HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES CC 1996 1221 1996 0821RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1221
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED
TO THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT, AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE SPECIAL DEVICES, INC., PROJECT (GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95 -1, ZONE CHANGE NO. 95 -3,
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 5004, INDUSTRIAL
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 95 -2, AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 96 -1)
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on August 14, 1996, and
a continued meeting on August 21, 1996, the City Council considered the
application filed by Special Devices, Inc., for General Plan Amendment
No. 95 -1, Zone Change No. 95 -3, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5004, and
Industrial Planned Development (IPD) Permit No. 95 -2 for a 297.92 -acre
site located within the Moorpark Area of Interest in Ventura County and
the City of Moorpark, directly east of the State Route 23 and New Los
Angeles Avenue interchange, Assessor Parcel Numbers 500 - 350 -145 and 513-
050 -085; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Special
Devices, Inc., Project (State Clearinghouse No. 95071057) provides an
environmental assessment of the proposed project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Division 13 of the Public
Resources Code of the State of California, and the State CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, public notice of the availability and distribution of the
Draft EIR was provided in compliance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on June 10, 1996, the
Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the adequacy of
the Draft EIR and closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered certification of the Final EIR
at its meeting on August 21, 1996, and reached its decision;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
c: \1- m \sdi \cc- envir.res 8 -21 -96
Resolution No. 96 -1221
Page 2
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR for the
Special Devices, Inc., Project reflects the independent judgment of the
City of Moorpark, as lead agency.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR for
the Special Devices, Inc., Project has been completed in compliance with
CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of
California), CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Procedures.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that the requirement for
additional Lot D creates no new impacts and that subdivision of the
297.92 -acre project site into eight lots, consisting of Lots 1 through
4 and Lots A through D, is consistent with the analysis in the Draft EIR
and Final EIR; and
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby certifies that the Council has
received and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior
to making any approval decision for the proposed Special Devices, Inc.,
Project and has found that the Final EIR adequately addresses the
environmental effects of the proposed project.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby adopts a Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Attachment A), with modifications to the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, as reflected in the Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative
Map No. 5004 and Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 95 -2, which
shall supersede, expand, and enhance the language of the mitigation
measures; makes Environmental Impact Report Findings related to the
significant impacts of the Project (Attachment B) , and adopts a Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Attachment C).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 1996.
Mayor of the City of Moo ark
ATTEST:
Lillian E. Hare
kw-� Ci ty Clerk x7
Attachments:
A. Mitigation Monitoring Program
B. CEQA Environmental Impact Report Findings
C. CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations
c: \1- m \sdi \cc- envir.res 8 -21 -96
Attachment A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN (EQAP)
for the
Special Devices Incorporated Regional Headquarters,
Manufacturing Plant Facilities, and Commercial Development
Plan
(State Clearinghouse No. 95071057)
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5004
Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 95 -2
General Plan Amendment No. 95 -1
Zone Change No. 95 -3
Development Agreement 96 -1
Prepared for:
THE CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Planner: Debbie Traffenstedt
(805) 529 -6864
Prepared by:
THE PLANNING CORPORATION
P.O. Box 20250
Santa Barbara, California 93120
(805) 962 -1157
Revised., August, 1996
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
SPECIAL DEVICES INCORPORATED REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS, MANUFACTURING
PLANT FACILITIES, AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(GPA -95 -1, ZC -95 -3, VTM -5004, DA 96 -1)
Introduction
The City of Moorpark is in the final stages of reviewing and adopting Conditions of Approval for
the proposed Special Devices Incorporated project. An EIR is proposed to be certified on the
project on August 21, 1996.
In response to comments on the EIR received from the public and inputs from the City Planning
Department and City Engineer, the applicant proposed to amend the project description. A public
hearing for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and proposed project entitlements was
held on June 10, 1996. At that meeting, the public hearing on the Draft EIR was closed, and the
public hearing on the requested project entitlements was continued to July 1, 1996, and then
subsequently continued (without discussion) to July 15, 1996. At the June 10 public hearing, the
applicant disclosed a willingness to amend the project description to conform, to the degree
feasible, with the recommendations contained in the designated Environmentally Superior
Alternative. A description of project revisions is provided in Chapter 21 of the Final EIR; this
section of the document also contained an analysis of the impacts of this alternative. This
alternative was projected to result in impact reductions in all non - population dependent impacts
(biology, cultural resources, etc.).
Among the actions required for approval of the project, it is necessary to adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring Program. The following Program has been proposed to conform with requirements
(Public Resource Code Section 21081.6) which became effective on January 1989, This Code
requires that, along with the adoption of the findings specified in an EIR, the lead agency must
also adopt a "reporting /monitoring program to ensure compliance during project implementation."
The proposed method for implementation of monitoring for this project is an Environmental
Quality Assurance Plan (EQAP)
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -1 August 16, 1996
Environmental Quality Assurance Plan (EQAP)
The Conditions of Approval for Vesting Map No. 5004 and related entitlements require
preparation and implementation of an Environmental Quality Assurance Plan (EQAP) as follows:
25. Prior to rough grading permit approval, and approval of a Final Map for any
phase, the Subdivider shall submit a deposit for condition compliance review and
mitigation monitoring. The mitigation monitoring program shall be enforced through
implementation of an Environmental Quality Assurance Program (EQAP) as
recommended in the approved mitigation monitoring program. The EQAP shall be
implemented through the City, at the City s option, contract specialists shall be retained
to monitor construction and mitigation compliance. The Subdivider shall pay to the City
900 percent of all City and consultant costs for condition compliance review and
mitigation monitoring.
In a proposed undertaking with extensive Conditions of Approval that will require coordination of
a number of agencies and considerable field monitoring, an efficient and effective method for
assuring that such conditions are implemented properly is to require that an applicant funded
monitor be retained to coordinate condition compliance.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
The purpose of a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to avoid or minimize environmental
problems while providing documentation useful to decision makers in the review, evaluation and
development of permit conditions on future projects. The MMP is intended to provide a
procedure for the implementation of mitigation measures that have been identified in the project
Final Environmental Impact Report. The MMP should include the integration, coordination, and
implementation of all mitigation measures and a process to assure compliance. The EQAP
program implements the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program. The legally required framework
for assuring proper mitigation compliance for all mitigation measures is provided in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program summary table.
Unlike the MMP, the EQAP provides a specific framework for assigning responsibilities, reporting
results and designating authority to secure condition compliance or stop work when deemed
necessary. The EQAP also provides for monitoring and coordination at no expense to the City;
the EQAP monitor is funded by the applicant or project developer. Distinguishing between the
MMP and EQAP is simple; an MMP is a program or plan and the EQAP is the actual
implementation method for assuring compliance. On a large scale project such as the Special
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -2 August 16, 1996
Devices Incorporated development, use of an EQAP program monitor is essential to ensure
proper compliance with the extensive set of conditions applied to the project. Furthermore, the
project will require very extensive rough grading, the preparation of a number of pre - development
studies and reports, and coordination of a number of City and non -City participants.
Important EQAP Monitor Attributes
The overall goal of the EQAP monitor is to establish a framework for a proactive rather than a
reactive approach to environmental monitoring and the protection of neighborhood quality of life
during the construction period. The EQAP monitor is responsible for anticipating environmental
problems and instituting corrective actions before problems materialize or become difficult to
solve. Close coordination of all concerned parties and a spirit of cooperation directed toward the
resolution of problems in a timely and cost effective manner is essential to the success of an
EQAP program. EQAP monitors (or monitoring firms) should have demonstrated breadth of
environmental knowledge and an understanding of the development and permit process.
EQAP Program Activities
Objectives which are important to the effectiveness of an EQAP program include the following:
a) Familiarizing construction workers with the environmental requirements for the
project;
b) Providing a chain of command for carrying out permit conditions and resolution of
issues of concern to the City, the applicant, and the contractors implementing the
construction program for the project;
C) Providing for remedial measures and follow -up until the activity complies with
permit requirements;
d) Providing the City with field monitoring services;
e) Providing a procedure to investigate and respond to any citizen inquiry or
complaint involving site development;
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -3 August 16, 1996
f) Resolving issues in a timely manner to maintain critical construction schedules;
and
g) Meeting permit requirements in a cost effective manner that does not require
expenditures of City monetary resources.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program as implemented by the EQAP monitor should serve as a
concise and effective working framework for the integration of agency personnel, the construction
crew, the on -site monitoring /compliance team, and the applicant/developer. The interpretation of
how best to institute the environmental mitigation measures required by the City is the
responsibility of the EQAP monitor and the City Director of Community Development.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program, as administered by the EQAP monitor, should provide for the
following basic actions:
a) the EQAP monitor shall review all grading, construction, and building
plans submitted to the City for condition compliance review to ensure
that all applicable mitigation measures are addressed;
b) the monitor shall modify the Mitigation Measures for the project (this list is
provided in table form in Appendix 1 of this document) to be consistent with final
Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Map, IPD Permit, and Zone Change. In
cases where a discrepancy exists between these two sets of conditions, the
adopted Conditions of Approval shall prevail.
C) The EQAP monitor shall establish a schedule for legal /administrative involvement
by the City in confirming that mitigation measures have been implemented;
d) determine what field monitoring action(s) are required and what environmental
measures are to be implemented if conditions conflict or if measures become
infeasible due to field conditions;
e) define what person (or agency) is responsible for final compliance checks (in the
cases where specific permits and clearances are required prior to occupancy);
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -4 August 16, 1996
f) assure that a single person is responsible for bridging the implementation of
mitigation measures from plan checking to field monitoring;
g) define a compliance method for each measure;
h) confirm the timing of mitigation in relation to construction activities; and
i) arrange an overall schedule of monitoring activities in relation to rough and
precise or fine grading.
The ECAP monitor also needs to assure that all four distinct phases of mitigation implementation
are properly integrated; these phases include preconstruction, rough and precise or fine grading,
construction and on going operations.
Recommended Monitoring Agencies and Personnel
The following assigned personnel should be designated as participants in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for this project.
Plan Check Monitoring Participants:
1. Community Development Department Staff
2. Building and Safety Department Staff
3. City Engineer, Fire Protection District and Police Department staff
4. Public Works Department Staff
5. City Arborist/Landscape Architect
6. Geotechnical Review Consultants (Bing Yen)
7. Caltrans staff
S. County Public Works Agency (Flood Control and Traffic Divisions)
9. The EQAP monitor assigned to the project.
10. Specialists (biologist, archaeologist & paleontologist) as required by project
conditions.
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -5 August 16, 1996
Field Monitors:
1. City Community Development Department Staff
2. City Building and Safety Inspector
3. City Public Works Inspectors
4. A soils engineer and geotechnical consultant retained by the City to verify final
geotechnical work performed by the applicant's geologists or geotechnical
engineers
5. County of Ventura Fire Protection and Moorpark Police Department staff
6. City Engineer's Staff
7. The EQAP monitor assigned to the project.
8. Specialists should be retained as required by project conditions (cultural
resources, paleontology, a landscape architect or arborist with experience in native plant
management, etc.).
Issues of Concern for Successful Implementation of an EQAP Program
To be effective, the EQAP monitor should have a regular reporting procedure. This reporting
program should involve preparation of written reports on a weekly basis to the City to provide
feedback regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the
project.
The EQAP monitor is intended to serve as an on -site coordinator to establish a hierarchy of
authority among specialists that are in the field reviewing various remediation and mitigation
actions. The EQAP monitor must have the authority to stop or redirect work if necessary and to
call in specialists or agency staff when needed. Furthermore, the EQAP monitor should establish
a procedure in consultation with the City for settling disputes. In some cases, mitigation measure
wording may not be explicit enough to provide direction to plan checkers or field monitors. The
EQAP monitor should resolve such issues with the approval of the Director of Community
Development.
EQAP Program Management and Communications
Management hierarchy and communication pathways must be clearly delineated to assure
optimal working relationships and appropriate reporting. The EQAP program should be
implemented with a "team" approach. The EQAP monitor should be responsible for working with
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -6 August 16, 1996
the City, the developer's contractors, and responsible and trustee agencies to facilitate clear lines
of responsibility and contact. Frequent and regular communication among the monitoring team
members is essential for successful compliance. Suggested methods for written communication
include daily field logs, compliance reports for when a condition has been satisfactorily
completed, and monthly summary reports if required (depending on the ultimate length and
complexity of the monitoring process).
Responsibility and Authority
Each member of the monitoring team should have distinct and non - overlapping duties and
authority. The persons responsible for implementation of the monitoring program shall be
selected by the City, after consulting with the developer.
For the Special Devices Incorporated project, recommended team members include:
1. On -site Coordinating EQAP Monitor - This monitor is a multi - disciplined manager
of the entire EQAP program; this individual has three key functions: (1) to serve
as a liaison with the developer, the City, other monitoring team members and the
construction crew; (2) to manage and report field monitoring activities, problems
and successes; and (3) to stop or redirect work when determined necessary.
The monitor is responsible for ensuring that daily monitoring assignments are
carried out, for completion and review of daily logs and any compliance reports,
and for the prompt transmittal of information to the City and the developer. The
monitor will be responsible for ensuring that the correct specialist is on -site prior
to initiation of the construction activities affecting that discipline (e.g.,
archaeological clearances, confirming the location of essential Water Works
District facilities; assuring completion of biological remediation, etc).
2. Environmental Specialists -- Environmental specialists may need to be retained
on an as needed basis (e.g., discovery of an archaeological or paleontological
deposit, discovery of hazardous materials, expertise necessary to ensure proper
native plant revegetation, etc.) Such specialists would only be on -site as
needed, when the EQAP monitor determines that the scope of construction
activities warrants special expertise. Engineers, biologists, arborists and
archaeologists are the most frequently retained specialists. The Conditions of
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -7 August 16, 1996
Approval for this project require the presence of an archaeologist and
paleontologist during initial grading. The monitor (or monitoring firm) can provide
these skills or independent consultants can be retained; if independent monitors
are retained, the duration and frequency of monitoring should be defined by the
EQAP monitor.
Construction Crew Orientation
To assure clear lines of communication, the EQAP monitor should provide for an orientation for
all monitoring and construction personnel. The briefing should include the construction
supervisor and his crew directors, the developer and the City. The intent of the briefing is to
acquaint the construction crews with the environmental sensitivities of the project site, to
introduce the monitoring team to the construction team and to review construction specifications
and outline the lines of authority when problems are encountered. Emphasis should be placed
on the need to work together to resolve problems and arrive at solutions in the field. All field
teams must understand that construction stoppage will be used if necessary in cases of serious
non - compliance with environmental mitigation measures.
The developer shall be required to appoint a contact person (to be provided with a pager) who
shall be accessible to the City staff and EQAP monitor. Field monitors shall also be required to
have pagers to provide a prompt method of City- monitor communication.
Compliance Criteria
Compliance criteria should be developed by the EQAP monitor so that the City and the on -site
monitor can determine if a specific mitigation condition has been successfully completed. Criteria
for plan check as well as field monitoring should be established. The criteria should include
specific violations that could result in a "stop work" order.
Work Stoppages
The monitoring program should include a process by which work stoppages are permitted if
violations of the mitigation measures could result in resource destruction or environmental
contamination. Sample procedures for handling such incidents are set forth below:
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -8 August 16, 1996
Rationale for Work Stoppage: Work should be suspended if mitigation measure
compliance violations could result in significant environmental impacts or the discovery of
an unanticipated problem (such as an unidentified archaeological deposit or a
concentration of hazardous soils requiring remediation); the immediate stoppage of a
specific construction activity should be permitted until necessary remediation is decided
upon and implemented.
Procedure: The EQAP Monitor should have the authority to direct construction crew
to halt activities at specific locations where the violation has taken place and to require
immediate performance of a necessary remediation. Other site construction may
continue.
The EQAP Monitor should immediately notify the construction supervisor and the City. A
course of action should be determined in consultation with the City and a construction
change order should be issued (if necessary).
When remedial work is complete, the Monitor should issue an order for work to resume in
the affected area.
The violation or incident and its resolution shall be documented in the Field Log and
Monthly Report.
Dispute Procedures
The EQAP monitor should arrange a system for resolving disputes. The City shall maintain
ultimate authority to decide the appropriate course of action to achieve resolution of the disputed
issue in consultation with the developer. The Community Development Director shall have
authority over disputes.
Field Inspections
Many of the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program should have a
follow -up field check or will require on -going monitoring during the construction period. The
EQAP monitor should be responsible for defining at what point in the construction process a
check on condition compliance is obtained.
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -9 August 16, 1996
Process Check Points
The EQAP monitor should arrange for specific check points throughout the monitoring process
which identify when crucial information is needed before the next step in the development
process should be taken (e.g., permits should not be issued until all plans are received and have
completed plan check, combustible materials should not be brought onto the site until the
water /fire fighting system is installed, etc.).
Long Term Condition Compliance Review
The Director of Community Development shall periodically review the status and operation of the
SDI facility compliance with long term management restrictions; compliance with requirements of
the various managing hazardous materials oversight agencies should also be reviewed
periodically by the Director of Community Development.
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -10 August 16, 1996
SPECIAL DEVICES INCORPORATED PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM: SUMMARY TABLE
In cases where a mitigation measure, as included in the Final Environmental Impact Report,
conflicts with an approved Condition of Approval for Vesting Tentative Map No. 5004 and
Industrial Planned Development Permit 95 -2, the stricter or more specific language shall apply,
as determined by the Director of Community Development, during condition compliance review
for each component of the development process. Modifications to mitigation measures since the
close of the public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report have generally been made
to clarify how to implement such measures and /or when to require satisfaction of such measures
during the development process. All mitigation measures included in the Final Environmental
Impact Report have been included (sometimes with minor modifications) in the Conditions of
Approval for the project. The mitigation monitoring table on the following pages includes a cross -
reference to the final versions of both the Vesting Map and Industrial Planned Development
permit conditions.
Mitigation Monitoring Program and EQAP -11 August 16, 1996
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM - SPECIAL DEVICES INCORPORATED I
Geologic, Geotechnical and Seismic Hazards
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Landslides and Slope Stability
(1) If required by the City Engineer or the
Vesting Map
Prior to issuance
City Engineer and
Receipt of and
consulting City Geologist and Geotechnical
Condition (88)
of any permits
City Geologist/
approval of
Engineer, prior to approval of the Final
and approval of
Geotechnical
geotechnical
Map, initiation of rough grading, or
IPD Conditions
the Final Map
Engineer
reports
issuance of any subsequent development
(102) and (105)
permits, the applicant or subsequent
developers shall contract with an
engineering geologist and geotechnical
engineer to further assess landslide
potential, slope stability, and impacts
related to slope failure. The scope of
work for any additional work shall be
designed in consultation with and
approved by the City's geologist and
geotechnical engineer. If directed by
the City's consulting engineering
geologist or geotechnical engineer,
the study shall also quantify the
consolidation potential of the onsite
soil materials, assess the potential
for weak soils or bedding layers to
affect cut and /or natural slopes, and
verify that grading planned within
landslide areas will be remediated
to result in a net increase in
landslide stability. The scope for
this geotechnical study shall, as
deemed necessary by the City Engineer
and consulting City geologist and
geotechnical engineer, further assess
slopes within or adjacent to proposed
development areas (depending on the final
configuration of proposed individual
manufacturing and commercial parcels).
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 1 Augmt 16, 1996
Geologic, Geotechnical and Seismic Hazards
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Landslides and Slooe Stability
(continued)
Further assessment must
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
also address stability and mitigation
measures for slopes and landslides
surrounding the developable areas
as well as potential impacts along
access corridors. The findings and
recommendations of the geotechnical
assessment shall be incorporated into
the final design for both the
manufacturing and commercial components
of the project. A separate engineering
study shall be required for the
development of each Lot entitled with
either commercial or manufacturing uses.
All geotechnical reports shall be
reviewed and approved by the City's
consulting engineering geologists prior
to issuance of any grading permits or
approval of a Final Map.
(2) Unless subsequent geotechnical studies
Vesting Map Conditions
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
direct otherwise, landslides shall be
(67) to (81) and (85)
removed and recompacted during grading.
Alternatively, in some instances,
IPD Condition (105)
landslides or unstable slopes can
potentially be stabilized by constructing
buttress or stabilization fill slopes
to reduce their potential for future
downslope movement. All cut and fill
slopes, foundations and structures shall
be designed and constructed to comply
with Appendix 33 of the 1994 Uniform
Building Code (UBC) and applicable City
and /or County Grading Ordinances.
Modifications to these standards shall
be permitted only with the written
concurrence of the City Engineer and
the City's consulting geologist and
geotechnical engineer.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 2 August 16, 199e
Geologic, Geotechnical and Seismic Hazards
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Seismic Hazards
(1) Prior to issuance of a building permit,
IPD Condition (105)
Prior to issuance
City Engineer and
Final grading plan
the applicant or subsequent developers
of building
City Geologist/
review and approval
shall contract with an engineering
Vesting Map Conditions
permits
Geotechnical
by City Engineer and
geologist to study any unanticipated
(67) to (81) and (85)
Engineer
Consulting City
faults exposed during grading to detect
Geotechnical
any evidence of possible recent activity.
Engineer
No structure should be placed within 50
feet of any fault trace which is classified
as active by definition of the State Geologist.
Final grading requirements shall be defined
by an engineering geologist. All geological
recommendations shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and the
City's consulting geologist and geotechnical
engineer.
(2) Prior to issuance of a building permit,
IPD Condition (105) and
Prior to issuance
Building Inspector
Building Plan
all habitable structures shall be designed
of building
and City Geologist/
Check
to current UBC requirements or the City
Vesting Map Conditions
permits
Geotechnical Engineer
approved geotechnical report requirements
(67) to (81) and (85)
for the project, whichever standard is most
restrictive. The geotechnical recommendation
is for a design Z of 0.56, instead of the 0.4
for zone 4 and a recommended site coefficient
for soil type S1 . If the structural design
is based on UBC dynamic lateral -force
procedures, the design criteria for
horizontal ground acceleration shall be a
factor of 0.568, based on the computed
peak acceleration for a 50 -year
exposure and 10% probability of
exceedance, be used with the
normalized response spectrum for
a soil type S1.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 3 Augut 16, 1996
Geologic, Geotechnical and Seismic Hazards
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Liquefaction Potential
(1) Prior to issuance of any grading permits,
Vesting Map
Prior to issuance
City Engineer and
Final Grading
the applicant or subsequent developers
Condition (86)
of grading permits
City Geotechnical
Plan review and
shall contract with an engineering geologist
Engineer
approval by
and geotechnical engineer to study
IPD Condition
City Engineer
potential liquefaction related effects
(101)
and City Geotechnical
for Lots 1 through 4 (now Lot 3) and the
Engineer
access road linking Lots 3 and 4 (prior
Lot 4 and access road connecting from
Lot 3 are now part of Lot 3). No
structure should be placed within 50 feet
of any adopted setback for minimizing the
consequences of liquefaction related
failure. No development on Lot 4 shall
be permitted until secondary access is
provided over the Arroyo Simi (or by other
routes to the south) or the access road
is designed and built to standards that
will permit the road to remain in place
without significant failure in the event of
an earthquake.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 4 Augmt 16, 1996
Geologic, Geotechnical and Seismic Hazards
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Construction Suitability, Site Design,
and Gradinca Concerts
(1) Prior to approval of the Final Map,
Vesting Map
Prior to approval
City Engineer
Approval of the
initiation of rough grading, or issuance
Conditions (67) to (81)
of the Final Map
and City
Final Map and rough
of any subsequent development permits, the
and (86)
and any subsequent
Geotechnical
grading permit will
applicant or subsequent developers shall
entitlements
Engineer
not occur until all
contract with an engineering geologist and
studies have been
geotechnical engineer to prepare grading
completed and
recommendations, foundation design criteria,
conclusions are
and other recommendations regarding
incorporated into
detailed project design. As a
Final Grading Plans.
component of required subsequent
geologic studies, a soils engineer shall
evaluate the condition of alluvium
and unconsolidated soils. Relatively
loose soils or alluvium shall be
densified or removed and recompacted
prior to placement of structures
upon such soils. Other remediation
methods, acceptable to the City Engineer
and consulting City geologist and geotechnical
engineer, shall be submitted to the
City for review and approval. Other
mitigation measures shall be incorporated
into the final project design as required
by the geological assessment. All
geotechnical and geological recommendations
shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and the City's consulting geologist
and geotechnical engineer.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 5 August 16, 1996
Geologic, Geotechnical and Seismic Hazards
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(2) The applicant shall develop a master
Vesting Map
Prior to issuance
City Engineer
Review and approval
agreement among all owners of commercial
Condition (87)
of rough grading
and City Geotechnical
of slope maintenance
and manufacturing developments within the
permit
Engineer
plan and incorporation
tentative map boundary which shall provide
IPD Condition (101)
of plan into a program
for a Slope Maintenance Program designed to
of long term
ensure that risks of slope failure are
maintenance. Slope
minimized. This slope maintenance program
maintenance
shall address recommendations contained in
requirements shall
the project geotechnical report.
be incorporated
The Slope Maintenance Program document
into CC &R's.
shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Geologist, City Engineer, and
Director of Community Development prior
to issuance of permits for rough
grading. All geological recommendations
shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer and the City's
consulting geologist and geotechnical
engineer.
(3) The applicant's engineering geologist and
Vesting Map
Prior to issuance
City Engineer and
Review and approval
geotechnical engineering consultant shall
Condition (88)
of a grading permit
City Geotechnical
of grading plan
prepare a written review of detailed
Engineer
and issuance of
grading plans 0 " =40' scale). This
IPD Condition
grading permit.
written review is required to assure
(102)
that all geotechnical recommendations have
been incorporated into project plans
and specifications. Supplemental
recommendations shall be made on
a lot by lot basis as necessary
and any additional testing shall
be completed prior to submission
of grading plans. The grading plan
review by the applicant's consultant
may also include a recommendation
to conduct additional subsurface
investigation, if necessary. At the
time of grading plan submittal,
the applicant shall submit this
written review to the City Engineer
and consulting City geologist and
geotechnical engineer for review and
approval.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 6 August 16, 1996
Geologic, Geotechnical and Seismic Hazards
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Development Feasibility Determination
(1) Development of the flag area of Lot 3
Vesting Map
New IPD required
Community
none required for
should not be approved by the City until
Conditions
Development
current IPD -95 -2
one of the following three objectives is
0 and 86)
Project
accomplished: (1) remedial mitigating
measures are proposed that will
IPD Condition
preclude slope failure and loss
0 and 100)
of the access road during the
design earthquake event; or (2) the
area of the fill slope /access
road to the flag area of Lot 3 is
redesigned to avoid the potentially
liquefiable alluvium; or (3) a
secondary access road is designed
and funded.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 7 August 16, 1996
Air Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Construction Effects
During Preliminary Site Clearing and Grading
(1) All material excavated or graded shall be
Air Quality EIR
Monitoring is to
City Building and
Verification of
sufficiently watered to prevent excessive
Mitigation Measure
occur daily during
Grading Inspectors
field compliance
amounts of dust. Watering shall occur
Conditions (1)
the rough grading,
and City Planning
by City staff or
at least twice daily with complete
through (12) are
site preparation,
staff.
APCD.
coverage, preferably in the late
superseded by
and final grading
APCD staff would
morning and after work is done
Vesting Map
phases of
potentially seek
for the day.
Condition 0 33)
construction.
enforcement if
through (158)
These conditions
Conditions are
(2) All clearing, grading, earth moving,
and IPD Conditions
should be attached
not complied with
or excavation activities shall cease
0 16) to 0 34)
to the specifications
during grading.
during period of high winds (i.e.,
for grading contractors.
greater than 20 mph averaged over
one hour) to prevent excessive
amounts of dust. Construction
grading shall be discontinued on
days forecasted for first stage
ozone alerts (concentration of
0.20 ppm) as indicated at the
Ventura County APCD air quality
monitoring station closest to the
City of Moorpark. Grading and
excavation operations shall not resume
until the first stage smog alert
expires.
(3) All material transported off -site
shall be either sufficiently watered
or securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
(4) Face masks shall be used by all
employees involved in grading or
excavation operations during dry periods
to reduce inhalation of dust
which may contain the fungus
which causes San Joaquin Valley
Fever.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 8 August 16, 1996
Air Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(5) The area disturbed by clearing, grading,
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
earth moving, or excavation operations
shall be minimized to prevent excessive
dust generation.
Measures that Apply to Other Construction
Activities
(6) All inactive portions of the construction
Measure (6) through
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
site shall be seeded and watered
(9) are superseded
until vegetative cover is restored.
by Vesting Map
All active portion of the
Conditions
construction site shall be watered
(133) to (158)
sufficiently to suppress excess dust
and IPD Conditions
generation.
(116) to (134)
(7) On -site vehicle speed shall be limited
to 15 mph. All areas experiencing
vehicle traffic (e.g. parking areas,
dirt roads linking different construction
areas, etc.) shall be watered periodically.
(8) If used to suppress dust, petroleum -based
dust palliatives shall meet the
road oil requirements of Ventura
County APCD Rule 74.4 (Cutback Asphalt).
(9) Streets adjacent to the project site shall
Same as #(6) above
Same as #(6) above
Same as #(6) above
Same as #(6) above
be swept as needed to remove silt which
may have accumulated from construction
activities to prevent excessive dust
generation.
Measures Designed to Control Ozone Precursor
Construction Emissions
(10) Equipment engines shall be maintained
in good condition and in proper
tune as set forth in manufacturers
specifications.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 9 Augurt 16, 1996
Air Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(1 1) During smog season (May through October),
Same as #(6) above
Same as #(6) above
Same as #(6) above
Same as #(6) above
the construction period shall be
lengthened to minimize the number
of vehicles and equipment operating
at the same time.
0 2) Construction activities shall utilize
new technologies to control ozone
precursor emissions as they become
available and feasible.
Occupancy and Operation Emissions
(1) The developers of all lots included
Vesting Map
Fees to be paid
Community
Receipt of fees
in the proposed Vesting Map shall
Conditions: none
prior to issuance
Development
to be verified
be required to make a contribution
of building
Director (or
by staff
to the reduction of local and
IPD Condition
permits
designee)
regional air quality impacts through
(32)
the payment of an air quality
impact fee to the Moorpark Traffic
System Management Fund consistent with
the fee recommendations for manufacturing
and commercial projects contained in
the Ventura County Guidelines to
Air Quality Impact Analysis.
Fees shall be paid for emissions in
excess of the 25- pound - per -day ROC /NOx
significance threshold. Fees shall
be paid prior to the issuance
of building permits for each
phase of industrial, office,
or manufacturing building
construction.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 10 August 16, 1996
Air Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(2) The commercial developments planned for
Vesting Map
After building
APCD staff
Compliance review
Lots 1 and 2 and the SDI manufacturing
Conditions: none
occupancy
is delegated to
program (Lots 3 and 4) shall comply with
APCD
Ventura County Air Pollution Control
IPD Condition 0 5)
District Rule 240 (details of this rule
are in preparation - -this rule will
supersede Rule 210). Rule 240 requires
that an employer develop and implement
a trip reduction plan containing
strategies to reduce the number
of individual drivers commuting to
the work site. Upon commencement of
operations, the commercial operators
shall notify the County APCD
Transportation Program Administrator of an
intent to begin operations. A plan
to reduce air quality effects shall
be coordinated with the APCD.
Potential vehicle trip reductions may
be achieved by (but are not untitled to)
any of the following or other ultimately
adopted reduction measures:
- Direct financial incentives for
employees who carpool, vanpool,
buspool, or use public facilities.
- Use of fleet vehicles for
ridesharing employees for personal
errands.
- Preferential parking for ridesharing
employees.
- Facility improvements which provide
preferential access and /or egress
for ridesharing vehicles.
- Personal rideshare matching and /or
active use of computerized rideshare
matching service such as Commuter
Computer.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 11 Augmt 16, 1996
Air Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
- A guaranteed ride -home program for
Refer to #(2) above
Refer to #(2) above
Refer to #(2) above
Refer to #(2) above
ridesharing employees in emergency
situations.
- An onsite day care facility.
- Facility improvements to encourage
bicycling and walking (showers, bicycle
racks, or lockers, etc.).
- Flexible work schedules to transit users,
bicycles, and pedestrians.
- Compressed work weeks such as 4/40 or
a 9/80 or a 3/36 work schedules.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 12 August 1 6, 1990
Groundwater Supplies, Domestic and Reclaimed
Water Systems, and Surface Water Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Impacts on Local Groundwater
Supplies and Extraction Systems
(1) Prior to certification of the Final
Verification of
One time activity
City Engineer
Verification of
EIR or approval of the Final Vesting
annexation feasibility
for verification
and /or City
annexation
Map, the feasibility of annexation
has been obtained.
of feasibility.
Community
provided
to the Water Works District No. 1
Vesting Map
City to monitor
Development
through LAFCO
service area shall be determined.
Conditions (41), (42),
annexation process.
Director.
process.
The pressure zone to which the
and 0 28a).
Geotechnical
project will be assigned shall be
IPD Conditions (207)
verification to
identified and the feasibility of
(67) (208) (209).
be provided prior
providing the required domestic,
to issuance of
landscaping, and fire flow supplies
building permits.
to all four proposed developable
Lots on the Vesting Map without
on -site reservoir storage shall
be documented. The infrastructure
plan for the project shall be
designed to address the details
for the placement of all required
water, sewer, and reclaimed
water conveyance facilities in
appropriate alignments. No alignments
shall be approved by the City Engineer
that pass through areas with potential
landslide or liquefaction hazards.
The applicant shall obtain all
necessary right -of -way and
easements to install the required
infrastructure in said alignments.
The City, at its discretion, may
assist with the acquisition of
such easements.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 13 August 16, 1996
Groundwater Supplies, Domestic and Reclaimed
Water Systems, and Surface Water Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
OAdeauacv of Potable Water Sunnlies,
Review of Water Demands, and
Domestic Water System Plannina
(1) Prior to certification of the Final
Final design issues
One time activity
City Engineer to
Verification of
EIR or approval of the Final Vesting
have been resolved
prior to zone
review and approve
compliance obtained
Map, the proposed infrastructure
in the EIR.
clearance or
infrastructure
through plan check
plan for the project shall be
IPD Conditions
issuance of
plans.
and zoning
designed to address unresolved questions
(207), (208),
building or
Community
clearance
regarding the capacity of and need
and (209).
grading permits.
Development p
processes.
for on -site storage, provision
Vesting Map
Director (or
of adequate fire flows, the sizing
Conditions (200)
designee) to
of all required mains and distribution
(201).
provide zoning
lines, and related pump station
clearance approval.
planning. The applicant shall
obtain all necessary right -of -way
and easements to install the required
infrastructure. The final infrastructure
plan shall be approved by Waterworks
District No. 1, by the City Engineer,
and by the Fire Prevention District
prior to approval of the Vesting Map.
Adequacy of Wastewater Treatment Planning
(1) Prior to certification of the Final EIR
IPD Condition
Same as #0) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #0) above
or approval of the Final Vesting Map, the
(209)
proposed wastewater treatment conveyance
facility plans for the project shall be
Vesting Map
designed to address unresolved questions
Condition (202)
regarding the capacity of adjacent
sewer mainlines, the ability of the
project effluent to be accommodated,
and the sizing of all required mains
and distribution lines, and related
pump station planning. The applicant
shall obtain all necessary right -of -way
and easements to install the required
infrastructure. The final wastewater
treatment conveyance line plan shall
be approved by Water Works District
No. 1 and by the City Engineer prior
to approval of the Final Vesting Map.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 14 August 16, 1996
Groundwater Supplies, Domestic and Reclaimed
Water Systems, and Surface Water Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Surface Water Quality Impacts from Construction
and Commercial /Manufacturing Operations
(1) An Erosion, Debris and Sediment Control Plan
Vesting Map
One time activity
City Engineer
Verification of
shall be prepared by the applicant to
Condition (97)
prior to issuance
(or designee)
compliance in
address construction impacts and long
of grading or
and City Building
plan check review.
term operational effects on downstream
building permits
Inspectors
Field verification
environments and watersheds. This plan
to be provided by
shall be prepared by a California
City Grading and
registered Civil Engineer. Proposed
Building Inspection
management efforts shall include (but
staff.
not be limited to) construction of
debris and detention basins as necessary,
provisions for the use of vegetative
filtering devices, preparation of detailed
erosion /sediment control plans, appropriate
use of temporary debris basins, silt fences,
sediment traps and other erosion control
practices. The proposed plan shall also
address all relevant National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements and recommendations for the
use of best available technology. The
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of grading permits for
rough grading.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 15 AugLat 16, 1906
Groundwater Supplies, Domestic and Reclaimed
Water Systems, and Surface Water Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(2) The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Vesting Map
Same as #0) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #0) above
shall provide that temporary erosion
Condition (89) (97)
and continuous
control measures shall be used
field verification
during the construction process to
during grading
minimize water quality effects.
period
Specific measures to be applied
shall be identified in the project
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
The following water quality assurance
techniques shall be included as
necessary:
• Minimize removal of existing vegetation.
• Provide temporary soil cover, such as
hydroseeding, mulch /binder and
erosion control blankets, to protect
exposed soil from wind and rain.
• Incorporate silt fencing, berms, and
dikes to protect storm drain inlets
and drainage courses.
• Rough grade contours to reduce flow
concentrations and velocities.
• Divert runoff from graded areas,
using straw bale, earth, and sandbag
dikes.
• Phase grading to minimize soil
exposure during the October through
April storm period.
• Install sediment traps or basins.
• Maintain and monitor erosion /sediment
controls.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 16 nugLat 16, 1996
Groundwater Supplies, Domestic and Reclaimed
Water Systems, and Surface Water Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
• The developer (or successors of interest)
will ensure that construction activities
include proper management and disposal
of concrete and other masonry wastes,
paint solvents and rinse wastes,
vehicle fuel and maintenance wastes
(including oil), and other construction
debris. This will minimize exposure of
these materials to storm water and
transport to the drainage system.
(3) To minimize the water quality effects of
Vesting Map
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
permanent erosion sources, the following
Condition (89)
design features shall be incorporated
into the project grading plan to the
degree determined necessary by the
project civil engineer. The City
Engineer shall review and approve
the grading plan to verify implementation
of the following water quality
enhancement features including:
• drainage swales, subsurface drains,
slope drains, storm rain inlet/
outlet protection, and sediment traps;
• check dams to reduce flow velocities;
• permanent desilting basins;
• permanent vegetation, including
grass -lined swales;
• design of drainage courses and storm
drain outlets to reduce scour.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 17 Augu•t 16, 1996
Groundwater Supplies, Domestic and Reclaimed
Water Systems, and Surface Water Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(4) Because the proposed uses for Lots 1, 2,
Vesting Map
Same as #(2) above
City Engineer
Same as #(2) above
and 3 are presently uncertain, the
Condition 0 00►
and periodic long
(or designee)
applicants for all Commercial or
and (101)
term monitoring for
Industrial Planned Development Permits
facility maintenance
on Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall be required
IPD Conditions
compliance
to prepare and submit to the City
(95) (96) (97)
for review and approval a Water Quality
Management Plan to address the specific
water quality impacts associated with
buildout of each manufacturing and
commercial Lot. This requirement may
be waived by the City Engineer (depending
on future uses and the potential for
water quality impacts). The management
regime recommended in these plans shall
require the long term maintenance of
water quality associated with buildout
of the Final Vesting Map. The City
may periodically monitor adherence to
the individual management plans.
The Plan shall require that each
manufacturing and commercial operator
incorporate the following management
practices into facility design and
operations:
• Best Management Practices for the
control of first flush pollutants
shall be required;
• pesticides and herbicides shall be
used sparingly on landscape
maintenance areas and such
materials shall only be applied
when necessary to cure a problem,
and in positively identified
pre- emergent situations, not as
a preventative measure;
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 18 August 16, 1996
Groundwater Supplies, Domestic and Reclaimed
Water Systems, and Surface Water Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
• fertilizers in either slow - release forms
Same as #(4) above
Same as #(4) above
Same as #(4) above
Same as #(4) above
or in light, frequent application of
soluble forms can be applied to improve
nutrient recovery;
• construction of all impermeable
surfaces with the potential to
introduce pollutants to the Arroyo
Simi shall first collect and drain
irrigation /storm water runoff to
first flush basins;
• to the degree feasible, the project
shall involve reusing collected
irrigation water;
• if areas of turf are included in
the landscape plan, computer controlled
irrigation systems with ground moisture
sensors shall be used to control
irrigation rates and levels to match
soil moisture and infiltration rates;
• when appropriate, wetting agents
shall be used to aid infiltration
and reduce runoff.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 19 August 16, 1996
Groundwater Supplies, Domestic and Reclaimed
Water Systems, and Surface Water Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(5) Runoff from developed areas shall be
Vesting Map
Same as #(2) above
City Engineer
Same as #(2) above
diverted to detention basins and
Condition 002)
(or designee)
then to underground first flush
filters, or other Best Management
Practices, as determined by the
City Engineer. These devices shall
be designed by a registered civil
engineer as part of the drainage
improvement plans for the project.
The basins and traps would require
periodic maintenance by the property owner,
commercial and manufacturing property
owners association, or other entities.
Provisions shall be made by the
applicant to provide for maintenance
of these structures in perpetuity prior
to Final Vesting Map approval.
(6) The grading permits issued for the
Vesting Map
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
development shall require maintenance
Condition (98)
schedules for earthmoving equipment
(100)
and documentation of proper disposal
of used oil and other lubricants. The
IPD Condition
applicant shall obtain all necessary
(97)
NPDES related permits prior to City
issuance of the initial grading permit
for the project.
(7) To comply with NPDES requirements,
Vesting Map
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
the applicant for Lot 3 shall prepare
Condition (98)
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) for the project; this Plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of permits
for rough grading. This plan shall
define how the receiving water bodies
(the Arroyo Simi) shall be protected
from degradation.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 20 August 16, 1096
Groundwater Supplies, Domestic and Reclaimed
Water Systems, and Surface Water Quality
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(8) The applicants for each lot shall be
Vesting Map
One time activity
City Engineer
NOI permit compliance
required to file a Notice of Intent to
Condition (98)
prior to issuance
(or designee)
documentation filed
meet State requirements regarding
of grading permits
with City
runoff associated with construction
IPD Condition
activity.
(95)
(9) Prior to undertaking any bank
Vesting Map
One time activity
City Engineer
404 permit compliance
stabilization or remedial work in
Condition 0 03)
prior to issuance
(or designee)
documentation filed
the Arroyo Simi, the applicant shall
of grading permits
with City
obtain a Section 404 permit from the
IPD Condition
Army Corps of Engineers.
(103)
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 21 August 16, 1996
Drainage, Sediment Transport,
and Flood Control Planning
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Changes to Drainage Patterns and Flow Volumes
Vesting Map
One time activity
City Engineer
Receipt and approval
(1) Prior to rough grading permit approval,
a Master Drainage and Flood Control
Conditions
prior to issuance
(or designee)
of plans. Plan
Improvement Plan shall be prepared which
(90) through (96)
of grading permits
and County Flood
check verification
identifies all required drainage and flood
and (104)
Control District
and field verification
control improvements necessary to implement
staff
of compliance by
the proposed project. This plan shall be
City Engineer
prepared in consultation with the Moorpark
Inspection staff.
City Engineer and the Ventura County Flood
Control District to facilitate required
interagency coordination. The plan shall
identify all major improvements and typical
drainage facilities for all developable lots
and all maintenance area lots included
within the Vesting Map boundary. The
capacity, location, and size of all
culverts, storm drains, collection
devices, energy dissipaters, and related
improvements shall be designed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Flood Control District. Capacity details
for the construction of any on -site
detention features shall be included in
the Master Improvement Plan. All
necessary permits required to implement the
Improvement Plan shall be obtained from
the County Flood Control District prior
to City issuance of a permit for
rough grading. The Master Plan shall
identify what improvements must be
completed coincident with the initiation
of rough grading.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 22 August 16, 1999
Drainage, Sediment Transport,
and Flood Control Planning
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Flood Control Bank Protection Alona the Arroyo
Simi
(1) If deemed necessary by the City Engineer
Vesting Map
One time activity
City Engineer
Receipt and approval
upon review of final grading and /or
Condition (105)
prior to issuance
(or designee) and
of plans. Plan check
building plans, a Bank Protection Plan
of building permits
and Community
verification and
shall be prepared to address potential
and reevaluation of
Development
field verifications
direct and indirect flooding related hazards
the need for bank
Director
by City Engineer
to Lots 3, 4 and the access road linking
protection when
(or designee)
Inspection staff.
these two lots (prior Lot 4 and access road
development proposals
now Lot 3). This Plan shall be prepared
are submitted for
after review and approval of the Master
lots (1) and (2)
Drainage and Flood Control Improvement Plan
(Mitigation Measure 1 above). The bank
protection devices incorporated into this
Plan shall, to the degree feasible,
emphasize the use of "soft" surface
improvements (such as gabions, erosion
control matting, buried retention features
such as subsurface retaining walls, and
similar devices) to minimize modifications
to the existing channel.
Potential locations for hazard remediation
shall be identified in the Plan.
Modifications to the Plan required by
the City Engineer or the Ventura
County Flood Control District shall be
made as requested. The Bank Protection
Plan shall also be reviewed by
the Department of Fish and Game
for compliance with 1603 Permit requirements.
An approved Bank Protection Plan shall
be completed prior to issuance of
rough grading permits or any building
permits for commercial or manufacturing
structures. Construction of any required
bank protection along the Arroyo Simi
must be completed before issuance of
Building Permits or occupancy approval.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 23 Augmt 15, 1996
Drainage, Sediment Transport,
and Flood Control Planning
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Issue 3: Debris Production and Transport
(1) Sediment yields in the watersheds within
Vesting Map
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
the project boundary shall be computed
Condition 0 06)
for pre - development and post- development
conditions in accord with methods outlined
in Erosion and Sediment Yields in the
Transverse Rannes, Southern California
(United States Geological Survey, 1978).
These estimates of sediment yield shall
be completed prior to approval of
the grading plan.
(2) Improvements related to sediment management
Vesting Map
Same as #0) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
shall be made which will be sufficient
Condition 0 07)
and long term
and periodic long
to reduce estimated sediment generation to
monitoring through
term monitoring
pre- development levels. These improvements
periodic review of
by County Flood
shall be made in conjunction with
facility
Control District
commencement of rough grading operations for
maintenance.
and Moorpark
the proposed developable lots. The design
City Engineer.
of debris or sediment retention facilities
shall be reviewed and approved by the
Ventura County Flood Control District and
the City Engineer. All improvements
related to debris management shall be
completed prior to the first rainy
season to occur after rough grading
has commenced.
Maintenance of any debris or sediment
control facilities shall be provided under
an agreement satisfactory to the Flood
Control District and the Moorpark City
Engineer. An improvement and maintenance
cost agreement enforceable upon the future
owners of the four developable lots
shall be required prior to the issuance
of initial rough grading permits or
recordation of the Final Vesting Map.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 24 August 16, 1996
Drainage, Sediment Transport,
and Flood Control Planning
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(3) The applicant or subsequent developers
Vesting Map
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
shall prepare an Erosion and Sediment
Condition 007)
Control Plan to address construction
impacts and long term operational effects
on downstream environments and watersheds.
This plan shall be prepared by a Civil
Engineer or a specialist in erosion
and sediment control planning. Proposed
management efforts shall include (but not
be limited to) construction of temporary
debris and detention basins in the project
watersheds, provisions for the use of
vegetative filtering enhanced by creekbed
reconstruction, preparation of detailed
erosion control plans, appropriate use
of temporary debris basins, silt fences,
sediment traps and other erosion control
practices. The proposed plan shall also
address all relevant NPDES requirements and
recommendations for the use of best
available technology. The erosion control
plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of Community Development
and City Engineer prior to the
issuance of grading permits for rough
grading.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 25 Augufft 16, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Destruction of Botanical Resources and
Sensitive Habitats
(1) Prior to initiation of rough grading
Vesting Map
Prior to approval
Community
City staff or
or approval of the Final Vesting Map,
Condition (47)
of Final Map or
Development
EQAP Monitor
a proposed Habitat Restoration Plan
issuance of rough
Director (or
to provide
shall be prepared by a qualified
IPD Condition
grading permit,
designee)
field verification
landscape architect with the assistance
(77)
plans are to be
EQAP Monitor,
and provide
of a native plant ecologist to assure
prepared and
and /or contract
reporting of
compensation for the loss of native
submitted to the
landscape
compliance.
habitats that will occur as a result
City for approval.
architect
Plan review
of project development; this plan shall
verification to
be reviewed and approved by the City
be provided by
Community Development Director prior
Planning staff.
to issuance of building permits. The
habitat restoration plan shall emphasize
the selective use of native grasses,
shrubs, trees, and plants in areas
of landscaping within the project boundary
and in the Caltrans interchange improvement
area. The plan shall also require
project perimeter planting and landscaping
of selected areas with the native plants
common to the native ecological communities
on the site (e.g., Salvia apiana, Salvia
leucoph ylla, Artemisia californica, Rhus
integrifolia, Eriogonum fascicu/atum, Encelia
californica, Calochortus catalinae,
Calochortus clavatus, Juncus textilis, Opuntia
basdaris, Mucronea californica, Anemopsis
californica).
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 26 Au9ut 16, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(2) The applicant shall fund a program to
Vesting Map
Same as #0► above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #0► above
plant and /or restore acreage equal
Condition (48)
to the amount of damaged or destroyed
oak woodland. To properly implement
IPD Condition
this program, an Oak Woodland Restoration
(78)
and Reforestation Plan shall be prepared
by a qualified landscape architect and
arborist; this plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Community
Development Director prior to issuance of
building permits. The precise number
of trees, replanting specifications,
tree sizes and locations and related
details shall be enumerated in the
plan once a final grading plan
is prepared for the project. The
intent of this program is to provide
3:1 replacement of oak trees that
are removed during grading and also
replacement of lost habitat. The
Plan shall require the 100 foot fill
slope along the northern perimeter of
Lot 3 to be fully restored with oak
woodland. The applicant (or a designee)
shall be responsible for maintaining the
restored oak woodlands (estimated to
be a period of five years) until the
native trees and associated understory
plants are successfully established and
the City's Director of Community Development
has approved in writing that maintenance
can be discontinued without resulting in
plant mortality.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 27 August 16, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(3) Prior to initiation of rough grading or
Vesting Map
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
approval of the Final Map, the site plan
Condition (49)
shall be revised, to the extent feasible,
to provide for preservation of riparian
IPD Condition
habitats situated on the north side
(79)
of the property bordering the Arroyo
Simi and floodway easement area.
In addition, a riparian restoration
and enhancement area shall be set
aside within the portion of Lot 6
that is situated inside the 100 year
flood limit line.
(4) Native plants shall be used in the
Vesting Map
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
restoration of areas disturbed by the
Condition (50)
and County Fire
and County Fire
construction of the project. The City
Protection District
Protection District
and Ventura County Fire Protection District
IPD Condition
staff
staff
shall monitor the use of native plants
(80)
through review and approval of all project
landscape plans. Native plants acceptable
to the County Fire Protection District
shall be used in fuel modification
zones. To facilitate recovery of native
plants in non -fuel management areas,
topsoil shall be cleared, removed,
stockpiled, and then, at the conclusion
of grading, redistributed on cut and
fill slopes. Replaced topsoil shall
be stabilized to prevent erosion.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 28 August 16, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(5) The applicant has proposed as mitigation
Vesting Map
Same as #(1) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #(1) above
that areas of the project site shall be
Condition (51)
retained in open space. An open space
easement (such as a conservation easement
IPD Condition
providing for dedication of development
(81)
rights) shall be recorded for Lot 5 (now
Lot A) and portions of Lot 6 (now Lots 4
and D) (within the 100 year flood limit
line) prior to or at the same time as
recordation of the first developable
lot identified on the Vesting Map.
Confirmation of the intent to conserve
lands with easements shall be made
in the project Development Agreement.
The treatment of the resources in
these conservation areas shall be addressed
in the Habitat Management Plan.
To implement these measures, the following
implementing measures shall be incorporated
into Vesting Map Conditions of Approval for
this project:
(1) No Zone Clearance shall be issued for
Vesting Map
Transfers to be
Community
Receipt of proof of
construction on Lots 1, Z 3, 4, or 10
Condition (51)
completed prior
Development
recordation from
(now Lots 1, Z and 3) of the Vesting Map
to issuance of
Director (or
the County Recorder's
until Open Space Lots 5, 7, 8 (now Lots A,
IPD Condition
Building or
designee) and,
Office
B, and C) have been recorded and any
(81)
grading permits
if required,
associated open space easements have been
approval of
transferred, dedicated or otherwise secured
format and
from development. Verification of Open
content by the
Space or Conservation Easement
City Attorney
dedications shall be provided with the
application for Zone Clearance. No
recordation of any Lots shall occur until
the completion of Ca/trans right -of -way
land exchanges have been documented
(if such exchanges are still a component
of the applicant's program for land
acquisition and transfer). Evidence
of the successful exchange of right -of-
way shall be provided in the form of
recorded easement or ownership documents
prior to the approval or recordation
of any Phase of the Vesting Tentative Map.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 29 AuQut 16, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(2) The development or physical improvement
Vesting Map
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
of Lot 5 (now Lot A) is prohibited. This
Condition (52)
Lot may be conveyed to an appropriate
public or land conservation entity at
the developer /subdividers discretion or
the Lot may be held in fee by the
subdivider. An irrevocable dedication
of all development, agricultural,
grazing, mineral, and extraction rights
and a Conservation or Open Space
Easement prohibiting all forms of
development (other than minor drainage
control or conveyance devices) shall
be placed on this Lot at the time of
recordation. Further, at the time of
recordation, a note shall also be
made on the Final Map that future
development is unconditionally
prohibited on Lot 5 (Lot A), with the
noted exceptions.
(3) Lot 6 (now Lots 4 and D) may either be
Vesting Map
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
recorded with an Open Space or Conservation
Condition (53)
Easement or the Lot may be retained by the
subdivider for future use and development
with Open Space uses. No prohibition
on future zoning or Genera/ Plan
modifications of the Open Space
designation on Lot 6 (Lots 4 and D) is
expressed or implied by the recordation
of this Lot.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 30
/kqust 16, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(4) Lot 7 (now Lot B) shall either (1) be
Vesting Map
Same as #0) above
Same as #0► above
Same as #(1) above
retained in applicant ownership, (2)
Condition (53)
conveyed either to the City of Moorpark
or (3) conveyed to the Ventura County
Flood Control District with deed
restrictions prohibiting the construction
of environmentally destructive
drainage conveyance or management devices.
At the time of recordation, a note shall
be made on the Final Map that future
development is unconditionally prohibited
on Lot 7.
(5) The development or physical improvement of
Vesting Map
Same as #0) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #0) above
Lots 8 and 9 (now Lot Cl shall be prohibited
Condition (54)
by deed restriction with the exception of
the installation drainage conveyance devices.
An irrevocable dedication of all
development rights and deed restriction
prohibiting all forms of development
(other than minor drainage control or
conveyance devices and necessary
environmental restoration) shall be placed
on these Lots at the time of recordation.
Further, at the time of recordation, a note
shall be made on the Final Map that future
development is unconditionally prohibited
on Lots 8 and 9 (now Lot Cl, with the noted
exceptions.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 31 Auouet 16, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(6) An updated tree report shall be prepared
Vesting Map
One time activity
EQAP Monitor or
Field verifications
once the required final geotechnical
Condition (55)
prior to issuance
other Community
and reporting to be
analysis of the project is complete and
of grading or
Development Director
provided by EOAP
final site design and grading evaluation
IPD Condition
building permits
designee. City
Monitor. Plan
has been completed. Any additional
(82)
Landscape Architect
verification to be
trees to be impacted by the project not
and /or contract
completed by City
included in the original assessment
biologist
Planning staff.
shall be incorporated into the tree
also would provide
report mitigation statistics (replacement
review assistance
value, etc.). To the degree feasible,
pertaining to
mature trees identified in the tree
tree replacement.
report at the margins of grading activity
shall be preserved whenever possible.
If preservation of the 46 potentially
impacted trees identified in the tree
report as likely to be adversely impacted
or destroyed by the implementation of
this project are destroyed, the value
of the trees removed shall be applied
to upgrading the size of oak tree
plantings associated with the project
identified in the Oak Woodland Restoration
and Reforestation Plan. Other methods
for complying with the intent of the
Moorpark Tree Ordinance may be considered
in providing offset for impacts to tree
species. Impacts to specimen trees shall
be addressed in the Habitat Restoration
Plan to be prepared for this project.
Impacts to Rare or Endangered Plant Populations
Vesting Map
Same as #(6) above
Same as #(6) above
Same as #(6) above
(1) Prior to approval of the Final Map and /or
issuance of rough grading permits, the
Condition (56)
two stands of Lyon's Pentachaeta must
be precisely mapped. The applicant shall
IPD Condition
fund all City costs to monitor the mapped
(83)
sensitive habitat areas during construction.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 32 August 16, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Impacts to Riparian Habitats
(1) Prior to issuance of building permits
Vesting Map
Same as #(6) above
Same as #(6) above
Same as #116) above
for either commercial or manufacturing
Condition (57)
facilities, the destruction and
modification of habitat within and
IPD Condition
adjacent to the riparian corridor shall
(84)
be compensated by the restoration of
Valley Oak Woodland and native riparian
tree canopy within the 100 year flood
limit line of Lot 6 (now Lots 4 and D)
adjacent to the Arroyo Simi. Mitigation
shall require successful establishment of
the following species and plant quantities:
Species Quantity
Populus fremontii (Cottonwood) 10
Alnus rhombifolia (Alder) 8
Acer negundo Subsp. (Box Elder) 8
Platanus racemosa (Sycamore) 20
Sambucus mexicana (Elderberry) 10
Juglans californicus (Walnut) 10
Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) 20
Quercus agrifolia (Live Oak) 20
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 33 August 16, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Trees shall at a minimum be 5 gallon
container specimens (except for willows
which can be 1 gallon in size) or bare
root at the time of planting with a
height of 7 feet from the root crown
to the top branch. A long term
supply of fresh (or reclaimed) water
shall be provided to assure the
perpetuity of the plants. Adequate
root guard protection shall be provided
to reduce mortality from rodent activity.
Department of Fish and Game 1603
Compliance procedures shall govern the
implementation of this restoration program
and a permit shall be obtained from this
agency prior to initiating rough grading
activities. Restoration areas shall
be incorporated into the project
Habitat Management Plan.
(2) The Habitat Management Plan shall require
Vesting Map
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
the removal of the noxious giant reed
Condition (58) and
(Arundo donax) from the Arroyo Simi
IPD Condition
adjacent to the proposed project once
(85)
every three years or less frequently
if warranted. The landscape maintenance
program to be coordinated for slope
maintenance areas shall also address,
to the degree feasible, long term
removal of this species from the
portion of the Arroyo adjacent to
Lots 1, 3, and 4. Recommendations to
minimize regrowth of this plant shall
be identified in the Habitat Management
Plan.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 34 August 15, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Indirect Impacts and the Distribution to the
Ecoloay of Surroundina Open Space
(1) Perimeter fencing shall be provided in
Vesting Map
One time activity
EQAP Monitor or
Field verification
areas where employees or visitors could
Condition (59)
upon completion
Community
to be provided by
obtain access to surrounding conservation
of finish grading
Development
EQAP Monitor
easement lands and maintenance areas which
IPD Condition
Director's
or Planning
can be used for native plant restoration.
(86)
designee
staff
(2) Off road vehicle (ORV) use on property
Vesting Map
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #0) above
within the project boundary shall be
Condition (60)
prohibited. Signage shall be placed
on the property indicating that ORV
IPD Condition
use is prohibited.
(87)
Construction Related Vertebrate Mortality
and Impacts to Faunal Resources
11► The applicant shall contribute $35,000
Vesting Map
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
to a sensitive species mitigation program
Condition (61)
to be managed by the City. The purposes
superseded by
of this program include (1) studying the
Development
location and distribution of sensitive
Agreement
species, (2) restoring marginal habitats
Conditions
within proposed onsite conservation easement
areas or within permanent public open
space or right -of -way, (3) contributing
to the purchase of endangered habitats
on private land within the City.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 35 nu9L.t 16, 1996
Biological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Cumulative Loss of Habitat, Plant Communities,
and Effects on Wildlife Corridors
(1) The project shall allow, to the extent
IPD Condition
One time activity
Community
Field verification
feasible, the preservation of the region
(87)
to be verified
Development
of fencing type to
as a secondary wildlife corridor for
by EQAP Monitor
Director's designee
be provided by EQAP
regional large animal movement. No
Monitor or Planning
fencing that is likely to preclude
staff
the use of this property as a
wildlife corridor shall be placed around
the perimeter of the property,
and all efforts to facilitate the
use of this property as a wildlife
corridor shall be made by the
applicant under the guidance of the
City.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 36 nugmt 16, 1996
Noise
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Issue 1: Short-Term Construction Noise
(1) No exceptions shall be permitted to
Vesting Map
During grading
Grading Inspector
Periodic inspections
construction activity limitations in City
Condition (35)
and construction
and Code Enforcement
Noise Ordinances in effect at the time
staff
individual Lots of the Vesting Tentative
IPD Condition
Map are developed.
(73)
(2) Designated parking areas for construction
Vesting Map
One time activity.
EQAP Monitor
Field verification
worker vehicles and for materials storage
Condition (36)
Designated areas
and City
by the EQAP
and assembly shall be provided. These
to be determined at
Engineer
Monitor and /or
areas shall be set back as far as
IPD Condition
pre- construction
City Engineering
possible from or otherwise shielded from
(74)
meeting.
staff
residential neighborhoods situated north of
the project site across the Arroyo Simi.
Impulse Noise Associated with Manufacturing
Activities
(1) All manufacturing processes and testing
Vesting Map
Verification of the
Community
Field verification
with sustained noise sources in excess
Condition (37)
addition of building
Development
of noise associated
of 65 dBa shall be contained within the
containment for
Director
with daily operations
plant facility. No uncontained detonations
IPD Condition
impulse noise to
(or designee)
to be performed by
shall be permitted. Compliance with this
(75)
be provided on site
and Building
City Planning staff
requirement may be achieved by a variety
plan. Long term
Reviewer
and building plan
of means including undergrounding facilities
monitoring to be
review by Building
for impulse tests, providing noise absorbing
achieved through
and Safety staff.
above ground structures, or by other means
periodic review of
devised by a certified acoustical consultant.
facility operations.
No single event testing shall be exempt
from this requirement. The tolerated
noise generation for the project at
the property line for Lot 3 shall not
exceed 65 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and
60 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. pr CNEL
values shall not exceed 65 dBA, whichever
standard is more restrictive.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 37 August 16, 1996
Noise
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Impulse Noise Associated with Manufacturina
Activities (continued)
If ambient noise levels exceed these
restrictions due to the proximity of State
Route 23, the ambient noise level shall be
the standard that shall not be exceeded at
the property line of Lot 3.
(2) The City shall require annual noise
Vesting Map
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
monitoring and reporting for any sustained
Condition (38)
noise generating activity. The Industrial
Planned Development Permits for any project
IPD Condition
constructed on Lot 3 shall be subject
(76)
to this requirement. If Lots 1 or
2 are converted from anticipated
commercial to manufacturing uses, noise
monitoring and reporting requirements shall
also apply to these lots as well.
The City shall, in the conditions for
the Industrial Planned Development Permits
associated with the project, reserve
the right to require additional noise
mitigation if monitoring data indicates such
mitigation is advisable.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 38 Augurs 16, 1996
Fire Hazards, Fire Suppression and
Risk of Upset Conditions
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Fire Potential in the Proiect Vicinity: Topoaraohv
and Fuel
(1) Prior to approval of the Final Vesting
Draft EIR mitigation
All measures to
Staff of the County
Compliance to be
Map or issuance of building permits
measures have been
be satisfied
Fire Protection
verified through Plan
for any Lot, the applicant shall
superseded by
prior to issuance
District to review
Check. Field
retain a certified fire management
Vesting Map
of grading or
and approve all
verification, as
professional and a landscape architect to
Conditions (161)
building permit
plans. City Plan
required, to be
prepare a Fire Hazard Reduction Program;
through (196).
issuance unless
Check staff to
provided by
this program shall be prepared in
All EIR measures
otherwise
verify inclusion
Fire District
consultation with the County Fire Protection
have been included
specified in
of all District
staff, EQAP
District and shall be approved by
in these revised
revised
requirements.
Monitor, or
the Director of Community Development.
conditions.
Conditions'
A Community
Building Inspection
The certified fire management professional
IPD Conditions
of Approval.
Development
staff as appropriate.
shall be familiar with the objectives
(166) through
Director designee
of fuel management in wildland -urban
(203) also
(City staff, EQAP
interface. A native plant specialist
supersede EIR
Monitor) shall
shall participate in the development of
conditions.
monitor field
the fuel management program. The
conditions.
program shall apply to all lands
within 200 feet of the developed
portion of the project (or as amended
by the certified fire professional).
The vegetation management requirements of
the plan shall be clearly defined.
The proposed Owners Association shall be
responsible for implementing this program in
perpetuity. Fuel modification zones are
proposed to be retained in as natural
a state as safety and fire regulations
will permit. The zone will be designed
by and planted under the supervision
of a landscape architect with expertise
in native plant materials and habitat
restoration, with the approval of
the Director of Community Development,
to appear as a transition between
the built environment and natural open
space.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 39 August 16, 1906
Fire Hazards, Fire Suppression and
Risk of Upset Conditions
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Within the modification zone, native and
non - native high -fuel vegetation will be
removed and replaced with low -fuel
vegetation. The height of plant
materials will be kept to a minimum.
Planting requirements should include a
combination of trees, shrubs,
and groundcover. Irrigation should not
be provided unless necessitated by the
plant materials selected.
(2) All structures adjacent to open space
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
and structures with blow -out walls shall
be designed to satisfy fire retarding
architectural and building code requirements
of the City and the County Fire
Protection District.
Adequacy of Dual Access
(1) Provisions for adequate all weather dual
Refer to #(1) above
The Vesting Map
Community
Revisions are
access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be
has been revised
Development
complete for Lot 3.
incorporated into future submittals for
to reflect
Director or
Lots 1 and 2
Commercial or Industrial Planned Development
recommendations
designee
dual access to be
Permits. Approval of adequate dual access
in the Draft EIR
determined by
plans for both of these lots shall be
and Alternatives
future CPD
required prior to Final Vesting Map
Analysis regarding
Permit.
approval. An acceptable primary and
Lot 3 (prior Lot
dual access plan for Lot 4 (now flag area
4 was deleted).
of Lot 3) shall be prepared prior to
Dual access to Lots
certification of the Final EIR.
1 and 2 to be
If such a plan, acceptable to the
established by
County Fire Prevention District,
future CPD
cannot be conceived, then Lot 4 should
Permits.
be deleted from the Vesting Map and the
land within Lot 4 should be incorporated
into Lot 3 (this revision was made).
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 40
August 15, 1996
Fire Hazards, Fire Suppression and
Risk of Upset Conditions
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Construction Related Fire Hazards
To mitigate construction related fire hazards,
Refer to revised
Periodic during
EQAP Monitor,
Field verification
the following mitigation measures shall be required:
mitigation measures
the grading
City Building
by EQAP Monitor
referenced above
portion of the
and Grading
or other
(1) During all grading and site clearance
construction
Inspectors, and
identified monitors
activities, earth moving equipment shall
process
Fire Protection
be equipped with spark arrestors and at
District
least two portable fire extinguishers per
vehicle. All equipment used in the
vegetation clearance phase shall be equipped
with spark arrestors and best available
fire safety technology. The vegetation
clearance activities shall be coordinated with
and approved by the County Fire Protection
District.
(2) All equipment and material staging activities
Refer to revised
Same as #0) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #(1) above
shall be coordinated with the County Fire
mitigation measures
Protection District. Notification of staging
referenced above
locations and equipment storage areas shall
be provided to the District and a location
acceptable to the District shall be designated.
Fire prone construction activities (initial
vegetation clearance, hauling and stockpiling
of vegetation, or any construction
activity involving concentrated sources of
heat) shall be prohibited during
"Santa Ana" wind conditions.
Cumulative Impacts on Fire Protection Services
(1) The primary and dual access road system
Refer to revised
Measure to be
County Fire Protection
Review and
proposed for the project shall be
mitigation measures
satisfied prior
District staff and
approval of grading
reviewed and approved by the Ventura
referenced above
to issuance of
City Plan Check staff
and building plans
County Fire Protection District prior to
grading or building
issuance of grading permits.
permits
(2) Approved turn around areas for fire
apparatus shall be provided where any
access road is 150 feet or
more from the main project access.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 41 <urgun 16, 1996
Fire Hazards, Fire Suppression and
Risk of Upset Conditions
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(3) If deemed necessary by the District, the
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
project shall include a helispot and
associated fire suppression equipment storage.
Any heliport facilities shall be indicated
on the Final Map for the project.
(4) Any gates to control vehicle access are to
Same as #(1) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #0) above
be located to allow a vehicle waiting for
entrance to be completely off the public
roadway. The method of gate control shall
be subject to review by the County Fire
Protection District. A minimum clear
open width of 15 feet in each direction
shall be provided. If gates are to be
locked, a Knox System shall be installed.
(5) Prior to approval of the Final Vesting Map,
Same as #(1) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #0) above
proposed street names shall be submitted
to the Fire Department Communication Center
and City Engineering Department for review
and approval.
(6) Street signs consistent with County Road
Same as #(1) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #0► above
Same as #0) above
and Fire District Standards shall be
installed prior to occupancy.
(7) Prior to construction, the applicant
Same as #(1) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #(1) above
shall submit plans to the Ventura
County Fire Protection District for the
approval of the location of fire hydrants;
all hydrants shall be shown on the plan
that are situated within 500 feet of the
perimeter of the development.
(8) A minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per
Same as #(1) above
Same as #0) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #0) above
minute shall be provided for all four Lots.
The location and capacity of all water
storage and conveyance facilities shall be
reviewed and approved by the District
prior to the recordation of the Final
Map and prior to the issuance
of building permits.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 42 Au9urt 15, 1996
Fire Hazards, Fire Suppression and
Risk of Upset Conditions
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(9) Fire hydrants shall be installed and in
Refer to revised
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
service prior to combustible construction
mitigation measures
and shall conform to the minimum standards
for Vesting Map
of the County Water Works Manual.
(161) through (196)
and IPD Conditions
These standards specify:
(166) through (203)
• Each hydrant shall be a 6 inch wet barrel
design, and shall have one 4 inch and
one 2 1/2 inch outlet.
• The required fire flow shall be achieved
at no less than 20 psi residual pressure.
• Fire hydrants shall be spaced 500 feet
on center, and so located that no
structure will be farther than 250 feet
from any one hydrant.
• Fire hydrants shall be 24 inch on center,
recessed in from the curb face.
0 0) All grass or brush exposing any structures
Same as #0) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
shall be cleared for a distance of 100 feet
prior to framing or assembly (for tilt up
concrete structures).
California Administrative Code (Title 24- Section
2.1217) requirements that shall be imposed on the
project include:
0 1► Address numbers, a minimum of 4 inches high,
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
shall be installed prior to occupancy, shall
be of contrasting color to the background,
and shall be readily visible at night.
Where structures are set back more
than 150 feet from the street, larger
numbers will be required so that
they are distinguishable from the street.
In the event the structure(s) is not
visible from the street, the address
number(s) shall be posed adjacent
to the driveway entrance.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 43 Augut 16, 1996
Fire Hazards, Fire Suppression and
Risk of Upset Conditions
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(12) Portions of this development may be
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #01 above
in a hazardous fire area and
those structures shall meet hazardous
fire area building code requirements.
Adeauacv of Water Suooly for Fire Suppression
Issues resolved prior
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
(1) The ultimate fire suppression and fire
flow requirements for buildout of all
to EIR certification.
four developable lots within the project
No additional
boundary shall be computed by the
mitigation required.
applicant's Civil Engineer based on a
reasonable projection of future uses.
If projected fire flows would not
be adequate using proposed pump station
volumes, then on -site reservoir storage
shall be provided commensurate with Fire
District projections of fire flow requirements.
This issue shall be resolved prior to
certification of the Final EIR.
Risks of Fire, Ex[)losion, Detonation, and
Other Upset Conditions
(1) For any lots developed with manufacturing
IPD Conditions
All required plans
Plan review by
Community
uses, the applicant shall prepare a Risk
(145) through
to be prepared
appropriate
Development
Management Plan, Emergency Response Plan,
(147)
and periodically
Federal and State
Director (or
and Hazards Materials Management Plans
updated to assure
agencies and County
designee) to
acceptable to the City and the County
low level of risk
Fire Protection
periodically
Fire Prevention District. These plans
to the community
District
monitor compliance
shall be reviewed and approved by the
activities and
City Director of Community Development prior
facility operations.
to Final Inspection or issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 44 August 16. 1996
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 45 August 16, 1990
Condition of Approval
Timing /Actions/
Transportation and Circulation
Reference
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Issue 1: The Effects of Proiect Added Traffic on
Future Year 2000 and 2010 Intersection Conditions
(Proiect Specific Impacts)
(1) The applicant (SDI) shall contribute to the
Vesting Map
Fees to be paid
City Engineer
Receipt and
Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution
Condition 0 25)
prior to issuance
and Director
acceptance of
Fund. The fee that shall be imposed on
of building
of Community
fees by the
the project shall be defined by the City
permits
Development
City
Council as a condition of approval for
the Tentative Vesting Map and Industrial
Planned Development Permit. The proposed
fee of approximately $150,785 (for 150,000
square feet of development) shall be
reviewed and revised since the proposed
project has been substantially increased in
size since this fee was originally
negotiated (in December of 1994).
(2) The applicants for future commercial
Vesting Map
Fees to be paid
Same as #0) above
Same as #0► above
projects shall make appropriate contributions
Condition 0 25)
in the future
to the Los Angeles Area of Contribution
prior to issuance
Fund based on fee schedules in
of building
effect at the time of building
permits
permit issuance.
(3) The applicant (SDI) shall contribute to
IPD Condition
Fees to be paid
Same as #01 above
Same as #0) above
the City -wide Traffic Mitigation Fee
(31)
in accord with
Program that is currently under consideration.
Development
The fee that shall be imposed on the project
Vesting Map
Agreement
shall be defined by the City Council as a
Condition 0 26►
disposition
condition of approval for the Tentative
Vesting Map and Industrial Planned
Development Permit. The proposed fee
of approximately $75,000 (for 150,000
square feet of development) shall be
reviewed and revised since the proposed
project has been substantially increased in
size since this fee was originally
negotiated (in December of 1994).
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 45 August 16, 1990
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 46 August 16, 1996
Condition of Approval
Timing /Actions/
Transportation and Circulation
Reference
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(4) The applicants for future commercial
Vesting Map
Same as #(3) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #01 above
projects shall make appropriate contributions
Condition 0 26)
to the City -wide Traffic Mitigation Fee
and 0 27)
Program. If such a City -wide fee is not
adopted prior to application for building
permits, the appropriate fee shall be imposed
as a condition of approval for Commercial
Planned Development permits.
Operation of the New Los Angeles Avenue /State
Vesting Map
Interchange to
City Engineer
Same as #(1) above
Route 23 Interchange with Full Proiect Buildout
The applicant has agreed to fund a major
improvement of the State Route 23 /New Los
Condition 0 10)
be upgraded prior
and City
Angeles Avenue Interchange that has been
to occupancy
Traffic
coordinated with the City and Caltrans.
Engineer
With the completion of this improvement,
all impacts to this location associated
with the project and cumulative buildout
will be fully mitigated.
Proiect Consistency with the Ventura
County General Plan
(1) The applicant (SDI) and applicants for
None - until a
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
future commercial projects shall make
City- County Mutual
appropriate contributions to any adopted
funding agreement
reciprocal traffic mitigation fee agreement
is signed
between the City of Moorpark and the
County of Ventura in effect at the
time an entitlement is granted. This
participation shall be based on a
pro -rata contribution defined by
the City Traffic Engineer.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 46 August 16, 1996
Public Services and Utilities
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Educational Quality and School Facilities
(1) Prior to issuance of building permits for
IPD Condition
Fees to be paid
Director of
Receipt of
either the manufacturing or commercial
(53)
prior to issuance
Community
fees and
components of the project, all legally
of building
Development
acceptance
mandated school impact fees applicable
permits
(or designee)
by School
at the time of building permit application
District
shall be paid to the Moorpark Unified
School District.
Police and Emeraency Services
(1) Prior to issuance of building permits
IPD Condition
Prior to issuance
City Police
Modification
for either the manufacturing (Lots 3 and 4)
Condition 0 64)
of building
Department
of plans in
or commercial (Lots 1 and 2) components
permits, plans
and Director
accord with
of the project, the Moorpark Police
to be revised
of Community
security
Department shall review development plans
and amended
Development
recommendations.
for the incorporation of defensible space
as recommended
Field verifications
concepts to reduce demands on police
through Plan
services. To the degree feasible,
Check and
public safety planning recommendations shall
construction
be incorporated into project plans.
inspection
The applicant shall prepare a list of
process.
project features and design components
that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible
space design concepts. The City Director
of Community Development shall be responsible
for review and approval of all defensible
space design features incorporated into both
manufacturing and commercial projects. This
review shall occur prior to initiation
of plan check for either manufacturing
or commercial buildings.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 47 August 16. 1996
Public Services and Utilities
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(2) The applicant (or future applicants) shall
IPD Condition
Prior to issuance
Moorpark Police
Modification of
prepare and submit to the City Director
(160)
of building
Chief and
plans in
of Community Development for review and
permits, plans
Community
accord with
approval Security Plans for Commercial
to be amended
Development
security
Developments situated on Lots 1 or 2.
and revised
Director
recommendations.
These plans will be reviewed and approved
as recommended
(or designee)
Field verification
through the Commercial Planned Development
through Plan Check
permit process. A security plan shall
and construction
also be provided for manufacturing facilities
inspection process.
situated on Lots 3 or 4. SDI (or other
manufacturing facility developers) shall
provide a private security program to
assure the safety of all explosive and /or
hazardous materials used in present or
future manufacturing operations. These plans
shall be prepared to assure reduction
of potential service demands on police
or emergency service providers. The
plan shall be approved prior to the
issuance of building permits for
construction on any developable Lots.
Solid Waste Facilities and Planning
(1) Prior to approval of the issuance of
IPD Condition
Plan to be
Community
Preparation and
building permits for either manufacturing
(59)
prepared prior
Development
acceptance of
or commercial development on Lots 1, 2, 3,
to issuance of
Director
solid waste plan
or 4, a Solid and Hazardous Waste
building
by the City
Management Plan shall be prepared and
permits
submitted to the City Director of Community
Development for review and approval.
This plan shall include specific measures
to reduce the amount of refuse generated
by the proposed project and shall be
developed in consultation with the Ventura
County Sold Waste Management District and
the City of Moorpark to meet waste
reduction requirements established by
the California Integrated Waste Management
Act of 1989.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 48 August 16, 1996
Public Services and Utilities
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(2) The Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
IPD Condition (60)
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Plan shall include provisions for the
recycling of manufacturing or commercial
facility waste products suitable for reuse
programs. A green waste reduction
program for landscaping maintenance shall
be included in this Plan. Provisions for
on -site source separation and recycling
shall be incorporated into the building
plans for any buildings or facilities
constructed on Lots 1, 2 or 3.
(3) The Solid Waste Mitigation Plan shall
IPD Condition (61)
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
require the integration of waste reduction
and hazardous waste management concepts
into the project CC & R's for the Lots
included within the Vesting Map.
(4) Where feasible, the use of recycled building
IPD Condition (62)
Same as #(1) above
Community
Inclusion of proper
materials shall be included in the construction
Development
language in
of both the manufacturing and commercial
Director
CC &Rs
components of the project. Language
(or designee)
shall be included in the CC &R's to
to review
encourage such use.
compliance
(5) Any on -site commercial cafeteria(s)
IPD Condition (63)
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(4) above
Same as #(4) above
shall include "built -in" recycling and
trash separation areas.
(6) Both commercial and manufacturing projects
IPD Condition (64)
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
Same as #(1) above
shall include designated recycling areas
with appropriate bins to provide for
on -site source separation. Bins shall
also be provided for greenwaste and
related recyclable material. Specific
solid waste source separation areas shall
be provided for all Lots.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 49 Auou.t 15, 1996
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Project Visibility Alona Public Street View Corridors
Revised by Vesting
Review of Final
Community
Review and
(1) The entrance to the proposed project shall
incorporate suitable community entry
Map Condition (34)
Landscape
Development
acceptance of
monumentation, appropriate landscaping
Plans - The
Director
Final Landscape
at entry points, and a program of
IPD Condition
Project
(or designee)
plans
coordinated signage. An orderly and
(28)
Description
consistent street tree planting program
has been
shall be required for the project entrance
modified to
roads and entrances to the commercial
reflect this
properties (Lots 1 and 2). The streetscape
requirement
landscaping pattern along the entranceways
should incorporate vertical elements
(in the form of trees and /or lighting)
that help to define and enclose the street.
All entry roads shall be planted so trees
are spaced at equal intervals. Recommended
tree plantings for these entry points
shall be extended from the New Los Angeles
Avenue underpass into the parking area for
Lot 3.
(2) To the degree feasible and permitted by
Revised by Vesting
The project
Community
Review and
geotechnical constraints, the northern
Map Condition (33)
Landscape plan
Development
acceptance of
perimeter of the project adjacent to the
should be
Director
the Landscape
Arroyo Simi shall be designed to provide
IPD Condition
modified to
(or designee)
plan by the
a setback from the escarpment above the
(27)
reflect this
City.
Arroyo Simi. An oak woodland restoration
requirement
Field verification
zone shall be provided on the edge and
prior to submittal
by EQAP Monitor
side slope of this re- graded escarpment.
to the City for
or City arborist
The entire areas of visible surface of the
review and
or landscape
fill slopes proposed along the northern
approval
architect.
side of the development should be planted
and screened with native woodland tree
species common in oak woodland habitats.
The ridge system demarcating the northern
perimeter of the project should, to the
extent feasible, be restored to native
woodland conditions. Landscaping around
the escarpment system, once it is stabilized
after rough grading, shall emphasize
reestablishment of existing native and
non - native habitat.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 50 August 16, 1996
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 51 Auout 15, 1990
Condition of Approval
Timing /Actions/
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Reference
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Proiect Visibility Along Public Street View Corridors
(continued)
The landscaping program around
the escarpment boundary shall emphasize
the use of tiered, tree lined buttress
fills, which should be set back in
segments to prevent highly visible
buttress or crib walls.
(3) Lot 3 along the western perimeter of the
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
Same as #(2) above
project shall incorporate the use of
a berm and extensive tree and shrub
native landscaping to minimize the visibility
of the manufacturing facilities.
Transfqrmation of the Rural Landscape and Quality
of Life Impacts on Surrounding Properties
(1) The lowest intensity adequate night lighting
Vesting Map
Photometric
Same as #(2) above
Review of photometric
shall be required within the streetscape
Condition (39)
plans to be
plans prior to
and at intersections. A photometric
and (46)
submitted for
zoning clearance
plan shall be prepared which shall
review and
have, as a primary design objective,
approval prior
creating a low intensity night lighting
to zoning
solution to development of Lots 3 and 4.
clearance for
All lighting within 200 feet of the
a building
Arroyo Simi shall be shielded and
permit
directed away from the Arroyo. Building
lighting restrictions shall be included in
the project CC and Rs and Planned
Development Permit conditions for all four
developable Lots.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 51 Auout 15, 1990
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
Issue 5: Hillside Management Considerations
11► The design of the project shall be modified
Development
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
to comply, to the extent feasible, with
Agreement
the design guidelines and development
Language and
standards contained in the City's Hillside
agreements
Management Ordinance. The framework
supersede this
for compliance is provided in the EIR
condition
analysis of applicable features of the
Ordinance (in Chapter 16 of the EIR).
Final details concerning landscaping,
streetscape, and the architecture of
manufacturing facilities shall be
provided to the City Director of
Community Development as part of
the IPD compliance process.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 52 Auguut 16, 1996
Cultural and Heritage Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(1) A cultural resource monitoring program shall
Vesting Map
Grading Monitor
EQAP Monitor to
EQAP Monitoring
be instituted during the initial vegetation
Condition (62)
to be continued
arrange for
report to
clearance for the project. The purpose
until all
qualified monitor
verify compliance
of this monitoring program is to determine
IPD Condition
clearing,
and Chumash
with mitigation
if any significant deposits not identified
(89)
grubbing, and
representative
program
during the Phase I and II survey exist
initial 2 meters
within the project boundary. The monitoring
of excavation
shall be limited to the initial
by heavy equipment
vegetation clearance phase of the grading
is completed
program. If cultural deposits meeting
the significance criteria defined in CEQA
Guidelines are encountered, limited data
recovery shall be conducted. The costs
of this data recovery shall be limited
as defined in Appendices to CEQA Guidelines.
Chumash representatives shall be actively
involved in the monitoring and any
subsequent phases of the project mitigation
program. Participation shall include
monitoring of archaeological investigations,
construction monitoring, and data analysis.
(2) Prior to initiation of rough grading, the
Vesting Map
Data recovery
Qualified cultural
EQAP or Community
surface artifacts situated within Ven -898
Condition (63)
to be completed
resource specialist
Development Director
shall be mapped, recorded, and collected
prior to
to clear the deposit
to be informed
and this data, together with previously
IPD Condition
initiation of
prior to initiation
that site deposit
collected Phase II subsurface testing
(90)
rough grading
of grading and
is cleared prior
information, shall be incorporated into
issuance of grading
to issuance
a cultural resource mitigation document for
permit
of grading
the project. This report should also
permit
address the results of any investigation
related to monitoring of initial grading
activities.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 53 August 16, 1996
Paleontological Resources
Condition of Approval
Reference
Timing /Actions/
Frequency
Monitoring Staff
Measure of Compliance
(1) A paleontological mitigation plan outlining
Vesting Map
Data recovery to
EQAP Monitor to
Completion of
procedures for paleontological data recovery
Condition (64)
be conducted during
review grading
data recovery
shall be prepared and submitted to the City
initial grading
activities and
report or
Community Development Department Director
IPD Condition
monitoring if
request presence of
EQAA Monitoring
for review and approval prior to the
(91)
significant
paleontologist
report (if no
initiation of mass grading. The development
on an as- needed
resources are
and implementation of this program shall
basis
found during
include consultations with the applicant's
grading)
engineering geologist. The monitoring and
data recovery shall be performed by a
qualified paleontologist. The data recovery
should include periodic inspections of
excavations and, if necessary, fossil data
recovery should be performed to recover
exposed fossil material. The costs of
this data recovery shall be limited to
the recovery of a reasonable sample of
available material. The interpretation
of reasonableness shall rest with the
City Community Development Department
Director. The costs of this paleontological
mitigation plan shall not exceed the
financial limitations set forth in CEQA
Appendix K Guidelines.
Mitigation Monitoring Program - 54 Aupun 15, 1096
Attachment B
Resolution Number 96 -1221
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDINGS FOR
THE SPECIAL DEVICES, INC., PROJECT (GENERAL
PLAN NO. 95 -1, ZONE CHANGE NO. 95 -3, VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 5004, IPD PERMIT NO. 95 -2,
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 96 -1)
Legal Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15091, which
requires the preparation of Findings Concerning the Mitigation of
Environmental Effects, states:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for
which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more
significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation
of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the Final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can
and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR."
The CEQA Guidelines further direct that the Findings shall be supported
by substantial evidence in the record of the project.
The certified Final
identifies thirteen
must be prepared:
EIR on the Special Devices Incorporated Project
types of environmental effects for which Findings
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 1 5 -21 -96
(1) land use and planning considerations and project consistency with
adopted environmental Goals, Plans and Policies;
(2) geologic effects and seismic hazards;
(3) air quality impacts on the local and regional airshed;
(4) changes to surface water quality and extraction of groundwater
supplies;
(5) impacts resulting from changes to drainage patterns and the
transport of sediment;
(6) effects on biological resources;
(7) noise impacts on City residents;
(8) fire hazards and fire suppression;
(9) effects on both local and regional traffic circulation;
(10) impacts on public services and private utilities;
(11) effects on aesthetics and visual resources; and
(12) impacts to cultural; and
(13) effects on paleontological resources.
If the decision of a public agency to approve a project allows the
occurrence of significant effects which are not at least substantially
mitigated, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared.
Such a Statement has been prepared for this project and is a attachment
to City Council Resolution No. 96-
Thresholds of significance useful for distinguishing between an
environmental effect that is adverse and can be mitigated or an effect
that is unavoidable are defined in CEQA Statutes, State Guidelines,
Appendices to State CEQA Guidelines, City Guidelines implementing CEQA,
and in County thresholds and standards related to regional environmental
effects (e.g., air quality, water quality).
Impacts for Which Findings are Required
Land use and Planning Considerations and Project Consistency with
Adopted Environmental Goals, Plans and Policies
c:\1 -m\sdi\ceqa. fnd 2 8 -21 -96
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
Ten potentially significant land use issues were identified as having the
capacity of generating potentially significant environmental effects;
these potential impacts include: (1) modifications that needed to be made
to the Vesting Tentative Map that were required to provide for proper
slope maintenance; (2) additional landform modifications that may have
been required if on -site water storage was to be required; (3) changes
needed to be made in the access arrangements for Lots 1, 2, and 3, and
the design of the modifications to the State Route 23 /New Los Angeles
Avenue interchange were required; (4) the financial feasibility of the
proposed grading remediation program for Lots 3 and 4 needed to be
evaluated; (5) the Conservation Easement area needed to be defined with
certainty; (6) a Development Agreement was necessary for the project (for
exemption from the Hillside Grading Ordinance), and such an Agreement was
not in preparation at the time of Draft EIR circulation; (7) several
annexations were required to enable development of and service to the
project; (8) consultations were required with Trustee Agencies regarding
sensitive species and wetland intrusions; (9) design modifications were
required for the project to better conform with Hillside Management
objectives articulated in the City's Hillside Management Ordinance; and
(10) additional details were required to properly address Industrial
Planned Development requirements.
Findings
The City disclosed the potential for environmental effects concerning
these issues and required feasible and implementable mitigation measures
for each concern. In addition, the Final EIR included a revised project
design that incorporated feasible mitigation measures outlined in the EIR
and modifications recommended in the Alternatives Analysis in the Draft
EIR. Subsequently, the Project Description was formally amended and this
modified project was evaluated in the Final EIR; a final set of
Conditions of Approval were developed to mitigate any remaining impacts
not offset by project redesign. Applicable findings are that changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
as identified in the Final EIR [CEQA Section 15091 (a)(1)].
Rationale
The revised Project Description include all of the features recommended
in the Final EIR Alternatives Analysis which were necessary to improve
the land use compatibility of the project with surrounding properties and
to resolve outstanding concerns regarding infrastructure planning,
annexation, Trustee Agency consultation and related issues. These
changes included providing substantial open space dedications, arranging
c:\ 1- m\sdi \cega. fnd 3 8 -21 -96
for water service through consultations with Waterworks District No. 1,
further field evaluation for rare and endangered plant and animal
species, provision of additional details regarding construction, the
creation of an open space buffer in the form of an easement area within
which development would be restricted or prohibited and land dedications
to the City. In addition, limitations were imposed on the alignment of
infrastructure extensions. Specific changes in the revised Project
included:
• The total number of lots was reduced from 10 to 8, primarily due
to consolidation of open space, and only three lots (1, 2, and
3) are to be developed with commercial and industrial uses.
• Undevelopable or conservation easement dedicated open space lots
were assigned an alphabetical designation to avoid any confusion
about the potential for buildout of commercial or industrial
facilities on these parcels.
• In response to concerns about the feasibility of developing
original Lot 4, Lots 3 and 4 were combined into a single Lot 3.
Stringent Conditions of Approval were developed for the Vesting
Tentative Map which require geotechnical testing and development
of safe, reliable primary and secondary access for the remainder
portion of Lot 3 for which no specific development proposal has
been conceived by the applicant.
• Former Lot 5 was redesignated as an unbuildable parcel and was
assigned the designation Lot A.
• Former Lot 6 is now proposed to be two lots - -Lot 4 and Lot D.
• Former Lot 7 was redesignated as an unbuildable parcel and was
assigned the designation Lot B.
• Former Lots 8 and 9 were combined and redesignated as an
unbuildable parcel and were assigned the designation Lot B.
• A portion of former Lot 10 is now designated as a private road
easement and the remainder has been incorporated into Lot 3.
• The private road ( "A" Street) was modified to provide four
travel lanes between the intersection with New Los Angeles
Avenue and the Lot 3 driveway.
• "A" Street now terminates approximately 1,000 feet east of the
driveway location for the Phase 1 portion of Lot 3.
c:\ 1- m \sdi \cega. fnd 4 8 -21 -96
The proposed building elevations were revised to achieve greater
compliance with the Hillside Grading Ordinance requirements. Colors were
revised to emphasize blending the building massing with the surrounding
natural terrain. The roof line now includes more variation and is
slightly higher overall, with the highest point being 41 feet. A
terraced planter has been added along the north elevation. The proposed
beige and blue colors are intended to blend with the hillside and the
sky. The previously proposed white (building) and gold (door) colors
have been deleted.
The site plan was revised to show more clearly the parking area
dimensions, handicapped parking, type of parking and driveway area
surfacing, and bicycle parking and motorcycle parking locations. A wider
driveway has also been provided to allow two turn lanes in and out of the
facility which should improve peak hour circulation .
The consistency of the project with adopted environmental goals and
policies was evaluated in Chapter 5 of the Final EIR. With exceptions
related to air quality and impacts to biological and visual resources
which are referenced in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the
amended project as described in the Addendum to the Final EIR and in
exhibits provided by the applicant resulted in the incorporation and
adoption of all required, feasible mitigation measures. With these
modifications, the project was found to be in conformance with the goals,
policies, and programs in the applicable Elements of the General Plan.
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
According to the preliminary grading plans for the project, approximately
1,500,000 cubic yards of earth are to be graded to create building pads
and access roads. The proposed grading would be balanced on -site within
an initial major rough grading phase. Based on the preliminary
geotechnical report, cuts of up to 65 feet and fills up to about 120 feet
in depth would be created during site rough grading. Maximum cut and
fill slopes (lateral extent of slopes in plan view) would extend 400 to
500 feet in width and 500 to 900 feet in length, respectively. The
grading design has been conceived to minimize, to the extent feasible,
the adverse appearance of manufactured slopes by daylighting proposed
grades with contours of unmodified slopes. Based on the grading plans,
cut and fill slope gradients up to two horizontal and one vertical are
planned in most locations. Generally, ridges and hilltops are to be cut
and canyons filled in order to create relatively flat building sites and
access roads. Although this is generally compatible from a geotechnical
c:\I-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd S 8_21 -96
standpoint, the proposed grading would substantially alter the existing
on -site topography and drainage patterns.
Project construction and grading activities would involve removal of
vegetative cover, excavation and cut and slopes, and operation of heavy
equipment. Significant impacts to soils include accelerated erosion and
downslope deposition and increased potential for surficial sliding and
slumping. Compaction of soils by heavy equipment may reduce the
infiltration capacity of soils. The reduced infiltration may deprive
soil and vegetation of water and may substantially increase runoff and
erosion, particularly into the Arroyo Simi drainage descending along the
northern perimeter of the project boundary. Sedimentation patterns into
the creek would likely be greatly altered by denuding of slopes and by
grading activities at the site.
Surficial landslides and slope failures are present in three locations
within the property in the vicinity of pad locations. The constraints
posed by these landslides have been taken into account in the design of
the project. Few landslides or unstable slopes exist within the
manufacturing facility building area proposed for Lot 3 or commercial
Lots 1 and 2; however, landslides are present within and surrounding Lot
3. In addition, liquefaction related slope failures are predicted for
the access road proposed to link the flag area of Lot 3 to the primary
development portion of Lot 3.
A substantial portion of the central, eastern, and southern perimeter of
the SDI property is characterized by unstable slopes and existing
landslides. The proposed distribution of manufacturing and commercial
uses within the project boundary would minimize the potential hazards of
major landslides to damage commercial buildings or generate injury
related to failure; landslide failures and slope stability issues
primarily concern the development of Lot 3. Minor landslides are
sufficiently small that it is feasible to mitigate potential impacts
using conventional grading operations (i.e. removal or support with an
earth buttress).
The susceptibility of a soil to liquefaction is dependent upon various
criteria including (1) a loose consistency, (2) the presence of ground
water, (3) grain size distribution, and (4) intensity of ground shaking.
Based on data contained in the geotechnical report for the project,
liquefaction impacts are predicted to be significant. A substantial
amount of older alluvium is present within the building area within both
Lots 2 and 3 and in the vicinity of the proposed access road across the
fill slope to be constructed on the northern perimeter of Lot 3. This
material is failure prone, must be removed and stabilized. Impacts
associated with liquefaction potential are anticipated to be significant.
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 6 8 -21 -96
Ground shaking may also activate marginally stable landslides and
unstable slopes. Deep fill slopes constructed over older alluvium with
the capacity to liquefy are proposed in the northern portion of the
development, particularly adjacent to the potential access road that
would be required to link the flag area of Lot 3 with the primary
development area for that lot. Ground shaking from an earthquake could
cause surficial slumping or failure in this area with subsequent damage
to roads and parking lot areas. These potential liquefaction- induced
slope failure problems may result in future remedial costs to restore and
regrade some portions of the proposed access road and parking area on Lot
3. Further, since dual access has not been provided to the flag lot
portion of Lot 3, a liquefaction related slope failure could isolate the
building and its occupants during emergency or fire conditions. The
failure of this road could result in both structural damage and threats
to human safety that would result from slope failures along the fill
slope on the northern perimeter of Lot 3.
Colluvial deposits identified at the site are subject to creep, as are
some of the natural soils, which are also susceptible to soil slip /debris
flow. Most of these conditions can be mitigated by the geotechnical
planning in advance of grading; potentially unstable materials would need
to be removed. Only a few locations would be situated below natural
slopes with the potential for significant surface instability. Un-
cemented sands exposed in cut slopes would also be subject to surficial
deterioration.
There is some potential for significant damage to structures placed upon
insufficiently compacted soils during seismic events; in the case of the
SDI project, the access road connecting the two proposed development
areas of Lot 3 is situated in an area subject to subsidence, potential
impacts associated with this hazard were determined to be significant.
When lot specific and access road related structure geotechnical testing
is completed for this development, additional ground settlement tests
will be required and if such tests demonstrate any potential for
liquefaction or subsidence, the City Building and Safety Office will
require and enforce grading conditions to mitigate any potential impacts.
The City Engineer, however, may require additional testing prior to
certification of the Final EIR or approval of the Final Map. This issue
needs to be resolved prior to certification of the EIR.
Findings
The City disclosed the potential for adverse environmental and potential
property related effects resulting from the exploration of the geologic
suitability of the property for the uses proposed. Specific mitigation
measures were conceived to offset impacts related to (1) landslides and
slope stability, (2) seismic hazards related to fault rupture, (3)
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 8 -21 -96
liquefaction potential, (4) the suitability of the project site for the
proposed use and the appropriateness of the site design and grading
concept. Furthermore, the Draft EIR included an alternatives analysis
that recommended project redesign to minimize geologic hazards. A
revised project design was conceived that incorporated most of the
required mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR. Subsequently,
the Project Description was formally amended and a Final EIR was prepared
describing this revised alternative; a final set of Conditions of
Approval were developed to mitigate any remaining impacts not offset by
project redesign. Therefore, not only has the project been redesigned
to avoid adverse effects, mitigation measures have also been required to
offset any residual effects related to incomplete mitigation or inability
to redesign the project completely to eliminate impacts. The applicable
finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA
Section 15091 (a)(1)].
KFUNKORRVIN
Feasible and implementable mitigation measures were developed for each
area of geologic concern. Project mitigation measures require
additional, detailed, site specific geotechnical investigation and
preparation of further geologic studies prior to recordation of the
Vesting Map. Mitigation measures also require remediation of unstable
slopes, removal and stabilization of landslides, and compliance with the
recommendations of soil and geologic studies. With the imposition of
these mitigation measures and taking into account the redesign of the
project to avoid or minimize environmental effects, changes or
alterations have been required and incorporated into the project that
have reduced potential geologic hazards to insignificance.
Air Quality
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
The proposed project would result in both short -term construction impacts
during the project development phase and long -term impacts related to
increased vehicle trips associated with occupation and use of industrial
and commercial buildings. Short -term construction impacts would
primarily result from fugitive dust generated by the project grading
program to create the landscape improvements, building pads,
infrastructure improvements, and from exhaust emissions associated with
heavy -duty construction equipment. Cumulative long -term effects on the
regional air shed would result from both new building occupancy and use
of the proposed commercial center.
c:\I-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd g 8 -21 -96
Once completed, the proposed development would result in a long -term
source of air emissions. This would primarily be caused by an increase
in motor vehicle traffic, but would also include emissions from
stationary sources such as on -site natural gas combustion (heating,
etc.), on site mixing and processing of raw materials (the burning of
waste water filters, and clean up paper), evaporates used in wet mixing
processes, and off -site electrical powerplants (electrical demand). The
California Air Resources Board (Air Quality Analysis Tools, 1989) Model
URBEMIS version 5 was used to calculate the vehicle emissions of the
proposed project. The URBEMIS 5 Model inputs correspond (with minor
adjustments) with the trip generation rates used for the traffic
analysis.
The primary additional vehicle trips associated with development of the
Special Devices Incorporated Regional Headquarters Manufacturing Plant
Facilities, and Commercial Development Project would result from routine,
daily vehicle trips to and from the occupied buildings of the industrial
complex and trips resulting from occupation of the commercial buildings
within the project by employees and use of these commercial facilities
by residents of Moorpark and the surrounding region. The long -term air
quality effects of the project are almost exclusively related to
automobile emissions in the community airshed resulting from the proposed
commercial uses; the manufacturing and office uses associated with the
SDI facility itself would be comparatively minor.
Using the emission factors for commercial and manufacturing projects
provided in County Guidelines, construction of the proposed Phase 1
office and manufacturing facility would result in a total net increase
of 15.71 pounds per day of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) and 10.04
pounds per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx); with the addition of the Phase
2 expansion for Lot 3, total predicted emissions would be 23.03 pounds
per day of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) and 14.71 pounds per day of
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) for full buildout of Lot 3. While these emissions
do not exceed thresholds, with the addition of the proposed Lot 3 flag
lot expansion, total SDI project emissions are predicted to be 39.36
pounds per day of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) and 25.13 pounds per
day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Thus, with full buildout of the proposed
manufacturing facility, air quality impact thresholds would be exceeded.
The future development of commercial facilities on Lots 1 and 2
individually and collectively would result in significant unavoidable air
quality impacts. The new emissions to be generated by the commercial
aspects of the project can at least partially be offset by APCD
recommended mitigation measures. However, even with mitigation efforts,
including payment of mitigation fees, the project's incremental
contribution to a decline in the quality of air in the community would
be significant.
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 9 8 -21 -96
The volume of long -term operational pollutants generated by the proposed
project was judged to be significant (based on APCD significance
thresholds) . Because the Ventura County APCD uses the same long -term
operational thresholds to evaluate project specific and cumulative air
quality impacts, by definition, the proposed commercial components of the
project would have a significant cumulative impact on the degradation of
the airshed. Because project specific effects are significant and
unavoidable, cumulative effects are, by definition, also unavoidable.
The City disclosed the potential for significant, unavoidable adverse
environmental effects on local and regional air quality in the Final EIR
for this undertaking. Project modifications that would have reduced the
volume of pollutants were considered in the Alternatives Analysis. These
alternatives included:
Alternative l: No Project
Alternative 2: Reduced Manufacturing Facility Size (150,000 square
feet)
Alternative 3: Deletion of Lot 4 and Use of Commercial Lot 2 for
Manufacturing Facility Expansion
Alternative 4: Revised Vesting Map and Modified Project Alternative
Alternative 5: Alternative Locations
As disclosed in the rationale statement concerning project alternatives
in the concluding section of these findings, with the exception of
Alternative 4 (Revised Project Design), these alternatives were
determined either to be infeasible or not capable of being implemented,
or, the alternatives considered would not substantially reduce air
quality emissions. The adopted alternative, Alternative 4, failed to
result in a significant reduction of air quality impacts and therefore
a Statement of Overriding Considerations was required for this impact.
Mitigation measures were conceived which partially offset air quality
impacts. Since adverse effects were not fully mitigated, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared.
Without a substantial reduction in the size of the project, diminishing
air quality impacts sufficiently to reduce the impacts of the project to
non - significant levels cannot be achieved. For the reasons cited in the
c:\I-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 10 8 -21 -96
Alternatives Analysis section of these findings, a reduction in project
size was not recommended in the Final EIR as the environmentally superior
alternative.
Feasible and implementable mitigation measures were developed for both
construction and long -term operational emissions that were anticipated
to occur as a result of project implementation. These mitigation
measures include transportation demand management planning, construction
mitigation planning, and incorporation of trip reducing technologies into
the project (to the extent feasible and applicable) . With the imposition
of these measures and taking into account the redesign of the project to
avoid or minimize environmental effects related to air quality (e.g.,
decreasing the extent and duration of grading), impacts were reduced to
the extent feasible. Therefore, applicable findings are that changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final EIR [CEQA Section 15091 (a)(1)] and specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (CEQA
Section 15091 {a }(3)] that could have further reduced air quality
impacts.
The new emissions to be generated by the project can at least partially
be offset by APCD recommended mitigation measures. However, even with
mitigation efforts, including payment of mitigation fees, the project's
incremental contribution to a decline in the quality of air in the
community would be significant.
Groundwater Supplies, Domestic and Reclaimed Water Use, and Surface
Water Quality
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
Given the status of current imported water supply planning and the
likelihood that present expansion plans for wholesale water supplies will
be implemented in the near future, the project's impacts on imported
water supply limitations would be insignificant. In addition, both
Calleguas and County Waterworks District 1 have reviewed the project's
water demands, storage requirements, and related conveyance systems and
committed to providing domestic water service for the project.
Domestic water for the
Waterworks District No. 1
imported water sources t
supplies are limited and
reduced in accord with
project will be provided by Ventura County
The District's use of both underground and
o service the area is restricted; groundwater
regulated - -total future extractions must be
Groundwater Management Agency requirements.
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 11 8.21 -96
Imported water sources, while contracted for in good faith by both
Calleguas and the Metropolitan Water District, are subject to variation
in supply depending on northern California regional rainfall trends.
Imported wholesale water is delivered to the District by the Calleguas
Municipal Water District (CMWD) through nine metered locations within the
District's boundary.
Sources of water for the SDI Project will be provided by the District via
district turnout stations from Calleguas main service lines. The
proposed water supply for the project would be met using imported water
supplies rather than local groundwater. The applicant is proposing that
the project water supply requirements are to be accommodated by either
existing or planned reservoirs in either the 920 and 757 service zones
pursuant to the Master Facilities Plan for the District. If required,
supplemental reservoirs, which would be sized to accommodate the project
plus other needs of the District, have not yet been sited.
Wastewater collection and treatment is provided by the District at the
Moorpark Treatment Facility. Wastewater is conveyed from developed
portions of the City through gravity sewer mains to the Moorpark
Treatment Plant. Wastewater mains are present in Science Drive in close
proximity to the SDI Project; therefore, limited infrastructure
extensions would be required to access existing wastewater main lines.
The projected sewer treatment demands associated with the three lots that
would be developed with either commercial or manufacturing uses are
projected to be 197,410 Gallons Per Day (GPD) for the three Lots (1, 2,
and 3) that would be served via a mainline extension from the New Los
Angeles Avenue Interchange northbound ramp to the existing main adjacent
to Science Drive.
First flush pollutants (hydrocarbon, oil, and automobile residues
deposited in stream channels as a result of initial seasonal rains) have
the potential to affect water quality in the Arroyo Simi. The Regional
Water Quality Control Board does not consider such parking lots, even
large parking lots, as either primary or significant point source
pollutant generators. However, NPDES regulations and planning guidelines
for the use of Best Management Practices recommend that consideration be
given to implementation of a system of water quality management that
prevents first flush pollutants from being discharged into important
riparian systems. Therefore, while the impacts of the pollutants
discharged from the parking lots within the area to be developed on Lots
1, 2, and 3 may only result in very minor impacts to water quality in the
Arroyo Simi, mitigation measures will be required to comply with NPDES
water quality maintenance requirements.
Erosion and sedimentation resulting from construction of the proposed SDI
project and related commercial structures would result in considerable
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 12 8 -21 -96
short -term construction related effects. Ultimately, erodible areas on
the property would be protected with landscaping and extensive hardscape
and building development. With implementation of recommended mitigation
measures, the development would not contribute to cumulative erosion and
sedimentation impacts. However, contaminants present in runoff generated
by additional urban development within the watershed, in conjunction with
contaminants from existing urban development and other sources including
septic systems within the project vicinity and treated wastewater
discharge from the Moorpark Treatment Plant would potentially result in
minor degradation of water quality within the Arroyo Simi and downstream
areas of the Arroyo Las Posas tributaries. Further, runoff generated by
cumulative development may potentially increase water levels within
downstream channels, resulting in changes to the stream chemistry and
biology. However, given the relatively small area within the project
boundary to be impacted (approximately 100 acres) and the large size of
the watershed (about 129 square miles) the degree of project contribution
to long -term cumulative impacts is considered minor and insignificant.
Findings
The City disclosed the potential for adverse environmental and potential
property related effects resulting from the extraction of water from
local groundwater sources, the use of landscaping maintenance chemicals,
and the increase in impervious surfaces capable of transporting water
quality reducing chemicals from parking areas and streets. A number of
changes and alterations were required to the design of the proposed
wastewater and domestic water extraction and conveyance system; the
protection of water quality will be assured through the preparation and
implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan and related stormwater
management plans. Finally, requirements were established for coordination
with another agency (Water Works District No. 1) and which is responsible
for the management and distribution of water supplies and fire flows for
the project. Therefore, not only has the project been redesigned to
avoid adverse effects, mitigation measures have also been required to
offset any residual effects related to incomplete mitigation or inability
to redesign the project completely to eliminate impacts.
Therefore, the applicable finding is changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR [CEQA Section 15091 (a )(1)].
Rationale
Specific mitigation measures were conceived to offset impacts related to
(1) groundwater management, (2) wastewater treatment line relocations and
domestic water conveyance lines, (3) monitoring use through time to
c:\I-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 13 8-21-96
measure and correct for any effects on surface water quality, (4) the
potential for erosion and sediment impacts related to grading, temporary
erosion control, and (5) the long -term use and management of chemicals
both in the manufacturing facility and on exterior landscaping.
Based on available data, the proposed project effluent can feasibly be
processed by the Moorpark Treatment Plant without adverse effects on
long -term or short -term treatment capacity. The total treatment demand
would not adversely affect treatment capacity. A contract for the
provision of this water has been proposed by the applicant and approved
in concept by the District.
Although chemicals are used in the maintenance of landscaping, the array
and volume of these materials are minor compared to comparable
agricultural activities. With proper management of landscaping
maintenance, facility operations, and storm drain first flush facilities,
no contamination of downstream surface waters from the project even under
worst case conditions.
Drainage, Hydrology, and Flood Control Planning
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
The anticipated improvements that will be required to achieve the basic
objective of detaining on site the increased water and debris flows
resulting from the proposed project will involve (1) the development of
on -site detention basin capacity to retain abut 44 cfs of discharge which
would result from construction of the development (Mary Lewis, Project
Engineer, South Bay Engineering, Personal Communication, March 1996), (2)
installation of properly sized drainage conveyance devices from the on-
site retention to the Arroyo Simi, and (3) improvement and replacement
of existing drainage conveyance devices adjacent to State Route 23. The
Ventura County Flood Control District has indicated that implementation
of all of these improvements will be required.
In addition, the proposed development will be required to provide for
improvements within on -site drainages (i.e., catch basins, piping, and
culverts); these facilities will need to be designed to comply with City
of Moorpark and the Ventura County Flood Control District standards.
With proper detention and debris basin planning, changes to on -site
drainage volume and patterns would not have a significant impact to
downstream drainage facilities or adjacent properties.
The primary watershed descending through the project (the Arroyo Simi)
carries a very substantial and rapidly moving volume of water during
major storm events (Final EIR on Arroyo Simi Channel Improvements
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 14 8 -21 -96
Hydrologic Analysis, page 5 -5). Lots 1, 2 and 3 are situated in close
proximity to the existing banks of this drainage. In several places,
these existing flood control channels are subjected to scouring water;
vertical banks are also characteristic of the channel and such banks are
subject to failure during high water velocity events. The types of soil
present along and above the floodplain of the Arroyo, particularly
adjacent to Lot 3, are relatively erosible.
Based on a preliminary review of the Arroyo Simi hydrology calculations,
geological setting, and landform shape in relation to stormwaters, it is
reasonable to assume that Lot 3, including the flag lot portion and
access road, would potentially be subject to potentially undermining bank
erosion and /or earthquake related slope failure that could otherwise
impact or modify existing banks. Lots 1 and 2 are situated well above
the Arroyo and no improvements are planned along the northern portion of
these lots at this time. The potential for loss of or damage to some
manufacturing, commercial, or related access road improvements along the
northern portion of the project and the potential for damage to parking
and roadway improvements along the Arroyo Simi drainage are considered
significant impacts.
Without proper bank protection and flood control planning related to the
design of future uses on the flag lot portion of Lot 3, which is bounded
at grade on the northern and western perimeter by the Arroyo Simi,
significant adverse impacts could occur as a result of (1) stormwater
induced road failures, (2) ponding in the vicinity of Lot 4 if the arroyo
breaks out or is redirected from its present channel, and (3) bank
scouring which could undermine bank or bridge stability; these impacts
are considered potentially significant. It is also important to
recognize that bank protection alone would not remediate the potential
for damage and impact that may result from predicted liquefaction related
failure in the proposed fill slope along the northern perimeter of Lot
3. Bank protection is required to prevent undercutting of this fill
slope which could contribute to slope failure, especially in saturated
conditions.
Runoff and stormwater quality control measures would need to be
implemented during and after construction to avoid silt and debris
transport effects. Additional efforts will also be required to comply
with the National Pollutant Discharge System requirements for stormwater.
The cumulative effects of downstream silt and debris transport could be
potentially significant. During the mass grading period, the amount of
debris exiting the site at the property boundary during construction
would be substantially greater than natural conditions if the proposed
debris basin is not constructed coincident with the onset of mass
grading. Therefore, a significant short -term impact could occur if
grading were allowed to proceed into the first rainy season without
c:\1 -m\sdi\ceqa. fnd 15 8 -21 -96
putting into place appropriate debris management technology (a Class II
impact).
The cumulative effects of downstream debris transport would be
potentially significant even if a net reduction in long -term silt and
debris movement results from implementation of the project. On -going
maintenance will be required to excavate and transport excess sediments
from any on -site debris and retention basins to offsite locations.
Trapped sediments would consist mostly of granular materials such as
sands and silts. Sediments trapped in the detention basin would carry
only very minor potential for contamination from parking lot related
discharges and manufacturing uses. Without proper maintenance, the
proposed debris and detention facilities would fail to accomplish the
objectives for which they have been designed.
The City disclosed the potential for significant adverse environmental
effects on local and regional drainage systems and existing flood control
improvements. Project modifications that would have reduced the volume
and dispersal of pollutants were considered in the Alternatives Analysis.
As disclosed in the rationale statement concerning project alternatives
in the concluding section of these findings, with the exception of
Alternative 4, these alternatives were determined either to be infeasible
or not implementable, or, the alternatives considered would not
substantially reduce flood control related effects. A number of changes
and alterations were required to the design of the flood control system
for the project; the applicant has agreed to implement all required
mitigation. Therefore, not only has the project been redesigned to avoid
adverse effects, mitigation measures have also been required to offset
any residual effects related to incomplete mitigation or inability to
redesign the project completely to eliminate impacts.
Therefore, the applicable finding is that changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR (CEQA Section 15091 (a )(1)].
Rationale
The applicant had not proposed an urban runoff mitigation program and
therefore as planned, extensive erosion could occur during the initial
grading program. In addition, runoff and stormwater quality control
measures were needed to be implemented during and after construction to
avoid silt and debris transport effects. Additional efforts would also
be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge System
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 16 8-2 1-96
requirements for stormwater. Mitigation measures related to the
protection of water quality and proper collection and dispersal of
floodwaters has been assured through the requirement to prepare a Master
Drainage and Flood Control Improvement Plan and a Bank Protection Plan
(if determined to be necessary by the City Engineer) prior to the
initiation of grading activities.
Biological Resources
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
Development of Lot 3 and related rough grading site preparation for Lot
2, the access road to serve these two Lots, and limited remedial grading
on Lot 1 would result in the direct loss of approximately: (1) 13 acres
of cactus scrub, (2) 1 acre of California Walnut Woodland, (3) 1 acre of
Alluvial Scrub, and (4) indirect modification of 18 acres of other
aquatic and riparian habitats. These communities all meet the
definitions of significant rare or sensitive habitat. A substantial
portion of the land around the perimeter of the manufacturing and
commercial portions of the project would need to be cleared and modified
for fire protection purposes, further diminishing the existing native
plant communities. Disturbance associated with clearing and grubbing,
grading, and equipment storage and rough earth movement would further
destroy an undetermined amount of less significant types of vegetation.
Total sensitive native habitat loss resulting from implementation of the
project is estimated to be about 40 acres (distributed over a variety of
community types). The adverse effects resulting from destruction of
sensitive habitats and plant communities would be very significant.
Therefore, implementation of the project would contribute significantly
to the gradual, potentially inevitable, elimination of locally
significant plant communities as existing, viable habitats.
A total of 110 mature trees were counted and evaluated in detail within
the approximately 140 acre boundary of the Lot 1, 2, and 3 manufacturing
and commercial development construction area. According to the current
grading and construction plans, there are 45 trees estimated to be
destroyed by construction on Lot 3 (Phase 1 of the SDI manufacturing and
office facility project). The destruction of oak specimen trees,would
result from development of Lots 1, 2 and 3, and is considered a
significant impact.
A total of 18 sensitive plant species are known to occur historically in
the vicinity of the study area. Of these, four species were determined
to occur (or to potentially occur) within the study area due to the
suitability of on -site habitat. These include the Lyon's Pentachaeta,
which is both a Federally Proposed and state - listed Endangered Species,
c: \1 -m\sdi \ceqa.fnd 17 8 -21 -96
and the slender- horned spineflower, a state and federally- listed
endangered species. The two clusters of Lyon's pentachaeta ( Pentachaeta
lyoni) located on the property are located within herbaceous communities
along ridgelines in the southeast corner of the property would not be
impacted by construction.
Of the biological resources found on -site, the riparian and cactus scrub
communities are considered to be the most sensitive. The riparian
communities (Alluvial Scrub and Mulefat Scrub) cover 17.5 acres of the
property. Because, riparian habitats represent high -value wildlife
habitat and are rapidly diminishing throughout California, these
communities are considered sensitive by natural resource agencies. The
cactus scrub located in isolated locations on the site serve as habitat
for the cactus wren, a species of bird listed as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service federal candidate (Category 2) for listing as threatened or
endangered. The non - native grasslands and disturbed areas are not
considered sensitive.
The main riparian corridor is on the north side of the project boundary
and surrounds the Arroyo Simi. There are no other blueline streams
located on the property. While most riparian areas would be subjected
to indirect impact, primarily, some unknown portion of the riparian
habitat in the Arroyo Simi would be subjected to direct impacts,
particularly along the northern and western perimeters of the flag lot
portion of Lot 3 and the northern perimeter of Lot 2. The proposed 100
foot (or greater) fill slope in the northern portion of Lot 3 would also
result in direct and indirect impacts to riparian vegetation. In
addition, riparian communities would be directly affected by increased
erosion both during and after construction of the project facilities and
by increased runoff from the parking areas within the project boundary.
Direct impacts to the riparian corridor would result from the following
activities:
• construction of bank protection and drainage conveyance
devices along the northern perimeter of the development
adjacent to Arroyo Simi;
• clearing, grubbing, and grading for the construction
along the embankments above the present flood channel;
and
• construction of flood control improvements and retention
basins.
Although it is difficult to estimate the area of direct impact given the
level of detail presently available concerning final commercial and
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 18 8 -21 -96
manufacturing hydrology and flood control design, drainage routing, bank
protection requirements, and related matters, based on an initial
computation of the zone of direct impact on riparian areas, approximately
18 acres of riparian habitat are likely to be impacted either directly
or indirectly by the project. The adverse effects of construction within
and adjacent to the riparian corridor would result in direct or indirect
impacts to about 18 acres of habitat or potential habitat, a significant
impact requiring mitigation planning.
Indirect effects on the habitats adjacent to the project are predicted
to occur as a result of project approval. The potential adverse
biological effects on surrounding biological resources could potentially
include increased and unregulated recreational use of surrounding lands,
intrusion of non - native plants and domestic animals into the remaining
relict components of the surrounding natural ecosystem, and the creation
of impediments to wildlife dispersal. Disturbance to nearby habitats
through increased noise, traffic, lighting, and general human activity
are also potentially significant.
Construction of the project would result in wildlife mortality. This
impact was determined to be an adverse but not significant impact. The
extent of animal mortality would not seriously impact the viability of
any vertebrate species. Regional animal populations would be sustained
despite the mortality of vertebrates associated with construction
disturbances.
A total of 31 sensitive or special interest faunal species (including 7
reptiles, 17 birds, and 7 mammals) are known to occur in the vicinity of
the project site. Two sensitive bird species, the Federal Candidate
Category 3b San Diego cactus wren, and the Federal Candidate Category 2
Southern California roufous - crowned sparrow were observed within the
study area during the late spring -early summer census of fauna. In
addition, the Coastal whiptail, a reptilian Federal Candidate Category
2 species, and the American Badger, a mammalian California Species of
Special Concern, were observed on the site. A complete description of
all of the candidate species and sensitive species observed within the
project boundary is provided in the Biological Resources Technical Report
(Appendix 5).
Due to the nearly complete anticipated destruction of existing plant
communities within the central portion of the property and the
anticipated transformation of the environment which would occur with
implementation of the project, adverse effects on these special interest
species are anticipated to be permanent and significant; predicted
impacts include temporary dislocation, essential habitat removal,
construction mortality, and long -term habitat loss and related species
displacement. While candidate and special interest species were observed
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 19 8.21 -96
or are expected to occur within the project boundary, with the exception
of the Cactus Wren and Least Bell's Vireo, no presently designated State
or Federal threatened or endangered wildlife species were observed or are
expected to occur on the site due to the lack of suitable habitat.
Buildout of Lot 3 for the SDI facility and Lots 1 and 2 for commercial
uses would result in the destruction or permanent alteration of
approximately 140 acres of wildlife habitat (a Class I impact), due to
construction disturbance and required fire clearance. The total extent
of habitat destruction or modification cannot be estimated with precision
until a refined grading plan is prepared and the location and extent of
all on -site and off -site improvements are designed. However, in general,
the present design of the project would result in a transformation of
native habitats from open space areas with high wildlife value to
manufacturing and commercial facilities surrounded by relict areas of
habitat.
A 100 -foot or greater Fuel Modification Zone, which will be required to
be created around the perimeter of the manufacturing and commercial
sites, would also result in the destruction of a substantial amount of
habitat. The area of disturbance and modification of habitat extends
beyond the direct impact area. Cumulative indirect habitat effects would
also result from habitat degradation associated with human occupation.
Fuel modification and other transformation of native habitat would result
in cumulative impacts to existing vegetation (a Class II impact).
The direct loss of habitat resulting from construction as well as the
indirect loss through habitat degradation would destroy or significantly
compromise the entire site as a functioning ecologic system (a Class II
impact) . The cumulative impact would be to seriously modify remaining
stands of a threatened vegetation community and the associated complex
of birds, reptiles, amphibians, and other life forms.
Development of this project would eliminate or severely diminish
relatively sedentary species that currently live within the project
boundary. More mobile vertebrate species would be displaced into
adjacent habitats which are already likely to be saturated with
conspecifics.
These displaced individuals would also suffer high mortality rates.
Widely- foraging vertebrates such as raptors and carnivores would
experience a contraction of foraging space, the cumulative effects of
which are elimination of the entire site as an ecologic unit. The direct
and cumulative effects of habitat loss on existing vertebrate populations
is considered significant.
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.ffid 20 8 -21 -96
The entire project site in its present form functions less as a wildlife
corridor and more as a refuge or destination area for wildlife. The
project represents one of the larger areas of intact, open space land,
not previously disturbed by agricultural uses, along the northern
perimeter of the City of Moorpark. Imbedded within the regional
landscape surrounding the project site are several natural features that
could be considered wildlife corridors.
Any of the deeper ephemeral washes and intact streams in the area offer
value as potential wildlife corridors. These elements are particularly
valuable because they dissect a series of habitats along their entire
length thereby contacting a wide variety of vertebrate species.
Therefore, the potential loss of this "secondary linkage" wildlife
corridor is considered significant.
Findings
The City disclosed the potential for environmental effects concerning
biological resource impacts and determined that for most of these
impacts, feasible and implementable mitigation measures could be
identified. Changes or alterations have been required in the Project
Description to preserve biological resources (e.g., creation of habitat
restoration areas, conservation easement areas, and the use of native
plants in the landscaping program). In addition, the Final EIR included
a revised project design that incorporated most of the required
mitigation measures outlined in the EIR. Subsequently, the Project
Description was formally amended and additional analysis of the revised
project alternative was included in the Final EIR; a revised set of
Conditions of Approval were developed to mitigate impacts not offset by
project redesign.
Therefore, applicable findings are that changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR [CEQA Section 15091 {a }(1)] and specific economic,
social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR [CEQA Section 15091
{a }(3)] that could have further reduced impacts on biological resources,
flora, fauna, and rare and endangered plant and animal species.
Mitigation measures were prepared to address all issues related to the
biological significance of the property to be developed. For each
impact, corollary mitigation measures were designed which, in general,
would reduce impacts to acceptable levels. This mitigation planning
included offsetting measures to compensate for: (1) the destruction of
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 21 8 -21 -96
botanical resources and sensitive habitats, (2) impacts to rare and
endangered plant populations, (3) impacts to riparian habitats, (4)
indirect effects on and disruption of the ecology of the surrounding open
space, (5) construction related vertebrate mortality and impacts to
faunal resources, and (6) cumulative loss of habitat, plant communities,
and effects on wildlife corridors. In regard to issue 6, mitigation was
determined to be incomplete and therefore a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was prepared.
Noise
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
Potentially significant short -term increases in ambient noise levels may
be perceived by residents living north of the project vicinity (north of
the Arroyo Simi) as a result of:
(1) construction vehicle ingress and egress to the project site;
(2) activities in construction staging yards;
(3) the operation of temporary on -site generators;
(4) daily construction worker ingress and egress to the project site;
(5) prolonged rough and finish grading;
(6) facility construction and related materials deliveries.
The loudest construction -type activities may require more than 1,000 feet
of distance between a source and a nearby receiver to reduce the average
91 dBA source strength to a generally acceptable 60 dBA exterior exposure
level (from stationary equipment) . The only residential areas in the
project vicinity are situated about 2,000 feet north of the construction
boundary.
Since noise from localized sources (such as noise from construction
equipment) typically attenuates (decreases in audibility with increased
distance from the source) by about 6 dBA with each doubling of distance
from source to receptor, outdoor receptors (residential neighborhoods
north of the Arroyo Simi) set back from the construction area by more
than 1,000 feet from the construction boundary would experience about a
45 dBA sound attenuation.
c:\1 -m\sdi \ceqa.fnd 22 8 -21 -96
This level of construction noise would not cause significant annoyance
for any surrounding residential area. The topography of the project site
and existing community and roadway noise associated with State Route 23
would also tend to mask and further attenuate construction noise.
The primary source of noise with the potential to impact sensitive
receptors in the community is motor vehicle traffic on the surrounding
road system. Existing noise sources and CNEL values along these
corridors have been accurately defined in the 1994 Technical Report for
the Noise Element update to the City's General Plan. Moreover, due to
the inaccessibility of the majority of the site and the substantial
distances from the proposed locations of residences and other sensitive
receptors from the New Los Angeles Avenue /State Route 23 interchange, no
supplemental on -site noise monitoring was determined to be necessary to
complete the impact evaluation for vehicle related noise.
One of the qualities of sound propagation impacts related to traffic
volumes on the street and highway system is that existing noise levels
tend to "absorb" the noise that might be created by additional traffic
volumes. For example, in order to produce a two to three dBa increase
in CNEL noise levels along State Route 23 and adjacent street system
segments (an increment of change that is barely audible to the human
ear), traffic volumes would need to increase 100% above existing levels.
Therefore, the volume of traffic that would be generated by the proposed
project would not result in a perceivable change in noise volumes based
on the audibility criteria outlined in Section 11.2 above. Therefore,
buildout of manufacturing and commercial uses on Lots 1, 2, and of the
Vesting Tentative Map and completion of Phases 1 and 2 of the SDI project
would not result in adverse or significant noise impacts to sensitive
receptors or residential neighborhoods along the local street system
associated with the project.
One component of the SDI manufacturing process involves testing devices
in a manner that results in periodic detonations that result in un-
contained noise (i.e., noise that is either directed outside of the
manufacturing building or disperses beyond the containment provided) .
The impulse noise related to operation of the project is periodically
scheduled throughout a typical manufacturing week. This impulse noise
would be recurrent but relatively infrequent; however, the present
testing frequency may or may not reflect future patterns depending on
inspection and permit requirements, changes to manufacturing procedures,
product development and related issues. Further, SDI may engage in
product development that could result in other sources of periodic
testing noise that are currently unanticipated. Because of the materials
being tested and manufactured involve detonations, without containment,
noise impacts on the surrounding community could result from product
manufacturing and research activities.
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 23 8 -21 -96
Modeling the effects of such impulse noises is difficult to achieve at
the project site until construction is complete and the on -site noise
propagation characters of the site and manufacturing activities are
actually measured. However, given the predicted values of impulse noise
and the potential future sources of noise that are unknown at this time,
impulse noise from the manufacturing buildings is predicted to be a
significant impact requiring mitigation. Further, the proximity of
future commercial uses on Lots 1 and 2 to the SDI manufacturing plants
proposed for Lots 3 and the flag area portion of Lot 3 could interfere
with retail uses in an unfavorable manner, making it difficult to obtain
the most desirable uses at these locations.
The City disclosed the potential for environmental effects concerning
construction noise and roadway noise in relation to the proposed
development. On the basis of these disclosures, mitigation measures were
required for construction and operation related noise impacts. The
required mitigation would avoid or substantially reduce the significance
of construction and operation noise impacts. In addition, the Final EIR
included a revised project design alternative that incorporated most of
the required mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR.
Subsequently, the Project Description was formally amended and a revised
project description was analyzed in the Final EIR; a final set of
Conditions of Approval were developed to mitigate any remaining impacts
not offset by project redesign. Therefore, not only has the project been
redesigned to avoid adverse effects, mitigation measures have also been
required to offset any residual effects related to incomplete mitigation
or inability to redesign the project completely to eliminate impacts.
Therefore, the applicable finding is that changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR (CEQA Section 15091 (a )(1)J.
The noise impacts of the project were determined to be adverse and
potentially significant during both the construction and operation phases
of the project. Construction related mitigation measures have been
required which should effectively reduce the construction noise impacts
of the project to insignificance and conditions of approval were
developed which will require all testing detonations to occur within
structures designed to absorb noise.
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 24 8 -21 -96
Fire Hazards and Fire Suppression
Anricilpated Adverse Environmental Effects
Although the area surrounding the SDI Project is characterized almost
exclusively by chaparral and scrub vegetation, to a considerable degree,
the project is insulated along its northern perimeter from regional
wildland fire influences by the Arroyo Simi and residential as well as
commercial development. Native plant types in the surrounding hillside
include many different species which have adapted to frequent fires and
extended periods of drought. The steepness of slope, soils, elevation,
intensity of wind movements, fire frequency and climate all contribute
to and influence the distribution and fire susceptibility of plants
within the vegetation communities immediately adjacent to the project.
Primary fire related risk in the project vicinity would result from a
fast burning high intensity chaparral fire. These types of fires are
less easily contained and suppressed than fires in oak woodland and
grassland areas south and west of the SDI Project site. Property damage
and loss of life are likely in chaparral fires which are characterized
by rapid, high intensity burning patterns. Therefore, design features
have been incorporated into the project to reduce fire risks.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased
demand for fire protection services. Development of the project at full
buildout of all areas zoned for development would result in the creation
of about 330,000 square feet of manufacturing structures and about
170,000 square feet of retail development and the conversion of
approximately 100 acres of predominantly undeveloped area to urbanized
land uses and related slope maintenance zones. The steep topography and
chaparral vegetation located in the project vicinity is highly conducive
to wildfires. The planned internal fire suppression capability of the
manufacturing plant and the substantial buffers between buildings,
parking areas, and surrounding chaparral vegetation would reduce the
overall hazard of existing conditions.
Based on the proximity of the proposed project to an existing Fire
Station and the adequacy of facilities and personnel at other fire
stations in the immediate vicinity, no additional fire protection
staffing or equipment is warranted to satisfy fire suppression demands
associated with the project. Existing personnel and mutual aid
agreements can respond to fires that may arise within or pass near the
proposed project.
The proposed project internal circulation system for Lot 3 has been
designed to comply with standards established by the County Fire
Prevention Division; dual access to this Lot has been provided via an
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 25 8 -21 -96
access driveway proposed to be cut into the fill slope for the pad along
the elevation parallel to State Route 23. Dual access to Lots 1 and 2
have not been provided; however, ingress and egress routes for Lot 2 are
identical to Lot 3 and therefore dual access for Lot 2 may not be
required. The concerns of the Fire Protection District regarding the
requirements for providing dual access to the flag lot portion of Lot 3
have yet to be satisfied; this area is situated in an area which is
separated from Lots 1, 2, and the Phase 1 development portion of Lot 3,
by a substantial distance. The flag lot area is also surrounded by
vegetation. At this time, all weather access across the Arroyo Simi to
the flag lot portion of Lot 3 has not been provided, nor is proposed, and
the slope stability of the landforms along the northern boundary of Lot
3 is not adequate to assure that this access road would remain open
during an emergency event. Slope failure related to earthquakes
(amplification or liquefaction related failure) is predicted by the
geologic stability model for the areas where this single access is
planned. The combination of the potential for earthquake related slope
failure along the access planned for the flag lot portion of Lot 3 access
road, and the absence of secondary access to this portion of the Lot,
could result in a road closure during emergency conditions and an
inability to access the building or provide egress. For this reason,
only a portion of Lot 3 can adequately be served with fire protection
services at this time.
The location of this project on the perimeter of the hard chaparral
community surrounding Moorpark and the need to conduct an extensive
grading program would result in relatively pervasive construction related
fire hazards. Initial site vegetation clearance and grading activities
have the potential to result in increased fire hazards during initial
phases of construction.
Hazard and risk management for the SDI facility in Moorpark would be
comparable to similar programs adopted for the existing SDI facilities
in California and Arizona. From a regulatory standpoint, the risk
management and emergency management procedures for the proposed plant are
highly evolved, effective, and adequately regulated.
It is clearly in the applicant's economic interest to comply with all
applicable storage, use and disposal requirements since failure to comply
could result in production interference. Based on a review of permit
compliance at existing plants, consultant inspection of other SDI
facilities, and interviews with applicable SDI risk management staff,
possible complications from risk of upset conditions were determined to
be insignificant as long as a risk management plan is prepared and
implemented for the facility. The risk of upset hazard footprint for the
materials in storage at the proposed plant would not extend beyond the
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 26 8.21 -96
perimeter of Lot 3; in fact, the hazard footprint for the plant would be
entirely contained within the developed portion of the property.
The City disclosed in the EIR for the project the potential for
significant adverse environmental effects related to fire hazards and
impacts on fire protection services. On the basis of this information,
changes to the project design were recommended and these modifications
were incorporated into a revised project description. Project
modifications that would have reduced the potential for impacts from
wildland fires and for effects on local fire service providers were
incorporated into the revised project design. Subsequently, the Project
Description was formally amended and a revised project was analyzed in
the Final EIR; in addition, a revised and final set of Conditions of
Approval were developed to mitigate any remaining impacts not offset by
project redesign. Therefore, not only has the project been redesigned
to avoid adverse effects, mitigation measures have also been required to
offset any residual effects related to incomplete mitigation or inability
to redesign the project completely to eliminate impacts.
Therefore, the applicable finding is that changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR (CEQA Section 15091 (a)(1)].
Rationale
The proposed project internal circulation system has been designed to
comply with standards established by the County Fire Prevention Division.
The concerns of this agency have been taken into account in designing the
road system serving the project. Dual access to and from the
development, both for fire personnel and planned routes of emergency
egress for future occupants of the manufacturing and commercial portions
of the development, are adequate (except for the flag lot portion of Lot
3; however, this portion of Lot 3 is restricted from development until
adequate access and fire management can be provided in the future). No
other design modifications are required to meet County Fire Protection
Division requirements.
Implementation of the proposed project, together with other proposed
development within District's service jurisdiction, would affect the
ability of the District to provide sufficient fire protection services
to the City of Moorpark. The cumulative impacts associated with the
development of the project together with other proposed developments in
the region would require additional staffing, equipment, and facilities
in order to maintain adequate levels of fire protection throughout the
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 27 8 -21 -96
City. Through proper design and management of fuel and topography, the
impacts on fire suppression services can be minimized.
Specific mitigation measures were proposed to address fire potential in
the project vicinity. The measures included preparation of a Fire Hazard
Reduction Program, specific building and construction requirements, road
and driveway requirements, and fire hydrant /fire flow requirements.
At this time, it is anticipated that the following federal, state, and
county agencies would be involved in the design review, permitting, and
operating oversight of the portions of the project that have some
potential for risk of upset conditions:
(1) occupational Safety and Health Administration (federal authority) :
This agency provides regulations concerning employee exposure to
chemical materials and manufacturing processes that involve risk or
hazard. Both state and local agencies would administer and enforce
these regulations at the plant.
(2) Environmental Protection Agency (federal authority) : The EPA sets
standards governing pollutants, emissions, and hazardous materials
treatment, transportation and waste disposal. One small part of the
SDI operations involves incineration of potentially toxic emissions
and a federal permit to operate this incinerator will be obtained.
(3) Department of Transportation (federal authority) : This agency sets
standards on the packaging and transportation of explosive
materials, regulates and certifies the drivers handling these
materials and has developed a hazard classification topology that
is used to rank the relative danger of explosive materials. Because
the SDI facility would be manufacturing and shipping air bag
initiators which contain minute amounts of explosive material, the
handling and transport of the shipped initiators, particularly in
bulk conditions, is regulated by this agency. The packaged
initiators are considered to be of low volatility and are not
stringently regulated.
(4) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (federal authority): This
Bureau regulates the design and construction requirements for
portions of the SDI operation that involve the storage and mixing
of combustible and explosive materials. This agency also sets
storage limits on inventory retained at the facility and performs
compliance inspections to ensure that all explosive materials are
handled properly. The BAT also would need to license the SDI
facility.
(5) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (a federal agency) : A very small
amount of nuclear material is used in the manufacturing process (an
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 28 8 -21 -96
X -ray process is used to verify the integrity of each initiator);
this material is regulated by the NRC. The agency sets exposure
limits for employees, regulates the design, construction and
operation of machinery used in the manufacturing process, and
defines licence requirements for the facility.
In essence, the basic regulation of hazards and risk management for the
proposed facility would require compliance with applicable federal agency
restrictions, requirements, and standards, as interpreted and implemented
by a variety of state and local agencies (e.g., the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, the State Occupational Health and Safety
Administration, the State Department of Transportation). County
involvement in the review and operational oversight of the facility would
involve the issuance of an Air Pollution Control District permit to
operate; the County Fire Protection District would also be involved in
review and oversight in defining and monitoring safety standards for the
plant. The Fire Protection District would also register the facility as
a hazardous materials generator and monitor compliance with risk
management and hazardous materials management plans required as
Conditions of Approval.
Transportation and Circulation
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
Two intersections in the project vicinity would operate at unacceptable
Levels of Service [LOS D] under future traffic conditions predicted with
the addition of Phase 1 (131,000 square feet of manufacturing facilities)
of the SDI project to Year 2000 projected volumes. Impacted
intersections and effects attributable to Phase 1 of the SDI project
include:
(1) A reduction of traffic capacity to LOS E at Spring Road at Los
Angeles Avenue is predicted; however, this location would operate
at LOS C with the improvements noted previously for this
intersection under the Year 2000 No Project scenario. If the
recommended improvements to this intersection are implemented as a
scheduled Capital Improvement Project, then the project's effects
at this location would be reduced to acceptable levels without
additional mitigation. Therefore, impacts at this location are
significant, but can be offset by making required contributions to
the Los Angeles Avenue AOC Fund.
(2) A reduction in LOS from 0.70 [LOS C] to 0.82 [LOS D] at Science
Drive and New Los Angeles Avenue (a Class II impact); and
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 29 8 -21 -96
(3) A reduction in LOS from 0.80 [LOS C] to 0.86 [LOS D] at Moorpark
Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue (a Class II impact).
With full project buildout (Phase 2: all remaining manufacturing square
footage and all commercial square footage), two of the study
intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS D
and E) with completion of the SDI expansion and full buildout of
commercial development on Lots 1 and 2, and addition of this projected
traffic to the Year 2000 predicted traffic volumes.
Impacted intersections and effects attributable to Phase 2 of the SDI
project at these intersections include:
(1) A reduction of traffic capacity to LOS E at Spring Road at Los
Angeles Avenue is predicted; however, this location would operate
at LOS C with the improvements noted previously for this
intersection under the Year 2000 No Project scenario. If the
recommended improvements to this intersection are implemented as a
scheduled Capital Improvement Project, then the project's effects
at this location would be reduced to acceptable levels without
additional mitigation. Therefore, impacts at this location are
significant but can be offset by making required contributions to
the Los Angeles Avenue AOC Fund.
(2) A reduction in LOS from 0.79 [LOS Cl to 0.84 [LOS D] at Science
Drive and New Los Angeles Avenue (a Class II impact); and
(3) A reduction in LOS from 0.87 [LOS D] to 0.92 [LOS E] at Moorpark
Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue (a Class II impact).
Similar calculations to the Year 2000 analyses were completed for the
projection of long -term cumulative effects associated with the addition
of project traffic to traffic anticipated with full buildout of the City
under existing land use designations in the City's General Plan.
The predicted circulation system assumed to be in place for the Year 2010
analysis includes the Year 2000 circulation system with the improvements
required to achieve the performance objective of LOS C as well as the
following improvements:
• Spring Road extension, "C" Street, the Casey Road
extension and the completion of Science Drive.
• Six -lane roadway section along Los Angeles Avenue with
intersection configurations as shown on Figure 16 of the
Final EIR.
c:\ 1- m \sdi \cega. fnd 30 8 -21 -96
• Extension of SR -118 west from the SR- 118/SR -23 freeway
connection to Los Angeles Avenue as a four -lane
expressway with "at grade" intersections at Spring Road,
Walnut Canyon Road (may be grade separated due to
terrain), and Gabbert Road. This connection does not
allow movements from eastbound SR -118 to southbound SR-
23 or from northbound SR -23 to westbound SR -118. (The
extension can initially be constructed as a two -lane
facility with the additional lanes being added when
needed) .
• Traffic signal installation at the SR -118 /Walnut Canyon
Road (or grade separation) and SR- 118 /Spring Road
intersections.
The traffic analysis in the EIR indicated that all of the study
intersections would achieve the LOS C objective for both peak hour
periods. This conclusion is based on the assumption that improvements
have been completed by the Year 2010: first, the intersection geometric
improvements for Los Angeles Avenue /New Los Angeles Avenue and second,
that the SR -118 extension from SR -23 to Los Angeles Avenue, which creates
an expressway bypassing the City of Moorpark to the north, will be
required.
With the addition of cumulative traffic volumes to the project volumes,
cumulative impacts were predicted to result in:
(1) A reduction in LOS from 0.80 [LOS C] to 0.85 [LOS D] at Science
Drive and New Los Angeles Avenue (a Class II impact); and
(2) A reduction in LOS from 0.79 [LOS Cl to 0.81 [LOS D] at Moorpark
Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue (a Class II impact).
The design of the SR -23 /New Los Angeles Avenue interchange has been
conceived to accommodate full SDI project buildout as well as General
Plan buildout. Since the mitigation of future project specific and
cumulative impacts has been included in the design of the proposed
improvements at the ramp locations, no project specific or cumulative
impacts would result from implementation of the project at the New Los
Angeles Avenue interchange.
Findings
The City disclosed in the EIR for the project that there was a potential
for significant traffic capacity related impacts at several locations
within the City. The payment of mitigation fees was required by the City
to offset the project's impacts on the local and regional street system.
c: \1- m \sdi \cega.fnd 31 8 -21 -96
Project modifications that would have reduced the potential for impacts
related to traffic safety at the entrance to the manufacturing facility
were incorporated into the revised project design. Subsequently, the
Project Description was formally amended, and an analysis was prepared
of the revised project which was then incorporated into the Final EIR.
This document also contained a revised set of Conditions of Approval
which were developed to mitigate any remaining impacts not offset by
project redesign.
Therefore, not only has the project been redesigned to avoid adverse
effects, mitigation measures have also been required to offset any
residual effects related to incomplete mitigation or inability to
redesign the project completely to eliminate impacts.
The applicable finding is that changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR [CEQA
Section 15091 (a)(1)].
Rationale
The Final EIR considered several impact assessment scenarios including
evaluating the impacts of project traffic on both existing conditions,
near term development, and long -term cumulative development anticipated
in the Moorpark region. On the basis of this analysis, assuming that the
City undertakes a variety of capital improvements over the next ten
years, the impacts of the project were determined to be fully mitigated.
The project was required to contribute to these capital improvements
through the payment of Area of Contribution fees and a Citywide Traffic
Mitigation Fee.
Redesign of the project entrance to Lot 3 was accomplished with the
intent of producing the most acceptable, safe, intersection configuration
achievable. The adopted design mitigation plan for this intersection
would not require the review and approval of Caltrans. In addition, the
applicant is funding a major improvement of the New Los Angeles
Avenue /State Route 23 interchange which will accommodate all future
project traffic and anticipated buildout under the City's General Plan.
With the imposition of these mitigation measures and design efforts, the
impacts of the project on local and regional circulation systems was
fully offset.
c:\ l - m\sdi \cega.fnd 32 8 -21 -96
Public Services and Private Utilities
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 is the agency directly
responsible for providing water to the proposed project. A portion of
the development is presently not within the District boundary and the
applicant is pursuing annexation of the entire property to the District.
The District would provide water to the proposed project using existing
water supply infrastructure. No upgrades would need to be made to
existing well recovery and master distribution system lines. The
Waterworks District also maintains sewer lines throughout the City. No
major infrastructure extension is required to serve the proposed project.
The project would not adversely affect treatment capacity and the
projected project wastewater flows can be accommodated without expansion
of the Water Works District treatment facility.
For new development that is proposed to be connected to the District's
sewer facilities, an application process is required to be completed and
a sewer connection fee must be paid prior to initiating construction.
Prior to issuance of a Will Serve letter, the Ventura County Waterworks
District would be responsible for ensuring that adequate sewer main
capacity exists to accommodate the new development prior to granting a
permit for connection. No significant impacts to sewer infrastructure
components are expected to result from approval of the project.
Without contributing to funding improvements in educational facilities,
implementation of the proposed SDI project and related commercial
development could potentially impact educational quality, accelerate
overcrowding at some schools, and otherwise diminish the capability of
the existing District facilities to serve the present population of the
City. These impacts would be attributable primarily to population growth
or population relocation related effects associated with the development
of manufacturing and commercial uses on the property. A method has not
been developed either by the school district or by the State Board of
Education to model the school facility impacts of future residential
development associated with commercial and manufacturing projects. This
is because population relocation factors related to commercial and
manufacturing development are complex and difficult to predict. However,
a formula for predicting the cost offset necessary to support school
facility impacts related to commercial and industrial project has been
established by the State Legislature; the assessment is currently set at
.28 cents per square foot. The impacts of additional project specific
demands on educational facilities are anticipated to be significant.
Development of the proposed project would impact District facilities
through the creation of demands for school facilities.
c: \1- m \sdi \cega.fnd 33 8-21.96
Because most existing facilities are near capacity, accommodation of new
pupils would require facility planning to accommodate project related
growth. Based on the current fee of $ .28 per square foot, the SDI
project will be required to contribute approximately $36,400 in fees to
offset the indirect effects of the manufacturing development; when the
commercial components of the project (on Lots 1 and 2) are constructed
in the future, these developments will be required to make similar
contributions based on the assessment in effect at the time building
permit applications are filed. Buildout of the proposed project would
not otherwise adversely affect educational quality since the payment of
mandated mitigation fees would be used to offset project specific and
cumulative effects on educational quality.
Development of the project as proposed would ultimately result in the
creation of two commercial and two manufacturing facilities. Typically,
crime rates associated with manufacturing operations are very low since
such facilities are not characterized by either a concentration of wealth
or by retail or wholesale products or facilities. Therefore, the
manufacturing developments proposed for Lots 1 and 2 are not anticipated
to require any substantial additional police services, particularly if
defensible space design concepts are incorporated into the plant facility
and adjacent parking lot design.
The ratio of officers to population in Moorpark is presently adequate
(about .5 officer per thousand residents). As discussed in Chapter 13,
the project may result in additional population growth related to new
employment or relocation of existing employees to the City. The
additional population growth may increase service demands slightly but
not significantly. While development of the commercial aspects of the
project (Lots 1 and 2) are expected to result in increased calls for
service, the number or frequency of such calls is difficult to predict.
With the implementation of proper security measures within future
commercial developments and the incorporation of defensible space
concepts into these developments (as conditions of approval of future
commercial planned development permits), impacts on police and emergency
services are anticipated to be insignificant.
Not including green waste related to landscaping maintenance, at full
buildout of Lots 1, 2, and 3, the proposed project is expected to
generate approximately 21.6 tons per day of solid waste or 7,919 tons per
year (before diversion); the majority of this waste would accrue from
commercial operations on Lots 1 and 2. With implementation of all
feasible diversion strategies, this rate could be reduced to 16.8 tons
per day or 6,135 tons per year. Implementation of the proposed project
would account for less than 2.8% of the permitted daily tonnage received
at the Simi Valley Landfill. This landfill has sufficient capacity to
serve the proposed project. The project specific and cumulative waste
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 34 8 -21 -96
generation associated with this development would exceed County
thresholds (a Class II impact).
Development of the proposed project and projects within the service area
for the Simi Valley Landfill would accelerate usage of the remaining 7.3-
million -ton capacity at the Simi Valley Landfill. However, the Simi
Valley Landfill currently receives only one -third of its permitted daily
tonnage of refuse. Therefore, from the standpoint of sufficient
capacity, the contribution of refuse from the project and other projects
within the landfill's jurisdiction would not result in a significant
cumulative impact on solid waste facilities. Nevertheless, County Solid
Waste Management guidelines indicate that a project may contribute to
potentially significant cumulative impacts if the rate of solid waste
disposal rate exceeds 15 tons per year. Therefore, the project's
contribution to cumulative solid waste problems in Ventura County would
exceed thresholds.
Findings
The City disclosed in the EIR for the project that there was a potential
for significant impacts on public services and utility providers. The
impacts considered included (1) effects on the ability of domestic water
service providers to continue to provide service to other users if the
project is developed, (2) impacts on the collection and treatment of
wastewater, (3) effects on educational quality and school facilities,
impacts on police and emergency services, and effects on solid waste
facilities and long -term waste disposal planning.
On the basis of this information, changes to the project design were
recommended and these modifications (including mitigation measures
requiring the payment of fees, improved street system design and
incorporation of defensible space concepts into the project site plan,
incorporation of recycling and waste disposal economizing measures) were
incorporated into a revised project description. Subsequently, the
Project Description was formally amended and an analysis of the revised
project was included in the Final EIR; a revised final set of Conditions
of Approval was prepared to provide for mitigation of any remaining
impacts not offset by project redesign. Therefore, not only has the
project been redesigned to avoid adverse effects, mitigation measures
have also been required to offset any residual effects related to
incomplete mitigation or inability to redesign the project completely to
eliminate impacts.
Therefore, the applicable finding is that changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
c:\I-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 35 8-21-96
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR (CEQA Section 15091 (a)(1)).
Rationale
Mitigation of impacts to public service providers and utility companies
involved both project redesign and the requirement to comply with
mitigation measures as Conditions of Approval on the revised project.
Mitigation relative to educational facilities will be accomplished
through the payment of fees for both the residential units and the
proposed recreational /commercial uses. Police and emergency service
concerns were mitigated through the requirement to consult with the
Moorpark Police Department in the design both of the layout and security
content of the commercial and manufacturing spaces constructed on the
property, and the incorporation of defensible space concepts into the
project design. Solid Waste impacts will be offset through the creation
and implementation of a Solid Waste Mitigation Plan and through the
integration of recycling management concepts.
Aesthetics, Visual Resources, and Community Design
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
The State Route 23 -New Los Angeles Avenue Interchange Corridor
The visibility of the project from this corridor would result in a
completely different visual quality experience compared to existing
conditions. Developments on Lots 1, 2, and 3 (the primary SDI facility
proposed at this time) would be highly visible from the super- elevated
State Route 23 through lanes, from the hook ramp serving northbound
traffic, and from the east bound travel lanes along New Los Angeles
Avenue. As the northbound State Route 23 traffic ascends the grade
leading to the travel lanes of the highway, the project would come into
view. Given the grade relationships and viewing distances within the
surface road and highway travel lane network adjacent to the western
perimeter of the proposed project, most of the development (nearly all
of Lots 1, 2, and 3) would be highly visible from this view corridor.
The modifications to existing conditions along this corridor resulting
from implementation of the project include:
(1) elimination of two of the three prominent topographic
ridgepoles which are presently visible from this
corridor and replacement of these ridges with industrial
and commercial buildings and associated landscaping;
c: \1 -m\sdi \ceqa.fnd 36 8-21-96
(2) landform cuts and roadway improvements necessary to
access the project site would result in the relocation
of lanes around the New Los Angeles Avenue ramp, cutting
of landforms immediately east of the northbound ramps,
and creation of two commercial pads above and to the
north and east of the existing ramp lanes;
(3) landscaping treatment of the open space area in the
portion of the hook ramp internal to the lanes and
connection of this now barren area to a landscaped
entrance to the City;
(4) conversion of the native vegetation on the hillsides
defining this view corridor to a landscaping treatment
to support proposed architecture;
(5) creation of a landscaped streetscape along an eastern
extension of New Los Angeles Avenue which would rise
steeply from the present grades to the commercial and
manufacturing pads proposed for Lots 1, 2, and 3;
(6) implementation of a landscaping screening program for
Lot 3 which will, when trees have matured, effectively
screen the SDI manufacturing facility from the view
corridor; and
(7) conversion of the view corridor from an open space to a
developed condition.
The period of visibility of the modified landforms, project entrance, and
access roadway would be of modest duration from this corridor (10 to 20
seconds along State Route 23 and up to several minutes for eastbound
traffic along New Los Angeles Avenue). Impacts associated with landform
modifications along this view corridor were determined to be potentially
significant and subject only to partial mitigation.
The State Route 23 Corridor for North and Southbound Traffic
The visibility of the project from this view corridor would be prolonged,
depending on travel speeds. The components of the project that would be
visible include:
(1) landform cuts and grading remediation along a portion of
the northern ridgeline defining the property boundary;
(2) construction of major fill slopes, buttress walls, and
other features related to slope stabilization and
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 37 8 -21 -96
drainage that are necessary to render Lot 3 suitable for
the proposed uses;
(3) creation of an access road which would be cut into the
mid -slope descent of this buttress fill would be clearly
visible from this approach;
(4) buildings situated on Lots 1 and 2 would be highly
visible, particularly after the point of transition of
SR -23 and SR -118 approaching the New Los Angeles Avenue
Interchange and for eastbound traffic traveling along
New Los Angeles Avenue towards the ramps; and
(5) Any future development on Lot 4 would be visible from
this view corridor, as would the extension of an access
road proposed to link the flag area on Lot 3 with the
main development area of Lot 3.
The presently highly scenic rocky landforms around the oxbow of the
Arroyo Simi and the associated oak woodland which inclines northward
toward the freeway would both be very substantially modified; the oak
woodland would be eliminated. The escarpment defining the edge of the
riparian area would be graded to provide a suitable transition from the
northern perimeter of the graded pads to the sheer cliffs which dominate
the northwestern perimeter of Lot 1 and the northern perimeters of Lots
2 and 3. The ridge system and associated woodland defining the northern
perimeter of the project would be significantly modified by this
development. Therefore, the impacts along this view corridor related to
the highway system and scenic approaches to the City were determined to
be significant.
The Virginia Colony /Campus Park View Corridor
Some components of the project would be moderately visible from this view
corridor. However, since the distances between the proposed project and
Campus Park and the commercial properties south of Campus Park are
substantial, the impacts of the development from public street view
corridors in these developments would be minimized. For residents of the
Virginia Colony (particularly along Avenida Colonia and the eastern
extension of New Los Angeles Avenue), the impacts of the modifications
described above would be considerable. The modifications to existing
conditions along this corridor include:
(1) landform cuts and grading remediation along a portion of
the northern ridgeline defining the property boundary - -a
considerable portion of the pad area to be created on
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 38 8 -21 -96
Lots 1, 2, and 3 would be screened by existing homes and
landscaping along the street system;
(2) creation of major fill slopes, buttress walls, and other
features related to slope stabilization and drainage
that are necessary to render Lot 3 suitable for the
proposed uses - -many of these features would not be
visible or would only be partially visible due to the
grade and elevation differences between the project and
neighborhoods in the areas north of the project;
(3) construction of an access road which would be cut into
the mid -slope descent of this buttress fill would be
clearly visible from this approach - -this road would be
visible from the Virginia Colony and surrounding areas
to the north;
(4) buildings situated on Lots 1 and 2 would only be
partially visible, due primarily to grade differences
between the two areas; and
(5) if constructed in the future as proposed, developments
situated on Lot 4 would be visible from this view
corridor as would the extension of an access road
proposed to link the flag area of Lot 3 with the main
development area of that lot.
The period of visibility of the modified landforms, landscaping, buttress
fills, and associated features of the project would be of modest duration
from this corridor (5 to 20 seconds depending on vehicle speed, street
orientation, and other factors). Impacts associated with landform
modifications along this view corridor were determined to be potentially
significant.
Because no modifications are planned to the southern and eastern property
ridgelines, view corridor changes would not significantly alter the
community viewshed of this property for either foreground or background
perspectives from the existing developments to the distant south and
east. The most prominent ridgeline on the property will be preserved.
Residents in the immediate vicinity of the project will experience some
modification of open space views but these effects could be diminished
by a number of design features including intensive, restorative
landscaping and adherence to strict design control of portion of the
development that would be visible along these corridors.
Given the relatively high elevation of the proposed development in
relation to surrounding properties, the project would be highly visible
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 39 8 -21 -96
and would dominate open space views, a significant impact requiring
considerable mitigation planning; however, even with mitigation, visual
impacts are expected to result in a significant aesthetic change from
existing conditions. The effective and intensive use of native
landscaping, particularly on the northern perimeter of the development
would at least partially diminish the sense of open space modification
which would accompany buildout of this development.
The loss of open space that would result from implementation of the
project would be biologically significant, and from an aesthetic
standpoint, this impact would also be significant, particularly from the
vantage point of the developed portion of the City since two of the three
dominantly visible ridgelines within the development would be removed.
Overall, impacts to important public view corridors and the perception
of open space were determined to be significant because:
• While existing landscaping, grade differences, and commercial
and residential structures interfere with the visibility of
the project from many public view corridors north of the
development, since the project is at a substantially higher
elevation than surrounding areas, impacts due to landform
modification and construction would be highly visible even
from mid - ground and background views;
• Even though the topography along the southern perimeter of the
project would not be noticeably altered, from the west, north
and northeast, the modifications to the property would be
highly visible. These modifications include the elimination
of a highly scenic ridge and valley system and replacement of
these landforms and related vegetation with a buttress fill
program involving the extensive use of retaining walls;
• The project would be highly visible from State Route 23,
intermittently from the southern approach of State Route 118,
and from the New Los Angeles Avenue Interchange - -the changes
from these view corridors would result in a complete
transition of the visual environment from open space to an
intensively built environment.
The existing aesthetic environment surrounding the project is
characterized by the amenities typically associated with open space:
lighting in the area is of moderate low intensity and only partially
interferes with perception of the night; ambient noise levels are
generally moderately low (except along the SR -23 corridor); commanding
views are present of the regional environment; there is only a modest
sense of crowding.
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 40 8 -21 -96
The only neighborhood that potentially would experience quality of life
changes as a result of project development is situated along Avenida
Colonia in the Virginia Colony. The areas around the Virginia Colony are
presently in transition from residential, open space, or agricultural
uses to commercial and manufacturing uses. Therefore, the project would
not initiate any significant change in the immediate environment of these
residences but it would contribute to the on -going transition of uses.
Operations at the proposed project may have limited potential to result
in impulse noises beyond the perimeter of Lot 3. Impacts on this
neighborhood from increased noise, additional lighting, aesthetic
changes, and the indirect effects of both manufacturing operations and
commercial development could diminish the quality of life of residents
in the Virginia Colony. These impacts and diminution of the amenities
of residential experience would be limited to this residential area and
would not extend into the Campus Park neighborhoods. The presence of a
non - residential business park urban design form in the immediate project
environment (extensive manufacturing and commercial areas around the
Virginia Colony) have already created quality of life related
incompatibilities between existing and proposed development. The impacts
of the proposed project related to transformation of the surrounding
environment are potentially significant impacts. Immediately surrounding
properties north of the project may experience some significant change
in quality of life related to this transformation.
The community design and urban form proposed for the project would
involve the creation of two potentially compatible types of development.
The situation and orientation of the lots to be developed with commercial
uses would be linear in pattern in relation to the existing street
system; the manufacturing lot has been designed to be set back from the
street system. This arrangement is an appropriate and suitable
relationship between lot locations, the street grid, regional access
concerns, and the degree of public exposure to the two types of uses.
The relationships between the commercial and manufacturing lots are
appropriate and suitable.
The proposed project would be situated on a highly visible landform which
is situated at one of the major entrances to the City. This prominent
location is situated in an area dominated by three highly visible
ridgelines. Only the most dominant southern and eastern ridges would be
preserved in place; the remaining ridge and valley systems on the
property would be leveled using rough grading techniques to provide three
tiers of building pad, the largest of which would be devoted to
manufacturing uses.
Although the future commercial project architectural details are not
sufficiently developed to permit analysis, this absence of completed
planning provides an opportunity to develop the commercial lots within
c:% I - m\sdi %cega. fnd 41 8 -21 -96
the project so that structures conform to the degree feasible with the
City's Hillside Ordinance.
The City disclosed in the Final EIR for the project that there was
considerable potential for significant impacts on aesthetics and visual
resources. The impacts considered include (1) the visibility of the
project along public view corridors, (2) modifications to open space
perception, (3) the transformation of the rural landscape and quality
of life impacts on surrounding properties, (4) community design and urban
form, and (5) Hillside Management Ordinance considerations. On the basis
of this information, changes to the project design were recommended and
these modifications (including redesigning the grading plan, deletion of
one buildable lot, significant redesign of the proposed landscaping
program for the project, inclusion of requirements to complete oak
woodland restoration, etc.), were incorporated into a revised project
description. Subsequently, the Project Description was formally amended
and an analysis of the revised project was included in the Final EIR.
Revised final Conditions of Approval were developed to mitigate any
remaining impacts not offset by project redesign. Therefore, not only
has the project been redesigned to avoid adverse effects, mitigation
measures have also been required to offset any residual effects related
to incomplete mitigation or inability to redesign the project completely
to eliminate impacts.
Therefore, the applicable finding is that changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR [CEQA Section 15091 (a)(1)].
Rationale
To address aesthetic concerns, changes were made to the Project as
discussed on Pages 4 and 5 of these Findings. in the revised Project
included:
Cultural Resources
F9 -. _. - -- •�� -� -
One archaeological deposit is situated in an area that would be graded
in the vicinity of proposed Lot 2; the deposit is also within the
alignment of the proposed access road designed to serve the project. Due
to geological conditions which would require very extensive excavation,
c:\I-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 42 8 -21 -96
soil removal and re- compaction, this archaeological site would be
unavoidably impacted by the development.
This archaeological deposit was recorded in 1987 as part of an
alternative alignment study for a modification of the SR -23 /SR -118
freeway connection. Preliminary results of the testing done in 1987
resulted in the definition of the deposit as very shallow (less than 25
centimeters). The assessment at that time was that the deposit
represented "a small, limited activity area related to a major occupation
area located nearby ". The array of activities that occurred at this site
are considered limited and the archaeological record associated with the
deposit is very diminutive.
Most of the archaeological remains at this site were located on the
surface. The surface deposit was left uncollected as part of the Phase
II analysis, since it was not certain that the area would be developed
as proposed until the Vesting Map is approved. The significance of the
deposit to the regional understanding of prehistory, tribal history, and
cultural evolution is very limited, since the archaeological remains
present are in very low density and the range of activities carried out
at the site do not appear to have left any record of residential or
burial activities (the primary activities that render archaeological
deposits important). While the site cannot be categorized as
insignificant, the primary research values of the deposit will have been
recovered fully once the surface artifacts on the site are collected,
described, and mapped. Impacts to this archaeological deposit will be
fully mitigated with completion of collection of surface artifacts and
processing of materials collected as part of the Phase II testing
program.
On the basis of the information contained in the EIR, a determination was
made that some impacts to cultural resources will occur during
construction. For this reason, once data recovery is complete at the one
site where impacts are anticipated, construction monitoring during the
initial phases of grading was recommended as a Condition of Approval.
With implementation of a Phase III data recovery program and construction
monitoring, requirements have been placed on the project which should
assure that both anticipated and unanticipated effects on cultural
resources which would result from development of the project will be
mitigated. Therefore, the applicable finding is that changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Section 15091 [a)(1)].
Rationale
c:11- misdilcega.fnd 43 8 -21 -96
Data recovery at archaeological deposits that would be impacted by
construction is a conventional mitigation measure imposed on projects
when impacts are unavoidable. Cultural resources are also sometimes
encountered in contexts similar to the proposed project (adjacent to a
major riparian system in an area with abundant food resources of
relevance to prehistoric communities) during construction activities even
if no such resources are encountered during initial reconnaissance of a
property. Therefore, mitigation planning has been recommended to assure
that any cultural site encountered during grading is properly mitigated
in accordance with Appendix K of CEQA.
Paleontlogical Resources
Anticipated Adverse Environmental Effects
Paleontological resources at the project site would potentially be
adversely affected by grading and earthmoving activities. Disturbance
of resources of high importance would result in loss of fossil remains
and associated geologic data and loss of fossiliferous beds. Based on
the literature search, consultation with paleontologists, and probability
estimates for the recovery of fossil materials based on comparisons with
other similar fossil locations, impacts to paleontological resources
within the project are predicted to be significant.
Based on the history of fossil production within the Sespe and Saugus
Formations within and near the project boundary, these formations have
a moderate to high potential for the discovery of significant fossils
during the mass grading (and other earthmoving operations); the potential
for fossil exposure during the initial phases of mass grading is likely.
These grading operations would possibly result in the destruction of
fossils, unless proper mitigation members are undertaken. The
destruction of these fossils would represent an adverse impact on an
understanding and interpretation of this region's paleontological
resources and evolutionary history. This impact would be significant,
because fossils from these units could provide information on the age of
these formations. Additionally, they would supply information on the
evolution and diversity of life in southern California during the
region's geologic history. Therefore, the following measures are
necessary to protect the region's paleontological resources.
Findings
On the basis of the information contained in the EIR, a determination was
made that some impacts to paleontological resources will occur during
construction. For this reason, construction monitoring during the
initial phases of grading was recommended as a Condition of Approval.
c:\I-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 44 8-21-96
With implementation of a fossil data recovery program and construction
monitoring, requirements have been placed on the project, which should
assure that both anticipated and unanticipated effects on paleontological
resources will be mitigated. Therefore, the applicable finding is that
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final EIR [CEQA Section 15091 (a)(1)J.
Rationale
Paleontological resources are sometimes encountered in contexts similar
to the proposed project; limited fossil recovery occurred during the
initial geologic testing of the property. The recommended data recovery
measures proposed in the EIR and as Conditions of Approval will mitigate
the paleontological impacts of grading and earthmoving at the proposed
SDI Project site. Therefore, mitigation planning has been recommended
to assure that any fossil site encountered during grading is properly
mitigated; cost limitations set forth in CEQA Appendix K are proposed to
apply to this data recovery work.
Insignificant Effects
Is VMS
The agricultural potential of the soils within the SDI Project property
are not impressive; soils have been ranked as poor to unsuited for
agricultural use by the Soil Conservation Service and the absence of
historic records of agricultural use substantiate this finding. A small
portion of the property is designated Farmland of Local Importance
consistent with the very limited distribution of Garretson loam which is
confined to the stream terraces above the Arroyo Simi adjacent to the
flag area portion of Lot 3.
Based on City land use classifications, the site is not proposed to be
retained in agricultural production. Because the property is not in
agricultural production and therefore is not a part of the local
agricultural economy, State Department of Conservation farmland
designations are not applicable. Further, the City has not identified
the project site as part of its agricultural resources and has not
applied the corresponding land uses classifications and conflicts with
agricultural land preservation would not occur if the project is
approved. Therefore, based on all of these criteria, the impacts of
converting the proposed property to urban uses would not result in
significant effects.
Light and glare related impacts associated with conversion of the
property from open space to a developed condition will be mitigated fully
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 45 8 -21 -96
through the imposition of lighting restrictions. The applicant has
agreed to modify the Project Description to include such restrictions.
Alternatives
As required by CEQA, the consultant evaluated several alternatives to the
project as proposed. These alternatives included:
Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: Reduced Manufacturing Facility Size (150,000
square feet)
Alternative 3: Deletion of Lot 4 and Use of Commercial Lot 2 for
Manufacturing Facility
Expansion
Alternative 4: Revised Vesting Map and Modified Project
Alternative
Alternative 5: Alternative Locations
The environmentally superior alternative was defined as a project with
the following dimensions and attributes (all references to lot numbers
are to the project described in the Draft EIR, not the revised project).
The Draft EIR text recommended:
"(1) Building Square Footages and Configuration: The primary
modification that this alternative would make in the
site plan would be the deletion of Lot 4 and the
creation of a consolidated, multi -level manufacturing
plan on a combined Lot 2 and 3 property. The site
design for the project could be modified to concentrate
all developable square footage over areas on Lot 3
without deep alluvium (which is expensive to remediate)
and areas without the potential for slope failure or
liquefaction. This combination of facilities should be
designed to place all primary manufacturing activities
on Lot 3 necessary for full SDI development over the
next 10 to 15 years (about 300,000 square feet).
Subsoil conditions and building dimension constraints
and other factors may require partitioning some uses
from the main manufacturing area (e.g., a separate
cafeteria and shipping and completed product storage
area may be required and the hazardous materials storage
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 46 8 -21 -96
areas and blending facilities would still need to be set
back from manufacturing areas).
(2) Lot 2 Development Options: Commercial /Office /Mixed Use
Development on Lot 2: If all or nearly all
manufacturing development can be accommodated on a
reconfigured Lot 3, then Lot 2, which is currently
proposed to be dedicated to commercial uses, could
either be converted completely to parking for the
facility on Lot 3 (with tram linkage of the two areas if
adequate parking cannot be located on a revised Lot 3
pad) or the office functions proposed for Lot 3 could be
placed on Lot 2 and the Lot could be retained as a
separate entity. If some functions need to be relocated
from the primary manufacturing area on Lot 3, this
relocation can provide opportunities. For example, the
SDI offices could be placed in a separate office
facility on Lot 2 (or on the Lot 2 area) which could
include additional leasable office space (or even
limited commercial on the lower floor below a multi -
floor office building). In this way, for the costs of
bridging the Arroyo Simi to Lot 4, an entire office
facility with leasable space could be developed.
(3) Permitted Commercial Development on Lot 1: The total
allocation of commercial square footage for Lot 3 could
be increased to the degree acceptable to the City. For
the purposes of this analysis, the recommended square
footage for Lot 1 would be about 133,000 (floor area
ratio of .35). This ratio could be somewhat increased
in the entitlements without compromising good design,
adequate parking, and landscaping.
(4) Other Lot Reconfigurations: Lot 3 would still have an
area of slope instability but no construction would be
proposed in this slope area. No access road extension
would be required across the unstable slope area.
Construction of all basic improvements (including
grading) would occur at this time rather than in two
major phases. Lot 5 could be reconfigured slightly to
increase pad area for Lot 3. Lot 10 should be deleted
and access to revised Lots 1, 2, and 3 should be shown
as an easement.
(5) Lots Set Aside for Open Space and Conservation: Under
this alternative, Lot 4 would be included in the
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 47 8 -21 -96
conservation easement area proposed for Lot 5. Lots
4 and 5 would be combined into an open space preserve.
The woodlands on Lot 4 would be designated as the oak
woodland biological remediation area to compensate for
the destruction of significant, valuable habitat to be
destroyed as part of Lot 1, 2, and 3 construction.
The Draft EIR concluded that the alternative outlined above would meet
the applicant's objectives without the development of Lot 4, an
undertaking that appeared to be both financially and technically
infeasible. This alternative would have resulted in impact reductions
in all non - population dependent impacts (biology, cultural resources,
etc.) and represented a slight reduction over the square footage now
requested by the applicant. This reduction, however, is limited to the
more speculative parts of the SDI proposal (commercial facilities). The
basic objectives of establishing an important entryway to the City with
a potential mixed use building on the area included in Lot 2 and a major
commercial facility on Lot 1 would still be accomplished. This
alternative required analysis by the applicant to confirm the
feasibility of placing about 330,000 square feet of facility on one
expanded parcel.
The suggestions were not all implemented by the applicant in the redesign
of the project. However, the modifications made by the applicant
significantly reduced the environmental impacts of the project. After
consideration of inputs from the EIR consultants, City Staff, and the
applicant's engineers, the Project modifications listed on Pages 4 and
5 of these Findings were incorporated into a revised Project Description.
Given the scope of the changes, the applicable finding is that changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Section 15091 {a} (1) ] .
Rationale
The primary attributes of the revised project include:
(1) A decrease and consolidation of the number of developable parcels;
(2) An increase in the number of parcels to be placed in open space
conservation easements or similar restrictions or dedications;
(3) A limitation on the development of the remaining manufacturing
portions of the project to the boundaries of the proposed building
footprints unless the geotechnical, fire safety, ingress /egress and
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 48 5 -21 -96
water supply problems associated with an expansion of use can be
resolved to the City's satisfaction; and
(4) Modifications to the Conditions of Approval for the project (through
the preparation of revised conditions and a Development Agreement)
which in some cases improve upon and in other cases diminish the
level of environmental protection afforded the resources within the
project boundary (refer to the revised Conditions of Approval in
Chapter 23).
A review is provided on a case by case basis of the environmental
consequences of amending the project description as proposed by the
applicant. The analysis permits the general conclusion that the revised
project alternative reduced the impacts of the project significantly.
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Impacts associated with rough grading, landform modification, slope
stability, and all types of soil disturbance typical of mass graded
projects would be less than the project as proposed since the actual
surface area to be graded would decrease slightly (at least for Phase I
of the project) . The proposed linkage between Lots 3 and 4 proposed
under the original project would not need to be constructed for the
amended project. In fact, proposed Conditions of Approval prohibit the
development of the previously proposed Lot 4 (now referred to as the flag
area of Lot 3) until or unless all access, fire protection, geotechnical,
biological and other resource impacts are fully assessed in the future,
once a specific proposal for access to this area is provided by the
applicant. A less extensive road system would be required with the
smaller revised project. Slope stabilization requirements would be
decreased in several areas since development of the flag area of Lot 3
would not occur. While the manufacturing facilities still would be
situated in areas characterized by unstable slopes, expensive remediation
would be diminished, particularly for the access road connection between
the flag area of Lot 3 and the main development area of that lot. No
bridge or infrastructure extensions would be required over the Arroyo
Simi to serve the flag area of Lot 3. All impacts associated with
proposed rough grading, the potential for disruption of manufacturing
operations due to seismically induced slope failures, and potential
downstream hydraulic and debris transport impacts would be reduced with
this alternative.
Air Quality Impacts
Operational impacts associated with the project would be somewhat reduced
with this alternative because the total developable square footage for
manufacturing and commercial uses would be reduced modestly.
c:\1 -m\sdi\ceqa. fnd 49 8 -21 -96
Construction related impacts would be substantially decreased compared
to the proposed project since grading for the flag area of Lot 3 and the
access road to the flag area would not be required. These reductions
would occur to PM,,, values as well as to all ozone precursors. The
duration of construction, particularly the air quality disruptive grading
period, would be decreased slightly. Long -term emissions would be
reduced by the presumed decrease in manufacturing square footage that can
be accommodated on the developable portion of Lot 3. If all problems
related to the development of the flag area of Lot 3 are ultimately
solved in a technically and economically feasible manner, then it may be
possible that air quality impacts of the original and revised projects
would be approximately the same. This outcome, however, is not likely.
Therefore, the revised project has a high probability of reducing long-
term air quality impacts and a certainty of reducing short -term
construction impacts.
Groundwater Supplies and Surface Water Quality
Due to decreased acreage committed to development and landscaping, water
consumption would predictably decrease. Since the proposed lots would
not be served by reclaimed water supplies, this alternative would not
change the use of water by source type. Due to the reduction in the size
of the buildable footprint, this alternative would be less consumptive
of domestic water supplies compared to the project as proposed and
described in the Draft EIR since the net developable acreage would be
diminished. The water demand reduction for the project would
attributable both to reduced square footage and less landscaping as well
as the commitment to more acreage of unmodified open space. Planning for
on -site retention and surface water quality control would be more
feasibly achieved, since additional acreage could be dedicated to on -site
retention. Impacts to surface water quality from the project would be
diminished with this alternative. Therefore, from the standpoint of
regional water supplies and surface water quality, this alternative is
less consumptive and less impacting than the project as proposed.
Drainage, Hydrology, and Flood Control
Major changes in infrastructure planning were necessary to implement this
design and square footage reduction; these changes are primarily related
to a diminished overall building area and the deletion of the Lot 3 flag
area access road. The need to provide bank protection along the Arroyo
Simi and coordinated flood control planning for the flag area of Lot 3
would be eliminated. The requirement to link each lot with roads,
sewerlines, waterlines, stormwater control devices, and related
infrastructure (utilities, etc.) across areas with the potential for
liquefaction or slope failure would be eliminated with this alternative.
The drainage planning for the project would be less complex and expensive
c:\1-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 50 8 -21 -96
to install. Decreased retention basin sizing would occur with this
option. The impacts of this alternative would diminish compared to the
project as proposed regarding all aspects of water management and
drainage.
Biological Resources
The revised project represents a more favorable alternative from a
biological resources standpoint, since it includes elimination of prior
Lot 4 and proposed incorporation of several other lots (now lettered)
either into conservation easements, or areas of land dedication to the
City. The revised project is also a more desirable alternative to the
project as proposed from the standpoint of biological resources, since
the size of the area to be impacted by grading could be reduced. Under
this alternative, the expectation is that nearly 50 or more acres of
native vegetation that would be impacted by the project could be set
aside for conservation purposes.
Noise
This alternative would not result in a significant departure from the
anticipated noise impacts of the project as proposed. However, because
square footage reductions are proposed within the project boundary for
Lot 3 (Phase I) , some (though not a measurable) reduction in noise
generation would result from decreased traffic volumes. The noise
impacts of the alternative would probably be less significant than the
impacts anticipated under the project as proposed; however, construction
noises are anticipated to be approximately equal for the proposed and
revised projects. Regardless of what project is constructed, Conditions
of Approval have been proposed that would reduce the potentially long-
term significant impacts of the project (associated with impulse noise)
to insignificant levels. The revised project and the originally proposed
project would result in similar noise impacts.
Fire Hazards
While the decrease in square footage of building area that would result
from this alternative may decrease fire risks marginally, essentially
this alternative would result in very similar fire risks characteristic
of the project as proposed. With the addition of native habitat buffers
between the project and residential neighborhoods to the north (by not
developing the flag area of Lot 3), there would be a limited decrease in
wildland- manufacturing facility interface area that could, if properly
managed, somewhat decrease fire potential. Risk of upset conditions
would probably not change appreciably under this alternative. For fire
c:\I-m\sdi\ceqa.fhd 51 8 -21 -96
hazard issues, the impacts of the proposed project and the revised
project are similar. A substantial number of Conditions of Approval
relative to fire safety and wildland fire prevention (as well as
management of hazardous materials) have been included in the project
conditions. Management of risks related to fire and upset conditions
would not change appreciably for the revised project.
Population, Housing and Jobs:housing Balance
The impacts of the project and the alternative are not significantly
different than the project for issues related to housing markets,
population growth, and job formation potential. The originally
proposed and revised projects would both assist in rectifying the present
imbalance between job and housing availability in the City. Both the
original and revised projects would substantially improve the present
jobs:housing balance.
Transportation and Circulation
The alternative would result in a reduction in off -site street system
impacts attributable to the diminished square footage available for
manufacturing use during Phase I development; further, given the
relatively low probability of solving critical access and geotechnical
issues for the remainder of Lot 3 in an economic manner, full buildout
of the project as originally proposed is a low probability outcome.
Therefore, the proposed traffic and transportation improvements,
particularly at the SR -23 /New Los Angeles Avenue interchange, would more
than offset any long -term cumulative impacts that may result from the
project. The basic structure of the proposed modifications for the SR-
23 /New Los Angeles Avenue interchange would not change appreciably under
this alternative. However, the decrease in fees associated with a
smaller project could contribute to funding shortfalls for various
regional improvements to be funded by the proposed City -wide Traffic
Mitigation fee and Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution fee. From a
transportation planning and impact standpoint, this alternative is
superior to the project as proposed. Since a reduction is likely to
occur in the total number of trips associated with development of
manufacturing square footage, the off -site impacts of the project on the
surrounding street system (road capacity and intersection impacts) would
decrease slightly over what is anticipated for the project.
Public Services and Private Utilities
Since a decrease is likely to occur in the square footage of the project
as a whole, the impacts of the alternative would be reduced
c: \1- m \sdi \cega.fnd 52 8 -21 -96
correspondingly for this alternative but only slightly compared to the
project as proposed. Basic public service and private utility impacts
however would not change significantly; all required extensions would
still need to be made for both the project and the alternative and all
service providers would need to serve either project. These impacts are
typically population dependent and the basic working population to be
situated on the property would be reasonably similar for both
undertakings. Therefore, the amended project would not result in a
significant decrease in demand on public services.
Aesthetics, Visual Resources, Community Design
From the standpoint of community design and project layout in relation
to environmental constraints, this alternative could very significantly
reduce hazard constraints, diminish the disruption of present open space,
and improve the appearance of the project in two ways: by providing more
open space and by diminishing the number and size of proposed structures.
The most significant change would result from deletion of Lot 4 and
concentration of uses on Lot 3. Of greatest significance from an
aesthetic standpoint, the amended project would result in the short and
long -term preservation of open space on the reconfigured Lot 3, probable
elimination of the need for a bridge over the Arroyo Simi, and the
probable elimination of an unsightly access road across a 100 -foot fill
area facing the Campus Park and Virginia Colony residential areas. For
these and other reasons, this alternative is considered an improvement
in community planning compared to the project as proposed.
Cultural Resource and Paleontological Impacts
Both the project and the alternatives would result in large areas of
rough grading (more than 1 million yards for both options) and therefore
impacts to Paleontological formations on the property are likely to be
similar under both options. In addition, the cultural resource site to
be impacted by the development is situated in a location that would need
to be removed, recompacted and graded for two reasons: no access road
system can be developed without impacting the site (given its close
proximity to New Los Angeles Avenue) and the area within Lot 2 (adjacent
to the site) would require an alluvial removal to create a developable
building pad).
In summary, the revised project alternative decreases impacts in nearly
all categories of significant environmental effect and in several other
categories the revised and originally proposed projects would result in
comparable effects. From the standpoint of urban form, hillside
protection, community planning, environmental protection, hazard
reduction, and project density perception, the amended project is
superior to the project as proposed. The amended project basically meets
c:\1- m \sdi \cega.fnd 53 8-2 1-96
all of the applicant's Phase I development objectives for manufacturing
expansion and commercial development (lot and development right sale to
assist in defraying the costs of manufacturing facility development).
c:\I-m\sdi\ceqa.fnd 54 8 -21 -96
Attachment C
Resolution Number 96 -1221
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THE SPECIAL DEVICES, INC., PROJECT (GENERAL
PLAN NO. 95 -1, ZONE CHANGE NO. 95 -3, VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 5004, IPD PERMIT NO. 95 -2,
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 96 -1)
Legal Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15093
requires the preparation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
when the decision of a public agency to approve a project allows the
occurrence of significant effects which are not at least
substantially mitigated. The Final EIR for the Special Devices
Incorporated Project identifies four environmental effects for which
a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared (short
term construction air quality impacts, long term air quality
impacts, cumulative effects on biological resources, and visual
resource impacts). In brief, Overriding Considerations are required
for all significant adverse impacts which cannot be fully mitigated
or avoided. Thresholds of significance for determining if an
environmental effect is adverse or unavoidable are defined in CEQA,
City Guidelines implementing CEQA, and in County thresholds and
standards related to regional environmental effects for which the
County is the Responsible or Trustee Agency (e.g., air quality,
water quality).
Impacts for Which Overriding Considerations are Required
Based on the information contained in the Final EIR, significant
unavoidable environmental effects requiring a Statement of
Overriding Consideration were identified for the following impacts:
(1) Construction related air quality effects, including the
dispersion of particulate matter resulting from mass grading and the
generation of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and other ozone
precursors from vehicles to be used in this grading program, would
generate significant amounts of pollution in the regional airshed.
c: \1- m \sdi \cega.soc 1 B -21 -96
(2) The long -term vehicle emissions related to the occupation and
use of both manufacturing and commercial facilities would contribute
to a long -term decline in the quality of the regional airshed. Even
with the imposition of mitigation measures, from a cumulative
perspective, the project's effects cannot be successfully offset;
moreover, the long -term emissions predicted for the development
would exceed air quality thresholds established by the Air Pollution
Control District, the regional agency assigned the responsibility
for assuring proper management of the airshed.
(3) Project buildout would result in unavoidable impacts to about
40 acres of various sensitive vegetation communities and associated
protected faunal species; construction may also indirectly impact
several acres of riparian habitat along the Arroyo Simi. These
resources all satisfy criteria used to define significant rare or
sensitive habitats. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the land
around the perimeter of the project would need to be cleared and
modified for fire protection purposes, further diminishing the
potential for retaining existing native plant communities as viable
ecologic units. Implementation of the project is estimated to
impact a total of between 40 and 60 acres of habitat including
substantial impacts to oak woodlands. The adverse effects resulting
from modifications to sensitive habitats and plant communities will
be unavoidably significant. Implementation of the project will
contribute significantly to the gradual, potentially inevitable,
elimination of several plant communities as an existing, viable
habitat. Loss of sensitive faunal species associated with several
types of on -site vegetation communities is also anticipated.
(4) The visual resource effects related to the construction of the
proposed project will result in permanent modifications to the
landforms within the project boundary. The project will involve
substantial mass grading which will result in filling a canyon
adjacent to the Arroyo Simi, elimination of a prominent landform
central to the property, and modifications to the landscape along
prominent view corridors in the eastern part of the City. Although
revegetation of the graded area is planned, the scope of grading
will irreversibly modify the existing natural environment and open
space within and adjacent to the project boundary.
Overriding Considerations are defined as those features of a project
that rationalize project approval despite the inability to develop
sufficient, feasible environmental mitigation measures.
The Overriding Considerations for the Special Devices Incorporated
Project are:
c: \1- m \sdi \cega.soc 2 8 -21 -96
(1) The proposed project will permit the construction of one
manufacturing and two commercial properties which will provide
needed employment for City residents. The City presently does not
have a suitable balance between residential and employment
opportunities, a deficiency that the project will, at least in part,
remedy. Provisions in the Development Agreement for the SDI project
require that substantial local employment of Moorpark residents be
achieved during the first several years of operation. Employment
will also be generated once commercial projects are developed on the
two proposed commercial lots.
At this time, the City's employment base is decidedly non -local and
residents often must travel considerable distances to avail
themselves of employment opportunities. The availability of
increased employment opportunities within the City will reduce
regional air quality impacts by shortening commute times and
distances to employment locations situated outside of the City.
(2) The project will involve the dedication of a very substantial
amount of land to conservation purposes. More than 300 acres of
land will be placed in permanent Conservation Easement (with
perpetual dedication of development rights). Several of the most
significant, rare, and unique resources within the property boundary
will be within the boundary of the Conservation Easement.
Protection of both cultural resources and rare plants and associated
special interest fauna will be achieved by the creation of the
Conservation Easement.
(3) A major capacity increasing improvement of the State Route
23 /New Los Angeles Avenue interchange will be funded by the project
applicant. This important improvement will provide an improved
interchange ramp design which will accommodate future development
within the City. Once implemented, the reconstruction of this
interchange will provide enough future capacity that no additional
improvements to this interchange will be required to accommodate
General Plan buildout within the City. In addition, portions of the
State Route 23 /New Los Angeles Avenue offramp will be landscaped and
upgraded visually to provide an attractive entrance to the City.
(4) The restoration of the landforms within the project boundary
(after mass grading) will involve substantial replacement planting
with native species, restoration of riparian vegetation adjacent to
the Arroyo Simi, and substantial restoration and enhancement of oak
woodlands situated above the Arroyo Simi along the northern
perimeter of the project boundary. This restoration program will
contribute to the long -term viability of oak woodlands within the
City. Presently, due largely to historic grazing activities, the
c: \1- m \sdi \cega.soc 3 8 -21 -96
oak woodlands within the project boundary are not sufficiently self -
propagating and the proposed restoration program and the elimination
of grazing will contribute to the ultimate improved viability of oak
woodland habitat along the Arroyo Simi.
(5) The project will provide important economic and job formation
opportunities for both short -term employment in the construction
trades and long -term employment in the services and maintenance
sectors of the local economy. The balance between jobs and the
housing in the City reflects a shortage of employment opportunities,
particularly for service and maintenance sector employees, and the
approval of the project will contribute to a gradual reversal of
this trend. The project will also create indirect financial
benefits to existing businesses in the City through the increased
use of local services and facilities.
(6) The approval of the project will provide the opportunity for
a type of retail development that is currently unavailable in the
City (freeway- oriented commercial uses).
(7) The overall economic benefits of the project for the City will
involve a source of long -term revenue that will enhance the City's
General Fund. Fewer methods exist for providing General Fund
revenue now than in the past and the provision of an income stream
to the City resulting from the anticipated sales tax revenues
associated with freeway commercial oriented development will make
a valuable contribution to funding important capital improvements
and /or services that would otherwise be unavailable to the City's
residents.
(8) Comprehensive mitigation measures have been developed for
impacts that were identified in the Final EIR the project. All
physically and technically feasible mitigation measures have been
imposed on the project.
c: \1- m \sdi \cega.soc 4 8 -21 -96
MOORPARK
1 799 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. 6 -1221 was adopted by the City Council of the
City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 21st day of AUGUST
, 1996, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS BROWN, PEREZ, WOZNIAK AND MAYOR LAWRASON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER HUNTER
ABSTAIN: NONE
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 29th
day of AUGUST 1996.
Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR JOHN E. WOZNIAK ELOISE BROWN PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember