The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES CC 2006 2537 2006 1115RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -2537 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -04 FOR A CHANGE OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON 28.69 ACRES NORTH OF CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE AND WEST OF WALNUT CANYON ROAD AND 43.04 ACRES NORTH OF CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE AND EAST OF GRIMES CANYON ROAD, BOTH ON THE APPLICATION OF TOLL BROTHERS, INC. WHEREAS, on June 28, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. PC- 2005 -483 and PC- 2005 -484, recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -04, to amend the General Plan land -use designations from Rural Low Residential (RL), Medium Low Density Residential (ML) and Open Space -2 (OS -2) to Medium Low Density Residential (ML) and Open Space -2 (OS -2), on 28.69 acres located north of Championship Drive and west of Walnut Canyon Road (Site 1), and from Rural Low Residential (RL), Open Space -2 (OS -2) and Public Institutional (PUB) to Medium Low Density Residential (ML), Open Space (OS -2) and Public Institutional (PUB), on 43.04 acres located north of Championship Drive and east of Grimes Canyon Road (Site 2), both on the application of Toll Brothers, Inc.; and WHEREAS, at duly noticed public hearings on July 19, 2006, August 2, 2006, September 20, 2006, and November 15, 2006, the City Council considered the agenda reports for the projects affected by General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -04 and any supplements thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearings and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposals, closed the public hearings and reached decisions on this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the projects referenced above. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for these projects, attached as Exhibit C, are complete and have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and City CEQA Procedures. B. The City Council has considered information in the environmental document in its deliberations of these projects before making decisions concerning the projects and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 2 C. The Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the project conditions of the accompanying Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Residential Planned Development for these projects. D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects an independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in connection with General Plan Amendment 2003 -04, Zone Change 2003 -03, Development Agreement Nos. 2004 -02 and 2004 -01, Tentative Map Nos. 5464 and 5463, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 1994 -01 Modification No. 6, and Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2003 -04 is hereby adopted. SECTION 3. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: General Plan Amendment 2003- 04 is approved, amending the General Plan Land Use Map for Sites 1 and 2 as shown in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. SECTION 4. The effective date of General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -04 shall be concurrent with the effective date of the Ordinances for Zone Change No. 2003 -03 and Development Agreement Nos. 2004 -02 and 2004 -01, whichever occurs last. SECTION 5 CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and sh use certified resolution to be Oled in the book of original resolutions. / PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th dal of Nove ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, C Jerk Attachments: Exhibit A — General Plan Amendment Map o i e 1: 28.69 Acres West of Walnut Canyon Road Exhibit B — General Plan Amendment Map for Site 2: 43.04 Acres East of Grimes Canyon Road Exhibit C — Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 3 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003 -04 SITE 1: 28.69 ACRES WEST OF WALNUT CANYON ROAD mill. 1 J ----- _ -- - - -J Q�J N I a I W V Q a Lq Z J a I o Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 4 EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003 -04 SITE 2: 43.04 ACRES EAST OF GRIMES CANYON ROAD S I o � I J it G 6 N O U Ll a i� J a i o � 1 Resolution No 2006 -2537 Page 5 moo*r: EXHIBIT C MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6200 The following Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures of the City of Moorpark. Public Review Period: March 28, 2005 to Apr,l 26, 2005 Project Title /Case No.: General Plan Amendment 2003 -04, Zone Change 2003 -03, Tentative Map Nos. 5463 and 5464, Residential Planned Development Permit No.1994 -01 Modification No. 6, Residential Planned Development Permit No 2003 -04. Project Location: North of Championship Drive, between Walnut Canyon Road, and Grimes Canyon Road Moorpark, Ventura County. (Location Map Attached) Project Description: Eighty -Seven (87) single family homes on two (2) lots adjacent to an existing single family subdivision. Project Type: X Private Project Public Project Project Applicant: Toll Brothers, Inc. 7142 Trevino Drive, Moorpark, CA 93021 Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above - referenced project, revisions have been made by or agreed to by the applicant consistent with the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. With these revisions, it is found that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Responsible Agencies: California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Transportation Trustee Agencies: None Attachments: Location Map Initial Study with Mitigation Measures Contact Person: Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California, 93021 (805) 517 -6226 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 6 I I � � I I I I I I " I � t HPmCC*L I .. �fPtyRiY1= MAZUR PARCEL I I � w coew+et�t 4 �� W WSAAWWWRAW (STATE HWY 118) � LEGEND � I I m PROJECT SITE g CI'T'Y OF i OWO-- MOORPARK Approx. Scale 1:50,000 Source: www.mapcard.com, August 2004 6iij CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES Figure II -2 Er.vlronmertal Planning anU Research Vicnity Map I Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 7 MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES EXPANSION PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY In support of a Mitigated Negative Declaration PREPARED FOR: City of Moorpark Community Development Department APPLICANT: Toll Brothers Inc. 7142 Trevino Drive Moorpark, CA 93021 PREPARED BY: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates 30851 Agoura Road, Suite 21OAgoura Hills CA 91301 January 2007 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Sec;lion P- I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... ............................... 1 -1 II. RI•:VISFD DRAFT INITIAL STUDY .............................................................. ...........................II -1 III. PiJ1 LIC COMMENTS ANI) RESPONSES .......................................................... . ................... 111 -1 IV. CORRECTIONS AND ADDIT IONS ........................................................ ............................... IV -1 V. MITIGA'T'ION MONITORING PROGRAM .................................................. ............................V -1 Moorpark C'ounirr Club Estates Expansion Project Table of Contents Cin' ofAfoorpark Page i Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 9 I. INTRODUCTION A. CEQA REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Moorpark, as Lead Agency, will consider the Initial Study together with the Initial Study comments received during the public review process prior to its decision to approve the proposed project. IC the Lead Agency finds, based on the Initial Study and the associated comments and responses, that no substantial evidence exists that the proposed project would have it significant adverse effect on the environment, the Lead Agency would adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (HIND), along with the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). The public review period, for the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) liar the Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project during which interested agencies, organisations, and members of the public were invited to submit written comments, was noticed and conducted in compliance with CEQA Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines 15105. The 30 -day public review period ended on April 26, 2005. B. ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY phis document together with the draft Initial Study that was circulated for public review on March 28, 2005 constitutes the Final Initial Study for the Moorpark Country Club Fstates Expansion Project. The Final Initial Study includes: 1.) Introduction, 2.) revised Draft Initial Study (that includes the initial study checklist firm; the project description; and the environmental impact analysis which is an analysis of the determinations made on the checklist, which substantiate conclusions regarding the proposed project's potential to impact the physical environmental); 3.) Public Comments and Responses: 4.) Corrections and Additions, and 5) the '.Mitigation and Monitoring Program chapters. Moorpark Cotutlrr Cltth Estates Expansion Project Introduction CitY of Moorpark Page I -I Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 10 II. DRAFT INITIAI. STUDY This Chapter of the Final Initial Study supporting a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the proposed Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project includes the publicly circulated revised Draft Initial Study. The revised Draft Initial Study includes the initial study checklist form; the project description; and the environmental impact analysis which is an analysis of the determinations made on the checklist, which substantiate conclusions regarding the proposed project's potential to impact the physical environmental. Moorpark Countn• Club Estates Expansion Project Draft Initial Stud' C'itY of Moorpurk Page 11 -1 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 11 III. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The Initial Study supporting a proposed Mitigated ?Negative Declaration (IS /MND) for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Fxpansion Projcct was circulated for public review on March 28, 2005. The public review period, during which interested agencies, organizations, and members of the public were invited to submit written comments, was noticed and conducted in compliance with CEQA Section 21091 and State CI :QA Guidelines 15105. The 30 -day public review period ended on April 26, 2005. During the public review period, 7 (seven) letters commenting on the Initial Study were received by the City of Moorpark. Each comment letter has been assigned a corresponding "number" and the corments in each letter are individually numbered. For example, letter "I" is from the California Department of Health Services. The first comment from this letter is 1 -I signifying "written comment letter I, first comment ". Copies of' each of' the letters received and responses to the issues contained in these letters are included below. Written comment letters were received from the following agencies: County of Ventura Watershed Protection District Planning and Regulatory Division Paul Callaway, Permit Manager 2. County of Ventura Fire Protection District John Dodd, lire Inspector 3. County of Ventura Air Pollution Control District K. 1). Otani 4. County oC Ventura Public Works Agency Transportation Department Nazir I.alam, Deputy Director 5. County oC Ventura Resource Management Agency Planning Division Christopher Stephens, Planning Director April 12. 2005 April 12, 2005 April 20, 2005 April 21, 2005 April 25, 2005 Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project /'uhlic• Comments and Re.vponses OrY of Moorpark l'age I// - l Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 12 Christopher ;l. Joseph cl Assoctutes Scott l.. Ellison, Senior Planner 6. County of Vcntura Puhlic Works Agency Waterworks Districts Satya Karra, Manager - Operations PULBIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES April 26, 2005 January 2007 The following pages contain a copy of the written comment letters and the responses to these comments. Moorpark C'ountrt• Club F, states Expansion Project Public Comment% and Responses CitY of illoorpurk Page 111 -2 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 13 84/29/2885 10:36 895- 5298270 •CIT/ TF MOORPARK PN E 19/11 APR -z6 -2085 15:12 RM PIRv 1 PG aM E S4 3653 P.06 Letter 1 COUNTY OF VENTURA WATtINIM PROarwnoN wAT=T 4D PLANNING AND REQUI.AT'ORY DIVISION eW 801,rpr Vkk b Move. ftaxa, (NForrna 03009 PAUL. CAL AWAY Pow* mu mpm - 806 em -201 i Daft: April 12, 2005 To: Cart MorNwus% Resource LiR"ernent 144ency From: Paul C..dlaway. Pere * Seotbn sub}ecti RMA 05-022 -CfTY OF MOORPARK mniGATED NEGATWE DECLARATION As statad In Previous cormpadwxe conoerr ing the obove which wss addr+atssd to the ottY of Moorpwk. Attention Mr. soon worse, the two sites Molludsd in the abays �am adimOw t b South Grimes Canyon Wash and Wmhut Canyon. both of which are Dl 1urIsdictl mw wuumous". Any dlnwt dtafipe connection to the waw=ums w1Y require mvlsw and permltxirlg by the District. We wig also new to rrecdvs a Hydrdlogy And HydMUDc report addressing 1 -2 the incrftee in runoff due to the hwe"o of lmpwvkm s area from the proposed developmftt of ttw abova $IW and to MM in n*1pGon of the cumuia ve Impe a of sinker projects In the Moorpark per the Watershed Proteomn Dtetrtot requirements. The developer or devetopere should be corA boned Met on sits deter on w g be required at a minimum of the DWt t standard that Is the dtftbrence between 10 yew ator>r and 100 ywar slbrm nmoff vDlumee. This dstalrod vc(ume of runoff must be 1 -3 released at no mote than 10 Year storm peak pr'e d&velopnerrt runoff rate to down stream frediittes. — Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 14 Christopher A. Joseph d Associates Januur• 2007 Comment Letter I County of Ventura Watershed Protection District Planning and Regulatory Division Paul Callaway, Permit Manager Response to Comment 1 -1 Comment noted. Response to Comment 1 -2 The project design does not propose any direct drainage connection to either South Grimes Canyon Wash or Walnut Canyon. As described in the Project Description and discussed in Section ti, Hydrology and Water Quality (h), of the Draft Initial Study, the Proposed development on the Iiustcd Parcel has been designed with two on -site detention basins and the Mazur Parcel with one on -site detention basin to hold stormwater runoff. These basins have been designed to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Further, Mitigation 'Measure 8-1 has been recommended to require the applicant to prepare it Storm Water Quality Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) for each parcel that would include Non- Structural, Source Control, and Structural Best Management Practices (13MPs). The measure further requires the SQUIMP to conform to the Ventura County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, the SQUIMP standards and the Technical Guidance manual fair Storm Water Quality Control Measures. Further, as discussed in Section x of the Draft Initial Study, no debris would he delivered to the nearby natural water courses as flow from the development would he conducted through storm drain pipes and the undeveloped sites would he planted and have drainage benches. As required. the Hydrology and Hydraulic reports prepared for both parcels will he sent to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District for review. Response to Comment 1 -3 The following mitigation measure shall he incorporated as Mitigation Measure 8-2 into the Final Initial Study in Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality: 8 2 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the project applicant shall design the on -site detention basins Moorpark Countra' C'luh Estates Expansion Project Public C'ornmenls and ReVponses City of Moorpark Page 111 -4 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 15 Christopher A. Joseph cl Associatei January 2007 according to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District's standards specifically for detained volume to he hetwcen 10 year and 100 year volumes but released volume at no more than 10 -year storm Peak prc- development runoff rate to dox {n stream facilities." Moorpark Countn• Chub listates Expansion Project Public Comments and Respon.scs City of'Moorpark Page 111 -5 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 16 04/29/2005 10:36 . 805 - 5298270 CITY rF'MOORPARK PAGE- 11111 .x rc- e�- llpk�y 15 13 R'W PL"1NU W5 654 3683 P.W? ' Letter 2 �fw Ventura County F1re Protactlon Dlsiriat MEMORANDUM DATE: Apr# 12, 2005 Cart Morehouse. Case Planner Vesta County Pleruiing Dept. John Dodd, Fire InspecW RMA 06-W2 City of Moorpark Resided planned permit No_ 2003.04 fbr efg* seven single ft n* 00011Vc. Notch ofCh unplonshlp Drive between Walnut Canyon and Grimes Canyon. TO: AGENCY: FROM: PROJECT NUMBER. LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: The f0laWng are fine Department cortxtlents: The FV913"e of t wW handle em oond'Nons dlnsctly with the City of Moorpark thmugj 2 -1 our normal planr*W prooses. TOTPL P.07 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 17 Christopher 1. Joseph & Associates Comment Letter 2 County cif Ventura Fire Protection District John Dodd, Fire Inspector Response to Comment 2 -1 Comment noted. Junuury 2007 Moorpurk Cowan- C th Estates Expunsion Project Public Comments and Res7untses Citt' of Moorpark Page 111 -7 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 18 04/29/2005 10 :36 605- 5296270 .CITY OF.MOOWAW RPR-26 -2005 15:12 Inn PIJNN I PG Letter 3 PAGE 89/11 805 654 3683 P. 05 VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 01STRICT MWWFV qum TO: Cad Mort*otac, Plaaming DATE ApdI 20, 2005 FROM: KD_ a*--� SUBJECT: )*quest for Rreview Of h idjWad Ncjsdre Doal"on far Gen aai Plan Aaaa hWW No. 2003 -04. Zone Cl pp 2003-04, at 21 for 87 bmws, City ofMoorpott (Ref No 03 -822) Air Pbllo&A COMMI Ditbkt std has fcvipt;+ed the sulded pe+ojw bfd4pftd Nspbve DGW*rNdM4 wbich is a p:opoaod (/equal Pka Amendmaat to almW two panook ft m Rmal Lore RJbK6gtti21 to Meafrtm Low bey Residential Md a Zwc Chimp on one panel to Reddeatial phnmd Deveiopmm from pab)Wbastimdmat ind lnsdwianal uses 10 oomtrnct 87 simile - family rdsidet�s, tie ysroo! >s asr ti weal side of Wah" CULW n x+oad and the 8MMd pa ud is on the tt A side of Cwaaes Qmoon Rossi both Piweab am ioatcd am& of Qtampiaoalsip Drive topst{t{lad by a distum of aM wrimately two Maea w1wn the City of Noftpwk- Tho is oaaspleoe tr the prMpoca of "vgjAg air gwdily ioapacs. No SIPMosat air quahh' sss r 11, 4 to reach free the project. Dhtcict staff OMw= wit the mf6Vaion menwt+es jn 5Uwkwd&9 3. Atr Qik ft of the Initial Stwdy WXW Sac+Ow as bmg neoeassry doe to the mnoLmt emi,si Ow cxftMtp3 to be gmamtod dmiog the mobs mcm pbax of titfs pprojoct. If you haves any gnestiaas, contact and by tak0=* at (M 645 -1422 or by mail at sera. 3 -1 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 19 Christopher A..Ioseph & Associates Comment Letter 3 County of Ventura Air Pollution Control District K.D. Otani Response to Comment 3 -1 Comment noted. Januar ' 2007 :Moorpark CountrY Club Estates Expansion Project Public Continents and Responses Cin' of Moorpark Page 111 -9 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 20 94/29/2005 10:36 895 - 5298270 CITY OF MOORPARK - 6 -ages is-11 Rrta RSM ND Letter 4 as i.4 � . I; �f d • ►,. DATE: April 2l, 2003 TO: Resourpe MaaagMUMIt AWnsncY, PIZM2 a8 Diviaion Atteaotios: Curl Mwebouse FROM: Na* WauL Deputy D'versae PAGE a7 /11 E85 654 3683 P.03 APR 2 2S SLlIIacr; Review of Doeum=t 05-M2 Midpftd Nopd" Doclsmtion Gasaral Plats Atnaodo BUt and TORMOve Map Nos. 5463 and 5464 bred AEsmcy; 7be City of MOORPARK 71c Tts=Pmt44W Dement bn wmpl4cd the swview of the lm tissl Study and Naha of ta- to adopt a X9 iV ted Negative DecLradon. The proposed pn&a ptoposa tba Canal Plan Ametsdattent and the cmutru a of 87 zk*lc -fwdIy bonwL The lo=tion of the project is an the north side of -- spioaathip Drvr east of Grimes Cauym Road and wrest of Wahaut Cm y m Rload. The prgeci is looted at the Nw& o[th,e City of Mootpark in theme area of VRAnn County. We Oftr We fol1ohrig9 cownwats: 1. Mao apphoe at has miifi jPe the advassm impact: that flub project wi]I have on the vWoaal mad vmwcdk by enftriatg into a cQW=ttve aguatmwt; which is odd& led to be appmved by the 4 1 th�dagsoofastaa�'t, pW1W �c26.2005. a d o u ilad =q=tzC win coomo � q�ia d. bn 2. The Up di3U*0miwt fm the project shows 82% of trips travelWg south un wahuut CaaVan Road 4 2 and 15 % of trips on � Cbnyon Rotted. 'lire MND should cxpkin The trip &*nU cu as shown on ID Figure W 15 -3. 3. Figure 11L 15 -7 sbm" the 2020 Wd w vohw= wiithpa!njeot on the toad Network to the Moozpatk area. The v�ohtme pmjeaoion fbr Clri:nes Canyon Road am inaeorz�cct. IlafBc conch taken 1n 2004 4 3 show that wicM96 daily volume altbady execoda 3000 vddclea per day. 4. All the ft um depictift the toad network in tin M4otpark area show North HAM Psz�izaY� a�fnB Pag Gabbed Road Into the mdaoocparstsd area. No County a gmry Iwo reviewed, 0t d tlat PzoPosed nlism ew. This taligr ocat a not cwrmdy part of the County t,,el cW 4-4 Plan or Pan ofthe CUP as approved Imamdyby VCTC. No fandingaomrchas beat i$mzsfiedto fund the portion of this by -pass Mute in the =b0oVoaatod omp. 'tuna bybpm will principally benefit Mootpa* but It will also impaotregilmd ttat5eln ewd a amid Mompa &includbsgtru* tmfE ftOM Cn WA& Est tread. AcoonhjWy this bypass route should not be eonadxw Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 21 04/29/2005 10:'36 ' 805 - 5298270 CITY OF MUCRPAW PAGE 08 /11 e -1t, 5 15 12 RM PLRNiNG SM 654 X68 P.04 fetter 4 approved ua d it is property evabaated on the oanhat of the RmoacW Trmispartation puns. Inaiusion of Ste bypas in the MND ibcthis project appears mannum Qur review is limited to the imps this project may have an tip County's Rogional Road Network. Please MU me ri 634 -2080 if you have gmg:kxu. cc: Joseph Piss comanunity Darelopeseat Dcpa Mm,,t City ofMeorpatk 799 Mootpadc Ay came. Moogwrk CA 93021 f+•�or�uenc+�c�.�+as� save Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 22 (Yrrictn /�ltcr:l..lrrcr /�h & Associates .lanuurY 007 Comment Letter 4 County of Vcnturri Public Works Agcncy Transportation Department Nazir Lalani, Deputy Director NOTE: PER OUR MEETING ON MAY 2, 2005, AUSTIN -FOUST (UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE CITY) IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO THIS LETTER (RESPONSE 4 -2 THROUGH 4 -4). Response to Comment 4 -1 The project applicant will pay the required traffic mitigation fees specified in the cooperative agreement hctwcen the project applicant and Ventura County Public Works Agency, 'I ransportation Department.ce Response to Comment 4 -2 Response to Comment 4 -3 Response to Comment 4 -4 ,Moorpark Countn• Ckrh Estates Expansion Project Public Comments and Responses C in• of Moorpark Page 111 -1? Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 23 04/29/2085 10:36 ' S85- 5298278 CITY OF MDU;PPW PAGE 06/11 ..-K 15.11 RMH PLPWItai 9@5 fi54 36P-Z = -- RL2SOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY 141winin8 Division cmcnnae w SWOMM�s Ok*MW _UFft Of veyb" Aprt125. 2005 Letter 5 Jvs6ph Firs City of Moorpak 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark. CA NMI SUWECT: MNG for City ofi Moorpark Gerktal pion Amernderst 2003-04 (Too Bros). Deer Mr. FSes: In addition to the oornnaaft tram the vgntura Carty Muff Deparirnent aubrnitted Under Sepwdo obvsr. the YarOm 00 my PIwmInq OivWm has the foibV*V convnwd to the =*Od MNO: 1. Thp 'netel d WV*W uepd for to mwm4ed m anviyr * Is dieouared on . page 11-14. This oat Qaes not kmkge the propowo pamat Major htodoiurtbrta *w Www sand end QravW p cjocb in Grknee Carryon. These projeCls are CUP 41713 (BeO ".CUP CUP 4674 (Grtrrws Rock), and CUP 4x71-6 (Wayne J). These Omm prbjeds are propookV to penereU an °�Y� n'� �� Y a�irtya�H�ood s0lilh�af �M 11�e 5 -1 Wr and Garr Road Or Grimes proJects need to be bwkidW In Ow n dded prnJadn; fret, arr�� cOnbt ugans b aumublMe icrrpacte to ttoilic arnd left noise evskaftd in tha MND. it st"M be "o%d that ttrs Venture Carly Public works Aoww.y (Nazir L.alani 654 -20A0) advises turf the proposed mining trettic is included the Ovi Wo kwV nsnga t aft nnodeony. Thank you for §* opporWrilly 10 cwwp^tt on the MND. N you have any questions, I cm be cmjh otsd at 65"495, 9y, Scott t,. Edlhon, Senbr Atarxner Ventura Cots* RaMWV oMfAon C: Carl Morahouae, ventura City Planr*V Dlwsion ® 800 Sou!!+ VicAft Avonue. Ls1740. VM'lura. OA 8'5004 (spa) SW2"1 fmx (806) 654 -Q509 Prbm on +t.goM.tpwipw 9§ Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 24 00/29/2085 10:36 1'.985- 5298279 CITY OF ARK. PAGE 06/11 rrrc- rA -mn -� 1b- 11 RM FL"?HG B0S 654 3� _ .- RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY PhmNn8 DIvisbn UFft Of VaTh" ChAlie W Mechem ar.ab. April 25, 2006 Letter 5 JQ"ph Firs City & Mootpork 789 Moorpark AVOvie Moorpark, CA 99021 SUBJECT: MND for City of Moo"* GerWA pion Amendment 2003.04 (To* Bros). Deer Mr. Fier: in adcreeon bo the comrner*s from f" Va *ft County Tmftic Department submitted tinder Npemte COMM. We Venn um Ooanty Pi indIng Oivisien twos the "oWvQ co�mnettt tt'�e subject LM: t . The 'r 4ftd pto*' used t Dr Ito aarr tvii wwtysis is dieaaroed on . page 11-14. This Rd does not Inckde #a proposed pwrnit Mmiar f+Aoc!llcsiwns fbr twee send Fund W*vW W"eets In Qdrnes Carryon. Thme projects CUP 4171 -3 (Bent ". CUP 4874 -2 (G. A". Racy. and CUP 467143 (Wayne J). These ttmas Penjscts we prgxminp to gerorata an ed0hong1744 WAra a daffy truck VIM m my d which WOW use WWmd OWyOn Redd Or G*Ms Gtirfynn Road south of 8tosdwey. Ttme 5-1 Pr*cfs [rood to be irnohuded In Ito [visited p oocts Est. And VWr o W*1lbu&M4 b MURA M htpools to itaAlc and *aft noise evaiusl9d in the MND. R shaUId be noted VW the Venkxs CotmW Public Works icy (Nadr Udwl 654,20W) a&Amw OW the p qx eed mWno trdtic Is �# hduded ttm Comm* long ninge t a tic uxw% np. Thank you fbr thw oppostruttity to cocnnwd an the WIND. 9 you iw oe any quesdone, t can be o4r at 6$4 -2495. E3lWM Senior Ptenner Vw4um Co� Ptaroft D fAon C. Cart Morehouse, vOnturs County PlannkV Division is WO SwM Vt ft% AVOnuo. L* 1740. V*MW*, QA gWM (906) s5c2461 r*x (9o5) 6" -e5O4 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 25 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Comment Letter 5 County oC Ventura Resource Management Agency Planning Division Christopher Stephens, Planning Director Scott L. 1;I11son, Senior Planner lanuary 007 NOTE: PER OUR MEETING ON MAY 2,20-05, AUSTIN -FOUST (UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE CITY) IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO 'PHIS LETTER Response to Comment 5 -1 Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project Public Comments and Responses Citt' o/ Aloorpar•k Page 111 -15 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Letter 6 Page 26 1 co J A VENTURA COUNTY W. `� COUNTY OF VENTURA ^� PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY KS RONALD c COONS WATERWORKS DISTRICTS Agency Duedor Representing: Ventura County Waterworks Districts No. 1, 16, 17, and 19 Water & Sanitation Department R. Reddy P*Wa. Director April 26, 2005 Anne Dares, Adn**vamr% Joseph Fiss City of Moorpark Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -04 Zone Change 2003-04 Dear Mr. Fiss: Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 (District) staff reviewed the subject MND and are providing the following comments: 1. The Developer is requested to provide the District's existing Well 15 pump head with a sound attenuating enclosure or keep the new homes away from Well 15, 6 -1 which is located along Grimes Canyon Road and adjacent to the Husted parcel. 2. Trevino Drive and Championship Drive sewage lift stations should be upgrad to handle the additional discharge from the new homes. 6 -2 The existing gates to the lift stations should be modified to provide convenient personnel entry through 3 -foot wide doors. 3. The Developer shall check the adequacy of the existing sewer line downstream 6 -3 along Walnut Canyon Road. Enclosed for your reference are copies of project review correspondence related to these tracts. If you have any questions regarding this review, please call the undersigned at (805) 584 -4884. Very truly yours, A 4� 'p Karra, anager- Operations Water and Sanitation Department SK:ec Enclosures HaN of Administration • L #1600 krroW41ssatyah+p4 -res mW 800 South Vkxoria Avenue - Ventura, CaVomia 93009 is Phone (805) 654 -2076 • FAX (805) 654 -3952 • httpl /pubkworks- countya"ntura.org Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 27 Letter 6 venturacunt ,.�� °�A� COUNTY OF VENTURA y PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY RONALD C. COONS waterworks districts � INKS Agency Director Representing: Ventura County Waterworks Districts No. 1, 16, 17, and 19 John C. Crovday, oeet.'tor water Resources s D.ve0"rit Depannwa January 21, 2004 R. Rsddr P&We, rdanaper Water & Sanitation Services Anne bans Ad- ristralive officer Joe Fiss, Senior Planner water s sarrtaron sarvioes Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 SUBJECT: TOLL BROTHERS - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 5463 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 2003-04 VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 1 (DISTRICT) Dear Mr. Fiss: This is in response to your Request for Project Review questionnaire dated December 29, 2043 for the subject project The District reviewed the Tentative Tract Map and our comments are as follows: Sewer: Developer shall ascertain the adequacy of the existing lift stations to handle the flows from the addition of 54 dwelling units and make all required upgradcs/improvesnents and submit hydraulic analyses by a registered civil engineer to determine the adequacy of the proposed and existing sewer lines. Water: The proposed map shows the point of connection for the water system at the intersection of Trevino Drive and Championship Drive. The Developer shall provide a point of connection at the north end of the development to "loop" the system. Well #15: The Developer shall upgrade the existing Well #15 site by providing a housing for the existing emergency generator to abate noise. In addition to our response in the enclosed questionnaire, the applicant shall comply with the attached standard procedures for obtaining domestic water and sewer services for developer's projects (tracts or parcel maps) within the District. Also, the applicant shall comply with the applicable provisions of the District Rules and Regulations. If you have any questions, please call Valerie O. Magbitang at (805) 584-4831. Very sincerely, atKtPrqJect Manager Water and Sanitation Services Division Water Resources and Development Department SK:AIB:vom Copy to: Project file 7150 Walnut Canyon Road, P.O. Box 250, Moorpark, Cantornia 93020 • L #6000 Phone (805) 564 -4829 • FAX (805) 529 -7542 • www.ventura.org/vcpwa/wre/wss C4Ducumeata and SeWA0vaf 3*Wy Docv rWNDat- 1%TR5463Nh%% TR5463- arjowgi evuwdoc Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Flage 28 - Letter 6 VNo / /Yes If no, specify the manner in which the application can be made complete. Please be specific as to the type and thoroughness of information needed. (Attach additional sheets, if 5 E E ATT -,AC++ mx-? 11. IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Your response to these questions is necessary by N/A a. Are there any significant environmental issues or problems (project specific of cumulative) under your area of purview affected by the project? 1N No / / Yes If yes, please identify and describe the significant issues or problems below. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) b. Can conditions be developed to reduce or mitigate the issues or problems described above? / / No, impossible to mitigate / I Yes / / Don't know, further evaluation will be required. If you don't know, please describe what further evaluation or information will be required below. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) H yes, specify the conditions below. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) C. WHI the above conditions mitigate the issue or problem to an insignificant level? //No / /Yes If no, please e)lain below. (Attach additional sheets, Kneoessary.) S: \Community Development \DBV PMTS \R P D \1994-01 Toll \Request for Project Review.S463.doc Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 29 - Letter 6 Ill. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Response necessary by January 31, 2003. a. Are there standard conditions of approval your agencyldepartment wishes to impose? / I No M! %s (conditions attached) b. Are there site - specific conditions of approval your agency /department wishes to impose? / 11 No +V1)bs (conditions attached) Date: _ 1 151, a`f Reviewing Agency /Department: u Cal Tracts District 7 17 City Engineer ❑ East Valley Sherilrs Dept 0 Fire Prevention District o Moorpark Unified School District 0 PWA -Flood Contry c1 RMA - Environmental Health u 5MA - Planning 0 RMA - Air Pollution Control District Waterwocks District No. 1 0 O1fier. Reviewer: _ VC,W W p NOS ENGI W 1,F—f2114cm STAFF Agency Staff time billable to City deposit: A hour(s). S! \Cowwnity Development \DRV PWS \R P D \1994 -01 Toll \Request for Project Review.S467.d- Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 30 ventura c(Anty Letter 6 ul`�4� COUNTY OF YENTURA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY RONALD C. COONS waterworks districts DkWa Representing: Vontura County Waterworks Districts No. 1,16, 17, and 19 John C. oromey.oaoaor water Resowus i Vevsk "wl owanmm R. Reddy Pakata. Mwwar water a SaniWm► Swviws January 21, 2004 Anne DWW Adw wwm 00m Wwr i Sarrturon sonic, Joe Fiss, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 .%400rpark Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 SUBJECT: TOLL BROTHERS - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 5464 MODIFICATION TO RPD 1994-01 VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 1 (DISTRICT) Dear Mr. Fiss: This is in response to your Request for Project Review questionnaire dated December 29, 2003 for the subject project. In addition to our response in the enclosed questionnatre, the developer shall submit hydraulic analyses by a registered engineer to determine the adequacy of the proposed and existing sewer Imes and shall comply with the attached standard procedures for obtaining domestic water and sever services for developer's Projects (tracts or parcel maps) within the District. Also, the applicant shalt comply with the applicable provisions of the Nstrict Rules and Regulations_ If you have any questions, please call Valerie O. Magbitang at (805) 584-483 L Very truly yon, N Karr*, Project Managor Water and Sanitation Serviecs Division Water Resources and Development Dcpw mast SK:AIB:vom Copy to: Project file ® 7150 Walnut Canyon Road, P.O. Box 250, Moorpe* Caldomia 93020 • L #6000 Phone (806) 58444829 • FAX (8051 529 -7542 • www.ventwa.orgrvcpwa/w %1wss C10ocwwwk ad Saawrp \wb.avd7 oov=.@km w•IvnL%6avi.7As4"-o gmiew.aw Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 31 Letter 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR PROJECT REVIEW TO: DATE: _12129103 X Cal Trans District 7 X City Engineer /CAA X Moorpark Police Department X VCFPD - Ventura County Fire Prevention District X MUSD - Moorpark Unified School District X VCWPD- Ventura County Watershed Protection District X RMA - Environmental Health X RMA - Planning X VCAPCD — Ventura County Air Pollution Control District X Waterworks District No. 1 n Other. : Toll Brothers PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A change in the General Plan Designation from Rural Low Residential (RL) and Open Space -2 (OS -2) to Medium Low (ML) and Open Space (OS), and a change in Zoning from RE (Rural Exclusivey-5 acre minimum lot size to Residential Planned Development (RPD) are also requested. This application Is being processed concurrently with a Modification to RPD 1994-01 and Tentative Tract No. 5464. LOCATION: North Side of Championship Drive, West of Walnut Canyon Road. The subject permit application was received on Please complete the follov*Q evaluations and return this form (or copy) on or before January 19, 200101to ensure continued timety processing. If you are unable to meet this date, please call meat (805) 517 -6200. APPLICATION COMPLETENESS: (State law requires that the applicant be contacted in writing, within 30 days of the completeness of the submitted application or the application is automatically complete). Your response to this questionnaire is necessary by January 19, 2004. Is the application, with all supporting materials, complete for purposes of Cling for your area of review? S: \CQW='Ariity Deve1opment \D6Y PMTS \a P D \1994 -01 Toll \Regve-st for Project. Reviev.S464.doc Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 32 Letter 6 W No l I Yes If no, specify the manner in which the application can be made complete. Please be specific as to the type and thoroughness of information needed. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary!_ 5 e E ATT'Ac44 r- 0 I1. IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Your response to these questions is necessary by ,NIA a. Are there any significant environmental issues or problems (project specific of cumulative) under your area of purview affected by the project? dNo / / Yes If yes, please identify and describe the significant issues or problems below. (Attach additional sheets, it necessary.) b. Can conditions be developed to reduce or mitigate the issues or problems described above? I I No, impossible to mitigate / / Yes / / Don't know, further evaluation will be required. If you don't know, please describe what further evaluation or information will be required below. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) If yes, specify the conditions below. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) C. Will the above conditions mitigate the issue or problem to an insignifcant level? / /No / /Yes If no, please e)lain below. (Attach additional sheets, If necessary.) S: \Community Deve1opwent \D6V TWM \R P D \1994 -01 Toll \Request for Project Review.5464.doc Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 33 • Letter 6 111. CONDITIONS-OF APPRQVAL - Response necessary by January 31, 2003. a. Are there standard conditions of approval your agency /department wishes to impose? //No /4/ s (conditions attached) b. Are there site - specific conditions of approval your agency /department wishes to impose? / / No M lt:s (oonditions attached) Date: _I 1.5 Reviewing Agency/Department: L; Cal Trans District 7 0 City Engineer ❑ East Valley Sheriffs Dept. ❑ Fire Prevention District C Moorpark Unified School District o PWA -Flood Control ❑ RMA - Environmental Health ❑ RMA - Planning to RMA - Air Pollution Control District V,*aierworks District W. 1 D other: Reviewer; _VIEWTu+tj1 C,aut.[r'r TrtZWotcS 4luc t�e'6. STAFE F Agency Staff time billable to City deposit N/A hour(s). 9: \Community Development\DW PICTS \a P D \1994 -01 Toll \Request for Project Review.5464.doc Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 34 Christopher A. lose ph d'• Associates Junuut,k• 007 Comment Letter 6 County of* Ventura Public Works Agency Waterworks Districts Sata Karra, Manager Operations Response to Comment 6 -1 The commenior has requested tier the project developer to provide either a sound attcnuating enclosure around the District's Well 15 pump head or keeping the nexs homes away From Well 15. District Well 15 is located immediately adjacent to the (lusted Parcel to the north with access from Grimes Canyon Road. Under project implementation, the closest lot, number 28, would he approximately 50 feet above existing grade of the Districts Well 15 and approximately 180 feet to l.ot 28's property line. The development area of* the lot would place the home possibly another 40 feet from the rear property line. Typical noise attenuation is it wall to break the line of sight. In this case, the closest Ilustcd single family home would he located at it higher elevation by approximately 50 feet, breaking the line of sight. further, the distance of the proposed lot would provide distance between the homes and the well as indicated in the comment, "...or keep the new homes away from Well 15 ..." Response to Comment 6 -2 The 1011owing recommended mitigation measure is added as measure 16 -2 to the final Initial Study, Section 16h. Utilities and Service Systems (Wastewater): "The ti)llo%%ing mitigation measure applies to the I lusted Parcel only: 16 -2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall ensure that the sewage lift station located at Trevino Drive and Championship Drive he upgraded to the satisfaction of the Ventura County Public Work` Department to handle the additional discharge from the new homes to be built as part of Tentative Tract 5463." Response to Comment 6 -3 "ncc fiillowing recommended mitigation measure is added as measure 16 -3 to the Final Initial Study, Section 16b, Utilities and Service Systems (Wastewater): "I'he follmk ing mitigation measure applies to the Mazur Parcel only: Moorpark Cou ntrr Club listates Expansion Project Public Comments and Responses Citx• o(Moorpark Page 111 -24 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 35 C hristoplicr A. Joseph & Assoc'iatee January 2007 16 -3 Prier to issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall work with the County of Ventura Public Works Department to ensure that the sewage line along Walnut Canyon Road has the available capacity to accommodate additional sev�mle flow troth Tentative Tract :1464." Moorpark CounIrY Club Estates Expansion Project Public Comments and Kesponsce 01v o/',4400rpark Page 111-25 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 36 IV. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS The following corrections and additions are set forth to update the Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Fxpansion Project Draft Initial Study in response to the comments received during and after the public review period, as well as City staff directed changes. Changes to the Draft Initial Study are listed by section. Changes arc shown below as strike out of old text followed by new text. In the Draft Initial Study, Chapter 2 of this Final Initial Study, the changes are shown as strikeout of old text and hold, underline of new text. 1. AESTHETICS Mitigation measures 1 -3 and 1-5 arc replaced by the following measures that would he provided in the sarne location as measures 1 -3 and 1 -5 of the Draft Initial Study. Measures 1-3 is deleted and replaced as follows: 1 -3 Pursuant to approved Initial Study supporting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting, prior to recordation of the first Final Tract Map for the Property, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant, shall purchase and dedicate Ccc title for scvcnty -two (72) acres of open space in lieu of providing on -site open space dedication pursuant to Section 17.38.080 of the Ilillsidc Management Ordinance. Prior to purchase and dedication, the City Council shall approve the location of the proposed open space land. At City's sole discretion, in lieu of the purchase of the seventy -two (72) acres of open space, Developer shall pay two million six hundred eighty thousand dollars (52,680,000.00) to City to he used in its sole and unfettered discretion for open space preservation purposes. Six hundred seventy thousand dollars ($670,000.00) shall he paid to the City no later than one year from the operative date of this Agreement or upon the recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. Subsequent annual payments of six hundred seventy thousand dollars (S070,000.00). shall be made for three years from the annual anniversary of the first payment. The fee shall he adjusted annually commencing January 1, 2007 by the larger increase of a), h), or c) as follows: a) CPI increase shall he determined by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of I ahor Statistics, for all urban consumers within the Los Moorpark C'ountrc• Club Estates Expansion Project Corrections and ,additions Citr oj'hfoorpark Parr /1` -1 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 37 Christophcr,A../oseph & Associates ./atttrary 2007 Anocles /Riverside /Orange County metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall he made using the month which is four (-l) months prior to the month in which this Agreement became effective (e.g., if this Agreement became effective in October, then the month of Junc is used to calculate the increase). h) The annual adjustment shall he determined by any increase in the median price of single- family detached for -sale housing in Ventura County as most recently published by Data Quick (I lousing Index) for the previous twelve (12) month period. C The annual percentage amount paid to City by the Local Agency Investment Fund (I.AIF) calculated as follows: The Sum of the quarterly effective yield amounts paid by LAIR for the Citv's Pooled Money Investment Account for the most recent four (4) calendar quarters divided by four (a) In the event there is it decrease in all of the referenced Indices for any annual indexing, the Fee shall remain at its then current amount until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase. Measures 1 -5 is deleted and replaced as follows: 1 -5 Pursuant to approved MND and MMRP, prior to recordation of the first Final 'Tract Map for the Property, initiation of rough grading or issuance of' any subsequent permits, the applicant, shall purchase and dedicate fee title for thirty -fivc (35) acres of open space in lieu of providing on -site open space dedication pursuant to Section 17.38.080 of the Hillside Management Ordinance. Prior to purchase and dedication, the City Council shall approve the location of the proposed open space land. At City's sole discretion in lieu of the purchase of the thirty -five (35) acres of open space, Developer shall pay one million three hundred twenty thousand dollars (`*;1,320.000.00) to City to he used in its sole and unfettered discretion for open space preservation purposes. Three hundred thirty thousand dollars ($3311,000.00) shall he paid to the City no later than one year from the operative date of this Agreement or upon the recordation of' the Final Map, whichever occurs first. Subsequent annual payments of three hundred thirty thousand dollars (5330,000.011) shall he made for three years from the annual anniversary of the first payment. The fee shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1, 2007 by the larger increase of a), b), or c as follows: a) The CPI increase shall he determined by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for all urban consumers within the Los Angeles /Riverside /Orange County metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall he made using the month which is four (d) months prior to the month in which this Agreement became effective (e.g., if this Agreement became effective in October, then the .Moorpark C'ountrY C /uh Estates Expansion Project Corrections and Additions Cit%- o/'Moorpark Page /V -2 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 38 Christopher A. Joseph & Assoc cute Junnary 2007 month of Junc is used to calculate the increase). h) The annual adjustment shall he determined by any increase in the median price of single - family detached fi r -sale housing in Ventura County as most recently published by Data Quick (I lousing Index) for the previous twelve (12) month period. c) The annual percentage amount paid to the City by the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) calculated as follows: The sum of the quarterly effective yield amounts paid by LAID far the City's Pooled Money Investment Account for the most recent lour (4) quarters divided by four (4). In the event there is it decrease in bath of the referenced Indices for any .annual indexing, the Fee shall remain at its then current amount until such time as the next suhsequcnt annual indexing which results in an increase. 2. AGRICULTUR RESOURCES No changes are necessary . 3. AIR QUALITY No changes are necessary. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure 4 -7 is replaced by the following measure that would he provided in the same location. Mitigation 4 -7 is deleted and replaced as follows: Footnote 17 to Mitigation Measure 4 -7 is deleted as follows: Moorpark CoantrY Club /:state, E.rpunsion Project Corrections and Additions City of Afoorpurk Peru• W -3 b m it b Footnote 17 to Mitigation Measure 4 -7 is deleted as follows: Moorpark CoantrY Club /:state, E.rpunsion Project Corrections and Additions City of Afoorpurk Peru• W -3 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 39 Christopher A..Ioccph & Associates .lunuurr 2007 4 -7 The ileritagc Oak Trec shall he preserved in place by use of a retaining wall on the west side of' the tree outside of the tree, outside of the drip line. The multi - purpose trail shall be aligned adjacent to the tree, and it bench installed adjacent to the tree. The following mitigation measure is added to the revised Initial Study as Mitigation Measure 4 -8 to follow Mitigation Measure 4 -7: 4 -8 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant shall prepare a landscaped plan pursuant to the City of Moorpark's Landscape Guidelines and shall adhere to the Guidelines prohibition of the use of plant species as listed. The landscape plan and the Guidelines list of prohibited plant species shall he incorporated into the CC &R's for both the Husted and Macur subdivision developments. The Community Development Director shall review and approve the final landscape plan prior to recordation of the Final "Tract Map, initiation of' rough grading or issuance of suhsequent permits. Following the inserted new Mitigation Measures 4 -8. Mitigation Measures 4 -8 and 4 -9 are rc- numhered as 4 -9 and 4 -10. respectively. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation measures 5 -3 and 54 are replaced by the following measure that would he provided in the same location as measure 5 -3 of the Draft Initial Study. Measures 5 -3 and 5-4 of the Draft Initial Study are deleted as follows: b O. Aloorpurk Counts• Ctuh Estute.v Expansion Project Corrections and Additions Cit%- of'Moorpurk Puge /V -4 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 40 C hr'i.stopher A. Joseph & Associate's January 2007 Replaced mitigation measure 5 -3 shall read as follows: 5 -3 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, a sails report Shall he submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval identifying the types of soils that will he exposed to grading/disturhance activities. Along with this report, a paleontological mitigation program plan, outlining procedures for site inspections, paleontological data recovery, and resource ownership, shall he prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The program shall include sufficient monitoring of the potential fossil - hearing areas of the site during grading operations with procedures tier resource recovery to ensure that paleontological resources are not lost during grading operations. Paleontological resource requirements shall he incorporated as a note on the grading plan cover sheet. For most grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall he retained by the property owner or the City of Moorpark, at the expense of the project applicant, to monitor, and, if necessary, salvage scientifically significant fossil remains during grading operations. The duration of these inspections shall he determined by the paleontologist and shall depend on the sensitivity of the rock units, the rate of excavation. and the abundance of fossils. The duration shall he determined by: a. Grading, activities in geologic units of high paleontological Sensitivity shall require full -time monitoring by a qualified paleontologist. h. Geologic units of low or moderate paleontological sensitivity shall require part -time monitoring. If significant fossils are observed during grading, full -time monitoring shall he implemented. c. 'Fhe paleontologists shall have the power to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow for evaluation and any necessary salvage of exposed fossils. d. Monitoring may he reduced it' the potentially fossilifcrous units described in this assessment arc not present subsurface or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. Mitigation Measure 5 -5 is re- numhered as 5-4. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Moorpark CountrY Club Estates Expansion Project Corrections and Additions Citt' of Moorpark Page IV-5 b. b Replaced mitigation measure 5 -3 shall read as follows: 5 -3 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, a sails report Shall he submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval identifying the types of soils that will he exposed to grading/disturhance activities. Along with this report, a paleontological mitigation program plan, outlining procedures for site inspections, paleontological data recovery, and resource ownership, shall he prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The program shall include sufficient monitoring of the potential fossil - hearing areas of the site during grading operations with procedures tier resource recovery to ensure that paleontological resources are not lost during grading operations. Paleontological resource requirements shall he incorporated as a note on the grading plan cover sheet. For most grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall he retained by the property owner or the City of Moorpark, at the expense of the project applicant, to monitor, and, if necessary, salvage scientifically significant fossil remains during grading operations. The duration of these inspections shall he determined by the paleontologist and shall depend on the sensitivity of the rock units, the rate of excavation. and the abundance of fossils. The duration shall he determined by: a. Grading, activities in geologic units of high paleontological Sensitivity shall require full -time monitoring by a qualified paleontologist. h. Geologic units of low or moderate paleontological sensitivity shall require part -time monitoring. If significant fossils are observed during grading, full -time monitoring shall he implemented. c. 'Fhe paleontologists shall have the power to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow for evaluation and any necessary salvage of exposed fossils. d. Monitoring may he reduced it' the potentially fossilifcrous units described in this assessment arc not present subsurface or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. Mitigation Measure 5 -5 is re- numhered as 5-4. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Moorpark CountrY Club Estates Expansion Project Corrections and Additions Citt' of Moorpark Page IV-5 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 41 C hrktopher A. Joseph A, Associates Junuut,t' 2007 For clarification, Mitigation Measure 6 -2 is revised as follows: 0 -2 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant shall contract with an engineering geologist, gcotcchnical engineer to verify that grading planned within landslide areas would he remediated. it) fesuk iH it The findings and recommendation of the additional geoicchnical assessment shall he incorporated into the final design for the proposed project and approved by the City Engineer. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation measures have been re- numhercd in consecutive order, 7 -1 through 7 -7. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY f he followinlo mitigation measure is inserted as measure 8 -2 to immediately follow measure; g- I: 8 -2 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of' any subsequent permits. the project applicant shall design the on -site detention basins according to the Ventura County: Watershed Protection District's standards specifically for detained volume to he between 10 year and 100 year volumes but released volume at no more than 10 -year storm peak prc- development runoff rate to down stream facilities. Mitigation measure 8 -2 of the Draft Initial Study is re- numhercd as 8 -3. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING No changes are necessary. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES No changes are necessary. 11. NOISE No changes arc necessary. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING No chan,,cs are necessary. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES No chanocs arc necessary. Moorpark C,ountrt' C'hch Estates Expansion Project Corrections and Addition+ City of Moorpark Page 1V -6 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 42 Christopher A. Imeph & Assoc'iates Jannur�, 2007 14. RECREATION No changes arc necessary. 15. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC Mitigation Measures 16 -1 and 16 -2 are re- numhcred as I5 -1 and 15 -2. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The following recommended mitigation measure is added as measure 16 -2 to the Final Initial Study, Section 16h, Utilities and Service Systems (Wastewater) and is to following immediately after measure 16 -I: I'he following mitigation measure applies to the Husted Parcel only: 16 -2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall ensure that the sewage lift station located at Trevino Drive and Championship Drive he upgraded to the satisfaction of the Ventura County Public Works Department to handle the additional discharge from the new homes to be built as part of'1'cntative Tract 5163. The following recommended mitigation measure is added as measure 16 -3 to the Final Initial Study, Section 16h, Utilities and Service Systems (Wastewater) and is to following immediately after measure 16 -2: 1'hc following mitigation measure applies to the Mazur Parcel only: 16 -3 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall work with the County of Ventura Public Works Department to ensure that the sewage line along Walnut Canyon Road has the ava*1ahlc capacity to accommodate additional sewagr flow from Tentative Tract S464. ,'Moorpark Country Club Estate's Expansion Project Corrections and Additions City of:Moorpurk Page IV -7 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 43 V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION In accordance with the requirements of the California Public Resources Code §211181.6, and as Part of its certification of the adequacy of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Moorpark Country Club Fstates Project, the City Council of the City of Moorpark adopts the following "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program*' (MMRP). which contains the mitigation program that has been incorporated through preparation of the MND with additional mitigation measures and modified measures resulting from one of the following: ( l ) the applicant proposed an alternative or additional method to mitigate an impact, (2) the City requested additional mitigation of an impact, or (3) additional or modified measures were added in response to public comments. These additional measures have been analyzed and are not expected to create any additional significant impacts, but will lessen impacts anticipated to occur with implementation of the project. The City Council of the City of Moorpark adopts this MMRP in its capacity as the lead agency for certification of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project in accordance with the provisions of the California Fnvironnuntal Quality Act (" CF.QA ") (Cal.Puh.Rcs.Code § §21000, et seq.) and its implementing guidelines (14 Cal.Codc Rcgs. §§ 15O(1(1, et .seq. ) (the " C'I,QA Guidelines"). The principal purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the Council - approved mitigation measures tiff the approved project are implemented and monitored for compliance during subsequent planning stages and, ultimately, during project implementation. In general, the City of Moorpark is responsible for overseeing implementation and completion of the adopted mitigation measures. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the attached MMRP table. If an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented. the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The MMRP is provided in tabular format to facilitate effective tracking and documentation of the status of mitigation measures. The attached MMRP table provides the following monitoring information: • Mitigation Measure: A list or inventory of all the adopted mitigation measures (inclusive of Project Design Features, Standard Conditions and Requirements, and Mitigation Measures) for the project from the Final Program I{IR, as revised or otherwise modified in the comments and responses to the Program FIR, applicant proposed modifications, or at hearings before the City of Moorpark Planning Commission or the City Council. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program City of Aoorpark Page V -1 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 44 Christopher I. Joseph & Aswc•iates January 007 • Timing of Verification: The appropriate time or phase for the implementation of each mitigation measure. • Responsible Pura: The City Department or Departments responsible for overseeing the implementation and completion of each mitigation measure. Where consultation with other agencies is required, this requirement is noted. however, the responsibility to determine compliance with the mitigation measure lies with the City of Moorpark, as the lead agency for the project. • Monitoring Action: identifies the method by which the adopted measure will he initiated by the applicant. Satisfactory completion of* the measure will he verified by the Responsible Party. Moorpark Countn• Club Estates Fxpunsion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Cit1' ref . Moorpark Page V-2 Christopher,/. J seph cl A vsoc'ia/es Janaary 2007 Table I Mitigation Monitoring Program :aoorparK t omtn-Y c tun Lstates L,rpanstou Project A1iti,gation Monitoring Program Cite of'Afoorpark Page V.5 -3 ((D cn cn (D O .p6C � , _. O Z O N O O rn N w V Timing of EIR Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action 1. AESTHETICS Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 1 -1 and 1-2 apply to the Mazur Parcel only. 1 -1 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the project applicant shall work with the City of Moorpark planning staff to strategically plant native tree species (e.g., California Sycamores or other native tree species) and /or Prior to issuance of construction permits Applicant, Community Development Director Site inspection other native plants on the north and cast facing manufactured slope (on Mazur Parcel below lots 25 -30) situated above the proposed detention basin that would screen homes on lots 25 -30 from view of vehicles traveling southbound on Walnut Canyon Road. 1 -2 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the project applicant shall work with the City of Moorpark planning staff to create a palette of natural plant species to he Prior to issuance of construction permits Applicant, Community Development Director Review of plans, site inspection planted on the manufactured slopes below the project site (Mazur Parcel) and the proposed detcntion basin along Walnut Canyon Road to emulate the surrounding natural environment. Measures 1-3 and 1 -4 apply to the (lusted Parcel only. 1. 1-3 ' Prior to recordation of the Final 'Tract Applicant, Community Development Director Completion of land dedication /receipt of 1'ecs s Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any UFSHWIt 10 Seel-iem i7-38-080 subsequent permits of the —Hillside :aoorparK t omtn-Y c tun Lstates L,rpanstou Project A1iti,gation Monitoring Program Cite of'Afoorpark Page V.5 -3 ((D cn cn (D O .p6C � , _. O Z O N O O rn N w V Chrl.vophei-A Joseph (K. Assoc'iaw,; Junuarr 2007 'fable 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) EIR Section /Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action Pursuant to approved Initial Study supporting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting, prior to recordation of the first Final Tract Map for the Property, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant, shall purchase and dedicate fee title for seventy -two (72) acres of open space in lieu of providing on -site open space dedication Pursuant to Section 17.38.080 of the Hillside Management Ordinance. Prior to purchase and dedication, the City Council shall approve the location of the proposed open space land. At City's sole discretion, in lieu of the purchase of the scventy- two (72) acres of open space Developer shall pay two million six hundred eighty thousand dollars ($2,680,000.00) to City to be used in its sole and unfettered discretion for open space preservation purposes. Six hundred seventy thousand dollars ($670,000.00) shall be paid to the City no later than one year from the operative date of this Agreement or upon the recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. Subsequent annual payments of six hundred seventy thousand dollars ($670,000.00), shall be made for three years from the annual anniversary of the first payment. The fee shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1 2007 by the larger increase of a), b), or c) as follows: a) CPI increase shall be determined by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for all urban consumers within the Los Angeles /Riverside Moorpark Cowan- Clnh F,staws Expansion Yrolect Mitigation Monitoring Program ( ttt of .Moorpurk Yugo Y --1 � ZJJ o� CD cQ v> fD O_ E o Z O N O O rn N c.n w v Christoplu•r A. Jov plt &A �sociutrc Table I Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Juntrurr 2007 EIR Section /Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action /Orange County metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall be made using the month which is four (4) months prior to the month in which this Agreement became effective (e.g., if this Agreement became effective in October, then the month of June is used to calculate the increase). b) The annual adjustment shall be determined by any increase in the median price of single- family detached for -sale housing in Ventura County as most recently published by Data Ouick (Housing Index) for the previous twelve (12) month period. c) The annual percentage amount paid to City by the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) calculated as follows: The sum of the quarterly effective yield amounts paid by LAIF for the City's Pooled Money Investment Account for the most recent four (4) calendar quarters divided by four_( In the event there is a decrease in all of the referenced Indices for any annual indexing, the Fee shall remain at its then current amount until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase. 1 -4 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of Prior to recordation Applicant, City Engineer Review of grading Plans rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the of the final 'bract applicant shall submit grading plans to the City Engineer Map, initiation of for review to ensure that the proposed Hustcd Parcel rough grading or subdivision plan meets grading standards set forth in issuance of any Section 17.38.100, landform grading standards of subsequent permits Section 17.38.110 and hillside street standards of Afoorpurk Country Club Estates Expansion Project A1itiia ation Wonitorinl� Progrurrr Cin• of Moorpark Page V -5 -U x a) (D ca rn (D O_ �o Z O F-I N w 4 Christopher A. Joseph c\ Acwc•iute% Junuury 007 'Fable 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Moorpark Countr t• Club Estates F.xpunsion Project .Mitigation .Monitoring Program CitY of Moorpark Page V -h -0 ;(] v (D co cn fD O_ AE O0 0 D Z O N Cn C.) v Timing of EIR Section /Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action Section 17.38.120 of the Hillside Management Ordinance. The llusted suhdivision grading plan shall be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer. Measure 1 -5 applies to the Mazur Parcel only. Measure 1-6 applies to the Mazur Parcel only. 1 Prior to recordation Applicant, Community Completion of land -$ of the Final Tract Development Director dedication /receipt of fees ac-Fes Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any .. subsequent permits Pursuant to approved MND and MMRP, prior to recordation of the first Final Tract Map for the Property, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant, shall purchase and dedicate fee title for thirty -five (35) acres of open space in lieu of providing on -site open space dedication pursuant to Section 17.38.080 of the Hillside Management Ordinance. Prior to purchase and dedication, the City Council shall approve the location of the proposed open space land. At City's sole discretion in lieu of the purchase of the thirty - five (35) acres of open space, Developer shall pay one million three hundred twenty thousand dollars ($1,320,000.00) to City to be used in its Moorpark Countr t• Club Estates F.xpunsion Project .Mitigation .Monitoring Program CitY of Moorpark Page V -h -0 ;(] v (D co cn fD O_ AE O0 0 D Z O N Cn C.) v Christopher A. Joseph d'• :Assoc iate% January 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) EIR Section/Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action sole and unfettered discretion for open space preservation purposes. Three hundred thirty thousand dollars ($330,000.00) shall be paid to the City no later than one _year from the operative date of this Agreement or upon the recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. Subsequent annual payments of three hundred thirty thousand dollars ($330,000.00) shall be made for three years from the annual anniversary of the first payment. The fee shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1, 2007 by the larger increase of a), b), or c as follows: a) The CPI increase shall be determined by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for all urban consumers within the Los Angeles /Riverside /Orange County metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall be made using the month which is four (4) months prior to the month in which this Agreement became effective (e.g., if this Agreement became effective in October, then the month of June is used to calculate the increase). b) The annual adjustment shall be determined by any increase in the median price of single - family detached for -sale housing in Ventura County as most recently published by Data Quick (Housing Index) for the previous Moorpark Country Club Ewatec Expansion Proj('(•t Mitigation Monitoring Program City of Moorpark 1'ctge TX a (D (a Cn (D O �C_ C° o Z O N O O rn CrI N CA) Chrivopher A. Joseph (-K- As.wc•iates Ju,uuu v 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Moorpark Countrt• Club F. states Expansion Project Mitivation Monitoring Proorum Citr par o 'Moor k J / Page V -8 CD ((D cQ (n (D O_ � E 00 Z O N O 0 rn N U1 w V Timing of EIR Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(Fes) Monitoring Action twelve (12) month period. c) The annual percentage amount paid to the City by the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) calculated as follows: The sum of the quarterly effective yield amounts paid by LAW for the City's Pooled Money Investment Account for the most recent four (4) quarters divided by four (4). In the event there is a decrease in both of the referenced Indices for any annual indexing, the Fee shall remain at its then current amount until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase. 1-6 Prier to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of Prier to recordation Applicant. City Engineer Review of grading plans rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the of the Final 'bract applicant shall submit grading plans to the City Engineer Map, initiation of Cur review to ensure that the proposed Mazur Parcel rough grading or subdivision plan meets grading standards set forth in issuance of any Section 17.38.10I1, landform grading standards of' subsequent permits Section 17.38.110 and hillside street standards of Section 17.38.120 of the Hillside Management Ordinance. The Mazur subdivision grading plan shall he approved at the discretion of the City L:ngineer. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measures one Required 3. AIR QUALITY Moorpark Countrt• Club F. states Expansion Project Mitivation Monitoring Proorum Citr par o 'Moor k J / Page V -8 CD ((D cQ (n (D O_ � E 00 Z O N O 0 rn N U1 w V Christopher A. Joseph & Associutes Januurr 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (enntrl_1 Mooq)urk Country Club Estates Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program City uJ Moor )-rk / Puge V -9 ((D (a (n (D O cn c O Z O N O O rn N CI7 w 4 Timing of E1R Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action The ('()]]()wing Construction Mitigation Measures apply to both Mazur and I lusted Parcels. 3 -1 The use of construction equipment shall not he allowed During all grading Applicant, City Engineer, Observation of grading to idle in excess of 10 minutes. and construction Building Official and construction activities activities 3 -2 All equipment engines shall he maintained in good During all grading Applicant, City Engineer, Observation of grading condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' and construction Building Official and construction activities specifications by equipment operators. activities 3 -3 Project construction equipment shall use alternative During all grading Applicant, City Engineer, Observation of grading fuels, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied and construction Building Official and construction activities natural gas (i.NG), or electric, if feasible. activities 3 -4 The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or During all grading Applicant, City Engineer, Observation of grading excavation operations shall he minimized to prevent and construction Building Official and construction activities excessive amounts of dust. activities 3 -5 Pre- grading/excavation activities shall include watering During all grading Applicant, City Engineer, Observation of grading the area to he graded or excavated before and construction Building Official and construction activities commencement o1 grading or excavation operations. activities Application of water (preferahl} reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sulficicntly to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. 3 -6 1.-ugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and During all grading Applicant, City Engineer, Observation of grading construction activities shall be controlled by the and construction Building Official and construction activities following activities: activities • All trucks shall he required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code §23114. • All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on -site roadways, shall he treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment steal] include, but not necessarily be limited to, Mooq)urk Country Club Estates Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program City uJ Moor )-rk / Puge V -9 ((D (a (n (D O cn c O Z O N O O rn N CI7 w 4 (lrristophr'r a. Ju�c /�h cl Acsrn•iatc °� . /tutrau•i• 2007 Table I Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) EIR Section /Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action periodic watering, application ol, environmcntally -sale soil stabilization materials, and /or roll - compaction as appropriate. Watering shall he done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall he used whenever possible. 3 -7 Graded and /or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall he monitored by (indicate by whom) at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll - During all grading and construction activities Applicant, City Engineer, Building Official Observation of grading and construction activities compaction, and environmentally -safe dust control materials, shall he periodically applied to portions of the construction site that arc inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations arc planned for the area, the area should he seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally -safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. 3 -8 Signs shall he posted on -site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. During all grading and construction Applicant, City hnginecr. Building Official Ohservation of grading and construction activities activltics 3 -9 During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed in excess P of 15 mph), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall he curtailed to the degree During all grading b b and construction ~ activities Applicant, City Engineer, Building Official Observation ui•grading and construction activities necessary to prevent futlitive dust created by on -site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off -site or on -site. •I•hc site superintendent /supervisor shall use his /her discretion in conjunction with the APCD in determining when winds are excessive. Moorpark Coaatrn Club F..states Expansion Projrr•t OfY of Atoorpark Mitigation Monitoring Program Y � ZJJ CD cn cn CD O cn c N = O Z O E N Ln W Chrisrnphe/• A. Joseph &, Assoc•iarrs JunnurY 2007 Table I Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd ) Afnnrpurk Counn'r Club Estates Expansion Proiec f Cif uJ Afnurpark NNutln/1 Monitoring Prugrmi r Page v CD cn cn CD O cn w =� O Z O N 0 0 0) N w v Timing of EIR Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action 3 -10 Adjacent streets and roads shall he swept at least once During all grading Applicant, City Engineer, Observation ofgrading per day, preferably at the end of' the day, if visible soil and construction Building Official and construction activities material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. activities 3-11 Personnel involved in grading operations, including During all grading Applicant, City Engineer, Observation ofgrading contractors and subcontractors, should he advised to and construction Building Official and construction activities wear respiratory protection in accordance with activities California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. 3 -12 Where acceptable to the fire department, control weed During all grading Applicant, City Engineer, Observation of grading growth by mowing instead of discing, thereby leaving and construction Building Official and construction activities the ground undisturbed and with a mulch covering. activities 3 -13 During rough grading and construction, the access way During all grading Applicant, City Engineer, Observation of grading into the project site from adjoining paved roadways and construction Building Official and construction activities should he paved or treated with environmentally -safe activities dust control agents. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The followinlo mitigation measure, -1 -1, applies to Maiur Parcel only. 4 -1 Avoidance or reduction of impacts are preferred by Prior to issuance of Applicant, CDFG, Review of proposed CDFG and shall he investigated to the maximum extent first grading permit Community mitigation and observation possible. Thus, prior to the preparation of an application Development Director of implementation it Strcamhed Alteration Agreement from CDFG, the City of Moorpark will consult with Toll Bros. to determine it' the pro .icct can he redesigned to avoid impacts to the drainage. It' impacts cannot be avoided or significantly reduced, compensation in the form of one of the fi Christopher A. Joseph & Assoc•iules January 200' Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) EIR Section /Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action riparian hahitat restoration or enhancement, c) uffsite mitigation through cradication of nun- nativc invasive vegetation in disturbed riparian habitats in the project vicinity; and /or d) payment to a conservation agency for restoration in a riparian mitigation hank. CDFG will require the Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) application to include a detailed mitigation plan with specific components, which will serve as sufficient and appropriate mitigation for project impacts on CDI,'G- jurisdictional areas and will vary according to the option selected above by CDFG during the SAA application process. CDFG will not issue an SAA until the project CFQA document is certified, or provide concurrence regardinb a proposed mitigation option until that time. Details of the proposed mitigation will depend on the option selected by CDFG; however, details will include the t'ollowing: a) Mitigation Ratios: Mitigation ratios will depend upon the selected mitigation option. Appropriate ratios will he determined during permitting consultations with CDFG. h) Restoration Specialist: The restoration specialist shall he selected by the City of Moorpark and CDFG. The restoration specialist shall have demonstrated experience in the successful restoration 01 riparian habitats in southern Calitixnia. It' the restoration plan includes eradication of non- native invasive species, the restoration specialist shall demonstrate experience in successful removal of non - native invasive species Moorpark Country Club L.stutc'.c L'spumion Project Afrt {gation hfotntorin,q Progrunt On of Moorpark Page P -12 TX W cD co cn cn 0 cn c 0 Z 0 N O O rn N w C hristupher;t. Jwwph d• Assoc iates Januru r 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitorino Prngram trnntri i EIR Section /Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action Fffthc m southern California riparian habitats. Selection: A mitigation site will he selected h\ City of Moorpar k and C DFG. Otl'site mitigation, ld require selection of a riparian area suitable for aitat restoration or enhancement and currently or subsequently protected by an entity. The restoration site shall he at a location that will not he used for future roadway or other infrastructure projects and can he protected over the long -term. The site must also support existing hydrology suitable for supporting self- sustaining riparian habitat and he capable of supporting the acreage calculated from the mitigation ratio. Mitigation banking would require designation by CUFG of an appropriate mitigation hank, as well as the determination of the amount of funding to he provided to the hank to mitigate project impacts on riparian habitat and provide for mitigation monitoring and maintenance. d) Selection of Plant Palettes: The plant palette shall include appropriate trees, understory, and early - successional species native to the project vicinity. c) Quantities, Container Sizes, Planting Patterns Origins: Seed quantities, plant container sizes, and planting patterns shall he specified, as appropriate. To the extent feasible, plants and seeds used in the restoration plans shall he collected from the Project Sites or elsewhere in the project vicinity, as near to the site as possible. The use of locally native plantings will increase the chances of' success and maintain the genetic integrity of the local ecosystem. If eradication of non- native invasive species is selected as (one of) Moorpark Country' Club 1'stal( -; FVninsion Project .Mitigation ,Monitoring Program Cite• o/'.lfoorpark Palk V- 13 CDD fD O_ C ri E C-" o Z O N O 0 rn N Cn W C'hrbaof)her A.. /oseph il- Assoriutcti .lunuart• 200' Table 1 ;Mitigation :Monitoring Program (contd.) E1R Section /Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action the mitigation option(s), this section shall detail the types and approximate numbers of individuals of each non- native species to he removed. Ouantitics of riparian trees to he replaced shall consider ratios required by CDFG for riparian trees. f) Timing for Restoration /L•'radication: The restoration specialist shall determine the methods to he used, including timing of site preparation, planting, and /or of eradication of exotic (non - native) invasive species, in consultation with CDFG. For hest results, seeding and planting should take place after the onset of the rainy season and prior to March 31. Eradication is most effective if conducted early in the spring prior to seed set by non - native invasivc species. g) Mycorrhizal Fungi: In order to improve the ability of' the planted material to compete with non - native forhs and grasses, mycorrhizal innoculum shall he specified for all container plants known to benefit from this symbiotic association. h) Site Preparation: Methods to prepare the site for planting shall be specified, including consideration of soil requirements (e.g., soil type, compaction, ctc.) and weed control prior to planting (it' needed). I1' cnidication of nun - native invasive species is selected as (one of) the mitigation option(s), this section shall detail protective measures to he implemented to avoid impacts on native riparian plant and wildlife species during the eradication process. L i) Methods for Seeding, Planting` or Eradication: Methods for installing seeds and plants shall he specified (hand seeding, hydroseeding, etc.), as well ,tloorpwrk Countrt• Club Esiare Expankion Project Mitii4ation Monitoring Progrant Cin- of Moorpark Page V -14 N fD CO N fD O Cn C a' o Z O N O O N Cn W i (•hristophrr:l..los<•ph cl• ,1 S'S'(ICf(ttc�c J(tnuurc 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Timing of EIK Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Partv(ies) Monitoring Action as planting methods for container plants. II eradication of non - native invasive species is selected as (one of) the mitigation option(s), this section shall detail methods to he used for eradication, such as by mechanical means, by hand, and /or by an herbicide approved by CDFG. j) Irrigation: The restoration specialist shall determine and specify the need, frequency, and duration for irrigation of riparian restoration sites and specific irrigation equipment as well as installation and removal methods. k) Maintenance: Maintenance of all plantings or of' the actions required to remove exotic species will he the responsibility of the City and shall include any activities required to meet the performance standards set firth in the restoration plan. A minimum of 5 years of maintenance shall he required unless the plan's long -term performance standards are satisfied in less than 5 years. 1) Monitoring: Monitoring the restoration site or eradication site will he required for it minimum of 5 years or until all of the project's long -tern performance standards are met. The site monitor shall he it biologist, native landscape horticulturist, or other professional qualified to 1) assess the performance of the planting or eradication effort, 2) recommend corrective measures, if needed, and 3) document wildlife use of planting or eradication areas over time. The site monitor shall he selected by the City and approved by CDF(;. m) Performance Standards: Short -term (e.g., 90 -day and Moorpark CountrY Club E.stutcr Expuasion {'rujrc t o Citt' I'Moorpark Miti��ution Monitoring Program Puke V -15 to CCD CD O cn c V O Z O N 0 0 rn N w C7trisrupher,l..lnsrph cl' A ssociute� ./unuurr 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Moorpark Countre Club Estates F.xpun.sion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Cin• o(Moorpark 1'uge V -16 v CCD cQ cn CD O_ cn C cc) = O Z O N O O rn N 01 W v "Timing of EIR Section /Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible I'arty(ies) Monitoring Action 180 -day) and long -term (c.g., 3 -year and > -year) performance standards shall he set for the restoration or eradication arca(s), consistent with the goal of establishing self- sustaining riparian habitat that supports native plant and wildlife species. The plan shall specify appropriate corrective actions to be taken if the site monitor determines that any restoration or eradication area is not meeting the performance standards set for the plan. If performance standards cannot he achieved due to adverse soil or other unmanageable site conditions, an alternative or auxiliary plan may he submitted to CDFG. n) Documentation: The monitoring results shall he reported at least annually to CDFG The following mitigation measure, 4 -2, applies to both I lusted and Mazur Parcels. 4 -2 Mitigation options for impacts on coastal sage scrub Prior to issuance of Applicant, CDFG, Review of proposed include (1) onsitc mitigation in proposed onsite open first grading permit Community mitigation and observation space areas through habitat restoration: (2) offsite Development Director of, implementation mitigation in the project vicinity through habitat restoration or enhancement, (3) ol'fsitc mitigation through eradication of non - native invasive vegetation in disturbed coastal sage scrub habitats in the project vicinity-, and /or (4) payment to it conservation agency for restoration in a coastal sage scrub mitigation hank. The project applicant's proposed hydroseed inix for the Project Sites (see Appendix D) includes some coastal sage scrub species, however, a detailed mitigation plan must he prepared and implemented to ensure that mitigation is successful. The plan shall he prepared by a restoration specialist with demonstrated successful Moorpark Countre Club Estates F.xpun.sion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Cin• o(Moorpark 1'uge V -16 v CCD cQ cn CD O_ cn C cc) = O Z O N O O rn N 01 W v Ci rt,stopher,l. Joseph & tssociutcs Junuurr 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Mnnitnrinn Prnoram tonnid 1 F,1R Section /Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action experience in restoration of' coastal sage scrub in southern California. Although a Strearnhed Alteration Agreement or other permit from CDFG is not required for coastal sage scrub. CDFG shall he consulted regarding recommendations for successful coastal sage scrub mitigation during the SAA process (see mitigation 4 -1). However, the mitigation option to he implemented will be decided by the City of Moorpark. The mitigation plan shall he prepared by a restoration specialist with demonstrated successful experience in restoration of coastal sage scrub in southern California. The restoration plan shall include the following components: a) Selection of a Mitigation Site: Criteria to select an appropriate mitigation site. Mitigation could include enhancement of existing degraded sage scrub or replacement of sage scrub on graded slopes. Conditions on the mitigation site, including descriptions of the composition of sage scrub habitat to he removed and the condition of the mitigation site will he discussed in this section. h) Objectives of mitigation: tom: This section will discuss mitigation ratios, habitat goals, and performance standards. Replacement ratios may vary, depending upon whether scrub habitat will he entirely replaced in an area that currently supports no sage scrub habitat, or if an existing area of degraded scrub will he enhanced, or whether a combination of these two types of mitigation will occur. c) Ilabitat restoration implementation guidelines: This will include site preparation (weed control, erosion Moorpark Country Club Estate's F.xpun.sion Project Mitigation .Monitoring Program City of'Moorpurk Page V -17 ca CND fD O cn c (.C) O Z O E N w Chrwopher A. Joseph (l A.v:soc•iatc.v Janttari• 2007 Table I Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Timing of EIR Section /Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action control, irrigation), planting specifications (plant palettes and rates for seeding and container planting), site preparation and the use of mycorrhizal Cungi, irrigation, habitat maintenance guidelines, performance standards, it 5 -year monitoring and maintenance program to document attainment of performance standards, including documentaion of use of the mitigation site by special- status wildlife species. The plan will include sufficient detail to allow the project landscape architect to translate into landscape drawings and specifications. The following mitigation measures, 4 -3 through 4 -6 apply to both I lusted and Mazur Parcels. 4 -3 Any City approved work within the driplines of saved During construction Applicant, Community Observation of grading trees shall he under the inspection of it qualified and grading activities Development Director and construction activities arborist or oak tree consultant. 4 -4 Any City approved branch removals shall he accomplished by During construction Applicant, Community Observation of grading a qualified arhorist under the and grading activities Development Director and construction activities inspection of a certified oak tree consultant. 4 -5 Copies of' the final tree report and the City approved During construction Applicant, Community Observation of grading grading and landscape plans shall he maintained on site and grading activities Development Director and construction activities during all site construction. 4 -6 All tree mitigation techniques shall he observed on -site During construction Applicant, Community Observation of grading by it qualified oak tree consultant and the following and grading activities Development Director and construction activities, preservation program should be implemented to ensure ongoing observation and that the saved trees will remain valuable assets to the community: monitoring a) All saved trees within 50 fcct of proposed grading shall be fenced at their driplines with protective fencing hctore any site grading commences. .'Moorpark Coltntl'1' (•lab bautes F.xpun.sion Project 01Y of (Moorpark Mitigation Monitor MonitoringPrn un �rr Page V- IS N (D co v, CD O rn c o= O Z O N 0 0 rn N Ul w ChrisnophevA..losrph cl Ascnc'iute's Junuurr 2007 Table 1 Mitigation ,'Monitoring Program (contd.) Moorpark Country Club Estates L•xpunsion Project o. 1foorpurk Ott• hliti/ >utiun Monitoring Program Pug(, V -19 (D � N CD O rn c O Z 0 N 0 0 rn N ch W V Timing of EIR Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action Fencing will be installed to prevent equipment storage, debris dumping, parking, etc., from occurring within the native tree dripline during construction. The fence shall remain during all phases of construction and shall not he moved without consultation with it qualified oak tree consultant and approved by the City of Moorpark Planning Department. h)Any brush clearance within the drip line areas shall be completed by handwork only. c) All dead wood removal and /or pruning shall he accomplished after the City of Moorpark Planning Department has approved the grading plans. Dead wood removal is the removal of dead wood from within the tree, while structural pruning is for clearance only and safety pruning is the pruning of hazardous limbs, this should only be done if approved by the Planning Department. d)AII dead wood removal and /or pruning shall he done by it qualified arborist under the inspection of it qualified oak tree consultant. Pruning wounds shall not he sealed unless required by the Planning Department. e) ('limhing gaffs shall not he used by an): tree climber except to reach an injured climber or when removing it tree. t) The water frequency shall he done on an as needed basis and is subject to the evaluation from a qualified oak tree consultant. g) Native trees are in it dormant state during the summer months and do not require regular or constant Moorpark Country Club Estates L•xpunsion Project o. 1foorpurk Ott• hliti/ >utiun Monitoring Program Pug(, V -19 (D � N CD O rn c O Z 0 N 0 0 rn N ch W V 01h.slophel- A. Jowp /r c\ lbsociates Junuury 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) EIR Section /Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action watering or fertilizing. Watering is normally contemplated only following long periods of extreme drought. h)AII non -oak trees may he fertilized with a nitrogen fertilizer if it is determined that it would he beneficial. This fertilizer is to be applied just prior to watering. i) Prior to construction, the vigor of the saved trees shall he assessed by a qualified oak tree consultant. If the trees are to he treated, it shall be by a California licensed Pest Control Applicator for diseases that are abnormal, conditions which interfere with the normal physiological functioning of a plant and /or pests that are present. 'These recommendations shall he made by it California Pest Control Advisor. j) During all phases of construction the health of the trees shall he monitored for disease signs and symptoms. These problems, if they arise, shall he remedied as soon as possible. k) If bees are encountered in any on -site native trees, they shall he removed by it professional Beekeeper. 1) Initially, all grading within the dripline shall he done by hand, under the observation of a qualified oak tree consultant. If any roots arc encountered, they shall he saved /bridged except in it cut slope situation and covered with a minimum of 6 inches of sand. All pruned roots shall consist of clean -cut surfaces at a 90- degree angle and shall not he sealed unless required by the City Planning Department. in) If retaining walls are to he built, all footings should he primarily in an outward direction (away from the Moorpark Country Club F,ctatc's Lxpunsion Project Mitigation Nfonirorins; Program Citt• o.Ofoorpark Page V -20 CC) VOi M O_ E N0 Z 0 N CA) v Christopher A. Jwwph cl' 1 swc•iutc °c Januury 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) I` Timing of EIR Section /Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action trunk). Back fill the wall with topsoil from the site. n)Thc following are prohibited: i. Nailing gradc stakes or anything else to any native tree; ii. Designing and /or installing any landscape planting, irrigation and /or utilities within 15 feet of any trunk, unless approved by the Planning Department; and iii. Applying chemical herbicides within 100 feet of any native tree dripline. o)AII cavities should he cleaned out, and screening shall he applied to prevent debris huild -up. p) l'he dust accumulation onto the tree's foliage (from nearby construction) shall he hosed off periodically during construction, under the recommendation of a qualified oak tree consultant. The following mitigation measure, 4 -7, applies to the Mazur Parcel only. 4 -7 During construction Applicant, Community Observation of grading and grading activities Development Director and construction activi ties, ongoing observation and rcporting Moorpark Country' Club Estute Expansion Proyc•t .Mitigation .Monitoring Pro,granr C•it% o(.Moorpark Page V -21 (DD ca tn (D O O C w= O Z O N O O 91 N c.n W v Christopher A.Joseph (l- Ascoctatrs Januart 007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Moorpark Cwuttrc Club Estutes Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Citt• of Moorpark Page V -?Z -0 X 0) (D ca (n (D O 0) C o Z O N U1 W v Timing of EIR Section/ Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action b .. . The Heritage Oak Tree shall be preserved in place by use of a retaining wall on the west side of the tree outside of the tree, outside of the drip line. The multi - purpose trail shall be aligned adjacent to the tree, and a bench installed adjacent to the tree. The following mititgation measures, 4 -8 through 4 -10 apply to both Hustcd and Mazur Parcels. 4 -8 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, Prior to recordation Applicant, Community Observation of initial of the Final Tract Development Director, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any planting in common Map, initiation of Homeowners subsequent permits, the applicant shall prepare a areas; operation of the rough grading or landscaped plan pursuant to the City of Moorpark's Association life of the development monitoring by Landscape Guidelines and shall adhere to the issuance of any Guidelines prohibition of the use of plant species as subsequent permits, Homeowners listed. The landscape plan and the Guidelines list of Association. prohibited plant species shall be incorporated into the CC &R's for both the Hustcd and Mazur subdivision developments. The Community Development Director shall review and approve the final landscape plan prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of subsequent permits. 449 Project grubbing and other project construction activities that may destroy hind nests shall he limited to the nun- During construction and grading activities Applicant, ('ommunity Development Director Observation oCgrading and construction activities breeding season I'ur must birds, approximately Scptemher I through March 1. A biologist would not he Moorpark Cwuttrc Club Estutes Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Citt• of Moorpark Page V -?Z -0 X 0) (D ca (n (D O 0) C o Z O N U1 W v (hrrs7upher,l.. /use/ /r c\ :1 �suriutec .Iunuurt• 20117 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Timing of E1R Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action required to oversee these activities during the non - breeding season. 4-410 If project gruhhing and grading cannot avoid the During construction Applicant, Community Observation of grading hrceding season, a survey of the construction zone by a and grading activities Development Director and construction activities qualified ornithologist prior to the initiation of any projcct grubbing or grading activity can he conducted. If' the ornithologist detects any occupied nests of native birds within the construction zone, a minimum buffer of 100 feet between the nest and limits of construction shall he established, and the construction crew shall he instructed to avoid any activities in this zone until the bird nest(s) is /arc no longer occupied, per a subsequent survey by the qualified ornithologist. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES The following mitigation measures, 5 -1 through 5 -4, apply to both Hustcd and Mazur Parcels. 5 -1 Prior to site preparation or grading activities, Prior to Applicant, Community Acceptance of construction construction personnel shall he informed by the project commencement of Development Director personnel training applicant of the potential for encountering unique site preparation or archaeological resources and taught how to identify grading activities these resources it' encountered. This shall include the provision of written materials to familiarize personnel with the range of resource that might he expected, the type of activities that may result in impacts, and the legal framework of cultural resources protection. All construction personnel shall he instructed to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified archaeologist assesses the significance of the find and implements appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also he informed that unauthorized collection of :1loorpurk Countr}' Club E auto s L•.rpunsion Project Cits• o/�,Moorpark Miti��utiun Afonilurin/� ProKrurn Page V-23 v (DD (D (h (D O o� c O Z O N 0 0 rn N cn w V Christopher ;1. Jo.s ph d'• Assoc iafe� January 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) .Moorpark Counts• C'hch Estates Frpantiion Project Afiti,iiation .tifonitot-in,S Program On• of Moorpark fags' V-24 TX v CD (a (1) (D O O C o Z O tV O O N w Timing of E1R Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action archaeological resources is prohibited. > -2 in the event that subsurface archaeological resources are During construction Applicant, Community Ongoing observation and encountered during the course of grading and for excavation, a qualified archaeologist shall be notified and grading Development Director reporting, further action as stated in mitigation within 24 hours of discovery. The qualified measure if necessary archaeologist shall first determine whether an archaeological resource uncovered during construction is a "unique archaeological resource" under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g). if the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique resource ', the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the City of Moorpark Planning Department that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2 if the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archeological resource, the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System South Central Coastal information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of' any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City of Moorpark Planning Department and to the California Historic Resources Information System South Central Coastal Information Center. 5 Prior to Applicant, Community Acceptance of construction -3 , commencement of Development Director personnel training site preparation or .Moorpark Counts• C'hch Estates Frpantiion Project Afiti,iiation .tifonitot-in,S Program On• of Moorpark fags' V-24 TX v CD (a (1) (D O O C o Z O tV O O N w C!u•ivopher A. Joseph cl' I v�or iutc + Junuan' 2007 'Fable 1 Mitigation Mnnitnrino nrnnrom i.....,e,i + Moorpark Countrt• Club Estates Expansion Project C•in• of Moorpark Mitigation MonitMonitoring 1'roRrunt Page V-25 v (DD ca cn (D O rn c v~ O Z O N 0 0 rn N cn W V EIR Section/Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action -riding activities Of Fesout:ee that might 14e expeeted, fl— Prior to the issuance of the first erading permit a soils report shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval identifvine the types of soils that will be exposed to grading/disturbance activities Alone with this report a Paleontological mitigation program plan outlining Procedures for site inspections paleontological data recovery, and resource ownership shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval The program shall include sufficient monitoring of the potential fossil bearing areas of the site during grading operations with procedures for resource recovery to ensure that Paleontological resources are not lost during grading operations. Paleontological resource requirements shall be incorporated as a note on the grading plan cover sheet. For most grading activities a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the property owner Moorpark Countrt• Club Estates Expansion Project C•in• of Moorpark Mitigation MonitMonitoring 1'roRrunt Page V-25 v (DD ca cn (D O rn c v~ O Z O N 0 0 rn N cn W V Chri�tophrr A..1o.+rph d A.swriute% Junuurt• 2007 Table I Mitigation Mnnitnrino Program ln..nf.t 1 EIR Section /Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action or the City of Moorpark at the expense of the project aapplicant, to monitor, and if necessary, salvage scientifically significant fossil remains during grading operations. The duration of these inspections shall be determined by the paleontologist and shall depend on the sensitivity of the rock units the rate of excavation and the abundance of fossils. The duration shall be determined by: a. Grading activities in geologic units of high Paleontological sensitivity shall require full -time monitoring by a qualified paleontologist b. Geologic units of low or moderate paleontological sensitivity shall require part -time monitoring If significant fossils are observed during grading, full - time monitoring shall be implemented c. The paleontologists shall have the power to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow for evaluation and any necessary salvage of exposed fossils. d_ . Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units described in this assessment are not present subsurface or, if present are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources b d "FediH b it -quit! . siated Bit,* be Hotified 24 hOUP. Of The qualil'ied Moorpark Counu r Club Estates Expansion ProjNC-t Mitigation Molutoring Program Citt• of .Moorpark Page V -?h v CCD ca � (D O 0) i= 0C)- O Z O N 0 0 rn N Cri w C lu ivoplu r A. Jn +'c'p!r & Assoc'iaw,; Junuurt' 2007 Table I Mitigation Monitorinn Prnornm ronntrl I EIR Section /Mitigation Program —FeSOffee Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action 1Ft4e—PHle0H18I0gieaI is deieffflined to 18 !he Ndkffal Wi!jj()Fy -a4 In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are unearthed, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or an)' nearby area reasonably suspected to overlic adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of' the human remains. The Countv Coroner shall he notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the County Coroner determine, that the remains are or helievcd to he Native American, the Countv Coroner shall notify the American Native Ilentage Commission in Sacramento within 24 hours. In During construction Applicant, Community Development Director Ongoing observation and reporting, further action as stated in mitigation measure it' necessary Moorpark Cuuntrt Club Evatc� F•xpamion Projc•c.t .Mitigation Monitoring Program Cin• o. Moorpark Pali V-27 T CD (0 V) CD O me CO o 0 Z O N O O O N W v (/Wish >plrcr:l..lnceplc& Associates January' 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program tenntd_1 foorpark Country Club Estutee Expansion Project Mitigation .'Monitoring Program Cite of rt9oorpark Page V- 2,Y CCD cn N CD O -,jE O= O Z O N O O 0) N cn w v Timing of EIR Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. the Native American Heritage commission must immediately notify these persons it believes to he the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendents shall complete their inspection within 24 hours of notification. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following mitigation measures, 6 -1 through 6 -6, apply to both Husted and Mazur Parcels. 6 -1 The project shall comply with the recommendations Prior to and during Applicant, City Engineer, Ongoing observation and contained in the Geotechnical Investigation of the construction and Community reporting Husted Property, prepared by Geo labs- West lake Village, grading Development Director August 30, 2003 and the Geotechnical Investigation of the Mazur Property, prepared by Geolabs- Westlake Village, October 20, 2003 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6 -2 Prior to recordation of the Final 'Tract Map, initiation of Prior to recordation Applicant, City Engineer, Review ol'plans rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the of the Final Tract Community applicant shall contract with an engineering geologist, Map, initiation of' Development Director ge.otechnical engineer to verify that grading planned rough grading or Within landslide areas would he rcmediated. issuance of any The findings and subsequent permits recommendation of the additional gcotechnical assessment shall he incorporated into the final design for the proposed project and approved by the City Engineer. 6 -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit fir any Prior to issuance of a Applicant, City Engineer, Review of erosion control foorpark Country Club Estutee Expansion Project Mitigation .'Monitoring Program Cite of rt9oorpark Page V- 2,Y CCD cn N CD O -,jE O= O Z O N O O 0) N cn w v Christopher A..Ioseph cF .1 ssuc'iutcs luncrury 2007 Table 1 :Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Timing of EIR Section/Mitigation Program FFdcv,clopment Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action on the project site parcels, the project grading permit for Community plan ant shall submit an erosion control plan to the City any development on Dcvelopmcnt Director nneer for review and approval. The erosion control the project site plan shall include measures to reduce the amount of parcels onsite and offsite erosion during construction of the proposed project, proper care of drainage control devices, proper irrigation, rodent control, and landscaping. To supplement the erosion control plan, hydroseeding of affected graded slopes shall be performed by the project applicant within 30 days of grading of the slope area. 6 -4 The erosion control plan shall cover additional measures Prior to issuance of a Applicant, City Frigineer, Review of erosion control needed for grading between October and April to reduce grading permit for Community plan runoff around the project site. Such measures should any development on Development Director include drainage channels lined with grass or roughened the project site pavement to reduce runoff velocity• parcels 6 -5 Appropriate erosion control and drainage devices, such During construction Applicant, City Engineer, Site inspection as sand hags, and inlet and outlet structures, shall be and grading Community provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Development Director including planting gist- growing annual and perennial grasses in areas where construction is not immediately These planned. would shield and bind the soil. 6 -6 Stockpiles and excavated soil shall he covered with During construction Applicant, City Frigineer, Site secured tarps or plastic sheeting. and grading Community Development Director AiOn The following mitigation measure, 6 -7, applies to the Mazur Parcel only. 6 -7 Prior to recordation of' the Final 'Tract Map, initiation of Prior to recordation Applicant, City Enginecr, Revruu�L,h grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the of the Final Tract Community obse applicant, or subsequent developer, shall contract with Map, initiation of Development Director Moorpark Country Clnh Evutes Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Oty Of Moorpark Page V -?y (CD ca N (D O v c O z O N 0 0 rn N cn w v 011istopher,4..lo,�rpit d'• Associute� .lunuury 2007 'fable I Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Moorpark Country C•hth Estutc° Lxpunsiun Project Cm- of Moorpark AitiguNun Monitoring Program I'age V -30 0) (D ca to CD O_ v E N = O Z O N O 0 0) N Cn W Timing of EIR Section /Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action an engineering geologist, geotcchnical engineer to verify rough grading or that planned grading planned will rcmcdiate issuance of any unsuitable /unstable sails to result in a net soil stability subsequent permits for the site. The findings and recommendation of the additional gecotechnical assessment shall he incorporated into the final design for the proposed project and approved by the City Engineer. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The following mitigation measures, 7 -1 and 7 -2, appy to the Mazur Parcel only. 7 -1 Prior to issuance of permits for demolition of the two Prior to issuance of Applicant. Department of I.ettcr to City Department single- family residences and garage, a lead -based paint demolition permits Building and Safety of Building and Safety assessment of each existing structure shall he conducted. Director Lcad -based paint found in any building shall he removed and disposed of as a hazardous waste in accordance to Title 40 CFR (Code of' Federal Regulations) 74.5 which details lead abatement procedures and with all other applicable regulations. The applicant shall provide a letter to the City Department of Building and Safety from a certified lead abatement contractor demonstrating that either lead is not present or abatement would he required and performed. 7 -2 Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the applicant Prior to issuance of Applicant, Department of Letter to City Department shall provide a letter to the City Department of Building demolition permits Building and Safety of Building and Safety and Safety from a qualified asbestos abatement Director consultant that no asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are present in the buildings. I1 ACMs are found to he present, they shall he abated in compliance with the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Title 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 763 which regulates sampling techniques, abatement and air clearance, as Moorpark Country C•hth Estutc° Lxpunsiun Project Cm- of Moorpark AitiguNun Monitoring Program I'age V -30 0) (D ca to CD O_ v E N = O Z O N O 0 0) N Cn W Chrislopher .4. Joseph & ,1 sync Iruc s Junuar,v 007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Afoorpurk Counnr Club L• tates f,Apansion Pru%ec t Mitigation Monitoring Program in- of ,4foorpurk Page V -31 At (D (OD O_ 0 D Z 0 N O O rn N W v Timing of EIR Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action well as handling and disposal requirements of the ashestos as hazardous waste. The following mitigation measures, 7 -3 through 7 -.5, apply to the I lusted Parccl only. 7 - +3 Prior to recordation of the Final 'bract Map, initiation of Prior to recordation Applicant, City Engineer, Review of' suhseyuent rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the of the Final Tract and California Division environmental assessincnt applicant shall prepare it subsequent environmental Map, initiation of of Oil, Gas, and assessment in accordance to the findings of the Phase I rough grading or Geothermal Resources Environmental Assessment (dated August 2003). The issuance of any (DOGGR), California subsequent environmental assessment shall include subsequent permits Department of Toxic review of the California Division of Oil, Gas and Control regulations Geothermal records regarding the exact legal location of the well and the methods by which the well was abandoned. If' this well is found to be several hundred feet from the project site boundary, no further action is required. However, it the well is found to he adjacent to the project site, subsurface investigation and methane gas testing shall he required to evaluate the likelihood that it hydrocarbon apron and /or mud pit extends onto the site. If the hydrocarbon apron and or mud pit are discovered, actions need to he identified for remediation under the California Department of Toxic Control regulations, and other local, State and federal regulations. The City Engineer shall approve the findings and recommendations of the subsequent environmental assessment prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, 7 --24 If the subsequent environmental assessment finds the Prior to recordation Applicant, City Friginecr, Receipt of abandonment well was not abandoned in accordance with Ventura of the Final Tract and California Division completion letter from County Fire Department and the California Division of Map, initiation of of Oil, Gas, and DOGGR Afoorpurk Counnr Club L• tates f,Apansion Pru%ec t Mitigation Monitoring Program in- of ,4foorpurk Page V -31 At (D (OD O_ 0 D Z 0 N O O rn N W v ChrlWophrr A. lawph &- Associates .lunuarY 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Moorpark Country Club E. stutes E.Vwnsion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program ('itr of Moorpark Page 11-32 v (DD (D O_ VE �o Z O N O 0 rn N Cn W V Timing of EIR Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action 011, Gas and Geothermal Resources regulations, then rough grading or Geothermal Resources abandonment Per these regulations shall he required. issuance of any (DOGGR) subsequent Permits 7 -45 II methane gas is found during the subsequent Prior to recordation Applicant, City Engineer, Review of methane environmental assessment testing, methane remediation of the Final 'Tract and California Division remediation design and design shall he provided with an approved Methane Map, initiation of of Oil, Gas, and approved Methane Control Control System, which shall include a vent system and rough grading or Geothermal Resources System gas - detection system. The gas - detection system shall he issuance of any (DOGGR), Ventura designed to automatically activate the vent system when subsequent permits County Fire Department an action level equal to 25 percent of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) methane concentration is detected or the system shall he designed in accordance to regulations of the County Fire Department, or other local, State and federal agencies. Routine monitoring and maintenance oC the system to prevent water intrusion into the vent system shall he perl'ormed to the satisfaction o[' the Ventura County Fire Department. A trained individual under contract with the project applicant shall perform routine monitoring and maintenance and subject to periodic inspection by the Ventura County Fire Department. The City Engineer shall approve the final design and recommendations of the subsequent environmental assessment prior to recordation of the Final 'Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits. The t011owing mitigation measures, 7 -6 and 7 -7, apply to the Mazur Parcel only. 7 -:16 Prior to recordation of the Final 'Tract Map, initiation of Prior to recordation Applicant, City F,ngincer, Letter to utility company rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the of the Final Tract Ventura County Public with copies sent to Ventura subsequent environmental assessment shall include Map, initiation of Works Department County Public Works visual observation of the pole- mounted transformer for rough grading or Department and City Moorpark Country Club E. stutes E.Vwnsion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program ('itr of Moorpark Page 11-32 v (DD (D O_ VE �o Z O N O 0 rn N Cn W V Chri.stophei-A— loseph c\ Associates Jcuntcnt' 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) ,tfoorpurk Cowm -Y Club Estines Expansion Project Maigution Monitoring I'ro,Kram CND' of ;Noorpurk Page V -33 v fD (a N CD O �1 C cn o Z O N O O rn N Cn Cl) v Timing of EIR Section/ Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action any leakage or staining. It' leakage or staining on or issuance of any Higinccr demonstrating around the transformer appear to have occurred, then the subsequent permits communication to the project applicant shall inform (in the firm of written utility company. communication) the utility company which is responsible for mitigating any leakage or staining, and for changing the fluids in the transformer. The project applicant shall also provide copies of the letter to the Ventura County Public Works Department and to the City Engineer demonstrating that communication has occurred between the applicant and the utility company. 7 - .47 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of Prior to recordation Applicant, City Engineer. Review of letter rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the of the Final Tract Ventura County Public demonstrating well subsequent environmental assessment shall identify the Map, initiation of Works Department abandonment, site exact location of well number 33D I on the Mazur Parcel rough grading or inspection site and provide recommendations for water well issuance of any abandonment and destroy procedures pursuant to the subsequent permits requirements of the Ventura County Well Ordinance Number 4184. The project applicant shall provide a letter to the Ventura County Public Works Department and to the City Engineer demonstrating that well abandonment and destroy procedures were conducted in accordance with said ordinance. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The following mitigation measures, 8 -1 and 8 -2, apply to both dusted and Mazur Parcels. 8-1 Prior to issuance of the initial grading permits, the Prior to issuance of Applicant, Community Review of SQUIMP applicant shall have prepared a Storm Water Quality the initial grading Development Director, Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) for each permits (pit), Engineer parcel and include Non - Structural, Source Control, and Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs). A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Professional or ,tfoorpurk Cowm -Y Club Estines Expansion Project Maigution Monitoring I'ro,Kram CND' of ;Noorpurk Page V -33 v fD (a N CD O �1 C cn o Z O N O O rn N Cn Cl) v Chri�topher,1. Joseph (l- /A.1So( -iatei Junuury 2007 Table I Mitigation Monitorino Prnornm trnntA 1 Moorpark Counn't• Club Estates Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program C ut of Moorpark Page V -34 � ZJJ CD cn cn CD O Vc rn� O Z O N O 0 rn N cn w V Timing of EIR Se ction/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action qualified Civil Engineer shall prepare the SQUIMP for each parcel. The SQUIMP shall he reviewed and approved by the Moorpark Community Development Director and City Engineer. The development of the SQUIMP, shall conform to the Ventura County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, the SQUIMP standards, and the Technical Guidance manual for Storm Water Quality Control Measures. 8 -2 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, Prior to recordation Applicant, Community Review of civil engineering plans initiation of rough grading or issuance of any of the Final Tract Development Director, subsequent permits the project applicant shall Map, initiation of City Engineer design the on -site detention basins according to the rough grading or Ventura County Watershed Protection District's issuance of any standards specifically for detained volume to be _subsequent permits between 10 vear and 100 year volumes but released volume at no more than 10 -year storm peak pre - development runoff rate to down stream facilities The following mitigation measure, 8 -3, applies to Rusted Parcel only. 8 -3 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of Prior to recordation Applicant, City Engineer, Review of letter rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the of the Final Tract Ventura County Public demonstrating well subsequent environmental assessment shall identify the Map, initiation of Works Department abandonment, site exact location of' well numbers 31131 and 31 B2 on the rough grading or inspection I lusted Parcel site and provide recommendations for issuance of any water well abandonment and destroy procedures subsequent permits pursuant to the requirements of the Ventura County Well Ordinance Number 4184. The project applicant shall provide a letter to the Ventura County Public Works Department and to the City Engineer demonstrating that well abandonment and destroy procedures were Moorpark Counn't• Club Estates Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program C ut of Moorpark Page V -34 � ZJJ CD cn cn CD O Vc rn� O Z O N O 0 rn N cn w V Clu•istopher A. Joseph &, Associates Januan• 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program tcnntrl_► Moorpark Counts• C •hrb Estates Expansion 1)rojec t Mitigution .Mnnitorin,l; Program Citrof.Woorrpark Page V -35 s� ((D (n rn (t) O_ —4 E 4o Z O N O O rn N U1 w Timing of EIR Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action conducted in accordance with said ordinance. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING None required 10. MINERAL RESOURCES None required 11. NOISE 'rhe following mitigation measures, 11 -I through 11 -7, apply to both Husted and Mazur Parcels. 11 -1 Construction activities shall he limited to the hours of During construction Applicant, Community Ongoing monitoring and 7:00 a.m. to 7 :00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Development Director observation 11-2 All construction equipment engines shall he properly During construction Applicant, Community Ongoing monitoring and tuned and muffled according to manufacturers' Development Director observation specifications. 11-3 Noise construction activities whose specific location on During construction Applicant, Community Ongoing monitoring and the site may be flexible (e.g.. operation of compressors Development Director observation and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise - sensitive: land uses, and natural and /or manmade harriers (e.g., intervening construction trailers) shall he used to screen propagation of noise from such activities towards these land uses to the maximum extent possible. 11-4 The use of those pieces of construction equipment or During construction Applicant, Community Ongoing monitoring and construction methods with the greatest peak noise Development Director observation generation potential shall he minimized. Examples include the use of drills, jackhammers, and pile drivers. 11 [f the residential units. which are currently under During construction cant, Community Ongoing monitoring and construction south of the Mazur Parcel, arc occupied at rDevelopmcnt Director observation the time of construction of the proposed proicct, harriers Moorpark Counts• C •hrb Estates Expansion 1)rojec t Mitigution .Mnnitorin,l; Program Citrof.Woorrpark Page V -35 s� ((D (n rn (t) O_ —4 E 4o Z O N O O rn N U1 w Christopher pher A. Joseph & A s wciatc s lununt Y 21107 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Moorpark Countn• Chrh Estates E.ipuneion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program C'itY of Moorpark Prtgc' V'-36 v (CD (Q (n (D O_ v E w= O Z O N O 0 rn tV w v Timing of EIR Section /Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains shall he erected along Palmer Drive, to minimize the amount ol' noise the residential units would he subject to. 11-6 Equipment warm -up areas, water tanks, and equipment During construction Applicant, Community Ongoing monitoring and storage areas shall he located a minimum of 150 feet Development Director observation from the nearest residential units, where feasible. 11 -7 Flexible sound control curtains shall he placed around During construction Applicant, Community Ongoing monitoring and drilling apparatuses and drill rigs, when located Development Director observation approximately 150 feet from it residential unit. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING None required 13. PUBLIC SERVICES The following mitigation measures, 13 -1 through 13-17, apply to both Ilusted and Mazur Parcels. 13 -1 During all grading and site clearance activities, all During construction Applicant, Community Ongoing monitoring and earthmoving equipment shall he equipped with spark Development Director, observation arrestors and at least two portable fire extinguishers per Ventura County Fire vehicle. All equipment used in the vegetation clearance Protection District phase shall he equipped with spark arrestors and hest available fire safety technology. The vegetation clearance activities shall he coordinated with and approved by the Ventura County Fire Protection District. 13 -2 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of Prior to recordation Applicant, Community Review of Firc Ilazard rough grading or issuance oC any subsequent permits, the of the Final Tract Development Director, Reduction Program, pn�ject applicant shall retain a certified fire management Map, initiation of Ventura County Fire ongoing observation and professional to prepare a Fire I lizard Reduction rough grading or Department monitoring Program; this program shall he prepared in consultation issuance of any with the Ventura County Fire Protection District subsequent permits Moorpark Countn• Chrh Estates E.ipuneion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program C'itY of Moorpark Prtgc' V'-36 v (CD (Q (n (D O_ v E w= O Z O N O 0 rn tV w v Chriaophe•rA. Joseph & Assuc•iates Junuca,s 2007 Table I! Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) E!R Section /Mitigation Program Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action (VCFPD) and a biologist with expertise in native plants, and shall he approved by the City of 'Moorpark Community Development Director. Said program will be developed by the project applicant, but shall he maintained by an entity(ies). Such as a homeowner's association, assessment district, or similar entity, that can assure adequate fire hazard reduction management throughout the lifetime of the project. The program shall apply to all lands within 100 beet of residences. The program shall include, at it minimum, vegetation management program focusing on the continued highly combustible vegetation, providing defensible space, and the control of invasive non - native species. One component of the program shall he the permanent establishment of fuel modification zones to the standards of the VCFPD for all structures adjacent to open space area with native vegetation. The fuel modification zone shall he designed by and planted under the supervision of a landscape architect with expertise in native plant materials. Native and non - native low -fuel vegetation materials shall he provided as replacement vegetation. The program shall include specific guidelines as to the frequency of maintenance (e.g., wee abatement), allowable species for planting, responsibility of clearing public and private zones, and irrigation requirements or restrictions. The timing and funding for the provision of' the vegetation management program, would he subject to implemented in accordance with an agreement with the VCFPD. 13 -1 A licensed security guard shall he provided during the Durinty construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection off hours of' the construction phase to the satisfaction of County Sheriffs Moorpark Country Club Cetutcs Expansion Project 9fitigation Monitoring Program Ott• of lNoorpark Page V-37 TX W (D cfl (n CD O -4 C C° o Z O W N CJ1 W V C lui�topher A. Jwwph & Associate Junuun• 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Moorpark C-muntrt CYnh F. vats c Expawdon Pro.ject AlitiKutlon Monitoring Prot;runt Citt• of Moorpark Pu9c V -38 Obi CCD cn Cn CD O_ � E O= O Z O N O O rn N w Timing of EIR Section/Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action the Police Chief. Department 13 -2 Construction equipment, tools, etc. shall he properly During construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection secured to prevent theft during non - working hours. County Sheriffs Dcpartment 13 -3 All appliances (microwave ovens, dishwashers, trash During construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection compactors, etc.) shall he properly secured to prevent County Sheriff-s theft prior to installation during non - working hours. All Department serial numbers will he recorded for identification purposes. 13 -4 Landscaping shall not cover any exterior door or During construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection window. County Sheriff's Department 13 -9 Landscaping at entrances /exits or at any intersection During construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection shall not block or screen the view of a seated driver from County Sheriff-s another moving vehicle or pedestrian. Department 13 -10 Landscaping (trees) shall not he placed directly under During construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection any overhead lighting which could cause it loss of light County Sheriffs at ground level. I Department 13-11 Addresses shall he clearly visible to approaching During construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection emergency vehicles and in contrasting color to the County Sheriffs background it is mounted on. Department 13 -12 Address numbers shall he it minimum of h" in height and During construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection illuminated during hours of darkness. County Sheriffs Department 13 -13 Front door entrances shall he visible from the street. During construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection County Sheriffs Department 13 -14 Directory hoards indicating the locations of the various I During construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection Moorpark C-muntrt CYnh F. vats c Expawdon Pro.ject AlitiKutlon Monitoring Prot;runt Citt• of Moorpark Pu9c V -38 Obi CCD cn Cn CD O_ � E O= O Z O N O O rn N w Christopher A. Joseph & Assoc iatvs Jmtuan- 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Moorpark Cunntrr Ciuh Estates F..tpansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program City of Moorpark Page V -39 f� f(D (n on (D O O E 0 Z 0 N O O rn N c.n w Timing of EIR Section /Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action buildings and individual units shall he displayed at each County Sheriff's entrance to the complex and lighted during hours of Department darkness. 13 -16 There shall not he any easy exterior access to the root' During construction Applicant, Ventura Site inspection area, i.e. ladders, trees, high walls, ctc. County Sheriff's Department 13 -17 The applicant shall satisfy all applicable Quimby During construction Applicant, Ventura Review of Quimby obligations for the construction of the proposed project. County Sheriff's payment Department 14. RECREATION None required 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC The following mitigation measures, 15 -1 and 15-2, apply to both Hustcd and Mazur Parcels. Moorpark Cunntrr Ciuh Estates F..tpansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Program City of Moorpark Page V -39 f� f(D (n on (D O O E 0 Z 0 N O O rn N c.n w Chrktoplter A..lo�cph & A ,;coriutc,s Januury 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (con(d.) MOorpurk Country Chch Ecnrtcs Expansion Pro/eet Mitigation Monitoring /'r(,grum On• of Moorpark Page V -40 N CD cn to CD O O E N ="• O Z O N O O rn N cn W v Timing of EIR Section /Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action 4-415 -1 The project applicant shall pay its fair share in the Prior to recordation Applicant, Ventura Review of payment Count) of Ventura's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee of Final Tract Map County Department of Program to mitigate impacts on unincorporated County 'Transportation roadways. 4 -415 -2 The project applicant shall implement its fair share of Prior to recordation Applicant, Ventura Review and acceptance of the non - committed improvements in the City of of Final Tract Map County Department of fair share funded Moorpark as follows: Transportation, improvements Short Range (Year 2007) Fair Share Funded Improvements Community (off -site improvements) Intersection Improvements: Development Director 10 Tierra Rejada Rd. & Los Ankles Ave: Add 2 "`' SBT and modify signal to provide NBR overlay with WBL (project share < 117r). 11 Spring Rd & Los Angeles Ave: Add Wl3R overlap and NBR overlap with W13L (project share < 1 "/r ). 12 Science Dr /Miller Pkwy & New I.os Anycles Ave: Add 2 " W13L, convert 2`1 N131, to shared N131. /NBT, convert Nl3T to 2n" NBR, convert SBT to shared SBI. /SBT, and modify signal to provide N/S split phasing to provide NBR overlay with W131- (project share < 1 c %( ). Long -Range (2020) Fair Share Funded Improvements (off - site improvements) Roadway Improvements Los Anizcics Ave: Widen to six lanes from Moorpark Avenue to Gabbert Rd /Tierra Rejada Rd, and widen to four lanes from Gabbert Rd/Tierra Rejada Rd to west of the City limits (project share < I ,; ). North Hills Pkwy: Construct as lour -lane arterial from the eastern boundary of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan site to Spring Rd, and as a six -lane arterial frorn Spring Rd to the SR -118 Freeway (project share < I� ). Intersection Improvements 10 Tierra Rejada Rd & Los Angeles Ave: Add 2 "" N13T MOorpurk Country Chch Ecnrtcs Expansion Pro/eet Mitigation Monitoring /'r(,grum On• of Moorpark Page V -40 N CD cn to CD O O E N ="• O Z O N O O rn N cn W v Christophrr A. Jowplr &, Assoc iutc c .lanuurx• 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) F,IR Section/Mitigation Program (project share < l (� ). 11 Moopark Ave & Los Angeles Ave: Convcrl W13R to shared d WBT /WBR and modify signal to eliminate WBR overlap with SB1. (pro.jcct share < 1 1/4). 31 —Spring Rd & North lfills Pkwy' New intersection: signalize and provide NBL, dual NBT, NBR, dual SBL, dual SBT, F.BL, 3 F.BT, WBL, 3 WBT, WBR, NBR overlap with WBL and WBR overlap with SBL (project share < I 1i;). 1116 Utilities and Service Systems Timing of Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) II 'I'he following mitigation measure, 16 -1, applies to both Husted and Mazur Parcels. 16 -1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project Prior to issuance of Applicant, Ventura applicant shall design and install sewer line lilts to building permits County Public Works accommodate the 87 homes to he built in Tentative Tract Department Maps 5463 and 5464 to the satisfaction and criteria of the Ventura County Public Works Department. The following mitigation measure 16 -2 applies to the Husted Parcel only. 16 -2 Prior to issuance of building permits the project Prior to issuance of Applicant, Ventura applicant shall ensure that the sewage lift station _building permits County Public Works located at Trevino Drive and Championship Drive be Department upgraded to the satisfaction of the Ventura County _Public Works Department to handle the additional discharge from the new homes to be built as part of Tentative Tract 5463. The following mitigation measure 16 -2 applies to the Mazur Parcel only. Monitoring Action Review and acceptance of sewer lift design and installations Review and acceptance of sewer lift design and installations 16 -3 Prior to issuance of building permits the proiect Prior to issuance of Applicant, Ventura Walnut Canyon Road applicant shall work with the County of Ventura building permits County Public Works sewage line inspection Public Works Department to ensure that the sewage Department Moorpark C'ountrr Club Evate Expuncion /'rujc c t Ott• of Moorpark Mitigation ,Monitoring Program Page 1' -41 N (D (a (n (D O co c w= O Z O N 0 0 0) N ch W Christopher A.. /n.seph cK, Associates .1anuart• 2007 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program (contd.) Timing of EIR Section /Mitigation Program Mitigation Responsible Party(ies) Monitoring Action line along Walnut Canyon Road has the available capacity to accommodate additional sewaee flow from Tentative Tract 5464. .Moorpark (•ountrt• Chuh Fslrttc's FApansirnt Proiec•t Miti��ution Moaitorinq /'ro��rum ( itr nj Moorpark Purr V --JZ 0) CD (n U) (D O 0o c O Z O N 0 0 0 N c.n w 4 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 85 MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES EXPANSION PROJECT INITIAL STUDY PREPARED FOR: City of Moorpark Community Development Department APPLICANT: Toll Brothers Inc. 7142 Trevino Drive Moorpark, CA 93021 PREPARED BY: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates 31255 Cedar Valley Drive;, Suite 222 Westlake Village, CA 91362 March 2005 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 86 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section P I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ ............................1 -1 II. PROJI` DESCRIv ION ................................................................................. ...........................II -1 EnvironmentalSetting .................................................................................... ............................... 11 -1 Proposed Project Des cription ............................................................................ ..........................11 -13 III. L,XPLANATION OF CI IECKLIST DETERMINATIONS .............................. .......................... I11-1 1. Aesthetics ................................................................ ............................... ..........................111 -1 2. Agricul ture .............................................................. ............................... .........................111 -17 3. Air Quality ............................................................... ............................... ........................111 -20 4. Biolooical Resources ............................................. ............................... ..........................111 -33 5. Cultural Resources ................................................. ............................... .........................111 -54 6. Geology and Soils ................................................... ............................... ........................III -60 7. 1lazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................. ............................... III -71 H. hydrology and Water Quality ................................ ............................... .........................III -K 1 9. Land Use and Planning .......................................... ............................... ......................... I11-94 I(). Mineral Resources ................................................... ............................... ........................111 -99 11. Noise ....................................................................... ............................... .......................111 -102 12. Population and Housing ...................................... ............................... ..........................111 -1 11 13. Puhlic Services .................................................... ............................... ..........................III -1 I6 14. Recreation .............................................................. ............................... ........................111 -127 15. Transportation and T raffic ................................ ............................... ............................111 -129 16. Utilities and Service Sv stems ................................ ............................... .......................111 -158 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................... ............................... I11 -166 IV. LIST OF PREPARERS AND PFRSONS CONSUL. TED ........................................................... IV- I V. REFERFNCES ................................................................................................ ............................... V-1 VI. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIAT IONS .......................................... ...........................VI -I Moorpark Countr)• Club Estates Expansion Project Table of Contents Citt• of .Moorpark 1 age i Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 87 Christopher A. Joseph d'• Associates LIST OF FIGURES rit*ure P 11-1 Regional Map ............................................................................................ ............................... 11 -2 11 -2 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................. ............................... 11 -3 11 -3 Views I and 2 0l the Project Site, Husted Site ....................................... ............................... 11 -4 II -4 Views 3 and 4 of the Project Site, Mazur Site ........................................ ............................... 11 -5 11 -5 Husted Parcel Tentative Tract Map ......................................................... ............................... 11 -8 II -h Mazur Parcel Tentative Tract Map ........................................................ ............................... 11-11 111.1 -1 1lusted Parcel Berms . .. .......................................................................................................... 111-3 111.1 -2 1 lusted Parcel Berms ..................................................... ............................... ..........................111 -4 111.1 -3 Husted Parcel Berms ..................................................... ............................... ..........................111 -5 I1IA -1 I- Awation of CnrG- Jurisdictional Area, Mazur Parcel .............................. .........................111 -3K 111.6 -1 Seismic Hazard Map ...................................................... ............................... ........................111 -64 Ill. l5- I Study Intersections ... ......................................................................................................... III -132 111.15 -2 Existing Tratiic Volumes ... ............................................................................................... 111 -134 111.15 -3 2007'I'raffic Distribution .. . ............................................................................................... 111-137 111.15 -4 2020 Pmjcet'i'raffic Distribution .. .................................................................................... 111 -139 111.15 -5 Existing (2004) Plus Project Traffic Volumes .. ............................................................... 111 -140 111.15 -h future (2007) With Project Traffic Volumes .................................... ............................... 11 -150 111.15 -7 Future (211211) With Project Traffic Volumes ... ............................................................... 111 -151 Aloorpurk Country Club F.stutes L•apunsion Project Table of Contents Ciry of Moorpark Page ii Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 88 Christopher A—loseph c�, Associates LIST OF TABLES E ire Ei� 111.1 -1 Open Space Dedication Requirement for the Husted Site ................................................. 111 -1 l 111.1 -2 Open Space Dedication Requirement for the Mazur Site ......................... .........................111 -13 111.3 -1 ROMP Consistency Analysis - Population Growth .. . ......................................................... 111-21 111.3 -2 Fstimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions — I lusted Site ................. ......................... III -23 11 [.3 -3 Fstimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions - Mazur Site ............ ............................... III -24 111.3 -4 Pro lcct Daily Operational Emissions ... .............................................................................. III -27 111.3 -5 Existing Plus Project Carbon Monoxide Concentrations .. ................................................ 111 -28 111.3 -6 Future (2007) With Project Carhon Monoxide Concentrations ... .................................... III -29 111.3 -7 Future (2020) With Project Carbon Monoxide Concentrations .. . .................................... 111-30 111.4 -1 Plant Communitv Acreages Within the Mazur and Ilusted Project Sitcs .........................111 -42 111.4 -2 'free Inventory for Husted and Mazur Project Parcels ... ................................................... III -48 lll.I 1 1 Noise Range of Typical Construction Equipment ... ........................................................ 111 -103 III.1 1 2 1'lpical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels . . . ................................................................ 111-104 111.11-3 F,xisting and Future Roadway Noise Levels Offsite . . . .................................................... 111-108 111.12 -1 SCAG Population and Housing Forecasts for the Ventura County Subregion ... .......... 111 -113 111.13 -1 Fstimated Student Generation by the Proposed Project .. ................................................ 111 -121 111.13 -3 Public School Impact Summary by the Proposed Project ... ........................................... 111 -122 111.13 -4 Park Facilities in the City of Moorpark ... ......................................................................... III -123 111.15 -1 City oi' Moorpark Level of Service (LOS) Ranges ... ...................................................... 111 -130 111.15 -2 County of Ventura Level of Service (LOS) Ranges . . ...................................................... III -131 111.15 -3 Existing I.OS Summary ........................................... ............................... ..........................111 -135 111.15 -4 Project Trip Generation Sunirnan .. .................................................................................. 111 -136 111.15 -5 Existing Plus Project LOS Summary ... ............................................................................ III -138 111.15 -6 Related Projects 1. ist ... ....................................................................................................... 111 -142 111.15 -7 Year 2007 Circulation Improvements Associated With Future Development Projects in theStudy Area ... ............................................................................................................... 111 - -143 111.15 -8 2007 No Project LOS Summary ... .................................................................................... 111 -144 111.15 -9 Year 2007 Intersection Improvements for No- Project LOS Deficiencies ... ............... III -145 Moorpark Cowan- Club Estates E.gwnsion Project Tuhle of Contents C'in• of ,Moorpark I'age iii Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 89 Christopher A. Joseph & Assoc•iales LIST OF TABLES (contd.) (~inure Pf_ 111.15-10 Year 2020 Circulation Improvements . ............................................................................ Ill -146 111.1 S -1 1 2020 No Project LOS Summary ... ................................................................................... 111 -148 111.15 -12 2007 With Project LOS Summary ... ............................................................................... III -149 111.1 � -13 2020 With Project I.OS Summary ... ............................................................................... III -lit II1.16 -1 Estimated Project Water Consumption ... ........................................................................ III -160 111.16 -2 Estimated Project Sewage G eneration ... ......................................................................... III -161 111.16 -3 Simi Valley Landfill /Recycling Center Capacity and Intake ... .................................... 111 -163 111.16 -4 Existing and Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation ... ............................................. III -164 Moorpark Cocnttrt• Chch Estates Expansion Project Table of Contents City of Moorpark page w Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 90 I. INTRODUCTION Introduction The suhicct of this Initial Study (1S) is the construction of 87 single family dwellings on two separate parcels; 36 homes on a 28.69 acre parcel (Mazur Parcel), and 51 homes on it 43.04 acre parcel (liustcd Parcel). Currently these parcels are undeveloped with the exception of one single- family residence on the Mazur Parcel. The Mazur Parcel is it worst case scenario though the site includes 7 lots from the ncighhoring subdivision tract number 4928. With demolition of the existing residence and the inclusion of these 7 lots, approval of the project would result in it net increase of 28 lots on site. The projcct sites are located along Championship Drive within the City 01' Moorpark. The Mazur parcel is north of Championship Drive, on the west side of Walnut Canyon Road; the (lusted parcel is north of Championship Drive, on the cast side (it' Grimes Canyon Road. The two parcels are separated by a distance of approximately 2 miles. The project applicant is Toll Brothers Inc., with an on -site office located at 7142 1 rcvino Drive, Moorpark, CA 93021. A description of the proposed project is contained in Section 11 (Project Description). The City of Moorpark Community Development Department is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (C'F.QA). Protect Information Pro iect Title: Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Case Numhcrs: Hustcd Parcel: General Plan Amendment 2003 -04 Zone Change 2003 -04 Development Agreement No. 2004 -01 Tentative Tract Map No. 5463 Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2003 -04 Mazur Parcel: General Plan Amendment 2003 -04 Zone Change 2003 -03 Development Agreement No. 2004 -01 Tentative Tract Map No. 5404 Residential Planned Development Permit No. 1994 -01 Modification No.6 Moorpark C'ounn_r (7uh Estates Expansion Project 1. Introduction City of Moorpark Page l -I Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 91 C hri,aopher A. Jo, ceph c�- Associates Project Location: Championship Drive and Crimes Canyon Read /Walnut Canyon Road Moorpark, CA 93021 Lead Agency: City of Moorpark Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 City Contact Person: Barry Hogan, Community Development Director Organization of Initial Study This Draft Initial Study is organised into five sections as follows: Introduction: This section provides introductory information such as the proicct title, the project applicant and the lead agency for the Proposed Project. Pry iect Description: This section provides a detailed description of the environmental setting and the Proposed Project, including project characteristics and environmental review requirements. Environmental Impact Analysis: Each environmental issue identified in the Initial Study Checklist contains an assessment and discussion of' impacts associated with each subject area. The Initial Study Checklist is provided under each environmental category. When the evaluation identifies potentially significant effects, as identified in the Checklist, mitigation measures are provided to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. Preparers of Initial Study and Persons Consulted: This section provides it list of City personnel, other governmental agencies, and consultant team mcmhers that participated in the preparation of the IS. References and Commonly Used Acronyms: This section includes various documents and information used and referenced during the preparation of the IS and includes a list of commonly used acronyms. Moorpark Coantn• Chch Estates Expansion Project L Introduction City of Moorpark Page 1-2 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 92 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL. SETTING Project Location The pro.icct site is located within the City of Moorpark, approximately 2 miles north of downtown Moorpark, in Ventura County (see Figure 11 -1, Regional location Map). The project site is composed of two parcels-, it 43.04 acre parcel north of Championship Drive, cast of Grimes Canyon Road (llusted parcel)-, and it 28.69 acre parcel north of Championship Drive, west of Walnut Canyon Road (Mazur Parcel). Walnut Canyon Road adjacent to this parcel is also known as State Route 23. As shown on Figure II -2, the project site is located in the northern portion of the City's incorporated area, the northern city boundary is also the northern boundary for each of the two parcels. Regional access is provided to the site by State Routes 23 and 118. Description of the Project Site and Existing Land Uses The project site is composed of two parcels, known as the [lusted parcel (Development Agreement Number 2004 -01) which is 43.04 acres in size, and the Mazur parcel (Development Agreement Number 2004 -02), which is 28.69 acres in size. The Husted parcel is currently undeveloped, and the Mazur parcel has it residence and guest house on the site. As shown in Figures II -3 and 11 -4, both parcels arc hilly with steep gradients rising from the roadways. Elevations on the Flusted parcel range from approximately 741 tees to 907 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Elevations on the Mazur parcel range Crom approximately 840 feet to 920 feet above MSL. Description of Surrounding Area The project site is located in the northernmost part of the City of Moorpark. Land north and west of* the project site, in unincorporated Ventura County, is developed with agricultural uses, primarily lemon and avocado orchards. Fitch of the project parcels is bordered by the Moorpark Country Club Estates to the south, where site preparation, grading and construction of "bract 4928 is currently on- going. Tract 4928, which spans both sides of Championship Drive between Grimes Canyon Road and Walnut Canyon Road, consists of' 216 single-family residences and it 27 -hole golf course surrounded by ornamental orchards. Land east of the project site, on the east side of Walnut Canyon Road, is developed with low - density residential uses. ,Moorpark Countrr C'hrh Estates LApunwon Project H. Project Dt"wriplion Citr of Moorpark Puge 11 -1 IM 0 E o' Z 0 N O O O r N CJl W 4 - Z 1_anra�tcr N (D CD Los Padres Los Padres 5 Angeles U National Forest National Forest ?National 3 5 Forest Palmdale .14 Ojai PROJECT SITE I Santa 101 15 126 Clarita Santa Angeles Barbara National Ventura Moorpark ..3 Simi Valley Forest 118 � Camarillo 23 Thousand 405 5 Pasadena 1 Oaks 101 110 Hollywoo Los Malibu Angeles 10 Santa Cruz Island Inglewood 605 Pacific Ocean 405 5 _ Santa n %� Long Ana Not to Scale Beach vrcc Chrmopher A Jul--Ph B Awcraim. AuRuci 2(WA CHRIS OPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES Figure II -1 Regional Map IM 0 E o' Z 0 N O O O r N CJl W 4 Page 94 I� A Z M L Y P C BROADWAY RD BROADWAY RD HUSTED PARCEL .4 ,. 9�0�ASHIP DRIVE O MAZUR 02 Q°\NOOa "`` PARCEL GP GR�M�s LEGEND PROJECT SITE � 3 r T �LMANCjELIE5 'A' LD✓ANG E ES AVE (STATE HWY 118) m Approx. Scale = 1:50,000 (0--') Source www.mapcard.com, August 2004 A n m D CITY OF MOORPARK &1 1- —71 CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES r UJ LCGhNGEIt Q rN - Pew Figure II -2 Vicnity Map Page 95 View 1: The Husted parcel, looking northeast from Championship Drive. View 2: The Husted parcel, looking directly north from the corner of J CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES Figure II -3 Views 1 and 2 of the Project Site: The Husted Parcel 1111111111111Ci S Mit View 3: The Mazur parcel, looking north from Championship Drive. - '�i�sr� �r' =ate •`:«�� ' Key i — W View 4: The Mazur parcel, looking directly north from Championship Drive at the future road under construction as part of the existing subdivision. CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH &ASSOCIATES Figure II -4 Views 3 and 4 of the Project Site: The Mazur Parcel Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 97 Christopher A. ,Joseph d Associates Land Use and Zoning Designations The current General Plan land use designation for the ilusted parcel is Rural Low Residential (RL.), which allows I dwelling unit per 5 -acre maximum, Puhlic /institutional (PUi3) and Open Space -2 (OS -2). This parcel is currently Tuned Rural Exclusive 5 acre lot minimum (RE. -5ac), institutional (1), and Open Space 5(1(1 acre lot minimum (OS- 500ac). The current general plan land use designation for the Mazur parcel is RL, and the Toning is RF; -5ac. The project applicant is requesting a general plan amendment to change the designation on both parcels to Medium Low Density Residential (Mi.) allowing up to 2.0 dwellings per acre, and OS -2. A zone change to Residential Planned Development (RPD) and OS- 500ac is also rcqucsted. Some 01'01C land designated for Puhlic /institutional uses and zoned institutional on the Ilustcd property would not be aff'ectcd by the general plan amendment and zone change. PROJECT HISTORY The project parcels are situated adjacent to the Country Club Estates project. The Country Club Estates consists of 216 single- family dwellings and a 27 hole golf course with clubhouse and maintenance facilities. The Country Club Estates project was approved by City Council on April 17, 1996, which included a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to accommodate the project. A number of modifications have been subsequently approved relating to the numher of gulf course holes, timing of improvements and landscaping, fencing and clubhouse requirements. A subsequent General Plan Amendment and Zone Changc were approved to align land use designation and zoning boundaries with tract boundaries and to clarify set hacks for ornamental orchards. The City Council approved a Minor '.Modifications to clarify conditions of approval on July 2, 2003. A Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale of liquor in conjunction with the golf course and club house was approved on August 211, 21103. The Mazur and [lusted Parcels were not part of the 216 single- family development project. C onscquently, the environmental impact report prepared for the Country Club Estates did not consider development of these project parcels. Accordingly, this environmental document is an independent analysis of the proposed development of the Mazur and IFusted Parcels. Though this is an independent analysis, the project parcels share access with the Country Club Estates from Championship Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of the site work and construction for 87 single family homes in total over two separate parcels. These parcels would then he incorporated into the existing subdivision south oC the project site. Some parts of the existing subdivision are still under construction. grading and site preparation work is on- going. A future road that would serve the 36 residences on the Mazur parcel is currently under construction as part of the existing Country Club Estates. Husted Parcel Moorpark Country Ciuh Estates F,xpunsion Project IL Project Description CitY of Moorpurk Page 11 -0 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 98 C'hrietophcr A. Joseph c\ Associates As shown in Figure 11 -5, the Husted parcel would he developed with 51 single family residences over 43.04 acres. As shown in Table 11-1, lot sizes would range Irom 12,913 square feet to 29,974 square fect and building pad sizes would range from 10,053 square feet to 18,710 square feet. Several open space areas around the perimeter of the parcel. mostly very steep slopes, would remain after project implementation, totaling 15,99 acres. Some of this open space would become the fuel modification zone. The homes would he connected to the Country Club Estates by it single road connection to Championship Drive directly opposite Trevino Drive. This road. "A" Street, curves east\vard into the project site terminating in a cul -de -sac. "D" Street branches oil' of "A" Street to the west and turns north into "( "' Street. "C" Street curves eastward, parallel to "A" Street and connects to "13" Street, which completes a circular access route with "A" Street. '1'\ \•o storm\xater detention hasins, totaling 1.32 acres, are proposed on the Ilusted parcel; one in the upper northwest corner of the parcel, and one in the southeast corner of the parcel next to Championship Drive. Moorpark C'ountrt' C'hch Fstates Expansion Project 1/. Project Description C'itt' of Moorpark Page 1/ -7 Je�� !�L'�l angel(lal lar�le� ❑a;SnH 5 II alnfil j O) tT d a L ",; �.7 I...�.II +1•; ._I .. . :tit .. ,• ,_ -,.� J P el T Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 100 Christopher r1. ,Joseph ct Associates Table 11 -1 Development Characteristics of the Proposed Project Husted Parcel Lot No. Gross Area Pad Area Lot No. Gross Area Pad Area 1 28.562 18,183 28 1 8,550 13,374 2 24,500 15,865 29 18,089 13,733 3 23.147 15.014 30 17,957 12,406 4 24,506 18,257 31 18,381 12.907 5 18.856 14,102 32 1 9,386 12,852 6 14.895 11 ?39 33 20,897 14,352 7 14,553 11.317 34 24.713 14,820 8 12,913 10,053 35 23,490 15,330 9 15.495 11,809 36 22.600 14,535 1() 18A78 13,369 37 23,796 16,999 11 16.774 11.527 38 15,709 14,415 12 19,098 14.442 39 16,918 16.186 13 17,804 13,524 40 20,129 18,710 14 15.316 10,654 41 23,463 15,354 15 16,057 12.049 42 17,963 13.177 16 19,912 13,942 43 19,305 1 4,746 17 14,924 11.930 44 20.633 16,293 18 17,701 13,054 45 18,134 11,196 19 17,900 12.727 46 15,863 13.442 20 16.523 11.303 47 15,046 12,274 21 14,140 12.000 48 20,228 13.526 17,232 12,012 49 275(81 15.741 23 15,017 10,855 5(1 21,812 13,089 _'4 17.204 13,421 51 25.429 14.350 25 19,550 13,492 26 20,256 13,655 27 29,974 18,398 Moorpark Country Chch Estates LApunsion Project //. Project Description C.'itY of'Moorpurk Puge 11 -9 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 101 ChristopherA..loseph c, Associates Mazur Parcel As shown in Figure 11 -6, the Mazur parcel would he developed with 36 single family residences over 28.69 acres. Though the Project is Proposing 36 residential lots, 7 lots are Part of the Previously approved subdivision tract number 4928. Thus, with project approval, there would he it net increase of 29 lots. Further, with the demolition of the existing on -site residence, there would he an actual increase of 28 lots on site. Ilowever, this environmental document analyzes the development as a 36 residential lot project. As shown in Tahle II -2, lot sizes would range from 14,292 square feet to 56,701 square feet and building pad sires would range from 12,237 square feet to 19,857 square feet. The homes would he connected to the existing Country Club Estates subdivision at Sarazcn Drive and Palmer Drivc. An extension of Sara/en Drive, turning .vest into "A" Street, Would serve all of the residences on the Mazur parcel, except for lots 15, 10, 17 and 18 which would he served by a small Cul -de -sac, B Court. A stormwater detention hasin is tentatively planned in the northern part of the parcel to meet NPDFS requirements. Afoorpark C'ountrt' Club EstateN Expansion Project 11. Project Dev-ription City of ,Aloorpark Page 11 -10 1 Fri �� — i • ... : �.: I _ '�o��. - x111 - -- _ ax - (- HKISTU'!I.K:+ .'U�t=F1' jr i.SSC�C.•T.r: � Figure II -5 Mazur Parrel Tentative Tract Map d rn 0 N Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 103 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Project Design Both parcels would he gated communities with an unmanned, keypad entry adjacent to Championship Drive. The vehicle and pedestrian gates would he self - closing and lucking, decorative, steel gates. The gates would he installed with a power hack -up system to automatically open the gates in case of a power failure. Landscaping on each parcel would a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and ground cover. The project proposes to conform to the Country Club Estates Architectural Guidelines. Street trees shall he of the required species for the neighborhood (specified by the Architectural Guidelines) and it minimum box size of 24 inches. Homeowners shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of these trees. A non - irrigated hydroseed mix would he used to vcgctatc the detention basins on the two parcels. Refer to Table 11 -3 for it detailed list of proposed landscape vegetation. Table 11 -2 Development Characteristics of the Proposed Project Mazur Parcel Lot No. Gross Area Pad Area Lot No. Gross Area Pad Area 1 25,154 1 5,635 I9 15,851 1 5,851 2 20,272 13.821 20 16.505 12.435 3 19,000 15,003 21 17,342 15,439 4 19,000 13,799 22 21.736 18,550 5 16.730 13.956 23 26.065 19.857 0 16,919 14.699 24 18,425 14,662 7 14,363 13,611 25 14.884 13.039 8 17,157 13,984 26 1 4,292 13,039 9 17,539 12,719 27 15,860 14,558 10 19,464 12,352 28 17,641 15,706 11 18,455 12,947 29 1 8,688 16.752 12 17.167 12.237 30 17.336 13,157 13 16,434 13.854 31 16,350 12,6111 14 17,296 16,659 32 16.350 13.1911 15 19,03-1 16,641 33 17,338 13.473 16 56,701 15,892 34 20.896 14,049 17 26,261 19,366 35 17,573 12,722 18 14,623 14,623 36 19,279 13.343 Moorpark CountrY C'hch Estates Expansion Project I/. Project Description Orr oj'Moorpark Page I/ -12 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 104 C'hristnphei— A— loseph & Associut" Table II -3 Proposed Landscape Vegetation Botanical Name Common Name Trees Deciduous I.i uidctrrrhur.,; t•r•uc•i lrtu 'l'ulo.lho' American Sweet Gum Pi +tuciu c•hineftw+ Chinese Pistache Matanus racemosu California Sycamore Evergreen Arhutus undeo Stmwherr 'Free Cedru.+ deodara Dccodar Ccdar Piiwc canuriensi+ Canary Island Pinc htercu+ a >ri bha Coast Live Oak Tri.+tania con feria Brisbane Box Shrubs /Perennials gnu guinvillea '.rear Me go Reel' Bougainvillea Shrub Form Ceanothus + r r. Wild Lilac Echium (ustuosum Pride of Madeira Fei'oa .vel1mviana fliiicapple Guava Rho rhiole psis MAW '.11u'estic• Beuutr' Indian Hawthorne Phormium tenav ' 1laori Chie ' New Zealand Flax Phorinhon tenax '1'Urie gutcr Variegated New ' /.caland Flax Romneva coulteri Matili'a Poppy Ro marinus oJlicinulis l usc•un Blue' Rosemary 1 u unthu.+ a i-icuntec hccen.lnne' Lily of the Nile /)fetes rc geta Fortnight Lily llcnwroc•alli+ hvhri(A Da lil y Rosa iceberg Iceberg Rose Groundcover Il o rorum rurviliditrnt 'Prostruturn' Prostrate Mvo drum H droseed Mix Artemisu cub ornic•u California Sagebrush Bac charb; rilulurk cwt wn uinea Dwarf Covotc Bush Frio onun: falWiculatum California Buckwheat Enceliu cub ornicu California Fticelia F.rtoo rin•Ilunt con iwi lorunt Golden Yarrow Lotus sc•o ariuss Deerweed Mulac•otlntntnus u.+;c•i(-ttlutus Laxif Bush Mallow Afinwhf+ auruntiactrs (ion i orus) Bush Monke • Flower salvia u riurta While Sage Salim mellift"I'd Purple Si e Yucca tchi r rlei intertnedia Chaparral Yucca lxvnzus condenscaas Giant Wild Rve Poa secundu Blue Grass Nasse/lu cernuu Noddin g Necdlc Grass Lastltcnia cuhff )rmc'u California Goldfields Lavin rlutr los+u Tidy Tip. Lu rims+ hicolor micro h 'thus Dovc i.0 ine Moorpark Countrt• Club Estates Expansion Project IL Project De+rription Cit+• of'.Moorpurk Page 11 -1.3 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 105 Christopher A..1oseph & Assoc•iutes Table 111 -3 Proposed Landscape Vegetation Botanical Name I Common Name Lu intts mic•roc•ur pus I Lupine A 2011400t fuel modification zone will surround each parcels development footprint in accordance %kith the Ventura County Fire [department's requirements. Project implementation will involve approximately 950,000 cubic yards of grading on the hlusted parcel and 425,0(X) cubic yards of grading on the Mazur parcel. All earthworks are expected to he balanced on -site. RELATED PROJECTS Section 17 of the Initial Study provides Mandatory Findings of Significance in which the environmental document must consider the significant effects of the proposed project, as well as "cumulative impacts". Cumulative impacts are two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, cumulative impacts are anticipated impacts of the proposed project along with reasonably foreseeable growth. Reasonably foreseeable growth may he hascd on: • A list of past, present, and probably future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, iC necessary, those project outside the control of the agency; or • A summitry of projection~ contained in the adopted general plan or related planning document, or in it prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. All proposed, recently approved, under construction and reasonably ti)reseeahle projects that could produce it related or cumulative impact on the local environment when considered in conjunction with the proposed project are evaluated in this Initial Study. An analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with these related projects and the proposed project is provided in the cumulative impact discussion under each environmental impact category. In consultation with the City of Moorpark, it list of 17 related projects was developed. Table 11 -4 presents the related projects. Cumulative impacts analyzed in this Initial Study were conservatively assessed. Some of the related projects may not he approved, and some approved projects may not he developed. In addition, many of the related projects have been or will he subject to a variety of mitigation measures that will reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with those projects. however, with limited exceptions, those mitigation measures have not been taken into account in projecting the environmental impact of the Moorpark Countre Chth Estates Expansion Project 11. Project Description Cit%, of Moorpark Page 1/ -14 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 106 Christopher A..1o`;(,ph & ,4ssoc•iates related projects. Therefore, cumulative analyses set forth below are conservative and result in greater impacts than actually anticipated. Table 11 -4 Related Projects No. Development Project/Land Uses 2007 2020 A -B Properties I Light Indtwriul 110 KSF 350 KSF Cabrillo Development 2 Residential 59 DU 59DU Carlsherg Specific Plan Rrsidrntiul 80 DU 80 DU Corrrmerriul lreluil) 357 KSF 482 KSF 3 Light lnthtstriul 495 KSF 495 KSF Birdsall Proposed General Plan Amendment 4 Residc•titiul 0 DU 30 DU Ccntcx homes 5 Residential 0 DU 110 DU Grand Moorpark Proposed General Plan Amendment 6 Residential 66 DU 66 DU Ilitch Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. I) Residential 605 DU 605 DU Light Industrial 0 KSF 350 KSF 7 Institutional 0 KSF 40 KSF MKM Development Commercial (Retail) 72.1 KSF 72.1 KSF x Moorpark Highlands (Specific Plan No. 2) Rrsidrntiul 437 DU 570 DU .Middlr.School 600 Students 900 Students 9 Lurk 7 acres 7 acres North Park Village Specific Plan 500 DU 1.650 DU Residential 700 Students 700 Students ,Middle School 0 KSF 70 KSF 10 Murk 32.90 Acres 32.90 Acres Pacific Communities I I Rc•cidenfial 284 DU 284 DU Shea Humes 12 Rrsi(Irntiul 79 DU 79 DU Shcail-T Proposed General Plan Amendment 13 Resitlentiul WO 1) U 100 DU SUNCA1. 14 Rrsidrntiul 107 DU 107 DU Toll Brothers Rrsi(lrntiul 216 DU 216 DU 15 col ,Colo -se 480 acres 480 acres Triliad 16 Light Industrial 176 KSF 572 KSF William Lyon Homes 17 Rrsidrntiul 250 DU 250 DU Source. Auviu-FouV Assuc'iutes Inc., St• (ember 2004 Afoot-park C'ountrr Club Estates Expansion 1)rojrcv 11. I)roject Dev'ription City o/'Afoorpurk I'age I1 -15 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 107 Christopher 1. Joseplt c� .4ssnc ialc s DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS REQUIRED The City of Moorpark (the City) is the lead agency tier the proposed project. In order to construct the proposed project, the applicant is requesting approval of the following discretionary and ministerial actions from the City: • General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2003 -04 pursuant to Section 17.44.050 of the Municipal • Zone Change (7.C) 2003 -03 pursuant to Section 17.44.050 of the Municipal Code, • Development Agreement No. 2004 -01; • Tentative 'Tract Map (TTM) Approval for TTM 5463 and TYM 5464; • Residential Planned Development (RPD) 2003 -04, and R1'D 1994 -01 Modification No. 0 pursuant to Sections 17.44.040 and 17.44. 100 of* the Municipal Code, and • Building & Safety and City Engineer Department permits including grading, foundation, building permits and other permits (e.g., utility connection permits, etc.). The Initial Study serves as the environmental document for all discretionary actions associated with development of the proposed project. This Initial Study is also intended to cover all federal, state, regional and /or local government discretionary approvals that may be required to develop the proposed project, whether or not they are explicitly listed below. Federal, Mate, and regional agencies that may have jurisdiction over the proposed project include, but are not limited to: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • California Department offish and Game • Ventura County Fire Protection District • Ventura County Watershed Protection District • Ventura County Public Works Agency Moorpark Countr,r Club Estates Expansion Project 11. Project Dewription Cite• of Moorpark Pate 11 -10 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 108 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Based on the Draft Initial Study review process, changes have been made which are shown below as strike out cif old text followed by new text in held and underline. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Views of scenic vistas may be generally described in two ways: panoramic views (visual access to a large geographic area for which the field view can he wide and extended into the distance) and fecal views (visual access to it particular object, scene. setting or feature of interest). Examples of panoramic views include urban skylines, valley. mountain ranges, or large bodies of water and examples of fecal views would include visual access to it particular object, scene, setting, or feature of interest. A significant impact may occur if the project introduces incompatible visual elements within it field of view containing it scenic vista or substantially blocks views of it scenic vista. Scenic views of the project area, including the golf - course which is part of the existing subdivision, Tract 4928, are available from Championship Drive and existing residences in the Country Club I'states. Cunvcrsion of both project parcels from open space to suburban uses would alter the existing setting and would include buildings, landscaping and other alterations. Moorpark Country Clah Estates Expansion Project III. Environmental impart Ana l,sis ('its- of Moogwrk Page III -I Revised Draft Initial Studs• Less Than Significant With Potentially Mitigation Less Than 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project: Significant Incorporati Significant Impact on Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista'? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Views of scenic vistas may be generally described in two ways: panoramic views (visual access to a large geographic area for which the field view can he wide and extended into the distance) and fecal views (visual access to it particular object, scene. setting or feature of interest). Examples of panoramic views include urban skylines, valley. mountain ranges, or large bodies of water and examples of fecal views would include visual access to it particular object, scene, setting, or feature of interest. A significant impact may occur if the project introduces incompatible visual elements within it field of view containing it scenic vista or substantially blocks views of it scenic vista. Scenic views of the project area, including the golf - course which is part of the existing subdivision, Tract 4928, are available from Championship Drive and existing residences in the Country Club I'states. Cunvcrsion of both project parcels from open space to suburban uses would alter the existing setting and would include buildings, landscaping and other alterations. Moorpark Country Clah Estates Expansion Project III. Environmental impart Ana l,sis ('its- of Moogwrk Page III -I Revised Draft Initial Studs• Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 109 Christopher A. Joseph c& Associates Deremher 2000 Panoramic Views Husted and Mazur Parcels The following analysis pertains to both project parcels, Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel: The project area is situated in a ridge and valley system, which defines the northern perimeter of the Little Simi Valley. The Country Club Estates is built in and around a natural interior valley which is generally hidden from view from vantage points along surrounding public street systems. For example, the topography along both Grimes Canyon Road and Walnut Canyon Road is hilly and in some cases with steep slopes up to the roadways. As a result, panoramic views associated with vantage points, which provide a sweeping geographic orientation, are not commonly available. However, opportunities of panoramic views are afforded with distant views of ridgelines and peaks to the east and west along parts of Championship Drive due to the roadway's higher elevation to the adjoining Grimes Canyon and Walnut Canyon Roads. The project parcels arc both located north of Championship Drive and development of single- family homes on those sites would not obscure, partially interrupt or create a minor diminishment in the cast -west panoramic views. Therefore, impacts to panoramic views would be less than significant. 4itigation Afeuxures No mitigation measures are required Focal Views Husted Parcel The 51 additional homes on the Husted Parcel would be blocked from view for existing residences south of Championship Drive by a series of' berms. As views of the Husted parcel are currently blocked by the steep ridgeline that runs parallel to Championship Drive, views for existing residents to the south would not alter much. Figures Ill.l 1, 1-2 and 1 -3 illustrate post - project development conditions. As shown, the existing homes south of Championship Drive are situated down gradient from the Husted Parcel homes. Most of the existing slope would remain in its current natural state with manufactured berms at the top of the slope, which are designed to hide or obstruct views of the Hustcd Parcel homes. The berms would be landscaped to blend with the surrounding slopes and topography. For the most part, focal views from Championship Drive and from the existing homes to the south is the natural hillside. This focal view would not be significantly altered and in fact would primarily remain under future conditions. However, the top of the slope would be altered to construct the berms. As such, the berms at the top of the slope would continue the view of an open space hillside and would block the Husted homes from view. Consequently, the focal view would not he significantly diminished from existing conditions. Therefore impacts to focal views relating to the Hustcd Parcel would he less than significant. Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental impar! Analysis City of Moorpark Page 111 Revised Draft Initial Study A 3 A A Figure 111. 1 - 1 HuStt'.0 Parcel berms skujaq 133jt,,j pi),.snH " l III "ine"-A LL /* to 0. 4 ACk- 0: ro A F,gure IlL 1-3 Hkisted Parcel berms Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 113 Christopher A..loseph & Associates December 2006 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Mazur Parcel The additional 36 homes on the Mazur Parcel could potentially block views from homes in Tract 4928 both north and south of Championship Drive. However, these homes are currently under construction, and not already extant. Development of the 36 homes on the Mazur Parcel will follow, or possibly he contemporaneous with development of surrounding residences in "Tract 4928. A portion of' Tract 4928 would share the same access from Championship Drive as well as a new residential street, Palmer Drive. These homes along with the Mazur Parcel homes would front this street creating a neighborhood. Views looking north from homes (to he built) south of Championship Drive (also part of Tract 4928) would have views of' homes fronting Palmer Drive from its own development. Its possible that homes along Palmer Drive from Tract 4928 would block these views rather than homes from the Mazur Parcel. As a result, it cannot he said that the residences on the Mazur Parcel would block views from homes in Tract 4928. Views of the Mazur homes from Championship Drive would be very limited and mostly obscured by homes from Tract 4928. Implementation of the project on the Mazur Parcel would be congruous with the surrounding Country Club Estates, would not introduce incompatible elements, and would not significantly alter focal views a,, seen freim Championship Drive or homes to the south. Therefore impacts t» focal views relating to the Mazur Parcel would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State - designated scenic highway? Husted and Mazur Parcels The following analysis pertains to both project parcels, liusted Parcel and Mazur Parcel: No Impact. A significant impact would occur only where scenic resources within a scenic highway would he damaged or removed by the project. Neither project site is located on or near a State - designated scenic highway, therefore impacts on scenic re%, )urces would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. cl Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project IU. Environmental lmpact Analysis City of Moorpark Page Ill -6 Revised I)raft Initial.StlldP Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 114 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Project Visibility Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The main corridors from which views of the two project parcels arc available are Championship Drive, Grimes Canyon Road and Walnut Canyon Road - Highway 23. The degree to which the residences on the projcct parcels will he visible from a view corridor will depend on the angle and direction of observation, extent of existing visual screening, and the distance between the observer and the project. The size and orientation of homes and landscaping along the streets also contributes to the quality of a view corridor. Championship Drive Nested Parcel The existing visual character of the site along Championship Drive from Grimes Canyon Road to the edge of the site (approximately 500 feet cast of Trevino Drive) is of undeveloped, open space hillside slopes covered in natural vegetation. As previously discussed, with implementation of the proposed project, most of the existing slope from Championship Drive to 'Trevino Drive would remain in its current natural state with manufactured berms at the top of the slope. Views of the new residences on lots 35 -42 and lots 50 -51 the Husted Parcel would he obscured from sight along this portion of Championship Drive by a series of berms which would he constructed and landscaped, as shown in Figure Ill. 1-1. As a result, views for residents south of the roadway and pedestrians and vehicles on Championship Drive would not be substantially degraded and impacts would be less than significant. Views of the site would he altered from Trevino Drive eastward approximately 510 feet to the property edge. This area of the project site would consist of a proposed detention basin (top elevation of 738 feet) that would he constructed below the existing Championship Drive grade. The slope above the detention basin would be reconstructed to rise to an elevation of 770 feet, which would he approximately 14 feet above the existing grade of homes south of Championship Drive (cast of Trevino Drive). At the top of the slope (elevation of 770 feet), begins the new Husted tract. Specifically, lot I and possibly lots 2 and 3 would he in view to pedestrians and motorists on Championship Drive and to residents of approximately 3 homes south of the roadway cast of Trevnio Drive. These existing homes are oriented west, and thus, the primary views from the front side would he of the existing slope that would remain mostly in its natural condition. Though the existing visual character would be altered at this location, the post - development views for the residents would he primarily of the existing natural slope west of Trevino Drive. Further, the manufactured slope above the detention basin would he landscaped similarly to other manufactured slopes within the existing Moorpark Country Club Estates. In addition, its anticipated that only up to 3 homes would have either views or limited views of the open space manufactured slope. For these reasons, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and impacts would be less than significant. Moorpark Cottntrr Cluh Estates Expansion Project 111. Etti•irnnm(-ntal lmpuctAtialysii On' of Moorpark Page III 7 Kevised Draft Initial Stud) Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 115 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Mazur Parcel The 36 homes on the Mazur Parcel will he visible from Championship Drive, particularly for pedestrians and vehicles traveling westhound on Championship Drive. However, the 36 residences would he screened from view past the new road connector to the Mazur Parcel by a row of residences which front on to Championship Drive as a part of the existing Tract 4928 Country Club Estates (refer to Figure Ill.l l). These residences are currently under construction and will he completed heforc the 36 residences arc built on the Mazur Parcel. The homes on the Mazur Parcel would visually merge with homes which arc already a part of the Country Club Estates, maintaining the appearance of a cohesive, semi -rural subdivision. When both developments arc fully implemented, comprehensive landscape plans would use vegetation to screen some of the development from Championship Drive. Consequently, project implementation would not substantially degrade the existing character or quality of the site or views of the site from Championship Drive, and impacts would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Grimes Canyon Road Husted Parcel Traveling north on Grimes Canyon Road the Moorpatk Country Club Estates is in full view as the roadway opens up. The existing homes in the Country Club Estates are viewed looking cast. Looking north, currently the project site, Husted Parcel, is in full view with the open naturally vegetated slopes. Due to topography of the area, there are no distant views looking north beyond the project site when approaching Moorpark Country Club Estates. Traveling south on Grimes Canyon Road the Husted Parcel is in full view with the naturally vegetated slopes. As the roadway curves, the prominent views shift south looking towards distant views of mountains and hillsides. Post development views looking north and south of the site on Grimes Canyon Road would he mostly screened by the elevation of the ridge system upon which the project site is situated, which defines the western perimeter of the Country Club Estates development. Further, the existing homes on the western subdivision of the Country Club Estates are in full view under existing conditions. Once developed, the proposed Husted homes would not be in view and most of the natural vegetated slopes would remain and the manufactured berms would he landscaped contributing to the open space view. For these reasons, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site from this view and impacts would he less than significant. Mitigation ,'Measures Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Anulysis Cir- of Moorpark Page 111 -8 Reriscel Druft Initial .Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 116 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Decemher 2006 No mitigation measures are required. Mazur 1'arc•el The Mazur Parcel is not visible from Grimes Canyon Road, therefore no visual impacts would occur from this location. 111. EnvironmentallmpaefAnasis Moorpark Country Clah Estates Expansion Project Page Ill-9 ('11V of Woorpark Rctgwd Draft Initial.Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 117 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2f)06 Mitigation .Measures No mitigation measures are required. Walnut Canyon Road -State Route 23 Husted Parcel The Hustcd Parcel is not visible from Walnut Canyon Road, therefore no visual impacts would occur from this location. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. ,Mazur Parcel The visibility of the 36 residences on the Mazur Parcel from Walnut Canyon Road would he generally low. The elevation of the ridge system defining the eastern perimeter of the parcel would screen the homes from pedestrians and traffic on Walnut Canyon Road. Brief views of the northernmost part of the parcel (lots 27 -30) may be available to vehicles traveling southbound on Walnut Canyon Road. However, these would he minimal and, could he screened by landscape vegetation on the project site. Further, manufactured slopes below lots 27 -30, which would he developed above the proposed detention basin, would he seen by this viewing audience. In addition, the slopes supporting the detention basin would he seen by vehicles traveling southhound on Walnut Canyon Road. However, these would he minimal and, could he screened by landscape vegetation on the project site. Further south along Walnut Canyon Road, existing manufactured slopes are in view. With mitigation, project development on the Mazur Parcel would not substantially degrade views of the parcel from Walnut Canyon Road, and impacts would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following measures apply to the Mazur Parcel only. 1 -1 Prior to issuance al' construction permits, the project applicant shall work with the City of Moorpark planning staff to strategically plant native tree species (e.g., California Sycamores or other native tree species) and/or other native plants on the north and east facing manufactured slope (on Mazur Parcel below lots 25 -30) situated above the proposed detention basin that would screen homes on lots 25 -30 from view of vehicles traveling southbound on Walnut Canyon Road. 1 -2 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the project applicant shall work with the City of Moorpark planning staff to create a palette of natural plant species to he planted on the manufactured slopes below the project site P•axcQ \) and khc pn,r,sed dekenkuin Imsin ll1 EnivironmeniallmpaevAnal��sis Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project Puge U/40 City nj Moorpark Revised Draft hurtal Stud' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 118 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 along Walnut Canyon Road to emulate the surrounding natural environment. Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project 1/ /. Environmental lmpactAnaly;i, City of Moorpark Page 111 -11 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 119 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Community Design Hu.sted and .Mazur Parcels The following analysis pertains to both project parcels: Less than Significant Impact. Single- family dwellings on the Husted and Mazur Parcels are proposed to he of a similar scale and architectural design (one of six main styles with optional variations) as the existing residences on the Country Club Estates to ensure a cohesive rural community ambience. In addition, the 87 residences on the project parcels are proposed to he subject to the same Design Guidelines' prepared for the Country Club Estates which have been written to he consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan and the Hillside Management Ordinance of the City's Municipal Code. Consequently, the proposed project will be aesthetically compatible with the existing Country Club Estates and impacts will he less than significant. Mitigation Meu.sures No mitigation measures are required. Hillside ,Management Ordinance Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The intent of' the hillside Management Ordinance is to implement the goals and policies of the City of Moorpark General Plan, as they relate to the development and resource management in hillside areas of the City. The directive of the Hillside Management Ordinance is to allow for "orderly and sensitive development of hillside areas in conjunction with the preservation of natural open space." Hustcd Purcel Proposed development of the Hustcd Parcel incorporates the use of berms and vegetation to blend in with natural landforms while screening views of the residences on the project parcels from lower lying areas, Herming is recommended in the City of Moorpark's Hillside Management Ordinance (Section 17.38.070) to reduce visual impacts near ridgelines. The proposed development of the Hustcd Parcel is not consistent with the slope development standards set forth in Section 17.38.060, of the Hillside Management Ordinance. The project does not provide the minimum open space dedication requirements for all slope categories: 20 to 35 °!; 35 to 50%; and 5M4, or more. Table 111.1 -1 provides a breakdown of the slope categories and required open space dedication for this project: ' Refer to Countr'v Club Estates FE1R, Section 16: Aesthetics, Visual Resources, Communin• Design, Pugc 16 -16. Certified 12120195. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental lmpacr Ana /ysi, City of Moorpark Page 111 12 Revised Draft Initial Sttrd� Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 120 Christopher A..Ioseph & Associates December 200b 'Table III.1 -1 Open Space Dedication Requirement for Husted Parcel As shown in the table above, the project would he required to dedicate a total cif nearly 18.8 acres of open space per the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. However, the project is proposing approximately 2 acres leaving a deficit of 17 acres. Considering the proposed provision is minimal and the site lacks opportunity for additional open space dedication, a 4 (four) to 1 (one) off - site ratio is recommended as mitigation in order to compensate for the 17 -acre deficit. This ratio is proposed on the basis that off -site open space dedication is not as high value as the provision of committed on -site open space as suggested by Section 1738.80 of' the Hillside Management Ordinance. This mitigation would result in the provision of at least 67.2 acres for open space preservation. Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts would he less than significant. The purpose of Section 17.38.100, Grading Standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance are established to "ensure that grading techniques are utilized which reduce erosion potential, minimize visual impacts, promote use of development patterns and street designs that follow natural contours, and minimize length and width of manufactured slopes. These regulations are meant to complement Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code." The proposed residential project would include manufactured slopes. In addition, Section 17.38.120 specifically addresses hillside street standards that reflect a rural rather than an urban character. Where feasible, these streets are recommended to follow natural contours of the land. It is recommended that grading plans he submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of any grading permits to ensure that the project conforms to the standards set forth in Sections 17.38.1(X) and 17.38.120 of the Hillside Development Ordinance. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, impacts would he less than significant. Section 17.38.110 Iandform Grading Standards is provided in the Hillside Development Ordinance as a design concept stressing the preservation of significant topographic features. Further, Iandform grading encourages variations in slope gradients, transitional slopes and sculpture -like shaping of manufactured slopes to replicate natural landforms. The Husted Parcel subdivision plan includes mm%utactused s.tapes and provides becmino in the grading ptan. It is recommended that the City Engineer review the grading plans in relation to the design elements provided in Section 17.38.110. Mwirpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysts City of Moorpark Page Ill -1 3 Re'vinWd Draft IniNul.Studv Project % Required Should Proposed Acres in for Dedication Provide (in Provision Deficit Slope Project acres ) (in acres (in acres) 20 -35 %, 17.5 1 - 7.2 _ 35 %, 50 %, 6.3 _ 3.6 1.6 _ 4.5 0 3.6 0.4 8.7 35 -50 %, 50 %,+ 9.1 Density 9.1 Transfer TOTAL 33.8 18.8 2.0 16.8 As shown in the table above, the project would he required to dedicate a total cif nearly 18.8 acres of open space per the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. However, the project is proposing approximately 2 acres leaving a deficit of 17 acres. Considering the proposed provision is minimal and the site lacks opportunity for additional open space dedication, a 4 (four) to 1 (one) off - site ratio is recommended as mitigation in order to compensate for the 17 -acre deficit. This ratio is proposed on the basis that off -site open space dedication is not as high value as the provision of committed on -site open space as suggested by Section 1738.80 of' the Hillside Management Ordinance. This mitigation would result in the provision of at least 67.2 acres for open space preservation. Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts would he less than significant. The purpose of Section 17.38.100, Grading Standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance are established to "ensure that grading techniques are utilized which reduce erosion potential, minimize visual impacts, promote use of development patterns and street designs that follow natural contours, and minimize length and width of manufactured slopes. These regulations are meant to complement Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code." The proposed residential project would include manufactured slopes. In addition, Section 17.38.120 specifically addresses hillside street standards that reflect a rural rather than an urban character. Where feasible, these streets are recommended to follow natural contours of the land. It is recommended that grading plans he submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of any grading permits to ensure that the project conforms to the standards set forth in Sections 17.38.1(X) and 17.38.120 of the Hillside Development Ordinance. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, impacts would he less than significant. Section 17.38.110 Iandform Grading Standards is provided in the Hillside Development Ordinance as a design concept stressing the preservation of significant topographic features. Further, Iandform grading encourages variations in slope gradients, transitional slopes and sculpture -like shaping of manufactured slopes to replicate natural landforms. The Husted Parcel subdivision plan includes mm%utactused s.tapes and provides becmino in the grading ptan. It is recommended that the City Engineer review the grading plans in relation to the design elements provided in Section 17.38.110. Mwirpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysts City of Moorpark Page Ill -1 3 Re'vinWd Draft IniNul.Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 121 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 With implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant. With implementation of the design elements of the proposed subdivision grading plan, such as bcrming and planting of natural vegetation like California Sycamore Trees and implementation oC the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed Husted Parcel residential project would conform to the hillside development findings of Section 17.38.160. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitivation Measure The following mitigation measure, 1 -3, applies to the Husted Parcel only: 1 -3 Pursuant to approved Initial Study supporting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting, prior to recordation of the first Final Tract Map for the Property, initiation of rough grading. or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant, shall purchase and dedicate fee title for seventy -two (72) acres of open space in lieu of providing on -site open space dedication pursuant to Section_ 17.38.080 of the Hillside Management Ordinance. Prior to purchase and dedication. the City Council shall approve the location of the proposed open space land. At City's sole discretion, in lieu of the purchase of the seventy -two (72) acres of open space, Developer shall pay two million six hundred eighty thousand dollars ($2,680,000.00) to City to be used in its sole and unfettered discretion for open space preservation purposes. Six hundred seventy thousand dollars ($670,000.00) shall be paid to the City no later than one year from the operative date of this Agreement or upon the recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. Subsequent annual paymenis of six hundred seventy thousand dollars ($670.000.00). shall be made for three years from the annual anniversary of the first payment. The fee shall be adiusted annually commencing lanuary 1.2007 by the larger increase of a), b), or c) as follows: a) CPl increase shall be determined by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics, for all urban consumers within the Los Angeles /Riverside /Orange County metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall be made using the month which is four (4) months prior to the month in which this Agreement became effective (e.g., if this Agreement became effective in October, then the month of June is used to calculate the increase). b) The annual adjustment shall be determined by any increase in the median price of Moorpark Country Cluh F.vtates Expansion Project 111. Enttron mental Impact Anal.rsi.+ ( ti, of Moorpark Page 111 14 Ret teed Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 122 Christopher A..loseph & Associates Decemher 2006 single - family detached for -sale housing in Ventura County as most recently published by Data Quick (Housing Index) for the previous twelve (12) month period. c) The annual percentage amount paid to City by the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) calculated as follows: The sum of the quarterly effective Yield amounts paid by LAIF for the City's Pooled Money Investment Account for the most recent four (4) calendar quarters divided by four (4) In the event there is a decrease in all of the referenced Indices for any annual indexing, the Fee shall remain at its then current amount until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase. 1 -4 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant shall submit grading plans to the City Engineer for review to ensure that the proposed Husted Parcel subdivision plan meets grading standards set forth in Section 17.38.100, landform grading standards of Section 17-38.110 and hillside street standards of Section 17.38.120 of the Hillside Management Ordinance. The [lusted subdivision grading plan shall he approved at the discretion of the City Engineer. Mazur Parcel The proposed residential subdivision incorporates the use of berms and vegetation to blend in with natural landforms to screen the project from view along Walnut Canyon Road. Such design element is consistent with the objectives of the Hillside Management Ordinance (Section 17.38.070. The Mazur Parcel proposed development is not consistent with the slope development standards set forth in Section 17.38.080, of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The project does not provide the minimum open space dedication requirements for all slope categories: 20 to 35 %r.; 35 to 50 %; and 50°/,: or more. Table 111.1 -2 provides a breakdown of the slope categories and required open space dedication for this project: Table I11.1-2 Open Space Dedication Requirement for Mazur Parcel As shown in the table above, the project would be required to dedicate a total of nearly 6 acres of open space per the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. However, the project is proposing approximately 1.4 acres leaving a deficit of about 4.5 acres. Considering the proposed Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project I /1. Environmental lmpait Analysis City of Aloorpark Page /1/- 15 Revised Draft Initial Study Project % Required Should Proposed Acres in for Dedication Provide (in Provision Deficit Slope Project acres ) (in acres) in acres) 20 -35% I 6.0 _ 35% 50 %, Density 2.1 _ 1.3 1.2 0.1 _ 0.9 1.2 _ 2.4 35 -50 %n 2.5 _ 50°/r,+ 2.5 2.5 0.1 Tr_a_nsfer 1.4 _ 4.5 TOTAL 11.0 5.9 As shown in the table above, the project would be required to dedicate a total of nearly 6 acres of open space per the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. However, the project is proposing approximately 1.4 acres leaving a deficit of about 4.5 acres. Considering the proposed Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project I /1. Environmental lmpait Analysis City of Aloorpark Page /1/- 15 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 123 Christopher A. Joseph do Associates December 2006 provision is minimal and the site lacks opportunity for additional open space dedication, a 4 (tour) to 1 (one) off -site ratio is recommended as mitigation in order to compensate for the 4.5 -acre deficit. This ratio is proposed on the basis that off -site open space dedication is not as high value as the provision of committed on -site open space as suggested by Section 1738.80 of the Hillside Management Ordinance. This mitigation would result in the provision of at least 18 acres for open space preservation. Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts would he less than significant. The proposed Mazur Parcel residential project would include manufactured slopes. Section 17.38. 100 provides grading standards to minimize visual impacts, provides design elements for manufactured slopes and promotes the use of development patterns and street designs to follow natural contours. In addition, Section 17.38.120 specifically addresses hillside street standards that reflect a rural rather than an urban character. Where feasible, these streets are recommended to follow natural contours of the land. It is recommended that grading plans he submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of any grading permits to ensure that the project conforms to the standards set forth in Sections 17.38.1(X) and 17.38.120 of the Hillside Development Ordinance. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, impacts would he less than significant. Section 17.38.110 Landform Grading Standards is provided in the Hillside Development Ordinance as a design concept stressing the preservation of significant topographic features. Further, Landform grading encourages variations in slope gradients, transitional slopes and sculpture -like shaping of manufactured slopes to replicate natural landforms. The suhdivison plan for the Mazur Parcel includes manufactured slopes and provides herming in the grading plan to minimize views of the site from Walnut Canyon Road. It is recommended that the City Engineer review the grading plans in relation to the design elements provided in Section 17.38.110. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant. With implementation of the design elements of the proposed subdivsion grading plan such as herming and planting of natural vegetation such as California Sycamore Trees and implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed Mazur Parcel residential project would conform to the hillside development findings of Section 17.38.160. 'Therefore, impacts would he less than significant. Mitieation Measure The following mitigation measures apply to the Mazur Parcel only. Moorpark Counrry Chub Estates Expansion Project 111. Envirotimentul /mpactAnulusn Citv of Moorpark Page 1 //- 16 Rerisecl Draft Initial SmA Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 124 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Der ember 2006 1 -5 Pursuant to approved MND and MMRP prior to recordation of the first Final Tract Map for the Proper, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits the applicant. shall purchase and dedicate fee title for thirty -five (35) acres of open space in lieu of providing on -site open space dedication pursuant to Section 17 38 0$0 of the Hillside Management Ordinance, Prior to purchase and dedication the City Council shall approve the location of the proposed open space land At City's sole discretion in lieu of the purchase of the thirty -five (35) acres of open space Developer shall pay one million three hundred twenty thousand dollars ($1,320,000.00) to City to be used in its sole and unfettered discretion for open space preservation purposes Three hundred thirty thousand dollars ($330,000,00) shall be paid to the City no later than one Year from the operative date of this Agreement or upon the recordation of the Final Map whichever occurs first Subsequent annual payments of three hundred thirty thousand dollars ($330,000.00) shall be made for three years from the annual anniversary of the first payment The fee shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1, 2007 by the larger increase of a) h) or c as follows: a) The CPI increase shall be determined by using the information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for all urban consumers within the Los Angeles /Riverside /Orange County metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall be made using the month which is four (4) months prior to the month in which this Agreement became effective (e.g., if this Agreement became effective in October, then the month of Tune is used to calculate the increase) b) The annual adjustment shall be determined by any increase in the median price of single - family detached for -sale housing in Ventura County as most recently published by Data Ouick (Housine Index) for the previous twelve (12) month period. c) The annual percentage amount paid to the City by the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) calculated as follows: The sum of the quarterly effective yield amounts paid by LAIF for the City's Pooled Money Investment Account for the most recent four (4) quarters divided by four (4). In the event there is a decrease in both of the referenced Indices for any annual indexing, the Fee shall remain at its then current amount until such time as the next subseauent annual indexing which results in an increase, 1 -6 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant shall submit grading plans to the City Engineer for review to ensure that the proposed Mazur Parcel subdivision plan meets grading standards set forth in Section 17.38.100, landf(lrm grading standards of Section 17.38.110 and hillside street standards of Section 17.38.120 of the Hillside Management Ordinance. The Mazur subdivision grading plan shall be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer. Moorpark Country Chih Estates Expansion Project III. Environmental Impact Analvms (•it'N, of .Moorpark Page 1I1 -17 Revised Draft Initial Snide Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 125 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 dl Would the project create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project introduces new sources of light or glare on or from the project site which would he incompatible with the areas surrounding the project site, or which pose a safety hazard to motorists utilizing adjacent streets or freeways. The project site and surrounding area contain numerous sources of nighttime lighting including street lights, architectural and security lighting, and indoor building illumination (light emanating from the interior of structures which passes through windows) and automobile headlights. In addition, glare is a common phenomenon in the Southern California area due mainly to the occurrence of a high number of days per year with direct sunlight and the highly urbanized nature of the region, which results in a large concentration of potentially reflective surfaces. Potentially reflective surfaces in the project vicinity include automobiles traveling and parked on streets in the vicinity of the project site. Lighting Street lighting along Championship Drive is minimal and only in locations where it is most needed, on intersections with other roads, in keeping with the low to medium- density rural character of the Country Club Estates. Lighting from the surrounding residences also provides minimal amounts oC lighting for visibility and safety purposes. Vehicle headlights from traffic on local surface streets also contribute to lighting levels. Night lighting for the proposed project would he similar to that already provided on the Country Club Estates in order to illuminate intersections, residences and driveways to provide adequate night visibility for visitors and residents and to provide a measure of security, yet retain the semi -rural character of the subdivision. All fixed lighting associated with the proposed project would he directed onto the site and shielded from adjacent uses and the project would comply with lighting standards set forth in the Moorpark Municipal Code, Chapter 17.30. Though the proposed project would increase ambient light levels on the project site and in the vicinity. the increase would he considered nominal and impacts would he less than significant. Mitisgation Afeusures None required. Glare Urban glare is largely a daytime phenomenon, occurring when sunlight is reflected off the surfaces of buildings or objects. Excessive glare not only restricts visibility but also increases the ambient heat retlectivity in a given area. The proposed project would incorporate architectural features and facades with materials of low retlectivity. These building materials would he expected to minimize potential glare effects along Championship Drive. Overall, the proposed project would not cause excessive Moorpark Countri, Club Estates Expansion Project //I. Environmental Impact Ana /psis Ciry of Afoorpurk Page ifI - IR Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 126 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 light and glare that is out of character with the land uses surrounding the project site, or which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore glare impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Cumulative Impacts Less Than Significant Impact. Increased development associated with buildout of the related projects (as listed in Section 11. Project Description) would alter the visual image of each area surrounding those sites. The project design for each project would be reviewed by the City Planning Department for consistency with applicable City codes and regulations prior to final plan approval. While many of the related projects and the proposed project would be visible from public and private properties, only the existing Country Club Estates subdivision is in close proximity to the proposed project. The compatibility of the Country Club Estates Project has already been discussed above in Section I (a), implementation of the project on both project parcels will he congruous with the surrounding Country Club Estates and would not introduce incompatible elements. None of the other related projects combined with the proposed project would obstruct existing public scenic views. For these reasons, cumulative impacts on visual resources would he less than significant. Moorpark Countrti Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental lmpact Analvsis iry ojAfoorpark Paye 111 -19 Revised Draft Initial.Stutty Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 127 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2000 .A In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to Less Than the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Significant Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. With of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing Potentially Mitigation Less Than impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Significant Ineorporat Significant Impact ion Impart No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ❑ ❑ ❑ . Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? h) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland, to non - agricultural use? a) Would the project 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? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The fallowing analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to result in the conversion of state- designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non - agricultural use. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Protection, lists Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance under the general category of "Important Farmland." The Extent of Important Farmland 'flap Coverage maintained by the Division of 1,and Protection indicates that the Mazur and Husted Parcels are not included in the Important farmland category.' No impact on farmland or agricultural resources would occur. Mitigation Mea..sures None required. Source: State of California Department of Conservation. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmlund Mapping and Monitoring Program, Ventura County Important Farmland 2002. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project III. Fnvironmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page //l 20 Reviscd Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 128 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2(X)6 b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract from agricultural use to another non - agricultural use. The proposed project would not involve the conversion of agricultural land to another use, and does not involve property covered by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to agricultural resources. Mitigation Measures None required. c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project results in the conversion of farmland to another, non - agricultural, use. As discussed above (Section 2(a)), neither project parcel site are classified in any "Farmland" category designated by the State of California. The project sites are designated as residential land and therefore, implementation of the project would not directly convert farmland to a non - agricultural use. Nearby properties to the north, outside of the City of Moorpark boundaries are currently utilized for agricultural activities. However, development of the proposed project is an extension to an existing residential subdivision and is not anticipated to stimulate the conversion of these agricultural lands to non - agricultural uses. Additionally, the site design for each project parcel proposes a 2W foot buffer from surrounding agricultural uses. As a result, no impact to the conversion of Farmland would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. Cumulative Impacts No Impact. One or more of the related projects sites (as listed in Section H. Project Description) may contain soils that meet the definition of Important Farm Lands. However, development of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of state- designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non - agricultural use. In addition, the Fxtent of Important Farmland Map .Moorpark Country Cluh F,srates Expansion Project ll/. Environmental Impact Anahsiti (its• of Moorpark Page Ill- 21 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 129 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Decemher 2006 Coverage maintained by the Division of Land Protection indicates that the project site and the surrounding area are not included in the Important Farmland category and do not include any statc- designated agricultural lands. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts related to the loss of prime soils. Moterpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact AnaNsis Cm• of Moorpark Page 111 -22 Revised Draft Initial Slurp' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 130 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates n. �•<....�,�, =rKiu 3. AIR OUALITY Less Than Significant Where available, the significance criteria established by the With applicable air quality management or air pollution control potentially Mitigation Less Than district may be relied upon to make the following Significant Incorporat Significant determinations. Would the project: Impact ion Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 11 11 air quality plan? ■ C1 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ❑ ❑ ❑ quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ■ Cl concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ ❑ . of people? a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan`! Less "Than Significant Impact. Husted and Mazur Parcels The following analysis applies to both project parcels: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project is not consistent with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or would in some way represent a substantial hindrance to employing the policies or obtaining the goals of that plan. The proposed project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (District). The District has adopted criteria for consistency with regional plans and the regional AOMP in its Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (Guidelines). The primary goal of the AQMP is to provide continuous air pollutant emissions reductions over time, with the goal of attaining the federal and state standards for ozone. City and county growth consistent with the AQMP is a vital complement of the overall AQMP ozone control strategy to ensure continued progress towards attaining the federal and state ozone standards. .Moorpark Countr' Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impart Analpsis City of Moorpark Page 111-2.3 Rc•rnrd Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 131 Christopher A. Joseph c& A ssociatev December 2(X)6 A project with estimated emissions of two pounds per day or greater of reactive organic gases (ROG), or two pounds per day or greater of nitrogen oxides (NO,) that is inconsistent with the AQMP will have a significant adverse air quality impact. Inconsistent projects are generally those that cause the existing population to exceed the population forecasts contained in the most recently adopted AQMP. The most recent population forecasts made by the District are those found in the 1995 Revision to the AQMP and arc based on population forecasts found in the City of Moorpark General Plan. The proposed project site is composed of two undeveloped parcels, known as the (lusted Parcel which is 41.68 acres in size and the Mazur Parcel which is 28.69 acres in size. The project is an extension of an existing residential subdivision; Moorpark Country Club Estates, approved by the City of Moorpark in 1996. The Husted and Mazur Parcels arc designated as Rural Low Residential ( I unit/5 acres) under the current City of Moorpark General Plan while the zoning consi.ts of Residential Planned Development (RPD) and Open Space (OS). The proposed project would therefore require a General Plan Amendment and zone change to allow the construction of higher density residential units than what is currently allowed As shown in Table 111.3 -1, the proposed project would add approximately 305 new residences to the growth -area of the City of Moorpark.` However, even though the proposed project would increase the population density, it would not surpass the population forecasts made in the 1995 AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would he considered consistent with the growth requirements of the 1995 AQMP. Table 111.3 -1 AQMP Consistency Analysis — Population Growth 1Aisting Population for the City of Moorpark (2O(111) 31,415 Proposed Increase in Population due to Project 1 305 1905 AQMP Population Forecast (2005) 46,570 Another measurement tool use in determining consistency with the AQMP is to determine how a project accommodates the expected increase in population or employment. Generally, if a project is planned in a way that results in the minimization of' Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) both within the project and the community in which it is located, and consequently the minimization of air pollutant emissions, that aspect ol' the project is consistent with the AQMP. The J vKop' .Ised prni,cet site is tocated adjacent. to the existing, Moorpark Country Club F.s aw-; and would serve as an extension to the total area that the country club occupies. The proposed project would provide housing for residence of the City of Moorpark as well as the surrounding community, Catiforma Department of Finance, 2004. Moorpark Counts• ('luh F. vtalev Expansion Project 1 /1. E.nwronmenta/ lmpac•t AnalvVis City of Moorpark Page l// 24 Revic;ed Draft Initial.Studr Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 132 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2000 which is currently seeing a large amount of new commercial construction. By locating new residential communities in close proximity to shopping destinations, the amount of VMT within the community would he reduced. As discussed above, any project that reduces the amount of VMT is considered consistent with the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP and would result in a less- than - significant impact. No mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant With the Incorporation of Mitigation. A project may have a significant impact where project- related emissions would exceed federal, state or regional standards or thresholds, or where project - related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Development of the proposed project would generate air emissions from a variety of stationary and mobile sources. Stationary source emissions would he generated by on -site construction activities and equipment, and consumption of natural gas and electricity once the proposed project is operational. Mobile source emissions would he generated by motor vehicle travel associated with construction activities and operation of the proposed development. Construction and operation air emissions from the proposed project were estimated using URBFMIS 2012, a computer model for air quality analysis approved by the California Air Resources Board. and the SCAQMD. Traffic estimates used in calculating mobile source emissions were obtained from the transportation analysis prepared by Austin Foust & Associates, Inc, the traffic consultant for the proposed project. (The Traffic Study has been attached hereto and incorporated by reference). Construction impacts Less than Significant Impact With the Incorporation of Mitigation. As discussed cariier, the proposed project site is comprised of two separate parcels; a 41.68 acre parcel on Championship Drive, cast of Grimes Canyon Road; and a 28.69 acre parcel on Championship Drive west of Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23) (see Figure II -2, Vicinity Map). 'rhe proposed project would he constructed on two separate, non - contiguous parcels, therefore, resulting in two separate and unique construction areas. The analysis of daily construction for both project sites has been prepared utikling the URBF.MIS 2002 computer model recommended by the VCAP('D. Due to the construction time frame and the normal day -to -day variability in construction activities, 11 is difficult, if not impossible, to precisely quantify the daily emissions associated with each phase of the proposed construction Moorpark C'ountn Club hstates Expansion Project 1 /1. h.nrironmental lmpact Analysis City of Moorpark Page /I/ 2.5 Rcrised Draft Initial Stud)' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 133 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 activities. Nonethetess, Tah(e I1t.3 -2 avid Table 111 -3.3 identifies daily emissions that are estimated to occur on peak construction days. Table 111.3 -2 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions - Husted Site Emissions Source Peak Davy Emissions in Pounds per Day ROG I NO= I CO I SO, I PMIs Site Excavation and Grading Phase Fugitive Dust - - - - 42.00 Off -Road Diesel 17.23 144.19 118.01 0.00 6.72 On -Road Diesel 0.00 00) ()AX) 0.00 0.00 Worker "Trips 0.21 0.31 5.04 0.00 0.02 Total Emissions 17.44 144.50 123.05 0.00 42.01 VCAPCD "thresholds Construction Phase NIA N/A N/A NA N/A Building Construction Off - Road Diesel 22.00 162.54 166.26 7.01 Building Construction Worker Trips 0.23 0.13 2.79 ().(H) 0.05 Arch. Coatings Off -Gas 105.09 - - - - Arch. Coatings Workcr Trips 0.23 0.13 2.79 0.00 00.5 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.27 - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel Asphalt On -Road Diesel 4.00 0.07 24.09 1.64 33.99 0.28 - 0.00 0.83 0.03 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.01 Total Emissions 131.92 188.54 206.40 0.00 7.98 VCAPC DThresholds N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NOURCF. Urhemts 2002. Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2005. Calculation sheers are provided to Appendix R. Table 111.3 -3 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions - Mazur Site Emissions Source Peak Day Emissions in Pounds per Day ROG NO, CO SO, PM,. Site Excavation and Grading Phase Fugitive Dust - - - 30.00 Off -Road Diesel On -Road Diesel 9.26 0.00 77.52 0.00 63.44 0.00 0.00 3.61 0.(X) Workcr "trips 0.13 0.18 3.02 0.00 0.01 Total Emissions 9.39 77.70 66.46 0.00 33.62 Moorpark Countr' Cltth F. states Expansion Project /H. Environmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Puge 111 -26 Rei ised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 134 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2(X)6 VCAPCD Thresholds N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Construction Phase Building ConStrUCtiOn Off - Road Diesel 22.00 162.54 16626 7.01 Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Anal %6 On- of Moorpark Page 111 -27 Revowd Draft Initial .Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 135 Christopher A. Joseph car Associates December 2000 Table II1.3 -3 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions - Mazur Site (Continued) Emissions Source Peak Day Emissions in Pounds per Day Building Construction Worker Trips 0.15 0.09 1.86 0.00 0.04 Arch. Coatings Off -Gas 70.06 - - - Arch. Coatings Worker Trips 0.15 0.09 1.86 0.(X) 0.04 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.27 - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel Asphalt On -Road Diesel 4.00 0.07 24.09 1.64 33.99 0.28 - 0.00 0.83 0.03 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.29 0.00 O.01 Total Emissions 96.73 188.46 204.54 0.00 7.96 VCAPCD Thresholds N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SOUR([.: Urbemis 2002. Christopher A Joseph c& Associates, 2005. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix H. The District does not consider construction emissions of ROG, NO, and PM;,, to he significant because they arc temporary effects. In addition, the District does not consider construction emissions of CO and SO, to be significant because the County is in an attainment area for these two pollutants and construction emissions would not contribute to an exceedance. However, the Guidelines contain mitigation measures for both gaseous and particulate emissions from construction if the emissions of ROG and NO, are expected to exceed 25 pounds per day. As discussed earlier, the proposed project would he constructed on two separate, nun - contiguous parcels and, as shown in Table 111.3 -2 and Table II1.3.3, would produce emissions of ROG and NO, of greater than 25 pounds per day. Therefore, the mitigation measures outlined below would he applicable to both sites, if feasible. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. Mitication Measures The following mitigation measures apply to both project parcels: 3 -1 The use of construction equipment shall not he allowed to idle in excess of 10 minutes. 3 -2 Alf equipment engines shall he maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications by equipment operators. 3 -3 Project construction equipment shall use alternative fuels, such as compressed natural bas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric. if feasihle. NNoorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 1 /1, Environmental Impact Analvsis On• of Moorpark Page 111 -28 Re iwd Draft Initial Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 136 Christopher A..Iuseph & Associates December 2006 3 -4 The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall he minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 3 -5 Pre- grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavation operations. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. 3 -6 Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction activities shall he controlled by the following activities: o All trucks shall he required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code §23114. o All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on -site roadways, shall he treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily he limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally -safe soil stabilization materials, and /or roll- compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be dune as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 3 -7 Graded and /or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall he monitored by (indicate by whom) at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll- compaction, and environmentally -safe dust control materials, shall he 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 he seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally -safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. 3 -8 Signs shall be posted on -site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. 3 -9 During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed in excess of 15 mph), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall he 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 his /her discretion in conjunction with the APC D in determining when winds are excessive. 3 -10 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. 3-11 Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should he advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expan0on Project Ill. Environmental Impact Anal }•sts Ctry of Moorpark Page Ill -29 Revised Draft Inulul.Studr Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 137 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 3 -12 Where acceptable to the fire department, control weed growth by mowing instead of discing, thereby leaving the ground undisturbed and with a mulch covering. 3 -13 During rough grading and construction, the access way into the project site from adjoining paved roadways should he paved or treated with environmentally -safe dust control agents. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental lmpac( Anul)-sis Ciw o/'Itloorpark Page l /1 -30 Revised Draft initial Stud• Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 138 Christopher A. ,Joseph c& Associates December 2000 Operational Emissions No Impact. As shown in Table 1113-4, no operational impacts would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. The District does not stipulate operational thresholds for CO, SO, or PM,,, emissions, however, the thresholds for ROG and NO, are set at 25 pounds per day As shown, the proposed project would generate 14.56 and 19.25 pounds per day of ROG and NO„ respectively. 'Therefore no operational air quality impacts would occur. Table I1I.3 -4 Project Daily Operational Emissions Emissions Source Emissions in Pounds per Day ROG NO, CO SO, PMto Water and Space Heating 0.14 1.82 0.77 - 0.00 Landscape Maintenance Consumer Products 0.08 4.26 0.01 - 0.78 - 0.03 - 0.00 - Motor Vehicles 10.07 17.42 132.50 0.09 15.72 Total Emissions 14.56 19.25 134.05 0.11 15.72 VCAPMD Thresholds (lb /day) Significant Impact 25.0 No 25.0 No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A .SO 'RCE: (Jrhemis 2002. ('1iristopher A. Joseph & Associate +, 2005. Computer heetc are provided in Appendir 6. Mitigation Measures None required. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase or any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative threshold for ozone precursors)' Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. According to the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, a project that is consistent with the applicable AQMP is determined to have no significant cumulative adverse air quality impacts. As discussed above, in Section 3 (a) above, the proposed project will be consistent with the AOMP. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable impacts will occur. .Moorpark Country Club E.+tate,c Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysi+ City of Moorpark Page 111 -31 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 139 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Mitigation Measures None required. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant Impact. As shown in Tables 111.3 -5, 111.3 -6 and 111.3 -7 below, CO concentrations in all future scenarios with the proposed project's traffic volumes would not exceed State or Federal standards carbon monoxide emissions standards. Therefore, the project's contribution to localized emissions would not he considered significant and local sensitive receptors would not he exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. impacts would he less than significant. Table 111.3 -5 Existing Plus Project Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Intersection 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 1 -Hour I8- Hour21 -HourI S -Hours 1 -Hour 8 -Hour= 1. Moorpark Read and High Street 6.0 4.3 5.8 4.2 5.6 4.0 2. Spring Road and High Street 57 4.1 5.6 4.1 5.5 4.0 9. Moorpark Read and PoindexteriFirsi Street 5.8 4.2 5.6 4.1 5.4 4.0 10. Tierra Rcjada and Los Angeles Avenue 6.5 4.6 6.3 4.5 6.0 4.3 11. Moorpark Road and i.os Angeles Avenue 6.5 4.6 6.2 4.4 5.9 4.2 12. Spring and la)s Angeles Avenue 6.7 4.7 6.4 4.5 6.1 4.3 I 13. Science and New Los Angeles Avenue 6.4 4.6 6.2 4.4 S.9 4.2 35. Walnut Canyon Road and Casey 5.9 4.3 5.7 4.1 5.5 4.0 55. Souris and t os Angeles Avenue 7.6 5.3 7.0 49 6.5 46 .Source: MRS, hehruary 2004. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix H. 'Stair standard is 20 0 parts per million. Federal standard is . ?5 parrs per million 15[ate and federal standard is 9.0 parts per million. Moorpark Corintry Clnh Estates Expansion Project i /I. Environmental Impact Analysis Citt' of Moorpark Page 111 -32 Revised Draft Initial .Stutiv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 140 Christopher A. Joseph & A vsuciales Decemher 2006 Table 111.3 -6 Future (2007) With Project Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 1ntersectiOn 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 1 -Hour' 8 -Hour= 1 -Hour 8 -Hour 1 -Hour 8 -Hour 2 1. Moorpark Road and High Street 6.0 4.3 5.8 4.2 5.6 4.0 2. Spring Road and High Strcct 6.0 43 5.8 4.2 5.6 4.1 9. Moorpark Road and Poindexter /First Street 6.8 4.2 6.7 4.1 ! 6.5 4.0 1(1. Tierra Rejada and Los Angeles Avenue 7.3 45 7.1 4.3 6.8 4.2 11. Moorpark Road and Los Angeles Avenue 64 4.6 6.2 4.4 5.9 4.2 12. Spring and Los Angeles Avenue 7.8 3.7 7.5 4.9 6.6 I 3.5 7.1 3.3 13. Science and New Los Angeles Avenue 6.9 46 62 4.4 27. Walnut Canyon & Spring 35. Walnut Canyon Road and Casey 6.0 5.8 4.3 5,7 4.2 5.6 4.1 5.5 4.0 I 4.1 5.5 4.0 43. Grimes Canyon & Los Angeles 6.0 4.3 5.8 4.2 5.6 4.0 55. Somis and Los Angeles Avenue 6.8 4.8 6.4 f 4.6 6.0 43 I Source ' MP.S, ! ehruarr 2004 Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix H .Starr standard 15 20.0 parts per mill ion. l-ederal .standard is .? 5 parts per nit Ilion, .State and Federal standard is 9.0 parts per million Moorpark Country Club Estates F.xpan.sion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Analysis Cav of Afoorpark Page 11/ -.3.3 Revised Draft Initial .Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 141 Christopher A..loseph & Associates December 2006 Table 3 -7 Future (2020) With Project Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 1otersectiOn 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 1 -Hours 8 -Hour 1 -Hourr 8 -Hour 1 -Hour 8 -Hour= 1. Moorpark Road and High Street 5.6 4.1 5.5 4.0 5.4 3.9 2. Spring Road and High Street 5.5 4.0 5.4 3.9 5.3 19 Q. Moorpark Road and PoindexlerfFirst Street 6.5 4.0 6.4 4.0 6.3 3.9 10. Tierra Rejada and Los Angeles Avenue 6.7 4.1 6.6 4.1 6.5 4.0 I 11. Moorpark Road and Los Angeles Avenue 6.0 4.3 5.8 4.2 5.6 4.1 12. Spring and Los Angeles Avenue _ 7.5 3.5 7.2 3.3 6.9 5.9 3.2 I 42 13. Science and New Los Angeles Avenue 6.5 4.6 1 6.2 _ 4.4 25. Walnut Canvon & Broadwav 5.5 4.0 5.4 I 3.9 5.3 l 3.9 27. Walnut Canyon &Spring 5.7 4.1 5.6 4.0 5.4 3.9 29. Gahhert & SR -1 18 5.7 4.1 $.6 5.4 4.0 51 4 39 35. Walnut Canyon Road and Casey 5.5 4.0 3.9 5.3 3.9 37. SR -1 18 & L.os Angeles 6.1 4.4 5.9 4.2 5.7 4.1 43. Grimes Canvon & Los Angeles 55. Somis and Los Angeles Avenue 6.0 6.1 4.3 4.4 1 5.8 5.9 4.2 43 5.6 40 5.7 4,1 Sourer MPS. Fe•hruary 1004 Emissions calculations are provided in ,Appendix ll. ' Sture standard rs 20 0 parts per million. / ederal standard is 35 parts per million. - Sratc and federal standard is 9.0 parts per million. Mitigation Measures Nano required. Moorpark Countn Cluh Estates Expunsion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysts Cin of Moorpark I'age 111 .la Rrrurd Draft burial Suadr Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 142 C •hristophcr A. Joseph & Avrociates - Dc•c•cmher .�tlt)h c. C) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting; a substantial number of people? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A project - related significant adverse effect could occur if construction or operation of the project would result in generation of odors that would be perceptible in adjacent sensitive areas. Odors are typically associated with food related activities and industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong- smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. As the proposed project involves no elements related to these types of uses, no significant odors are anticipated. Consequently, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. Cumulative Impacts Local Construction impacts Cumulative development within the City of 'Moorpark would continue to implement dust control and equipment emissions mitigation measures during construction in accordance with City practices. Consequently, cumulative development within the City is not expected to cause a significant impact associated with construction activities. Because the proposed project would implement all appropriate mitigation measures during construction, the contribution of the project to any cumulative air quality impact would not he considerable. Local Operational 1mDdCIS Cumulative development in the Moorpark Growth Area is not expected to result in a significant impact in terms of conflicting with, or obstructing implementation of, the 1997 AOMP Revision. The 1997 AQMP Revision was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within Ventura County, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Growth considered to be consistent with the 1997 AOMP Revision would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AOMP. Consequently, as long as growth in the Moorpark Growth Area is within the projections fior growth identified in the ROMP, implementation of the 1997 AOMP Revision will not he obstructed by such growth. As growth in the Moorpark Growth Area has not exceeded these projections, this impact would not he cumulatively considerable. Additionally, since the proposed project is consistent with growth projections under the 1997 ROMP Revision, the project would not have a cumulatively Moorpark C'ountrn- Ctuh Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact AnalYUS Cal, of Moorpark Page 111-35 Rc used Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 143 Christopher A. Joseph & Asscx•iutec llecemher 2006 considerable contribution to this impact regarding conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Regional Operational Impacts Because Ventura County is currently in nonattainment for ozone, related projects could exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. With regard to determining the significance of the proposed project contribution, the VCAPCD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative operational emissions not provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to he used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. Instead, the VCAPCD recommends that a project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. Therefore, this Initial Study assumes that individual development projects that generate operational emissions that exceed the VCAPCD recommended daily thresholds for project- specific impacts would also cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As discussed previously, operational daily emissions associated with project development would not exceed VCAPCD significance thresholds for ROC and NO,. Therefore, the emissions generated by proposed project would not he considered significant regarding a substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. 111. Environmental lmpuct Anah st+ Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Pro�ecr Page 111 -36 ('itr of aoorpark P,,vi, d Draft Initial Srttth Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 144 Christopher A. Joseph c& Associures December 2006 h) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ordinance'! f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Project impacts on biological resources due to construction of the proposed Toll Brothers project. which includes bath the Mazur and Husted project sites, are addressed below based upon field surveys and literature review conducted by Keane Biological Consulting (KBC), August 2004. Biological Resources Report (Keane Biological Consulting) and Jurisdictional Delineation Report (The Planning Associates) are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Moorpark Country Cluh F: crates Expansion Project W. Environmental lnipuct Analvsis Otv of Moorpurx Page 111 -37 Ret tsed Draft Initial.Studv Leas Than Significant pottatialty With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant 4. BIOLOGICAL RFSOURCU Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? h) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ordinance'! f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Project impacts on biological resources due to construction of the proposed Toll Brothers project. which includes bath the Mazur and Husted project sites, are addressed below based upon field surveys and literature review conducted by Keane Biological Consulting (KBC), August 2004. Biological Resources Report (Keane Biological Consulting) and Jurisdictional Delineation Report (The Planning Associates) are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Moorpark Country Cluh F: crates Expansion Project W. Environmental lnipuct Analvsis Otv of Moorpurx Page 111 -37 Ret tsed Draft Initial.Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 145 Christopher .A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 a) 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 regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact (for special- status plant species). Potential habitat for candidate, sensitive or special- status plant species is limited on the Mazur and Husted project sites. Prior to field surveys, K13C botanist Scott White reviewed available literature to identity special status plants known from the project vicinity including the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2(X)4, USGS Moorpark and Simi 71/2' topo quads), California Native Plant Society's (CLAPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Tibor 2001), the CNPS Flectronic Inventory (2004, for the same quads) and compendia of special- status species published by the USFWS (2002) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG, 2(X)3). Husted Parcel Native vegetation on most of the Husted site has largely been degraded or eliminated by grazing and brush clearing, though good quality native shrublands exist outside the boundaries of the Husted Parcel. Predominant vegetation types on this site are coastal sage scrub and annual grasslands. Coastal sage scrub is dominated by mulefat on north - facing slopes and by prickly pear cactus, California sagebrush, and California encelia on south - facing slopes. Annual grasslands are dominated by non - native annual grasses (Bromus spp., Avena spp.) and mustards (Bra.Wc•a spp.), and, along ridges, with a native tarplant (Hemizonia fasciculata). A complete list of plants observed on the two sites is included in Appendix A of the Biological Resources Report. "these grasslands are on relatively heavy soils which could provide suitable habitat for several special- status plants species, but a thorough search of the Husted site by Mr. White did not locate any of these plants. Mitigation Measures None required. Mazur Parcel The Mazur site is largely in use as an estate residence. Good quality coastal sage scrub remains on slopes above the home and yard, and west and south of the Mazur Parcel. These stands are similar to coastal sage scrub described above for the Husted site. In the remainder of the site, native vegetation has been eliminated by brush clearing, conversion to residential and ornamental uses, and ongoing clearance for fire safety. No special- status plants were located on the Mazur site during a thorough Because C'l.�).t does not define the term "substantial. "the following definition has been used for this project An impact %could he considered 'substantial " only, if it would adt,ersel} affect a biological resource that is considered rare or of limited distribution in coastal (west of the I.os Padres National Forest) Ventura County. ,Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis Cite of ,Moorpark Page 111 38 Xe%nc•d Draft Initial Studs Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 146 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 search by Mr. White. Thus, based on field surveys, habitat requirements and geographic distributions of special- status plants in the region, no special- status plants were found on either site and are not likely to occur there, consequently impacts would he less than significant.` Mitigation Measures None required. Less than Significant Impact (for special- status wildlife species): Potential habitat for wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status is present in both the annual grasslands and coastal sage scrub on the Mazur and Ifusted sites. Husted Parcel Coastal sage scrub and degraded coastal sage scrub on the Husted Parcel provides habitat for the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), a federally - listed threatened species, in addition to some other non - listed special- status wildlife species`'. Focused surveys for California gnatcatcher were conducted in potential habitat on both sites by KBC ornithologist Jim Jennings pursuant to protocol and permit requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on May 10, 17, and 24; and June 7, 14, and 21, 2004. No California gnatcatchers were observed during any of the six surveys. A complete list of wildlife species observed on the site is provided in the Keane Biological Resources Report, and a list of potentially- occurring special- status wildlife species is included in The Planning Associates Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Annual grasslands of the Husted site may provide foraging habitat for some special- status raptor species and other special- status bird species of southern California grasslands'. However, if any of these species are present or use the site frequently to rarely, the extent of grassland habitat (less than 40 acres) provided by the project site is minimal with respect to habitat provided in coastal Ventura County for these species, which are not rare or of limited distribution in the region. Thus, pursuant to Footnote 1, removal of grassland habitat on the Husted site would not likely result in significant impacts on any special- status wildlife species of grassland habitats. The remainder of the site supports landscaped or disturbed areas. these would not be expected to Spacial- status plants in the project vicinity are summarized in Appendix B of the Biological Resources Report. prepared hp Kathy Keane, dated October 13, 2004, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference .See Appendix R of the Biological Resources Report, located in Appendix C of this Initial .Study if any of these species are present, impacts would be minimized by coastal sage scrub mitigation presented in b. The Planning Associates, 20(4 a, Jurisdictional Delineation, Husted Property, August 10, 2004. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page 111 -39 Revised Draft Initial.Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 147 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 support any special- status species. Mitigation Measures None required. Mazur Parcel The Mazur Parcel also supports potential habitat for California gnatcatcher, and the focused surveys described above for California gnatcatcher were also conducted on the Mazur Parcel. No California gnatcatchers were observed during any of the six surveys, and no other special- status wildlife species were observed except for the southern California rufous - crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruftceps canescens), a California Species of Special Concern, further discussed under (b) below. Annual grasslands are also present on the Mazur Parcel, and although they are much smaller in extent, they can also provide habitat for raptor foraging. However, as described for the Husted Parcel, removal of grassland habitat would not likely result in significant impacts on special- status species of grassland habitats since such species are not rare or of limited distribution in the region (see Footnote 1). The remainder of the site supports landscaped or disturbed areas; these would not be expected to support any special- status species. Mitigation .Measures None required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in the City or regional plans, policies, regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact (for riparian habitat) but Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated (for CDFG -jurisdictional streambeds). (lusted Parcel No riparian habitat is present on the Husted Parcel, per the results of surveys by KBC botanist Scott White and wetland delineations conducted by The Planning Associates. However, the wetland delineation of the Husted Parcel conducted by The Planning Associates (2004a) pursuant to CDFG guidelines revealed three ephemeral drainages (streambeds) that are potentially subject to CDhG jurisdiction under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code in the amount of approximately 0.02 acre (728.5 square feet), although, none of these drainages are within the project footprint. Thus, project construction would not result in any impacts on riparian habitat, and a California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement (which .Moorpark Countrw Club Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Anal �•.as C'iry of Moorpark Page Ili -40 Kcidsed Draft Initial Sindv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 148 Christopher A. Joseph d'c Associates December 2006 generally includes a mitigation plan) would not he required prior to the initiation of project construction,. Mitigation Measures None required. Mazur Parcel No riparian habitat is present on the Mazur Parcel, per the results of surveys by KBC botanist Scott White and wetland delineations conducted by The Planning Associates . However, the results of the wetland delineation conducted by The Planning Associates (Mazur Property) pursuant to CDFG guidelines' reveal that CDFG jurisdiction is present in one ephemeral drainage and totals approximately 0.34 acre (14,810 square feet), none of which is riparian habitat. CDFG oversees activities in unvegetated ephemeral drainages as well as riparian habitat associated with drainages. Unlike the Rusted site, the Mazur project footprint extends over 0.17 acre of' the total 0.34 acre of CDFG jurisdiction on the project site (Figure 111.4 -1). Thus, a CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement will he required pursuant to Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code "'. CDFG will require mitigation for all impacts to sireambeds and their associated riparian habitats resulting from any aspect of the proposed project. With incorporation of the mitigation measures provided below, impacts will he less than significant. Mitigation Measures 4 -1 Avoidance or reduction of impacts are preferred by CDFG and shall he investigated to the maximum extent possible. Thus, prior to the preparation of an application a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG, the City of Moorpark will consult with Tull Bras. to determine if the project can be redesigned to avoid impacts to the drainage. if impacts cannot be avoided or significantly reduced, compensation in the form of one of the following shall he provided: a) onsite mitigation in proposed onsite open space areas through riparian habitat restoration; h) offsite mitigation in the project vicinity through riparian habitat restoration or enhancement; c) offsite mitigation through eradication of non- native invasive vegetation in disturbed riparian habitats in the project vicinity; and /or The Planning Associates-, Jurisdictional Delineation, Ilusted Property, August 10, 2004. CDFG concurrence regarding the results of the wetland delineation will he obtained during the upplicution process with CDFG for a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Planninx Associates. Jurisdictional Delineation, Mazur Property, September 1, 2(X)4. Monrpurk Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis ('in' of Moorpark Page 111 -41 Res iced Draft In trial Stud Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 149 Christopher A. Joseph K Associates December 2006 d) payment to a conservation agency for restoration in a riparian mitigation hank. Figure 111. 4 -1. Location of CDFG- jurisdicational area, Mazur Parcel DFG will require the Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) application to include a detailed mitigation plan with specific components, which will serve as sufficient and appropriate mitigation for project impacts on CDFG - jurisdictional areas and will vary according to the option selected above by CDFG during the SAA application process. CDFG will not issue an SAA until the project CEOA document is certified, or provide concurrence regarding a proposed mitigation option until that time.. Details of the proposed mitigation will depend on the option selected by CDF(;: however, details will include the following: a) Mitigation Ratios: Mitigation ratios will depend upon the selected mitigation option. ApproPrialz Tatios wi51 kw determined d-Oring permi%ling ct'T)S-O ations whit CI)VIG. h) Restoration SLx:cialist: The restoration specialist shall he selected by the City of Moorpark and CDFG. "rhe restoration specialist shall have demonstrated experience in the successful restoration of riparian habitats in southern California. If the restoration plan includes eradication of non- native invasive species, the restoration specialist shall demonstrate HiM Moorpark C(u(ntry Cluh Estates Expansion Project lll. Em,ironmental lmpact A+talesi.% City o%Woornark Page! // -42 Revised Draft /nitlal .StUdV Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 150 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Decemher 2006 experience in successful removal of non - native invasive species from southern California riparian habitats. c) Site Selection: A mitigation site will he selected by the City of Moorpark and CDFG. Offsitc mitigation, would require selection of a riparian area suitable for habitat restoration or enhancement and currently or subsequently protected by an entity. The restoration site shall he at a location that will not be used for future roadway or other infrastructure projects and can he protected over the long -term. The site must also support existing hydrology suitable for supporting self- sustaining riparian habitat and he capable of supporting the acreage calculated from the mitigation ratio. Mitigation banking would require designation by CDFG of an appropriate mitigation hank, as well as the determination of the amount of funding to be provided to the hank to mitigate project impacts on riparian habitat and provide for mitigation monitoring and maintenance. d) Selection of Plant Palettes: The plant palette shall include appropriate trees, understory, and early - successional species native to the project vicinity. c) Quantities, Container Sizes, Planting; Patterns, Origins: Seed quantities, plant container sizes, and planting patterns shall he specified, as appropriate. To the extent feasible, plants and seeds used in the restoration plans shall be collected from the Project Sites or elsewhere in the project vicinity, as near to the site as possible. The use of locally native plantings will increase the chances of success and maintain the genetic integrity of the local ecosystem. 11' eradication of non - native invasive species is selected as (one of) the mitigation option(s), this section shall detail the types and approximate numbers of individuals of each non - native species to he removed. Quantities of riparian trees to be replaced shall consider ratios required by CDFG for riparian trees. 1) Timing for Restoration /Eradication: The restoration specialist shall determine the methods to he used, including timing of site preparation, planting, and /or of eradication of exotic (non- native) invasive species, in consultation with CDFG. For best results, seeding and planting should take place after the onset of the rainy season and prior to March 31. Eradication is most effective if conducted early in the spring prior to seed set by non - native invasive species. g) Mycorrhizal Fungi: In order to improve the ability of the planted material to compete with non- native forks and grasses, mycorrhizal innoculum shall he specified for all container plants known to benefit from this symbiotic association. h) Site Preparation: Methods to prepare the site for planting shall he specified, including consideration of soil requirements (e.g., soil type, compaction. etc.) and weed control prior to planting (if needed). If eradication of non - native invasive species is selected as (one of) the mitigation option(s), this section shall detail protective measures to he implemented to avoid impacts on native riparian plant and wildlife species during the eradication process. Muorpurk Countri. Ouh Estates Expansion Project Ill. I: �nvirunmentu/ lmpact Analvst� City of Moorpark Page 111 -43 Revisal Draft Initial Stud Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 151 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2000 i) Methods for Seeding, Planting or Eradication: Methods for installing seeds and plants shall be specified (hand seeding, hydroseeding, etc.), as well as planting methods for container plants. if eradication of non - native invasive species is selected as (one of) the mitigation option(s), this section shall detail methods to he used for eradication, such as by mechanical means, by hand, andlor by an herbicide approved by CDFG. J) Irrigation: The restoration specialist shall determine and specify the need, frequency, and duration for irrigation of riparian restoration sites and specific irrigation equipment as well as installation and removal methods. k) Maintenance: Maintenance of all plantings or of the actions required to remove exotic species will he the responsibility of the City and shall include any activities required to meet the performance standards set forth in the restoration plan. A minimum of S years of maintenance shall he required unless the plan's long -term performance standards are satisfied in less than 5 years. 1) Monitoring: Monitoring the restoration site or eradication site will he required for a minimum of 5 years or until all of the project's long -term performance standards are met. The site monitor shall he a biologist, native landscape horticulturist, or other professional qualified to 1) assess the performance of the planting or eradication effort, 2) recommend corrective measures, it' needed, and 3) document wildlife use of planting or eradication areas over time. The site monitor shall he selected by the City and approved by CDFG. m) Performance Standards: Short -term (e.g., 90 -day and 180 -day) and long -term (e.g., 3 -year and 5 -year) performance standards shall he set for the restoration or eradication area(s), consistent with the goal of establishing self- sustaining riparian habitat that supports native plant and wildlife species. The plan shall specify appropriate corrective actions to he taken it' the site monitor determines that any restoration or eradication area is not meeting the performance standards set for the plan. If performance standards cannot he achieved due to adverse soil or other unmanageable site conditions, an alternative or auxiliary plan may he submitted to CDFG. n) Documentation: The monitoring results shall he reported at least annually to CDFG Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated (for coastal sage scrub). Husled Parcel The Ilustcd site supports approximately I8 acres of coastal sage scrub ", of which approximately 13 acres would he removed during project grading (Table 111.4 -1). Coastal sage scrub is a Natural " ('oastul Sage Scrub and Degraded Coastal Sage Scrub. Ahwrpark Country Club E,c /urea Expansion Project 111. Environmentu/ Impact AnalYso ( WY of Moorpark Page 111 -44 Revised Draft lndial.Stuth Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 152 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Community of Special Concern per CDFG. Natural Communities of Special Concern are vegetation associations that support special- status plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife. Coastal sage scrub is designated as such because its extent has been drastically reduced during recent decades due primarily to residential development in the coastal foothills of southern California. Table I11.4 -1 Plant Community Acreages Within the Husted and Mazur Project Sites (all figures are approximate) Site and Habitat Type Acres Percent of Total Acres Affected by Grading Percent Affected by radio Mazur Site: Coastal Sage Scrub 17 77 54 13.2 � 77.6 0.5 100 Degraded Coastal Sae Scrub 0.5 1.6 Ornamental /Ruderal/Deve loped 12 38 10.9 91 Annual Grassland 2 6.4 0 0 Total, Mazur Site i approx. 28.69 actual 31.5 100% 24.6 Husted Site: Coastal Sae Scrub 1 2.7 6.3 J 2.7 100 graded Coastal Sae Scrub 15.4 35 1 10.5 68 --Dc Ornamen tat/ Rude ral /Developed- 0.75 J 1.7 11 0.7 93 Annual Grassland 25 : 57 21 84 Total, Hosted Site: approx. 41.68 actual 43.85) 100% 34.9 Total, Both Sites approx. 7037 (actual 7535 100% The coastal sage scrub community on the Husted site did not support the California gnatcatchers, which have been found in some other areas of Moorpark. However, because it provides habitat for California gnatcatcher and several other special- status species (see Appendix C), because California gnatcatchers are known to occur in the Moorpark area, because coastal sage scrub is a Natural Community of Concern per CDFG, and because coastal sage scrub is becoming a rare resource in coastal Ventura County (sec Footnote 1), removal of approximately 13 acres of coastal sage scrub on the Husted Panel would be considered a significant impact. No other sensitive natural community was identified on the Husted site. Mazur Parcel The Mazur site supports approximately 17 acres of coastal sage scrub", of which (similar to the Husted Parcel) approximately 13 acres would he removed during project grading. (Table 111.4 -1). Coastal sage scrub is a CDFG - defined Natural Community of Special Concern as described above. No ,Moorpark Couniry C1uh Estates Expansion Project fit. Environmental Impact Anahxis CtA, of .'Moorpark Page 111-45 Revised Draft Intttul Studs Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 153 Chrivopher A. Joseph R Associates December 2006 California gnatcatchers were located on the Mazur Parcel during surveys, however, another special - status species, the southern California rufous - crowned sparrow (a California Species of Special Concern), was observed, and others may he present ". Although project impacts on this species would not he considered significant (since it occurs in coastal sage scrub as well as chaparral and thus is more widely distributed in coastal Ventura County than the California gnatcatcher), its presence indicates that the coastal sage scrub on the project sites is of good quality, and, thus removal of approximately 13 acres of coastal sage scrub for on -site project construction (see Table 111.4 -1) and an additional 12.5 acres (approximately 11.5 acres Husted and 1 acre Mazur) for off -site grading, would he considered a significant impact). No other sensitive natural community was identified on the Mazur site. With incorporation of the mitigation measure provided below, impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure applies to both Husted and Mazur Parcels. 4 -2 Mitigation options for impacts on coastal sage scrub include (1) onsite mitigation in proposed onsite open space areas through habitat restoration; (2) offsite mitigation in the project vicinity through habitat restoration or enhancement; (3) offsite mitigation through eradication of non- native invasive vegetation in disturbed coastal sage scrub habitats in the project vicinity; and /or (4) payment to a conservation agency for restoration in a coastal sage scrub mitigation bank. The project applicant's proposed hydroseed mix for the Project Sites (sec Appendix D) includes some coastal sage scrub species; however, a detailed mitigation plan must be prepared and implemented to ensure that mitigation is successful. The plan shall he prepared by a restoration specialist with demonstrated successful experience in restoration of coastal sage scrub in southern California. Although a Strcambcd Alteration Agreement or other permit from CDFG is not required for coastal sage scrub, CDFG shall he consulted regarding recommendations for successful coastal sage scrub mitigation during the SAA process (see mitigation 4 -1). However, the mitigation option to he implemented will he decided by the City of Moorpark. The mitigation plan shall he prepared by a restoration specialist with demonstrated successful experience in restoration of coastal sage scrub in southern California. The restoration plan shall include the following components: a) Selection of a Mitigation Si1c: Criteria to select an appropriate mitigation site. Mitigation could include enhancement of existing degraded sage scrub or replacement of sage scrub on graded slopes. Conditions on the mitigation site, including descriptions of the composition of For example, the San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) and/or Sun Diego jarkrahhlt (l opus cahlornicus hennettii), which occur in scrub habitats from .San Diego to Santa Barbara County, may he present. ,Moorpark Country Club E-states Expansion Project lit. En%wonmental impart Analysis City of Moorpark Puge 111 -46 Re•yiwd Draft Inttiul Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 154 Christopher A. Joseph c& Associates December 2006 sage scrub habitat to he removed and the condition of' the mitigation site will be discussed in this section. b) Obiectives of mitigation: This section will discuss mitigation ratios, habitat goals, and performance standards. Replacement ratios may vary, depending upon whether scrub habitat will be entirely replaced in an area that currently supports no sage scrub habitat, or if an existing area of degraded scrub will be enhanced, or whether a combination of these two types of mitigation will occur. c) Habitat restoration implementation guidelines: This will include site preparation (weed control, erosion control, irrigation), planting specifications (plant palettes and rates for seeding and container planting), site preparation and the use of mycorrhizal fungi, irrigation, habitat maintenance guidelines, performance standards, a 5 -year monitoring and maintenance program to document attainment of performance standards, including documentaion of use of the mitigation site by special- status wildlife species. The plan will include sufficient detail to allow the project landscape architect to translate into landscape drawings and specifications. 0 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Husted Parcel A wetland delineation of the project sites by The Planning Associates (2(X)4a) revealed that no federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are present on the Husted site. However, the delineation found approximately 0.02 acre (728.5 square feet) of areas defined as "waters of the United States" per Section 4O4 of the Clean Water Act; none of this consists of jurisdictional wetlands (all of the 0.02 acres are found within the project footprint). Jurisdictional area under 1/ 10 of an acre does not require regulatory review. Moreover, the proposed Husted project footprint would not result in impacts on "waters of the U.S" (The Planning Associates 2004a). However, the project must obtain a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to comply with Section 4t)2 of the Federal Clean Water ALA during and iotilowing project ccrosiru6ion to ensure that no runoff from construction or project operation occurs and affects on -site or downstream habitats" Jursidictional Delineation Report). Mitigation Measures None required. ' � The Planning Associutes, Jurisdictional Delineation, Husted Property, August 10, 2004. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page 11147 Revised Draft Initial Studt- Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 155 Christopher A. Joseph cot Associates December 2006 Mazur Parcel A wetland delineation of the project sites by The Planning Associates (2004b) revealed that no federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are present. However, Jurisdiction in the form of "waters of the U.S." totals approximately 0.05 acre (2,178 square feet), none of which consist of jurisdictional wetlands (all of the 0.05 acres are within the development footprint of the project). Because, the area of impact is under 1/10 of an acre, no regulatory review is necessary (The Planning Associates 2004b) and no impacts would occur. 14 However, the project must obtain a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to comply with Section 402 of the Federal ('lean Water Act during and following project construction to ensure that no runoff from construction or project operation occurs and affects on -site or downstream habitats" . Mitigation Measures None required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact. A wildlife corridor, also called a habitat linkage or landscape linkage, is a large patch of habitat connecting two or more larger areas of habitat that would otherwise he isolated from one another. A functioning wildlife corridor allows for case of movement between habitat patches. Canyon bottoms with a well - developed tree canopy often serve as wildlife corridors and offer food, shelter, and water, as well as ease of movement, depending upon the density of the understory. Corridors function to prevent habitat fragmentation that would result in the loss of species that require large contiguous expanses of unbroken habitat and /or that occur in low densities. Habitat fragmentation can result in increases in the number of non - native species and may allow inbreeding to occur in species whose populations are small because they have become confined to smaller areas. This, in turn, reduces reproductive success for native species. Fragmentation also reduces functioning ecosystems to small pockets, decreasing hiodiversity and the interactive processes required for healthy ecosystem functioning. Corridors promote gene flow, allow recolonization of areas following catastrophic events such as fire, prevent the loss of large animals by linking suitable habitat areas, and help to ensure the survival of native species that cannot compete with more aggressive non - native species in fragmented habitats. 14 However, to avoid potential project delays, because the project includes impacts on ACRE defined Waters of the U.S.. a notification letter for the project to the U.S. Army v. Corps of Engineers, which oversees permitting pursuant to the Clean Water Act, is recommended but not required. (The Planning Associates 2004a and 2004b). " The Planning Associates, Jurisdictional Delineation. Husted Property, August 10, 2004. 'Moorpark Country Club Estates Etpunsion Project 111. Environmental impact Analyses City of Moorpark Page /11 -4R Revised Draft Initial Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 156 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 206 Husted Parcel Because of the extent of agricultural and ongoing residential development in the vicinity of the project it likely functions minimally to facilitate movement of wildlife between major areas of open space. The project sites likely provide for movement of mammal species adapted to human- modified habitats such as coyote (Canis latrans), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), as well as mule deer (0docoileus hemionus) on occasion. However, because the project site is not crucial in terms of connecting two isolated areas of habitat, it serves as wildlife habitat and possibly as a portion of a travel route for local movement of wildlife, but not as a true wildlife corridor, as described above. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Husted project would result in less than significant impacts to migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites. Mitigation Measures None required. Mazur Parcel The Mazur site and its existing residence and associated human disturbances serve even more minimally as wildlife habitat. As for the Husted site, it is not crucial in connecting two isolated areas- of habi(at, and although portions of the site may serve as a travel route for local wildlife movement, it dues not function as a true wildlife corridor, as described above. Mitigation Measures None required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance (e.g., oak trees or California walnut woodlands)`! Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated (for a city ordinance protecting trees). Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Chapter 12.12 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code states that no native oak tree, historic tree or other mature tree, whether on public or private property, or is associated with a proposal for urban development, shall be removed, cut down, or otherwise destroyed, unless a tree removal permit has been issued by the city. Coast live oak ar'd euca4yptus trees, though "crier, do krccus an the project sites. Thin, ¢ciut tk� removal of any coast live oaks or other trees on the project sites, Toll Brothers Inc. must comply with the provisions of Chapter 12.12 and obtain a tree removal permit from the City of Moorpark. Prior to Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analycis City of Moorpark Page !1! 49 Revt,;rd Draft Initial Satdy Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 157 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 obtaining a permit, a report must he prepared on trees proposed for removal. The report must follow the guidelines of Section 12.12.050 of the City of Moorpark municipal code and he processed through the City of Moorpark Community Services Department. The tree report must provide the precise vertical and horizontal location within plus or minus one (1) foot of each mature tree on the subject parcel and the generalized locations of all mature trees within twenty (20) feet of the project boundary. Tree reports shall he prepared by an arhorist, horticulturist or registered landscape architect who are on a list approved by resolution of the city council. Trees The City of Moorpark Zoning Ordinance provides for the protection of certain species of trees, defined as "Protected Trees ": in Ordinance 101, Chapter 14.09 - Preservation, Cutting and Removal of historical Trees, Native Oak Trees and Mature Trees; and in Ordinance 102, Chapter 14.08 - Planting and Maintenance of Trees, Shrubs and Plants. Particularly covered in these ordinances are; historical trees, any tree or group of trees identified by the City as a landmark or identified on the Federal or California Historic Resources Inventory to he of historical or cultural significance, Mature trees, trees with trunks at least 4 inches in diameter (when measured at 4.5 feet from the ground) for oak trees and trees with trunks at least 9.5 inches in diameter for non -oaks; and Native Oak Trees. Of the 155 trees on the two project parcels (see 'rabic 111.4 -2), two are located on the [lusted parcel and the remaining 153 are located on the Mauur Parcel. One large; 44 -inch diameter trunk heritage Coast Live Oak tree on the Mazur Parcel will he transplanted to another location on -site. Three other tree-,', one oak and two other non -oak trees would be saved in place and the remaining 151 trees would he removed as a result of project implementation. The Horticultural Tree Report prepared for the project site parcels by L. Newman Design Group, Inc., dated September 23, 2004, evaluated the trees on site and found that none of the trees to he removed have any particular value that merits preserving them. In particular, the dominant species on -site, the blue gum, is an undesirable species in terms of a landscape tree in a residential situation. For each tree removed the applicant shall pay a replacement value to the City "'. With the payment of this fee and the incorporation of the mitigation measures listed below, impacts to native and non - native trees on -site will he less than significant. "' City of Moorpark Municipal Code, Chapter 12.12. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project III. Environmental Impart Analysis City of Moorpark Page 111 -50 Revived Druft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 158 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Uec•ember 2(X)6 Table III.4.2 Tree Inventory for Husted and Mazur Proiect Parcels S Name Common Name Husted Parcel Mazur Parcel Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum 1 Pine Coast Live Oak 2 129 Pinus sp. 0 I 0 5 4 ttercus a ri olia Robinia sp. Locust Avocado Schinus molle _ Ju lans californica i Sambucus mexicana Peer Black Walnut Elderberry 0 2 2 153 0 0 0 Unknowccies TOTAL ,_ — _ 2 �f Source: Horticultural Tree Report, Tracts 5463 and 5464, September 23, �II42(Xla. Pared by L. Newman Design Group, Inc. See Appendix A. _ Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, 4 -3 through 4 -6, apply to both Husted and Mazur Parcels: 4 -3 Any City approved work within the driplines of' saved trees shall he under the inspection of a qualified arhorist or oak tree consultant. 4 -4 Any City approved branch removals shall be accomplished by a qualified arhorist under the inspection of a certified oak tree consultant. 4 -5 Copies of the final tree report and the City approved grading and landscape plans shall he maintained on site during all site construction. 4 -0 All tree mitigation techniques shall be observed on -site by a qualified oak tree consultant and the following preservation program should be implemented to ensure that the saved trees will remain valuable assets to the community: a) All saved trees within 50 teet of proposed grading shall he fenced at their driplines with protective fencing before any site grading commences. Fencing will he installed to prevent equipment storage, debris dumping, parking, etc., from occurring within the native tree dripline Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Analysis City of .Moorpark Page III 51 Revised Oraft Initial Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 159 Christopher A. Joseph e$ Associates Decemher 2006 during construction. The fence shall remain during all phases of construction and shall not he moved without consultation with a qualified oak tree consultant and approved by the City of Moorpark Planning Department. h) Any brush clearance within the drip line areas shall be completed by handwork only. c) All dead wood removal and /or pruning shall he accomplished after the City of Moorpark Planning Department has approved the grading plans. Dead wood removal is the removal of dead wood from within the tree, while structural pruning is for clearance only and safety pruning is the pruning of hazardous limbs; this should only he done if approved by the Planning Department. d) All dead wood removal and /or pruning shall he done by a qualified arborist under the inspection of a qualified oak tree consultant. Pruning wounds shall not he sealed unless required by the Planning Department. e) Climbing gaffs shall not he used by any tree climber except to reach an injured climber or when removing a tree. f) The water frequency shall be done on an as needed has[,, and is subject to the evaluation from a qualified oak tree consultant. g) Native trees are in a dormant state during the summer months and do not require regular or constant watering or fertilizing. Watering is normally contemplated only following long periods of extreme drought. h) All non -oak trees may he fertilized with a nitrogen fertilizer if it is determined that it would he beneficial. This fertilizer is to he applied just prior to watering. i)Prior to construction, the vigor of the saved trees shall he assessed by a qualified oak tree consultant. If the trees are to he treated, it shall he by a California licensed Pest Control Applicator for diseases that are abnormal, conditions which interfere with the normal physiological functioning of a plant and /or pests that are present. These recommendations shall he made by a California Pest Control Advisor. j)During all phases of construction the health of the trees shall he monitored for disease signs and symptoms. These problems, if they arise, shall he remedied as soon as possible. k) It tXts asc encountered in 'Awj as s +tc native trees, they shall tv,- mmuved k'. a psofessic�s�e�, Beekeeper. 1) Initially, all grading within the dripline shall he done by hand, under the observation of a qualified oak tree consultant. If any roots are encountered, they shall he saved /bridged except in a rut `lope situation and covered with a minimum o1' h inches of sand. All pruned roots shall Moorpark Country Club Fctates Expansion Project /I /. Environmental Impact Analysis Gill' of Moorpark Page 111•53 Revised Draft Initial .Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 160 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Decemher 2006 consist of clean -cut surfaces at a 90- degree angle and shall not be sealed unless required by the City Planning Department. m) If retaining walls are to he built, all footings should he primarily in an outward direction (away from the trunk). Back fill the wall with topsoil from the site. n) The following are prohibited: i. Nailing grade stakes or anything else to any native tree; ii. Designing and /or installing any landscape planting, irrigation and /or utilities within 15 feet of any trunk, unless approved by the Planning Department; and iii. Applying chemical herbicides within 100 feet of any native tree dripline. o) All cavities should be cleaned out, and screening shall he applied to prevent debris build -up. p) The dust accumulation onto the tree's foliage (from nearby construction) shall be hosed off periodically during construction, under the recommendation of a qualified oak tree consultant. Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page 111 -53 Revved Draft Initial Stud• Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 161 Christopher A. Joseph c& Associates Decemher 2006 sueeessful 136M fig, 1FORSPHN ORd FePlanling of e0itst live Ook trees. The Richofisf shall be rfesent The following mitigation measure, 4 -7, pplies to the Mazur Parcel only: 4 -7 The Heritage Oak Tree shall be Preserved in place by use of a retaining wall on the west side of the tree outside of the tree, outside of the drip line. The multi - purpose trail shall he aligned adjacent to the tree, and a bench installed adjacent to the tree. The following mitigation measure, 4 -8, applies to both Husted and Mazur Parcels: 4 -8 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsenuent permits, the applicant shall prepare a landscaped plan pursuant to the City of Moorpark's Landscape Guidelines and shall adhere to the Guidelines prohibition of the use of plant species as listed. The landscape plan and the Guidelines list of prohibited plant species shall be incorporated into the CC &R's for both the Husted and Mazur subdivision developments. The Community Development Director shall review and approve the final landscape plan prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of subsenuent permits. Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated (for a federal ordinance protecting native bird species). In addition to local policies and ordinances, the federal Migratory Bird Trcaty Act (MBTA), first enacted in 1916, prohibits any person to: "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill. possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase...- any migratory bird. The list of migratory birds includes nearly all bird species native to the United States; non- native species such as European starlings or rock doves (commonly called "pigeons") are not 'smctuded. 'lhc statute was extended in 1974 to include parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. Thus, it is illegal under MBTA to directly kill, or destroy a nest of, nearly any bird species, not just she Coy f Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expunsion Project 111. Errrirunmerntul Impact Analysis Ciry of Mourpark Page 111 -;a Rey oed Draft butial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 162 Christopher A. Joseph &: Associates December 2006 endangered species. Activities that result in removal or destruction of an active nest (a nest with eggs or young being attended by one or more adults) would violate the MBTA. Removal of unoccupied nests, or bird mortality resulting indirectly from a project, is not considered a violation of the MBTA. California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3512 also prohibit take of birds and active nests. Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game, upon reviewing environmental documentation for the Toll Brothers project, will require compliance with MBTA and the California Fish and Game code. Depending on the timing of project construction, the Mazur and Husted projects may affect protected bird nests Compliance with the mitigation measures provided below would ensure compliance with MBTA and CDFG code and that impacts to bird species are less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to both project parcels: 4 -89 Project grubbing and other project construction activities that may destroy bird nests shall he limited to the non- hreeding season for most birds, approximately September 1 through March 1. A biologist would not be required to oversee these activities during the non - breeding season. 4 -910 It' project grubbing and grading cannot avoid the breeding season, a survey of the construction zone by a qualified ornithologist prior to the initiation of any project grubbing or grading activity can he conducted. If the ornithologist detects any occupied nests of native birds within the construction zone, a minimum buffer of 100 feet between the nest and limits of construction shall he established, and the construction crew shall be instructed to avoid any activities in this zone until the bird nest(s) is /are no longer occupied, per a subsequent survey by the qualified ornithologist. I) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels.. No Impact. Neither the Mazur nor Husted project sites (car other areas within the City of Moorpark) are located in an area included in an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher April 24. 2(1U3, and, as is most of the City of Moorpark, the Husted and Mazur project sites are located within Unit 13 of the proposed critical habitat. Ilowever, critical habitat does not apply to the Husted or Mazur project, because they are not lands under the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Areas designated as critical habitat receive protection from the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification through Moorpark Country Chih Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis 0tv of Moorpark Page / /I- i i Reviwd Draft Initial sttttiv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 163 Christopher A. Joseph cic Associates December 2006 required consultation under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Consultation under section 7 does not apply to activities on private or other non - Federal lands that do not involve a Federal action. Aside from the protection that may he provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat. (USFWS 2003). .Mitigation Measures None Required. Cumulative Impacts. Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project in conjunction with the 16 related projects would not combine to significantly impact wildlife corridors or habitat for anv candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other than the Toll Brothers Moorpark Country Club Estates related project, no other related projects are in close enough proximity to the project parcels to combine to create a cumulatively considerable impact. The development of the Moorpark Country Club Estates to the south of the project site parcels has incorporated and implemented mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, cumulative impacts to biological resources would he less than significant. References Culifornm Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Special plants. Heritage section, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. California Native Plant Society. 2004. Electronic inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California, search for .special status plants of ( "SGS :Moorpark and .Simi 71: ' topo quads CAPS. Sacramento. California. California Auturul Diversity Data Base 2004. Data base search for special status elements of I SGS 7',' Moorpark and Simi topo quads. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. The Planning Associates. 2004. Jurisdictional Delineation of the 38.62 Acre Husied Property, Located in .Moorpark; Ventura County. Prepared for Toll Brothers, inc. by I'he Planning Associates. 3151 Airway Ave.. .Suite R 1, Costa Mesa CA, 92626. August 10, 2004. Phor, D. 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento (!.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002 (13 Jun). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, review of species that are candidates or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened. Federal Register 67.40657 40679. Moorpark Country Cfuh Estates Expansion Pro)ect M. Environmentul Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page 111 -56 Revised Draft Initial ,Studs, Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 164 Chrisropher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 S.CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: Lets III= Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact incorporation Less 7baa Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ■ a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 13 13 13 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 0 . an archaeological resource pursuant to $15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological Cl 0 resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The following analysis is based on a Cultural Resource Records Search, performed by the South Central Coastal Information Center, dated September 16, 2(X)4. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5:' Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. Section 15004.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as: (1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State tlistorical Resources Commission, tot listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. (2) a resource listed in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting certain state guidelines-, or (3) an object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to he significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California, provided that the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. A project - related significant adverse effect could occur it the proposed project would adversely affect an historical resource meeting one of these definitions. The project site is not listed on anv National. Moorpark Comntry Club Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Analvsis City of Moorpark Page Ill -i7 Revised Draft Initial.Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 165 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2WO State, or City historic resource registers." A review was conducted of the fallowing: the California Point of Historical Interest (2004) of the Office of Historic Preservation; the California Historical Landmarks (2004) of the Office of Historic Preservation; the California Register of Historic Places (2004); the National Register of Historic Places (2004) and the California Historic Resources Inventory (2004). No properties were listed on any of these resources within a '/ mile radius of the project site. Therefore, no project impacts to historical resources would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. A project - related significant adverse effect could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed project would disturb archaeological resources or geologic features. Five archaeological sites have been identified within a '/z mile radius of the project site; however, no sites arc located within the project site. No sites are listed on the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility (DOE) list and no isolates have been identified within a '/z mile radius. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during project activities (e.g., excavation, grading, construction, etc.), mitigation measures have been provided to mitigate potential impacts. Therefore, with the recommended mitigation measures, impacts to archaeological resources would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures Thv, following mitigation measures apply w bmh p roSect parcels: 5 -1 Prior to site preparation or grading activities, construction personnel shall he informed by the project applicant of the potential for encountering unique archaeological resources and taught how to identify these resources if encountered. This shall include the provision of written materials to familiarize personnel with the range of resource that might be expected, the type of activities that may result in impacts, and the legal framework of cultural resources protection. All construction personnel shall he instructed to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified archaeologist assesses the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall " Source: Correspondence from .South Central Coastal Information Center, Cultural Records Search, .Septemher 16.2004. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Anal, sis Cin of Moorpark puge 111-58 Revised Draft Initial Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 166 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 also be informed that unauthorized collection of archaeological resources is prohibited. 5 -2 In the event that subsurface archaeological resources are encountered during the course of grading and for excavation, a qualified archaeologist shall he notified within 24 hours of, discovery. The qualified archaeologist shall first determine whether an archaeological resource uncovered during construction is a "unique archaeological resource" under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g). If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique resource ", the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the City of Moorpark Planning Department that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2 If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archeological resource, the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System South Central Coastal Information ('enter. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City of Moorpark Planning Department and to the California Historic Resources Information System South Central Coastal Information Center. cl Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. A project- related significant adverse effect could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed project would disturb paleontological resources or geologic features. There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on either project parcel. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during project activities (e.g., excavation, grading, construction, etc.l, mitigation measures have been provided to mitigate potential impacts. Therefore, with the recommended mitigation measures, impacts to paleontolocial resources would be less than significant. A itigatiou Measures The following mitigation measure, 5 -3, applies to both [lusted and Mazur Parcels. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysts Citv of Moorpark Page 111 - 59 Re oed Draft Initial Sttttiv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 167 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 .O 5 -3 Prior to the issuance of the first grading-permit a soils report smell be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval identifying the types of soils that will be exposed to grading/disturbance activities. Along with this report, a paleontological mitigation program plan, outlining procedures for site inspections, paleontological data recovery, and resource ownership, shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The program shall include sufficient monitoring of the potential fossil - bearing areas of the site during grading operations with procedures for resource recovery to ensure that paleontological resources are not lost during grading operations. Paleontological resource requirements shall be incorporated as a note on the grading plan cover sheet. For most grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the property owner or the City of Moorpark at the expense of the project aupticant to moaitor, and, if necessary, salvage scientifically significant fossil remains during grading operations. The duration of these inspections shall be determined by the paleontologist and shall depend on the sensitivity of the rock units, the rate of excavation, and the abundance of fossils. The duration shall be determined by: a. Grading activities in geologic units of high paleontological sensitivity shall require full - time monitoring by a qualified paleontologist. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project / //. Erndronmentai Impact Analysis Ciry of Moorpark Page 1/1 -60 Ravi wd Draft Initial .Stage Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 168 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 b. Geologic units of low or moderate paleontological sensitivity shall require part -time monitoring. if si¢nificanl fossils are observed during erading, full -time monitoring shall be implemented. c. The paleontologists shall have the power to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow for evaluation and any necessary salvage of exposed fossils. d. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units described in this assessment are not present subsurface or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries:' Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. A project - related significant adverse effect could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed project would disturb previously interred human remains. While there is no evidence that human remains are located on the project site, there is still a remote possibility that the construction phase of the proposed project could encounter human remains. in the event that human remains are encountered during project activities (e.g., excavation, grading, construction, etc.), mitigation measures have been provided to mitigate potential impacts. Therefore, with the recommended mitigation measure, impacts to human remains would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure applies to both project parcels. Mazur and Husled Parcels: 5 -sA in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are unearthed, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. The County Coroner shall he notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or believed to he Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the American Native Heritage Commission in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage commission must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendents shall complete their inspection within 24 hours of notification. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. Moorpark Countri- Club F.ytates Fxpanseon Project 1 /1. Environmental Impact Analvsty City of Moorpark Puke 111 -61 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 169 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Cumulative Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the proposed project in conjunction with the 16 related projects would result in further development of residential and commercial land uses in the City of Moorpark. Similar to the project site, all of the related projects will he required to conduct archeological /paleontological investigations to conform with CEQA and City requirements. There is a potential that one or more of the related projects might encounter archaeological or paleontological resources during the course of development. This potential is determined by such factors as whether exploitable archaeological resources (such as water, plant and animal food sources, shelter, and suitable lithic material for making tools) occur at any given related project site and the type of proposed development activities at that site. Of course, not all archaeological or paleontological resources are of equal value. While some have the potential to he scientifically significant due to rarity or their ability to provide new information, CEQA requires no further consideration of a "nonunique archaeological resource" other than the simple recording of its existence by the lead agency, if it so elects. Therefore, the significance of cumulative impacts to archaeological resources is not determined simply by the frequency of the encounter, but more to the point by the nature of that encounter. Furthermore, with archaeologiial resources, the mere fact of an encounter does not imply an adverse impact. With appropriate mitigation, such an encounter may lead to the recovery of scientifically highly important remains that would not even have been exposed without these activities. Thus, such encounters can easily he considered beneficial impacts cif development. Because the discovery of archaeological or paleontological resources is a fairly rare event, and because the discovery of rare achaeological or paleontological resources is even more rare event, and because the discovery of rare archaeological or paleontological resources may lead U) their recovery rather than their destruction, it is unlikely that there would he a significant adverse cumulative impact to archaeological or paleontological resources. Also, as discussed above, the mitigation measures recommended for the project parcels would he sufficient to reduce its potential incremental impact to less than significant. .400rpark Co intry Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis Cut, of Aoorpark Page 111.61 Reviued Draft Initial Smdv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 170 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: I.as Tttan significant Potenttany With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ h) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). creating substantial ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The following analyses are based on two geotechnical investigations performed on the two project site parcels by Geo labs- West take Village; Reconnaissance Geotechnical Investigation of Mazur Property, 7505 Walnut Canyon Road, City of Moorpark, California dated October 20, 2003 and revised January 23, 2004; and Geolechnical Investigation of [lusted Property, Fastern Side of Grimes Canyon, North of Moorpark Countrn, Club Estates Expansion Project /11. Environmental ImpactAnalrsis City of Moorpark Page 111-63 Revi. %(,d Draft Inival.Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 171 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2000 Championship Drive, City of Moorpark, California dated August 30, 2004. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project site is located within a state - designated Alquist - Priolo Zone or other designated fault zone, and appropriate building practices are not employed. In general the City of Moorpark lies between two active fault systems; the Oak Ridge fault on the north and the Simi -Santa Rosa on the south. The surface trace of the Oak Ridge fault is located at the foot of the Oak Ridge Mountains in the Santa Paula Valley and therefore does not traverse the City. The southern part of the City of Moorpark, the California Geological Survey (formerly the Division of Mines and Geology) has designated an Alquist - Priolo Fault Zone for many of the traces of the Simi -Santa Rosa fault."' Neither the flusted Parcel nor the Mazur Parcel of the project site is included in this Alquist - Priolo Fault Zone; thus, impacts due to onsite rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a proposed project represents an increased risk to public safety or destruction of property by exposing people, property or ia(rastructure to seismically induced ground shaking hazards that are greater than the average risk associated with locations in the southern California region. As with all properties in the seismically active Southern California region, the project parcel sites are susceptible to ground shaking during "I City of Moorpark Safety Element. Figure 4 -1. page 4 -3, March 2001. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Fn.•ironmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page Ill A4 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 172 C hristopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2000 seismic events produced by local faults. While it is likely that the project site will he shaken by future earthquakes produced in southern California, modern, well - constructed buildings are designed to resist ground shaking through the use of shear panels and reinforcement. While the understanding of seismic activity grows over time, and additional faults are discovered, the site currently is not included in a State- designated Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (see Section VI (a) i, above). Potential impacts from seismic ground shaking are present throughout Southern California and would not he higher at the project site than for most of the City of Moorpark or elsewhere in the region. Also, the Uniform Building Code, revised since the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, contains construction requirements to assure habitable structures are built to a level of acceptable seismic risk. The project parcels will be required to comply with existing codes which reduce seismic risks to an acceptable level. Based upon the above considerations, the risks from seismic ground shaking are considered less than significant. Although impacts would he less than significant, the following mitigation measure is included to highlight the project requirements that allow for this conclusion. Mirikation Measures The following mitigation measure, 6 -1, applies to both Husted and Mazur Parcels. 6 -1 The project shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation of the Husted Property, prepared by Geolabs- Westlake Village, August 30, 20113 and the Geotechnical Investigation of the Mazur Property, prepared by Geo labs- Westlake Village, October 20, 2003 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? A significant impact may occur if a project is located in an area identified as having a high risk of liquefaction and mitigation measures required within such designated areas are not incorporated into the project. liquefaction describes a phenomenon where cyclic stresses, which are produced by earthquake- induced ground motions, create excess pore pressures in cohesionless soils. As a result, the soils may acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral spreading, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, ground oscillation, flow failure, loss of hearing strength, ground fissuring, and sand hoils, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, non - saturated soils as excess pore water escapes. Figure 111.6 -1 illustrates liquefaction zones for the project parcel sites and area. Husted Parcel Less than Significant Impact. The possibility of liquefaction occurring at a given site is dependent upon the occurrence of a significant earthquake in the vicinity; sufficient groundwater to cause high pore pressures; and on the grain size, relative density, and confining pressures of the soil at the site. As shown in Figure II1.6 -1, the project parcel contains an area of historic occurrence of liquefaction Moorpark Country Club F,states F-xpanston Project /1/. Environmental ImpactAnalvsi.+ t itv of .Moorpark faze 111 -65 Ret -iced Draft Initial Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 173 Christopher A. Joseph &A ssocialei December 2000 or has the potential for liquefaction. The area designated as such on the Seismic Hazards Zone map is found in the northwestern portion of the project parcel at the lowest elevations of the site. No single family home lots are proposed in this location; rather, one of the two proposed detention basins would he constructed in this area at the foot of a re- contoured slope with drainage courses. Further, the geological report for the parcel drilled borings during the geotechnical investigation, and found no groundwater present within the upper fifty feet of the soil profile. Consequently, in the absence of shallow groundwater, the potential for liquefaction to adversely affect the Husted Parcel is considered to he low. Further, no single family homes are proposed on the area in which historic occurrence of liquefaction or the potential for liquefaction to occur. Based on the geotechnical report's findings and evaluation of the State's Seismic Hazards Map, impacts of the proposed project in relation to liquefaction would he less than significant. In addition, the geotechnical report would be subject to independent review by the lead agency for adequacy in its evaluation of the potential Seismic Hazards. Specifically, Special Publication 117, Guidelines For Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, states the following: 'Prior to approving the project, the lead agency shall independently review the geotechnical report to determine the adequacy of the hazard evaluation and proposed mitigation measures and to determine the requirements of Section 3724 (a) (of the States C'CR Title 14) ... are satisfied. Such reviews shall be conducted by a certified engineering geologist or registered civil engineer, having competence in the field of seismic hazard evaluation and mitigation." Thus, the City is required by CCR Title 14, Section 3724 to conduct independent review of the geological investigation for adequacy of the hazard evaluation. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Emdronmental /mpactltnal)•cis Cin• of . Moorpurk Page //l 60 Re iscd Drafi lnitial.Studv Kesofutiorf m-ZW6- Page 174 LM 1 MAZUR PARCEL HUSTED 9 PARCEL �' i• r MAP EXPLANATION •l \ \ _ �` I ,, ,rI \ /,f Zones of Required Investigation- + \ X / - 1� /7 ' Tryt .� 1` ��iii '.• "BM 494 - _ •• E lwudtJndu<.d l./Wt.h! + ,l - - _ JJ �• =7Wti•:� +1 . 1 471' ae .� j�,t ice' �•...*_..... SCALE 1.24,000 1 .5 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000FELI 1 .5 0 1 KII CMr-TFR Source California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 2000 CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES Figure 111.6 -1 Seismic Hazards Map Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 175 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Mazur Parcel Less than Significant Impact. 'phe possibility of liquefaction occurring at a given site is dependent upon the occurrence of a significant earthquake in the vicinity; sufficient groundwater to cause high pore pressures; and on the grain size, relative density, and confining pressures of the soil at the site. The gcotechnical investigation for the Mazur Parcel did not specifically address liquefaction potential. However, the State's Division of Mines and Geology Seismic Hazards map (see Figure 111.6 -1) does not indicate any areas of potential liquefaction zones on the site. Further, based upon site reconnaissance during the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, conducted by Phase One Inc., September 2(X)3, groundwater was found to flow towards a southwesterly direction at a depth of 500 feet below the ground surface on the Mazur Parcel. Consequently, in the absence of shallow groundwater, the potential for liquefaction to adversely affect the Mazur Parcel is considered to he low and impacts would he less than significant. Further, as previously stated, the State requires the gcotechnical investigation would be reviewed by the lead agency for adequacy in its evaluation of potential seismic hazards. (iv) Landslides" Husted Parcel Less than Significant Impact. Figure 111.6 -1 illustrates the site's location in relation to earthquake induced landslide areas. In reviewing the figure, there are some areas within the project parcel that are subject to earthquake induced landslide areas. 'rhe Geotechnical Investigation of the Husted Property prepared by Geolabs- Westlake Village (see Appendix F) on August 30, 2(X)4, specifically investigated the possible presence of landslides on the Husted Parcel. Previous geological investigations conducted in 1981 and 2000 suggested the presence of a large landslide in the southwestern portion of the site. A 380-foot long continuous trench was excavated to investigate the possible presence of this landslide. The trench revealed evidence of minor faults and channeling, but evidence of landslides such as a graben, large offset faults or highly sheared clay beds was not observed. The gcotechnical report under recommendations does not specifically address recommendations for seismic hazards such as landslides or instable slope conditions. To stabilize the conditions, landslide areas should he removed and the soil recompactcd during grading operations. It is recommended that a subsequent geotechnical analysis he performed to verify that grading planned within landslide areas he remediated to result in a net landslide stability. Further. cut and fill slopes, foundations and structures are to he designed in accordance with the Unified Building Code, Chapter 70 requirements as well as applicable City and /or County grading ordinances. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, impacts with relation to landslides would he less than Significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure, 6 -2 applies to both Husted and Mazur Parcels. 11norpurk ('ountrt Chih F. states Erpansion Project /ll. f.nvironmentu/ Import Anal y si s ( 'it}- of :L1i)orpurk Page 1/1 -68 Revised Draft Initial Studs- Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 176 C'hrisropher A..Inseph & Asstxiates Decemher 2004 0 -2 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant shall contract with an engineering geologist. geotechnical engineer to verify that grading planned within landslide areas would he remediated. tt� . The findings and recommendation of the additional geotechnical assessment shall he incorfx) rated into the final design for the proposed project and approved by the City Engineer. Mazur Parcel Less than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Investigation of the Mazur Property prepared by Geolabs- Westlake Village (see Appendix F) on October 20, 2003, topography at the site does not suggest the presence of landslides, nor were landslides observed in recent borings at and in the vicinity of the Mazur Parcel. The Geotechnical report does indicate that there is the potential for unsupported planes of weakness in both north and northwest - facing natural and /or cut slopes. The report concludes that large buttressing of natural or cut slopes is not anticipated as part of the proposed project and thus, impacts would be less than significant. t. MitiXation Measures None required. h) Would the project result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant. A significant impact may occur i1 a project exposes large areas to the erosional effects of wind or water for a protracted period of lime. Development of the project site would include grading and excavation activities totaling approximately 1,150,000 cubic yards on the Husted Parcel and 425,000 cubic yards on the Mazur Parcel. All earthwork quantities will be balanced on -site, eliminating the need for import or export of soil. Potential erosion would he reduced by implementation of stringent erosion controls imposed during grading and via building permit regulations. All grading activities require grading permits from the City Engineer, which include requirements and standards designed to limit potential impacts to acceptable levels. With implementation of the applicable grading and building permit requirements and the application of Best Management Practices, impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to both project parcels. These measures are required to ensure the application of Best Management Practices and compliance with all code and ordinance 44norpurk Couture• (luh Estate% F-xpunsiort Project /11. Environmental Impact Anallois Cite njAfoorpark Page Ill 09 Revised Dray Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 177 Christopher A..loseph & Associates Derember 2006 requirements to minimize potential impacts associated with short -term construction- related grading impacts: 6 -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any development on the project site parcels, the project applicant shall submit an erosion control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. The erosion control plan shall include measures to reduce the amount of onsite and offsite erosion during construction of the proposed project, proper care of drainage control devices, proper irrigation, rodent control, and landscaping. To supplement the erosion control plan, hydroseeding of affected graded slopes shall he performed by the project applicant within 30 days of grading of the slope area. 6 -4 The erosion control plan shall cover additional measures needed for grading between October and April to reduce runoff around the project site. Such measures should include drainage channels lined with grass or roughened pavement to reduce runoff velocity. 6 -5 Appropriate erosion control and drainage devices, such as sand bags, and inlet and outlet structures, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including planting fast - growing annual and perennial grasses in areas where construction is not immediately planned. These would shield and bind the soil. 6 -6 Stockpiles and excavated soil shall be covered with secured tarps or plastic sheeting. cl Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant. A significant impact may occur if a project is built in an unstable area without proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations for project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and property. Potential impacts with regard to liquefaction and landslide potential are evaluated in Sections 6(a) iii and iv, above. Construction must comply with the mitigation measures listed in Section 6(a) ii and 6(b), including building foundation requirements appropriate to site conditions. in addition, as outlined in Measure 6 -2, each parcel development shall comply accordingly with recommendations set forth in Geotechnical Investigation of the Husted Property, prepared by Geolabs- West lake Village, August 30, 2003 and the Geotechnical Investigation of the Mazur Property, prepared by Geolabs-West lake Village, October 20, 2003. 'fhesc recommendations address removal of non - engineered artificial fill, alluvium, etc in areas of residential and street development, compaction of fills, stabilization of fills and buttresses, and grading specifications that pertain to the placement of and preparation for engineered fills. With incorporation of the previously identified mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. Moorpark Country Club l:starn F.xpan.sion Project ill. F.nrtrunmc oral Impar r Anals sts Page Ill -711 ('it of Moorpark Rc isrd Draft initial Stud Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 178 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 .Mitigation Measures See Mitigation Measure 6 -1. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as identified in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the project is built on expansive soils without proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations for project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and property. The project parcel sites are subject to the City of Moorpark's existing grading ordinance and the recommendations of the beotechnical reports prepared for each project parcel by the consulting geologist. Husred Parcel The Geotechnical Investigation Husted Property, prepared by Geolabs- Westlake Village, dated August 30, 2(x)4 outlines two different methods which may he utilized to mitigate the potential effects of expansive soils. One method, the California Slab Method (Spanahility Method) utilizes deepended footings and pre - swelling foundation soils and the other, outlines a Post - Tension Institute (PTI) Method, which relies upon increased stiffening of post - tension slabs to resist significant soil stresses due to variations caused by climatic conditions. The former attempts to retard soil movement and the latter attempts to minimize slab deflection in the face of soil movement. The implementation of the specifics of each method are provided in the Geotechnical investigation dated August 30, 2(x)4. As specified in Mitigation Measure 6 -1, the project shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Investigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Implementation of one of these methods and incorporation of the recommendations for post - tension design methods will ensure that potentially significant impacts would he mitigated to less than significant. Mitigation Measures See Mitigation Measure 6 -1. Mazur Parcel The Reconnaissance Geotechnical Investigation for the Mazur Parcel, dated October 20. 2003 did not specifically address expansive soils for the project site. The investigation did identify removal of alluvial and colluvial soils to approximately 35 feet fellow existing grade to remove unsuitable /unstable soils. It is recommended that a subsequent geoicchnical analysis be preformed to verify that planned grading would remediate unsuitable sails such as expansive soils to result in a net soil stability for the site. Further, all cut and fill slopes, foundations and structures are to he designed in accordance with the Unified Building Code, Chapter 70 requirements, as well as applicable City and /or County grading ordinances. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, impacts with relation to expansive soils would he less than significant Nfo(wpurk Cnuntrr Cluh Etituti,v Expanvion Project 111. F.nvirvmmental Impact Anah,ds ( -ity of Moorpark Page 111 -71 Revised Draft Initial StudN- Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 179 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Decemher 2006 Mitigation Measures 6 -7 Prier to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant, or subsequent developer, shall contract with an engineering geologist, geotechnical engineer to verify that planned grading planned will remediate unsuitable /unstable soils to result in a net soil stability for the site. The findings and recommendation of the additional geotechnical assessment shall he incorporated into the final design for the proposed project and approved by the City Engineer. 0 Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater`' Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. This question would apply to the proposed project only it' it were located in an area not served by an existing sewer system. The proposed project parcel sites arc located immediately adjacent to the existing Country Club Estates subdivision, which is served by a wastewater collection, conveyance and treatment system operated by the County of Ventura Waterworks District No. 1. No septic tanks or alternative disposal systems are necessary, nor are they proposed. No impact would occur. Cumulative Impacts Less than Significant Impact. Geotechnical hazards are site- specific and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between development of the proposed project and the related projects. However, the proposed project sites are directly adjacent to the Country Club Estates. Geotechnical surveys have already been conducted for this site and mitigation measures have been incorporated to ensure impacts are less than significant. As such, construction of the related projects is not anticipated to combine with the proposed project to cumulatively expose people or structures to such geologic hazards as landslides and /or unstable soils, or to increase the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, cumulative geological impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project l/I. t nvtronmeatal Impact Analvs(h City ()f Moorpark Page I//-71 Re%iced Draft Initial.Studs• Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 180 Christopher A..1o.u•ph & Associate's Dc'ccmher 2(X)6 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ❑ accident conditions involving the release of hazardous ❑ materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter ❑ ❑ ❑ mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government ('.ode Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a ❑ ❑ significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Moorpark Country Club E+rates Expansion Project M. F_m tronmental Impact Anuh"Nis Cit'v of .M , oorpark 1'a t, Ill ' 3 Revised Draft Initud Stutly Less Than Significant 7._ HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS _ PoteatisHy with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact Vo Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal ❑ ❑ ❑ of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ❑ accident conditions involving the release of hazardous ❑ materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter ❑ ❑ ❑ mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government ('.ode Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a ❑ ❑ significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Moorpark Country Club E+rates Expansion Project M. F_m tronmental Impact Anuh"Nis Cit'v of .M , oorpark 1'a t, Ill ' 3 Revised Draft Initud Stutly Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 181 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates !)ec•emher 2006 The following analysis is based in part on the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments prepared for the Husted Property and the Mazur Property in August and September 2(X)3 respectively, by Phase One, Inc.. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a proposed project involves use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its construction or routine operations and would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors. Uses sensitive to hazardous emissions (i.e., sensitive receptors) in the area consist of the single- family residential uses located in the residential subdivision to the south of the project site. Construction of the 87 single - family residences on -site would not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.. Other than typical cleaning solvents used for janitorial purposes, no hazardous materials would be used, transported or disposed of in conjunction with the routine day -to -day operations of the proposed project. No impact would occur. Demolition Husted Parcel No Impact. The parcel site is currently vacant with no existing structures on -site. Therefore, no demolition activities would occur in which hazardous materials would he transported or disposed. As a result, no impact would occur. Mitigation Mea.sure.s None required. Mazur Parcel Less Than Significant. Two single- family residences and a garage are currently located on site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Mazur Parcel, dated September 2(x)3 did not identify lead based paint (LPB) for these structures and no sampling for LBP was performed as part of the assessment. It is possible that I_DP could he present in these structures. It is recommended that a LISP assessment of each structure be conducted and, if found, removed in accordance with applicable LISP removal and disposal regulations of the County Health Department, as well as other State and federal regulations. Moorpark (.aintrt Club Estate'.+ expansion Project III. Environmental Impact Anals•c�s ('itt• of Moorpark Page III -7! Ke vvie / Draft Initial Shull, Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 182 Christopher A..loseph c& As :soc'iare's Deremher 200A The Phase I also did not provide any identification if these buildings have asbestos - containing materials (ACM) and no sampling for ACM was performed as part of the assessment. It is recommended that a qualified asbestos abatement consultant provide documentation that no ACMs are present. If found to he present, then abatement would be required as mitigation in compliance with the Ventura Air Pollution Control District (APCD), as well as other State and federal regulations. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, impacts relating to LBP and ACM would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, 7 -1 and 7 -2, apply to the Mazur Parcel only. 7 -1 Prior to issuance of permits for demolition of the two single- family residences and garage, a lead -based paint assessment of each existing structure shall he conducted. lead -based paint found in any building shall be removed and disposed of as a hazardous waste in accordance to Title 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 745 which details lead abatement procedures and with all other applicable regulations. The applicant shall provide a letter to the City Department of Building and Safety from a certified lead abatement contractor demonstrating that either lead is not present or abatement would he required and performed. 7 -2 Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City Department of Building and Safety from a qualified asbestos abatement consultant that no asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are present in the buildings. If ACMs are found to be present, they shall he abated in compliance with the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Title 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 763 which regulates sampling techniques, abatement and air clearance, as well as handling and disposal requirements of the asbestos as hazardous waste. h) Would the project 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? Husled Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project utilizes substantial quantities of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations and could potentially pose a hazard to nearby sensitive receptors under accident or upset conditions. The proposed project would use. at most, minimal amounts of hazardous materials (i.e. household cleaners etc.) and therefore would not pose any substantial potential for accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material.. Mitigation Measures Moorpark Counir'• Club F.siares Expansion Project ttr. tm rrunmcnrut trri].ut c Page 1/. (,it y of Moorpark Rerisrd Draft Initial Study' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 183 Christopher A. Joseph R Associates Deremher 2000 Done required. C) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school" Moorpark CCountrc Club Eitates f :.%pamiun Project 111. Ent ironinentul Impact Attu/ vws City o%:Noorpurk Page 111 -70 Rcvned Draft Initial Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 184 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less Than Significant Impact. A project - related significant adverse effect may occur if a project site is located within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school site and is has the potential to emit hazardous emissions. There are no schools located within one - quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school, Walnut Canyon Elementary School, is approximately 1.25 miles from both project parcels sites. In addition, as stated in 7 (b), above, the proposed project would use, at most, minimal amounts of hazardous materials and therefore would not pose any substantial potential for accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Thus, the proposed project impact concerning emission of hazardous materials near an existing school would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Husted Parcel Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. A thorough review of all relevant and available historical information for the Husted Parcel, dating hack to 1945, conducted as part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the site by Phase One Inc., dated September 2(X)3, found that the Husted Parcel is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites. The Phase 1 report did note two areas of minor concern on the Husted Parcel which may require further investigation. Firstly, aerial photographs take in 1945 and in 1989 show that the site was used for agricultural purposes in the past. As this site is intended to he developed for residential uses, there is the potential for residual agricultural chemicals in near surface soils to pose a health -risk for site occupants. However, it should be noted that portions of the City of Moorpark have been developed in which the land was previously under agricultural production (e.g., row crops) for many years. This land has been converted to residential and other development without the need for substantial soil rcmediation. Development of the proposed project would result in similar rcmediation. Nevertheless, given the potential does exist, this impact is potentially significant and mitigation measures arc recommended to reduce the impact to less than significant. Therefore, it is recommended as mitigation that a subsequent environmental assessment he performed to test soils for presence of chemicals used in agricultural. If such agricultural chemicals are discovered, actions need to be identified for soil rcmediation under the California Department of 'Toxic Substance Control (DISC) regulations and methods need to be acceptable to the City Engineer. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts would he less than significant. Moorpark Country Chrh Estates Vxpansion Project 111. Environmental Impart Analysis (in. o% Moorpark Puge l/1 -77 Revowd Draft Initial Snuly Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 185 Christopher A. Joseph K Associates December 2006 Secondly, the review of California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources Maps for the area of the site reveal that an oil well was indicated near and possibly bordering the subject site. Concerns that may be associated with oil wells include the following: ( i ) It is not uncommon to find an "apron" of surficial petroleum hydrocarbon impact surrounding the wellhead that can extend to distances of 20 feet; (2) it was typical practice for several nearby wells to share a "mud pit." A mud pit is a large (sometimes hundreds of feet in circumference), hermed pit that contains the circulation mud used to cool the drill hit at depth. The mud commonly contains additives that may be considered hazardous by today's standards. Mud pits were typically abandoned in place by being buried with dirt. There is no indication that a mud pit is located on site; however, because mud pits did not require permits, few records were kept regarding their exact location. The hest way to determine the location of the pits used to drill a particular well is to review aerial photographs from the exact year and month the well was drilled (if available); (3) Well- abandonment practices in the past have differed greatly from current standards. Due to poor abandonment practices, methane gas generated at depth has been known to seep to the surface. Methane, in certain concentrations, can he explosive. The Phase I assessment did not review the records of the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources regarding the exact legal location of the well and the methods by which is was abandoned need. It is recommended as mitigation that subsequent environmental assessment he conducted to review such records and determine the location of the well. If this well is found to he several hundred feet from the project site boundary, no further action is required. However, if the well is found to he adjacent to the project site, then it is recommended that additional subsurface investigation and methane gas testing to evaluate the likelihood that a hydrocarbon apron and /or mud pit extends onto the site and remedial actions would he required. In addition, the investigation needs- to examine records regarding well abandonment procedures. If it were found that the well was not abandoned in accordance with Ventura County Fire Department and the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources regulations, then abandonment per these regulations would be required. Further, if methane is found on site through this subsequent assessment that remediation would he required in accordance to the Ventura County Fire Department regulations. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, 7 -3 through 7 -5, apply to the Husted Parcel only. 7 -4-3_ Prior to recordation of the Final 'tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the applicant shall prepare a subsequent environmental assessment in accordance to the findings of the Phase I Environmental Assessment (dated August 2(1()3). 'f he subsequent environmental assessment shall include review of the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal records regarding the exact legal location of the well and the methods by which the well was abandoned. If this well is found to he several hundred feet from the project site boundary, no further action is required. However, if the well is found to be adjacent to the project site, subsurface investigation and methane gas testing shall he required to evaluate the likelihood that a hydrocarbon apron and /or mud pit extends onto the site. If the hydrocarbon Moorpark Country Club Fstates F.xpamion Project Ill. Environmental lmpact Analvcic Cin• of Moorpark Page 1/1 -78 Revised Draft Initial Saidv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 186 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 apron and or mud pit are discovered, actions need to he identified for remediation under the California Department of Toxic Control regulations, and other local, State and federal regulations. The City Engineer shall approve the findings and recommendations of the subsequent environmental assessment prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits. 7 -A It' the subsequent environmental assessment finds the well was not abandoned in accordance with Ventura County Fire Department and the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources regulations, then abandonment per these regulations shall he required. 7 -35 It' methane gas is found during the subsequent environmental assessment testing, methane remcdiation design shall be provided with an approved Methane Control System, which shall include a vent system and gas - detection system. The gas - detection system shall be designed to automatically activate the vent system when an action level equal to 25 percent of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) methane concentration is detected or the system shall be designed in accordance to regulations of the County Fire Department, or other local, State and federal agencies. Routine monitoring and maintenance of the system to prevent water intrusion into the vent system shall he performed to the satisfaction of the Ventura County Fire Department. A trained individual under contract with the project applicant shall perform routine monitoring and maintenance and subject to periodic inspection by the Ventura County Fire Department. The City Engineer shall approve the final design and recommendations of the subsequent environmental assessment prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits. Mazur Parcel I,ess than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. A thorough review of all relevant and available historical information for the Mazur Parcel, dating hack to 1945, conducted as part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the site by Phase One inc., dated August 2003, found that the Mazur Parcel is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites. The Phase i report did note two areas of minor concern based on this records search anti on -site observations. Firstly, a pole - mounted transformer was observed on the southwestern portion of the project site. Given the pre -1970 date of development of the project site, the presence of polychlorinated hiphenyls (PCB) containing fluids in the transformer is suspected. However, no leakage or staining is visible on or around the transformer, and no action was recommended by Phase One inc., at this time. If leaks should develop, the fluid should be tested for the presence of PCBs. if the analysis results indicate that the transformer contains PCBs, the utility would he responsible for mitigating any leakage and staining, and for changing the fluids in the transformer. Secondly, the current property owners indicated that a water well, which is no longer in use, is located on -site. However, it is not known if the method by which the property owner abandoned the well is technically sound and in accordance with all regulatory agency guidelines. This well is identified as number 33D1 on the Fox Canyon Moorpark C'onntr% Club E.stares Expansion Project fit. Environmental Impact Anahsts Cm- of .Moorpark Page 1/179 Revowd Praft Initial Studr Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 187 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Groundwater Management Agency Water Well Map for the project site and vicinity.'" Therefore, it is recommended that as mitigation, the exact location of the well he determined by a subsequent environmental assessment and the well he destroyed under the Ventura County Public Works Department water well abandonment and destroy requirements and procedures. With application of this measure, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, 7 -6 and 7 -7, apply to the Mazur Parcel only. 7 -46 Prier to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the subsequent environmental assessment shall include visual ohservation of the pole- mounted transformer for any leakage or staining. if leakage or staining on or around the transformer appear to have occurred, then the project applicant shall inform (in the firm of written communication) the utility company which is responsible for mitigating any leakage or staining, and for changing the fluids in the transformer. The project applicant shall also provide copies of the letter to the Ventura County Public Works Department and to the City Engineer demonstrating that communication has occurred between the applicant and the utility company. 7 -47 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the subsequent environmental assessment shall identify the exact location of well number 331)1 on the Mazur Parcel site and provide recommendations for water well abandonment and destroy procedures pursuant to the requirements of the Ventura County Well Ordinance Number 4184. The project applicant shall provide a letter to the Ventura County Public Works Department and to the City Engineer demonstrating that well abandonment and destroy procedures were conducted in accordance with said ordinance. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. The nearest airports are the Oxnard Airport and the Camarillo Airport which are located 34 and 26 miles to the southwest of the project site respectively. Furthermore, the project site is not in the vicinity of an airport land use plan. Therefore, no impact would incur. "' Map priwided by Mr. David Porno, Fox Cunvon Groundwater Management Agencr•, .lanuarr 20. 2004. Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Anal sis City of Moorpark PaKc 1/1 80 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 188 Christopher A. Joseph (.ti Associates December ZpOh Mitigation Measures None required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. This question would apply to the proposed project only if it were in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would subject area residents and workers to a safety hazard. The proposed project is not located in the vicinity ofa private airstrip. No impacts would occur. .Mitigation Measures None required. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to interfere with roadway operations used in conjunction with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic congestion that would interfere with the execution ol'such a plan. Short -term construction activities of the proposed project could result in temporary lane closures. but would not substantially impede public access or travel upon public rights -of -way and would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (c.g.. no existing street patterns would be changed). In addition, project impacts to area traffic would have no significant impacts on nearby roadways or intersection operations that might result in the interference with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Sec Section 15, below). No impact would occur. Mitigation Measure.s None required. h) 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? Ill. E,nvironmentalImpact Anuh'sis Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project Page 111 -81 CttV of .kfoorpark Kes iced Draft Initial Stud)' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 189 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates DccCmhrr 2000 Rusted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less Than Significant Impact. Project development on both parcels will comply with the Ventura County Fire Department Fuel Modification and Weed Abatement programs. Project design on both parcels incorporates the 100 foot fuel modification /weed abatement zone required by the VCFD. In addition, only VCFD approved fire - resistant plants will he used in landscaping. 'I'hese precautions will provide defensible areas between single- family residences on the project site and the open space areas. Consequently, impacts to people or structures involving the risk of loss, injury or death as a result of wildland fires are anticipated to he less than significant. .Mitigation Meavures None required. Cumulative Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the proposed project in combination with the related projects has the potential to increase the use, storage, transport, and /or release of hazardous materials in the City of Moorpark. However. most of the related projects are not located in close proximity to the proposed project site. "therefore, it is unlikely that one or more of the related projects would combine with the proposed project, resulting in significant cumulative impacts. One of the related projects (as listed in Section 11. Project Description), the Toll Bros (Moorpark Country Club Estates project) is directly adjacent to the two project site:. However, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared for the Country Club Estates project and mitigation measures have been incorporated to ensure that impacts are tells than significant. Additionally. the presence of any hazardous substances associated with any (it the identified related projects in the vicinity of the proposed project would require evaluation for potential threats to public safety. 'this would occur for each individual project affected, in conjunction with development proposals on these properties. Further, local municipalities are required to follow local, state and federal laws regarding hazardous materials. Finally, environmental analysis for each related project site addresses wildland fires. 'I'herctore, assuming compliance with local, state and federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. 111. f:nvironmr•nrul lrrtnurt Analvs(c Moorpark Country Club !_stulee fapan� ion !'rojcc'r Page 111 -82 ('11v of Moorpark Rci -iced Draft htitrul Stttdy Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 190 Christopher A. Joseph (It Associates December ZDOG b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned s(ormwater drainage systems ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation trap? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a Moorpurk Country Club Estates Expansion Project l /1. Environmental lmpaci Anulvvi City of Moorpark Pair /11-83 Revised Draft Initial Sittdv Less Than significant $. HYDROLAGY AND WATER OUAIATy _ Would petestiaoy with Less Than the project: sipuHcaut Mitigation significant Impact Iacohporatioo impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ■ ❑ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned s(ormwater drainage systems ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation trap? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a Moorpurk Country Club Estates Expansion Project l /1. Environmental lmpaci Anulvvi City of Moorpark Pair /11-83 Revised Draft Initial Sittdv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 191 Christopher A..loveph & Associates December 2006 result of the failure of a levee or dam' j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The following analysis is based in part on the two hydrology reports prepared for the project site parcels: Tentative Map Hydrology_ Report and Hydraulic Analysis, Tentative Tract 5464 East Addition Moorpark Country Club Estates, prepared by Jensen Design and Survey, Inc., dated December 2003 and Tentative Mao Hydrology Resort and Hydraulic Analysis, Tentative Tract 5463 West Addition Moorpark Country Chub Estates, prepared by Jensen Design and Survey, Inc., dated December 2003 (see Appendix 11). Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant With Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if a proposed project would discharge water which does not meet the quality standards of agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts would occur if a project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include compliance with the Ventura County Sturm Water Quality Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (SQUiMP) requirements to reduce potential water quality impacts. The proposed project involves the development of 87 single- family residences on two non - contiguous parcels. Implementation of the proposed subdivisions may exceed water quality standards from increases in the level of activity on both project parcel sites. Construction activity typically produces potential pollutants such as suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides, toxic chemicals related to construction and cleaning, waste materials including wash water, paints, wood, paper, concrete, food containers, and lubricants. A Sturm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared for the project prior to commencement of grading activities. Development on both project parcels would increase impervious areas and introduce new land uses that would impact storm water quality. Further, both project parcels are located above the South Las Posas Valley Groundwater Basin, 21 which is managed by the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. The immediate area surrounding both parcels includes municipal wells operated by Watet " Fox Caron Groundwater Management Agency GroundK -ater Basinv ,Map. Sotme: httpl ipublic• workv. countyofi• entura .org/cgmalimages/gmabasins.htm, January 20, 2(X)5. Moorpark Country Chib Estates Expanvion Project ill. Environmental /mpuctAnahvis City of Moorpark Page 111 -84 Revised Draft Initial Surds Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 192 Christopher A..loseph & Associates December 2006 District Number I and Calleguas Municpial Water District, some of which are injection and extraction wells. There would he no industrial discharge to any public water system. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts would he less than significant. Husted Parcel According to the Fox Canyon Management Agency well map for the project area, there are two wells located on the Husted Parcel Site, wells numbers 31BI and 3182. There are no known no records of well abandonment for these wells. Therefore, mitigation is included for the applicant to identify the exact location of these wells on the Husted Parcel site and to abandon and destroy them in accordance to the require accordance to the requirements of Ventura County Public Works Well and Abandonment Ordinance Number 4184. With application of this measure, impacts would he less than significant. The proposed development on the Husted Parcel has been designed with two on -site detention basins to hold stormwater runoff to meet SQUIMP requirements. North of the Husted Parcel site is Waterworks Number I municipal groundwater well that could potentially he affected by the proposed single - family residential development. This site is also up gradient from the well and there arc several hundred feet (approximately 8(X) feet) below grade hefore reaching the aquifer and the soils are natural filter for percolation.'' Due to the depth of the gradient of the site to the well, the depth of the aquifer and the soils, stormwater collected in the proposed project detention basins would he filtered prior to reaching the groundwater table.' Therefore, impacts to the water quality in the aquifer would he less than significant. .Mazur Parcel The Mazur Parcel site includes a known groundwater well, number 33D1, to have been previously abandoned. Its not know, however, if abandonment was conducted under the provisions of Ventura County Ordinance Number 4184. Wells such as this can he a conduit for urban pollutants to directly enter the groundwater table and contaminate the source." A mitigation measure has been included, Mitigation Measure 7 -3, above, requiring the project applicant to abandon and destroy the well in accordance to the requirements of Ventura County Public Works Well and Abandonment Ordinance Number 4184. With implementation of this measure, impacts would he less than significant. The Mazur Parcel development project has been designed with one on -site detention basin to hold stormwater runoff to meet SQUIMP requirements. North of the Mazur Parcel site is Calleguas !hid. [hid. ' Telephone communication, David Panuro, Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency..lunuary 20, 20 05. Ill. Environmental Impact Analyse Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project Page Ill -NS (fit} of .Moorpark Reviser! Draft Initial Smdy Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 193 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2000 Municipal Well Number 28N3. The proposed Mazur Parcel includes a detention basin on -site, which would collect sturmwater runoff. The Calleguas well is downgradicnt from the project site by several hundred feet (approximately 985 feet) and there are approximately 500 to 600 feet below grade to the groundwater acquifer.`5 Due to the gradient of the site to the well, the soils of the site, and the depth of the acquifer, sturmwater collected in the detention basin would he filtered before reaching the groundwater table. Therefore no degradation of existing groundwater would occur and impacts would he less than significant", ,Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures, 8 -land 8.2, apply to both parcels: 8.1 Prior to issuance of the initial grading permits, the applicant shall have prepared a Storm Water Quality Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) for each parcel 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 SQUIMP for each parcel. The SQUIMP shall he reviewed and approved by the Moorpark Community Development Director and City Engineer. The development of the SQUIMPs shall conform to the Ventura County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, the SQUIMP standards, and the Technical Guidance manual for Storm Water Quality Control Measures. 8-2 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the project applicant shall design the on -site detention basins according to the Ventura County Watershed Protection District's standards specifically for detained volume to be between 10 year and 100 year volumes but released volume at no more than 10 year storm peak pre - development runoff rate to down stream facilities. Rusted Parcel 8 -23 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the subsequent environmental assessment shall identify the exact location of well numbers 31131 and 31132 on the Husted Parcel site and provide recommendations for water well abandonment and destroy procedures pursuant to the requirements of the Ventura County Well Ordinance Number 4184. The project applicant shall provide a letter to the Ventura County Public Works Department and to the City Engineer demonstrating that well abandonment and destroy procedures were conducted in accordance with said ordinance. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would Ibid. I bid. III. t nvironmentul lmpuc t Atia4sis Moorpark Couniry Club Estates Expansion Project Page 111 -86 CIA, of Moorpark Rerised Drat Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 194 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel 'rhe following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant. Groundwater sources presently constitute approximately 25 % of Ventura County Waterworks District No. I's water supply. As previously discussed, the project parcels are located above the South Las Posas Valley Groundwater Basin which is managed by the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. Neither development would not involve wells used to extract groundwater, nor would it involve any deep excavations that could require dewatering the site. In fact, the groundwater wells known to exist on site, one has been thought to have been abandoned on the Mazur Parcel and there are no known records of the Husted Parcel wells other than mapped information. Mitigation measures have been recommended to locate the wells and to abandon and destroy them in accordance to Ventura County Public Works Department procedures (see Mitigation Measures 7 -3 and 8 -1, above). Therefore, neither development project would substantially deplete groundwater supplies. The proposed development projects would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces through increased paved areas as the project site parcels are currently undeveloped. Neither project parcel is located in area mapped as groundwater recharge;" thus, the proposed developments would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or lower the local groundwater table and not affect the production rate of the pre- existing nearby wells. Detention basins are proposed for each parcel: two on the Husted Parcel and one on the Mazur Parcel. Though detention basins are proposed, percolation of water to the aquifer is not expected to adversely affect the groundwater table (sec Ha above for discussion on water quality). Therefore, for these reasons, impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. c) 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, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Husted Parcel Less than Significant. The Ventura County Flood Control District has jurisdiction over drainage` that affect flood control management within the City of Moorpark. The Husted Parcet is, located cid Panaro, Fox Canyon Groundwater Mangement Agency. January 20. 2005- Telephone communication, Dn III. Environmental Impact Analysis Moorpark ('ountry Club Estates Expansion Project Page 111-87 City of Moorpark .. 1 n....r. L,ennt Chuly Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 195 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 20()6 within both the Grimes Canyon and the Gabbert Canyon watersheds. The Grimes Canyon watershed encompasses approximately 1,1(X) acres of open space and agricultural land and drains southwest of the project site along (tic natural channel of Grimes Canyon Creek. The Gabbert Canyon watershed encompasses approximately 2,500 acres of agricultural, open space and low- density residential lands. Stormwater is conveyed southward along a natural stream bed to the Gabber( Canyon Debris Basin. A significant impact may occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantial alteration of drainage patterns that would in turn result in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation during construction or operation of the project. While no stream or river courses are located in either project parcel vicinity, the project site is located in a hillside area. Various mechanisms are included in the site design to prevent substantial erosion or siltation through on -site detention and debris basin planning. The site has been divided into subareas based on the locations of catch basins and high points. Onsite runoff will he collected by a system of catch basins and storm drain lines. Some off -site runoff enters the project site parcel from the north, and it will he picked up north o1' the development and directed to the natural watercourse. All flow from the on -site streets will he directed southeasterly to Detention Basin 5463 -A or Detention Basin 5463 -1 (refer to Figure 11 -3). Detention basin 5463 -A has a capacity of 75,(XX) cubic feet (cf); the storage volume required in a 100 -year storm event is 17,800 cf. Detention basin 5463 -1 has a capacity of 146,000 cf, the storage volume required during a 100 -year storm event is 22,500 cf. Both detention basins have capacity well in excess of the capacity required to contain a 100 -year storm event. Flow from the undeveloped area north of the Husted Parcel would not produce much debris; any debris and silt produced would likely settle out in the basin, reducing potential siltation downstream." The head wall for the storm drain would have a trash rack to filter trash and large debris from Stormwater and prevent it traveling downstream. Flow from the development would he conducted through storm drain pipes and the undeveloped slopes of the site would he planted and have drainage benches. Consequently, virtually no debris would he delivered to the natural water course. Development of 51 single family lots on the Rusted Parcel would approximately maintain the natural watercourse areas to their respective downstream channels. The hydrologic and hydraulic design would ensure that the 100 -year peak discharge from the fully developed project site would not exceed the 100 -year peak discharge in the natural condition, and the hydraulic of the proposed drainage system would function correctly and safely, conveying multiple (two consecutive) 100 -year storm events via surface emergency spillways. Based on a review of the FNMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the area covering the Husted Parcel, the parcel does not lie within a 100 -year flood zone. The applicable FIRM map shows that the 1(X)-year flow is fully contained in the natural channel. Additionally, all residential pads are designed to he above the adjoining road surfaces, and the storm drain catch basins are to he designed such that all flow would he contained within the curbs. Development of the 51 single- family lots on the Husted Parcel has been designed to ensure that substantial erosion or siltation would not occur and impacts would he less than significant. ,ratan ve Map HYdrology Report and Hydraulic Analysis, Tentative Truct S403 lYrst Addition, !Moorpark Country ('111h Estates, December 2003. 111. Environmental Impact Anulvsis moorpark Country Cluh F.Nraies Expansion Project I'aKe 111.88 Cin, of Moorpark Ret tsed Draft initial Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 196 Christopher A. Joseph & Aisociates December 2006 Mitigation Measures None required. Mazur Parcel Less than Significant. The Mazur Parcel is located within the Walnut Canyon watershed which encompasses approximately 1,8(X) acres of open space, agricultural land and low- density residential uses and drains southwest of the project site along the natural channel of Walnut Creek. As on the Ifustcd Parcel, onsite runoff will he collected by a system of catch basins and storm drain lines. Some off -site runoff enters the project site parcel from the north, and it will he picked up north of the development and directed to the natural watercourse. Flow from subareas I to 4B will drain to a new basin; Detention Basin 5464 -A, whilst the remaining subareas will all drain to Tract 4929 (refer to Figure 11 -4). Detention basin 5464 -A has a capacity of 94,0(X) cubic feet (cf); the storage volume required in a 100 -year storm event is 17,6(X) cf, well in excess of the capacity required to contain a IfX) -year storm event. Flow from the undeveloped area north of the Mazur Parcel would not produce much debris; any debris and silt produced would likely settle out in the basin, reducing potential siltation downstream.'" The head wall for the storm drain would have a trash rack to filter trash and large debris from stormwater and prevent it traveling downstream. Flow from the development would he conducted through storm drain pipes and the undeveloped slopes of the site would he planted and have drainage benches. Consequently, virtually no debris would he delivered to the natural water course. Development of 36 single- family lots on the Mazur Parcel would approximately maintain the natural watercourse areas to their respective downstream channels. The hydrologic and hydraulic design would ensure that the 1(X) -year peak discharge from the fully developed project site would not exceed the 100-year peak discharge in the natural condition, and the hydraulic of the proposed drainage system would function correctly and safely, conveying multiple (two consecutive) 100 -year storm events via surface emergency spillways. Based on a review of the FEMA Flood insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the area covering the Mazur Parcel, the parcel does not lie within a 100 -year flood zone. The applicable FIRM map shows that the 100 -year flow would he fully contained in the natural channel. Additionally, all residential pads are designed to he above the adjoining road surfaces, and the storm drain catch basins would he designed such that all flow would he contained within the curbs. Thus, development of the 36 single- family lots on the Mazur Parcel has been designed to ensure that substantial erosion or siltation would not occur and impacts would he less than significant. Tentative Map /lydrology Report and Hydraulic' Analysis, Tentative Tract 5164 Fast Addition Moorpark Country Cluh Estate%. Decemher 2013. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project W Fnrironmental Impact Ana&si% Oty of Moorpark Page 111 -89 Rei iced Draft Initial .Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 197 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Decemher 2000 Mitigation Measures None required. d) 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would result in increased runoff volumes during construction or operation, which in turn could result in flooding conditions affecting the project site or nearby properties. As described in Scction 8(c) runoff from the proposed project would drain to on -site detention basins or similar hydrologic mechanisms on the existing subdivision to the south. On each parcel, detention basins, storm drain pipes and drainage benches will he incorporated into the project design to ensure that I00 -year peak discharge in the proposed condition will not exceed the 100 -year peak discharge in the natural condition. Therefore, impacts would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. e) Would the project 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? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant. A significant impact may occur if the volume of storm water runoff from the project site were to increase to a level which exceeded the capacity of the storm drain system serving the project site. As discussed in Section 8 (c) above. storm water runoff will not exceed the capacity of the storm drain and detention basin system serving both the Husted and Mazur Parcels and no impacts to stormwater drainage systems are anticipated. A project - related significant adverse effect would also occur if the proposed project would substantially increase the probability that polluted runoff would reach the storm drain system. hfoorpark Country Chtb Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Anufrsis Cin• of Moorpurk 11age 1N W) Revised Drafl Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 198 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Construction - Related Project Impacts Three general sources of potential short -term conaniction retatc d stormwater pollution associated with the proposed project are: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion and transportation, via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. Generally, routine safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials may effectively mitigate the potential pollution of stormwater by these materials. These same types of common sense, "good housekeeping" procedures can be extended to non - hazardous stormwater pollutants such as sawdust and other solid wastes. Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze or other fluids on the construction site are also common sources of stormwater pollution and soil contamination. Grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes. Two general strategies are recommended to prevent construction silt from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control procedures must be implemented for those areas that must he exposed. Secondly, the area should he secured to control off -site migration of pollutants. These hest management practices (BMPs) are outlined in greater detail in the following Mitigation Measures section. When properly designed and implemented, these "good- housekeeping" practices will ensure that short -term construction- related impacts would he less than significant. Operation - Related Project Impacts Activities associated with operation of the proposed project would generate substances that could degrade the quality of water runoff. The deposition of certain chemicals by cars in the parking areas and the internal roadway surfaces could have the potential to contribute metals, oif and grease, solvents. phosphates, hydrocarbons, and suspended solids to the storm drain system. Ilowever, impacts to water quality would be reduced since the proposed project would be required to comply with the Ventura County Flood Control District National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit). This permit requires that the first three quarters of an inch of stormwater runoff from the impervious portion of the project site he treated prior to being released off -site. An approved method of treatment is to detain this first Y%-inch. Husted Parcel. The total street area within the Husted Parcel is approximately 1.15 acres which result,, in an additional 3,125 cf of stormwater to he detained in a 100 -year storm event. As mentioned previously in Section 8 (c), the two detention basins planned for the Dusted Parcel have capacities which exceed the capacity required in a 1(X) -year storm event. Detention Basin 5463 -A has a capacity of 75.(XX) cf. In a 100 -year storm event the storage volumes required is calculated at 17.800 cf. Even with the addition of 3,125 cf of stormwater, Detention Basin 5463 -A would have 54,075 cf in excess capacity. Detention Basin 5463 -B has a capacity of 146,0(10 cf. in a 1W-year storm event the storage volume required is calculated at 22,5041 cf'. Fven with the addition of 3,125 cf of stormwater, Detention Basin 5463 -B would have 120,375 cf in excess capacity. III. Enrironmenial impact Analv+is Mnurpark Co�untry Club Estates Expansion Pruiect Page 111 -91 ( if%. nj Moorpark Ret va d Oraft initial Stud Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 199 Christopher A..loseph do Associates December 2006 Mazur Parcel. The total street area within the Mazur Parcel is approximately 1.63 acres which results in an additional 4,450 cf of stormwater to be detained in a 100 -year storm event. As previously discussed in Section 8 (c), the detention basin planned for the Mazur Parcel has a capacity which exceed the capacity required in a 100 -year storm event. Detention Basin 5464 -A has a capacity of 94,0(X) cf. In a 1(x) -year storm event the storage volume required is calculated at 17,600 cf. With an additional 4,450 cf of stormwater, Detention Basin 5464 -A would have 71,950 cf' in excess capacity. The outlet structure for all three basins would be designed to retain the required treatment volume before beginning to release any runoff. In addition, required design criteria, as established in the SOUIMF for Ventura County, would he incorporated into the proposed project to minimize the off - site conveyance of pollutants. Both project parcels are required to prepare SOUIMPs (see Mitigation Measure 8 -1, above). Compliance with these regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measure 81 would ensure that water quality impacts at both parcel sites would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures See Mitigation Measure 8 -1. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ]fasted Parcel and Mazur Parcel She following analysis applies io Moth project parcels•. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes potential sources of water pollutant~ that would have the potential to substantially degrade water quality. Other than the sources discussed above, as described in Section 7(d), the proposed development at both project parcel Cites do not include other potential sources of contaminants which could potentially degrade water quality. Therefore, development at both proposed project sites would not degrade water quality, and no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. g) Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. This question would apply to the proposed development projects only if housing were planned in !.W -year flood zones. Neither project parcel is located in an area designated as a 1(x1 -year Aloorpark Counrry Club Estates Expansion Project /11. Environmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpurk Page 111 -92 Revised Draft Initial Stud` Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 200 Christopher A. Joseph c& As.sociute.s Derrmbrr ?(X)h flood hazard area, according to the applicable FIRM maps for the arcs. 'I'tteretore, the proposed development in both project sites would not have risks of flooding, and no impacts would occur. Mitigation .Measures None required. h) Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows:' Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The Following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur it the proposed development projects were located within a 100 -year llood zone, which would impede or redirect flood flows. As mentioned in Section H(g), the project site parcels are not in an area designated as a 100 -year flood hazard area. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam`! Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed development projects exposed people or structures to a significant risk of loss or death caused by a seiche, which is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, or inundation, which is due to water storage facility failure. As described in Section 8(g), the project sites are not in an area designated as a 100 -year flood hazard area. In addition, the project sites do not lie within a potential inundation area. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. j) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow:' Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel Moorpark Country Cluh Estate,; Expanr ion Project !!1. F.ni,ironmental lmpac-r.Anal� -sis Cin• of ,'Moorpark Page 111.93 Revvwd Draft Initial Srudv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 201 C'hrislopher A..Ioseph & Associates December 2006 The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project site is sufficiently close to the ocean or other water body to he potentially at risk of the effects of seismically- induced tidal phenomena (Le., seiche and tsunami), or if the project site is located adjacent to a hillside area with soil characteristics that would indicate potential susceptibility to mudslides or mudflows. The project site is located approximately 17 miles north of the Pacific Ocean and therefore does not lie in a potential tsunami zone. Neither project site is located adjacent to large body of water and thus, no potential for impacts related to seiches would occur and no impacts are anticipated with respect to seiches or tsunami. Neither geotechnical reports addressed specifically mudflow potential due to soil characteristics. Section ts.a.iv addresses potential landslide issues for each site and impacts would he less than significant with mitigation (see Section 6.a.,iv. for discussion). Mitigation Measures None required. Cumulative Impacts Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project site includes the construction of on- site detention basins and storm drains and the surrounding area is served by storm drains. Runoff from the project site and adjacent urban uses is typically directed into the adjacent streets, where it flows to the nearest drainage improvements. It is likely that most, if not all of the related projects, would also drain to the surrounding street system. Therefore, cumulative impacts to the existing or planned stormwater drainage systems would he less than significant. In addition, all of the related projects would he required to implement BMPs and to confirm to the existing NPDES water quality program. Therefore, cumulative water quality impacts would also he less than significant. Moorpark Country Club F, state. Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis Cits• of ,Vfoorpurk Pule 111 -94 Revrsed Draft Inittul Studs f 2. I N PROJECT SITES .71 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 - 14 16 18 20 Miles FM............................. ... ................................. Source http i.ipublicworks.coufityofveritura org/fcgnia!images/qmabasns htm CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES FCGMA Boundary Streets Freeway Likes .'Streams West Las Posse Oxnard Plain East Las Posas South Las Posas Pleasant Valley Arroyo Santa Rosa Arroyo Santa Rose Forebay County Boundary W E T (D cQ 0 NJ iJ f 2. I N PROJECT SITES .71 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 - 14 16 18 20 Miles FM............................. ... ................................. Source http i.ipublicworks.coufityofveritura org/fcgnia!images/qmabasns htm CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES FCGMA Boundary Streets Freeway Likes .'Streams West Las Posse Oxnard Plain East Las Posas South Las Posas Pleasant Valley Arroyo Santa Rosa Arroyo Santa Rose Forebay County Boundary W E T (D cQ 0 NJ Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 203 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Less Than Significant Poteatially With Las Than Significant Mitigation Significant 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community'? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ar. agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ natural community conservation plan? a) Would the project physically divide an established community:' Husted Parcel and ?Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. The two project parcels will he incorporated into the existing Country Club Estates subdivision, Tract 4928. Therefore, no separation of uses or disruption of' access between land use types would occur as a result of the project. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community and no impact is anticipated from project implementation. .Mitigation .Mea.sures None required. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Moorpark Cousin C'hch Estates h'xpansion Project 111. Ent ironmenral Impact Analpsis City of Moorpark Page 111 -95 Ret used Draft Initial ,Shed►' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 204 C•hrisropher A. Joseph c& A ssociares December 2006 Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan or zoning designations currently applicable to the project site and would cause adverse environmental effects, which the General Plan and zoning ordinance arc designed to avoid or mitigate. The proposed project is functionally compatible with the surrounding residential development in the area; it will he consistent with the existing Country Club Estates subdivision to the south of the project site parcels. No separation of uses or disruption of access between land use types would occur as a result of the proposed project. The General Plan of the City of Moorpark provides general guidance on land use issues and planning policy for the entire City. All development activity on -site is subject to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the City of Moorpark Zoning Code, which are intended to guide local land use decisions and development patterns. The project site is also located within the planning area of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Southern Califomia region's federally - designated metropolitan planning organization. The proposed project is also located within the South Coast Air Basin, and therefore is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Ouality Management District (SCAOMD). Land Use Regulations City of Moorpark General Plan land Use Element The City of Moorpark General Plan was developed in accordance with State planning and zoning law, which requires each County and City to adopt a comprehensive, long -term General Plan. In May 1992, the City adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan; revisions were made to the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Both project parcels are currently designated RL - Rural Low Residential (1 dwelling unit per 5 -acre maximum) and Open Space -2 (OS -2). As stated in the I -and Use EJement, "this designation [RL) is intended to allow limited development of residential estate lots on minimum five -acre lots or using clustering techniques for areas characterized by significant site constraints (rugged topography, steep slopes, lack of services, limited access, etc.), or areas of important visual and natural resources. The project applicant proposes a general plan amendment to change the designation on both project parcels to MI. — Medium Density Residential (2.0 dwelling units per acre maximum) and Open Space (()S). The Land Use Flement states that "this designation is intended for single family residential development either in standard subdivision form or using clustering techniques to minimize grading and to conserve slopes of twenty percent or greater." City of Moorpark Zoning Ordinance Moorpurk C'oanir Out) Estates Expansion Projert ill. F.n�irnnmentu! Impact A�tuhtiis City of Moorpark Page /// 9h Rcvised Draft Initial Stfldr Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 205 Christopher A..loseph & Associates December 2006 Both project parcels are currently zoned RE (Rural Exclusive) -5 acre lot minimum and propose a change in zoning. The applicant proposes a zone change to RPD (Residential Planned Development), which allows a maximum density of 30 DU per acre, according to Section 17.24.020 0l the City of Moorpark's Municipal Code. The applicant proposes 51 single- family homes on the 43 acre parcel which would result in an approximate density of 1.22 DU per acre. The Mazur parcel would include 36 single- family homes on 29 acres to give an approximate density of 1.25 DU per acre. Surrounding Lund Uses North of the project site, in unincorporated Ventura County but within the City's area of interest, is mainly agricultural land; citrus farms. Immediately south of both parcels is the Toll Brothers Country Club Estates development which currently is sparsely developed with large areas of undeveloped land interspersed with low density residential uses. However, at buildout, the Country Club Estates will include 290 single family homes. Further south are the more developed residential and commercial areas of the City of Moorpark around the transit corridor of Los Angeles Avenue (Highway 118). (Cite of Moorpark Hillside Management Zoning Standards Both project parcels are consistent with the objectives of the Hillside Management Ordinance (Chapter 17.38 of the Municipal Code) in that development would provide remedial measures to reduce erosion and geologic hazards (see Section 6 Geology and Soils) and incorporalc the use of herms and vegetation to blend in with natural landforms while screening views of the residences on the project parcels from lower lying areas, However, both development parcels are not consistent with the ordinance in open space dedication and mitigation is proposed to provide off -site purchase and dedication of open space land at a four to one ratio. Section I.c. Aesthetics provides greater discussion of project impacts and mitigation. Regional Plans Southern ('alifornia Association of Governments (SLAG) The project site is located within the six- County region that comprises the SLAG planning area. Adopted policies included in SCAG's RCPG (1996) that are related to land use are contained primarily in Chapter 3, Growth Management.. SLAG has forecast an increase in population by approximately 116 percent by 1ht }ear 2WM t»r 1he vcntura Coumt Subregion. DevOopmem im hoth project parcels would result in addition of 87 single- family homes with an estimated population of approximately 305. Implementation of the project would provide additional single- family homes to the Ventura County Subregion, which would assist the Subregion in housing future population growth for the area. The project subdivisions are required to provide infrastructure concurrent with site development and to ensure that planned development is not adversely affected. Where the projects would result in environmental impacts, mitigation has been recommended to reduce significant impacts tc} less than significant. A discussion of forecasted growth as it relates to the proposed projects is contained in Section 12 Population and I lousing. Aluorpark Cowan, Citch 1- .vatev /ixpan.viun Project I// /•'ni•irronmcntal Impact Analysis Cityof'Afm)rpark Page I // U? Revi,wil Draft lnitial.Snaly Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 206 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCACPD) Project consistency with the VCACPD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is discussed in Section 3(a). California Department of Fish and Game: Section 1603 Agreement Project implementation on the Husted Parcel would not result in any impacts on riparian habitat and a California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement would not he required for this site. Unlike the Husted Parcel, the Mazur Parcel project footprint extends over 0.17 acres of the total 0.34 acres of CDFG jurisdiction on the project site. Thus. a CDFG Streamhed Alteration Agreement would he required pursuant to Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 4, Biological Resources, provides further discussion of project impacts to riparian areas and recommended mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures None required. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. Neither the Mazur nor Husted project sites (or other areas within the City of Moorpark) are located in an area included in an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher April 24, 2(X)3, and, as is most of the City of Moorpark, the Husted and Mazur project sites are located within Unit 13 of the proposed critical habitat. However, critical habitat does not apply to the Husted or Mazur project, because they are not lands under the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Areas designated as critical habitat receive protection from the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Consultation under section 7 does not apply to activities on private or other non - Federal lands that do not involve a Federal action. Aside from the protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat. (USF VS 2003). Cumulative Impacts Less Than Significant. Buildout of the proposed project would provide an additional 87 dwelling units to the City's housing supply. These additional housing units would help meet demand for housing created by projected population growth for the Ventura County SLAG Subregional area. Development of the 16 related projects is expected to occur in accordance with adopted plans and regulation,,. It is also expected that most of the related projects would he compatible with the zoning and land use designations of each site and their existing surrounding uses. In addition, based upon Moorpark Couniry Club Fstates F, rpansion Project Ill Environmental Impact Ana /vsis C'itY of Moorpark Page III - 98 Hin vwd Draft /ittual Stud Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 207 Christopher A..lowph & Associates December 2000 information available regarding the related projects, it is reasonable to assume that the projects under consideration in the surrounding area would implement and support local and regional planning goals and policies. Furthermore, all development in the City is closely monitored on a citywide basis. All developments proposed and constructed within the City are recorded by staff and reviewed for consistency with citywide land use controls and development standards during the course of project review and approval. This process ensures that cumulative land use impacts are minimized to levels less than significant. Moorpark C'ofurh t Cheh Fsvule c Fxpansion Project Ill Fnvironmenfal lmpac! Analv-oiv Cin• of .Moorpark Page Ill -y4 Xei iucd Draf f Initial Stroh Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 208 Chrtsropher A. Jo.seph & Assuc'ture" Dcc ctnher ?(Xlh 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporation l x%r i Than significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would he of value to the region and the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ residents of the state? h) 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? a) would the project 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:' Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The Collowing analysis applies to hoth project parcels: Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur it a project is located in an area used or avmlahle for extraction of a regionally - important mineral resource and the project converted an existing or potential future regionally- important mineral extraction use to ancothcr use of If the project affccicd access to a site used or potentially acailahle for regionally- important mineral resource extraction. T he Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), enacted in 1975. cstahlished a stalk, surface mining and reclamation policy. T his policy ensures that I I adverse environmental cllccts arc prevented or minimised and that mined lands are reelainred to it usable condition which is readily adoputlole for alternative land uses; 2) the production and corrseratiorr of mineral. arc encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife. range and forage. and aesthetic enjoyment. and Z) residual hazards to the puhlic health and safety are eliminated. "' The implementing regulations for this Act are found in California Code of Rqo,ufations, l itic I:1. Division 2. Chapter S. Suhchaptcr I. Under SMARA, the State Geologist has de.sidnated mineral lands, including construction it,-rcgitic resources, by geological factors that were haled on limited field ohser•alions and on informaunn provided by miiiing companies at specific mine locations, '1 hest field ohscrvahons gencrally did not include comprehensive field reconnaissance or specific lahoratory testing Four calcgoorics of mineral ( ulijornitt Puhla Rcuntrcc•s Code. Dit tsiun ', (na/)trt 'l. SiVrion 271_'. oorlpark ( omit) t' (hull F%wle� P rpanmtnn Prowrr 1/1 Fm rosin ntul Impact lnulc t. ('th' of tloorpark Pu4k,' 1/1 1700 Rcc iwd llrult lnttutl.Stuch Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 209 Christopher A. Joseph & Ascociutes December 2006 resource 'zones (MR7.) have been identified-. MR7. -1, MR7, -2, MR7, -3, and MR7. -4. MR7- -1 represents areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judge that little likelihood exists for their presence. MR7, -2 represents areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. MR7, -3 represents areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot he evaluated from available data. MR7, -4 represents areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MR7.. No land within the City of Moorpark is designated MRZ -2. Most of the City, including the prujcct sites (Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel) are located within MR7, -4." Land to the north of the project sites are designated MR7, -1.3z The use of the proposed project sites as residential would not either threaten the extraction of the economically and technologically available PCC -Grade aggregate in the area or impact the PCC -grade aggregate resources in Sectors A -C, in the Simi P -C region and in the remainder of Ventura County. Therefore, project implementation on both parcels would not result in the loss of an available known mineral resource that would he of value to the region and the state and impacts would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project 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? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur it a project is located in an area used or available for extraction of a locally - important mineral resource extraction and the project converted an existing or potential future locally- important mineral extraction use to another use or if the project affected access to a site used or potentially available for locally - important mineral resource extraction. ]'he City of Moorpark has not designated a locally- significant resource on the site, thus no locally - designated resources would he affected. Further, the California Department of Conservation did not desig" ate either project pmeet site as land as MR7. -2 which is an area with adequate information indicating that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. I-hcrefore, no impact would occur. California Department of Conservation, Open File Report 93.10, Ventura County, 1993. lhid. Moorpark Counts Club ! aatoz Expansion Project Ill. Enrinutmentul Impact Aitulysi� City of Moorpark Puj;e 111 -101 Revvwd Oraft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 210 Chrtm)pher A..loseph & Associates December 2006 Cumulative Impacts No Impact. As described in Section 10(a), the project site and surrounding area are not designated as being a locally - significant area containing significant mineral deposits. Therefore, no impact would occur with consideration of a cumulative loss oC such land with relation to the related projects and the proposed project. Moorpark Counts Cluh FstawN Expansion Project 111. Fnt•ironmennrl Impact Analtsic Cir1 of Moorpark Pagel// -102 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 211 (Vistopher A— loseph & Associates Decemher 2000 11. NOISE — Would the project result in: Less Than Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? h) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to construction ❑ activities above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels'? ❑ t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ Less Than significant Impact No Impact ■ ❑ ■ ■ a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? lfusted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. A significant impact would occur it* the proposed project would not comply with the City of Moorpark ('Municipal Code Chapter 15.26), and /or the project would create or substantially contribute to an exccedance of generally acceptahlc Moorpark C'ountrr Club F. states Expansion Project 1/1. Fen ironmenral Impact Anulv sls City of Aloor'park Page 1/1 103 Revised Draft Intual Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 212 Chrisropher ,4. Joseph & Associates December 2006 noise levels. As it relates to the community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater that z dBA are readily noticeable and would be considered a significant increase, while changes less than 3 dBA are generally not discernible to most people. As identified earlier (Project Description) the proposed project consists of 87 single- family residential units constructed within two separate, non- contiguous parcels. Project development would require the use of heavy equipment for site grading and excavation, along with the installation of utilities, paving, and building fabrication. Development activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of development there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. The U.S EPA has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. These data are presented in Table 111.11 -1 and Table 111.11 -2 for a reference distance oC 50 feet. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of' distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise: source to the receptor would reduce to 78 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA to 72 dBA at 2110 feet from the source to the receptor. Table II1.11 -1 Noise Range of Typical Construction Equipment [ll. Envrronmenlu, w - - Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project 1'uRe I!! -J(1 -J City n) Moorpark Rcvi,.c•d [)raft Initial Snub• Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 213 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Table 111.1 t -2 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels During construction, two basic types of activities would he expected to occur and generate noise. First, the development sites would be prepared, excavated, and graded to accommodate building foundations and utilities. Second, the residential units would he constructed and readied for use. Construction activities associated with site development may pose temporary annoyance to nearby residents and on -site employees. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, as well as its operation and maintenance, distance between noise sourer and listener, and presence or absence of' noise harriers to attenuate noise levels. For nearby residences, any location that would have an uninterrupted line of sight to the construction noise sources could he exposed to noise levels that exceed those levels considered to he normally acceptable li.e. 65 dB(A)Jby the City of Moorpark, on a short -term, intermittent basis." During construction activity, equipment would operate within an estimated distance of approximately 50 feet from the closest residential units, which are currently under construction, south of Palmer Drive for the Mazur Parcel. In addition, construction activity would occur within an estimated distance of approximately 100 feet from the closest existing residential units south of Championship Drive for the Husted Site. Based on information provided above, regarding FPA's noise studies, this sensitive receptor could he exposed to intermittent outdoor noise levels of approximately 89 dB (A), depending on the types and mix of equipment used. As construction activity moves northwards away from the southern perimeter of* the project site, distances from the noise source to these receptors would increase, thereby diminishing noise impacts to the receptors. '+ According to the City of .Moorpark Noise Element of the Gent-rat Plan, page 10, March 1998. Moorpark Cnuittry Club E ",aates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental lmpactAnulvv% Cul, of Moorpark Page Ill -105 Revised Draft Initial .Stud)' Noise Levels at 50 Feet with Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet Mufflers Phase (dBA L,) (dBA L�q) Ground Clearing 84 82 Excavation, Grading 89 86 Foundations _ 78 77 Structural 8.5 83 Finishing 89 86 .Source U..S. EPA 1971 During construction, two basic types of activities would he expected to occur and generate noise. First, the development sites would be prepared, excavated, and graded to accommodate building foundations and utilities. Second, the residential units would he constructed and readied for use. Construction activities associated with site development may pose temporary annoyance to nearby residents and on -site employees. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, as well as its operation and maintenance, distance between noise sourer and listener, and presence or absence of' noise harriers to attenuate noise levels. For nearby residences, any location that would have an uninterrupted line of sight to the construction noise sources could he exposed to noise levels that exceed those levels considered to he normally acceptable li.e. 65 dB(A)Jby the City of Moorpark, on a short -term, intermittent basis." During construction activity, equipment would operate within an estimated distance of approximately 50 feet from the closest residential units, which are currently under construction, south of Palmer Drive for the Mazur Parcel. In addition, construction activity would occur within an estimated distance of approximately 100 feet from the closest existing residential units south of Championship Drive for the Husted Site. Based on information provided above, regarding FPA's noise studies, this sensitive receptor could he exposed to intermittent outdoor noise levels of approximately 89 dB (A), depending on the types and mix of equipment used. As construction activity moves northwards away from the southern perimeter of* the project site, distances from the noise source to these receptors would increase, thereby diminishing noise impacts to the receptors. '+ According to the City of .Moorpark Noise Element of the Gent-rat Plan, page 10, March 1998. Moorpark Cnuittry Club E ",aates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental lmpactAnulvv% Cul, of Moorpark Page Ill -105 Revised Draft Initial .Stud)' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 214 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 It should also he noted that interior noise levels at this sensitive receptor would he well below these levels, due to outside to inside noise attenuation, which could further reduce construction noise levels by 12 decibels (i.e., 47 -79 decibels) with open windows, and 20 decibels (i.e., 39 -71 decibels) with closed windows.'r Further, construction noise would he short -term and intermittent, and would occur during working hours when most of the residents would he working. Nonetheless, construction noise levels would result in an increase of more than 3 decibels to ambient noise levels, and so would he potentially significant unless mitigated. With incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures listed below, temporary construction noise impacts would be considered less than significant. For discussion on long -term operational impacts, see Section 1 I .c. below. Mitigaiion Measures The following mitigation measures, 11 -1 through 11 -5, apply to both the Husted and Mawr Parcels. 11-1 Construction activities shall he limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 11 -2 All construction equipment engines shall he properly tuned and muffled according to manufacturers' specifications. 11 -3 Noise construction activities whose specific location on the site may he flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall he conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise - sensitive land uses-, and natural and;or manmade harriers (e.g., intervening construction trailers) shall he used to screen propagation of noise from such activities towards these land uses to the maximum extent possible. 1 1.4 The use of those pieces of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential shall he minimized. Examples include the use of drills, jackhammers, and pile drivers. 1 l -5 if the residential units, which are currently under construction south of the Mazur Parcel, are occupied at the time of construction of the proposed project, harriers such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains shall he erected along Palmer Drive, to minimize the amount of noise the residential units would he subject to. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel /li/;hwar Nurse Fundamentals p. 117, U.S. Department of Transportation F /AAA, 19NO, t/oorparA Country C lull F.stulev Alrpun.yzon Pre�ject /!1. t n virunmc nta/ Impaw Anuh sis City of Moorpark Page 111 -106 Revt%c -d Draft Initial Sttuly Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 215 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Uecc mhe r 21X16 The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to generate excessive vibration during construction or operation. The proposed project involves the construction of two separate residential developments, which would require the use of heavy machinery and equipment during the grading and construction phase. Heavy equipment that generates substantial vibration, such as pile drivers, could result in the generation of excessive vibration during construction. Vibration is a unique form of noise in that its energy is carried through structures and the earth, whereas noise is carried through the air. 'thus, vibration is generally tclt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can he caused by noise for example, the rattling of windows from truck pass -bys. This phenomenon is related to the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that arc close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, ground -borne vibration generated by man -made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Thresholds identified by the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) state that those vibration levels which exceed 80 VdH during recognized sleep hours may constitute a significant impact. With the presence of a sensitive receptor within close proximity to active construction of the proposed project, the chance for exposure to excessive vibration levels may increase. However, even though construction activities may exceed the Federal Railway Administration 80 VdB threshold, they would he limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 70) p.m. on Monday through Friday in accordance with the City of Moorpark Municipal Code (Chapter 15.26). Therefore, construction would not occur during recognized sleep hours. Nevertheless, due to the relatively quiet atmosphere of the existing development, the potential schedule of construction activities may result in a perceived increase in groundbournc vibration. Therefore, mitigation would be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to both project parcels: 11-6 Fquipment warm -up areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be located a minimum of 150 feet from the nearest residential units. where feasible. 11 -7 Flexible sound control curtains shall be placed around drilling apparatuses and drill rigs. when located approximately 150 feet from a residential unit. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Husled Parcel and Mazur Parcel Chi Cctllc�w��'a�al�� appl�e� �o t+o \h project parcels. .Moorpark Country ('Itrh F. tales Expansion Project !/l. l.m tronmuttut Impact �, Ill 0 Ptt {c� Al -1I)7 Cttl. of :.440orpurk R,,%ta'c!Urutr Maud surety. Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 216 Christopher A. Joseph &- Associates December 2006 Less than Significant. Any permanent changes in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity as a result of the proposed project would be due to project operation. Once the.project is in operation, it is expected that noise generated by the proposed project would be similar to that generated by existing uses in the vicinity, due to the project's compatibility with these uses. Project development, while contributing to in overall increase in ambient noise levels in the project area, would result in land uses that are consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site. As a result, on- site project operational impacts are not expected to be significant. However, traffic volumes along local roadways would he increased due to project trip generation. As previously mentioned, sensitive receptors (particularly, the homes located to the south of Championship Drive) arc located along these local roadways. To evaluate potential impacts associated with increased vehicle trips, noise prediction modeling was conducted for study roadway segments along which carry the majority of the project traffic and which sensitive receptors arc located ". According to the Noise Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan, in general. exterior nose exposures at residential locations should not exceed a CNEL. of 65 dBA. As shown in Table III.I 1 -3 below the addition of project traffic would not cause an cxceedance of this 65 dBA CNEL threshold in either the 2007 or the 2020 future scenario. Consequently, noise impacts along local roadways would he less than significant. Table 111.11 -3 Existine and Future Roadwav Noise Levels Offsite Noise• levels along study roadwui, segments were estimated using the Federal Highwuv Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD -77 -108). This model calculates the average noise level at %peciJt( locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site conditions. The modeling does not account for terrain or presence of harriers between the source and a receptor. Moorpark Countrs• Club Estates hxpaasion Project 111. Environmental Impact Anuh sis 0111, of Moorpark Page III 1045 Revised Draft Initial.StudY 2007 WITH 2020 WITH EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT dBA CNEL dBA CNEL dBA CNEL at 75 Feet at 75 feet at 75 feet from from from Roadway Roadway Segment Land Uses Centerline Centerline Centerline Championship Drive I Fast of Grimes Canyon Residential 47.9 50.9 47.9 Championship Drive West of Walnut Canyon Residential 1 52.7 56.4 55.7 Residential Residential 61.4 60.9 60.9 Walnut Can on Btw. Casey & Championship' Walnut Canyon —TBtw. Casey & S ring— Walnut Canyon Btw. Spring & B Strect' Residential 64.4 64.9 Walnut ('an un Btw. B Street & Championship Z Residential 63.9 64.7 Moor ap rk Avenue l3tw. Los Angeles & Poindexter Residential 61.0 61.3 63.4 --4 Moorpark Avenue Btw. Poindexter & Casey_ Residential 61.0 61.0 63.1 Noise• levels along study roadwui, segments were estimated using the Federal Highwuv Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD -77 -108). This model calculates the average noise level at %peciJt( locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site conditions. The modeling does not account for terrain or presence of harriers between the source and a receptor. Moorpark Countrs• Club Estates hxpaasion Project 111. Environmental Impact Anuh sis 0111, of Moorpark Page III 1045 Revised Draft Initial.StudY Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 217 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 206 .Sourer. Christopher A. Jawph & Associates, November 2004. Calculation sheers are prrn ided in Appendix H. The segment of Walnut Canyon between Casey and Championship Drive is further broken up by the circulation dee elopmenn in both future uenaruos, therefore this segment is only used in the Fxisting scenario 1 these are the future subdivisions of Walnut Canyon Road by future roads to be ronstrucied, refer to Frgures 111.105, 10 -6 and 16 7 for further illustration. ,Mitigation Measures None required. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to construction activities above levels existing without the project? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel fhe following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would introduce substantial new sources of noise or would substantially add to existing sources of noise within the vicinity of the project site during operation of the project. As indicated under items I I(a) above, construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project area above levels existing without the proposed project. However, with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, impacts would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. eS For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would introduce substantial new sources of noise or substantially add to existing sources of noise within or in the vicinity of the project site during construction of the project. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan, not near an airport. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures Moorpark Country Club F. states Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Anal sis C'in, oJ- Moorpark Page If/- /09 Rcvoed Draft initial Stud)- Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 218 Christopher A..loseph & Associates Dec-emher 2000 None required. II) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. This question would apply to a project only if it were in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would subject area residents and workers to a safety hazard. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No such facilities are located in the vicinity of the project site. No impact would occur. MittRation Measures None required. Cumulative Impacts The continued development throughout the City would result in intermittent, short -term noise and impacts throughout the area. Construction activities could result in significant short -term noise impacts on sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site, such as residences. The duration of these localized impacts would be limited to the construction phases of the individual projects. All construction activities taking place within the City would he subject to the City of Moorpark's requirements and regulations. With Municipal Code (Chapter 15.20) compliance, the combined impact of the construction noise from the proposed project and existing noise levels (in interior and exterior noise levels on adjacent properties would he significant but of short duration. Based on the analysis presented earlier in this section, the noise levels associated with project construction activities would exceed City standards and increase ambient noise levels at adjacent locations by more than 3 dBA L,q 'rhe related projects are situated in locations throughout the City and therefore no cumulative construction impact would occur at anv single location.. the future plus project condition reflects traffic from the related projects. As shown, the cumulative increase in roadway noise would he below the significance threshold. Therefore, roadway noise impacts would not he cumulatively considerable. In addition, with Noise Ordinance compliance, the combined impact of the operational noise levels from the proposed project and existing noise levels on interior and exterior noise levels on adjacent properties would he less than significant and, therefore, not cumulatively considerable. Moorpark Cotortrt Club Estates Expansion Project Ills Environmental lmpartAnahsis Ca%- of Moorpurk Page /l/ -110 Revised Draft lnittal.Sfudi, Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 219 Chrwopher A. Joseph & Associates Deceniher 2006 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the P Siggnnifi a ificann t t project: Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant Iscorporatioa Impact No Impact a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The fallowing analysis applies to both project parcels: Short Term Construction of the proposed project would result in increased employment opportunities in the construction field, which could potentially result in increased permanent population anti demand for housing in the vicinity of the project site. However, the employment patterns of construction workers in Southern California is such that construction workers would not likely, to any significant degree, relocate their households as a consequence of the construction employment associated with the proposed project. The construction industry differs from most other industry sectors in several ways: • There is no regular place of work. Construction workers regularly commute to job sites that change many times over the course of a year. Their sometimes lengthy daily commutes are facilitated by the off -peak starting and ending times of the typical construction workday. Many construction workers are highly specialized (e.g., crane operators, steelworkers. masons, etc.) and move from job site to job site as dictated by the demand ['or their skills Afem)rpark Counlry Club F. viaws Frpansion Project III. Environmental Impact AnaN%ti Or%, of Moorpark Puler l/I- l I l Revised Pra ft hutiul .Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 220 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2016 • The work requirements of most construction projects are also highly specialized. Workers remain at a job site only for the time frame in which their specific skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process. Therefore, project - related construction workers would not be likely to relocate their household's place of residence as a consequence of working on the proposed project, and significant short -term housing or population impacts would not result from construction of the project. Mitigation Measures None required. Long Term Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the 87 homes on the two project parcels is expected to generate an additional 305 (3.5 per DU)" residents in the project vicinity. Not all these occupants would be new City residents; an unknown proportion of future housing purchasers would reside in Moorpark while other purchasers would potentially he relocating to the City from surrounding unincorporated areas or adjacent cities. However, the additional population would create a limited demand for new goods, services, and possibly employment opportunities. Most of these demands can reasonably be expected to be satisfied locally, given the high degree of urbanization of the surrounding area and the existence of varied transportation linkages between Moorpark and adjacent cities. Therefore, the additional 87 homes on the two project sites are not anticipated to induce substantial additional commercial growth. As part of its comprehensive planning process for the Southern California region. the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) has divided its jurisdiction into 13 subregions: the project site is located within the Ventura County subregion. As shown in Table 111.12 -1, in 2(x)0, the Ventura County Subregion had an estimated permanent population of 774,(00 persons and approximately 272,(xx) housing units. By the year 2010, SLAG forecasts an increase to 872,000 persons (a 12.6 percent increase) and 314,(x)0 housing units (a 15.4 percent increase). Between the years 2010 and 2015, SLAG forecasts an increase to 930,(x11) persons (a 0.6 percent increase) and 337,000 housing units (a 7.3 percent increase). An additional 305 residents on the project sites represent an increase of 0.04 percent of the total resident population in the Ventura County subregion, and 0.2 percent of the total projected policy growth for the year 2015, which would not represent substantial population growth within the area. The current population of the City of Moorpark is 34,887. The additional project residents would constitute approximately 0.9°,4 of the total population. in addition, the current residential vacancy T' California Department of Finance, 2(X)4. 3oorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project 1/1. Environmental Impact Analysis City of .Mcxorpark Page Ill -112 Rc•i-ked Draft Initial.SuitlY Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 221 Christopher A..loceph & Associates December 2016 rate in the city is 1.1 %.. Due to the strong demand for housing in the area, the increase in housing supply would he considered a beneficial impact. In this case impacts would be less than significant. Table III.12 -1 SLAG Population and Housing Forecasts for the Ventura County Subregion Mitigation Measures Nerve required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere`! Husted Parcel No Impact. No housing units exist on the Rusted Parcel. 'Therefore no impacts would occur in relation to housing displacement. Mitigation Measures None required. Mazur Parcel V Source: Population, Income, Education and Horning page, Citp of Afoorpurk wehSite, url. htip. iI ci. moorpurk . ca. us!cgi- hin /htmto.%.exe, 10018 .330.1.9N9.349314N500017639 Moorpark Country (')uh £states £xpan� ion Projers Ill. En•:ironmentai impart Anul•tsts Citv of .Moorpark Page Ill 113 Ree'tsc•d Draft Initial Swaiv 2015 Policy Increase Project's % of Forecast Existing Forecast (%) Policy Increase Population (number of people) SCAG Forecasts fur the Ventura 774,000 930,000 156.000 (20%) 0.2 County Subregion Housings (number of dwelling units) SCAG Forecasts for the Ventura 272,000 337.000 65,000 (24%) 0.11 County Subregion 'Southern California Association of Governmenis Forecast, Parital Tract and Suhregion Reference Tables. March 22, 2004. .Source' Christopher A..lose h & Associates, November 2004. Mitigation Measures Nerve required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere`! Husted Parcel No Impact. No housing units exist on the Rusted Parcel. 'Therefore no impacts would occur in relation to housing displacement. Mitigation Measures None required. Mazur Parcel V Source: Population, Income, Education and Horning page, Citp of Afoorpurk wehSite, url. htip. iI ci. moorpurk . ca. us!cgi- hin /htmto.%.exe, 10018 .330.1.9N9.349314N500017639 Moorpark Country (')uh £states £xpan� ion Projers Ill. En•:ironmentai impart Anul•tsts Citv of .Moorpark Page Ill 113 Ree'tsc•d Draft Initial Swaiv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 222 Christopher A. Joseph & Asvoriates Decenther 2006 Less Than Significant. A significant impact may occur if it Project would result in displacement of existing housing units, necessitating construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Mazur Parcel includes two existing single - family residences and the Husted Parcel has no housing units on the Project site. Though implementation of the Project on the Mazur Parcel would displace two existing dwelling units, this would not result in displacement of' substantial number of existing housing units necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore impacts relating to such housing displacement on the Mazur Parcel would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Busted Parcel No Impact. A project - related significant adversc affect could occur if the project would result in displacement of existing occupied housing units. As there arc no existing occupied housing units on the project Husted Parcel site, no project impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. Mazur Parcel Two single - Iamily residences exist on the Mazur Parcel. Project implementation would involve demolition of these units and residents would he displaced. However, given the small number of units and population that would he affected, implementation of the project would not result in displacement of suhstantial number of people, necessitating the construction of' replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Cumulative Impacts Less Than Significant Impact. Individual development projects proposed as a part of General Plan huildout in the area would have the potential to create population and housing impacts. The increases in fx)pulation and the need for housing arc the responsihility of and would he addressed by the City of Moorpark through their General Plan update process. Therefore, cumulative population impacts would he less than significant. Moorpark Country Club Estates F-xpunsion Protect III. Fnrironmental Impu(-t Anal. )is City of Moorpark Page l // -II.4 Remised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 223 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Potentially 13. PUBLIC SERVICES I Pimpact ct a) 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 objectives for any of the public services: Less Then Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporation Impact No Impact Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Cl Parks? Other public facilities? 0 al Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government 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 objective for any of the following public services: Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel the following analysis applies to both project parcels: (i� Fire psatect s�? Less than Significant With Incorporation of Mitigation. Fire protection services are provided to the City of Moorpark by the Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD) on a contract basis. The City of Moorpark is included within Division 16 of the Emergency Services Bureau which operates Battalions 3 and 4. Battalion 4 serves the cities of Moorpark and Simi Valley with fire Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 1/1. Environmental Impact Analysis Ciry o/ ,kfoorpurk Page 111 -115 Revised Draft Initial Study i Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 224 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 protection and emergency services from 7 fire stations. Fire Stations No.'s 40 and 42 are located within and primarily serve Moorpark. Fire Station No. 40 is located at 4185 Cedar Springs Street in the Mountain Meadows area of Moorpark, approximately 4 miles from the proposed project sites. Station No. 40 is staffed by 3 firefighters and houses an Engine Pump and a Tractor,Trailer which carries specialized tools and equipment for Urban Search and Rescue incidents: trench rescue, building collapse, high and vertical angle rescue and confined space rescue. Fire Station No. 42 is located at 215 High Street, approximately 2 miles from the proposed project sites. Station No. 42 is staffed by four firefighters and houses a Rescue Engine with a 75 -foot aerial ladder, an Engine Pump and an Engine." Preferred response times within the City are 5 -7 minutes. Currently, Station No.'s 40 and 42 are able to meet these response times. The required fire flow is closely related to the type and size of the land use. The quantity of water necessary for fire protection varies with the type of development, life hazard, occupancy, and the degree of fire hazard. County - established fire flow requirements for new residential development is 1,000 gallons Per minute (GPM) at a minimum residual water pressure of 20 pressure per square inch (psi). This fire flow is expected to he met by the infrastructure in Championship Drive serving the Country Club Estates and the proposed project sites. The Ventura County Fire Protection District has indicated that implementation of the proposed project would not result in a need for new equipment or staff at either Fire Station No.'s 40 and 42. "' As a result, implementation of proposed development projects on the Husted and Mazur Parcels would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts with the provision or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in which the construction could cause a significant impact. FIxisting facilities do not need to he altered and the VCFPD can maintain acceptable service ratios and response times. For these reasons, project impact on VCFPD would be less than significant. For purposes of safety and fire hazard control, a hazard abatement program is required by the VCFPD, which mandates a minimum of 100 -foot clearance of hazardous vegetation from all structures. Since brush clearance would he required to construct both subdivisions, it is recommended as mitigation that earthmoving equipment he equipped with spark arrestors and portable fire extinguishers. In addition, the proposed project developments would he required to comply with VCFPD's design requirements regarding hydrant locations, fire ratings for building materials, and other fire safety requirements. Given the hillside location of hoth project parcels, it is recommended that a Fire Hazard Reduction Program he prepared in consultation with the VCFPD and a biologist. Further, the project would he required to pay fire facilities fees. With application of the mitigation measures and compliance to the VCFPD's fire safety requirements, impacts with regards to fire safety would be less than significant.. "Source: Ventura County Fire Department web site, url: htlp :l/ftre. count pofventura.orq/, September 22. 200.1. "' .Source: Written correspondence from Ramon C. Valdez, Fire Specialist, Ventura County Fire Protection District. dated October 12. 2004. .See Appendix 1. Aloorpurk Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. E:ni,ironmental /mpaci Analyvsc� City of :boorpark Page /11. 116 Revi%ed Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 225 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Deremher 2006 Cumulative Impacts Less Than Significant Impact With Incorporation of Mitigation. The proposed project, in combination with the related projects (as listed in Section If. Project Description), would increase the demand for fire protection services in the project area. Specifically, there would he increased demands for additional VCFD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. This need would he funded via existing mechanisms (e.g., property taxes, government funding, and developer fees) to which the proposed project and related projects would contribute. However, there are no specific plans at this time to build a new fire station, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Nevertheless, similar to the proposed project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to VCFD review, and would he required to comply with all applicable fire safety requirements of the VCFD and the City of Moorpark in order to adequately mitigate fire protection service impacts. As with the proposed project, all future development projects would he required to pay fees to the respective jurisdictions to provide necessary facilities, staff and equipment. Prior to the implementation of the mitigation, the project would incrementally contribute to significant impacts. On this basis, it is expected that cumulative impacts on fire protection would he less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to both project parcels: 13.1 During all grading and site clearance activities, all earthmoving equipment shall he equipped with spark arrestors and at least two portable fire extinguishers per vehicle. All equipment used in the vegetation clearance phase shall he equipped with spark arrestors and hest available fire safety technology. The vegetation clearance activities shall he coordinated with and approved by the Ventura County Fire Protection District. 13 -2 Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, initiation of rough grading or issuance of any subsequent permits, the project applicant shall retain a certified fire management professional to prepare a Fire Hazard Reduction Program; this program shall be prepared in consultation with the Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD) and a biologist with expertise in native plants, and shall he approved by the City of Moorpark Community Development Director. Said program will he developed by the project applicant, but shall he maintained by an entity(ics), such as a homeowner's association, assessment district, or similar entity, that can assure adequate fire hazard reduction management throughout the lifetime of the project. The program shall apply to all lands within UK) feet of residences. The program shall include, at a minimum, vegetation management program focusing on the continued highly combustible vegetation, providing defensible space, and the control of invasive non - native species. One component of the program shall he the permanent establishment of fuel modification /ones to the standards of the V(TPD for all structures adjacent to open space area with native vegetation. The fuel modification zone shall he designed by and planted under the supervision of a landscape architect with expertise: in native plant materials. Native and non- native low -fuel vegetation materials shall he provided as Moorpark Cottntrr Cluh Estates Expansion Project lll. Environme ntul Impart Anah•u.e On- of Moorpark Page Ill -l1 ? Revised Draft Initial.Studti• Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 226 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2000 replacement vegetation. The program shall include specific guidelines as to the frequency of maintenance (e.g., wee abatement), allowable species for planting, rc,p,n„itiility of clearing public and private zones, and irrigation requirements or restrictions. The timing and funding for the provision of the vegetation management program. would be subject to implemented in accordance with an agreement with the VCFPD. (ii) Police protection" Less than Significant With Incorporation of Mitigation. Police protection services are provided to the City of Moorpark by the Ventura County Sheriffs Department (VCSD) on a contract basis. the Moorpark Police Station is located at 26 Flory Avenue, Moorpark. The city is divided into two primary heats which are patrolled by 2 patrol cart 24 hours a day, seven days a week. An additional overlapping patrol deputy is provided during peak hours (301 P.M. to 3:(X) A.M.) seven days a week. In total, the Moorpark Police Station is staffed by 22 sworn officers and 6 civilian administrative staff.'° The City of Moorpark has a population of 34,900 persons which gives an officer to citizen ration of approximately one to 1,586. The preferred response times for the Moorpark Police Department are 6 minutes for emergency calls and 22 minutes for non - emergency calls. The predominant crimes in 2(X)4 in the City are petty theft, grand theft burglary residential and burglary other (,,ee Table 111.13 -1) Implementation of proposed project would result in an increase of site visitors and residents- within the project site, thereby generating a potential increase in the level of service calls from the project site. Responses to thefts, vehicle burglaries, traffic - related incidents, and crimes against persons would he anticipated to escalate as a result of the increase in on -site activity and increased traffic on adjacent streets and arterials. However, according to the Moorpark Police Department, the existing Country Club Estates subdivision is an area of low demand for police services and an additional 87 single- family homes is not anticipated to adversely affect the Department's ability to provide police protection services or require additional staff or equipment.' Therefore, the proposed development projects would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision or need of new or physically altered police stations, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain service ratios and response times. Consequently, impacts on Moorpark Police Station would he less than significant. The Moorpark Police Station has provided some prevcntativc design guidelines to he included in the project, outlined below. in addition to these safety design guidelines, the project applicant would he required to pay police protection fees. The design guidelines and the fees would further reduce the less than significant impacts. ,hfitigation ,Measures The following mitigation measures apply to both project parcels: Telephone conversation with Senior Deputy Ed Tumbleson, Monrpark Police Department. Septernhvr 22. 200.1 tt Mid. Ill. Fnvironmental impact Analysis Moorpark Country Clith Estates Expansion Project Page 111-1 IN City of .binorpurk Retired Draft Initial Study' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 227 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Decemher 2006 13 -1 A licensed security guard shall he provided during the off hours of the construction phase to the satisfaction of the Police Chief. 13 -2 Construction equipment, tools, etc. shall he properly secured to prevent theft during non- working hours. 13 -3 All appliances (microwave ovens, dishwashers, trash compactors, etc.) shall be properly secured to prevent theft prior to installation during non- working hours. All serial numbers will he recorded for identification purposes. 13-8 Landscaping shall not cover any exterior door or window. 13 -9 Landscaping at entrances /exits or at any intersection shall not block or screen the view of a seated driver from another moving vehicle or pedestrian. 13 -10 landscaping (trees) shall not he placed directly under any overhead lighting which could cause a loss of light at ground level. 13-11 Addresses shall be clearly visible to approaching emergency vehicles and in contrasting color to the background it is mounted on. 13 -12 Address numbers shall he a minimum of 6" in height and illuminated during hours of darkness. 13-13 Front door entrances shall he visible from the street. 13 -I4 Directory boards indicating the locations of the various buildings and individual units shall tx displayed at each entrance to the complex and lighted during hours of darkness. 13-16 'There shall not he any easy exterior access to the roof area, i.e. ladders, trees, high walls, etc. Cumulative Impacts Less than Significant Impact With Incorporation of Mitigation. The proposed project, in combination with the related projects (as listed in Section 11. Project Description), would increase demand for police protection services. Specifically, there would he increased demands for additional VCSD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. This need would he funded via existing mechanisms (e.g., property taxes, government funding, and so on) to which the proposed project and related projects would contribute. As with the proposed project, all future development projects would he required to pay fees to the respective jurisdictions to provide necessary facilities, staff and equipment. On this basis, it is expected that cumulative impacts on police protection would he less than significant. Moorpark Country Club F. states Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis Ciry of Moorpark Page 111 119 Revised Draft Initial .Studs Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 228 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2016 (iii) Schools? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project includes substantial employment or population growth, which could generate a demand for school facilities that would exceed the capacity of the Moorpark Unified School District (MUSD), the school district responsible for serving the project site. The ability of the MUSD schools serving the project site to handle the proposed project is analyzed by comparing school enrollments and capacities to the projected student population increase due to development of the proposed project. 'Chere are no school facilities on or adjacent to the project site. According to the MUSD, the project area is served by the following public schools: Mountain Meadows Elementary (grades K -2), located at 42(Y) Mountain Meadow Drive; Arroyos West Elementary School (grades 3 -5), located at 4117 Country Hill Road; Chaparral Middle School (grades 6 -8) located at 280 Poindexter Avenue; and Moorpark High School (grades 9 -12), located at 4500 'Tierra Rejada Road.'' As shown in 'Cables 111.13 -1 and III.13 -2, the proposed project would generate approximately 62 students, resulting in enrollments under capacity at two of the three affected schools and over- capacity enrollment at Moorpark High School. Table 111.13 -1 Estimated Student Generation by the Proposed Project Comrnuptwation, .loan Corcoran, Moorpark Unified School District, September 17, 2!X14. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Envrronmental lmpact Analvsis On, of Moorpark Page Ill -120 Re-vtsed Draft Initial Studv Elementary School Middle School high School Total Student Generation Generation Generation Generation Land Use (0.41DU) MAW) (0.2/DU) 87IAJ i5 9 18 1 62 Source: Moorpark l,htified School District, Joan Corcoran, email correspondence, September 17, 2004 Comrnuptwation, .loan Corcoran, Moorpark Unified School District, September 17, 2!X14. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Envrronmental lmpact Analvsis On, of Moorpark Page Ill -120 Re-vtsed Draft Initial Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 229 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2(X)b Table 111.13 -2 Public School Impact Summnry ihy the Pr" —.-A D& However, Moorpark High School is already operating with an over - capacity enrollment even without additional students from the proposed project. The California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing hoard of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The School Developer Fee for the MUSD is currently $2.24 per square foot on new residential construction within the boundaries of the MUSD." As the project applicant would be required to pay all applicable developer fees to the MUSD pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 -7, any potential impacts upon school facilities would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore. impacts would he less than significant and no further mitigation measures are warranted. Mitigation Measures None required. Cumulative Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A cumulative increase in the Moorpark linifted School District, Joan Corcoran, email correspondence. September 17. 2004 Ill. Environmental impact Analysis Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project page Ill -121 ('itV eel Moorpark Revised Draft Initial .SntdV Project Future (-)Under / Enrollment 20042005 Generated Enrollment ( +)Over School Capacity Enrollment Students with Project Capacity Elementary Mountain Meadows (K -2) 610 511 Arroyo West (grades 3 -5) 660 615 35 1.161 109 TOTAL 1,270 1,126 Middle School Chaparral Middle School ' (grades 6 -8) 870 9 879 i 71 High School — Moorpark High School 2,220 2,476 1 2,494 +274 (grade 9 -12) SOUrce. Moorpark Unified School District, Joan Corcoran, email correspondence, September 17, 204. However, Moorpark High School is already operating with an over - capacity enrollment even without additional students from the proposed project. The California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing hoard of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The School Developer Fee for the MUSD is currently $2.24 per square foot on new residential construction within the boundaries of the MUSD." As the project applicant would be required to pay all applicable developer fees to the MUSD pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 -7, any potential impacts upon school facilities would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore. impacts would he less than significant and no further mitigation measures are warranted. Mitigation Measures None required. Cumulative Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A cumulative increase in the Moorpark linifted School District, Joan Corcoran, email correspondence. September 17. 2004 Ill. Environmental impact Analysis Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project page Ill -121 ('itV eel Moorpark Revised Draft Initial .SntdV Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 230 Christopher A. Joseph & Assoctates Dec'emher 2006 demand for school services is expected to occur as a result of development of the proposed project and the related projects. As with the proposed project, it is likely that some of the students generated by any related projects would already reside in areas served by the MUSD and would already be enrolled in MUSD schools. As mandated by State law, the applicants of the related commercial and residential projects would he required to pay a school fee to the MUSD to help reduce any impacts any related projects may have on school service. With payment of these fees, cumulative impacts would he reduced to a less than significant level. (iv) Parks? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact would occur if the recreation and park services available could not accommodate the projected population increase resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The City of Moorpark manages 15 recreation and park facilities within the City (see Table 111.13 -4). Table 111.13 -3 Park Facilitiec in the Citv of Moonark Facility Location Size Amenities Arroyo Vista Community 4550 Tierra Rejada 69 acres Picnic pavilion, barbecues and tables, Park Road playground, restrooms facilities, basketball courts, multiuse fields, hallfields, soccer fields, tennis courts and volleyball courts. _ Campus Canyon Park 6970 Hearon Drive 6 acres Playground with a tot lot, restrooms, a picnic pavilion with benches and y barbecues, hallfields, one full haskcthall court, and multi-purpose fields. Campus Park 6400 Harvard Street 2.5 acres Playground, restrooms, a picnic pavilion with benches and barbecues, and basketball court. College View Park 15400 Campus Park 14 acres Playground with a tot lot, picnic pavilion with Drive I benches and barbecues, restrooms, basketball I court, and multi - purpose fields. Community Center Park 799 Moorpark Avenue 0.5 acres I Restrooms, picnic tables, playground, and barbecues. _ Country Trail Park 11701 1;2 Mountain Trail Street 18 acres I Playground with a tot lot, benches, harhecues, and multi - purpose fields. Glenwood Park 11800 Harvester Street 4.5 acres Playground, picnic pavilion with benches and barbecues, basketball courts, volleyball courts. and multimpurpose fields. _ Miller Park 4530 Miller Parkway 6.5 acres Playground with a tot lot, restrooms, a picnic pavilion with benches and barbecues, a softball field, two full tennis courts, and one full basketball court. Monte Vista Nature Park 4201 Spring Road 5 acres Hiking trails and benches Mountain Meadows Park 4350 Mountain Meadow 8 acres Playground, picnic pavilion with benches and Drive barbecues, restrooms. basketball courts. hallfields, and multi - purpose fields. Peach Hill Park 1 13200 Peach Hill Road 10 acres Playground and tot lot. picnic pavilion with benches and barbecues, restrooms, basketball courts, ballfields, and multi - purpose fields. _ Poindexter Park 500 Poindexter Avenue 7.i acres Plav round, tot lot, restrooms, picnic pavilion Moorpark Country' Cluh Estares Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impart Analysis Cary of MoorparA ]'age 111-12' Rrvbwd Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 231 Christopher A..Inseph & Assoc-iates December 2000 Table II1.13 -3 Park Facilities in the Citv of Moonark Facility Location Size Amenities with benches and barbecues, two gazebos also with benches and barbecues, baseball fields, horseshoe p its, and multi - purpose fields._ Tierra Reiada Park 11900 Mountain Trail 8 acres Playground, tot lot, retitrooms, picnic pavilion Street with benches and barbecues, basketball court, tennis courts, bocce hall courts, and multi- 1 acre urpose fields. Virginia Colony Park 14507 Condor Drive Picnic tables, barbecues and a playground. Villa Camesina Park_ 4704 Leta Yancy Road 0.5 acres Benches, barbecues, and multi- pu(pose fields. "Total 133 I acres .Source: C'i(Y of Moorpark websi(e, Parks and Recreation wehpage Ctrl: http:Uci.moorpark.c-a.uv7e•gi- bini h tmlo .s. "f,10 )13380.2.72759694204(X)005449 The nearest park and recreation facilities that would serve new residents of the proposed project include: Poindexter Park, Virginia Colony Park, Glenwood Park and Arroyo Vista Community Park. These facilities offer a variety of facilities for both active and passive recreation activities. In addition, outside of the City's boundaries but within the City's sphere of interest, the Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park is located approximately 3 miles east of the proposed project site. The Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park is operated by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and offers 3,000 acres of wilderness parkland and 12.5 miles of hiking, cycling and equestrian trails. The Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan provides park planning standards for the provision of recreational facilities throughout the City. The standard ratio of park acreage to population is five acres per 1,(X)() people. The population of the City is 34,900 persons and the total area of parkland within the City is 133 acres. This translates to an actual parkland to population ratio of 3.9 acres per I,IX)0 people, thus meaning that there is currently a shortage of parkland in the City. Using the figure of 3.5 persons per residential unit,30 it i, estimated that the development of the proposed project would result in an additional 305 permanent residents, which would translate into an additional 1.6 acres of parkland required. Therefore, the proposed project would further increase the City's existing parkland acreage per capita deficiency. to •eccvsrdance with the Opk" Space, Cans oration and Recceatuln C'.tement of the C'it }'s Cienerat Plan, compliance with the Quimby Act through either the dedication of land or the payment of' mitigation fees would mitigate impacts on existing parks to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures the following mitigation measure applies to both project parcels: ".Source: Moorpurk Country Club Estates FF.IR, Certified 12;20:95. Moorpark Country Club Eitatcv txpan.vion Project III. f;'nrtronmenrul lmpo(-t Anulyvis City of Mcx)rpurk Page Ill 12? Rertvcd Dralt Initial .Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 232 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2000 13 -17 The applicant shall satisfy all applicable Quimbv ohligatlonc for the c,owijuctton of the proposed project. Cumulative Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The related projects (as listed in Section II. Project Description) could result in an increase in permanent residents residing in the project area. The increase in residential population by the related projects in the vicinity of the project site would, in the absence of mitigation, lower the City's existing parkland to population ratio, which is currently below the preferred standard. Impacts by the related projects could be reduced through adherence to the Quimby Act, conditions of approval, and environmental review procedures. Therefore, cumulative parks and recreation impacts would he reduced to a less than significant level. (v) Other public facilities? Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project includes substantial employment or population growth that could generate a demand for other public facilities (such as libraries), which would exceed the capacity available to serve the project site. The proposed project would he served by the Moorpark Library, which is operated by the Ventura County Public Literary and is located at 699 Moorpark Avenue. As discussed in Section 12(a), the project can he expected to generate a total resident population of 305 persons. 'These new residents would constitute a population increase of 0.817o. This incremental increase would increase demands for library services, but not sufficiently to warrant the construction of new library facilities which could cause significant environmental impacts. However, the project applicant would he required to pay Library Facilities Fees to offset any incremental increase in demand for services, books, or materials. Consequently, impacts to other public facilities, including libraries, are anticipated it) he less than significant. Mitigation Measure None required. Cumulative Impacts Less than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project in conjunction with the related projects would result in an increase in employees, visitors, and residents in the project area. No additional improvements or new library facilities are proposed within the proposed project's library service area. Therefore, cumulative impacts to library facilities would he less than significant. Moorpark Country Club F.srares F.xpanston Project /lI. F.nvironmcntal impart Anutys�s Page fit -124 City of Mrxorpark Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 233 Christopher A. Joseph ek Associates Dece ether 2006 IAss Than significant Potentially with Less Than 14. RECREATION Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the 0 facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would include substantial employment or population growth which could generate an increased demand for public park facilities that exceeds the capacities of existing parks and causes premature deterioration of the park facilities. The proposed project would not cause a significant impact with regard to recreation or parks demand, as evaluated in Section 13, Public Services (above). Maintenance of public parks and public recreational facilities in Los Angeles is funded largely through the ('iq• general fund and through Quimby and other park fees for new development. As demand for park services by the proposed project is considered less than significant, project impacts on maintenance of those facilities would likewise be less than significant. ,!.litigation Mca.sitre.s None required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment'' Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel Ill. F.nriron+nentu/ l+npuct Anulpsis Moorpurk Cotmtrt• Club F:srutrs Expansion Project Page 111 -125 Cite of :Moorpurk Re•rh'ed Draft Initial.Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 234 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Decemher 2006 The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project includes the construction or expansion of park facilities and such construction would have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The proposed project involves the construction of a residential project and not the construction of park facilities. There would he no impact. Mitigation Measure None required. Cumulative Impacts Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project in conjunction with the related projects would result in an increase in permanent residents residing in the project area. The increase in residential population by the related projects in the vicinity of the project site would, in the absence of mitigation, lower the City's existing parkland to population ratio, which is currently below the preferred standard. Impacts by the residential related projects could he reduced through adherence to the Quimby Act, conditions of approval, and environmental review procedures. 'Therefore, cumulative parks and recreation impacts would he less than significant. �. e r 111. r,nvrrunm��mu� Impact r.,...,..,i, ,Moorpark Country Ouh Estates Fxpansion Proiert page. Ill -126 Ory of Moorpark Reciewl Draft lnNlal Studr' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 235 Chrislopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Leas Than igaif kan 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the S ally with lays Than igoitt Mitigation Sigsisnot ro ect: P .1 Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ b) Result in the temporary street or lane closures that would result in either a change of traffic patterns or capacity that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system during construction activities (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ❑ ■ c) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ d) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Cl ❑ ❑ ■ f) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Result in inadequate parking capacity resulting in an impact on traffic or circulation? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ h) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ,Moorpark Country Club Fstates Expansion project 111. Environmental lmpact Analyst+ Cav of .Moorpark Page 111 -127 Revised Draft Initial Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 236 Christopher A. Joseph & Ass(x•iates December 2000 a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number or vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)" Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel ['he following analysis applies to both project parcels: The following analysis is based upon the Moorpark Country Club Estates GPA Traffic Analysis, prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. November 2004.Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur where project - generated traffic may cause City intersections to fall below level of service (I.OS) C, which correlates to an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value of 0.80 or more or an average delay at unsignalized intersections of 25 seconds or more. A significant impact may also occur for County intersections where project - generated traffic causes the LOS to exceed 1), which correlates to an ICU value of 0.90. In addition, a significant impact will occur if the project - related traffic results in an ICU increase of 0.02 at an intersection, which is already operating at LOS D for the City or E for the County (see Table 111.15 -1 and 111.15 -2). The traffic evaluation that follows presents the results of an analysis of existing (2(9)4) traffic conditions, existing (2(x14) plus project traffic conditions, future (2(X)7) traffic conditions with and without project implementation, and future (2020) traffic conditions with and without project implementation at the following intersections (see Figure IIL15 1). Table III.15 -1 City of Moorpark Level of Service (LOS) Ranges Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Level of Service .00-.60 LOS A .61 -.70 .71 -.80 — _ LOS B — —_ LOS C 81 -.90 LOS D - .91 -1.(X) -- LOS E Above 1.00 LOS F Source- 4ustnt- Futtst Associates, Inc., .November 2004 .'Moorpark Couniry (huh Estates Expansion Project 111. Envirnnmevttal lmpacl Arial�•sis Citp of Moorpark Pate 111 -128 Rc t rsed Draft Initial .Stotts• Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 237 Christopher A. Joseph & Associute.s December 2006 Table I11.15 -2 County of Ventura Level of Service (LOS) Ran¢es Average Delay (seconds) Level of Service .00 -10.0 LOS A 10.1 -15.0 LOS B 15.1 -25.0 LOS C 25.1 -35.0 35.1 -50.0 LOS D LOS F Above 50.0 LOS F Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., Novemher 2004. Sihnalized Intersections: 1. Moorpark Road and High Street 2.Spring and High 9.Moorpark and Poindexter /First 10. Tierra Rejada and Los Angeles 11. Moorpark and Los Angeles 12. Spring and Los Angeles /New Los Angeles 13. Science and New Los Angeles 35. Walnut Canyon and Casey 55. Somis and Los Angeles UnsiLnalized Intersections: 25. Walnut Canyon and Broadway 26. Walnut Canyon and Championship 42. Grimes Canyon and Championship 43. Grimes Canyon and Los Angeles (future signalization is planned for intersection) These intersections arc located in the area surrounding the project site. and based on the prnject',; location and access relative to the local transportation network, are the locations expected to he impacted most by the project. Moorpark C•ounlry CAih F. stales fixpaaston Prnlec•t / /1. tncrrunmc ^ntul /mprn r irurlyccis City of Mrxrrpurk Page /// 119 Ret vwd Druft Initial .Studs I\SFT z C 11 9 -15 -t- 3ROAD *A --.77S- AN-E.El --P-,))ec, 3'e T 0i Not to Scale -)-7 I N S I T Source Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., November 2004 S '8 V / /fir C -AV A,; LCS -X 35NXX �37 10 I l 12 CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES 0 Figure 111.15-1 Study Intersection Locations (D (n (D o_ Co 0 =3 Z 0 V CJl Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 239 Christopher A..loseph & Associates December 2(106 Existing Traffic Conditions Primary access to both project parcels will he provided by Championship Drive. Regional access to the project vicinity is currently provided by two State Route highways: Los Angeles Avenue (SR- 118) and Moorpark Avenue/Walnut Canyon Road (SR -23). Los Angeles Avenue provides access to the east to the :Moorpark Freeway (SR -23) and the Ronald Reagan Freeway (SR -188), and it extends beyond the western city limits providing a route to communities in the western portion of Ventura County (e.g. the cities of Camarillo, Oxnard and Ventura). The project site parcels are currently vacant, and do not generate any peak hour or daily traffic. Existing traffic volumes are shown on Figure 111.15 -2. For the nine existing signalized locations analyzed, intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values were calculated. For the four stop- controlled locations studied, the average delay experienced by the stop - controlled legs was estimated. The existing ICU and average delay results are summarized in 'fable II1.15 -1. As Table 111.15 -3 indicates, two City intersections are currently operating below the accepted performance levels. The intersection of Tierra Rejada Road and Los Angeles Avenue is currently operating at LOS D in the AM peak hour, and the intersection of Spring Read and Los Angeles Avenue is currently operating at LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hour. in addition, one signalized County intersection and one unsignalized County intersection is currently operating below the accepted performance levels. The intersection of Somis Road and Los Angeles Avenue is currently operating at LOS F, during the PM peak hour, and the intersection of Grimes Canyon Road and Los Angeles Avenue is operating at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hour. Table 111.15 -3 Existing Level of Service (i.OS) Summary Intersection AM PM Signalized - ICU 1. Moorpark & Hi h 0.71 0.78 2. Spring & High 0.55 0.64 9. Moorpark & Poindexter /First 0.66 0.7() ]0. Tierra Re'ada & Los Angeles 0.232• 0.72 11. Moorpark & Los Angeles 0.58 ().85' 0.65 12. Spring & Los Angeles 0.82• 13. Science & New Los Angeles 0.52 0.59 35. Walnut Canyon & Casey 0.74 0.51 55. Somis & Los Angeles 0.65 0.91.. Unsi nalized - Average Deis seconds 25. Walnut Canyon & Broadway 16.8 J 14.0 17.7 11.2 26. Walnut Canyon & Cham ionshi _E 42. Grimes Canyon & Championship 9.0 9.1 43. Grimes Canyon & Los Angeles_ 185.0" 155,0" ` City intersection exceeds LOS (' " County intersection exceeds LOS 1) Source Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., November 2001 Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion 1'roject 111. I, �nti•ironmentul lmpurt Anulysi.s City of Moorpark Page 111 131 Revised Drat Initial Study of < N � xl V J 1 s' a. • R i� -- �� 8 — APOAJwA, i _)ro'ect `, te' \ — C.-AUP70NS � \ �1i •; s 0% 1 13 Ni:N IC j _ 27 ' 28 _ 35 39 41 ANU, FS I -,Ew s a j � \ 0 Not to Scale SR_i:g II Source Austin-Foust Associates. Inc.. NovemDer 2004 CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES C\ .p Figure 111.15 -2 Existing ADT Volumes (000s) lz In C cD 0 Ic 0 Z 0 N 0 0 N 01 W v Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 241 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Existing Freeways and Highways State Routes 23 and 118 converge on the City of Moorpark as freeway facilities from the east (SR- 118) and the south (SR -23), and pass through the city as arterial roadways (SR -118 along I.os Angeles Avenue /New Los Angeles Avenue, and SR -23 along Moorpark Avenue and Walnut Canyon Road). As regional State Route facilities, these arterial roadways currently carry higher than average levels of truck traffic than typical arterial roadways within a community (Caltrans 2(1[11 counts indicate that around 14 percent of the daily vehicles on Los Angeles Avenue and around 15 percent of the daily vehicles on Moorpark Avenue /Walnut Canyon Road are heavy trucks). While it is expected that the proportion of truck to vehicle traffic will decline as the City's General Plan Land Use F.lement is built out, the gross volume of trucks on the SR -23 and SR -1 18 corridors will continue to increase due to cumulative growth throughout the region. City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element The Cily has taken measures to eventually have the State Route truck traffic shifted to less sensitive routes through the city, specifically by the inclusion of the SR -23 and North Hills Parkway (SR -I 18) arterial bypasses on the City's Circulation Element roadway plan. Timing for construction of the arterial bypasses is uncertain, however, principally because of funding concerns. For the purposes of this analysis, the Future (2007) baseline conditions assume [hat no construction of the arterial bypasses has taken place. In the Future (2020) baseline conditions, the North Hills Parkway between Gabhert Road and Spring Road is assumed to have been constructed as a four -lane arterial, but a SR- 23 bypass is not assumed to he in place (i.e. SR -23 truck traffic would continue to travel along city streets such as Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark Avenue and Walnut Canyon Road). Project Impacts Trip Generation As indicated in fable 111.15 -4, the proposed project will generate 869 daily trips, of which 69 will he generated during the AM peak hour and 83 will he generated during the PM peak hour. 'These trip generation estimates arc applied in the future 2007 and 2020 settings in order to assess the project's near -term and long -range traffic impacts. Trip rates utilized to calculate trip generation are those applied in the Moorpark Traffic Analysis Model (MTAM) as derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. Table IILI5-4 Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use Amount AM Peak Hoar PM Peak Hoar ADT Iu Out ToW In Oat Total Dl1 18 SI h9 tl ?4 K} Khv Rc,ufendal Ahhrevia(ions AD I - average daily trips. DU - dwelling unit ,41oorpurk Country Club Estates Expansion Project / /I. Environmental Impact Anal"is City of Uoe)rpurk Page 11/-1 33 Revised Druft Initial Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 242 Christopher A .loeeph &- Associates December 2006 Source Augnn Fuua.h a cietu• , Inc, NuvemN,r20N04. Trip Distribution Distribution of project - generated traffic onto the future roadway networks was determined using shout -range and long -range versions of the MTAM. Figure 111.15 -3, illustrates the general directional distribution of project traffic on the short -range (2007) circulation systems, and Figure 111.15 -4 illustrates the general project traffic distribution on the long -range (2020) circulation system. Existing (2004) Plus Project Traffic Conditions Existing (20(W) plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 111.15 -5. As shown on Table 111.15- 5, two signalized City, one signalized County and one unsignalized County intersection locations are forecast to operate at acceptable levels (LOS D or worse for City intersections; LOS E or worse for County intersections) under existing plus project conditions. however, none of the nine signalized intersections Table 111.15 -5 Existing Plus Project Level of Service (LOS) Summary Intersection AM T PM Signalized - ICU 1. Moorpark & High 0.72 0.55 078 0.65 0.71 2. Spring & High 9. Moorpark & Poindexter/First 0.63 10. Tierra Rejada & Los Angeles 0.83' 0.59 0.72 0.65 11. Moorpark & Los Angeles 12. Spring & Los Angeles 0.85' 0.82" 13. Science & New Los Angeles 0.52 0.59 35. Walnut Canyon & Casey 0.77 0.53 55. Somis & Los An Iles 0.65 0.95 t -nsi nalized - Average Delay seconds 25. Walnut Canyon & Broadway 26. Walnut Canyon & C ampionship 16.8 17.7 14.4 11.3 42. Grimes Canyon & Cha pionship 9.0 9.2 43. Grimes Canyon & I.os Angeles 217.4•' 183.2'" ' City intersection exceeds LOS C " C'ount • intersection exceeds LOS D .Source: Austin -Foust Associates, hie. November 2004. are significantly impacted by the project as the with - project ICU increase is less than 0.02. The intersection of Tierra Rejada Road and Los Angeles Avenue would continue to operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour. The intersection of Spring Road and Los Angeles Avenue would continue to Moorpark Counts- Club Estates Expansion Project III. Environmental Impact Analvsis City of Moorpark Page 111 -134 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 243 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2(X)6 operate at LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hour. The intersection of Sumis Road and Los Angeles Avenue would continue to operate at LOS L in the PM peak hour. Consequently, impacts to Signalized intersections would he less than significant. Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project Ili. Environmental impact Analysis Ciry of Moorpark Page /1 /- /35 Revised Draft Initial Study Z � s sl � _w f. a. BRDA21WA' Not to Scale OD 19 ��• \� v\ CASE+ \ I 1p A \GCLrS-- �I 5% _�— 8% -- -- 18X 6X 14– Ir Kos a a C�, Source Austin -Foust Associates Inc . November 2004 -------'CHRISTOPHER A JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES Figure 111.15 -3 Project Traffic Distribution (2007) tv c� cn v, cn o_ N E O Z O N C) TOT V/ N rs w Source Austin -Foust Associates. Inc, . November I0O4 6�1 CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES Figure 111.15 -4 Project Traffic Distribution (2020) fy cD cn N M O_ N C O Z O N C) O N CJ1 W z 1 )I 3' 840ADWAI K - - -- ? o:ec: ,e— — K V, Z Z z Not to Scale say / w� � zzr. - - -_— N ' ' 3 tr: BX ao I ANGLES z . � a CI N �3 u \ KimN ^i ,..I S 4X NI 3X — �I� 2% tOX 8% 11 9X %t/ 44 \ •\ AYGi _ES I NEW .O`'i \>•1 p Source Austin -Foust Associates. Inc, . November I0O4 6�1 CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES Figure 111.15 -4 Project Traffic Distribution (2020) fy cD cn N M O_ N C O Z O N C) O N CJ1 W r� u T 9QCAD«A1�- ------'- --- o /' -- ' � / ' ' ' ' / � / � � ~',E"3 � ^�. sou(ce Austin-Foust Associates. |nc, November 2oo4 --_I CHRISTOPHER 4 JOSEPH &ASSOCIATES \ ` � / 'uw` ` �. L | / �m ° z` � 2 8 35 '39_ / � 95 � \ '-- Not to Scale ANG-. Ell - ' Figure 111.15-5 Existing Plus Project ADT Volumes /000s\ � cn o � z o rQ Cn Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 247 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 The stop- controlled leg of the unsignalized County intersection of Grimes Canyon Road and Los Angeles Avenue, which currently operates at LOS F during peak hours, would experience an increase of approximately 30 seconds as a result of traffic from the proposed project and therefore would he significantly impacted by the proposed project. This impact is considered hypothetical as the Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion project is not a near -term project; construction of the project site is not anticipated to commence until 2005, and buildout of the site is anticipated to occur over two years. Therefore, the traffic generated by the Moorpark Country Club Estates would not he placed on the existing, present day roadway system. However, signalizalion of the intersection of Grimes Canyon Road and Los Angeles Avenue and widening of the eastbound and westbound approaches to provide a second through lane would improve the LOS to D or better. 'These improvements at Grimes Canyon Road and Los Angeles Avenue are components of the overall improvement program in the General Plan Circulation Element identified as being necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service under 2007 no- project conditions. The project is therefore considered to contribute to the cumulative short -range (2007) need for improvements at the Grimes Canyon Road /Los Angeles Avenue intersection which is a County intersection. Participation in the County's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program will address, on a fair share basis, the project - related traffic impact. With incorporation of this mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. Related Projects Future (2007) No Project Conditions Short -range (2007) traffic forecasts for the circulation system in the vicinity of the project site were prepared using the short -range version of the MTAM. Traffic forecasts produced by the MTAM for future scenarios rellect estimated levels of additional development within the City of Moorpark, as well as regional growth and circulation improvements outside of the City. This includes the future development plans of the other cities in Ventura County and unincorporated Ventura County as well as the development plans in the remainder of the region outside Ventura County. Specific development projects that have been assumed in this analysis for the Moorpark city limits and sphere of influence are summarized in Table 111.15 -6. The table also lists the amount of development that is assumed to he in place by 2007 and by 2020. Many of these projects have not received development entitlements, and some are development proposals that are no longer being pursued and ultimate development may he different. Nonetheless, they have been incorporated into the traffic model to address cumulative impacts from the expected development of vacant land in the City in the modeled time frames. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project III. Environmental Impact Anal SUS Cin, of Moorpark Page 111-1.39 Kevr.sed Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 248 Christopher A..loseph & Associates December 2006 Table 11I.15 -6 Related Proiects No. Development Pro eet/Land Uses 2007 2020 A -B Properties 1 Light Industrial 110 KSF 350 KSF Cabrillo Development Z Residential 59 DU 59DU _ Carlsherg Specific Plan Residential 80 DU 80 DU Commercial (retail) 357 KSF 482 KSF 3 L, ht Industrial 495 KSF 495 KSF Birdsall Proposed General Plan Amendment 4 Residential 0 DU 30 DU Centex Homes 5 Residential 0 DU 110 DU Grand Moorpark Proposed General Plan Amendment _ 6 Residential 66 DU 66 DU Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 1) I Residential 605 DU 605 DU Light Industrial 0 KSF 350 KSF 7 Institutional 0 KSF 40 KSF M &M Development Commercial (Retail) 72.1 KSF 72.1 KSF 8 Moorpark Highlands Plan No. 2) (Specific Residential 437 DU 4 570 DU I Middle .School 600 Students 1 900 Students 9 1 Park 7 acres 7 acres North Park Village Specific Plan 500 DO 1,650 DU Residential 700 Students 700 Students Middle School 0 KSF 70 KSF 10 Park 32.90 Acres 32.90 Acres 11 I Pacific Communities Residential 284 DU__t 284 DU T Shea Homes j 12 I, Residen(iul 79 pU 79 Du Shewt,T Proposed General Plan Amendment 13 Residential 1 W DU IN) DU SUNCAL 14 Residential 107 DU 107 DO _ Tall Brothers Residential 216 DU 216 DU 15 Golf Course 480 acres 480 acres Triliad 16 Light Industrial 1 176 KSF I 572 KSF William Lyon Homes 17 Residential 250 DO 250 DU Source. Au cun- Foust A ssoriates Inc , Se tember 2004 Moorpark Countrs• Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page 111 -140 Rew ed Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 249 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Deremher 2(X)6 In preparing short -range (2007) x traffic projections circulation system improvements that are associated with other development projects that are planned by 2(X)7 were assumed to he constructed. These improvements are summarized in Table 111.15 -7, together with references for the specific development that is assumed to implement each improvement (under Source). These improvements provide on -site circulation and site access for the associated development projects and therefore would not he constructed if those development projects were not to occur. However, it is expected that if these improvements were not made by the related projects that they are assigned to now, then they would be made by other development projects or by the City through its fee mitigation program which it is currently developing. Table 111.15 -7 Year 2007 Circulation Improvements Associated With Future Development Projects in the Study Area Location Improvement Source Roadway Improvements • Street Construct as a two -lane local collector from northern 1 boundary of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan site to B Street. _ • Street Construct as a two -lane local collector from Casey Rd to t 2 northern Hitch Ranch Specific Plan project boundary._ _ B Street Construct as a two -lane local collector from Walnut Canyons I Rd to A Street. Casey Rd Extend as a two -lane collector from the existing; western 2 terminus to Gabbert Rd. Gahhert Rd Widen to four lanes from Los Angeles Ave to 4 a roxima ely 150 feet north of the Union Pacific Railroad, 1,r)s Angeles Ave Widen to six lanes form Sprite Rd to Moorpark Ave. 5 Spring Rd Widen to four lanes from High St to Charles St and extend 3 as a four -lane arterial from Charles Si to Walnut Canvon Rd. Intersection Improvements 2. Spring Rd & High St Concert NBR to shared 2" NBT/NBR. 3 12. Spring Rd & Los Angeles Add 2" NBT, 2 SBL, convert SBR to 2 " SBT, convert 2 "' 15 Ave F.BL to 3rd EBT, and convert WBR to 3rd W BT. I _ Spring New intersection: NBT, SBL, SBT, �3 27. Walnut Canyon Rd & signalise and provide Rd WBL, WBR, and WBR overlap with SBL. _ Abhrcviaiions- NBL. = northbound left -turn lane, NBT = northbound through -lane, NBR = northbound right -turn lane, etc. for eastbound. southbound, and westbound. Sources. 1- implemented with development of William Lyon Homes. 2- implemented with development of Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 1). 3- Implemented with development of Moorpark Highlands (Specific Plan No. 2). 4- implemented with development of the A -B Properties industrial tract. 5-City of Moorpark improvement. Source. Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., November 2004. As shown on Table 111.15 -H, three City locations are projected to operate worse than LOS C and two County locations are projected to operate worse than LOS D under 2007 conditions without development of the proposed project. The intersection of Tierra Rejada Road and Los Angeles Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project ill Environmental Impact Analysis Citi• of Moorpark Page 111 Ill Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 250 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Decemher 2000) Avenue would operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour, the intersection of Spring Road and lax Angeles Avenue would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour and the intersection of Science and Los Angeles Avenue would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour. The County intersection of Somis Road and Los Angeles Avenue would operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 111.15 -8 2007 No Project LOS Summary The specific background improvements that are required to achieve LOS C or better (LOS D or better at County intersections) at each of the locations that arc deficient under 2007 no- project conditions are summarized in Table 111.15 -9. The City of Moorpark is developing a transportation improvement fee program to finance non - committed improvements of this type which arc needed to address cumulative short -range and long -range growth in and around Moorpark. The County of Ventura currently has a traffic impact mitigation fee program in place to finance needed improvements at County locations such as the Grimes Canyon Road /Los Angeles Avenue intersection. The resulting 2007 no- project ICU values and delay estimates with implementation of these additional hackground improvements are also summarized in Table Ill. 15 -8. With incorporation of these required background improvements, the three City and the two County intersections operating below the required levels of service standards would all be improved to acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better for City intersections or LOS D for County intersections). Table 111.15 -9 Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Analysis Cin, of Moorpark Page 111 -142 Revised Draft Initial Studt 2007 No-Project 2007 No Project Intersection Plus Ins rovemeats AM PM AM PM Signalized - ICU 1. Moorpark &High 0.72 0.73 2. S ring & Hi h _ 0.69 _ 0.69 0.76 I 0.79 9. Moorpark & Poindexter /First 10. Tierra Rc'a_da & Los Angeles 0.87` _ 0.79 0.79 0.7_3 11. Moorpark & Los Angeles 1 0.67 0.71 12._prine& Los Angeles 0.77 0.97' 1 0.76 13. Science & New lats Angeles 0.71 1.15' _0.74 0.57 0.71 27. Walnut Can on & Spring 0.66 0.70 35. Walnut Can on & Casey 0.6_8 _ 0.6.1 _ (1.53 43. Grimes Canyon & Los Angeles' 0.62 55. Somis & Los Angeles 0.73 1.00 "0.73 0.83 Unsi nalized - Avera a Delay seconds 25. Walnut Canyon & Broadwa • 21.1 28.4 26. Walnut Canyon & Championship 16.4 _ 12.9 42. Grimes Canyon & Championship 9.2 9.2 43. Grimes Canyon & Los Angeles 1 469.6_ J � 268.0 ' City intersection exceeds LOS C " County intersection exceeds LOS D ' Existing unsi nalized intersection. Soturce. Austin- koustAs.sociates, Inc., November 2004. The specific background improvements that are required to achieve LOS C or better (LOS D or better at County intersections) at each of the locations that arc deficient under 2007 no- project conditions are summarized in Table 111.15 -9. The City of Moorpark is developing a transportation improvement fee program to finance non - committed improvements of this type which arc needed to address cumulative short -range and long -range growth in and around Moorpark. The County of Ventura currently has a traffic impact mitigation fee program in place to finance needed improvements at County locations such as the Grimes Canyon Road /Los Angeles Avenue intersection. The resulting 2007 no- project ICU values and delay estimates with implementation of these additional hackground improvements are also summarized in Table Ill. 15 -8. With incorporation of these required background improvements, the three City and the two County intersections operating below the required levels of service standards would all be improved to acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better for City intersections or LOS D for County intersections). Table 111.15 -9 Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Analysis Cin, of Moorpark Page 111 -142 Revised Draft Initial Studt Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 251 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2606 Year 2007 Intersection Improvements for No- Project LOS Deficiencies Intersection Improvement 10. Tierra Rejada Rd & Los Angeles Ave Add 2" SBT and modify signal to provide NBR overlap with WBL. 12. Spring Rd & Los Angeles Ave _ Add WBR, provide WBR overlap with SBL and NBR overlap with WBL rtlourpurk Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Enrtronmental Impact Anul..sis Ctry o/ .Mtunpark Page Ill .14.1 Revised Drat Initial Stuck' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 252 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Table II1.15 -9 Year 2007 Intersection Improvements for No- Project LOS Deficiencies (Continued) Intersection Improvement 13. Science Dr /Miller Pkwy & New Los Angeles Add 2" WBL, convert 2" NBL to shared Ave NBL/NBT, convert NBT to 2 "" NBR. convert SBT to shared SIISBT, and modify signal to provide N/S split phasing and to provide NBR overlap with WBL. 43. Grimes Canyon Rd & Los Angeles Ave Signalize and provide 2' EBT, 2" W BT. 55. Somis Rd & Los Angeles Ave Add 2 "` NBR. Abbreviations. northbound left -turn lane, NBT = northbound through -lane. NBR = northbound ri ht -turn lane, etc. for eastbound southhound, and westbound. Source: Austin -Foust A.s.vociatev, Inc., November 2004. Future (2020) No Project Conditions Long -range (2020 traffic forecasts for the circulation system in the project vicinity were prepared using the long -range version of the MTAM which assumes buildout of the City's General Plan Land Use Element. This includes huildout of each of the City's Specific Plan areas. However, it is generally considered unlikely that the complete construction of the roadway network depicted in the City's General Plan Circulation Element will occur by 2020. Consequently, for the purposes of this analysis, the City has directed a baseline roadway network that is felt to realistically he constructed by 2020 to evaluate the project's impacts. The key differences between this baseline and the Circulation Element roadway plan are: i. The SR -23 arterial bypass between the SR -2; (Moorpark) Freeway and Broadway is not assumed to be constructed, nor is the Broadway extension from the SR -23 arterial bypass to the SR -118 (Ronald Reagan) Freeway. ii. North Hills Parkway between Gabbert Road and Spring Road is assumed to he constructed as a four -lane arterial than six lanes as depicted in the Circulation Element. iii. Los Angeles Avenue between Gabhert Road/Tierra Rejada Road and Grimes Canyon Road is assumed to be improved to a four -lane arterial rather than six lanes as depicted in the Circulation Element. The circulation improvements within the study area that are assumed in the 2020 baseline roadway system are summarized in Table 111.15 -10. Table III.15 -10 Year 2020 Circulation Improvements Location Improvement Notes Roadway Improvements Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project W. Environmental Impact Anah•vts Cad of Moorpark Page Ill -1.4 Revised Draft Initial Sttrdv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 253 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Table 111.15 -10 Year 2020 Circulation Improvements Location Improvement Notes • Street Construct as a two -lane local collector from the northern boundary of the Hitch l Ranch Specific Plan site to B Street. • Street Construct as a two -lane local collector from Casey Rd to northern boundary of 1 2 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan site. B Street Construct as a two -lane local collector from Walnut Canyon Rd to A Street. 1 Casey Rd i Construct as a two -lane collector from the existing western terminus to Gabbert 2 Rd. Gahhert Rd Widen to four lanes from Los Angeles Ave to approximately 150 feet north of the 4 Union Pacific Railroad. Gahhert Rd Widen to four lanes from approximately 150 feet north of the Union Pacific 2 Railroad to North Hills Pkw . Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project Ill. Fnvironmental Impact AnaMis Ctrl, of Moorpark Page Ill 1.15 Revised Draft Initial.Satdv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 254 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Table III.15 -10 Year 2020 Circulation Improvements (Continued) Location Improvement Notes Los Angeles Ave Widen to six lanes from Spring _Rd to Moorpark Ave. 5 Los Angeles Ave Widen to six lanes from Moorpark Ave to Gabbert Rd/Ticrra Rejada Rd. and widen to four lanes from Gabbers Rd/Tierra Rejada Rd west of the City Limits. Nonh Hills Pkwy Construct as four -lane arterial from Los Angeles Ave to south of the Union 6 Pacific Railroad. I North Hills Pkwy Construct as four -lane arterial from south of the Union Pacific Railroad to the A- B Properties site, including a grade separated crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad. Nonh [fills Pkwy Construct as four -lane arterial from she A -B Properties site to the eastern I 2 boundarV of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan site. Nonh Hills Pkwy Construct as four -lane arterial from the eastern boundary of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan site to Spring Rd, and as a six -lane arterial from Spring Rd to the SR -1 18 Freeway. Spring Rd Widen to four lanes from High St to Charles St and extend as a four -lane arterial 3 from Charles St to Walnut Canyon Rd. Intersection Improvements 2. Spring Rd & Ifigh Convert NBR to shared 2nd NBT/NBR. 3 St :::I_ 10. Tierra Re, ada Rd Add 2" SBT and modify signal to provide NBR overlap with WBI.. _ 7 & Los Angeles Ave 10. Tierra Rejada Rd Add 2r NBT. & I.os Angeles Ave _ 11. Moorpark Ave & Convert WBR to shared 3'd WBTIWBR and modify signal to eliminate WBR Los Angeles Ave � overlap with SBI,. _ _ 12. Spring Rd & Los Add 2" NBT and 2" SBL, convert SBR toSBT, conver12nd EBI. to 3" EBT. 5 –Angeles Ave and convert WBR to Yd WBT. 12. Spring Rd & LA Add WBR, provide WBR overlap with SBL and N13R overlap with WBL. ? 7 Angeles Ave _ 13. Science Dr /Miller –Add 2 W L, convert 22TN�BI- to shared NBL to shared N13I /NBT, convert 7 Pkwy & New Los I NBT to 2 "' NBR. convert SUF to shared SBL /SBT, and modify signal to provide An ,cles Ave I N/S split phasing and to provide NI3R overlap with WBI.. 25. Walnut Canyon Signalize and provide NBL, NBT, SBL, SBT. EBL, EBT, F.BR, WBL. WBT, and _ Rd & Broadway EBR overlap with NBL. _ 27. Walnut Canyon New intersection: signalize and provide NBT, SBL, WBT. W BI_, WBR. and 3 Rd & Spring Rd WBR overlap with NBL. _ 29. Gabbert Rd & SR- New Intersection: signalize and provide NBL, NBT. NBR, dual SBL, dual SBT. 2 ]is EBL, 3 EBT, WBL, 3 WBT, WBR, NBR overlap with WBI. and WBR overlap with SBL. _ 31. Spring Rd & North t New intersection: signalize and provide NBI-, dual NBT, NBR, dual SBL, dual Hills Pkwy SBT, EBL, 3 FBT, WBI., 3 WBT, WBR, NBR overlap with WBL and WBR overlap with SBL. 37. North [fillsPkwy f New intersection: signalize and provide dual SBL, dual SBR dual EBL, dual EBTa 6 & Los An eles Ave dual WBT, WBR and SBR overlap with EBL. —EBT. 43. Grimes Canyon Signalize and provide 2" 2r" WBT. i 7 Rd & Los Angeles 1 Ave — -- -- S5. Somis Rd & Los I Add 2" NBR. ! 7 Angeles Ave ,Voorpurk Counrry Chih Estates Expunsion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis On, of .tifoorpark Page Ill -146 Revised Draft Initial Stud)' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 255 Christopher A. Joseph c& Associates December 2(X)6 Table 111.15 -10 Year 2020 Circulation Improvements (Continued) Location Im rovemeat I Notes 55. Somis Rd & Los Convert 2 " NBR to shared NBL /NBR, add 2 n1 EBT, EBR, 2" WBL , and 2 "' Angeles Ave WBT. _ _ t Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Anal y, %i% Ctly of Moorpark Pagt, Ill /4? Revised Draft Initial Stuck Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 256 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 1006 Table III.15 -10 Year 2020 Circulation Improvements (Continued) Location Improvement Notes Abbreviations. NBL = northbound left -turn lane. NBT = northbound through -lane, NBR = northbound right -turn lane, ctc. for eastbound, southbound, and westbound. Notes: 1 - Planned to be implemented by 2007 with development of William Lyon Homes. 2 Planned to be implemented by 2007 with development of Hitch Ranch Specific Plan {Specific Plan No. 1). i Planned to be implemented by 2007 with development of Moorpark Highlands ( Specific Plan No. 21 -1 Planned to be implemented by 2007 with development of the A -B Properties industrial tract. 5 Planned to be implemented by 2007 by city of Moorpark. 6- Implemented with development of the Triliad industrial tract. 7 Background improvements required by 2007. Source Austin Foust Associates, Inc., November 2004. As shown in Table 111.15 -11, all study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels cif service in the long -range (2020) no- project scenario. this scenario does assume the circulation improvements detailed in Table 111.15 -10. Table III.15 -11 2020 No- Project LOS Summary Intersection 2020 No- Project AM PM Signalized - ICU 1. Moorpark & High 0.56 1 0.76 _ 2. S rin & High 0.37 0.69 9. Moorpark & Poindexter /First 0.70 0.77 10. Tierra Reiada & Lus Angeles 11. Moorpark & Los Angeles 0.72 0.74 0.59 0.65 12. Spring & Los Angeles 0.64 0.77 13. Science & New Los Angeles 0,55 0.79 25. Walnut Canyon & Broadway_ _ 27. Walnut Canyon & Spring 0.52 0.65 0.63 0.75 29. Gabbers & SR -118 0.5_4 0.76 0.67 31. Spring & SR -118 0.76 35. Walnut Canyon & Casey 0,64 0.58 37. SR -118 & Los Angeles 0.69 0.79 43. Grimes Canyon & Los Angeles 0.79 0.41 0.74 55. Somis & Los Angeles 0.66 Unsi nalized Average Delay (seconds) 26. Walnut Canyon & Championship 16.4 7 14.2 9.2 9.4 42. Grimes Canyon & Champion hi Source' Austin - /oust Associates Inc., Newembrr 20)4. Afoorpurk Country Club Estates Expansion Project !I /. En�dronntentul /rnpuc't Analssi� Citv of Moorpark Page Ill 148 Revised Draft btittal.Stud), Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 257 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Future (2007) Plus Project Conditions Short -range (2(x)7) plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 111.15 -6. As shown on 'Fable 15- 12, all study intersections will operate at acceptable levels of services (LOS C or better at City intersections and LOS D or better at County intersections) during the AM and PM peak hour under 2(x)7 plus project conditions, assuming the background intersection improvements detailed in Table 15 -9 are constructed. These intersection improvements would be required to maintain acceptable levels of service both with and without the proposed project. Future (2020) Plus Project Conditions Long -range (2020) plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 111.15 -7. As shown on Table 111.15 -13, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours with prO.iect implementation. Therefore, no project - related significant impacts would occur in the future 2020 scenario. Table 111.15 -12 2007 With- Project LOS Summary Intersection 2007 No-Project 2007 With - Project AM PM AM PM Signalized - ICU I. Moorpark & High 2. Spring & High _ 0.72 I 0.73 _0.72 0.74 0.68 0.76 0.69 0.76 9. Moorpark & Poindexter /First 0.69 0.79 0.70 0.80 10. Tierra Re'ada & Los Angeles' 0.79 0.73 0.67 - 0.71 0.74 0.76 0.79 0.73 0.67 0.72 1 0.74 0.77 11. Moorpark & Los Angeles 12. Spring & Los Angeles 13. Science & New Los An Iles' 0.57 p.71 0.71 27. Walnut Canyon & Spring 0.70 _0.57 - 0.68 I 0.73 35. Walnut Can on & Case _0.66 0.68 0.61 0.70 0.62 43. Grimes Canyon & Los Angeles' I 0.62 0.53 0.62 0.55 55. Somis & Los Angeles' 0.73 0.83 _ 0.73 0.83 Unsignalized - Average Delay (seconds) 25. Walnut Canyon & Broadway 21.1 28.4 21.1 28.4 26. Walnut Canyon & Championship 16.4 12.9 17.7 13.4 42. Grimes Canyon & Championship 1_, 9.2 I 9.2 1 9.2 9.2 ICUs at this kwation assume implementation of non - committed background improvements which were found to be required to address forecasted 2007 deficiencies without development of the propo. d ro'ect. .Source: Austin f oust Associates, Inc. November 2004. Moorpark C'ountrY Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Anal ' sip ('its of Moorpark Page 111.149 Remised Draft Inittul Study G � >I S• lJ I $ lL I y - '.J i, dam`• i Source Austin -Foust Associates Inc.. November 2004 i� CHRIST OPHFR A JOSFPH & ASSOCIATES 262 _ 7 .117ttl1. : ,�I�e O. �i \ " -z IJ tCID e 2 { / N\ V \T\,O 'a 0 Not to Scale % Y �Y ANLE,ES 3 f n 10 i 16__� \\ _29 _ i`� 28 _ _37 42 49 C, NEW i) rc fl In C14; z _ . I� =I Figure 111.15 -6 Future (2007) With- Project Traffic Volumes v cD cn cn cD O_ fV C Cn = Co O 3 Z O N O TOT V/ N CJl W 4 I z� z a' L :1 li 1� 990ADNAY ll n: 36�i s Source Austin -Foust Associates. Inc . November 2004 CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES /•' /� ^MANPiORS��P � / /T�1q I Not to Scale y 23 _! I 39 i 2Z CASE C,4! ANGELFS "Z/ 3 f i N 6 \\ — _ r4 6 u 25 _ _ ' 23 _34 j 47 56 •.F8 :OS 7 In C` !T ' Figure 111.15 -7 Future (2020) Traffic Volumes With Project v cD cn cn cD o_ N C O Z O N O O O N Ln W v Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 260 Christopher A..loseph & Associates December 2006 Table II1.15 -I3 2020 With - Project LOS Summary Intersection 2020 No-77e:c 2020 With - Project AM PM AM PM Si nalized -ICU I. Moorpark & High 0.56 0.76 0.57 0.77 2. SpFing & High 0.37 0.69 0.37 0.69 _ 9. Moorpark & Poindexter /First 0.70 0.77 0.70 0.77 10. Tierra Re'ada & Los Angeles 0.72 0.74 0.73 0.74 11. Moorpark & Los Angeles 0.59 0.65 0.59 0.65 12. Spring & Los Angeles 0.64 0.77 0.64 0.78 13. Science & New Los Angeles 0.55 0.79 0.55 0.79 ?5. Walnut Canyon & Broadway 0.52 0.65 0.52 0.65 27. Walnut Capon &Spring 0.63 0.75 _ 0.65 0.79 29. Gabbert & North Hills 0.54 0.67 0.54 0.67 31. Spring & North Hills 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.76 35. Walnut Canyon & Casey 0.64 _ 0.58 0.66 0.59 37. North Hills & Los An Iles 0.69 0.79 0.74 _ 0.69 0.79 0.79 0.75 43. Grimes Canyon & Los An eles 0.79 55. Somas & Los Angeles 0.41 0.66 0.41 0.66 Unsi nalized - Average Delay seconds 26. Walnut Canyon & Championship 16.4 14.2 17.6 14.$ 42. Grimes Canyon & Championship 9.2 9.4 93 _ 9.4 _ Sourer' Austin -roust Associates, Inc., November 204 Moorpark Country Chih Estates Expansion Project / /l. Environmental lmpuc•tAnulv.si.s City of Moorpark Page /11.152 Revised Draft lnmal.Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 261 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2000 Mitigation Measures The following measures apply to both project parcels- 4-615-1 The project applicant shall pay its fair share in the County of Ventura's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program to mitigate impacts on unincorporated County roadways. 47615 -2 The project applicant shall implement its fair share of the non - committed improvements in the City of Moorpark as follows: Short Range (Year 2007) Fair Share Funded Improvements (off -site improvements) Intersection Improvements: 10 Tierra Rejada Rd. & Los Angeles Ave: Add 2 "" SBT and modify signal to provide NBR overlay with WBL (project share < I %). I I Spring Rd & Los Angeles Ave: Add WBR overlap and NBR overlap with WBL (project share < 1%). 12 Science Dr /Miller Pkwy & New Los Angeles Ave: Add 2 "" W13L, convcrt 2 "' N13L to shared NBL/NBT, convert N13T to 2 "s NBR, convert SHT to shared SBL,'SBT. and modify signal to provide N/S split phasing to provide NBR overlay with WBL (prciject share < 1'7n). Long -Range (2020) Fair Share Funded Improvements (off -site improvements) Roadway Improvements Los Anp-cles Ave: Widen to six lanes from Moorpark Avenue to Gahhcrt RdJicrra Rejada Rd, and widen to four lanes from Gahhert Rd /Tierra Rejada Rd to west of the City limits (project share < I%). North Hills Pkwy: Construct as four -lane arterial from the eastern boundary of the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan site to Spring Rd, and as a six -lane arterial from Spring Rd to the SR -118 Freeway (project share < 1' %r•). Intersection Improvements 11) Tierra Reiada Rd & Los Angeles Ave: Add 2 "' NBT (project tihare < I% ). Moorpark Countrt• Ouh Estates Expansion Proiect ttt. h:nt•ironmenial impart ,1nalys(� Citt• of Afo(rrpark Page W- 153 RO ised Draft Initial Stu* Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 262 Christopher A. Joeeph & Associates December 2016 11 Moopark Ave & Los Angeles Ave: Convert WBR to shared 3`d WBT /WBR and modify signal to eliminate WBR overlap with SBI. (project share < 1 %). 31 Spring Rd & North Hills Pkwy: New intersection: signalize and provide NBL, dual NBT, NBR, dual SBI., dual SBT, EBL. 3 EBT, WBL, 3 WBT, WBR, N13R overlap with WBI. and WBR overlap with SBL (project share < 1 %). Cumulative Impacts As stated above, the existing plus project analysis indicates that in conjunction with the 17 related projects the proposed project is considered to contribute to the cumulative short -range (2(X)7) need for improvements at the Grimes Canyon Road /1A)s Angeles Avenue intersection which is a County intersection. flowcver, the project's incremental impact on short -range (2007) traffic conditions would he addressed by the project's participation in the County's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program and therefore, would not he considered cumulatively considerable. In the long -range (2020) future traffic conditions, the project in conjunction with the related projects will also contribute to the cumulative need for the long -range (2020) Moorpark circulation improvement program. The proposed project will he required to implement the identified non - committed improvements in the City of Moorpark on a fair share basis (see Table 111.1.5 -14). As a result, the project's incremental impact on long -range future traffic conditions in the City of Moorpark would not he cumulatively considerable. Moorpark Countrt- Ouh E. tat" Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis On, of Xfcx>rpark Page /1/ -1 Sit Revtsed Draft lnuial.Studc Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 263 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2000 b) Would the project result in the temporary street or lane closures that would result in either a change of traffic patterns or capacity that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system during construction activities (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? Hu.sted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project construction include the temporary closure of streets or lanes that would change traffic patterns or capacity to existing traffic load or capacity. There are no temporary street closures or lane closures planned in relation to project construction at either project parcel site. There would be no impact. Mitigation Measures None required. c) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Hu.sted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur where adopted California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) and Ventura County Transportation Commission (V(."TC) thresholds for a significant project impact are exceeded. All roadways and intersections designated on the Ventura County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) road network within the traffic analysis study area are analyzed, therefore this traffic study complies with the CMP requirements for the analysis of land use impacts on the CMP road network. LOS F: (ICU value less than or equal to 1.00) is the LOS standard that has been adopted in the Ventura County CMP. The objective of the traffic study is to maintain the LOS standards of the local jurisdictions (LOS C for the City of Moorpark and LOS D for the County of Ventura) when addressing the traffic impacts of the proposed project. In doing so, the LOS standard for the CMP road network is automatically attained because the LOS standards adopted by the local jurisdictions that are within the study area are more constrictive than the CMP LOS E standard. As discussed above in Section (a), project - related traffic individual and cumulative traffic impacts at study intersections would be less than significant with the incorporation of the required mitigation measures. Therefore, project - related traffic would not individually or cumulatively cause any of the study intersections to exceed CMP levels of service and impacts would he less than significant. Afoorpurk Country CYuh Estates Expansion Project !1!. F,nvtronmental lmpactAnalr ik City of Moorpark PaRr 111- 1i i Revised Druft initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 264 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2(K)6 Mitigation Measures 'done required. d) Would the project result in a change in air traMc patterns, Including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. This question would apply to the proposed project only if it were an aviation- related use. The proposed project does not include any aviation - related uses. The proposed project would have no airport impact. Mitigation Measures None required. e) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Husied Parcel and Mazur Parcel Fhe following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. The proposed project is the development of 87 single- family dwelling as an extension to a medium density subdivision to the south. With the approval of a change in the General Plan designaiinn from Rural L.ow Residential (RL) and Open Space (OS -2) to Medium Low (ML.) and Open Space (OS) and a change in Liming from Rural Exclusive (RE) 5 -acre minimum lot SiLC to Residential Planned Development the project will be compatible with all existing uses and zoning. New roads will be constructed on each project parcel to provide access and these roads will be built in accordance with the rule and regulations of the City of Moorpark Department of Building and Safety. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. I) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Husled Parcel and Maier Parcel the following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to interfere with roadway operations Munrpark Countn• Chub F, states Expansion Pro)ert 111. Fnvironmental Impact Anal }•si% Citv of Moorpark Page ll! -) 56 Reused Draft Initial JtudY Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 265 Christopher A. Joseph c& Associates December 2(X)6 used in conjunction with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic congestion that would interfere with the execution of such a plan. Short -term construction activities of the proposed project could result in temporary lane closures; but would not substantially impede public access or travel upon public rights -of -way and would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (e.g., no existing street patterns would be changed). In addition, project impacts to area traffic would have no significant impacts on nearby roadways. or intersection operations that might result in the interference with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. g) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. The proposed project is the development of 87 single - family homes which will include driveways and garages for their own parking requirements and no parking impacts are therefore anticipated. Mitigation Measures None required. h) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. Bus service in the local vicinity of the project site is provided by Ventura Intercity Service Transit Authority (VISTA) and existing bus routes operate along Moorpark Avenue, Poindexter Avenue, Gahbert Road/Tierra Rejada Road and Los Angeles Avenue. Commuter rail service is also provided in the vicinity of the project at the Metrolink station located south of Iligh Street and west of Spring Road. The proposed project is the development of 87 single family dwellings and will not involve the alteration or removal of any existing public transportation provisions, nor will it contravene any adopted policies, plans or programs. No impacts to alternative transportation are anticipated. Mitigation Measures .koorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Analvsis ('it), of .Moe�rpark Page /I/ -157 Rcvrsed Draft Initial.Studv Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 266 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 None required. a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Nfoorpark Counrr'Y Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysts City of Moorpark Page 111 -158 Rertsed Draft Initial StudY Las Theo sicaiflcaat 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Significant with Less Significant Mitigation Significant project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ■ C1 construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has ❑ ❑ . ❑ adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ regulations related to solid waste? a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Nfoorpark Counrr'Y Club Estates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysts City of Moorpark Page 111 -158 Rertsed Draft Initial StudY Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 267 Christopher A. Jux°ph & Associate's December 2006 Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would discharge wastewater and its content exceeds the regulatory limits established by the governing agency. The proposed project is a residential usc. Consequently, the proposed project would not he expected to generate any wastewater discharge that would exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Also, sec Sections K(a) and H(f), above. Therefore, impacts with respect to wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Husted Parcel and .Wazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Water Less than Significant. The project site parcels are situated within the service area of the Ventura County Waterworks District No. I which provides potable water service within its jurisdiction though a combination of groundwater extractions and the purchase of imported water from wholesale water sources. The District gets its water from local and imported sources. The water distribution system consists of 106 miles of water lines, five pumping stations, eleven pressure reducing stations, and fourteen reservoirs storing 17.45 million gallons of water. On an average, each year the District supplies approximately 11,500 acre -feet of water, 254,& of it from local sources and 75% of it imported. Domestic, commercial, industrial, and fire protection customers consume approximately 7Uch of the total water supplied. The remaining 30% is consumed by agricultural customers." Table 111.16 -1 provides an estimate of the expected water consumption for both [lusted and Mazur Parcels According to the Water District, the existing Water infrastructure serving the neighboring Country Club Estates is available to serve both the Rusted and Mazur Parcels."6 Impacts would he less than significant. Table 111.16 -1 Source: L'entttra Count• Waterworks Dtstrict No. I wchpage, url. hirp:ljpuhli(, works .countyo)i,enfura.org/ wre /wss/district_i_moorpark.htm. September 13, 2(04. "' Telephone conversation with Satya Karra, Project Manager, District No. 1. Ventura Counr,' Public 64'orks Department, September 13, 2004. MourparkCi.,untrn ClubEvIatev Erpansion Project Ill. En vironmental Impact Analvsis City of Moorpark Page III-159 Revvwd Draft Initial Stud►• Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 268 Christopher A. Joseph d Associates December 2006 Estimated Proiect Water CnnsumMinn Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project /11. Environmental Impact Analysis Can• of Moorpark Page 1// 160 Revised Draft Initial Study Consumption Rate Gallons Per Day Per Capita Total Water Consumption Land Use (GPDPC) Gallons per Day (GPD) Single Family Residential x 226 = 68,817 GPD 87 DLJ x 1 5 persons per DU = 791 GPD /l)U Source- Moorpark Country Club Estates FEIR, Certified 12120195. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project /11. Environmental Impact Analysis Can• of Moorpark Page 1// 160 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 269 Christopher A. Joseph R Assoctates December 2006 Wastewater Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less than Significant (with regard to wastewater treatment facilities). Wastewater collection and treatment is managed by the Ventura County Public Works Agency through Waterworks District No. 1 which owns, operates and maintains the Moorpark Wastewater Treatment (MWTP) located 3.2 miles west of the intersection of I os Angeles and Moorpark Avenues, south of State highway 119 and north of the Arroyo Las Posas. This facility processes wastewater through a primary, secondary and tertiary system. After treatment and aeration treated water is released to percolate into the groundwater basin. The original MWTP was completed in 1965 as an interim treatment facility with a capacity of 1.0 million gallons per day (mgd). It has since undergone several upgrades, the latest of which began in February 2000 to upgrade the capacity to 3.0 mgd, at a cost of approximately S8.5 million. The average flow in 1999 was 2.0 million gallons a day." The estimated project sewage generation is provided in Table I1I.16 -2. As shown, both project parcels are expected to generate approximately 24,360 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. An additional 24,360 gpd is just 0.81% of the 3.0 mgd capacity of the MWTP. Consequently, it is anticipated that the MWTP would have adequate capacity to accept additional sewage from the proposed project; and will not result in the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility. Table Ill. 16 -2 Estimate Protect Sewage Generation Mitigation Measures None required. Source: Ventura County Waterworks District ,No. I webpuAe, url. http:i! public works .rountyoffi- entura.orR /wreiwssl district _1_mtxtrpurk.htm..September 13, 2004. Moorpark Country Club Fstates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page Ill 161 Reused Draft Initial Stud% Generation Rate Gallons Per Day Per Capita Total Sewage Generation Land Use (GPDPC) Gallons Per Day (GPD) Single Family Residential = 24,360 GPD 97 DU x 3.5 persons per DU X 81) GPDPC = 280 GPD/DU Source: Moorpark Country Club Estates FE1R, Certified 12120195. Mitigation Measures None required. Source: Ventura County Waterworks District ,No. I webpuAe, url. http:i! public works .rountyoffi- entura.orR /wreiwssl district _1_mtxtrpurk.htm..September 13, 2004. Moorpark Country Club Fstates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page Ill 161 Reused Draft Initial Stud% Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 270 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated (with regard to sewage conveyance facilities). Wastewater infrastructure is provided to the existing subdivision by an 8 -inch main line in Championship Drive and a 4 -inch force main line in Trevino Drive. Correspondence with the Ventura County Department of Public Works has indicated that the existing infrastructure built for Tract 4928 has adequate capacity to serve the additional homes, however, two sewer line lifts which pump wastewater from the existing subdivision to a higher elevation to allow flow by gravity to the MWTP may not he sufficient to serve 87 additional residences on the project site parcels. According to the Ventura County Public Works Department, further investigation of these lifts is required. With incorporation of the mitigation measure below, impacts to sewage conveyance facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure applies to both proicct parcels: 16 -1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall design and install sewer line lift% to accommodate the 87 homes to he built in Tentative Tract Maps 5463 and 5464 to the satisfaction and criteria of the Ventura County Public Works Department. The following mitigation measure applies to the Husted Parcel only: 16 -2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the proiect applicant shall ensure that the sewage lift station located at Trevino Drive and Championship Drive be upgraded to the satisfaction of the Ventura County Public Works Department to handle the additional discharge from the new homes to be built as part of Tentative Tract 5463. The following mitigation measure applies to the Mazur Parcel only: 16 -3 Prior to issuance of building Ormits, the proiect applicant shall work with the County of Ventura Public Works Department to ensure that the sewage line along Walnut Canyon Road has the available capacity to accommodate additional sewage flow from Tentative Tract 5464. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the volume of storm water runol l would increase to a level exceeding the capacity of the storm drain system serving the project site. As Mnorpurk Cnantry Club E%tates Expansion Project 111. Environmental Impuc't Anah'tis Ors•af,Vfoorpark N ge III -I62 Rc•wsc•d Draft Ininal.Studt' Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 271 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 described in Sections 8 (c), (d) and (e), the proposed project would not increase water runoff. Project impacts to storm drain facilities would he less than significant. Mitipation Measures None required. d) Would the project have significant water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would increase water consumption to such a degree that new water sources would need to he identified, or if existing resources would he consumed at a pace greater than planned for by purveyors, distributors, and service providers. The proposed project is not required to produce a water assessment pursuant to Senate Bill 610, or a water supply verification pursuant to Senate Bill 221 as it is a residential subdivision with less than 500 dwelling units.'" The current population of the City of Moorpark is 34,887. The WWD No.1 service area includes only the City of Moorpark and the contiguous unincorporated areas to the north and west. The WWD No. I has projected population growth in its service area through 2025. According to the district, the population at buildout within its service area would be 49,520 residents. The proposed project is estimated to have a total of 305 residents, which is within the growth estimate of the WWD No. 1. Further, the WWD No. I has projected water supplies to be available to this population growth over the next 20 years. The project would have a less than significant impact upon water supplies. Mitigation Measures None required. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments' Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to both project parcels: Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur it' the proposed project would increase wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the project site would he exceeded. The MWTP is anticipated to be able to meet the sewage treatment needs for the proposed project, as evaluated in Section INb), above. Impacts would he less than Significant. 4' California Water C'ode.vection 10912 Moorpark Country Cluh F-states Expansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Anal.%tsis On- of Mtmrpark Page 111 -16.3 Rv%vwd Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 272 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 Mitigation Measures None required. ,Moorpark CounrrY Club Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmental ImpactAnalvsis City of Moorpark Page 111 -164 Revised Draft Int«al.Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 273 Christopher A. Joseph cc, Associates December 2006 r) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs' Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel The following analysis applies to bath project parcels: Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to increase solid waste generation to a degree that existing and projected landfill capacities would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste. Solid waste management is administered through four wastesheds in Ventura County. The proposed project sites are located within the eastern wasteshed which is served by the Simi Valley Landfill /Recycling Center. However, facility expansions and new landfills are continuously being sought as the capacities of existing facilities diminish. The capacities and estimated dates of closure for each landfill that may receive solid waste from the project site are included in Table 111.16 -3, below. It is also important to note that mandatory City waste reduction and recycling programs are greatly reducing the amount of solid waste that would otherwise enter local landfills. Table III.16 -3 Simi Valley Landfill /Recycling Center Capacity and Intake Solid waste would be generated by the proposed project by short -term construction activities and long -term operational activities. Discussions for the construction and operational phases are provided below. Construction Impacts Construction activities would generate a variety of scraps and wastes during such phases as demolition and site grading. Generated construction waste would also include recyclahles such as wood waste, drywall, metal, paper, and cardboard. Recycling of construction - related waste materials in compliance with Ali 939 would substantially reduce this waste stream that would otherwise go to a local landfill. Since construction waste is temporary in nature, impacts would he less than significant. :btoorpurk County» Club Estates EXpansion Project Iff. Enviranmensat impart Anul�siti Cite of Moorpark Page 111- l65 Revcsed Draft Initial Saab• Total Estimated Total Estimated Permitted Total Estimated Remaining Permitted Capacity Capacity Used Capacity Daily Intake Estimated Landfill Facility cubic yards) cubic yards cubic yards) tons Per da Closure Date Simi Valley 43.5110.000 34,026,869 9.473,131 1 3.000 Estimated Landfill /Recycling W27i2022 Center I Source: California Integrated Waste Management Boards wehsite: http://www.ciwml).(-a.got,l Profiles /facility /Landfill /default. asp? VW= JSELECTLWTYPE'= Landfill, September 13, 2004 Solid waste would be generated by the proposed project by short -term construction activities and long -term operational activities. Discussions for the construction and operational phases are provided below. Construction Impacts Construction activities would generate a variety of scraps and wastes during such phases as demolition and site grading. Generated construction waste would also include recyclahles such as wood waste, drywall, metal, paper, and cardboard. Recycling of construction - related waste materials in compliance with Ali 939 would substantially reduce this waste stream that would otherwise go to a local landfill. Since construction waste is temporary in nature, impacts would he less than significant. :btoorpurk County» Club Estates EXpansion Project Iff. Enviranmensat impart Anul�siti Cite of Moorpark Page 111- l65 Revcsed Draft Initial Saab• Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 274 Christopher A..Ioseph & Associates Decemher 2006 Operational Impacts As shown in 'liable 111.16 -4, the proposed project would be expected to generate a net total of 2.9 tons of solid waste per week. The Simi Valley Landfill /Recycling Center currently accepts 757,037 tons per year, which is approximately 14,558 tons per week or 2,079 tons per day. "' This gives a remaining daily capacity of 921 tons. Therefore, the additional 2.8 tons of solid waste generated by the proposed project would constitute 0.3% of the remaining weekly capacity. Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the remaining allowable daily intake of the Simi Valley Landfill /Recycling facility; therefore, impacts would he less than significant. Table II1.16 -4 Existing and Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation R) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel T'he following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a proposed project would generate solid waste that was not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Solid waste generated on -site would he disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impacts Water Impacts Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the 16 related projects would further increase cumulative demands for water supplies in the Ventura County "' Source. California Integrated Waste Management Boards wehsite: Landfill Tonnage Reports webpage url: ltitp.11wwK,.ciwmh.ca.gov /Landfills /Tonnage /, October 5, 2004. Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project I /1. Environmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page 1// -166 Revised Draft Initial Study Generation Itate' Solid Waste Land Use Size (tons/ ear ) Generation Single Family Residences 87 DU 11.68/DU 146.2 tons per year 2.8 tons per week " Source: Moorpark Country Club Estates FE1R, Certified 12120195. R) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Husted Parcel and Mazur Parcel T'he following analysis applies to both project parcels: No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a proposed project would generate solid waste that was not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Solid waste generated on -site would he disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impacts Water Impacts Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the 16 related projects would further increase cumulative demands for water supplies in the Ventura County "' Source. California Integrated Waste Management Boards wehsite: Landfill Tonnage Reports webpage url: ltitp.11wwK,.ciwmh.ca.gov /Landfills /Tonnage /, October 5, 2004. Moorpark Country Cluh Estates Expansion Project I /1. Environmental Impact Analysis City of Moorpark Page 1// -166 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 275 Christopher A. Joseph it Associates December 20X16 Waterworks District No. I service area. Water consumption would increase with the proposed project and the related projects. WWD No. I has predicted future growth within its service area and the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) estimates that it has enough water supplies to meet the future population growth and meet water demands during the next 20 years, which the proposed project and related projects are accounted. Therefore, cumulative impacts to water service and regional supplies would he less than significant. Wastewater Impacts Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the related projects would further increase demands for sewer service. Cumulative sewage generation for the proposed project and the related projects would increase the MWTP's daily effluent capacity. Similar to the proposed project, each related project would he required to comply with city and State water conservation programs and sewer allocation ordinances, and therefore, cumulative impacts on sewer service would he less than significant. Solid Waste Impacts Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the related projects would further increase regional demands on landfill capacities. As with the proposed project, related projects would participate in regional source reduction and recycling programs, further reducing the amount of solid waste to be disposed of at the landfills described above. Solutions to meet future disposal needs are continuously being developed at the regional level (i.e., siting new landfills within the County and transporting waste outside the region), cumulative solid waste impacts would he less than significant. Moorpark Country Club Estates Fxpansion Project Ill. Environmental Impact Analysis C in- of Moorpark Page III -167 Revised Draft Initial Study Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 276 Christopher A. Jowph c& Associates December 2006 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Lees Than Sipinuat With poteatially Mitigation Less Than slpifkaat Sipincent Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.' Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation, A significant impact may occur only it the proposed project would have an identified potentially significant impact for any of the ahove issues, as discussed in the preceding sections. The proposed project is located in a low- density suhurhan area and wmitd have no unmitigated significant impacts with respcct to biological resources and cultural resources. The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, reduce or threaten any fish or wildlife species (endangered or otherwise), or eliminate important examples of the major periods of (' alifornia history or pre - history. No impact would occur. ,Worpurk Country Club Estates Expansion Project Ill. Environmentul Impart Anal Cirp of .Woorpurk Page Ill- 168 Revised Draft lnihal.StudY Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 277 C'hrislopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2006 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects in the area of the project site, would result in impacts that would be less than significant when viewed separately, but would he significant when viewed together. Although there are other past, current, and probable future projects in the area surrounding the project site, the proposed project's incremental contribution to cumulative traffic, air quality. and other impact areas would be less than significant. "Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts would not be considered cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. A significant impact may occur if the Proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts, as discussed in the preceding sections. As noted in the evaluations above, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in any unmitigated significant impacts Thus, the project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Moorpark Country Club Estates Expansion Project 111. h. �nvirorimental lmpact Analv,sis Cith• of Moorpark Page 111 169 Revised Draft Initial Studv- Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 278 IV. PREPARERS OF INITIAL STUDY AND PERSONS CONSULTED Environmental Consultants Christopher A. Joseph & Associates 31255 Cedar Valley (hive, Suite 222 Westlake Village, California, 91632 (805) 782 -0708 Curtis 7_acuto, Vice President /Principal Scott Wirtz, Environmental Planner Hclen Crofoot, Assistant Environmental Planner I'cchnical Suhconsultants Transportation /(circulation Austin Foust Associates, Inc. Geology and Soils Geolahs- Westlake Village Biological Resources Keane Biological Consulting Hydrology Jensen Design & Survey, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Phase One Inc. Tree Report L. Newman Design Group, Inc. Moorpark Countrt• Club Estates Expansion Project V. Preparers of the Initial Studs' and 1'ersons Consulted Cin• of A9oorpark Page 1V -1 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 279 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates CE:QA Lead Agency City of Moorpark Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Project Applicant Tall Brothers 7142 Trevino Drive Moorpark, CA 93021 Owner Scott and Tamara I lusted Gordon and Nina Mazur ,Moorpark Country Club Estates E.,tpansion Project V. Preparers of Initial Studt' and Persom Consulted Gilt' of.Moorpurk Page IV-2 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 280 V. REFERENCES Biological Resources Report, Keane Biological Consulting (KBC ), August 2004. .111r•rsdictlonal Delineation Report, The Planning Associates, August 10, 2004. Moorpark Coterntrt• Club Estates Final Environmental Impact Report, C'ertifted 12/20195. Cultural Resource Records Search, performed hr the South Central Coastal Inji,rmutiun Center, dated September lh, 2004. Geolahs- Westluke Village; Reconnaissance Geotechnic•al Investigation of Mazur Property. 7505 Wt`alnuf Cantron Road, City, of Moorpark, California dated October 20, 2003 and reti•ised .lunuar v 23, 2004; and Geofechnic•al Investigation of Husted Property, Eastern Side oj'Grimes Canyon, North of' Championship DrAv, Cit1' of Moorpark, California elated August 30, 2004. Phase I Environmental Site Assessments prepared for flit, (lusted Property and the Mazur PropertY in August and September 2003 respectively, ht• Phase Once, Inc. Tentative Map Ilvdrolo i, Report and Hlvdraulic• Anulvsis, Tentative Tract 5464 Last Addition Moorpark Countr.v Club Estates, prepared hy.lensen Design anti Su rvev, Inc•., duted Dec•ertnher 2003 Tentative Map HYdrology Report and ilYdraulic AnulYsis. Tentative Tract 5463 IVest Addition Moorpark Counn•r Club Estates•, prepared hly.lensen Design and Surv•e.v, Irtc•., dated Decemher 2003 Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agenci, Groundwater Busies Map State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Lund Resource protection. Farmland .Mapping and Monitoring; Program, Ventura County Important Farmland Map 2002. Southern California Association of Governments Forecast, Partial Tract and Suhreyion Reference Tables, Murch 22, 2004 Ventura Count /•girt, Department wehsite, url: htt p:ll frt ,.c•ountl•ofi•enitira.org/, September 22. 2004. Written correspondence from Raman C. Vuldez, Fire Specialist, Ventura County Fire Protection District, dated October 12, 2004. Set, Appendix I. Telephone conversation kith Senior Depute• Ed Tumbleson, .Moorpark Police Department, September 22, 2004. Communication, .loan Corcoran, Moorpark Unified School District• Septennber• 17, 2004. Moorpark CountrY Club Estates Expansion Project V.Re fervnc•e.s City of Moorpark Page V -1 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 281 Christopher A. Joseph d'• Associates Moorpark Unified School District, .loan Corcoran, email correspondence, September 17, 2004. Afoorpark Country' Club Estates GPA Traffic Anah'.sis, prepared hY Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. November 2004. Ventura Counn' Waterworks District No. 1 webpage, url: hitp : / /public'works.('ount)-of -eittitra. ore/ K' re/ K'. ss /dl.stric-t_1_nioot'park.htin, September 13, 2004. Telephoto- conversation with San.a Karra. Project Manager. District No. 1, Ventura Cotmrn Public Works Department. September 13, 2004. California haegrated Waste Management Boards wehsite: http:// Kt+' w. c•% K' nlh. c• a. 1, nr/ Yrof %Ie.S /l'aC[hn' /l,a /ldjllUd[ faint. asp' VIV= JSF,I,L•'C7��M1Yl'E= /.andlill, September 1.3, 2004. Califttrniu Integrated Waste Management Boards web.site: Landfill Tonnage Reports webpage url: http :/lti+-wt, c'i KV tlb .c•a.goi•ll,andfi/lsll'omtagel, Ocvobe►' 5. 2004. Moorpark C•ou►ut.Y Club Estates Expansion Project V. Reli,rences Cin' of Moorpurk Page V-2 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 282 VI. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADT average daily traffic AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ASL Above sea level AST Above- ground storage tanks bgs below ground surface 13M1' hest management practices Caltrans California Department of Transportation CALSITES Department of Toxic Substances Control Sites GARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CC &Rs Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions CDF. California Department of Education CDFG California Department offish and Game CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology ('F.QA California Environmental Quality Act CF.SA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CGS California Geologic Survey CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CM Critical Movement Analysis ('MP Congestion Management Program CNPPA California Native Plant Protection Act CN1:L Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CO carbon monoxide CPU(' California Public Utilities Commission (also sec PUC) CRI Color Rendering Index CSS coastal sage scrub ('TA composite trunk area ('WA Clean Water Act dB decibel d 13 A- weighted decibel du dwelling unit FIR Environmental Impact Report FMI AC emission factors .Moorpark Counrry Club Estates Expansion Project IT List of Ac-ronyms and Ahhreviations Or• of .Moorpark Page VI -1 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 283 Christopher A. Joseph c\ Associates F.PA Environmental Protection Agency ERNS Emergency Response Notification System ESA Environmental Site Assessment I SLiA F rivironmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas fc footcandle FESA Federal Endangered Species Act G gauss GCASWP Gencral Construction Activity Storm Water Permit GIs Geographic Information System gn Gneissic rock gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute GPS Global Position System gr Granitic rock HHW Household Hazardous Waste HIS Hydrogen Sulfide iPM integrated Pest Management ITF, Institute oi'Transportation Engineers kV kilovolt kWh kilowatt -hours Ibs /day pounds per day L„i equivalent sound level LOS bevel of Service I,USI leaking underground storage tank mgd million gallons per day VIPi: Maximum Probable Event MPH miles per hour msl mean sea level MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NAIIC Native American Heritage Commission NO, nitrogen dioxide NOI Notice of intent NOP Notice of Preparation NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC National Research Council 0-, Ozone OP7. Optimal Protection Zone Ph lead Moorpark Coannrr Chth Estates Expansion Project V/. List of,4crom•ms and Abbreviations City of Moorpark Page V/ -? Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 284 Christopher A..Icneph c, Associates PCB Polychlorinated Biphcnyls pcph passenger cars per hour PGA Peak Ground Acceleration PM particulate matter PM,,, respirable particulate matter PM fine particulate matter ppm parts per million PSCP Pre- stressed concrete pipe psi pounds per square inch Oa Alluvium Ocol 'Topsoil /colluvium qd Quartz diorite OIs Landslide debris RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ROW right -of -way RSA Regional Statistical Area RTP Regional Transportation Plan SLAG Southern California Association of" Governments SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCE Southern California Fdison SFA Significant Ecological Area sf square feet Si IPO State Historic Preservation Office SO• sulfur dioxide SO, sulfates SOX sulfur oxides SPOC Species of Special Concern SRRF Source Reduction and Recycling Element SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board IA Traffic impact Assessment UBC Uniform Building Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank v/c ratio Volumc -to- Capacity ratio VCAPCD Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Vi iFHS7. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone V'ITM vesting tentative tract map Moorpark Country Club Estutes E'xpawdon Project VI. List of AcronY s and Abbreviations OtY of Moorpark Page VI-3 Resolution No. 2006 -2537 Page 285 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss. CITY OF MOORPARK ) I, Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 2006 -2537 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of November, 2006, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Harper, Mikos, Parvin, and Mayor Hunter NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Millhouse ABSTAIN: None WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 21 st day of February, 2007. z �- Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City erk (seal)