HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES CC 1992 855 1992 0513RESOLUTION NO. 92 -855
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AS ADEQUATE, APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM, AND INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) , FOR MOORPARK GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE (GPA -89 -1)
AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EXPANSION STUDY
WHEREAS, a draft and final environmental impact report
(EIR) were prepared for the above referenced project in conformance
with CEQA to evaluate the environmental effects of buildout of
updated Moorpark Land Use and Circulation Elements and possible
future expansion of the City's sphere of influence boundary; and
WHEREAS, Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines states that
"an EIR or a project such as the adoption or amendment of a local
general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be
expected to follow from the adoption, but the EIR need not be as
detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that may
follow "; and
WHEREAS, the Moorpark Land Use and Circulation Element
Update and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH No. 90010061) provides an environmental
assessment of the proposed project impacts in accordance with CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, public notice of the availability and
distribution of the Draft EIR was provided in compliance with CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, at duly noticed public hearings on November 4,
18, 21, and 25, 1991, the Planning Commission received public
testimony regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, closed the
public hearing for the Draft EIR on November 25, 1991, and adopted
a resolution recommending certification of the Final EIR on January
6, 1992; and
WHEREAS, at duly noticed public hearings held on January
22 and 29, February 1, 8, and 12, and March 18, 1992, and at
continued meetings on February 26, March 11, April 8, April 22,
April 29, May 6, and May 13, 1992, the City Council considered the
proposed Land Use and Circulation Element Update and Sphere of
Influence Expansion Study; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of April 29, 1992, the City
Council reached its decision to certify the Final EIR and directed
preparation of this resolution;
Resolution No. 92 -855
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A Final EIR has been completed in compliance
with CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of
California). The City Council has received and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR prior to acting on the
proposed General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element amendments
and has found that this document adequately addresses the
environmental effects of the proposed project.
SECTION 2. The Final EIR has identified both significant
mitigated and significant, partially mitigated environmental
effects of the project. Significant impacts only partially
mitigated which require adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations are as follows: 1) Land Use - conversion of existing
non - urbanized land and rural uses to urbanizing uses; 2) Air
Quality - long -term air contaminant emissions in the project area
will occur from both stationary and mobile emission sources; 3)
Acoustic - long -term acoustic impacts related to Land Use Plan
buildout will occur due to increased vehicular traffic on area
roadways; 4) Aesthetics - urbanization associated with buildout of
the Land Use Plan and the subsequent loss of significant amounts of
open land; 5) Biological Resources - plant and wildlife habitats
will be removed or altered as a result of construction and urban
development. CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations are attached as Exhibits A and B to this resolution
in compliance with CEQA and are incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the Statement of
Overriding Considerations can be adopted in that the significant
public benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable
environmental effects of said impacts as addressed in Exhibit B and
in the City Council meeting records.
SECTION 4. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been
prepared in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources
Code. The City Council has received and considered the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, which has been incorporated into the Final EIR
and is attached hereto as Exhibit C, prior to taking final action
on the proposed project.
Resolution No. 92 -855
Page 3
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby certifies the Final
EIR for the Moorpark General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element
Update and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study, which includes the
Mitigation Monitoring Program, and adopts the attached Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 1992.
IA'4
' ►I
Paul W. ason, Jr 4.1 Mayor
ATTEST:
Lillian E. Re lerman
City Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Findings
Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C - Mitigation Monitoring Program
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 92 -855
CITY OF MOORPARK
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FINDINGS FOR MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE AND
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EXPANSION STUDY
A Final Environmental Impact Report
Moorpark General Plan Land Use and
Sphere of Influence Expansion
environmental effects of the propos,
the State California Environmental
requires:
(EIR) has been prepared for the
Circulation Element Update and
Study which addresses the
ad project. Section 15091(a) of
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for
which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or
more significant environmental effects of the project
unless the public agency makes one or more written
findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for
each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Pursuant to Section 15091, written findings for each of the
identified significant effects in the Final EIR for the Moorpark
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Update and Sphere of
Influence Expansion Study, as well as a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding are identified on the following pages.
LAND USE
1. Effect: Buildout of the Updated Land Use Plan will result in
the conversion of existing non - urbanized land and rural uses
(including agricultural) to the urbanizing uses of the Updated
Land Use Plan.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale: The Draft EIR identifies this effect as being only
partially mitigated through implementation of the policies and
programs of the Land Use Element on an ongoing basis,
including requiring that specific plans provide a minimum of
25 percent open space acreage, that grading be restricted on
slopes of 20 percent or greater, and that viable Prime and
Statewide Significance agricultural lands are preserved. To
further minimize the significance of this identified effect,
the City Council has modified the project to reduce the amount
of non - urbanized /rural area that would be affected by changes
in land use designations. Prior proposed specific plans 4, 5,
6, and 7 in the unincorporated area surrounding the existing,
westerly City boundary have been deleted from consideration
(in other words, no land use change or sphere of influence
amendment to include these areas is now proposed). The Final
EIR contains additional explanation regarding amendments made
to the land use plan to reduce environmental impacts.
Following is an explanation of why other project alternatives
are not considered feasible:
No Project Alternative - This alternative is not considered
viable for City adoption since it would prevent the City from
responding appropriately to regional growth pressures, would
restrict the City's ability to provide its share of the
regional housing needs, and would restrict employment
opportunities.
Alternative 1 - This alternative assumes buildout of the
incorporated area under the existing City General Plan and
buildout of the unincorporated planning area under the
existing County General Plan. Land Use conversion impacts
would be limited with this alternative, since County General
Plan designations for the unincorporated area consist almost
N
entirely of Open Space and Agricultural designations.
However, Alternative 1 is viewed as slightly inferior to the
project from an environmental standpoint, because the public
safety aspects of an improved circulation and improved traffic
flow would be realized only with development of the project.
Alternative 2 - This alternative provides a land use plan with
a slightly lower intensity development scenario than the
project (15,122 dwelling units at buildout versus 16,291 for
the revised project). All associated impacts for the project
are anticipated to be the same with this alternative.
Alternative 2 does not achieve the level of employment
opportunities as the project.
Alternative 3 - This alternative assumes higher intensity land
use designations in the land use plan than the project and
would result in higher impacts in all environmental categories
compared to the project.
Alternative 4 - This alternative assumes no change to the
unincorporated planning area from the existing Ventura County
General Plan land use designations, but retains the proposed
project land use plan for the incorporated City area. Impacts
would not be expected to be significantly reduced by this
alternative in comparison to the revised project. Alternative
4 would not result in the conversion of existing non - urbanized
land to an urbanized area; however, this alternative would
allow more open space land within the existing City limits to
be developed.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations includes further
statements of specific economic, social, and other
considerations which support adoption of the subject project
instead of the identified alternatives to the project.
2. Effect: The project at buildout does not conform with the
County's population forecasts for Moorpark's growth and non -
growth areas and is considered inconsistent with the planning
components of the Countywide Planning Program (CPP).
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being mitigated
to a level of insignificance by the City's participation in
the CPP update process and monitoring of community growth to
ensure consistency with CPP updated population forecasts.
However, based on the revised project which could result in a
3
total population of 44,637 at buildout (year 2010), the CPP
projection of 47,080 for the designated growth area of
Moorpark will not be exceeded. Therefore, no inconsistency
impact will occur.
3. Effect: Adoption of the revised Land Use Element will
influence the need for updating and revising other existing
elements of the General Plan (Housing; Open Space, Recreation
and Conservation; Noise; and Safety).
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being mitigated
to a level of insignificance. City implementation of the Land
Use and Circulation Elements, which includes updating other
General Plan elements to be consistent with the revised land
use and circulation plans, will eliminate the potential for
any significant inconsistency impact.
TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
1. Effect: Buildout of the General Plan will result in traffic
volumes exceeding roadway capacities at several intersections.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being mitigated
to a level of insignificance by the following mitigation
measures: 1) Roadway additions and upgrades shall be
implemented as development occurs in order to accommodate the
proposed land use plan (refer to Final EIR for this list).
2) A program shall be developed to monitor traffic volumes and
levels of service to facilitate the maintenance of level of
service "C" as a system performance standard.
2. Effect: Future development planned for the City of Moorpark
and the proposed sphere of influence as well as changes
recommended in the Circulation Element will require major new
roadway development and improvements
4
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being mitigated
to a level of insignificance through adoption of roadway
standards and transportation design criteria and adoption of
a transportation improvement fee program. A phasing/
improvement plan shall be included that identifies project
specific improvement responsibilities and requires fair share
funding for cumulative circulation improvements.
AIR QUALITY
1. Effect: Short -term air quality impacts will result from
construction activities.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being mitigated
to a level of insignificance through standard conditions of
approval which will be imposed on all development projects
related to dust control measures and construction restrictions
during Stage III smog alerts.
2. Effect: Long -term air contaminant emissions in the project
area will occur from both stationary and mobile emission
sources. The primary source of stationary emissions in the
project area will be the combustion of natural gas for water
heating and space heating in buildings. Mobile source
emissions include pollutants released by increased vehicular
traffic.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being only
partially mitigated to a level of insignificance through the
following mitigation measures: 1) Employers of 50 or more
employees shall implement programs such as flex -time,
staggered work hours and /or compressed work weeks. 2)
Employers of 50 or more and home builders of projects of 50 or
more units shall provide employees and new homeowners
information on Commuter Computer to encourage ridesharing.
3) All employers of 100 or more shall develop a parking
management program acceptable to County of Ventura Air
Pollution Control District and the City prior to occupancy.
The plan may include preferential carpool, vanpool parking,
and other ridesharing incentives.
To further minimize the significance of this identified
effect, the City Council has modified the project to reduce
the development area and the number of dwelling units which
could be constructed (refer to Final EIR for revised project
description). The prior project would have allowed up to
19,680 dwelling units to be constructed, and a year 2010
population of 53,923 within the overall planning area (City
limits and area proposed for sphere of influence amendment).
The currently proposed project could allow up to 16,291
dwelling units and a total population of 44,637 by the year
2010 within the overall planning area. The revised project
is still expected to result in significant long -term air
contaminant emissions in the project area when compared to the
existing General Plan which would have allowed a population of
approximately 31,211 by the year 2010.
Following is an explanation of why other project alternatives
are not considered feasible:
No Project Alternative - This alternative is not considered
viable for City adoption since it would prevent the City from
responding appropriately to regional growth pressures, would
restrict the City's ability to provide its share of the
regional housing needs, and would restrict employment
opportunities.
Alternative 1 - This alternative assumes buildout of the
incorporated area under the existing City General Plan and
buildout of the unincorporated planning area under the
existing County General Plan. However, Alternative 1 is
viewed as slightly inferior to the project from an
environmental standpoint, because the public safety aspects of
an improved circulation and improved traffic flow would be
realized only with development of the project.
11
Alternative 2 - This alternative provides a land use plan with
a slightly lower intensity development scenario than the
project (15,122 dwelling units at buildout versus 16,291 for
the revised project). All associated impacts for the project
are anticipated to be the same with this alternative.
Alternative 2 does not achieve the level of employment
opportunities as the project.
Alternative 3 - This alternative assumes higher intensity land
use designations in the land use plan than the project and
would result in higher impacts in all environmental categories
compared to the project.
Alternative 4 - This alternative assumes no change to the
unincorporated planning area from the existing Ventura County
General Plan land use designations, but retains the proposed
project land use plan for the incorporated City area. Impacts
would not be expected to be significantly reduced by this
alternative in comparison to the revised project. Alternative
4 is identified in the EIR as consisting of 14,987 dwelling
units and a total population of 40,955 at buildout. The
revised project could result in a total of approximately
16,291 dwelling units and a population of 44,637 at buildout.
This difference in expected population by the year 2010 would
not avoid the long -term air contaminant emissions impact that
is expected to result from the proposed project.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations includes further
statements of specific economic, social, and other
considerations which support adoption of the subject project
instead of the identified alternatives to the project.
3. Effect: The City's Land Use Element is potentially
inconsistent with the Ventura County AQMP based on the
forecasted year 2010 buildout population for the City's
proposed Land Use Plan (53,923) and the AQMP population
projection for the year 2010 (47,080).
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
7
Rationale: The Draft EIR indicates this effect as being only
partially mitigated through adoption of policies and
mechanisms to monitor growth in order to ensure consistency
with the Countywide Planning Program (CPP) updated population
forecasts for the designated growth and non - growth areas of
Moorpark. However, based on the revised project which could
result in a total population of 44,637 by the year 2010, the
CPP projection of 47,080 for the designated growth area of
Moorpark will not be exceeded. Therefore, no inconsistency
impact will occur.
ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
1. Effect: Short -term impacts will occur during construction of
the various projects which are adjacent to noise sensitive
land uses due to truck /equipment operations and various
construction activities.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being fully
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following
mitigation measures: 1) A City Noise Ordinance shall be
adopted which specifies time limits for construction
activities. 2) Truck noise from hauling operations shall be
minimized by requiring hauling routes that avoid residential
areas and requiring Planning Department approval of a
construction hauling plan.
2. Effect: Long -term acoustic impacts related to General Plan
buildout will occur due to increased vehicular traf fic on area
roadways, which will result in significant noise impacts at
two of the five locations modeled in the EIR.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
(3) Specific economic, social, or
infeasible the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR.
n.
other considerations make
or project alternatives
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being only
partially mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
following mitigation measures: 1) Noise Element policies
shall be implemented relative to appropriate site planning,
design, and City review of proposed projects to ensure the
continued compatibility between noise - sensitive land uses and
noise levels in the city. 2) A community noise ordinance
shall be adopted and enforced.
The revised project will not eliminate this effect since
vehicular traffic will still increase on area roadways
resulting in cumulative noise impacts to residential areas
already impacted by vehicular traffic noise. Only the No
Project Alternative would avoid project related cumulative
noise impacts along existing roadways (although projected
increases in regional traffic and related noise impacts would
still occur). The No Project Alternative is not considered
viable for City adoption since it would prevent the City from
responding appropriately to regional growth pressures, would
restrict the City's ability to provide its share of the
regional housing needs, and would restrict employment
opportunities.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations includes further
statements of specific economic, social, and other
considerations which support adoption of the subject project
instead of the identified alternatives to the project.
HYDROLOGY
1. Effect: A portion of the proposed development area is within
a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100 -
year flood zone.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being mitigated
to a level of insignificance based on the following mitigation
measures: 1) Projects proposed within a FEMA- designated 100 -
year flood zone shall be evaluated for consistency with the
Flood Damage Prevention Chapter of the Moorpark Municipal
Code. 2) The City shall require the submittal of information
prepared by a qualified civil or hydrological engineer which
certifies compliance with development standards established
for 100 -year flood zones on a project -by- project basis. 3)
The City shall implement the recommendations of the March 1987
�9
Central City Drainage Study; and individual projects which
could impact existing drainage facilities shall be evaluated
by the Ventura County Flood Control District to determine if
additional drainage can be accommodated.
2. Effect: Urban development will result in an increase in
impermeable surfaces which will increase the amount of storm
water runoff to the Arroyo Simi leading to possible erosion
and /or flooding problems.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies that this effect is mitigated
to a level of insignificance by the following mitigation
measures: 1) The City shall require a minimum of 25 percent
open space in any future specific plan area to minimize
impermeable surfaces throughout the City. 2) The City shall
require the incorporation of adequate erosion control measures
into development projects that may otherwise adversely impact
water resources. Such measures shall include sandbagging of
newly graded slopes, prompt planting of disturbed areas,
phasing of grading and construction activities to minimize
exposed areas susceptible to erosion and the routing of run-
off flows through desilting basins prior to discharge into any
watercourse. Such provisions shall be included in a grading
ordinance.
3. Effect: Downstream areas may experience increased sediment
deposition and urban pollutants which can affect water
quality.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies that this effect is mitigated
to a level of insignificance by the following mitigation
measure: The City shall require periodic street sweeping in
all areas of new development to minimize the urban pollutant
load which enters the City's drainage system.
10
SOILS
1. Effect: Buildout of the updated Land Use Plan will result in
the loss of farmlands classified "Prime" and of "Statewide
Significance" listed on the Federal Important Farmlands
Inventory Map.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The Draft EIR identifies this effect as being only
partially mitigated through implementation of the policies and
programs of the Land Use Element on an ongoing basis to ensure
that viable Prime and Statewide Significance farmlands are
preserved. However, subsequent to publication of the Draft
EIR, the City Council modified the project to eliminate from
the land use plan proposed development in unincorporated areas
of the County containing agricultural lands classified as
Prime and of Statewide Significance. The modified project is
not expected to directly or indirectly impact farmlands
classified as either Prime or of Statewide Significance.
2. Effect: Buildout of the General Plan will expose additional
people and buildings to potentially significant impacts due to
seismic activity.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies that this effect is mitigated
to a level of insignificance by the following mitigation
measures: 1) A comprehensive soils and geotechnical
investigation shall be performed for each individual building
site to develop preliminary soils engineering and design data
to be reviewed and approved by the City. 2) The City shall
implement the policies and programs of the Land Use Element
Update on an ongoing basis to ensure that viable Prime and
Statewide Significance farmlands are preserved. 3) All
structures will be developed in accordance with the seismic
design provisions of the Uniform Building Code and monitored
by the City during the plan check process. 4 ) In areas of
high seismic potential, the applicant shall submit a seismic
evaluation with applications.
11
SOCIOECONOMICS
1. Effect: The Housing Element's goal of providing 959
residential units in the lower- to very low- income category
may not be achieved if proper incentives are not implemented.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies that this effect is mitigated
to a level of insignificance based on the following mitigation
measure: The goals and policies of the Housing Element and
the revised Land Use element which encourage development of
affordable housing units shall be implemented on an ongoing
basis. Section 5.1 of the Land Use Element is intended to
encourage the provision of affordable housing by allowing the
decision - making body to approve a density bonus above the
otherwise "maximum" density for a project which provides very
low and lower income affordable housing. The allowable
density bonus exceeds 25 percent for most residential
designations.
AESTHETICS
1. Effect: Existing non - urbanized rural lands contribute to the
scenic qualities of Moorpark, and the urbanization associated
with buildout of the Updated Land Use Plan and the subsequent
loss of significant amounts of open land is considered a
significant adverse impact.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
(3) Specific economic, social, or
infeasible the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR.
12
other considerations make
or project alternatives
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being only
partially mitigated to a level of insignificance through the
following mitigation measures: 1) The City shall implement
the goals, policies and programs in the Land Use Element on an
ongoing basis regarding hillside preservation, restricting
grading on slopes over 20 percent, establishing land use
patterns which are compatible with scenic and natural
resources, and promotion of revitalization of the visually
degraded areas of the community. 2) The City shall employ a
mechanism such as a hillside development ordinance or viewshed
preservation criteria in order to protect visually prominent
horizon lines and other scenic viewshed in the community
within one year of adopting the updated Land Use Element. 3)
The City shall implement the redevelopment plan, which will
restore and revitalize blighted areas within the City.
In addition to the above mitigation measures, following
publication of the Draft EIR, the City Council modified the
project to minimize impacts to rural lands by reducing the
area under consideration for a sphere of influence amendment
and reducing the development proposed within the City limits
(refer to Final EIR for revised project description).
Although this project modification has reduced the amount of
rural area which will now be developed with urban land uses,
the impact is not considered fully mitigated since any loss of
open space land may be considered significant by some persons
or agencies. Following is an explanation of why other project
alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR are not considered
feasible:
No Project Alternative - This alternative is not considered
viable for City adoption since it would prevent the City from
responding appropriately to regional growth pressures, would
restrict the City's ability to provide its share of the
regional housing needs, and would restrict employment
opportunities.
Alternative 1 - This alternative assumes buildout of the
incorporated area under the existing City General Plan and
buildout of the unincorporated planning area under the
existing County General Plan. Land Use conversion impacts
would be limited with this alternative, since County General
Plan designations for the unincorporated area consist almost
entirely of Open Space and Agricultural designations.
However, Alternative 1 is viewed as slightly inferior to the
project from an environmental standpoint, because the public
safety aspects of an improved circulation and improved traffic
flow would be realized only with development of the project.
13
Alternative 2 - This alternative provides a land use plan with
a slightly lower intensity development scenario than the
project (15,122 dwelling units at buildout versus 16,291 for
the revised project). All associated impacts for the project
are anticipated to be the same with this alternative.
Alternative 2 does not achieve the level of employment
opportunities as the project.
Alternative 3 - This alternative assumes significantly higher
intensity land use designations in the land use plan than the
project and would result in higher impacts in all
environmental categories compared to the project.
Alternative 4 - This alternative assumes no change to the
unincorporated planning area from the existing Ventura County
General Plan land use designations, but retains the proposed
project land use plan for the incorporated City area. Impacts
would not be expected to be significantly reduced by this
alternative in comparison to the revised project. No open
space area outside the existing City limits would be affected
by Alternative 4; however, this alternative would allow more
open space land within the existing City limits to be
developed.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations includes further
statements of specific economic, social, and other
considerations which support adoption of the subject project
instead of the identified alternatives to the project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Effect: Plant and wildlife habitats may be removed or altered
as a result of construction and urban development.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR.
14
Rationale: The EIR identifies this effect as being only
partially mitigated to a level of insignificance through the
following mitigation measures: 1) The City shall adhere to
and implement the policies of the updated Land Use Element to
ensure the protection of sensitive biological resources. Each
individual development proposal shall be required to include
complete environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA to
ensure that potential site specific impacts upon sensitive
biological resources are identified and that adequate
mitigation measures are provided (i.e., selective
preservation, replanting, and /or sensitive site planning
techniques as appropriate). 2) Any proposed alteration of
riparian areas found along designated United States Geological
Survey blue -line streams and major drainage courses will be
subject to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting process
under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Alteration
of USGS - designated blue -line stream channels is also subject
to permitting by the California Department of Fish and Game
under Section 1601 -1603 of the California Fish and Game Code
and the CEQA Guidelines. The City shall comply with 1601 -1603
and Section 404 procedures in the project review and approval
process.
In addition to the above mitigation measures, following
publication of the Draft EIR, the City Council reduced the
scale of the project (refer to Final EIR for revised project
description) which, in turn, substantially reduced but did not
eliminate the potential for biological resource impacts
related to loss of plant and wildlife habitat. Following is
an explanation of why other project alternatives analyzed in
the Draft EIR are not considered feasible:
No Project Alternative - This alternative is not considered
viable for City adoption since it would prevent the City from
responding appropriately to regional growth pressures, would
restrict the City's ability to provide its share of the
regional housing needs, and would restrict employment
opportunities.
Alternative 1 - This alternative assumes buildout of the
incorporated area under the existing City General Plan and
buildout of the unincorporated planning area under the
existing County General Plan. Land Use conversion impacts
would be limited with this alternative, since County General
Plan designations for the unincorporated area consist almost
entirely of Open Space and Agricultural designations.
However, Alternative 1 is viewed as slightly inferior to the
project from an environmental standpoint, because the public
safety aspects of an improved circulation and improved traffic
flow would be realized only with development of the project.
15
Alternative 2 - This alternative provides a land use plan with
a slightly lower intensity development scenario than the
project (15,122 dwelling units at buildout versus 16,291 for
the revised project). All associated impacts for the project
are anticipated to be the same with this alternative,
including loss of wildlife habitat. Alternative 2 does not
achieve the level of employment opportunities as the project.
Alternative 3 - This alternative assumes significantly higher
intensity land use designations in the land use plan than the
project and would result in higher impacts in all
environmental categories compared to the project.
Alternative 4 - This alternative assumes no change to the
unincorporated planning area from the existing Ventura County
General Plan land use designations, but retains the proposed
project land use plan for the incorporated City area. Impacts
to biological resources would not be expected to be
significantly reduced by this alternative in comparison to the
revised project. No open space area outside the existing City
limits would be affected by Alternative 4; however, this
alternative would allow more open space land within the
existing City limits to be developed.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations includes further
statements of specific economic, social, and other
considerations which support adoption of the subject project
instead of the identified alternatives to the project.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Education Facilities
1. Effect: Buildout of the Land Use Plan will generate
approximately 13,776 total students and will necessitate the
construction of additional schools and the expansion of
existing facilities at all grade levels.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
16
Rationale: The EIR indicates that this effect is mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the following mitigation
measures: 1) Prior to approval of specific plans or
development proposals, the City shall ensure that adequate
provisions for school facilities are provided. The City shall
consider requiring dedication of land and /or improvements by
project applicants and alternative funding mechanisms, such as
implementing Community Facilities Districts to provide school
facilities. 2) Specific Plan applicants shall be required to
dedicate a school site or sites if determined necessary by the
School District and the City Council at the time of specific
plan preparation.
Buildout of the revised land use plan is expected to generate
approximately 11,404 students in comparison to the 13,776
estimated for the land use plan analyzed in the Draft EIR.
Solid Waste
1. Effect: Buildout of the Land Use Element is estimated to
generate approximately 112 tons of solid waste per day. This
exceeds the County's threshold criteria of 50 tons per day and
is considered a significant adverse impact.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR indicates that this effect is mitigated to
a level of insignificance by the following mitigation measure:
1) The City shall implement a waste reduction program to
achieve the solid waste diversion requirements of AB 939.
This program shall consist of drop -off, source or co- mingled
recycling programs, composting programs, and cardboard
recycling for industrial and commercial uses or any other
waste diversion program consistent with the County's adopted
guidelines.
In 1991, the City adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling
Element which identifies how the City will implement a waste
reduction program consistent with AB 939. The revised project
has reduced the amount of solid waste estimated to be
generated from 112 tons to approximately 103 tons per day.
17
Wastewater
1. Effect: Project buildout (year 2010) will generate
approximately 5.4 million gallons of wastewater per day which
exceeds the planned 4.5 million gallons per day capacity for
the Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Plant for the year 2010.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies that this effect is mitigated
to a level of insignificance based on the following mitigation
measures: 1) Prior to approving a development project, the
City shall consult with the County of Ventura Waterworks
District No. 1 to ensure that discharge limits for biochemical
oxygen demand and suspended solids will not be exceeded as a
result of project approval. 2) The City shall require any
developer to pay for any wastewater improvements required to
prevent significant adverse impacts on the existing wastewater
treatment system.
The revised project would reduce the amount of wastewater
produced to approximately 4.7 million gallons per day. Since
the capacity of the treatment plant for the year 2010 is
currently planned to be 4.5 million gallons per day, the City
could either restrict the allowable density for residential
development on a project -by- project basis to ensure that the
treatment plant capacity is not exceeded, or require
developers to pay for wastewater improvements needed to
prevent significant adverse impacts on the wastewater
treatment system.
Water
1. Effect: Buildout of the Land Use Plan will generate a demand
for approximately 11 million gallons per day of water usage
( 204 gallons per day per capita) and would be considered a
significant impact if the water supply did not meet the
anticipated demand.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies that this effect will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance based on the following
mitigation measures: 1) All new development shall incorporate
plumbing fixtures to reduce water usage and loss (i.e., low -
volume toilet tanks, flow control devices for faucets, etc.)
into project design in accordance with Title 24 of the
California Administrative Code. 2) Drought - tolerant plants
shall be incorporated into project design whenever possible,
and landscaping irrigation systems shall be controlled
automatically to ensure watering during early morning and
evening hours to reduce evaporation losses. 3) The City shall
aid Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 in implementing
its master plan within the City. 4) The City shall require
developers to pay for any water improvements required to
prevent significant adverse impacts on the existing system.
Since publication of the Draft EIR, the proposed land use plan
for the City was revised. The revised project has reduced the
demand for water from approximately 11 million gallons per day
to 9.1 million gallons of water a day by the year 2010.
Police
1. Effect: The need for additional officers and facilities will
occur as development increases in the planning area. Buildout
of the Land Use Plan will result in a need of 54 officers to
maintain the optimal one officer per 1,000 population ratio.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies that this effect will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance based on the following
mitigation measures: 1) Security and design measures which
employ defensible space concepts shall be utilized to the
maximum extent possible during the formulation of detailed
development plans. Such measures involve the design and
placement of doors, windows, security landscaping, public
access ways, bike trails, parks, open spaces,
utility /maintenance roads, lighting, and parking areas and
structures. The Police Department shall review all plans and
provide recommendations for conditions of approval. 2) The
City shall impose a mitigation fee on development projects or
require private security service protection if determined
necessary to maintain adequate police service for the City.
3) The City shall periodically evaluate the level of police
service being provided in relationship to delivery and cost of
service to determine how service will be provided, at what
19
Fire
1.
cost, how service will be funded, and what alternatives are
available to the City in providing service. 4) The City shall
strive to maintain a current police officer to population
level of service of 0.77 per 1,000 and increase service as
feasible toward the population ratio of 1 officer per 1,000
persons.
The revised project has reduced the need for additional police
officers to approximately 34 to maintain a level of service of
0.77 for every 1,000 persons residing in the City
(approximately 45 police officers would be required to provide
a level of service of one officer for every 1,000 persons).
Effect: Buildout of the Updated Land Use Plan will increase
the urban area of the City and increase service demands for
fire protection services.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies that this effect will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance based on the following
mitigation measures: 1) Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the Fire Department shall ensure that each project
meets its standard requirements for fire hydrants, water
mains, fire flow, access and design, and that development has
been built in accordance with fire hazard standards. 2) The
City shall periodically evaluate the level of fire protection
service being provided in relationship to delivery and cost of
service to determine how service will be provided at what
cost, how service will be funded, and what alternatives are
available to the City in providing service.
PARKS AND RECREATION
1. Effect: The population associated with buildout of the
General Plan will create a demand for additional parkland.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
20
Rationale: The EIR identifies that this effect will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance based on the following
mitigation measures: 1) City park land acquisition and
development shall be accomplished in part through development
agreements and utilization of the Quimby Act Ordinance to
provide for parkland dedication in accordance with City
standards. 2) All specific plans shall include, as a minimum,
local park land calculated consistent with the City's Quimby
Act Ordinance.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Effect: Buildout of the General Plan could result in
significant impacts to archaeological and historical
resources.
Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale: The EIR identifies that this effect will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance based on the following
mitigation measures: 1) The City shall require a cultural
resources reconnaissance investigation and records search for
individual development proposals, in accordance with CEQA
requirements, if there is any potential that such resources
may be located on the project site. Where potentially
significant adverse impacts are identified, the City shall
require appropriate mitigation measures as defined by Appendix
K of the CEQA Guidelines. 2) The City shall implement
policies of the Land use Element regarding the preservation of
important cultural resources on an ongoing basis.
21
E%HIBIT B TO RESOLITrION NO. 92 -855
CITY OF MOORPARK
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR
THE MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND
CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE AND SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE EXPANSION STUDY
The following information is presented to comply with Section 15093
of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. Reference is made to the Final EIR for the Moorpark
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Update and Sphere of
Influence Expansion Study, and the Findings that precede this
Statement, which are the basic sources for the information
identified below.
Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires:
Where the decision of the public agency allows the
occurrence of significant effects which are identified in
the Final EIR but are not at least substantially
mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific
reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR
and /or other information in the record. This statement
may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under
Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Based on the Final EIR for the Moorpark General Plan Land Use and
Circulation Element Update and Sphere of Influence Expansion Study,
a finding under Section 15091(a)(3) was made for the following
significant environmental effects: 1) Land Use - conversion of
existing non - urbanized land and rural uses to urbanizing uses; 2)
Air Quality - long -term air contaminant emissions in the project
area will occur from both stationary and mobile emission sources;
3) Acoustic - long -term acoustic impacts related to Land Use Plan
buildout will occur due to increased vehicular traffic on area
roadways; 4) Aesthetics - urbanization associated with buildout of
the Land Use Plan and the subsequent loss of significant amounts of
open land; and 5) Biological Resources - plant and wildlife
habitats will be removed or altered as a result of construction and
urban development.
Overriding considerations that support approval of the Moorpark
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Update and
certification of the Final EIR are as follows:
The updated Circulation Element provides for the public
safety aspects of an improved circulation system and
improved traffic flow;
The updated Land Use Element allows the City to respond
to regional growth pressures and provide its share of
regional housing needs;
The updated Land Use Element encourages affordable
housing by providing the opportunity for a density bonus
greater than the 25 percent mandated by the State Density
Bonus Law (Section 65915 et sect. of the California
Government Code);
The updated Land Use Element encourages the protection of
environmentally sensitive habitat, agricultural land, and
hillsides by allowing the opportunity for clustering of
residential dwelling units;
The updated Land Use Element promotes revitalization of
the downtown commercial area of the City by providing
additional opportunity for housing development in the
immediate vicinity of the downtown area; and
The updated Land Use Element provides for additional
employment opportunities.
The project benefits, as identified above, significantly offset the
environmental effects of the Moorpark General Plan Land Use and
Circulation Element Update.
2
EXHIBIT C TO RESOLUTION NO. 92 -855
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE
AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EXPANSION STUDY (GPA -89 -1)
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan
Guidelines clarify that when a general plan is enacted based upon
an EIR, the local agency must also adopt a reporting or monitoring
program to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures.
Monitoring of mitigation measures for this General Plan update will
be accomplished as follows: 1) By incorporating this mitigation
monitoring program into the yearly "state of the plan" report
prepared for the City Council pursuant to State law - Section
65400(b) of the California Government Code; 2) by incorporating
applicable mitigation measures into the Land Use and Circulation
Elements' implementation programs; 3) by reviewing entitlement
applications for consistency with the General Plan prior to
determining an application complete; and 4) by incorporating
applicable mitigation measures into a standard list of development
project conditions which will be adopted by the City Council.
The following mitigation measures represent the final adopted
mitigation measures for General Plan Update GPA -89 -1. The
monitoring discussion follows each individual mitigation measure
and identifies the responsible City department.
Land Use
1. Mitigation: The City shall implement the policies and
programs of the Land Use Element Update on an ongoing basis to
require that specific plans provide a minimum of 25 percent
open space acreage, to restrict grading on slopes of 20
percent or greater, and to ensure that viable "Prime" and
"Statewide Significance" farmlands are preserved.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department is
responsible for ensuring compliance with this mitigation
measure through: Review of entitlement requests for
consistency with the Land Use Element specific plan goals,
policies, and requirements (Appendix A of Land Use Element);
through coordination with the County of Ventura Resources
Management Agency in regard to updating and identifying areas
1
of viable "Prime" and "Statewide Significance" agricultural
land; and through preparation of a hillside development
ordinance, which shall be adopted prior to approval of any
zone change or entitlement permit for a property which
contains slopes of 20 percent or greater.
2. Mitigation: The City shall participate in the Countywide
Planning Program (CPP) to be consistent with growth and non-
growth area boundaries and population forecasts.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall be
responsible for participating in any County update of the
growth and non - growth area boundaries and population
forecasts, and shall provide any requested City population
information relative to the City's adopted General Plan.
3. Mitigation: The City shall adopt policies and mechanisms to
monitor growth in order to ensure consistency with the county
updated population forecasts for the designated growth and
non - growth areas of Moorpark.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall be
responsible for reviewing consistency with the County
population forecasts for the designated growth and non - growth
areas of Moorpark. The City's existing growth control
ordinance shall be amended or a new growth control ordinance
shall be adopted to maintain consistency.
4. Mitigation: The City shall update and revise other elements
of the General Plan after adopting the Land Use Element and
Circulation Element updates to ensure consistency with these
two elements as recommended in the implementation section of
the Land Use Element and identified below.
Noise Element
Revise noise contours and identify future areas of noise
sensitivity based on updated circulation data and
proposed circulation improvements.
Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation (OSCAR) Element
Update locations of open space areas and park locations
to reflect updated land use plan.
Revise policies and element text to include language
which restricts development on slopes of twenty percent
or greater.
Revise park acreage required at buildout to reflect
Updated Land Use Plan buildout projections.
2
Housing Element
Update Housing Element to include policies and standards
for providing affordable housing consistent with the
density bonus provision of the Land Use Element and State
law.
Safety Element
- Update identification of potential hazard areas within
the City (floodway, fire, landslide, etc.) based on
current conditions.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall be
responsible for completing revisions of the above listed
General Plan Elements within approximately one year after
approval of revised Land Use and Circulation Elements.
Estimated time frames for updating the Noise, OSCAR, Housing,
and Safety Elements are as follows:
Noise Element - Complete by
OSCAR Element - Complete by
Housing Element - Complete by
Safety Element - Complete in
Plan No. 8
Transportation /Circulation
December 1992
June 1993
June 1993
conjunction
preparation
with Specific
5. Mitigation: The City shall adopt roadway design standards and
transportation system design criteria as recommended in the
Circulation Element and require that all new facilities be
implemented in conformance with those standards.
Monitoring: Circulation Element Implementation Measure No. 4
requires the City Engineer's Office to prepare and maintain a
circulation facility design manual. This manual shall be
completed within two years following approval of the revised
Circulation Element.
6. Mitigation: The City shall adopt a transportation improvement
fee program which will enable needed circulation improvements
to be funded by new development and, in conjunction with the
City's capital improvement program, will determine estimated
dates for construction. A phasing /improvement plan shall be
included that identifies project specific improvement
responsibilities and requires fair share funding for
cumulative circulation improvements. Roadway improvement
requirements related to specific project impacts shall be
constructed or funded by the individual project applicant.
Project applicants shall also be required to participate in
the fair share funding program.
3
Monitoring: Circulation Element Implementation Measure No. 8
requires the City Council to adopt a transportation
improvement fee program. The Public Works Department will be
responsible for ensuring that this fee program is developed
and presented to the City Council for adoption. During the
interim, projects will be conditioned to comply with the fee
program as adopted.
7. Mitigation: The City shall develop a program to monitor
traffic volumes and levels of service on Moorpark roadways to
facilitate the maintenance of the minimum level of service "C"
as a system performance standard for traffic volumes on the
roadway system.
Monitoring: The Public Works Department will be responsible
for ensuring that this program is developed within two years
after adoption of revised Land Use and Circulation Elements
and subsequently shall prepare an annual report to the City
Council which identifies traffic volumes and levels of service
on Moorpark roadways.
8. Mitigation: The following Circulation Element modifications,
including roadway additions, upgrades, downgrades, and
deletions, shall be implemented as development occurs to
accommodate the General Plan Land Use Element. (The
circulation system modifications listed on the following pages
are based on changes required to the Circulation Element
adopted by the City in November 1983.)
4
CIRCULATION SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
ADDITIONS
PROPOSED MODIFICATION
Broadway Road (SR -23 Bypass Arterial
Add as rural collector.
to SR -118 Freeway)
"C" Street (Grimes Canyon Road to
Add as two -lane collector.
SR -23 Bypass Arterial)
Campus Park Drive (west of Princeton
Add as two -lane collector as
Avenue)
currently constructed.
Casey Road (Gabbert Road to Walnut
Add as two -lane collector.
Canyon Road)
Christian Barrett Drive (Peach Hill
Add as two -lane collector as
Road to Spring Road)
currently constructed.
Collins Drive (Campus Park Drive to
Add as four -lane arterial.
Hearon Drive)
Collins Drive ( Hearon Drive to
Add as three -lane collector as
Campus Road)
currently constructed.
"D" Street (Princeton Avenue to SR-
Add as two -lane collector.
23 Bypass Arterial)
Hearon Drive (Collins Drive to
Add as two -lane collector as
Borges Drive)
currently constructed.
Park Lane (Los Angeles Avenue to
Add as four -lane arterial.
approximately 100 feet north of Los
Angeles Avenue)
Park Lane (From approximately 100
Add as two -lane collector as
feet north of Los Angeles Avenue to
currently constructed.
Lassen Avenue)
Peach Hill Road (Tierra Rejada Road
Add as two -lane collector as
to Spring Road)
currently constructed.
Peach Hill Road (Spring Road to
Add as two -lane collector.
Science Drive)
Planned Community No. 3 - local
Add as two -lane collectors as
collectors as follows: Countrywood
currently constructed.
Drive, Mountain Meadow Drive,
Mountain Trail Street (from Mountain
Meadow Drive to Countrywood Drive),
and Walnut Creek Road)
Planned Community No. 3 - four -lane
Add as four -lane arterial as
arterial as follows: Mountain Trail
currently constructed.
Street (Tierra Rejada Road to
Mountain Meadow Drive)
Poindexter Avenue (Gabbert Road to
Add as two -lane collector as
Moorpark Avenue)
currently constructed.
5
Science Drive (New Los Angeles
Avenue to 1/4 -mile south of New Los
Angeles Avenue)
Science Drive (1/4 -mile south of
New Los Angeles Avenue to Tierra
Rejada Road)
Spring Road (High Street to SR -23
Bypass Arterial)
SR -118 Bypass Arterial ( Gabbert Road
to west of Princeton Avenue)
SR -118 Bypass Arterial (Los Angeles
Avenue west of Butter Creek Road to
Gabbert Road)
SR -23 Bypass Arterial (SR -23 Freeway
to Walnut Canyon Road)
UPGRADES
Gabbert Road (Poindexter Avenue to
SR -118 Bypass arterial)
DOWNGRADES
Los Angeles Avenue (Spring Road to
Princeton Avenue)
Poindexter Avenue ( Gabbert Road to
east of Sierra Avenue)
Spring Road (Peach Hill Road to
approximately 100 feet south of
Arroyo Simi Bridge)
DELETIONS
College View Avenue (SR -118 Freeway
to Campus Park Drive)
Gisler Avenue (Los Angeles Avenue to
Poindexter Avenue)
Los Angeles Avenue (Princeton Avenue
to College View Avenue)
New Los Angeles Avenue (SR -23
Freeway to Collins Drive)
Spring Road (High Street to Walnut
Canyon Road)
0
Add as four -lane arterial.
Add as two -lane collector consistent
with Carlsberg Specific Plan.
Add as rural collector.
Add as six -lane arterial, grade
separated at Walnut Canyon Road and
across the SR -23 /SR -118 direct
connector
Add as four -lane arterial.
Add as four -lane arterial.
PROPOSED MODIFICATION
Upgrade from two -lane roadway to a
four -lane arterial.
PROPOSED MODIFICATION
Downgrade from four -lane arterial to
rural collector.
Downgrade from four -lane arterial to
two -lane collector as currently
constructed.
Downgrade from four -lane arterial to
two -lane collector as currently
constructed.
PROPOSED MODIFICATION
Remove from circulation plan.
Remove from circulation plan.
Remove from circulation plan.
Remove from circulation plan.
Remove from circulation plan (now
shown as SR -23 Bypass Arterial under
Circulation System Additions).
Monitoring: Mitigation Measure No. 6 (and Circulation
Element Implementation Measure No. 8) requires adoption of a
transportation improvement fee program. Once that program
is adopted, the Community Development Department and the
City Engineer's Office shall review development project
applications to determine whether any of the above
identified roadway additions and upgrades must be
constructed or funded by the individual project applicant,
consistent with the adopted fee program. The transportation
improvement fee program will also identify projects to be
included in the City's Capital Improvement Program.
Air Ouality
9. Mitigation: During clearing, grading, earth moving or
excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions should be
controlled by regular watering, paving construction roads
and other dust prevention measures. The applicant shall
submit a fugitive dust control plan, acceptable to the City,
concurrently with submittal of the mass (as opposed to the
precise) grading plan.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department will
include a condition of approval similar to this mitigation
measure in a standard list of development project conditions
for adoption by the City Council.
10. Mitigation: During smog season (May- October) the City shall
order that construction cease during Stage III smog alerts
to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating,
lower ozone levels, and protect equipment operators from
excessive smog levels. The City, at its discretion, may
also limit construction during Stage II smog alerts.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department will
include a condition which requires that construction cease
during State III smog alerts in a standard list of
development project conditions for adoption by the City
Council.
11. Mitigation: Employers of 50 or more employees shall
implement programs such as flex -time, staggered work hours
and /or compressed work weeks.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department will
include a condition of approval requiring compliance with
County of Ventura Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rule
210 on a standard list of development project conditions for
adoption by the City Council.
7
12. Mitigation: Employers of 50 or more and home builders of
projects of 50 or more units shall provide employees and new
homeowners information on Commuter Computer to encourage
ridesharing.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department will
include a condition requiring compliance with this
mitigation measure in a standard list of development project
conditions for adoption by the City Council.
13. Mitigation: All employers of 100 or more shall develop a
parking management program acceptable to County of Ventura
APCD and the City prior to occupancy approval. The plan may
include preferential carpool, vanpool parking, and other
ridesharing incentives.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department will
include a condition of approval requiring compliance with
this mitigation measure in a standard list of development
project conditions for adoption by the City Council.
14. Mitigation: The City shall adopt policies and mechanisms to
monitor growth in order to ensure consistency with the
Countywide Planning Program (CPP) population forecasts for
the designated growth and non - growth areas of Moorpark.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall be
responsible for reviewing consistency with the County
population forecasts for the designated growth and non -
growth areas of Moorpark. The City's existing growth
control ordinance shall be amended or a new growth control
ordinance shall be adopted to maintain consistency.
15. Mitigation: If a development project will have a
significant impact on air quality after all other feasible
mitigation measures have been applied, all such projects
shall fully mitigate the excess ROC and Nox emissions via a
one -time contribution to the City's Transportation Systems
Management Fund for a three -year period to pay for projects
or programs designed to reduce emissions in the local
airshed. Use of a transportation demand management buydown
program is in accordance with the Ventura County Air Quality
Management Plan, adopted July 26, 1988.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department will be
responsible for ensuring that a City Transportation Systems
Management Buydown Program is developed. Also, the
Community Development Department shall forward a
recommendation to the decision - making body that a condition
be imposed requiring participation in this program for
projects which will have a significant impact on air quality
after all other feasible mitigation measures have been
applied.
Acoustic Environment
16. Mitigation: The City shall implement the policies contained
in the Noise Element of the General Plan relative to
appropriate site planning, design, and City review of
proposed projects to ensure the continued compatibility
between Moorpark's noise - sensitive land uses and noise
levels in the City. The City shall adopt and enforce a
community noise ordinance.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall be
responsible for including appropriate Noise Element policies
in a standard list of development project conditions for
adoption by the City Council. The Community Development
Department shall prepare a community noise ordinance within
one year after adoption of the revised Land Use and
Circulation Elements.
17. Mitigation: Dwelling units or other sensitive land uses
shall be located in areas outside of existing or projected
65 CNEL contour lines as shown in the Noise Element or
appropriate acoustical analysis and mitigation shall be
provided in conjunction with development projects.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
review development projects to determine the potential for
noise impacts and shall require appropriate acoustical
analysis, including recommended mitigation measures, for
projects which have the potential for resulting in
significant noise impacts.
18. Mitigation: Specify time limits for construction activities
in a City noise ordinance. Truck noise from construction
hauling operations shall be minimized through establishing
hauling routes which avoid residential areas. The hauling
plan must be approved by the Community Development
Department.
Monitoring: In April 1992, the City adopted Ordinance No.
149 which prohibits construction activity within the City
after 7:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m, Monday through
Saturday, with no construction activity generally permitted
on Sundays. The Community Development Department will
include a condition requiring compliance with construction
activity time restrictions in a standard list of development
project conditions for adoption by the City Council. The
Community Development Department shall review development
projects to determine whether a construction hauling plan
should be recommended as a condition of approval.
: ► re FIT01 ...
19. Mitigation: Projects proposed within a FEMA- designated
100 -year flood zone shall be evaluated for consistency with
the Flood Damage Prevention Chapter of the Moorpark
Municipal Code.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department and the
City Engineer's Office shall be responsible for ensuring
compliance with this mitigation measure in conjunction with
entitlement application completeness review.
20. Mitigation: The City shall require the submittal of
information prepared by a qualified civil or hydrological
engineer which certifies compliance with development
standards established for 100 -year flood zones on a project -
by- project basis.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department and the
City Engineer's Office shall be responsible for ensuring
compliance with this mitigation measure in conjunction with
entitlement application completeness review.
21. Mitigation: The City shall require a minimum of 25 percent
open space in any future specific plan area to minimize
impermeable surfaces throughout the City.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
review draft specific plans to determine consistency with
Appendix A of the Land Use Element, which contains a
requirement for a minimum of 25 percent open space.
22. Mitigation: The City shall require the incorporation of
adequate erosion control measures into development projects
that may otherwise adversely impact water resources. Such
measures shall include sandbagging of newly graded slopes,
prompt planting of disturbed areas, phasing of grading and
construction activities to minimize exposed areas
susceptible to erosion and the routing of runoff flows
through desilting basins prior to discharge into any
watercourse. Such provisions shall be included in a grading
ordinance.
Monitoring: The City Engineer's Office in conjunction with
the Department of Community Development shall be responsible
for preparing a grading ordinance which is consistent with
the intent of this mitigation measure. This grading
ordinance shall be prepared within two years following
adoption of revised Land Use and Circulation Elements.
Erosion control requirements shall also be included in a
standard list of development project conditions for adoption
by the City Council.
10
23. Mitigation: The City shall require periodic street sweeping
in all areas of new development to minimize the urban
pollutant load which enters the City's drainage system.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
include this mitigation measure in a standard list of
development project conditions for adoption by the City
Council.
24. Mitigation: The City shall implement the recommendations of
the March 1987 Central City Drainage Study. Individual
projects which could impact existing drainage facilities
shall be evaluated by the Ventura County Flood Control
District to determine if additional drainage can be
accommodated.
Monitoring: The Public Works Department and the City
Engineer's Office shall be responsible for implementation of
the March 1987 Central City Drainage Study. Implementation
shall be accomplished by requiring new development to
improve drainage facilities as necessary to accommodate
additional drainage and by including any necessary drainage
improvement projects in the City's capital improvement
program.
Soils
25. Mitigation: A comprehensive soils and geotechnical
investigation shall be performed for each individual
building site to develop preliminary soils engineering and
design data to be reviewed and approved by the City.
Monitoring: The City Engineer's Office shall require
preliminary soils and geotechnical information to be
provided prior to approval of a grading permit for a
development, and shall require submittal of a comprehensive
soils and geotechnical investigation for each individual
building site prior to building permit pad certification.
26. Mitigation: The City shall implement the policies and
programs of the Land Use Element Update on an ongoing basis
to ensure that viable Prime and Statewide Significance
farmlands are preserved.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
review each entitlement application to determine compliance
with the Land Use Element's goals, policies, and
implementation measures pertaining to preservation of
farmlands.
11
27. Mitigation: All structures will be developed in accordance
with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building
Code and monitored by the City during the plan check
process.
Monitoring: The Building and Safety Office will ensure
compliance with this mitigation measure prior to approval of
a building permit.
28. Mitigation: In areas of high seismic potential, the
applicant shall submit a seismic evaluation with
applications.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department and City
Engineer's Office shall review entitlement applications and
determine the need for a seismic study /geotechnical
evaluation prior to determining an application complete.
Socioeconomics
29. Mitigation: The goals and policies of the Housing Element
and the revised Land Use Element which encourage development
of affordable housing units shall be implemented on an
ongoing basis.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
review all entitlement requests to ensure consistency with
the General Plan Housing and Land Use Elements. The
Community Development Department shall annually report to
the City Council on the status of the General Plan and
progress in its implementation. The California Government
Code requires the annual report to describe the locality's
progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs.
Aesthetics
30. Mitigation: The City shall implement the goals, policies
and programs in the Land Use Element Update on an ongoing
basis regarding hillside preservation, restricting grading
on slopes over twenty percent, establishing land use
patterns which are compatible with scenic and natural
resources, and promotion of revitalization of the visually
degraded areas of the community.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
prepare a hillside development ordinance which protects
viewsheds and restricts grading on slopes of 20 percent or
greater. That ordinance shall be adopted within one year of
approval of the updated Land Use Element and prior to
approving any zone change for a property which contains
slopes of 20 percent or greater.
12
The Community Development Department shall also review
development project applications to determine whether
proposed projects are compatible with scenic and natural
resources prior to determining an application complete.
The City has an adopted redevelopment plan for the older,
downtown area of the City. The Community Development
Department will report on the status of compliance with this
mitigation measure in conjunction with the General Plan
Annual Report.
In compliance with Land Use Implementation Measure No. 22,
the Community Development Department will be responsible for
preparation of a specific plan or similar action plan for
the downtown study area. That plan is intended to promote
the revitalization of the downtown commercial core and shall
be prepared within two years following adoption of the
revised Land Use and Circulation Elements.
31. Mitigation: The City shall employ a mechanism such as a
hillside development ordinance or viewshed preservation
criteria in order to protect visually prominent horizon
lines and other scenic viewsheds in the community within one
year of adopting the updated Land Use Element.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department with
assistance from the City Engineer's Office shall prepare a
hillside development ordinance. That ordinance shall be
adopted within one year of approval of the updated Land Use
Element and prior to approving any zone change for a
property which contains slopes of 20 percent or greater.
32. Mitigation: The City shall implement the redevelopment
plan, which will restore and revitalize blighted areas
within the City.
Monitoring: The City has an adopted redevelopment plan for
the older, downtown area of the City. The Community
Development Department will report on the status of
compliance with this mitigation measure in conjunction with
the General Plan Annual Report.
Biological Resources
33. mitigation: The City shall adhere to and implement the
policies of the updated Land Use Element to ensure the
protection of sensitive biological resources. Each
individual development proposal shall be required to include
complete environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA to
ensure that potential site specific impacts upon sensitive
biological resources are identified and that adequate
13
mitigation measures are provided (i.e., selective
preservation, replanting, and /or sensitive site planning
techniques as appropriate).
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
require that any appropriate biological study be submitted
prior to determining an entitlement application complete.
34. Mitigation: Any proposed alteration of riparian areas found
along designated United States Geological Survey blue -line
streams and major drainage courses will be subject to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting process under
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Alteration of
USGS- designated blue -line stream channels is also subject to
permitting by the California Department of Fish and Game
under Section 1601 -1603 of the California Fish and Game Code
and the CEQA Guidelines. The City shall comply with 1601-
1603 and Section 404 procedures in the project review and
approval process.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department will
review entitlement applications to determine whether
projects are subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and /or Sections 1601 -1603 of the California Fish and Game
Code in conjunction with making an environmental
determination for a project. If the referenced sections are
applicable to a project, a mitigation measure requiring
compliance shall be imposed as a condition of approval for
the project.
Education Facilities
35. Mitigation: Prior to approval of specific plans or
development proposals, the City shall ensure that adequate
provisions for school facilities are provided. The City
shall consider requiring dedication of land and /or
improvements by project applicants and alternative funding
mechanisms, such as implementing Community Facilities
Districts to provide school facilities.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department will
solicit the School District's review of entitlement
applications, including specific plans and development
projects, to obtain recommendations regarding the
appropriate location for schools and the need for dedication
of land, improvements by project applicants, and alternative
funding mechanisms, and shall forward these recommendations
to the City Council.
36. Mitigation: Specific Plan applicants shall be required to
dedicate a school site or sites if determined necessary by
the School District and the City Council at the time of
specific plan preparation.
14
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
ensure that the School District is involved in the
preparation stage of specific plans to obtain
recommendations regarding the need for, and the appropriate
location of, schools within specific plan areas. The
Community Development Department shall forward the School
District's recommendations to the City Council.
Solid Waste Management
37. Mitigation: The City shall implement a waste reduction
program to achieve the solid waste diversion requirements of
AB 939. This program shall consist of drop -off, source or
co- mingled recycling programs, composting programs, and
cardboard recycling for industrial and commercial uses or
any other waste diversion program consistent with the
County's adopted guidelines.
Monitoring: In 1991, the City adopted a Source Reduction
and Recycling Element consistent with AB 939. The status of
implementation of that Element shall be addressed in the
General Plan Annual Report.
Natural Gas
38. Mitigation: The City shall require that energy conserving
systems and design features be incorporated into development
projects.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
include a condition(s) requiring specific energy conserving
systems and design features in a list of standard
development project conditions for adoption by the City
Council.
39. Mitigation: All new development shall comply with standards
contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
Monitoring: The Building and Safety Office shall be
responsible for reviewing building permit applications to
ensure compliance with Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code.
Wastewater
40. Mitigation: Prior to approving a development project, the
City shall consult with the County of Ventura Waterworks
District No. 1 to ensure that discharge limits for
biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids will not be
exceeded as a result of project approval.
15
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall be
responsible for consulting with Waterworks District No. 1
during application completeness review and providing the
District's recommendations to the decision - making body.
41. Mitigation: The City shall require any developer to pay for
any wastewater improvements required to prevent significant
adverse impacts on the existing wastewater treatment system.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall be
responsible for consulting with Waterworks District No. 1
during application completeness review, and for including
any condition(s) recommended by the District to mitigate any
potential significant adverse impacts on the existing
wastewater treatment system.
Water
42. Mitigation: All new development should incorporate plumbing
fixtures to reduce water usage and loss (i.e., low- volume
toilet tanks, flow control devices for faucets, etc.) into
project design in accordance with Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code.
Monitoring: The Building and Safety Office shall be
responsible for reviewing building permit applications to
ensure compliance with Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code as well as compliance with the City's
Low Water Consumption Fixtures and Devices Ordinance No.
132.
43. Mitigation: Drought - tolerant plants shall be incorporated
into project design whenever possible, and landscaping
irrigation systems shall be controlled automatically to
ensure watering during early morning and evening hours to
reduce evaporation losses.
Monitoring: State law requires the City to adopt a Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance by January 1, 1993. If no
action is taken, the State Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance will automatically go into effect on that date.
Compliance with the above mitigation measure will be ensured
by the State mandated ordinance. The Community Development
Department shall include the requirement for compliance with
the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance in a standard list
of development project conditions for adoption by the City
Council.
44. Mitigation: The City shall aid Ventura County Waterworks
District No. 1 in implementing its master plan within the
City.
16
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
involve Waterworks District No. 1 in the entitlement
application review process, shall include any condition
recommended by the District in the draft conditions
presented to the decision - making body for approval, and
shall forward the District a copy of the General Plan Annual
Status Report.
45. Mitigation: The City shall require any developer to pay for
any water improvements required to prevent significant
adverse impacts on the existing system.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
involve Waterworks District No. 1 in the entitlement
application review process and shall include any condition
recommended by the District in the conditions presented to
the decision - making body for approval.
Police
46. Mitigation: Security and design measures which employ
defensible space concepts shall be utilized to the maximum
extent possible during the formulation of detailed
development plans. Such measures involve the design and
placement of doors, windows, security landscape, public
access ways, bike trails, parks, open spaces,
utility /maintenance roads, lighting, and parking areas and
structures. The police department shall review all plans and
provide recommendations for conditions of approval.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department will
include a condition similar to this mitigation measure in a
standard list of development project conditions for adoption
by the City Council.
47. Mitigation: The City shall impose a mitigation fee on
development projects or require private security service
protection if determined necessary to maintain adequate
police service for the City.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department will
include a condition similar to this mitigation measure in a
standard list of development project conditions for adoption
by the City Council.
48. Mitigation: The City shall periodically evaluate the level
of police service being provided in relationship to delivery
and cost of service to determine how service will be
provided, at what cost, how service will be funded, and what
alternatives are available to the City in providing service.
17
Monitoring: The City Manager's Office evaluates the level
of police service, costs, funding, etc., on a yearly basis
in conjunction with development of the budget.
49. Mitigation: The City shall strive to maintain a current
level of service of 0.77 officer per 1,000 population and
increase service as feasible toward the 1 officer per 1,000
population standard.
Monitoring: The City Manager's Office evaluates the level
of police service on a yearly basis in conjunction with
development of the budget and provides recommendations to
the City Council.
Fire
50. Mitigation: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire
Department shall ensure that each project meets its standard
requirements for fire hydrants, water mains, fire flow,
access and design, and that development has been built in
accordance with fire hazard standards.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
ensure that the Fire Department reviews the full set of
building permit plans prior to issuance of a Zoning
Clearance for a building permit application.
51. Mitigation: The City shall periodically evaluate the level
of fire protection service being provided in relationship to
delivery and cost of service to determine how service will
be provided at what cost, how service will be funded, and
what alternatives are available to the City in providing
service.
Monitoring: The City Manager's Office shall be responsible
for evaluating the level of fire protection service, costs,
funding, etc., and shall review any request by the County of
Ventura Fire Protection District to increase the fire
protection facility fee levied on all new construction.
(Fire protection services are funded through a County fire
protection district.)
Parks and Recreation
52. Mitigation: City park land acquisition and development
shall be accomplished in part through development agreements
and utilization of the Quimby Act Ordinance to provide for
parkland dedication in accordance with City standards.
Monitoring: The City already has a Quimby Act Ordinance
which requires park land dedication for residential
development projects. The Community Development Department
shall include the requirement for compliance with this
ordinance in a standard list of development project
conditions for adoption by the City Council.
53. Mitigation: All specific plans shall include, as a minimum,
local park land calculated consistent with the City's Quimby
Act Ordinance.
Monitoring: The City has a Quimby Act Ordinance which
requires park land dedication for residential development
projects. The Community Development Department shall
include the requirement for compliance with this ordinance
in a standard list of development project conditions for
adoption by the City Council.
Cultural Resources
54. Mitigation: The City shall require a cultural resources
reconnaissance investigation and records search for
individual development proposals, in accordance with CEQA
requirements, if there is any potential that such resources
may be located on the project site. Where potentially
significant adverse impacts are identified, the City shall
require appropriate mitigation measures as defined by
Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines (which requires work to be
suspended in any area where archaeological remains are
uncovered, pending a survey by a recognized specialist).
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
require appropriate cultural resources studies prior to
determining an application complete, and shall include the
requirement for work to be suspended in any area where
archaeological remains are uncovered, pending a survey by a
recognized specialist, in a standard list of development
project conditions for adoption by the City Council.
55. Mitigation: The City shall implement policies and programs
of the Land Use Element regarding the preservation of
important cultural resources on an ongoing basis.
Monitoring: The Community Development Department shall
review entitlement applications for consistency with the
Land Use Element goals and policies prior to determining an
application complete, and shall include a recommendation to
the decision - making body regarding a project's consistency
with the General Plan.
19
• 6 , J,`,
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss.
CITY OF MOORPARK )
I, Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark,
California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing Resolution No. 92 -855 __ was adopted by the
City Council of the City of Moorpark it a meeting held on
the 13th day of MAY _ , 1992, and that
the same was adopted by the l'ollowing vote:
Councilmembers Motngomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak and
AYES: Mayor Lawrason
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WITNESS my hand and the o f f i c i a l seal of said City
this 7th day of AUGUS:r
1992
Lillian E. Kellerman
City ClerE
(Seel)
PAUI W I AWRA ;ON JP JOHN I WO /NiM, SCOI I kl -N t l t. HI RNAltl. -,',I ROY I W , ! v ,lit
1d-/n• Mays .,oun, ...:n, .��. /,v•in,.�.t�..mt�.