The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2006 1115 CC SPC ITEM 04ATfEM 4.A• CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting ° -----_---//-/,r-o?co ACTION: MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL - -- AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Mana r DATE: November 12, 2006 (CC Special Meeting of 11/15/2006) SUBJECT: Consider a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District for the Happy Camp Canyon Channel Improvement Project BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION On October 31, 2006, the City received a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District for the Happy Camp Canyon Channel Improvement Project. Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration are due on November 30, 2006. This project, partially located in the City of Moorpark, includes the construction of a new, approximately 1,730 -foot long, 40 -foot wide (bottom width) earthen channel with four rock stabilizers along the western portion of Happy Camp Canyon west of the southerly end of the Rustic Canyon Golf Course. Disposal of excavated material would take place in the eastern portion of the canyon within the Golf Course. The new channel would connect to an existing Watershed Protection District concrete -lined channel located west of North Westwood Street. A site plan of the proposed project is attached. The project site suffered localized flooding and debris problems in the January 2005 storm event. A temporary channel was cut across the site to provide drainage relief. The proposed project involves the cutting of a larger channel west of the Rustic Canyon Golf Course beginning within the course of the temporary channel and providing a straight connection to the concrete channel located just west of North Westwood Street. Community Development and Public Works staff reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and visited the project site. Staff was concerned that the document did not provide enough information to draw the conclusions that the project would not have a \ \Mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development\COUNCIBMisc Reports \061115 Happy Camp Canyon Channel MND.doc (s('�tt1; Honorable City Council November 15, 2006 Page 2 significant effect on the environment. The attached draft letter expresses these concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct that a letter be sent expressing concerns with the draft environmental document for the referenced proposed project. Attachments: 1. Site Plan 2. Draft Letter to Watershed Protection District 0 00(' '� SITE PLAN UNDER SEPARATE COVER CC ATTACHMENT 3 City ofAloorpar! COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING — BUILDING AND SAFETY — CODE COMPLIANCE November 14; 2006 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517 -6200 fax (805) 532 -2540 Ventura County Watershed Protection District Attention: Theresa Stevens 800 So. Victoria Avenue, L #1610 Ventura, CA 93009 -1610 RE: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Happy Camp Canyon Channel Improvement Project Dear Ms. Stevens, The City of Moorpark Community Development Department has reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Initial Study -(IS) for the Happy Camp Canyon Channel .Improvement Project and has the following comments: IS Section 2.2 — Construction. The IS indicates that construction is scheduled for fall 2006 during the dry season. This is no longer possible in 2006. Also with the biological mitigation (Page 4 of the MND and Page 51 of the IS) preventing use of heavy equipment in the western channel between February 16 and August 29 (California gnatcatcher breeding season), it does not appear that construction could begin until at least August 30, 2007. This section needs to be updated for internal consistency of the document. 2. IS Section 3.0 Issue 3 — Air Quality. The IS does not identify, analyze, or mitigate the long -term fugitive dust impacts of the stockpile or the unlined channel bottom. The mitigation measures in Section 5.1 seem to be written to apply only to fugitive dust during construction. 3. IS Section 3.0 Issue 4d — Surface Water Quality. The straightening of the flow of the surface water from Happy Camp Canyon would increase velocity and turbidity, thereby increasing the potential for erosion and sediment flow into the Arroyo Simi. The sandy soils in the project vicinity would be difficult to stabilize during a heavy flow. While the IS acknowledges that, "Increases in turbidity and settleable materials can result in physical effects that adversely affect beneficial uses related to fisheries habitat and wetlands," the mitigation measures in Section 5.2 focus only on construction impacts and not long -term operational impacts, which could be significant. CC ATTACHMENT 2 1Wor_pr1_serv%City SharelCommunity DevelopmentWGENCIE&Ventura Countylo61114 VCWPD Happy Camp Canyon.doc PATRICK HUNTER ROSEANN MIKOS CLINT HARPER KEITH F. MILLHOUSE JANICE PARVIN Mayor Mayor Pro Tom Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Ms. Theresa Stevens November 14, 2006 Page 2 4. IS Section 3.0 Issue 6a — Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species. The IS notes that the site is adjacent to California gnatcatcher habitat, and an area where California gnatcatchers were observed in the past. Mitigation provided in Section 5.3 limits the time frame during which heavy equipment can be used in adjacent to the western slope of Happy Camp Canyon, however mitigation is not included for additional pre- construction surveying or what would occur if California gnatcatchers are found on or near the construction site. 5. IS Section 3.0 Issue 8b — Scenic Areas /Features. The IS does not identify, analyze, or mitigate the visual impact of the 15 -foot high stockpile proposed as part of the project. 6. IS Section 3.0 Issue 15a — Erosion /Siltation. The discussion in the IS on this topic is very limited, yet this issue has potential life safety and property damage impacts. The straightening of the channel will increase stormwater velocity and turbidity, increasing the potential for erosion. The local soils to be excavated and reused for lining the banks of the channel are very sandy. The do not have much organic material needed to establish vegetation and, even if soil amendments are added, the soil may not be held together well by vegetation during a heavy rain event due to its sandy nature. Documentation is not provided in the IS as to whether these soils are appropriate for the channel sides. It should be noted that vegetation is not well established in the existing channels. In addition, documentation is not provided in the IS on the potential to erode the natural slopes immediately west of the proposed channel. Further, if debris carrying flow is increased downstream, the IS should analyze the effects on the existing drainage structures that would take this flow under City streets as well as under the SR -118 freeway. Blockage of these structures by debris could create substantial property damage. The IS does not identify whether or not one or more debris /detention basins would be needed upstream to protect downstream property and drainage structures. 7. IS Section 3.0 Issue 22c — Pedestrian /Bicycle. Under "Significance Thresholds," the Initial Study states, "A project that would cause actual or potential barriers to existing or planned pedestrian /bicycle facilities may have a significant impact." The City of Moorpark Circulation Element Figures 3 and 4 show a bikeway /equestrian trail connecting from the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan development (Pardee Homes) to Happy Camp Canyon. An existing trail connects Moorpark Highlands to Campus Park Drive, and is visible on an aerial photograph of the site. The channel improvement project would cut off the existing trail and prevent the planned bikeway /equestrian trail connections. This would be a significant effect by the definition in the Initial Study. While the City of Moorpark appreciates the efforts of the Watershed Protection District to improve flood control facilities that affect property in Moorpark, the Initial Study does not have the documentation to conclude that this project would not have significant environmental effects. The City requests that our concerns stated above be addressed Ms. Theresa Stevens November 14, 2006 Page 3 either in a revised Initial Study or an Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for your consideration of these comments on this project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Barry K. Hogan Community Development Director C: Honorable City Council (w/ site plan) Honorable Planning Commission (w/ site plan) Steven Kueny (w/ site plan) File Chron 0 0 f" "6