HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES CC 1994 1061 1994 0907RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1061
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE AMENDED CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED
TO THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, Carlsberg Financial -g.orporation has filed an application with
the City of Moorpark for -an -amendmWt`to the adopted Carlsberg Specific Plan
regulating development of an approximate 500 -acre land holding located west of
the Moorpark Freeway (SR23), east of Spring Road, north of Tierra Rejada Road,
and south of New Los Angeles Avenue in the City of Moorpark; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "DSEIR ")
dated May 18, 1993 was prepared and circulated for a 45 day period in order to
receive written comments on the adequacy of the document from responsible
agencies and from the public; and
WHEREAS, before approving the amended Carlsberg Specific Plan, CEQA
requires the preparation and certification of a Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report ( "DSEIR ") to address the environmental impacts of the proposed amendment
to the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR and proposed amended Specific Plan were considered by
the Planning Commission at its meetings of August 2, 1993, August 16, 1993, and
September 7, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after considering all testimony and
evidence presented regarding the SEIR and proposed amended Specific Plan, whether
written or oral, recommended approval of the amended Specific Plan to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR and proposed amended Specific Plan were considered by
the City Council at several public meetings ; and
WHEREAS, a Final SEIR ( "FSEIR "), dated November 18, 1993, was prepared
containing all written correspondence received commenting on the DSEIR, summaries
of oral comments on the DSEIR made at hearings held by the Planning Commission
and the City Council on the DSEIR, and written responses to these comments; and
WHEREAS, after considering the FSEIR in conjunction with all evidence
and testimony, whether written or oral, the City Council reached a decision on
this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS based on the SEIR, oral and
written staff reports, and other testimony and evidence presented to the Planning
Commission and the City Council of the City of Moorpark:
SECTION 1. Except as otherwise provided in these findings or in the
Resolution of the City Council certifying the SEIR, the analysis and conclusions
of the SEIR are hereby adopted as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Except as otherwise set forth in these findings, the mitigation
measures adopted in connection with the approval of the proposed amended Specific
Plan will mitigate the project's significant impacts to a less than significant
level.
SECTION 3. In response to comments received by the City on the FSEIR and
proposed amended Specific Plan, modifications were made to the Project to further
mitigate potential impacts. These modifications to the Project are discussed in
the "Project Modification Summary" dated April 27, 1994. The new information in
this "Project Modification Summary" is not substantial and does not constitute
significant new information as only minor technical changes and additions are
made to the information in the SEIR and no important new issues about the project
are raised.
SECTION 4. Each Finding is based on the entire record of proceedings, - t---
i ncludi.7y written and oral testimony before the Planning Commission and -the City
Council. The description of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives in
these findings is intended to be a summary only. The full descriptions and
analyses are set forth in the SEIR and adopted by this City Council except as
expressly set forth herein.
SECTION 4. Prior to considering the approval of the amended Specific Plan,
the City Council reviewed the EIR and adopted the Resolution certifying the SEIR
for the proposed amended Carlsberg Specific Plan as having been completed in
accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 5. A Mitigation Monitoring Program ( "MMP ") which consists of all
the mitigation measures listed in the MMP (a copy of this MMP is attached hereto
as Exhibit A), is hereby approved and adopted and the mitigation measures are
specifically adopted as conditions of approval of the amendment to the amended
Specific Plan. All mitigation measures previously imposed as part of the 1990
final EIR Plan that are not included in the MMP are no longer valid and
applicable to the project.
SECTION 6. Certain of the impacts under the following environmental topics
were identified as potentially significant impacts and were analyzed in the SEIR:
topography; hydrology; biota; traffic and circulation; air quality; noise; land
use; and housing. Each of these potential impacts is discussed more fully in
Sections 7 through 25 below.
SECTION 7. Section 6 of the DSEIR sets forth the impacts found not to be
significant based on the Initial Study and DSEIR. As listed in Section 6 of the
DSEIR, these include certain impacts related to the following environmental
topics: soil resources; air quality; light and glare; natural resources; risk of
upset; population; housing; public services; energy; utilities; human health;
aesthetics; recreation; cultural resources.
SECTION S. Under the topic of topography, the SEIR concludes that
implementation of the amended Specific Plan would result in the alteration of
Type 1, 2, and 3 ridges on the site and grading of slopes greater than 20
percent. The primary changes associated with the proposed amendment would be
allowing greater development of planning area "C" which would include alteration
of a Type 2 ridge and the grading of approximately 3 to 5 acres of slopes greater
than 20 percent that would not be graded under the adopted amended Specific Plan.
Area "C" is situated in the central portion of the site and views of this
location from off -site viewpoints are largely precluded. This condition
minimizes this impact to some extent. These impacts will be mitigated to a level
of less than significant by implementation of mitigation measures T1 through T25
as contained in the MMP.
SECTION 9. Under the topic of hydrology, the SEIR concludes that
development under the amended Specific Plan would increase site runoff in the
Arroyo Simi and Peach Hill Wash watersheds by 55 cubic feet per second. This
increase represents a 17.3 percent increase in runoff in the Arroyo Simi
watershed and a 30.0 percent decrease in runoff in the Peach Hill watershed.
This increase in runoff will not adversely affect drainage facilities in either
of these watersheds. Detailed development plans have not been completed for the
portion of the site located in the Arroyo Santa Rosa watershed and, therefore,
specific information on impacts to this watershed is not available. Detailed
hydrologic studies will be required when detailed plans for this portion of the
Specific Plan area are completed prior to approval of the final map. The
applicant will construct all improvements as required by the City to mitigate any
impact to the existing drainage facilities in the Arroyo Santa Rosa watershed.
All impacts associated with increases in runoff will be mitigated to a level of
less than significant by implementation of mitigation measures HY1 to HY6, as
contained in the MMP.
SECTION 10. Under the topic of hydrology, the SEIR concludes that no
on -site flooding impacts will occur as all storm drain facilities will be
designed to handle 50 -year and 100 -year frequency storms and no development is
proposed in the 100 -year or 500 -year flood zones as a result of proposed project
implementation. Mitigation measures HY1 to HY6, as contained in the MMP, require
City review and approval of the storm drain design to ensure that no significant
flooding impacts occur.
SECTION 11. Under the topic of hydrology, the SEIR concludes that minimal
erosion and sedimentation impacts may occur during grading and construction.
Mitigation measure HY1, as contained in the MMP, requires preparation of a
erosion, siltation and dust control plan to ensure that these construction
effects are minimized. Mitigation measures HY7 and HY8, as contained in the MMP,
impose further requirements to mitigate any potential increase in erosion and
sedimentation during construction to a level of less than significant.
SECTION 12. Under the topic of hydrology, the SEIR concludes that 200 -300
feet of the uppermost portion of a blueline stream located on the northern
portion of the site would be directly affected by the proposed development.
Further analysis of the proposed project in relation to this stream bed will be
required as a condition of approval of the Tentative Tract Map for this portion
of the property. As no detailed development plans are available at this time it
would be speculative to examine this potential impact any further at this time.
If feasible, any impact to this stream will be avoided by refining the grading
plan. Any alteration of this stream will be subject to the approval of the
California Department of Fish and Game and possibly the Army Corps of Engineers.
Through these permit processes, specific mitigation measures for any direct
impacts will be determined. Through this process, this potential impact will
be avoided or mitigated to a level of less than significant prior to approval of
the Tentative Tract Map.
SECTION 13. Under the topic of biota, the SEIR concludes that
implementation of the adopted amended Specific Plan would result in direct and
indirect impacts to sensitive plant and animal species on the site.
Implementation of the Project would result in the loss approximately 21 acres of
vegetation associated with the cactus phase of the coastal sage scrub plant
community that provides habitat for the cactus wren, a sensitive bird species.
To mitigate this impact to a level of less than significant, Mitigation Measure
B2, as contained in the MMP, requires a revegetation program to replace this
vegetation on the site.
A vernal pool, containing California Orcutt grass, is located in the
southeastern portion of the site. Lyon's pentachaeta is also located in this
portion of the site in proximity of the pool. The vernal pool, California Orcutt
grass, and Lyon's pentachaeta are all considered to be sensitive resources. As
designed, the Project avoids direct impacts to known populations of Lyon's
pentachaeta and the vernal pool. The Project includes a Rare Plant Management
Program (RPMP) designed to minimize any indirect impacts to the vernal pool,
California Orcutt grass, and Lyon's pentachaeta. The RPMP addresses the
maintenance of water flows to the vernal pool, preservation of key open space
areas, and provision of a buffer area to minimize indirect impacts associated
with an increased human presence in the area. Mitigation measures B1, B3, and B4
to B5 as contained in the DSEIR on pages 5 -71 to 5 -72 were proposed to further
minimize any indirect impacts on these resources. These measures included
increasing the buffer around the vernal pool from 0 -50 feet to 100 feet;
specifying types of mosquito control to be used in the pool; forbidding any
draining or disturbance of the pool; and requiring that native plants be used in
project landscaping near open space areas. The California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) commented on the_DSEIR and RPMP, indicating that, in the opinion of
CDFG, the construction and presence of 100 homes in the vicinity of the vernal
pool would result in an unacceptable alteration of the watershed for the vernal
pool and that the artificial hydrologic regime proposed in the RPMP would not
sufficiently mitigate this impact. In addition, CDFG stated that they believed
the buffer provided was insufficient to allow for seasonal fluctuation and
expansion of the populations of Lyon's pentachaeta on the site. In response to
these comments, further revisions were made to the project to minimize any
indirect impacts on these resources including a redesign of lots in this area to
increase the buffer around the vernal pool to 100 to 250 feet.
With implementation of the RPMP and Mitigation Measures 83 to B5, as contained
in the MMP, the potentially significant impacts to the vernal pool, California
Orcutt grass, and Lyon's pentachaeta are considered mitigated to a level of less
than significant by the City Council. Mitigation Measure B1, as contained in the
DSEIR, is no longer applicable as the buffer around the vernal pool has been made
larger than the 100 foot buffer called for by this measure. This finding of the
City Council is based on the information contained in the SEIR and the expertise
of the City's biological consultant for this Project. Contrary to the expertise
of the City's biological consultant, the CDFG has alleged in letters and public
testimony that the Project will result in an unavoidable adverse impact to the
sensitive resources discussed above even with implementation of the RPMP and
other mitigation measures and that a larger buffer should be provided around the
pool. The City Council acknowledges that a disagreement among experts exists
with regard to this issue. Section 15151 of the CEQA guidelines states that a
disagreement among experts does not make an SEIR inadequate, but the SEIR should
summarize the main points of disagreements among experts. The RPMP, as prepared
by the City's biological consultant, was based on extensive hydrological and
other technical studies and required a redesign of the project. The CDFG has
expressed opinions regarding the effectiveness of this mitigation program, but
has produced no technical or other information to support the comments made. The
City Council understands each viewpoint, and based on the information presented
by each expert, has accepted the opinion of the City's biological consultant.
If, and to the extent that, the allegations of CDFG are proven to be true or
partially true at a later date, any future impacts to the vernal pool, California
Orcutt grass, and Lyon's Pentachaeta, are considered to be acceptable due to the
overriding considerations set forth in Section 29 below.
SECTION 14. Under the topic of biota, the SEIR found that implementation
of the amended Specific Plan would result in habitat loss and direct and indirect
impacts to natural habitat on the site. Approximately 33 percent of the natural
habitat on the site will be removed through implementation of the project. In
addition, placement of development adjacent to the remaining open space will
result in indirect impacts to wildlife. Mitigation measures B4 and B5 will
mitigate the indirect effects to a level considered less than significant by
limiting nighttime lighting and requiring the use of compatible plant materials
near open space areas.
SECTION 15. Under the topic of traffic, the SEIR concludes that the
proposed amended Specific Plan would generate 37% percent more traffic than the
currently adopted Specific Plan and would result in significant impacts to seven
intersections that would result from implementation of the amended Specific Plan.
These intersections are: Moorpark Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue; Spring Road /Los
Angeles Avenue; Moorpark Road /Tierra Rejada Road; State Route 23
northbound /Tierra Rejada Road; Science Drive /New Los angles Avenue; "A"
Street /Tierra Rejada Road; and "A" Street / "B" Street. In addition, the amended
Specific Plan would improve the operating conditions of the intersection of
Spring Road /Tierra Rejada Road by providing another north /south road, Science
Drive, that will carry some of the traffic currently using Spring Road. While
the operating capacity of this intersection would improve it would still operate
at a level of service considered to be unacceptable by the City of Moorpark. The
impact of the project on the operation of these intersections will be mitigated
to a level that is less than significant by .City of Moorpark standard% with
implementation of mitigation measures TC 1 through TC 17, as contained an the
MMP. These measures require improvements to certain intersections and a fair
share financial contribution by the applicant towards the costs of improving
other impacted facilities. These measures provide for improvement of impacted
City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, and State of California Facilities.
Impacts to the County regional roadway system and Congestion Management Plan
network were analyzed based on available traffic analysis methodologies. The
County of Ventura is currently preparing a county -wide traffic model to monitor
cumulative traffic impacts and an associated traffic fee program. In lieu of
this county -wide program, the County has been seeking to establish reciprocal
traffic mitigation fee agreements with the cities in Ventura County defining
inter - jurisdictional responsibilities for mitigation of traffic impacts.
Mitigation Measure TC18, as contained in the MMP, will ensure that impacts to
County roads are mitigated by requiring the applicant to contribute a pro -rata
share of the cost of improving impacted County roadways, provided that a
reciprocal agreement between the County and the City of Moorpark related to
mitigation of traffic impacts is reached within the next ten years. Absent a
reciprocal agreement or a county -wide program, the City Council finds that there
is no other feasible method available for properly analyzing and mitigating any
impact of the project on County roadways. If this reciprocal agreement cannot
be reached between the County and the City of Moorpark within a 10 year period
and there is an impact on County roadways that is not fully mitigated, such
impact would be acceptable due to the overriding considerations set forth in
Section 29 below.
SECTION 16. Under the topic of air quality, the SEIR concludes that
construction allowed by the amended Specific Plan would result in short -term
increases in emission levels from construction equipment and dust generation.
The increase in construction emissions is not considered significant due to the
temporary nature of this impact. While not considered significant, mitigation
measures Al through A6, as contained in the MMP, will minimize construction
impacts related to equipment emissions or fugitive dust generation.
SECTION 17. Under the topic of air quality, the SEIR also concludes that
implementation of the amended Specific Plan would result in the generation of
long term air emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) associated with vehicular trips that exceed the threshold of
significance set by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
Mitigation measures A7 through A24, as contained in the MMP, will mitigate this
impact to a level of less than significant. These measures include design
features to be incorporated into structures within the project, regulation of the
amount of housing to be built at certain points during build -out of the project,
and payment of a mitigation fee.
SECTION 18. Under the topic of air quality, the SEIR concludes that future
localized concentrations of carbon monoxide at intersections that will be
utilized by traffic from the project will not exceed the California ambient air
quality standards. For this reason, the increase in localized carbon monoxide
levels resulting from project traffic is not considered to be significant.
SECTION 19. Under the topic of air quality, the SEIR concludes that the
project is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan.
SECTION 20. Under the topic of noise, the SEIR concludes that noise impacts
associated with construction activities would be a short term nuisance to local
residents. This impact is not considered to be significant because of the short
term duration. Mitigation measures N1 through N4, as contained in the MMP, which
control construction related activities, will minimize potential construction
noise effects.
SECTION 21. Under the topic of noise, the SEIR concludes that noise levels
along off -site roadways will not increase significantly as a result of the
addition of project generated traffic to these roadways.
SECTION 22. Under the topic of noise, the SEIR concludes that traffic noise
levels in planning area "A ", adjacent to the Moorpark Freeway, would exceed the
60dB (A) CNEL standard for low density residential uses, without mitigation.
Mitigation measures N5 through N8, as contained in the MMP, will reduce this
impact to below a level of significance by requiring additional study of noise
levels in area "A" and the placement of all residential units outside the 60dB
(A) CNEL contour; design of structures to meet applicable interior noise
standards; controls on outside equipment; and additional analysis of residential
areas along Science Drive to ensure all residential units are outside the 60dB(A)
CNEL contour for this road.
SECTION 23. Under the topic of noise, the SEIR concludes that operational
noise levels associated with the uses allowed by the Specific Plan will not
result in significant impacts for surrounding land uses. Noise generated by
uses in the business park portion of the site may, however, be a nuisance for
residents of a new multi - family housing complex on the north side of New Los
Angeles Avenue. To minimize any nuisance, mitigation measure N8, as contained
in the MMP, limits the time of day certain equipment associated with maintenance
of outdoor areas within the business park portion of the site can operate to
daytime hours.
SECTION 24. Under the topic of land use, the SEIR concludes that the
amended Specific Plan is consistent with the land use designations for the site
found in the City's General Plan and that the land uses within the project are
compatible with surrounding uses. To ensure the compatibility of land uses,
mitigation measure L1, as contained in the MMP, requires separation and
buffering between different land uses on and off -site along with conformance with
site plans for individual areas within the Project as approved by the City.
SECTION 25. Under the topic of housing, the SEIR concludes that the
elimination of multi - family uses from the project would not affect city -wide
programs or result in any other impact to low- moderate income housing, elderly
housing, or the demand for housing assistance within the City of Moorpark. This
loss of potential multi - family housing will, however, contribute to a significant
cumulative impact on the availability of low- moderate income housing, elderly
housing, and the demand for housing assistance. This cumulative impact may be
avoided by development of policies and incentive programs by the City that will
stimulate the production of low income housing within the City. To the extent
this cumulative impact is not avoided through the development and implementation
of programs by the City of Moorpark, this impact would be acceptable due to the
overriding considerations set forth in Section 29 below.
SECTION 26. Other than the cumulative impact identified above in Section
25, no significant cumulative impacts have been identified.
SECTION 27. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091:
A. The imposition of the MMP constitutes changes or alterations in the
project which will reduce certain of the potentially significant
Impacts of the project in the areas of topography, hydrology, biota,
traffic, air quality, and noise to a level considered less than
significant by the City of Moorpark.
B. The imposition of the MMP will also reduce those impacts of the
project found to be adverse, but not significant, in the areas of
construction related emissions and operational noise impacts to
off -site land uses.
C. The City Council finds that the Project will not result in a
significant impact to the sensitive biological resources on the site
as discussed in Section 13 above. The California Department of Fish
and Game disagrees with the City Council and its technical experts
and has requested that Alternative 3 be approved to mitigate
potential impacts to these sensitive resources to a level considered
less than significant by the Department. The specific economic
reasons set forth in Section 30 make this alternative infeasible.
D. The City Council finds that potential impacts to County roadways
have been analyzed to the extent feasible as discussed above in
Section 15. At this time, there is no feasible mechanism for
further analyzing and mitigating any project or cumulative impact to
County roadways. A mitigation measure requiring the applicant to
contribute a pro -rata share of the cost of improving County roads to
mitigate project or cumulative impacts, provided that a reciprocal
agreement between the County and City on road impacts is reached in
the next 10 years, has been imposed on the project. No other
feasible mitigation measures for this impact have been identified in
the SEIR.
E. The cumulative housing impact identified in Section 25 above may
remain significant if the City is not able to develop and
successfully implement programs to stimulate the production of low
income housing within the City. No other feasible mitigation
measures for this potential cumulative impact have been identified
in the SEIR or by the City Council.
SECTION 28. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and other
provisions of law, the City Council has balanced the benefits of this project
against the potentially unavoidable significant impacts identified in Sections
13, 15, and 25 above in the areas of sensitive biological resources, traffic and
housing which are assumed to exist for purposes of this balancing process. For
the reasons listed below, the City Council has determined that the benefits of
this project outweigh the potentially unavoidable impacts to sensitive biological
resources, traffic, and housing and that such adverse effects area considered
acceptable. Each of the matters set forth below is independent of the other
matters of overriding consideration, warranting approval of the project despite
each and every impact that might remain significant.
A. The Project will provide funding for public improvements, including
improvements to major arterials that will benefit the entire
community.
B. The Project will provide improvements to Spring Road. This road is
an important link in the City's circulation network and improvement
of this road will benefit the entire community.
C. The Project will construct Science Drive, which will provide an
alternative north -south roadway to Spring Road. This addition to
the circulation network will benefit the entire community.
D. The Project provides for permanent open space areas that benefit the
entire community.
E. The Project will enhance the "gateway" to the City of Moorpark by
facilitating relocation of the existing California Department of
Transportation Maintenance yard.
F. The amended Specific Plan includes a substantial amount of business
park and commercial uses that will generate direct and indirect
revenues for the City of Moorpark.
G. The amended Specific Plan has a better balance of jobs and housing
than the plan as currently adopted.
SECTION 29. The SEIR considered three alternatives to the project including
the "No Project /Site Build -out Consistent with the adopted Specific Plan"
alternative. This alternative is discussed on DSEIR pages 7 -2 through 7 -7 and
analyzes build -out of the project under the Carlsberg Specific Plan as currently
adopted. The applicant has requested this amendment as build -out of the project
under the Specific Plan as currently adopted is not financially feasible at the
present time. Both the currently adopted Specific Plan and the Project are
considered consistent with the General Plan. The primary differences between the
two plans are the allowed type and location of housing. The Project would allow
147 more homes than the adopted Specific Plan and allow increased development of
planning area "C ", an area largely reserved for open space uses in the current
plan. As a result of this change, The Project would impact slightly more native
vegetation in area "C" (approximately 7 acres) than the adopted Specific Plan,
but would still impact the two endangered plant species and vernal pool in area
"A ". As the adopted plan allows less units in area "C" than the currently adopted
plan, this alternative would result in slightly less grading of slopes over 20
percent and less grading of the type 2 ridge line in area "C ". The location of
the additional grading allowed by the Project is not in areas highly visible from
off -site locations. As less units would be built under this alternative, Less
traffic, vehicular noise, and vehicular emissions would be generated. The
significance of the traffic, noise, and air quality impacts, after mitigation,
however, would be similar between the currently adopted and proposed amended
Specific Plan. Based on the findings that the environmental impacts of this
alternative and the project are not substantially different for most of the
topics analyzed; the Project will result in less impact to the sensitive
biological resources in planning area "A "; and the economic viability of the
Project is considered to be superior, the City Council is not selecting this
alternative for approval.
The SEIR also considered the "Site Build -out Consistent with the 1990 Final EIR
Plan" alternative. This alternative is discussed on draft SEIR pages 7 -7 through
7 -11 and considers build -out of the site under the plan analyzed in the 1990
SEIR. This alternative would not include development of planning area "C" but
would include more development of planning area "A" near sensitive biological
resources. This alternative would result in less grading of slopes over 20
percent and the type 2 ridge line in area "C ". The location of the additional
grading allowed by the Project is not in areas highly visible from off -site
locations. While this alternative includes the same number of units as the
8
Project, some of the units would be multi - family units. Due to the different trip
generation rates for multi - family units, this alternative would generate less
traffic and associated vehicular emissions and noise than the Project. The
significance of these traffic, noise, and air quality impacts, after mitigation,
however, would be similar between the Project and this alternative. This
alternative would result in greater impacts to the biological resources in area
"A" while preserving more natural habitat in area "C". Based on the findings that
the environmental impacts of this alternative and the project are not
substantially different for most of the topics analyzed; the Project will result
in less impact to the sensitive biological resources in planning area "A "; and
the economic viability of the Project is considered to be superior, the City
Council is not selecting this alternative for approval.
The third alternative considered in the SEIR is the "Hybrid Alternative ". This
alternative is analyzed on draft SEIR pages 7 -12 through 7 -16. The Hybrid
Alternative was formulated to reduce identified impacts to a level considered
less than significant, as feasible, in accordance with CEQA. In comparison to
the Project, this alternative would consolidate development on the northern
two- thirds of the site to reduce impacts on existing topography and the
biological resources on the southern one -third of the site. In addition, this
alternative reduces the amount of development in order to reduce air quality
impacts to below the County's threshold of significance and creates buffers along
Highway 23 and Tierra Rejada Road. Higher densities would occur on portions of
the site to compensate for the reduced density on the southern portion of the
site. As formulated, this alternative would result in no impact to the sensitive
biological resources in area "A ", less than significant air quality impacts, and
less traffic and vehicular noise impacts. While this alternative is considered
to be environmentally superior, it is not considered to be financially feasible
by the City Council based on information provided by the applicant in a letter
dated April 29, 1994, entered into the administrative record. For this reason,
the City Council is not selecting this alternative for approval.
SECTION 30. The City Council directed that the following changes to the
proposed amended Specific Plan be made:
A. The applicant shall add a statement to the Specific Plan indicating
that the active park does not totally satisfy the requirements of
the Quimby contribution.
B. The Settlement Agreement shall be incorporated into the Specific
Plan.
C. Make appropriate changes to the Specific Plan to preserve the Knoll
located north of the proposed active park.
SECTION 31. The City Council hereby approves an amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to reflect the land uses as contained in the amended
Specific Plan dated , 1994 presented to the Planning Commission and City
Council, subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated herein by reference, and all the applicable policies,
procedures, resolutions, and ordinances of the City of Moorpark. This approval
is based on the finding that the amended Carlsberg Specific Plan is consistent
with the City's General Plan.
SECTION 32. The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is
located in the office of the City Clerk, who is the custodian of records for the
same.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of � 1994.
Paul W. Lawrason, 7r., Mayor
ATTEST:
10
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529.6864
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss.
CITY OF MOORPARK )
I, Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark,
California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing Resolution No. 94 -1061 was adopted by the
City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on
the 7th day of September , 1994, and that
the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS PEREZ, WOZNIAK, AND MAYOR LAWRASON
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER HUNTER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER MONTGOMERY
ABSTAIN: NONE
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City
this _9th of 4PprF,mha•r_, 1994.
Lillian E. Hare
City Clerk
4
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. PATRICK HUNTER SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Concilmember
Printed on Recyc'ec Pale-
PROTECT NAME: Carlsberg Specific Plan
APPROVAL DATE: September 7, 1994
EXhi-sIT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FILE NUMBER:
EIR No.:
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated in to the approval for this project in order to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts to a level, of
insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City of Moorpark's
monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). The mitigation measures are numbered consecutively in the text of this EIR.
Env. Issue
Potential
Significant
Effect
EIR
Page No.
Reference
Mitigation Measure
Method of Review
Verification
Responsible
Agency
Monitoring
Milestone
Verification of
Compliance
Initial I Date I Remarks
Topography Alteration of
5 -14
T1. Graded slopes visible from off -site to
a. Review of
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
the west shall be hydroseeded
landscape
Community
issuance of
appearance.
immediately upon completion,
concept plans
Development
grading permit
consistent with the landscape concept
and Director of
plan. The city shall specify deadlines
Public Works
for completion of hydroseeding based
on the grading schedule.
b Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
verification
Public Works
grading
Alteration of
iµ anti
T. i he entry treatment at Science Drivc
Rcvie«- of street
ri Director of
inspection
I Prior to
sites natural
5 -15
and Tierra Rejada Road shall be
improvement
Community
issuance of
appearance
completed concurrent xNith the
and landscape
Development
grading permits
construction of Science Drive and the
concept plans
and Director of'
intersection at Tierra Rejada Road
Public Works
i'erimeter on -site landscaping along
Spring Road and Ticrra Rejada Road,
b. Field
b. Director of
b. As required in
including any parkways, shall be
verification
Public Works
mitigation
installed concurrent with the Spring
Road and Tierra Rejada Road
measure
frontage improvements
l'opography Alteration of
5 -15
T3. Landform and grading design shall be
a. Review of
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
consistent with the Cite of Moorpark
grading plans
Public Works
issuance of
+ appearance
grading standards.
grading permits
b. I- ield
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
verification
Public Works
sign-off of
grading
Topography Alteration of
5 -15
T4. New slopes adjacent to roadways and
a. Review of
a. Directof of
a. Prior to
site's natural
development areas shall be graded in
grading plans
Community
issuance of
appearance
such a way that an undulating
Development
grading permits
a ante in the aded lane shall
and Director of
.i
Env. Issue Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect Reference
Method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring Verification of
Milestone I Compliance
Date I Remarks
a
be provided.
Public Works
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
verification
Public Works
sign -off of
grading
Topography
Alteration of
5 -15
T5. Manufactured landforms shall be
a. Review of
a. Directof of
a. Prior to
site's natural
contoured to provide a smooth and
grading plans
Community
issuance of
appearance
gradual transition of graded and
Development
grading permits
natural slopes, while preserving the
and Director of
basic character of the site.
Public Works
h. Field
b. Director of'
b. Prior to final
verification
Public Works
sign- offof
grading
Topography
Alteration of
5 -15
TO the maximum gradient for anv slope
a Review of
a Director of'
a Prior to
site's natural
,hall not exceed a 2 1 slope
I
_,rading plan
Public Work
issuance of
I
appearance
inclination except 'where special
I .tnd Director . t
grading permitr
i
i
,crcumstances exist. hi the case of
Community
special Circumstances where steeper
Development
slopes are warranted, plans will be
reviewed by a certified geologist and
b. Field
b Director of
b. Prior to final
�%Jll be subject to the review and
verification
Public Works
sign -offof
approval of the City Engineer and the
grading
Director of Community Development.
Topography
Alteration of
51 -5
T7. Planned structures, roadways, paths,
a. Review of
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
vegetation, irrigation and continuing
landscaping
Community
issuance of
appearance
maintenance programs shall he used
plans and
Development/D
grading permits
to stabilize manufactured slopes.
homeowners
irector of Public
and prior to
association
Works
issuance of
landscape
certificate of
maintenance
occupancy
plan.
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to
verification/
Public Works
issuance of
monitoring
certificate of
a
l Env. Issue Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect I Reference
Method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone Compliance
Initial ( Date I Remarks
-3- .t
occupancy and
during life of
project
Topography
Alteration of
5 -16
T8. Substantial quantities of trees and
a. Landscape plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
shrubs of varying sizes on graded
review
Community
issuance of
appearance
slopes shall be used to soften the
Development
grading permits
visual appearance
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to
verification
Community
issuance of
Development
occupancy
permits
Topography
Alteration of
5 -16
T9. All graded slopes shall be planted in a
a. Landscape plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
timely manner meeting the approval
review
Community
issuance of
appearance
of the Director of Community
Development
grading permits
Development with groundcover, trees
and shrubs that will stabilize slopes
b E field
b Director of
1, Prior to
and mimmve erusion_
verification
Community
issuance of
' Development
Occupancy
permits
I opoYraph}
Alteration of
5 -16
T10 All development areas and lots shall
a. Grading and
a. Director of'
a. Prior to
site's natural
be designed so that surface drainage
drainage plan
Public Works
issuance of
appearance
is directed to street frontages of
review
grading permits
natural or improved drainage courses
as approved by the City Engineer
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
verification
Public Works
grading and
street
improvements
sign- offs.
Topography j
Alteration of
5 -16
T11 (:Trading shall emphasize scenic vistas
a. Grading plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
i
site's natural
to the open space areas.
review
Community
issuance of
appearance
Development
building
and Director of
permits
Public Works
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
-3- .t
Env. Issue I Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect I Reference
Method of Review Responsible Monitoring Verification of
Agency Milestone Compliance
Verification Initial I Date Remarks
,e
-4- .t
verification
Community
grading sign -off
Development
and Engineering
Services
inspector
Topography
Alteration of
5 -16
T12. Concrete drainage structures shall be
a. Grading plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
tan colored concrete.
review.
Public Works
issuance of'
appearance
grading permits
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
verification
Public Works
grading sign -off
Topography
Alteration of
5 -16
T13. Protection of existing vegetation
a. Grading plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
through careful site planning which
review and
Public Works
issuance of
appearance
may reduce areas of grading.
preliminary site
and Director of
grading permits
survey
Community
revelopment
i field
6 Director of
b. ?nor to final
verification
Public Works
grading sign -off
l'opograph%
Alteration of
5 -17
T14. Utilization of current good practices
a. Tract map
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
of design, architecture, landscape
review.
Community
approval of tract
appearance
architecture, civil engineering, and
Development
map by
hillside land planning to preserve,
planning
enhance and promote the existing and
commission
future appearance and resources of
hillside areas.
b. Issuance of
b. Director of
b. Prior to
building
Community
issuance of
permits
Development
building
permits
Topography
Alteration of
5 -17
T15. Retention of designated natural
a. Grading plan
a. birector of
a. Prior to
site's natural
topographic features.
review and
Public Works
issuance of
appearance
preliminary site
and Director of
grading permits
survey.
Community
Development
,e
-4- .t
Env. Issue Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect Reference
Method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone Comnliance
Date I Remarks
•e
-5- .t
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
verification
Public Works
grading sign -off
Topography
Alteration of
5 -17
T16. If grading is required or necessary,
a. Grading plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
conservation of natural topographic
review
Public Works
issuance of
appearance
features and appearances by means of
grading permits
land sculpturing to blend graded
slopes and benches with natural
h Field
h Director of
b Prior to final
topography.
verification
Public Works
grading sign -off
Topography
Alteration of
5 -17
T17. Utilization of varying pads sizes,
a. Tentative tract
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
setbacks, building heights, innovative
map review
Public Works
issuance of
appearance
building techniques, and building and
and Director of
grading permits
wall forms which serve to blend
Community
and building
buildings into the terrain. In highly
Development
permits
visually sensitive areas, buildings
shall be designed to fit the landform
b. Field
b Director of
b. Prior to final
rather than adjusting the landform to
verification
P tiblic Works
grading sign -off
tit the home.
and issuance of
i
certificate of
occupancy
Topography
Alteration of
5 -17
T18. Conservation and introduction of fire
a. Grading plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
resistant plant material to protect
check and
Public Works
issuance of
appearance
slopes from slippage and soil erosion,
landscape plan
and Director of
grading permits
and to minimize the visual effect of
review
Community
grading and construction.
Development
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
verification
Public Works
grading sign -off
and issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Topography
Alteration of
5 -17
TI 9. Provision of safe access for vehicular
a. Tentative tract
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
and pedestrian traffic with minimum
map review,
Community
approval of
appearance
disturbances of the natural terrain.
landscape plan
Development
tentative tract
Utilization of street designs and
review and
and Director of
map and
improvements which serve to I
grading plan
Public Works
issuance of
•e
-5- .t
i Env. Issue Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect I Reference
Method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone compliance
Initial I Date
,e
-6- .i
minimize grading impact and
check
grading permits,
harmonize with the natural contours
and character of the hillsides.
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
verification
Public Works
grading
sign -off. and
issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Topography
Alteration of
5 -17
T20 Utilization of home designs that allow
a. Building plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
for diversification of hillside
check
Community
issuance of
appearance
development styles based on the
Development
building
different land form types including
pests
ridgeline, side ridges, canyon and the
valley floor.
Topography
Risk of
5 -18
'f21 Planning, design, and development of
a. Tentative tract
a Director of
a Prior to
natural
home sites that provide maximum
map and site
Community
approval of
hazards
safety with respect to fire, earthquake
elan review
Development
tentative tract
;cults, geologic drainage, erosion, and
and Director of
map and
siltation hazards.
I Public Works
approval of site
plan.
Topography
Alteration of
- -1 k
1'22 Every reasonable effort shall be made
a Tentative tract
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
to preserve or minimize the impact on
map review,
Community
approval of
appearance
view corridors and scenic vistas.
landscape plan
Development
tentative tract
review and
and Director of
map and
grading plan
Public Works
issuance of
check
grading permits.
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
verification
Community
grading sign -off
Development
and issuance of
1
$nd Director of'
certificate of
Public Works
occupancy
Topography
n of
5 -18
723. Every reasonable effort shall be made
a. Tentative tract
a. Director of
a. Prior to
ysite's ural
to pres erve mature trees, especially
map review,
Community
approval of
ce
coastal live oaks uercus a ri olia .
landscape lap
Development
tentative tract
,e
-6- .i
t.
Env. Issue Potential EIR Mitigation Measure Method of Review Responsible Monitoring Verification of
Significant Page No. Agency Milestone Com fiance
Effect Reference Verification Initial Date Remarks
mis
Special consideration shall be given to
review and
and Director of
map and
the preservation or relocation of
grading plan
Public Works
issuance of
heritage trees.
check
grading permits
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
verification
Community
grading
Development
sign -off. and
and Director of
issuance of
Public Works
certificate of
occupancy
Topography
Alteration of
> -18
124 every reasonable etlort shall be made
a. Tentative tract
a. Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
to preserve and minimize the impact
map review,
Community
approval of
appearance
on riparian habitats by utilizing
landscape plan
Development
tentative tract
innovative designs to incorporate
review and
and Director of
map and
stream beds and channels into
grading plan
Public Works
issuance of
development. Linkage of these areas
check
grading permits.
shall be provided throughout the
development.
h Held
h Director of
b Prior to final
„nim1aak
grading
Development
sigii -off' and
and Director of
issuance of
Public Works
certificate of
occupancy
Topography
Alteration of
N/A
T25. The Knoll located north of the
a. Tentative tract
a Director of
a. Prior to
site's natural
proposed active park shall be
map review,
Community
approval of
appearance
preserved.
landscape plan
Development
tentative tract
review and
and Director of
map and
grading plan
Public Works
issuance of
check
grading permits.
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to final
1
verification
Community
grading
Development
sign -off and
and Director of
issuance of
Public Works
certificate of
occupancy
mis
t Env. Issue I Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect Reference
Method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone Comnliance.
Initial I Date I Remarks
I fydrology
Increased
runofi'and
erosion due
to project
development.
5 -36
HY1. Concurrent with submittal of the mass
grading plan, an erosion, siltation, and
dust control plan stall be submitted
by the applicant and shall be subject
to approval by the City of Moorpark.
a. Review of
grading and
erosion control
plans.
a. Director of
Public Works
and Community
Development
a. Prior to
issuance of
grading permits
Hydrology
Increased
5 -36 and
HY2 Prior to final map approval,
a. Review of soils
a Director of
a. Prior to
runoff and
5 -37
completed grading and drainage plans
report,
Public Works
approval of
erosion due
and calculations shall be submitted to
hydrology study
final map
to project
and approved by the City of
and street
development
Moorpark. The plans shall depict all
improvement
on -site and oil -site drainage structures
plan.
required by the City. The plans shall
include a soils report, hydrology study
and street improvement plans.
Drainage plans shall be included with
the street improvement plans. All
grading plans and calculations shall
be submitted separately and also must
be approved b% the C'it' prior io final
map approval
Hydrology
Increased
-�
iIY1 The applicant shall provide for all
a Tentati�,r trdcf
a Director of
a Prior to
runoff and
necessary on -site and off -site storm
map
Public Works
approval of
erosion due
drain facilities required by the City of
Tentative Tract
to project
Moorpark to accommodate upstream
Map
development
and on -site flows. Facilities, as
conceptually approved in the specific
b. Field
b. Engineering
b. Construction
plan, shall be delineated on the
verification
Services
phases
tentative map and final plans
inspector
approved by the City. Either on -site
retention basins or storm water
acceptance deeds from off -site
property owners must be specified.
These facilities must also be
acceptable to the Ventura County
Public Works Agency.
.e
! - Env. Issue Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
t Significant Page No.
Effect I Reference
Method of Review Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring Verification of
Milestone Compliance
Initial I Date T Remarks
Hydrology
Increased
5 -37
HY4. Grading shall occur only during the
a. Grading plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
runoff and
non -rainy season from April 15 to
check
Public Works
issuance of
erosion due
October 31 unless otherwise approved
grading permits
to project
by the City of Moorpark and subject
development
to installation of debris and erosion
b. Field
b. Engineering
b. During
control facilities.
verification
Services
construction
inspector
Hydrology
Increased
5 -37
11Y5. As recommended by the civil
a. Tentative tract
a. Director of
a Prior to
runoff and
engineers, the pipe at culvert
map and street
Public Works
issuance of
erosion due
crossings (Station 70 +83) shall be
improvement
grading permits
to project
iowered to accommodate the ultimate
plans
development
widening of Tierra Rejada Road.
Hydrology
Increased
5 -37
HYG. All structures proposed within the
a. Tentative tract
a. Director of
a. Prior to
runoff and
100 -year flood zone shall be elevated
map and
Public Works
approval of
erosion due
at least one foot above the 100 -year
grading plan
tentative tract
to project
flood level.
check
map and prior
development
I
to issuance of
i
I grading permit,,
i
h t field
r t,ngmeenng
h Construction
verification
Services
phases
inspector
Hydrology
Increased
5 -38
HY7 During site preparation and
a. Grading plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
runoff and
construction, minimize disturbance of
check
Community
issuance of
erosion due
natural groundcover on the project
Development
grading permits
to project
site until such activity is required for
and Director of'
development
grading and construction purposes.
Public Works
b. Field
b. Engineering
b. Prior to final
verification
Services
grading sign -off
i
inspector
I lydrology
Increased
5 -38
HYB. During site preparation (i.e., grading)
a. Grading plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
runoff and
and construction, construct temporary
check
Public Works
issuance of
erosion due
storm water diversion structures per
grading permits
to project
City of Moorpark standards.
.e
-9- ,i
1 -.
1'
0 1
WE
Env. Issue
Potential
EIR
Mitigation Measure
Method of Review
Responsible
Monitoring
Verification of
Significant
[Effect
Page No.
Agency'
Milestone
Compliance
Reference
Verification
Initial Date Remarks
development
b. Field
b. Engineering
b. During
verification
Services
construction.
inspector
Hydrology
Impacts to
N/A
HY9. A total of 200 to 300 feet of the
a. Review of
a. Director of
a. Prior to
riparian
uppermost portion of the blueline
tentative tract
Community
approval of
habitat
stream located on the northern portion
map
Development
tentative tract
of the project site shall be analyzed as
part of the grading plan to determine
map
if potential impacts to the streambed
can be avoided. Any alteration to the
stream will require California
Department of Fish and Game and
possibly Army Corp of Engineers
approvals
Biota
Impacts to
5 -70
131. To further reduce direct and indirect
a. Tentative tract
a Director of
a Prior to
native
impacts to the Orcutt grass and
map and
ComnumitV
approval of
habitats anu
I
seasonal pool, no development (with
P-rading plan I
hevelopment
tentative tract
.ensitivr t
the exception of drainage control
1111d hector of
map and
species
features) shall occur within 100 feet
I
Public Works
issuance of
of the upper limits of the seasonal
grading permits
pool. This measure would increase
the 0- to 50400t butler gone that is
I' Meld
t' Mi -ector of
1; Construction
proposed as part of the current project
verification
Commuttit}
phases
description and Rare Plant
Development
Management Plan.
and Director of
Public Works
Biota
Impacts to
5 -70
B2 To reduce direct impacts to the cactus
a. Revegetation
a. Director of
a Prior to
native
"Ten, the applicant should offset the
plan
Planning and
issuance of
habitats and
loss of the cactus phase of the coastal
Community
grading permits
sensitive
sage scrub on the site. Figure 22 as
Development
1
species
contained in the DEIR, dated May 18,
1993, identities locations on the site
b. Field
b. Director of'
b. During life of
where revegetation efforts can be
verification
Community
project
successfully implemented. This
Development
revegetation plan should be
and Director of
im lemented under the direction of a
Public Works
0 1
WE
Iss,_ Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
-
Significant Significant Page No.
Effect I Reference
—ethod of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone Cmmnlisnce
Initial I Date I Remarks
A
qualified biologist. As proposed, this
measure would replace the 20.79
acres of cactus phase coastal sage lost
due to project grading activities.
Studies indicate that cactus phase
coastal sage is an invasive plant
community. Establishing this plant
community can occur where suitable
soil conditions and micro - climates are
present. However, revegetation
efforts must be conducted under the
supervision of a qualified biologist. It
is expected that complete revegetation
would require many years (5 to 10
Years). However, establishing
Biota
Impacts to
5 -70 and
133 When water is present in the seasonal
a. Review of
a Director of
a. Prior to
native
i -72
pool, it shall not be artificially
mosquito
Planning and
issuance of
habitats and
drained or otherwise subjected to
abatement plea,
C'ortununit}
occupanc}
sensitive
disturbance Biological methods for
; )etclopmen
oennits
species
mosquito control shall be utilized,
including the use of Bacillus
thuringiensislisraelensis (Bt), a
commercially - available biological
control which is specific for mosquito
larvae.
Biota
Impacts to
5 -72
134. The landscape plan for areas adjacent
a. Landscape plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
native
to natural open space shall conform
and grading
Planning and
issuance of
habitats and
with the recently - published "List of
plan check
Community
grading permits
sensitive
Native Plant Species for use in
Development
species
Landscaping in the Santa Monica
Mountains ".
b. Site inspection
b. Planning and
b. Prior to
i
Community
issuance of
Development
occupancy
inspector
permits
A
1' [!!7Iss(Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect Reference
iviethod of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone Comnlianee
Initial 1 Date 1 Remarks
Biota
Impacts to
5 -72
B5. Lighting in areas adjacent to the
a Lighting/
a. Director of
a. Prior to
native
natural open space�portions of the site
landscape plan,
Community
issuance of
habitats and
shall be fully hooded and shielded to
street
Development
grading and
sensitive
prevent illumination of sensitive
improvement
and Director of
building
species
habitats.
plan and
Public Works
permits
building plan
check
b. Field
b. Director of
b. Prior to
verification
Community
issuance of final
Development
street
and Director of
improvements
Public Works
sign -off and
certificate of
occupancy.
1 ratlic
Impacts to
5 -105
R11 Design and constrict both ".A" Street
a Street
a Director of
a Prior to
intersection
between New Los Angeles Avenue
improvement
Pnhlir Work,
issuance of
operating
' and "B" Street as a four -lane roadway
plan review
grading permits
capacities
(two lanes in each direction) to
accommodate peak hour and ADT
b. Site inspection
b. Director of
b. Prior to
background plus project traffic
Public Works
issuance of final
projections
street
improvements
sign -off
l raflic
Impacts to
5 -105
TC2. Science Drive/New Los Angeles
a. Street
a. Director of
a. Prior to
intersection
Avenue: Applicant to fully construct the south
improvement
Public Works
issuance of
operating
leg of the intersection, and provide westbound
plan review
grading permits
capacities
left -turn lane; eastbound right -turn lane;
shared southbound through lane /southbound
b. Site inspection
b. Director of
b. Prior to
right -turn lane; northbound left -turn lane;
Public Works
issuance of final
i
second northbound left -turn lane; northbound
street
right -turn lane; shared northbound through
improvements
lane/northbound right -turn lane; and modify
sign -off
signal to provide eastbound right -turn overlap
with the northbound left -turn movement.
- 12- .1
t Env. Issue Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect I Reference
Method of Review Responsible Monitoring Verification of
Agency Milestone Compliance
Verification 1 1 Initial I Date I Remarks
Traffic
Impacts to
intersection
operating
capacities
5 -105
TC3. "A" Street/Peach Hill Road:
Applicant to fully construct and
provide northbound left -turn lane,
northbound through lane, southbound
through lane, southbound right -turn
lane, eastbound left -turn lane, and
eastbound right -turn lane.
a. Street
improvement
plan review
b. Site inspection
a. Director of
Public Works
b. Director of
Public Works
a. Prior to
issuance of
grading permits
b. Prior to
issuance of final
street
improvements
sign -off
Traffic
Impacts to
5 -105
TC4. "A" Street/Tierra Rejada Road:
a. Street
a. Director of
a. Prior to
intersection
Applicant to fully construct north leg
improvement
Public Works
issuance of
operating
of intersection and provide westbound
plan review
grading permits
capacities
right -turn lane, eastbound left -turn
lane, southbound left -turn lane, and
b. Site inspection
b. Director of
b. Prior to
southbound right -turn lane (project
Public Works
issuance of final
share 63 percent).
street
improvements
sign -off
Traffic
Impacts to
1;-10"
TC5 "A" Street/ "B" Street: Applicant to
a. Street
a. Director of'
a. Prior to
intersection
fully construct intersection and
improvement
Public Works
issuance of
operating
provide northbound left -turn lane;
plan review
grading permits
capacities
northbound through lane; northbound
right -turn lane; southbound left -turn
b. Site inspection
b. Director of
b. Prior to
lane; second southbound left -turn
Public Works
issuance of final
lane; shared southbound through
street
lane/southbound right -turn lane;
improvements
westbound left -turn lane; westbound
sign -off
right -turn lane; shared westbound
through lane/westbound right -turn
lane; eastbound left -turn lane; shared
eastbound through lane /eastbound
right -turn lane; and provide
northbound right -turn overlap with the
westbound left -turn movement as part
of signal installation.
.e
- 13 - ^�
Issue Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect I Reference
Method of Review Responsible Monitoring Verification of
Agency Milestone Compliance
Verification I I Initial I Date I Remarks
Traffic
Impacts to
intersection
operating
capacities
5 -107
TC6. Spring Road/Tierra Rejada Road:
Applicant to contribute the fair share
of the cost to add a second westbound
through lane. It is assumed that the
applicant will contribute Area of
Contribution (AOC) funds for the
addition of a second eastbound
through lane. Note: These
improvements are required to mitigate
"no-project" as well as "with- project"
conditions (project share 32 percent).
a. Street
improvement
plan review
b. Site inspection
a. Director of
Public Works
b. Director of
Public Works
a. Prior to
issuance of
grading permits
b. Prior to
issuance of final
street
improvements
sign -off
Traffic
Impacts to
5 -107
TC7. Moorpark Road/Tierra Rejada Road:
a. Street
a. Director of'
a. Prior to
intersection
The applicant will contribute Tierra
improvement
Public Works
issuance of
operating
Rejada AOC funds. To the extent that
plan review
grading permits
capacities
the following improvements exceed
the AOC widening project, the
b Site inspection
h 1irector of
b Prior to
applicant is to pay fair share of costs
l'uhlic Wnrk,
issuance of final
to add a second westbound left -turn
street
lane; second northbound right -turn
improvements
lane; eastbound right -turn lane; and
sign -off
provide northbound right -turn overlap
with the westbound left -turn
movement as part of signal installation
(project share 48 percent). Note:
These improvements are required to
mitigate "no-project" as well as
"with- project" conditions.
Traffic
Impacts to
5 -108
TC8. Science Drive/New Los Angeles
a. Street
a. Director of
a. Prior to
intersection
Avenue: Applicant to pay fair share to
improvement
Public Works
issuance of
operating
add third eastbound through lane and
plan review
grading permits
1
capacities
third westbound through lane. Note:
'
These improvements are required to
b. Site inspection
b. Director of
b. Prior to
mitigate "with- project" conditions
Public Works
issuance of
only. No mitigation is required for
final street
"no-project" conditions (project share
improvements
67 percent).
sign-off
.t
- 14- �!
1 .
i [71ssue I Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect Reference
Method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
f
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone Cmmnlianry
Initial I Date
Traffic
Impacts to 5 -109
79. "A" Street/"I'ierra Rejada Road: it is a. Street a. Director of
a. Prior to
intersection
assumed that the applicant will improvement Public Works
issuance of
operating
contribute AOC funds to add a second plan review
grading permits
capacities
eastbound through lane and second
westbound through lane. Note: b. Site inspection b. Director of
b. Prior to
Widening of Tierra Rejada Road to Public Works
issuance of final
four lanes is required to mitigate
street
"no-project" as well as "with- project"
improvements
conditions.
sign -off
Traffic
Impacts to
5 -109
TC 10. Moorpark Avenue/Los Angeles
a. Street
a. Director of
a. Prior to
intersection
Avenue: Applicant to pay fair share of
improvement
l'tiblic Works
issuance of
operating
the costs to convert the shared
p an l review
grading Permits
capacities
southbound left-turn lane/southbound
through lane/southbound right -turn
b. Site inspection
b. Director of
b. Prior to
lane to a second southbound left -turn
Public Works
issuance of final
lane and convert southbound
street
right -turn lane to shared southbound
through lane /southbound right -turn
improvements
siim -off
ianc Note These improvements arc
required to mitigate "no- project" as
well as "with- project" conditions
(project share 34 percent).
I raft]c
Impacts to
5 -109
TC 11 Spring Road/Los Angeles Avenue:
a. Street
a. Director of
a. Prior to
intersection
Applicant to pay fair share of the costs
improvement
Public Works
issuance of
operating
to add a third eastbound through lane;
plan review
grading permits
capacities
third westbound through lane; remove
second eastbound left -turn lane; and
b. Site inspection
b. Director of
b. Prior to
modify signal to provide a southbound
Public Works
issuance of final
right -turn overlap with the eastbound
street
left -tum movement and westbound
right -turn overlap with the
improvements
sign -off
south-bound left -turn movement.
Note: These improvements are
required to mitigate "no-project" as
well as "with- project" conditions
(project share 50 percent).
-15- A
.I
Env. Iss..- Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect Reference
i..ethod of Review I Responsible I Monitoring
Agency Milestone
Verification
Verification of
Initial I Date
Traffic
Impacts to 5 -110
TC 12. State Route 23 northbound a. Street
a. Director of a. Prior to
intersection
ramps/Tierra Rejada Road: Applicant improvement
Public Works issuance of
operating
to pay fair share of the costs plan review
grading permits
capacities
(potentially througfi Proposition 111,
Congestion Management Program) to b. Site inspection
b. Director of b. Prior to
convert the shared northbound
Public Works issuance of final
left-tum lane /northbound right -turn
street
lane to northbound right -turn lane, and
improvements
to add second northbound left -turn
sign -off
lane and second northbound right -turn
lane. Note: These improvements are
required to mitigate "no-project" as
well as "with - project" conditions.
Traffic
Impacts to
5 -111 and
TC l 3 Applicant to pay fair share of the costs
a. Street
a. Director of
a. Prior to
intersection
5 -112
for the signal reconstructions at Spring
improvement
Public Works
issuance of
operating
Road/Los Angeles Avenue, Spring
plan review
grading
g g permits
capacities
Road/Tierra Rejada Road, State Route
_`3 northbound ramps[ terra Rejada
b >itc uispectiou
b Directoi of
b 1'nor to
Koad, and Science llnve /Nev�
issuance of final
Angeles Avenue.
street
improvement,
sign -off
i tafli�
impacts to
, -f f �
IL 14 Applicant to pay fair share of the costs
a. Street
a Director of
a Prior to
intersection
for the signal installations at
improvement
Public Works
issuance of
operating
Moorpark Road/Tierra Rejada Road,
plan review
grading permits
capacities
and State Route southbound
ramps/Ticrra Rejada Road.
b. Site inspection
1t Director of
b. Prior to
Public Works
issuance of final
street
improvements
sign -off
'rabic
Impacts to
5 -112
TC 15. Applicant to fully install the signals at
a. Street
a. Director of
a. Prior to
intersection
"A" Street/ "B" Street, and "A"
improvement
Public Works
issuance of
operating
Street/Tierra Rejada Road.
plan review
grading permits
capacities
b. Site inspection
b. Director of
b. Prior to
- 1 6 - ^ t`
Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect I Reference
method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone ComnlianrP
Date I Remarks
,t
-17- t
1 .
Public Works
issuance of final
street
improvements
sign -off
Traffic
Impacts to
5 -112
TC 16. Applicant to contribute fair share of
a. Street
a. Director of'
a. Prior to
intersection
the costs (through funds partially
improvement
Public Works
issuance of
operating
contributed by the proposed project or
plan review
grading permits
capacities
applicant payment of additional AOC
or Proposition 111 fees) should a
b. Site inspection
b. Director of
b. Prior to
traffic signal be installed at the
Public Work-,s
issuance of final
intersection of Moorpark Road/Tierra
street
Rejada Road as part of the AOC
improvements
widening project.
sign -off
Traffic
Impacts to
N/A
TC 17. As determined by the City of
a. Street
a. Director of
a. Prior to
intersection
Moorpark, the project developer shall
improvement
Public Works
issuance of'
operating
contribute a fair share to
I
plan review
grading permits
capacities
unprovements to County roadways or
elated facilities it a reciprocal
i .�� p:..,...,
:nr;
l;
' rl�ln
� i'llur to
agreement between the County of
Public Work;
issuance of
Ventura and City of Moorpark
final street
adressing said matter is approved.
improvements
ugn -off
Air Qualit}
Construction
5 -131 and
Al. During cleating, grading, earth moving
a Grading plan
a. Department of
a. Prior to
related
5 -132
or excavation operations, fugitive dust
check and field
Building
issuance of
impacts
emissions should be controlled by
verification
grading permits
regular watering, paving construction
and during
roads and other dust prevention
construction
measures. The applicant shall submit a
fugitive dust control plan, acceptable to
the city, concurrently with submittal of
l
the mass (as opposed to the precise)
grading plan. This plan shall include,
but is not be limited to the following
measures:
Water all site access roads and
Date I Remarks
,t
-17- t
1 .
Potential EiR Mitigation Measure
o Significant Page No.
Effect Reference
inethod of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
4
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone Comnliance
Initial I Date I Remarks
- 18- .4
material excavated or graded on- or
off-site to prevent excessive amounts of'
fugitive dust. Watering shall occur at
least two times dailA preferably in the
late morning and after the completion
of work for the day.
Cease all clearing, grading, earth moving,
or excavation operations during periods of
high winds (15 mph or greater in one
hour). The contractor shall maintain
contact with the APCD meteorologist for
current information about average wind
speeds.
Water or securely cover all material
transported off -site and on -site to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
Mirumrze the area disturbed at any one
time by clearing, grading, earth moving
I
and excavation so as to prevent excessive
=unounts of dust
Keep all grading and construction
equipment on or near the site, until these
activities are completed.
Wash off heavy-duty construction vehicles
betbre they leave the site.
Apply nonhazardous chemical stabilizers
to all inactive portions of the construction
site. When appropriate, seed exposed
surfaces with a fast - growing, soil - binding
plant to reduce wind erosion and its
contribution to local particulate levels.
- 18- .4
f`.
Env. Issue Potential EIR Mitigation Measure Method of Review Responsible Monitoring Verification of
Significant Page No. Agency Milestone Com liance
Effect Reference Verification Initial Date I Remarks
-19-
Observe a 15 mile per hour speed limit
for the constnuction area.
Periodically sweep public streets in the
vicinity of the site to remove silt (i.e., fine
earth material transported from the site by
wind, vehicular activities, water runoff,
etc.) which may have accumulated from
construction activities.
Air Quality
Construction
related
impacts
5 -132
A2. During smog season (May - October) the
city shall order that construction cease
during Stage III alerts to minimize the
number of vehicles and equipment
a. Grading plan
check and field
verification
a Department of
Building and
Safetv
a During
construction
operating, lower ozone levels and
protect equipment operators from
excessive smog levels. The city, at its
discretion, may also limit construction
during Stage 11 alerts
Iii Qualit
Construction
related
impacts
;-i3<
i he developer shall request that all
employees involved in grading
operations on the project wear face
masks during do periods
a. Ficld
verification
I
a Department nt
Building and
Safety
a During
construction
Air Quality
Construction
related
impacts
5 -132
Aa. Maintain equipment engines in good
condition and in proper tune as per
manufacturers' specifications to prevent
excessive emissions.
a. Field
verification
a. Department of
Building and
Safety
a. Prior to and
during
construction
Air Quality_
Construction
related
impacts
5 -132
A5 All diesel engines used in construction
equipments should use high pressure
injectors.
a. Field
verification
a. Director of
Building and
Safety
a. Prior to and
during
construction
Air Quality
Construction
related
impacts
5 -133
AG. All diesel engines used in construction
equipments should use reformulated
diesel fuel.
a. Field
verification
a. Director of
Building and
Safety
a. Prior to and
during
construction
Air Quality I
Operational
5 -133 1
AT Residential building permits issued for a.
Building
a. Director of a.
Prior to
-19-
r
Potential EIR Mitigation Measure i:iethod of Review Responsible Monitoring Verification of
Significant Page No. Agency Milestone Compliance
Effect Reference ve.:a .: . _ _ . _
Date I Remarks
-2U- e
� .l
impacts
the project shall be consistent with the
citys Ordinance 103 to achieve
population forecast consistency.
permits
Community
Development
issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Air Quality
Operational
impacts
5 -133
A8. The city, as operators of the transit
system, shall encourage plans for a bus
route and bus stop near "A" street along
New Los Angeles to service the
commercial areas of the project. If
required by the city, the applicant shall
a. Street
improvement
plan
a. Director of
Community
Development
and Director of
Public Works
a. Prior to
issuance of
grading permits
include a bus stop in final street
improvement plans and provide for its
construction.
Air Quality
Operational
impacts
5 -133
A9. the city shall review all nonresidential
site plans to assure pedestrian and
bikeway access between bus stop and
bicycle paths, respectively, and on -site
development of such
a. Tentative tract
map and street
improvement
plan
a. Director of
Community
Development
rind Director o!
I'nhlic Work
a. Prior to
approval of'
tentative tract
map
:fir Quality
Operational
impacts
5 -1.33
Aiv Recommend the use of on -site solar
energy units and water heaters.
a. Building plan
check
a Director of
Community
a Prior to
issuance of
I
Development
building
permits
Air Qualitv
Operational
impacts
5 -134
Al 1. Orient structures and pool areas to
optimize the effectiveness of solar
energy units and water heaters.
a. Building plan
check
a. Director of
Community
Development
a. Prior to
issuance of
building
Permits
Air Quality
1
Operational
impacts
5 -134
Al2. When possible, use light-colored
roofing materials and concrete parking
areas as opposed to dark roofing
materials and asphalt parking areas,
a. Building plan
check
a. Director of
Community
Development
a. Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
Air Quality
Operational
impacts
5 -134
A13. Use building materials that produce
fewer emissions during their stages of
development or use (e.g., bricks,
stones, water -based paints).
a. Building plan
check
a. Director of
Community
Development
a. Prior to
issuance of
building
its
-2U- e
� .l
Env. Issuc Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
f Significant Page No.
Effect Reference
Method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone Comnlisnre
Initial I Date I Remarks
.a
-21 - 't
Air Quality
Operational
5 -134
A14. Provide extensive landscaping to shade
a. Building plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
impacts
buildings and parking areas for energy
check
Community
issuance of
efficiency.
Development
building
permits
Air Quality
Operational
5 -134
A15. Specify energy - efficient lighting
a. Building plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
impacts
controls, air conditioners, refrigerators,
check
Community
issuance of
etc. as applicable for each of the
Development
building
proposed uses.
permits
Air Quality
Operational
5 -134
A16. Increase roofing and wall insulation
a. Building plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
impacts
over the minimum standards currently
check
Community
issuance of
required.
Development
building
permits
Air Quality
Operational
5 -134
A17 Install special sunlight - filtering
a Building plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
impacts
window coatings or double -paned
check
Community
issuance of'
windows• to reduce thermal gain or
Development
building
IUSS.
permits
Air duality
Operational
5 -135
A18. Provide conveniently- located recycling
a. Building plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
impacts
centers on -site with adequate access for
check
Community
issuance of
haulers.
Development
building
permits
Air Quality
Operational
5 -135
A19. Provide bicycle lockers and lockable
a. Building plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
impacts
storage areas at the commercial and
check
Community
issuance of
office lots to encourage alternative
Development
building
vehicle transportation to and from the
permits
site.
Air Quality
Operational
5 -135
A20. Where possible, provide consolidated
a. Tentative tract
a. Department of
a. Prior to
impacts
truck delivery areas at the commercial
map review and
Community
approval of
lots to minimize the number of stops
site plan review
Development
tentative tract
(and possible shut -off and restarts) that
map and site
delivery vehicles would make within
review plan
the site.
.a
-21 - 't
f
f ' 71ssk._ Potential EIR Mitigation Measure Method of Review Responsible Monitoring Verification of
Significant Page No. Agency Milestone Compliance
Effect I Reference Verification I I Initial I Date
Air Quality
Operational
5 -135
A21. Provide outlets for electric vehicle
a. Building plan
a. Director of
a. Prior to
impacts
recharge units in all residential
check
Planning and
issuance of
garages.
Community
building
Development
permits
Air Quality
Operational
5 -135
A22. Electric mowers and other
a. Review of
a. Director of
a. Prior to
impacts
emission - efficient landscaping
common area
Planning and
approval of'
equipment should be used to maintain
maintenance
Community
CC &Rs by City
landscaping within the Specific Plan
plans and
Development
and during life
area.
CC &Rs
of project.
Pdr Quality
Operational
5 -136
A23. Contribute to a City- managed off -site
a. Street
a. Director of
a. Prior to
impacts
'Transportation Demand Management
improvement
Planning and
issuance of
(TDM) fund, or fund or implement
plan
Community
grading permits
Transportation Demand Management
Development
(TDM) measures within the Oxnard
Plain Airshed that are capable of
reducing emissions within the Airshed
by 106.6 pounds per day (ppd) of
reactive organic compounds (ROC)
AND 157.7 ppd of oxides of nitrogen
(NO,,), or a combination of both. The
developer shall fund or implement such
programs to the satisfaction of the City
of Moorpark and the Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District.
Examples of TDM programs that could
be implemented include (the developer
is not limited to this list):
(fin -site Transportation Management
Association (TMA) and Transportation
Coordinator
I
Park -and -ride lots
HOV by -pass lanes
• Class 1 bike paths and class 2 bike
.a
-22- .t
t Env. Isla, Potential EIR Miti ation Measure
g Method of Review Responsible Monitoring Verification of
Significant Page No. Agency Milestone Com liance
Effect Reference Verification Initial I Date I Remarks
.e
-23- 'i
lanes
Bicycle parking
Transit shelters and benches
HOV capital improvements
Clean fuel dispensing stations
Funding of an old vehicle scraping
program
Contributions to local shuttle services
Purchase of clean fuel vehicles for
other facilities
I• turchase of clean fuel truism buses
rurchase of compressed natural gas
(CNG) school buses
Shuttle service to and from the project
site
• Provide telecommuting and/or video
conference facilities
Noise
I
Construction 5 -163
related noise
N1. Construction activities should be
limited to weekdays and Saturdays
from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. No
construction activities should occur on
Sundays.
a. Grading and
building plan
checks
a. Department of
Building and
Safety
a. Prior to
issuance of
grading and
building
permits and
during
construction
.e
-23- 'i
t Env. Issu, Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect Reference
Noise Construction 5 -163 N2 Truck noise from hauling operations
related noise shall be mini nized through
establishing hauling routes which avoid
residential areas. The hauling plan
must be identified.
Noise Construction 5 -163
N3. The Specific Plan shall require the
related noise
developer(s) to provide staging areas
Building and
on -site to minimize off -site
transportation of heavy construction
grading and
equipment. Locate these areas to
maximize the distance between activity_
and residential areas.
Noise Operational ` -1 C ;
N4 The Specific Plan shall require the
noise
I 1--eloper(s) to ensure that wn>uuriwi,
i
equipment is titted witli modern
construction
sound- reduction equipment.
Noise Operational 5 -164 N5. Additional acoustical analysis
noise acceptable to the City shall be
submitted by the applicant or developer
concurrently with submittal of tentative
tract maps for planning area "A ".
Dwelling units shall be located in areas
outside of the projected 60 dB(A)
CNEL noise contour, with appropriate
i mitigation.
Noise Operational 5 -164 N6. All operations/equipment within the
noise future park and outdoor air
conditioners, pool or spa pumps in
residential areas shall be allowed only
Method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
1
Monitoring Verification of
Milestone Com liance
Initial I Date I Remarks
a. Haul route plant
I a. Department of
a. Prior to
check
Building and
issuance of
Safety
grading and
building
permits and
during
construction
a. Haul route plan
a. Department of
a. Prior to
check
Building and
issuance of
Safety
grading and
building
permits and
during
construction
Trading an
Department of
a Prior to
11ullding plar
;tuilditta ai�.i
I suancc of
checks
Satety
grading and
building
permits and
during
construction
a. Review of
a. Director of
a. Prior to
acoustical
Community
approval of
analysis and
Development
tentative tract
building plan
and Director of
map.
check
Public Works
a. Building plan a. Director of a. Prior to
check Community issuance of
Development building
-24-
Env. Issu, Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect Reference
Method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
-25-
b. Building and
Safety
a. Director of
Community,
Development
a Director of'
Community
Development
and Director of
Public Works
a. Director of
Community
Development
f
Monitoring Verification of
Milestone com fiance
Initial I Date 7 Remarks
b. During
construction
a. Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
a. Prior to
approval of
tentative tract
map and
issuance of
building permit
a. Prior to
issuance of
grading permits
if no City noise standards off -site or
on -site for exterior areas are exceeded .
b field
verification
Noise Operational
5 -164 N7. The Specific Plan shall require the
a. Building plait
noise
developer(s) to be in compliance with
check
requirements of the State of California
Office of Noise Control regulations
regarding exterior to interior noise
reduction, such that no habitable
portion of the development would be
exposed to interior noise levels greater
than 45 dB(A) CNEL as enforced by
local governing building and safety
departments. Any necessary noise
reduction can be achieved through a
variety of construction technologies
Including, but not limited to, the use of
non - standard wall assemblies.
I ncorporauon OI attenuation blank-et -
inside outer walls, and the use of
.louble -pane glass �tiindows.
Noise Operational
'�-164 and N8 Additional acoustical analysis
a Submittal of
impacts.
5 -165 acceptable to the City shall be
acoustical
submitted by the applicant or developer
analysis
concurrently with submittal of tentative
tract maps for planning areas B, C, and
D. Dwelling units shall be located in
areas outside of the projected 60 dB(A)
CNEL noise contour for the proposed
extension of Science Drive, with
appropriate mitigation.
and Use Modification
5 -178 Ll. All development shall conform with the
a. Review of
to Specific
development standards and landscape
landscape plan
Plan
concept plans ultimately adopted or
negotiated by the City. Specific Plan to
provide separation and buf Brine
-25-
b. Building and
Safety
a. Director of
Community,
Development
a Director of'
Community
Development
and Director of
Public Works
a. Director of
Community
Development
f
Monitoring Verification of
Milestone com fiance
Initial I Date 7 Remarks
b. During
construction
a. Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
a. Prior to
approval of
tentative tract
map and
issuance of
building permit
a. Prior to
issuance of
grading permits
i Env. Issue Potential EIR Mitigation Measure
Significant Page No.
Effect I Reference
Method of Review I Responsible
Agency
Verification
Monitoring I Verification of
Milestone ComnlinnrP
Initial I Date I Remarks
-2G- e
� �1
between different land uses on site, and
the churches along Spring Street and
off -site residential uses west of Spring
Street.
Housing
Modification
5 -183
H1. No mitigation measures are required
a. Submittal of a
a. Director of
a. Prior to
to Specific
or recommended for this topic.
copy of the
Planning and
issuance of
Plan.
agreement,
Community
building
signed by the
Development
permits
project
developer(s)
-2G- e
� �1
Final
Environmental Impact Report
CARLSBERG
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
SCH#92061076
Prepared for:
City of Moorpark
799 Moorparkc Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Prepared by
Impact Sciences, Inc.
501 Marin Street, Suite 102
Thousand Oaks, California 91360
November 18, 1993
INTRODUCTION
L
Cartsberq Specific Plan FHR
As indicated in California Environmental Quality Act.
Public Resources Code section 21082.2.(b), "Statements
in an environmental impact report and comments with
respect to an environmental impact report shall not be
deemed determinative of whether the project may
hay e a significant effect on the environment." The
required findings of the certifying decision - making
body will ultimately determine the significant effects
of the project being considered. This Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the City of
Moorpark in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as Amended, and
State and City Guidelines for the implementation of
CEQA The Citv of Moorpark Community Development
Department, acting as leading agency for this project,
has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted
drafts to reflect its own independent judgement to the
extent of its ability, including reliance on City
technical personnel from other departments. The EIR
process completed by the City for the proposed project
is is tollows.
After review of the Screencheck Draft EIR by the City
of Moorpark, the document was circulated to the public
and appropriate agencies. The 45 -day public review
period closed on luly 6, 1993.
In addition to the written comment period, the City of
Moorpark held three public hearings before the
Planning Commission on August 2, August 16 and
September 2, 1993, to take testimony on the Draft EIR
tn�m Al interested parties. In addition, the City held
tv, o meetings before the City Council to take testimony
kTC-i
Carlsberg Specific Plan FEIR
on the Draft EIR. These hearings were conducted on
October 13 and November 10, 1993. During the City
Council meeting of November 10, 1993, the public
hearing was officially closed. Subsequent to the close
of these hearings, the City Council directed staff to
prepare the Final EIR. In accordance with the
procedural requirements of CEQA, the City Council
must review the Draft and Final EIR, as well as all
public and agency comments, before certifying the EIR
and i or making a decision on the project.
This Final EIR is divided into two parts. The first is a
response to written comments, while the second is a
response to testimony taken at the Planning Commission
and City Council hearings. Public comments from the
Planning Commission hearings are included, in total,
from minutes provided by the City of Moorpark.
Summaries of public comments from City Council
hearings were derived directly from transcripts
pro% ided by the City.
RTC -2
Carlsberg Specific Plan FEIR
RESPONSES TO LETTERS RECEIVED
List of Letters Received The following individuals or agencies submitted letters
to the Citv of 'Moorpark regarding the adequacy of the
Draft EIR:
• c-ounty of Ventura, Public Works Agency
• County of Ventura, Resource Management
Agency/ Air Pollution Control District
• I :ounty of Ventura, Public Works Agency, Water
Resources and Development
• State of California, Department of Transportation
• Mate of California, Department of Fish and Game
• i nited States Department of the Interior, Fish and
Nildlife Service
• Fm ironmental Coalition, Moorpark Branch
Responses to Letters Provided below are the responses to the letters received
! regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Each
comment is given a number which is located along the
right marlin of the letter. Responses are then provided
for each comment number.
L
I RTC 3
TO:
f FROM:
it
COUNTY OF VENTU;L►
PUBLIC WORKS AG&NCY
Transportation Department
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 1993
Planning Department
W. Butch Britt, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: CITY OF MOORPARK
CART SBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MPACT REPORT (DEIR)
REF. NO. 90-25.
In response to your request for review, we have determined that the subject Draft Environmental
Impact Report traffic and circulation section is inadequate. We will address the project's
impacts on County roads, the Congestion Management Program and the Regional Road Network.
The subject project is estimated to generate Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of approximately
48,500 Vehicles Per Day (VPD), as described on page 5 -73 of the DEIR. Cumulative city
development to the year 2010 will generate 358,000 ADT, an increase of 125% over existing
conditions, as described on page 5 -102. The DEIR on Page 5 -102 further states that no impact
analysis was done for the 2010 buildout scenario. Lack of analysis of the individual and
cumulative impacts of the 2010 buildout scenario is a serious deficiency and neglects the impacts
on County roads, the Congestion Management Program and the Regional Road Network.
County Roads
The subject project will increase ADT on Moorpark Road by 1,455 VPD, determined by
multiplying trip distribution on Moorpark Road of 3%, as shown on page 5 -90, by total project
traffic of 48,500 VPD. This represents an 18% increase in traffic on Moorpark Road due just
to this project. Traffic volumes on Moorpark Road will increase from an existing 8,000 ADT,
as shown in Figure 23 on page 8 -75, to 10,000 ADT in 1996, as shown in Figure 28 on page
5 -84, based on cumulative city development only to the year 1996. The traffic volumes in the
figures are rounded off to the nearest thousand vehicles per day. This level of accuracy is
unacceptable. Traffic volume increases and impacts on Level of Service (LOS) on Moorpark
Road to the year 2010 are not documented.
On page 5 -108 of the DEIR it correctly states "The project's peak hour and ADT traffic volume
L increases shown on Moorpark Road south of Tierra Rejada Road would also impact Santa Rosa
Road west of the City of Thousand Oaks." Moorpark Road and Santa Rosa Road are eventually
planned to be widened from two to four lanes, but these improvements are not funded.
K rC-4
i
Jul'- lY -.7J 11V11 1 J • JO
Z� r r
Proposition 111 and other existing funding sources are inadequate to fund these improvements.
Traffic projections and LOS for Moorpark Road, Santa Rosa Road, and intersections along Santa
Rosa. Road such as at Las Posas Road and Moorpark Road, documenting traffic increases on a
project, and cumulative basis for the 1996 and 2010 scenarios, must be provided to an acceptable
level of accuracy so that "fair share' fees can be calculated. An agreement must be executed,
such as a reciprocal traffic mitigation fee agreement, to define how "fair share" fees will be
calculated and distributed to the jurisdiction responsible to construct roadway improvements
made necessary by development. The County has reached such an agreement with the City of
Oxnard and the City of Agoura Hills and has proposed entering such an agreement with the City
of Moorpark.
Cougeetion ManaEement Program
The project may have sufficient impact to require preparation of deficiency plans for road
segments and intersections included in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Road
Network. These are:
1. State Route 118 (Moorpark to SR 34)
2. State Route 23 (Moorpark to SR 101)
3, Intersection of Moorpark and Tierra Rejada Road
4. Intersection of SR 118 and SR 34
5. Moorpark Road terra Rejada Road - Santa Rosa Road)
6. Santa Rosa Road ( Moorpark Road to Camarillo City Limit)
7, Interscction of Santa Rosa Road and Moorpark Road
The impact of the project on these segments and intersections must be analyzed. There may be
other areas requiring analysis under the CMP. The Ventura County Transportation Commission
should be consulted.
R onai _Road Network
The County's General Plan requires that the County oppose development within cities which
would individually or cumulatively cause any existing road within the Regional Road Network
to function below an acceptable LOS. The minimum acceptable LOS in the County General
Plan (Section 4.2.2.3) are:
a. LOS "D" for all Federal highways and State highways, except as otherwise
provided in subparagraph. (b);
b. LOS W for State Route 33 between the northerly end of the Ojai Freeway and
the City of Ojai;
C. LOS "C" for all County thoroughfares and County- maintained local roads; and
d. The LOS prescribed by the applicable city for all city thoroughfares and city-
maintained local roads located within that city, if the city has formally adopted
policies respecting discretionary development in the city that would affect the
LOS of County thoroughfares and County- maintained local roads.
`. According to the LOS monitoring performed for the CMP in 1992, the following segments and
intersections will be impacted by this project and are already at unacceptable LOS according to
the County General Plan: -
RTC- 5
L,
d
L
1. State Route 23 (Science Drive - SR 101)
2. State Route 101 (SR 23 to L.A. County line)
3. State Route 101 (Del Norte Avenue to SR 126)
4. Madera Road at Los Angeles Avenue
5. State Route 34 at SR 118
6. Tierra Rejada Road at Moorpark Road
In addition, the project and cumulative city development ma y g enerate sufficient traffic on SR
118 from Tierra Rejada Road to SR 232 to drop the existing LOS from "C" to "E ". The
completion of the SR 23/SR 118 connector is assumed to mitigate the existing LOS "F" on SR
118 from High Street to College View Avenue.
The County will take appropriate actions to insure that the impacts of this project and cumulative
city development on the County road system, the CMP road network and the Regional Road
Network are adequately addressed.
Should you need any further information on these comments, please contact Steve Manz at (805)
654 -2045 or Bob Brownie at (805) 654.2080.
watraen�a�.x�. _
c: Arthur E. Goulet
Robert B. Brownie
Steve Manz
Fred Boroumand
Development and Inspection Services
RTC-6
3
L
C arl%berR Speciiic PlIan FEIR
COMMENT -- COUNTY OF VENTURA, PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
RESPONSE: This letter indicates that the County of Ventura Public Works Agency is concerned
with the impact of this project on county roads, the Congestion Management Program, and the
impact of this project on the regional road network. The following letter from Austin -Foust
Associates, Inc., the traffic engineer for this project, provides responses to the County Public
Works Agency's comments.
Emphasis has been afforded to identifying this projects' traffic contribution to county roads.
The technical means for projecting cumulative traffic at this time is speculative. The County of
Ventura is conducting a formal study to determine future traffic volumes on county roads. When
complete, this study, in combination with data incorporated as part of this EIR, will allow a
factual identification of future traffic volumes and the identification of reasoned mitigation
measures.
r
1
A TC
i.
j WAZ(Sr1A(- A0t(ST ASSOCIATZS, INC.
f T A/// G eV J/ n Z! V / n v Air D r w.14 N-i r J 4 ^ 4 r/ J .v r L A n' �v / .v J
2020 NOa-11-1 iUSTIN AVENI;_ • SJ,N'A a'�A C,L�iFCRNiA 927.,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Sakowicz. Impact Sciences. Inc.
FROM: Joe E. Foust, P.E.
DATE: Auguzit 24. 1993
TELEPHONE (711) 667-0496
FAX (714) 667 -7952
SUBJECT: CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR - RESPONSE TO COUNTY OF VENTURA
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT COWNIENTS
The text that follows is intended to address all traffic and transportation concerns expressed
by the County of Ventura in the Public Works Agency Transportation Department memorandum
dated .tune ln. 1493.
The traffic analysis carried out for the Carlsberg Specific Plan draft EIR analyzed impacts to
the County regional roadway system and the Cong =tion tiianagcment Program (LIMP) Highway
network to the best of its ability based on the resources that were available for identifying regional
impacts at the time the study was performed. Short -range (1996) cumulative traffic conditions and
project impacts within Moorpark's city limits and its sphere of influence were able to be quantified
using the City's General Plan traffic mode:. while the City model does provide general estimates of
a project's traffic distnbution beyond the City's sphere, it does not have the ability to forecast
cumulative traffic conditions on the County or CMP regional roadway system in these areas.
The countywide traffic model that ir, currently being Prepared for the Vennira C'ni►nty
Transportation Commission (VCTC) will cvcntually be utilLcd to monitor cumulative traffic
conditions on the regional CMP network, particularly on County roadways in unincorporated areas.
The county is also planning to develop and implement a countywide transportation improvement fcc
program- based on cumulative forecasts frorn the VCTC model. This fee program, which is intended
to provide funding for otherwise unfunded County roadway improvements required under cumulative
traffic conditions, will include specific guidelines for determining a proposed development's fair share
financial obligation for funding of Q)unty roadway improvements.
A fee program of this type would also act as the improvement funding element in the
County's preparation of a deficiency plan as rcquire;d by the Ventura County Congestion
Management Program for any County roadway that currently operates or is projected to operate
deficiently, In order to satisfy this CWP requirement until such a fee program is in place, the County
has been seeking to establish reciprocal traffic mitigation fcc agreements with individual cities. Such
agreements hsvc included guidelines as v) th. 'level of County roadway imPact snai)-sis required as
R t(' -e
Impact Sciences, Inc.
August 24, 1993
Page 2
part of a proposed project's t;afEc st,.,dy. For :.amp1c, the rcc:iprccal agreement betti.een the County
and the City of G�cnard basically require that zhc traffic study for a proposed development within the
City provide the project's impact in terms of ;radio volummes out to the city limits. The County utilizes
this information to determine potential project impacts on County roads beyond the city limits and
then, working directly with the project applicant. establishes a County roadway improvement fee
bas.--d on the project's County roadway impacts.
This type of agreement is something for the City of Moorpark and the projoct applicant to
consider outside of the EIR process. The EIR traffic study satisfies the CEQA requirement to
identify project impacts both within the City of Moorpark and in the surrounding region, and to
provide ►mitigation nteasuies that athltms auy JcGcicnoic�, pruj"tW with development of the project.
In the case of the CMP regional network, and County roadways adjacent to the City, a general rather
than detailed level of analysis was performed due to the lirrstations cited earlier on producing
cumulative traffic conditions. Project volumes arc identified in terms of traffic distribution
percentages to the regional roadway network (e.g., two percent of project traffic on State Route 118
west of the City of Moorpark, three percent on Moorpark Road south of Tierra Rejada Road. 20
percent on State Route 23 south of Tierra Rejada Road, etc.), and planned regional roadway
improvements are cited (e.g., •fidening of State Route 118, ;Moorpark Road, and Santa Rosa Road
from two to four lanes) which would address potentiai deficiencies that may be partially attributed
to development of the proposed project.
The EIR aL -o rccommcn& that the project contribute on a fair share basis to the
implementation of such improvements. Tlris would include participation in the cooperative
preparation of deficiency plans for County roadways that are impacted by-traffix generated within city
jurisdictions. The County would act as the lead agency in the preparation of such plans, and' a
detailed traffic impact analysis would be carried out as part of the process to determine the specific
types of improvements required for a given roadway and the funding mechanism for implerncntine
the improvements.
With rcspest to the comments regarding the lack of a year 2010 analysis. of traffic conditions
on the County regional roadway system, a year 2010 analysis is not a specific CMP requirement, but
also there is no current capability, such as the VCTC counrywide traffic model, for producing 2010
regional roadway traffic projections. A detailed year 2010 analysis of traffic impacts within the City
of Moorpark was recently carried out as part of the City's General Plan update. The land use and
trip generation characteristics assumed in that study for the Carlsberg site were of the same type and
atagaitudu as those analyzed in the Carlsberg Specific Plan draft EIR. The short -range (1996)
circulation improvements required within the City of Moorpark as part of the Carlsberg project
development represent buildout of the General Plan circulation system in the vicinity of the project
site. The short -range mitigation measures are therefore considered appropriate mitigation for the
project's long -range (2010) impacts_
Similarly, the types of improvements cited in the EIR for mitigating the project's impacts on
County roadways reflect buildout of the Vcntura County General Plan (e.g., four lanes on Moorpark
Road and Santa Rasa Road). It is assumed that the traffic demands generated by buildout of the
60 City of Moorpark's General Plan will adequately be served by the County's ultimate roadway system
RTC-9
i�
i
+ Impact Sciences, Inc.
August 24, 1993
i Page 3
4
L
since the City's updated land use plan is oea-rally cozsis:cnt with t:tc County General Plan.
Therefore, the project's responsibility for mitigating.�or: -mnge trsfEc impacts on County roadways,
as will be agreed upon by the Caz unty, the City. tr `c prcp�ct applicant, are c, nsidered as adequate
mitigation for the project's 2010 impacts.
RTC -10
3
COUNTY OF VENTURA
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY /APCD
Memcrandum
TO: Kim Hocldng, Planning DATE: June 15, 1993
FROM: Brent *kus, APCD
SUBJECT: Draft EIR for the Carlsberg Specific Plan (90-25)
Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has reviewed the subject document and finds
the air quality section comprehensive and well written. The District also concurs with the
air quality mitigation measures.
If planned properly, mixed use developments can realize significant air quality, traffic, and
energy efficiency benefits. Mixed -use developments derive these benefits by being more
conducive to alternative modes of transportation, thereby resulting in fewer vehicle trips
i than traditional multi-use projects. Fewer vehicle trips translates into lower fuel
! consumption levels and air pollutant emissions. Cons-equently, the APCD fully supports
the idea of mixed -use development. However, the APCD is not sure that this project, as
currently planned, will minimize associated air pollutant, traffic, or energy consumption
levels as is possible with mixed use developments.
In the District's judgment, the. Specific Plan should minimize vehicular traffic by including
easily accessible and convenient commercial uses within the Specific Plan area, and to
provide convenient pedestrian and bicycle paths connecting to major uses, such as schools,
retail facilities, parks, and transit stations.
The following land use recommendations are intended to improve the Specific Plan and to
decrease motor vehicle traffic and associated air pollutant emissions from the project:
1) The Specific Plan should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs, and
other activities are within walking distance of each other.
2) 'Ile Specific Plan should be in a form of a complete and integrated
community containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks, and civic
facilities essential to the daily life of the residents.
3) The Specific Plan should contain a diversity of housing types to enable
Citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within
its boundaries.
RTC -11
2
1 vV� aJ� JJ
S
1
L
1
4
'r-N; LKA U
V (J J/ vQ,,
4) The Specific Plan should have a center focus that combines commercial,
civic, cultural and recreational uses, and accessible to multiple modes of
transit.
5) Streets, pedestrian paths, and bike paths should contribute to a system of
Z
fully connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design
should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially
defined by buildings, trees, and lighting. Paths should be removed from
streets to increase enjoyment, recreation, safety, and use. ,
The City of Moorpark has a unique opportunity to develop a "gateway" that would be
economically feasible, attractive to the business community, and pedestrian oriented for
the residents who wt71 live there.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 645.1428.
RTC -12
Carlsherg Specific i lAn rEiR
COMMENT — COUNTY OF VENTURA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY / APCD
RESPONSE
i 1. This comment indicates that staff of the VCFCD have reviewed the Draft EIR and
tj considered it to be adequate and complete
2. Staff of the APCD have made five recommendations that are intended to improve the
Specific Plan and decrease motor vehicle use. These comments do not affect the adequacy or
completeness of the Draft EIR. However, each of these recommendations should be considered
by the City Council prior to making a decision on this project.
W
IRTC -13
W
COUNTY OF VENTURA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
WATER RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARni fENT
MEMORAINDUM
June 14, :993
TO: K.IM HOCKING,
R1t1A - Planning Division
FROM: 41 JOHN TURNER,
PWA - Water Resources Division
SUBJECT; CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN -REVISED DRAFT EIR,
Moorpark, California (reference number 90 -25)
A copy of the Carlsberg Specific Plan Rr sed Draft Environmental Impact Report for a 500 acre
mixed use development within the City of Moorpark was obtained by our department for review
of water related issues.
No mention was made anywhere in the document, or the included appendices, as to how the
project was to obtain water supplies for initial grading, dust control, construction.' and final long
teen supply.
Although consistent with the Ventura County Areawide 209 Water Plan, construction of an
additional 552 single family residential units, along with commercial retail and park property is a
significant potential water user. The change in land use from vacant to urban may alter the
topography and recharge capabilities of area groundwater supplies. Much of the property to be,
developed will be covered with non - porous surfaces due to building pads, street construction, etS:'
causing possible increased runoff and loss of recharge to groundwater supplies.
A small portion of the project (in the northwest corner) appears to lie within the boundaries.of the
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. the loss of groundwater recharge in thi, 'area
due to construction activity or permanent improvements, should be analyzed. I
The Ventura County Water Servicca Division (Waterworks District No. 1) located in Moorpark,
.j was contacted by telephone to confirm project water supply sources. We spoke with District
Engineer Satya Kama, who confirmed that application for construction of a surface reservoir to
store additional supplies for the Moorpark area had already been sent to the State for approval
Mr. Karra assured us that the new reservoir would be supplied entirely with imported water
purchased from the Calleguas Water District (the local wholesale supplier). This separate
reservoir would supply the city of Moorpark via underground pipeline, and hence the Carlsberg
project through a supplemental 12 inch diameter line below the turnout connection dedicated
solely for the planned project.
RTC -7{
4
0
J
JUA—ej—d3 WtU 1O.U0
The RDEIR document should be amended to include water supply details regarding planned
water supply. and whether a will-serve letter had been segued from the retail and wholesale water
suppliers. Information should be presented to verify that groundwater extractions from the
seriously overdrafted North Las Posas groundwater basin will not be increased as a result of the
proposed project.
Impacts caused by additional amounts of imported water supplies and their effects on local
sewage facilities and/or discharge to nearby streams should be presented and analyzed. Additional
stream flows usually result when ground surfaces are paved and large amounts of imported water
are introduced to an area which previously relied on seasonal rainfall alone. Potential impacts to
surface water quality or ,groundwater quality were not presented in the documents that we
reviewed
Many of the concerns involving water supply, quality, and movement should be covered more
fully in subsequent documents, or answered prior to project approval, since they have the
potential to become significant.
-DP, JT: dp
d Mon CARTJMR(id=
IRTC -1S
Carlsberg Specific Plan EE1R
COMMENT -- COUNTY OF VENTURA, PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY, WATER RESOURCES
AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RESPONSE
1. The agency identified concerns regarding water supplies that are necessary to accommodate
initial grading, dust control, construction and long -term project operation. The agency was
concerned that the Draft EIR made no mention of these issues.
Water use impacts were assessed in the original EIR and as part of the Initial Study prepared
by City staff. Those documents identified the amount of water required by the proposed project,
f water purveyors, and the ability of those purveyors to supply water to the proposed project.
} Information provided as part of those documents indicated that water purveyors have the
ability to provide water to all phases of the proposed project, and that there was no potential
for a significant impact to occur with respect to the environmental topic of water usage. In
concurrence with CEQA guidelines, water use was not made a topic of the Subsequent EIR
prepared for this project.
L
RTC-16
L
Slote. of California
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Memorandum
To Mr. Russ Colliau ` June 29, 1993
State Clearinghouse °O1e
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814 Fite No.: IGR /CEQA /DEIR
City of Moorpark
Carlsberg
Specific Plan
Wilford Melton - District 7
From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Vic VEN- 23— R9.92/ R11.17
VEN 118— R17.49
Subject : Project Review Comments G s
SCH Ng, 92061076
Caltrans has reviewed the above referenced p ect which 4
involves an amendment of the approved Specific Pla The-
propose
amendment would modify; in some cases, the types o es approv
for the project site, and the density and /or configu 'fin o ` se
uses throughout the site.
Based on the information received, and in addition to our
previous comments made on July 15, 1992 (copy attached) enumerating
items to be covered in this document, we have the following
comments:
Because the revised DEIR for the Carlsberg Specific Plan shows
an increase of approximately 16,824 daily trips, a majority of
which will use routes 23 and 118, the City needs to apply its 1992
General Plan provision which stipulates that applicants in Moorpark
provide traffic mitigation for impacts to the mainline CMP roadway
system. These provisions are as stated in the circulation element
Goal 11. this goal reads in part... "provide(s) for the safe and
efficient movement of people, foods, & services. Local freeway
improvements, and the construction and /or extensions of SR -23 and
SR -118 as an arterial roadway or freeway shall be supported by
requiring development projects to dedicate R /W, pay a development
impact fee, and /or construct certain improvements as determined
necessary to avoid significant traffic /circulation impacts."
.f A proportional contribution.for the improvements to the
mainline CMP Roadway Systems can be used as matching fund leverage
in future VCTC 'calls for projects'. An application for state and
federal monies for completion of SR -23 and SR -118 would be greatly
enhanced if it contained a local match.
Additionally,: only short range (year 1996) project impacts and
mitigation measures were discussed in the report. The traffic study
should analyze future conditions (year 2010), their impact and
mitigation measures, specially at the interchange of Moorpark
Freeway (SR 23) and Tierra Rejada Road.
RTC -17
Russ Colliau
page two
June 29, 1993
Finall y, any future development which would have a cumulative
impact on the State Transportation System should include a traffic
analysis of the mainline highway /freeway, affected ramps and 3
intersections, and should also cover mitigation measures.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please call
me at (213) 897 -1338.
f
WILFORD ELTON
Senior Transportation Planner
IGR /CEQA Coordinator
Advance Planning Branch
cc: Deborah Traffenstedt
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
gg/5076 -
K TC 16
Carlsberg Specific Plan i UR
COMMENT: CALTRANS
l RESPONSE
1. CALTRANS staff have made specific recommendations consistent with a goal of the City of
Moorpark General Plan, Circulation Element, that are intended to facilitate roadway
improvements (should they be required as part of this project). These comments do not affect
the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR. However, these recommendations should be
considered by the City Council prior to making a decision on this project.
Data incorporated as part of the Draft EIR assumed completion of the route 118 /Route 23
connection and did not identify the need for any additional state highway improvements or
right -of -way dedications.
2. To adequately and completely assess traffic impacts, the traffic study prepared for this
project assessed existing traffic conditions, buildout (Le, 1996) conditions without the project,
buildout conditions with the project, and 2010 traffic conditions.
3. Cumulative impacts were assessed as part of the 2010 traffic scenario. This traffic scenario
includes projects approved, projects reasonably foreseeable, as well as future growth in the
area. Mitigation measures were identified that considered this future, or cumulative traffic
condition.
W
IKTC•19
L
STATE OF CAUFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON. Ga vrno.
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
330 GOLDEN SHORE, SUITE SO
LONG BEACH. CA 90802
(3 10) 590 -5113
June 30, 1993
Ms. Deborah Traffenstedt
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Road
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Ms. Traffenstedt:
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Carlsberg Specific Plan
SCH # 92061076
The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed
the above referenced project, relative to its treatment of
biological resources. The DEIR covers 500 acres of largely
undeveloped land in the southeastern portion of the City of
Moorpark. The project involves amendment of the previously
approved Carlsberg Specific Plan (February 1991), and entails
permitting residential development at various densities,
commercial uses for both business park and neighborhood retail
facilities, park and open space uses.
The project site contains a diversity of habitats including
annual grassland, coastal sage scrub, oak woodlands, vernal pool
and riparian areas. The northeastern portion of the project
area (Planning Area A) contains critical habitat for two
endangered species listed under the California Endangered Species
Act, California Orcutt's grass (Orcuttia californica) and Lyon's
pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii). Both species are under review
by the United States Fish and wildlife Service and have been
proposed for federal listing as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act.
California Orcutt's grass occurs within a vernal pool which
constitutes a locally and regionally unique, rare natural
community. The vernal pool is incorrectly described as a
seasonal pond throughout the document. The Department's Natural
Diversity Data Base tracks the status of rare natural communities
and has ranked vernal pools as a very threatened resource (State
Rank S2.1) . Vernal pools are - ,- ctremely uncommon in arid Southern
California.
-j�
RECEIVE
(jr{ f� �J
RTC -20 JUL L — 1 199.
r N of L100^':«
Ms. Deborah Traffenstedt
June 30, 1993
Page Two
Numerous species of wildlife occur or are expected to occur
within the project area. Three state- or federally- listed
(including candidates) birds, one mammal and two lizard species
were reported onsite in the DEIR. These include Cooper's hawk,
Loggerhead shrike, Cactus wren, San Diego black - tailed
} jackrabbit, Coastal western whiptail, and Coast horned lizard.
The DEIR does not adequately address the impacts on
biological resources. Furthermore, the proposed mitigation
measures are not adequate and do not lessen the impacts to less
than significant levels. The Department recommends that the DEIR
not be certified until adequate biological evaluations have been
completed and appropriate mitigation and compensation measures
have been incorporated into the project design and requirements.
Specific comments regarding impacts to biological resources are
as follows:
Endangered Plants and Rare Natural Communities
The Department submitted written comments addressing
specific issues relative to the two state - listed endangered
plants and associated vernal pool habitat in our letter to the
City of Moorpark dated March 12, 1993 (enclosed). This letter
described the ecological, local and regional signf icance of these
unique and irreplaceable biological resources located in the
northeastern portion of the Carlsberg Specific Plan Area. The
Department indicated in our March 12, 1993 letter, that the
applicant is required to obtain a permit under section 2081 of
the Fish and Game Code. The permit is required because the
proposed project is likely to affect the habitat of two state -
listed endangered species.
The Department received a Rare Plant Management Plan dated
February 11, 1993 and met with the applicant's consultants, on
February 12, 1993, to discuss the plan. As we noted in our March
12, 1993 letter, the uniqueness of these resources requires a
mitigation strategy of full onsite avoidance. The DEIR has not
incorporated our concerns and mitigation requirements into the
proposed action.
The Department contends that the proposed mitigation
strategies will result in significant adverse impacts to the
endangered species and vernal pool habitat. We do not concur
with the DEIR's assertion that impacts to these resources would
be fully avoided and mitigated to less significant levels.
Development of over 100 single family homes in Planning Area
A will significantly and adversely affect the endangered
California Orcutt's grass, Lyon's pentachaeta and vernal pool
to habitat. Mass grading, road construction, housing construction,
RTC 21
2
3
Ms. Deborah Traffenstedt
June 30, 1993
Page Three
site occupancy and fuel modifications will cause massive
alterations of the watershed for the vernal pool, loss of
associated upland habitat utilized by wildlife species, and will
result in both direct and long term degradation of the habitat
for these endangered species.
The proposed 15 acre "preserve" does not adequately protect 3
the vernal pool watershed and ecological integrity of the
endangered species habitat. The proposed buffer, ranging from
zero to 50 feet, is inadequate for the purposes of protecting the
critical habitat affected by this project. Full protection of the
vernal pool's watershed is necessary and should be included
within the preserve area. A substantially increased buffer of at
least 250 to 300 feet is needed to protect the remaining habitat
areas from development - related impacts.
Fuel modifications are typically required when. building
adjacent to wildlands. Impacts from fuel clearance to open space
-and endangered species habitat are not disclosed or discussed.
Fuel modifications must take place entirely outside the
endangered species preservation and buffer areas.
The proposal to create an entirely artificial hydrological
regime of gutters and pipes to maintain inflow to the vernal pool
habitat is unacceptable. The DEIR and attached hydrological
report do not provide adequate information or assurances that
this scheme would be effective in maintaining existing
hydrological conditions necessary for the perpetuation of the
Orcutt's grass and associated vernal pool biota. The existing
natural watershed of the pool is not identified. Should the
proposed experimentally- created, artificial watering regime fail,
the irretrievable loss of Orcutt's grass and the vernal pool
could occur. The Department cannot support adoption of an
experimental mitigation strategy for habitats of this complexity
and when listed species of this importance are involved. The
mitigation needs to be modified such that the naturally occurring
watershed and hydrological integrity of the vernal pool is
maintained; this is included under Alternative 3 of the DEIR.
It should be noted that the Lyon's pentachaeta population
was identified in surveys conducted in 1990 during the fourth
year of a drought. Because this is an annual species, its
populations and occupied habitat tend to fluctuate from year to
year based upon rainfall and other climatic factors. The
Mitigation Plan map "estimates" the species' location, and the
proposed preserve does not provide adequate habitat and buffers
to accomodate fluctations and expansion of the population.
LThe DEIR proposes to revegetate cactus within the watershed
of the vernal pool and adjacent to Lyon's pentachaeta habitat
RTC-22
Ms. Deborah Traffenstedt
June 30, 1993
J Page Four
within the proposed preserve area. These activities will cause
ground disturbance and require activity which is not
appropropriate for a preservation area and should be directed
elsewhere in appropriate open space areas. Cactus revegetation
near the Lyon's pentachaeta will also reduce the amount of
potentially suitable habitat for this species.
The Biota Section does not include information on the
invertebrate fauna typically associated with vernal pools of this
size and depth. The Department requested, in our March 12, 1993 g
letter, that surveys be conducted to identify onsite fairy shrimp
populations, since several of these species have been proposed
# for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Mitigation Measure B3 would allow the introduction of
mosquitofish to the vernal pool. Since the invertebrate fauna of 9
vernal pools has not developed in the presence of fish and would
be consumed by them, mosquitofish should not be used. 'Instead,
mosquito control should rely upon use of larvae - specific
bacteria.
i The vernal pool provides extremely valuable habitat for
i waterfowl. Ducks and geese and other waterfowl have been
observed extensively onsite. The DEIR fails to acknowledge the to
4
V
value of this resource which is extremely unusual in southern
California. At least 250 to 300 feet of buffer is needed to
prevent disturbance of waterfowl
Oak woodlands are also a rare natural community that is both
locally and regionally significant in Southern California. Table
5 indicates that 34V of the oak woodland would be eliminated and
no mitigation or compensation is proposed for these losses. The
Department recommends that onsite oak habitat be fully protected
from project impacts and that wildlife access and use be 1
maintained. Movement corridors between open space areas and `
adjacent habitat areas are needed. Unavoidable impacts to oak
woodland need to be compensated through permanent protection of
comparable offsite habitat at a ratio of at least 3:1.
Mitigation lands should be protected through a conservation
easement or fee title transfered to the Department or our
designated agent.
Streambed Alterations
The DEIR contains little information regarding impacts to
stream channels. Only three stream channels are shown, and many
of the graphics showing topographic features are difficult to �L
read. The Mitigation Plan map detailing lots and the proposed
endangered plant preserve show a stream in the northern portion
of the property which would be largely eliminated by grading and
RTC -23
{ Ms. Deborah Traffenstedt
June 30, 1993
Page Five
lots. This information suggests that the document has not
adequately disclosed impacts to stream channels under Department
jurisdiction. The Department opposes the channelization or
significant alteration of stream channels which would reduce
their value for wildlife.
The project will require a Department of Fish and Game
Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1600 of the Fish and
Game Code. Additional mitigation measures and modifications to
the project design may be required through this process.
Department jurisdiction is not limited to blue line streams and
may apply to intermittent or ephemeral channels. The applicant
needs to notify the Department in writing of their need to obtain
a 1600 permit.
Alternatives Analysis
Alternative 3 is the only alternative which would provide an
- acceptable level of protection for the two endangered species and
vernal pool habitat. The Department urges the City of Moorpark
to adopt Alternative 3, with two modifications: 1) an additional
buffer of 250 -300 feet between the Lyon's pentachaeta habitat and
any construction or fuel modification areas; and 2) require
permanent protection through a conservation easement to the
Department or our designated agent, for those portions of the
open space containing endangered species habitat, the vernal pool
watershed, and habitat for wildlife Species of Special Concern.
A Homeowners Association is not an appropriate entity for
managing open space for wildlife and endangered species habitat.
The Department has experienced a long history of problems with
Homeowners Associations and finds we are generally unable to
enforce environmental protection responsibilities. Open space
areas, wildlife and endangered species habitat may require active
management and monitoring over the life of the project.
Management and monitoring should be provided for through transfer
of conservation easements to organizations who specialize in this
area.
It should be noted that it is the applicant's responsibility
to adequately mitigate development impacts, including obtaining
fee transfer or conservation easements for mitigation areas and
endangered species habitat. It is not the Department's
responsibility to purchase mitigation lands as described in the
Impact Sciences Mitigation Plan and DEIR.
Endangered Species Permit
L The proposed project and Alternatives 1 and 2 all have the I
potential to adversely affect two listed endangered species, both'
I RTC 24
t1�
I'll
Ms. Deborah Traffenstedt
June 30, 1993
Page Six
during construction and over the life of the project. The
Department would, therefore, require a 2081 permit under the �y
California Endangered Species Act. Should any of these
alternatives be selected, extensive project redesign and costly
additional compensation and time delays could occur in order to
_ assure that project impacts are fully mitigated.
d
W
Alternative 3, modified as we have described above, is the
only alternative acceptable to the Department, and would
eliminate the need -to obtain a 2081 permit. We urge the City of
Moorpark to adopt Alternative 3 with the two modifications we
have suggested, as this offers a reasonable and feasible
alternative and protects the unique biological resources found
here.
If you wish to discuss these issues further, please contact
Mary Meyer, Plant Ecologist at (805)640 -8019, Morgan Boucke,
Wildlife Biologist at (805)649 -1951, or Ken Wilson, Environmental
-Specialist III at (805)964 -8849.
Enclosure
CC: see attachment
RTC -]s
S' erely, i
Fred Worthley
Regional Manage
Region 5
4
Ms. Deborah Traffenstedt
June 30, 1993
Page Seven
Ms. Cat Brown
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Serrv;:e
Ventura, California
Ms. Susan Cochrane, Chief
Natural Heritage Division
Sacramento, California
Ms. Sandra Morey
Endangered Plant Program
Sacramento, California
Mary Meyer
Plant Ecologist
Ojai, California
Morgan Boucke
Wildlife Biologist
Ken Wilson
Environmental Specialist III
Santa Barbara, California
Glenn Black
Natural Heritage
Long Beach, California
State Clearinghouse
IRTC -26
Carlsberg specific Plan FEIR
COMMENT: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
RESPONSE:
1. The Department has identified that a vernal pool associated with Planning Area A
provides critical habitat for the endangered Lyons pentacheata and the California Orcutt
grass. The location of these plants and information regarding their sensitivity was identified
and described in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR and testimony provided at public hearings
emphasized the fact that vernal pools are uncommon in southern California, that the rarity of
sensitive plants that occur on or near the vernal pool was an important consideration, and that
the pool area is used by local wildlife.
The Department letter also identifies other sensitivities that were defined as part of the Draft
EIR (i.e., several sensitive animals). It is assumed these comments were intended to further
illustrate the sensitivity of the site and, in particular, the vernal pool.
2. The Department indicates that the Draft EIR does not adequately address the impact of this
project on biological resources. The assessment of the biological impact potential of this project
was substantial. Extensive field investigations were conducted by Impact Sciences, Inc. As part
of those field investigations, the vernal pool was identified and was made a focus topic of this
project's environmental review and decisionmaking process. This importance has been
documented in many ways including: (1) the identification of the importance of the pool and it's
associated vegetation; (2) the development of a detailed mitigation plan for the protection of
the pool and the associated vegetation; (3) discussions with the project applicant that resulted
in a modification of the project to account for the sensitive resources; (4) the recommendation of
additional mitigation at the request of Impact Sciences, Inc. and City staff; (5) providing the
Commission and others substantial information at past hearings regarding the importance of
the pool, the two rare plants and the associated habitat; and (6) incorporation of an
alternative specifically designed to allow for preservation of the pool and it's entire
watershed consistent with Department objectives. In summary, Impact Sciences, Inc. and the
City of Moorpark have made every effort to inform the Commission and City Council of the
sensitivity of the site, and vernal pools such is those that occur on -site.
3. The Department has indicated that a mitigation strategy of full avoidance is required, and
that the mitigation strategy suggested in the Draft EIR is not adequate to mitigate the adverse
impacts of this project to insignificant levels. To respond to this issue, and in conformance with
Department requests, an alternative that preserves the vernal pool and it's entire watershed in
open space was incorporated as part of the Draft EIR. During Planning Commission hearings
regarding this project, City staff and Impact Sciences, Inc. fully disclosed to the Planning
Commission that preservation of the pool and it's entire watershed (Alternative 3) was
preferred by CDFG, and that the mitigation plan provided in the Draft EIR was not adequate
mitigation in the eyes of the Department.
4. No fuel modification plans are propot -ed to occur within the mitigation area.
5. A principal focus of the Rare Plant Management Plan was to account for the existing
hydrologic regime. To ensure that no net change in the amount of water being directed to the
pool would occur, extensive investigations were conducted by engineers and biologists
experienced in wetlands identification and wetlands restoration plans in other areas of
southern California. These investigations identified the size of the watershed and it's
hydrologic characteristics. Further, an important criterion was that no water be directed to the
pond that had the potential to be contaminated via an urban setting. The net result of these
investigations was a plan that resulted if, no change in watershed area, and a conveyance
IRTC -27
{
Carlsberg specific Plan FFIR
system that did not incorporate water from the adjacent urban area. Although this system has
not been designed at this time, feasibility studies have been conducted and preliminary plans
developed. The result was a system of drains normally used in subdivisions to transfer water
from one location to another. Engineers indicate the drainage system proposed is not complex,
similar systems are common as part of development projects, and the system cannot be
considered experimental and has little potential for failure.
6. Several surveys were conducted on the project site in 1993 to identify the location of Lyon's
pentachaeta. The aerial extant of the plant observed during these field investigations was
1 consistent with the findings of previous investigations. The open space area proposed as part
1 of the Rare Plant Management Plan is based on these observations.
7. Cactus revegetation is not required at this time. The mitigation measure was suggested as
part of the Draft EIR and has been agreed to by the project applicant. It is their intention to
involve CDFG in the revegetation process and the Department's suggestions regarding the
location of the revegetation plan will be considered. Locations shown in the Draft EIR take
into consideration soil type and slope, and were suggested by a professional botanist who has
been involved with several successful revegetation plans at other locations. The impact of this
revegetation plan on Lyon's pentachaeta is important and will be considered as final plans are
developed.
8. Invertebrate surveys were suggested to the project applicant and to the City. ,The applicant
elected not to authorize these surveys as it was their opinion that the avoidance plan
incorporated as part of their project eliminated any direct impact to the pond. Therefore, the
applicant believed no surveys were required and none were authorized.
9. This comment is acknowledged and the Department's suggestion will be incorporated as an
option to Mitigation Measure B3 in the project's staff report. It should be noted that
representatives of the mosquito abatement district have indicated that mosquito fish have
been used to control mosquitos in the pond for many years.
10. The Draft EIR indicates that when water occurs in the vernal pool, it is used by waterfowl.
The Draft EIR, and additional information provided during the Planning Commission hearings,
also indicates that when the vernal pool exists on -site, other large, temporal water bodies
occur in the area that are also used by wildlife. Wetland areas that can be used by wildlife are
important biological features, and protection measures are valuable. The City Council has the
option of increasing the buffer area consistent with Department recommendations (i.e., from 100
to at least 200 to 300 feet).
11. This comment is acknowledged. Addition mitigation measures as recommended by the
Department will be incorporated as an option to mitigation measures already identified as part
of the Draft EIR. A mitigation measure will be added to the staff report that requires oak tree
replacement consistent with the City's current tree ordinance.
12. No grading plan has been developed that permits the assessment of this project's impact on
"Waters" or "Special Aquatic Sites." Permiture required by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers will be made a condition of approx al prior to grading in affected areas.
13. All necessary permits required by the Department of Fish and Game will be made
conditions of project approval prior to grading operations in affected areas.
14. This comment is acknowledged. Also, reference earlier responses to California Department
of Fish and Game comments that define the Department's preference for a modified
LAlternative 3 as the best means for resource I rotection
I RTC 28
Carlsberg Specific Plan HAR
15. As stated, all necessary permits required by the Department of Fish and Game will be made
a condition of project approval prior to grading operations in affected areas.
16. This comment is acknowledged. Also, reference earlier responses to California Department
of Fish and Game comments that define the Department's preference for a modified
Alternative 3 as the best means for resource protection.
W
IK TC -29
L
t
Lrnited Sates Department of the Interior
FISH A-ND 1A1LDL1F Z SER14CZE
ECOLOG11CAL SEtY1CIES
'd Offixt
2140 Easanan Alt-nue, Suite 100
Vznrura, C.:l:formia 93-W3
July 16, 1993
Deborah Traffenstedt
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Road
Moorpark, California 93021
Subject: Draft Er.-= ironmental impact Report for the Carlsberc
Specific Plan
Dear Ms. Traffenstedt:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has examined the
subject document, which analyses the environmental effects of a
proposed residential and commercial development in the City of
Moorpark, Ventura County, California. We are unable to provide
comments to you regarding this project because of staff shortages
and budget limitations.
The primary concern of the Service is the protection of public
fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. Our mandates
require that we provide comments on any public notice issued for
a Federal permit or license affecting the Nation's waters, in
particular, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permits pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 -1376) and Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). In addition, the
Service administers certain portions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 -1544, 87 Stat. 84), as amended.
The proposed project site contains populations of two species of
plants that the Service has proposed as endangered: California
orcutt's grass (Orcuttia californica) and Lyon's pentachaeta
(Pentachaeta lyonii). We urge you to coordinate with the Service
to avoid impacts to these plants in the final design or the
proposed project.
This letter does not constitute Service approval of the proposed
action. We wish to- remind you that although we are unable to
provide more detailed comments at ti:is time, your agency must
still comply with laws and regulations administered by other
Federal agencies, and with applicable laws and regulations of the
State of California.
RECEIVED
N TC•l(1 JUL 41993
IDeborah Traffenstedt 2
I
If you have any questions regarding these co=ents, or wish to
►► request t-he assistance of t_he Service, please contact Ms. Cat
f Brown of my staff at 805/644 -1766
4
Sincerely,
61 Craig Faanes
Field Supervisor
RTC-31
Carlsberg Specific Plan FFIR
COMMENT: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE
RESPONSE
1. Comments provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service do not affect the adequacy or
completeness of the Draft EIR. It should be emphasized that the project will be conditioned to
obtain all required permits from the Corps of Engineers, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and other state or federal agencies as required.
L
IRTC -12
ENVIRONMENTAL
r
COALITION* MOORPARK BRANCH
August 4, 1993
! I& Jaime A&Icra
Director of Community Development
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Road
Moorpaz CA 930:.' 1
loft
IRe: Draft Exiroamenrai Impact Report (DER), Carlsberg Specific Plan SCH # 42061076
Dear Mr. Aguilera,
The Environmental Coalition- Mcc irl• Bramh (EC-MB) is concerned with the adequat -fy'
of DER with respect to the vernal pool , the endangered species, and other biological resources.
Listed under the California Endangered Species Act, the California Orcutt's grass and the
Lyon's pentachaeta, are extremely uncommon on this planet and should be treat*i with great care.
The Planning Commicdon and the City Staff, w-horn are cm- gently reviewing the proposed project,
need to understand that they can protect these resources from the design of the proposed project_
Presently, we believe the vernal pool and the endangered species are being overlooked as
mere midgwou pmbicazs and have not been fully examined. The DER needs to explain bow Lhe
proposed development Rill impact the renal pool watershed., if the impacts are not aveaded it will
lessen the chances of survival of the endangered plant, in perpetuity. The watershed needs to be
identified. The DEIR needs to list all of the species that live in and around the vemal pool . Also,
how will the unknown impacts form the run - off. which will come from gutters and pipes for the
water inflow system, impact the pool?
On August 4, Janet Murphy (EC -MB, president) talked with Mary Meyer, Plant Ecc4ogist
for California Deparanent of Fish and Game (CDF &G), Meyer stated that her department has not
been consulted regarding the mitigation plan or project design since their response letter that the
city had received on July 7, 1993. We rerornmend that the city staff address and incorporate
CDF &G concerns before further action is taken in approvalfplannina processes. Furthermore, the
1 R1 C-33
POST OFFICE BOX)P% • MOORPARK, CA 93020
1
4
L
2 of 2
EC -MB a&r= with the CDi= &G letzcr, and the rm- rnmendazon for a lter.-�ative 3 with the two
modifications 1) an additional buffer of :50 -: Kp feet between the Lycn's pemachacta haciraz and
any cousm=on or fuel modification arras; and 2) require permanent or a designated agent, for
thost poracas of the cgcn space ccntainiag endangered Species habitat, the vernal pod watched,
and habitat for wildlife Sp=es of Special Concer;r
Please consider our comments toward this DEIP, and any fur-ther concerns that we will address at
future dazes.
Sincerely,
Janet M. Murphy, president
-C , r
Elizabeth C. Haynes, vice - president
ca Mary Meyer (Department, of Fish and Cramc ), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ms. Sandra
Moray ( Endangered Plant Progam), California Native Plant Society:. Eavironmental Coalition of
Ventura County
IRT( •3/
w
Carlsberg Specific flan FEiR
COMMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION; MOORPARK BRANCH
RESPONSE: The Coalition's comments focus on the sensitivity of the vernal pool and the
sensitive biological resources present in or near the pool. These comments are similar to those
identified by the California Department of Fish and Game. To respond to concerns of the
Environmental Coalition, please reference responses to California Department of Fish and
Game comment numbers 2 and 3 (page RTC -27)
KTC -3S
L
Carlsherg `Fe-fic flan FFIR
RESPONSES TO VERBAL COMMENTS
List of Commentors Fhe rollowing individuals spoke at the various
Planning Commission and/or City Council hearings:
Planning Commission Hearing — August 2,1993
Mark Westerline
Sameerah Mateen
Marjorie Blve
Dan Nallman
Planning Commission Hearing — August 16,1993
Mary Mevers
Jackie Gillford
D.in vVallman
Janet Murphy
Glen Ingel
Manorie Blve
Planning Commission Hearing — September 7,1993
'�1argaret Kurnig
Beverly Harri>
.Marjorie Blye
Janet Murphy
P,ft 1'�asso
Floi�e Brown
City Council Hearing — October 13, 1993
lohn Newton
tiandv Brown
l om Piehn
RTC-36
}
Carlsberg Specific Plan FFIR
Pat Basso
Francis Okvere
Barbara Loczi
Path Waters
Tom Ouffv
Dan Waltman
Kevin Mock
Jim Stueck
City Council Hearing — November 10, 1993
Lynn Crockatt
Margaret Kurnig
Janet Murphy
Dan Wallman
Roseanne Mikos
Responses to Verbal
Testimony Provided below are the responses to the testimony
received as part of the Planning Commission and City
Council hearings. In each case the verbal testimony is
summarized. Following this summary, a response is
provided.
RTC -37
Carlsberg Spectftc Man f RR
j RESPONSES TO VERBAL TESTIMONY _
}
IPlanning Commission Hearing -- August 2, 1993
Mark Westerline -- Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District Manager, Mark Westerline was
concerned with maintenance and access issne!, related to the pond area within the Specific Plan.
RESPONSE: Mr. Westerline's comments focused on the following topics; (1) that the Mosquito
Abatement District has historically and is currently implementing mosquito control measures on
the pond site; (2) the principal measure used to control mosquitos was with mosquito fish; and
(3) access would be required to continue mosquito abatement. It was acknowledged that access
would be provided to the pond for mosquito :ontrol. This information is acknowledged and is
part of this Final EIR.
Sameerah Mateen -- Ms. Mateen requested that the Consultant for the project identify
Caltrans concerns related to mitigation measures for; 1) directed Caltrans roadway; 2)
developer improvement fees; and 3) the fmpa, t to the Year 2010.
RESPONSE: Ms. Mateen's comments were read from a letter prepared by CALTRANS. That
letter, as well as a response, is incorporated as part of this Final EIR (page RTC -19) in the
response to written comments section. For a <()mplete response to Ms. Mateen's comments, please
reference responses to the letter from the St,ite of California Department of Transportation.
Marjorie Blye -- Ms. Blye stated that her residence is immediately west and adjacent to the
proposed Specific Plan. Her concerns Ater., that the viewshed be preserved, excessive truck
traffic, the number of dwelling units, >tarti�,top hours of construction, that Science Drive be
completed and used as a main access dunn� construction phase in order to mitigate noise and
traffic concerns.
RESPONSE: Ms. Blye's comments focused on a variety of issues associated with the design of
the proposed project and it's impact potential to the City of Moorpark and the adjacent
residents. Ms. 131ye's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR.
Therefore, no further response is propwed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Qualitv Act or the implementing Guidelines-
6
t (TC -M
Carlsberg Specific P!an FFIR
1
Dan Wallman -- Mr. Wallman was concerned with the number of homes that would be built on
the ridgeline near Spring Road. He suggested that the Commission consider moving the homes
back to hide them from the adjacent residents As they are viewed from Spring Road only, not
i from the existing residences.
RESPONSE: Mr. Wallman's comments focused on ridgeline development associated with Area
"D" of the amended Specific Plan. Mr. Wallman's comments did not focus on the adequacy or
completeness of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as
directed by the California Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
IN
IK TC-39
Carlsberg 5pm is "Ian FiR
# Planning Commission Hearing -- August 16, 1993
Mary Meyers -- Ms. Meyer's clarified Department )f Fish and Game concerns as outlined in
their letter of June 30, 1993 and March 12, 1 -1.3. I-he Commission concurred to accept additional
information provided by Ms. Meyer's.
Ms. Meyer's stated her recommendations to the Commission in an effort to protect the
undeveloped land in the southeastern portion of the city limits. Her recommendations
included, that Alternative 3 be adopted which would provide for an acceptable level of
protection for the two endangered species anti vernal pool habitat. A modification to
Alternative 3: 1) by establishing an additional buffer of 250 -300 feet between the Lyon's
pentachaeta habitat and any construction or fuel modification areas; 2) to require permanent
protection through a conservation easement :o ti,e Dgartment or designated agent, for those
portions of the open space containing endangered species habitat, the vernal pool watershed,
and habitat for wildlife species of special . or?; ern. Ms ;%leyer's concluded with a statement to
the applicant that the Department of Fish an4 Game has the authority to require a permit for
this purpose from the applicant.
RESPONSE: Ms. Meyer's comments were summarized from a letter prepared by Ms. Meyers for
the State of California Department of Fish and Game. That letter, as well as a detailed
response is incorporated as part of this Final EIR in the response to written comments section
(pages RTC -27 through RTC -29). For a complete response to Ms. Meyer's comments, please
reference the letter and it's associated response to California Department of Fish and Game.
Jackie Clifford -- Opposed to the specific plan development.
RESPONSE: As stated, Ms Clifford indicated that she was opposed to the Specific Plan for
several reasons. Ms. Clifford's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness or
adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by
the California Environmental Qualitv Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Dan Wallman -- Opposed to the specific pian development.
RESPONSE: Mr. Wallman's comments fo( used on ridgeline development associated with Area
LD of the amended Specific flan. Mr. Walls an's comments did not focus on the adequacy or
(TC-40
( arlsherg Specific flan FEIR
completeness or adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or
required as directed by the California Environmental Quality Act or the implementing
Guidelines.
Janet Murphy -- Opposed to the specific plan development as proposed. Supports Fish & Game
recommendations.
RESPONSE: Ms. Murphy's comments were summarized from a letter prepared by the
Environmental Coalition, Moorpark Branch. That letter, as well as it's response is
incorporated as part of this Final EIR in the response to written comments section (page RTC-
35). For a complete response to Ms. Murphy's comments, please reference responses to the letter
from the Environmental Coalition, Moorpark Branch.
Glen Ingel -- Opposed to the specific plan development. Mr. Ingel commented that City staff
reconsider the placement of public hearing signs. In this particular case the public hearing sign
was not accessible to Mr. Ingel.
RESPONSE: As stated, Mr. Ingle indicated that he was opposed to the Specific Plan for
several reasons. Ms. Ingle's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft
EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Notice of public hearings on the project were conducted in conformance with state law. The City
of Moorpark is currently reviewing the positioning of signs on the site so that signs are most
visible to the surrounding public.
Marjorie Blye -- Supports Fish & Game recommendations. Opposed to the specific plan
development as currently proposed.
RESPONSE: The California Department of Fish and Game has indicated that Alternative 3 as
identified in the Draft EIR would have the least impact on biological resources present on the
proposed project site. Ms. Blye supported this land use alternative that would preserve the
pond and the surrounding watershed.
Ms. Blye's other comments focused on a variety of issues associated with the design of the
W proposed project and it's impact potential on the City of Moorpark and the adjacent residents.
IRTC -i1
r
L
Carlsberg Specific Plan MR
Ms. Blye's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR. Therefore,
no further response is proposed or required as directed by the Califomia Environmental Quality
Act or the implementing Guidelines.
RTC -a2
carlsberq Specific flan FUR
Planning Commission Hearing -- September 7, 1993
Margaret Kurnig -- Ms. Kurnig representing the Environmental Coalition addressed her
concerns to the Commission in a letter dated September 7, I993. Mrs. Kurnig's only additional
comment was that she supported the comments made in a letter addressed to the City of
Moorpark (by the CDFG) dated June 30, ; x)93
RESPONSE: As stated, Ms. Kurnig addressed the Commission regarding the sensitivity of
wetlands that occurred on the site and the protection of sensitive biological resources. Ms.
Kumig's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no
further response is proposed or required as directed by the California Environmental Quality
Act or the implementing Guidelines. Letters referenced by Ms. Kurnig are avialable for review
at the City of Moorpark City Hall (799 Moorpark Avenue).
Beverly Harris -- Ms. Harris commented on the fact that the Carlsberg Specific Plan was a
well known issue. That in the year 1990 she and the homeowners association voiced their
opinion to the City Council requesting (-, )nsideration of the preservation of Moorpark's open
space areas.
RESPONSE: Ms. Harris's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft
EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Marjorie Blye -- Ms. Bl ye said that the public hearing sign indicated a July 19th hearing date
and may have been a reason that the public varticipation was low. She suggested that public
hearing signs be placed at Spring Road and Christian Barrette.
RESPONSE: Ms. Blye's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness or adequacy of
the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the
California Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Notice of public hearings on the project were conducted in conformance with state law. The City
of Moorpark is currently reviewing the positioning of signs on the site so that signs are most
visible to the surrounding public.
In
Ik TC-I 3
Carlsberg Specific Plan FF.IR
I
Janet Murphy -- Ms. Murphy representing the Environmental Coalition read from a written
statement dated September 7th.
RESPONSE: Ms. Murphy addressed the Commission regarding the sensitivity of wetlands that
occurred on the site and the protection of sensitive biological resources. Ms. Murphy's comments
did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is
proposed or required as directed by the California Environmental Quality Act or the
implementing Guidelines. The letter referenced by Ms. Murphy is avialable for review at the
City of Moorpark City Hall (799 Moorpark Avenue).
Pat Basso -- Ms. Basso said that the people affected by this development were unaware of the
public hearing due to poor noticing procedures. Her second concern was that the Commission
required that dwelling units to be built on tke Spring Road ridgeline be built on the easterly
portion of that ridgline.
RESPONSE: As stated a portion of Ms. Basso's comments focused on ridgeline development
associated with Area D of the amended Specific Plan. Additional comments focused on signing
associated with the notice of public hearing. Nis. Bassos's comments did not focus on the
adequacy or completeness of the Draft FIR Therefore, no further response is proposed or
required as directed by the California Environmental Quality Act or the implementing
Guidelines.
Eloise Brown -- Ms. Brown commented on the City's Government Channel 10 and provided
information as to when City Council and Plannrng Commission meetings were broadcasted.
RESPONSE: Ms. Brown's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft
EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
L
IKTC-44
Carlsberg Specific ('Inn V IR
City Council Hearing -- October 13, 1993
John Newton -- Indicated support for the prniect.
Response: Mr. Newton's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft
EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing; Guidelines.
Sandy Brown -- Indicated support for the project.
Response: Ms. Brown's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR.
Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing; Guidelines.
Tom Piehn -- Indicated support for the pro)c( t.
Response: Mr. Piehn's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR.
1 Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
1 Environmental Quality Act or the implementing; Guidelines.
Pat Basso -- Indicated reservations regarding the project. Ms. Basso was concerned with the
traffic generated by the project particularly near the proposed middle school. In addition she
was concerned with hillside and ridgeline de:7elopinent, affordable housing, the project's
visual impact and the density of the twin ,s
Response: Ms. Basso's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness or adequacy of
the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the
California Environmental Quality Act or the implementing; Guidelines.
Francis Okyere -- Indicated support for the vrolet t.
Response: Mr. Okyere's comments did not locus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft
EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing; Guidelines.
Barbara Loczi -- Indicated support for the project.
I(TC -a 5
Carlaherq ?pectic flan FF.IR
Response: Ms. Loczi's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR.
Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Qualitv Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Patty Waters -- Indicated support for the project.
Response: Ms. Water's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR.
Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Tom Du -- Indicated support for the croiet t
Duffy YY 1
Response: Mr. Duffy's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR.
Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Qualitv Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Dan Wallman -- Mr. Wallinan was concernet with the number of homes that would be built on
the ridgeline of Spring Road. He suggestea that the Commission consider moving the homes
back to hide then from the the adjacent residents. As they are viewed from Spring Road only,
not from the existing residences.
RESPONSE: Mr. Wallman's comments focused on ridgeline development associated with Area
D of the amended Specific Plan. Mr. Wallman's comments did not focus on the adequacy or
completeness of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as
directed by the California Environmental QUAity Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Kevin Mock -- Mr. Mock was concerned with the number of homes that would be built on the
ridgeline of Spring Road and the visibility of 'he project from his home. In addition, Mr. Mock
had concerns regarding traffic safety and •racirc congestion.
RESPONSE: Mr. Mock's comments focused on ridgeline development associated with Area D of
the amended Specific Plan. Regarding this Issue, Mr. Mock's comments did not focus on the
adequacy or completeness of the Draft FIR Therefore, no further response is proposed or
required as directed by the California I ovironmental Quality Act or the implementing
LGuidelines.
I KTC46
Carlsberg Specific Plan FFIR
Regarding the issue of traffic, subsequent to project mitigation all roadways would operate at
acceptable levels of service. In addition, all roadways are designed in accordance with the the
most current traffic engineering standards to reduce or eliminate traffic safety concerns.
Jim Stueck -- Indicated support for the protect
Response: Mr. Stueck's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR.
Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
IRTC •4'
Carlsberg Specific flan FFIR
City Council Hearing -- October 13, 1993
Lynn Croekatt -- Indicated support for the project
Response: Mr. Crockatt's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft
EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Janet Murphy -- Ms. Murphy identified the sensitivity of the vernal pool and the sensitive
biological resources associated with the pool urea. Ms. Murphy also indicated that 34 percent
of the oak trees on the site would be rernoz,ed
RESPONSE: Ms. Murphy addressed the Council regarding the sensitivity of wetlands that
occurred on the site and the protection of 7ensitive biological resources. These comments have
been addressed in most detail in a response to a California Department of Fish and Game letter
dated June 30, 1993. For further information please reference page number RTC -27 of this Final
EIR, response numbers 2 and 3. These responses identify potential impacts to the vernal pool,
the sensitivity of the pool and the area, biological resources, and the endorsement of
alternative 3 by the California Department of Fish and Game. Ms. Murphy also stated that
the EIR indicated a loss of 34 percent of the ()ak trees on the site. The EIR did indicate a loss of
34 percent of the oak tree habiatat on site However, quantification of loss of oak trees was not
a requirement of this EIR. Ms. Murphy ; k omments provide information to the process and
should be considered carefully by the ( it\. Council, but do not focus on the adequacy or
completeness of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as
directed by the California Environmental )LIality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Margaret Kurnig -- Ms. Kurnig representtnq the Environmental Coalition also identified the
sensitivity of the vernal pool and the sensitive biological resources associated with the pool
area. Ms. Kurnig also indicated that :rrrd abaternent would be required in the 15 -acre
preservation area and would be an additiona impact to the vernal pool.
RESPONSE: These comments have been addressed in most detail in a response to a California
Department of Fish and Game letter dated June 30, 1993. For further information please
reference page number RTC -27 of this Final EIR, response numbers 2 and 3. These responses
identify potential impacts to the vernal pool, the sensitivity of the pool and the areas
Lbiological resources, and the endorsement of Aternative 3 by the California Department of Fish
RTC -48
Carlsberg Specific Plan FEIR
and Game. Ms. Kurnig also stated that the EIR indicated that weed abatement near the vernal
pool would result in a more substantial impact potential. Page number RTC-27 of the Final EIR
(as a response to California Department of Fish and Game concerns regarding the same topic),
indicated that the project as planned proposes no fuel modification within the mitigation area.
Similar to Ms.Murphy,Ms. Kurnig's comments provide information to the process and should be
considered by the City Council, but do not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft
EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Dan Waltman -- Mr. Waltman was concerned with the number of homes that would be built on
the ridgeline of Spring Road. He indicated that he was concerned that there were no
assurances that the finished project would be similar to computer gereated photographs
presented by the applicant.
RESPONSE: Mr. Wallman's comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the
Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines.
Roseanne Mikos: Indicated support for Alternaitve 3.
RESPONSE: Ms. Mikos' comments did not focus on the adequacy or completeness of the Draft
EIR. Therefore, no further response is proposed or required as directed by the California
Environmental Quality Act or the implementing Guidelines. Alternaitve 3 has been supported
by the California Department of Fish and Game and the Enviornmental Coalition, Moorpark
Branch.
RTC-49