HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2004 0217 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2004 -454
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY - February 17, 2004
7:00 P.M.
Moorpark Community Center
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
799 Moorpark Avenue
4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2004.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Any member of the public may address the Commission during the Public Comments portion
of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Discussion item. Speakers who wish
to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing or Discussion item mus- do so
during the Public Hearing or Discussion portion of the Agenda for that item. Speaker
cards must be received by the Secretary for Public Comment prior to the beginning of
the Public Comments portion of the meeting and for Discussion items prior to the
beginning of the first item of the Discussion portion of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for
a Public Hearing must be received prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing. A
limitation of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion
item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon each Public
Hpari nn i tam -.1-or W,-; rr -- Q ,F --- n-. .,.1- . - . - - - I- - - -'- -- . - - ,
Planning Commission Agenda
February 17, 2004
Page No. 2
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2004 -454)
A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone
Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for
1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally
North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land
Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal
Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN:
500 -0 -120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -
145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, -
235, -245, -255; 500 -0 -281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0 -110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
185) (Continued from February 3, 2004 Meeting)
Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public
comments, direct staff on the suggested amendments to
the Revised Draft EIR, and continue the agenda item
with the public hearing open to the March 2, 2004
Planning Commission meeting
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
(Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to continuation.)
A. March 2, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting:
• Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2003 -02,
General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone Change No.
2003 -02 and Tentative Tract Map No. 5425 (Shea
Homes, Inc.)
B. March 17, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting:
• RPD 2002 -03, -04, -05, ZOA 2002 -01 (SP -2; TR 5045)
(Morrison /Fountainwood /Agoura & Pardee Construction
Company)
11. ADJOURNMENT:
ITEM: 6.A.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 3, 2004
PaQe 1
1
The
Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on
2
February 3, 2004, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic
3
Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021.
4
1.
CALL TO ORDER:
5
Chair Pozza called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m.
6
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
7
Vice Chair Lauletta led the Pledge of Allegiance.
8
3.
ROLL CALL:
9
Commissioners DiCecco, Landis and Peskay, Vice Chair
10
Lauletta and Chair Pozza were present.
11
Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community
12
Development Director; Walter Brown, Assistant City
13
Engineer; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; Laura Stringer,
14
Senior Management Analyst; and Gail Rice, Administrative
15
Secretary.
16
Also attending the meeting were Dana Privitt from BonTerra
17
Consulting and Joseph Montoya of Leighton and Associates.
18
4.
PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
19
None.
20
5.
REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
21
None.
22
6.
rnNSFNT rAT,RmnAR
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 3, 2004
Pacie 2
1 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
2 None.
3 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
4 None.
5 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6 (next Resolution No. 2004 -454)
7 A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001-05, Zone
8 Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2C01 -01, for
9 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally
10 North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land
11 Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal
12 Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN:
13 500 -0- 120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -
14 145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, -
15 235, -245, -255; 500 -0 -281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -
16 145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0- 110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150-
17 185) (Continued from January 20, 2004 Meeting)
18 Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public
19 comments and continue the agenda item with the public
20 hearing open to the February 17, 2004 Planning
21 Commission meeting.
22 David Bobardt gave the staff presentation.
23 Joseph Montoya, geologist for Leighton and Associates,
24 subconsultants for BonTerra Consulting. Mr.. Montoya
25 provided information on oil well depth and production.
26 He commented on the oil processing procedures,
27 handling of oil, maintaining facilities and possible
28 leaks. He explained the types of waste and processes
29 used in cleanup, non -toxic chemicals contained in the
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 3, 2004
Paae 3
1 also provided information on Phase I and Phase II
2 reports and their timing with regard to deveyopment.
3
4 The Commission questioned Mr. Montoya on the number
5 active wells on the property, the Phase II report,
6 methods for identifying subsurface tanks or pipelines,
7 potential contaminants, and who oversees production if
8 the wells continue operating.
9
Steven A. Fields, Operations Engineer from DOGGR was
10
available for questions.
11
The Commission questioned Mr. Fields on the regulatory
12
oversight that is provided with ongoing operations and
13
asked if there were previous reported incidents on
14
this site. Mr. Fields responded that the department
15
had a good working relationship with the operator.
16
Kim Kilkenny, applicant, addressed questions on oil
17
wells and identification of underground systems. He
18
then submitted an updated matrix which included
19
staff's recommendation and the position of the
20
applicant on various issues.
21
The Commission questioned the applicant on pub- surface
22
mineral rights and surface rights, oil operations
23
inside the property lines and the lakeside trail.
24
Chris Childer, resident, spoke in support of the
25
proposal, and commented that the project would provide
26
the City with much needed housing and that it should
27
be sent to the people for a vote.
28
Sharonmarie Fisher Laughrey, resident, not in support
29
of the proposal, commented on traffic, noise problems
30
and environmental issues. She stated that she would
31
like the onramp first, that speed bumps and longer
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 3, 2004
Paae 4
1
on the possibility of no transportation funds which
2
could affect the project and the loss of nature due to
3
construction traffic making this a major thoroughfare.
4
Dorothy Ventimiglio, resident, not in support of the
5
proposal, commented on concerns with soil
6
contamination because of the oil wells and expressed
7
concern that the underground piping should be removed
8
prior to grading.
9
Randy Griffith, resident, not in support of the
10
proposal, commented on the groundwater and concerns
11
regarding a conflict between Fox Canyon Ground Water
12
Management and Ventura County Waterworks District.
13
Commissioner Lauletta clarified that the issue had
14
been addressed earlier in the meeting, prior to Mr.
15
Griffith's arrival.
16
Lisa Leal, resident, spoke in support of the proposal,
17
commented Hidden Creek offered no amenities like this
18
project, supported the helipad, the park, and that
19
traffic flows will benefit from the interchange. She
20
commended the developer for their support of the
21
people and the community.
22
Three (3) written statement cards were submitted and
23
two were in favor and one neutral for the project. The
24
statements will be included in the record.
25
The Commission questioned staff on Fox Canyon's
26
response to overpumping, the water supply assessment,
27
improvements if contamination is found, the active
28
wells, construction traffic routes, the day care site
29
being built adjacent to the school, switching daycare
30
center and park site with the school, review of the
31
matrix, voluntary cleanup program, and the previous
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 3, 2004
Page 5
1 The Commission reviewed items #1 through #17 on the
2 matrix.
3 By consensus, the Commission concurred with staff's
4 recommendation on items 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and
5 16.
6 The Commission provided direction to staff or
7 recommendations on the following items:
8 Item No. 1: Vice Chair Lauletta requested MUSD
9 Superintendent to return and discuss projections
10 including North Park Village at buildout, and
11 Commissioner Landis commented that he preferred
12 multiple school levels.
13 Item No. 2: Commissioner Peskay recommended the Day
14 Care Site be adjacent to school site. The Commission
15 by consensus concurred with that recommendation.
16 Item No. 6: The Commission recommended replacement of
17 trees removed for the Canyon Crossing rather than
18 compensation.
19 Item No. 7: Mr. Hogan provided the Commission with a
20 summary of recent City Council discussions and
21 direction regarding gated communities. The majority
22 of the Commission expressed no concern with a gated
23 community. Commissioner DiCecco expressed preference
24 for no gated entries, however supported the relocation
25 of the gates as suggested by staff.
26 Item No. 11: The Commission requested developer return
27 with options for lakeside public access.
28 Item No. 12: Commissioner DiCecco expressed preference
29 for increased density (single and multi - density) in
(1 Dn --�I ,-A 17 , -- r' I, - 7 , - - � - - --3 ^ - -° - - - - - - - - -- -
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 3, 2004
PaQe 6
1 Item No. 15: Vice Chair Lauletta requested that
2 habitat restoration and protection be included in the
3 maintenance plan.
4 Item No. 17: There was discussion of the pros and
5 cons of narrower streets and the impact on driveway
6 aprons and Handicap accessibility. Commissioner
7 DiCecco recommended that the main roadway include a
8 median similar to Tierra Rejada Road. The applicant
9 was requested to provide additional information on
10 street widths for the next meeting.
11 By consensus the Commission agreed to continue the
12 review of the matrix to the February 17, 2004,
13 meeting.
14 MOTION: Vice Chair Lauletta moved and Commissioner
15 DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff
16 recommendation.
17 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
18 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
19 None.
20 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
21 (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to continuation.)
22 A. February 3, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting:
23 • General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change No.
24 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 (North Park)
25 B. February 17, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting:
26 • Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2003 -02,
27 General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone Change No.
28 2003 -02 and Tentative Tract Map No. 5425 (Shea
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of February 3, 2004
Paae 7
1 12. ADJOURNMENT:
2 MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Peskay
3 seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting.
4 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.)
5 The meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
6
7
8 ATTEST:
9
10
11
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
Scott Pozza, Chair
ITEM: 8. A.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared by: David A. Bobardt, Planning Mane
DATE: February 12, 2004 (PC Meeting of 2/17/2004)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change
No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for 1,650
Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally North of
Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately
Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant:
North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0- 120 -065; 500- 0 -170-
135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, -145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -
195, -205, -215, -225, -235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -
175; 500 -0- 292 -135, -145, -195, -215, -225; 615- 0 -110-
205, -215; 615 -0- 150 -185)
BACKGROUND
At the last Planning Commission meeting, staff and consultants to
the City presented information on North Park groundwater quantity
and oil well issues. The Planning Commission also began discussion
of issues on the matrix provided by the applicant. Additional
speakers addressed the Planning Commission and the agenda item was
continued to February 17, 2004, with the public hearing still open.
Staff indicated that it would present information on groundwater
quality along with responses to comments on the Chapter 3.3b of the
EIR at this meeting. Groundwater quality information is provided
in this report. The draft responses to comments are not yet
available and are expected by the next Planning Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION
Honorable Planning Commission
February 17, 2004
Page 2
Practices that could be incorporated into project design. The
analysis and mitigation did not include a quantitative analysis;
however, conclusions that impacts would be less - than - significant
were based on demonstrated compliance with applicable regulations.
City staff asked BonTerra Consulting to retain Kennedy /Jenks
Consultants to assess and quantify the groundwater quality impacts
of the North Park project from stormwater runoff, detention basin
percolation, and lake water percolation through the clay lining.
The report is attached and supplements information contained in
Chapter 3.8 of the Revised Draft EIR. The report concludes that
with specific stormwater quality devices, the project would not be
expected to result in significant impacts to groundwater quality.
In order to ensure that stormwater devices are included in the
project to address groundwater quality, it is recommended that an
additional mitigation measure be added to Chapter 3.8 as follows:
6. A combination of grass swales and centrifugal separators or
Best Management Practices of equivalent or superior
effectiveness shall be employed with the detention basins in
the project design that demonstrate compliance with all
applicable groundwater quality policies and regulations.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, calculations shall
be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to
demonstrate project compliance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Continue to accept public comments, direct staff on the suggested
amendments to the Revised Draft EIR, and continue the agenda item
with the public hearing open to the March 2, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting.
Attachment:
February 12, 2004 Groundwater Quality Impact Analysis
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
12 February 2004
Memorandum
To: Dana Privitt
From: Karen Loomis
Greg Arakaki
- Subject: North Park Village Groundwater Quality Impact Analysis
K/J 044802.00
In accordance with our consulting agreement dated 2 February 2004, Kennedy /Jenks is pleased
to submit the following technical memorandum regarding potential groundwater quality impacts
associated with the North Park Village. The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
(GMA) requested additional information associated with groundwater quality in their letter to the
City of Moorpark dated 6 January 2004. Section 3.8 and Appendix G of the DEIR analyzed the
potential water quality impacts of the Project, including impacts that may arise from stormwater
runoff. As indicated in those sections of the DEIR, the Project will not cause significant impacts
to water quality due to the imposition of various mitigation measures, including compliance with
the Regional Water Quality Control Board's requirements regarding Storm Water Quality Urban
Impact Mitigation Plans. This technical memorandum seeks to provide supplemental
information regarding groundwater quality impacts to address the GMA's concerns. As
confirmed by this supplemental information, any significant water quality impacts, including
those to groundwater quality, can be mitigated through the application of suitable mitigation
measures.
BACKGROUND
Impacts to groundwater quality from the North Park Village may be anticipated due to changes
in stormwater runoff quality characteristics from the current conditions. Stormwater runoff can
affect groundwater quality via two mechanisms – infiltration from retention basins and releases
to the Arroyo Simi which is the current discharge point for the City of Moorpark. A third potential
source of impacts to groundwater quality includes the water that may percolate from the
planned North Park Village Lake.
In order to determine if there are impacts to groundwater quality, clear definitions of the
standards must be developed and estimates of the potentially impacting source (water
percolatina from the retention basins_ stnrmwatPr riischarnPri M tha Arrnvn cimi -mnA --f-
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 2
• Substantially degrade water quality
In developing a water quality basis for determination of potential impacts, consideration must be
given to both regulatory standards and ambient water quality. Supplemental information
concerning applicable water quality standards and ambient quality are provided below.
Water Quality Standards
There are several water quality standards that should be compared in order to develop a basis
for identifying potential water quality impacts. As indicated in the DEIR, the primary statutes in
this area are the federal Clean Water Act and the state Porter - Cologne Water Quality Act, which
are implemented by the California State Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional
Water Quality Control Boards. As also discussed in the DEIR, these agencies, acting pursuant
to these statutes, have enacted various policies, regulations, plans and programs aimed at
protecting the quality of the State's waters, including the National Pollutant. Discharge
Elimination System, the "Antidegradation" Policy, Water Quality Control Plans (or Basin Plans)
Total Maximum Daily Load regulations, and stormwater management programs These
regulations and programs address different constituents, as identified in the DEIR. This report
shall provide additional discussion of the Water Quality Control Plan, Antidegradation Policy,
and Total Maximum Daily Loads or Waste Load Allocations.
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
The objective of the Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region (4), prepared by the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), or as it is more commonly
know, the Basin Plan, is to preserve and enhance water quality, protect the beneficial uses of all
regional waters, and implement the Clean Water Act. Specifically, the plan designates
beneficial uses for surface water and groundwater; sets narrative and numerical objectives that
must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and to conform to the
State's anti - degradation policy; and describes implementation programs to protect all waters in
the Region. In order to be considered consistent with the Basin Plan, the proposed project must
be in compliance with water quality objectives and may not cause a deterioration of beneficial
uses.
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 3
• Intermittent groundwater recharge source
• Intermittent freshwater replenishment source
• Intermittent water contact recreation
• Intermittent non - contact water recreation
• Intermittent warm freshwater habitat
• Existing wildlife habitat
• Existing rare, threatened, or endangered species habitat
It should be pointed out that the under dry weather conditions, one of the principal sources of
supply for the Arroyo Simi is treated effluent from the Simi Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The South Las Posas groundwater basin, which is the aquifer that would receive the water that
percolates from the retention basins and the North Park Village Lake, has been designated with
the following beneficial uses:
• Existing municipal supply
• Existing agricultural supply
• Existing industrial process supply
• Existing industrial service supply
Tables 1 through 3 present surface water and groundwater quality requirements based on the
Basin Plan. Table 1 presents explicit constituent requirements. Tables 2 and 3 present drinking
water standards that are referenced for groundwater and surface water sources that are used
for municipal supply.
Table 1. Basin Plan Water Quality Requirements
Constituent' Surface Water' Groundwater°
Total dissolved solids 850 2,500
Sulfate 250 1,200
Chloride 150 400
Boron 1.0 3.0
Nitrooen (as N) 10 NA
NA = Not applicable
wi-At __.
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 4
Table 2. Basin Plan Primary Drinking Water Standards
Constituent
MCLa
Constituent
MCL (mg /1)
Inorganic Chemicals
Organic Chemicals
Antimony
0.006
Acrylamide
b
Arsenic
0.05
Alachlor
0.002
Asbestos
7 million
Atrazine
0.003
fibers per
liter
Barium
2
Benzene
0.005
Beryllium
0.004
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.0002
Cadmium
0.005
Carbofuran
0.04
Total Chromium
0.1
Carbon tetrachloride
0.005
Copper
1.3a
Chlordane
0.002
Cyanide (as free cyanide)
0.2
Chlorobenzene
0.1
Fluoride
4
2,4 -D
0.07
Lead
0,015a
Dalapon
0.2
Inorganic mercury
0.002
1,2- Dibromo -3- chloropropane
0.002
(DBCP)
Nickel
0.1
o- Dichlorobenzene
0.6
Nitrate (as N)
10
Nitrite (as N)
1
p- Dichlorobenzene
0.075
Selenium
0.05
1,2- Dichloroethane
0.005
Thallium
0.0005
1, 1 -Dichloroethylene
0.007
Radionuclides
cis- 1,2- Dichloroethylene
0.07
Beta particles and photon
4 millirems
trans -1,2- Dichloroethylene
0.1
emitters
per year
Gross alpha particle activity
15 pCi /I
Dichloromethane
0.005
Radium 226 and Radium 228
5 pci /I
1,2- Dichloropropane
0.005
Microorganisms
Di(2- ethylhexyl)adiapate
0.4
Giardia lamblia
3 -log
Di(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.006
removal
Heterotrophic plate count
<500
Dinoseb
0.007
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 5
Table 2. Basin Plan Primary Drinking Water Standards
Turbidity <5 NTU
Virus (enteric) 4 -log
removal
Endothall
0.1
Endrin
0.002
Epichlorohydrin
b
Ethylbenzene
0.7
Ethylene dibromide
0.00005
Glyphosate
0.7
Heptachlor
0.0004
Heptachlor epoxide
0.0002
Hexachlorobenzene
0.001
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
0.05
Lindane
0.0002
Methoxychlor
0.04
Oxamyl (Vydate)
0.2
Polychlorinated biphenyls
0.0005
(PCBs)
Pentachlorophenol
0.001
Picloram
0.5
Simazine
0.004
Styrene
0.1
Tetrachloroethylene
0.005
Toluene
1
Total trihalomethanes
0.1
(TTHMs)
Toxaphene
0.003
2,4,5 -TP (Silvex)
0.05
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene
0.07
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
0.2
1,1,2- Trichloroethane
0.005
Trichloroethylene
0.005
Vinyl chloride
0.002
Xylenes (total)
10
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 6
Table 3. Basin Plan Secondary Drinking Water Standards
Constituent
MCLa
Constituent
MCL m /I
Aluminum
0.05 to 0.2
Manganese
0.05
Chloride
250
Odor
3 TON
Color
15 color units
pH
6.5-8.5
Copper
1
Silver
0.1
Corrosivity
Noncorrosive
Sulfate
250
Fluoride
2
Total dissolved solids
500
Foaming Agents
0.5
Zinc
5
Iron
0.3
Notes:
a Concentrations listed in mg /I unless otherwise noted.
bEach water system must certify, in writing, to the State (using third -party or manufacturer's
certification that when acrylamide and epichlorhydrin are used in drinking water systems, the
combination (or product) of dose and monomer level does not exceed the following levels:
Acrylamide — 0.05% dosed at 1 mg /I (or equivalent); Epichlorohydrin — 0.01% dosed at 20
mg /1(or equivalent).
Waste Load Allocations
In addition to the development of its Basin Plan, each RWQCB is responsible for the
development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for each "impaired" surface water body
within the region's boundaries. Clean Water Act Section 303(d)(1)(A) requires states to identify
impaired surface waters within their boundaries where numeric or narrative water quality
objectives are not being maintained and /or beneficial uses are not fully protected after
application of technology -based controls. Each state is also required to establish a priority
ranking for such waters, considering the severity of the pollution and the beneficial uses of the
waters. For those surface water bodies identified and prioritized in the aforementioned list,
section 303(d)(1)(C) requires that each state establish TMDLs for those pollutants identified
under the Clean Water Act Section 304(a)(2) as suitable for TMDL development correlated with
the achievP_mPnt of wntP.r niiality nhiartivac
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 7
System (NPDES) permits (for point sources) and /or through a wider range of authorities and
programs (for nonpoint sources), including the use of applicable State enforcement authorities.
TMDLs are formalized via their adoption as amendments to a RWQCB's Basin Plan.
The Arroyo Simi is a 303(d) listed impaired surface water body for the following constituents:
• Ammonia
• Boron
• Chloride
• Chromium
• Nickel
• Selenium
• Silver
• Sulfates
• Total Dissolved Solids
• Zinc
The RWQCB is in the process of developing TMDLs for each of the listed impairments. Once
finalized, waste load allocations for each targeted pollutant will be distributed among point and
nonpoint dischargers upstream of the impairment.
The Regional Board requested the following information of the City of Moorpark in a letter dated
29 January 2004:
1. For each constituent listed above (pesticides, metals, nitrogen, sedimentation, algae,
salts, and coliform), please provide an estimate of the concentration (ppb) and load
(lbs /day) from non -point and point source discharges.
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 8
the Department of Water Resources, and others), and 10 -year, 50 -year, and 100 -year
flood conditions.
State Antidegradation Policy
The SWRCB adopted the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Water in
California (Resolution No. 68 -16) on October 28, 1968. This policy is generally referred to as
the "Antidegradation Policy" and it protects surface water and groundwater where existing water
quality is higher than the standards set by the Basin Plan to protect beneficial use of the waters.
Under the Antidegradation Policy, any action that can adversely affect water quality in surface
water or groundwater:
1. Must be consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state;
2. Must not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water; and
3. Must not result in water quality less than that prescribed in water quality plans and
policies.
If an action adversely affects the existing quality of the water body at issue but complies with
this three -part standard, then the action does not violate the Antidegradation Policy.
Groundwater data are not available from within the North Park project site', based on
discussions with United Water Conservation District (S. Bachman, personal communication,
2004; Detmer, personal communication, 2004) and Fox Canyon Groundwater Management
Agency (D. Panaro, personal communication, 2004). There are limited groundwater quality data
from an area approximately one mile east of the project site (Well 3N18W30E1 and Well
3N18W30R1; D. Panaro, personal communication, 2004). However, the water quality data are
from 1956 and 1961, respectively, and are not appropriate for determining the current conditions
of the groundwater underlying the project site.
Two wells exist within approximately 1.5 miles of the western border of the project site for which
groundwater quality data are available. These wells are 3N19W27MO1 S (approximately 1 mile
west of the project site) and 3N19W33PO3S (approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project
site). These wells were chosen to characterize the ambient groundwater quality which the
percolate from the Lake and stormwater detention basins may impact because (1) these are the
closest wells to the project site for which relatively recent (1973 to 1995) groundwater data is
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 9
groundwater gradient to the southwest (S. Bachman, personal communication, 2004); and (4)
these wells are not affected by the local phenomenon that is occurring along the Arroyo Simi
where salts are leaching from historically unsaturated sediments due to rising water levels in the
shallow aquifer (S. Bachman, personal communication, 2004). This phenomenon is creating
elevated TDS and chloride levels in wells near the Arroyo Simi and Arroyo Las Posas
(Bachman, 2002).
Well 3N19W331003S is perforated in the Fox Canyon aquifer, just below the shallow aquifer (S.
Bachman, personal communication, 2004), and was sampled from 1973 through 1992. Well
3N19W27MO1 S was sampled once in 1995; perforation depths are not available for this well,
although the water quality is similar to that of well 3N19W33PO3. Water quality data for these
two groundwater wells was averaged and is listed in Table 5.
Table 5. Ambient Groundwater Quality
Constituent
Units
Value
Minerals
Sulfate
mg /I
172
Chloride
mg /I
66
TDS
mg /I
625
Boron
mg /I
0.3
Nutrients
Nitrate (as N)
mg /I
3.1
Ammonia
mg /1
NA
Heavy Metals
Arsenic
mg /1
NA
Beryllium
mg /I
NA
Cadmium
mg /1
NA
Chromium
mg /I
NA
Copper
mg /I
NA
Iron
mg /1
1.7a
Lead
mg /I
NA
Manganese
mg /1
0.03a
Mercury
mg /I
NA
Nickel
mg /1
NA
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 10
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Table 5. Ambient Groundwater Quality
Constituent Units Value
NA = Not available
Source: United Water Conservation District data for
wells 03N19W33P03S and 03N19W27MO1S.
Notes:
'Non- detects were conservatively treated as the
detection limit.
The ambient surface water quality of the Arroyo Simi was derived from the Calleguas Creek
Characterization Study (CCCS) (Larry Walker Associates, 2000). The CCCS was developed in
response to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), which
required that the major point source dischargers within the Calleguas Creek Watershed
participate in a study to (1) characterize water quality within the Watershed, and (2) determine
the contributions of the dischargers to the quality of surface water and groundwater. The
ultimate purpose of the CCCS is to provide information for the development of a Calleguas
Watershed Management Plan. The data was reviewed to develop a profile of the existing water
quality in the vicinity of the project site.
From July 1998 through June 1999, water and sediment samples were collected from the
Calleguas Creek Watershed and analyzed for general water quality, metals, organics, water
toxicity, sediment chemistry, and sediment toxicity. Samples were analyzed monthly for general
water quality constituents, quarterly for metals and organics, six times for water toxicity, and
semi - annually for sediment toxicity and chemistry. The results of the analyses of surface water
samples collected from the Arroyo Simi /Arroyo Las Posas hydrologic region (i.e., the upper
reach of Arroyo Simi to the confluence of Arroyo Las Posas and Conejo Creek) are presented in
Table 6.
Table 6. Ambient Arroyo Simi Water Quality
Constituent Units Value
Total Suspended Solids mg /I 44'
Minerals
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 11
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Table 6. Ambient Arroyo Simi Water Quality
Constituent Units Value
Arsenic
mg /I
0.0027
Beryllium
mg /I
NA
Cadmium
mg /I
0.00033
Chromium
mg /I
0.0018
Copper
mg /I
0.0058
Iron
mg /I
1.5
Lead
mg /I
0.0011
Manganese
mg /I
0.081
Mercury
mg /I
0.0000023
Nickel
mg /I
0.0089
Selenium
mg /I
0.0013
Silver
mg /I
NA
Zinc
mg /I
0.01
Hydrocarbons
Oil and Grease
mg /I
NA
Pathogenic Indicators
Total Coliform
MPN /100 ml
24,000
Fecal Coliform
MPN /100 ml
7,100
Data source: Calleguas Creek Characterization Study,
Larry Walker and Associates.
Notes:
aA statistical distribution method was used
to compute
the summary statistics when NDs were present.
Based on the preceding information and using the methodology that the most stringent standard
(regulatory or ambient water quality) apply, Table 7 presents the quantitative thresholds for
assessing the significance of any impacts to groundwater and surface water quality, which
quantitative impacts must be further examined in light of any applicable qualitative factors (such
as those outlined in the Antidegradation Policy; refer to page 9, above).
Table 7. Groundwater and Surface Water Significance Thresholds
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 12
Table 7. Groundwater and Surface Water Significance Thresholds
Constituent
Units
Groundwater
Surface Water
Threshold
Source
Threshold Source
Boron
mg /I
0.3
Ambient
0.83
Ambient
Nutrients
Nitrate (as N)
mg /1
3.1
Ambient
6.4
SDWS
Ammonia
mg /I
NA
NA
4.3
Ambient
Heavy Metals
Arsenic
mg /I
0.05
PDWS
0.0027
Ambient
Beryllium
mg /I
0.004
PDWS
0.004
PDWS
Cadmium
mg /I
0.005
PDWS
0.00033
Ambient
Chromium
mg /I
0.1
PDWS
0.0018
Ambient
Copper
mg /I
1.3
PDWS
0.0058
Ambient
Iron
mg /I
0.3
SDWS
0.3
SDWS
Lead
mg /I
0.015
PDWS
0.0011
Ambient
Manganese
mg /I
0.03
Ambient
0.05
SDWS
Mercury
mg /1
0.002
PDWS
0.002
PDWS
Nickel
mg /1
0.1
PDWS
0.1
PDWS
Selenium
mg /I
0.05
PDWS
0.0013
Ambient
Silver
mg /I
0.1
SDWS
0.1
SDWS
Zinc
mg /I
0.05
Ambient
0.01
Ambient
Hydrocarbons
Oil and Grease
mg /I
NA
NA
10
Basin Plana
Pathogenic Indicators
Total Coliform
MPN /100 ml
NA
NA
24,000
Ambient
Fecal Coliform
MPN /100 ml
None
PDWS
7,100
Ambient
Detected
PDWS = Primary Drinking Water Standard
SDWS = Secondary Drinking Water Standard
Notes:
aBasin Plan criteria is a visible sheen, which has been estimated at 1 0ma /I
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 13
Upon development of the project, runoff from the entire project site (not just the developed site)
will be collected, treated and discharged to the City of Moorpark's stormwater collection system.
This system ultimately will discharge the water to the Arroyo Simi. To treat the stormwater, the
developer of the project has proposed to integrate nine debris basins and one retention basin
into the Phase 1 Project and 15 debris basins and 13 retention basins in the Ultimate Project.
The purpose of the debris basins is to capture large materials such as rocks and branches from
the upper reaches of the property that could clog or otherwise disrupt the stormwater collection
and conveyance system. The retention basins are intended to allow the water to settle and
allow the accumulated flow to be carefully metered into the City's stormwater collection and
conveyance system. The retention basins are designed to accommodate the runoff from a 100 -
year storm event and should provide significant settling capabilities for smaller storm events.
As will be discussed in the section on water quality, derivation of runoff quality is key to this
analysis. The basic methodology is to apply a specific runoff quality to each land use. Based
on the North Park Specific Plan, the project site was generally divided into five land uses —
residential, commercial, lake, open space, and nature preserve. Residential and commercial
land uses are generally self - explanatory. The lake represents a specialized land use — it is a
sink insofar as it generates no runoff. Open space is land that will be graded and landscaped
but will not be developed with urban uses. Nature preserve lands are dedicated to remain
undeveloped over the project lifetime.
However, there is no data regarding the runoff water quality from the existing site which is
generally classified as Nature Preserve. To this end, the approach taken in examining quantity
related impacts to runoff and percolation will focus only on the difference caused by developed
land. For the purposes of characterization, open space will be classified as residential. Thus
the comparison will be between existing conditions of 1,413.3 acres of undeveloped area and
1,193.1 acres of residential (true residential plus open space) and 210.2 acres of commercial
uses (parks, including the lake buffer; neighborhood center, school, public and quasi - public, and
institutional uses).
Table 8 summarizes the project land use.
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 14
Table 8. Existing and Proposed Land Use Breakdown
Source: Bonterra Consultants. Volume VI, Revised Draft, Program
Environmental Impact Report, North Park Village and Nature Preserve,
Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, SCH No. 2002011114.
The project site's stormwater system was designed using Ventura County Hydrology Manual
standards. This Manual factors in parameters such as rainfall intensity- duration curves, soil
type, and land use to calculate runoff coefficients to size pipes and detention basins. The
process is an iterative and time consuming process. While this approach is suited for doing
technical design of features, it is not suited for estimating impacts to water quality.
In order to estimate the volume of runoff from each type of land use, a more generic approach is
needed. Several simplifying assumptions are made in order to provide a relative comparison of
existing and project conditions and are listed below:
Existing
Land Use
Condition
Proposed Project
Residential
Single - Family Residential
0
761.4
Multi - Family Residential
0
8.3
Open Space
0
423.4
Subtotal Residential
0
1,193.1
Commercial
Parks (including lake buffer)
0
80.1
Neighborhood Center
0
5.0
School
0
12.0
Public and Quasi - Public
0
3.1
Institutional
0
120.0
Subtotal Commercial
0
220.2
Subtotal Developed Area
0
1,413.3
Lake
0
52.0
Nature Preserve
3,996.3
2,121.0
Total
3,996.3
3,586.3
Source: Bonterra Consultants. Volume VI, Revised Draft, Program
Environmental Impact Report, North Park Village and Nature Preserve,
Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, SCH No. 2002011114.
The project site's stormwater system was designed using Ventura County Hydrology Manual
standards. This Manual factors in parameters such as rainfall intensity- duration curves, soil
type, and land use to calculate runoff coefficients to size pipes and detention basins. The
process is an iterative and time consuming process. While this approach is suited for doing
technical design of features, it is not suited for estimating impacts to water quality.
In order to estimate the volume of runoff from each type of land use, a more generic approach is
needed. Several simplifying assumptions are made in order to provide a relative comparison of
existing and project conditions and are listed below:
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 15
• Due to the variability in the timing between different storm events, soil antecedent
conditions are ignored
• Because there is no defined pattern of storms that comprise a "typical" year, average
annual rainfall is used to estimate the total volume of runoff.
While the listed assumptions are significant, it should be recognized that the use of the data is
for comparative purposes only between existing and project runoff quantities and quality. These
runoff values should only be used in that context and are not intended to conflict with the
hydrology calculations used to size facilities (pipes and basins) that are sized based on peak
flow rate as opposed to annual volume. The runoff coefficients selected for this water quality
analysis are listed in Table 10.
Table 10. Project Runoff Coefficients
Land Use
Percent
Estimated Runoff
Im erviousa
Coefficient
Residential
23
0.50
Commercial
50-60
0.70
Undeveloped
0
0.42
Notes:
aPercent imperviousness taken from Ventura County Hydrology Manual
bRunoff coefficient estimated from Victor Miguel Ponce, Engineering
Hydrology, Principles and Practice. 1989.
As referenced in the Lake Water Feasibility Study (Kennedy /Jenks Consultants 2002) (Appendix
I to the DEIR), the average rainfall (as measured at Lake Bard) for the period from 1966 to 2000
is 15.4- inches per year. The standard deviation over that period is 7.7- inches per year. Using
the average year rainfall plus one standard deviation to define a wet year yields an annual
rainfall of 23.1- inches per year. Using the average year rainfall minus one standard deviation to
define a dry year yields an annual rainfall of 7.7- inches per year.
Applying these rainfall totals over to the drainage areas with their respective runoff coefficients
yields the quantities of annual runoff for average, wet, and dry years. Under the assumption
that whatever rainfall doesn't runoff will percolate. similar calculations can hP maria fnr
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 16
Table 10. Annual Runoff and Percolation Quantities, Average Rainfall Year
Table 11. Annual Runoff and Percolation Quantities, Wet Rainfall Year
Annual Runoff,
Annual Percolation,
acre -feet Per vear
acre -feet per year
acre -feet per year
Land Use
Existing
Ultimate
Existing
Ultimate
0
Conditions
Project
Conditions
Project
Residential
0
766
0
766
Commercial
0
198
0
85
Open space
762
0
1,052
0
Total
762
963
1,052
851
Table 11. Annual Runoff and Percolation Quantities, Wet Rainfall Year
Annual Percolation,
Annual Runoff,
per year
acre -feet Per vear
Land Use
Existing
Ultimate
0
Conditions
Project
Residential
0
1,148
Commercial
0
297
Open s ace
1,143
0
Total
1,143
1,445
Annual Percolation,
acre -feet
per year
Existing
Ultimate
Conditions
Project
0
1,148
0
128
1,578
0
1,578
1,276
Table 12. Annual Runoff and Percolation Quantities, Dry Rainfall Year
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Total
Annual Runoff,
acre -feet
per year
Existing
Ultimate
Conditions
Project
0
383
0
99
381
0
381
482
Annual Percolation,
acre -feet
per year
Existing
Ultimate
Conditions
Project
0
383
0
42
526
0
526
425
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 17
Runoff and Percolate Quality
The principal concern of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency was the quality of
the water that may reach groundwater or surface water sources. Three sources of water have
the ability to impact water quality — stormwater in the retention basins that, stormwater
discharged from the retention basins to the Arroyo Simi, and water stored in the lake that
percolates. Each of these sources is discussed below.
Project Runoff Quality
Different land uses will produce different water quality. Lacking site specific data, literature
values were researched. The RiverPark Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (Impact
Sciences, 2002), looked at runoff from residential, commercial, and agricultural areas in their
investigation of stormwater runoff impacts on open mining pits. The RiverPark development is
located in the City of Oxnard, another community within Ventura County. The sources of runoff
quality information for the RiverPark Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report include the
following:
• Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program. Ventura Countywide
Stormwater Quality Management Plan: Application for Reissuance of Waste Discharge
Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. 1999.
• Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Los Angeles County 1994 to 2000
Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report. 2000.
• Woodward - Clyde. Santa Monica Bay Area Municipal Storm WaterlUrban Runoff Pilot
Project — Evaluation of Potential Catch Basin Retrofits. Prepared for Santa Monica
Cities Consortium. 1998.
• Oltmann, R.N. and Shulters, M.V. Rainfall and Runoff Quantity and Quality
Characteristics of Four Urban Land -Use Catchments in Fresno, California October 1981
to April 1983. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2335. 1989.
Runoff water quality varies as a function of the size of the storm event. Nutrients and
hydrocarbons tend to have higher concentrations associated with smaller storm events or storm
events P.ArIIPr in the Ctnrm cancnn I ornor c+nrm + --A 4- AA--4- 44 .--- ---- A_ -
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 18
Table 13.
Projected Stormwater Constituents by Land Use for Storms Smaller than a
10 -Year Event
Constituent
Units
Agricultural
Residential
Commercial
TSS
mg /L
1,144
156
403
Minerals
Sulfate
mg /I
402
6
34
Chloride
mg /I
36
20
48
TDS
mg /I
930
122
75
Boron
mg /I
0.53
0.19
0.18
Nutrients
Nitrate (as NO3)
mg /I
60.3
8.1
1.9
Ammonia (as NO3)
mg /I
2.79
0.83
0.57
Metals
Arsenic
mg /I
0.016
0.003
0.004
Beryllium
mg /I
0.001
0.002
0.002
Cadmium
mg /I
0.005
0.001
0.002
Chromium
mg /I
0.131
0.01
0.016
Copper
mg /I
0.093
0.029
0.06
Iron
mg /I
3.58
2.051
5.319
Lead
mg /I
0.032
0.026
0.029
Manganese
mg /I
0.225
0.065
0.115
Mercury
mg /I
0.00011
0.00014
0.0002
Nickel
mg /I
0.095
0.02
0.026
Selenium
mg /I
0.01
0.001
0.001
Silver
mg /I
0.01
0.002
0.001
Zinc
mg /I
0.385
0.168
0.332
Hydrocarbons
Oil and Grease
mg /I
3
3
6
Bacterial Indicators
Total Coliform
MPN /100 ml
261,800
65,800
107,000
Fecal Coliform
MPN /100 ml
32,700
17,200
4,530
Source: RiverPark Specific Plan EIR, Impact Sciences, 2002
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 19
Table 14.
Projected Stormwater Runoff Concentration and Mass Load
for Average Year Rainfall
Constituent
Untreated Runoff
Concentration,
m /I
Untreated Runoff
Mass Load,
ppd
TSS
207
1,485
Minerals
Sulfate
12
84
Chloride
26
185
TDS
112
807
Boron
0.19
1
Nutrients
Nitrate (as NO3)
6.83
49
Ammonia (as NO3)
0.78
6
Metals
Arsenic
0.0032
0.023
Beryllium
0.0020
0.014
Cadmium
0.0012
0.0087
Chromium
0.0112
0.081
Copper
0.0354
0.25
Iron
2.72
19.6
Lead
0.027
0.19
Manganese
0.075
0.54
Mercury
0.00015
0.0011
Nickel
0.0212
0.15
Selenium
0.0010
0.0072
Silver
0.0018
0.013
Zinc
0.20
1.45
Hydrocarbons
Oil and Grease
3.62
26
Bacterial Indicators
Total Coliform
74,262 MPN /100 ml
NA
Fecal Coliform
14,598 MPN /100 ml
NA
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 20
Estimates of Detention Basin Removal Rates
The RiverPark Specific Plan also reviewed literature sources for removal rates for various best
management practices (BMPs). One of the BMPs shown on the drawings is detention basins.
The detention basins in the RiverPark Specific Plan were designed to treat water up to the 10-
year storm event. The detention basins for the North Park Village Project will have capacity for
up to the 100 -year storm event. The removal rates are still applicable, because they are
primarily a function of the basin's ability to settle out the particulate fraction of the contaminants.
Dissolved contaminants such as sulfate, chloride, TDS, nitrate, and ammonia, are unaffected by
the detention basins. Table 15 lists the removal rates for the proposed detention basins. Other
BMPS are listed, but none are currently described in sufficient detail to warrant inclusion.
Table 15.
Projected Detention Basin Removal Rates
Constituent
Removal Rate
TSS
65%
Minerals
Sulfate
0%
Chloride
0%
TDS
0%
Boron
55%
Nutrients
Nitrate (as NO3)
0%
Ammonia (as NO3)
0%
Metals
Arsenic
55%
Beryllium
55%
Cadmium
55%
Chromium
55%
Copper
55%
Iron
55%
Lead
55%
Manganese
55%
Mercury
55%
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 21
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Table 15.
Projected Detention Basin Removal Rates
Constituent Removal Rate
Fecal Coliform 70%
Source: RiverPark Specific Plan EIR, Impact Sciences, 2002
Based on the listed removal rates, the quality of the percolate and the treated water discharged
to the stormwater collection system have been calculated and are presented in Table 16.
Table 16.
Projected Percolate and Treated Stormwater Quality
Constituent
Percolate and Treated
Stormwater Quality,
TSS
72
Minerals
Sulfate
12
Chloride
26
TDS
112
Boron
0.08
Nutrients
Nitrate (as NO3)
6.83
Ammonia (as NO3)
0.78
Metals
Arsenic
0.0014
Beryllium
0.0009
Cadmium
0.0005
Chromium
0.005
Copper
0.016
Iron
1.23
Lead
0.012
Manganese
0.034
Mercury
0.000069
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 22
Table 16.
Projected Percolate and Treated Stormwater Quality
Constituent Percolate and Treated
Stormwater Quality,
Total Coliform I 22,279
Fecal Coliform 4,379
Notes:
allnits for total and fecal coliform is MPN per 100 ml
In comparison to the standards, the following constituents may have a potentially significant
impact on water quality:
Groundwater
• Nitrate
• Iron
• Manganese
• Zinc
Surface Water
• Total suspended solids
• Nitrate
• Ammonia
• Cadmium
• Chromium
• Copper
• Iron
• Lead
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 23
centrifugal separators in conjunction with the detention basins will reduce all of the constituents
to a less than significant impact. Both grass swales and centrifugal separators have the ability
to significantly improve the removal of particulate and organic constituents. Other combinations
of BMPS could also affect similar results. Table 17 presents the removal rates for the various
constituents levels of the constituents when the detention basins are used in conjunction with
the grass swales.
Table 17. Projected Percolate and Treated Stormwater Quality Using Detention Basins, Grass
Swales, and Centrifugal Separators
Constituent
Detention Basin
Treated
Stormwater
Quality, mg /I
Grass
Swale
Removal
Rateb
Centrifugal
Separator
Removal
Rate°
Detention Basin, Grass
Swale, and Centrifugal
Separator Treated
Stormwater Quality,
mg /I
TSS
72
90%
80%
1.45
Minerals
Sulfate
12
20%
0%
9.4
Chloride
26
0%
0%
26
TDS
112
0%
0%
112
Boron
0.08
75%
40%
0.013
Nutrients
Nitrate (as NO3)
6.83
75%
0%
1.7
Ammonia (as NO3)
0.78
20%
0%
0.62
Metals
Arsenic
0.0014
75%
40%
0.00022
Beryllium
0.0009
75%
40%
0.00014
Cadmium
0.0005
75%
40%
0.00008
Chromium
0.005
75%
40%
0.0008
Copper
0.016
75%
40%
0.0024
Iron
1.23
75%
40%
0.184
Lead
0.012
75%
40%
0.0018
Manganese
0.034
75%
40%
0.0051
Mercury
0.000069
75%
40%
0.00001
Nickel
0.010
75%
40%
0.0014
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 24
Table 17. Projected Percolate and Treated Stormwater Quality Using Detention Basins, Grass
Swales, and Centrifugal Separators
Notes:
aUnits for total and fecal coliform is MPN per 100 ml
bRemoval rates excerpted from the RiverPark Specific Plan EIR.
Removal rates excerpted from the RiverPark Specific Plan EIR, but assume that 100% of the developed
runoff goes through centrifugal separation.
Implementation of these BMPs would bring these constituents into compliance with the
significance threshold.
Estimate of Percolate and Treated Stormwater Quantity
There are many different soil types scattered throughout the site, each with their own unique
properties. "Permeability" is defined as the rate at which water penetrates or passes through
soil, and would relate to how much water would percolate from the retention basins. "Available
Water Holding Capacity" is defined as the capability of a soil to hold water in a form available to
plants, and relates to how much of the percolate would be retained in the soil for use by plants.
The actual amount of percolate is difficult to predict because it would depend on the size of an
individual storm and the surface area that runoff from that particular storm event would occupy.
However, the actual amount of water percolating from the basins is expected to be negligible for
the following reasons:
• The retention basins are only used during the area's infrequent rainfall events
• The retention basins discharge stored flows in a 24 -hour period based on the DEIR
• Seasonal high groundwater levels, as noted for the various soil types in the project site
were classified as "not high enough to be significant" in the U.S. Department of
Detention Basin
Detention Basin, Grass
Treated
Grass
Centrifugal
Swale, and Centrifugal
Stormwater
Swale
Separator
Separator Treated
Quality, mg /I
Removal
Removal
Stormwater Quality,
Constituent
Rateb
Rate`
mg /I
Fecal Coliforma
4,379
80%
40%
526
Notes:
aUnits for total and fecal coliform is MPN per 100 ml
bRemoval rates excerpted from the RiverPark Specific Plan EIR.
Removal rates excerpted from the RiverPark Specific Plan EIR, but assume that 100% of the developed
runoff goes through centrifugal separation.
Implementation of these BMPs would bring these constituents into compliance with the
significance threshold.
Estimate of Percolate and Treated Stormwater Quantity
There are many different soil types scattered throughout the site, each with their own unique
properties. "Permeability" is defined as the rate at which water penetrates or passes through
soil, and would relate to how much water would percolate from the retention basins. "Available
Water Holding Capacity" is defined as the capability of a soil to hold water in a form available to
plants, and relates to how much of the percolate would be retained in the soil for use by plants.
The actual amount of percolate is difficult to predict because it would depend on the size of an
individual storm and the surface area that runoff from that particular storm event would occupy.
However, the actual amount of water percolating from the basins is expected to be negligible for
the following reasons:
• The retention basins are only used during the area's infrequent rainfall events
• The retention basins discharge stored flows in a 24 -hour period based on the DEIR
• Seasonal high groundwater levels, as noted for the various soil types in the project site
were classified as "not high enough to be significant" in the U.S. Department of
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 25
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Table 18. Project Site Soil Characteristics
Soil Series
Permeability,
inches /hour
Available Water Holding
Capacity, inches /inch of soil
Azule (Aud)
0.06-2.0
0.10-0.18
Badland (BdG)
0.63-2.0
0.16-0.18
Calleguas (CaE2)
0.63-2.0
0.05-0.07
Huerhuero (HUC2,HuD2)
< 0.06 - 2.0
0.04-0.17
Mocho (MoC)
0.63-2.0
0.16-0.18
Rincon (RcC)
0.06-0.63
0.14-0.21
San Benito (ScE2, ScF2)
0.2-0.63
0.17-0.19
Sandy alluvial land (Sd)
> 20.0
0.06-0.12
Soper (SvF2)
0.2-2.0
0.10-0.18
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (1970), Soil Survey of Ventura Area.
Lake Water Quality
Under the proposed project, the water supply for the lake will be potable water. Since the
primary source of potable water for the North Park Village will be Calleguas Municipal Water
District Water, the water in the lake will reflect this quality of water initially. Evaporative losses
will tend to concentrate water constituents, whereas direct rainfall into the lake will tend to dilute
them. Percolation serves as an export vehicle for accumulated dissolved constituents. The
following sections detail the methodology used to estimate the lake water quality.
Lake Source Water Quality
Five years of recent water quality data from the Calleguas Municipal Water District was
reviewed to determine if there were any trends related to source water quality. The data
indicates that while there is some variability, it is not extreme and that an average is a
reasonable approximation of the water quality that would be delivered to the North Park Village
Lake. Table 19 summarizes the data. It should be emphasized that averages presented
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 26
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Table 19. CMWD Source Water Quality
Constituent
Units
Values
Total suspended solids
mg /I
NA
Minerals
Sulfate
mg /I
72
Chloride
mg /I
61
TDS
mg /I
301
Boron
mg /I
0.23
Nutrients
Nitrate (as NO3)
mg /I
0.5
Ammonia (as NO3)
mg /I
NA
Metalsa
Arsenic
mg /I
0.0011
Beryllium
mg /I
0.0005
Cadmium
mg /I
0.0005
Chromium
mg /I
0.005
Copper
mg /I
0.025
Iron
mg /I
0.05
Lead
mg /I
0.0025
Manganese
mg /I
0.0147
Mercury
mg /I
0.0005
Nickel
mg /I
0.005
Selenium
mg /I
0.0025
Silver
mg /I
0.005
Zinc
mg /I
0.0261
Hydrocarbons
Oil and Grease
mg /I
NA
Bacterial Indicators
Total Coliform
MPN /100 ml
NA
Fecal Coliform
MPN /100 ml
NA
NA = not available
Notes:
aResults for all metals were all non - detects with the exception
of 1998 data for arsenic, iron, manganese, and zinc. To
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 27
Steady State Lake Water Quality
A mass balance was performed around the lake with regards to the various constituents in the
source water. Introduction of constituents through other sources such as unintentional runoff or
biota have been omitted as these are not practical to model. Evaporation is expected to
decrease the water level, but concentrate water constituent levels. Rainfall is expected to
increase water level but dilute water constituent levels. Refilling of the lake would be used to
"top off" the lake level and provide an additional source of water constituents. Percolation
through the lake bottom represents the only means of exporting water constituents from the
lake.
In theory, because the lake has limited ability to export dissolved constituents it is conceivable
that salts could continue to accumulate within the lake. This is counter to the intention of
supporting a lake biosystem. In practice, water from the lake would need to be periodically
removed to export constituents to maintain a stable water quality within the lake.
It has been assumed that the lake can be maintained at a water quality level equivalent to three
years worth of accumulation of constituents. Table 20 shows the increase over the initial water
quality.
Table 20. Steady State Lake Water Quality
Constituent
Units
Initial Values
Steady State
Total suspended solids
mg /I
NA
NA
Minerals
Sulfate
mg /I
72
119
Chloride
mg /I
61
101
TDS
mg /I
301
498
Boron
mg /I
0.23
0.38
Nutrients
Nitrate (as NO3)
mg /I
0.5
0.8
Ammonia (as NO3)
mg /I
NA
NA
Metals
Arsenic
mg /I
0.0011
0.0018
Beryllium
mg /I
0.0005
0.0008
/_ Jam_.. _.__
••
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 28
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Table 20. Steady State Lake Water Quality
Constituent
Units
Initial Values
Steady State
Selenium
mg /I
0.0025
0.0041
Silver
mg /I
0.005
0.008
Zinc
mg /I
0.0261
0.043
Hydrocarbons
mg /I
101
101
Oil and Grease
mg /I
NA
NA
Bacterial Indicators
mg /I
0.38
0.17
Total Coliform
MPN /100 ml
NA
NA
Fecal Coliform
MPN /100 ml
NA
NA
Because the lake is lined with a clay material, it will also function like a detention basin and be
able to retain a large percentage of the particulate matter. Removal rates would be similar to
those presented in Table 15. Table 21 presents the water quality that could percolate to
groundwater.
Table 21. Lake Percolate Water Quality
Constituent
Units
Steady State
Percolate
Quality
Total suspended solids
mg /I
NA
NA
Minerals
Sulfate
mg /I
119
119
Chloride
mg /I
101
101
TDS
mg /I
498
498
Boron
mg /I
0.38
0.17
Nutrients
Nitrate (as NO3)
mg /I
0.8
0.8
Ammonia (as NO3)
mg /I
NA
NA
Metals
Arsenic
mg /I
0.0018
0.00081
Beryllium
mg /I
0.0008
0.00036
Cadmium
mg /I
0.0008
0.00036
Chromium
mq /I
0.008
0.0036
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 29
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Table 21. Lake Percolate Water Quality
Constituent
Units
Steady State
Percolate
Quality
Silver
mg /I
0.008
0.0036
Zinc
mg /I
0.043
0.019
Hydrocarbons
Oil and Grease
mg /I
NA
NA
Bacterial Indicators
Total Coliform
MPN /100 ml
NA
NA
Fecal Coliform
MPN /100 ml
NA
NA
Based on a comparison of percolate quality to the quantitative thresholds of significance, the
only constituent of concern is chloride. However, based on the qualitative factors outlined in the
Antidegradation Policy and other site - specific factors, the project should not cause a significant
impact from any percolation of chlorides from the lake to groundwater. The mass loading of
chlorides that percolate from the lake will be somewhat attenuated by the retention capacity of
the layer of soil between the lake and the groundwater basin. Any chlorides that do reach the
groundwater basin should not cause any significant impact under the factors outlined in the
Antidegradation Policy. As indicated above, one of those factors is whether the action will result
in water quality less than the standards provided in the applicable basin plan. The most
stringent water quality standard for chloride identified in the Basin Plan for this area is the
Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 250 mg /I. The chloride levels identified in Table 21 are
far less than that standard. Other factors identified in the Antidegradation Policy are whether
the action (a) will unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses of the water body
and (b) is consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State. For chloride, there is
no primary drinking water standard, which is the standard that relates primarily to health
concerns. Instead, there is only a Secondary Drinking Water Standard for chloride, which
standards relate primarily to consumer acceptance concerns (e.g., odor, color, etc.) Even under
that standard, the level of chloride listed in table 21 is lower. Finally, it should be noted that the
amount of percolate estimated from the lake is initially 48 acre -feet per year. This number is
expected to significantly decline over times as the interstices of clay become clogged. Thus the
mass loading to groundwater is also expected to diminish over time.
Assessment of Impacts
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 30
• Ammonia (mitigable with inclusion of grass swales and centrifugal separators)
• Cadmium (mitigable with inclusion of grass swales and centrifugal separators)
• Chromium (mitigable with inclusion of grass swales and centrifugal separators)
• Copper (mitigable with inclusion of grass swales and centrifugal separators)
• Iron (mitigable with inclusion of grass swales and centrifugal separators)
• Lead (mitigable with inclusion of grass swales and centrifugal separators)
• Zinc (mitigable with inclusion of grass swales and centrifugal separators)
Detention Basin Discharges to Groundwater
• Nitrate (mitigable with inclusion of grass swales)
• Iron (mitigable with inclusion of grass swales)
• Manganese (mitigable with inclusion of grass swales)
• Zinc (potentially mitigable, inconjunction with other BMPs)
Lake Percolate to Groundwater
• Chloride (no mitigation required)
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 31
References
Bachman, S., Ph.D. 2004. Personal communication with K. Loomis (Kennedy /Jenks
Consultants) regarding groundwater quality in the vicinity of the proposed North Park
Village site. Telephone conversation and email message containing groundwater quality
data. February 6, 2004.
Bachman, Steven, Ph.D. 2002. Water Quality in the East and South Las Posas Basin -
Problems and Solutions. Prepared for Calleguas Municipal Water District. July 2002.
BonTerra Consulting. 2003. Volume VI, Revised Draft, Program Environmental Impact Report,
North Park Village and Nature Preserve, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, SCH No.
2002011114. Prepared for the City of Moorpark. December 11, 2003.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Los Angeles Region (4). 1994.
Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region. Basin Plan for the Coastal
Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Adopted June 13, 1994.
Detmer, D., United Water Conservation District. 2004. Personal communication with K. Loomis
(Kennedy /Jenks Consultants) regarding groundwater quality in the vicinity of the
proposed North Park Village site. Telephone conversation and email message
containing groundwater quality data. February 5, 2004.
Impact Sciences. 2001. Enivironmental Impact Report, RiverPark Project, SCH 20000 - 51046.
Prepared for the City of Oxnard.
Larry Walker Associates. 2000. Calleguas Creek Characterization Study, Results of the
Coordinated Water Quality Monitoring Program, Surface Water Element. September
2000.
Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2002. Draft Geotechnical Update for the North Park Village
Project Environmental Impact Report, County of Ventura, California. Prepared for
BonTerra Consulting. October 18, 2002.
Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2003. Response to Bing Yen & Associates, Inc.'s Engineering
Geoloav and Geotechnical Fnninaarinn RAViA1e1 C-nMM1n1n +1' n - +e,+ n.,,..,... 134 �nn�
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Memorandum
Dana Privitt
12 February 2004
Page 32
RBF Consulting. 2003. Draft Hydrology and Water Quality Report, North Park Village Specific
Plan Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for BonTerra Consulting. December
2002, revised March 2003.
Sanchez, J., Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2004. Personal communication to K.Loomis, G.
Arakaki, V. Daly, J. Montoya, during conference call. February 5, 2004.
Sanchez, J. 2004. Summary of available geologic data regarding groundwater conditions for
the North Park project; emailed to D. Bobardt, V. Daly, G. Arakaki, K. Loomis, and D.
Privitt. February 5, 2004.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.) Soil Survey, Ventura Area,
California.