HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0504 CC REG ITEM 09AITEM 7. n 0
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Development
Paul Porter, Senior Planner
DATE: March 15, 1994 (CC meeting of May 4, 1994)
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
Background
The Public hearing on the amendments to the Carlsberg Specific Plan
and EIR was closed on November 10, 1993. Government Code Section
65857 requires that the Council directed amendments be referred to
the Planning Commission before final action on the Plan by the City
Council. Prior to Council action on this matter, no further public
hearing is required. At the City Council meeting of January 26,
1993, the City Council directed staff to bring the Carlsberg
Specific Plan back to the Planning Commission for review of the
City Council's recommended changes including the Zone Change
regarding a floating Neighborhood Commercial Center in the southern
portion of the Specific Planning area along Tierra Rejada Road as
well as other changes noted herein. As the Planning Commission had
not previously reviewed the proposal for the Neighborhood
Commercial site along Tierra Rejada Road, the City Council directed
staff to have the Planning Commission review the revised Plan for
the purpose of complying with State Law (Government Code Section
65857).
Discussion
At the Planning Commission meeting on March 14, 1994, the Planning
Commission approved the attached Resolution which finds that the
Planning Commission has complied with Government Code Section
65857. However, the Planning Commission noted that they did not
agree with the idea of having commercial along Tierra Rejada Road
for the following reasons:
1. Having a commercial center across from the Tierra Rejada
Greenbelt could be considered as growth inducing and
contrary to protecting the greenbelt area.
2. The City already has commercial property at the
intersection of Spring Road and Tierra Rejada Road.
3. Placing a commercial center at the intersection of
Science Drive and Tierra Rejada Road would detract from
the gateway to the Carlsberg Development.
-- ----7 ; --
4. Historically, members of the community have advocated
keeping development away from the greenbelt area.
The Planning Commission agreed with the other proposed City Council
changes to the plan including:
1. The active park on Science Drive proposed to be located
in area "C" per the attachment to this staff report and
that it be large enough to accommodate a ball field with
a minimum 300 foot distance from home plate to the out
field perimeter without overlapping into a separate
regulation soccer field. The park is to replace the open
space area park which is located north of Area C.
2. The Council determination that the SR /C and BP
designation be changed to SRC /C /BP with the requirement
that a minimum of 40 acres of the SR /C /BP be developed as
SR /C. The location and layout of the SR /C or BP zones
and uses would be subect to approval by the City
Council.
The Planning Commission indicated that two representatives of the
Commission would address their concerns regarding the proposed
commercial center at this Council meeting.
Project Modification Summary
Impact Sciences has prepared the project modification summary to
the EIR which is attached for the Council's review.
Other Proposed Changes to Specific Plan
On April 13, 1994, the Department received revisions to pages 7, 8,
and 9 of the Draft Specific Plan from Carlsberg Financial
Corporation. The changes are as follows:
a. Page 7 changes as follows: "The 73- acre site at the
southwest corner of New Los Angeles Avenue and the
Moorpark Freeway has an underlying land use designation
of "Business Park ", however, the intent of the plan is
that no more than 33 acres be developed for Business Park
uses unless a single owner tenant develops the entire 73
acres as BP for its own use."
b. Page 8 changed as follows: "The plan requires a single
owner- tenant if the total 73 acres is to be developed for
BP uses, otherwise a minimum of 40 acres of the available
73 acres is to be for subregional retail /commercial use."
K
c. Page 59 changed as follows: "Height of all buildings:
35 feet; however, if the site is to be utilized by one
single user, the height limit shall be 50 feet."
Recommendations
1. Adopt the attached Resolution Certifying the Environmental
Impact Report inclusive of the project modification summary
and approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
2. Review and Approve the amended Carlsberg Specific Plan as
amended and adopt the attached Resolution and findings and
statement of overriding considerations amending the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to reflect the amended land uses
and direct staff to prepare an Ordinance to amend the City's
Zoning Regulations in order to adopt the amended land use
regulations of the Specific Plan as Zoning for the property.
Attachments:
1. Project Modification Summary
2. Amended Specific Plan
3. Draft Resolutions with Findings
4. Mitigation Monitoring Program
5. Draft Article 19
3
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Developme
Paul Porter, Senior Planner
DATE: May 3, 1994
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 1994 REGARDING:
ATTACHMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
On April 29, 1994, the Department of Community Development
distributed the following information which is attached for the
Council's information:
1. Two modified pages from draft Article 19 of the Zoning
Ordinance
2. Letter to the City Council dated April 29, 1994 indicating
that Alternative 3 in the EIR in financially unfeasible to
build.
In addition, the Council has received the following attachments
with the staff Report dated March 15, 1994:
1. Project Modification Summary
2. Amended Specific Plan
3. Draft Resolutions with Findings
4. Mitigation Monitoring Program
5. Draft Article 19
The Draft Resolutions have been reviewed by the City Attorney. The
City Attorney indicated that the Draft Resolution for Certification
of the EIR is satisfactory. The Resolution for approval of the
Specific Plan has been modified to incorporate the comments of the
City Attorney and is attached for your information and review.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON MAY 4, 1994
The following is a summary of the steps that should take place
prior to certification of the EIR and adoption of the findings, and
approval of the amendments of the Specific plan and Mitigation
Monitoring Program:
1. Consider the letter dated April 29, 1994 from Ron Tankersley
indicating that Alternative No. 3 in the EIR is financially
unfeasible.
PP05:03:9413 05pmA: \3MAY94.CC 1
2. Council should consider the Project Modification Summary as
part of the administrative record prior to Certification of
the Environmental Impact Report. It will not become a part of
the Final EIR because the summary did not find that the
modifications to the project had a significant impact on the
Environment. If the modifications to the Specific Plan would
have had an impact on the environment, the Project
Modification Summary would have been called an Addendum to the
EIR and as such would have become an attachment and made a
part of the Final EIR.
3. Adopt the Resolution in the staff report dated March 15, 1994
Certifying the Environmental Impact. Report and approve the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
4. Review: 1) the amended Specific Plan including the changes to
Pages 7,8 and 59 of the Draft Specific Plan which have been
incorporated into the plan that has previously been given to
you and 2) Draft. Article 19.
5. Review and Approve the amended Carlsberg Specific Plan as
amended and adopt the attached Resolution and findings and
statement of overriding considerations amending the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to reflect the amended land uses
and direct staff to prepare an Ordinance to amend the City's
Zoning Regulations in order to adopt the amended land use
regulations of the Specific: Pl.an as Zoning for the property.
Attachments: 1. Copy of Memorandum to Council dated April 29,
1994 with attachments
2. Revised draft Resolution for approval of
Specific Plan
CC. Steve Kueny, City Manager
Lillian Hare, City Clerk
Paul Porter, Senior Planner
Case File
Chroni File
PP05:03:9413:45pmA:\3HAY94.CC 2
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Developmex*,
Paul Porter, Senior Planner
DATE: April 29, 1994
SUBJECT: INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM CARLSBERG FINANCIAL CORPORATION
On April 29, 1994, the Department of Community Development received
the attached additional information which is attached for the
Council's information:
1. Two modified pages from draft Article 19 of the Zoning
Ordinance
2. Letter to the City Council dated April 29, 1994 indicating
that Alternative 3 in the EIR in financially unfeasible to
build.
Attachments: Modifications to draft Article 19
Letter to City Council dated April 29, 1994
CC. Steve Kueny, City Manager
Lillian Hare, City Clerk
Paul Porter, Senior Planner
Case File
Chroni File
PP(H t29r 94/2 tI2P=Ar\2MPR94.QC
04/29/94 11151 $ 3104505313 CARLSBERG FIN. gym
ARTICLE 19
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE REGULATIONS
Sec. 8119-0 - EURPO E AND INTENT-- The purpose of these regulations
is to act as the controlling mechanism of the implementation of
development within the Carlsberg Specific Plan area.
Implementation of the standards set forth in this section will
ensure that future development proceeds in a coordinated manner
consistent with the goals and policies of the Carlsberg Specific-
Plan and the City of Moorpark General Plan. Future review of site
plans and other necessary discretionary approvals by the City of
Moorpark will ensure the realization of these standards.
The following standards apply to development of all residential,
business park, commercial and open space areas. All such develop-
ment shall conform to the development standards as set forth in the
specific plan for the permitted uses.
The city zoning ordinance and /or subdivision ordinance shall have
effect on all areas, except as specified by the standards contained
herein. As the development standards of the Specific Plan are
adopted by ordinance, in any areas of conflict between the zoning
ordinance and /or subdivision ordinance and these provisions, this
Specific Plan shall control. Where the Specific Plan does not
address development standards or provisions, the city's zoning
ordinance and /or subdivision ordinance shall control. Any future
amendments to the city zoning ordinance and /or subdivision
ordinance which are not addressed by the Specific Plan or existing
Zoning and /or Subdivision ordinance shall also apply to the
specific plan area as applicable
Sec. 8119 -1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS -- Terms used in these regulations
shall have the same definitions as given in the City of Moorpark
Zoning Code unless otherwise def!ned herein.
a. Any details or issues not specifically covered in these
regulations shall be subject to the regulations of the
City of Moorpark Zoning Code, as amended.
b. These regulations are adopted pursuant to Section 65450
et seq, of the State of California Government Code. It
is specifically intended by such adoption that the
development standards herein shall regulate all develop-
ment within the Specific Plan area.
RPR 29 '04 ' R : -n
?' 04Z29Z94 11852 a 3104505313 CARLSBERG FIN. 03
d. Food services in conjunction with the principal
use.
e. Light industrial /assembly uses
f. Office uses
g. Personal services*
h. Research and development uses
i. Service uses
J. Warehousing and storage uses
k. Wholesaling
1. Any other use which the Planning Commission finds
consistent with the purpose and intent of this land
use category.
* Business, commercial and personal service uses
combined shall be limited to a total of 50
percent of the gross floor area of structures
in the business park.
Sec. 81
a.
b.
C.
d.
19 -7.3 - Conditional Uses fsubiect to a Onditional use
Permit)
Commercial recreation uses
Educational uses
Food services in conjunction with the principal
use.
Minor automotive service
C. Public utilities
f. Religious uses
Sec. 8119 -7.5 - Site Development Standardl3
a. Height of all buildings: 30 feet, however, if the
s by_ one 'iU user tt a
height limit shall be 50
�.. --
b. Setbacks:
1) Front: 20 percent or lot width or depth with
a minimum of 30 feet
2) Side:
E1) Interior: 15 percent of lot width or
04/29/94 LL152
April 29, 1994
Members of the City Council
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Dear Members of the City Council:
S 3104505313 CARL50ERG FIN.
In order to assist the council in its analysis of the final
environmental impact report ("SEIR "), the applicant wishes to make
the following information a part of the public record. The
applicant has considered development "Alternative 3 Hybrid ", pages
7 -12 through 7 -17 of the SEIR as compared to the proposed amendment
to the specific plan and finds that the elimination of development
in the western portion of area A would result in the loss of
approximately 100 residential units.
While Alternative 3 proposes to expand area D, the total project
residential density would be limited to 480 single family units.
Further, Alternative 3 would reduce available business and
commercial development by more than 13 percent. The combined
impact of a the 72 unit reduction in residential density and the
reduction in business uses is sufficient to render Alternative 3
financially unfeasible as there are no reductions in the scope or
cost of public improvements to be funded by the project.
Yours truly,
CARLSBERG FINANCIAL CORPORATION
Ronald S. Tankereley, P dent
cc Steve Rueny,
Jim Aguilera,
Allen Camp
APR ?q 'Q4 iPcczi
City Manger
Director of Community Development
04 .
r
MAY 03 '94 1034 IMPACT_SCIENCES_INC ~ P.4
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLS13ERG SPECIFIC
PLAN, ADOPrnNG A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS RELATED TO THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT, AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, Carlsberg Financial Corporation has filed an application with the City of Moorpark
for an amendment to the adopted Carlsberg Specific Plan regulating development of an approximate 500-
acre land holding located west of the Moorpark Freeway (SR23), east of Spring Road. north of Tierra
Rejada Road, and south of New Los Angeles Avenue in the City of Moorpark; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ('DEIR') dated May 18, 1993 was prepared
and circulated for a 45 day period in order to receive written comments on the adequacy of the document
from responsible agencies and from the public; and
WHEREAS, before approving an amendment to the adopted Carlsberg Specific Plan, CEQA
requires the preparation and certification of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to address the
environmental impacts of the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan;
WHEREAS, the EIR and proposed amendment to the Specific Plan were considered by the
Planning Commission at its meetings of August 2, 1993, August 16, 1993, and September 7, 1993;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after considering all testimony and evidence
presented regarding the EIR and proposed amendment to the Specific Plan, whether written or oral,
.recommended approval of the Specific Plan amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the DEIR and proposed amendment to the Specific Plan were considered by the
City Council at several public meetings; and
WHEREAS, a Final EIR ('FEIR'), dated November 18, 1993, was prepared containing all
written, correspondence received commenting on the DEIR, summaries of oral comments on the DEIR
made at hearings held by the Planning Commission and the City Council on the DEIR, and written
responses to these comments; and
WHEREAS, and were after considering the FOR in conjunction with all evidence and
testimony, whether written or oral, the City Council reached a decision on this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS based on the EIR, oral and written staff
reports, and other testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council of
the City of Moorpark:
SECTION 1. Except as otherwise provided in these findings or in Resolution No. _ of the
City Council certifying the EIR, the analysis and conclusions of the EIR are hereby adopted as if fully set
forth herein.
SECTION 2. Except as otherwise set forth in these findings, the mitigation measures adopted
in connection with the approval of the proposed Specific Plan amendment will mitigate the project's
significant impacts to a less than significant level.
Mn� � ,o,I rao - -,o c?rac �_)�o –1— .
MAY 03 '94 10 35 IMPAET_SCIEkES_INC P.5
SECTION 3. In response to comments received by the City on the FEIR and proposed
Specific Plan amendment, modifications were made to the Project to further mitigate potential impacts.
These modifications to the Project are discussed in the 'Project Modification Summary' dated April 27,
1994. The new Information In this 'Project Modification Summary' is not substantial and does not
constitute significant new information as only minor technical changes and additions are made to the
Information in the EIR and no important new issues about the project are raised.
SECTION 4. Fach Finding is based on the entire record of proceedings, including written and
oral testimony before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The description of Impacts,
mitigation measures and alternatives in these findings Is intended to be a summary only. The full
descriptions and analyses are set forth in the EIR and adopted by this City Council except as expressly set
forth herein.
SECTION a. Pear to considering the approval of the amendment to the Specific Plan, the City
Council reviewed the EIR `and adopted Resolution No. certifying the EIR for the proposed
amendment to the Carlsberg Specific Plan as having been completed in accordance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 5. A Mitigation Monitoring Program ( "MMP') which consists of all the mitigation
measures listed in the (a copy of this MMP Is attached hereto as Exhibit A), is hereby approved and
adopted and the mitigation measures are specifically adopted as conditions of approval of the amendment
to the amendment to the Specific Plan. All mitigation measures previously imposed as part of the 1990
final EIR Plan that are not included in the MMP are no longer valid and applicable to the project.
SECTION 6. Certain of the impacts under the following environmental topics were identified as
potentially slpridicant impacts and were analyzed in the EIR: topography; hydrology; biota; traffic and
circulation; air quality; noise; land use; and housing. Each of these potential impacts is discussed more
fully in Sections 7 through 25 below,
SECTION 7, Section 6 of the DEIR sets forth the impacts found not to be significant based on
the Initial Study and DEIR. As listed in Section 6 of the DEIR, these include certain impacts related to the
following environmental topics: soil resources; air quality; light and glare; natural resources; risk of upset:
population; housing; public services; energy: utilities: human health: aesthetics; recreation; cultural
resources.
SECTION 8. Under the topic of topography, the EIR concludes that implementation of the
amended! Specific Plan would result in the alteration of Type 1, 2, and 3 ridges on the site and grading of
slopes greater than 20 percent. The primary changes associated with the proposed amendment would be
allowing greater development of planning area "C' which would include alteration of a Type 2 ridge and
the grading of approximately 3 to 5 acres of slopes greater than 20 percent that would not be graded
under the adopted Specific Plan. Area "C" Is situated in the central portion of the site and views of this
location from off-site viewpoints are largely precluded. This condition minimizes this impact to some
extent. These impacts will be mitigated to a level of less than significant by implementation of mitigation
measures T1 through T24 as contained in the MMP.
SECTION 9. Under the topic of hydrology, the EIR concludes that development under the
amended Specific Plan would increase site runoff in the Arroyo Simi and Peach Hill Wash watersheds by
.55 cubic feet per second. This increase represents a 17.3 percent increase in runoff in the Arroyo Simi
watershed and a 30.0 percent decrease in runoff in the Peach Hill watershed. This increase in runoff will
'not adversely affect drainage facilities in either of these watersheds. Detailed development plans have not
been completed for the portion of the site located in the Arroyo Santa Rosa watershed and, therefore,
specific Information on impacts to this watershed is not available. Detailed hydrologic studies will be
required When detailed plans for this portion of the Specific Plan area are completed prior to approval of
the final map. The applicant will construct all improvements as required by the City to mitigate any impact to
the existing drainage facilities in the Arroyo Santa Rosa watershed. All impacts associated with increases
in runoff will be mitigated to a level of less than significant by implementation of mitigation measures HY1 to
HY6, as contained in the MMP.
MAY 3 '94 09:29 ''-4-- JQ- 77-p n ^'-•.-
-SCIENCES-INC r . b
SECTION 10. Under the topic of hydrology, the EIR concludes that no on -site flooding impacts
win fur as all storm drain facilities will be designed to handle 50-year and 100 -year frequency storms and
no development is Proposed In the 100 -year or 600 -year flood zones as a result of proposed project
impleinentalion. Mitigation measures HY7 to HY6, as contained in the MMP, require City review and
approvakof the storm drain design to ensure that no significant flooding impacts occur.
$ECTION 11. Under the topic of hydrology, the EIR concludes that minimal erosion and
sedimentation Impacts may occur during grading and construction. Mitigation measure HY1, as contained
in the MMP, requires preparation of a erosion, siltation and dust control plan to ensure that these
construction effects are minimized. Mitigation measures HY7 and HYS, as contained in the MMP, impose
further requirements to mitigate any potential increase in erosion and sedimentation during construction
to a level. of less than significant.
SECTION 12. Under the topic of hydrology, the EIR concludes that 200 -300 feet of the
uppermost portion of a blueline stream located on the northern portion of the site would be directly
affected by the proposed development. Further analysis of the proposed project in relation to this stream
bed will be required as a condition of approval of the Tentative Tract Map for this portion of the property.
As no detailed development plans are available at this time it would be speculative to examine this
potential impact any further at this time. If feasible, any impact to this stream will be avoided by refining the
grading plan. Any alteration of this stream will be subject to the approval of the California Department of
Fish and. Game and possibly the Army Corps of Engineers. Through these permit processes, speck
mitigation measures for any direct impacts will be determined. Through this process, this potential impact
will be avoided or mitigated to a level of less than significant prior to approval of the Tentative Tract Map.
89CTION 13. Under the topic of biota, the EIR concludes that implementation of the adopted
Specific Man would result in direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plant and animal species on the site.
Implementation of the Project would result in the loss approximately 21 acres of vegetation associated
with the cactus phase of the coastal sage scrub plant community that provides habitat for the cactus wren,
a sensitive bird species. To mitigate this impact to a level of less than significant, Mitigation Measure 82, as
contained in the MMP, requires a revegetation program to replace this vegetation on the site.
A vernal pool, containing California Orcutt grass, is located in the southeastern portion of the site. Lyon's
pentachasta is also located in this portion of the site in proximity of the pool. The vernal pool, California
Orcult grass, and Lyon's pentachaeta are all considered to be sensitive resources. As designed, the
Project avoids direct impacts to known populations of Lyon's penetachaeta and the vernal pool. The
Project includes a Rare Plant Management Program (RPMP) designed to minimize any indirect Impacts to
the vernal pool, California Orcutt grass, and Lyon's pentachaeta. The RPMP addresses the maintenance
of water flows to the vernal pool, preservation of key open space areas, and provision of a butler area to
minimize indirect impacts associated with an increased human presence in the area. Mitigation measures
81, 83, and 84 to B5 as contained in the DEIR on pages 5.71 to 5-72 were proposed to further minimize
any Indirect impacts on these resources. These measures included increasing the buffer around the
vemal pool from 0-50 feet to 100 feet; specifying types of mosquito control to be used in the pool;
forbidding any draining or disturbance of the pool; and requiring that native plants be used in project
landscaping near open space areas. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) commented on
the DEIR and RPMP, indicating that, in the opinion of CDFG, the construction and presence of 100
homes in the vicinity of the vernal pool would result in an unacceptable alteration of the watershed for the
vernal pool and that the artificial hydrologic regime proposed in the RPMP would not sufficiently mitigate
this impact. In addition, CDFG stated that they believed the buffer provided was insufficient to allow for
seasonal fluctuation and expansion of the populations of Lyon's pentachaeta on the site. In response to
these comments, further revisions were made to the project to minimize any indirect impacts on these
resources including a redesign of lots in this area to increase the buffer around the vernal pool to 100 to
250 feet.
With implementation of the RPMP and Mitigation Measures 83 to 65, as contained in the MMP, the
potentially significant impacts to the vernal pool, California Orcutt grass, and Lyon's pentachasta are
considered mitigated to a level of less than significant by the City Council. Mitigation Measure 81, as
contained in the DEIR, is no longer applicable as the buffer around the vernal pool has been made larger
than the 100 foot buffer called for by this measure This finding of the City Council is based on the
.) , - 11") ornrr nnr
MAY 03 194 10:36 IMPACT_SCIENCES_INC P.7
Information contained in the EIR and the expertise of the City's biological consufant for this Project.
Contrary to the expertise of the City's biological consultant, the CDFG has alleged in letters and public
testimony that the Project will result in an unavoidable adverse impact to the sensitive resources
discussed above even with Implementation of the RPMP and other mitigation measures and that a larger
buffer should be provided around the pool. The City Council acknowledges that a disagreement among
experts exists with regard to this issue. Section 15151 of the CEQA guidelines states that a disagreement
among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of
disagreements among experts. The RPMP, as prepared by the City's biological consultant, was based on
' extensive hydrological and other technical studies and required a redesign of the project. The CDFG has
expressed opinions regarding the effectiveness of this mitigation program, but has produced no technical
or other information to support the comments made. The City Council understands each viewpoint, and
based on the information presented by each expert, has accepted the opinion of the City's biological
consultant. If, and to the extent that. the allegations of CDFG are proven to be true or partially true at a
later date, any future impacts to the vernal pool, California Orcutt grass, and Lyon's Pentachaeta, are
considered to be acceptable due to the overriding considerations set forth in Section 29 below.
. SECTION 14. Under the topic of biota, the EIR found that implementation of the amended
Specific Plan would result in habitat loss and direct and indirect impacts to natural habitat on the site.
Approximately 33 percent of the natural habitat on the site will be removed through implementation of the
project. In addition, placement of development adjacent to the remaining open space will result in indirect
impacts to wildlife. Mitigation measures 134 and 135 will mitigate the indirect effects to a level considered
less titan significant by limiting nighttime fighting and requiring the use of compatible plant materials near
open space areas.
SECTION 15. Under the topic of traffic, the EIR concludes that the proposed amendment to the
Specific Plan would generate 37% percent more traffic than the currently adopted Specific Plan and
would result in significant impacts to seven intersections that would result from implementation of the
amended Specific Plan. These intersections are: Moorpark Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue: Spring
Road/Los Angeles Avenue: Moorpark Road/Tierra Rejada Road: State Route 23 northboundfTierra
Rejada Road: Science Drive/New Los angles Avenue; 'A' Street/Tierra Rejada Road; and 'A' StreetrB"
Street. In addition, the amended Specific Plan would improve the operating conditions of the intersection
of Spring Roa&Tierra Rejada Road by providing another north/south road, Science Drive, that will carry
some of the traffic currently using Spring Road. While the operating capacity of this intersection would
improve it would still operate at a level of service considered to be unacceptable by the City of Moorpark.
The impact of the project on the operation of these intersections will be mitigated to a level that is less than
significant by City of Moorpark standards with implementation of mitigation measures TC 1 through TC 16,
as contained in the MMP. These measures require Improvements to certain intersections and a fair share
financial contribution by the applicant towards the costs of improving other impacted facilities. These
measures provide for improvement of impacted City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, and State of
California Facilities.
Impacts to the County regional roadway system and Congestion Management Plan network were
analyzed based on available traffic analysis methodologies. The County of Ventura is currently preparing a
county -wide traffic model to monitor cumulative traffic impacts and an associated traffic fee program. In lieu
of this county -wide program, the County has been seeking to establish reciprocal traffic mitigation fee
agreements with the cities in Ventura County defining inter - jurisdictional responsibilities for mitigation of
traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure TC17. as contained in the MMP, will ensure that Impacts to County
roads 'are mitigated by requiring the applicant to contribute a pro -rata share of the cost of improving
impacted County roadways, provided that a reciprocal agreement between the County and the City of
Moorpark related to mitigation of traffic impacts is reached within the next ten years. Absent a reciprocal
agreement or a county-wide program, the City Council finds that there is no other feasible method
available for properly analyzing and mitigating any impact of the project on County roadways. If this
reciprocal agreement cannot be reached between the County and the City of Moorpark within a 10 year
period and there is an impact on County roadways that is not fully mitigated, such impact would be
acceptable due to the overriding considerations set forth in Section 29 below.
SECTION 16. Under the topic of air quality, the EIR concludes that construction allowed by the
amended Specific Plan would result in short -term increases in emission levels from construction
Dj,kC 107 -'7-0 Dnrr nn-
MAY 03 '94 10:37 IMPACT_SCIENCES_INC
P.a
equipment and dust generation. The increase in oonstruction emissions is not considered significant due
to the temporary nature of this impact. While not considered significant, mitigation measures Al through
A6, as oontained in the MMP, will minimize construction impacts related to equipment emissions or fugitive
dust generation.
SECTION 17. Under the topic of air quality, the EIR also concludes that implementation of the
amended Specific Plan would resuft In the generation of long term air emissions of reactive organic
compounds (ROC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) associated with vehicular trips that exceed the threshold
of significance let by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. Mitigation measures A7 through
A24, as contained in the MMP, will mitigate this impact to a level of less than significant. These measures
Include design features to be incorporated into structures within the project, regulation of the amount of
housing to be built at certain points during build -out of the project, and payment of a mitigation fee.
SECTION 18. Under the topic of air quality, the EIR concludes that future localized
concentrations of oarbon monoxide at intersections that will be utilized by traffic from the project will not
exceed the California ambient air quality standards. For this reason, the increase in localized carbon
monoxide levels resulting from project traffic is not considered to be significant.
SECTION 19. Under the topic of air quality, the SIR concludes that the project is consistent with
the Air duality Management Plan.
SECTION 20. Under the topic of noise, the EIR concludes that noise impacts associated with
constriction activities would be a short term nuisance to local residents. This impact is not considered to
be significant because of the short term duration. Mitigation measures Ni through N4, as contained in the
MMP, which control construction related activities, will minimize potential construction noise effects.
. SECTION 21. Under the topic of noise, the SIR concludes that noise levels along off -site
roadways will not increase significantly as a result of the addition of project generated traffic to these
roadways.
SECTION 22. Under the topic of noise, the EIR concludes that traffic noise levels in planning
area "A adjacent to the Moorpark f=reeway, would exceed the 60d8 (A) CNEL standard for low density
residential uses, without -mitigation. Mitigation measures N5 through N8, as contained in the MMP, will
reduce this impact to below a level of significance by requiring additional study of noise levels in area "A"
and the placement of all residential units outside the 60dB (A) CNEL contour; design of structures to
meet applicable interior noise standards; controls on outside equipment; and additional analysis of
residential areas along Science Drive to ensure all residential units are outside the 60dB(A) CNEL contour
for this road.
SECTION 23. Under the topic of noise, the EIR concludes that operational noise levels
associated with the uses allowed by the Specific Plan will not result in significant impacts for surrounding
land uses. Noise generated by uses in the business park portion of the site may, however, be a nuisance
for residents of a new mufti - family housing complex on the north side of New Los Angeles Avenue. To
minimize any nuisance, mitigation measure N8, as contained in the MMP, limits the time of day certain
equipment associated with maintenance of outdoor areas within the business park portion of the site can
operate to daytime hours.
SECTION 24. Under the topic of land use, the EIR concludes that the amended Specific Plan is
consistent with the land use designations for the site found in the City's General Plan and that the land
uses within the project are compatible with surrounding uses. To ensure the compatibility of land uses,
mitigation measure Lt, as contained in the MMP, requires separation and buffering between different
land uses on and off -site along with conformance with site plans for individual areas within the Project as
approved by the City.
SECTION 25. Under the topic of housing, the EIR concludes that the elimination of multi- family
uses from the project would not affect city -wide programs or result in any other impact to low - moderate
income housing, elderly housing, or the demand for housing assistance within the City of Moorpark. This
loss of potential multi - family housing will, however, contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the
DAY 03 '94 10:38 IMPACT_SCIENCES_INC
P.9
availability of low- moderate income housing, elderly housing, and the demand for housing assistance.
This cumulative impact may be avoided by development of policies and incentive programs by the City that
wllf stimulate the production of low income housing within the City. To the extent this cumulative impact is
not iavoided through the development and implementation of programs by the City of Moorpark, this
frripact would be acceptable due to the overriding considerations set forth in Section 29 below.
SECTION 26. Other than the cumulative impact identified above in Section 25, no significant
cumulative Impacts have, been identified.
SECTION 27. The City Counah hereby approves and adopts the proposed amendment to the
Carlsberg Specific Plan, subject to the Mitigation•Monkonng Program attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference, the amended Specific Plan dated March 8, 1993 presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council which is to be stamped "Approved" by the Community
Development Director, and all the applicable policies, procedures, resolutions, and ordinances of the City
of Moorpark. This approval is based on the finding that the amended Carlsberg Specific Plan is consistent
with the CiVs General Plan.
SECTION 28, The Ckyy Council hereby makes the following findings in accordance with Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091:
A. The imposition of the MMP constitutes changes or alterations In the project which will
reduce certain of the potentially significant impacts of the project in the areas of
topography, hydrology, biota, traffic, air quality, and noise to a level considered less than
significant by the City of Moorpark.
B. The imposition of the MMP will also reduce those impacts of the project found to be
adverse, but not significant, in the areas of construction related emissions and operational
noise impacts to off -she land uses.
C. The City -Council finds that the Project will not result in a significant impact to the sensitive
biological resources on the site as discussed in Section 13 above. The California
Department of Fish and Game disagrees with the City Council and its technical experts
and has requested that Alternative 3 be approved to mitigate potential impacts to these
sensitive resources to a level considered less than significant by the Department. The
specific economic reasons set forth in Section 30 make this alternative infeasible.
D. The City Council finds that potential impacts to County roadways have been analyzed to
the extent feasible as discussed above in Section 15. At this time, there is no feasible
mechanism for further analyzing and mitigating any project or cumulative Impact to County
roadways. A mitigation measure requiring the applicant to contribute a pro -rata share of
the cost of improving County roads to mitigate project or cumulative impacts, provided
that a reciprocal agreement between the County and City on road impacts is reached in
the next 10 years, has been imposed on the project. No other feasible mitigation
measures for this impact have been identified in the EIR.
E. The cumulative housing impact identified in Section 25 above may remain significant if the
City is not able to develop and successfully implement programs to stimulate the
production of low income housing within the City. No other feasible mitigation measures
for this potential cumulative impact have been idenli ied in the EIR or by the City Council.
SECTION 29. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and other provisions of law,
the City Council has balanced the benefits of this project against the potentially unavoidable significant
impacts identified in Sections 13, 15, and 25 above in the areas of sensitive biological resources, traffic
and housing which are assumed to exist for purposes of this balancing process. For the reasons listed
below. the City Council has determined that the benefits of this project outweigh the potentially
unavoidable impacts to sensitive biological resources, traffic, and housing and that such adverse effects
area considered acceptable. Each of the matters set forth below is independent of the other matters of
MAY 03 '94 1039 IhPACT_SCIENCES_INC
P.10
overriding consideration, warranting approval of the project despite each and every impact that might
remain significant.
A. The Project will provide funding for public Improvements, including improvements to
major arterials that will benefit the entire community.
a. The Project will provide improvements to Spring Road. This road is an important link in the
City's circulation network and improvement of this road will benefit the entire community.
C. The Project will construct Science Drive, which will provide an alternative north -south
roadway to Spring Road. This addition to the circulation network will benefit the entire
community.
D. The Project provides for permanent open space areas that benefit the entire community.
E. The Project will enhance the "gateway" to the City of Moorpark by facilitating relocation of
the existing Califomia Department of Transportation Maintenance yard_
F. The amended Specific Plan includes a substantial amount of business park and
commercial uses that will generate direct and indirect revenues for the City of Moorpark.
G. The amended Specific Plan has a better balance of jobs and housing than the plan as
currently adopted.
SECTION 30. The EIR considered three alternatives to the project including the "No
Project/Site Buildout Consistent with the adopted Specific Plan" alternative. This alternative is discussed
on DEIR pages 7 -2 through 7 -7 and analyzes build -out of the project under the Carlsberg Specific Plan as
currently adopted. The applicant has requested this amendment as build -out of the project under the
Specific Plan as currently adopted is not financially feasible at the present time. Both the currently
adopted Specific Plan and the Project are considered consistent with the General Plan. The primary
differences between the two plans are the allowed type and location of housing. The Project would allow
147 more homes than the adopted Specific Plan and allow increased development of planning area "G',
an area Iargely reserved for open space uses in the current plan. Asa result of this change, The Project
would impact slightly more native vegetation in area "C" (approximately 7 acres) than the adopted Specific
Plan, but would still impact the two endangered plant species and vernal pool in area "A ". As the adopted
plan allows less units in area "C" than the currently adopted plan, this alternative would result in slightly
less grading of slopes over 20 percent and less grading of the type 2 ridge line in area "C'. The location of
the additional grading allowed by the Project is not in areas highly visible from off -site locations. As less
units would be built under this alternative, less traffic, vehicular noise, and vehicular emissions would be
generated. The significance of the traffic, noise, and air quality impacts, after mitigation, however, would
be similar between the currently adopted and proposed amendment to the Specific Plan. Based on the
findings that the environmental impacts of this alternative and the project are not substantially diff erent for
most of the topics analyzed; the Project will result in less impact to the sensitive biological resources in
planning area 'A*: and the economic viability of the Project is considered to be superior, the City Council
is not selecting this alternative for approval.
The EIR also consideredthe "Site Buildout Consistent with the 1990 Final EIR Plan" alternative. This
alternative is discussed on draft EIR pages 7 -7 through 7 -11 and considers build -out of the site under the
plan analyzed in the 1990 EIR. This alternative would not include development of planning area'C" but
would include more development of planning area "A' near sensitive biological resources. This alternative
would result in less grading of slopes over 20 percent and the type 2 ridge line in area "C'. The location of
the additional grading allowed by the Project is not in areas highly visible from off -site locations. While this
alternative includes the same number of units as the Project, some of the units would be multi - family units.
Due to the different trip generation rates for multi -f amity units, this alternative would generate less traffic
and associated vehicular emissions and noise than the Project. The significance of these traffic, noise,
and air quality impacts, after mitigation, however, would be similar between the Project and this alternative.
This alternative would result in greater impacts to the biological resources in area "A" while preserving
.MAY 03 '94 10 :40 IMPACT_SCIENCES_INC
P.11
more hatural habitat in area'C'. Based on the findings that the environmental impacts of this aftemative
and the project are not substantially different for most of the topics analyzed: the Project will result in lass
impact to the sensitive biological resources in planning area W; and the economic viability of the Project
is considered to be superior, the City Council Is not selecting this alternative for approval.
The third alternative considered In the EIR is the 'Hybrid Alternative ". This alternative Is analyzed on draft
EIR pages 7 -12 through 7.16. The Hybrid Alternative was formulated to reduce Identified impacts to a
level considered less than significant, as feasible, in accordance with CEQA. In comparison to the Project,
this alternative would consolidate development on the northern two- thirds of the site to reduce impacts on
existing topography and the biological resources on the southern one -third of the site. In addition, this
aftemative reduces the amount of development In order to reduce air quality impacts to below the
Counts threshold of significance and creates buffers along Highway 23 and Tierra Rejada Road. Higher
densities would occur on portions of the site to compensate for the reduced density on the southern
portion of the site. As formulated, this alternative would result In no impact to the sensitive biological
resomes in area'A'. less than significant air quality impacts, and less traffic and vehicular noise impacts.
While this alternative is considered to be environmentally superior, it is not considered to be financially
feasible by the City Council based on information provided by the applicant in a letter dated April 29, 1994,
entered into the administrative record. For this reason, the City Council is not selecting this alternative for
approval.
SECTION 30. The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is located in the
office of the City Clerk, who is the custodian of records for the same.
follows: APPROVED AND ADOPTED this — day of _, 1994. by members of the City Council voting as
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council members:
Council merhbers:
Council members:
Mayor Lawrason
mn,.- . I Qn nq: 7,1 oA�- .gym 7�)7R PArP P, I
April 29, 1994
Members of the City Council
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Dear Members of the City Counci-:
In order to assist the council ..n its analysis of the final
environmental impact report ( "SEIR"), the applicant wishes to make
the following information a part of the public record. The
applicant has considered development "Alternative 3 Hybrid ", pages
7 -12 through 7 -17 of the SEIR as compared to the proposed amendment
to the specific plan and finds that the elimination of development
in the western portion of area A would result in the loss of
approximately 100 residential unit .
While Alternative 3 proposes to expand area D, the total project
residential density would be limited to 480 single family units.
Further, Alternative 3 would reduce available business and
commercial development by more than 13 percent. The combined
impact of a the 72 unit reduction in residential density and the
reduction in business uses is sufficient to render Alternative 3
financially infeasible as there arm, nc reductions in the scope or
cost of public improvements to 7e 'un(;ed by the project.
Yours truly,
CARLSBERG FINANCIAL CORPORATION
Ronald S. Tankersley, sident
cc Steve Kueny, City Manger
Jim Aguilera, Director of Commuiity Development
Allen Camp
i
9
tlr2 4x4,,
PROJECT MODIFICATION SUMMARY
CARLSBERG PROJECT, MOORPARK/ CALIFORNIA
APRIL 27,1994
INTRODUCTION Public review of the F raft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Carlsberg Specific Plan was initiated by the City of Moorpark Planning
Commission on August 2, 1993. Following normal procedure, the City of
Moorpark City Coun. it also reviewed the project. This decision -
making process inc ludo. i a review of public testimony, public and agency
correspondence regarding the adequacy and completeness of the Draft
EII2 and a review of tl - responses to these comments. In response to
data incorporates: as .art . f th,- Draft and Final EIR's prepared for
this project, and publit, ind ,igen(v testimony received during the public
hearing process, tr,e C ,/ 1:'ounctl has requested several changes in the
design of the proposed ,�rojcct. In response to this request, the applicant
has made minor mode . atwn� tc the site plan and text of the proposed
amended Specific Plat
The purpose to tl,is irionnation paper is to provide the City Council
with a summary of thc-,e changes, information regarding the
environmental effect c+' these changes, and information on whether this
new environmental tnt rmatton results in any substantial change in the
information cont,:tnek' :r. the Craft or Final EIR's prepared for this
protect.
SUMMARY OF
PLAN CHANGES Three principal naoditications have been incorporated as part of the
revised Carlsberg Spec tic Plan. The first change involves a relocation
of the park that is prol oscd as part of the project. The second change
involves a modificatic• to the arrangement of tots in Area A in the
vicinity of the Bern, pool. fhe third modification involves an
addition to the tett of sac Specitic Plan allowing for reduction in the
size of the 13P /SIZ < tt;n,:tuar to the northern portion of the site by
ATTACHMENT 1
CARLSBERG
SPECIFIC
PLAN
ATTACHMENT 2
'07 q(t
DRAFT
CITY OF MOORPARK
MARCH 8, 1994