Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES PC 2013 586 2013 0827 RESOLUTION NO. PC-2013-586 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-01 AND AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1995-01 (DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN) FOR A 1.36 ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MOORPARK AVENUE AND EVERETT STREET, ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO VERY HIGH RESIDENTIAL; AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 2013-01 TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING THREE SITES TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 20 UNITS TO THE ACRE (RPD2OU-N-D) ZONE: (1) A 23.44 ACRE SITE (LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 1, HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY), (2) A 1.36 ACRE SITE (LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MOORPARK AVENUE AND EVERETT STREET), AND (3) A 1.34 ACRE SITE (LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEASTERN END OF MAJESTIC COURT) WHEREAS, at its meeting of July 17, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-3204 directing the Planning Commission to consider a General Plan Amendment, a Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, a Zone Change of at least 25.8 total acres of land to Residential Planned Development (RPD) — 20U, (locations to be determined) and amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Moorpark Municipal Code regarding development of a RPD-20U zone, to allow development of 20 units per acre, at various locations throughout the city, locations to be determined, on the application of the City of Moorpark, to ensure compliance with the adopted Housing Element, consistent with State law, the City's General Plan and other provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2013, the Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment No, 2013-01 and Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 (Downtown Specific Plan) for a 1.36 acre site located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, to change the existing Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan and specific plan land use designations of this site to a Very High Residential general plan and specific plan land use designation; and WHEREAS, at the August 27, 2013 hearing, the Planning Commission also considered Zone Change No. 2013-01 to change the zoning for the following three sites to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre (RPD2OU-N-D): (1) a 23.44 acre site, located within the southeastern portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property, currently zoned as Agricultural Exclusive; (2) a 1.36 acre site, located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, currently zoned as Institutional, Commercial Office and Single Family Residential; and (3) a 1.34 acre Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 2 site, located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court, currently zoned as Residential Planned Development 15 units; and WHEREAS, the zone changes are intended to allow for development of multi- family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review to comply with Programs 3 and 17 of the Housing Element, of the General Plan, on the application of the City of Moorpark (Assessor Parcel Nos. 511-0-020-110, 511-0-020-130, 511-0-020- 180, 512-0-062-020, 512-0-062-120, 512-0-062-110, 512-0-062-070 and 506-0-020- 525); and WHEREAS, at the August 27, 2013 hearing, the Planning Commission considered the agenda report, the negative declaration, and any supplements thereto, as well as written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal; closed the public hearing and reached a decision on this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTION: An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and City Policy. Based upon the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, including any comments received, the Planning Commission finds that the negative declaration reflects its independent judgment, and further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Negative Declaration and related documents that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. The custodian of records is Joseph Vacca, Principal Planner. The Planning Commission therefore recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: A. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2013-01 and Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 (Downtown Specific Plan), as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, for a change in the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan on a 1.36 acre site, located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, from Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan and specific plan land use designations to a Very High Residential general plan and specific plan land use designation. B. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Zone Change 2013-01, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to change the zoning for the following three sites to the Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre (RPD20U-N-D) zone: (1) a 23.44 acre site located within the southeastern portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property; (2) a 1.36 acre site, located at the southeast corner of Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 3 Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street; and (3) a 1.34 acre site, located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court. SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The Community Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Di Cecco, Hamous, Landis, Vice Chair Groff, and Chair Gould NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 2013. it* ZA 40r; Vir- Diana G o uld, Ch ir ATTEST: /- / David A. Bobardt Community Development Director Exhibit A General Plan Amendment 2013-01 and Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 Map Exhibit B— Zone Change No. 2013-01 Map Exhibit C — Negative Declaration (without original attachments) Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 4 EXHIBIT A H M PROPOSED DESIGNATION: VII EVERETT PROPOSED DESIGNATION: VH EXISTING DESIGNATION:0 ST EXISTING DESIGNATION:M I PROPOSED DESIGNATION:VII EXISTING DESIGNATION:PUB/INST M w 0 E 0 M A M a�E E E 0. 2 PUB CHARLES ST PROPOSED DESIGNATION: VH E EXISTING DESIGNATION:M dc R ct 1 M N a I- 1 1 i C 0 0O i '.COT J 0 40 80 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2013-01 MAP Feet AMENDMENT No. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN No. 1995-01 0 Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 5 EXHIBIT B I 1 ,-71---,IV / 1 \ PROPOSED DESIGNATION: RPD-20U-N-D PROPOSED DESIGNATION: RPD-20U-N-D EXISTING DESIGNATION:A-E EXISTING DESIGNATIONS:I,CO,AND R-1 SITE=23.44ac RE COMBINED SITE: 1.36ac A-E ` �- jj 1 ►' RE-1ACrRPOaeau 14�sai to` � RPD•7.14U' R-ti /� IDA III I - R-1- !!OU Ea i RPD-19.OU 1 �. r.r — �iI l R-1_ R-1 o.zou Aft f '11 � I C.OT _ C-OT C-OT I C-OT C-OT RE y " r ' High Street ' III�A I iM-2 C-OT-- R-1=8 ■■■ �RPD�:BU M-1 ._- _ _ _ CPD RE ■ aPO�eb1u �� ° • --R-1-8- ,, ■1�. ■■ if—r • I 1 I 11 gvD esu �� R-1 .■•• f I I JJ rifle 1I1• 11 m' ■ 111/ RPD-16U rrr r■r L, �:■ ir. rrr�1 �.. I R-1- J M-1 GM ■■ ■tla E >■_ :i 1 = ' 1 R i1l 41 _ • .. • • ,21,r2 i 2 oorw000 ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ��El1 R-2 MI 111 . ■■■ .■■ wail. CPD CPD 2 ■■■EEEE■ M-2 ■ r L ■ 1 ■ r _ III ■■1 ■ ■ - _ WPM/ PD-9.1 U 1 II I■I MD •�• 414 MI ■ �14�r a Rao-sriU all I■�30■■I wr Los Angeles Avenue E I E R,..h,L __ CPD DA M CPD CPD • �? RPD-7U 1 RPD-15U L'.E 3 1111 C —R-1 y (TRPD 7U� = 1111 E IRPD-7.6U i 1 T . = ( A nPi�1T2) — �. �RPID�7U— _ 7 111 -44 ' .----I,II III - � 1111- // RPD-7U - RPD-20U OS RPD-16.2U �1 RPD-12U -r �� \ RPD-15U i' , Pi PROPOSED DESIGNATION: RPD-20U-N-D � v i EXISTING DESIGNATION:RPD-151, -_� �, ,.-'' - x PC SITE=1.34ac _ -- RE RE Z '1TI I RE 0 400 800 �� APOdU RI!D_IU -- Feet ZONE CHANGE 2013-01 MAP 0 Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 6 EXHIBIT C y4����. NEGATIVE DECLARATION t/ CITY OF MOORPARK � �- 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CA 93021 `-. -, (805) 517-6200 The following 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: July 26, 2013 to August 26, 2013 Project Title/Case No.: General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2013-01; Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 (Downtown Specific Plan); Zone Change (ZC) No. 2013-01; and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-03; Project Locations: A 23.44 acre site, within the southeastern portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan; a 1.36 acre site, located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street; and a 1.34 acre site located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court. (GPA, SPA and ZC Location Maps Attached to Initial Study— Exhibit A) Project Description: The application consists of a zone change of a 23.44 acre site within the Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property, from Agricultural Exclusive zone, to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. A General Plan Amendment and Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan 1995-01, (Downtown Specific Plan), on a 1.36 acre site, located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, on City owned property, to change the existing Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan and specific plan land use designations of this site to a Very High Residential general plan and specific plan land use designation; and a zone change of this 1.36 acre site from the existing Institutional, Commercial Office and Single Family Residential zones, to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. Also, a zone change of a 1.34 acre site, located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court, on City owned property, from Residential Planned Development 15 units to the acre to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. Finally, the project includes a Zoning Ordinance amendment to add Chapter 17.76 to the City's Zoning Ordinance to create the Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use, in accordance with objective development standards and not subject to discretionary review. The Zoning Ordinance amendment also includes conforming changes to Chapters 17.12 and 17.20 to refer to the new Zoning designation and uses permitted by Chapter 17.76. Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 7 Private Project X Public Project Project Type: Project Applicant: City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark CA 93021 Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above-referenced project, 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 Trustee Agencies: None Attachments: Initial Study(with attachments) Contact Person: Joseph R. Vacca Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California, 93021 (805) 517-6236 jvacca@ci.moorpark.ca.us Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 8 r.P Implementation of 2008-2014 Housing Element—Programs:3 and 17 GPA 2013-01;AMENDMENT 2 to SP 1995-01;ZC 2013-01;and,ZOA 2013-03 Ems' CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY •.,,.,,,�° 799 MOORPARK AVENUE, MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805) 517-6200 Project Title: Implementation of 2008-2014 Housing Case GPA 2013-01; Element-Programs: 3 and 17 Nos.: AMENDMENT 2 to SP 1995- 01, (Downtown Specific Plan); ZC 2013-01; and, ZOA 2013-03 Contact Person and Phone No.: Joseph R. Vacca, AICP Principal Planner(805) 517-6236 Name of Applicant: City of Moorpark Address and Phone 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark CA 93021; (805) 517-6236 No.: Project 1) 23.44 acre site-southeast area of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan. Locations: Three 2) 1.36 acre site-southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street. Project Sites: 3) 1.34 acre site-southeastern end of Majestic Court, (Project sites 2&3 City owned). General Plan 1) 23.44 acre site - Zoning: 1) 23.44 acre site - Designations: Specific Plan 1 - Agricultural Exclusive, Hitch Ranch Specific (A-E). Plan. 2) 1.36 acre site - 2) 1.36 acre site - Commercial Office, Office; (CO); Institutional, (I); Public/Institutional; and Single Family and Medium Density Residential (R1) and Residential Downtown Specific (4DU/AC). Plan overlay zone. 3) 1.34 acre site - Very 3) 1.34 acre site - High Density Residential Planned Residential Development 15 units / (15DU/AC). acre (RPD15u). Project Description(continues on following page): California Government Code Section 65302(c) mandates that each city shall include a Housing Element in its General Plan. The Housing Element is required to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs, and include statements of the City's goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The City, in adopting its Housing Element, considered economic, environmental, and fiscal factors, as well as community goals as set forth in the General Plan. However, while cities generally have considerable flexibility in drafting the other elements of their General Plan, the Housing Element must comply with the detailed statutory provisions of the California Government Code, which are codified in Section 65580 et seq. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), of the Housing Element, identified Moorpark's "fair share" of the regional housing need for the planning period July 2006 through June 2014 as 1,617 units. This total includes 182 extremely-low income units, 181 very-low income units, 292 low-income units, 335 moderate-income units, and 627above-moderate units. State law requires the City to demonstrate that its "land inventory" contains adequate sites to accommodate the various types of units that have been allocated in the RHNA. In accordance with Government Code Section 65583 et seq., the residential density (excluding any density bonus) presumed to be adequate to facilitate development of lower-income housing in most metropolitan areas, including Moorpark, is 20 units/acre. Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 9 Project Description, (Continued): There are currently no vacant or underutilized sites in Moorpark with zoning that allows residential development at densities greater than 20 units/acre, excluding density bonus. Accordingly, the City must rezone at least 25.8 acres of land to accommodate the development of 516 lower-income units at a density of 20 units/acre commensurate with the RHNA. The Housing Element - (Program 3), contains a commitment to identify parcels totaling at least 25.8 acres to be rezoned to a new RPD-20 zoning to allow multi- family residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre to meet the City's obligations under the RHNA for the 2008-2014 planning period.The sites to be considered for rezoning to RPD20U-N-D are as follows: 1) 23.44 acre site—southeast area of Specific Plan 1 —Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 2) 1.36 acre site—southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, (City owned). 3) 1.34 acre site—southeastern end of Majestic Court, (City owned). 1) The proposed re-zoning of the 23.44 acre site within the southeastern portion of Specific Plan 1, Hitch Ranch Specific Plan property from Agricultural Exclusive, (Specific Plan 1), to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD20U-N-D), zone, (remaining within Specific plan 1), is proposed to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. This proposed zoning is consistent with the intensity of land use, and with the range of residential development densities, already allowed under the existing Specific Plan 1 general plan land use designation of the property, and under the current Hitch Ranch Specific Plan area designation. 2) The proposed re-zoning of the 1.36 acre site (four properties combined), located at the southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, from the existing Institutional, Commercial Office and Single Family Residential zones, to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD2OU- N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review. There is a General Plan Amendment on this project site, which also includes Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan 1995-01, (Downtown Specific Plan), to change the existing Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan and specific plan land use designations of these properties to a Very High Residential general plan and specific plan land use designation on all these properties. The proposed land use designations are comparable with the combined intensities of land uses currently allowed at this site under the existing Office, Public/Institutional and Medium Density Residential general plan land use designations. 3) The proposed zoning of the 1.34 acre site, approximately located at the southeastern end of Majestic Court property from Residential Planned Development 15 units to the acre to Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD20U-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi-family housing as a permitted use and not subject to discretionary review, is consistent with the intensity of land use, and with the range of residential development densities, already allowed under the existing Very High Density Residential general plan land use designation of this property. This proposed zoning is consistent with the intensity of land use, and with the range of residential development densities, already allowed under the existing very high density residential general plan land use designation of the property. Also, the Housing Element, (Program 17), Efficient Project Processing R-P-D zone and Planned Development Permit Process, calls for an update to the review process for Residential Planned Development Permits of properties in the RPD20u zone. The RPD Zone designation provides flexibility in the development process to meet specific housing needs. The RPD Zone designation offers various densities that can be tailored to the lot, nature of the development, and local housing needs. The RPD Zone provides a mechanism for the development of higher-density housing (up to 20 du/ac) and can be coupled with a density bonus, financial and regulatory incentives to provide affordable housing. In order to further reduce processing time, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2013-01 was initiated to create development standards for construction of multifamily housing on these properties and also make the following changes to the existing Planned Development Permit process for RPD20U-N-D zoned property: 1) Designate the Planning Commission as the final approval authority(rather than City Council); and 2) Modify required findings for approval to confirming that the project complies with objective development and design standards; and, would therefore, be allowed"by right" by the Planning Commission,when in compliance with the requirements and regulations of the RPD20U-N-D development standards Therefore, the project includes a Zoning Ordinance amendment to add Chapter 17.76 to the City's Zoning Ordinance to create the Residential Planned Development 20 units to the acre, (RPD20U-N-D), zone to allow for development of multi- family housing as a permitted use, in accordance with objective development standards and not subject to discretionary review. The Zoning Ordinance amendment also includes conforming changes to Chapters 17.12 and 17.20 to refer to the new Zoning designation and uses permitted by Chapter 17.76. Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 10 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: 1) 23.44 acre site—southeastern area of Specific Plan 1 —Hitch Ranch Specific Plan: To the west, north, east and south of the subject property is currently in the Agricultural Exclusive zone, and all property is within the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 1 general plan land use designation area. The subject property and immediate surrounding properties are all vacant and consist of valleys and gently rolling hills. 2) 1.36 acre site—southeast corner of Moorpark Avenue and Everett Street, (City owned). West of the site are existing urban developments consisting of the offices for City Hall, City Library, and a dental office. North of the site is vacant |and, once occupied by a mix of single family homes. East and south of the site are existing urban residential neighborhoods, consisting mainly of single family homes and residential properties. 3) 1.34 acre site—southeastern end of M jmatic Court, (City owned). To the west and north of this site the properties are zoned RpD15u, and are developed with existing urban uses consisting of multi-family apartment and attached condominium units at these densities. East of the subject property is zoned RPD12u and it is currently being developed at this density with mu|Ufami|y, attached town homes, (currently under construction). VVeot, north and east of the subject property all have very high density residential 15 du/ac general plan land use designations. South of the subject property is zoned open space and is vacant and consists of the Arroyo Simi. The general plan land used designation of this onao, south of the subject property is Floodway. Responsible and Trustee Agencies: none ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"or"Less Than Significant With Mitigation,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Mandatory Findings of Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Significance X None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Date: Date: Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 11 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A. AESTHETICS—Would the p jeot: 1)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? � 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but X not limited m, uees, 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? Response: Al. Through 4.: The new development is expected to occur within and adjacent to urbanized oneao, mostly as in-fill. This type of development would not be expected to substantially alter the aesthetic character of the site, and in most cases would be expected to improve the aesthetic character of the surrounding neighborhoods. All developments will be required to conform to the General Plan Land Use Element, zoning regulations and development standards, and therefore would not be expected to create a negative aesthetic effect on the City's visual qualities. None of the sites identified for re-designation contain prominent ridgelines and development must comply with grading standards adopted by ordinance, including landscaping requirements. Fudharmono, developments must comply with the development standards of the zoning district which address aetbaoho, height, and visual quality to ensure adequate health and safety. None of the sites identified for re-designation contain scenic neeounceo, inc|udinQ, but not limited bz, tnees, rock oubonoppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. New residential development could also create new sources of light and glare due to exterior |ighUng. lighting of streets and vvo|kvvoya, and interior lighting that could be visible from the outside. Prior to oonotruotion, each new development will be reviewed to ensure compliance with all appropriate development standards and developments must also comply with the lighting ordinance to mitigate any potential aesthetic impacts. No significant impact are expected to occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zoning ordinance amendment 2013-03. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16' 2012)' General Plan Land Use Element Sources: (1SS2). RpO2Ou Development Standards(proposed July 2O13—attached) K8iUqadon: 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 QapL of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including Unnbodand, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board-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-agricultural use? 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uoo, or a Williamson Act contract? X Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 12 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause, rezoning of, X forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? 4) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest X land to non-forest use? 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment X which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? Response: B1. Through 5.: New development is to occur in urbanized areas as in-fill, and a significant portion of new development would be expected to occur on land that is currently vacant and zoned for agricultural uses, and would therefore result in the conversion of open space to urban use but, none of the sites are currently used for agriculture, nor are the lands currently forested or used for foresting resources. Furthermore, none of the sites currently designated for residential development contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, nor are any such sites currently used for farming; and, none of the subject properties have Williamson Act contracts. Therefore no significant impacts are expected to occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zoning ordinance amendment. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element Sources: (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013 — attached), California Dep't of Conservation: Ventura County Important Farmland Map(2000). Mitigation: None required C. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. 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 X any criteria pollutant for which the project 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? Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 13 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: C1. Through 5.: The Housing Element update included policies, programs and guidelines through which Moorpark can continue to meet the fair share of regional housing growth. The zone change of the subject sites and zoning ordinance amendment will not have a cumulative net increase on the intensity of use of the subject properties beyond what has already been established under the existing general plan land use designations. Therefore there will not be a cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is not attaining any relevant air quality standard. The development of these sites will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations nor create objectionable odors. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Long-term air quality impacts are those associated with the emissions produced from project-generated vehicle trips as well as from stationary sources related to the use of natural gas and electricity for heating, cooling, lighting, etc. Without specific details regarding future development, such as unit types and vehicle trips, it is not possible to accurately quantify long-term emissions. However, the amendments to land use plans and regulations called for in Program 3 (creation of a new RPD 20 zoning district and rezoning of 25.8 acres of land) would not be expected to result in long-term air quality impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR since the total amount of new development under these amended regulations is expected to remain consistent with the long-term growth forecast. The proposed development standards in this RPD20U-N-D zoning district state that Reactive organic compounds, Nitrogen oxides (ozone/smog precursor), and particulate matter (aerosols/dust) generated during construction operations must be minimized in accordance with the City's standards and the standards of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). When an air pollution Health Advisory has been issued, construction equipment operations (including but not limited to grading, excavating, earthmoving, trenching, material hauling, and roadway construction) and related activities must cease in order to minimize associated air pollutant emissions. As part of the review process for the development of the sites, potential air quality impacts will be mitigated with collection of the payment of Air Quality fees prior to issuance of building permits, as required per Resolution No. 2006-2461, adopted by the City Council on May 17, 2006. Also, the City has adopted a green building ordinance which includes BMPs to address greenhouse gas emissions. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element Sources: (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013— attached), City of Moorpark City Council Resolution No. 2006-2461 Transportation System Management Established Minimum Fee Schedule Mitigation: None required D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: 1) 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 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? Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 14 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native x 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 X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Response: Dl. Through 4.: While some new development would be expected to occur in urbanized areas as in-fill where there were previous urban developments, a significant portion of new development would be expected to occur on land that is currently vacant, and would therefore result in the conversion of open space to urban use. However the 23.44 acre vacant site was completely burned in 2003 and 2006 and now consists primarily of non-native grassland, non-native trees and limited California Sage Brush. Development of the previously urban developed properties and the recently burned vacant site will not significantly impact biological resources including modifications to habitats of any species identified as sensitive or having special protective status nor will it have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, review of the sites indicates that development will not impact federally-protected wetlands nor substantially interfere with the movement of any native or migratory fish or wildlife species. Response: D5. Through 6.: The Moorpark Municipal Code contains tree preservation regulations, which are codified under Chapter 12.12 (Historic Trees, Native Oak Trees and Mature Trees). The ordinance defines "historic, mature and native oak trees," and specific requirements are described for protecting or mitigating their removal. Permits are required for pruning or removal of protected trees, which include historic, mature and native oak trees. All residential developments that could impact such trees will be required to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, which will reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary at this time. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan within areas that are to be considered for re-zoning. No mitigation measures are necessary at this time. The draft zoning ordinance amendment also does not conflict with adopted conservation local, regional or state conservation plans. As a result, no further environmental review is necessary. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013— attached), Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 12.12: Historic Trees, Native Oak Trees and Mature Trees (1988) Mitigation: None required E. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: 1)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of x a historic resource as defined in§15064.5? 2)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of x an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 15 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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: El. Through 4.: While some new development is expected to occur in previously developed urbanized areas as in-fi||, a significant portion of new development would be expected to occur on land that is currently vacant but, has a history of being used for dry farming and grazing. There are no known or expected cultural resources on the project site. Tho proposed improvements within the project area m/iU have no adverse impact on known cultural resources and must comply with development abandorde, which indicate that if any archeological or historical finds are uncovered during grading or excavation openaUona, all grading or excavation shall immediately cease in the immediate area and the find must be left untouched. The applicant, in consultation with the project paleontologist or archeologist, shall assure the preservation of the site and immediately contact the Community Development Director by 9hono, in writing by email or hand delivered correspondence informing the Director of the find. In the absence of the Dinontor, the applicant shall so inform the City Manager. The applicant shall be required to obtain the services of a qualified paleontologist or aroheo|oQiat, whichever is appropriate to recommend disposition of the site. The paleontologist or archeologist selected must be approved in writing by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the investigation and disposition of the find. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element Sources: (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project: 1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse oOects, including the risk of |n^s, injury, or death Involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the X most recent Alquist-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 Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X iv)Landslides? X 2)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the pn4act, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18'1'a X of the Uniform Building Code <19e4>. creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 8 Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 16 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: Fl. Through 5.: Moorpark is located in a seismically active region containing active faults. These faults have the potential to expose people or structures to significant impacts as a result of a fault rupture and seismic ground shaking. Parts of the city may contain expansive or unstable soils that have the potential to cause structural damage. In addition, grading associated with future development could result in substantial soil erosion. Upon review of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones maps for Moorpark, it was verified that the project sites are not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Boundary areas and are not subject to any special seismic setback requirements. While it is not possible to determine specific potential impacts related to developments at this time, some general requirements designed to minimize geological impacts will apply to all new development. These include compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Uniform Building Code, Title 24 of the California Building Code, and the standards of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Compliance with these building standards is considered the best means of reducing geologic hazards. In addition, as part of the City's planning and development process, based on existing adopted ordinances, the proposed future development projects will be required to provide site-specific geotechnical conditions to the City Engineer during plan check and prior to construction to determine appropriate construction methods to address potential hazards such as liquefaction. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zone change and zoning ordinance amendment. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), RPD20u Development Standards Sources: (proposed July 2013— attached).General Plan Safety Element (2001), California Building Code (2010). Mitigation: None required G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS—Would the project: 1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or X indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of X greenhouse gases? Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 17 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: G1. Through 2.: Many of the world's leading scientific experts agree that greenhouse gases (GHGs) generated by human activities affect climate by increasing the "greenhouse afhaot." The gases concentrate in the Earth's atmosphere and trap heat by blocking some of the long-wave energy the Earth normally radiates back into space. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (ooa|, oil and natural gas for heating and e|entriuib/, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising |iveotomk, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. These activities are increasing the greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere and could be accelerating global climate change. Long-term environmental consequences in California could potentially include a reduction in water supply from the Sierra Nevada snow pooh, which could result in a reduction in imported vvober, and public health problems due to degraded air quality and more intense summer heat. In 2000. Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 2000 levels by the year 2010, 1890 levels by the year 2020, and to 80 percent less than 1990 levels by year 2050. These reductions will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the oop. AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. AB 32 requires that CARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tnanhing, noporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. In 2007. CARB adopted the statewide 2020 emissions cap at 427 million metric tons (MMT) equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) greenhouse gas emissions. CARB estimated that 2020 'business-as-usual' emissions (meanin0, emissions of greenhouse gases without consideration of climate change) would be 596 K8K8TCO2e; thmrefora, emissions will need to be reduced by 169 yNK8TCO2e (28 percent) statewide to meet the 2020 threshold. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. A numerical threshold to determine the significance of greenhouse gas emissions has not been established by the City or Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. Because development of the sites proposed for the zone change will occur in a manner that is consistent with the adopted growth forecast and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, it would not cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the level currently projected to occur. Therefore, no new significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary at this time. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012). General Plan Land Use Element Sources: (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the p ject: 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, v,e, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X 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 matn,io|u, uuustancem, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 18 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites 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 wild land fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Response: H1. Through 8.: The re-zoning of the subject properties will not create hazards through transporting, using, or disposing hazardous materials. Further, it will not create hazards through the reasonably foreseeable future, nor result in hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed elementary school. The approval of the zone change will not impact any identified hazardous material sites. There are no airports within the city limits, and the development of the proposed sites will not result in a safety hazard for people working or living in the city. There are no private airstrips in Moorpark, so there would not be any hazards as a result of the zone change. Further, adoption of the zone change will not impair implementation of the emergency response plan. As a result, no further environmental review is required. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards (proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X 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)? X 3)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 4)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 19 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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)Otherwise 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 X which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X Response: 11.: New development could impact water quality through runoff and wastewater discharge. However, developments will be required to comply with applicable federal, state and local water quality requirements such as the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Additionally, through the City's building permit issuance process, projects will be evaluated for potential site-specific water quality and flooding impacts and must comply with requirements of Chapter 8.52, Storm Water Quality Management, of the Moorpark Municipal Code. Development projects will be required to prepare water quality plans and/or incorporate "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) into their construction operations to reduce erosion, siltation and water pollution both during and after construction. Compliance with these regulations would be expected to reduce water quality impacts to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zone change and zoning ordinance amendment. Response: 12.: Development consistent with prior land use intensity assumptions of the General Plan would not result in increased water consumption nor have the potential to deplete groundwater supplies. Additionally, new developments will not result in an increased amount of impervious surfaces beyond what has been analyzed and anticipated with build-out levels anticipated under the existing general plan land use designations. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Response: 13. Through 10.,: Prior to development of any new projects, potential impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns and flood hazards will be analyzed and appropriate BMPS must be complied with. In addition, existing policies require the provision of adequate storm water drainage facilities and prevent residential development within 100-year floodplains. Upon review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the project sites, it was verified that none of the project sites are within any of the designated 100-year floodplains. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zone change and zoning ordinance amendment. Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 8.52, Storm Water Quality Management. 2008-2014 Sources: Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013— attached). FEMA 100-year floodplain mapping. Mitigation: None required Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 20 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact J. 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? Response: J1. Through 3.: Future residential development as anticipated under the zone change and zoning ordinance amendment would be either small-scale infill/redevelopment projects or larger-scale master-planned projects on vacant land. As such, these future projects would not have the potential to divide an existing community. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. New residential development will be required to comply with all applicable plans and regulations, including the General Plan, specific plan, and zoning. The Housing Element contains a commitment to rezone at least 25.8 acres of land for multi-family residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre. Prior to issuance of building permits for these projects, building plans will be prepared and evaluated for the projects' conformance with applicable policies and regulations. Changes in the general plan land use designation of the site and zoning will not conflict with any General Plan and zoning ordinance provisions that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating any environmental effects. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this zoning ordinance amendment. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan within the project areas that are being considered for rezoning. None of the project sites contain environmentally sensitive habitats and all sites are intended for intensive development under the existing general plan land use designations. No impacts would occur and mitigation measures are not necessary at this time. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards (proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required K. 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: K1. Through 2.: According to the City of Moorpark General Plan, no classified or designated mineral deposits of statewide or regional significance have been identified in the city. The State Geologist has not mapped any Mineral Resource Zones in the city, and consequently the State Mining and Geology Board has not designated any regionally significant mineral resource areas in the city. However, prior to development of specific projects, potential site-specific impacts to mineral resources will be evaluated as part of the building permit issuance process and any appropriate requirements will be applied at that time. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards (proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 21 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact L. 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 levels? - X 3)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels 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 the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Response: L1. Through 4.: Future residential developments would be expected to result in short-term construction-related noise impacts, including groundborne vibration noise that could exceed established standards. Required compliance with the City's noise regulations and restrictions on construction hours will help to mitigate these impacts. Development would also be expected to result in an incremental increase in long-term noise levels from increased vehicular traffic as well as new stationary sources of noise. As part of the building permit issuance review process, projects will be subject to site-specific analysis of potential noise impacts and any appropriate requirements will be imposed at that time. Based on Chapter 15.26 Construction Activity Restrictions, of the Moorpark Municipal Code, construction activity hours are limited to between 7:00a.m. and 7:00p.m., Monday through Saturday, and construction is not allowed on Sundays. Additionally, construction activities such as requiring staging areas, regulating haul routes and other requirements to limit noise activities are required. Chapter 17.53 Noise, of the Moorpark Municipal Code contains standards whereby allowable exterior noise limits must be complied with to control noise to preserve the health and safety for residents and ensure noise levels comply with acceptable values. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Response: L5. Through 6.: There are no public airports or private airstrips located within the city. As such, future residential development would not be expected to expose people to excessive aircraft noise levels. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards(proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 22 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact M. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: 1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 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? Response: Ml. Through 3.: The level of new residential development anticipated due to this project would directly induce population growth but the growth will fall within the parameters anticipated in the existing general plan, based on the current general plan land use designations and anticipated intensities of land use associated with those designations. Furthermore, the City is required by state law to accommodate its fair share of regional housing needs, therefore this is not an adverse environmental impact under CEQA. No mitigation measures are required. that most new residential development would occur on vacant land and therefore would not displace existing houses or people. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required N. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) 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 Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 23 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: N1.: New residential development would be expected to increase the demand for public services. Approval of the zone change will result in development consistent with prior land use intensity assumptions under the existing approved general plan, and would not result in a significant increase in demand for services beyond what has been anticipated. Additionally, new developments will be required to pay Fire Protection Facilitates fees, Police Facilities Fees, Library Facility Fees and Park Fees. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards (proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required 0. RECREATION 1) Would the project increase the use of existing X 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 the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Response: 01. Through 2.: New residential development will increase the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. As part of the building permit issuance process, all new developments will be evaluated to determine the level of demand for recreational facilities and appropriate level of fees to be paid to ensure that adequate service levels are maintained. The City of Moorpark Park Fees, that all new residential developments are required to pay, are used to acquire and/or improve park facilities, which helps to mitigate the impact of additional residents. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD20u Development Standards (proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required P. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC—Would the project: 1) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy X establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? 2) Conflict with an applicable congestion management X program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards 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? Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 24 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,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)? Response: P1. Through 7.: New residential development anticipated in accordance with the project, would be expected to generate increased traffic on the road network and could result in hazardous road conditions, inadequate emergency access or insufficient parking. The level of new residential development anticipated on the total of 26.14 acres of re-zoned land would not be expected to have a significant effect on air traffic volume beyond the levels assumed in the regional growth forecast. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required at this time. Prior to the issuance of building permits the RPD2OU-N-D development standards require that projects within this zone submit a traffic study and pay fair share traffic fees associated with any traffic impacts relative to road capacity, design, emergency access and parking, and to ensure that safe design standards and adequate service levels are maintained. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments include measures to avoid impacts. The traffic impact fees that new residential developments are required to pay will mitigate the impact of additional traffic through funding of new road improvements. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this project. Sources: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required Q. 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 it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6)Be served by the landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 25 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7) Comply with fedom|, staxo, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Response: CJ1. Through 7.: New residential development would not be expected to increase the demand for utilities and service oyebamo, including vvatar, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, and solid waste disposal since the project sites were previously developed as urban uses and /or are already anticipated to have thoinhanaib/ of residential development associated with the zone change according to the existing intensity of uses based on existing general plan land use designations. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this p ject. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element Sources: (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013—attached). Mitigation: None required Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 26 R. 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 |avwls, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal onn`nnunuy, 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 � nmited, 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 � cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Response: R1.: Under state |aw, cities are required to comply with the adopted programs of their Housing Element thct, among other things, identify how the jurisdiction's fair share of regional housing growth needs will be accommodated. The City of Moorpark's fair share of the region's new housing need, as established by the Southern California Association of Governments, is 1,617 units for the period 2006-2014. The City's new housing need is distributed among various income levels. Since the City's current land use plans and zoning do not demonstrate adequate capacity to accommodate its need for lower-income households, the Housing Element includes a commitment to rezone 25.8 acres of land for multi-family residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre (Program 3). Anticipated development in association with the zone change is proposed on sites currently designated for residential dave|opment, and this would not result in environmental impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the General Plan and BR. As part of the City's building permit issuance pnooems, each project will be evaluated prior to construction and appropriate measures will be complied with to mitigate any potential impacts. Furthonnope, prior to issuance of building permito, compliance with the development standards of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments will be analyzed and appropriate standards and measures will be complied with to address any potentially significant impacts, therefore mitigation is not required. Response: R2.: As noted in Item R1., above, the Housing Element identifies a need for 1.617 new residential units during the 2006-2014 planning period and includes a commitment to rezone 25.8 acres of land for multi-family residential development. Hovm^vmr, the development associated with the specific location of sites to be rezoned is to be completed in compliance with the development standards created for the properties in this zone which are self-mitigating. Prior to adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance annandments, appropriate development standards have been drafted which will be required to address any potentially significant impacts. Response: R3.: As noted in Items R1.. and R2., above, appropriate development standards have been drafted with the proposed zoning ordinance amnondnnento, which will be required to address any potentially significant impacts. Thwnafona, mitigation measures are not required to address any potentially significant impacts. 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (May 16, 2012), General Plan Land Use Element Sources: (1992), RPD2Ou Development Standards (proposed July 2013—attached). Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study City of Moorpark City Council Resolution No. 2012-3105, adopted May 16, 2012, Adopting a Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02, an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update of the City of Moorpark General Plan. Resolution No. PC-2013-586 Page 27 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. The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended. 2. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended. 3. RPD20U-N-D Development Standards [(proposed July/August 2013)- and associated proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes maps of project sites]. 4. 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 5. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15000 et. seq. Attachments: EXHIBIT A: General Plan Amendment 2013-01 Map Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 1995-01 and Zone Change 2013-01 Map EXHIBIT B: DRAFT - Chapter 17.76 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 20 UNITS TO THE ACRE, (RPD 20U-N-D)