasons: This alternative would achieve many of the project objectives, but it would not meet the objective of developing an economically feasible residential community. A key project objective is to “develop a well- designed, economically feasible residential community that consists of a variety of residential products and unit types.” The RPD 20U-N-D Alternative, with 473 units, does not offer the cost or operational efficiency that is required for a residential project to remain financially viable at this location in comparison to Project. The development costs for this Alternative would weigh too heavily on a project of that size, unlike the 755 units for Proposed Project. Additionally, the RPD 20U-N-D Alternative would not assist the City of Moorpark in achieving the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal of providing 1,289 new housing units divided into affordability levels to the same extent as the Project. Further, the RPD 20U-N-D Alternative would not meet, or impede the following Project objectives: • Develop the project site with a financially feasible, residential project that meets the residential needs of the City of Moorpark. • Provide residential development consistent with 2021-2023 City Council Goal 1: Identify options and solutions to barriers for housing for all economic and age ranges. • Create a new community neighborhood that would allow for residential development, while preserving natural resources and open space. • Contribute to the enhancement of Downtown High Street by providing a new residential customer base, bicycle, vehicle, and pedestrian connections to the downtown. • Provide a range of housing opportunities with varying densities, types, styles, prices, and tenancy characteristics (for sale versus rental). • Help to achieve Housing Element goals for affordable housing. • Locate housing near to jobs and in close proximity to transit in order to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. • Provide development and transitional land use patterns that supports surrounding land uses. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 809 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 71 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 • Designate sites for needed public facilities including flood control facilities, regional roadways, and trails. • Provide residential opportunities to respond to economic and market conditions over several years. • Provide a tax base to support public services associated with the proposed development to appropriately offset development impacts to city services. • Improve safe and adequate vehicle circulation within the regional area. • Provide pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails that connect to the local and regional trail systems in the surrounding hills. 6.1.4 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative In an effort to reduce the Proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable visual impacts, Alternative 3, 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact, would include the construction of 415 single-family residential dwelling units, organized to avoid development on the most southerly, and publicly visible, areas of the Project Site. The Alternative would include 100 single-family units in Planning Area 1, 100 single-family units in Planning Area 2 east, 150 single-family units in Planning Area 3, and 65 single-family units in Planning Area 4 north. This alternative would provide infrastructure improvements in the form of detention basins (2, 2A, 2B, and 3), and the extension of North Hills Parkway up to Gabbert Road. No affordable housing units would be provided under this alternative, as that parcel would be developed with single family housing. Further, the approximately 6.77-acre public park area (proposed under the Project on the southern edge of the specific plan area, along the High Street frontage), would not be included under this alternative. Alternative 3 not would provide for the extension of High Street beyond “A” Street, or provide a connection to Meridian Hills Parkway. The Applicant would satisfy recreation/park space obligations solely through payment of Quimby fees. This Alternative would reduce the number of proposed dwelling units by 300 when compared to the Project. Alternative 3 would accommodate approximately 1,469 residents (calculated as 3.54 persons per dwelling), approximately 1,204 fewer residents. The 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative would decrease the Project’s impacts related to air quality (construction and operational phase), biological resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 810 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 72 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 emissions, hazards, noise, population and housing, public services (schools and library services), transportation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to aesthetics, cultural resources, land use, public services (fire protection and police services), recreation, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to those of the Proposed Project. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality, and wildfire would be greater under this Alternative, as compared to the Project. As such, this Alternative would not reduce the significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts to a scenic vista. Finding: It is found pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social and technological, or other considerations, make the 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative infeasible. Therefore, the City finds that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project and rejects this alternative for any and all of the following reasons: The 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative would achieve many of the project objectives, but it would not meet the objective of developing an economically feasible residential community. A key project objective is to “develop a well-designed, economically feasible residential community that consists of a variety of residential products and unit types.” The 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative, with 415 units, does not offer the cost or operational efficiency that is required for a residential project to remain financially viable at this location in comparison to Project. The development costs for this Alternative would weigh too heavily on a project of that size, unlike the 755 units for Project. Additionally, the 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative would not assist the City of Moorpark in achieving the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal of providing 1,289 new housing units divided into affordability levels to the same extent as the Project. Further, the 415 Unit Reduced Visual Impact Alternative would not meet, or impede the following Project objectives: • Develop the project site with a financially feasible, residential project that meets the residential needs of the City of Moorpark. • Provide residential development consistent with 2021-2023 City Council Goal 1: Identify options and solutions to barriers for housing for all economic and age ranges. • Create a new community neighborhood that would allow for residential development, while preserving natural resources and open space. • Provide a range of housing opportunities with varying densities, types, styles, prices, and tenancy characteristics (for sale versus rental). • Help to achieve Housing Element goals for affordable housing. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 811 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 73 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 • Transition development within the project site with consideration for natural resource areas and open space. • Provide development and transitional land use patterns that supports surrounding land uses. • Designate sites for needed public facilities including flood control facilities, regional roadways, and trails. • Provide residential opportunities to respond to economic and market conditions over several years. • Provide a tax base to support public services associated with the proposed development to appropriately offset development impacts to city services. • Improve safe and adequate vehicle circulation within the regional area. • Provide pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails that connect to the local and regional trail systems in the surrounding hills. 6.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative The Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to a scenic vista and to air quality (operational). The only alternative that would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance is the No Project Alternative. If the No Project Alternative is determined to be the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must also be identified among the remaining alternatives.3 The environmentally superior alternative would be Alternative 2 – RPD 20U-N-D Alternative. This alternative would reduce impacts related to visual resources to the greatest extent. Further, the lower density of this alternative would reduce impacts to biological and cultural resources, reduce demand for resources and services, as well as traffic volumes and noise levels. SECTION 7: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when determining whether to 3 California Public Resources Code, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15124.6(e)(2). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 812 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 74 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen virtually all of the significant effects identified in the Draft and Final EIR. Nonetheless, two significant impacts of the project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. The significant unavoidable impacts are identified and discussed in Sections 5 of these Findings. The City further specifically finds that notwithstanding the disclosure of the significant unavoidable impacts, there are specific overriding economic, legal, social, and other reasons for approving the Project. Those reasons are as follows: a. Implementation of the Project will result in the development of a new, well-designed, economically feasible residential community that consists of a variety of residential products and unit types. The Project site is designated as Specific Plan Area No. 1 in the Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element. The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan will be used to identify the type, location, and intensity of appropriate uses with the Land Use Element and provides design guidance for development standards, design, and infrastructure. The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan includes a variety of housing densities which decrease as distance from the commercial areas of the City increases. Higher density multi-family housing is located closest to the historic downtown/High Street area, transit, and other higher density communities; the larger lots on the west edge are more consistent with context of the more rural Gabbert neighborhood. The Project provides approximately 75 acres of open space, approximately six acres of private recreational space and approximately 14 acres of public parkland. Landscape areas, open spaces and park spaces buffer the perimeter of Hitch Ranch; a generous buffer is provided for the Gabbert neighborhood in keeping with the rural character of the community. b. The addition of 755 residential units to the City of Moorpark will make a substantial contribution toward attainment of community housing goals. The diverse residential types will address a number of communities housing issues, including affordable and market rate multi-family housing, smaller single-family housing for first-time home buyers, move-up housing, and executive housing. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 813 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 75 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 c. The Specific Plan landscape and architectural design guidelines reflect the historic Early California and rural architectural character that distinguishes the Moorpark community. Landscape guidelines identify the appropriate use of native and adaptive plant materials. Context appropriate planting and hardscape materials that are water conserving and fire resistant will be used consistent with City requirements. d. The Project includes a donation of 23.44 acres to the City to enable the City of Moorpark to pursue the development of up to 333 affordable housing units under a separate process at a future date. e. Hitch Ranch includes numerous improvements to public facilities and services for the benefit of the Plan area residents and the region. Public improvements will meet local and regional needs by including upgrades to roadway connections to address existing network deficiencies. The Specific Plan provides for a hierarchical system of streets that is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element and that connects with other streets and roadways to link throughout the City and the greater area. This includes the extension of Meridian Hills Drive, North Hills Parkway, Casey Road, High Street and “A” Street. The street network provided by the Specific Plan greatly improves the fire safety and emergency access to the Meridian Hills and Gabbert Road neighborhoods as well as eliminates the sub-standard single point of access at the existing Walnut Canyon School campus. The circulation and streetscape improvements will also contribute to improved bicyclist and pedestrian safety in the area in and around the Project site. A Condition of Approval will be required to ensure that traffic conditions in the Project area would remain consistent with the Goals and Policies identified in the City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element. This Condition of Approval will require that the Project Applicant shall pay an Area of Contribution (AOC) fee based upon the City’s currently adopted AOC fee schedule (as indicated in the Development Agreement for the Project). The AOC fee for each individual dwelling unit shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that unit. The AOC fees will be used by the City to fund roadway improvements as identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) list.4 f. Two public parks totaling approximately 14 acres are proposed along the High Street frontage of the specific plan area, adjacent to the City of Moorpark Civic Center property. This public park 4 The City would update the current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) list to include and address the specific improvements identified in the transportation analyses for implementation of the Project. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 814 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 76 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 land would be dedicated to the City of Moorpark and would partially fulfill the requirements of the General Plan for park dedication. Additionally, there are over five and one-half miles of multi-use and equestrian trails in Hitch Ranch that connect to local and regional trails. The network of trails, parks and natural open space create an active, outdoor-oriented community that creates opportunities for social interaction benefiting existing and future residents of Moorpark. Residents of neighborhoods that are currently underserved with recreational opportunities would have access to the network of trails in the Specific Plan area. g. Project-related infrastructure improvements will address existing local and regional needs by including upgrades to provide necessary flood control/drainage improvements. Some required portions of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (previously the Ventura County Flood Control District) flood-control master plan facilities are incorporated as part of the Project; these facilities would serve the Project site and provide flood control for the local drainage basin (i.e., Gabbert and Walnut Canyons). These facilities were identified as part of the Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Flood Control Deficiency Study, Initial Study Hitch Ranch Specific Plan July 10, 2019, which was prepared for the Ventura County Flood Control District (dated March 1997). As proposed, the Specific Plan designates three sites for use as detention basins, with a total area of approximately 24.53 acres. h. As a residential project, the development of Hitch Ranch would not contribute to or cause hazardous conditions of any kind. All development in the Hitch Ranch Plan Area will comply with applicable flooding, wildfire, and geologic safety code requirements. All residential development within the project is located outside of FEMA Flood Hazard Areas. Wildfire hazards would be minimized through fuel modification and other measures as set forth in the Public Services and Design Guidelines sections of the Specific Plan, and the Project’s Fire Protection Plan. The establishment of a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) will ensure that fuel modification and other fire protection systems are maintained. The Hitch Ranch HOA will provide Hitch Ranch residents with information on, and encourage them to practice, and implement a “Ready, Set, Go!” (Ventura County Fire Department 2016) approach to site evacuation. The “Ready, Set, Go!” concept is widely known and encouraged by the state of California and most fire agencies, including the VCFD. Pre-planning for emergencies, including wildfire emergencies, focuses on being prepared, having a well-defined plan, minimizing potential for errors, maintaining the site’s fire protection systems, and implementing a conservative (evacuate as early as possible) approach to evacuation and site uses during periods of fire weather extremes. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 815 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 77 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 i. The Specific Plan includes mitigation measures to protect biological resources, including protected plant and animal species, and includes a Native Habitat Restoration Plan. Aquifer recharge capacity will be enhanced by including numerous soft-bottom detention basins on the Project site, and preserving the alluvium areas along High Street and Gabbert Road. On balance, the City finds that there are specific considerations associated with the Project that serve to override and outweigh the Project’s significant unavoidable effects. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b), the adverse effects of the Project are considered acceptable. SECTION 8: GENERAL FINDINGS 1. The City, acting through the Community Development Department Planning Division, is the “Lead Agency” for the Project evaluated in the EIR. The City finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR for the Project, that the Draft EIR which was circulated for public review reflected its independent judgment and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. 2. The EIR evaluated the following potential Project and cumulative environmental impacts: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Additionally, the EIR considered, in separate sections, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth Inducing Impacts. The significant environmental impacts of the Project, as well as other alternatives were identified in the EIR. 3. The City finds that the EIR provides objective information to assist the decision makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the Project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Draft EIR. The Final EIR was prepared after the review period and responds to comments made during the public review period. 4. The Community Development Department Planning Division evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the Planning Division prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The Final EIR provides adequate, good faith and Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 816 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 78 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 reasoned responses to the comments. The Community Development Department Planning Division reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts to the Draft EIR. The Lead Agency has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the EIR. 5. The Final EIR documents changes to the Draft EIR. Having reviewed the information contained in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and the administrative record, as well as the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding recirculation of Draft EIRs, the City finds that there is no new significant impact, substantial increase in the severity of a previously disclosed impact, significant new information in the record of proceedings or other criteria under CEQA that would require additional recirculation of the Draft EIR, or that would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. Specifically, the City finds that: a. The Responses to Comments contained in the Final EIR fully considered and responded to comments claiming that the Project would have significant impacts or more severe impacts not disclosed in the Draft EIR and include substantial evidence that none of these comments provided substantial evidence that the Project would result in changed circumstances, significant new information, considerably different mitigation measures, or new or more severe significant impacts than were discussed in the Draft EIR. b. The City has thoroughly reviewed the public comments received regarding the Project and the Final EIR as it relates to the Project to determine whether under the requirements of CEQA, any of the public comments provide substantial evidence that would require recirculation of the EIR prior to its adoption and has determined that recirculation of the EIR is not required. c. None of the information submitted after publication of the Final EIR, including testimony at the public hearings on the Project, constitutes significant new information or otherwise requires preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. The City does not find this information and testimony to be credible evidence of a significant impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an impact disclosed in the Final EIR, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative not included in the Final EIR. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 817 CEQA Findings Impact Sciences, Inc. 79 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1318.001 May 2022 d. The mitigation measures identified for the Project were included in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. As revised, the final mitigation measures for the Project are described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Each of the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP is incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible by the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP. 6. CEQA requires the Lead Agency approving a project to adopt a MMRP or the changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The mitigation measures included in the EIR as certified by the City and revised in the MMRP as adopted by the City serve that function. The MMRP includes all of the mitigation measures and Project Design Features adopted by the City in connection with the approval of the Project and has been designed to ensure compliance with such measures during implementation of the Project. In accordance with CEQA, the MMRP provides the means to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the City hereby adopts the MMRP. 7. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the City hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly set forth herein as conditions of approval for the Project. 8. The custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City decision is based is the City of Moorpark, Community Development Department Planning Division. 9. The City finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every finding made herein is contained in the EIR, which is incorporated herein by this reference, or is in the record of proceedings in the matter. 10. The City is certifying an EIR for, and is approving and adopting Findings for, the entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the EIR as comprising the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan project. 11. The EIR is a project EIR for purposes of environmental analysis of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan. A project EIR examines the environmental effects of a specific project. The EIR serves as the primary environmental compliance document for entitlement decisions regarding the project by the City and the other regulatory jurisdictions. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 818 EXHIBIT C Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 819 SP-1 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan VH Very High Density Residential (15Du/Ac) EXHIBIT CResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 820 CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Adopted by the City Council on May 13, 1992 TEXT AMENDMENTS (Color as shown in document): 1.Resolution No. 98-1515, Adopted October 7, 1998 2.Resolution No. 99-1572, Adopted February 3, 1999* 3.Resolution No. 2002-2002, Adopted November 8, 2002 4.Resolution No. 2005-2398, Adopted October 5, 2005 5. * Resolution No. 2009-2828, Adopted June 17, 2009 Also known as Measure “S” or the “SOAR Ordinance.” Except as otherwise provided, Section 8.0 et seq. of the Land Use Element, Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary, may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Moorpark at an election held in accordance with State law. 6.Resolution No. 2022-____, Adopted _________, 2022 EXHIBIT CResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 821 285 Specific plan areas 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10 have been delineated based on ownership, landform and circulation considerations. Specific plan areas with adjoining boundaries may be combined to allow for a consolidated planning effort where all issues are addressed in a comprehensive manner as required by Government Code Sections 65450-65457. A detailed description of the issues for each of the specific plan areas is provided in the following subsections. [Amended per Resolution No. 99-1572] Planning Area Within City Limits As noted on the Land Use Plan, four specific plan areas have been designated within the undeveloped areas of the existing City of Moorpark limits (specific plan areas 1, 2, 9, and 10). These specific plans have been designated to address comprehensively a variety of land use issues including topography, viewshed, and circulation. Each specific plan area will be required to include a minimum of 25 percent of the total acreage for open space. As noted within each of the following specific plan area descriptions, residential densities exceeding the maximum density could be granted at the discretion of the Moorpark City Council if the property owners within the specific plan area agree to provide public improvements, public services, and/or financial contributions that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community. Specific plan areas within the City are assigned an overlay designation, as shown on the land use map, to reflect the permitted land uses in absence of an overall specific plan. SPECIFIC PLAN 1 Specific Plan 1 consists of 277 acres under single ownership, located in the western section of the City, north of Poindexter Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Gabbert Road crosses the westerly portion of the specific plan area. Generally, the specific plan area is characterized by rolling hillsides which are currently used for grazing purposes. Opportunities and Constraints Specific plan area development issues to be addressed during specific plan preparation and subsequent review will include: --- Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 822 Topography - An evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils, seismic faults, and other geotechnical constraints within the hillside areas of development will be considered during the development/review of this specific plan. Consistent with City policy, grading is restricted on slopes greater than 20 percent and development prohibited in areas where potential hazards cannot be fully mitigated. Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints will be conducted during the development/review of this specific plan. Viewshed - The visual importance of hillside horizon lines/prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and review of this specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and natural resources. Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources which may occur onsite (i.e., oak trees, threatened, rare, endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during specific plan preparation. The preservation of any resources determined to be significant shall be encouraged through habitat preservation, enhancement, or replacement. Archaeology - The specific plan area will be evaluated to determine whether archaeological resources occur within the overall plan area and their potential significance. Public Services/Infrastructure - Water, sewer, gas and electric service to the specific plan area will be provided through service extensions from existing transmission lines in the surrounding area. An evaluation will be conducted during the development of this specific plan regarding required land use set-asides and financing for schools and community services such as fire stations and libraries. Parks - An evaluation will be conducted during the development of this specific plan to identify required park land dedication consistent with the City Municipal Code and General Plan requirements. Circulation - The specific plan area circulation network will require consideration for topographical constraints, viewshed issues, and the adjacent Southern Pacific railroad tracks; shall Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 823 provide protection for the conceptual alignment of the future SR-118 freeway North Hills Parkway corridor; and shall ensure that roadway rights-of-way are protected for the planned roadway upgrades, improvements, and additions as identified in the City's circulation plan. Proposed Land Uses The number of dwelling units shall not exceed 415, unless the specific plan area property owner agrees to provide public improvements, public services and/or financial contributions that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community, in which event, the number of dwelling units shall not exceed 620 755. A minimum of 3 23.44 acres of Public-Institutional land shall be designated as VH Very High Density Residential (15DU/AC). within this specific plan area. The appropriate amount of land to be designated as Open Space, Park, School, or any other appropriate land designation, will use be determined at the time of specific plan preparation or approval. Overlay Designation - Agriculture 1 (285 277 acres) SPECIFIC PLAN 2 Specific Plan 2 consists of 445 acres under single ownership. It is located northerly of the City, east of Walnut Canyon Road and west of College Heights Drive. Generally, the majority of this specific plan area is characterized as a gently sloping plateau with prominent hillsides in the northern section, and is currently vacant and used for seasonal grazing. Opportunities and Constraints Specific plan area development issues will be addressed during specific plan preparation and subsequent review, and include: Topography - Existing steep hillsides within the specific plan area require a complete evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils, and other potential geotechnical constraints during the development/review of this specific plan. Consistent with City policy, grading is restricted on slopes greater than 20 percent and development prohibited in areas where potential hazards cannot be fully mitigated. Hydrology - An evaluation of existing drainage courses, surface runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological ______________________ _____ _________________________ ____ Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 824 units shall not exceed 3,221. The appropriate amount of land to be designated as Open Space, Park, School, Agricultural, or any other appropriate land use designation, will be determined at the time of specific plan preparation or approval. [Amended per Resolution No. 99-1572] 6.0 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY The following table (Land Use Plan - Statistical Summary, Table 3) summarizes the approximate acreage and the number of dwelling units resulting from each of the land use classifications designated on the Land Use Plan maps for the overall planning area (City Area -Exhibit 3, and Unincorporated Area - Exhibit 4). Dwelling unit estimates are based on an estimate of the density which could occur for each residential land use classification based on the maximum density permitted. The actual number of dwelling units constructed and associated population amount will vary with the development conditions and constraints for each project (access, availability of services, geotechnical and natural resource constraints, etc.). In addition, a density increase above the maximum density could be approved, up to the designated density limit for each residential land use category, if public improvements, public services, and/or financial contributions are provided that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community. As identified on Table 3, a combined total of up to 14,911 12,511 12,851 dwelling units could be constructed in the overall planning area, based on maximum density estimates. The resulting buildout population for the Moorpark planning area would be approximately 40,856 34,280 35,211 persons, based on the County's 2.74 population per dwelling unit factor for the year 2010. Note however that the resulting buildout for the Moorpark planning area would be approximately (a) 41,799 persons, based on the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit’s “Ventura County Population and Housing Estimates” for Moorpark which average 3.341 persons per household for the years 1994-1997 inclusive; or, (b) 40,785 persons, based on the “VCOG 2020 Population Per Dwelling Unit Ratio Forecast” for the City of Moorpark (3.26 persons per dwelling). The Table 3 buildout figures were calculated using the smaller county-wide ratios and are considered a conservative population estimate for the City. The required environmental documentation for future projects shall provide a more detailed level of population per dwelling unit analysis based on the square footage of each dwelling unit ______ ______ Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 825 and the type of land use for residential subdivisions. [Amended per Resolution No. 99-1572] Additionally, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this land use element and circulation element update of the Moorpark General Plan evaluates potential impacts on the service capabilities of relevant infrastructure systems (i.e., sewer, water, police, fire, etc.) associated with the land use designations proposed as a part of this update process. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 826 Table 3 LAND USE PLAN- STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Designation City Area Unincorporated Area Total Planning Area Combined Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units RL RURAL LOW (1 du/5 acres maximum) 1,668 334 1,668 334 RH RURAL HIGH (1 du/acre maximum) 208 208 208 208 L LOW DENSITY (1 du/acre maximum) 168 168 168 168 ML MEDIUM LOW DENSITY 2 du/acre maximum) 568 1,136 586 1,136 M MEDIUM DENSITY (4 du/acre maximum) 1,174 4,696 1,174 4,696 H HIGH DENSITY (7 du/acre maximum) 343 2,401 343 2,401 VH VERY HIGH DENSITY (15 du/acre maximum) 161 2,415 161 2,415 SP SPECIFIC PLAN SP 1 LEVY 285 415 285 415 SP 2 JBR 445 475 445 475 SP 8 MESSENGER --4,200 2,400 4,200 2,400 SP 9 MUSD 25 80 25 80 SP 10 SCHLEVE 71 154 71 154 C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 9 9 C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 194 194 I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 263 263 I-2 MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL 285 285 AG1 AGRICULTURE 1 45 1 45 1 AG2 AGRICULTURE 2 - - - - OS1 OPEN SPACE1 16 1 16 1 OS2 OPEN SPACE 2 1,080 27 1,080 27 S SCHOOL 357 357 P PARK 197 197 U UTILITIES 47 47 PUB PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL 16 16 FRWY R/W FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY 291 291 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS** (At Buildout – Year 2010) 12,511 2,400 14,911 12,511 TOTAL POPULATION*** (At Buildout – Year 2010) 34,280 6,576 40,856 34,280 TOTAL CITY AREA ACRES (Approximate) 7,916 TOTAL UNINCORPORATED AREA ACRES (Approximate) 4,200 -0- TOTAL PLANNING AREA COMBINED (Approximate) 12,116 7,916 *Acreage for open space, schools, parks, commercial, highway right-of-way, and any other appropriate land uses will be determined at time of specific plan approval **Residential Density calculations for specific plan areas are based on the maximum density. Section 5.2 of the Land Use Element allows the City Council to approve a density exceeding the maximum density, up to an identified density limit, if public improvements, public services, ________ ________ ________________ ________ ________ 277 277 755755 12,851 35,211 12,851 35,211 HITCH RANCH____ Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 827 O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW O H W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W O H W OHW OHW OHW O H W OHW OHW OHW OHW O H W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W 202 S17 O S5 I S18 373 AI T S15 S4 U S16 S19 C 240 262 242 173 174175 176 177 179 180 181 219 198199 194 196 105 157 144 143 158 208 200 36 222 260 326 299 S18 132 103 100 101 102 129130131 128 127 112113 114115 110 246 243 244 245 227 226 225 259 258 257 218 256 263 264 265 266 267 252 253 195 247 249 250 135 136 139138 137 141 140 150 146 147 148 149 155 154153152151 160 161 162 163 AF 142 145 156 239 241 178 217 197 251 159 254 171 168 172 230231232 238237236 216215214 86 94 87 95 88 99 80 89 96 82 90 97 83 91 98 84 92 S585 93 183182 184 234 233 205206207 235 204203 T 185 213 201 193 212 210 209 56 211 59 4855 58 28 57 30 18 54 19 20 22 50 21 23 26 35 25 31 27 29 I S3 P O X W V U H S10 261 D Z 51 220 53 133 81 223 134 221 255 224 228 324 Y 17 297300 318 312 314313 319 317 311 320 298304 323 303306 305 307 325 294 293 S23 309 S22310 316 308 327 322 315 321 S21 301 S20 302 S24 295 288 291284289 296 287 290286 292283285 278 279 277 270 280 272 282 273 271 274 268 276 275 269 AI 373 AJ 229 S17 F B 46 52 63 340 47 G 16 S4 123 124 125 126 120 121 122 J 116117 N S15 S13 S11 S8 S7 E AB AC AE S AA 119 118 K L M Q R 24 33 34 32 10 15 12 13 14 A 49 789 79 64 61 6665 67 37 78 39 45 77 38 62 68 69 60 70 71 4172 76 44 43 42 73 74 40 75 1 2 46 35 11 S16 376 S19 375AG 360 358359361 369 368 367 366 365 364 363 370 362 372 371 330329328 333331332 336335334 338337339 342341 349 357 350 353 354 352346351 347 345 348343 344 356 355 374 S28 AH S27 S25S26 378 281 377 S2 S9 104 109 S6 108 111 106 107 S12 167 170169 164 165 166 248 S14 188 191192 190 189 187186 S14 S1 S1 Xref N : \ p r o j e c t s \ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 H i t c h R a n c h - C o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ b a s e m a p s \ P A 4 A p a r t m e n t 1 0 2 1 \ x 2 1 0 9 7 1 p 2 . d w g Xref N:\projects\ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 H i t c h R a n c h - C o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ b a s e m a p s \ P A 4 A p a r t m e n t 1 0 2 1 \ x 2 1 0 9 7 1 p 2 . d w g AD AD AD AD S 89°39'23" E 3125.44' S 89°41'01" E 1323.02' N 0 ° 2 6 ' 4 4 " E 65 9 . 9 4 ' S 89°29'31" E 1321.08' N 0 ° 2 5 ' 4 2 " E 89 1 . 6 4 ' S 76°39 ' 0 9 " W 1360.03 ' N 0 ° 2 6 ' 4 4 " E 35 5 . 2 4 ' N 76°39 ' 0 9 " E 1 3 5 9 . 9 2 ' N 0 ° 3 4 ' 0 9 " E 1 9 7 1 . 0 2 ' R =2915.65 L =704.49 Δ=13°50'38" S 89°39'23" E 3125.44' S 0 ° 2 7 ' 2 7 " W 17 5 4 . 7 0 ' N 84°25'10" W 337.82' S 1 0 ° 4 0 ' 4 5 " W 22 1 . 7 2 ' S 3 5 ° 3 0 ' 3 0 " W 33 6 . 7 7 ' S 4 1 ° 3 4 ' 3 9 " E 3 0 3 . 9 7 ' R = 260.00 L = 146.94 Δ = 3 2°22'48" S 0 ° 2 9 ' 4 7 " W 33 1 . 8 5 ' S 3 5 ° 3 0 ' 3 0 " W 33 6 . 7 7 ' R =160.00 L = 215.26 Δ = 7 7 ° 05'09" S 4 1 ° 3 4 ' 3 9 " E 3 0 3 . 9 7 ' N 0 ° 3 4 ' 0 9 " E 19 7 1 . 0 2 ' S 0 ° 2 7 ' 2 7 " W 17 5 4 . 7 0 ' S 76°39 ' 0 9 " W 3258.02 ' S 76°39 ' 0 9 " W 3258.02 ' N 89°30'13" W 1681.49' N 89°30'13" W 1681.49' 0 SCALE: 1"=200' 200 400 600 N S EW WALNUT CANYON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL POINDEXTER AVE. TRACT 5187 CONTACT INFO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SHEET INDEX PREPARER'S STATEMENT THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. ENGINEER: DATE: 4/6/2022 LEGEND TRACT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING EASEMENT PROPOSED EASEMENT PROPOSED LOT LINE / PROPERTY LINE STREET CENTER LINE GRADING DAYLIGHT LINE CUT/FILL LINE BASIN FENCING RETAINING WALL ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVING MOUNTABLE SURFACE AT TRAFFIC CIRCLE D.G. BASIN ACCESS ROAD CITY LOT 378 - NOT A PART MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL PHASING LIMITS UTILITY PURVEYORS RWC HITCH RANCH, LLC 2301 ROSECRANS AVE., SUITE 1150 EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 ATTN: HARRIET RAPISTA (310) 546-5781 OWNER/DEVELOPER CIVIL ENGINEER ENCOMPASS CONSULTANT GROUP, INC. 333 N. LANTANA ST., SUITE 287 CAMARILLO, CA 93010 ATTN: GREG MUSSER, RCE 77627 (805) 416-8716 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1011 N. ARMANDO ST. ANAHEIM, CA 92806 ATTN: DAVIS ALBUS, RCE 45443, CEG 2455 (714) 666-8702 1. TITLE SHEET 2.PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITIES 3. PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITIES 4. PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITIES 5. PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITIES 6. PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITIES 7. PRELIMINARY INTERSECTION LAYOUTS LAND USE / ZONING INFORMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION WATER VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 1 SEWER VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 1 STORM DRAIN CITY OF MOORPARK VENTURA COUNTY WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT ELECTRIC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON GAS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY TELEPHONE FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CABLE TELEVISION SPECTRUM CABLE SOLID WASTE SIMI VALLEY LANDFILL & RECYCLING CENTER c/o WASTE MANAGEMENT / G.I. INDUSTRIES FIRE PROTECTION VENTURA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT EXISTING: VACANT PROPOSED: RESIDENTIAL, PUBLIC LAND USE ZONING AREA NO SCREEN: AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD (ZONE X)FLOOD ZONE EXISTING: AE-40 & RPD20U-N-D PROPOSED: 'HITCH RANCH' SPECIFIC PLAN GROSS AREA: 277.30 ACRES ± LOTS 442 LOT DEVELOPMENT 277.30 ACRES ± - 372 CONVENTIONAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOTS47.63 ACRES ± - 2 SINGLE FAMILY MOTOR-COURT LOTS 5.51 ACRES ± - 2 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING LOT (MED. DENSITY)7.24 ACRES ± - 1 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING LOT (HIGH DENSITY)11.75 ACRES ± - 28 OPEN SPACE LOTS 96.24 ACRES ± - 4 BASIN / WATER QUALITY LOTS 18.24 ACRES ± - 2 RECREATION SPACE LOTS 4.05 ACRES ± - 2 PARK / PASSIVE REC LOTS 8.32 ACRES ± - 28 PRIVATE STREET/DRIVE LOTS 23.30 ACRES ± - 1 LOT (NOT A PART - FUTURE)23.36 ACRES ± - PUBLIC STREETS 31.66 ACRES ± EXISTING EASEMENTS PROPOSED EASEMENTS TRACT BOUNDARY SHEET 2 GENERAL NOTES GENERAL: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS AND AREAS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. 2. PROJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. 3. STREETS B-P SHALL BE PRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. 4. STREET NAMES SHALL BE DEFINED ON THE FINAL TRACT MAP. 5. NORTH HILLS PKWY, GABBERT RD, MERIDIAN HILLS DR, CASEY RD, HIGH ST, AND STREET A SHALL BE PUBLIC AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF MOORPARK. 6. STREETS SHOWN ON THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS. 7. MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS MAY BE RECORDED FROM THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. UTILITIES: 8. ALL NEW UTILITIES SHALL BE UNDERGROUND. 9. NEW UTILITY LOCATIONS AND EASEMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE. 10. NEW STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON PRIVATE STREETS AND ON LETTERED LOTS SHALL BE PRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. NEW STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE PUBLIC AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF MOORPARK OR VCWPD. 11. STORMWATER QUALITY TREATMENT MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VENTURA COUNTY MUNICIPAL STORMWATER (MS4) PERMIT AND TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL (TGM) FOR STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FACILITIES SHALL BE PRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. 12. FULL CAPTURE TRASH EXCLUDERS SHALL BE REQUIRED IN ALL PROPOSED STORM DRAINS PER CA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD RESOLUTION 2015-0019. 13. NEW SEWER MAINS SHALL BE PUBLIC AND DEDICATED TO VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT (VCWWD) NO. 1. NEW SEWER MAINS SHALL BE PER VCWWD NO. 1 STANDARDS. 14. NEW WATER MAINS SHALL BE PUBLIC AND DEDICATED TO TO VCWWD NO. 1. NEW WATER MAINS SHALL BE PER VCWWD NO. 1 STANDARDS. 15. FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY VENTURA COUNTY FIRE DEPT. 16. ANY EXISTING CONFLICTING UTILITY FACILITIES SHALL BE REMOVED AND/OR RELOCATED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE UTILITY OWNER. 17. PROPOSED STREETS SHALL CONTAIN CONDUIT FOR FUTURE DARK FIBER OPTIC LINE(S). EARTHWORK CUT: 2,550,000 CUBIC YARDS FILL: 2,550,000 CUBIC YARDS IMPORT: 0 CUBIC YARDS EXPORT: 0 CUBIC YARDS THE ABOVE QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE IN-PLACE VOLUMES FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FACTORED TO ACCOUNT FOR REMEDIAL GRADING CONSTRUCTION METHODS. PROPOSED UTILITY LEGEND POTABLE WATER LINE SEWER LINE STORM DRAIN LINE SEWER MANHOLE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SD S W EXISTING UTILITY LEGEND POTABLE WATER LINE SEWER LINE ELECTRICAL LINE NATURAL GAS LINE COMMUNICATION LINE OVERHEAD WIRES FIBER OPTIC CABLE S W E COMM G OHW PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S. N S EW ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1 (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 511-0-020-170): LOTS 14 AND 16 AND THAT PORTION OF LOTS 22 AND 23, FREMONT SUBDIVISION OF RANCHO SIMI, IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 39 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD 100 FEET WIDE, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 58, PAGE 590 OF DEEDS. PARCEL 2 (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 511-0-020-110, 130, 160, 180): PART OF TRACT “S” AND “T” OF PART OF TRACT “L” OF RANCHO SIMI, IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP SHOWING THE TOWNSITE OF MOORPARK AND LANDS OF MADELINE R. POINDEXTER, A RE-SUBDIVISION OF FREMONT TRACT, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 5 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS OF LAND DESCRIBED AS ESTATES 1, 2 AND 3 IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION, CASE NO. SC 16973, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED DECEMBER 18, 1997 AS DOCUMENT NO. 97-172929 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL 3 (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 511-0-020-195): (ALSO SUBJECT TO VARIOUS MINERAL RIGHTS RESTRICTIONS. SEE DEED FOR PARTICULARS) PORTIONS OF LOT “R” AND “S” AS SHOWN ON MAP OF A PART OF TRACT “L” OF THE RANCHO SIMI, IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 5 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THE INTEREST IN A STRIP OF LAND 40 FEET WIDE, AS GRANTED TO VENTURA COUNTY FOR “ROAD PURPOSES” IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 127, PAGE 326 OF DEEDS. IN BOOK 2045, PAGE 334 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL 4 (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 511-0-200-245): THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 19 WEST, RANCHO SIMI, IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP ENTITLED “MAP OF THE LAND OF RANCHO SIMI, IN VENTURA AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA”, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 7 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN STRIP 100 FEET WIDE DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1899 IN BOOK 58, PAGE 596 OF DEEDS. ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THAT CERTAIN STRIP 345 FEET WIDE DESCRIBED IN DEED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, RECORDED OCTOBER 22, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20101022-00163068 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SIMI LAND & WATER COMPANY EASEMENT, OR ITS ASSIGNS, FOR ENTRY AND WATER COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION PER BOOK 29, PAGE 500 OF DEEDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES PER BOOK 339, PAGE 109 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES PER BOOK 968, PAGE 442 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES PER BOOK 1001, PAGE 544 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES PER BOOK 1001, PAGE 550 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT EASEMENT FOR FLOOD CONTROL PER BOOK 2141, PAGE 551 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT EASEMENT FOR FLOOD CONTROL PER BOOK 2141, PAGE 556 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT EASEMENT FOR FLOOD CONTROL PER BOOK 2141, PAGE 558 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND ROADS PER BOOK 2347, PAGE 225 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT FOR ROADS PER BOOK 3243, PAGE 379 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND ROADS PER BOOK 3243, PAGE 387 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. A-B PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, EASEMENT FOR ACCESS ROAD, UTILITIES, AND SLOPE PER AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2001-012562 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AT&T EASEMENT FOR FIBER OPTIC CABLE ALONG RAILROAD CORRIDOR PER AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2009-106766 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. VENTURA COUNTY WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT EASEMENT FOR FLOOD CONTROL PURPOSE OF PERIODIC INUNDATION WITH FLOOD AND/OR STORM DRAINAGE WATER PER AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2012-155707 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. LEVEL3 COMMUNICATION, LLC EASEMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES PER AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2013-146419 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP EASEMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES PER AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2013-205739 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. QUEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC., ET AL. EASEMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES PER AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2014-011258 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 2 3 4 5 VARIABLE WIDTH UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT TO VCWWD NO. 1. (CURB-TO-CURB ALONG ALL PRIVATE STREETS/ALLEYS/DRIVES AND ALL OTHER LOCATIONS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS). VARIABLE WIDTH UTILITY, ACCESS, & SLOPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT TO HOA. VARIABLE WIDTH TRAIL EASEMENT TO CITY OF MOORPARK. RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENT BETWEEN LOT 377 AND LOT 378. 1 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 5708 HITCH RANCH IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK 378 NUMBERED LOTS AND 64 LETTERED LOTS (LOTS A-AJ & S1-S28) C F SURVEY NOTES BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP IS THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), ZONE 5, EPOCH 2017.50 AS DETERMINED LOCALLY BY A LINE BETWEEN CONTINUOUS GLOBAL POSITIONING STATIONS (CGPS) AND/OR CONTINUOUS OPERATING REFERENCE STATIONS (CORS) MPWD & TOST BEING SOUTH 35°20'10" EAST AS DERIVED FROM GEODETIC VALUES PUBLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE CENTER (CSRC). BENCHMARK: THE VERTICAL DATUM OF THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88), PER GEOID MODELING (GEOID12B) AND LEVEL TIES TO POINTS 23 AND 24 FROM VENTURA COUNTY BENCHMARK (VCPID 139), BEING A 3-1/2" BC STAMPED "VENTURA COUNTY SURVEYOR 1965 BM 37-13" IN A HEADWALL ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF GABBERT ROAD, SOUTHERLY OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD. n: \ p r o j e c t s \ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 h i t c h r a n c h - c o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ t e n t a t i v e m a p \ 0 0 4 7 . 0 2 _ t t m . d w g DR A W I N G : R.C.E. DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER WORK ORDER OFSHEET NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: HORIZ.VERT.SCALE: 333 N. LANTANA ST, SUITE 287, CAMARILLO, CA 93010 PHONE: 805.322.4443 WEBSITE: WWW.ECGCIVIL.COM CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0047 7 HITCH RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5708 AS NOTED N/A GJM GHP GREGORY J. MUSSER 77627 04/06/2022 TITLE SHEET 1 (SEE TITLE REPORT FOR FULL ITEM SUMMARY) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 SHEET 3 SHEET 4 SHEET 5 SHEET 5 SHEET 6 SI E R R A A V E . MO O R P A R K A V E . HIGH ST. CASEY RD. GA B B E R T R D . NOR T H H I L L S P K W Y MERIDIAN HILLS DR. STRE E T B ST R E E T C STRE E T D STREET E ST R E E T A STR E E T G S T . I STR E E T F STREET PSTR E E T O HIGH ST. WA L N U T C Y N R D . U.P.R.R. TE C H C I R . GI S L E R R D . POINDEXTER AVE. WICKS RD. ELWIN LN. POINDE X T E R A V E . TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARYTRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARY ESTATE 2 DEDICATION PER RECORD DOCUMENT 97-172929 POINDEXTER PARK CHAPARRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL TRACT BOUNDARY TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT BA S I N 2 BASIN 2B TIERRA REJADA RD SR 118 / EAST LOS ANGELES AVE G A B B E R T R D MO O R P A R K A V E WA L N U T C A N Y O N R D SP R I N G R D UPRR SR 118 S R 2 3 MER I D I A N HILLS DR CHAMPIONSHIP DR BROADWAY RD GR I M E S C A N Y O N R D REC. AREA LAND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES, INC. 211 VILLAGE COMMONS BLVD., SUITE 15 CAMARILLO, CA 93012 ATTN: DENNIS HARDGRAVE (805) 484-8303 2 3 SITE SUMMARY LAND USE ACRES DU/AC DU % PLANNING AREA 1SFD UNITS (& PRIVATE ST) 25.21 79 46 [LOTS 1-79, A, B OPEN SPACE 17.33 31 E-G, S1-S4]MANUFACTURED SLOPES 12.87 23 SUBTOTAL 55.41 ± 1.43 79 100 PLANNING AREA 1ARECREATION LOT 3.12 51 [LOTS C, D]MANUFACTURED SLOPES 2.96 49 SUBTOTAL 6.08 ± 100 PLANNING AREA 2SFD UNITS (& PRIVATE ST) 32.27 188 52 [LOTS 80-267,OPEN SPACE 7.40 12 J-U, AA-AC,MANUFACTURED SLOPES 18.55 30 S5-S15]PASSIVE REC LOT 1.55 2 WATER QUALITY 2.33 4 SUBTOTAL 62.10 ± 3.03 188 100 PLANNING AREA 3SFD UNITS (& PRIVATE ST) 17.28 160 53 [LOTS 268-376,MFD UNITS (& PRIVATE ST) 8.93 93 27 I, AF-AJ,OPEN SPACE 1.60 5 S16-S28]MANUFACTURED SLOPES 4.06 12 RECREATION LOT 0.93 3 SUBTOTAL 32.80 ± 7.71 253 100 PLANNING AREA 4MFD UNITS 8.28 235 71 [LOT 377]MANUFACTURED SLOPES 3.39 29 SUBTOTAL 11.67 ± 20.14 235 100 [LOTS W-Y]OPEN SPACE 28.78 ± 100 PUBLIC PUBLIC STREETS 31.66 56 FACILITIES VCWPD EASEMENT [LOT AD] 2.68 5 DET. BASIN 2 [LOT Z] 5.94 10 DET. BASIN 2A [LOT H] 3.67 6 DET. BASIN 2B [LOT V] 6.30 11 PARK [LOT AE] 6.77 12 SUBTOTAL 57.02 ± 100 TOTAL 253.86 ± 2.97 755 LOT 378 CITY DONATION PARCEL 23.44 ± 100 (NOT A PART) GRAND TOTAL 277.30 ± 12 10 3 13 11 6 5 7 20191816 20191816 8 9d 9c (NOTE: EARTHWORK IS INTENDED TO BALANCE ON-SITE) U.S. POST OFFICE 511-0-110-035 511-0-110-125 511-0-110-115 502-0-160-095502-0-160-085 511-0-190-305 511-0-020-205 511-0-020-265 511-0-020-275 511-0-020-120 FOC BASIN 2A 513-0-180-455 513-0-130-125 511-0-200-255 511-0-010-455 51 1 - 0 - 0 1 0 - 2 4 5 511-0-010-375 511-0-010-385 511-0-010-405 511-0-190-295 HIGH ST POINDEXTER AVE BASIN 3 PARK 1 1 1 1 3 EX. 40'-WIDE GABBERT RD. R.O.W. TO BE VACATED EX. 40'-WIDE CASEY RD. R.O.W. TO BE VACATED OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE SW QUALITY OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE REC. AREA PASSIVE REC OPEN SPACE PHASE 1 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 2 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE LIMIT LINE PHASE LIMIT LINE PHASE LIMIT LINE EX. HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION POWER LINES TO REMAIN EX. AT-GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING EX. O V E R H E A D W I R E S T O B E REMO V E D & E S M ' T T O B E V A C A T E D EX. HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION POWER LINES TO REMAIN (PRI V A T E ) (PRI V A T E ) (P R I V A T E ) (PVT) (PR I V A T E ) ( P V T ) ( P V T ) (PR I V A T E ) S T . J ( P V T ) ST. K (PV T ) S T . L ( P R I V A T E ) S T . M ( P R I V A T E ) S T . N ( P R I V A T E ) (PRIVATE) (PV T ) 4 SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. NORTH HILLS PKWY MERIDIAN HILLS DRIVE 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 84' 10'25' TRAVEL & BIKE LANE CL 2.0%2.0% C&G TYPE A2-6 C&G TYPE A2-6 25' TRAVEL & BIKE LANE 14' MEDIAN 10' C&G TYPE A3-6 (W=12") 2.0% MAX 5' WALK 2.0% MAX 5' WALK (INTENDED TO MATCH EX. MERIDIAN HILLS DR. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NORTHEAST) 12' TRAIL SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. GABBERT RD B/W HIGH ST & NORTH HILLS PKWY SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. STREET "A" NORTH OF NORTH HILLS PKWY 104' 25' TRAVEL & BIKE LANE CL 2.0%2.0% C&G TYPE A2-6 C&G TYPE A2-6 25' TRAVEL & BIKE LANE 14' MEDIAN C&G TYPE A3-6 (W=12") 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 5' WALK 2.0% MAX 8' PKWY 12' + 2' TRAIL + TRAIL DRAIN2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 8' PKWY 2.0% MAX 5' WALK W'LY R.O.W.E'LY R.O.W. SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. STREET "A" SOUTH OF NORTH HILLS PKWY 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 80' 5' WALK E'LY R.O.W. 20' TRAVEL & BIKE LANE 20' TRAVEL & BIKE LANE W'LY R.O.W. CL 2.0%2.0%2.0% MAX C&G TYPE A2-6C&G TYPE A2-6 8' PKWY 8' PKWY 12' + 2' TRAIL + TRAIL DRAIN 2.0% MAX 5' WALK SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. HIGH STREET (IN-TRACT) SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. PRIVATE STREETS - STREETS "B" THROUGH "P" 36'-40' 5' WALK PL 18'-20'18'-20' CL 2.0%2.0% 2.0% MAX C&G TYPE A2-6 C&G TYPE A2-6 10' PL 10' 2.0% MAX 5' WALK 56'-60' SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. CASEY ROAD WEST OF TRACT BOUNDARY 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 74' 5' WALK 27'27' S'LY R.O.W. CL 2.0%2.0% 2.0% MAX C&G TYPE A2-6C&G TYPE A2-6 10' 2' AT 2% 5' WALK N'LY R.O.W. 2.0% MAX 10' 2H:1V MAX SLOPE CASEY ROAD EAST OF TRACT BOUNDARY 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 62' 6' EX. WALK NEW S'LY R.O.W. 24'24' NE W N ' L Y R . O . W . CL 2.0%2.0%2.0% MAX EX. C&G C&G TYPE A2-6 8' WALK SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. N'LY R.O.W.S'LY R.O.W. 3 1 2' AT 2% EX. GABBERT RD. IMPROVEMENTS TO BE REMOVED * EX. R.O.W. POSITION VARIES WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. EX. ROAD SURFACE TO BE REMOVED AND EX. R.O.W. TO BE VACATED AND RE-DEDICATED TO THE LIMITS SHOWN HEREON. SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. 20' TRAVEL & BIKE LANE 20' TRAVEL & BIKE LANE 14' MEDIAN LANE 14' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 14' MEDIAN LANE 8' PKG *EX. ROAD SURFACE TO BE REMOVED AND EX. R.O.W. TO BE VACATED AND RE-DEDICATED TO THE LIMITS SHOWN HEREON. *EX. S'LYR.O.W.*EX. N'LY R.O.W. 40' EX. CASEY RD. IMPROVEMENTS TO BE REMOVED CASEY RD. IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS FUTURE NORTH HILLS PKWY IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS FUTURE NORTH HILLS PKWY IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS SECONDARY ACCESS GATE WITH AUTOMATIC EXIT LOOPS & KNOX BOX SWITCH SECONDARY ACCESS GATE WITH AUTOMATIC EXIT LOOPS & KNOX BOX SWITCH S T . H 4 4 1 4 OPEN SPACE X GREG MUSSER, RCE 77627 511-0-020-160 511-0-020-110 511-0-020-130511-0-020-110511-0-020-180 511-0-020-170 511-0-020-195 511-0-020-195 511-0-200-245 PHASE LIMIT LINE PHASE 2 PHASE 1 EX. OVERHEAD WIRES TO BE REMOVED & ESM'T TO BE VACATED 1 EASEMENTS LISTED BELOW ARE BASED UPON A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ISSUED BY LAWYERS TITLE AS FILE NO. 416240577 DATED JUN 13, 2016. SAID REPORT IS PRESUMED TO BE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. ECG DOES NOT WARRANT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SAID PRELIMINARY REPORT. 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 100' CL 2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0% 14' MEDIAN 14' C&G TYPE A3-8 (W=12") 200' NORTH HILLS PARKWAY CORRIDOR 12' TRAIL 29'29' N'LY R.O.W.S'LY R.O.W. 14' 2.0% MAX 5' WALK5' BIKE 5' BIKE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 9' PKWY12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE C&G TYPE A2-6 4 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 75' 5' WALK N'LY R.O.W. 21'21' S'LY R.O.W. CL 2.0%2.0% 2.0% MAX C&G TYPE A2-6C&G TYPE A2-6 6' PKWY 8' PKWY 12' + 2' TRAIL + TRAIL DRAIN 5' BIKE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 5' BIKE 8' PARKING 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 98' 4'29' CL 2.0%2.0% C&G TYPE A2-6 C&G TYPE A2-6 29'12' MEDIAN C&G TYPE A3-6 (W=12") 2' AT 2% 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 5' WALK 10'12' + 2' TRAIL + TRAIL DRAIN NEW W'LY R.O.W. NEW E'LY R.O.W. *EX. W'LYR.O.W.*EX. E'LYR.O.W.40' 5' BIKE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 5' BIKE EXHIBIT DResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 828 595 580 590 5 8 5 58 5 580 580 58 0 5 7 5 5 7 0 5 6 5 5 6 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 545 54 0 5 3 5 5 3 0 575 575 575 5 7 5 5 7 0 570 570 5 7 0 56 5 56 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 56 5 56 0 560 5 6 0 5 6 0 56 0 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 550 5 5 0 5 5 0 550 5 4 5 54 5 545 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 540 54 0 5 4 0 540 5 4 0 54 0 53 5 535 53 5 53 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 53 0 53 0 530 530 5 3 0 530 5 3 0 53 0 52 0 52 5 525 5 1 5 52 0 5 2 0 520 520 5 2 0 5 2 0 52 0 5 2 5 5 2 5 5 2 5 525 52 5 525 525 525 5 1 0 510 51 0 510 5 1 0 51 0 5 1 0 51 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 5 515 520 515 515 51 5 515 5 1 5 515 515 50 5 505 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 50 5 50 5 500 50 0 5 0 0 50 0 5 0 0 50 0 50 0 49 5 49 5 4 9 5 49 5 49 5 49 5 49 5 49 0 490 4 9 0 49 0 49 0 490 48 5 485 485 485 48 5 48 5 48 0 480 48 0 4 8 0 480 48 0 4 8 0 475 475 475 475 475 475 475 475 475 4 7 5 475 475 475 475 470 470 470 4 6 5 570 565 56 5 5 6 0 560 560 56 0 5 6 0 560 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55 5 55 5 555 5 5 5 555 565 565 56 5 56 5 5 5 0 550 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 550 55 0 55 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 55 0 550 55 0 550 55 0 55 0 5 5 0 54 5 54 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 54 5 54 5 545 5 4 5 54 5 545 54 5 545 54 5 545 515 515 5 4 0 5 4 0 54 0 54 0 54 0 54 0 540 5 4 0 540 5 4 0 5 4 0 54 0 54 0 54 0 5 3 5 5 3 5 53 5 53 5 53 5 53 5 53 5 535 5 3 5 5 3 5 53 5 5 3 5 535 535 53 0 530 5 3 0 53 0 53 0 530 5 3 0 53 0 5 3 0 5 3 0 53 0 52 5 5 2 5 525 5 2 5 525 5 2 5 525 5 2 5 5 2 5 5 2 5 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 5 5 2 5 525 520 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 52 0 520 5 2 0 5 2 0 520 5 2 0 5 2 0 52 0 5 2 0 520 52 0 520 520 520 520 520 52 0 5 2 0 52 0 520 520 5 6 0 5 6 0 555 555 580 580 58 0 580 57 5 5 7 5 575 5 7 5 57 5 570 570 570 57 0 5 7 0 565 56 5 565 5 6 5 5 6 5 56 5 560 5 6 0 560 560 5 6 0 56 0 5 6 0 5 6 0 56 0 515 5 1 5 51 5 5 1 5 51 5 51 5 5 1 5 51 5 5 1 5 515 5 1 5 515 5 1 5 51 5 5 1 5 515 51 5 5 1 5 51 5 51 0 5 1 0 510 5 1 0 510 51 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 510 5 1 0 51 0 510 510 510 510 5 1 0 510 510 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 505 50 5 50 5 505 50 5 505 505 50550 0 50 0 500 500 50 0 50 0 50 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 500 50 0 500 500 500 4 9 5 49 5 495 49 5 49 5 495 495 4 9 5 49 5 49 5 4 9 5 49 5 495 4 9 0 49 0 49 0 490 49 0 490 49 0 490 490 48 5 485 485 485 48 5 485 48 5 4 8 0 480 48 0 4 8 0 480 480 480 480 480 480 4 8 0 480 480 48 0 480 565 5 5 0 550 550 545 5 4 5 545 54 0 540 54 0 5 3 5 53 5 53 5 5 6 0 560 560 56 0 525 52 5 5 2 5 525 525 52 5 5 2 5 525 525 5 5 5 555 555 55 5 550 55 0 55 0 55 0 5 5 0 550 550 54 5 5 4 5 545 545 54 5 54 5 545 545 540 5 4 0 540 54 0 54 0 540 540 53 5 53 5 535 535 53 5 5 3 5 535 535 53 0 53 0 53 0530 53 0 530 53 0 530 5 5 5 560 480 475 475 475 475 475 475 53 0 53 0 53 0 5 3 0 52 5 52 5 5 2 5 57 0 490 520 560 56 0 480 564.2 564.7 564.6 564.8 564.6 564.7 563.5 561.6 565.3 564.7 565.5 564.8 564.7 561.6 564.6 566.5 566.7 567.5 567.4 479.3 481.6 480.7 480.4 482.4 481.3 482.6 480.3 479.2 479.9 479.7 478.3 478.9 478.6 478.7 477.5 477.7 477.8 476.9 476.7 476.3 475.9 475.8 475.6 473.6 474.2 474.6 474.4 474.6 479.7 479.6 478.6 475.1 479.1 479.4 479.8 476.6 481.6 480.5 476.9 480.6 481.5 481.5 482.6 482.5 483.8 483.7 483.6 481.6 493.4 493.2 494.6 494.2 494.8 495.2 495.7 495.9 496.6 496.1 496.7 497.6 497.4 498.6 498.4 499.7 499.5 512.9 513.1 513.3 513.3 513.6 514.5 514.8 515.7 515.3 516.7 516.5 516.4 521.4521.5 513.3512.6 512.5 511.2 511.2 511.1 510.6 512.6 509.6 512.4 513.2 514.3 514.7 515.4 516.6 519.2 518.3 517.3 516.3 515.2 514.6 513.2 510.2 599.5 598.4 598.5 597.6 597.8 596.2 582.5 581.5 580.8 580.3 578.6 578.9 578.7 579.5 579.8 579.8 578.5 578.1 577.6 577.3 576.6 576.5 576.4 576.6 575.2 575.4 575.2 575.2 574.5 574.2 573.6 573.2 573.5 572.5 572.6572.3 571.8 571.5 571.1 570.3 569.5 567.7 566.5 563.7 565.7 561.5 558.6 532.7 531.8 547.6 540.3 531.5 480.4 477.6 477.3 476.7 484.2 483.4 483.6 482.4 484.6 476.4 475.3 481.4 473.4 473.1 473.6 472.9 472.6 472.2 472.5 472.1 472.3 472.5 472.4 472.5 472.3 472.3 472.2 472.2 471.8 471.7 471.9 472.1 472.2 472.3 471.9 471.5 472.7 473.2 472.3 471.8 471.6 471.6471.8 471.7472.6 472.7 471.6 471.7 471.7 471.8 471.8 471.7 471.7 470.4 470.8 470.9 471.4 472.5 472.7 472.4 472.8 473.5 473.4 472.8 472.7 473.4 473.3 473.5 473.8 473.9 473.3 473.5 474.3 474.3 472.8 472.6472.6472.3 472.1 472.2 471.8 471.6 471.8 472.6 472.3472.7 473.7 473.8 474.3 473.6 473.4 473.2 473.4 473.8 473.5 473.4 473.8473.3 473.8 474.9 475.3 475.1 475.6 475.3 474.5 476.5 476.7 477.5 477.8 478.3 478.2 478.7 477.7 476.6 476.3 477.7 477.6 479.3479.4 479.4 479.6 480.3 480.3 480.8 480.4 481.2 481.7481.3 481.5 482.7 482.4 482.3 483.7 483.7 483.1483.5 484.5 484.4 485.4 485.6 486.7 484.4 484.5 485.4 485.6 486.7 486.6 487.4 488.4 487.7 487.6 488.5 489.5 490.3 491.3 491.6 490.2 489.3 487.6 492.4 491.5 490.4 493.6 493.6 493.6 493.5 493.9 495.4 495.8 495.6 495.5 495.7 494.7 496.3 496.5 497.5 498.4 496.7497.6 497.3498.4 498.7 496.5 499.3 503.3 507.3 508.2 510.5 511.2 512.6 513.5 515.7 517.7 519.4 546.6 551.7 579.7 577.6 562.2 559.5 556.6 546.3 545.6 544.6 542.4 540.4 535.4 527.2 527.2 512.1 512.6 512.4 512.4 511.5 512.7 513.3 514.7 515.5 517.3 473.4 475.6 476.5 477.4 478.4 479.7 479.2 551.7 552.5 558.4559.6 560.6 560.6 560.9 563.4 564.1 560.6 560.4 563.8 559.5558.5 558.5 557.5 556.7557.6 558.4 557.5 558.5 561.8 559.3 562.2 563.7 560.3 561.2 561.2 561.4 560.6 562.3564.3 564.7 565.5 565.4 567.5 568.7 564.4 566.5 569.6 570.6 569.6 571.4 571.6 571.4 572.3 570.4 569.4 570.4 572.9 573.6 574.5 576.4 575.6 576.7 577.6 577.7 577.5 578.6 578.4 578.5 578.3 579.5579.1 579.5 580.4 580.1 581.4 581.5 581.9 581.8 581.7 581.4 580.5 582.2 583.3 582.4 582.7 582.7 581.5 581.7 581.6581.7 583.6 582.6 581.8 581.6 575.8 577.8 577.8 582.1 582.1 582.4 558.7 556.8 559.6 558.8 559.5 559.4 560.6 561.2 560.3 560.6561.2 558.3 559.4 561.5 524.6 523.7523.9 523.6 524.7 524.5 525.5 526.3 522.4 521.8 521.5 520.5 556.1 478.8 478.8 479.4 479.1479.2 479.4 479.4 479.2 479.2 479.1 479.3 479.3 479.3 479.3479.2 479.5 479.6 479.5 479.4 479.4 479.5 479.7 479.4 479.6 479.5 479.7 479.3 479.7 479.4 479.6 479.7 479.6 479.6 479.7 480.3 480.3 480.2 480.4 479.6 480.4 480.7 480.6 481.5 481.5 481.6 482.4 482.7 479.3 478.9 479.7 479.4 479.4 479.2 478.7 476.8 476.3 477.7 477.8 477.1 477.7 477.6 477.8 477.5 477.6 481.6 521.3 520.4 480.2 480.2 480.4 480.1 480.2 480.2 480.8 480.8 480.8 480.6 480.9 480.5 481.4 481.5481.1 481.6 481.5 481.8 481.4 481.2 481.2 481.1 481.2 481.7 481.4 481.6 482.2 482.6 482.7 482.5 482.5 482.6 482.1 482.4 482.3 483.1 483.5 483.4 483.7 483.8 483.3 483.6 483.3 483.5 483.5 484.7 484.3 484.6 484.7 485.4 485.7 486.5 486.5 486.4 486.4 486.5 486.2 486.7 485.4 485.7 485.4 485.8 485.3 487.3 487.5 487.3 487.3 487.7 487.3 487.4 488.2 488.5 488.5 488.3 488.4 488.4 488.6 489.1 489.5 489.4 489.3 489.8 490.2 489.8 490.4 490.6 490.3 489.4 491.2 491.3 492.4 493.4 493.8 494.7 494.7 489.6 490.2 490.4490.8 491.3 491.2 492.4 492.7 492.6 492.4 491.8 491.6 492.7 495.6 495.6 496.3 497.6 493.1 493.6 494.5 494.8 495.6 496.4 496.9 497.6497.7 498.5 498.7 499.2 497.8 498.5 498.5 499.3 499.5 500.5 501.4 501.7 502.5 502.3 503.7 503.6 503.4 504.6 504.7 504.5 505.3 505.6 505.4 505.7 506.6 506.2 506.2 506.5 507.3507.3 508.3 508.8 499.7 500.4500.5 501.3 502.3 502.4 503.6 519.3519.5518.5 519.8 520.5 520.4 522.3 519.7 543.6 543.2 542.6 542.7 542.8 542.4 542.3 556.6 555.7 556.4 561.4 560.7 553.6 551.5 489.3 490.1 491.3 492.6 493.4 491.7 492.7 493.4 493.4 494.9 494.4 494.7 495.7 493.7 493.5 494.5 494.5 495.3 495.5 496.5 496.3 496.5 497.7 498.6 497.4 497.5 498.5 498.6 498.7 499.4 499.6 500.6 500.2 501.4 501.6 501.4 502.4 502.6 502.2 503.9 503.7503.4 504.4 504.7 505.4 505.5 505.6 506.4 539.8 539.4 514.5 514.3 513.5 513.4 513.3 513.6 512.8 512.6 512.9 512.8 512.3 511.8 512.4 513.8 514.6 514.1 516.4 506.4 506.1 507.5 507.5 508.5 509.4 510.3 511.2 527.6 470.6 470.7 470.7 470.8 471.2 471.6 472.3 474.4 475.6 480.1 480.5 480.7 479.6 XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S W W W COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM OH W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW O H W OH W O H W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OHW OH W 12" W 12" W 12" W 1 0 " W 8 " W 12 " W 12 " W 8" W 12 " W 8" W 12 " W 8" W 1 2 " W 8 " W 12" W 8" W FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC G G G G G G G G G G OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW O H W O H W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW O H W O H W O H W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S D S D S D S D S D S D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D S D S D S D S D S D SD W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD S S S W W W W W W W S S S S D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D S D SD SD S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARY X X X XX X XX X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X T U 194 196195 197 185 193 X W V U Z Y S15 AB AC AA 188 191 192 190 189 187 186 S14 AD 98'PR O P R . O . W . 70' 2 0 0 ' 1 0 0 ' 7 2 ' 7 5 ' 4 2 ' 40 ' 60 ' 40' 60' 8 5 ' 4 7 ' 58' 8 9 ' 15' 5 1 ' 89' 124' 85 ' 7 0 ' 2 4' 77'49' 1 9' 5 6 ' 3 7' 21' 85 ' 26' 58' 89 ' 85 ' 72' 58' 85 ' 72' 58' 8 5 ' 72' 58' 5 8 ' 7 2 ' 8 2 ' 1 8' 49' 61' 49' 6 9 ' 1 5 7 ' 2 8 1 ' 34' 95' 106' 204 ' 14 7 ' 141' 81 ' 20 ' 99' 12 1 ' 36 ' 9 3 ' 22'4 6 ' 37' 32' 109' 50 ' 2 2 9 ' 9 9 2 ' 38' 1 3 8 ' 3 5 3 ' 1173' 13 2 ' 2 9 1 ' 1 3 8 ' 3 8' 7 0 ' 235' 49 3 ' 12' 66 ' 4 7 ' 254' 37 3 ' 216' 85' 21 1 ' 26' 4 0 7 ' 80 ' 15 4 ' 10 3 ' 236' 9' 208' 37 3 ' 341' 19 ' 84 ' 112' 90' 165' 769' 5 8 ' 115' 101 ' 500' 4 0 ' 242' 1463' 1826' 91' 1.8% 0.8% 5. 0 % 2 . 3 % 2 . 0 % 2. 2 % 2. 4 % 3. 5 % 3.5 % 2. 6 % 2. 8 % 1.0% 1 . 1 % 0.7 % 0.7 % 0.8 % 1.0% 1.0% 5.0% 12 . 0 % 11 . 8 % 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 7 . 0 % 0.6% 5.0% 5.0% 5. 0 % 0.5% 522.06 FS 512.79 FS-LP 523.06 FS 520.46 FS 512.29 FS 515.49 FS 513.72 FS 512.25 FS-LP 512.26 FS 483.35 FS 503.47 FS 490.40 FS 481.24 FS (478.83) FS 563.70 FS 568.03 FS 568.24 FS 470.0 FG-LP 478.7 FG 476.5 FG 498.1 FG-LP 500.8 FG 505.3 FG 538.50 FL 520.00 FL 539.00 FL 530.00 FL-HP 547.14 FL-HP 546.50 FL-HP 530.00 FL-HP 542.50 FL-HP 530.00 FL 543.54 FL-HP 537.50 FL-HP 527.50 FL 471.72 FS 499.73 FS 484.34 FS 495.00 FL 490.00 FL 505.00 FL-HP 505.00 FL-HP 543.97 FL-HP 517.97 FL-HP 529.48 FL 497.53 FL 483.16 FS-LP 12 10 3 13 11 7 20191816 511-0-190-305 2: 1 2: 1 2:1 4:1 2 : 1 2:1 2:1 2 : 1 2:1 2:1 2: 1 2 : 1 2: 1 2 : 1 2:1 TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARY GA B B E R T R O A D NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y ST. "P" S T R E E T " O " U.P.R.R. U.P.R.R. BASIN 2 BASIN 2B POINDE X T E R A V E N U E N. COMMERCE AVENUE HIGH ST R E E T FUTURE NORTH HILLS PARKWAY EXTENSION (BY OTHERS) TRANSITION TO EX. IMPROVEMENTS CONNECT TO EX. WATERLINE WALNUT C Y N C H A N N E L EX. GABBERT RD. R.O.W. TO BE VACATED REMOVE EX. GABBERT RD. PAVING JOIN EX. IMPROVEMENTS R = 3 50' R =3 0 0 0 ' 42" 1 8 " 1 8 " 6 0 " 6 0 " 24" 24 " 48 "48 " 24 " 1 8 " 18" 18" 18" 1 8 " 8" 15" CONNECT TO EX. WATERLINE REMOVE AND REPLACE EX. WATERLINE REMOVE AND REPLACE EX. WATERLINES TO LIMITS SHOWN REMOVE AND REPLACE EX. WATERLINES TO LIMITS SHOWN CONNECT TO EX. WATERLINE CONNECT TO EX. WATERLINE 12 " 8" (1 2 " ) 1 2 " 8" 8" 8" 8 " 511-0-200-255 51 1 - 0 - 2 1 0 - 1 7 5 51 1 - 0 - 2 1 0 - 1 1 5 51 1 - 0 - 2 1 0 - 1 0 5 511-0-010-235 51 1 - 0 - 0 1 0 - 3 0 5 51 1 - 0 - 0 1 0 - 2 9 5 511-0-010-165 511-0-010-185 511-0-010-405 511-0-010-385 36" 2 : 1 2:1 18 "36" 2: 1 8 " R=45' R=332' R4 0 ' F C F C F C C F C F C F C F C F F C C F FC INLET PIPE FOR STORM WATER TREATMENT DISCHARGE 24 " S 89°41'01" E 1323.02' N 0 ° 2 6 ' 4 4 " E 65 9 . 9 4 ' S 89°29'31" E 1321.08' N 0 ° 2 5 ' 4 2 " E 89 1 . 6 4 ' S 76°39 ' 0 9 " W 1360.03 ' N 0 ° 2 6 ' 4 4 " E 35 5 . 2 4 ' N 76°39 ' 0 9 " E 1 3 5 9 . 9 2 ' S 76°39 ' 0 9 " W 3258.02 ' CONNECT TO EX. WATERLINE CONNECT TO EX. WATERLINE CONNECT TO EX. WATERLINE (1 2 " ) (8 " ) (8 " ) (12 " ) (8") 2 : 1 483.41 FS EX. HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION POWER LINES TO REMAIN 4 5 4 ' 48' 333' 119' 7' 1 1 8 ' 20' 22' 2 3' 23' 2 2' 2 0'84' C F F C C F ( P V T ) (PVT) EX. VCWPD ACCESS RD TO REMAIN OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE PASSIVE REC AREA OPEN SPACE WATER QUALITY OPEN SPACE PARK AE DETENTION BASIN Z 483.26 FS-LP 0.4% 484.82 FS-HP 485.91 FS 36" 515 520 4 8 0 485 490 495 500 505 510 515 520 565 55 0540 530520510 56 0 5105 1 0 50 0 510 520 530 540 550 560 550 540 530 520 4 7 5 480 490 510 5 5 0 5 6 0 5 3 0 5 2 0 50 0 49 0 48 0 48 0 49 0 50 0 51 0 47 5 48 0 50 0 485 4 9 0 49 0 5 1 0 515 485 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 500 560 18 " DIVERSION PIPE FOR STORM WATER TREATMENT 40 ' 60' 500 252' 2 0 0 ' 1 0 0 ' PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 569.4 PAD 569.2 PAD 568.9 PAD 567.1 PAD 566.2 PAD 565.1 PAD 565.7 PAD 566.3 PAD 566.9 PAD 567.5 PAD 570.2 PAD 569.6 PAD 569.9 PAD PHASE 1 PHASE 2 514.93 FS 514.06 FS 15" 15 " (8 " ) REMOVE & REPLACE EX. SEWER TO LOS ANGELES AVE. & MIRA SOL DR. INTERSECTION (REPLACE EX. 8" & 12" WITH NEW 15") 518.47 FS 520 530 540 550560 5 7 0 5 6 0 5 5 0 5 4 0 5 3 0 5 2 02:1 2:1 550.81 FL-HP 552.50 FL-HP 544.00 FL 5. 0 % 5.0% CONNECT TO EX. SEWER STUB 5. 0 % OFFSITE TRAIL CONNECTION 58' 1 2' 4 3 '4 2 ' 72' 53' 62 ' 29 ' 86 ' 4 5 ' 1 2 ' 46 ' 5 8 ' 68'85' 45 ' DISCHARGE DOWN DRAIN TO STREET GUTTER VIA PKWY DRAIN R 4 0 ' VEHICLE TURNAROUND 0 SCALE: 1"=60' 60 120 180 N S EW n: \ p r o j e c t s \ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 h i t c h r a n c h - c o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ t e n t a t i v e m a p \ 0 0 4 7 . 0 2 _ t t m . d w g DR A W I N G : R.C.E. DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER WORK ORDER OFSHEET NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: HORIZ.VERT.SCALE: 333 N. LANTANA ST, SUITE 287, CAMARILLO, CA 93010 PHONE: 805.322.4443 WEBSITE: WWW.ECGCIVIL.COM CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0047 7 HITCH RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5708 AS NOTED N/A GJM GHP GREGORY J. MUSSER 77627 04/06/2022 PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITIES 2 SH E E T 4 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 829 725 72 0 7 2 0 76 0 750 74574 0 74 0 735 7 3 5 7 3 0 730 7 2 5 725 7 2 5 715 71 5 7 1 0 7 1 0 710 7 1 0 7 0 5 70 5 7 0 5 7 0 5 72 5 720 720 730 725 72 0 715 7 1 5 71 5 71 5 715 7 4 0 7 3 0 7 2 5 720 7 3 5 73 0 725 7 2 5 7 1 0 710 7 1 0 7 0 5 705 705 705 7 0 0 7 0 0 700 70 0 7 0 0 6 9 5 6 9 5 695 69 5 6 9 5 6 9 0 69 0 690 69 0 56 5 56 5 56 5 5 6 5 56 5 7 0 0 700 70 0 560 560 5 6 0 56 0 625 625 62 5 6 2 5 625 62 5 6 2 5 6 2 5 62 5 62 5 625 625 62 5 625 625 625 62 5 625 62 5 625 7 1 0 710 71 0 710 7 0 5 70 5 705 70 5 70 5 7 0 0 70 0 700 70 0 700 6 9 5 69 5 695 69 5 695 69 0 690 6 9 0 690 6 8 5 68 5 685 6 8 5 685 68 0 680 68 0 680 68 0 6 8 0 68 0 680 6 8 0 680 68 0 68 0 680 68 0 6 8 0 67 5 675 67 5 67 5 675 6 7 5 67 5 675 6 7 5 675 6 7 5 6 7 5 67 5 67 5 6 7 5 67 0 670 67 0 67 0 6 7 0 67 0 6 7 0 670 6 7 0 670 670 67 0 670 67 0 66 5 665 665 66 5 6 6 5 6 6 5 665 6 6 5 66 5 66 5 6 6 5 6 6 5 665 66 5 665 660 655 645 650 6 5 0 65 0 645 6 5 5 655 640 635 635 6 4 0 640 640 640 6 4 0 6 4 0 640 640 6 4 0 64 0 640 640 6 4 0 64 0 64 0 6 4 0 645 6 4 5 64 5 645 6 4 5 645 645 6 4 5 64 5 645 6 4 5 6 4 5 645 6 4 5 650 650 65 0 65 0 650 650 650 65 0 650 6 5 0 650 6 5 0 65 0 65 0 65 0 65 5 65 5 655 65 5 6 5 5 655 65 5 655 655 65 5 6 5 5 65 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 66 0 6 6 0 660 66 0 66 0 6 6 0 660 66 0 66 0 66 0 660 6 6 0 66 0 66 0 66 0 66 0 59 5 595 5 9 5 595 595 595 595 595 595 595 59 5 59 5 5 9 5 5 9 5 595 595 59 5 5 9 5 5 9 5 595 5 9 5 595 595 595 635 635 6 3 5 635 635 6 3 5 6 3 5 635 635 635 6 3 5 635 6 3 5 63 5 6 3 5 63 5 620 620 62 0 6 2 0 6 2 0 620 620 62 0 620 62 0 62 0 620 620 62 0 6 2 0 620 620 620 620 620 6 2 0 61 5 615 6 1 5 61 5 61 5 6 1 5 615 6 1 5 61 5 615 61 5 61 5 61 5 615 6 1 5 61 5 61 5 615 615 615 61 5 6 1 5 615 615 6 1 5 630 63 0 63 0 630 630 6 3 0 630 6 3 0 630 6 3 0 63 0 6 3 0 6 3 0 630 63 0 6 3 0 630 630 630 630 610 61 0 61 0 6 1 0 61 0 610 6 1 0 6 1 0 610 610 61 0 610 610 61 0 6 1 0 610 610 610 6 1 0 610 610 605 60 5 60 5 605 605 6 0 5 6 0 5 605 605 60 5 60 5 60 5 6 0 5 605 605 60 5 6 0 5 60 5 605 6 0 5 60 0 60 0 6 0 0 60 0 600 600 60 0 60 0 600 60 0 6 0 0 600 60 0 600 60 0 6 0 0 60 0 600 600 555 555 555 550 55 0 550 550 5 4 5 590 59 0 5 9 0 5 9 0 59 0 590 590 59 0 590 590 59 0 590 590 59 0 59 0 5 9 0 5 9 0 59 0 5 9 0 590 590 540 5 3 5 55 5 555 5 5 5 5 6 0 56 0 560 5 6 0 56 0 56 0 565 565 565 565 565 56 5 56 5 56 5 56 5 570 57 0 5 7 0 570 57 0 5 7 0 570 570 57 0 5 7 0 570 57 0 57 0 575 57 5 5 7 5 57 5 575 57 5 575 57 5 575 575 57 5 57 5 575 5 7 5 57 5 57 5 57 5 575 575 580 58 0 5 8 0 58 0 58 0 580 580 5 8 0 580 580 58 0 5 8 0 580 58 0 58 0 58 0 580 580 580 585 58 5 58 5 58 5 585 585 585 585 585 585 58 5 58 5 5 8 5 585 58 5 58 5 5 8 5 58 5 5 8 5 585 62 0 620 6 9 5 6 9 5 695 69 5 6 9 0 69 0 690 690 69 0 69 0 6 8 5 685 685 68 5 68 5 6 8 5 68 5 685 68 5 6 8 5 68 5 553.6 590.4 603.4 603.6 604.2 607.2 607.2 606.4 607.4 607.5 609.6 609.3 607.5 605.4 606.5 607.4 614.6 615.7 616.4 617.6 618.4 618.6 616.7 618.5 619.5 622.4 620.3 623.5 548.5 548.7 549.5 549.7 549.7 550.5 550.4 551.4 551.5 551.3 553.4 553.6 552.4 554.5 555.3 556.4 558.6 557.5 557.5 561.5 560.4 563.5562.5 595.5 595.3 596.4 596.4 594.7 594.9 597.4 597.5 598.4 598.4 599.6 599.5 600.4 600.4 602.5 602.4 603.6 603.6 604.5 604.5 606.4 607.4 608.4 609.7609.4609.4609.8 610.3 610.6 610.3610.2 610.7 612.3 612.4 613.7 613.2 613.5 613.4 612.3 613.6 611.4 609.6 615.4 616.5 615.6 614.6 616.7 614.8 615.8 618.1 620.5 620.6 618.3 619.3 621.6 619.3 618.5 617.3 622.3 621.4 623.7624.6 623.4 624.4 625.7 626.3 627.5 628.3 627.8 626.5 629.4 629.3 630.5 631.8 631.6 633.6 632.6 634.4 636.8 636.6 638.4 637.6 635.5 635.3 639.2 640.8641.5 640.3 638.4 640.3640.4 642.4642.3 641.4 640.3 643.5 643.1 644.4 643.4 643.5 643.4 645.3645.6 647.3647.4 646.4646.5 646.7646.7 648.5 648.5 649.8 649.4 649.6 648.8 649.4 649.2 651.2651.6 651.4 652.8 652.8652.4 653.5 650.6650.4 652.7652.5 653.5 653.6 664.4 661.5 664.4 628.1 635.6 580.1 634.2 633.5 636.5 637.4 634.7 620.6 619.6 619.4 619.6 616.4 617.4 619.3 631.5 632.4 637.5 653.6 629.6 630.4 632.5 634.4 648.5 644.5 629.4 628.7 619.4 618.2 618.6 619.3 618.4 617.5 617.5 616.5 616.5 615.4 613.8 614.4 615.6 616.5 617.3 626.5 619.7 618.5 618.8 618.4 616.6 612.3 612.6 611.5 611.3 610.6 609.4 609.5 608.6 608.6 607.6 611.4 608.4 609.7 605.5 606.4 604.5 602.6 603.6 602.4 605.5 600.4 601.4 600.3 600.4 600.6 599.5 597.7 596.5 597.6597.4 598.4 597.6 596.6 594.6 593.5 594.5 595.5 590.4 590.6 589.5 591.5 593.6 587.5 586.5 588.4 586.5 590.5 591.4 585.3 584.6 583.3 582.7 582.6 581.4580.6 580.4 579.6 577.4 576.6 575.5 573.7 577.5 574.5 573.2 578.3 578.4 571.5 569.7 569.4 572.5 569.5 574.7 572.6 570.4 566.4 568.5 566.3566.6 568.4 565.7 564.6 563.3 563.5 561.6 561.4 561.4 559.4559.4 557.4 557.5 555.6555.3 556.2 556.6 551.7 551.4 552.7 553.7 554.7 561.4 559.8 557.9 556.9 552.1 560.5 558.4 563.5 562.4 565.5 564.6 567.5 570.2 565.5 567.4 594.4 597.5 586.6 579.6 583.3 585.5 587.5 592.3 587.6 590.4 577.5 618.5 555.5 559.5 694.5 698.5 723.6 722.4 618.7 624.2 634.5 647.1 646.4 648.4 635.4 638.6 629.5 630.5 626.6 622.6 623.5 617.4 618.3 615.6 611.4 614.3 604.5 600.5 595.4 553.7 567.8 567.9 568.1 567.5 549.6 550.3 550.6 553.2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W SD S D S D S D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD S D SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D SD S D S D S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D S D S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S W W W S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W TRACT BOUNDARY 6 A 6B O S5 I 373 S4 C 157 144 143 158 36 326 299 S18 132 100 101 102 129 130 131 128 127 135 136 139 138 137 141 140 146 147 148 149 155 160 AF 142 145 156 159 86 94 87 95 88 99 80 89 96 82 90 97 83 91 98 84 92 S5 85 93 56 59 48 55 58 28 57 30 18 54 19 20 22 50 21 23 26 35 25 31 27 29 S3 O D 5153 133 81 134 324 17 300 318 312 314 313 319 317 311 320 304 323 303 306 305 307 325 S23 309 S22 310 316 308 327 322 315 321 S21 301 S20 302 284283 285 278 279 277 270 280 272 282 273 271 274 268 276 275 269 AI S17 F B 46 52 63 340 47 G 16 S4 123 124 125 126 120 121 122 J S8 S7 E 119 K L M 24 33 34 32 10 15 12 13 14 A 49 789 79 64 61 6665 67 37 78 39 45 77 38 62 68 69 60 70 71 41 72 76 44 43 42 73 74 40 75 1 2 46 3 5 11 S16 AG 361 369 368 367 366 365 364 363 370 362 372 371 330 329 328 333331332 336 335 334 338337 339 342 341 349 350 346 351 347 345 348343 344 S28 AH S27 S26 281 S2 S9 S6 S1 S1 60' 40' 80' 40' 60 ' 60' 40' 1 0 0 ' 7 2 ' 3 6 ' 60 ' 40 ' 60' 40' 60 ' 40 ' 60 ' 40 ' 104' 64' 8 4 ' 6 4 ' 40' 60' 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 40' 24 ' 5 6 ' 36' 56' 36' 56' 1 1 0 ' 1 1 0 ' 1 1 0 ' 1 1 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 13 0 ' 13 0 ' 13 0 ' 12 5 ' 141' 4 2 ' 116' 14 2 5 ' 120' 120' 120' 91' 305' 12 ' 15 6 ' 97 ' 36'2 8 '17' 10 3 ' 80' 80' 10 3 ' 80' 80' 10 3 ' 81' 1 0 3 ' 89'21' 21'59' 6 1 ' 19' 1 0 3 ' 19' 9 2 ' 1 0 3 ' 80' 1 0 3 ' 80' 15' 6 5 ' 1 0 3 ' 7 9 ' 15' 5 0' 3 2' 1 0 9 ' 6 8' 9 1 ' 1 1 9 ' 79' 6 3 ' 3 1 ' 1 0 3 ' 82' 5 7 ' 22' 9 8 ' 78' 80' 9 8 ' 80' 80' 9 8 ' 80' 80' 9 8 ' 80' 80' 9 8 ' 80' 72' 8 ' 9 8 ' 1 1 ' 72' 8 0 ' 9 8 ' 1 0 4 ' 1 0' 70' 1 0 0 ' 83' 32' 9 7 ' 79' 1 1 8 ' 1 2 1 ' 1 1 1 ' 80' 1 2 2 ' 20' 1 3 0 ' 8 0 ' 80' 1 3 4 ' 80' 1 3 8 ' 80' 1 4 2 ' 1 5 3 ' 80' 4 8 ' 6 5 ' 1 9 8 ' 3 3 ' 1 5 7 ' 10 0 ' 55' 72 ' 9 4 ' 1 1 1 ' 90' 1 8' 9 1' 1 1 1 ' 77' 1 0 8 ' 31' 3 ' 57' 7 3 ' 1 4 5 ' 48' 12'79' 14 5 ' 80' 14 5 ' 70' 2 4' 13 0 ' 11 6 ' 85' 10 1 ' 2 4 '70'80' 11 6 ' 80' 80' 11 6 ' 80' 1 0 6 ' 67' 47'2 8 ' 47' 134' 15 2 ' 5 3 ' 8 8 ' 2' 15 8 ' 16 5 ' 15'67' 16 5 ' 80'70' 2 4' 15 0 ' 11 5 ' 10 0 ' 2 4 ' 11 5 ' 11 5 ' 11 3 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 1 1 0 ' 1 1 0 ' 1 0 9 ' 1 0 8 ' 80' 1 0 7 ' 67' 1 0 6 ' 1 0 2 ' 93 ' 50' 8 5 ' 51' 8 6 ' 2 7 ' 3 ' 43' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 8 5 ' 52' 8 5 ' 52' 52' 8 5 ' 52' 29' 8 1 ' 52' 6 9 ' 52' 112' 29' 41' 46' 118' 101' 4 6' 8 5 ' 16' 8 5 ' 5 8' 85' 51' 85' 62' 46' 85' 56' 46' 85' 56' 85' 56' 46' 85' 5 6 ' 4 6 ' 85' 5 6 ' 4 6 ' 4 6 ' 85'5 6 ' 85' 69' 85' 51' 51' 85' 69' 8 5 ' 51' 8 5 ' 51' 8 5 ' 46' 46' 46' 9 ' 2 5 ' 5 1 ' 46' 3 6 ' 2 4' 70' 85' 2 5 ' 1 2 ' 85' 2 2 ' 4 9 ' 4 6 ' 85' 5 4 ' 85' 5 1 ' 85' 5 4 ' 5 1 ' 85' 4 ' 3 3 ' 23' 3 3 ' 4 ' 85' 4 6 ' 4 9 ' 85' 4 6 ' 4 8 ' 85' 4 6 ' 4 8 ' 85' 4 6 ' 85' 4 8 ' 85' 2 5 ' 2 1 ' 2 2 ' 2 5 ' 85' 3 6 ' 5 1 ' 70' 2 4' 3 6 ' 2 4' 70' 85' 2 5 ' 85' 2 3 ' 5 1 ' 85' 5 1 ' 85' 85' 5 1 ' 85' 4 4 6 ' 85' 3 7 ' 1 1 ' 85' 2 5 ' 2 1 ' 2 2 ' 1 9 ' 6 ' 85' 3 6 ' 5 1 ' 70' 2 4' 85'4 2 ' 2 4' 70' 3 5 ' 1 9 ' 85' 1 5 ' 69' 62'2 5 ' 39 ' 62' 39 ' 3 ' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 6' 36' 62' 44' 6' 4 2 ' 62' 51 ' 4 2 ' 62' 5 1 ' 4 2 ' 62' 5 1 ' 4 2 ' 62' 5 1 ' 29' 14 ' 62 ' 14 ' 35' 62 ' 39 ' 3' 62 ' 3 39 ' 42' 62 ' 42' 42'12'30'42'42' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 62' 49 ' 49 ' 60'2' 49 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 26 ' 16 ' 42 ' 64' 44 ' 61 ' 2' 62 ' 42 ' 21' 53 ' 9 7 ' 45'25' 4 2 ' 62' 6 4 ' 61' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 17' 42' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 42' 42' 61 ' 49' 49'1' 62 ' 49' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 42' 42' 62 ' 49' 49' 62 ' 49' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 43 ' 19' 50' 62 ' 49' 42' 62 ' 42' 42' 62 ' 42' 7 1 9 ' 302 ' 2' 1 6 2 ' 317 ' 9 1 4 ' 4 5' 60 ' 65 ' 20' 73' 3 0 ' 6 5 ' 162' 1 8' 44' 2 4' 1 1 ' 2 5 ' 19' 4 2' 2 5 ' 2 1 ' 27' 65' 78' 1 3 4 ' 1 1 ' 2 4' 31' 3 6 ' 1 5 ' 44' 3 3 ' 6 6 ' 7 0 ' 10'1 2' 9 6 ' 16' 230 ' 2 3' 2 9 ' 56'45'6' 1 5 ' 7 9 ' 1 2' 10' 2 0' 2 5 ' 24 ' 24 ' 24' 4 7' 24' 24 ' 24 ' 13' 24 ' 24'13 ' 1701' 1 4 5 ' 960'3 3 2 2 ' 333' 218' 269 ' 1 9 7 ' 391 ' 121' 24 ' 50'23 '1 ' 1 1 3 ' 1 8 5 ' 4 9 ' 8 ' 399 ' 9 4 5 ' 92' 53' 5 0 ' 1 2 2 ' 606' 638' 1 1' 1.6% 4. 9 % 1.2% 1.2% 3.0% 2.0% 3.0 %2.9% 4.6% 4.6 % 2.0% 2.0% 7.0% 7.0% 2 . 0 % 5 . 0 % 5 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.3% 2.6% 2 . 0 % 2 . 7 % 3. 6 % 3 . 9 % 3 . 0 % 2.6% 1 . 8 % 3. 6 % 3.7% 2.9% 2.1% 0 . 8 % 0. 8 % 0 . 8 % 2. 0 % 3.6% 3.6% 5.0% 5.0% 9.5% 9.5% 3. 2 % 1.0% 3. 7 % 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 3.0 % 2.0 % 1 . 3 % 2 . 9 % 3.4% 0. 5 % 0. 5 % 624.36 FS 617.20 FS 608.84 FS 610.07 FS 618.53 FS 624.08 FS 625.50 FS 621.21 FS 615.28 FS638.72 FS 628.35 FS-HP 632.87 FS 626.64 FS 628.59 FS 626.14 FS-LP 628.30 FS 626.64 FS 652.99 FS 623.65 FS 606.98 FS 606.18 FS 593.61 FS 575.55 FS 557.49 FS 621.06 FS 606.42 FS 605.25 FS 577.98 FS 600.87 FS 587.05 FS 589.30 FS 581.12 FS 576.35 FS 580.86 FS 595.65 FS 599.50 FS-HP 625.92 FS 641.94 FS 628.92 FS 632.74 FS 645.10 FS-HP 606.10 FS 619.82 FS-HP 618.10 FS 585.10 FS 579.59 FS 616.58 FS 610.19 FS 622.06 FL-HP 517.7 FG 577.52 FL 691.12 FL-HP 674.69 FL-HP 659.71 FL-GB 679.71 FL 654.00 FL 664.00 FL-HP 612.92 FS 611.68 FS 605.93 FS-LP 626.98 FS 594.16 FS 583.10 FS 580.28 FS 574.31 FS 605.20 FS 611.79 FS 616.22 FS 608.43 FS 609.86 FS 610.46 FS 609.30 FS 606.47 FS 605.99 FS 617.59 FS-HP 615.49 FS 615.08 FS 611.06 FS-HP 502-0-160-095 502-0-160-085 2: 1 2 : 1 2 : 1 2: 1 2 : 1 2 : 1 2 : 1 2 : 1 2:1 2:1 2: 1 2 : 1 2 : 1 2 : 1 3:1 NOR T H H I L L S P A R K W A Y ST R E E T " A " S T . " I " S T . " H " STR E E T " F " STRE E T " D " ST R E E T " C " STREET "E" STREET "B" S T R E E T " A " MERIDIAN HILLS D R I V E REC. AREA TRACT BOUNDARY 3 : 1 DEBRIS BASIN DEBRIS BASIN DEBRIS BASIN BASIN 2A R=800' R =4 5 0 0 ' R = 8 0 0 ' R =5 7 0 ' R=425' 36 " 36 " 36 " 42 " 36 " 3 6 " 3 6 " 3 6 " 18" 24" 30" 3 6 " 24" 30" 2 4 " 18 " 36 " 18 " 18" 18" 1 8 " 18" 18 " 36" 30 " 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 1 2 " 1 2 " 8" 8" 8" 8 " 1 2 " 12 " 12" 12" 1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 12 " 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8 " 8" 51 1 - 0 - 0 1 0 - 3 7 5 51 1 - 0 - 0 1 0 - 2 4 5 51 1 - 0 - 0 1 0 - 4 7 5 51 1 - 0 - 0 1 0 - 4 5 5 513-0-180-455 ST R E E T " G " 2: 1 2: 1 3: 1 2:1 2 : 1 8 " 8 " 18 " 18" 8" 8" 8 " 8 " 8 " 8 " 8 " 8" 8" R =1 5 0 ' R =4 5 ' R =1 7 5 ' R =3 0 0 ' R =3 0 0 ' R =3 0 0 ' R =3 0 0 ' R =3 0 0 ' R = 6 2 0' R=350' R =6 20' R = 1 5 7 0 ' R = 1 8 0 0 ' R=45' R40' 8" 8" 8 " 1 0 " 10" 8"10 " 8" 8" 10" 8" 1 8 " R =4 2 0 0 ' R=250' R = 2 5 0' R = 1 0 0 ' C F C F F C C F C F C F F C F C F C F C C F F C F C F C C F C F C F C F F C F C R40' 614.95 FS 1 1 3 S 89°39'23" E 3125.44' N 0 ° 3 4 ' 0 9 " E 1 9 7 1 . 0 2 ' DEBRIS BASIN 638.18 FL 647.44 FL-HP 2:1 2:1 588.79 FL-HP 95 ' 51' 52' 58' 54' 2 9 0 ' 76' 2 8 ' 3 4 ' 1 7 ' 18' 251' 3 7 3 ' 1 0 0 7 ' 385 ' 9' 4 8 ' 391 ' 2 2 '2 3 '13' 1 1 3 ' 3 0 ' 13 3 ' 17' 3 '2 0 ' 1 6 7 ' 1 ' 32' 672 ' 103 0 ' 26' 19' 5 7' 19' 2 5 ' 690' 8' 6' 14' 2 1 ' 13' 20' 16' 11' 138 0 ' 3 4' 1 ' 2 8 ' 46' 2 0 0 ' 24' 24' 40' 36 ' 1. 1 % 0.5% 65 ' 82 ' 6 1 ' 60' 60' 60' 60 ' 61 ' (PRIVA T E ) (PRI V A T E ) (PRIVATE) (P R I V A T E ) (PR I V A T E ) (P R I V A T E ) ( P R I V A T E ) ( P V T ) SECON D A R Y A C C E S S PRIV A T E D R I V E PR I V A T E DR I V E PR I V A T E DR I V E SECONDARY ACCESS GATE WITH AUTOMATIC EXIT LOOPS & KNOX BOX SWITCH R =45' F C OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE REC. AREAOPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE P H A S E 1 P H A S E 2 P H A S E 1 P H A S E 2 55 0 55 5 56 0 56 5 57 0 57 5 58 0 58 5 59 0 59 5 60 0 6 0 5 61 0 61 5 620 62 5 63 0 610 615 620 625 6 3 0 63 5 64 0 64 5 65 0 65 5 66 0 6 6 5 6 7 0 6 7 5 630 630 6 3 5 6 3 5 64 0 6 4 0 61 5 615 61 5 620 62 0 625 62 5 5 7 5 58 0 58 5 59 0 59 5 58 0 580 58 5 660 670 700 680 690 710 650 690 700 620 640 630 650 650 64 0 650 660 68 0 670 63 0 630 620 630 640 630 620 620 630 640 650 660 61 0 62 0 6 0 0 5 9 0 620 610 600 590 610 600 6 0 0 59 5 585 575 560 595 59 0 585 590 580 570 6 2 0 6 3 0 640 650 5 8 0 5 9 0 6 0 0 61 5 6 1 0 6 1 0 6 1 5 6 1 0 6 1 0 6 1 0 615 6 0 5 61 0 61 5 61 0 6 1 5 6 2 0 640 680 670 640 61 0 610 615 620 625 5 8 0 58 0 585 5 9 0 59 5 600 605 580 585 59 0 595 640 630 620 60 0 61 0 6 0 0 5 9 0 5 8 0 5 7 0 5 6 0 5 5 0 540 530 52 0 600 610 620 620 630 620 610 57 0 580 585 585 590 580 610 581.00 FL-HP 548.03 FL-HP 566.46 FL 538.46 FL 8.0% 5 . 0 % 5 . 0 % PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 644.3 PAD 632.6 PAD 635.9 PAD 639.4 PAD 642.7 PAD 645.1 PAD 646.3 PAD 646.3 PAD 645.6 PAD643.6 PAD 641.5 PAD 639.3 PAD 636.6 PAD 635.1 PAD 633.7 PAD 632.4 PAD 631.2 PAD 618.9 PAD 619.7 PAD 620.5 PAD 621.0 PAD 621.3 PAD 615.8 PAD 618.5 PAD 623.5 PAD 626.5 PAD 628.9 PAD 629.7 PAD 629.3 PAD 627.6 PAD 625.8 PAD 622.5 PAD 620.2 PAD 617.6 PAD 620.3 PAD 622.7 PAD 624.9 PAD 626.9 PAD 628.5 PAD 629.4 PAD 629.3 PAD 627.1 PAD 624.7 PAD 621.6 PAD 617.8 PAD 614.4 PAD 612.9 PAD 621.1 PAD 620.5 PAD 619.7 PAD 618.9 PAD 608.2 PAD 609.1 PAD 610.3 PAD 611.9 PAD 614.5 PAD 613.5 PAD 612.7 PAD 610.6 PAD609.7 PAD 608.8 PAD 607.8 PAD 606.9 PAD 609.9 PAD 615.7 PAD 619.7 PAD 623.6 PAD 627.7 PAD 629.7 PAD 600.6 PAD 600.5 PAD 599.5 PAD 598.3 PAD 597.1 PAD 595.9 PAD 594.7 PAD 593.5 PAD 592.3 PAD 591.1 PAD 590.0 PAD 588.8 PAD 587.6 PAD 586.4 PAD 585.2 PAD 583.9 PAD 581.7 PAD 580.4 PAD 579.0 PAD 577.7 PAD 576.9 PAD 576.2 PAD 576.0 PAD 581.8 PAD 574.3 PAD 572.8 581.8 PAD 581.2 PAD 580.3 PAD 579.2 PAD 578.5 PAD 587.6 PAD 586.7 PAD 585.7 PAD 584.2 PAD 583.2 PAD 588.5 PAD 590.8 PAD 582.3 PAD575.6 PAD 577.8 611.5 PAD 621.3 PAD 646.1 PAD 646.2 PAD 645.6 PAD642.2 PAD 634.0 PAD 632.7 PAD 631.4 PAD 581.0 PAD 580.4 PAD 582.0 PAD 582.8 PAD 583.6 PAD 584.5 PAD 585.7 PAD 586.7 PAD 587.6 PAD 592.2 PAD 592.4 PAD 593.7 PAD 594.5 PAD 593.2 PAD 591.9 PAD 590.6 PAD 589.3 PAD 588.1 PAD 586.9 PAD 607.8 PAD 608.1 PAD 608.5 PAD 608.8 PAD 609.2 PAD 609.5 PAD 609.9 PAD 610.2 PAD 610.6 PAD 610.9 PAD 611.2 PAD 611.5 PAD 611.8 PAD 608.3 PAD 608.5 PAD 608.7 PAD 608.9 PAD 608.7 PAD 608.5 PAD 609.5 PAD 609.7 PAD 609.9 PAD 609.7 PAD 609.9 PAD 610.1 PAD 611.7 PAD 611.2 PAD 610.7 PAD 610.9 PAD 611.4 PAD 611.9 PAD 612.1 PAD 611.5 PAD 610.7 PAD 610.4 PAD 610.2 PAD 610.4 PAD 610.1 PAD 609.9 PAD 609.2 PAD 609.4 PAD 609.7 PAD 610.8 611.3 PAD 611.7 PAD R = 5 3' 638.9 PAD 618.5 PAD 618.3 PAD 618.1 PAD 618.1 PAD 617.8 PAD 617.6 PAD 617.8 PAD 617.5 PAD 617.3 PAD 617.3 PAD 617.1 PAD 616.9 PAD 617.0 PAD 616.8 PAD 616.6 PAD 616.9 PAD 617.1 PAD 617.4 PAD 617.0 PAD 616.8 PAD 616.6 PAD 616.3 PAD 616.5 PAD 616.6 PAD 617.3 PAD 618.1 PAD 618.4 PAD 618.6 PAD 618.8 PAD 619.0 PAD 619.3 PAD 619.5 PAD 619.7 PAD 619.9 PAD 620.0 PAD 619.3 PAD 635.08 FS 638.76 FS 644.94 FS 640 630 620 8 1 ' 1 2 7 ' 3 0 ' 92' 92' 95' 95' 2 8 ' 65' 65' 3 9 ' 7 6 ' 10 9 ' 30'51' 72' 30' 89' 89' 83' 4'79' 83' 83'49' 83' 97 ' 12 0 ' 120' 12 0 ' 12 0 ' 12 0 ' 12 0 ' 12 0 ' 12 0 ' 29' 93' 46 ' 51 ' 28' 32' 88' 9 5 ' 5 0 ' 149' 27 ' 6 5 ' 3 9 ' 1 7 ' 5 5 ' 1 5 ' 1 1 7' 2 0 0' 18' 85' 70'80' 80' 80' 80' 15'73' 80'33' 70'17' 48' 80' 80' 67'6'22' 22'58' 100' 80' 8 0 ' 3 4 ' 6 7 ' 4 7 ' 3 8 ' 42' 44' 36' 80' 44' 36' 44' 1 3 ' 51' 36' 8 0 ' 1 0 0 ' 3 6 ' 45' 24' 33' 5 4 ' 8 0'93' 71' 9' 49' 62 ' 49' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 42' 42' 62 ' 42' 24 ' 24 ' 49'42'42' 42' 62 ' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 49' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 49' 62 ' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 42' 24 ' 24 ' 49'42' 62 ' 42' 62 ' 49' 62 ' 62 ' 42'42' 62 ' 4'8' 9'44' 8' 4 7 ' 24 ' 2 5 ' 16' 2 3 '7' 1 5 ' 37 ' 42 ' 49 ' 24' 49 ' 42 ' 36 ' 1 6 ' 52'26' 62' 45 ' 42 ' 62' 49 ' 62' 62' 49 ' 62' 62' 42 ' 13' 57 ' 40' 24' 47 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 49 ' 62' 36' 3 9' 38 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 42 ' 62' 65' 49 ' 5' 37' 4 3 ' 21 ' 8 0 ' 91 ' 25' 1 0 3 ' 2 8' 41' 11 7 ' 8 9 ' 612.1 PAD 10" 10" 5 1' 4 2' 62' OPEN SPACE A 6.5% 615 620 615 OFFSITE TRAIL CONNECTION 5 6 ' 3 ' 7 7 ' 2 5 ' 5 8 ' 22' 45 ' 19 ' 47' 3 5 ' 3 3 ' 1 2 ' 2 7 ' 1 2 '1 2 ' 4 6 ' 12 0 ' 97 ' 1 2' 12 ' 100' 3 7 '12'23' 0 SCALE: 1"=60' 60 120 180 N S EW n: \ p r o j e c t s \ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 h i t c h r a n c h - c o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ t e n t a t i v e m a p \ 0 0 4 7 . 0 2 _ t t m . d w g DR A W I N G : R.C.E. DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER WORK ORDER OFSHEET NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: HORIZ.VERT.SCALE: 333 N. LANTANA ST, SUITE 287, CAMARILLO, CA 93010 PHONE: 805.322.4443 WEBSITE: WWW.ECGCIVIL.COM CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0047 7 HITCH RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5708 AS NOTED N/A GJM GHP GREGORY J. MUSSER 77627 04/06/2022 PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITIES 3 SHEET 4 SH E E T 5 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 830 565 565 5 2 0 520 52 0 520 5 2 0 5 2 0 520 52 0 520 5 2 0 520 52 0 520 52 0 520 575 575 570 570 56 5 57 5 575 575 515 515 5 1 5 51 5 5 1 5 5 1 5 515 515 5 1 5 51 5 51 5 51 5 515 510 51 0 510 51 0 51 0 51 0 510 5 1 0 510 50 5 5 0 5 50 5 505 5 0 5 505 505 500 500 5 0 0 5 0 0 50 0 500 500 500 500 500 49 5 49 5 495 49 5 495 495 495 495 490 490 4 9 0 490 490 490 490 490 49 0 490 485 485 485 485 485 48 5 485 485 485 48 5 48 5 480 4 8 0 480 480 5 7 0 570 570 57 0 5 7 0 57 0 570 570 565 565 56 5 56 5 565 5 6 5 56 5 56 5 5 6 5 565 5 6 0 560 56 0 56 0 5 2 5 525 525 525 525 525 525 525 52 5 525 5 2 5 5 2 5 52 5 52 5 52 5 5 2 5 525 52 5 5 2 5 595 595 600 5 5 5 555 55 5 55 5 550 55 0 550 5 5 0 550 55 0 550 550 55 0 5 5 0 55 0 5 5 0 550 5 5 0 550 5 5 0 550 550 550 55 0 55 0 55 0 550 545 5 4 5 545 545 545 5 4 5 5 4 5 54 5 545 54 5 54 5 5 4 5 54 5 545 545 545 54 5 5 4 5 54 5 54 5 54 5 545 545 54 5 54 5 545 54 5 545 545 545 5 9 0 59 0 5 9 0 540 54 0 540 540 540 540 54 0 5 4 0 5 4 0 54 0 5 4 0 54 0 5 4 0 54 0 540 5 4 0 54 0 540 54 0 540 540 5 4 0 5 3 5 535 53 5 535 535 535 535 535 53 5 5 3 5 535 53 5 53 5 53 5 53 5 53 5 535 53 5 53 5 5 3 5 535 5 3 5 535 53 0 5 3 0 530 530 53 0 530 530 5 3 0 5 3 0 5 3 0 53 0 5 3 0 530 53 0 53 0 530 530 530 53 0 53 0 530 53 0 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 555 555 555 55 5 55 5 555 55 5 555 555 555 560 560 56 0 560 5 6 0 56 0 5 6 0 5 6 0 5 6 0 56 0 56 0 5 6 0 560 560 56 0 56 0 560 56 0 56 0 56 0 56 0 56 5 5 6 5 565 565 5 6 5 565 56 5 565 56 5 56 5 56 5 565 565 565 565 57 0 5 7 0 570 5 7 0 570 5 7 0 570 57 0 57 0 57 0 57 0 570 5 7 5 575 57 5 57 5 57 5 575 5 7 5 57 5 57 5 5 7 5 57 5 575 575 5 8 0 58 0 5 8 0 58 0 580 580 58 0 5 8 0 58 0 580 580 585 58 5 58 5 5 8 5 505 555 55 0 550 55 0 55 0 50 0 495 495 495 49 0 535 5 3 0 5 3 0 5 4 0 585 585 499.7499.8 498.3 497.3 497.5497.1 496.8496.3 496.7496.4496.3496.3 495.5 495.7 495.5 495.5 495.1 494.7 494.4 494.6 495.3 501.6500.6500.4 498.9498.3497.8497.4496.3 496.7495.8495.4494.7 494.5 494.3 493.7493.4 493.9493.2 493.5 493.7 499.8499.5498.5 498.7497.5 497.9 495.5495.5 492.2 492.8492.5 496.5 495.7 495.8 487.3 495.8 487.8 488.5 488.9 496.3 496.6 489.2 489.3 497.7 489.8 490.2 497.7 497.7 497.8497.1497.4 497.1 497.4 497.4 496.7 497.4 496.1 496.7 497.3497.3 496.7496.7496.5 486.8 494.8 494.5 496.4 498.3 498.6 498.8 498.1 498.6 498.4 498.7 498.8 499.3 499.8 499.3 499.6 497.5 568.7 584.6 584.9 583.2 582.6 583.3 604.5 603.6 601.4 599.5 596.4 593.5 591.4 572.7 573.6 571.6 568.7 499.7 500.6 499.9 499.4 499.6499.2 501.5 502.3 501.3 500.5500.2 499.5499.9 498.4 498.4 498.4 498.6 498.6 498.2 498.2498.4 499.5 497.8 498.3 499.4499.3 497.8 498.2 497.8 498.6 499.8 497.2497.6 498.7 499.5 497.4 500.3 503.3 501.5 536.6 536.6 537.3 537.2 536.3 579.8 498.2 498.6 498.4 499.8 499.5 500.4 500.8 500.6 500.1 500.5 501.5 501.1501.5 501.2502.1 502.4 502.6 502.4 503.1503.5 503.4 504.6 504.1 505.5 505.4 506.3 506.4 507.4 507.5 507.1 508.7 508.6 508.4 509.2509.7 509.5 510.7 510.4 510.6 511.4 511.4 512.6512.3 513.6 513.5 514.4 515.3 515.3 514.4 514.8 515.5 522.6 522.8 523.5 566.3 564.5 565.8 563.4 541.4 536.5 527.5 526.7 504.4 504.3 505.6 504.3 505.6 506.7 507.7 509.6 582.4 587.8 560.5 559.3 563.5 578.5 576.5 587.6 588.4 548.5 548.7 549.7 551.4 521.4 522.6 525.4 571.5 571.3 571.4 573.4 573.6573.3573.4 573.6 572.5 572.4 572.5 572.5 572.3 570.5 560.5 563.7 564.2 567.3 566.6 482.6 485.4 489.2 486.7 483.4 484.3 482.3 482.5 483.3482.6 483.5 498.3 494.4493.6493.7 494.2 493.4 492.8 491.3 491.9491.6 490.8490.2489.9489.4488.5 488.8 487.6 487.6 486.3 486.7 486.5 485.3 485.8 484.5 484.8 483.5 483.8 482.4 482.8 482.7 481.7 481.8 480.9 480.7 481.6 481.6 480.5 482.6 481.6 480.3 480.3 480.4 480.9 480.3 480.2 480.2 480.4 480.7 480.6 480.5 480.9 480.9 481.3 481.7 481.9 481.8 481.8 481.2 481.2 481.7 481.6 482.5 482.3 482.2 482.5 482.7 482.7 482.7 482.6 482.4 481.7 481.4 481.5 483.3 483.7 483.9 483.8483.4 483.4 483.8 483.6 483.8 484.8 484.2 484.3484.3 484.1484.1 484.2 484.3 484.5 484.4 484.5 484.5 484.8 484.8 484.8 484.6 484.9 484.8 484.6 484.8 484.6 484.5 484.6 484.9 484.8484.7 484.8 484.8 484.4484.2 484.1 485.4 485.6 485.2 485.3 485.7 485.1 485.7 485.3 485.4 485.3 485.5 485.7 485.7 485.9485.5 485.1 485.3 485.1 485.2 485.5 485.6 485.7 485.4 485.8 485.7 486.1 486.1 486.5 486.7 486.6 486.7 486.6 486.3 486.2 486.6 486.3 486.1 486.7 486.5 486.5 486.4 486.5 486.3486.2 487.7 487.4 487.5 490.5 488.3 489.3 489.4 489.3 489.6 488.3 487.6 487.3 487.3 490.7 490.4 490.3 490.2 490.7 490.7 491.2 491.5 491.3 491.4 491.9 491.6 491.8 491.9 492.2 492.5 492.7 487.6 487.4 487.4 521.5 523.8 524.2525.4 527.9 528.3 527.8527.4 528.3 528.5 531.8 514.1 527.4 511.2 515.1 519.3 520.4 523.7 525.2 527.6 529.3 529.7 531.2 531.3 533.6 534.7 534.3 534.4 535.4 536.1 536.3 536.5 531.2 532.2 532.5 533.8 534.2 534.4 535.3 535.5 535.5 535.3 536.8 536.5 537.4 538.4 539.3 540.6 541.3 541.7 542.4 542.5 543.4 544.6 544.3 545.9 546.5 547.3 548.5548.1 549.6 545.4 547.9 550.3 550.6 547.6 546.6 540.2 550.8 553.3 539.3 539.6 538.5 537.4 570.7 573.7 572.6 574.8575.5 577.6 576.4 577.3 579.7 578.2 577.7 577.3 577.6 577.3 577.6 577.7 577.9 577.5 577.3 577.8 577.5 577.2 577.7 577.8 577.6577.5 577.3 576.6 576.3 576.5 576.5 575.7 575.8 575.6 575.3 575.6 575.4 574.6 574.3 576.5 576.7 575.1 576.3 576.5 574.3 575.6 573.4 575.8 572.6 570.5 571.5 570.4 569.8 568.2568.2 571.1 570.1 572.3 571.2 576.4 576.6 573.4 573.9574.1 574.3 574.6 574.8 574.9 574.6574.6 574.9 574.6 574.5 574.3 574.7 574.5 574.4 573.6 573.5 X X X X X X X X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 493.79 SMH 483.65 INV (S) 493.81 SMH 483.64 INV (E)495.82 SMH 485.37 INV (W) 495.84 SMH 485.42 INV (E) 497.80 SMH 487.37 INV (E) 497.78 SMH 487.31 INV (W) W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S W COMMCOMMCOMMCOMM COMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMM C O M M COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMMOHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W O H W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW 18" SS18" SS18" SS 18 " S S 8" W 12" W 12" W 12" W 12" W12" W12" W 12" W 12" W 12" W 1 0 " W 10 " W FO C FO C FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W W W W W SD S D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D SD SD SD SD SD S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D SD SD SD S D S S S W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSS S S S S S S S S S SW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W S S S S S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D S D SD S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W S D S D S D S D SD SD SD SD S S S S S TRACT BOUNDARY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY TRACT BOUNDARY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY 6E 6 C X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 202 AI S15 240 262 242 173 174 175 176 177 179 180 181 219 198 199 105 208 200 222 260 103 102 112 113 114 115 110 246 243 244 245 227 226 225 259 258 257 218 256 263 264 265 266 267 252 253 247 249 250 137 150 149 154 153 152 151 160 161 162 163 239 241 178 217 197 251 254 171 168 172 230231232 238237236 216 215 214 183 182 184 234 233 205 206 207 235 204 203 T 185 213 201 212 210 209 211 P O H S10 261 220 223 221 255 224 228 288 284 289287286 283 285 229 116 117 N S13 S11 S8 AE S 119 118 M Q R 378 377 S9 104 109 108 111 106 107 S12 167 170 169 164 165 166 248 S14 S14 Xre f N : \ p r o j e c t s \ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 H i t c h R a n c h - C o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ b a s e m a p s \ P A 4 A p a r t m e n t 1 0 2 1 \ x 2 1 0 9 7 1 p 2 . d w g Xref N : \ p r o j e c t s \ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 H i t c h R a n c h - C o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ b a s e m a p s \ P A 4 A p a r t m e n t 1 0 2 1 \ x 2 1 0 9 7 1 p 2 . d w g AD AD 1 0 0 ' 2 0 0 ' 8 0 ' 4 0 ' 36' 74 ' 54 ' 75 ' 42 ' 32' 56' 7 5 ' 4 2 ' 40' 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 60' 40' 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 40' 60' 40' 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 40' 60' 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 40' 60' 6 0 ' 4 0 ' 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 118' 121 ' 99' 24' 69'4 2 ' 5 2 ' 85' 7 5 ' 71' 2 2' 5 2 ' 85' 5 4 ' 3 6 ' 1 ' 89 ' 3 1 ' 1 ' 85 '8 5 ' 8 6 ' 8 5 ' 52' 8 5 ' 52' 8 5 ' 52' 52' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 37' 9 ' 8 5 ' 1 0 ' 37' 4 6 ' 8 5 ' 5 2' 4 6' 8 5 ' 5 2' 8 5 ' 5 8' 23 3 3 ' 38' 4 9 ' 4 ' 85' 4 9 ' 5 1 ' 85' 5 1 '85' 4 '70' 24' 3 4 ' 2 ' 3 4 ' 24' 70' 4 9 ' 2 ' 85' 4 6 ' 6 ' 4 2 ' 85' 4 6 ' 1 0 ' 3 8 ' 85' 4 6 ' 1 4 ' 3 4 ' 85' 3 5 '85' 5 4 ' 1 5 ' 85' 5 4 ' 85' 85' 5 4 '85' 8 '70' 24' 3 4 ' 96' 4 1 ' 7 0 ' 24' 118 ' 5 7 ' 118 ' 6 2 ' 11 3 ' 122' 2 0 ' 33' 18' 69' 8 4 ' 52' 8 5 ' 52' 27' 8 5 ' 52' 52' 8 5 ' 4 6 ' 7' 7' 4 5 ' 8 5 ' 5 9 ' 8 5 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 5 9 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 5 9 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 5 9 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 5 9 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 5 9 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 5 9 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 3 9 ' 1 9 ' 1 8 ' 4 7 ' 7 0 ' 8 5 ' 5 8 ' 1 6 ' 4 2 ' 8 5 ' 4 6 ' 1 3 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 6 3 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 6 3 ' 4 3 ' 15' 8 5 ' 4 7 ' 58' 15' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 7 2 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 7 2 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 7 2 ' 8 ' 50' 8 5 ' 50' 9 ' 58' 8 5 ' 58' 26' 3 6 ' 8 5 ' 3 2 ' 26' 6 7 ' 8 5 ' 5 8 ' 6 7 ' 8 5 ' 5 8 ' 8 6 ' 2 9 ' 3 8 ' 9 9 ' 5 6 ' 8 5 ' 2 8 '4 '2 8 ' 5 8 ' 8 5 ' 3 8 ' 2 6 ' 5 5 ' 8 5 ' 4 3 ' 2 0 ' 5 6 ' 8 5 ' 46' 1 5 ' 1 4 ' 46' 8 5 ' 46' 12' 58' 31' 3 2 ' 28' 6 8 ' 49' 8 2 ' 1 8' 49' 8 5 ' 58' 8 5 ' 6 4 ' 8 5 ' 6 4 ' 8 5 ' 6 0 ' 8 5 ' 5 7 ' 8 5 ' 5 5 ' 8 5 ' 3 0 ' 2 7 ' 8 5 ' 2 6 ' 4 3 ' 3 7 ' 5 9 ' 8 5 ' 5 8 ' 5 9 ' 8 5 ' 5 8 ' 5 9 ' 8 5 ' 5 8 ' 5 9 ' 8 5 ' 2 8 ' 3 0 ' 4 7 ' 85' 5 7 ' 6 9 ' 2 5' 85'5 7 ' 5 7 ' 85' 5 2 ' 85' 5 2 ' 5 2 ' 85' 5 2 ' 3 0 ' 85' 2 4 ' 2 8 ' 2 8 ' 22' 5 7 ' 8 0 ' 2 8' 18'29' 8 5 ' 28'3 0 ' 8 5 ' 3 5 '28' 8 5 ' 58' 58' 8 5 ' 58' 58' 8 5 ' 25'33' 33'2 9' 85 ' 3'29'20' 8 5 ' 23'29'3'52'52' 8 5 ' 59' 8 5 ' 3 4 '18' 8 5 ' 15' 3 8 ' 8 5 ' 8 5 ' 85 ' 85' 85' 1 3 ' 85' 8 ' 85' 85' 5 2 ' 5 2 ' 5 2 ' 85' 5 2 ' 4 1 ' 2 3' 7 0 '5 7 ' 85' 5 2 ' 85' 5 2 ' 5 2 ' 5 2 ' 85' 4 5 ' 5 7 ' 39' 3 0 ' 2 4' 3 9 ' 2 3'2 0 ' 51' 85' 5 2 ' 85' 85' 5 2 ' 5 2 ' 85' 5 2 ' 85' 5 2 ' 85' 5 2 ' 5 2 ' 88' 5 2 ' 5 2 ' 96' 5 3 ' 9 1 ' 1 6 ' 62' 2 5 '2 2' 4 0 ' 85' 1 7 ' 128' 85'5 2 ' 5 2 ' 85' 85' 5 2 ' 5 2 ' 85' 62 ' 14 ' 35'62 ' 3' 39 ' ' 62 ' 51' 42' 62 ' 51' 42' 62 ' 51' 12'30' 62 ' 30'15' 42' 62 ' 42' 42' 62 ' 42' 25 4 ' 93' 14' 409' 260' 20 7 ' 10 8 ' 1 2 1 ' 6 5 ' 40' 6 0 ' 9 3 ' 1 9 7 ' 7 7 ' 1 2 5 ' 1 2 5 ' 8 6 ' 1 9 7 ' 14 ' 12'1 3 ' 12' 1 5 ' 6 0 ' 1 5 '12'1 3' 9 6 '13'29' 33' 13 ' 12' 14' 6 0 ' 6 5 ' 2 6 ' 63' 6 9 ' 5 5 ' 5 5 ' 4 4 ' 61' 52' 1 4 4 ' 5 5 ' 5 8 ' 2 8 '30' 58' 58' 30'3 2'60' 1 8 5 ' 3 6 ' 54 6 ' 5 0 ' 2 2 9' 1 2 5 ' 8 5 ' 32'30' 58' 58' 30'31' 6 5 ' 8 5 ' 8 5 ' 8 5 ' 8 5 ' 8 5 ' 134' 32' 219' 149' 200' 127' 194 ' 88' 1 9 7 ' 1463' 711' 1681' 1681' 704' 1826' 2 2' 537 ' 526' 1 5 6' 16 4 ' 1681' 25'22' 638' 4.6% 7 . 3 % 3.6% 3.6% 1 . 1 % 1.5 % 1.0% 0.4% 0 . 9 % 0.4% 0.4 % 1.7% 0 . 5 % 0.4% 2. 0 % 8.5 % 3.7 % 5.3 % 5.3 % 2.0 % 3.4% 0.6% 0.6% 5.0 % 5.0 % 5.0% 5.0% 2. 0 % 5.0% 5.0% 0.6% 0.6% 2.0 % 2.0 % 0.8 % 1 . 3 % 1 . 5 % 2 . 9 % 4.1% 0 . 4 % 562.57 FS 546.82 FS 541.94 FS 534.76 FS 539.44 FS 529.31 FS 567.93 FS 573.48 FS-HP573.47 FS 569.58 FS 567.28 FS 566.21 FS 567.02 FS 569.25 FS 569.65 FS-HP 568.67 FS 570.01 FS 568.54 FS 566.10 FS 566.49 FS 569.37 FS 492.70 FS 494.70 FS 531.51 FS 550.16 FS 572.53 FS 527.73 FS 591.42 FS 584.97 FS 581.48 FS 493.29 FS 551.50 FL-HP 531.21 FL 503.44 FL 534.00 FL-HP 556.50 FL-HP 551.43 FL-HP 537.50 FL 556.58 FL-HP 552.00 FL-HP 523.06 FL-HP 507.50 FL 556.00 FL-HP 557.00 FL-HP 540.00 FL 512.1 FG-LP 515.8 FG 489.18 FS 576.06 FS 572.19 FS 573.25 FS 575.68 FS 569.12 FS 574.15 FS 559.85 FS 568.00 FS-GB 565.84 FS-LP 566.51 FS-GB 569.80 FS 569.45 FS 6 5 201918 8 9d 9c 16 2 : 1 2 : 1 2: 1 2: 1 2 : 1 2 : 1 2: 1 2: 1 2: 1 2 : 1 2 : 1 2 : 1 2: 1 2 : 1 2 : 1 HIGH STREET NOR T H H I L L S P A R K W A Y ST R E E T " A " CAS E Y R O A D STREET "P " ST. " K " S T . " I " STR E E T " O " S T R E E T " O " S T R E E T " M " SECONDAR Y A C C E S S U.P.R.R. POINDE X T E R A V E N U E ENDEAVOUR COURT U.P.R.R. POINDEXTER AVENUE TECH CIRCLE SIERRA AVENUE GISLER ROAD FUTURE AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS POINDEXTER PARK ESTATE 2 DEDICATION PER RECORD DOCUMENT 97-172929 CONNECT TO EX. WATERLINE WALNUT C Y N C H A N N E L WALNUT CYN CHANNEL BASIN 2A R=825' R=1497' R =3 0 0 0 ' 42 " 48" 48" 48 " 48 " 36" 1 8 " 2 4 " 18 " 8 " 8 " 8" 8 " 8 " 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 12 " 12 " 12" 12" 12 " 15" 8" 12 " 12" 12 " 12 " 8" 8 " 8" 8" 8 " 8" 8" 8" 8" 8 " 8" 18 " 48 " 6DSTR E E T " G " S T R E E T " J " S T R E E T " N " S T R E E T " L " HIGH ST R E E T 2:1 3:1 2: 1 2 : 1 2: 1 2 : 1 2: 1 2: 1 2:1 8 " 8 " 8" 8 " 8" 8" 8" 18" 1 8 " 8 " 8 " 8 " 8 " R = 1 8 0 0 ' R = 2 0 3 0 ' R=45' 8 " 8 " 8" 8" R = 5 0 0 ' R =4 7 4 0 ' R=105' R = 4 5 0 ' R=45' R =4 9 7 0 ' R =4 0 4 0 ' R =5 3 0 ' R =9 1 0 ' R=620' R=680' R =6 8 0 ' R =3 3 2 ' 2 4 " 1 8 " 24" 2 4 " 8 " 8" 8" 8 " 18 " 1 8 " 18" 18" F C C F C F C F C F F C F C C F F C FCCF C F F C F C C F C F F C F C C F F C 527.50 FL 5.6% 12.0% BASIN 3 26' 18 " 18" 18" 24" DIVERSION PIPE FOR STORM WATER TREATMENT- WATER QUALITY FLOWS SHALL BE ROUTED THROUGH LOT AE TO LOT AC FOR TREATMENT INLET PIPE FOR PARK STORM WATER DISCHARGE 1 8 " 48"48"48"24" 18 " 1 1 1 TRACT BOUNDARY R=2915.65 L =704.49 Δ=13°50'38" S 3 5 ° 3 0 ' 3 0 " W 33 6 . 7 7 ' R =160.00 L =215.26 Δ =77°05'09" S 4 1 ° 3 4 ' 3 9 " E 3 0 3 . 9 7 ' N 0 ° 3 4 ' 0 9 " E 19 7 1 . 0 2 ' S 76°39 ' 0 9 " W 3258.02 ' N 89°30'13" W 1681.49' (1 8 " ) (18") 24 " (12") 2: 1 EX. OVERHEAD WIRES TO BE REMOVED & ESM'T TO BE VACATED EX. O V E R H E A D W I R E S T O B E REM O V E D & E S M ' T T O B E V A C A T E D 542.04 FS 180'-LONG 2'-HIGH SLOUGH WALL 570.17 FS-HP 382 ' 9 1 ' 13' 20' 5 4' 41 8 ' 1 4 9' 8 5 ' 31'16'38' 20 ' 3 7 ' 18' 36' 4 5 4 ' 714 ' 28' 333' 286' 14' 17' 2 2' 23' 2 2' 64' 2 0 3' 44' 9 ' 7 5' 15 ' 1 1 8 ' 1 3 ' 19' 245' C F C F F C 7 2 ' 32' 24' 24' 24 ' 60' 56' 56' 62' 60' (PR I V A T E ) ( P V T ) ( P V T ) (PV T ) ( P V T ) ( P R I V A T E ) ( P R I V A T E ) (PR I V A T E ) 3 2 ' (PRIVATE) ( P V T ) (PVT) SECONDARY ACCESS GATE WITH AUTOMATIC EXIT LOOPS & KNOX BOX SWITCH 32 ' 32' 32 ' 1 4 R =5 5 0 ' 4 24" 8" 8"UTILITY STUBS FOR FUTURE USE UTILITY STUB FOR FUTURE USE EX. VCWPD ACCESS RD TO REMAIN EX. VCWPD ACCESS RD TO REMAIN OPEN SPACE / BASIN OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE PARK DETENTION BASIN OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE AB EX. AT-GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING 8" PH A S E 1 PH A S E 2 PH A S E 1 PH A S E 2 480.0 FG 36" 531.67 FL 538.88 FL 2 : 1 1 8 " 55 0 52 5 53 0 53 5 54 0 54 5 570 570 570 5 7 0 535 540 54 5 55 0 55 5 56 0 565 550 540 560 550 540 530 560 55 0 53 0 54 0 51 0 560 550 540 530 520 4 9 0 495 500 570 560 550 540 525 5 6 0 5 5 0 540 560 570 520 510 520 530 540 550 560 580 590 590 600 580 585 5 9 0 5 9 5 565 5 7 0 5 7 5 550 555 5 6 0 5 6 5 5 7 0 57 5 530 520 510 485 490490 495 500 510 5 6 5 5 7 0 575 580 530 520 54 0 56 055 0 495 485 49 5 48 5 485 495 570 565 580 495 5 0 0 5 0 5 5 1 0 5 1 5 5 2 0 5 2 5 530 53 5 540 545 550 555 560 565 570 575 580 530 520 510 540 550 560 570 570 4.0% 515.20 FL WATER QUALITY515 PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 569.5 PAD 567.5 PAD PAD 572.8 PAD 578.5 PAD 582.3 PAD 580.5 PAD570.9 PAD 570.8 PAD 570.7 PAD 570.5 PAD 570.3 PAD 570.1 PAD 570.1 PAD 570.2 PAD 570.3 PAD 570.6 PAD 571.0 PAD 571.2 PAD 571.3 PAD 571.2 PAD 571.0 PAD 570.8 PAD 570.6 PAD 570.4 PAD 570.9 PAD 570.6 PAD 572.1 PAD 571.0 PAD 569.7 PAD 570.0 PAD 570.3 PAD 570.2 PAD 568.2 PAD 569.0 PAD 569.8 PAD 570.7 PAD 571.3 PAD 572.0 PAD 571.5 PAD 571.8 PAD 571.9 PAD 571.7 PAD 571.4 PAD 569.5 PAD 568.9 PAD 568.4 PAD 568.1 PAD 572.3 PAD573.5 PAD574.5 PAD574.7 PAD574.3 PAD 573.2 PAD 572.7 PAD 574.7 PAD 574.5 PAD 572.9 PAD 571.0 PAD 569.2 PAD 568.3 PAD 567.2 PAD 567.7 PAD 567.2 PAD 567.4 PAD 567.7 PAD 567.9 PAD 568.2 PAD 568.7 PAD 569.0 PAD 570.8 PAD 570.4 PAD 569.9 PAD 569.1 PAD 568.8 PAD 568.6 PAD 568.4 PAD 568.2 PAD 567.9 PAD 568.0 PAD 568.2 PAD 568.4 PAD 568.6 PAD 568.8 PAD 569.0 PAD 569.9 PAD 575.6 PAD 574.5 PAD 573.1 PAD 572.5 PAD 571.8 PAD 570.9 PAD 570.5 PAD 578.3 PAD 572.7 PAD 573.9 PAD 574.8 PAD 574.4 PAD 574.0 PAD 574.3 PAD 575.4 PAD 578.3 PAD 577.1 PAD 577.7 PAD 577.8 PAD 577.2 PAD 579.8 PAD 579.1 PAD 581.3 PAD 572.8 PAD 578.9 PAD 571.9 PAD 582.0 PAD 576.4 PAD 567.5 PAD 567.4 PAD 569.9 569.5 PAD 567.8 PAD 567.5 PAD 572.7 PAD 571.6 PAD 570.3 PAD 571.2 PAD 571.1 PAD 609.0 PAD 609.2 PAD 609.4 PAD 609.9 PAD 610.2 PAD 610.8 PAD 611.3 PAD PAD PHASE 1 PHASE 2 SHUT-OFF VALVE SHUT-OFF VALVE 8" 1 4 2: 1 378 ' 1 2 ' 7 2 ' 2 7 ' 2 8 ' 6 1' 5 1 ' 26' 1 0 ' 6 ' 4 2 ' 7 4' 5 4' 114' 55' 4 7 ' 8 3 ' 25' 2 8' 1 1'1 0 ' 31' 4 3 ' 5 2 ' 8 ' 1 2 ' 3 1 ' 4 0' 44' 7 2 ' 4 6 ' 1 4 ' 1 1' 6 0 ' 2' 9 '41' 8 7 ' 5 4 ' 8 7' 5 4' 87' 54' 82'51' 8 0 ' 5 1 ' 9' 4 4 ' 3 0 ' 5.0 % 550 32 ' 1 4 32 ' 14 0 SCALE: 1"=60' 60 120 180 N S EW n: \ p r o j e c t s \ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 h i t c h r a n c h - c o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ t e n t a t i v e m a p \ 0 0 4 7 . 0 2 _ t t m . d w g DR A W I N G : R.C.E. DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER WORK ORDER OFSHEET NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: HORIZ.VERT.SCALE: 333 N. LANTANA ST, SUITE 287, CAMARILLO, CA 93010 PHONE: 805.322.4443 WEBSITE: WWW.ECGCIVIL.COM CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0047 7 HITCH RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5708 AS NOTED N/A GJM GHP GREGORY J. MUSSER 77627 04/06/2022 PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITIES 4 SH E E T 6 SHEET 3 SH E E T 2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 831 620 625 630 615 635 635 63 0 62 5 62 0 61 5 61 0 60 5 600 595 585 58 0 575 58 0 5 6 0 56 5 56 5 59 5 590 59 0 715 720 705 700 7 0 0 695 695 690 690 690 690 625 62 5 62 5 625 6 2 5 625 62 5 625 685 685 680 68 0 675 675 6 7 5 670 6 7 0 670 67 0 665 665 6 6 5 665 665 6 6 5 6 6 5 6 4 0 64 0 6 4 0 640 640 64 0 64 0 640 640 640 64 0 64 0 6 4 0 640 640 645 6 4 5 64 5 645 64 5 645 6 4 5 645 64 5 64 5 64 5 645 650 6 5 0 6 5 0 6 5 0 65 0 650 650 65 0 65 0 65 0 650 650 655 65 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 655 65 5 655 65 5 6 5 5 65 5 66 0 66 0 6 6 0 66 0 66 0 66 0 6 6 0 6 6 0 5 9 5 59 5 59 5 59 5 595 595 5 9 5 6 3 5 6 3 5 63 5 63 5 6 3 5 63 5 635 635 63 5 63 5 63 5 63 5 6 2 0 6 2 0 620 62 0 6 2 0 62 0 620 6 2 0 6 2 0 620 62 0 620 6 1 5 61 5 6 1 5 615 6 1 5 615 615 615 61 5 63 0 630 63 0 630 6 3 0 6 3 0 630 630 63 0 63 0 610 61 0 6 1 0 6 1 0 6 1 0 61 0 61 0 61 0 610 61 0 605 6 0 5 6 0 5 60 5 605 605 605 60 5 605 600 60 0 6 0 0 600 6 0 0 60 0 600 600 59 0 59 0 5 9 0 59 0 59 0 5 9 0 590 5 8 5 585 585 585 585 58 5 58 5 5 8 5 58 5 58 5 58 0 58 0 580 58 0 5 8 0 58 0 57 5 57 5 575 57 5 57 5 5 7 5 5 7 5 57 0 57 0 570 5 7 0 57 0 5 7 0 685 685 6 3 0 684.3 683.8 683.6 684.3 684.4 685.7 692.5 691.6 680.4 682.5 685.3 640.7 640.3 639.6 639.5 643.5 627.5 629.5 670.8 669.6 669.8 668.4 658.4 661.6 661.6 618.7 619.5 620.7 621.7 622.6 623.4 623.4 624.5 624.6 625.5 625.4 625.7 626.6 626.5627.6 627.6 627.5 628.6 628.4 629.4 629.7 630.6632.6 632.4 634.7 634.3 635.2 635.6 636.6 634.4 611.4 615.4 561.7 562.2 563.4 564.6 565.5 566.4 577.5 576.5 582.9 622.7 621.5 658.8 658.8 658.7 656.5 658.6 657.3 656.5 656.4 654.6 632.6 631.8 630.7 629.3 628.4 630.4 629.3 628.6 627.3 627.3 626.5 626.5 625.8 620.4 622.7 623.5 620.2 619.5 618.2618.4 617.8 617.3617.5 616.4 616.7 615.2615.5 618.7 621.5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X G G G G SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W S S S S S S W W W W W W SD W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSS W W TRACT BOUNDARY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY 6 F S17 S18 S16 S19 299 I 297300 298 294 293 301 S24 295296 373 376 375 360 358359361 369 368 367 366 365 364 363 370 362 372 371 349 357 350 353 354 352351 356 355 374 S25 1 0 0 ' 7 2 ' 8 4 ' 6 4 ' 36 ' 3 6 ' 5 6 ' 36' 56' 56' 36' 56 ' 36 ' 56 ' 42'42'42'47' 74' 42 ' 75' 15' 73' 42 ' 49 ' 32' 2 5' 17'42'62' 49 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 62' 49 ' 26 6 ' 24' 100' 7 1 9 ' 9 1 4 ' 21 8 ' 250' 29' 1 1 4 ' 2 4' 2 4 ' 94 8 ' 237' 32' 50' 53 6 ' 56 ' 5' 24' 56 ' 3 2 ' 28' 21' 24' 3 ' 9 4 5 ' 54 ' 16 1 ' 2.7% 3.1% 1. 5 % 1. 7 % 2. 1 % 0.7% 680.85 FS 645.85 FS 626.33 FS 634.33 FS-HP 625.72 FS 625.03 FS 619.34 FS 614.74 FS 609.26 FS 607.37 FS 511-0-110-035 511-0-110-125 2 : 1 2:1 2:1 JOIN EX. IMPROVEMENTS MER I D I A N H I L L S D R I V E NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y EX. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FUTURE NORTH HILLS PARKWAY EXTENSION (BY OTHERS)TRACT BOUNDARY 3 : 1 R =4 5 0 0 ' (R =115 0') R =5 7 0 ' 24 " 18" 8" 12" 511-0-110-020 511-0-110-010 511-0-110-080 2:1 2:1 10" 10 " 8" 8" 10 " 8" 8" 10" 8" 8"8" R 4 0 ' R =4 2 0 0 ' R=500' R=500' F C 608.17 FS S 89°39'23" E 3125.44' S 0 ° 2 7 ' 2 7 " W 17 5 4 . 7 0 ' 2 : 1 9 7 ' 340' 11 ' 1 0 0 7 ' C F C F 2 0 0 ' 0.5% PRIV A T E D R I V E PRIVATE DRIVE PR I V A T E D R I V E OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE D 6 7 5 63 5 64 0 64 5 650 660 670 64 0 65 0 6 3 5 65 064 0 62 0 61 0 61 5 6 3 0 6 1 5 6 2 0 62 5 61 0 6 2 5 6 2 5 6 2 0 61 5 680 670 660 650 640 66 0 630 640 680 6 3 0 670.00 FL-HP 659.00 FL 2:1 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY 609.2 PAD 609.4 PAD 609.7 PAD 609.5 PAD 609.2 PAD 609.0 PAD 611.6 PAD 610.8 PAD 609.9 PAD VEHICLE TURNAROUND 2.0% 2 9 ' 2 9 ' 1 4 ' 616.3 PAD 616.5 PAD 616.6 PAD 615.9 PAD 616.1 PAD 616.3 PAD 612.8 PAD 613.7 PAD 614.5 PAD 616.3 PAD 616.7 PAD 617.0 PAD 617.3 PAD 618.1 PAD 618.4 PAD 618.6 PAD 618.8 PAD 619.0 PAD 619.3 PAD 619.5 PAD 619.7 PAD 619.9 PAD 620.0 PAD 619.3 PAD 24' 47 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 49 ' 62' 24' 47 ' 42 ' 49 ' 24' 62' 62' 47 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 49 ' 74' 74' 49 ' 74' 42 ' 59' 32 ' 62 ' 62' 47 ' 47' 62 ' 42' 42' 62 ' 44' 44'36' 62' 44 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 42 ' 62' 65' 49 ' 8 0 ' 91 ' 1 4 6 ' 2 6' 2 2 ' 35 6 ' 26' 18 0 ' 5 2 ' 2 3' 1 3 8 ' 59 ' 27' 29 7 ' 8 7 ' 26 ' 42 ' 31 ' 620 2:1 620 63 0 615 R40 ' X 730 7 2 5 725 720 720 720 7 1 5 7 1 5 715 71 5 765 760 755 750 745 740 73 5 73 0 72 5 7 2 0 710 710 71 0 710 70 5 70 5 70 5 705 7 0 0 70 0 700 69 5 69 5 69 0 69 0 690 68 0 680 67 5 67 5 67 0 670 6 6 5 665 66 5 650 655 660 660 68 5 68 5 685 731.4 730.5 729.6 729.5 728.6 728.5 727.5 727.5 725.5 721.5 719.5 717.5 717.4 717.4 718.6 720.5 716.4 719.6 720.5 721.6 722.5 723.6 724.6 725.5 725.6 726.6 726.2 727.7 727.6 722.5 715.4 681.5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X W W W W G G G G G G G G G G 8" W 8" W W W W W W W W W W W EX. RIGHT OF WAY REMOVE AND REPLACE EX. WATERLINE TO RIDGEMARK DR. (REPLACE EX. 8" WITH NEW 12") ME R I D I A N H I L L S D R I V E EX. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TR 5187 (R =115 0') (R =1150') 12 " 12 " 513-0-180-445 513-0-180-455 513-0-130-125 513-0-130-080 JOIN EX. TRAIL LOT TABLE LOT 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 AREA (FTð) 13,211 13,237 14,016 9,727 9,200 9,200 9,633 9,266 8,800 9,621 9,926 9,926 9,418 8,684 8,574 8,819 9,343 8,335 10,068 4,805 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 4,420 4,420 4,379 4,222 8,015 7,832 6,935 6,239 5,625 5,941 4,511 5,360 5,420 7,219 5,496 4,457 4,420 4,420 3,910 3,910 3,959 4,166 4,166 4,618 4,820 PLANNED USE SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD LOT TABLE LOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 AREA (FTð) 10,120 10,450 10,801 10,170 10,080 9,804 10,790 10,790 10,695 16,014 14,357 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,941 11,606 7,959 8,240 8,271 9,759 9,888 8,240 8,941 8,337 9,880 9,743 7,719 7,840 7,840 7,840 7,840 7,958 9,004 8,079 8,406 11,323 9,259 9,303 11,100 10,582 10,893 11,203 11,731 12,741 16,815 21,056 12,471 11,235 8,404 12,397 12,385 11,631 12,307 9,843 9,310 9,310 10,698 10,880 24,152 15,705 PLANNED USE SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD LOT TABLE LOT 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 AREA (FTð) 4,347 4,347 4,347 4,347 4,347 4,347 5,119 5,119 4,335 3,910 3,912 4,286 3,950 4,025 4,462 4,462 4,426 4,022 4,014 4,014 4,014 3,958 4,287 4,287 4,053 4,222 4,222 4,222 4,247 4,449 4,290 4,001 4,001 4,001 4,001 3,952 4,287 4,797 4,483 4,518 4,518 4,519 4,811 4,946 5,645 6,635 9,429 8,148 4,393 4,461 4,420 4,460 4,982 4,981 4,981 4,981 4,981 4,981 4,981 5,257 PLANNED USE SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD LOT TABLE LOT 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 AREA (FTð) 3,057 3,057 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 3,341 3,683 4,312 3,381 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 3,038 3,038 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 3,038 3,038 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 3,047 3,038 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 3,038 3,038 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 3,038 3,296 2,604 2,604 2,809 2,604 3,028 3,028 2,604 3,260 3,034 2,604 3,028 3,028 2,604 2,914 3,447 3,124 3,632 3,796 2,604 2,726 PLANNED USE SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD LOT TABLE LOT 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 AREA (FTð) 4,484 4,809 5,975 5,975 5,975 5,672 5,600 4,453 4,420 4,420 4,772 4,420 4,420 4,940 4,649 4,420 4,420 4,420 4,420 4,469 4,764 7,584 6,580 4,420 4,420 4,420 4,420 3,272 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,856 2,897 2,897 2,897 2,897 2,874 2,803 2,624 2,897 2,897 2,897 2,686 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,914 3,114 3,078 3,530 3,057 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 PLANNED USE SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD LOT TABLE LOT 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 AREA (FTð) 5,435 4,981 5,153 5,153 5,097 5,048 5,615 6,267 7,014 7,868 6,881 6,994 5,995 5,509 5,509 5,509 5,509 5,509 5,509 5,005 4,930 5,132 5,301 5,301 5,564 5,055 5,073 5,061 5,119 4,930 5,517 6,545 4,932 5,195 5,195 5,018 4,863 5,188 5,677 4,983 4,979 4,984 4,984 5,076 4,845 4,420 4,420 4,671 6,610 5,280 4,930 4,930 5,072 5,227 5,123 4,930 4,930 5,091 4,532 4,709 PLANNED USE SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD LOT TABLE LOT 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 AREA (FTð) 3,669 2,655 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,858 5,340 PLANNED USE SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD LOT TABLE LOT A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z ACRES 21.35 ± 2.83 ± 3.12 ± 2.96 ± 0.39 ± 1.56 ± 4.07 ± 3.67 ± 1.53 ± 0.83 ± 0.63 ± 0.12 ± 0.31 ± 2.05 ± 2.63 ± 1.31 ± 0.21 ± 1.28 ± 5.45 ± 2.54 ± 3.99 ± 6.30 ± 2.70 ± 25.31 ± 0.78 ± 5.94 ± PLANNED USE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LOT TABLE LOT 373 374 375 376 377 378 ACRES 4.49 ± 1.02 ± 1.96 ± 5.28 ± 11.67 ± 23.44 ± PLANNED USE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL NOT A PART* *LOT 378 SHALL BE DEEDED TO THE CITY OF MOORPARK LOT TABLE LOT AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ ACRES 1.55 ± 4.61 ± 2.33 ± 2.68 ± 6.77 ± 0.29 ± 0.93 ± 0.72 ± 2.32 ± 0.81 ± PLANNED USE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE DET. BASIN PARK PASSIVE REC O.S. / BASIN RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL REC. SPACE LOT TABLE LOT S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 ACRES 1.93 ± 1.06 ± 0.51 ± 2.17 ± 1.42 ± 1.42 ± 0.44 ± 0.50 ± 0.82 ± 0.52 ± 0.50 ± 0.99 ± 0.59 ± 1.77 ± 2.12 ± 1.74 ± 1.37 ± 0.96 ± 1.69 ± 0.07 ± 0.07 ± 0.08 ± 0.08 ± 0.07 ± 0.08 ± 0.16 ± 0.07 ± 0.07 ± PLANNED USE PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS PRIVATE STREETS REC. SPACE RESIDENTIAL WATER QUALITY DET. BASIN RESIDENTIAL 0 SCALE: 1"=60' 60 120 180 N S EW n: \ p r o j e c t s \ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 h i t c h r a n c h - c o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ t e n t a t i v e m a p \ 0 0 4 7 . 0 2 _ t t m . d w g DR A W I N G : R.C.E. DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER WORK ORDER OFSHEET NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: HORIZ.VERT.SCALE: 333 N. LANTANA ST, SUITE 287, CAMARILLO, CA 93010 PHONE: 805.322.4443 WEBSITE: WWW.ECGCIVIL.COM CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0047 7 HITCH RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5708 AS NOTED N/A GJM GHP GREGORY J. MUSSER 77627 04/06/2022 PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITIES 5 SH E E T 3 SHEET 6 SEE RIGHT SEE LEFT LOT SUMMARY Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 832 58 0 57 5 57 0 5 6 5 56 5 5 6 0 5 5 5 55 5 55 5 555 550 55 5 55 5 560 5 5 5 5 5 5 560 56 0 5 6 0 56 5 565 5 6 5 515 5 1 5 51 5 515 5 1 5 515 51 0 51 0 5 1 0 510 510 505 505 50 5 505 505 50 5 50 5 505 52 0 515 510 505 5 0 0 500 500 5 0 0 500 500 500 500 500 525 525 5 9 5 595 595 595 595 59 5 615 6 1 0 6 1 0 610 6 0 5 605 605 60 0 600 600 600 6 0 0 550 55 0 54 5 5 9 0 590 590 54 0 540 535 53 5 53 0 55 5 56 0 56 0 565 570 575 57 5 580 5 8 0 585 5 9 0 590 585 5 8 0 5 8 0 58 5 5 7 5 58 0 57 0 57 0 514.3 514.3 513.9 513.6 515.2 515.5 515.4 515.4514.9514.7 514.8 514.6 514.5 514.4 514.1 514.5 514.6 513.7513.8 513.4 511.7 511.9 512.5513.8 513.5 512.3 512.8512.8 512.9 513.2 513.7 512.5512.3 512.8 513.6513.4 513.2513.5 514.4 513.6 514.5514.5 514.6514.5512.5 514.6514.2 514.6 514.8513.8513.8 513.5 513.1 514.2 514.5 514.9 514.9 514.5 514.8 512.6512.3 512.6511.8 511.3 511.4 510.5 510.3 509.5 509.2 509.8508.9 508.6 511.4 511.6 511.6 511.6511.4511.3 512.2 507.4 509.5 509.7 509.6 510.3 510.2510.5 510.5510.9 509.9509.3 509.1 509.5509.4509.5 506.5 505.4505.4 505.2 508.3 508.3 508.3 506.5 506.7 506.3 506.7 507.6507.8 507.3 507.8 507.6 507.5 507.8 506.5 506.6 506.7505.5 505.6 505.6 505.7504.4 504.5 503.6 504.8 504.8 501.6 501.4 507.6 508.4507.5 507.6 507.5 508.4 506.3505.1 505.1 505.5 505.1 506.6506.1 506.2 506.7 506.3 504.4 504.7 504.3 504.1 504.7 504.5 502.4 507.4 507.2506.4 506.7 506.4 506.6 506.7 505.5 505.6504.6503.5 503.2 503.3 502.7 501.4501.1 502.3501.7501.5 500.4 500.2499.7 504.4 503.7 502.5 505.2 505.5 505.8 506.3 505.7 503.4 502.7 502.5 502.3 501.9501.6 500.7 504.6503.7503.4502.5502.3 502.2501.6 501.6 499.1 499.4499.4 499.4 500.7 500.3499.8499.2498.9 499.3 499.8 499.9 499.6 500.5 500.4 500.3 500.5 500.6 500.1 500.3 500.7 500.6 500.6 500.7 500.6 501.1 501.5 501.3 501.1 500.7 499.6 504.3 564.4 565.4565.3 566.3 566.6566.4 567.6567.4 567.7567.6 568.4 568.6568.3 568.7 569.7 569.6 569.7 570.6570.4 570.4 571.5 571.6 572.6572.4 572.4 573.2 575.5 583.3 599.6 603.4 603.9 602.6 577.3 577.3 577.6 577.7 577.7 577.6 577.5 579.5578.8 558.5 558.4 558.3 559.6 558.6 557.4 556.8 556.7 556.9 556.9 557.8 557.7 557.5 555.9 556.4 556.3 556.6 557.4 556.6 556.2 556.2 604.6 604.6 569.2 570.5 571.6 561.6 559.6 560.6 561.7 582.7 616.4 616.7 615.2 614.4 615.5 612.6 608.7 607.7 605.5 605.5 604.5 603.6 601.4 599.5 596.4 502.4 502.5 503.6 501.3 501.5 501.4 500.5 500.9 500.6 500.4 500.2 500.6 499.7 500.6 499.9 501.5 502.4 X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 500.00 SMH 488.95 INV (N) 500.01 SMH 489.48 INV (E) 499.96 SMH 489.83 INV (S) 499.97 SMH 489.08 INV (W) 500.68 SMH 500.72 SMH W W W W W S S S COMMCOMM COMMCOMMCOMM CO M M CO M M OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OH W OH W O H W OHW OH W S S S S S S S S S S S S S SWWWWWWWWWWWW 10" SS 10" SS 8" W 8" W 12" W 12" W S S S S S S S S SSS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S C O M M O H W W W W W W W W W W W WGGGGGGGGG G S S S W W W W G G G G G G G FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC F O C FO C FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FOC FO C S S G G G G G G G G G G G G G S S S S S SSSS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 18" SS 18" SS 10 " S S 8" W 18" SS W W W W W WSDSDSD SD SD SDSD S D TRACT BOUNDARY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY X X X X X X X X X X X AI 291289290 292 AJS19 AD 40 ' 75 ' 42 ' 48 ' 62 ' PR O P R . O . W . 42' 62 ' 42' 42' 62 ' 42' 42' 62 ' 42' 47' 62 ' 47' 162'17 ' 16 3 ' 20 7 ' 1 2 1 ' 5' 70'1' 1 2 ' 70' 3 2 ' 21' 89' 12' 1' 25 ' 2 9 ' 1 2 0 ' 5' 1 3 1 ' 27 2 ' 2 4'164' 16 1 ' 105'111'2' 2 4' 3.4% 10.1% 1.4%2.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 2. 8 % 604.05 FS-HP 587.20 FS 564.55 FS568.99 FS574.81 FS 602.23 FS 514.14 FS 511.82 FS-LP 515.03 FS-HP 534.00 FL-HP 508.39 FS 505.50 FS 502.79 FS 511-0-020-205 511-0-020-265 511-0-020-275 511-0-020-120 2:1 HIGH STREET POINDEXTER AVENUE MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK AVENUE CASEY ROAD WALNUT CANYON ROAD WALNUT CANYON ROAD WALNUT CANYON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHAPARRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL POINDEXTER PARK U.S. POST OFFICE CASEY ROAD WIDENING (BY OTHERS) TRACT BOUNDARY TRACT BOUNDARY ESTATE 2 DEDICATION PER RECORD DOCUMENT 97-172929 ESTATE 2 DEDICATION PER RECORD DOCUMENT 97-172929 JOIN EX. IMPROVEMENTS CONNECT TO EX. WATERLINE U.P.R.R. WALNUT CYN CHANNEL JOIN EX. IMPROVEMENTS 36" 36 " 18 " 18" 8" 51 1 - 0 - 1 1 0 - 0 8 0 51 1 - 0 - 1 1 0 - 0 9 0 511-0-110-060 511-0-110-070 511-0-110-035 511-0-020-235 511-0-020-265 511-0-050-175 51 1 - 0 - 0 5 0 - 0 9 0 51 1 - 0 - 0 5 0 - 0 8 0 511-0-050-270 511-0-050-140 512-0-090-050 511-0-090-430511-0-090-420 2:1 F C C F D B L 4 ' x 8 ' D B L 4 ' x 8 ' 4 ' x 8 ' 18 " 1 8 " N 84°25'10" W 337.82' S 1 0 ° 4 0 ' 4 5 " W 22 1 . 7 2 ' S 3 5 ° 3 0 ' 3 0 " W 33 6 . 7 7 ' S 4 1 ° 3 4 ' 3 9 " E 3 0 3 . 9 7 ' R =260.00 L =146.94 Δ = 32°22'48" S 0 ° 2 9 ' 4 7 " W 33 1 . 8 5 ' S 0 ° 2 7 ' 2 7 " W 17 5 4 . 7 0 ' N 89°30'13" W 1681.49' RIGHT OF WAY (8") EX. VCWPD ACCESS RD TO REMAIN DETENTION BASIN OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 377 484.7 FG 5 8 0 6 0 0 605 5 6 5 5 7 0 5 7 5 5 8 0 5 8 5 59 0 59 5 6 0 0 60 0 505 51 0 550 530 520 510 500 490 490 500 600 590 540 EX. 40'-WIDE CASEY RD. R.O.W. TO BE VACATED REMOVE EX. CASEY RD. PAVING 76 ' FU T U R E R . O . W . (B Y O T H E R S ) 80 ' EX . R . O . W . 60 ' PR O P R . O . W . 54 ' PR O P R . O . W . 40 ' EX . R . O . W . 36 ' PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 608.4 PAD608.6 PAD 608.8 PAD 609.0 PAD 378 5 9 0 378 (6'x3.5')(96") 32 ' 4 F C 12 0 ' 560 565 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 610 615 620 560 565 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 610 615 620 625 630 635 640 645 650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685 690 695 700 705 710 625 630 635 640 645 650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685 690 695 700 705 710 525 530 535 540 545 550 555 560 565 570 575 580 585 525 530 535 540 545 550 555 560 565 570 575 580 585 560 565 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 610 615 620 625 560 565 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 610 615 620 625 470 475 480 485 490 495 500 505 510 515 520 525 530 535 540 545 550 555 560 565 570 470 475 480 485 490 495 500 505 510 515 520 525 530 535 540 545 550 555 560 565 570 610 615 620 625 630 635 640 645 650 655 660 665 670 610 615 620 625 630 635 640 645 650 655 660 665 670 EX. GROUND FINISH GROUND CL LOT 23 LOT I OPEN SPACE 2H:1V MAX SLOPE (TYP) SLOPE TERRACE DRAIN 3 ACROSS SECTION SCALE: 1"=40' HORIZ. 1"=20' VERT 3 BCROSS SECTION SCALE: 1"=40' HORIZ. 1"=20' VERT 4 CCROSS SECTION SCALE: 1"=40' HORIZ. 1"=20' VERT 4 DCROSS SECTION SCALE: 1"=40' HORIZ. 1"=20' VERT 4 ECROSS SECTION SCALE: 1"=40' HORIZ. 1"=20' VERT 5 FCROSS SECTION SCALE: 1"=40' HORIZ. 1"=20' VERT PL 2' AT 2%613.5 PAD 100' NORTH HILLS PKWY R.O.W.R.O.W. 2' AT 2% 2' AT 2% LOT 100 LOT 0 OPEN SPACE PL 576.9 PAD CL 84' MERIDIAN HILLS DR R.O.W.R.O.W. 2' AT 2% LOT B OPEN SPACE EX. GROUND FINISH GROUND SLOPE TERRACE DRAIN SLOPE TERRACE DRAIN 2H:1V MAX SLOPE (TYP) LO T C RE C S P A C E TRACT BDY CL 80' STREET "A" R.O.W. 2' AT 2%2' AT 2% PL LOT P OPEN SPACE 3.5H:1V SLOPE 2' AT 2% LOT 377 FINISH GROUND EX. GROUND 3H:1V SLOPE CL 74' CASEY RD R.O.W.R.O.W. 2' AT 2%2' AT 2% LOT 377 LOT AI OPEN SPACE 2H:1V MAX SLOPE (TYP)EX. GROUND FINISH GROUND 2H:1V MAX SLOPE (TYP) LOT 374 2H:1V MAX SLOPE (TYP) FINISH GROUND EX. GROUND TRACT BDY 2H:1V MAX SLOPE (TYP) 2H:1V MAX SLOPE SLOPE TERRACE DRAIN SLOPE TERRACE DRAIN EX. GROUND FINISH GROUNDLOT 378 BASIN / FUTURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CL 75' HIGH ST R.O.W.R.O.W. BOTTOM WIDTH VARIES DETENTION BASIN 15' BASIN ACCESS RD CONC. GUTTER TRACT BDY LOT AD 25' VCWPD ESM'T U.P.R.R. R.O.W. 2H:1V MAX SLOPE 200' NORTH HILLS PKWY CORRIDOR 12' TRAIL LOT 111 574.8 PAD 12' TRAIL LOT 285 PL 2' AT 2% 610.2 PAD 2H:1V MAX SLOPE (TYP) 12' TRAIL 2' AT 2% 511-0-110-035 50 2 - 0 - 1 6 0 - 0 9 5 PL LO T D OP E N S P A C E 3 12' TRAIL 2' AT 2% PH A S E 1 PH A S E 2 EX. VCWPD ACCESS RD. TO REMAIN 0 SCALE: 1"=60' 60 120 180 N S EW n: \ p r o j e c t s \ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 h i t c h r a n c h - c o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ t e n t a t i v e m a p \ 0 0 4 7 . 0 2 _ t t m . d w g DR A W I N G : R.C.E. DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER WORK ORDER OFSHEET NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: HORIZ.VERT.SCALE: 333 N. LANTANA ST, SUITE 287, CAMARILLO, CA 93010 PHONE: 805.322.4443 WEBSITE: WWW.ECGCIVIL.COM CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0047 7 HITCH RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5708 AS NOTED N/A GJM GHP GREGORY J. MUSSER 77627 04/06/2022 PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITIES 6 SH E E T 4 SHEET 5 STREET CENTERLINE ELEV FL ELEV TC VA R I E S SL O P E PAD XX XXX.X BUILDING ENVELOPE * SE T B A C K L I N E *G A R A G E SE T B A C K *B U I L D I N G SE T B A C K * MINIMUM SETBACKS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANNING DEPT APPROVAL TYPICAL SFD LOT DRAINAGE SIDEWALK ELEV FL ELEV TC SIDEWALK 1. 5 % M I N 14 % M A X CONC CURB AND GUTTER (H=6-INCHES) SCALE: N.T.S. DRIVEWAY APPROACHLANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING 1% M I N . MI N 1% FS ELEV 1% MIN. SWALE PAD-0.1' FL-HP PAD 1% MIN . 1 %M I N . FG 1% M I N . PAD FG > 1' AT 2% R=10'R=10' 2H : 1 V M A X . 2' MIN. 2' MIN. FS ELEV P/L P/L P/L 2' A T 2% 2H:1V MAX. 5' M I N > > 3' MIN. 3' MIN. *R E A R SE T B A C K HIGH STREET EAST OF TRACT BOUNDARY 80' 5' WALK EX. N'LY R.O.W. 20' TRAVEL & BIKE LANE 20' TRAVEL & BIKE LANE EX. S'LY R.O.W. CL 2.0%2.0% 2.0% MAX C&G TYPE A2-6EX. C&G & WALK ALONG POST OFFICE FRONTAGE 3'8' PKWY SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. 5' EX. WALK HIGH STREET AT MOORPARK AVE INTERSECTION 54' 7.5' WALK 12' RT TURN LANE S'LY R.O.W. 2.0%2.0% 2.0% MAX C&G TYPE A2-6C&G TYPE A2-6 5' SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ. 1"=10" VERT. 5' EX. WALK EX. S'LY R.O.W. EX. N'LY R.O.W. 40' 12' TRAVEL LANE 12.5' TRAVEL LANE Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 833 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X 0 SCALE: 1"=40' 40 80 120 N S EW n: \ p r o j e c t s \ 0 0 4 7 \ 0 2 h i t c h r a n c h - c o m s t o c k \ e n g i n e e r i n g \ a c a d \ t e n t a t i v e m a p \ 0 0 4 7 . 0 2 _ t t m . d w g DR A W I N G : R.C.E. DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER WORK ORDER OFSHEET NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: HORIZ.VERT.SCALE: 333 N. LANTANA ST, SUITE 287, CAMARILLO, CA 93010 PHONE: 805.322.4443 WEBSITE: WWW.ECGCIVIL.COM CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0047 7 HITCH RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5708 AS NOTED N/A GJM GHP GREGORY J. MUSSER 77627 04/06/2022 PRELIMINARY INTERSECTION LAYOUTS 7 POINDEXTER AVE / GABBERT RD / HIGH ST SCALE: 1"=40' GABBERT RD HIGH ST POINDE X T E R A V E UPRR 1 2 ' 5 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 5 ' 5'15'12' 12'5' 20' 11' 5'12' 12' 12' 12'5' 12' GABBERT RD 21 ' 21 ' LOT Z DETENTION BASIN 2 LOT AD OPEN SPACE LOT X OPEN SPACE 511-0-200-255 WALNUT C Y N C H A N N E L LOT Y OPEN SPACE GABBERT RD / NORTH HILLS PKWY SCALE: 1"=40' 5'12'12'12'12'5'10' FUTURE CU R B FUTURE CUR B 5 ' 1 2 ' 5 ' 1 2 ' 5 ' 1 2 ' 1 0 ' 5 ' GABBERT RD NORTH H I L L S P K W Y LOT Z DETENTION BASIN 2 LOT X OPEN SPACE LOT W OPEN SPACE LOT V DETENTION BASIN 2B TRACT BDY HIGH ST / STREET A SCALE: 1"=40' LOT AE PARK LOT 378 DETENTION BASIN 3 STREET A HIGH ST UPRR LOT AD OPEN SPACE WALNUT CYN CHANNEL TRACT BDY TRACT BDY 20'20' 10' 20' 5 0 ' MOUNTABLE SURFACE YIELD LINE (TYP) 21 ' 21 ' 2 1 ' 2 1 ' CENTRAL ISLAND (LANDSCAPE) MOUNTABLE SPLITTER ISLAND (TYP) CIRCULATORY TRAVEL LANE STREET A / STREET L SCALE: 1"=40' LOT 377 P.A.4 LOT P OPEN SPACE LOT N OPEN SPACESTR E E T L (PR I V A T E ) 18' 18' 10' 20' 5 0 ' STR E E T A CENTRAL ISLAND (LANDSCAPE) MOUNTABLE SURFACE CIRCULATORY TRAVEL LANE MOUNTABLE SPLITTER ISLAND (TYP) YIELD LINE (TYP) 2 0 ' 2 0 ' 20' 20' STREET A / CASEY RD SCALE: 1"=40' LO T N OPE N S P A C E 118 119 120 LOT J OPEN SPACE LOT AI OPEN SPACE 377 10' 20' 5 0 ' CENTRAL ISLAND (LANDSCAPE) MOUNTABLE SURFACE CIRCULATORY TRAVEL LANE MOUNTABLE SPLITTER ISLAND (TYP) YIELD LINE (TYP) 20' 20' STREET A CA S E Y R D 20 ' 20 ' 20' 20' 20 ' 20 ' STREET A / NORTH HILLS PKWY SCALE: 1"=40' NOR T H H I L L S P K W Y STREE T A STRE E T A LOT AF OPEN SPACE LOT I OPEN SPACE LOT D OPEN SPACE LOT C REC SPACE 373 80 81 LOT O OPEN SPACE LOT J OPEN SPACE LOT F OPEN SPACE 5 ' 1 2 ' 5 ' RAISED MED I A N RAISED M E D I A N RAIS E D M E D I A N RAIS E D M E D I A N 5 ' 1 0 ' 5 ' 20' 20' 5' 20' 10' 19' 5' RA I S E D ME D I A N RA I S E D ME D I A N STREET A / MERIDIAN HILLS DR SCALE: 1"=40' STR E E T G ST R E E T B STREET A LOT C REC SPACE LOT B OPEN SPACE LOT A OPEN SPACE LOT E OPEN SPACE 40' 50' 7 5 ' SPLITTER ISLAND (TYP)YIELD LINE (TYP) MOUNTABLE SURFACE CIRCULATORY TRAVEL LANE 2 5 ' 2 5 ' 25'25' 20' 20' 2 5 ' MERIDIAN HILLS D R HIGH ST / MOORPARK AVE SCALE: 1"=40' U.S POST OFFICE 5' 14'11'15' 12 ' 12 ' 12 ' 13 ' 12'10'20'15' 20 ' 20 ' 8' 5' 3' 5' 511-0-050-090 511-0-050-080 511-0-050-270 512-0-090-050 7. 5 ' 12 . 5 ' 12 ' 12 ' 5' 5' EX. R.O.W. PROPOSED R.O.W. EX. R.O.W. PROPOSED R.O.W. 14 ' R=200' R=200' 25 ' EDGE OF PAVEME N T EDGE OF P A V E M E N T 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 5 ' 5 ' 1 0 ' 11' 10'14'17' 11'11' HIGH ST MOORPARK AVE Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 834 Specific Plan | May 2022 Hitch Ranch EXHIBIT EResolution No. 2022-4104 Page 835 ii Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 836 iiiTable of Contents | May 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Document Organization ..................................................ES-2 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Specific Plan .........................................1-1 1.2 Authority and Scope .....................................................1-2 1.2.1 California Government Code Compliance ...........1-2 1.2.2 City of Moorpark Zoning Code Compliance ......1-3 17.78.020 Definitions ................................................................1-3 17.78.030 General Provisions ...............................................1-3 17.78.040 Open Space ............................................................1-4 1.3 Project Site Location ....................................................1-5 1.3.1 Physical Setting .................................................................1-5 1.3.2 Existing Land Uses and On-site Characteristics ...............................................................1-7 1.4 Specific Plan Goals ........................................................1-9 CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2.1 Land Use Plan ....................................................................2-1 2.2 Circulation Plan ............................................................2-5 2.2.1 Streets ................................................................................2-5 CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC SERVICES & FACILITIES 3.1 Utilities and Public Services ........................................3-1 3.1.1 Fire Protection .................................................................3-2 3.1.2 Police Protection ...........................................................3-3 3.1.3 Schools...............................................................................3-3 3.2 Public Facilities ..............................................................3-4 3.2.1 Domestic Water System ..............................................3-4 3.2.2 Wastewater System .....................................................3-5 3.2.3 Storm Water Drainage ................................................3-6 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 837 iv Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch 3.2.4 Natural Gas .....................................................................3-7 3.2.5 Electricity ........................................................................3-8 3.2.6 Communication ............................................................3-8 3.2.7 Infrastructure Responsibility ...................................3-8 CHAPTER 4 DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.1 Design Philosophy And Guidelines Framework .....4-1 4.2 Hitch Ranch Setting ......................................................4-2 4.3 Community Design Guidelines ....................................4-3 Landscape Concept ..............................................................4-3 4.3.1 Landscaping Along Major Roads .............................4-5 4.3.2 Slopes and Fuel Modification Zone ......................4-6 4.3.3 Storm Water Detention Areas ................................4-6 4.3.4 Public Open Space & Recreation Areas .............4-7 4.3.5 Multi-Use Trails .............................................................4-8 4.3.6 Project and Neighborhood Entries ....................4-10 4.3.7 Walls and Fences ........................................................4-12 4.3.8 Lighting Concept ........................................................4-15 4.3.9 Private Recreation Areas .......................................4-16 4.4 Building Elements .........................................................4-17 4.4.1 Detached Neighborhoods ........................................4-17 4.4.2 Attached Neighborhoods .....................................4-24 4.5 Architecture ................................................................4-29 4.6 Architectural Styles .................................................4-31 CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 5.1 Development Standards .................................................5-1 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 General ................................................................................6-1 6.2 Phasing ...............................................................................6-2 6.3 Public And Private Facilities And Services ...........6-3 6.4 Specific Plan Administration ....................................6-4 6.4.1 Minor Modifications .....................................................6-5 6.4.2 Major Modifications ....................................................6-5 6.4.3 Conditional Use Permits ..........................................6-6 APPENDIX A LANDSCAPE PALETTE A.1 Approved Landscape Palette .....................................A-1 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 838 vTable of Contents | May 2022 LIST OF EXHIBITS & TABLES CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Figure 1-1: Regional Map .........................................................1-5 Figure 1-2: Surrounding Land Use ......................................1-5 Figure 1-3: Aerial Photograph ..............................................1-6 Figure 1-4: Assessor Parcel Numbers ...............................1-7 CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN Figure 2-1: Illustrative Land Use Plan ...............................2-2 Table 2-1 Land Use Designation Summary .....................2-3 Figure 2-2: Illustrative Site Plan .........................................2-4 Figure 2-3: Circulation Plan .................................................2-5 Figure 2-4: Street Section- North Hills Parkway ........2-6 Figure 2-5: Street Section- Gabbert Road South of North Hills Parkway .......................2-7 Figure 2-6A: Street Section- High Street .......................2-8 Figure 2-6B: Street Section- High Street .......................2-8 Figure 2-6C: Street Section- High Street ......................2-9 Figure 2-7: Street Section- Meridian Hills Drive ........2-10 Figure 2-7A: Street Section - Street A ............................2-11 Figure 2-7B: Street Section - Street A ...........................2-12 Figure 2-7C: Street Section - Street A Roundabout 2-12 Figure 2-8: Street Section - Casey Road .......................2-13 Figure 2-9: Street Section- Local Street with On-Street Parking ......................................................2-14 Figure 2-10: Street Section- Local Street without Parking ............................................................2-14 Figure 2-12: Roundabout Plans ..........................................2-15 Figure 2-12: Roundabout Elevation ..................................2-15 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 839 vi Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC SERVICES & FACILITIES Figure 3-1: Fuel Modification Zone ...................................3-2 Figure 3-2: Domestic Water System ................................3-4 Figure 3-3: Wastewater System .........................................3-5 Figure 3-4: Storm Water Drainage ...................................3-6 Table 3-1 Infrastructure Responsibility Summary .......3-9 CHAPTER 4 DESIGN GUIDELINES Key Map: Major Roads ..........................................................4-5 Figure 4-1: High Street Active Park Conceptual Plan ...........................................................4-7 Figure 4-2: High Street Passive Park Conceptual Plan ..........................................................4-8 Figure 4-3: Conceptual Trails Plan ...................................4-9 Figure 4-4a: Entry Landscape/ Monumentation Concepts ......................................4-10 Figure 4-4b: Entry Landscape/ Monumentation Concepts .......................................4-11 Figure 4-5: Landscape Accent Fencing ........................4-12 Figure 4-6: Fence Concept ...............................................4-13 Figure 4-7: Fencing Examples ...........................................4-14 Figure 4-8: Parks, Lighting Concept ..............................4-15 Figure 4-9: Conceptual Private Recreation Area .....4-16 CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Figure 5-1: Planning Area 1 ...................................................5-2 Figure 5-2: Planning Area 2 .................................................5-2 Table 5-1 Planning: Development Standards ................5-2 Figure 5-3: Planning Area 3 .................................................5-3 Figure 5-4: Planning Area 4 .................................................5-4 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION Figure 6-1: Phasing Plan ........................................................6-3 APPENDIX A LANDSCAPE PALETTE Table A-1 Master Plant Palette ..........................................A-2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 840 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1903, Archibald Hitch and his family left Tennessee and ventured out west, arriving in Moorpark, California. A spot on the map, with rolling hills reminiscent of the Scottish Moors, sweeping views and promising agricultural potential. Quickly recognizing the climate was perfect for harvesting crops, Mr. Hitch set out planting beans. Moorpark was a growing community and Mr. Hitch, a dreamer, a doer and everything in between started laying the groundwork necessary to make it sustainable for future generations. Mr. Hitch instilled principles of sustainability, education, generosity and congregation, that truly made this land a community – and a place to call home. Today, over a century later, we honor him and his tireless dedication to this land by introducing Hitch Ranch. A part of the new Moorpark where future generations will plant their own passions and watch them grow. Where neighbors become family, where grandparents are just down the street, and childhood friends are commonplace. Whatever journey you’re on, the Hitch Ranch community has a meaningful place for you. Welcome home. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 841 ES-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch The Hitch Ranch community has been thoughtfully designed, organized and crafted to bring Moorpark a new high quality, welcoming community. One that encourages outdoor activity, appreciates historic legacy, and strives to provide homes for generations to come. Planning Areas have been designed to encourage a wide range of household needs while creating a strong sense of place. The architectural styles have been chosen to pay tribute to the past, honor the present and progress with the future. The landscape design enhances the community aesthetic and theme while acknowledging natural conditions. With trails, recreational amenities, and open spaces, Hitch Ranch residents will reinvigorate and refresh as they go outside, join the community, and spend time in their beautiful surroundings. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan defines a vision and establishes standards and requirements for site development. The Specific Plan is arranged into six chapters as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction This chapter provides the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan, site location, historical context, and explains existing and surrounding conditions affecting the Specific Plan area. Additionally, this chapter summarizes the entitlements required for the project, notes general provisions, definitions and relationship to the Moorpark Municipal Code, and explains the project goals. Lastly, this chapter defines the goals of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan. Chapter 2 Development Plan Forming the core of the Specific Plan document, this chapter presents the Land Use Plan which describes the land uses and information pertaining to these designations. Additionally, this section discusses the Circulation Plan inclusive of street sections . Chapter 3 Public Services and Facilities This chapter describes the public services, solid waste disposal, utilities, emergency services, and school provisions. This chapter also provides a table explaining infrastructure implementation responsibility. Chapter 4 Design Guidelines The design guidelines discuss requirements and design directions to successfully implement the community aesthetic vision and character. Both landscape and architectural elements are identified in this chapter. Chapter 5 Development Standards Chapter 5 explains the development standards for each planning area. In such cases where the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan text, regulations and standards conflict with those in sections contained in the City of Moorpark Municipal Code, the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan development text, regulations and standards shall apply. Chapter 6 Implementation Chapter 6 discusses the provisions for financing/maintenance of improvements, the process for implementation, and procedures for amending this Specific Plan. Appendix A Landscape Palette Appendix B General Plan Consistency Appendix B defines how the Specific Plan is consistent with the Moorpark General Plan goals and policies. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 842 1Chapter INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (“Specific Plan No. 1”, hereafter Hitch Ranch Specific Plan) provides the City of Moorpark with a comprehensive planning document to direct the orderly development of the 277.30-acre property known as Hitch Ranch (see Figure 1-1). The Specific Plan provides a conceptual land use plan, regulations, guidelines and programs to ensure that this area of the city is developed in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, principles and policies of the City of Moorpark General Plan (referred to in this document as the General Plan). The Specific Plan allows development of a variety of residential, recreational, and public uses within the Specific Plan area. The regulations and guidelines contained in this Specific Plan will ensure that these uses and the associated infrastructure elements and public spaces are planned and designed in an integrated manner. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 843 1-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch 1.2 AUTHORITY AND SCOPE California Government Code (Sections 65450 through 65457) and the City of Moorpark Municipal Code (Chapter 17.16.070) authorize the preparation and adoption of specific plans. The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of these codes as summarized in the following pages. 1.2.1 California Government Code Compliance California Government Code Section 65450 gives a legislative body the authority to prepare a specific plan for the systematic implementation of the General Plan for all or part of the area covered by the General Plan. As outlined in the Government Code Sections 65451-65452, specific plans are to contain a text and diagram or diagrams specifying the following*: • The distribution, location, and extent of land uses. The goals of the proposed Specific Plan, as defined in Section 1.4, provide the background for the proposed land uses and their distribution throughout the project site. Section 2.1 contains a detailed land-use table (Table 2-1) and a Land Use Plan (Figure 2-1). The project includes 755 residential units, public parkland, recreation areas, open space and stormwater detention basin/ open space areas; • The distribution, location, and extent of major infrastructure improvements needed to support the land uses described in the plan. Section 2.2 describes the circulation plan for the site, including street sections. Domestic water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure as well as utilities are outlined in Section 3.2 of the proposed Specific Plan. (A detailed infrastructure plan will be prepared as a part of the Tentative Tract Map process); • Development standards and criteria. The Specific Plan includes both Development Guidelines in Section 4 and Development Regulations in Section 5. Section 6 identifies implementation measures including phasing, funding and administration for this Specific Plan; • Specific plans are used to implement general plans by providing a statement of planning policies that apply to the specific plan area and that organize policy details, regulations and standards into a focused document. The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan provides focused guidance for development in the Hitch Ranch Plan Area. The Specific Plan implements the general plan and as such is not an element of a general plan. Consistent with the requirements of Govt. Code §65454, a specific plan may not be adopted unless the proposed plan is consistent with the general plan; therefore, an analysis of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan’s consistency with the City of Moorpark General Plan is provided in Appendix B: General Plan Consistency. • Any other subjects which are necessary or desirable for the implementation of the General Plan. *The italicized text indicates where in Specific Plan these requirements have been addressed. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 844 1-3Introduction | May 2022 1Chapter The City of Moorpark Municipal Code shall regulate development in the Specific Plan Area, except as modified by the regulations contained herein. In such cases where the specific plan development regulations conflict with those in other Chapters of Title 17 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code, the Specific Plan development standards shall apply. Any future amendments to the City of Moorpark Municipal Code, which are not addressed by Specific Plan Amendment No. 2019-01, shall also apply to the Specific Plan area, as applicable. The establishment and changes of the zone district classification on land in the Specific Plan area shall be as described in this Chapter and shall be adopted by an ordinance amending the City zoning map. The zone districts for the Specific Plan shall be consistent with the Land Use Summary (Table 2-1) and Illustrative Land Use Plan (Figure 2-1) of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan. All land use entitlements and permits issued within the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan shall be consistent with the Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan. the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, and amending Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code of the City of Moorpark to place such regulations as Chapter 17.78 within said code as follows: 17.78.020 Definitions Words and terms used in the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan development standards or regulations shall have the same definitions as given in the City of Moorpark Municipal Code, including Title 17, Zoning, except as defined within this Specific Plan. Open Space: The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan defines open space to include natural open space, water quality and stormwater/habitat basins, active recreation areas and parks. 17.78.030 General Provisions These development standards or regulations regulate all development within Specific Plan. The following general provisions apply to all zone districts within the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan. 1.2.2 City of Moorpark Zoning Code Compliance The Specific Plan (SP) zone is established in Chapter 17.12 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code. A key function of the Specific Plan is to reduce the need for subsequent master planning and environmental review procedures as the project area is developed. The Specific Plan fixes the general layout and configuration of streets, and defines the land uses allowed in the Specific Plan area. At the time of subdivision of land, subdivision maps will precisely fix the boundary of the land uses, the location of streets, and the configuration of residential lots. The Specific Plan shall serve as the zoning regulations and development standards for the Hitch Ranch plan area. The Hitch Ranch Development Regulations are written in the format of Title 17 Zoning of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code. An ordinance of the City of Moorpark, California is enacted, adopting development standards for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan consistent with Specific Plan No. 2019-01 amending the zoning map of the City of Moorpark to reflect Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 845 1-4 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Since it is not feasible to compose legislative language which encompasses all conceivable land use situations, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to interpret the standards or regulations contained in this Specific Plan, but only when such interpretation is necessitated by a lack of specificity in such regulations or standards. Procedures for the processing of land use entitlement for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, including permits and variances, shall be the same as defined in Chapter 17.44 of Title 17 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code, except as provided for in Chapter 6 of this Specific Plan. 17.78.040 Open Space The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan defines open space to include natural open space, water quality and stormwater/habitat basins, active recreation areas and parks. Permitted uses with Open Space areas are limited to revegetation, restoration and enhancement, management, grading and utilities necessary to serve the Specific Plan area, hiking trails and public facilities. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 846 1-5Introduction | May 2022 1Chapter PROJECT SITE Moorpark City Limits Moorpark City Limits HIGH ST. / DOWNTOWN CASEY RD. WAL N U T CA N Y O N R D . POINDEXT E R AVE. LOS A N G E L E S A V E . ARRO Y O S I M I TIERRA RE J A D A RD. SP R I N G R D . RR RR BROADWAY 23 118 North 0 .25 .5 Mile CITY HALL WALNUT CYN. SCHOOL CHAPARRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL ARROYO VISTA COMMUNITY PARK MOORPARK HIGH SCHOOL G A B B E R T R D . METRO LINK Figure 1-2: Surrounding Land UseFigure 1-1: Regional Map High St. / Downtown Poindexte r Ave. Los Angeles Ave. EXISTING INDUSTRIALSCE SUBSTATION EXISTING RESIDENTIAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL CITY HALL Wal n u t Ca n y o n Rd . Walnut Canyon School OPEN SPACE Existing ResidentialPROJECT SITE RESIDENTIAL Chapparal Middle School Vacant Parcel Vacant Parcel SCE T R A N S M I S S I O N C O R R I D O R S C E T R A N S M I S S I O N C O R R I D O R Mo o r p a r k A v e . G a b b e r t R d . S pr i n g R d . CASEY R D . Wa l n u t C a n y o n C h a n n e l Walnut C y n . C h a n n e l North 0 600'1200' Railroad T i e r r a R e j a d a R d. City Park VACANT RURAL RESIDENTIAL High St. / Downtown Poindexte r Ave. Los Angeles Ave. EXISTING INDUSTRIALSCE SUBSTATION EXISTING RESIDENTIAL RURALRESIDENTIAL CITYHALL Walnut Canyon Rd.WalnutCanyonSchoolOPENSPACEExistingResidentialPROJECTSITERESIDENTIAL Chapparal Middle School VacantParcelVacantParcel SCE T R A N S M I S S I O N C O R R I D O R SCE T R A N S M I S S I O N C O R R I D O R Mo o r p a r k A v e . G a b b e r t R d . S p r i n g R d . CASEY RD. Wa l n u t C a n y o n C h a n n e l Walnut C y n . C h a n n e l North 0 600'1200' Railroad T i e r r a R e j a d a R d . City Park VACANT RURALRESIDENTIAL 1.3 PROJECT SITE LOCATION 1.3.1 Physical Setting The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan area project site is located within the City of Moorpark, Ventura County, California between Simi Hills and Little Simi Valley (See Figure 1-1, Regional Map) The Specific Plan area is located in the rolling hills north of Poindexter Avenue and west of Casey Road and Walnut Canyon Elementary School. The eastern boundary of the project site is located 1,400 feet west of Gabbert Road. Surrounding land uses are illustrated on Figure 1-2. An aerial photograph of the site and surrounding area is shown on Figure 1-3. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 847 1-6 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch A few single-family homes and the Walnut Canyon Elementary School are located immediately to the east, and the Moorpark downtown area is located about one quarter of a mile further east. A mix of institutional, residential, light industrial and commercial land uses occur to the south. Single-family homes at rural densities, and open space, are located to the west. Residential development and open space are located to the north. A Ventura County Watershed Protection Agency concrete flood control channel (Walnut Canyon Channel) borders the southern boundary. The Ventura County Transportation Commission/Union Pacific Railroad tracks are located just south of the flood channel. A narrow strip of flat, vacant land separates the tracks from Poindexter Avenue, which is a two-lane collector between Moorpark Avenue on the east and Gabbert Road to the west. The Specific Plan area is located within the boundaries of the City and is not within an area subject to SOAR voter approval. Figure 1-3: Aerial Photograph LOS ANGELES AVELOS ANGELES AVE MO O R P A R K A V E MO O R P A R K A V E GA B B E R T R D GA B B E R T R D SP R I N G R D SP R I N G R D HIGH ST.HIGH ST. HITCH RANCHHITCH RANCH POINDEXT E R A V E POINDEXT E R A V E WAL N U T C A N Y O N R D WAL N U T C A N Y O N R D Chaparral Chaparral Middle Middle SchoolSchool Meridian HillsMeridian Hills Moorpark Moorpark Country ClubCountry Club Moorpark Moorpark HighlandsHighlands City City HallHall Walnut Walnut Canyon Canyon Elementary Elementary SchoolSchool Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 848 1-7Introduction | May 2022 1Chapter 1.3.2 Existing Land Uses and On-site Characteristics The proposed project site encompasses seven parcels totaling 277.30 acres of land, including APN #’s 511-0-020-11, 511-0-020-13, 511-0-020-16, 511-0-020-17, 511-0-020-18, 511-0-020-19, 511-0- 200-24 illustrated in Figure 1-4. The site’s topography is generally undeveloped and hilly, characterized by a series of moderately sloped northeast and southwest trending ridge spurs with intervening southwest draining valleys. An east-to-west trending knoll occurs in the south/ central portion of the site. The flat area along the southern site periphery represents the geomorphic transition from hillside area to the valley area of Moorpark. The site is visible from Los Angeles Avenue (Highway 118). An east-west trending series of hills through the middle of the site blocks views of much of the site’s interior from passing motorists or residents on the south side of Poindexter Avenue. Additional north-to-south trending hills partially block views of the site’s interior, at the eastern and western ends of the site. 511-0-200-24 511-0-020-19 511-0-020-17 511-0- 020-18 511-0-020-16 511-0-020-11 511-0-020-13 Casey Rd. Figure ____ Poindexter A v e . Gab b e r t Rd . North 0 370'740' EXISTING SITE SCE SC E SC E Figure 1-4: Assessor Parcel Numbers Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 849 1-8 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Biology Due to many years of crop production and cattle grazing, most of the ground surface has been disturbed and very little native vegetation remains. There are no significant oak trees or permanent waterways on the site. Historically, the predominant plant communities occurring on the site have been non-native grassland, bacharis scrub, and coastal sage scrub. Several stands of mature eucalyptus and California pepper trees occur at scattered locations on the site. A fire in October 2003 completely burned the project site and eliminated all bacharis and sage scrub, and killed most trees on the property. Historical Use Hitch Ranch was historically used for commercial farming operations, including apricot production during the 1950’s, and limited dry farming from time to time since then. The more recent farming ventures failed commercially and no crop farming has occurred on-site for over a decade. Remnants of the former apricot farming operation and the last remnants for any on-site structures burned down in the fire of October 2003. Only scattered concrete foundation slabs and footings remain and do not represent any items of historical significance according the to Hitch Ranch EIR Cultural Resources Report. County of Ventura records indicate that at least 15 water wells have been drilled at various locations on the site. A water tank is also present in the northeastern area of the site. Utilities Eleven overhead electrical transmission lines within two easements, traverse the western portion of the site, in west-to-east and north- to-south alignments. These lines are part of Southern California Edison (SCE) regional grid system and connect to the SCE Moorpark Substation located just southwest of the project site. Lines and voltage ranges include the local Gabbert 16 kV line, the 66 kV Saugus- Moorpark-Santa Susana-Torrey line, the 220 kV Moorpark-Pardee No. 3, 2 and 1 lines, the 220 kV Moorpark-Santa Clara No. 1 and 2 lines, and the 220 kV Moorpark-Ormond Beach lines. The towers onsite are 75 feet high. There are also local distribution electrical lines, cable TV and telephone lines on poles near the Hitch Ranch property on the west, south and east. Underground water, sewer and storm drain lines are adjacent to the site and depicted in Figure 3-4: Storm Water Drainage. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 850 1-9Introduction | May 2022 1Chapter 1.4 SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS The project has been designed to fulfill the following Hitch Ranch Specific Plan goals: • Create a new community that allows for residential and parkland development, while preserving natural resources and open space. • Provide reduced density buffer areas on the north and west portions of the site to preserve and protect the existing rural and equestrian neighborhoods and uses. • Create quality residential neighborhoods and public park facilities consistent with the goals of the City of Moorpark General Plan. • Provide a property tax base to support public services and fully offset costs of the proposed development. • Establish development regulations to ensure that residential neighborhoods are compatible with the surrounding area. • Assure appropriate phasing and financing for community facilities including street and road improvements, water, urban runoff and flood control facilities, sewage disposal facilities, schools, and parks. • Create a community that is visually attractive, compatible with the existing land uses adjacent to the project site and organized and designed to provide efficient and orderly use of the site. • Provide for comprehensive planning to assure the orderly development of the planning area in relation to the surrounding community. • Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are complimentary with surrounding land uses. • Establish land uses that permit a range of housing opportunities with varying densities, types, styles, prices, and tenancy characteristics. • Designate sites for needed public facilities, including flood control facilities, regional roadways, parks and trails. • Create neighborhoods with lasting value by setting high quality standards for residential land development. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 851 1-10 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 852 2-1Development Plan | May 2022 2Chapter2Chapter DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2.1 LAND USE PLAN The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan envisions four distinct residential neighborhoods with public roads, a public park along High Street, shared private recreational facilities, a local trail network, an affordable housing site (City Donation Parcel) to be donated to and developed by the City of Moorpark, and direct access to the historic Downtown Moorpark commercial district and Civic Center. The residential neighborhoods have been placed on the extended upper plateau of Hitch Ranch, approximately 80 to 140 feet above the valley floor to the south. The neighborhoods are relatively flat (2% to 6% street grade) and are inter-connected by landscaped collector roads with multi-use trails and sidewalks. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 853 2-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Figure 2-1: Illustrative Land Use Plan NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y PA-1PA-1 PA-1 GROSS AREAPA-1 GROSS AREA PA-2 GROSS AREAPA-2 GROSS AREA O-S GROSS AREAO-S GROSS AREA PA-4 PA-4 GROSS GROSS AREAAREA PA-3 PA-3 GROSS GROSS AREAAREA PA-1APA-1A PA-2PA-2 PA-3PA-3 BASINBASIN BASINBASIN BA S I N BA S I N PARK PARK O-SO-S PA-4PA-4 CASEY ROADCASEY ROAD STR E E T A STR E E T A HIGH STREETHIGH STREET GA B B E R T R O A D GA B B E R T R O A D M E R I D I A N H I L L S D R I V EMERIDIAN H I L L S D R I V ELEGEND PA-1 Single Family PA-2 Single Family PA-3 Single & Attached PA-4 Multi-Family PA-1A PA-1A CommunityAmenity O-S Open Space Park Open Space/Basins LOT 378LOT 378 CITY DONATION PARCELCITY DONATION PARCEL (NOT A PART)(NOT A PART) PASSIVE PARK/BASINPASSIVE PARK/BASIN Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 854 2-3Development Plan | May 2022 2Chapter TABLE 2-1 LAND USE DESIGNATION SUMMARY Planning Area Land Use Designation Land Use Description Gross Area (Acres) # of Dwelling Units 1 Planning Area Proposed Density (DU/gross ac) Open Space Uses within Planning Area (Acres) PA1 RPD-2U Single-family Residential 55.41 79 1.43 DU/gross ac 17.33 PA1A Recreation HOA Recreation Area 6.08 0 N/A 3.12 PA2 RPD-4U Single-family Residential 62.1 188 3.03 DU/gross ac 11.28 PA3 RPD-8U Single-family & Attached Residential 32.8 253 7.71 DU/gross ac 2.53 PA4 RPD-20U Multi-family Residential 11.67 235 20 DU/gross ac 0 Residential Subtotal 168.06 755 34.26 Other Uses Land Use Designation Land Use Description Gross Area (Acres) # of Dwelling Units Planning Area Proposed Density (DU/gross ac) Open Space Uses within Planning Area (Acres) Open Space O-S Open Space 28.78 0 N/A 11.96 Park Park High Street Active Park 6.77 0 N/A 6.77 Basins Basins Stormwater Quality & Detention areas 15.91 0 N/A 15.91 Public Uses N/A Roadways & VCWPD Easement 34.34 0 N/A N/A Other Uses Subtotal 85.80 34.64 TENTATIVE TRACT 5908 253.86 755 2.97 68.90 (27.1%) ADDITIONAL PARCEL TRACT 5908: Lot 378 RPD 20U-N-D City Donation Parcel/Passive Park 2 23.44 N/A N/A N/A OVERALL TOTAL 277.30 N/A N/A N/A The Specific Plan provides a variety of housing types and residential densities. Additionally, the plan provides for a 6+ acre public park along High Street. A 7.3 acre Passive Park is located within the City Donation Parcel. Private recreation and open space lands are also integrated throughout the plan. A statistical summary of the land use mix is provided in Table 2-1 and the Land Use Plan is illustrated in Figure 2-1. Notes: 1 Transfer of dwelling units shall be allowed within an individual Planning Area to another Planning Area. The allowable percentage of units transferred shall not exceed the total % within either individual Planning Area as defined in Chapter 6, Section 6.4 of this Specific Plan. 2 For development standards for the City Donation Parcel see City of Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.76 - RPD 20U-N-D. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 855 2-4 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Figure 2-2: Illustrative Site Plan NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y PA-1PA-1 PA-1APA-1A PA-2PA-2 PA-3PA-3 PARKPARK PA-4PA-4 CASEY R O A D CASEY R O A D STR E E T A STR E E T A HIGH STREETHIGH STREET GA B B E R T R O A D GA B B E R T R O A D M E R I D I A N H I L L S D R I V EMERIDIAN H I L L S D R I V E O-SO-S LOT 378LOT 378 CITY DONATION PARCELCITY DONATION PARCEL (NOT A PART)(NOT A PART) PASSIVE PARK/BASINPASSIVE PARK/BASIN Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 856 2-5Development Plan | May 2022 2Chapter Legend Arterial North Hills Parkway Gabbert Road Rural Collector High Street Meridian Hills Drive Local Collector “A” Street Casey Road Misc: Round-a-bout The circulation plan provides fire safety connections to three existing dead-end, single-access roadways adjacent to the Specific Plan: Gabbert Road, Meridian Hills Drive, and Casey Road/Walnut Canyon School. 2.2.1 Streets The following four main categories of existing and planned streets are proposed in the Specific Plan area. The categories of roadways are summarized in accordance with the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. 2.2 CIRCULATION PLAN The structural framework of the project area is created by the street system. In addition to providing sufficient access to the allowed land uses, the street network enables pedestrian and bicycle travel, and defines a series of landscaped areas and open space that are planned as one of the distinctive features of the Specific Plan. The Circulation Plan is depicted in Figure 2-3. The Circulation Plan generally locates the road network. Final engineered road alignments may vary and are subject to review and approval by the City of Moorpark based on policies contained in this document and without an amendment to this Specific Plan. Figure 2-3: Circulation Plan NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y CASEY ROADCASEY ROAD STR E E T A STR E E T A HIGH STREETHIGH STREET GA B B E R T R O A D GA B B E R T R O A D M E R I D I A N H I L L S D R I V EMERIDIAN H I L L S D R I V E Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 857 2-6 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Figure 2-4: Street Section- North Hills Parkway Arterial Roadway North Hills Parkway is an Arterial roadway designed to have two lanes in each direction with a landscaped center median. The total right-of-way width is 100 feet, and there is controlled access and restricted parking. The north side of the parkway shall provide for a multi-use trail. Dedicated right and left turn lanes will be provided where needed. Figure 2-4 illustrates the North Hills Parkway street section. Key Map NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y AA Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 858 2-7Development Plan | May 2022 2Chapter Figure 2-5: Street Section- Gabbert Road South of North Hills Parkway Gabbert Road is also an arterial but with an ultimate right-of-way of 98’. Gabbert Road contains a median with two travel lanes and a bike lane on each side. Landscaped parkways and sidewalks also bound each side of the road, as well as a trail on one side. (Fig. 2-5) Gabbert Road will remain a local road north of North Hills Parkway.Key MapGABBERT ROAD GABBERT ROAD Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 859 2-8 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Figure 2-6A: Street Section- High Street Figure 2-6B: Street Section- High Street Key Map HIGH STREETHIGH STREET AA BB CC Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 860 2-9Development Plan | May 2022 2Chapter Figure 2-6C: Street Section- High Street Rural Collector Roads Rural Collector Roads within the Specific Plan area include High Street and Meridian Hills Drive. These roads provide two travel lanes (one in each direction), with an optional raised landscaped median and a typical right-of-way width of 75 to 84 feet. Landscape parkways and sidewalks are also included in the street section. In hillside areas, the minimum dimension may be allowed, but graded shoulders are required and on-street parking is only permitted when adjacent to the recreation spaces. To provide extra safety a decomposed granite multi-purpose trail is proposed for joint use by equestrians, bicyclists and pedestrians in specific locations. Key Map HIGH STREETHIGH STREET AA BB CC Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 861 2-10 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Figure 2-7: Street Section- Meridian Hills Drive Meridian Hills Drive contains a planted median and drive lanes on each side. The ultimate right-of-way is 84 feet and includes bike lanes, curb adjacent sidewalks, and a parkway on one side with an equestrian trail on the other side. Figures 2-6A, B, C and 2-7 illustrate the Rural Collector Road street sections. Key Map M E R I D I A N H I L L S D R I V EMERIDIAN H I L L S D R I V E Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 862 2-11Development Plan | May 2022 2Chapter Figure 2-7A: Street Section - Street A Local Collector Roads Local Collectors within the Specific Plan area are Street A and Casey Road. These roads provide two travel lanes, one in each direction. The right-of-way widths range from 74 to 104 feet, all contain bike lanes on each side of the street and sidewalks. Depending on the overall right-of-way width, parkways will be provided adjacent to the curb. Street A runs north-to-south through the entire project and has roundabouts placed at prominent intersections. North of North Hills Parkway, Street A will have a raised median down the center of the road with the right-of-way width of 104 feet. South of North Hills Parkway, Street A narrows down to an 80-foot right-of-way without a median. Parking is prohibited on Street A. Refer to Figures 2-7A, 2-7B, and 2-7C for street sections. Key Map STR E E T A STR E E T A AA BB CC Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 863 2-12 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Figure 2-7B: Street Section - Street A Figure 2-7C: Street Section - Street A Roundabout Key Map STR E E T A STR E E T A AA BB CC Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 864 2-13Development Plan | May 2022 2Chapter Casey Road is an east-to-west roadway providing a frontage access road into the project area and connecting the project to areas to the east. Casey Road shall also serve as an entry corridor into the area. Roadways shall be one lane in each direction with a median flush to the street. Similar to Street A, on-street parking is prohibited. Refer to Figure 2-8 for street section. Figure 2-8: Street Section - Casey Road Key Map CASEY ROADCASEY ROAD Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 865 2-14 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Figure 2-10: Street Section- Local Street without Parking Figure 2-9: Street Section- Local Street with On-Street Parking Neighborhood (Local) Streets Neighborhood Streets are private streets internal to the Specific Plan area. Neighborhood streets provide access to residential and recreational land uses. These streets typically have a right-of-way width of 56 to 60 feet including landscape parkways and sidewalks. Figure 2-11 illustrates these street sections. Neighborhood streets are located and detailed with the following intentions: • Provide quiet, safe and attractive frontages for residential lots; • Provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians from homes to recreational areas; and • Accommodate low volume vehicular traffic and bicycles at slow speeds. The precise location shall be determined through the approval of subdivision maps. Neighborhood streets may or may not be gated. Streets internal to Planning Areas 3 and 4 may have private drives and street widths less than 36 feet. The precise width of these streets shall be determined through the approval of subdivision maps for these project areas. Traffic calming devices such as bulbouts may be incorporated in street design, subject to meeting Public Works and Fire Department design standards. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 866 2-15Development Plan | May 2022 2Chapter Roundabouts Roundabouts have been designed for public safety and traffic calming. Emergency vehicles can effectively navigate around them while they also provide traffic calming. The roundabouts will be landscaped to provide visual queues for the prominent intersections as well as location identification. Figure 2-12: Roundabout Plans Figure 2-12: Roundabout Elevation (ONLY) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 867 2-16 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 868 3-1Public Services & Facilities | May 2022 3Chapter3Chapter PUBLIC SERVICES & FACILITIES 3.1 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES This section addresses the public service requirements for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan area. All necessary public services and utilities of sufficient capacity are either adjacent to or will be brought to the site as part of the Hitch Ranch project. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 869 3-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch 3.1.1 Fire Protection Hitch Ranch is within the Ventura County Fire Protection District. Fire Station 42 and Fire Station 40 are closest to the project site. Fire Station 42 is located at 295 High Street, approximately one-third mile east of the Specific Plan area and would be the primary response company. Fire Station 40 is located at 4185 Cedar Springs Street, approximately 2.3 miles south of the project site. Like the rest of the northern half of the City of Moorpark, Hitch Ranch is located within a Cal Fire-designated Very High Fire Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The following shall be required of the project: • The use of non-flammable materials, especially roofing materials, will be required for all structures in the Specific Plan area. Homes adjacent to Open Space areas shall utilize additional methods of fire protection such as the boxing of eaves and use of sprinklers in accordance with the Hitch Ranch Fire Protection Plan. • Implementation and maintenance of a fuel modification management program focusing on management of highly combustible native vegetation, pruning of lower branches of native trees and the elimination of invasive, combustible non-native species introduced by residents is required. Permanent fuel modification is required where development is adjacent to natural open space areas. The width of the fuel modification zone MANUFACTURED SLOPE FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE MAINTAINED BY MASTER HOA LOW WALL with OPEN METAL FENCE2:1 MAX MANUFACTURED SLOPE SEE SLOPE PLANTING EXHIBIT 200' CLEAR ZONE FROM COMBUSTIBLE STRUCTURES PER CITY OF MOORPARK FIRE REGULATIONS AND VENTURA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Figure 3-1: Fuel Modification Zone OR MAINTENANCE CFD Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 870 3-3Public Services & Facilities | May 2022 3Chapter will be 200 feet from the buildable pad adjacent to the Open Space internal to the project, and a minimum of 200 feet from the buildable pad adjacent to Open Space that extends beyond the boundaries of the project. (See Figure 3-1). The following factors will be considered in the determination of the width of the fuel modification zone: • The natural slope of the land within the site and adjacent to the site; • Fuel loading (density of the natural vegetation); • Access to the project area and the fuel modified area; and • Availability of fire flow through Ventura County Waterworks. Cal Fire regulations regarding landscape shall supersede the specific plan requirements in the event of any conflict. 3.1.2 Police Protection The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department will provide police protection for Hitch Ranch. The City of Moorpark contracts with the Sheriff’s Department for sworn and non-sworn county officers to provide law enforcement services. The City presently utilizes police and equipment based from locally-housed investigative, community policing and traffic officers. The Moorpark Police Service Center, located at 610 Spring Road, is less than one mile from Hitch Ranch and is the location from which all patrol units would respond to the site. 3.1.3 Schools The Moorpark Unified School District (MUSD) provides public education services to the project vicinity. Development of 755 residential units proposed as part of the Specific Plan would introduce additional students in the MUSD. It is anticipated that the students will attend the following schools. Timing and unforeseen circumstances could change school designations, but that shall have no impact on the Specific Plan document. • Grades K-5: Walnut Canyon School (per the December 2020 General Plan- is at 52.57% capacity). • Grades 6-8: Chaparral Middle School (per the December 2020 General Plan- is at 53.20% capacity). • Grades 9-12: Moorpark High School (per the Moorpark 2020 Existing Conditions Report- is at 85.14% capacity). Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 871 3-4 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch 3.2 PUBLIC FACILITIES This section summarizes the facilities required for utility improvements. The precise location and size of the individual lines may be modified as part of the subdivision map process. 3.2.1 Domestic Water System The Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 will provide water service to the project area. There are four points of connection: • Point of Connection 1: to the existing 12” main on Gabbert Road at North Hills Parkway. • Point of Connection 2: to the existing 8” main on Casey Road. • Point of Connection 3: to the existing 12” main on Poindexter Avenue. • Point of Connection 4: to the existing 12” main on Meridian Hills Drive at Ridgemark Drive. The precise configuration of water service system for the proposed project will be determined at the time individual tract maps Figure 3-2: Domestic Water System Meridian Hills Drive Existing 12” Water Existing 8” Water Existing 12” Water North H i l l s P a r k w a y High Street Ga b b e r t R o a d Casey Road Proposed Potable Water Main Existing Water Main Existing 8” Water are prepared for each phase of the Specific Plan. Figure 3-2 illustrates the proposed Domestic Water System. New development is required to comply with the MMC Chapter 15.23 Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for the implementation of the same Water Conservation Program in order to encourage water efficient landscapes and conservation. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 872 3-5Public Services & Facilities | May 2022 3Chapter 3.2.2 Wastewater System Sanitary sewer service for the project would be provided by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (VCWWD1) by connecting to their existing sewer line on Gabbert Road. To connect to VCWWD1’s facilities, the onsite sewer main would run perpendicular to and beneath the Walnut Canyon storm channel and the Union Pacific Railroad/Metro Rail tracks at Gabbert Road. No interference in rail operations is anticipated as the sewer main would be installed utilizing a bore pit and jacking method of installation in order to connect at the intersection of Gabbert Road and Poindexter Avenue. To accommodate the anticipated flows from the Hitch Ranch project, the existing 8-inch and 12-inch diameter sewer main on Gabbert Road and on Los Angeles Avenue would require upsizing to a 15-inch diameter sewer line. Upsizing would occur from the intersection of Gabbert Road and Poindexter Avenue to the north side of the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Mira Sol Drive. Meridian Hills Drive North H i l l s P a r k w a y Gab b e r t R o a d Casey Road Point of Connection to existing Wastewater System at Poindexter Avenue Proposed Wastewater Main Existing Wastewater Main Figure 3-3: Wastewater System High Street The configuration of the sewage collection system for the project will be determined at the time individual tract maps are prepared for each phase of the project. A detailed analysis of sewer service will be provided in the EIR. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 873 3-6 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch storm with adequate freeboard to contain the 100-year storm runoff. In general, it is a City requirement that all new structures be protected from the 100-year frequency storm runoff. City policy includes the requirement that during a 100-year frequency storm, any ponded water surface is to remain at least one foot below any residential pad or commercial finished floor in the proximity. This is compatible with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Program. Based upon existing ungraded topography, the site generally drains southerly towards the Walnut Canyon Channel. The Walnut Canyon Channel is an improved concrete channel that is eight feet wide at the bottom and is five feet high along its sides with additional earthen freeboard above the top of the concrete channel. the building pads be above a 100-year storm protection level. This is consistent with the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) design criteria for larger regional facilities, which is based on the 50-year 3.2.3 Storm Water Drainage The City of Moorpark has determined that a storm drain system shall meet criteria based upon a 50-year frequency storm runoff to provide an acceptable level of protection when combined with the requirements that Meridian Hills Drive North H i l l s P a r k w a y Ga b b e r t R o a d Casey Road High Street Figure 3-4: Storm Water Drainage Proposed Storm Drain Proposed Detention Basin Existing Walnut Canyon Channel B B B B B Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 874 3-7Public Services & Facilities | May 2022 3Chapter 3.2.4 Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) is the supplier of natural gas to the County of Ventura, including the City of Moorpark. The availability of natural gas is based upon recent conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the SCG is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission and can be impacted by changes which may affect availability of supply. Gas service will be provided in accordance with any revised conditions. The regional gas supply is primarily from Texas via the El Paso Gas Company’s pipeline to Southern California. The size and location of lines that would serve the proposed project would be determined at the time individual tract maps are prepared for each phase of the project. the regional master plan are located within the Specific Plan area. The basins within Hitch Ranch shall be constructed in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project implementation. They shall be maintained by special assessment and may be utilized for public recreational uses, subject to approval by the City of Moorpark. Refer to Figure 6-1: Phasing Plan. The other detention basin is located upstream of the Specific Plan area. The storm water drainage plan shall be consistent with the provisions of the City of Moorpark Drainage Ordinances. Figure 3-4 illustrates the Storm Water Drainage System. A regional watershed master plan for the Walnut Canyon Channel has been prepared by the VCWPD. The regional watershed master plan for Walnut Canyon is presented in the “Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Flood Control Deficiency Study”, dated March 1997. The regional watershed master plan has identified master planned flood control facilities within the Walnut Canyon Creek watershed to mitigate the existing hydraulic deficiencies of the regional channel system. The residential development areas of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan are not within any FEMA-designated Flood Plain Zone. However, three of four detention basins proposed in Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 875 3-8 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch the approved uses. All telecommunication lines within the Specific Plan area shall be underground. Cable television and internet service is available in the City. The existing cables are located east of the Specific Plan area and would be extended to the area in underground cable systems to serve the approved uses. There will be broadband capabilities installed per the standards of cable companies for residents. 3.2.7 Infrastructure Responsibility Table 3-1 summarizes the infrastructure and utilities required to serve the Specific Plan area and identifies the responsible parties for construction, funding, maintenance, and administration of those facilities. A Community Facilities District (CFD) or other financing mechanism may be established to provide funding for components of infrastructure construction and/or maintenance obligations. include the Gabbert 16 kV line; the Saugus- Moorpark-Santa Susana-Torrey 66 kV line; the Moorpark-Pardee No. 3, 2 and 1 220 - kV lines; and the Moorpark-Santa Clara No. 1 and 2 – 220 kV lines. These seven circuits are in operation throughout the year; however, line loads do change based on user needs. During the summer months, when electricity demand is the greatest, line loads would be the highest, ranging from 135 amperes on the Gabbert 16 kV line, to 340 amperes on the Moorpark-Pardee 220 kV lines. Conversely, during the winter months when electricity demand is lower, line loads will be reduced. The project area will be served by an interconnected series of underground SCE distribution lines and transformers to be designed for phased installation as part of the development of the Specific Plan area. 3.2.6 Communication The existing telephone lines are located both east and west of the Specific Plan area and would be extended to the area to serve 3.2.5 Electricity Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical service to the project site. Electrical power is provided to the City of Moorpark and the Specific Plan area by 11 high voltage overhead electrical lines in two separate easements. The western most easement carries four 220 kV lines. These lines, referred to as the “Moorpark- Ormond Beach 220 kV lines,” run north out of the Moorpark Substation, which is located south of the project site, onto the project site, and make a 90 degree turn to the west. These four 220 kV lines carry current three months a year, during peak use and summer months. For the remainder of the year, the lines carry no current. Overall, these lines carry approximately 750 amperes per circuit when in use. A second easement, located to the east of the Moorpark-Ormond Beach easement, also travels north out of the Moorpark Substation, crossing the project site in a north/south direction. Seven lines are located within this easement. The lines, from east to west, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 876 3-9Public Services & Facilities | May 2022 3Chapter TABLE 3-1 INFRASTRUCTURE RESPONSIBILITY SUMMARY Service/Facility Construction & Funding Responsibility Maintenance Funding Regulation/ AgencyOff-Site Improvements Backbone Improvements In-Tract Improvements Streets/Water/Sewer Streets and Parkways Master Project Applicant Master Project Applicant Merchant Builder CFD/HOA (Varies) City of Moorpark Potable Water Master Project Applicant Master Project Applicant Merchant Builder Water Fees Water Works District #1 Sanitary Sewer Master Project Applicant Master Project Applicant Merchant Builder Sewer Fees Water Works District #1 Flood Control/Drainage In Streets Master Project Applicant Master Project Applicant Merchant Builder CFD/HOA City of Moorpark Natural Drainage Courses Master Project Applicant N/A Master Project Applicant CFD/Special Taxes City of Moorpark Utilities Natural Gas Not Applicable Master Project Applicant/ SCG Merchant Builder/ Southern California Gas User Fees SCG Electricity Not Applicable Master Project Applicant/ SCE Merchant Builder/ Edison User Fees Edison Phone/Fiber Optics Not Applicable Master Project Applicant/Provider1 Merchant Builder/ Provider1 N/A AT&T Cable TV Not Applicable Master Project Applicant/ Private Facilitator Merchant Builder/ Provider1 User Fees Cable Operator Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 877 3-10 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 878 4-1Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter4Chapter DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.1 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND GUIDELINES FRAMEWORK The Design Guidelines Chapter provides the design framework for streetscape, landscape and buildings to convey a unified and unique community character. They establish a direction to ensure a high-quality and aesthetically cohesive environment. While these Guidelines establish the quality of the architectural and landscape development for Hitch Ranch, they are not intended to prevent alternative designs and/or concepts that are compatible with the overall project theme. The Design Guidelines are guiding and can accommodate changes in lifestyles, consumer preferences, economic conditions, community designs and the marketplace, as necessary. Organization of this Chapter begins with community level guidelines inclusive of landscaping, monumentation, and community walls; then concludes with building elements for attached and detached neighborhoods and architectural styles. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 879 4-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch The architectural and landscape guidelines complement each other. Together they combine to form a distinctive plan offering a high quality environment and the particular Hitch Ranch identity. The following principles will guide the community design to ensure quality implementation: • Use architecture that is reminiscent of the character of Early California. • Use architectural elements and details that reinforce the architectural styles. • Choose appropriate massing, roof forms, colors and materials to define the architectural styles. • Ensure that plans and styles provide a degree of individual identity while being compatible. • Provide a varied and interesting street- scene that enhances the overall community. • Use a plant palette that is drought tolerant, compatible with the natural open spaces, and reduces fire hazards. • Celebrate the views of the surrounding area and reduce disturbance to natural topography where possible. The Design Guidelines protect existing scenic resources, ensure continued visual compatibility and promote a cohesive community design theme. The Guidelines promote the creation of a visually unified and attractive community that preserves and enhances surrounding natural resources and maintains unique visual features. 4.2 HITCH RANCH SETTING The natural topography and vegetation of Hitch Ranch is reminiscent of California’s heritage. After being founded in the late 1800’s, the area grew quickly into a rural, agricultural center with the help of its proximity to the Southern Pacific Railroad main line. The site setting, climate, and historical context has inspired the use of Early California architecture and landscapes as a fundamental design theme for Hitch Ranch. This theme will guide design of buildings, public spaces and landscaping through application of key design principles. The Early California references are intended to serve as a touchstone for design, not as a rigid template of forms and materials that would convey a false sense of history. Celebrating the beauty of the Ranch, its rolling hills and its expansive views is central to the Hitch Ranch design. Landscape palettes for the streets and open spaces have been chosen based on their compatibility with each other and with the landscape found in the rolling hills and natural Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 880 4-3Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter open spaces of the area. The landscape envisioned around the planning areas, along the streets, and in the open spaces will blend planting strategies that deliberately place landscape features such as street trees with more naturalized features at the edges, creating harmony between the surrounding land and the built environment. Respecting view sheds and natural open spaces, all proposed development occurs where other suburban land uses already exist or below ridgelines. As a result, Hitch Ranch will not alter the visual backdrop of the City. Grading The Specific Plan provides remedial measures to reduce erosion and geologic hazards; limit the alteration of visible ridgelines; preserve natural drainages; develop the densest portions of the site in the flatter portions of the site; and use native vegetation for replanting and other water-conserving techniques. In addition, the project would incorporate landscape intended to transition developed areas from natural open space areas, as well as provide buffering of views of the Specific Plan site from surrounding land uses. 4.3 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES Landscape Concept The Hitch Ranch landscape concept seeks to unify the diverse planning elements of both the site and its surroundings, which tie the entire project together. Drawing from the historical downtown nearby and the heritage of the area, the landscape elements will recall Early California through the use of native and naturalized plant materials such as sycamores, oaks and native grasses. This California sense will carry through from the drought-tolerant and indigenous plants to the hardscape features including decorative walls, signs and monuments. All planting will comply with fuel modification guidelines and High Fire Severity Zone requirements. A detailed planting palette has been carefully selected for the project. The primary goal is Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 881 4-4 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch to incorporate species that are already well established in Moorpark, including a variety of traditional trees and shrubs historically found in the area. Plant selection factors include compatibility with local soils, the micro and macroclimates throughout the site, the plant’s ability to merge into the existing natural environment and drought tolerance. Appendix A of this Specific Plan provides a list of the approved plant palette. The Early California-inspired design theme is created through a comprehensive landscape plan that addresses the design of streetscapes, open spaces and recreation areas. Additionally, naturalized and fuel modification areas are considered as part of the overall aesthetic of Hitch Ranch and included in the landscape plans for development. A wide variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover will be used as listed in the Approved Landscape Palette (Appendix A). Landscaping within Hitch Ranch shall incorporate the following guidelines: • Landscaping shall be informal and rural reminiscent of early-California hillsides. The iconic plant palette of California Sycamores, Oaks, Western Redbuds, and White Alders will be clustered and maintained as they grow naturally on the hillsides and ravines. The result is a created landscape that provides a natural appearance. For a complete plant list see the Approved Lanscape Palette (Appendix A). • Create landscape designs that provide visibility and avoid screening, especially in proximity to walkways and designated points of entry and opportunistic points. • Landscaping shall utilize natural materials such as stone, wood rail fences, boulders and drought tolerant plant species. • The use of expansive lawn areas and water— intensive landscaping shall be discouraged. • Landscape areas shall use a variety of plant species selected from the Approved Landscape Palette (Appendix A). • Fencing types shall be consistent with those established in this Chapter. • The Fuel Modification Zones will be extended to 200 feet surrounding all structures within the Specific Plan area. Plant materials shall consist of low- fuel shrubs, trees and groundcover as determined by the Ventura County Fire Protection District or its designee. Appendix A: Approved Landscape Palette, contains a list of materials accepted by the Ventura County Fire Protection District. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 882 4-5Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter 4.3.1 Landscaping Along Major Roads North Hills Parkway This main arterial road is distinguished by a backdrop of oak and sycamore trees that create a sense of place and provide respite for trail users. Landscaped parkways and medians, with a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees spaced equally, offer a blending of adapted and native species that mimic the flora found in the surrounding foothills while rustic materials set a bucolic scene. “A” Street , Meridian Hills Drive, Gabbert Drive Although these roadways serve as major collector paths of travel, they are rural in nature. The streetscape is characterized by ample groves of deciduous and oak trees while rail fencing provides separation for the decomposed granite multi-use trail. Deciduous and grassland landscape typologies mingle to create a plant palette authentic to the region. Casey Road and High Street These roadways serve as the easterly entry points to the Hitch Ranch community. Tree lined parkways with colorful flower and foliage create a memorable arrival experience while native shrubs mimic the indigenous plant palette. As the land slopes away from the roadway, the landscape typology becomes distinguished by meadow grasses and natives. Key Map: Major Roads Fencing Example Streetscape Example NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y NORT H H I L L S P A R K W A Y CASEY ROADCASEY ROAD STR E E T A STR E E T A HIGH STREETHIGH STREET GA B B E R T R O A D GA B B E R T R O A D M E R I D I A N H I L L S D R I V EMERIDIAN H I L L S D R I V E Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 883 4-6 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch 4.3.2 Slopes and Fuel Modification Zone Two types of open space shall be provided: naturalized areas and Fuel Modification Zones. The naturalized areas shall be left in their natural state or planted with native species. The location of Fuel Modification Zones will be determined following the plotting of the buildings as part of the tentative tract map submittals. The Fuel Modification Zones will be extended to 200 feet surrounding all structures within the Specific Plan area (Figure 3-1). Plant materials shall consist of low-fuel Basin and Slope Treatments with Native Landscaping Examples shrubs, trees and groundcover as determined by the Ventura County Fire Protection District or its designee.The approved plant palette of the Specific Plan has been designed in accordance with the Fire Department standards. 4.3.3 Storm Water Detention Areas The Specific Plan area contains three detention areas totaling approximately 27.9 acres. These areas will primarily serve to temporarily collect and detain storm water drainage from the neighborhoods and surrounding areas. Due to the limited need for such detention areas during much of the year, the basin located just north of High Street will be landscaped with separate areas of turf, native grasses and plants selected to prevent erosion, provide a “green” visual effect, and allow for long term local maintenance of the basin. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 884 4-7Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter 4.3.4 Public Open Space & Recreation Areas The 6.77 acre High Street Active Park is located west of Street A along the north side of High Street. Besides being an impactful entry statement adjacent to the Hitch Ranch community, this park will provide active recreational amenities including game zones, event lawns, amphitheater, multi-use trails and picnic shelters and barbecues (Refer to Figure 4-1). Approximately 75 on-site vehicle parking spaces are provided with an additional 70 parallel on-street parking spaces along the north side of High Street with direct pedestrian access to the park. Refer to Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1: High Street Active Park Conceptual Plan NATURE ZONE PICNIC AREA ACTIVE RECREATIONEVENT SPACE HIGH STREET WATER QUALITY BASIN SCENIC OUTLOOK GA B B E R T R O A D ST R E E T A ACTIVE PARKACTIVE PARK PASSIVE PARKPASSIVE PARK Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 885 4-8 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch The 7.23 acre High Street Passive Park (Refer to Figure 4-2). is located to the east of A Street and north of High Street. This park is a passive park and will include trails and seating areas, native plantings and an area that includes education/restoration for local plant communities and ecology. Parking will be accommodated along the north side of High Street. This Passive Park shall have rainy season use as a stormwater detention and water quality treatment basin. 4.3.5 Multi-Use Trails Multi-use trails will be constructed along Meridian Hills Drive, A Street, High Street, and Gabbert Road as shown in the Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan (Figure 4-3). The trails will be designed for use by hikers, bikers and the equestrian community and will connect to existing and planned local and regional trail systems. Multi-Use Trail Example Figure 4-2: High Street Passive Park Conceptual Plan ST R E E T A HIGH STREET Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 886 4-9Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Figure 4-3: Conceptual Trails Plan Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 887 4-10 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch 4.3.6 Project and Neighborhood Entries The Early California character will create a strong first impression when entering the project and each community area. Special plant materials will be used to denote each of these areas. Native trees, rock, stone and railing fences will be used to reflect a natural and equestrian environment. Oaks and sycamores, along with native grasses are proposed. Each neighborhood entry is also enhanced with a roundabout. Landmarks and entry features are an important element of community design and are fundamental in creating a sense of place. Entry features can be simple and attractive, but should reflect the overall architectural identity of each neighborhood. Project icons, thematic pilasters, and specialty landscaping will be used to create strong entry statements that identify the overall neighborhood. Materials will vary somewhat depending on the function of the wall. Landscaping such as trees, shrubs or vines should be used to soften the appearance of the walls. Figures 4-4a and 4-4b illustrates an Entry concept that can be applied and adapted to the Project Entries and to each Planning Area.Figure 4-4a: Entry Landscape/Monumentation Concepts Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 888 4-11Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Figure 4-4b: Entry Landscape/Monumentation Concepts Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 889 4-12 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch 4.3.7 Walls and Fences Walls and fences help to define and enhance the visual character of the community. Fences and walls should be designed to be compatible with the overall design of the site. Hitch Ranch utilizes various wall and fence designs to provide aesthetic variety, maximize view opportunities and enable privacy. Refer to Figure 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7. Neighborhood Entry Walls • Entry features shall be consistent with the details outlined on Figures 4-4 to 4-6. Walls should be accented with pilasters with rail fencing where appropriate (Figure 4-6). Pilaster walls are to have brick or stone cast capping. This trim cap design shall be carried through the residential project area and shall be applied to residential walls visible from streets or from a corner. • Entry features shall be located at primary neighborhood entry points. Figure 4-5: Landscape Accent Fencing • Monuments and signage will be consistent with and reflect the overall character of the neighborhood. • Entry features should be integrated into a landscape setting. Landscaping adjacent to neighborhood entry fences should have meadow grasses with wildflowers and distinctive trees such as specimen oaks and/or sycamore trees. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 890 4-13Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Privacy Walls • The maximum height for all residential fencing shall be six feet (Figure 4-7) measured vertically from the average finished grade at the base of the fence or wall. • Side or rear yards requiring a retaining wall may incorporate a combination retaining and screen wall, with a maximum height of 10 feet. • All fencing and walls must be of plaster, stucco, concrete, earth-tone slump stone or masonry finish. Finish colors shall be approved by the City and be consistent with the neighborhood planning area and used uniformly within that Planning Area. Fencing of Lots Adjacent to Open Space Areas In order to take advantage of the view of open space areas and to create a project with an open feel, lots which abut open space areas shall have open theme view fencing. These fences shall be tubular steel with split faced block pilasters or low block wall with tubular steel on top. The maximum height of this wall shall be six feet (Figure 4-6). In PA1 and PA2, where lots back up to open space, parks or views, walls and fences should incorporate view fencing, either full or half Figure 4-6: Fence Concept block/half open. PA3 and PA4 should also comply with this same condition except if adjacent to a neighborhood active recreation areas, those walls/fences may be solid. Solid walls may be provided where required by the Ventura County Fire Protection District. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 891 4-14 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Figure 4-7: Fencing Examples Additional Fencing Examples Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 892 4-15Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Figure 4-8: Parks, Lighting Concept 4.3.8 Lighting Concept The outdoor lighting concept is to provide levels of lighting sufficient to meet safety and orientation needs. Within public areas lighting will be warm colored and unobtrusive. Light sources will be L.E.D. or metal halide. Lighting sources for the landscape and paved areas will be concealed and the lighting indirect not visible from a public viewpoint. Light sources should be directed so that it does not fall outside the area to be lighted. Shields will be use to direct light downward. All exterior surface and above-ground mounted fixtures will be sympathetic and complimentary to the architectural theme, and “night sky” compliant. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 893 4-16 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Figure 4-9: Conceptual Private Recreation Area FITNESS/ CLUBHOUSE WELCOME CENTER/MP ROOM EVENT LAWN VIEW DECK BBQ AREA PICKLEBALL POOL FACILITIES RESTROOMS /KIDS ROOM 4.3.9 Private Recreation Areas PA1A PA1A is proposed as a recreation area for the community. With amenities including a pool, fitness center, clubhouse building, and programmed spaces such as an event lawn, BBQ facilities, and a view deck, the recreation area will provide opportunities to gather and socialize. Refer to Figure 4-9. Other Neighborhood Private Recreation Areas Hitch Ranch proposes recreation areas in each of the Planning Areas (PAs). Both passive and active programming will be included to provide recreation for all age groups. Homes are to have visibility to the open spaces and parks, creating better visibility and aesthetic from the parks looking out to the built environment. Where views onto open spaces occur, walls and fencing should incorporate open fence, either full or half block/half open. However, if homes are adjacent to an active neighborhood recreation area, walls can be solid for privacy and greater delineation between public and private realm. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 894 4-17Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter 4.4 BUILDING ELEMENTS Building forms, shapes, and elements create the overall basic design framework for buildings. Building materials, colors, and architectural details play a large role in accentuating and refining the overall community appearance. Because of the distinguishing characteristics of the building sizes and site organization, this section is divided into Detached Neighborhoods and Attached Neighborhoods; however, the design principles, apply to both neighborhoods. These guidelines are intended to promote quality aesthetics regardless of neighborhood type. Edge and Corner Enhancements Giving attention to edge and corner conditions visible from public spaces further promotes high quality aesthetics. Enhanced treatments and varied roof lines allow for visual diversity even when building types are repeated. Such enhancements include: • Extra but appropriate window detailing; • Varied roof lines; • Upgraded or additional materials; and • Enhanced front doors or porches. 4.4.1 Detached Neighborhoods Building Form and Massing Homes should be broken down into smaller components to reduce the massing volume. This can be achieved through a variety of architectural techniques and treatments such as: • Varied roof forms and heights; • Variation in materials and color; • Architectural articulation; and • Clearly defined entry features. Roof Form Rows of homes seen from a distance or along large roads are perceived by their contrast against the skyline or background. The dominant impact is the shape of the building and roof line. Articulate the building base and roof lines to express a variety of conditions and minimize the visual impact of repetitious flat planes, similar building silhouettes and similar ridge heights. Individual roof plans may be simple but will vary between plans. Streetscene Example with Features such as Varied Architecture, Colors, and Massing Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 895 4-18 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Color, Materials, and Finishes The primary goal of color and materials palettes is to further enhance and define the architectural styles within Hitch Ranch. Equally important is the composition of color and materials to achieve a harmonious and visually interesting community. Selected colors and materials should be appropriate to the styles they represent and used to further differentiate from the other styles. Architectural screens and accessory structures should be compatible in material, color and texture to the main buildings. The composition of materials and textures contributes to the architectural expression of the residences. Specific materials shall be identified for each architectural style. The chosen materials shall represent the specific architectural style enhancing the community aesthetic. • Use complementary building materials that promote a harmonious appearance and provide interest and variety consistent with the architectural styles; and • Where possible, use style-appropriate concrete roof tile blends; prohibit overly dramatic blends with extreme contrast. Material finishes should express permanence and quality. • Create a more solid and permanent appearance with stone or other masonry materials, particularly as accents; • Avoid frequent changes in materials; • Detail finishes properly with the architectural style; and • Use high-quality, durable, low-maintenance materials. Examples of Material and Colors Appropriate to Architectural Styles Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 896 4-19Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Stucco Stucco finishes should project high quality and be appropriate to the architectural style. Heavy Lace and Spanish Texture stucco finishes are prohibited. All stucco trim details (such as window surrounds, window sills, roof eaves, column details, lintels, etc.) must be constructed with a level of precision and accuracy to express the authentic execution of the style; • Use clean, crisp and smooth stucco details; • Use a different trim stucco finish or color from the wall stucco finish; • No rough trowel or uneven stucco finish; and • Carefully locate stucco control joints if applicable on elevation designs. Material Wrapping Architectural elements must not end at the corner of a building and shall wrap around the corner and extend to a logical terminus point that is incorporated into the overall architectural design. • Wrap columns, tower elements and pilasters entirely. • Transition paint at interior corners. Wood Wood is a material used in many architectural styles. However, maintenance concerns, a desire for long-term architectural quality and new high-quality manufactured alternative wood materials, make the use of real wood material less desirable. Where “wood” is referred to in this document, it can also be interpreted as simulated wood trim with style-appropriate wood texture.Examples of Material Wrapping, Well-Applied Stucco Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 897 4-20 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Roof Materials Roof materials, colors, and treatments should correspond to the individual character or style of the home and be compatible with the overall look of the neighborhood. Ornamental Details Use details that appear as functional elements and match the architectural style. Gutters & Downspouts Incorporate gutters and downspouts into the home design when used. They may either blend or have a logically contrasting color to the home. Examples of Roof Designs Matching Architectural Styles, Appropriate Ornamental Details and Downspout Design Contrasting Downspout Downspout Blends With Home Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 898 4-21Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Windows Window details differentiate architectural styles and can provide a high level of architectural enrichment. The selection and proportion of the windows to the façade shall be responsive to the architectural style of the building. Size and shape shall be considered to assure a balanced relationship with the surrounding roof and walls. In general, windows shall enhance rather than dominate the overall architectural character. • Divided lite or high-quality simulated divided lite windows are encouraged and should reflect the architectural style; and • Non street-facing and rear yard windows may incorporate single lite windows. Shutters All shutters shall comply with the following: • Mount shutters on finished wall material, embedded shutters prohibited; • Match shutter size to the recessed opening window width; and • Shutters not required on every window, they should be used purposefully. Example of Windows that Match Style and Appropriate Use and Proportion of Shutters Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 899 4-22 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Garages Garage doors are an important architectural feature. Thus, the aesthetic of the garage doors are of high design importance and shall be compatible and enhance the home’s architectural style. The following are recommendations to enhance the streetscene incorporating garage doors as a design feature: • Provide different style door patterns; • Vary the inclusion and design of window lites; and • If style permits, consider a color other than white for visual impact. Lighting Appropriate lighting is essential in creating an inviting evening atmosphere for the community. All lighting shall be non-obtrusive. • Limit all exterior lighting to the minimum necessary for safety; • Shield all exterior lighting to minimize glare and light spill onto adjacent properties; • Use exterior entry lights that complement the architectural style; and • Use low voltage lighting for landscaping. Example of Garage that Matches Elevation Style Example of Style-Appropriate and Effective Placement of Lighting Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 900 4-23Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Variation and Movement Front yard setbacks shall be varied wherever possible, to provide visual interest to the street scene. • Buildings setbacks should be arranged in a staggered and variable fashion to provide visual interest, allow views between adjacent buildings, and avoid repetitive appearance. • Lots shall be planned and houses designed so that garages of houses do not dominate façades; garage doors shall make up no more than 50% of the frontage of the building. In the event that this proportion is not feasible, garages shall be recessed from façades by a minimum of five feet to make house portions more visually prominent than garages. • To respect the privacy between neighbors, second story view windows should be oriented toward either the front or rear of the home. Second story windows facing side yards should not line up directly with the windows of the adjacent home, unless clerestory windows are utilized. Varied Streetscene Example of Varied Styles, Building Articulation and Orientation toward the Street Example of Garage that Matches Elevation Style Example of Style-Appropriate and Effective Placement of Lighting Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 901 4-24 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch 4.4.2 Attached Neighborhoods It is the intent for all architecture at Hitch Ranch to achieve a high level of quality in building function and visual appearance, assure variety and compatibility in architectural character and to enhance the community’s overall value. The goal is to promote these qualities in conjunction with the landscape and planning by using various styles to provide a pleasant, livable community. By the very nature of the building types, attached and multi-family home neighborhoods are much like small villages, or communities. Each should be designed for compatibility within itself, using a blend of compatible architectural styles and a tastefully balanced palette of colors and materials. This is a shared aesthetic that creates an attractive and visually cohesive community. The following general concepts should be considered when planning for and designing multi-family housing. • Design and site buildings with a strong physical relationship to common areas of the community. • Emphasize pedestrian access and connections to public sidewalks, paseos, and open space systems. Example of Attached Homes with Strong Visual Statement and Preferred Design Elements Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 902 4-25Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Massing, Human-Scale Design Hitch Ranch is a residential community. Building design should consider human-scale with regard to building massing. • Building forms shall be designed and well-proportioned resulting in a balanced composition of elements along public streets. • Prominent vertical or horizontal building features may be used to accentuate key elements and provide variation in wall planes. • Pedestrian-scaled elements may also include subtle details incorporated into the building’s base to provide visual interest. • Massing offsets may consist of one or more of the following: • Building pop-outs and recesses (wall planes, massing features, or balconies) • Bay window or corner-wrapping window • Prominent entry • Volume space creating height variation • Single-story element, such as a shallow entry porch, balcony, or courtyard • Other similar features which enhance and provide massing articulation • Massing offsets shall not encroach into the required horizontal or clear space of a fire access lane and turning radii • Entry vestibules or stoops and architectural design features that provide articulation shall qualify as offsets. Examples of Appropriate Massing and Scale Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 903 4-26 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch • Architectural elements that create articulation and visual interest such as balconies, trellises, recesses, overhangs, awnings, window and door surrounds, and porches are encouraged. • The main building entry, if applicable, shall be clearly identifiable and distinguished from the rest of the building, preferably a focal point along the elevation in a manner that is consistent with the style of building. • Minimize blank, singular planes oriented toward public views. Provide some architectural elements on visually prominent sides of building. • Carefully consider the building massing, details, and color, in developing an appropriate architectural character for the project. • Design buildings to define outdoor spaces, with floor plans that have a logical and functional relationship between indoor spaces and outdoor spaces. Entries Entries should create an initial impression, locate and frame the doorway, act as an interface between public and private spaces, and further identify individual unit entries. • Wherever possible, site plans should orient the front door image and principal access toward the street or common area; • Incorporate appropriate roof elements, columns, feature windows and/or architectural forms in the entry statement to emphasize the building character and the location of individual doorways; and • If front entry location is not immediately obvious due to building configuration, direct and draw the observer to it with added elements such as signs, pathways, lighting and landscape. Examples of Well Defined Entries, Semi and Private Realm Delineation Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 904 4-27Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Roof Form Composition and balance of roof forms are as definitive of a streetscape as the street trees, active architecture or architectural character. • Rooflines, pitches, ridgelines, and ridge heights should create a balanced form to the architecture and elevation. • Direction of ridgelines and/or ridge heights should vary along a streetscene. • Roof overhangs (eaves and rakes) may be used as projections to define design vocabulary and create light and shade patterns. • Hip, gable, shed, and conical roof forms may, within reason, be used separately or together on the same roof or streetscene composition. • Roof form and pitch shall be appropriate to the massing and design vocabulary of the home. Windows Use appropriate scale and proportion in window design to enhance the elevation style, using shutters, trim, or other element to help convey character. A feature window treatment is encouraged on all front and street-exposed elevations. Feature windows are trimmed or detailed in a manner that creates visual interest and represents the design vocabulary in an aesthetic way. Feature window treatments may include: • Picture window • Bay window • A substantial surround or recess • Decorative iron window grilles • Decorative head or sill treatments • Grouped or ganged windows with complete trim surrounds or unifying head and/or sill trim • A Juliet balcony with style-appropriate materials Examples of Appropriate Roof Forms and Windows that have Variation and Match Style Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 905 4-28 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Parking and Garage Placement The design and layout of parking areas should provide safe, comfortable, and convenient access for pedestrians. The following techniques should be considered for parking area design: • When possible, parking lots associated with residential units should be visually unobtrusive and located behind buildings and not along main frontage roads unless screened with landscape. Attached units may use common driveways, private streets, and alley-loaded access. • Landscaping should be used to screen parking areas adjacent to public spaces or streets. • Walkways should be safe, convenient, easily- accessible, and connect parking areas with dwellings. • Garages shall be sized to accommodate trash bin storage. Carports • Carport structures shall be compatible with the style, color and materials of the primary buildings. • The number of continuous carport parking spaces shall not exceed 10, if feasible or necessary for solar panel arrays. Alley Treatments The use of alleys should be upgraded from purely functional, simple garage-access ways to a space that residents experience daily. Design of alleys shall address the functional and aesthetic features of the space to create a pleasant experience for residents. Additionally, alley widths should accommodate ample space for solid waste collection. At least 2 of the following shall be implemented along the alley: • Stepped massing (recessed or cantilevered) offsets of at least 1 foot • Window trim, colors and appropriate details from the front elevation • Rear privacy walls and pedestrian gates designed and located for ease of unit access • Enhanced garage door patterns or finishes; garage door shall complement the design vocabulary of the home/neighborhood • Planting areas between garages Utility Boxes The placement of utility boxes will be coordinated with local utility companies to identify unobtrusive locations and avoid potential conflicts with other uses. When possible, utility boxes should be screened to reduce visual impact. Example of Garage and Alley Treatment Example of Visually Pleasing Carports Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 906 4-29Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter 4.5 ARCHITECTURE Architecture is a key component of the appearance of the Specific Plan area. These design guidelines provide general design criteria and guidance with the goal of promoting visual compatibility while allowing for individuality and architectural diversity in the Specific Plan areas. Hitch Ranch will be organized into four residential Planning Areas (PAs) and additional open spaces PAs. Each area will contain specific housing typologies to provide a wide variety of housing options, accommodating various lifestyles and household compositions. Although unique in their home sizes, the residential PAs will be connected through open space, trails and tree lined roads. The landscape features will bring cohesion to the PAs as well as the architecture. The range of Hitch Ranch architectural styles and home types will contribute to visual interest and street scenes. The variety of land use density and design will accommodate lifestyle diversity and market desires, creating a rich community fabric. Building form, color and materials will be designed to reflect the legacy of the land and the desired warmth of the community. The Moorpark setting and climate encourages strong indoor/outdoor relationships, activating yards, patios and courtyards. These features will be included in both the public and private realm. Design Principles Architectural diversity creates visually interesting street scenes. The multi-style street-scene should be diverse as to architectural styles, features, windows, front doors, garage doors, materials and colors. Starting with the authentic and transforming to a progressive version of the base style is acceptable. Traditional styles tend to have defining features that should be consistently implemented across the product offering. Moving to a more contemporary version of traditional styles should still embrace defining features so that the style is recognizable but understood to be a contemporary interpretation. Example of Varied Architectural Styles to Enhance Streetscene Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 907 4-30 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Authentic Adaptations Recognizable authentic architecture is based on traditional forms, materials and details that reasonably express the heritage of a particular style. Historically derived, or authentically adapted elevations continue to focus on forms and details, but allow for the integration of modern materials, colors and artistic interpretation to generate a contemporary, yet recognizable expression of an architectural style. Historically adapted elevations combine these notions into physical reinterpretation of an architectural style. Authentic adapted elevations should express a recognizable architectural style but can use artistic design to incorporate new, modern or progressive forms, details and materials in the modern context of architecture. The following styles pay homage to Hitch Ranch’s past while creating homes for today’s lifestyles. Additional styles may be considered; however, they must follow the same principles and attention to detail as the specific styles provided. Newly introduced styles must be compatible with the overall Hitch Ranch community aesthetic, reflecting traditional architectural vernacular, identifiable styles with appropriate design elements, and complementary color and material application. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 908 4-31Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter 4.6 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES These design guidelines are intended to be a guide and may accommodate variations. It is not the intent of these design guidelines to require that all of the identified design components and elements be incorporated into the actual building designs. Rather, these guidelines serve as a “palette” of character defining elements that can be used to create authentic and distinct architecture. The overall theme of Hitch Ranch is Early California. The architectural styles have been strategically selected to reflect and strengthen the community identity. Example of Varied Architectural Styles for Enhanced Streetscene The following styles are preferred and shall apply to both attached and detached homes: • Spanish • Farmhouse • Traditional • Cottage Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 909 4-32 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Spanish The most notable characteristics of the Spanish style include “S” tile roofs, stucco walls, recessed entry doors and porticos, highlighted ornamental iron work and carefully proportioned windows appropriate to their wall mass. Casual composition of forms that may include a formal entry statement and arched doors and windows, along with deep recesses and varied eave design are also found in this architecture. The charm of this style choice lies not only in its directness, adaptability and contrasts of materials and textures, but in its ability to evolve within itself by allowing multiple creative design solutions using similar elements, textures, and colors. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 910 4-33Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Element Menu of Common Features Roof 4:12 to 6:12 roof pitch 12” to 16” overhang Simple hip or gable roof with one intersecting gable roof Shed roof over porch Boosted tile (25%) Shaped rafter tails Barrel or ‘S’ shape concrete tiles Walls Stucco Stucco - sand finish Decorative ceramic tile or brick accents Windows Vertical multi-paned window at front elevations Multi-paned window on side and rear elevations in high visibility public view areas Simple 2x4 window and door trim - wood or stucco over foam Vinyl wrapped windows Feature recessed arched window Accent beveled glass recessed window Single or grouped round top windows Fabric awnings Details Stucco over foam window and door trim Arched stucco column porches Front entry doors without a porch, deeply recessed from front facade Rectangular or arched surrounds (following door design) Surface mounted fixtures on front elevations must complement architectural style Garage door patterns to complement style Recessed openings at front and corner elevations Gable end details Wrought Iron/Metal balconies and accent details Entry door design to compliment style Porches, balconies or verandas Wall mounted light fixtures at garage door Colors Field: Whites, beige, or warm tints Trim: Dark shades to contrast field color Accents: Deep tones of green, blue, red (on shutters, door, balcony trim) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 911 4-34 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Farmhouse The Farmhouse style captures the spirit of the California agrarian living. Homes reflect an airy connection to the outdoors with simple forms and vertical windows. The style uses a play of materials from light to earthy stone colors and a mix of old traditional and new progressive materials. The style is based on familiar farmhouse shapes. Gable and cross gable roof forms are accented by shed dormers. Use of materials connect the style to the agricultural past with stucco, stone and siding materials and metal roof accents. The Progressive interpretation blends the sleek clean lines of contemporary design with traditional farmhouse elements. Co u r t e s y o f : S u n P o w e r Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 912 4-35Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Element Menu of Common Features Roofs Roof pitches 4:12 to 6:12, possibly lower pitch at main roof Shed roofs at porches, may use metal seam Gable and cross gable forms 0” - 12” overhang at eaves Dormers Metal roof accents Gable end details Flat concrete tile or tile shake pattern Walls Stucco Limited horizontal siding accents Board and batten or horizontal siding Stone OR brick accents Windows Vertically proportioned Fully trimmed windows Square window accents Details Smooth finished posts (6” x 6” min.) with smooth finish cap and base trim Smooth finished beams Door and window surrounds shall consist of one of the following materials: • Well-proportioned, stucco-wrapped, high density foam trim or • Smooth textured wood Raised panel-style entry door and garage door Simple posts with banded base Wood brackets below gables and/or rafter tails Awnings, may use metal seam Porches and/or balconies with horizontal railing Shutters Porch OR covered entries Awnings Glass front entry doors Front and garage doors may have modern styling to complement style Colors Field: Whites or light tinted colors Trim: Whites or light shades complementary to field color Accents: Light or dark shades in contrast with field color Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 913 4-36 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Traditional Traditional style as manifested in Southern California was often realized as an East Coast derived expression with Cape Cod influences, and displayed the aspects of practicality and functional elegance. This expression evolved from early Colonial beginnings and truly began to proliferate as an American building style from the 1850s to the early 20th century. In Southern California, the style was employed from the foothill neighborhoods of Pasadena to Los Angeles communities such as Westwood and was occasionally used in combination with the Monterey and Ranch styles to create homes which opened to the exterior gracefully yet retained a sense of formality and reserve. Features of this style include simple gable roof forms, louvered shutters, and articulated entry surrounds. Dormers and second- floor wood decks are also occasionally used. Current interpretations have maintained the simple elegance of the early prototypes with added refinements and new design details. The massing and form of the Progressive version is reminiscent of early American heritage but with simpler lines and contemporary details. Roofs are simple in form most often with accent gables. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 914 4-37Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Element Menu of Common Features Roof 4:12 to 8:12 roof pitch 12” to 24” overhangs Concrete roof tile - flat or shake appearance Flat concrete shake tile OR flat concrete slate tile Front to back gable or hip roof with intersecting hip or gable roofs Exposed rafter tails Standing seam metal roof accents Cornice emphasized by dentils or decorative molding Walls Stucco Horizontal siding - may be combined with stucco Wrapped material on sides and terminate at logical end (return block wall/fence) or inside corner Wood OR shingle siding Board and batt OR groove joint Brick Windows Vertical multi-paned window at front elevations Multi-paned window on side and rear elevations at visible edges Bay windows Details Simplified cornice trim at gable ends Header window wood accent trim Simple 2 x 6 window and door trim - wood on siding, foam on stucco, Surface mounted fixtures on front elevations must complement architectural style Porches and/or balconies with horizontal railing Front and garage door may have modern styling to complement style Shutters, brick accents permitted Shaped wood corbels Louvered shutters flanking windows Low-walled entry courtyards with hardscape paving, in lieu of porches Balconies - cantilevered or supported with posts Decorative columns Plank style garage door Simple columns with base and capital trim Colors Field: Whites, off-white, dark or light colors Trim: White or contrasting with field color Accents: Jewel tones in medium dark to dark value, gray, black, and white Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 915 4-38 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Cottage Cottage is a style evolved in the early 20th century originating from the New England states, spreading westward, and becoming established throughout the rest of the country. The adaptive version of this style, American Cottage, retains the massing and form that is reminiscent of early American heritage but with simpler lines and contemporary details. The massing breaks down the façade from 2 to 1-story forms providing a natural balance to the front elevation. Roofs are simple in form most often with accent gables. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 916 4-39Design Guidelines | May 2022 4Chapter Element Menu of Common Features Roof 4:12 roof pitch 12” to 18” overhangs Hip, front to back gables, intersecting gable roofs also permitted Concrete roof tile - flat or shake appearance Walls Stucco Horizontal siding - may be combined with stucco Windows Vertical multi-paned window at front elevations Multi-paned window on side and rear elevations at visible edges Details Simplified cornice trim at gable ends Window trim on upper and lower sides of window Surface mounted fixtures on front elevations must complement architectural style Square wood columns with trim Shutters, brick accents permitted Porches and/or balconies with vertical railing Front and garage door patterns to complement style Colors Field: Whites, off-white, dark or light colors Trim: White or contrasting with field color Accents: Light or dark colors in contrast or harmony with field colors Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 917 4-40 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 918 5-1Development Standards | May 2022 5Chapter5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 5.1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Development Standards Chapter provides the requirements for development in each Hitch Ranch Planning Area. In order to provide a variety of housing types and densities, this Specific Plan contains planning areas with different levels of residential density, which include Medium- Low, Medium, and Very High. From setbacks to building height, each dimension has been carefully considered to provide a pleasing street scene and comfortable home environments. Chapter Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 919 5-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch TABLE 5-1 PLANNING: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AREA 1 AREA 2 Element Standard (Detached)Standard (Detached) Lot Area (min.)7,000 S.F.3,800 S.F. Lot Width (min.)70’45’ Lot Depth (min.)90’85’ Building Setbacks from Property Line (min). Front (to Porch)10’10’ Front (to Living Space) 15’ - 25’ (1)12’ (2) Front (to Garage)20’20’ Side-In Garage (setback from front property line)10’10’ Side Yard 5’ (both sides)5’ (both sides) Corner Lot Side Yard 10’10’ Rear Yard (to Living Space)12’11’ Rear Yard (to Covered Patio or 2nd-Story Deck)10’9’ Building Height (max.)35’ (not to exceed 2 stories)35’ (not to exceed 2 stories) Walls and Fences Per MMC or as required for sound attenuation (3) Per MMC or as required for sound attenuation (3) Parking Per MMC - Chapter 17.32 Per MMC - Chapter 17.32 Lot Coverage (max.)50%50% Notes: (1) Front setbacks shall be varied to provide visual diversity. Average 20’ to living space. (2) Front setbacks shall be varied to provide visual diversity. (3) Property line fences shall be 5’ behind sidewalk. Property Owner maintained landscape shall be planted between sidewalk and fence. Figure 5-1: Planning Area 1 Figure 5-2: Planning Area 2 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 920 5-3Development Standards | May 2022 5Chapter Figure 5-3: Planning Area 3 TABLE 5-1 PLANNING: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AREA 3 AREA 3 Element Detached Product Cluster (Detached) Lot Area (min.)2,400 S.F.N/A Lot Width (min.)40’N/A Lot Depth (min.)60’N/A Building Setbacks from Property Line (min). Front (to Porch)6’ (1)3’ Front (to Living Space) 8’ (1)3’ Front (to Garage)19’3’ Side Yard 5’ (both sides)5’ (both sides) Corner Lot Side Yard 10’10’ Rear Yard (to Living Space)10’5’ Building Height (max.)35’ (not to exceed 3 stories)35’ (not to exceed 3 stories) Walls and Fences Per MMC or as required for sound attenuation (2) Per MMC or as required for sound attenuation (2) Parking Per MMC - Chapter 17.32 Per MMC - Chapter 17.32 Lot Coverage (max.)60%N/A Drive Aisle Width (curb to curb)24’ (stub alley condition only)28’ (inside cluster only) Notes: (1) Front setbacks shall be varied to provide visual diversity. (2) Property line fences shall be 5’ behind sidewalk. Property Owner maintained landscape shall be planted between sidewalk and fence. AREA 3 Element Attached Density 7.75 DU/AC Lot Area (min.)N/A Lot Width (min.)N/A Lot Depth (min.)N/A Building Setbacks from Property Line (min). Property Line/PA Boundary 10’ Front to Drive Aisle 5’ Garage to Drive Aisle 5’ Front to Back of Street Sidewalk 5’ Side to Back of Street Sidewalk 5’ Rear to Back of Street Sidewalk 5’ Building Separation (min). Front to Front 26’ Low Wall to Low Wall 14’ Front to Side 18’ Side to Side 10’ Garage to Garage 30’ Rear to Rear 30’ Building Height (max.)45’ (not to exceed 3 stories) Private Open Space 75 S.F. Walls and Fences Per MMC or as required for sound attenuation Parking Per MMC - Chapter 17.32 Lot Coverage (max.)70% Drive Aisle Width (curb to curb)26’ (internal drive aisles only) Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 921 5-4 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch TABLE 5-1 PLANNING: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AREA 4 AREA 4 Element Attached (Market Rate)Affordable Density 20 DU/AC 20 DU/AC Lot Area (min.)N/A N/A Lot Width (min.)N/A N/A Lot Depth (min.)N/A N/A Building Setbacks from Property Line (min). Property Line/PA Boundary 10’10’ Front to Drive Aisle 5’5’ Garage to Drive Aisle 3’3’ Front to Back of Street Sidewalk 5’5’ Side to Back of Street Sidewalk 3’3’ Rear to Back of Street Sidewalk 5’5’ Building Separation (min). Front to Front 24’24’ Low Wall to Low Wall 12’12’ Front to Side 15’15’ Side to Side 6.5’15’ Garage to Garage 32’32’ Rear to Rear 20’30’ Building Height (max.) 45’ (not to exceed three stories) per Moorpark Municipal Code average height methodology 45’ per Moorpark Municipal Code average height methodology Private Open Space 60 S.F.Per MMC or as required for sound attenuation (2) Walls and Fences Per MMC or as required for sound attenuation Per MMC or as required for sound attenuation (2) Parking Per MMC - Chapter 17.32 TBD upon Site Plan Review Lot Coverage (max.)75%TBD upon Site Plan Review Drive Aisle Width (curb to curb)26’ (internal drive aisles only)26’ (internal drive aisles only) Figure 5-4: Planning Area 4 *Note: For development standards for City Donation Parcel see City of Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.76 - RPD 20U-N-D.” * Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 922 5-5Development Standards | May 2022 5Chapter Open Space (for PA-3 and PA-4 Attached Homes) • Private open space shall be provided and shall be directly accessible from each dwelling unit in the planning area. • A usable private open space area in the form of a courtyard patio, deck, or combination thereof, with a usable minimum of 50 S.F. and a minimum for any single dimension of 5’ for each dwelling unit shall be provided. Recreational Amenities (for PA-4) • The following recreational amenities shall be provided: barbecue area with seating, and turf play area. • Amenities shall be reviewed and approved with the required residential planned development permit. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 923 5-6 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 924 6-1Implementation | May 2022 6Chapter6Chapter IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 GENERAL All land use entitlements and permits issued within the Specific Plan shall be consistent with both the City’s General Plan, as amended as of the date of the Specific Plan adoption, and this Specific Plan. All applications related to development within the Specific Plan Area shall be prepared consistent with the state Subdivision Map Act and the City of Moorpark Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code, including Title 17. The City of Moorpark Municipal Code shall regulate development in Specific Plan, except as modified by the Specific Plan text, conditions, regulations and standards contained herein. In such cases where Specific Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 925 6-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Plan text, conditions, regulations and standards conflict with those in sections contained in the City of Moorpark Municipal Code, the Specific Plan development text, conditions, regulations and standards shall apply. In addition to adoption of this Specific Plan by the City of Moorpark, the City will enter into a Development Agreement authorized pursuant to Section 65865 et seq. of the California Government Code. The Developer/ Applicant possesses vested rights under the terms of a Development Agreement entered into between the Developer/Applicant and the City. 6.2 PHASING The primary purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan is to correlate efficient infrastructure improvements required for site development. The Planning Areas of Specific Plan may be developed either simultaneously or incrementally in phases. There are two phases proposed for the Specific Plan Area. Figure 6-1 illustrates the proposed Phasing Plan. Phase 1 includes grading and infrastructure improvements for Planning Area 1A (PA1A), Planning Area 3 (PA3) and Planning Area 4 (PA4) as well as the city parcel, passive park and detention basin infrastructure along High Street. Primary roadways within Phase 1 are the extension of High Street from the Post Office to Gabbert Road, “A” Street, Meridian Hills Drive, Casey Road and North Hills Parkway east of “A” Street. Phase 2 includes grading and infrastructure improvements for Planning Area 1 (PA1), Planning Area 2 (PA2) and High Street Public Park plus the completion of the Community HOA recreation center (PA1A) and the 6.77- acre High Street Public Park. The remaining regional circulation roadway construction in Phase 2 is North Hills Parkway as a four-lane divided roadway from 200 feet west of Gabbert Road to “A” Street. Each Phase of the development allows for sub-areas within the Planning Areas which may be developed concurrently to allow for maximum efficiency of infrastructure implementation and to meet market demand. Each Specific Plan Phase, Planning Area, and sub-area may be developed so long as infrastructure, including roads, trail networks, secondary access, water, sewer and drainage systems are in place as development occurs. The sequence and rate of development for Specific Plan will be influenced by the following factors: (i) economic and market conditions; (ii) the rate of growth of the City and region; and (iii) changes in regional infrastructure/ public facilities, conditions and needs. As these factors change during the course of the build-out process, necessary adjustments in corresponding infrastructure requirements may be modified. The basic phasing mechanism of Specific Plan is the subdivision map. As each Final Tract Map is processed, specific infrastructure requirements for that subdivision will be established. Tentative Tract and Final Maps will be forwarded to the City Council. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 926 6-3Implementation | May 2022 6Chapter Figure 6-1: Phasing Plan Phase 1 Phase 2 6.3 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES AND SERVICES The Project Applicant will be responsible for financing and constructing the Specific Plan facilities and services to support the planned development. As a condition of each Final Tract Map, the Project Applicant will be required to supply the City with acceptable assurances that the facilities and services required for that development phase will be completed. The Project Applicant will also be responsible for ensuring that both initial and on-going financing of the Specific Plan facilities has been adequately addressed. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for a Tract Map subdivision phase, a schedule of related infrastructure improvements shall be approved by the Public Works Director, and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the improvements necessary to serve the permitted unit shall be completed. Meridian Hills Drive North H i l l s P a r k w a y Gab b e r t R o a d Casey Ro a d High Street Stre e t A PA-1PA-1 PA-1APA-1A PA-2PA-2 PA-3PA-3 PARKPARK PA-4PA-4 O-SO-S Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 927 6-4 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch 6.4 SPECIFIC PLAN ADMINISTRATION The Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines; however, amendments to the Specific Plan may be needed over time to respond to changing conditions and circumstances. This section provides direction to administer the Specific Plan. In accordance with California Government Code Sections 65453 through 65454, a Specific Plan shall be amended in the same manner as a General Plan, except that a Specific Plan may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the City Council. Any subsequent approval or amendment to the Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan as amended and/or updated, except where the Developer/Applicant possess vested rights under the terms of a Development Agreement entered into between the Developer/Applicant and the City. Review of new development within each planning area will be considered as Residential Planned Development Permits (RPD) subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. RPD permits will include requirements for public noticing and appeal procedures consistent with those outlined in Section 17.44 of the Moorpark Municipal Code. It is expected that future development applications will be in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan, or an amendment to the Specific Plan may be required. Substantial conformance includes, but is not limited to: • Determinations of whether a use substantially complies with the uses allowed in the land use designation in which the use is requested; • Administrative additions, deletions and changes to the Specific Plan exhibits or text that substantially comply with the Specific Plan; • Adjustments to the Specific Plan’s conceptual plans, which do not change the requirements of providing adequate infrastructure or facilities; • Minor adjustments to tentative subdivision maps; and, • Minor modifications as determined in Section 6.4.1 of this Specific Plan and/or as determined by the City Manager or his/ her Designee. General Findings Applicable to all Substantial Conformance Requests The City Manager or his/her Designee, acting upon any request for determinations of substantial conformance as provided in this section, shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on findings that the request: (i) Substantially conforms with all applicable provisions of the Specific Plan and City ordinances, which do not conflict with the Specific Plan; (ii) Will not adversely affect public health and safety; and (iii) Will not adversely affect adjacent property (iv) Will not adversely affect community character; (v) Will not adversely impact the amount or quality of the required Open Space within the Specific Plan area; (vi) Will preserve the open space linkages and significant ridgelines for the benefit of all Moorpark residents; and (vii) Will preserve the connectivity between Hitch Ranch and Downtown Moorpark. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 928 6-5Implementation | May 2022 6Chapter meet the intent of the Specific Plan vision. • Deletion of utility infrastructure requirements deemed unnecessary by the City Engineer. • Transfer of dwelling units within an individual Planning Area to another Planning Area. The allowable percentage of units transferred shall not exceed 15% of the total within any individual transferring or receiving Planning Area; and there shall be no more than a ten percent (10%) increase in the maximum intensity of the number of dwelling units in a multiple-family building or on a multiple- family residential lot as a result of such transfers. 6.4.2 Major Modifications Amendments may be requested at any time pursuant to Section 65453(a) of the Government Code. Proposed amendments deemed to be Major Modifications by the City Manager or his/her Designee as defined herein will be processed by the Community Development Department, considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, as may be required. City Manager or his/her Designee. The City Manager or his/her Designee however, shall have the discretion to refer any such request for modification to the Planning Commission. Conversely, anyone shall have the right to appeal decisions of the City Manager or his/ her Designee to the Planning Commission. • Final facility sizing and alignment of water, sewer, and storm drain improvements (as directed by the City Engineer). • Change in utility and/or infrastructure servicing agency. • Alignment of local streets within neighborhoods so long as the number and approximate spacing of connections is in general conformance with the Land Use Plan. • Local Street, road and multi-use trail alignments provided that connecting of destination points is maintained. • Minor landscape and streetscape design modifications consistent with the Design Guidelines contained in this document. • Modifications to the development standards listed in this Specific Plan so long as they Modifications and amendments to the Specific Plan shall be governed by Section 6.4 and its subsections. Amendments may be requested at any time pursuant to Moorpark City Code Section 17.44.050 and Section 65453(a) and of the Government Code. Any proposed modification to the Specific Plan deemed major by the City Manager or his/her Designee, will be processed as an amendment to the Specific Plan. Depending upon the nature of the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan, additional environmental analysis may be required, pursuant to Section 15162 of CEQA. Any modifications shall be processed as a minor or major modification. 6.4.1 Minor Modifications The following items may deviate, within specified limitations, from the adopted Specific Plan but shall be considered to be in Substantial Conformance with the Specific Plan. This review shall occur at staff level per MMC Section 17.44.100.A.2, if so determined by the Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 929 6-6 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch • The use is compatible with existing and planned land uses in the general area where the development is to be located; and • The use is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of the surrounding properties, designed so as to enhance the physical and visual quality of the community, and the structure(s) have design features, which provide visual relief and separation between land uses and conflicting character. 6.4.3 Conditional Use Permits Any project or activity requiring a Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed in accordance with the Moorpark City Code. Conditional Use Permit requests shall be approved by the decision-making authority if the following findings are made. These findings are in addition to any findings required by California State Law and Moorpark City Code: • The proposed conditional use is consistent with the Specific Plan and uses allowed within the corresponding land use category in the City of Moorpark Zoning Ordinance; • The use is permitted in the RPD zone (MMC Table 17.20.050); Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 930 A-1Landscape Palette | May 2022 AAppendixAAppendix LANDSCAPE PALETTE Appendix A Landscape Palette A.1 APPROVED LANDSCAPE PALETTE Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 931 A-2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Understory Shrubs & Groundcovers/Accents Agave americana Century plant Agave attenuate Foxtail agave Cistus salviifolius Sageleaf rockrose Iris douglasiana Douglas iris Opuntia species Prickly pear Penstemon species Beard tonge Romneya coulteri Matilija poppy Yucca species Yucca Streetscapes Plant List - Trees (Max 40’ O.C.) Arbutus x ‘marina’Strawberry tree Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese flame tree Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip tree Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache Platanus racemosa California sycamore Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen pear Quercus virginiana Southern live oak Ulmus parviflora ‘true green’Chinese elm Robina ambigua Locust TABLE A-1 MASTER PLANT PALETTE Slopes / Common Area Trees Arbutus x ‘marina’Strawberry tree Cercis occidentalis Western redbud Lyonothamnus floribundus Catalinia ironwood Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Plantanus racemosa California sycamore Background Shrubs Arbutus unedo Strawberry tree Aloe species Aloe Rhamus californica ‘eve case Coffeeberry Carpenteria californica Bush anemone Cistus ladanifer Crimson spot rockrose Dendromecon harfordii Island bush poppy Garrya elliptica Coast silktassel Myrica californica Pacific wax myrtle Phlomis fruticosa Jerusalem sage Rhamnus californica California coffeeberry Rhus integrifolia Lemonade berry Rhus ovata Sugar bush Ribes indecorum White flowering currant Trichostema lanatum Wooly blue curls Note: Cal Fire regulations will supersede the specific plan requirements in the event of any conflict. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 932 A-3Landscape Palette | May 2022 AAppendix Foreground Shrubs & Groundcovers/Accents Achillea millefolium ‘moonshine’Yarrow Ajuga reptans Carpet bugle Carissa macrocarpa Natal plum Cistus salviifolius Sageleaf rockrose Festuca rubra Red fescue Gazania species Gazania Grevillea lanigera Grevillea Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue oat grass Hemerocallis species Daylily Iris douglasiana Douglas iris Limonium perezii Sea lavender Myoporum parvifolium Prostrate myoporum Penstemon species Beard tongue Punica granatum ‘nana’Dwarf pomegranate Romneya coulteri Matilija poppy Turf Sodded tall-type water conserving hybrid bermuda Background Shrubs Dietes bicolor Fortnight lily Grevillea species Grevillea Leucophyllum frutescens Texas ranger Ligustrum japonicum Wax-leaf privet Phlomis fruticosa Jerusalem sage Pittosporum tobira Japanese mock orange Rhamnus californica California coffeeberry Rhus integrifolia Lemonade berry Rhus ovata Sugar bush Ribes indecorum White flowering currant Rhaphiolepis species Hawthorn Rosa ‘carpet red’Carpet rose Westringia fruticosa ‘mundi’Dwarf coast rosemary Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 933 A-4 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Hitch Ranch Foreground Shrubs & Groundcovers/Accents Achillea millefolium ‘moonshine’Yarrow Agave species Agave Aloe species Aloe Achillea millefolium ‘moonshine’Yarrow Carissa macrocarpa Natal plum Cistus salviifolius Sageleaf rockrose Erigeron glaucus Seaside daisy Eschscholzia californica California poppy Festuca ovina glauca Blue fescue Festuca mairei Atlas fescue Fragaria chiloensis Wild strawberry Gazania species Gazania Hemerocallis species Daylily Iris douglasiana Douglas iris Kniphofia uvaria Red-hot poker Lavandula species Lavender Limonium perezii Sea lavender Myoporum parvifolium Prostrate myoporum Penstemon species Beard tongue Punica granatum ‘nana’Dwarf pomegranate Pyracantha ‘santa cruz’Firethorn Romneya coulteri Matilija poppy Rosa x ‘ice cap’Rose Sisyrinchium bellum Blue eyed grass Westringia fruticosa ‘mundi’Dwarf coast rosemary Project/Neighborhood Entries Trees: Agonis flexuosa Peppermint tree Arbutus ‘marina’Arbutus Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple guava Laurus nobilis Sweet bay Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia Plantanus racemosa California sycamore Prunus caroliniana Carolina laurel cherry Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Background Shrubs Aloe arorescens Aloe Cistus ladanifer Crimson spot rockrose Dietes bicolor Fortnight lily Grevillea species Grevillea Ligustrum japonicum Wax-leaf privet Rhamnus californica California coffeeberry Rhus integrifolia Lemonade berry Rhus ovata Sugar bush Ribes indecorum White flowering currant Rhaphiolepis species Hawthorn Westringia fruticosa ‘mundi’Dwarf coast rosemary Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 934 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2019-01 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR TRACT NO. 5708 (2019-01) General Conditions In addition to complying with all applicable City, County, State and Federal Statutes, Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions and Regulations, Development Agreements, Permittee expressly accepts and agrees to comply with the following Conditions of Approval: 1)All mitigation measures required as part of an approved Mitigation Monitoring Report and Program (MMRP) for this entitlement are hereby adopted and included as requirements of this entitlement. Where conflict or duplication between the MMRP and the Conditions of Approval occurs, the Community Development Director shall determine compliance so long as it does not conflict with the California Environmental Quality Act and the more restrictive measure or condition shall apply. [CDD] 2)Within thirty (30) calendar days of approval of this entitlement, the applicant shall sign and return to the Planning Division an Affidavit of Agreement and Notice of Entitlement Permit Conditions of Approval, indicating that the applicant has read and agrees to meet all Conditions of Approval of this entitlement. The Affidavit of Agreement/Notice shall include a legal description of the subject property and have the appropriate notary acknowledgement suitable for recordation. [CDD] 3)Except for the Development Agreement, the Conditions of Approval of this entitlement and all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, City of Moorpark Municipal Code and adopted City policies at the time of the entitlement approval, supersede all conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, typical sections and the like which may be shown on said Map and/or plans or on the entitlement application. In the event of any conflicts between the Development Agreement and Conditions of Approval, the Development Agreement shall control. In the event of any inconsistency between the Conditions of Approval and the Development Agreement, the terms of the Development Agreement shall control. This language shall be added as a notation to the Final Map. [CDD] 4)Conditions of this entitlement may not be interpreted as permitting or requiring any violation of law or any unlawful rules or regulations or orders of an authorized governmental agency. [CDD] 5)Should continued compliance with these Conditions of Approval not be met, the Community Development Director may modify the conditions in accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.44.100 and sections amendatory or supplementary thereto, declare the project to be out of compliance, or the Director may declare, for some other just cause, the project to be a public nuisance. The applicant shall be liable to the City for any and all costs and expenses to the City involved in thereafter abating the nuisance and in obtaining compliance with the Conditions of Approval or applicable codes. If the applicant fails to pay all City costs related to this action, the EXHIBIT F Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 935 City may enact special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land upon which the nuisance existed (Municipal Code Section 1.12.170). [CDD] 6) The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval by the City or any of its agencies, departments, commissions, agents, officers, or employees concerning this entitlement approval, which claim, action or proceeding is brought within the time period provided therefore in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other sections of state law as applicable and any provision amendatory or supplementary thereto. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and, if the City should fail to do so or should fail to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents, officers and employees pursuant to this condition. a. The City may, within its unlimited discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding if both of the following occur: i. The City bears its own attorney fees and costs; ii. The City defends the claim, action or proceeding in good faith. b. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement of such claim, action or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. The applicant's obligations under this condition shall apply regardless of whether a Final Map is ultimately recorded with respect to the subdivision or a building permit is issued pursuant to the planned development permit. [CDD] 7) If any of the conditions or limitations of this approval are held to be invalid, that holding does not invalidate any of the remaining conditions or limitations set forth. [CDD] 8) All facilities and uses, other than those specifically requested in the application and approval and those accessory uses allowed by the Municipal Code, are prohibited unless otherwise permitted through application for Modification consistent with the requirements of the zone and any other adopted ordinances, specific plans, landscape guidelines, or design guidelines. [CDD] 9) The continued maintenance of the subject site and facilities is subject to periodic inspection by the City. The Applicant and his/her successors, heirs, and assigns are required to remedy any defects in ground or building maintenance, as indicated by the City within five (5) working days from written notification. [CDD] 10) The applicant and his/her successors, heirs, and assigns must remove any graffiti within five (five) days from written notification by the City of Moorpark. All such graffiti removal must be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. [CDD] Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 936 11) Applicant shall cause tentative map and roadway sections to be updated to provide that all proposed sidewalks on public streets are a minimum width of six feet. [CDD, PW, PRCS] 12) Applicant shall cause tentative map and roadway section details for High Street to be updated to include 12-foot vehicle travel lanes and five-foot bicycle lanes in both directions. Additionally, the north side of High Street shall include an eight-foot parking lane, six-foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb, eight-foot landscaped parkway, and 12-foot multiuse trail. [CDD, PW, PRCS] City of Moorpark Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department Conditions 13) The Applicant shall cause easements to the City for public access and landscape maintenance to be denoted on the plans and consistent with the Community Facilities District diagram prepared by Comstock on May 4, 2022, subject to the satisfaction of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Director. [PRCS] 14) The Applicant shall cause easements to the City for drainage facility and storm drain maintenance, appurtenant structures, and ingress/egress purposes to be denoted on the plans to the satisfaction of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. [PRCS] 15) The Park shall be offered to the City in fee. [PRCS] 16) The final design of Parks A and B shall be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Commission. [PRCS] 17) Park B shall include a stage for performances at the south/east corner of the village green. The village green shall be designed to take advantage of the topography and provide a large event lawn for community events. The park features shall include a sizeable splash pad and tot lot, picnic areas and gazebos, a public restroom facility with a small private room and kitchenette, and appropriate parking. Other recreational features should be included as space allows, i.e. sand volleyball, bocce ball, etc. These improvements shall be located and designed subject to the satisfaction of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director [PRCS] 18) A restroom facility shall be located adjacent to Park A subject to the satisfaction of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. [PRCS] 19) The access roads around the perimeter of the detention basin on High Street and Gabbert Road should include rail fencing and multi-use paving acceptable for equestrian use, such as decomposed granite. These roads should be open to the public and included in the overall trail plan. Concrete maintenance ramps into the basins may need to provide for vehicular access during inclement weather. Equestrian rail fencing should be installed around the basin for Park A, unless tubular steel fencing is required by the County. The above improvements shall be Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 937 designed and located to the satisfaction of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. [PRCS] 20) Applicant shall cause plans to be revised to provide a roundabout or median island at the eastern project boundary on High Street, with a monument designating historic High Street subject to the satisfaction of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. [PRCS] 21) Applicant shall cause plans to be revised to provide for trail linkage to the open space parcel west of Gabbert Road, including an overlook to the satisfaction of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. [PRCS] 22) Applicant shall cause plans to be revised so that the existing driveway approach on the north side of High Street, across from the post office shall be improved to City roadway standards. Angled parking shall be provided in front of the future City library location. A pedestrian crossing shall be installed from the post office parking lot to the improved roadway corridor. [PRCS] City of Moorpark Public Safety Conditions 23) Applicant shall ensure the following in the design and development of the project: a. All trash enclosures shall be secured and locked; b. Park benches should have a middle arm rest; c. Consider hexagon shaped (or similar) picnic tables; and d. Consider picnic tables with individual seats. [MPD] 24) Prior to issuance of a building permit for parks or community buildings, Applicant shall submit a lighting plan to include all common use areas, including parks, ball courts, clubhouse, public parking areas, etc., subject to the review and approval of the Moorpark Police Department. [MPD] 25) Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a landscape plan to ensure tree canopies will not be lower than six feet and shrubbery no taller than two feet, subject to review and approval of the Moorpark Police Department, Community Development Director, and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. [MPD] 26) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for community buildings, the Applicant shall prepare a community amenities access plan in coordination with the Moorpark Police Department to address how recreation facilities will be alarmed, secured and accessed, hours of operation, and staffing, subject to the review and approval of the Moorpark Police Department. [MPD] 27) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for community buildings, the Applicant shall provide a video surveillance camera and alarm system plan for common areas, subject to the review and approval of the Moorpark Police Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 938 Department. Cameras shall also be registered with the Ventura County Sherriff’s Office Video Surveillance Camera Registration Program. [MPD] City of Moorpark Public Works Department Conditions 28) Prior to construction, applicant shall submit a construction traffic control plan for the review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Traffic control plan shall include construction advisory speed limits, speed limit posting locations, and enforcement measures if needed. [PW] 29) The applicant and/or property owner shall provide verification to the City Engineer and Public Works Director that all on-site storm drains have been cleaned at least twice a year, once immediately prior to October 1st (the rainy season) and once in January. Additional cleaning may be required by the City Engineer and Public Works Director depending upon site and weather conditions. [PW] 30) Prior to any work being conducted within any State, County, or City right-of way, the applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits from the appropriate agencies and provide copies of these approved permits and the plans associated with the permits to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. [PW] 31) The applicant shall utilize all prudent and reasonable measures (including installation of a 6-foot-high chain link fence around the construction site(s) and/or provision of a full time licensed security guard) to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the work site at any time and to protect the public from accidents and injury. [PW] 32) Prior to construction, the applicant shall post, in a conspicuous location, the construction hour limitations and make each construction trade aware of the construction hour limitations to the satisfaction of the City. [CDD & PW] 33) Prior to the approval of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement, the applicant shall post sufficient surety with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and Public Works Director, guaranteeing completion of all onsite and offsite improvements required by these Conditions of Approval and/or the Municipal Code including, but not limited to grading, street improvements, storm drain improvements, temporary and permanent Best Management Practice (BMP) for the control of non-point water discharges, landscaping, fencing, and bridges. Phased grading and improvements are permissible, subject to those conditions and the approval of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. Grading and improvements must be designed, bonded, and constructed as approved for each phase. [PW] 34) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or Final Map approval, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide written proof to the City Engineer and Public Works Director that any and all wells that may exist or have existed within the project have been properly sealed, destroyed or abandoned per Ventura County Ordinance No. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 939 2372 or Ordinance No. 3991 and per California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources requirements. [PW] 35) During grading, the project geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations, removal of fill and landslide materials down to stable bedrock or in-place material, and installation of all sub-drains including their connections. All fill slope construction must be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director to be kept on file. Cuts and slopes must be observed and mapped by the project geotechnical and civil engineers who will provide any required slope modification recommendations based on the actual geologic conditions encountered during grading. Written approval from the City Engineer and Public Works Director must be obtained prior to any modification. [PW] 36) Written weekly progress reports and a grading completion report must be submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director by the project geotechnical engineers. These reports must include the results and locations of all compaction tests, as-built plans of all landslide repairs and fill removal, including geologic mapping of the exposed geology of all excavations showing cut cross-sections and sub-drain depths and locations. The lists of excavations approved by the engineering geologist must also be submitted. Building permits will not be issued without documentation that the grading and other pertinent work has been performed in accordance with the geotechnical report criteria and applicable Grading Ordinance provisions. [PW] 37) During grading, colluvial soils and landslide deposits within developed portions of the properties must be re-graded to effectively remove the potential for seismically- induced landslides in these materials. Additional buttressing, keying and installation of debris benches must be provided in transition areas between non-graded areas and development as recommended in the final geotechnical reports by the project geotechnical engineer. [PW] 38) Temporary irrigation, hydroseeding and erosion control measures, approved by the Community Development Director, City Engineer and Public Works Director, must be implemented on all temporary grading. Temporary grading is defined to be any grading partially completed and any disturbance of existing natural conditions due to construction activity. These measures will apply to a temporary or permanent grading activity that remains or is anticipated to remain unfinished or undisturbed in its altered condition for a period of time greater than thirty (30) calendar days except that during the rainy season (October 1 to April 15), these measures will be implemented immediately. [CDD & PW] 39) Grading may occur during the rainy season from October 1 to April 15, subject to timely installation of erosion control facilities when approved in writing by the City Engineer, Public Works Director and the Community Development Director and when erosion control measures are in place. In order to start or continue grading Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 940 operations between October 1 and April 15, project-specific erosion control plans that provide detailed Best Management Practices for erosion control during the rainy season must be submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director no later than September 1 of each year that grading is in progress. During site preparation and construction, the contractor shall minimize disturbance of natural groundcover on the project site until such activity is required for grading and construction purposes. During the rainy season, October 1 through April 15, all graded slopes must be covered with a woven artificial covering immediately after completion of each graded slope. Grading operations must cease if the applicant fails to place effective best management measures on graded slopes immediately after construction. No slopes may be graded or otherwise created when the National Weather Service local three-day forecast for rain is fifty percent (50%) or greater, unless the applicant is prepared to cover the permanent and temporary slopes before the rain event. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) is required to ensure that there is adequate materials, staff, and time to implement erosion control and sediment control measures that are intended to reduce the amount of pollutants generated from an active site. A REAP must be developed when there is a likely forecast of 50% or greater probability of precipitation in the project area. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, defines a chance of precipitation as a probability of 30% to 50% change of producing precipitation in the area.) The artificial covering and planting will be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, and Public Works Director. [CDD & PW] 40) Prior to construction, the applicant shall comply with the City of Moorpark standard requirements for dust control, including, but not be limited to, minimization of ground disturbance, application of water/chemicals, temporary/permanent ground cover/seeding, street sweeping, and covering loads of dirt for the review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. All clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, soil import and/or soil export operations must cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour). [PW] 41) At least one (1) week prior to commencement of grading or construction, the applicant shall prepare a notice that grading or construction work will commence. This notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all owners and occupants of property within five-hundred feet (500') of the exterior boundary of the project site, as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice must include current contact information for the applicant, including all persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility, including the name of the contact responsible for maintaining the list. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the twenty-four (24) hour emergency number, must be expressly identified in the notice. The notice must be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of all notices must be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice record for the City must be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners notified and a map identifying the notification area. [CDD & PW] Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 941 42) Applicant has full right to exercise the service of a new engineer in charge at any time during a project. When there is a change in engineer, the applicant/owner shall notify the City Engineer and Public Works Director in writing within 48 hours of such change. Said letter shall specify successor California Registered Civil Engineer and shall be stamped and signed and dated by said engineer in responsible charge and shall accept responsibility of project. The letter will be kept on file at the City. [PW] 43) The Final Map must be prepared in accordance with the latest copy of the, "Guide for the Preparation of Tract Maps, Parcel Maps and Records of Survey/Corner Records" as published by the Public Works Agency of the County of Ventura and amended from time to time. The various jurat's/notary acknowledgements and certificates must be modified, as appropriate, to reflect the jurisdiction of the City and the location of the subdivision within the City. The Final Map must provide that each lot corner survey marker be set and monumented with Ventura County Road Standard Survey Monument Plate E-4, where feasible. Where lot corner survey markers being set and monumented with Ventura County Road Standard Survey Monument Plate E-4 is determined to be infeasible, the lot corner survey markers shall be set in manner that is appropriate to the constructed improvements. All street centerline, intersections, tangent points, and terminus shall be monumented with Ventura County Road Standard survey monument plate E-4. Street monuments must be intervisible. The E-4 monument disk stamping must read, "City of Moorpark", be center punched to show the corner, and be stamped with the registration or license number of the professional surveyor responsible for its location. [PW] 44) Concurrently with the submittal of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a current (dated within the last ninety (90) days) preliminary title report to the City Engineer and Public Works Director, which clearly identifies all interested parties, lien holders, lenders and all other parties having any record title interest in the real property being subdivided. The preliminary title report must identify the holders of any easements that affect the subdivision and contain the vesting deeds of ownership and easements. Thirty (30) days prior to the submittal of the Final Map Mylar® sheets, the applicant shall provide the City Engineer and Public Works Director, a subdivision guarantee policy of the property within the Final Map and preliminary title report for each area of easement proposed to be obtained for grading or construction of improvements. [PW] 45) Prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the City Engineer and Public Works Director that a copy of the conditionally approved Tentative Map together with a copy of Section 66436 of the State Subdivision Map Act has been transmitted to each public entity or public utility that is an easement holder of record. The applicant shall obtain subordination of senior rights of easement from any such public utility in favor of the City. [PW] Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 942 46) At least one-hundred-twenty (120) days prior to the filing of the Final Map, if any improvement which the applicant is required to construct or install is to be constructed or installed upon land in which the applicant does not have title or interest sufficient for such purposes, the applicant shall comply with all of the requirements of Subdivision Map Act Section 66462.5 and any provision amendatory or supplementary thereto. Prior to the filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide the City with an executed offsite property acquisition agreement in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, City Attorney, and City Manager. As a part of the notification to the City required by that section, the applicant shall provide the City a deposit in an amount approved by the Community Development Director, sufficient to pay the estimated costs and fees to be accrued by the City in obtaining said property. Within fifteen (15) days of notification by the City that the deposited funds are insufficient to complete the acquisition, the applicant shall deposit such additional funds that the Community Development Director deems necessary. During the time between notice of insufficiency of deposited funds and payment of said insufficiency, the time limits of Section 66462.5 shall toll. [PW] 47) Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall obtain City Engineer and Public Works Director approval of all required public improvement and grading plans. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to complete grading, public improvements and subdivision monumentation and post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction and maintenance of grading all public improvements, and private street and storm drain improvements; construction and post construction NPDES Best Management Practice; and subdivision monumentation in a form and in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer. The plans must be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer and sureties must meet the City's requirements for sureties and must remain in place for one year following final acceptance of the improvements by the City or until such time that the City Council shall approve their redemption, whichever is the longer. [PW] 48) Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall post sufficient surety in an amount acceptable to the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Public Works Director and in a form approved by City Attorney guaranteeing the payment of laborers and materials men in an amount no less than fifty percent (50%) of the faithful performance surety. [PW] 49) Prior to Final Map approval and upon submittal of the Final Map Mylar® sheets, the applicant shall provide the City Engineer and Public Works Director electronic files of the Final Map, complete in every fashion except for signatures, in a format satisfactory to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. [PW] 50) Upon recordation of the Final Map(s) the applicant shall forward a photographic process copy on 3-mil polyester film of the recorded Map(s) to the City Engineer and Public Works Director. [PW] Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 943 51) Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall show all lot-to-lot drainage easements or secondary drainage easements delineated on the Final Map. Assurance in the form of an agreement must be provided to the City that these easements will be adequately maintained by the property owners to safely convey stormwater flows. Said agreement must be submitted to the City Engineer and Public Works Director and City Attorney for review and approval and must include provisions for the owner’s association to maintain any private storm drain not maintained by a City Assessment District in conformance with the NPDES. The agreement must be a durable agreement that is binding upon each property owner of each lot and successors in interest. [PW] 52) Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall fully complete the "Final Map Processing Procedures" as outlined in Moorpark Administrative Procedure (MAP) CD-18, available from the Community Development Department. [PW] 53) Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall cause the revision of the map to provide a bus turnout at the northeast corner of Street A and entrance to Planning Area 4. Developer shall be responsible for constructing a bus shelter, including seating and lighting. The bus turnout and shelter deign shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer / Public Works Director. [PW] 54) Prior to Final Map (or Phased Maps) approval, the Developer shall provide all improvement plans for review and concurrence by the Engineering Department. [PW] 55) Prior to any Grading Permit issuance, the Developer shall obtain approval and/or a Permit from the Ventura County Watershed Protection District for storm water connection and discharge into the Walnut Canyon/Gabbert Channel. [PW] 56) Development shall conform to the current requirements for the County’s MS4 permit for new developments. [PW] 57) Implementation of storm water quality management controls shall conform to the most current edition (or version) of the County of Ventura Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Measures. This includes all homeowners association and Facilities District maintained storm water quality facilities. [PW] 58) All storm water detention, retention, and impoundment facilities shall provide access for maintenance purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, maintenance access roads, vehicle and/or man gates, and adequate space to maneuver equipment. [PW] 59) Provide a complete Hydrology and Hydraulic Report for the entire development. This includes all technical analysis for storm water impoundment and conveyance facilitates, peak flow mitigation analysis, storm water runoff calculations, and facility sizing. If the improvements are to be phased, any interim drainage conditions shall be considered as part of the proposed improvements, Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 944 including but not limited to, interim drainage impoundment facilities, conveyance, and storm water quality measures. [PW] 60) Future connection to Meridian Hills Drive shall be addressed during Final Engineering. This includes the existing desilting basin at the end of Meridian Hills Drive. [PW] 61) In-tract improvements shall incorporate Low Impact Development standards. [PW] 62) Any proposed sewer lift stations and force mains shall be reviewed and approved by the Ventura County Waterworks District. The City Engineer and Community Development Director shall concur with the final location of any sewer lift stations and force main systems. [PW] 63) North Hills Parkway shall be designed and constructed to the ultimate improvements. [PW] 64) Standard roadway designs, per the most current Ventura County Road Standards, shall be used for all public and private street improvements. This includes all proposed knuckles and cul-de-sac designs. [PW] 65) All driveway aprons that cross an accessible path or sidewalk shall be ADA compliant. [PW] 66) Developer shall provide an Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits for all new public streets that are part of the proposed development. [PW] 67) All traffic circles, roundabouts, and mini-roundabouts shall be designed by licensed civil engineer and traffic engineer. Design shall conform to Federal Highway Administration design guidelines, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. [PW] 68) All City owned and maintained roads that will be used for major construction traffic, including heavy equipment and commercial vehicles shall be subject to street and pavement restoration. This includes High Street West, Poindexter Avenue, Casey Road, and Gabbert Road. [PW] 69) All vehicle traveled way widths shall be standard and conform to Caltrans Highway Design Manual. This includes Class 2 bikeway lane widths. [PW] Ventura County Public Works – Watershed Protection Conditions 70) The proposed development shall incorporate 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 Watershed Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 945 Protection policy and WP-2 Ordinance or, alternatively, apply the City standard; whichever is most restrictive shall apply. [VCPW-WP] 71) The Property Owners will not object to the establishment of a special assessment district to fund drainage system improvements, including but not limited to: technical study and development, engineering design, construction, rehabilitation, replacement and long-term maintenance of the Gabbert/Walnut drainage facilities. The limited hydraulic conveyance and deficiencies are documented in the 2005 Technical Addendum to Gabbert and Walnut Canyon Channels Flood Control Deficiency Study by PACE, which has been adopted by the City of Moorpark. [VCPW-WP] Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 Conditions 72) Prior to the issuance of a Signed Agreement to Install the Applicant shall provide Ventura County Waterworks District with the following: a. Water and sewer improvement plans in the required format. Water improvements shall create a looped system during all phases of the development; b. Hydraulic analysis to determine the adequacy of the proposed and existing water and sewer lines; c. Off-site water and sewer improvements to be upsized as needed to adequately provide water and sewer services to the tract; d. A plan denoting the location of fire hydrants and copy of approvals by the Ventura County Fire Protection District; e. Cost estimates for water and sewer improvements; f. Plan check, construction inspection, capital improvement charge, sewer connection fee, and meter charges per phase of the project; and g. Recorded easements dedicated to the District for water and sewer facility improvements. [VCWW] 73) Following the acceptance of the above items, Applicant provide Ventura County Waterworks District with a Signed Agreement to Install all improvements and Surety Bond. [VCWW] 74) Prior to the issuance of a Signed Agreement to Install the Applicant shall be required to pay a fee in the amount of $1,351,000 as a cost share for offsite recycled water improvements in lieu of installing future recycled water pipeline expansion. The Applicant is required to install an onsite recycled water system for all common area/public irrigation which can be operated temporarily using potable water until such a time that recycled water is available. At the point the system shall be well designed and recorded so it can easily be switched over to recycled water. [VCWW] 75) Applicant shall either construct, or provide in-lieu payment to fund construction by the Ventura County Waterworks District, of a potable water tank located within the pressure zone to be served. The potable water tank shall be operational at such time as determined to be required to serve units within the pressure zone being Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 946 served. Determination of operational need and timing shall be subject to final water system design and approval by the Ventura County Waterworks District. Occupancy release and the Ventura County Waterworks District setting of the first meter shall be determined by the District and defined within the Signed Agreement to Install. In the event that Ventura County Waterworks District constructs the potable water tank the Applicant shall fund the construction cost prior to issuance of a Signed Agreement to Install. [VCWW] Ventura County Fire Protection District Conditions 76) State Fire Safe Regulations - The project is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and shall comply with the minimum standards of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Article 6, Subchapter 2, “SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations” (CCR T- 14 FSR), unless modified by more restrictive local ordinances and requirements. [FD] 77) Access Road Width, Private Roads and Driveways - Private roads shall comply with Public Road Standards. 2.5-foot wide easements shall be provided on each side of any private access road/driveway to allow for curbs and fire lane signage. • Access road width of 36 feet shall be provided for residential use with parallel parking permitted on both sides. • Access road width of 32 feet shall be provided for residential use with parallel parking permitted on one side. • Access road width of 24 feet shall be required with no on-street parking permitted, or per Public Road Standards whichever is stricter. • Driveways serving up to two (2) single family dwellings shall have a minimum clear width of 15 feet with no parking along the common portion serving the two (2) dwellings. [FD] 78) Construction Access - Prior to combustible construction, a paved all-weather access road / driveway suitable for use by a 20-ton Fire Department vehicle shall be installed at locations approved by the Fire Department. A minimum 20-foot clear width shall remain free of obstruction during any construction activities within the development once combustible construction starts. [FD] 79) Construction Access Utilities - Prior to combustible construction, all utilities located within the access road and the first lift of the access road pavement shall be installed. [FD] 80) Turning Radius FHSZ - All access roads and driveways shall be of sufficient width to allow for a 50-foot inside turning radius at all turns in the road or driveway. [FD] 81) Vertical Clearance - All access roads / driveways shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches (13' 6") clear of building to sky. [FD] Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 947 82) Access Road and Driveway Grade – All access roads and driveways shall not exceed a 16% grade. [FD] 83) Vertical Curve - The vertical curve of a road or driveway shall not allow for transitions between grades that exceed 6% elevation change along any 10 foot section. These transitions shall include; angle of approach, angle of departure and high centering of fire apparatus. [FD] 84) Turnarounds - Approved turnaround areas for fire apparatus shall be provided when dead-end Fire Department access roads / driveways exceed 150 feet. Turnaround areas shall not exceed a 5% cross slope in any direction and shall be located within 150 feet of the end of the access road / driveway. Turnaround areas shall not be used for parking and shall be kept free of obstructions at all times. Turnaround areas shall be posted as Fire Lanes in accordance with Fire Department Fire Lane Standards. [FD] 85) Parking Prohibited - The property owner(s) are hereby advised that parking on access roads / driveways and fire department turnarounds is prohibited. [FD] 86) Access Road Location - The access / driveway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building and shall be in accordance with Fire Department access standards. Where the access roadway cannot be provided, approved fire protection system or systems shall be installed as required and acceptable to the Fire Department. [FD] 87) Site Access - Two (2) separate means of ingress/egress shall be provided to all areas the development in accordance with CCR T-14 FSR and Fire Department access standards. Required secondary ingress/egress (secondary access) shall be provided and maintained at all times starting with the first occupancy of any building within the project area. This includes within each Planning Area and the project area as a whole. If the required secondary access travels through a construction area, provisions shall be implemented to separate the construction area such that the required secondary access in available through the construction area at all times, day and night. Dead-end roads shall not exceed 800 feet. [FD] 88) Private Access Road and Driveway Certification - That the access road(s)/driveway(s) shall be certified by a registered civil engineer as having an all- weather surface in conformance with Public Works and / or Fire Department standards. This certification shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to occupancy. [FD] 89) Fire Lanes / Access Review (Submit prior to issuance of the first fire department clearance to start construction) - the applicant shall submit two (2) site plans to the Fire Department for review and approval of access road / driveways and location of fire lanes. Prior to occupancy, all fire lanes shall be posted “NO PARKING-FIRE LANE-TOW AWAY” in accordance with California Vehicle Code, the International Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 948 Fire Code and current VCFD Fire Lane Standards. All signs and or Fire Lane markings shall be within the public right of way or recorded access easements. [FD] 90) Traffic Calming / Speed Control Devices: Any proposed traffic calming or speed control devices (speed humps, pillows, etc) require approval of the fire department prior to installation. Speed bumps are prohibited. [FD] 91) Access Road Gates - Any gates to control vehicle access are to be located to allow a vehicle waiting for entrance to be completely off the intersecting roadway (minimum 40 foot setback). A minimum clear open width of 15 feet in each direction shall be provided for separate entry / exit gates and a minimum 20 for combined entry / exit gates. Roadway spikes of any type are prohibited. If gates are to be locked, a Knox system shall be installed. The method of gate control, including operation during power failure (battery back-up), shall be subject to review by the Fire Prevention Division. Gate plan details shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. A final acceptance inspection by the Fire Department is required prior to placing any gate into service. [FD] 92) Road / Street Name Required - Public and private roads shall be named if serving more than four (4) parcels or as required by the Fire Department. [FD] 93) Street Names - Prior to recordation of street names, proposed names shall be submitted to the Fire Department's Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. [FD] 94) Walkways - Approved walkways shall be provided from all building openings to the public way or fire department access road / driveway. [FD] 95) Walk and Pedestrian Gates - If gates are to be locked, a Knox system shall be installed. The method of gate control, including operation during power failure (battery back-up), shall be subject to review by the Fire Prevention Division. Gate plan details shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. A final acceptance inspection by the Fire Department is required prior to placing any gate into service. [FD] 96) Address Numbers (Commercial, Industrial, Multi-family buildings) - Building address numbers, a minimum of ten inches (10") high, shall be installed prior to occupancy, shall be of contrasting color to the background, and shall be readily visible at night. Brass or gold-plated numbers shall not be used. Where structures are set back more than 150 feet from the street, larger numbers will be required so that they are distinguishable from the street. In the event a structure(s) is not visible from the street, the address number(s) shall be posted adjacent to the driveway entrance on an elevated post. Individual unit numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches in height and shall be posted at the front and rear entrance to each unit. Additional address directional signs may be required at common building entrances and stairways. [FD] Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 949 97) Address Numbers (Single Family Homes) - Address numbers, a minimum of 4 inches (4") high, shall be installed prior to occupancy, shall be of contrasting color to the background, and shall be readily visible at night. Brass or gold-plated numbers shall not be used. Where structures are set back more than 150 feet (150') from the street, larger numbers will be required so that they are distinguishable from the street. In the event the structure(s) is not visible from the street, the address number(s) shall be posted adjacent to the driveway entrance on an elevated post. [FD] 98) Address Number Plan - A plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review indicating the method in which buildings are to be identified by address numbers. [FD] 99) Fire Hydrant Plan - Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans to the Fire Department for placement of fire hydrants. On plans, show existing hydrants within 500 feet of the development. Indicate the type of hydrant, number and size of outlets. [FD] 100) Fire Hydrant(s) Required - Fire hydrant(s) shall be provided in accordance with current adopted edition of the Ventura County Fire Code, Appendix C and adopted amendments. On-site fire hydrants may be required as determined by the Fire Department. Fire hydrants shall be installed along any road adjacent to Wildland fuels, at locations determined by the Fire Department. [FD] 101) Fire Hydrant Design (Commercial, Industrial, Multi-family buildings) - Fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to combustible construction and shall conform to the minimum standard of the City of Moorpark Water Works Manual and the following. • Each hydrant shall be a 6 inch wet barrel design and shall have ( 1 ) 4 inch and ( 2 ) 2 ½ inch outlet(s). • The required fire flow per VCFC Appendix B shall be achieved at no less than 20- psi residual pressure. • Fire hydrants shall be spaced 300 feet on center and so located that no structure will be farther than 150 feet from any one hydrant. • Fire hydrants shall be set back in from the curb face 24 inches on center. • No obstructions, including walls, trees, light and signposts, meter, shall be placed within three (3) feet of any hydrant. • A concrete pad shall be installed extending 18 inches out from the fire hydrant. • Ground clearance to the lowest operating nut shall be between 18 to 24 inches. [FD] 102) Fire Hydrant Design (Single Family Homes) - Fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to combustible construction and shall conform to the minimum standards of the City of Moorpark Water Works Manual and the following. • Each hydrant shall be a 6-inch wet barrel design and shall have one (1) 4 inch and one (1) 2 ½ inch outlet. Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 950 • The required fire flow of 1000 gpm shall be achieved at no less than 20-psi residual pressure. • Fire hydrants shall be spaced 500 feet on center, and so located that no structure will be farther than 250 feet from any one hydrant. • Fire hydrants shall be set back from the curb face 24 inches on center. • No obstructions, including walls, trees, light and signposts, meter, shall be placed within three (3) feet of any hydrant. • A concrete pad shall be installed extending 18 inches out from the fire hydrant. • Ground clearance to the lowest operating nut shall be between 18 to 24 inches. [FD] 103) Fire Hydrant Installation - Prior to combustible construction on any parcel, a fire hydrant capable of providing the required fire flow and duration shall be installed and in service along the access road / driveway at a location approved by the Fire Department. The owner of the combustible construction is responsible for the cost of this installation. [FD] 104) Fire Hydrant Protection – The developer shall implement measures approved by the Fire Department to prevent obstruction of fire hydrants during construction. [FD] 105) Hydrant Location Markers - Prior to occupancy of any structure, blue reflective hydrant location markers shall be placed on the access roads in accordance with Fire Department standards. If the final asphalt cap is not in place at time of occupancy, hydrant location markers shall still be installed and shall be replaced when the final asphalt cap in completed. [FD] 106) Fire Flow - The minimum fire flow required shall be determined as specified by the current adopted edition of the Ventura County Fire Code Appendix B with adopted Amendments and the applicable Water Manual for the jurisdiction (with ever is more restrictive). The applicant shall verify that the water purveyor can provide the required volume and duration at the project prior to obtaining a building permit. [FD] 107) Water System Plans – Plans for water systems supplying fire hydrants and / or fire sprinkler systems and not located within a water purveyor’s easement, shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits or signing of Mylar plans, whichever is first. Plans shall reflect only dedicated private fire service lines and associated appurtenances. Plan shall be design in accordance with VCFD Standards and submitted with the appropriate fees. [FD] 108) Fire Sprinklers - All structures, including any future Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with current VCFPD Ordinance at time of building permit application. [FD] 109) Fire Protection System Plans - Plans for all fire protection systems (sprinklers, dry chemical, hood systems, etc.) shall be submitted, with payment for plan check, to Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 951 the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. Note: Fire sprinkler systems with 6 or more heads shall be supervised by a fire alarm system in accordance with Fire Department requirements. [FD] 110) Building Plan Review (Submit prior to Building & Safety approval) - Building plans of all A, E, I, H, R-1, R-2 or R-4 occupancies shall be submitted, with payment for plan check, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit. [FD] 111) Hazardous Fire Area - This development is in a Hazardous Fire Area and all structures shall meet hazardous fire area building code requirements. Contact the Building Department for requirements. [FD] 112) Hazard Abatement - Structures All grass or brush exposing any structure(s) to fire hazards shall be cleared for a distance of 100 feet prior to construction of any structure and shall be maintained in accordance with State Law and VCFPD Ordinance. The proposed Hitch Ranch Project will include up to 200 feet of fuel modification in accordance with the approved Fire Protection Plan incorporated within the project’s approved EIR and Specific Plan. Provisions shall be made by the applicant to maintain the portion of the existing 100-foot defensible space zone that occurs on this project from existing homes adjacent to the project boundaries. [FD] 113) Hazard Abatement – Off-site. Provisions shall be made by the project applicant to clear and maintain any portion of the required 100-foot defensible space zone that occurs off-site of the project’s eastern boundaries until such time those unimproved parcels construct buildings subject to defensible space regulations. [FD] 114) Hazard Abatement – Roads and Driveways All grass and brush shall be cleared to a distance of ten (10) feet on each side of all access roads / driveways. [FD] 115) Fuel Modification Zone and Landscape Plans - The developer shall provide Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) and or Landscape plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect to VCFD for review and approval as follows: • Tracts and multiple lot projects: Plans shall be submitted for approval before the start of construction. This includes slopes, common areas, and individual lot landscaping install by the developer. • Individual Parcels: Plans shall be submitted for approval prior to installation and or modification of any vegetation / landscape. This includes owner installed landscaping after original purchase of a parcel or building from the developer. [FD] 116) Spark Arrester - An approved spark arrester shall be installed on the chimney of any structure. [FD] 117) Fire Department Clearance (Submit prior to Building & Safety approval) - Applicant shall obtain VCFD Form #610 "Fire Permit Application” and Form #625 “Fire Flow Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 952 Verification” prior to obtaining a building permit for any new structures or additions to existing structures. [FD] 118)Phasing Plan - Applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction. [FD] 119)Map Approval - At least 14 days prior to recordation of any maps, including parcel map waivers, the applicant shall submit two copies of the map to the Fire Prevention Division for approval. [FD] 120)Recorded Map - A copy of all recorded maps shall be provided to the Fire Prevention Division within seven (7) days of recordation of said map. [FD] Additional Conditions Imposed by the Planning Commission 121)Applicant shall remove “metal halide” light fixtures from the approved lighting types on page 4-15 of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan. Lighting within the Project shall be L.E.D. [CDD] 122)Applicant shall revise page 4-37 of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan outlining wall standards for the Traditional architectural style to state, “Stucco elements” instead of “Stucco”. [CDD] 123)Applicant shall replace the existing photo illustrating contrasting downspouts on page 4-20 of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan with a more appropriate alternative subject to approval of the Community Development Director. [CDD] Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 953 Resolution No. 2022-4104 Page 954 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. 2022-4104 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of June, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Castro, Enegren, Groff, Pollock and Mayor Parvin NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 20th day of June, 2022. Ky Span,-r, ity rk (seal) QA�K IC.�� O 9 �