Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES RDA 2009 221 2009 1216RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -221 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 72,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER ON APPROXIMATELY 2.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGH STREET, EAST OF MOORPARK AVENUE, ON THE APPLICATION OF THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ASZKENAZY DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT ALSO INVOLVES THE USE OF APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET OF VENTURA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - OWNED RAILROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to conduct environmental review on certain projects that would result in a physical change to the environment; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared in compliance with CEQA for proposed development of an approximately 72,000 square -foot commercial center on approximately 2.3 acres located on the south side of High Street, east of Moorpark Avenue, in order to determine if any significant environmental effects would result from the project; and WHEREAS, the conclusion of the Initial Study was that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, no significant effects would result from proposed development of an approximately 72,000 square -foot commercial center on approximately 2.3 acres located on the south side of High Street, east of Moorpark Avenue and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was given in accordance with CEQA with comments accepted between November 20, 2009 to December 14, 2009 and comments were received during this period. NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Redevelopment Agency has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for development of an approximately 72,000 square -foot commercial center on approximately 2.3 acres located on the south side of High Street, east of Moorpark Avenue, together with any comments received during the public review process. Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 2 SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Redevelopment Agency finds on the basis of the whole record for development of an approximately 72,000 square -foot commercial center on approximately 2.3 acres located on the south side of High Street, east of Moorpark Avenue, including the Initial Study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment with the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration included in Exhibit A (Mitigated Negative Declaration), that these mitigation measures are incorporated into the project as conditions of approval, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Moorpark and is hereby adopted. SECTION 3. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identified in the Initial Study prepared on behalf of development of an approximately 72,000 square -foot commercial center on approximately 2.3 acres located on the south side of High Street, east of Moorpark Avenue, is hereby adopted. SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The Agency Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December, 2009. - t�t.(�til. Jan' a S. Parvin, Chair ATTEST: STABLISHED Maureen Benson, Assistant Secretary MARCH 18, 1987 Q �.44/F0 RS` Q Attachment A — Mitigated Negative Declaration �'�_ Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 3 ATTACHMENT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6200 The following Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures of the City of Moorpark. Public Review Period: November 20, 2009 to December 14, 2009 Project Title /Case No.: Moorpark Station Project Location: South side of High Street, east of Moorpark Avenue. (Location Map Attached) Project Description: Development of an approximately 72,000 square -foot commercial center on approximately 2.3 acres. Discretionary permits include, but are not limited to, a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and a Commercial Planned Development. The project also involves the use of approximately 20 feet of Ventura County Transportation Commission -owned railroad right -of -way for parking and landscaping. Project Type: X Private Project Public Project Project Applicant: Moorpark Redevelopment Agency and Aszkenazy Development Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above - referenced project, revisions have been made by or agreed to by the applicant consistent with the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. With these revisions, it is found that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Initial Study Attached) Responsible Agencies: City of Moorpark, Ventura County Transportation Commission Trustee Agencies: Attachments: Location Map Initial Study with Mitigation Measures Contact Person: Joseph Fiss Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California, 93021 (805) 517 -6226 S. \Community Development \DEV PMTS \S P \Downtown Specific P(an\Aszkenaz&roposed MNO.doc r N N O O N O Z C O 4- O N N � N m w 0- Q O Q V O J Y Aw -AAnu_ Q O Q V O J Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 5 TY "14� Project Title: Moorpark Station Moorpark Station CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805) 517 -6200 Case No.: n!a Contact Person and Phone No.: David Moe, Redevelopment Manager (805) 517 -6217 Name of Applicant: Moorpark Redevelopment Agency and Aszkenazy Development Address and Phone No.: 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021 Project Location: South Side of High Street, East of Moorpark Avenue General Plan Designation: Project Description: General Commercial (C -2) Zoning: Old Town Commercial (C -OT) Development of an approximately 72.000 square -foot commercial center on approximately 2.3 acres located on the south side of High Street east of Moorpark Avenue. Discretionary permits include, but are not limited to a Disposition and Development Aareement (DDA) and a Commercial Planned Development. The project also involves the use of approximately 20 feet of Ventura County Transportation Commission -owned railroad right -of -way for parking and landscaping. _ Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: General Commercial, Office, Retail South: Railroad Tracks, Metrolink/VCTC Parking East: Metrolink/VCTC Parking West: General Commercial, Office, Post Office Responsible and Trustee Agencies: City of Moorpark, Ventura County Transportation Commission ENVIRONMENTAL The "Potentially FACTORS POTENTIALLY environmental factors checked below would Significant Impact, or -Less Than Significant Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services I Utilities /Service Systems be AFFECTED: potentially affected by this project. involving With Mitigation, -as indicated by the cheCklrst Agricultural Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Nose Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance at least one impact that is a on the following pages Air Quality Geology/Soils Land Use/Planning Population /Housing Transportation/Traffic None X X DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. Mitigation measures described on the attached Exhibit 1 have been added to the project A MITIGATED NEGATIVE EC TION will be prepared. % Prepared by: Reviewed by: e s David A. obardt Date: t l I b I'A Date: � � l6 A 1 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 6 Moorpark Station INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT 1: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (AS AMENDED 1211612009) 1. A nesting survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the removal of any vegetation or structures from the site. Vegetation and structure removal will be conducted in compliance with the recommendations of the nesting survey. Monitoring Action: Review of Nesting Survey Timing: Prior to Removal of Vegetation or Structures Responsibility: Planning Director 2 Once the detailed architectural plans are completed for the Phase II building, an acoustical verification must be conducted to ensure that the building has been properly designed to comply with the City's CNEL requirement of 50 d6 for interior areas The design features required to achieve the noise standard may include one or more of the following elements to achieve this requirement noise barriers, sound -rated windows and doors, orientation of windows relative to the street and railroad, upgraded exterior wall and /or roof construction, insulation batts, and /or forced air ventilation. Monitoring Action: Applicant to provide acoustical verification Timing: Prior to Zoning Clearance for Construction Responsibility: Planning Director 3 Once the detailed architectural plans are completed for the Project, an acoustical verification must be conducted to ensure that the Project has been properly designed to comply with Section 17.53.080 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code regarding noise intrusion onto surrounding properties. The design features may include one or more of the following elements to comply with this section of the Moorpark Municipal Code. noise barriers, locating activity centers behind buildings and /or away from sensitive property lines, reduction in hours of operation, procurement specifications for quiet mechanical equipment, locating mechanical equipment inside buildings and /or away from sensitive property lines, and screening or enclosing rooftop equipment. Monitoring Action: Applicant to provide acoustical verification Timing: Prior to Zoning Clearance for Construction Responsibility: Planning Director 4. Construction activities shall be scheduled only between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays Monitoring Action: Monitor Construction Times 2 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 7 Timing: Responsibility: During all Construction Operations Planning Director Moorpark Station 5. All construction equipment must be equipped with properly operating mufflers of a type recommended by the manufacturer. Monitoring Action: Monitor Construction Equipment Timing: During all Construction Operations Responsibility: Planning Director 6 To avoid construction noise impacts at the existing on -site restaurant (Building 19) during Phase I construction, a minimum 10' -high temporary noise barrier shall be erected along the west boundary of the Phase I Project site between the restaurant and the construction activity. The noise barrier shall be located as close as possible to the restaurant property and shall extend from the north Project property line to the south Project property line. The barrier shall remain in place during Phase I construction. The barrier may be constructed as follows: a. From acoustical blankets hung over or from a supporting frame. The blankets shall provide a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 28 and a minimum noise reduction coefficient (NRC) of 0 80 and shall be firmly secured to the framework with the sound absorptive side of the blankets oriented towards the equipment. The blankets shall be overlapped by at least 6" at seams and taped so that no gaps exist The largest blankets available shall be used in order to minimize the number of seams. The blankets shall be draped to the ground to eliminate any gaps at the base of the barrier, or, b. From commercially- available acoustical panels with a minimum surface density of 4 pounds per square foot, or, c From common construction materials such as plywood with a minimum surface density of 4 pounds per square foot. Monitoring Action: Provide Temporary Noise Barrier Timing: During Phase I Construction Responsibility: Planning Director 7 To avoid potential annoyance /interference due to vibration from Phase If construction, heavy equipment (backhoes, dozers, graders, loaders, etc.) must not be operated within 77 feet of the existing theatre to the north (Building 3, High Street Arts Center) during performances. Monitoring Action: Do not Operate Heavy Equipment within 77 feet of High Street Arts Center during performances Timing: During Phase ll Construction Responsibility: Planning Director Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 8 Moorpark Station 8. To avoid potential building damage due to vibration from Phase I construction, heavy equipment (backhoes, dozers, graders, loaders, etc ) shall not be operated within 15 feet of the existing on -site restaurant (Building 19). If the required distance cannot be maintained then the following measures shall be implemented a Qualified structural and geotechnical engineers shall review the peak vibration velocities estimated in this report, and determine if there are any risks to the restaurant building, including possible risks from dynamic soil settlement induced by the vibration If the structural or geotechnical engineers identify any potential risks, they shall take all necessary steps to protect the building including, but not limited to, photographing and/or videotaping the building in order to provide a record of the existing conditions before construction. b. If considered appropriate by a qualified structural engineer or geotechnical engineer, an engineer shall be on -site during the construction activities and perform such tests and observations as are necessary to ensure the structural stability of the building. This may include vibration measurements obtained inside or outside of the building Monitoring Action: Do not Operate Heavy Equipment within 15 feet of Existing On -Site Restaurant or Monitor Vibration if required. Timing: During Phase I Construction Responsibility: Planning Director 9. Developer must improve Moorpark Avenue, on the south side of the High Street intersection to provide one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one right -turn lane in the northbound direction, including the necessary feasibility studies, engineering, and design of the improvement, to the satisfaction of the City of Moorpark and Caltrans Monitoring Action: Improvement of Moorpark Avenue on the south side of the High Street intersection. Timing: Prior to Zoning Clearance for Occupancy Responsibility: Planning Director /Public Works Director AGREEMENT TO PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 6), this agreement must be signed prior to release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review. I, THE UNDERSIGNED PROJECT APPLICANT, HEREBY AGREE TO MODIFY THE PROJECT DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE ABOVE - LISTED MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE PROJECT I2 ►'1 log Signature ject App Date Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 9 A. AESTHETICS — Would the project 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings. and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings) 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Sources. Mitigation Moorpark Station Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact The project will result in the demolition and removal of a dilapidated structure, to be replaced with a commercial center with architecture consistent with the surrounding area and consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. The Site is not located within an identified scenic corridor and there are no scenic resources on site. The existing Pepper trees located along High Street are required to be retained as part of the City's adopted Pepper Tree Maintenance Program for High Street. Normal street lighting and residential light sources will not have a significant impact on vistas and will be evaluated and be consistent with the City's lighting ordinance. Architecture and landscaping will be evaluated for consistency with City standards Project Description, General Plan Land Use Element (1992). Downtown Specific Plan, High Street Pepper Tree Maintenance Plan None Required B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, the City of Moorpark may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland Would the project 1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland x of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources agency, to non- agncultural user 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. or a x Williamson Act wntract7 3) Involve other changes in the existing environment which. due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland. to non - agricultural use? Response: The project is an inflll development within an urbanized area and will not affect agriculture resources. The Ventura County Important Farmland Map classifies the site as "Urban and Built -Up land ". Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 10 Moorpark Station Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Sources. Project Description, California Dept of Conservation: Ventura County Important Farmland Map (2006) Mitigation None Required C. AIR QUALITY — Would the project 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the protect region is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Response: According to the 2003 Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, this size project will produce less than the allowable 25 pound threshold of NOX, resulting in the conclusion that there will not be an impact on regional air quality. As is required with all commercial /industrial projects a standard condition of approval of any entitlement application will require a contribution to the Moorpark Traffic Systems Management Fund to off -set air pollutants, consistent with the 2003 Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. Sources Project Description, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003) Mitigation. None Required D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project. t) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications. on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X u Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 11 wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to. marsh, vernal pool. coastal. etc ) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4) Interfere suftantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites) 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat Response: Sources: The project is an infill development within an urbanized area. Due to the highly disturbed urban setting of the site, there are minimal adverse affects to biological resources. There is no anticipation that any of the mature Pepper trees along High Street would be removed as a result of this project. All Pepper trees must be maintained in accordance with the City's adopted High Street Pepper Tree Maintenance Plan. A nesting survey will be conducted prior to any site activities that would involve vegetation removal. Based on the survey, vegetation removal may be postponed. Project Description, , California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base - Moorpark and Simi Valley Quad Sheets (1993), High Street Pepper Tree Maintenance Plan Mitigation: A nesting survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the removal of any vegetation or structures from the site. Vegetation and structure removal will be conducted in compliance with the recommendations of the nesting survey. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in § 15064 5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064 51 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological x resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred x outside of formal cemeteries? Response 1 The project is an inflll development within an urbanized area and will not affect cultural resources There are no known or expected cultural resources on the project site Sources: Project Description 7 Moorpark Station Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact The project is an infill development within an urbanized area. Due to the highly disturbed urban setting of the site, there are minimal adverse affects to biological resources. There is no anticipation that any of the mature Pepper trees along High Street would be removed as a result of this project. All Pepper trees must be maintained in accordance with the City's adopted High Street Pepper Tree Maintenance Plan. A nesting survey will be conducted prior to any site activities that would involve vegetation removal. Based on the survey, vegetation removal may be postponed. Project Description, , California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base - Moorpark and Simi Valley Quad Sheets (1993), High Street Pepper Tree Maintenance Plan Mitigation: A nesting survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the removal of any vegetation or structures from the site. Vegetation and structure removal will be conducted in compliance with the recommendations of the nesting survey. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in § 15064 5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064 51 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological x resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred x outside of formal cemeteries? Response 1 The project is an inflll development within an urbanized area and will not affect cultural resources There are no known or expected cultural resources on the project site Sources: Project Description 7 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 12 Less Than Potentially Significant Significant with Impact Mitigation Mitigation: None Required F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project. 1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss. injury. or death Involving i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquisl- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mmes and Geology Special Publication 42 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking) in) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -side landslide. lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive sod, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have sods incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water Moorpark Station Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X X X X X X X X Response This project will be built subject to compliance with building codes and compliance with all project conditions of approval. All plans will be subject to the review and approval of the City prior to issuance of building permits The site is not located in an earthquake fault zone. The site is, however, located in a liquefaction hazard zone; therefore, geotechnical measures will be incorporated into the project design as required by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and in accordance with the recommendations of a qualified soils engineer. Sources Project Description , General Plan Safety Element (2001) Mitigation. None Required G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project. 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials') 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the E. X X Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 13 Sources There are no known hazards on the project site, nor will new hazards be created as a result of the project A soils analysis was conducted on the site to determine if there were higher than normal traces of asbestos as a result of years of use of the adjacent railroad. Soil samples were taken at four locations along the south property line. The results of the soil tests found that while a small amount of an asbestiform mineral (chrysotile) found in one sample, it is less than the 0.25 percent detection limit necessary to qualify as an "asbestos - containing material' according to the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17CCR Section 93105) set forth by the California Air Resources Board. Project Description, General Plan Safety Element (2001), Soil Testing for the Presence of Asbestos, 12/2/2008 Mitigation: None Required H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e g , the production rate of pre -existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 9 X X Moorpark Station Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Miti ation Impact Impact environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials saes compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962 5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving wrldland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? _ Response Sources There are no known hazards on the project site, nor will new hazards be created as a result of the project A soils analysis was conducted on the site to determine if there were higher than normal traces of asbestos as a result of years of use of the adjacent railroad. Soil samples were taken at four locations along the south property line. The results of the soil tests found that while a small amount of an asbestiform mineral (chrysotile) found in one sample, it is less than the 0.25 percent detection limit necessary to qualify as an "asbestos - containing material' according to the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17CCR Section 93105) set forth by the California Air Resources Board. Project Description, General Plan Safety Element (2001), Soil Testing for the Presence of Asbestos, 12/2/2008 Mitigation: None Required H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e g , the production rate of pre -existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 9 X X Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 14 8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. injury or death involving i) fboding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? it) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Moorpark Station Response Less Than The project must comply with Chapter 15.24 (Floodplain Management) of the Moorpark Potentially Significant Less Than City and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. According Significant With Significant No within an area of 0.2% (500 year) annual chance of flood. Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site Project Description, General Plan Safety Element (2001) Revised Preliminary Flood X or area, including through the alteration of the course of Mitigation. a stream or river, in a manner which would result in None Required substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site) 1) Physically divide an established community? 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy. or X or area, including through the alteration of the course of (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result environmental effect? in flooding on- or off - site's 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X 5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6) Othertivrse substantially degrade water quality? X 7) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. injury or death involving i) fboding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? it) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X X Response The project must comply with Chapter 15.24 (Floodplain Management) of the Moorpark Municipal Code Drainage and flood control devices must be provided in compliance with City and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. According to the revised preliminary (November 24, 2008) Flood Insurance Rate Map, the project Is within an area of 0.2% (500 year) annual chance of flood. Sources: Project Description, General Plan Safety Element (2001) Revised Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06111C0816E, November 24, 2008 Mitigation. None Required I. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project 1) Physically divide an established community? X 2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy. or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? 10 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 15 Moorpark Station Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Response: The project is an infill development within an urbanized area and is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Moorpark and with the Downtown Specific Plan. Sources: Project Description, General Plan Land Use Element (1992) as amended. Downtown Specific Plan (1998, as amended 2006) Mitigation. None Required J. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project 1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents Of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Response: The project is an infill development within an urbanized area and will not affect mineral resources. There are no known mineral resources on site Sources Project Description, General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986) Mitigation: None Required K. NOISE — Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels9 3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project') 4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or. X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels') 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. would X 11 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 16 Potentially Significant Impact the protect expose people residing or working in the protect area to excessive noise levels') Response: Sources The Project could potentially result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of the City of Moorpark's Noise Element of the General Plan at the interior of the Phase II office building, if not attenuated. The design features required to achieve the noise standard shall include one or more of the following elements: noise barriers, sound -rated windows and doors, orientation of windows relative to the street and railroad, upgraded exterior wall and /or roof construction, insulation batts, and /or forced air ventilation. Project operation could potentially result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of the City of Moorpark's municipal code at the Project site if not attenuated. The design features required to achieve the noise standards shall include one or more of the following elements: noise barriers, locating activity centers behind buildings and/or away from sensitive property lines, reduction in hours of operation, procurement specifications for quiet mechanical equipment, locating mechanical equipment inside buildings and /or away from sensitive property lines, and screening or enclosing rooftop equipment. Project construction could result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of the City of Moorpark's municipal code at the existing on -site restaurant (Building 19) during Phase I construction and would be considered of short duration, but still in need of mitigation. Construction of the Project may potentially generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. These potentially significant impacts may occur in the form of vibration levels that exceed the building damage threshold at the existing on -site restaurant (Budding 19) during Phase I construction and /or vibration levels that exceed the annoyance /interference threshold at the theatre to the north of the Project site (Building 3/ High Street Arts Center) if construction were allowed to occur during performances Project operations may result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above existing levels than without the Project If not mitigated, this would be a potentially significant impact. Project construction will create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above existing levels than without the Project. This potentially significant impact would occur at the existing on -site restaurant (Building 19) during Phase I construction, if not mitigated. Project Description, Environmental Noise & Vibration Study for the Proposed High Street Redevelopment May 27, 2009, General Plan Noise Element (1998) 12 Moorpark Station Less Than Significant Less Than With Significant No Miti ation Impact Impact The Project could potentially result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of the City of Moorpark's Noise Element of the General Plan at the interior of the Phase II office building, if not attenuated. The design features required to achieve the noise standard shall include one or more of the following elements: noise barriers, sound -rated windows and doors, orientation of windows relative to the street and railroad, upgraded exterior wall and /or roof construction, insulation batts, and /or forced air ventilation. Project operation could potentially result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of the City of Moorpark's municipal code at the Project site if not attenuated. The design features required to achieve the noise standards shall include one or more of the following elements: noise barriers, locating activity centers behind buildings and/or away from sensitive property lines, reduction in hours of operation, procurement specifications for quiet mechanical equipment, locating mechanical equipment inside buildings and /or away from sensitive property lines, and screening or enclosing rooftop equipment. Project construction could result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of the City of Moorpark's municipal code at the existing on -site restaurant (Building 19) during Phase I construction and would be considered of short duration, but still in need of mitigation. Construction of the Project may potentially generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. These potentially significant impacts may occur in the form of vibration levels that exceed the building damage threshold at the existing on -site restaurant (Budding 19) during Phase I construction and /or vibration levels that exceed the annoyance /interference threshold at the theatre to the north of the Project site (Building 3/ High Street Arts Center) if construction were allowed to occur during performances Project operations may result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above existing levels than without the Project If not mitigated, this would be a potentially significant impact. Project construction will create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above existing levels than without the Project. This potentially significant impact would occur at the existing on -site restaurant (Building 19) during Phase I construction, if not mitigated. Project Description, Environmental Noise & Vibration Study for the Proposed High Street Redevelopment May 27, 2009, General Plan Noise Element (1998) 12 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 17 Moorpark Station Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Mitigation: Once the detailed architectural plans are completed for the Phase II building, an acoustical verification must be conducted to ensure that the building has been properly designed to comply with the City's CNEL requirement of 50 d13 for interior areas. The design features required to achieve the noise standard may include one or more of the following elements to achieve this requirement. noise barriers sound -rated windows and doors, orientation of windows relative to the street and railroad, upgraded exterior wall and/or roof construction, insulation batts, and /or forced air ventilation Once the detailed architectural plans are completed for the Project, an acoustical verification must be conducted to ensure that the Project has been property designed to comply with Section 17.53.080 of the City of Moorpark Municipal Code regarding noise intrusion onto surrounding properties. The design features may include one or more of the following elements to comply with this section of the Moorpark Municipal Code: noise barriers. locating activity centers behind buildings and/or away from sensitive property lines, reduction in hours of operation, procurement specifications for quiet mechanical equipment, locating mechanical equipment inside buildings and /or away from sensitive property Imes, and screening or enclosing rooftop equipment. Construction activities shall be scheduled only between 7 a m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. All construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating mufflers of a type recommended by the manufacturer. To avoid construction noise impacts at the existing on -site restaurant (Building 19) during Phase I construction, a minimum 10' -high temporary noise barrier shall be erected along the west boundary of the Phase I Project site between the restaurant and the construction activity. The noise barrier shall be located as close as possible to the restaurant property and shall extend from the north Project property line to the south Project property line The barrier shall remain in place during Phase I construction. The barrier may be constructed as follows a From acoustical blankets hung over or from a supporting frame. The blankets shall provide a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 28 and a minimum noise reduction coefficient (NRC) of 0.80 and shall be firmly secured to the framework with the sound absorptive side of the blankets oriented towards the equipment. The blankets shall be overlapped by at least 6" at seams and taped so that no gaps exist The largest blankets available shall be used in order to minimize the number of seams. The blankets shall be draped to the ground to eliminate any gaps at the base of the barrier, or, b. From commercially - available acoustical panels with a minimum surface density of 4 pounds per square foot, or, c From common construction materials such as plywood with a minimum surface density of 4 pounds per square foot. To avoid potential annoyance /interference due to vibration from Phase 11 construction, heavy equipment (backhoes, dozers, graders, loaders, etc ) shall not be operated within 77 feet of the existing theatre to the north (Building 3) during performances. To avoid potential building damage due to vibration from Phase I construction, heavy equipment (backhoes, dozers, graders, loaders, etc.) shall not be operated within 15 feet of the existing on -site restaurant (Building 19) If the required distance cannot be maintained then the following measures shall be implemented: a Qualified structural and geotechnical engineers shall review the peak vibration velocities estimated in this report, and determine if there are any risks to the restaurant building, including possible risks from dynamic soil settlement induced by the vibration If the structural or geotechnical engineers identify any potential risks, they shall take all necessary steps to protect the building including, but not limited to, photographing and /or videotaping the building in order to provide a record of the existing conditions before construction b If considered appropriate by a qualified structural engineer or geotechnical engineer, an engineer shall be on -site during the construction activities and perform such tests and observations as are necessary to ensure the structural stability of the building. This may include vibration measurements obtained inside or outside of the building 13 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 18 Moorpark Station Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact L. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project 1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example. by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing. X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project will not induce substantial population growth or displace any housing. There are no residences on the site and the proposed use is consistent with land use and development patterns of the area. Sources. Project Description Mitigation: None Required M. PUBLIC SERVICES t) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X Response: While some Incremental impact on public services is to be expected, the impacts are not significant because development fees and increased property taxes will be paid to fund any additional required public services. Sources. Project Description, General Plan Safety Element (2001), General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986) Mitigation. None Required 14 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 19 N. RECREATION 1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Response: The project will not increase the use of existing recreational resources because passive recreation areas are planned in the design of the project, and Park and Recreation fees will be paid to fund recreational resources. Sources: Project Description, General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986) Mitigation. None Required O. TRANSPORTATIONMRAFFIC — Would the project 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation X to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads. or congestion at intersections)? 2) Exceed. either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e g , sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e 9, farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 6) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans. or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e g . bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 15 Moorpark Station Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact N. RECREATION 1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Response: The project will not increase the use of existing recreational resources because passive recreation areas are planned in the design of the project, and Park and Recreation fees will be paid to fund recreational resources. Sources: Project Description, General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986) Mitigation. None Required O. TRANSPORTATIONMRAFFIC — Would the project 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation X to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads. or congestion at intersections)? 2) Exceed. either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e g , sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e 9, farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 6) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans. or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e g . bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 15 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 20 Moorpark Station Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Response: (Amended 121162009) During the existing (Year 2009) conditions scenario, all five study intersections are operating at LOS D or better during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. Under future (Year 2011 and 2012) with ambient growth and related project conditions, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday morning peak hour, except at the intersection of Moorpark Avenue and High Street where it is anticipated to operate at LOS E. During the afternoon peak hour, two of the five study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better in 2011, One of the five study intersections is projected to operate at LOS D or better in 2012. The Project would be constructed in two Phases. Phase 1 is anticipated to be in operation by 2011 and Phase 2 is anticipated to be in operation by 2012. Phase 1 of the Project would include the construction of 25,850 square feet of office and 23,290 square feet of retail space Phase 2 would include the construction of 12,322 square feet of office and 10,194 square feet of restaurant space. It is estimated that the Project under both Phases would generate about 2,751 daily trips of which 210 and 234 trips would occur during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. For the future (Year 2011) condition with Project (Phase 1) traffic included, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at the same LOS during both peak hour periods compared to the future (Year 2011) baseline condition, except at the intersection of Spring Road and High Street during the afternoon peak hour where it would operate at LOS D without the Project and LOS E with the Project. Four of the five study intersections during the morning peak hour and one of the five study intersections during the afternoon peak hour are projected to operate at LOS D or better. For the future (Year 2012) condition with Project (Phases 1 & 2) traffic included, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at the same LOS during both peak hour periods compared to the future (Year 2012) baseline condition. Four of the five study intersections during the morning peak hour and one of the five study intersections during the afternoon peak hour are projected to operate at LOS D or better. The proposed Project traffic, along with the cumulative developments traffic in the area, are projected to cause the intersection of Moorpark Avenue and High Street to operate at a deficient level of service (i e LOS F) during the afternoon peak hour under both Phases 1 and 2 The intersection of Moorpark Avenue and High Street is projected to operate at a V/C better than the V/C level without the Project for both Phases 1 and 2. Thus, this intersection is considered mitigated to an acceptable level with the proposed improvement Sources (Amended 121162009) KOA Traffic Impact Analysis for the Aszkenazy Development June 1, 2009 (Revised 12/11/09), Project Description, General Plan Circulation Element (1992) _ Mitigation Implementation of proposed intersection improvements would mitigate the cumulative and project impact to a level of insignificance at the impacted location (Amended 1211612009) Developer must improve Moorpark Avenue, on the south side of the High Street intersection to provide one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one right -turn lane in the northbound direction, including the necessary feasibility studies, engineering, and design of the improvement, to the satisfaction of the City of Moorpark and Caltrans 16 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 21 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result In a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that d has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? 6) Be served by the landfill wdh sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Response Utilities and service systems within the area are adequate to serve the project. Development fees will be paid to fund required utilities and service systems, or they will be provided by the developer Sources: Project Description, Ventura County Watershed Protection District: Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (2002) Mitigation. None Required Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history of prehistory? 2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effect of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects. the effects of other current projects. and effects of probable future projects)? 3) Does the project have environmental effects which will 17 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Moorpark Station Less Than Significant No Impact Impact P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project 1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the Construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result In a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that d has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? 6) Be served by the landfill wdh sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Response Utilities and service systems within the area are adequate to serve the project. Development fees will be paid to fund required utilities and service systems, or they will be provided by the developer Sources: Project Description, Ventura County Watershed Protection District: Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (2002) Mitigation. None Required Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history of prehistory? 2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effect of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects. the effects of other current projects. and effects of probable future projects)? 3) Does the project have environmental effects which will 17 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 22 Potentially Significant Impact cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ercner Sources: Moorpark Station Less Than Significant Less Than With Significant Mitigation I_ mpact No IMI! ct This is an infill project on a previously developed site within an urban setting. The proposed use is consistent with the City of Moorpark's Zoning and General Plan. Because of the previous development on the site, the project would not create impacts that would rise to the level of a mandatory finding of significance. The site does not contain fish or wildlife habitat and Its redevelopment would not restrict the range of a rare or endangered plants or animals There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory on site. No impacts from the project could be considered individually limited, but cumulatively considerable as the project is proposed to be developed in a manner consistent with local zoning codes and plans. There are no environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings as a result of the project. See below Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study None Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. Items used are referred to by number in the Response Section of the Initial Study Checklist. 1 Project Description (Attachment 1) 2 Final Traffic Impact Analysis for the Aszkenazy Development June 1, 2009 (Revised 12/11/2009) (Summary and Project Recommendations, Attachment 2) 3. Final Environmental Noise & Vibration Study for the Proposed High Street Redevelopment May 27, 2009 (Executive Summary, Attachment 3) 4. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, November 30, 2007 (Findings and Conclusions, Attachment 4) 5 Limited Phase II Investigation Report, December 21, 2007 (Executive Summary, Attachment 5) 6 Soil Testing for the Presence of Asbestos. December 2, 2008 (Conclusions, Attachment 6) 7. The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended 8. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended 9. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No 2004 -2224 10. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15000 et. seq. 11 Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, October 31, 2003 12. Downtown Specific Plan, as amended 13 High Street Pepper Tree Maintenance Plan 18 Resolution No. 2009 -221 Page 23 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss. CITY OF MOORPARK ) I, Maureen Benson, Assistant Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 2009 -221 was adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of December, 2009, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Agency Members Mikos, Millhouse, Pollock, Van Dam, and Chair Parvin NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 31 st day of December, 2009. Maureen Benson, Benson, Assistant Secretary (seal) E cB M 1 cc ►FOR�O�� C /T1, Of 110