Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2005 0601 CC REG ITEM 08B SUPPLEMENTAL David Bobardt From: Rick_Farris©fws.gov ��� Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:56 PM RECEIVED To: David Bobardt ' JUN 01 2005 Mr. Bobardt, COF OORPARKN I have glanced briefly at the mitigation plan for the North Ranch specific plan development. I have some concerns over the fate of the coastal California gnatcatchers that were found in the proposed 118 freeway off-ramp, and the overall effect of the development on the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat in the area. At one point, Moorpark supported the largest population of California gnatcatchers outside of Los Angeles County. Although the 2003 fire changed things a bit, we fully expect the coastal sage scrub in the area to return and with it, the gnatcatchers. Also, the area has been -proposed for inclusion as critical habitat for the species. I would like to provide more detailed comments, but time is not on my side. I will say that the intent to address the loss of the California gnatcatcher territory at the freeway off-ramp site seems to be left for a future consultation or permitting action. If the City certifies the EIR for the project before then, we will be stuck with trying to shoehorn a conservation plan into an approved development plan. Any changes necessitated by a conservation plan for the gnatcatcher could prove problematic, as it did for the Specific Plan Area No. 2 project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Rick Farris, Division Chief Southern Santa Barbara/Ventura/Los Angeles Division Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Ventura, California 93003 (805) 644-1766, fax 644-3958 1 ITEM . David Bobardt From: Randy Griffith [randy_griffith@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:14 PM To: David Bobardt Subject: Additional Mitigation Measures for North Park Mitigation Monitoring Program T.1 DECEIVED 1710540258-AddMi JUN ® 1 Z �� tigationMeasur... Dave, CITY CLERKS DIVISION Attached are some additional mitigation measures CITYOF MOORPARK proposed for the North Park Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Please contact me at (805) 455-0603 if you have any questions regarding these additional mitigation measures. Thanks! Randy Griffith Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html de': f /j o� ,p fA 4 —bDi iJ i M Additional Biological Mitigations and/or project design features proposed to better mitigate significant impacts to biological resources include but are not limited to the following: 1. Solve all remedial grading issues for the project within zero (0)feet of the approved grading limits, so that it does not impact any of the nature preserve's or any other open space. Rationale: It is important to codify this intent in the mitigation monitoring plan so that it is adopted at same time as the EIR, findings of fact, and statement of overriding considerations. It is not enough that the voters have to vote to decrease the size of the nature preserve. Rather, the grading plan and actual grading should have to adhere to this standard. An example of when this might come into play would be if there is a landslide that needs to be remediated near homes proposed for the edges next to open space or the nature preserve—the builders could not grade out into the open space to remediate the landslide,but would have to reduce the footprint of project and not build home(s) there instead, thereby increasing the size of the open space and/or nature preserve. 2. All wildlife crossings,presently proposed or that may be required in the future, pending potential further analysis, must be built to at least the minimum standard (or better) of a 0.9 openness level as defined in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Section 3.6). However, the two proposed bridged crossings in the easternmost development areas (or any other potential future bridged crossings) must remain full clear-span bridge crossings. Rationale and Comments: On page 20 of Mitigation Monitoring Plan it refers to this 0.9 openness threshold but it appears to refer to only ONE such crossing. It is our understanding that there may be more than one wildlife crossing and this is not clear and needs to be more explicit. I could not find the requirement for clear span bridge crossings in the mitigation monitoring program and it needs to be there. NOTE: Some of these may belong in sections on land use or grading, rather than biological. It is not yet certain where the right location(s) should be for each one in the mitigation plan, but this is something the staff and/or consultant could review and report back to council on at June 15, 2005 meeting before the council takes its vote on the EIR, Findings of Fact, Mitigation Monitoring, or Statement of Overriding Considerations. I strongly recommend that the council and staff consider these new additions between now and June 15th, at least, and not decide on June 1st without any significant time to digest and deliberate on what is recommended.