Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 1112 CC SPC ITEM 05Arh,� A(4) CITY OF MOORPARK. CALIFORNIA City ail Meeting of / ` -2— 199-2 AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: Honorable City Council ��yy FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developmen'E Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Principal Planner DATE: November 4, 1997 (CC Meeting of 11/12/97) SUBJECT: CONSIDER CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8 /SPECIFIC PLAN NO. SP -93 -1, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA -93 -1, AND ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC- 93 -3), APPLICANT: HIDDEN CREEK RANCH PARTNERS, FOR DISCUSSION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SCHOOL SITES, AGRICULTURAL LAND, VARIOUS SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY OWNERSHIPS, AND OTHER ISSUES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OIL DRILLING AND CONTAMINATION, EARTHQUAKE FAULT INVESTIGATION, PLANNING UNIT 45, AND FIRE PROTECTION) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council's public hearing on November 12, 1997, is intended to focus on affordable housing, school sites, agricultural land, various specific plan property ownerships, and other issues (including but not limited to oil drilling and contamination, earthquake fault investigation, Planning Unit 45, and fire protection) for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project. In addition, at the Council's October 22 meeting, the Council requested that staff provide responses to questions pertaining to Environmental Impact Report (EIR) recirculation, traffic and circulation, economic impact on housing market, grading, open space, Valley Fever, and Local Agency Formation Commission policies and statutory criteria. The identified issues and Council questions are addressed in the Discussion section of this report and in the attachments to this report. The first three City Council public hearings for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project were held on October 1, 8, and 22, 1997. Based on the noticed public hearing schedule, the focused topics for the November 12 meeting are affordable housing, school sites, agricultural land, various specific plan property ownerships, and other issues. In addition to those topics, staff was requested by City Council to also address oil DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 000001 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 2 drilling and contamination, earthquake fault investigation, Planning Unit 45, and fire protection issues, and respond to questions pertaining to EIR recirculation, traffic and circulation, economic impact on housing market, grading, open space, Valley Fever, and Local Agency Formation Commission policies and statutory criteria. DISCUSSION The staff report for the October 1 meeting provided a summary of issues that were suggested for discussion. The following information is intended to supplement the October 1 report and provide further discussion pertaining to affordable housing, schools, agricultural land, Specific Plan area property ownership, oil drilling and contamination, earthquake fault investigation, Planning Unit 45, and fire protection issues. Also, additional information is provided pertaining to issues and questions raised during the prior City Council public hearings. Affordable Housing Attachment 6 to the October 1, 1997, staff report (see stamped page number 000114) is the applicant's most recent affordable housing proposal for the specific plan area. The proposal is incomplete, because implementation requirements, including maintenance of affordability, are not addressed. Staff's comments regarding the most recent proposal are as follows: • The reference to income limits should be revised to delete specific reference to January 1997 income limits, since the income numbers for Ventura County may be adjusted annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). • The assumption of persons per family for income qualification purposes for the affordable rental units should be based upon the number of bedrooms, and there should be agreement on the number of bedrooms for those units. • Language needs to be included regarding how long the affordable rental units will have restricted rents. Staff recommends a minimum of 30 years from the last building occupancy (final building permit) approval for each apartment project. • Income qualification for the for -sale units should be based upon actual household size and there should be agreement on the number of bedrooms for the affordable for -sale units. There should also be an owner occupancy requirement for all for -sale affordable units. • There is no language currently proposed by the applicant that _ specifies how the for -sale units are to be maintained as affordable. If the intent is to not restrict resales, then language should be DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 — ^ OOR Hidden Creek Ranch To: Honorable City November 4, 1997 Page 3 Specific Plan Council included that addresses the equity share that would be paid to the City at the time of resale of affordable units, to allow the City to reinvest any equity share in new affordable housing. • The language that generally states that the City will cooperate with the builder by allowing manufactured housing for the for -sale units is too open ended. • The language that commits the City to appoint an Affordable Housing staff person to oversee implementation of the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan should be conditioned upon the funding of the staff time by the applicant, based on the City's adopted fee schedule for staff and contract staff. • Requirements should be included for information to be submitted with each Master Tentative Map and residential subdivision map, such as the numbers, sizes (in bedrooms) and types (affordable for -sale and affordable rental units) and the applicable household income categories for such units (very low and lower income households) for each Planning Unit within the area covered by the Master Tentative Map or residential subdivision map. • Language would need to be included as an implementation requirement, if there will be any preferential marketing period for Moorpark residents or employees of Moorpark businesses for the affordable for -sale units. Schools The Specific Plan land use plan dated September 1997 includes two 12 -acre elementary school sites and a 43 -acre high school site. Both proposed elementary school sites (Planning Units 39A and 39B) are located adjacent to planned park sites. The high school site is located at the west end of the Specific Plan area (Planning Unit 39C), and the Council should discuss the planned access to that site. There is poor circulation and access to the high school site without a connection to the west end of Campus Park Drive. A letter was sent to the Moorpark School District Superintendent requesting information on the actual need for a second high school and the District's opinion regarding the number, size, and location of the school sites shown on the revised land use plan. Staff has received confirmation that the District Superintendent will attend the November 12 public hearing. Agricultural Land The Environmental Impact Report categories for the Specific Plan Local Importance, and Grazing. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 identifies that there are four farmland area soils: Prime, Unique, Farmland of The majority of the Specific Plan site V C CA)a Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 4 is designated as Grazing, with pockets of Prime and Unique farmlands in the southwestern portion of the site. Approximately 118 acres of the Specific Plan area are designated as Prime Farmland, 171 acres are designated at Unique (largely orchards), and 171 acres are designated as Farmland of Local Importance (identified as dry farming areas). Attachment 1 is an exhibit showing the mapped agricultural soils designations as well as the property ownership /planning unit boundary lines. Policy 11.1 in the City's General Plan Land Use Element requires that an agricultural land use designation should be retained for farmlands within the City's Area of Interest, which have been identified as Prime and /or of Statewide Importance, as long as economically viable. This policy is applicable to the 118 acres designated as Prime within the Specific Plan area (there are no farmlands of Statewide Importance mapped for the Specific Plan area). Topical Response 2 in Volume IV of the EIR, page 3 -9, includes discussion regarding economic viability for agricultural crops, including a letter from Pro -Ag, Inc., a farming company which manages property for absentee owners in the Happy Camp area. In that letter, Pro -Ag, Inc., identifies that they manage 120 acres in the Happy Camp area, and have experienced many problems which include water costs, wind, and cold weather. Pro -Ag, Inc., also states that water costs will eliminate crops within five to six years. The City Council will need to weigh these concerns regarding economic viability prior to making a decision to pre -zone the Specific Plan site. If the City Council approves a Specific Plan and prezoning for Hidden Creek Ranch, the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) will also need to consider the impact to Prime agricultural land prior to making a decision regarding a Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation. Attachment 2 is a summary of the statutory criteria, including preservation of agricultural land criteria, that LAFCO must consider in reviewing any Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation application. Section 56377(a) of the Government Code includes the following requirement for LAFCO to consider: "Development or use of land for other than open -space uses shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in open -space use toward areas containing nonprime agricultural lands, unless that action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area." The Council could consider an alternative land use plan that would retain the planning units with agricultural land designated as Prime with an agricultural land use designation, and the zoning would remain Agricultural Exclusive, 40 -acre lot size. The EIR did include analysis of a Preservation of Agricultural Lands Alternative, at the request of LAFCO staff. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 00000. 4 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 5 Other Specific Plan Property Ownerships The Specific Plan site is primarily owned by Hidden Creek Ranch Partners /Messenger Investment Company, although there are nine properties located in the western area of the Specific Plan site that are owned by others. Several of the other property owners, who did not participate in funding of the Specific Plan, have expressed disagreement with the density assigned to their properties. Changes requested by several of the westerly property owners include higher residential density; earlier construction of a roadway across Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park and /or other roadway connections to the west end of Campus Park Drive, Marymount Street, and Pecan Avenue; and revisions to planned sewer, water, and flood control facilities. The changes requested have not been analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR. The Specific Plan document includes discussion (page 1 -10) that the density for the properties not owned or controlled by Hidden Creek Ranch Partners /Messenger Investment Company was assigned based on the "maximum density" allocated to Specific Plan No. 8 in the General Plan Land Use Element. The "maximum density" is 2,400 dwelling units. The Land Use Element states that the number of dwelling units can only exceed 2,400 if public improvements, public services and /or financial contributions are provided that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community, in which event, the density limit is 3,221 dwelling units. The .56 dwelling unit per acre density that has been allocated to the other property owners was based upon the maximum density of 2,400 dwelling units divided by the total 4,323 acres for the Specific Plan area, which equals an average of .56 dwelling units per acre. The Hidden Creek Ranch Partners /Messenger Investment Company properties were assigned a slightly higher density, averaging approximately .75 dwelling units per acre, based upon 3,221 dwelling units divided by 4,323 acres. The applicant has requested the higher density based on the public benefits that have been proposed by the applicant, including but not limited to school sites, park sites, open space, affordable housing, and dedication of right of way for Hidden Creek Drive and trails. Another concern of several of the westerly property owners is the revised phasing plan. Hidden Creek Ranch Partners /Messenger Investment Company now proposes to develop the property from east to west. The owners of properties on the west side of the Specific Plan area want the opportunity for earlier development; however, the applicant has requested that the westerly access roadway across Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park not be required until Phase two or later. Staff has not analyzed revised infrastructure and roadway extension plans proposed by several of the westerly property owners, because no deposit has been submitted that DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 oo(;( 05 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 6 would fund staff time. Also, as previously identified, changes proposed to access and infrastructure are not addressed in the Specific Plan EIR. Another issue that was reviewed pertaining to the westerly properties is the potential for earthquake faults that may trend through the western portion of the Specific Plan area. Leighton and Associates have prepared a Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Fault Presence in Specific Plan 8, Hidden Creek Ranch, reference Attachment 3 and discussion on page 7 of this report. Based on the conclusions of the Preliminary Evaluation, additional investigation, including excavation of trenches, should be completed during the preliminary geotechnical investigation for the site for a Tentative Tract Map study, and if active faults or zones of deformation are found, mitigative measures may be required such as setback zones, reinforced foundations, and specific grading requirements. Leighton and Associates also found that the existing design (in other words, zoning) allows flexibility to accommodate mitigative measures (such as setbacks) if active faulting or deformation is found within the proposed development area. The westerly portion of the Specific Plan area currently has lower density residential zoning as well as a high school site proposed. Oil Drilling and Potential Contamination The Council asked that oil drilling and potential contamination be addressed at the November 12 public hearing. Some of the questions asked by the City Council include the following: • Does mitigation for contamination apply to areas not proposed for development? • what constitutes development area (for example, would trails be considered development area)? • If existing and future well sites are in public open space, are mitigation measures required to ensure the public will be protected from potential impacts? • Did Leighton and Associates do an on -site investigation of all active and inactive well sites? Attachment 4 is a letter from Leighton and Associates, which summarizes their Geotechnical and Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report and includes responses to the Council's questions. Representatives from Leighton and Associates will be in attendance at the November 12 meeting to respond to questions regarding potential contamination and remediation measures that would be required. The Geotechnical and Phase I DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 r,a�(� f� VV� V4G Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 7 Environmental Site Assessment Report is included as Appendix B in volume 2 of the EIR. Existing wells are generally confined to areas not proposed for development; therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified related to the project. Any new wells would be subject to requirements of the Municipal Code. There was discussion at the October 22 public hearing regarding future oil drilling sites. Attachment 5 is a letter from Messenger Investment Company to Nuevo Energy Company that describes the blanket easements and the drilling island easements in relation to the proposed Specific Plan land use map. An exhibit is also included. Messenger Investment Company is working with Nuevo to reach agreement on minor relocation of 17 of the drilling island easements to a more compatible location and on a quit- claim of the drilling island easement located in an area designated for an elementary school (Planning Unit 39A). Messenger Investment Company has also proposed to deed approximately 65 acres of fee land to Nuevo surrounding the tank farm in exchange for Nuevo agreeing to quit claim or otherwise remove the blanket easement over approximately 65 acres where residential and commercial uses are proposed to be developed. Further discussion and clarification can be provided by the applicant at the November 12 public hearing regarding negotiations with Nuevo. Oil drilling production activities within the Specific Plan area are currently governed by an existing oil Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 23, which was issued by the County decades ago. The permit does not expire upon annexation of the land to the City. The County permit allows unlimited oil drilling and production activities within the permit boundaries; however, subsequent easements were negotiated with the property owners that limited drilling to specific areas. As previously discussed, Messenger Investment Company is negotiating further modification of these easements. Section 17.29.060.D of Title 17, Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code does require a Zoning Clearance approval for oil or gas exploration activities that are proposed to be commenced consistent with a conditional use permit to confirm consistency with the City's zoning ordinance prior to the drilling of any well, commencing site preparation for such well(s), or installing related appurtenances. The City's existing zoning regulations pertaining to oil and gas exploration and production are included as Attachment 6. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 VV� Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 8 Earthquake Fault Investigation Attachment 3 is a Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Fault Presence in Specific Plan 8, Hidden Creek Ranch, prepared by Leighton and Associates. This supplemental report was requested after identification of earthquake faults (called blind thrust faulting) within the Specific Plan No. 2 site west of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. The blind thrust faults on the Specific Plan No. 2 site have been interpreted to be bedding plane faults; therefore, they are not considered to be capable of generating earthquakes. Rather, activity is believed to occur during moderate to large earthquakes on the Oakridge or Simi -Santa Rosa fault. The Oakridge fault is not located within the City limits or the Moorpark Area of Interest. The Simi -Santa Rosa fault is located within the City limits in the vicinity of Tierra Rejada Road. To summarize, the conclusion of the supplemental evaluation for fault presence is that additional investigation, including excavation of trenches, should be completed during the preliminary geotechnical investigation for the site for a Tentative Tract Map study, and if active faults or zones of deformation are found, mitigative measures may be required such as setback zones, reinforced foundations, and specific grading requirements. The trenching should be required in areas where identified lineaments may project onto the Specific Plan site, as identified on a map prepared by Leighton and Associates that is on file with the Community Development Department. The portion of the map that shows the lineaments is included in Attachment 3. Planning Unit 45 A Supplemental Study Report has been prepared for Planning Unit 45 (Attachment 7) to address the change from a Private Open Space land use designation and zoning for 690 acres to a combination of natural open space (240 acres) and open space /golf course (450 acres). The Draft EIR stated that additional environmental review would be required prior to any development in Planning Unit 45 because of potentially significant impacts to biological and archaeological resources. Specific mitigation measures for Planning Unit 45 were not included in the Draft EIR, although mitigation measures for impacts to biological and archaeological resources associated with development of the entire Specific Plan No. 8 site were included. The Supplemental Study Report does include a summary of the supplemental studies performed for Planning Unit 45, including a tree survey, additional biological survey and vegetation mapping, Phase II archaeological resources studies, and additional review of all other related environmental issues as they would apply to Planning Unit 45. The Supplemental Study Report also now provides the detailed mitigation DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 0oclu o s Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 9 measures for Planning Unit 45 that will serve to further mitigate or avoid a substantial adverse environmental effect from a future golf course development project. A complete copy of the tree survey was previously provided to the City Council under separate cover. Fire Protection The staff reports for the October 1 and October 22 public hearings should be referenced for discussion pertaining to fire protection. Staff has requested that a representative from the Ventura County Fire Protection District attend the November 12 public hearing to respond to City Council questions. October 22, 1997 - City Council Questions /Requests for Information At the October 22 meeting, the City Council requested that staff provide responses to questions or further information as discussed below. 1. Does mitigation for contamination apply to areas not proposed for development? What constitutes development area (for example, would trails be considered development area)? If existing and future well sites are in public open space, are mitigation measures required to ensure the public will be protected from potential impacts? Did Leighton and Associates do an on -site investigation of all active and inactive well sites? Response: Refer to discussion on page 6 of this report and Attachment 4. No significant adverse impacts have been identified related to the Specific Plan development. 2. Provide more explanation regarding full versus partial recirculation for the EIR and what could be required. Response: Attachment 8 to the October 22 staff report was a copy of Section 15088.5 from the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which specifically describes when recirculation of an EIR is required for "significant new information" added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review. CEQA Guidelines do not require a lead agency to consider recirculation of an EIR because new mitigation or proposed project improvements are included, based on responses to comments submitted on a draft EIR, the Planning Commission's recommendations on the project, or other revisions made to reduce project impacts. BonTerra Consulting, the DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 (�r, � =C� V V00 �YJ Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 10 firm that has been hired by the City to complete the EIR, has reviewed the revised Specific Plan land use plan and phasing plan dated September 1997, and has concluded: No new significant impact would result from the additional mitigation measures proposed. No substantial increase in severity of an impact, that has been previously addressed, is anticipated without an increase in mitigation. The applicant has not declined to adopt the mitigation measures. The draft EIR was not so "inadequate or conclusory" that meaningful comment was precluded. If recirculation is determined to be appropriate, based on the recirculation requirements in CEQA, then Section 15088.5(c) states that if the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified. 3. Provide the response for the regional traffic questions raised at the October 8 public hearing and the matrix that was discussed in the staff report for the October 22 meeting. Response: Attachment 8 has been prepared by Austin - Foust, Inc. to address City Council regional traffic questions and to provide a matrix to compare the impacts of various circulation alternatives and mitigation options that are discussed in the EIR. Attachment 8 also includes a supplemental exhibit prepared by Austin -Foust that demonstrates further modifications to the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection that would improve the flow of traffic. Some other potential traffic flow improvements that have been discussed with Austin -Foust include requiring College traffic to flow in a clock -wise direction on Collins Drive to Campus Road (to reduce southbound traffic on Collins Drive in the vicinity of the elementary school) and providing a dual left turn lane on Campus Park Drive turning north onto Campus Road. Staff from Austin -Foust will be in attendance at the public hearing on November 12 to respond to traffic - related questions. DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 000010 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 11 4. Investigate projects similar in size to Hidden Creek Ranch and how the new development affected the overall housing market (price of homes) . Response: Staff was unable to find the requested example that would quantify how a large planned community affected the sales price of other homes outside of that planned community. There are many other factors that have affected the price of homes in the Southern California area, including but not limited to growth control and the recent recession. Staff contacted the Conejo Valley Board of Realtors to discuss this question. Their response is that the market adjusts based on supply and demand, and that Ventura County is a desirable place to live. There is a market for both new homes and resales. Not all buyers want to purchase a new home. 5. Provide an exhibit that quantifies the cut and fill proposed for the revised land use plan. Response: See Attachment 9. 6. How much of the proposed open space area is usable (what are the proposed permitted uses such as trails)? Should any areas be designed so as to preclude or discourage public access? The example given was sensitive biological habitat. Response: The applicant's consultant, RNM Architecture and Planning, prepared the Specific Plan, including the matrix of permitted uses (see Attachment 10). Numerous uses are shown as permitted in the planned open space zones by zone clearance, administrative permit, Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit (CUP), or City Council CUP. Staff does not concur with the attached matrix and does not concur with the open space land use designations and zone districts that are described in the Draft Specific Plan. These concerns were raised at the Planning Commission public hearings and the land use plan was subsequently revised to eliminate the OS -1 (Open Space) and OS -2 (Private Open Space) designations. The prior OS -1 land use is now shown as Open Space (OS) and is intended to be used for natural open space areas. The prior OS -2 land use was the private open designation that has now been deleted. The natural OS areas should have very limited uses such as trails, the planned helispot, mineral resource development, water tanks, water lines, and other utility line extensions. The trails in open space areas are intended to be restricted to existing disturbed pathways to minimize environmental impacts due to grading (reference page 2 -68 in Specific Plan). The DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 000.011, Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 12 biological habitat within the planned OS areas should be protected by minimizing the permitted uses, including minimizing human intrusion. The area now planned as Open Space /Golf Course (OS /GC) can also be designed to minimize human intrusion into the sensitive habitat areas that would remain natural (as discussed in the attached report regarding Planning Unit 45). 7. Provide the Council with a copy of the County's comments on the Draft EIR. Response: See Attachment 11. 8. Provide the Council with more information on Valley Fever. Response: See Attachment 12. 9. Provide the Council with a copy of the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) policies that were addressed in the public comments, such as preservation of agricultural land. Response: See Attachment 2. Also, additional information on LAFCO has been provided under separate cover. Accept public testimony and continue the public hearing to a City Council meeting on a specific date in December 1997, for continued discussion of Specific Plan and environmental issues. Attachments: 1. Exhibit showing agricultural soils and property ownership /planning unit boundary lines 2. LAFCO statutory criteria 3. Leighton and Associates Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Fault Presence in Specific Plan 8, Hidden Creek Ranch 4. Leighton and Associates letter regarding environmental site assessment and oil production related contamination concerns S. Section 17.28.060 of Title 17 of Municipal Code 6. Letter from Messenger Investment Company to Nuevo Energy Company dated 9 -12 -97 7. Planning Unit 45 Supplemental Study Report dated October 30, 1997 8. Austin - Foust, Inc., Regional Traffic Impact Information and Long - Range (Year 2010) Project Traffic Impact Summary Table 9. Exhibit showing cut and fill for revised land use plan DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 000012 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan To: Honorable City Council November 4, 1997 Page 13 10. June 1995 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan matrix showing permitted uses for open space zones 11. Ventura County Planning Division comments on Draft and Final EIR's 12. Supplemental information on Valley Fever 13. Reduced copy of revised Hidden Creek Ranch Land Use Plan dated September 1997 j DST c: \1- m \sp- 8 \cc- sp8rpt.4 ATTACHMENT 1 000014 V 1i .114EMUK I 4� M,v NV Jv'�rr!• „• 1J `v/ ^.i I` / • \.i . � y'rr•. �► � , � ` �� � i � l •, � i V lit " Arms ^� �J t`r✓' ���/%�l f /' /� r��/ j y+►�i �'. �,,. ,OMAi�N A. :� �—,� `'' �•1. ' �\\' ` /' Il�rr. ^�v / /1N '' .-1 �I l.' \ ( /���' /.'i�” V -Ltwmt LS7 '•V .�`�,� TRUST liI 1: I ' ' •+ •' r 1� I ✓ • I � �l '{� •�/� / �%./ v��' (��/ ��f ' � Ili �� ....� r` `.mil' .`J� + '� /� jlli •\ l i� • � /� riles 'r�� / /n1% ,�� � /i /�� 1) J -� �� - .:J I;;J t %l�• ierssseNC�C�RJ /• ACm SCRIONrR <- N �� y� A4ISSGNOCR DmL%TMNNf ' ''� •,� / COMPANY I • 1 •^ \ V MPSSliNOFlt' PACGnC ! ,� `• '" "\, . ^ WVBSTMPNr CAPrr W COMPANY n O'DR{AN � }! is PAC U+IC . — r Al rT CAP(TALCO.. UN IWJi C l : / Yj 4 .�1 AGRICULTURAL LANDS 04GAJ1.5 ATTACHMENT 2 000016 BOUNDARY CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY CITY LANDOWNER LAFCO 000017 AREAS OF INTEREST A plan adopted by LAFCO which divides the County into major geographic areas reflective of community and planning identity. Within each Area of Interest, there should be no more than one city (but there will not necessarily be a city in each Area). Areas of Interest also serve as planning referral boundaries for the County Planning Department. SPHERES OF INFLUENCE A plan adopted by LAFCO which designates the "probable, ultimate boundaries' of each cit or special district. The adoption of Spheres of Influence is required by section 56425 of the Government Code. 000018 STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR REVIEWING LAFCO PROPOSALS (All references are to the Government Code) Prevention of Urban Sprawl - Section 56301 Among LAFCO's purposes are: "The discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of the orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances." Preservation of Open Space Lands - Section 56300 LAFCO shall exercise its powers in a manner that: " ..encourages and provides planned, well- ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open space lands within those patterns." Preservation of Agricultural Land - Section 56377 The Commission shall consider all of the following policies and priorities: "(a) Development or use of land for other than open -space uses shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in open -space use toward areas containing nonprime agricultural lands, unless that action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area. "(b) Development of existing vacant or nonprime agricultural lands for urban uses within the existing jurisdiction of a local agency or within the sphere of influence of a local agency should be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for or lead to the development of existing open -space lands for non - open -space uses which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the local agency or outside of the existing sphere of influence of the local agency." Unified v. Fragmented Services - Section 56001 "When areas become urbanized to the extent that they need the full range of community services, priorities are required to be established regarding the type and levels of services that the residents of an urban community need and desire ... a single governmental agency, rather than several limited purposes agencies, is in many cases better able to assess and be accountable for community service needs and financial resources and, therefore, is the best mechanism for establishing community service priorities." 0UC.019 ATTACHMENT 3 oocjQzo LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FAULT PRESENCE NEAR THE WES'T'ERN BOUNDARY OF SPECIFIC PLAN 8, HIDDEN CREEK RANCH, MOORPARK AREA, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 5, 1997 Project No. 3881198-011 Prepared for: BonTerra 20321 Birch Street, Suite 201 Newport Beach, California 92660 RECEIVED NOV 0 51997 City ai moorpark 44(1-02. (818) 707 -8320 • (800) 273 -5552 31344 VIA COLINAS, SUITE 102, WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 FAX (818) 707 -7280 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants November 5, 1997 Project No. 3881198 -011 To: BonTerra 20321 Birch, Suite 201 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Ms. Dana Privitt Subject: Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Fault Presence Near the Western Boundary of Specific Plan 8, Hidden Creek Ranch, Moorpark Area, Ventura County, California 1. Introduction In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has prepared this report to present a preliminary evaluation of the potential presence of faulting and/or zone of deformation in the Specific Plan 8 area, based upon the recent identification of blind thrust faulting and zones of deformation in the Specific Plan 2 area to the west. The purpose of this study was to review available data and provide input for the geotechnical portion of the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 8 concerning the potential presence and activity of faults and/or zones of deformation. 2. Seoae of Work As discussed in our proposal to you dated August 28, 1997 Leighton has conducted the following scope of work: a) Attendance at a kick -off meeting with City of Moorpark Planning Department officials; b) Review of available geologic reports and City of Moorpark geologic review letters for the Specific Plan 2 area (see Appendix A); C) Review of regional geologic/topographic maps and the geologic /topographic map for the Specific Plan 8 area; d) Review of aerial photographs for geomorphic lineations that may be indicative of a fault trace or zone of folding/deformation caused by a blind fault. We were assisted in this task by Dr. Tom Rockwell of Earth Consultants International, an affiliate company of Leighton; e) Interview the City of Moorpark geologic consultant and the geologic consultant for Specific Plan 2; f) Interview representatives of Earth Consultants International (ECI) and Fugro Incorporated, both of whom had the opportunity to review field exposures in the Specific Plan 2 area; g) Site reconnaissance of the Specific Plan 8 area; h) Meeting with City of Moorpark Planning Department officials to discuss findings; and, 0Q``�-0'Ll VV2-R (818) 707 -8320 • (800) 273 -5552 31344 VIA COLINAS, SUITE 102, WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 FAY rA i P� 7(i7_7') 0 0 3881198.011 i) Preparation of this addendum report to the geotechnical section of the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 8. The scope of work does not include response to review comments by the City of Moorpark's geotechnical consultant. 3. Site Description a) The Specific Plan 8 area is located in the southern foothills of Big Mountain, in Ventura County, California (see Figure 1). The subject site is bounded to the south by Moorpark Community College, to the west by Happy Camp Canyon, and to the east by the Simi West (Moorpark) Oil Field. The site consists of approximately 4,200 t acres of predominantly ranch land which is presently within an unincorporated area of Ventura County. The subject site is characterizedby a southward - sloping plateau that is dissected by several gentle- to steep - walled, generally north - /south- trending canyons. Elevations at the subject site vary from a topographic high of 2,234 feet above mean sea level (msl) on the northern portion to a topographic low of 660 feet above msl in the southern portion of the site. In general, the natural slope gradients at the subject site range from 2:1 to 1 :1 (horizontal to vertical/h:v), with locally near- vertical slopes on the western portion of the site. b) Natural vegetation at the site consists primarily of low grasses, sage, chaparral, and cacti. Oak trees occur locally, primarily in the canyons and tributary drainages. 4. Riguround Pacific Materials Laboratory,lnc. (PML) conducted an extensive and detailed fault exploration during a Tentative Tract Map study in the Specific Plan 2 area, which is generally southwest of Specific Plan 8 (PML, 1997c). During this exploration, PML identified a zone of deformation caused by a blind thrust fault referred to as the "Northern Site Area Thrust ". This fault was inferred to be active based on interpretations of field and analytical data collected by PML (PML,1996b). This blind thrust fault was interpreted to be a projection of bedding planes from the underlying Tertiary bedrock, in which its surface manifestation is only shown by the deformation of the Quaternary strata. The identification and analysis of the fault was aided by the existence of a well - preserved alluvial surface on the site. The "Northern Site Area Thrust" fault was found to have a general trend to the northeast. Some geomorphic expression to the east of Specific Plan 2 suggested that this fault may cross Happy Camp Canyon and extend toward Specific Plan 8. The blind thrust faults on the Specific Plan 2 site have been interpreted by PML to be bedding plane faults, thus, they are not considered to be seismogenic structures (e.g. they are not considered capable of generating earthquakes). Rather, activity on the blind thrusts is believed to occur co- seismically, possibly during moderate to large earthquakes on the nearby Oak Ridge or Simi -Santa Rosa faults which regionally bracket the site. The blind thrust faults and associated zones of deformation discovered on the Specific Plan 2 property are considered to represent potential ground rupture and ground deformation hazards. Ground rupture hazards presented by seismogenic faults are typically regulated by the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. While we are not certain whether the blind thrust faults at Specific Plan 2 will be zoned by the State, it has been typical practice by consultants to zone faults which are considered to have the potential for co- seismic ground rupture. Ground deformation hazards wa in i.e., u ( P rP g of the ground surface, typically in the hanging wall of the fault, as opposed to ground rupture) are not regulated by the Alquist- -2- $t UOW I'Mi MSUBJECT SITE I C�OOARK*�- LL L E 6 L 0 .............. Yv ETAS[ MAP: U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE SIMI QUADPANGLE, MIOTOHEVISED 1969 SITE LOCATION MAP SPECIFIC PLAN 8 AREAMIDDEN CREEK RANCH PROJECT MOORPARK, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IS, j NIX 4d if Y� T17 Cf X-7 4 L-'xv to a - N - 1� Project No. 3881198-011 if Scale As Shown 4— Eng./Geol. MBP Drafted by 111ij Figure No. I 3x81 198 -01 I Priolo ,Earthquake Fault "Zoning Act. However, we understand that the Division of Mines and Geology is currently reviewing ground deformation hazards in order to develop legislation for the mitigation of these hazards. 5. Findinos a) Review of Stereographic Aerial Photographs Stereographic aerial photograph of the site for the years 1953, 1983, and 1993 as well as four 1993 oblique frames were carefully reviewed by Leighton and ECI. Selected portions of frames AXI -1 1 K -14, AXI -I IK -15, AXI- 11K -17, AXI -3K41 through AXI -3K43 of the 1953 aerial photographs were enlarged 400% to provide a more detailed review of geomorphic features on Happy Camp Canyon and the western portion of Specific Plan 8 area. The lineament associated with the "Northern Site Area Thrust" was identified on aerial photographs and traced to the easterly edge of Happy Camp Canyon. However, this lineament could not be observed on the eastern side of Happy Camp Canyon or in Specific Plan 8 area, either because it does not exist or it is not observable due to a lack of well - preserved alluvial surfaces and geomorphic expression of such lineament. An east -west trending lineament was also observed just north of Specific Plan 2 area. This lineament was visible due to a sudden change in topographic relief from a relatively flat plateau of younger alluvium just south of Broadway (State Route 23) to the elevated hills just north of the Specific Plan 2 area. This feature was also mapped by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, 197' )) as a concealed fault and is also identified in the City of Moorpark's Seismic Safety element (City of Moorpark, 1987) as the Fairview Fault. This fault has not been projected to Happy Camp Canyon in either reference. A generally similar trending Iineament was observed between Happy Camp Canyon and Specific Plan 8 area (see Plate 1); however, this lineament dies out immediately west of the Specific Plan 8 area. Another anomalous feature observed in the aerial photographs was an east -west trending canyon at the southwest portion of the subject site (south of the proposed high school, generally between Planning Unit 39C to the north and Planning Units 32 and 33 to the south). This drainage feature is considered anomalous because it is east -west trending in an area dominated by north - south - trending drainages. This feature could not be traced east or west of the aforementioned Planning Units. b) Site Reconnaissance A site reconnaissance was conducted on August 10 1997, by a Leighton geologist. The easterly edge of Specific Plan 2 area, Happy Camp Canyon, and the westerly edge of Specific Plan 8 area were reconnoitered to corroborate the data obtained from the aerial -photo review and to try to determine if there was any other geomorphic expression or exposures of the "Northern Site Area Trust" or any other structural lineaments transecting from Specific Plan 2 area into the subject site. During the site reconnaissance, it was observed that a relatively flat plateau, just east and above of Happy Camp Canyon, had a very distinctive riser (break in slope) in the topography. This particular feature has an east -west trend and appears to die out as it approaches the westerly edge of Specific -3- &Now 3881198 -011 Plan 8. Unfortunately, most of the westerly edge topography of Specific Plan 8 is currently covered by avocado and citrus groves. However, no distinctive changes in topography were observed to the east of the avocado and citrus groves, in the area in which the topographic riser feature would have projected. Very limited structural data was collected during this site reconnaissance, due to the lack of bedrock exposures. No other significant features were observed other than the features observed during the aerial photograph review. 6. Conclusions a) Based on the findings obtained during this preliminary fault evaluation, it is Leighton's conclusion that the lineaments associated with the "Northern Site Area Thrust" and the east -west trending feature identified by the CDMG and the City's Seismic Safety document (aka "Fairview Fault ") which we observed in the aerial photograph review were not observed (based on topography) to transect the Specific Plan 8 area. b) The lack of geomorphic expression and well - preserved alluvial surfaces on the Specific Plan 8 site makes it very difficult to project the "Northern Site Area Thrust" into Specific Plan 8 area. However, the potential existence of this feature within Specific Plan 8 area could not be ruled out and further geotechnical investigation will be required prior to site development. c) If active faults or zones of deformation are found during future geotechnical investigation, mitigative measures may include one or more of the following: • Setback zones (restricted use or no build zones) where ground rupture may be a hazard; • Reinforced foundations, such as post- tensioned slabs, to mitigate the impacts of any ground deformation that might occur during the life of the project; • Grading mitigation, including geogrid - reinforced fills as well as possible removal and replacement with reinforced fill, of faults or deformation zones in cut areas; d) Based on our review of the specific plan, there appears to be design flexibility to accommodate mitigative measures required if active faulting or deformation is found within the proposed development area of Specific Plan 8. 7. Recommendations a) Excavate trenches in areas where identified lineaments may project onto the Specific Plan 8 site. This work should be completed during the preliminary geotechnical investigation for the site for a Tentative Tract Map study. It should be noted that, with the exception of the lineament between Planning Unit 39C and Planning Units 32/33, the lineaments occur west of the Specific Plan 8 property. Therefore, the trenches for lineaments west of Specific Plan 8 should be excavated as near as possible to the western property boundary of Specific Plan 8, as dictated by the terrain in the areas where projections of the lineaments onto the property occur. -4- & � IE19MM ANn etcWHAM ire 3881198 -011 b) If active faulting or deformation is observed in the trenches, then the certified engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer should provide specific mitigative recommendations for site development, as appropriate. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at 818- 707 -8320. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. k-i' X— Andrew A. Prtbe, CEG 1705 Associate Geologist JGS/MBP /AAP Enclosures: Appendix A - References Plate I - Photolineament Map 000027 &IM LEIOM AND ASSDCUTES. INC. 0 N OD Z] r if L_;1 12 DU g 01 37B//�, MAINTAIN ��' ML EXISTING ACCESS 5,O AC. I'' 37 RIGHTS 4 DU ML "i 170ACl, 116 D UI � Appmxhnata l ocaflai of man Trap } �\ Of ( orft n Ana T#wAW Pw fteMt Materials laboraM, JW7 bMAINTlIIN , \ TING;hXW r 20.0 A9 90 DU 34A ML `I ' 34B 1% ML' `:'o ou :` 114.7 AC. `� ` ` ` ` •� 12 OS 40 . •�. 31 \` L ` ��21'-DU " HIGH SCVOOL ,`•.` '� ��• 1 43,0 AC. .� 44C DE 32 r'• - -= ML r •• i 33.5 AC, ii' ^•t 33 362 AC. i 24 DU -------- �.�� - ���- 24 DU T { TI' L r TV amplu -�i �� i ATTACHMENT 4 0OW49 11/05/1997 16:00 8187077280 GTG COMPANIES LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. November S, 1997 To: BonTerm Consulting 20321 Birch Street, Suite 201 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attu: Dana C. Pmritt Subject: Kidden Creek Ranch, Moorpark, California PAGE 02 Geotechniad and toviremmentai Engineering Coesaitw is Project Number 881198 -011 Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) reviewed your proposed text (attached) regarding the nature and extent of work required for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). We concur that the language adequately describes the scope of services a Phase I ESA. In response to the quesdons posed by the City regarding Oil Drilling and Potential Contamination, we present the questions in bold font and our response is iucluded in italics. Does mitigation for contamination apply to areas not proposed for developmment? A itigarron for contamination does not apply to areas outside the development area Exceptions to this statement may include mitigation measures along the proposed trail network in designated open space areas. What constitutes development area (for example, would trails be considered development area)? The development area is ltmited to those areas de&caated to residential, commercial, schools, commlmity center, golf course, and publichnstitutional facilities. We do not consider open space or its associated trail network part of the development area. If existing and future well sites are in public open space, are mitigatiod measures required to ensure the public will be protected from potential impacts? Yes Depending on the environmental andlor physical risks, mitigation measures may be required to protect human health and the environment Examples of mitigation measures may inchtde security fencing, excavation and legal disposal of impacted soil, if any, or other engineering controls. 31344 VIA COLINAS, SUITE 102, WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 (818) 707 -80040 -5552 FAX (B 18) 707 -7280 NOU 05 '9? 18:0? 818707 ?280 PAGE.02 a 11/05/1997 18:00 8187077280 GTG COMPANIES PAGE 03 Did Leighton and Associates do an oo-site investigation of all active and inactive well sites? A Phase I Environmental byte Assessment was conducted 16r the project area where wells are located The Phase I ES4 concluded that additional Phase U assessment and possibly remediation may be required at active and inactive well sites within the development area. Izighton appreciates the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions please call us at your convenience. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Gregory R- Nfil kan Associate Geologist 00003 1 Q LEIGNMAWAU61CI M,AW NOU 05 197 18:0? 8187077280 PAGE.03 11/05/1997 18:00 8187077280 GTG COMPANIES PAGE 04 Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and CEQA Documentation T. Smith 11/2/97 Definition A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is a documentation process that involves investigating the previous history of uses of a property and surrounding properties, contents of agency files and records /permits, and recorded incidences of hazardous substance releases to determine the potential presence of hazardous substances or contaminants. Current uses of the property and surrounding areas are considered during the Phase I ESA to determine 9 there are ongoing releases, or potential releases, from activities on the site or vicinity. A Phase I ESA does not typically involve soil or water sampling to detect potential contamination; if warranted by the findings of the Phase 1, such sampling occurs in a subsequent assessment, referred to as a Phase II ESA. If the findings of the sampling conducted in a Phase II warrant removal or dean up actions, these are conducted through a Phase III ESA, which typically requires review and approval of appropriate regulatory agencies such as County Health Departments, CaRomia Regional Water Quality Control Boards, or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal and state laws and regulations govern the cleanup of contamination from hazardous substances. The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) specifies the contaminants that are considered hazardous and for which landowners could be held liable for cleanup under CERCLA requirements. While petroleum products are not considered to be hazardous substances by CERCLA, other federal laws such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 Untted States Code, Section 6901 et seq.), that among other considerations, governs the generation, transportation, treatment and storage of hazardous substances, and other state and local regulations do consider petroleum products to be potenbaily hazardous to the environment. Uses of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) Phase t ESAs are typically used to provide purchasers of real estate with the opportunity to use the °innocent landowner defense' provided by the CERCLA 142 USC 9601(35) and 9607 (b)(3)) if property they purchase is later found to be contaminated.. One of the key requirements to qualify for this legal defense is for the prospective purchaser to conduct 'all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice ". What constitutes ' appropriate inquiry' depends on the particular property, the knowledge /sophistication of the prospective purchaser etc. Contents Many financial institutions have their own requirements for conducting Phase I ESAs on properties that they are considering for real estate purchase/refinance loans. While variations exist, the requirements of most financial institutions either specify use of, or incorporate provisions of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process'. The factors specified in ASTM Standard E 1527 consist of the following: Description of the Property ■ location and legal description • site and vicinity characteristics • description of site improvements WOWIR NOV 05 '97 18 :07 8187077280 PAGE.04 11/05/1997 18:00 8187077280 GTG COMPANIES PAGE 05 • current/past uses of the property and adjacent properties Records Review Information from Site Reconnaissance and Interview Findings and Conclusions Preparing a Phase I ESA that addresses the above factors requires a site visit, research involving review of aerial photographs, reviewing agency databases regarding hazardous substance releases or enforcement actions. interviews with regulatory agency personnel, and evaluation of the results of these inquiries. If the Phase I ESA investigations suggest that current or past activities onsite or on adjacent properties might have resulted in a release of a hazardous substances onto or beneath the property, further studies may be recommended to collect soil or water samples to determine if such a release has occurred. These subsequent investigations would be documented in a Phase II ESA. The findings of a Phase II ESA may determine that cleanup or remediation activities are necessary; these are then conducted, under regulatory agency requirements, through a Phase III ESA. Appropriate Level of Environmental Site Asemmments under CEQA, ESAs are not required by the CEQA Guidelines. However, Appendix I of the Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) , under the Hazards category, asks about whether proposed projects would involve: a) a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation); and d) exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards. If not already completed as part of a real estate transaction involving the site for which an EIR is being prepared, a Phase I ESA could be used to provide the information suggested by the environmental checklist form. For most project level EIRs, a Phase I ESA is an appropriate level of documentation to address the potential health risks or safety impacts that might result from hazardous substances on the property. This is especially true if the Phase I ESA findings indicate that past and current uses of the property do not indicate use or disposal of hazardous substances. However, if a Phase I ESA being used in an EIR includes recommendations for subsequent sampling of soil, ground or surface waters, or testing of other materials (e.g., suspected asbestos containing materials) found onsite, the results of the Phase II ESA could be incorporated into the EIR if avallable. If a Phase 11 ESA has been recommended but not initiated during the EIR preparation process, local decision makers must then consider if the findings of the Phase II ESA might alter the decision they are considering for the proposed project. For example, if a Phase If ESA conducted after a project was approved were to discover contamination of groundwater that the proposed project planned to use as a domestic water supply for future residents, the project as approved might be infeasible. The potential for such an example to exist in the real world does trot necessarily require that a Phase 11 ESA must be completed before a decision is made on a proposed project and EIR. A decision making body could require, as a condition of project approval, that a Phase 11 ESA be completed and its recommendations implemented to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory agency (e.g., County Health Department and /or California Regional Water Quality Control Board) prior to issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project. This approach provides decision makers and the community with assurances that potential hazardous materials issues are satisfactorily addressed before projects are implemented. 000033 NOU 05 197 18:08 8187077280 PAGE.05 ATTACHMENT 5 000034 17.28.030 D. Applicability of Lot Area Requirements. Abutting lots under unified control, either through ownership or by means of a lease, may be combined in order to meet minimum area requirements for animal- keeping or to keep a greater number of animals, but only for the duration of such common ownership or lease, and only in zones which allow the keeping of animals as a principal use. E. Temporary Exception. In the R -E zone, the director of community development may authorize the keeping of a maximum of two (2) horses on lots of ten thousand (10,000) to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, and an exception to the distance separation requirements for a period of one (1) year, without holding a public hearing, provided that the applicant submits: 1. A completed application form, as provided by the director of community development; 2. A county assessor map, in duplicate, showing the applicant's property outlined in red, the area and structures to be devoted to animal use and the assessor parcel numbers of all contiguous properties; and 3. A letter of consent from each resident located within one hundred (100) feet of where the horses are to be kept, maintained or used in any other way. The letter shall contain the assessor parcel number, address and telephone number of the contiguous resident, and shall state that the contiguous resident is agreeable to the requested keeping of horses and to the requested reduction of the distance separation requirements. F. Apiculture. 1. Street Separation. No beehive or box shall be located or maintained within one hundred fifty (150) feet of any public road, street or highway, or as determined by the director of community development. 2. Apiary Location. A beehive or box shall be located or maintained a safe distance from an urbanized area. For the purpose of this section, an urbanized area is defined as an area containing three (3) or more dwelling units per acre. As the size of the area increases, the number of dwelling units must increase proportionately by a minimum of (3) three dwelling units per acre. A "reasonable distance" shall be determined after investigation by the director of community development. Decisions of the director of community development may be appealed pursuant to Section 17.44.090. 3. Dwelling Separation. No beehive or box shall be located or maintained within four hundred (400) feet of any dwelling on adjacent property. 4. Property Line Separation. No apiary shall be located or maintained within fifty (50) feet of any property line common to other property except that it may be adjoining the property line when such other property contains an 332 apiary, or upon mutual agreement for such location with the adjoining property owner. 5. Water. Available adequate and suitable water supply shall be maintained on the property near the apiaries at all times. (Ord. 189 § 3 (8107 -2), 1994) 17.28.040 Auto, boat and trailer sales lots. New and used automobile, trailer and boat sales yards are subject to the following conditions: A. No repair or reconditioning of automobiles, trailers or boats shall be permitted unless such work is accessory to the principal retail use and is done entirely within an enclosed building. B. Except for required landscaping, the entire open area of the premises shall be surfaced with concrete or asphaltic concrete. (Ord. 189 § 3 (8107 -3), 1994) 17.28.050 Mobilehome parks. A. Mobilehome parks shall be developed in accordance with all applicable standards, including density standards (number of dwellings per unit of lot area), of the zone in which the mobilehome park is located. B. A mobilehome park may include, as part of an approved permit, recreational and clubhouse facilities and other accessory uses. C. The minimum distance between structures in a mobilehome park shall be ten feet, except that the minimum distance between accessory structures shall be six (6) feet. (Ord. 189 § 3 (8107 -4), 1994) 17.28.060 Oil and gas exploration and production. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish reasonable and uniform limitations, safeguards and controls for oil and gas exploration and production facilities and operations within the city which will allow for the reason- able use of an important city resource. These regulations shall also ensure that development activities will be conduct- ed in harmony with other uses of land within the city and that the rights of surface and mineral owners are balanced. B. Application. Unless otherwise indicated herein, the purposes and provisions of Section 17.28.060 et seq. shall be and are automatically imposed on and made a part of any permit for oil or gas exploration and development issued by city on or after March 24, 1983. Such provisions shall be imposed in the form of permit conditions when permits are issued for new development or for existing wells/ facilities without permits, or when existing permits are modified. These conditions may be modified at the discre- tion of the director of community development, pursuant to Section 17.44.060B. Furthermore, said provisions shall apply to any oil and gas exploration and development 0%JV �J operation initiated on or after March 24, 1983, upon federally owned lands for which no land use permit is required by the city. No permit is required by the city for oil and gas exploration and production operations conducted on federally owned lands pursuant to the provisions of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. Section 181 et seq.). C. Definitions. Unless otherwise defined herein, or unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the definition of petroleum - related terms shall be that used by the State Division of Oil and Gas. D. Required Permits. No oil or gas exploration or production - related use may commence without or inconsis- tent with a conditional use permit approved pursuant to this title. Furthermore, a zoning clearance must be obtained by the permittee to confirm consistency with the zoning ordinance and/or conditional use permit prior to drilling every well, commencing site preparation for such well(s), or installing related appurtenances, as defined by the director of community development. However, a single zoning clearance may be issued for more than one (1) well or drill site or structure. Possession of an approved conditional use permit shall not relieve the operator of the responsibility of securing and complying with any other permit which may be required by other city ordinances, or state or federal laws. No condition of a conditional use permit for uses allowed by this title shall be interpreted as permitting or requiring any violation of law, or any lawful rules or regulations or orders of an authorized governmental agency. When more than one (1) set of rules applies, the stricter one shall take precedence. E. Oil Development Guidelines. The general guidelines that follow shall be used in the development of conditions which will help ensure that oil development projects gener- ate minimal negative impacts on the environment. The guidelines shall be applied whenever physically and economically feasible and practicable, unless the strict application of a particular guideline(s) would otherwise defeat the intent of other guidelines. An applicant should use the guidelines in the design of the project and anticipate their use as permit conditions, unless the applicant can demonstrate that they are not feasible or practicable. 1. Permit areas and drill sites should generally coincide and should only be as large as necessary to accommodate typical drilling and production equipment. 2. The number of drill sites in an area should be minimized by using centralized drill sites, directional drilling and other techniques. 3. Drill sites and production facilities should be located so that they are not readily seen. 333 17.28.060 4. Permittee and operators should share facilities such as, but not limited to, permit areas, drill sites, access roads, storage production and processing facilities and pipelines. 5. The following guidelines shall apply to the installa- tion and use of oil and gas pipelines: a. Pipelines should be used to transport petroleum products off -site to promote traffic safety and air quality. b. The use of a pipeline for transporting crude oil may be a condition of approval for expansion of existing process- ing facilities or construction of new processing facilities. c. New pipeline corridors should be consolidated with existing pipeline or electrical transmission corridors where feasible, unless there are overriding technical constraints or significant social, aesthetic, environmental or economic reasons not to do so. d. When feasible, pipelines shall be routed to avoid important resource areas, such as recreation, sensitive habitat, geological hazard and archaeological areas. Un- avoidable routing through such areas shall be done in a manner that minimizes the impacts of potential spills by considering spill volumes, durations and projected paths. New pipeline segments shall be equipped with automatic shutoff valves, or suitable alternatives approved by the director of community development, so that each segment will be isolated in the event of a break. e. Upon completion of pipeline construction, the site shall be restored to the approximate previous grade and condition. All sites previously covered with native vegeta- tion shall be reseeded with the same or recovered with the previously removed vegetative materials, and shall include other measures as deemed necessary to prevent erosion until the vegetation can become established, and to promote visual and environmental quality. 6. Cuts or fills associated with access roads and drill sites should be kept to a minimum to avoid erosion and visual impacts. They should be located in inconspicuous areas, and generally not exceed ten (10) vertical feet. Cuts or fills should be restored to their original grade once the use has been discontinued. 7. Gas from wells should be piped to centralized collection and processing facilities, rather than being flared, to preserve energy resources and air quality, and to reduce fire hazards and light sources. Oil should also be piped to centralized collection and processing facilities, in order to minimize land use conflicts and environmental degrada- tion, and to promote visual quality. 8. Wells should be located a minimum of eight hundred (800) feet from occupied sensitive uses. Private access roads to drill sites should be located a minimum of three hundred (300) feet from occupied sensitive uses, unless this requirement is waived by the occupant. 000031 17.28.060 9. Oversized vehicles should be preceded by lead vehicles, where necessary for traffic safety. 10. Lighting should be kept to a minimum to approxi- mate normal nighttime light levels. 11. In the design of new or modified oil and gas produc- tion facilities, best accepted practices in drilling and produc- tion methods should be utilized, if capable of reducing factors of nuisance and annoyance. F. Oil Development Standards. The following are minimum standards and requirements which shall be applied pursuant to subsection B of this section. More restrictive requirements may be imposed on a project through the conditions of the permit. Measurements are taken from the outside perimeter of the noise receptors noted below: 1. Setbacks. No well shall be drilled and no equipment or facilities shall be located within: a. One hundred (100) feet of any dedicated public street, highway or nearest rail of a railway being used as such, unless the new well is located on an existing drill site and the new well would not present a safety or right -of- way problem. If aesthetics is a problem, then the permit must be conditioned to mitigate the problem; b. Five hundred (500) feet of any building or dwelling not necessary to the operation of the well, unless a waiver is signed pursuant to subsection (F)(25) of this section, allowing the setback to be reduced. In no case shall the well be located less than one hundred (100) feet from said structures; c. Five hundred (500) feet of any institution, school or other building used as a place of public assemblage, unless a waiver is signed pursuant to subsection (F)(25) of this section, allowing the setback to be reduced. In no case shall any well be located less than three hundred (300) feet from said structures; d. Three hundred (300) feet from the edge of the existing banks of "red line" channels as established by the Ventura County flood control district (VCFCD), one hun- dred (100) feet from the existing banks of all other channels appearing on the most current United States Geological Survey (USGS) two thousand (2,000) feet scale topographic map as a blue line. These setbacks shall prevail unless the permittee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the public works agency that the subject use can be safely located nearer the stream or channel in question without posing an undue risk of water pollution, and impairment of flood control interests. In no case shall setbacks from streams or channels be less than fifty (50) feet. All drill sites located within the one hundred year floodplain shall be protected from flooding in accordance with flood control district - requirements; e. The applicable setbacks for accessory structures for the zone in which the use is located; 334 f. One hundred (100) feet from any marsh, small wash, intermittent lake, intermittent stream, spring or perennial stream appearing on the most current USGS two thousand (2,000) feet scale topographic map, unless a qualified biologist, approved by the city, determines that there are no significant biological resources present or that this standard setback should be adjusted. 2. Obstruction of Drainage Courses. Drill sites and access roads shall not obstruct natural drainage courses. Diverting or channeling such drainage courses may be permitted only with the authorization of the public works agency. 3. Removal of Equipment. All equipment used for drilling, redrilling, and maintenance work on approved wells shall be removed from the site within thirty (30) days of the completion of such work unless a time extension is approved by the director of community development. 4. Containment of Contaminants. Oil, produced water, drilling fluids, cuttings and other contaminants associated with the drilling, production, storage and transport of oil shall be contained on the site unless properly transported off -site, injected into a well, treated or re -used in an ap- proved manner on -site or if allowed, off -site. Appropriate permits, permit modifications or approvals must be secured when necessary, prior to treatment or re -use of oil field waste materials. The permittee shall furnish the director of community development with a plan for controlling oil spillage and preventing saline or other polluting or contami- nating substances from reaching surface or subsurface waters. The plan shall be consistent with requirements of city, state and federal laws. 5. Securities. Prior to the commencement or continu- ance of drilling or other uses on an existing permit, the permittee shall file, in a form acceptable to the city attorney and certified by the city clerk, a bond or other security in the penal amount of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for each well that is drilled or to be drilled. Any operator may, in lieu of filing such a security for each well drilled, redrilled, produced or maintained, file a security in the penal amount of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) to cover all operations conducted in the city of Moorpark, a political subdivision of the state of Califor- nia, conditioned upon the permittee well and truly obeying, fulfilling and performing each and every term and provision in the permit. In case of any failure by the permittee to perform or comply with any term or provision thereof, the planning commission may, after notice to the permittee and a public hearing, by resolution, determine the amount of the penalty and declare all or part of the security forfeited in accordance with its provisions. The sureties and principal will be jointly and severally obligated to pay forthwith the full amount of the forfeiture to the city. The forfeiture of 00037 any security shall not insulate the permittee from liability in excess of the sum of the security for damages or injury, or expense or liability suffered by the city from any breach by permittee of any term or condition of said permit or of any applicable ordinance or of this security. No security shall be exonerated until after all the applicable conditions of the permit have been met. 6. Dust Prevention. The drill site and all roads or hauling routes located between the public right -of -way and the subject site shall be improved or otherwise treated as required by the city and maintained as necessary to prevent the emanation of dust. Access roads shall be designed and maintained so as to minimize erosion, prevent the deteriora- tion of vegetation and crops, and ensure adequate levels of safety. 7. Light Emanation. Light emanation shall be controlled so as not to produce excessive levels of glare or abnormal light levels directed at any neighboring uses. Lighting shall be kept to a minimum to maintain the normal nighttime light levels in the area, but not inhibit adequate and safe working light levels. The location of all flood lights and an outline of the illuminated area shall be shown on the landscape plan, if required, or on the requisite plot plan. 8. Reporting of Accidents. The permittee shall immedi- ately notify the director of community development and fire department and all other applicable agencies in the event of fires, spills or hazardous conditions not incidental to the normal operations at the permit site. Upon request of any city agency, the permittee shall provide a written report of any incident within seven (7) calendar days which shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the facts of the incident, the corrective measures used and the steps taken to prevent recurrence of the incident. Note: The provisions in Proposition 65 apply. 9. Painting. All permanent facilities, structures, and aboveground pipelines on the site shall be colored so as to mask the facilities from the surrounding environment and uses in the area. Said colors shall also take into account such additional factors as heat buildup and designation of danger areas. Said colors shall be approved by the director of community development prior to painting of facilities. 17.28.060 10. Site Maintenance. The permit area shall he main- tained in a neat and orderly manner so as not to create any hazardous or unsightly conditions such as debris; pools of oil, water, or other liquids; weeds; brush; and trash. Equipment and materials may be stored on the site which are appurtenant to the operation and maintenance of the oil well located thereon. If the well has been suspended, idled or shut -in for thirty (30) days, as determined by the Division of Oil and Gas, all such equipment and materials shall be removed within ninety (90) days. 11. Site Restoration. Within ninety (90) days of revoca- tion, expiration or surrender of any permit, or abandonment of the use, the permittee shall restore and revegetate the premises to as nearly its original condition as is practicable, unless otherwise requested by the landowner. 12. Insurance. The permittee shall maintain, for the life of the permit, liability insurance of not less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) for one (1) person and one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for all persons and two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) for property damage. This requirement does not preclude the permittee from being self - insured. 13. Noise Standard. a. Unless herein exempted, drilling, production and maintenance operations associated with an approved oil permit shall not produce noise, measured at a point outside of occupied sensitive uses such as residences, schools, health care facilities, or places of public assembly, that exceeds the following standard or any other more restrictive standard that may be established as a condition of a specific permit. Noise from the subject property shall be considered in excess of the standard when the average sound level, measured over one (1) hour, is greater than the standard that follows. The determination of whether a violation has occurred shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the permit in question. b. Nomenclature and noise level description definitions are in accordance with the city general plan goals, policies and programs and the city general plan hazards appendix. Measurement procedures shall be in accordance with the city general plan hazards appendix. c. The maximum allowable average sound level is as follows: Average Noise Levels (LEQ) Time Period Drilling and Maintenance Phase Producing Phase Day (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) 55 dB(A) 45 dB(A) Evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) 50 dB(A) 40 dB(A) Night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 45 dB(A) 40 dB(A) 335 OQC O38 17.28.060 For purposes of this section, a well is in the "producing phase" when hydrocarbons are being extracted or when the well is idled and not undergoing maintenance. It is presumed that a well is in the "drilling and maintenance phase" when not in the "producing phase." 14. Exceptions to Noise Standard. The noise standard established pursuant to subsection (F)(13) of this section shall not be exceeded unless covered under any of the following provisions: a. Where the ambient noise levels (excluding the subject facility) exceed the applicable noise standards. In such cases, the maximum allowable noise levels shall not exceed the ambient noise levels plus three (3) dB(A). b. Where the owners/occupants of sensitive uses have signed a waiver pursuant to subsection (F)(25) of this section indicating that they are aware that drilling and production operations could exceed the allowable noise standard and that they are willing to experience such noise levels. The applicable noise levels shall apply at all locations where the ownersloccupants did not sign such a waiver. 15. Compliance with Noise Standard. When a permittee has been notified by the planning division that his operation is in violation of the applicable noise standard, the permittee shall correct the problem as soon as possible in coordination with the department of community development. In the interim, operations may continue; however, the operator shall attempt to minimize the total noise generated at the site by limiting, whenever possible, such activities as the following: a. Hammering on pipe; b. Racking or making -up of pipe; c. Acceleration and deceleration of engines or motors; d. Drilling assembly rotational speeds that cause more noise than necessary and could reasonably be reduced by use of a slower rotational speed; e. Picking up or laying down drill pipe, casing, tubing or rods into or out of the drill hole. If the noise problem has not been corrected by seven (7:00) p.m, of the following day, the offending operations, except for those deemed necessary for safety reasons by the director of community development upon the advice of the Division of Oil and Gas, shall be suspended until the problem is corrected. 16. Preventive Noise Insulation. If drilling, redrilling or maintenance operations, such as pulling pipe or pumps, are located within one thousand six hundred (1,600) feet of an occupied sensitive use, the work platform, engine base and draw works, crown block, power sources, pipe rack and other probable noise sources associated with a drilling or maintenance operation shall all be enclosed with soundproofing sufficient to ensure that expected noise levels do not exceed the noise limits applicable to the permit. 336 Such soundproofing shall be installed prior to the com- mencement of drilling or maintenance activities, and shall include any or all of the following: acoustical blanket coverings, soundwalls, or other soundproofing materials or methods which ensure that operations meet the applicable noise standard. 17. Waiver of Preventive Noise Insulation. The applicant may have a noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, approved by the city. If the findings of the study conclude that the proposed project will meet the city noise standards contained in subsection (F)(13) of this section and do not constitute a nuisance, then the soundproofing requirement may be waived. If the findings show that a noise level will be generated above and beyond the city standards, then soundproofing must be installed sufficient to meet the applicable noise standard. Where a waiver pursuant to subsection (F)(25) of this section is signed, no preventive noise insulation will be required. 18. Soundproofing Material. All acoustical, blankets or panels used for required soundproofing shall be of fireproof materials and shall comply with California Indus- trial Safety Standards and shall be approved by the Ventura County fire protection district prior to installation. 19. Hours of Well Maintenance. All nonemergency maintenance of a well, such as the pulling of pipe and replacement of pumps, shall be limited to the hours of seven (7:00) a.m. to seven (7:00) p.m. of the same day if the well site is located within three thousand (3,000) feet of an occupied residence. This requirement may be waived by the director of community development if the permittee can demonstrate that the applicable noise standard can be met or that all applicable parties within the prescribed distance have signed a waiver pursuant to subsection (F)(25) of this section. 20. Limited Drilling Hours. All drilling activities shall be limited to the hours of seven (7:00) a.m. through seven (7:00) p.m. of the same day when they occur less than eight hundred (800) feet from an occupied sensitive use. Night- time drilling shall be permitted if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the director of community development that the applicable noise standard can be met or that all applicable parties within the prescribed distance have signed a waiver pursuant to subsection (F)(25) of this section. 21. Signs. In addition to the signage otherwise allowed by Chapter 17.40, only signs required for directions, instruc- tions and warnings, identification of wells and facilities, or signs required by other city ordinances or state and federal laws may be placed in areas subject to an oil and gas conditional use permit. Identification signs shall be a maximum four (4) square feet in size and shall contain, at minimum, the following information: a. Division of Oil and Gas well name and number; 0000w) b. Name of owner /operator; c. Name of lease and name and/or number of the well; d. Name and telephone number of person(s) on twenty- four (24) hour emergency call. The well identification sign(s) shall be maintained at the well site from the time drilling operations commence until the well is abandoned. 22. Fencing. All active well sites (except submersible pumps), sumps and/or drainage basins or any machinery in use or intended to be used at the well site or other associated facilities shall be securely fenced, if required, based on the director of community development's deter- mination that fencing is necessary due to the proximity of nearby businesses, residences, or other occupied sensitive uses. A single, adequate fence which is compatible with surrounding area, may be used to enclose more than one (1) oil well or well site and appurtenances. Location of fences shall be shown on a submitted plot plan and/or landscape plan, if required. Fences must meet all Division of Oil and Gas regulations. 23. General Standards. Projects shall be located, designed and operated so as to minimize their adverse impact on the physical and social environment. To this end, dust, noise, vibration, noxious odors, intrusive light, aesthetic impacts and other factors of nuisance and annoyance shall be reduced to a minimum or eliminated through the best accepted practices incident to the exploration and production of oil and gas. 24. Screening and Landscaping. All oil and gas produc- tion areas shall be landscaped so as to screen production equipment in a manner consistent with the natural character of the area, if required, based on the director of community development's determination that landscaping is necessary. Required landscaping shall be implemented in accordance with a landscape and irrigation plan to be approved by the director of community development or his/her designee after consultation with the property owner. The landscape plan shall be consistent with the city guide to landscape plans and shall include measures for adequate screening of producing wells and permanent equipment from view of public roads or residential uses, revegetation of all cut and fill banks, and the restoration of disturbed areas of the site not directly related to oil and gas production. Low water usage landscaping and use of native plants shall be encouraged. 25. Waivers. Where provisions exist for the waiver of an ordinance requirement, the waiver must be signed by the owner and all adult occupants of a dwelling, or in the case of other sensitive uses, by the owner of the use in question. Once a waiver is granted, the permittee is exempt from affected ordinance requirements for the life of the waiver. Unless otherwise stated by the signatory, a waiver 337 17.28.060 signed pursuant to subsection (F)(14)(b) of this section shall also be considered a waiver applicable to subsections (17)(16), (17), (19) and (20) of this section. 26. Application of Sensitive Use Related Standards. The imposition of regulations on petroleum operations, which are based on distances from occupied sensitive uses, shall only apply to those occupied sensitive uses which were in existence at the time the permit for the subject oil operations was approved. 27. Inspection, Enforcement and Compatibility Review. To ensure that adequate funds are available for the legiti- mate and anticipated costs incurred for monitoring and enforcement activities associated with new or modified oil- and gas- related conditional use permits, the permittee shall deposit with the city funds, determined on a case -by- case basis, prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance. The funds shall also cover the costs for any other necessary inspections or the resolution of confirmed violations that may occur. One (1) deposit may be made to cover all of the permittees various permits. In addition, all new or modified conditional use permits for oil- and gas- related uses shall, at the discretion of the director of community development, be conditioned to require a compatibility review on a periodic basis. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the permit, as conditioned, has remained consistent with its findings for approval and if there are grounds for proceeding with public hearings concerning modification, suspension or revocation of the permit. (Ord. 189 § 3 (8107 -5), 1994) 17.28.070 Produce stands. A. One (1) produce stand per lot is allowed. B. A produce stand shall be permitted only if accessory to permitted crop production on the same lot, and only if at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the area of the lot is devoted to crop production. C. A produce stand may sell raw unprocessed fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and cut flowers grown on the same lot and on other lots in the city. D. A produce stand may sell only those ornamental plants that are grown on the same lot as such stand is located. E. No commodities other than those listed above may be sold from a produce stand. F. The floor area of such stand shall not exceed four hundred (400) square feet each. G. Such stand shall not be located or maintained within thirty (30) feet of any public road, street or highway. This setback area shall be kept free to provide for off - street parking. H. The construction thereof shall be of a temporary nature and shall not include a permanent foundation. 000®4-0 ATTACHMENT 6 000041: Sep -24 -97 11:19A mez-- enger- investmentco. 7_ 546 -1050 �XMESSENGER September 12, 1997 Mr. Arthur Boehm NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY 201 S. Broadway Orcutt, CA 93455 Vla Facsimile (805) 937 -8709 RE: Hidden Creek Ranch, Moorpark, CA Dear Art: P.02 We apologize for the Jelay in responding to you after our last meeting. We have been in the process of preparing a number of documents and exhibits requested by the City of Moorpark in anticipation of the public hearings before the Moorpark City Council beginning October i st. It was our understanding from our last meeting that it would be helpful for Messenger Investment Company (MIC) to prepare a preliminary proposal that would embrace the concept of moving certain drilling islands and 'swapping' those acres of Nuevo's blanket easement in the MIC Phase I development area for an equal number of acres of fee land that includes the tank farm area. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a basic proposal for your review and consideration. We have prepared an exhibit (previously forwarded to you) that shows the approximate locations of the blanket easements and the drilling island easements In relation to the proposed specific plan. We have analyzed this exhibit and have drawn the following conclusions: Drilling Island Easement Analysis: Drilling Islands Location on Speck Plan 14 On areas designated "open space - 2 Within golf course or park areas g On edge of residential areas 3 Within major roadways /arterials 4 Within residential areas 1 Within a designated school area 32 Total drilling island easements Mitigation Required None required Minimal relocation Minimal relocation Minimal relocation Minimal relocation Relocation required The above breakdown shows that of the total number of drilling island easements, thirty -one (31) have a minor or no impact. Of those 31, virtually all appear to be easily re- located to an area outside of the deviopment area. There is only one (1) drilling island easement in direct conflict with the specific plan. 959 SOUTH COAST DRIVE, SUITE 490 000041% COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 (714) 546.1300 / FAX (714) 546.105a Sep -24 -97 11:19A mE enger investmentco. 7 546 -1050 P.03 September 12, 1997 Mr. Arthur Boehm NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY Page 2 Blank!g Easement Analy§is: Only a small portion of the 550 acre blanket easement covering the southeast area of the property is impacted by the specific plan. We have calculated that approximately 65 acres of residential and commercial uses proposed for development overlap the blanket easement. That equates to approximately 12% of the blanket easement area. In order to protect both Nuevo's investment and MIC's specific plan, we are proposing the following solution: 1. MIC would deed approximately 65 acres of fee land to Nuevo surrounding your operating tank farm /point -of -Sale area. 2. Nuevo would quit -claim or otherwise remove the blanket easement over the approximately 65 acres in the area mentioned above designated for residential and commercial uses. 3. Nuevo would agree to the minor relocation of 17 of the drilling island easements to a more compatible location relative to the specific plan 4. Nuevo would agree to quit -claim the drilling island easement located in the area designated for the elementary school. Table 1, attached, describes the action proposed for each drilling island, based on MIC's proposal. The "Mineral Rights Easement" map, also attached, shows the numbering of the drilling island easements referred to in Table 1, the suggested boundary of the 65 acre fee land transfer that includes the tank farm, and the 65 acres of residential and commercial land that intrudes into the blanket easement. We would like to have the opportunity to discuss this proposal with you after you have had the opportunity to study this information. Since public hearings will begin in October, we look forward to discussing this proposal with you at your earliest convenience. Since ly or on Sr. Vice- President Enclosure 000043 I� MESSENGER Sep -24 -97 11:19A me_ anger investmentco. 71 546 -1050 TABLE 1 DRILLING ISLAND EASEMENT LOCATION ANALYSIS Drilling Situation Island 1 Possible minor relocation 2 Possible minor relocation 3 Possible minor relocation 4 Minor relocation needed 5 Possible minor relocation 6 Minor relocation nek%d� 7 No relocation necessary 8 Possible minor relocation 9 No relocation necessary 10 No relocation necessary 11 No relocation necessary 12 No relocation necessary 13 No relocation necessary 14 No relocation necessary 15 No relocation necessary 16 No relocation necessary 17 No relocation necessary 18 No relocation necessary 19 Possible minor relocation 20 No relocation necessary 21 Possible minor relocation 22 Possible minor relocation 23 Possible minor relocation 24 Minor relocation needed 25 Relocation necessary 26 Possible minor relocation 27 Minor relocation needed 28 Minor relocation needed 29 No relocation necessary 30 No relocation necessary 31 No relocation necessary 32 No relocation necessary Comments Site could be moved north approx. 200' Site will probably not require relocating Site could be moved south approx. 500' Site could be moved north approx. 800' Site could be moved south slightly Site could be moved northeast or southeast Site may require slight relocation Site could be moved west slightly Site could be moved northeast slightly Site could be moved west slightly Site could be moved northeast slightly Site could be moved southeast slightly Prefer that site be quitclaimed (school site) Site will probably not require relocation Site could be moved east approx. 700' Site could be moved east approx. 700' P.04 F111TIOUF FILE COPY W. 15 - �I w IZ .t i V, ® p (0 P�. GROSS .,DN� RESIDENT- i RECEIVED 1 22 1 SEP 99 7 city of Moorpark PBEO-Eo FOR u -d--d MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY NOR— RESIDERT,AL TOTALS 3126.7 — PROJECT TOTALS ♦322 AC. 3221 O.U. HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF MOORPARK, CA NRrv.,nEO PROPOSED LAND USE IpI,N 1.AN1p, GROUP, INCl1 SEPTEMBER. 1997 SHEET 1 OF 1 ATTACHMENT 7 00004G HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (NO. 8) PLANNING UNIT 45 SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY REPORT II N ern Consulting 20321 Birch Street, Suite 201 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 475 -9520 Contacts: Joan Patronite Kelly, AICP, Managing Principal Ann M. Johnston, Senior Ecologist November 5, 1997 111''1 INTRODU Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) X HID CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (NO. 8) S PPLEMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR PLANNING UNIT 45 ek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 995) reflected the applicant's request for a zoning designation of Private Open ) for Planning Unit 45. The draft EIR identified that it was the applicant's intent to clearance for development of a golf course in the future. Table 11 in the Draft Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (June 1995) identifies that the following are permitted uses under the OS -2 (Private Open Space) zoning designation: Permitted By Zoning Clearance: • Animal husbandry, Without structures (as stipulated in the zoning code) • Apiculture (note: the zoning code stipulates specific restrictions for this use) • Grading (as stipulated in the zoning code) • Motion picture and TV production and related activities and structures, temporary, maximum 42 days in any 180 -day period (as stipulated in the zoning code; subject to specific restrictions for this use) • Storage of building materials, temporary (as stipulated in the zoning code; subject to specific restrictions for this use) • Accessory uses and structures (other than to agriculture, animals, or dwellings) Administrative Permit: • Accessory uses to crop production: — Fuel storage — Insecticides for pest control • Parking lots • Pastures and training areas • Shade structures Planning Commission Approved Conditional Use Permit: • More animals than are permitted by Section 17.28.030C of the Moorpark Zoning Code • Barns and Stables • Cemeteries • Crop Production - Firewood operations • Communications facilities • Drilling, temporary geologic (testing only) • Festivals and similar events, temporary outdoor (less than three in one year) • Greenhouse, hothouses Planning Unit 45 1 Supplemental Stu°lOQM4S Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) • Libraries • Miner — Mi an essory uses less than nine months in duration (note: the zoning co ulates specific restrictions for this use) — s exploration and production (note: the zoning code stipulates specific r ons for this use) • i picture and TV production, and related activities and structures ines and transmission lines, aboveground (note: the zoning code stipulates ecific restrictions for this use) Public utility facilities, excluding offices and service yards (as stipulated in the zoning code) • Riding stables — With accessory lodging facilities — With outdoor arenas /accessory structures • Water production, storage, and distribution facilities: private purveyors (as stipulated in the zoning code; most public water facilities are exempt from these regulations) City Council Approved Conditional Use Permit: • Crop Production • Wholesale nursery • Greenhouse, hothouses and the like The June 1995 Draft Specific Plan includes further clarification that the uses permitted by Table 11 will be permitted by Zone Clearance, Administrative Permit, Planned Development or Conditional Use Permit, provided that, in each case, the applicant can provide evidence to the Director of Community Development that there will not be a significant impact upon recorded archaeological sites, sensitive biological habitat, mature or oak trees. The draft EIR stated that additional environmental review would be required prior to any development in Planning Unit 45 (designated as Private Open Space), because of potentially significant impacts to biological and archaeological resources. The draft EIR included mitigation measures for impacts to biological and archaeological resources associated with development of the Specific Plan No. 8 site. Since the release of the draft EIR, the applicant has formally requested that the City consider a zoning designation for Planning Unit 45 that would conditionally permit a golf course for the southern 450 acres and has agreed that the northerly 240 acres should be designated as natural Open Space. In the revised land use plan dated September 1997, Planning Unit 45 is now shown as a 450- acre area designated as Open space /Golf Course designation. A corresponding Open Space /Golf Course Zone is also proposed that would include very restrictive requirements for a single -golf course that would be designed to protect the more sensitive biological habitat areas as open space and limit the overall area that could be graded. In comparison, the Private Open Space Zone that was described in the June 1995 Draft Specific Plan would have permitted a variety of agricultural, institutional, recreational, and open space Plannr tt 5 2 Supplemental St Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) uses that could potenti I ave greater environmental effects than a golf course (see previous summary of perm' e i he OS -2 Zone). The following s I ntal information has been prepared for Planning Unit 45: (1) a tree survey; (2)a i ' iological survey and vegetation mapping; (3) Phase II archaeological resource u and, (4) additional of review of all other CEQA- related environmental issues as apply to Planning Unit 45. These studies /reviews have been conducted in co plia with the requirements stated in the draft EIR to allow for future development within nni Unit 45. The draft EIR stated there would be significant impacts associated with ific Plan development; the impacts associated with Planning Unit 45 were not described in detail. A development plan for Planning Area 45 was not submitted as part of the Specific Plan application, and has not been subsequently submitted to the city. In coordination between the City and applicant, potential future development assumptions were made to prepare the impact analysis. The impact discussion that follows is speculative and is considered a worst -case analysis. In an effort to fully disclose the potential impacts of development which could occur as a result of Open Space /Golf Course zoning, potential development impacts are discussed based on preliminary concepts from the applicant. The assumptions used in this analysis are as follows: Planning Unit 45 was identified in the draft EIR as a 690 -acre site. To evaluate the proposed zoning of this portion of the Specific Plan site as Open Space /Golf Course (OS /GC), the acreage of Planning Unit 45 has been changed based on the September 1997 revised land use plan. The southern 450 acres is now Planning Unit 45 and would, subject to approval by the Moorpark City Council, be zoned OS /GC, which would allow only natural open space and golf course uses. No other uses would be permitted. The remaining 240 acres in the northern portion of the site are no longer a part of Planning Unit 45, but have been added to the dedicated permanent open space, increasing the total acres by 240 acres. The OS /GC zoning designation would only allow a single 18 -hole golf course and related facilities with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Approximately 200 acres of the 450 -acre planning unit would be impacted by golf course development. Although a "link style" golf course is envisioned, which is less intrusive and damaging to natural habitat, the 200 -acre figure was used as the analysis factor to ensure that potential effects are not underestimated. An actual links golf course would likely damage less than the 200 acres assumed in this analysis. Planning Unit 45 3 t Supplemental Study Report 0060%1W Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) • Of th 0 es approximately 80 percent (160 acres) would occur within the uplan ea rtions of Planning Unit 45 and the remaining 20 percent (40 acres) woul r within the canyon areas. Please n i acts were evaluated in conjunction with those impacts for the Specific Plan an er ot s n the same significance criteria described in the draft EIR. RESOURCES This portion of the study describes the results of an assessment of the existing biological resources present within Planning Unit 45 of Specific Plan No. 8. Information within this study has been compiled from previous surveys, data compilation, field verification, and refinement of plant community mapping to provide the decision makers of the City of Moorpark with the necessary information for their consideration of zoning Planning Unit 45 "OS /GC." Ann M. Johnston, Senior Ecologist, and Amy L. Leverett, Botanist, with BonTerra Consulting conducted this biological resources assessment based on information provided in the draft EIR and response to comments on the draft EIR, aerial photographs of the site, and a plant community mapping field assessment of Planning Unit 45. Plant Communities Planning Unit 45 contains approximately 450 acres of undeveloped land, including both native California and non - native plant communities. These communities occur in several small canyons and drainages that run from north to south through Planning Unit 45. As depicted on Exhibit 1, the topographic features in this planning unit provide for a variety of plant communities including Venturan coastal sage scrub (191.6 acres), chaparral (6.3 acres), coast live oak woodland (53.7 acres), southern coast live oak riparian forest (19.6 acres), non - native grassland (50.5 acres), and coastal sage scrub /non- native grassland ecotone (128.3 acres). The plant communities are summarized in Table 1. Planning Unit 45 4 0Q00sJ,Supp1ementa1 Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) TABLE 1 UNITIES OCCURRING WITHIN PLANNING UNIT 45 ADDITIONAL PRESERVED OPEN SPACE Sage 1 118.2 1 191.6 1 29 arral 25.0 6.3 3 Coastal Live Oak 6.8 53.7 6 Woodland Southern Coast Live 0 19.6 2 Oak Riparian Forest Coastal Sage Scrub/ 15.4 50.5 40 Non - Native Grassland Ecotone 1 Non - Native Grassland 1 74.6 1 128.3 1 120 1 Total 1 240 1 450 1 200 Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub Venturan coastal sage scrub occurs throughout Planning Unit 45. Dominant shrub species in this community include purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), black sage (Salvia mellifera), chaparral bushmallow (Ma/acothamnus fasciculatus), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica). Other shrub species commonly occurring include deerweed (Lotus scoparius), white sage (Salvia apiana), California bush sunflower (Encelia californica), and coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. menziesir). Shrub cover varies from sparse to impenetrable; however, in most stands annual and perennial herbs commonly occur. Other plants occurring in the coastal sage scrub community include coastal prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), Santa Barbara loco weed (Astragalus trichopodus), coast paintbrush (Castilleja affinis), chia (Salvia columbariae), golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), California fuchsia (Epilobium canum), giant wild rye (Leymus condensatus), and lance- leaved dudleya (Dudleya lanceolata). Chaparral Chaparral occurs sporadically throughout Planning Unit 45, often integrated with Venturan coastal sage scrub and coast live oak woodland. The most common chaparral plant species Planning Unit 45 5 0000.5aSupplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) Coast Live Oak Woodland Throughout the southern portion of Planning Unit 45, coast live oak woodland occurs on gentle slopes, along intermittent streams, and in protected canyons. The oak distribution onsite includes areas of oak forest (where canopies overlap), oak woodland (where canopies range from 50 to 75 percent cover), and oak savanna (where the canopies are well spaced). The dominant plant species in the coast live oak woodland is the coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). The understory ranges from dense shrubby undergrowth (primarily Venturan coastal sage scrub species) to non - native grassland species, as discussed below. The oaks within the Specific Plan site, including Planning Unit 45, are primarily limited to mature trees with a noticeable absence of seedling and sapling age trees. This lack of age diversity around onsite tree resources is directly related to the cattle grazing pressures on the site for over 70 years. Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest Southern coast live oak riparian forest occurs in the drainage located in the southern portion of Planning Unit 45. This riparian forest merges upstream with coast live oak woodland and up- slope with chaparral. The dense forest canopy is dominated by mature coast live oaks with occasional California sycamore (Plantanus racemosa), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and golden willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra). The understory associated with the intermittent drainage includes Indian rush (Juncus textilis), yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica), mulefat (Bacchads salicifolia), wild rose (Rosa califomica), and poison oak. A tree survey for Planning Unit 45 was conducted in summer 1997 (Tree Survey for Planning Unit 45 of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan, October 1, 1997). A total of 4,198 trees was assessed and mapped within the planning unit. The tree inventory identified 3,892 coast live oaks, 190 western sycamores, 74 willows, 2 Fremont cottonwoods, 13 toyons, 8 Mexican elderberries, and 19 scrub oaks. These tree resources primarily occur within the coast live oak Planning Unit 45 6 U0 ()®.53+ Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) woodland and southernAqpdst live oak riparian forest in the north -south trending canyons of the Planning Unit 45. Non - Native Gr a No ial g and in Planning Unit 45 is the result of historical grazing by cattle; some of the a ave also been disced and farmed in the past. Non - native grasslands are d ina by the following introduced species: wild oat (Avena fatua), slender oat (Avena soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). Remnant stands of native grassland occur in limited isolated patches on steep slopes within the non - native grassland. Native grassland species present include purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), foothill needlegrass (Nassella lepida), western wild rye (Elymus glaucus), beardless wild rye (Leymus triticoides), June grass (Koeleria macrantha), and alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides). Coastal Sage Scrub /Non- Native Grassland Ecotone Coastal sage scrub /non- native grassland ecotone occurs throughout Planning Unit 45. It occurs mainly on the tops of the hills and along gentle slopes. Non - native grasslands are the dominant plant species present within this community. Species present include wild oat, slender oat, and dove weed (Eremocarpus setigerus). The coastal sage scrub plant species occur sporadically and in limited numbers throughout this vegetation community. Species present include black sage, coastal goldenbush, California sagebrush, and coastal prickly pear. The coastal sage scrub species present occur in a density of approximately 5 to 20 percent. These areas are most likely recovering from historical disturbances (cattle grazing practices). Wildlife Several amphibian species occur, or potentially occur, within the plant communities of Planning Unit 45. Frog and toad species potentially occurring in all habitat types include the western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondi), western toad (Bufo boreas), and Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla). Oak and riparian woodlands on the site have the potential to support several salamander and newt species including the Monterey salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzi eschscholtzl), Pacific slender salamander (Batrachoseps pacificus), black - bellied salamander (Batrachoseps nigriventris), arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubrrs), and coast range newt (Taricha torosa torosa). Planning Unit 45 7 00( ,54 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) The grassland, scrub, haparral communities onsite support numerous snakes and lizards including the sid I and (Uta stansburiana), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), Cali hor ed lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), coastal western whiptail (Cnemidopho Ifiscutatus), coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), glossy snake (Arizona elegans), g s e (Pituophis melanoleucus), common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), we rn tl a (Crotalus viridis), striped racer (Masticophis lateralis), coastal rosy boa (Lic irgata roseofusca), coast patch -nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), lyre s ke ( orphodon biscutatus), and night snake (Hypsiglena torquata). Oak and riparian ds typically support a different reptile fauna than more open habitats; however, many species use both. Additional reptiles observed or expected in these communities include the western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), silvery legless lizard (Aniella pulchra pulchra), southern alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus), western blind snake (Leptotyphlops humilis), and two- striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondi). Bird species expected within riparian habitat on the site include warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), northern oriole (Icterus galbula), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), and black- headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus). Oak woodlands onsite provide nesting habitat for the scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), and ash - throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens). Spring migrants to this community include western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), hermit warbler (Dendroica occidentalis), and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri). Chaparral and coastal sage scrub are also considered important habitat for many birds including the California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), and greater roadrunner (Geococcyx califomianus). Summer visitors observed nesting in this habitat include Costa's hummingbird (Calypte costae) and Lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena). Winter visitors may include species such as the white - crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) and fox sparrow (Passerella illaca). Bird species expected to nest in the grasslands of the site include the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), and lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus). Raptors such as the red - tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius) prefer grasslands and other open habitats for foraging. The varied natural communities found on the site support many species of mammals. Mammals expected within Planning Unit 45 include the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), brazilian free - tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis), California pocket mouse (Perognathus californicus), Pacific kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis), California mouse Planning Unit 45 8 V0W55 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) (Peromyscus californi brush mouse (Peromyscus boylit), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus be u on's cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk ( tis ephitis), dusky- footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes), mule deer (Odocoileus he , bobcat (Lynx rufus), and coyote (Canis latrans). Tfoll g describes the sensitive plant and wildlife species present or potentially occurring le habitat within Planning Unit 45 that have been afforded special recognition by federal, sta e, or local resource conservation agencies and organizations. Also discussed are habitats that are unique, of relatively limited distribution, or of particular value to wildlife. Appendix 1 of this study provides a list of the sensitive plants and wildlife present or potentially occurring on the site. Plants Special status plant surveys were conducted in May and June 1993 as part of the baseline documentation for the draft EIR. Because of the large size of the Specific Plan site, all areas were not surveyed. Representative habitats throughout the Specific Plan within the development boundaries (excluding Planning Unit 45) that potentially supported sensitive plant species were systematically surveyed to determine the presence /absence of sensitive plants. A detailed discussion of the sensitive plant species potentially present can be found in Appendix D of the draft EIR. One sensitive plant species was observed within Planning Unit 45, Fish's milkwort (Polygala comuta var. fishiae). Three additional sensitive plant species were observed within the Specific Plan boundaries and can be expected to occur within suitable habitat in Planning Unit 45. These species are the Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae), California spineflower (Mucronea californica), and California beargrass (Nolina cistomontana). Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. californica) does not occur within Planning Unit 45. Although not observed during focused surveys on the remainder of the Specific Plan site, suitable habitat for Braunton's milk vetch (Astragalus brauntonu), Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae), marcescent dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens), Santa Susana tarplant (Hemizonia minthronii), Ojai fritillary (Fritillaria ojaiensis), and Lyon's pentachaeta ( Pentachaeta lyonh) occurs within Planning Unit 45. Wildlife Planning Unit 45 9 ouloos —Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) coastal rosy boa, and coast patch -nosed snake. Eighteen sensitive bird species potentially occur within Planning Unit 45; nine of these species were observed during surveys of the Specific Plan site. Sensitive bird species observed within the Specific Plan site and expected within Planning Unit 45 include the Cooper's hawk (Accipiter coopen), coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belle), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsten), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestriachia actia), loggerhead shrike (Lanus ludovicianus), Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and norther harrier (Circus cyaneus). Sensitive bird species potentially present include the coastal California gnatcatcher, white - tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus), yellow- breasted chat (Icteria virens), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), long -eared owl (Asio otus), western burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia hypugea), sharp- shinned hawk (Falco striatus), prairie falcon (Falco mexicana), and merlin (Falco columbarius). Several sensitive mammals are known to occur in the vicinity of Planning Unit 45, including the San Diego black - tailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus bennetti), American badger (Taxidea taxus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), California mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), Pacific Townsend's big -eared bat (Plecotus townsendi townsendi), and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). Plant Communities Plant communities of special concern include those habitats that support rare, threatened, or endangered plant or wildlife species; are locally diminishing and of special concern to local resource agencies and special interest groups; or, are afforded legal protection through CEQA, Planning Unit 45 10 ()Q ()()57Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) many special status plant or wildlife species and because they are locally dimNig addition, several of these habitat types may be potential jurisdictional wetlands p Se ction 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1600 of the California Fish and Should these areas meet wetland criteria set forth in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands ( USACE 1987), the filling of these wetlands will be controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) in accordance with Section 404. Habitats occurring along the drainages of Planning Unit 45 may also be subject to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 1601 of the code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts on streambeds and associated riparian vegetation. In addition, the City of Moorpark tree ordinance protects oak, mature, and historic trees. Wildlife Movement Corridors Currently, wildlife movement within the Specific Plan site (including Planning Unit 45) and in adjacent areas to the east, and north is unrestricted by development. The canyons and ridgelines in the vicinity of Hidden Creek in the southern portion of Planning Unit 45 contain wildlife habitat and movement areas. These areas provide wildlife with foraging habitat, cover, water, and access to adjacent suitable habitat. However, few individuals are expected to use this area strictly as a movement area because westward movement is obstructed by urban development (Moorpark College and additional residential areas to the west). Therefore, wildlife movement through this area is expected to be limited although wildlife may use Hidden Creek as a movement area to reach Alamos Canyon and other eastward destinations. Although diagnostic sign of the coyote, mule deer, and bobcat was found infrequently within the north /south running wooded drainages of Planning Unit 45, these areas may be used as movement areas by various wildlife species. More likely, wildlife use these areas as foraging habitat and cover. Pro-ject Impacts The following discussion examines the potential impacts on plant and wildlife resources that may occur as a result of future development of Planning Unit 45. Although no development is proposed at this time as a part of the Hidden Creek Specific Plan (No. 8) project and no design Planning Unit 45 71 �� ,O:1&pp1ementa1 Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) or grading plans have prepared, a zoning designation has been requested to allow for future golf course s a ing Unit 45. The following analysis is based on the potential development assu 'ons at portions of the existing resources within the planning unit would be lost with de after zoning of the area. A worst -case assessment has been made stating that p A tely 200 acres of the 450 -acre planning unit would be impacted by a future golf ou gh a "link style" golf course is envisioned, which would be less intrusive and dam atural habitat, the 200 -acre figure was used as the analysis factor to ensure that P entia ects are not underestimated. For this worst -case hypothetical scenario, of the 200 acres, the assessment assumes that approximately 80 percent of these areas (160 acres) is in the upland plateau portions of the planning unit and the remaining 20 percent of these areas (40 acres) is in the canyon areas. Biological impacts were evaluated in conjunction with those impacts for the Specific Plan and were evaluated based on the same significance criteria as stated in CEQA and discussed in detail in the draft EIR. Impacts on Vegetation To determine the approximate number of acres of the various plant communities that would be potentially impacted by a future golf course, each of the plant communities was assessed as to their geographic location in Planning Unit 45. The plateau portions are dominated by non - native grassland and coastal sage scrub /non- native grassland ecotone. Based on previous assumptions, up to 160 acres of these communities (120 acres of coastal sage scrub /non- native grassland ecotone and 40 acres of non - native grassland) would be impacted by project construction. Non - native grassland is considered locally abundant. Although the coastal sage scrub /non- native grassland ecotone areas contain a percentage of sage scrub plant species, these areas have been severely degraded by past grazing practices, do not contain the biological diversity and structure of the Venturan coastal sage scrub onsite, and have limited potential to support sensitive wildlife species. Therefore, the loss of these communities would not be considered significant. Venturan coastal sage scrub, chaparral, coast live oak woodland, and southern coast live oak riparian forest are the dominant plant community types within the canyon areas of the southern portion of Planning Unit 45. Future implementation of a golf course within Planning Unit 45 would result in the loss of approximately 29 acres of Venturan coastal sage scrub. Because Venturan coastal sage scrub is a limited community, this is considered a significant impact. Planning Unit 45 12 W0059 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) Approximately 3 acres Colaparral would be removed by project description. Chaparral is considered locally d the loss of this community is not considered significant. Impacts on Wildlife The natural communities within the Hidden Creek Specific Plan site (including Planning Unit 45) and adjoining areas constitutes a functional ecosystem for wildlife species within the region. The primary impacts of development in Planning Unit 45 on wildlife resources would be the removal of these natural communities and the displacement of wildlife resulting in a less diverse and abundant local faunal populations, as with development of the Specific Plan overall. As was mentioned in the draft EIR, the elimination and displacement of animals in Planning Unit 45 is considered a significant impact. Impacts on Sensitive Biological Resources Several plant species have the potential to occur onsite due to the presence of suitable habitat. One CNPS - listed plant species (Fish's milkwort) was observed within Planning Unit 45. No determination of the potential impact to individual species can be made at this time; however, if each of the species presence on the site is assumed, project impacts to sensitive plant species would be considered significant due to the size of a potential golf course in this area. To fully determine the potential project impacts on sensitive plant species, focused surveys should be conducted during the spring as part of the environmental review of a potential future golf course development to confirm their presence or absence from the site. Thirty-five wildlife species which are listed as Federally Protected, Federally Threatened, former Federal Candidate for listing, and California Species of Special Concern are known to or potentially occur within Planning Unit 45. Development of a proposed golf course within Planning Unit 45 may significantly reduce suitable habitat for these sensitive wildlife species. This potential impact would be considered significant. Planning Unit 45 13 ()Q00C3() Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) Potential future develop t of a golf course in Planning Unit 45 could also result in the removal of active raptor ne r rotected under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. The poten ss o any active raptor nest is considered a significant impact. Planning Urff4ysLWorts sensitive habitats including coast live oak woodland, southern coast live oak ' ri rest, and Venturan coastal sage scrub. The potential future development of ago pl, within this planning unit would affect approximately 8 acres of coast live oak w dla and southern coast live oak riparian forest. These communities are regionally i t because they are limited in distribution and provide suitable habitat for many wildlife species. Additionally, drainages within these habitats may be subject to the jurisdiction of USACE and CDFG. Consultation with USACE and CDFG are required prior to filling or altering any onsite wetlands. A detailed wetland delineation may be required as well as USACE permits and/or CDFG agreements prior to any onsite grading. Native live oaks found onsite are protected by the City of Moorpark Municipal Code, Chapter 12.12. Additionally, oak woodlands in California are recognized as a significant resource by resource agencies including the CDFG. Removal of coast live oak habitat would be considered a significant impact. Because the Venturan coastal sage scrub within the vicinity of Planning Unit 45 is known to support or potentially support several sensitive species, the loss of approximately 29 acres of this habitat is considered significant. As previously stated, any development in Planning Unit 45 would require environmental review prior to the approval of any grading or construction activities. Based on a development plan that would be required for submittal and review by the City of Moorpark, a determination would be made if any sensitive habitat would be impacted and if focused surveys for sensitive species would be required. Indirect Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife Increased noise associated with vehicular traffic, human intrusion into the habitat (including pets), litter, pollutants, and night lighting associated with development of the proposed golf course within Planning Unit 45 would be likely to adversely affect wildlife populations within the immediate vicinity. These impacts, while adverse, would not be expected to reduce any current wildlife populations below self- sustaining levels and are not expected to substantially affect wildlife habitat. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected to occur as a result of indirect impacts. Planning Unit 45 14 00006j. Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) Secondary impacts on live oak woodland and southern coast live oak riparian forest could include increased u 'nt sion and disturbance. Soils in a healthy oak woodland are sensitive to comp n an—d unmonitored irrigation which can cause a decline in oak health. Uncontrolled, t s ndary impacts can be significant. PoTenti.,Mmulative impacts on biological resources are primarily related to the loss of plant 46V)Inities and wildlife habitat. Should development occur within Planning Area 45 in the future, such development could cumulatively contribute to the loss of general wildlife habitat, coast live oak woodland, coast live oak riparian forest, and Venturan coastal sage scrub. Based on the information provided in the draft EIR, with respect to the sensitive habitats also found in Planning Unit 45, approximately 19 acres of coast live oak woodland, less than one acre of southern coast live oak riparian forest, and 291 acres of Venturan sage scrub would be impacted by the proposed development within the remainder of the Specific Plan site. Development of a golf course in Planning Unit 45 would increase these areas to approximately 25 acres for coast live oak woodland, over 2 acres for southern coast live oak riparian forest, and approximately 320 acres for Venturan coastal sage scrub. Future development in this planning unit, when considered additive to the proposed development of the Specific Plan, as well as other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects, is considered a significant biological impact. Mitigation Measures This section focuses on the development of mitigation measures for those impacts that may result from future proposed development of a golf course in Planning Unit 45. Strategies to mitigate each impact to a level of less than significant are identified and described. Although measures are the same or similar to those identified for biological resources in the draft EIR, the EIR mitigation measures are broken down by planning units so all of the appropriate mitigation measures relative to Planning Unit 45 are identified below. Modify Mitigation Measure 1 of Section 3, Biological Resources, to include Planning Unit 45 as follows: 1. Resource Management Plan Prior to a determination of application completeness for the first Master Tentative Map, a plan containing procedures and performance standards that must be executed to protect or replace biological resources affected or potentially affected Planning Unit 45 15 ����� Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) Development in Planning Unit 45 could result in the loss of approximately 8 acres of coast live oak woodland and southern coast live oak riparian forest. Concurrent with the submittal of any tentative tract map application, a tree study, as defined in Chapter 12.12 of the City Municipal Code, with a precise evaluation and mapping of oak and mature trees shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 12.12 of the Municipal Code. a. Every attempt should be made to minimize grading to reduce the unavoidable affects resulting from the loss of trees. However, avoidance of all tree resources may not be feasible in its entirety for the proposed project. b. Should significant impacts to trees remain after completion of a golf course design, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the protection and replacement requirements of Chapter 12.12 of the Moorpark Municipal Code shall be implemented to reduce the level of impact to below significant. Specific tree ordinance guidelines include (1) locating grading in minimum growing areas as required by individual species, (2) no disruption or removal of structural feeder roots, (3) fencing of trees at or beyond their driplines during grading and construction activities, (4) no filling, cutting, development, or compaction of soil within the dripline, and (5) such other measures required by the species of tree to be preserved as recommended by the consulting arborist, horticulturist, or landscape architect. C. Potential coast live oak trees transplant candidates, as determined by a certified arborist, shall be transplanted to an appropriate area identified in the REMP. All potential transplant candidates shall be identified in the REMP. If relocation is not possible for all impacted trees, replacement coast live oak trees shall be planted in suitable locations identified in the REMP. The number and size of replacement trees shall be identified in the REMP. d. A resource management specialist shall be consulted prior to final design and an application completeness determination for a golf course conditional use permit to (a) identify particularly valuable oak and sycamore resources that may be preserved, (b) outline measures to protect or preserve trees within the immediate vicinity of the project, and (c) assist in the design of Planning Unit 45 16 c O O(;a Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) buffers and transition zones between the project and natural open e. truction guidelines shall be developed in the REMP and shall address onitoring of affected resources, (2) construction guidelines specific to resources, (3) tree pruning, (4) landscaping and irrigation adjacent to rees, and (5) arboricultural care. Oak trees that cannot be avoided or transplanted shall be replaced. During the preparation of a tree report (required for any proposal for urban development, as defined in Chapter 12.12 of the Municipal Code) for tentative map and development permit applications, an appraised value of each tree shall be established and provided to the City using the most recent edition of the Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants prepared by the Council of Tree Landscape Appraisers. The dollar value of the trees removed will be applied to the purchase of replacement trees, their establishment, and maintenance. Where feasible, replacement trees shall consist exclusively of indigenous tree species and shall be certified as being grown from a seed source collected in Ventura County, preferably from the Specific Plan area. Replacement trees shall be of varied size and age classes. A combination of cuttings, seedlings (1- gallon), saplings (5- gallon), and trees (15- gallon, 24 -inch, and 36 -inch box) shall be planted. Replacement trees shall be planted and maintained on site and, if feasible, in the same general area from which the trees were removed. The tree planting shall be supervised in the field by a qualified restoration specialist. The replacement trees shall replace the habitat value of the removed oak woodlands. Replacements shall, for example, be planted adjacent to existing woodlands to provide an additional buffer between development and open space areas, or within the remaining oak woodlands to improve the habitat value of these areas. Alternatively, trees can be planted in currently disturbed areas and graded areas that can support these trees. Replacement trees shall be properly cared for and maintained for 5 years, including irrigation, weed control, and herbivorey protection. All trees replaced shall be monitored for an additional 5 years after tree maintenance is terminated. During monitoring years 6 through 10, tree mortality and general site conditions shall be noted. A report, citing the general conditions and any corrective measures needed, shall be prepared and submitted yearly to the Community Development Director. If a replacement tree dies during the ten -year maintenance and monitoring period, it shall be replaced. The project applicant shall be financially responsible for the maintenance, monitoring, and replacement of all trees planted as mitigation for project impacts through the posting of a specific fund for that purpose. Planning Unit 45 17 OM064 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) Landscaping requiring irrigation shall not be planted within the dripline of oaks due to the susceptibility of native oaks to root rot, caused by excessive unseasonable irrigation. The design and installation of landscape irrigation systems outside the dripline of the oaks shall be such that the area within the dripline is not wetted during operation of the system. In addition, surface runoff from impermeable surfaces shall be directed away from oaks; where the natural topography has been altered, provisions should be made for drainage away from trunks of oaks so that water will not pond or collect within the dripline of any oak. Prior to grading, a temporary fence not less than 4 feet in height shall be installed around the protected zone of trees within the 40 -foot zone adjacent to development grading. Fencing shall be in place and inspected, prior to commencement of grading. This fencing shall remain in place throughout the entire period of construction. h. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a formal wetland delineation, pursuant to a CDFG agreement and USACE permit, shall be conducted. Disruption of riparian habitat requires consultation with both agencies. The USACE and CDFG typically require mitigation plans to be prepared prior to the loss of riparian resources. Mitigation may consist of habitat replacement at a ratio of 1:1 or greater for each acre lost. Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub Future development of a golf course within Planning Unit 45 may result in the loss of approximately 29 acres of Venturan coastal sage scrub. Prior to a determination of application completeness for a conditional use permit, the City of Moorpark shall review design plans to determine the most appropriate measures available to offset impacts on Venturan coastal sage scrub. Mitigation measures that may be required can include preservation of avoided scrub by a resource preservation easement, acquisition, or other mechanisms, and the restoration, replacement, or revegetation of removed Planning Unit 45 18 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) REMP shall outline the planting methodology for the replacement Vcoastal sage scrub, if appropriate. f wildlife habitat by construction of a golf course within Planning Unit 45 S4 idered a significant impact. A minimum of 240 acres of Planning Unit 45 shall be preserved in permanent natural open space. The REMP shall (1) specify boundaries of the preservation areas, (2) provide measures to buffer, control vehicular access, and avoid habitat degradation during construction operations, and (3) formulate guidelines for the permanent protection of preservation /revegetation areas. The selection and implementation of preserved open space areas shall be conducted in coordination with the City of Moorpark and appropriate resources agency personnel (CDFG and USFWS). Management guidelines which shall be incorporated into the REMP include the management of land uses within the immediate vicinity of the natural open space areas. In addition, domestic animals, off -road vehicles, roadway lighting, and recreational activities shall be restricted from the vicinity of the natural open space areas. Raptor Nesting Sites Significant impacts on nesting sites of sensitive raptor species may occur as a result of project implementation. k. If construction and habitat removal is proposed during the raptor breeding season (March to July), a survey shall be conducted for active raptor nests. If active nests are found, no construction activity shall take place within 500 feet of the active nest until the young have fledged (as determined by a qualified raptor biologist). The 500 -foot perimeter around each active nest shall be fenced by appropriate visible fencing material. Trees containing active and non - active nests shall be removed during the non - breeding season only. To offset potential impacts on raptor nesting habitat, the REMP shall address raptor habitat management for preserved areas that shall include, as appropriate, perch management (retaining dead limbs and trees) and provision of artificial nest boxes or platforms. Indirect Impacts on Vegetation Development in Planning Unit 45 has the potential to substantially degrade adjacent natural habitats. M. Prior to a determination of application completeness for a conditional use permit, the proposed project shall be evaluated by a qualified biologist for potential intrusion on the biological resources. Planning Unit 45 19 0Q00S(C; Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) 9Wts�'� 1 0 .& IF�I�if* T ully understand the biological resources within Planning Unit 45, focused rveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher, a federally listed threatened species, and sensitive plant species shall be initiated prior to preliminary project designs and submittal of an application of a conditional use permit. The locations of occupied habitat of the gnatcatcher and locations of sensitive plant species will provide the project designers with biological design features worthy of protection and preservation. 3. "Links" Style Golf Course Any golf course constructed in Planning Unit 45 will be a "links" style golf course. Links courses are developed with minimal disturbance to the natural habitat with a green tee area, turfed and green link and landing areas and green cup areas, with native plants remaining in between the green and turf areas. 4. Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary The golf course will be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner in accord with the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Course Guidelines as sponsored by the Audubon Society of New York State, Inc. 5. Wildlife Movement and Migration Fencing and other impediments will not be placed in areas that will prevent wildlife movement through the canyon bottoms. A wildlife biologist shall review the conceptual and final building, landscaping, and fencing plans for a golf course to ensure that buildings, landscaping, and fencing are not designed in a manner that will impede wildlife movement and migration. The conceptual plan review shall occur prior to a determination of application completeness for a conditional use permit; the final plan review shall occur prior to issuance of a zoning clearance for either building or grading permits for a golf course. Planning Unit 45 20 00006 7 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES As a part of the draft EIR identification of archaeological resources in the Specific Plan site, a Phase I cultural resources assessment was conducted by W and S Consultants. The Phase I assessment included an archival records check and literature search through the University of California at Los angles Archaeological Information Center, one of the regional clearinghouses for archeological site records for Southern California. The records check and literature search were supported with field surveys by W and S Consultants. The entire 4,200 - acre Specific Plan site was surveyed; areas above 25 percent grade were less intensively surveyed. The results of the Phase I assessment identified archaeological sites within Planning Unit 45. Because no development is currently proposed in Planning Unit 45 as a part of the Specific Plan project, Phase II test excavations were not conducted in Planning Unit 45. The impact analysis in Section 3.9, Cultural Resources, of the draft EIR identifies that future potential development of the planning unit for land uses such as a golf course could impact archaeological sites in Planning Unit 45. The draft EIR further states that to avoid direct and indirect impacts to archaeological resources in Planning Unit 45, additional archaeological field work will be required before any uses are allowed to occur that could potentially disturb the resources. Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 address the archaeological program for this planning unit which requires Phase II subsurface test -level investigations and surface collections (prior to the approval of any discretionary permit for uses in Planning Unit 45); and a program to reduce indirect impacts associated with increased human presence in the area. As a part of the applicant's request to zone Planning Unit 45 "OS /GC," which would limit use of the site to a links -style golf course and undeveloped open space, a Phase II archaeological study was prepared by W and S Consultants in October 1997. The results of this assessment are discussed below. Planning Unit 45 21 ()0(10 (3 S Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) The sites investigated dkog the 1997 Phase II study are: CA -VEN -1130, -1137, -1138, -1139, -1140, -1141, -11 , - - 44, and -1147. All of these are prehistoric sites. They are all located in the sout tern portion of Planning Unit 45, on a series of broad and open mesa -like ridges. PI haeological fieldwork at the ten sites investigated in Planning Unit 45 was intended lish the nature and significance of each site, and to thereby provide baseline data from a final determination of the disposition of these cultural resources could be made. This required the collection of a representative sample of artifacts and archaeological indicators from each of these cultural resources, the establishment of the vertical and horizontal boundaries of each cultural deposit, and an analysis of the recovered artifact assemblage from these archaeological localities. Procedures followed in the collection of data to establish the nature and significance of the ten sites included mapping, surface collecting of artifacts lying on the ground surface, and test excavation of pits to establish the presence /absence of a subsurface archaeological deposit, as well as to characterize such a deposit if found to be present on a given site. Although these procedures were systematized so that the recovered data would be comparable between each site as well as with previous studies in the region, the magnitude of effort varied somewhat between the ten sites, reflecting the field conditions specific to each locale. The allocation of test pits per archaeological site, and therefore the intensity of subsurface testing at each locale, is indicated by the number of pits excavated at each. These figures are as follows: CA -VEN -1130 —14 pits CA -VEN -1138 —12 pits CA -VEN -1140 —12 pits CA -VEN -1142 — 3 pits CA -VEN -1144 — 3 pits CA -VEN -1137 — 8 pits CA -VEN -1139 — 4 pits CA -VEN -1141 — 8 pits CA -VEN -1143 — 10 pits CA -VEN -1147 — 4 pits A total of 78 1.1 meter pits were then excavated on the ten sites. Fieldwork Results /Impacts Results from the test excavations are provided below. Planning Unit 45 22 0vI'O (j!3 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) CA -VEN -1130. The eASptation of 14 pits at this site revealed the presence of a relatively he s) re#pCovered during the excavations, but artifacts and dietary remains (principally ani were recovered. Surface collection resulted in the recovery of all extant formal a acts the ground. Included among these is a projectile point dating to the Intermediate suggesting that the site dates between about 3,500 and 800 Y.B.P. (Years Before Present). The site appears to represent a small, seasonally occupied village. CA -VEN -1137. A very shallow subsurface midden deposit, averaging only 30 cm in depth, was encountered during the excavation of eight test pits at this site. This deposit was localized in an area measuring 65 meters N -S by 55 meters E -W, or 3,675 meters square. No subsurface features were encountered during the excavation. All formal surface artifacts were collected from the ground surface of this site. This site appears to be a small, Intermediate Period campsite. CA -VEN -1138. Twelve excavation units were placed on this site, three of which proved to have evidence of a shallow midden deposit. This is localized in the approximate middle of the site and measures 60 meters N -S by 100 meters E -W, or 8,000 meters square. Average depth of this midden is only 25 cm. No subsurface features were encountered. All formal artifacts were also collected from the surface of the site. Unlike other sites examined, CA -VEN -1138 appears to represent an Intermediate Period subsurface deposit combined with a very thin Late Prehistoric Period occupation, as indicated by the top 10 cm of the site deposit. Therefore, it dates between 3,500 and approximately 250 Y.B.P., and represents a small campsite. CA -VEN -1139. The four test pits excavated on CA -VEN -1138 showed no evidence of subsurface cultural deposition, indicating that this site is a surface lithic scatter. Surface collection resulted in the recovery of all extant formal artifacts on the site. The site represents a small quarry- workshop associated with a natural quartzite cobble deposit. CA -VEN -1140. Test excavations (12 units) at this site showed that a moderately deep subsurface midden is present in the approximate center of the site's recorded location. This deposit is oblong in shape and measures 130 meters NE -SW by 60 meters NW -SE, or about 7,800 meters square. Average depth of the midden is about 45 cm. No subsurface features were encountered during the excavation. Surface collecting also resulted in the recovery of all formal artifacts from the site surface. Projectile points recovered from the site indicate that it Planning Unit 45 23 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) rep 1142. Three test pits were dug at this site, none of which had evidence of subsurface )gical remains. CA -VEN -1142 can be interpreted as a surface lithic scatter, specifically, a small quarry/workshop associated with a natural deposit of quartz cobbles. All surface artifacts were collected from the site. CA- VEN -1143. Although no subsurface features were encountered during the excavation of ten pits at this site, a small and shallow midden deposit was discovered. This averaged about 25 cm in depth and measures 60 meters N -S by 35 meters E -W, or 2,100 meters square. All surface artifacts were also collected off the site surface. Based on projectile points found during the excavation, this site appears to date to the Intermediate Period and represents a small campsite. CA -VEN -1144. Approximately 80 percent of the area of this site was destroyed by prior grading of an oil pad. Three test pits showed that no subsurface deposit is present at this location. Surface collection resulted in the recovery of extent surface lithics. This site appears to have been a small surficial quarry/workshop associated with a natural outcrop of quartz cobbles. CA -VEN -1147. Four test pits excavated at CA -VEN -1147 failed to reveal any evidence of a subsurface deposit. It appears, instead, to have comprised a surface lithic scatter, specifically, a quarry/workshop associated with a natural outcrop of quartz cobbles. Surface collecting resulted in the recovery of all artifacts from the site surface. The Phase II testing at these ten sites in Planning Unit 45 revealed a widespread but low intensity occupation of the area during the Intermediate Period, or between about 3,500 and 800 Y.B.P. Subsequent to this point, the majority of the habitation sites (villages and camps) were abandoned with the Late Prehistoric Period represented by a thin upper lens at a single site. Therefore, there is a very observable change in the settlement system within the project area at or sometime slightly before about 800 Y.B.P. Notably, this Late Prehistoric Period manifestation is no more intensive than that seen in the earlier- dating deposits. This is important because it suggests that a significant reduction in population size and site use Planning Unit 45 24 000()7 JL Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) these prehistoric changes. Cumulative Impacts Impacts on onsite cultural resources are site - specific. Although cumulative development in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development would result in the disturbance of cultural resource sites throughout the region, the City of Moorpark and the County of Ventura require mitigation of impacts to these resources. This includes the collection of artifacts which may contribute to local and regional history and prehistory. As a result, anticipated development in the project region wold not have a significant cumulative impact or result in a significant cumulative loss in regional history or prehistory. Mitigation Measures Sites CA -VEN -1139, -1141, -1142, -1144 and -1147 were found to be low density surface lithic scatters that lacked any subsurface archaeological deposits. Phase II fieldwork at these sites resulted in the recovery of all extant surface artifacts on the site surfaces. This has provided scientifically consequential information from and about these five cultural resources. Per Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this has served to completely and adequately mitigate any adverse impacts due to any development on their site areas (Mitigation Measure 3 in Section 3.9, Cultural Resources, of the EIR). No additional archaeological work be required on these five sites. Mitigation Measure 1 of Section 3.9, Cultural Resources, of the EIR would be modified to require that an archaeological monitor be present should any grading occur near the archaeological sites in Planning Unit 45. Sites CA -VEN -1130, -1137, -1138 and -1143 have intact midden deposits of different sizes. Although no remains of a religious nature were found within these deposits, excavation did reveal artifacts and scientific information useful for the reconstruction of Ventura County's prehistoric past. Development within the defined subsurface deposits areas of these sites has the potential to result in adverse impacts to cultural resources. Following Appendix K of CEQA, Planning Unit 45 25 000072 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) such impacts be mitig a either through site avoidance and preservation, preservation with protective cappin it t ough Phase III data recovery (salvage excavations), if site preservation is no option. The archae tigation program set forth in EIR would be modified to reflect the additional arc eo ca estigations that have been conducted and the findings of these investigations in P it 45. The recommended modifications are as follows: During all earth moving activities in the vicinity of archaeological resources (Planning Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 37, 39, and 42A, ands!), the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Moorpark Community Development Director or designated representative that a county - certified archaeologist has been retained, shall be present at the pregrading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the city or landowner, as appropriate, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of any artifacts found, as appropriate. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, archaeological requirements shall be incorporated as a note on the grading plan cover sheet. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the city project manager or landowner, as appropriate. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the city or landowner, as appropriate, for exploration and/or salvage. The archaeologist shall submit a follow - up report to the City of Moorpark Planning Department, which shall include the period of inspection, an analysis of any artifacts found, and the present repository of the artifacts. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of Ventura and/or designee, on a first refusal basis. The landowner may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in the county, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in the County of Ventura indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time, in which case items shall be donated to the city, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Moorpark Community Development Director or designated representative. 213. Prior to: consideration of a coin itiohAl °use permit for future golf'dourse develo irnertt in Planning Unit 45, mitigatidhi, r'direct and indirecf ,rmpacts tp; rch' "" Icu�tt l � #e CA, FN -1 1 Q, -1 "f 374 -1 [ 38, abd °-'# 143 shalt #e irfied Tie miti#on :shall i idude`one;4f the'fc►R9 ng. Planning Unit 45 26 00(1,(j73 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) Level of Significance After Mitigation Should the City of Moorpark zone Planning Unit 45 "OS /GC," any proposed development plan would be subject to environmental review by the city. The evaluation of archaeological resources in Planning Unit 45 and the implementation of the mitigation program set forth in the EIR and as modified above would reduce impacts on archaeological resources to a level that is considered less than significant. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Earth Resources The assumption has been made that up to 200 acres of the 450 -acre Planning Unit 45 could be associated with a future golf course in this area. Under a hypothetical, worst -case scenario, up to 200 acres would be graded. No impacts beyond those identified in the draft EIR are expected. Mitigation measures identified in the draft EIR would be applied in Planning Unit 45. Water Resources Planning Unit 45 27 000074 Supplemental Study Report - - - - - -- -- -- - - - -- -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - -- - -- -- IS LMIFW AM 4 WAN - - -- - - -- -- - - -- - ---- - m mom -- - - .- 01 -- Level of Significance After Mitigation Should the City of Moorpark zone Planning Unit 45 "OS /GC," any proposed development plan would be subject to environmental review by the city. The evaluation of archaeological resources in Planning Unit 45 and the implementation of the mitigation program set forth in the EIR and as modified above would reduce impacts on archaeological resources to a level that is considered less than significant. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Earth Resources The assumption has been made that up to 200 acres of the 450 -acre Planning Unit 45 could be associated with a future golf course in this area. Under a hypothetical, worst -case scenario, up to 200 acres would be graded. No impacts beyond those identified in the draft EIR are expected. Mitigation measures identified in the draft EIR would be applied in Planning Unit 45. Water Resources Planning Unit 45 27 000074 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) Potential project -speci 4nI cumulative impacts associated with runoff, water quality, and flooding in Plannin w e addressed in detail in the draft EIR. No additional mitigation measures are Land Use Mitig sures identified in the draft EIR associated with potential land use impacts would r uce significant effects to Planning Unit 45 to a level that is considered less than nt. Aesthetics The mitigation measures in the draft EIR for aesthetic impacts would reduce any aesthetic impacts to Planning Unit 45 to a level that is considered less than significant. Transportation and Circulation Traffic associated with a golf course does not have a strong peak, morning, or afternoon, as trips to a golf course are steady throughout the day, coincident with tee times. Should a golf course be developed in Planning Unit 45 in the future, total trips associated with the Hidden Creek Specific Plan project would increase because of the addition of a second golf course. However, as a part of the project modifications that the applicant has presented to the City of Moorpark to address environmental impacts associated with the project and community and agencies' concerns, the amount of commercial development proposed on the Specific Plan site has been reduced from 29.2 acres to 21.5 acres. The decrease in commercial acreage and square footage is 7.7 acres or approximately 83,853 square feet (based on a floor to area ratio of 0.25). Based on the traffic generation assumptions in the draft EIR, this reduction in commercial square footage would be equivalent to a reduction of approximately 4,235 average daily trips or 26 percent of the project's commercial traffic identified in the draft EIR. Using the traffic generation factor identified in the draft EIR for golf course development, a future golf course in Planning Unit 45 would be expected to generate approximately 1,666 average daily trips. Therefore, should a golf course be developed in Planning Unit 45 in the future, the overall traffic associated with the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan project would be less than the total amount of traffic identified for the project site in the draft EIR. No new traffic impacts are anticipated and no transportation mitigation measures beyond those already associated with project development are expected to be required. Air QuaW Planning Unit 45 28 000075 Supplemental Study Report Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) As with traffic, the redu i in vehicular trips will outweigh the additional trips from a Planning Unit 45 golf cour h efore, air quality impacts will not be increased. Short-term construction air q emi sion will occur and are subject to mitigation as established by the Ventura Air P ontrol District, as discussed in the EIR. No air quality mitigation measures y ose already associated with project development are expected to be ®reqed, 'noise impacts from future development in Planning Unit 45 would be associated with construction activities and traffic. The reduction in commercial development - related traffic trips and noise associated with those trips will outweigh additional trips and noise from the golf course trips to a Planning Unit 45 golf course. No noise mitigation measures for construction and traffic noise beyond those already associated with project development are expected to be required. Public Services Measures proposed to mitigate project and cumulative impacts to fire protection services, police protection services, water, wastewater, solid waste disposal, energy, and schools associated with Specific Plan No. 8 would be applicable to future golf course development in Planning Unit 45 and would be expected to reduce any potential significant impacts to the degree stated in the EIR. Any fire protection requirement for secondary access can be imposed as a condition of approval for a conditional use permit. No additional impacts from Planning Unit 45 development are anticipated. Public Health and Safetv The mitigation measures in the draft EIR for public health and safety impacts are in compliance with state and federal requirements and would reduce any potential impacts to public health and safety as a result of potential future development in Planning Unit 45 to a level that is considered less than significant. Planning Unit 45 29 00007C. Supplemental Study Report Appendix 1 000077 Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN PLANNING UNIT 45 W untos brauntonii n's milk vetch Calochortus catalinae Catalina mariposa lily Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. b /ochmaniae Blochman's dudleya Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens marcescent dudleya Fritillaria ojaiensis Ojai fritillary Hemizonia minthornii Santa Susana tarplant Juglans californica var. californica Southern California black walnut Mucronea californica California spineflower Nolina cistmontana California beargrass Pentachaeta lyonii Lyon's pentachaeta Polygala cornuta var. flshiae Fish's milkwort Specific Plan Study Area USFWS Occurrence /Habitat Old /New CDFG CNPS Suitability FE -- List 1 B Suitable habitat present List Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present C2 / -- -- List 1 B Suitable habitat present FP(T) CR List 1 B Suitable habitat present C2 / -- -- List 1 B Suitable habitat present C2 / -- CR List 1 B Suitable habitat present -- -- List 4 Not present -- -- List Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present C2 / -- — -- Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present FP(E) SE List 1 B Suitable habitat present List Observed within Planning Unit 45 AMPHIBIANS Taricha torosa torosa — CSC Suitable habitat present coast range newt Scaphiopus hammondi C2 / -- CSC Suitable habitat present i W S Sensitive Species List western sl REPTILES Phrynosoma California, CnefflillftdIlUs tigris multiscutatus oast estern whiptail Aniella pulchra pulchra silvery legless lizard Lichanura trivirgata roseofusca coastal rosy boa Diadophis punctatus modestus San Bernardino ringneck snake Lampropeltis zonata pulchra San Diego mountain kingsnake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea coast patch -nosed snake Thamnophis hammondii two- striped garter snake BIRDS Elanus caeru/eus white - tailed kite Circus cyaneus northern harrier Accipiter striatus sharp- shinned hawk Accipiter cooperi Cooper's hawk Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) C2 / -- CSC C2 / -- -- C2 / -- CSC C2 / -- -- C2/-- -- C2/-- CSC C2 / -- CSC C2 / -- -- -- FP -- CSC -- CSC -- CSC C2 CSC Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present ii 000079 Sensitive Species List Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle Falco mexican prairie falgoirn Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) -- CSC /FP -- CSC -- CSC -- CSC -eared owl Speotyto cunicularia hypugea C2 / -- CSC western burrowing owl Eremophila alpestris actia C3C / -- — California horned lark Campylorhynchus bruneicapillus C3B / -- CSC coastal cactus wren Polioptila californica californica FT CSC coastal California gnatcatcher Lanius ludovicianus C2 / -- CSC loggerhead shrike Dendroica petechia brewsteri -- CSC yellow warbler lcteria virens -- CSC yellow- breasted chat Aimophila rufrceps canescens C2 / -- CSC Southern California rufous - crowned sparrow Amphispiza belli belli C2 1-- CSC Bell's sage sparrow MAMMALS Antrozous pal idus -- CSC pallid bat Euderma maculatum C2 1-- CSC spotted bat Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Marginal habitat present Observed within Specific Pan; Suitable habitat present Observed within Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present Suitable habitat present iii oQo®s t Sensitive Species List Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) Plecotus townsendi se C2 / -- CSC Suitable habitat present Pacific Townsen -eared bat Neotoma lepida intermedia C2 / -- CSC Suitable habitat present San Diego desert woodrat Taxidea taxus -- -- Observed within American badger Specific Plan; Suitable habitat present DEFINITIONS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) FE - Federally endangered; taxon threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. FP(E) or FP(T) - Federally proposed endangered or threatened; taxon proposed by the USFWS for federal listing as threatened or endangered. C1, C2, C2, and FC - Prior to February 28, 1996, there were three categories that pertained to species being considered for listing by the USFWS as threatened or endangered. The definition of the previous candidate categories was as follows: Category 1 (C1) candidate species were those for which existing biological information indicates a listing may be warranted and for which substantial information exists to support the listing. Category 2 (C2) candidate species were those for which existing biological information indicates a listing may be warranted, but for which substantial biological information to support the listing is lacking. Category 3 (C3) candidate species are former candidates and have been grouped into three subcategories extinct (3A), taxonomically invalid or not meeting the USFWS's definition of a "species" (3B), or too widespread or not threatened at this time (3C). The USFWS published in the Federal Register (2/28/96, Federal Register Volume 61, Number 40) a revised definition of species considered candidates for listing. Previous Category 1 candidates are now known simply as "candidate species" (FC). The USFWS determined that the previous Category 2 candidates lacked sufficient information to justify issuance of a proposed rule. Therefore, the USFWS decided to "discontinue the designation of Category 2." Lastly, the USFWS is also discontinuing the use of the Category 3 candidates. Because this is a fairly recent change in the way in which sensitive species are described, both the `old" and "new" listing status for each sensitive plant and wildlife species has been identified. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) SE - State endangered; taxon for which prospects of survival /reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. ST - State threatened; taxon likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future if current threats to biological viability are allowed to continue without controls. SP - Proposed for listing as state threatened or endangered. iv Sensitive Species List Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (No. 8) CR - State - listed, Cr California ie ecial Concern FP - Fully Prote designation adopted by the state prior to creation of the state Endangered Species Act; p c m harassment or harm any species considered rare or threatened. list 1AMPlants presumed extinct in California List A - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. List 3 - Plants about which more information is needed; a review list. List 4 - Plants of limited distribution in California; a watch list. Source: USFWS (1993), (1994), (1996), and CDFG (1994). v 000()8- Sensitive Species List ATTACHMENT 8 000083 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8) Regional Traffic Impact Information Prepared in Response to Discussion at the Oct. 22, 1997 City Council Meeting The attached table provides a summary of regional project related traffic impacts based on various scenarios which were analyzed in the Specific Plan No. 8 EIR traffic study. Although the expressed interest primarily pertains to the project's freeway impacts which are summarized in the upper portion of the table, a number of key roadway locations throughout the City of Moorpark have also been included in the table, thereby providing a fairly broad yet succinct summary of the project's impacts throughout the local circulation system. A point of clarification should be mentioned regarding the project's impacts at the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection. At the October 22, 1997 hearing, it was stated by City Staff that the project would add 13,000 daily trips to the intersection. That estimate is based on the amount of traffic forecasted on Hidden Creek Ranch Road east of the Campus Park Drive /Campus Road intersection (refer, for instance, to Exhibit 3.6 -16 in the Transportation and Circulation section of the EIR), and is actually the volume forecasted in the vicinity of the project's proposed commercial development (i.e., a location far easterly of the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection). Year 2010 with- project scenario 1 on the attached traffic impact summary table corresponds to Exhibit 3.6 -16, and as the table indicates, the project is forecasted to add 8,000 daily trips to the Collins Drive /Campus Park Drive intersection. Future improvements are planned along both the SR -23 Freeway and the SR -118 Freeway. State route freeway improvements are implemented through Ventura County's Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). These programs work in coordination to allocate specific dollar amounts to fund planned state route improvements over a five to seven year time period, the principal sources of funding being State and Federal fuel (gas) taxes and motor vehicle fees. For the purposes of this discussion, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) was contacted regarding the current status of SR -23 and SR -118 freeway improvements in the RTIP and STIP. Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 8) 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Regional Traffic Impact Information 0084 No SR -23 and SR -118 improvements are currently included in the funding programs. However, the VCTC does maintain a highway project priority list which essentially ranks unfunded improvements according to their urgency for inclusion in the STIP, and the top two improvement projects on the priority list involve the SR -23 and SR -118 Freeways (the VCTC anticipates that both improvements will in fact eventually be programmed for the same construction year in the STIP). The SR -23 improvement involves widening the freeway from four lanes to six lanes between New Los Angeles Avenue and the Route 101 Freeway, and the SR -118 improvement involves widening the freeway from six lanes to eight lanes from Tapo Canyon Road to the Ventura County boundary. The VCTC has indicated that these two projects are actively being pursued for inclusion in the STIP and that inclusion could occur within a year. An additional SR -118 Freeway improvement project which ranks fourth on the VCTC priority list involves widening the segment between New Los Angeles and Madera Road from four lanes to six lanes and widening the segment between Madera Road and Tapo Canyon Road from six lane to eight lanes. The VCTC has indicated that the timing for inclusion of this improvement on the STIP is less certain than for the two improvement projects mentioned previously. Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 8) Regional Traffic Impact Information Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 380017.res 0000&-1 HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8) Long -Range (Year 2010) Project Traffic Impact Summary Facility Existing (1994) ADT PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) No- Project With Project: Scenario 1 With Project: Scenario 2 With Project: Scenario 3 With Project: Scenario 4 FREEWAY IMPACTS SR­ 118 east of city limits 53,000 69,000 +11,000 ( +16 %) +11,000 ( +16 %) +11,000 ( +16 %) +11,000 ( +16 %) SR -23 south of Tierra Rejada Rd 46,000 59,000 +2,000 ( +3 %) +2,000 ( +3 %) +2,000 ( +3 %) +2,000 ( +3 %) ROADWAY IMPACTS Collins Dr /Campus Park Dr intersection 19,000 34,000 +8,000 ( +24 %) +6,000 ( +18 %) -1,000 ( -3 %) -2,000 ( -6 %) Spring Rd north of Los Angeles Ave 7,000 17,000 +4,000 ( +24 %) +1,000 ( +6 %) +4,000 ( +24 %) +1,000 ( +6 %) Moorpark Ave north of Los Angeles Ave 11,000 14,000 +1,000 ( +7 %) +0(0%) +1,000 ( +7 %) +0(0%) New Los Angeles Ave east of Spring Rd 33,000 50,000 +1,000 ( +2 %) -2,000 (4%) +1,000 ( +2 %) -2,000 (4%) Los Angeles Ave west of Moorpark Ave 27,000 36,000 +0(0%) +0(0%) +0(0%) +0(0%) Los Angeles Ave west of city limits 20,000 27,000 +2,000 ( +7 %) +2,000(7%) +2,000 ( +7 %) +2,000 ( +7 %) With Project Scenarios: 1 - With Campus Park Dr easterly extension 2 - With Campus Park Dr easterly and westerly extensions 3 - With Campus Park Dr easterly extension and new interchange (Lagoon or Alamos Canyon) 4 - With Campus Park Dr easterly and westerly extensions and new interchange (Lagoon or Alamos Canyon) RECEIVED NOV 0 6 1997 City oT moorpark TO PRINCETON OITERC� CONVERT E)a$TD#G TMW LANE TO ROCKY Ttm Om AND ONE MANE 1 DIKE LANE &TERN AM o smia &M LAW wA PRINCETON j DrERWAN¢ Y BOX LANE 17 DELDCAT TO SEPMATE TRAFFIC 18' XT LANE 1 a, am LAw WIDEN %9 FREEWAY OFF RMr AND BM LAW 46 MR ; BM LAW WIDEN CAMPUS PAW MVE TO PRaME MW RIaT TUN LAZE t KTEMNATE ROM TO SMIG PRDICETON a� VIA DITERCHANGE ter FUTURE W BIKE LAW 0 20 30 100 PROPOSED LANE CONFIGURATION 4rr4v-411S7,1-*V-,F0l1S7* ASSOCU MS. INC. SR118/COLLINS DR./CAMPUS PARK DR. ATTACHMENT 9 oo00b's ,j' ♦ $yam u5�.� �. rte` O C C Cor' c° vREVUttn Fpl: Aft MESSENGER INVESTMENT COMPANY VOLUME BREAIMOAN BY AREA [ASTERN DEVELOPMENT cc1 _ 22� rt _ t.o74aif.ni F4 N2 e3).e1e b) C10- 1) Cl1 - Ctu cis AT. n• - zaz.als eW -,plK - wr CU.VCA f%1: e.a)9.eaa W.YCe- CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT C1e_4�Ntl - a.OT,� C - pp,9p9 r12 2M.H1 3b.1 W C22 - 2eA1• 1i1N -1MIL- Wr: 9.eW.aae CY.xW. i1LL: 10.J0e.6)1 W.TDS. WESTERN DEVELOPMCNT qR W - .,.I..Me rl. Ial b.eee ccs: Ila - - 1.10V.;7N J''Z - a.eti.ea3 c2i - ni - a..er tll cis - C]O - T.A-7 2)1 rZ0 - 71 .3x2 U1 - 33a.3a1 RI - b.adi aS/eC M-- FILL ?`Ll -- CUT EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT /FILL VOLUMES (measured in cubic yards) CUT 26,720,448 O 0.0% SWELL/SHRINKAGE FILL 26,023,211 O O.OX SWELL/SHRINKAGE TOTAL VOLUME DIFFERENCE (balance) 697,237 EARTHWORK QUANTITIES MAP HIDDEN CREEK RANCH RECEIVED SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF MOORPARK, CA NOV 0 51997 PROPOSED LAND USE City Ot Moorpark PREPARED BY: „ 'HAAIANDGR0UP"IIixa° SEPTEMBER. 1997 SHEET 1 OF I ATTACHMENT 10 000090 7 r 1 71 ' I 1-1 SPECIFIC PLAN HIDDEN CREEK RANCH DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PERMITTED LAND USES Purpose The purpose of this section is to list in matrix form the land uses permitted within each of the Land Use Districts shown on the Land Use Plan. The City Zoning Code should be referenced for uses not listed (Section 12.20.030) and for Exemptions from Zoning Clearances (Section 17.20.040). Permitted uses in parks, open space and residential zones. Permitted uses in parks, open space and residential zones are set out in Table 11. Note: An approved residential planned development permit is required for five (5) or more lots in the RH, L, ML, M, H, VHl and VH2 Zones. The key for Table 11 is as follows: [Blank] Not permitted ♦ Permitted by zone clearance ■ Administrative permit 0 Planning commission- approved planned development permit 0 City council- approved planned development permit O Planning commission - approved conditional use permit 11 City council- approved conditional use permit Table 11 PERMITTED USES IN PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES Agriculture and agricultural operations (no retail except as indicated). Animal husbandry: Without structures' With structures: total GFA per lot: Up to 1,000 sq. ft. Over 1,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. Over 5,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. Over 20,000 to 100,000 sq. ft. Over 100,000 sq. ft. Apiculture More animals than are permitted by Section 17.28.030C of the Moorpark Zoning Code Barns and Stables Contractors2 service and storage yards and buildings Crop production' Wholesale nursery Firewood operations Greenhouse, hothouses and the like: total GFA per lot:' Up to 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 to 100,000 sq. ft. Over 100,000 sq. ft. GC OS1 OS2 RH L ML M H VH1 VH2 O O ■ ■ ■ Ak Draft June 1, 1995 5 -5 000091 SPECIFIC PLAN HIDDEN CREEK RANCH DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Offices GC OSI OS2 RH L ML M H VHJ VH2 Produce stands, retail2 A ccessory uses to crop production, including open storage Fuel storage' Insecticides for pest control Packing, storage or prelim. processing of crops: Without structure' Animals, nonagricultural (see also Dwellings, accessory uses and structures)' Boardinghouses and bed - and - breakfast inns Care facilities' (see also H &SC and W &IC) Day: Care of 12 or fewer persons (State law requirement related to day care facilities for 7 -12) Care of 13 or more persons Intermediate: Care of 7 or more persons Residential: Care of 6 or fewer persons Care of 7 or more persons Cemeteries Churches, synagogue and other buildings used for religious worship Clubhouses (no alcoh li b ■ ■ ■ SEE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY o c everages) • (with alcoholic beverages) ■ Communications facilities O O O O O O O O Drilling, temporary geologic (testing only) O O O O O O O O Dwelling, single - family'' (including Z, zero, cluster lots and two - family units) Affordable or elderly, built pursuant to Chapter 17.64 • • 13 a • • • Dwellings, multifamily G O Affordable or elderly, built pursuant to Chapter 17.64 Dwellings, accessory structures For human habitation: Mobilehome/RV as temporary dwelling during construction Second dwelling' Room additions Not for human habitation (with or without bathroom): Second story patio /deck Accessory structure over 120 sq. ft. Over 1,000 sq. ft. per structure; or over 2,000 sq. ft. per lot Antenna, ground- mounted (noncommercial), above 40 ft.' Draft June 1, 1995 O O O O O O O O O O ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o c everages) • (with alcoholic beverages) ■ Communications facilities O O O O O O O O Drilling, temporary geologic (testing only) O O O O O O O O Dwelling, single - family'' (including Z, zero, cluster lots and two - family units) Affordable or elderly, built pursuant to Chapter 17.64 • • 13 a • • • Dwellings, multifamily G O Affordable or elderly, built pursuant to Chapter 17.64 Dwellings, accessory structures For human habitation: Mobilehome/RV as temporary dwelling during construction Second dwelling' Room additions Not for human habitation (with or without bathroom): Second story patio /deck Accessory structure over 120 sq. ft. Over 1,000 sq. ft. per structure; or over 2,000 sq. ft. per lot Antenna, ground- mounted (noncommercial), above 40 ft.' Draft June 1, 1995 O O O O • • O O O O 0 0; • ■ ■ • • O O 5 -6 0 00U�4 O O O O O O O O O • • O O O O 0 0; • ■ ■ • • O O 5 -6 0 00U�4 SPECIFIC PLAN HIDDEN CREEK RANCH DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Dwellings, gs accessory uses C OS1 OS2 RH L ML M H VH1 VH2 Aviaries Farm animals' (other than horses/ponies) ♦ ♦ 0 Horses/ponies' ♦ ♦ O Pet animals' More animals than are permitted by Section 17.28.030C ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Home occupation O O O O O O O Storage, open',2 ♦ ♦ ♦ Education and training Schools, elementary and secondary (boarding and i nonboarding) Festivals and similar events, temporary outdoor O O O O O O O (less than three in one year) O O Government buildings Fire stations O O O O O O O Law enforcement facilities O O O O O O O Grading' Within an overlay zone ♦ ♦ O ♦ ♦ O ♦ O ♦ O O O O Libraries SEE CHAPTER 17.36 OF MOORPARK ZONING CODE Mineral resource development O O O 0 O O O O O O Mining and accessory uses' O O O Less than 9 months in duration Oil and gas exploration and production' O O O O Model homes/lot sales'; 2 years O O O O 0 More than 2 years 0 0 0 0 0 • Motion picture and TV production, and related activities 0 0 0 0 ■ ■ ■ and structures O Temporary (maximum 42 days in any 180-day ' O O O O O O O O Parking Lots Pastures and training areas 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Pipelines and transmission lines, aboveground' O O 0 O 0 O Public utility facilities, excluding offices and service yards' Recreational Vehicle Storage' O O O O O O O O O O Recreational sport and athletic facilities O O O O O O O Community centers/clubhouses (serving surrounding neighborhood) Fields, athletic (to serve surrounding neighborhood) 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Golf courses, except miniature golf' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parks (to serve the neighborhood) With buildings ♦ 0 0 0 41 41 0 0 • Swimming/tennis facilities, basketball/volleyball courts, 0 0 0 0 • • • • • tot lots, picnic tables/barbecue Recreation projects, city- initiated 0 40 0 9 0 0 • Riding stables ♦ O ♦ ♦ O ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ With accessory lodging facilities 0 With outdoor arenas/accessory structures n Draft June 1, 1995 5 -7 0000!) I SPECIFIC PLAN HIDDEN CREEK RANCH Shade structures Storage of building materials, temporary' Uses and structures, accessory (other than to agric. animals or dwellings) To a use requiring a PD permit or CUP Dwelling, caretaker Water production, storage and distribution facilities: Private purveyors" DEVELOPMENT REGULATTON.9 GC OS1 OS2 RH L ML M H VHi VH2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ SEE SECTION 17.44.080A MOORPARK ZONING CODE O O O O O O O O O O Notes for Table 11: 1. See also Section 17.20.040 of the Moorpark Zoning Code. 2. There are specific regulations for this use; see Chapter 17.28 of the Moorpark Zoning Code. 3. This use is only permitted in association with a residential planned development permit, and the intended purpose is to provide storage area for resident owned recreational vehicles only. 4. See Chapter 17.32 for parking standard of the Moorpark Zoning Code. 5. Most public water facilities are exempt from these regulations. Draft June 1, 1995 5 -8 000094 ATTACHMENT 11 00003 OOT -24-95 TUE 13 :23 TO: FROM: P. 01 O A e�dkw, 4v ocr.4 I' gevj County of Ventura planning Division =x0pAa ox Kim Hocking Program Administrator Bruce smith anger General plans Section DATA= October 24, 1995 89WECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report - Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 8) /City of Moorpark Reference No. 95 -a1 The Ventura County Planning Division has reviewed the above document and offers the following comments: Biolo ical Resources: The EIR states that the project will impact 1,263 acres of Wildlife habitat (table 3.3 -2) but concludes that impacts on wildlife are less than significant because the project "Will not significantly affect any local or regional wildlife Populations." This statement found on page 3.3 -31 appears to be unsupported by any evidence in the document. On the contrary the loss of habitat at this scale would support a conclusion that impacts on wildlife may be significant. A contrary determination is noted on page 3.3 -41 concerning wildlife habitat loss. Secondly, the EIR concludes that impacts on wildlife movement will be less - than - significant because east -west movement will not be precluded and north -south movement is not important because it "does not provide a crucial link to other significant natural areas." Again the statement is not substantiated in the EIR. North -south access on the eastern portion of the site would appear to provide an important wildlife linkage to the Tierra Rejada Valley, the Simi Hills and, ultimately, the Santa Monica Mountains habitat area. Thus the project will limit the physical and genetic GXChange between these areas and will contribute to isolated animal Populations, eventually leading to inbreeding and lack of genetic viability in each of these habitat areas. The eastern portion of the site cannot be assumed to provide wildlife habitat linkage since the developer intends to develop a golf course in this area. An appropriate mitigation would be to include Planning Unit 43 as Public open space. In addition to wildlife habitat benefits the sits would provide R valuable open space buffer between the City of Moorpark and Simi Valley. Thirdly, the biological resources chapter mitigates impacts by requiring the applicant to prepare a Resource Management Plan (ROW). This could be an appropriate mitigation, however, we recommend that the REMP be prepared now and incorporated into the 3 000036 I OCT -24 -95 TUE 13:24 t 6! 1 1 P. 02 Kim Hocking Memorandum Hidden Creek Ranch EIR October 24, 1995 Page 2 Specific Plan document itself. This would allow the opportunity to review and critique the effectiveness off c the proposed mitigation plan. We note that the courts have found that mitigation measures should be specific, feasible actions that will actually change adverse environmental conditions. The requirement that a REMP should be prepared appears to fall, into the category of a future study which may not be adequate 119891 202 Cal. App. 3d 296). If the RDW cannot be incorporated into the Specific Plan, the EIR should describe in detail the minimum requirements of the REMP that will be necessary to mitigate each biological impact to a less -than- significant level. states that development within planning unit 3 wgould occur ithin 400 feet of an existing oil well. On page 3.4 -23 the EIR states that oil well related noise will not have an impact because the nearest residences will be 2,200 feet from the existing oil wells. This inconsistency should be corrected. In any case, the. conclusion that there will be no significant noise impact needs to be re- evaluated. Iri the County Is experience, residents have complained of noise due to re- drilling and repair work on existing Oil wells at distances greater than 1,200 feet. The EIR needs to consider oil related noise impacts besides the operation of a generator. In addition to distance, the nature of the intervening terrain can serve to magnify or diminish noise reception. Secondly, the EIR indicates that additional drilling in the area is not currently proposed by UNOCAL. The SIR assumes that any future drilling activities will be regulated by the City and will be subject to future environmental review. The ro ert is o by an existing oil Conditional Use Permit (CUP a3) which was issued by the County decades ago. The permit allows unlimited oil drilling and production activities within the permit boundaries. It is our understanding that this permit does not automat ically expire upon annexation to the City of Moorpark. The EIR should evaluate oil vs. residential land use compatibility based on the Potential for essentially unrestricted oil drilling and production operations. It is suggested that the City initiate modification of the portion of C.JP -23 which is within the proposed Specific Plan area in order to impose reasonable conditions to protect the future residents of this area from oil vs. residential land use conflicts. With respect to logs of open space, page 3.4 -28 credits the applicant for preserving the eastern portion of the site as private open space. However, elsewhere the EIR makes it clear the that 000, 97 0 5 (o OCT -24 -95 TUE 13:24 P.03 Kim Hocking Memorandum Hidden Creek Ranch SIR October 24, 1995 Page 3 this area is planned for future development of a golf course. The EIR should be revised to address the potential impacts of a golf course in this area. Alternatively, the project description should be revised and the eastern portion of the site should remain unincorporated or should be designated as public open apace. on page 3.4 -30 the EIR states that the project is generally consistent with the City of Moorpark's Land Use Element Goals. The 3XR indicates that the project will remove agricultural operations on prima agricultural soils. This impact is identified as significant. Thus the project would appear to be inconsistent with Moorpark Land Use Goal 11 which encourages the preservation of viable agricultural operations. On page 3.4 -32 the- SIR states that the project will assist the city of Moorpark in meeting its housing objectives for low and very low income residential unite. Table 3.4 -2 indicates that 35 perCent of the City housing should be affordable to vary low and low income families. The project, as proposed, will only provide 11 percent- Of housing units that will be affordable to very low and low income families. Thus, while the project will increase the total number of affordable units, the project provides less than it +s fair share of affordable housing units within the City. We suggest that the City require the applicant to increase the amount of affordable housing provided. The SIR indicates an Affordable Housing Agreement or some other mechanism should be used to ensure that affordable housing unite will be provided. We recommend that this agreement be incorporated into the Specific Plan. This would allow the public an opportunity to review and critique the effectiveness of the proposed mitigatio plan. We note again that the courts have discouraged mitigation measures which require future studies to be prepared. Again, if this agreement cannot be included in the Specific Plan, the SIR should spell out the minimum requirements that will be necessary to assure that the affordable housing will provided and maintained for the long run. The discussion of consistency with the Ventura County General Plan fails to consider the appl'.eable policies of the Countyls General Plan. The County planning Division sent the City a letter on August 23, 1995 (attached) outlining the specific policies which might be applicable to the project. The EIR should be revised to reflect a review of these policies. WOWS 0 to OCT -24 -95 TUE 13:25 P. 04 Kim Hocking Memorandum Hidden Creek Ranch EIR October 24, 1995 Page 4 It is of particular importance that the EIR include a discussion of the County's Transportation/ Circulation policies. It should be noted iA the EIR that Policy 4.2.9 -6 requires the County to oppose any development within cities if the development would adversely affect the level of service on a road within the Regional Road Network, unless the city sets up a feasible mechanism for funding the needed improvements. Elsewhere the EIR indicates that one or more roads on the County's Regional Road Network will be adversely impacted by the project. Under State law, the County cannot allow construction of a roadway if such action would be counter to the goals, policies and programs of the County General Plan (reference 11 Government Code Section 65566 and Friends of_ "B" Street vscity_of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3rd 988). Thus without a reciprocal traffic impact mitigation agreement, or similar mechanism, the County would not be able to amend its General plan 2010 Regional Road Network Map and Public Facilities Map to benefit this project. Therefore extension of a new arterial across Happy Camp park, as proposed by the applicant, may not be a feasible option without such an agreement. s The waiter tanks for this development will be Prominently located on hill tops. The EIR Suggests that these facilities be painted to blend in with the environment. A better alternative would be to locate these facilities where they will be 11 less visible or to place them underground. Transgg tation and Circulatignt The project includes the extension of ca ommunity arterial (Hidden Creek Drive) from Broadway across undeveloped Happy Camp Regional Park. Construction of this planned 13 arterial may make it more difficult to develop the regional park. These impacts should be addressed in the EIR. This analysis should be coordinated with the County General Services Agency, Recreation Services. The EIR indicates that SR 118 east of Erringer Road will be adversely impacted by the project. The City should develop a traffic fee mitigation agreement with Caltrans and /or the County Which would collect fees from development within the City to fund the necessary improvements to sR 118. The EIR fails to adequately address impacts to SR 118 west of the City. Based upon information provided in the M. the project will result in traffic on this road segment increasing from 26,000 to 28,000 ADT. This will cause the road segment to deteriorate from LOS E to Los F, based upon the LOS standards used by Ventura UMIW;-�) 14 OCT -24 -95 TUE 13;26 P. 05 Rim Hocking Memorandum Hidden Creek Ranch SIR October 24, 1995 Page 5 County. The EIR needs to acknowledge this impact and identify acceptable mitigation. As noted above, County General Plan Transportatiolm/Circulation Policies require the County to oppose developments which will adversely affect the level of service on a road within the Regional i5 Road Network, Unless the city sets up a feasible mechanism for funding the needed improvements. The construction of Hidden Creek Drive across Happy Camp Regional Park will require the County to approve a General Plan amendment to include this thoroughfare on the County General Plan Public Facilities Map and 2010 Regional Road Network Map. We note that 1(, the General Plan Amendment screening application on file with the County includes an additional access road across Happy Camp Regional Park connecting to Spring Street. This circulation alternative should be evaluated in the EXR. The EIR assumes that the City of Moorpark will adopt and fund a- Capital =mprovement Program for the Year 2010 Circulation System (including construction of the SR 118 extension). Since the 17 adoption of this funding program is not certain and may prove to be infeasible, the SIR should evaluate the project and cumulative impacts assuming the city,s Circulation system will not be adequately funded. The Specific Plan indicates that traffic roundabouts, (traffic circles) may be used in lieu of some circulation improvements. The SIR should examine this 1$ concept. The EIR fails to recommend any measures that would reduce the number of vehicles generated. At a minimum, public transportation should be provided within the project to allow residents to access the commercial centers without reliance 19 upon automobiles. Additionally, public transportation should be provided between the project and nearby employment centers (including Simi Valley's west End specific Plan project, Which the project purportedly will provide housing for). K21&2: As discussed above, the SIR should evaluate the potential impact of drilling, re- drilling and oil related repair operations due to the location of proposed residential neighborhoods within the existing oak 20 Park oil Field. e nd ilities.90 The EIR recommends that a fire hazard reduction program be prepared to mitigate potential fire 21 000100 -24 -95 TUE 13:26 P. 06 Rim Hocking Memorandum Hidden Creek Ranch EIR October 24, 1995 Page 6 hazards. We recommend that this program be incorporated into the Specific Plan. This would allow the public an opportunity to review and critique the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation plan. The 8IR indicates that with payment of the State mandated school fees of $1.50 per square feet residential and $.26 per foot for commercial development, the project impacts on school services will be mitigated to less than significant. The EIR fails to evaluate whether payment of these fees will in fact be sufficient to pay for the school facilities required by the project. If the mandated school fees are not sufficient to construct the needed school facilities, consideration should be given to requiring the applicant to enter into a separate Schools Agreement to provide the necessary improvements. soaioegoncmias: The EIR indicates that the proposed project has a Jobs/housing ratio of 2.26 which is co„sidered to be housing rich. The EIR indicates that the pro j act will exacerbate the sub - regional jobs /housing ratio which is also housing rich. However, the EIR concludes that the project will have a less than significant impact on jobs/houeing because the property is near the West End specific Plan, an employment center planned in the City of Simi. Valley. The more placement of a housing project in proximity to an employment center does not automatically resolve the jobs /housing balance issue. First, there is the matter of timing. The two projects should be tied together to ensure that housing on the Hidden Creek Ranch is available as the employment center builds out. If one project develops substantially earlier than the other, there will be no effective jobs /housing match. Secondly, the Hidden Creek Ranch project housing should be designed to match the income of the workers expected to be employed at the Simi Valley project. If the West End Specific Plan is aimed at lower income jobs, the Hidden Creek Ranch project would need to Provide more affordable housing units or there will be no effective jobs /housing match. Thirdly, the EIR fails to evaluate other housing projects in the area which could provide housing for the Want End Specific Plan project. If the City of Simi Valley and /or Moorpark are already Planning housing projects sufficient to meet the needs of the West End Specific Plan, then the Hidden Creak project may result in further saturation of an already housing -rich market. Zl 22 23 ooc:.c 1 i pCT -24 -95 TUE 13:27 P.07 Kim Hocking Memorandum Hidden Creek Ranch EIR October 24, 1995 Page 7 = On page 4 -4 the EYR implies that the development of the No Project alternative would be inconsistent with the Guidelines for Orderly Development. This is not true. 2-4 at The EIR should clarify that development of very large parcels Open Space densities in the unincorporated area is consistent the Guidelines. With at On page 4 -10 the EIR indicates that the Moorpark General Plan limits the Specifics plan to 2,400 dwelling units unless the propertY owner agrees to provide public services and /or financial contributions that the City determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community. If this finding is made the project housing can be increased up to 3,221 dwelling units. The proposed project is for 3,221 dwelling unite which is the maximum number of units allowed by the City assuming the project is found to provide substantial public benefits. Based on our experience with the Ahmanson stanch specific Plan, we believe that the Hidden Creek Ranch project benefits, as outlined in the EIR and specific plan are minimal. The public open spaea being offered is undevelopable land with extremely steep slopes. Giving the land away will be less expensive to the developer than maintaining the land, paying taxes and dealing with its associated liabilities. The affordable housing provided under the proposed project is minimal. standards and requirements for the affordable housing component have not yet been written. Therefore there is no assurance that even the minimal amowlt of affordable housing will be available to low and very low income families in the long run. Finally, we note that the Specific Plan implies that the project will not be an economic burden to the City (page i -1). While this is not an Conductmits aown $ independent finnannccialeasses thpast that the city en of the project. If the City chooses to entertain the proposed project, we recommend that additional public amenities be negotiated. At a minimum, we suggest that the developer be required to provide additional open spaCe, additional affordable housing, improved public transportation and assurances that necessary public facilities tiutilities, i personnel schools, fire stao , etc.) will fully funded the development. t. The Clustered Development Alternative, discussed in Section 4.6, appears to be the environmentally superior alternative which still appears to meet most Of the project objectives. It appears the Only objective not met is the provision of large lot estate 000.02 .25 OCT -24 -95 TUE 13:28 P. 08 Rim Hocking Memorandum Hidden creek Ranch EIR October 24, 1995 page 8 housing. The EIR indicates that this alternative would not provide for affordable housing. We do not agree with this statement. The increased density of the project would provide Ms opportunities Z5 for affordable housing. In any cage, an the City c insist that the project developer provide adequate affordable housing. The circulation alternatives discussion in Section 4.8 of the SIR is confusing. The addition of additional map (a) would be helpful to the reader. We note that the General Plan screening application on file with the County proposes additional roads crossing Happy Camp Regional Park connecting with the extension of Spring Street. These road alteratives should be evaluated in the EIR. growth- InduCi Ra Imnal cte = While the eastern portion of the property is not currently proposed for development, the EIR indicates that the area is planned for future development of a second golf course (Page 2 -14 and 3.4 -26). The annexation of Planning Unit 45 and the. Provision of access road stub -outs will induce growth within this area. The EIR fails to address the potential for development of this area. Secondly, the construction of a new Freeway interchange (the Lagoon interchange connection) at- SR 118 and extension of an arterial from the protect site to the new interchange may encourage the urbanitation of open space designated lands south of the site. The growth - inducing impact of these circulation improvements ments should be evaluated in the EIR. and $ersons C nng l tee: Of minor note, the EIR lists several members of the County Public Storks Agency (Crowley, Preston, Sheydayu) under the Resource Management Agency. The Transportation Department, listed separately, is part of the County Public works Agency. The planning Division, also listed separately, is part of the Resource Management Agency. It You have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Dennis Hawkins at extension 2492. 000103 nr r '9 A I x ` . �---- - -- - Z(o 2'l WIN L9 30 OT -24 -95 TUE 13;28 a +Q-ch meA& Kr.SUUHCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY -4° 10 1 county Planning Division of +ntu Keith A. Turner �� Director August 23. 1995 Jaime Aguilera Director of Community Development 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, Ca. 93021 SUBJECT: Circulation Aitematives for Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan (Speclflo Plan No- 8) - Determination of County General Plan Conformity. Dear Jaime: This letter is in response to your letter of August 10, 1995, wherein you requested a determination of whether or not the County General Plan would have to be amended in order for the County to allow the oon9truction of one or more roads through the County owned Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park in order to provide access to the proposed Hidden Creek Ranch Speclflo Plan development. Under State taw, the County cannot take an action to either directly participate in the construction of a roadway or allow construction of a roadway on County -owned land, or to convey County -owned land to another entity for the purpose of constructing a roadway, A such action would be counter to the goals, policies and programs of the County General Plan. Based on the information submitted to us to date, we cannot yet determine whether the proposed road(s) would be consistent with the goats, policies acrd programs of the County General Plan - K the Proposed roads) is ultimately determined to be Inconsistent with the General Plan, either the road($) or Specific Plan would have to be modifled/conditioned to be consistent, or the County General Plan would have to be amended in order for the Board of Supervisors to approve the road(s). Assuming that the sub]W property would remain unincorporated, at a minimum, Figure 4 (Public Facilities Map) of the Goals, Policies and Programs and Figure 4.2.3 (2010 Regional Road Network Map) of the Public Facilities and Services Appendix of the County General Plan should be amended to depict the proposed roadway(s) as a "County thoroughfare' (component of the Regional Road Networkl. S800 South Victoria Avenue, L #1740. Ventura, CA 93008 (806) 654 -2481 PhhaI aw RWW&d AWw 0 9 E FAX (8051854-2509 00o1.Q4 OCT -24 -95 TUE 13 :29 P.10 Jaime Aguilera August 23, logs Page 2 Section 65401 of the Government Code states that all proposed public works (facilities) of any County, city, special district or school district. shall be reviewed for consistency wi the appropriate local c' or coup oy city county general plan. Government Code Section 65402, _ubdivlslon (a), states that no real property shall be acquired for public purposes and no real property shall be disposed of, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition has been reviewed for conformity with the appropriate local city or county general plan. In ty 3rd 988, 988. dfL.s � ,' at • r- of HMMM (1980) 106 Cat. App. the court held that all city or county decisions Involving future growth (and Particularly decisions to proceed with public road Improvements) must be consistent with the city's or county's own general plan (and particularly the circulation element). In addition. s00f1OWN of the GMmment Code states: • by which open -space rand or �y action by a County or city restricted or regulated, s ce any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use whether or not pursuant to this part, must be consistent with the local open -space piano (I.e., open space element). The Happy Camp Regional Park property is designated "open Space' on the Land Use Map of the County General Plan and is zoned'0-S -160 ac". Public roads are exempt from the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, are considered a compatible use with the Open Space designation PI&O (Policy 3.1.2.3; Consistency of land Use). with 8ig gannina of the Ganaraai Aocording to Butch Britt, Deputy Director of the County Public Works Agency, the road (s proposed to be located In the unincorporated area would probably function as a County) thoroughfare. County thoroughfares (primary arterials, secondary arterials and major collectors) are defined as being part of the Regional Road Network which Is depicted on the Public Facilities Map (Figure 4) of the Goals, Policies and Programs, and the 201 Regional Road Network Map (Figure 4,2.3) of the Public Facilities and Services ndix of the County General Plan. The proposed road(s) Is (are) not currently shown oA n either of these two maps, therefore, the maps should be amended U the road(s) is (are) } to be oo( I012 OOT -24 -95 TUE 13 :29 Jaime Aguilera August 23, 1996 Page 3 P. 11 Since the Specific Plan and DEIR have not yet been released for public review, we do not have sufficient Information with which to determine whether or not the road(s) and its (their) intended purpose would be in conformity with the goals, policies and programs of the County General Plan. Nonetheless, based on our limited knowledge regarding the Proposed road(s), we have identified the following ►date to the proposed road(s) and will require a consistency Policies and (3ee enc enclosed Goals, P011cies and program document): Air Quality: 90811,2.1 -2; policies 1.2.2.1 & 3, Water Resources; goals 1.3.1.3 & 5; policies 1.3.2 -4 & 9. Biological Resources: goal 1,5.1; POIlcies 1.5.2.2, 3 & 4. Paleontological and Cultural Resources; goal 1.$,1.1; policy 1,8,2 -2. . Flood Hazards: goal 212.1 -1; policies 2.12.2 -3 & 4. . Noise: goal 2.16,1; policies 2.16.2.1 & 2, Public Facilities and Services: goals 4.1.1 -1, 2 & 3: policy 4,1.2 -3; program 4.1.3 -1. Transportation/Circulation: goals 4.2.1 -1 & 2; policies 4,2.2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 9; program 4.2.3 -2. Public Utilities: goat 4,5,1; policy 4,5.2 -3. Flood Control and Drainage Facilities: goal 4.6.1; policies 4.8.2.1 & 3. Parks and Recreation: goals 4.10.1 -5 & 7; policies 4.10.2 -1, 2 & 4. In addition to the above, since the principle reason for the road is to serve the Hidden Creek Ranch development project, please be aware that the Board of Supervisors may wish to consider the following goals, policies and programs, as they relate to the Hidden Creek Ranch development. In deciding whether or not to allow the construction of the subject road(s) through Happy Camp Regional Park: Land Use: goals 3.1.1 -1, 2, 3 & 4; program 3.1.3. Land Use Designations. goals 3.2.1 -1 (1), (2) & (3); policy 3,2.2 -1 (1). 00010S i li 'IT -24 -95 TUE 13:30 P.12 Jaime Aguilera August 23, 1995 Page 4 i' Population and Housing: goals 3.3.1 -1 & 2; policy 3.3.2 -1. Transportation and Circulation: goals 4.2.1.2 & 3; policies 4.2.2.6, 7 and 13; program 4.2.3 -3. if the applicants for Hidden Creek Ranch development project wish to consider filing a I' General Plan Amendment (GPA) screening application at this time, please have them ccntact Joseph Eisenhut at 884.2464 to arrange a pre - submittal conference. The deadline for submitting an application for the next regularly scheduled GPA screening hearing is October 16, 1995. As you are aware, the County eneral Services tY cos Agency is working towards the development of a golf course on the southerly portion of Happy Camp Regional Park. Please coordinate any decisions affectin Happy PPY Cep with Robert Amore, lease Development Manager, at 654.3965. Furthermore, all technical design issues regarding the proposed road(s) and any discusslons regarding a reciprocal traffic agreement between the City and County should be coordinated with Butch Britt, Deputy PWA Director, at 654.2077, if.you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at 854 -2481 or Bruce Smith, Manager of the General plan Section, at 654 -2497. F0 A Keith Tumor, Director Planning Division enclosure: oa Lin Koester, CAO Thomas Berg, RMA Dutch Britt, PWA Robert Amore, aSA aPLNOU4.1l964e." 000107 1f�.rwr� N-r 7A .04 q T-'7C ATTACHMENT 12 oohs. ®8 Valley Fever San Joaquin Valley Fever is named after where it was first discovered. It is also known as Valley Fever and as desert rheumatism. The medical term for Valley Fever is coccidiodomycosis, often shortened to "cocci" and pronounced KOK -see, meaning a fungal infection caused by the fungus Coccidioides. Valley Fever is prevalent in the San Joaquin and Central Valley areas of California and the desert regions of Arizona, southern Nevada, southern New Mexico, western Texas, and Mexico. It has also been found in semiarid and and regions of Central and South America. It is estimated that 4 million people in the United States live in areas where Valley Fever is prevalent with 80 percent of those people living in Arizona. The fungal spores are often found in the soil surrounding rodent burrows, Indian ruins, and burial grounds. As a result, there are certain occupations that are at a much greater risk of contracting the disease; these include; archaeology, agricultural workers or others working close to the soil. Dogs are especially susceptible to the disease. Most cases of Valley Fever are very mild and are resolved on their own without intervention, often without the person knowing he has contracted the disease. Approximately 60% of infected people have no Symptoms or mild flu -like symptoms and never need medical attention. Valley Fever can be a serious illness, especially in cases were people have lowered immunosuppression, such as with AIDS, lymphoma, and organ transplants. The ranges of cases is as follows: inapparent - 60 percent, mild to moderate - 30 percent, complications 5 to 10% with less than 1% of those contracting the disease dying from complications. The University of Arizona and the Tucson Veterans Affairs Medical Centerjointly sponsor a program called the Valley Fever Center for excellence with a hotline that can be reached at 800 -470 -8262 for more information. (Source of information is the University of Arizona at www.arl.arizona.edu /vfce, October 30, 1997) Valley Fever is contracted from spores. The spores are heavier than PM„ particulates regulated by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. The fallout from disturbed soil is very close to the ground. This is emphasized by those who get this disease — archaeologists and dogs, both literally dig in the dirt. As the spores are heavy it would take very high winds to transport these spores for any great distance. There is an air quality mibgabon measure in the Draft EIR (page 3.7 -20, number 6.d.) which requires that construction be halted when winds exceed 20 miles per hour. In addition, regular watering is required during construction to keep dust to a minimum (Draft EIR page 3.7 -20, number 6.a.). This will control fungal spores from being airborne. 00101 WI Thursday, Nov. 6, 1997 EC The Star IP Ai $1.5 million to fund valley fever research LOS ANGELES (AP) — Ground zero for a fungal infection called valley fever — and the search for an effective vaccine — is central California's Kern County, where nearly 8,200 cases were reported during the early 1990x_ However,. the illness caused by spores in dust turns up throughout the American Southwest, with hot spots m Tucson and Phoenix, Ariz., and cases in New Mexico and Texas. It also affects Mexico, Central and South America, where it first was reported in 1892. "As more and more people have moved into the Sun Belt and the Central Valley, the number of cases has in- creased," said Dc Royce Johnson, chief of infectious disease at Kern Medical: Center, who has devoted 20 years to the disease. Cases especially increase if a wet winter is followed by a windy; dry sea. son. With El Nino winter predictions, there are some concerns about next fall. The epidemic that hit Kern County from 1991 to 1994 prompted local doc. tors and businessmen to begin seeking a way to protect local residents, 350 of whom typically► are diagnosed in non outbreak years. On Wednesday, at a news conference at California State University, Bakers- field, officials announced a $1.5 million grant from the Oakland -based Calif+b = HealthCare Foundation to fund t,#6 years of vaccine development by leading researchers in four states. "People can die from this disease," said Duane Blume, a retired biology r6- fessor and director of the university't Center for Biomedical Research, w ere he'll coordinate the vaccine project. five researchers will spend two years in their respective laboratories before'cdr laborating. In addition to the grant, the& is $700,000 from the state, more th9n $100,000 from local Rotary clubs;[arA $50,000 from the county. Blume Tslt mates the project could run $8 millian. Valley fever comes from the coccid ioides immitis fungus. It's spread by spores in soil that can be kicked up by dust storms, construction or earth quakes. Winds carry the spores as far M 75 miles. Once inhaled, the spores may pt- duce a silent infection, or bring on fever f alike symptoms and major respiratory problems. About 60 percent of people rt,- main asymptomatic. But in 3 pert ' 'te 4 percent of those with symptoms;tM disease spreads and can cause men tis, arthritis, and skin and bone it#ec lions. About 1 percent of those casef aft fatal. 0001LIe LAND USE DATA J PUNNED ` PLAN UNITS CROSS DWELLING ITS LAND USE ACRES UNITS ( _ / ( IS < �I) I _ ,� ✓� ^' _� �� v RURAL HIGH RESIDENTL (0 - 0.5 DU /AC DENS—) V / _ CLOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0.3 1.0 DU /AC DENSM �1 /J� osm.es 1/ um rr MEDIUM LOW DENSRV (1.0 - 2.0 DU /AC DENSITY) IE IF MEDIUM Dcvsln RESIDENTIAL (z.o - 4.0 Du /AC DENSITY) I L_ I "Ii J�1 NON- RESIDENTIAL TOTALS 3126.1 AC. / RECEIVED PROJECT TOTALS 4322 AC. 3221 D.U. 1 : SEP 221997 - HIDDEN CREEK RANCH City of Moorpark SPECIFIC PLAN -- -. CITY OF MOORPARK, CA PROPOSED LAND USE PRE PARED B. i l PREPMED FO R © .� HAA D GROUP INC. M , .N INVESTMENT C OMPANY ����� i � s �.� .r�.t• Wit_ IMAM M. I L_ I "Ii J�1 NON- RESIDENTIAL TOTALS 3126.1 AC. / RECEIVED PROJECT TOTALS 4322 AC. 3221 D.U. 1 : SEP 221997 - HIDDEN CREEK RANCH City of Moorpark SPECIFIC PLAN -- -. CITY OF MOORPARK, CA PROPOSED LAND USE PRE PARED B. i l PREPMED FO R N .� HAA D GROUP INC. M , .N INVESTMENT C OMPANY ',� SEPTEMBER, 1997 SHEET I OF 1 7,199 MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT AS OF OCTOBER 8, 1997 (CBEDS Report) SCHOOL GRADE ENROLLMENT Peach Hill K 178 1 164 2 191 3 192 725 Campus Canyon K 170 1 186 2 193 3 166 715 Mountain Meadows K 228 1 229 2 272 729 Arroyo West 3 253 4 271 5 236 760 Flory 4 324 5 300 624 Chaparral Middle 6 288 7 263 8 213 764 Mesa Verde Middle 6 315 7 346 8 331 992 Moorpark High 9 523 10 509 11 414 12 346 1,792 Community High 9 10 10 39 11 29 12 20 98 7,199 School Facility Capacity Calculations School: Campus Mountain Peach Arroyo Flory Chaparral Mesa Moorpark Community Canyon Meadows Hill West Middle Verde High High Classrooms Grad K 6 4 5 1 -3 27 28 33 15 4-6 19 20 8 6 7-8 23 23 9-12 73 CH 8 SDC 2 2 _ Total 33 32 _ 38 34 20 33 29 75 8 Capacity Grade K 222 148 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -3 500 518 611 278 0 0 0 0 0 4-6 0 0 0 532 560 224 168 0 0 7-8 0 0 0 0 0 644 644 0 0 9 -12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1752 0 CH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 SDC 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 0 Total 722 666 796 810 560 892 812 1776 120 MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROJECTED DISTRICT ENROLLMENT YEAR 1997 DISTRICT TREND 7113 DISTRICT W /APPROVED 7113 DISTRICT W /Messenger 7113 DISTRICT W /PROPOSED 7113 CAPACITY 7168 12 iC7 H 0 Z ° Lu m 8 o 0 H 6 4 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 7113 7113 7113 7113 7113 7113 7113 7227 7342 7470 7553 7553 7553 7553 7227 7661 8109 8433 8671 8911 9139 7227 8123 9035 9676 10197 10525 10752 7672 7672 7672 7672 7672 7672 7672 PROJECTED DISTRICT ENROLLMENT Walnut Canyon Elem 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 YEAR ® DISTRICT TREND ■ DISTRICT W /APPROVED ■ DISTRICT W /Messenger o DISTRICT W /PROPOSED - CAPACITY MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROJECTED DISTRICT ENROLLMENT K -5 ELEMENTARY 2001 YEAR 1997 DISTRICT TREND 3607 DISTRICT W /APPROVED 3607 DISTRICT W /Messenger 3607 DISTRICT W /PROPOSED 3607 CAPACITY 3578 6 5 co N Z c 4 0 ui ~ 3 2 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 3607 3607 3607 3607 3607 3607 3607 3665 3723 3788 3831 3831 3831 3831 3665 3886 4113 4277 4398 4519 4635 3665 4120 4583 4908 5171 5338 5453 4082 4082 4082 4082 4082 4082 4082 PROJECTED DISTRICT ENROLLMENT K -5 ELEMENTARY Walnut Canyon Elem nnpm 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 YEAR ® DISTRICT TREND M DISTRICT W /APPROVED ■ DISTRICT W /Messenger El DISTRICT W /PROPOSED — CAPACITY PROJECTED DISTRICT ENROLLMENT 6 -8 MIDDLE SCHOOLS YEAR 1997 DISTRICT TREND 1664 DISTRICT W /APPROVED 1664 DISTRICT W /Messenger 1664 DISTRICT W /PROPOSED 1664 MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOC CAPACITY 1704 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1664 1664 1664 1664 1664 1664 1664 1690 1718 1748 1766 1766 1766 1766 1690 1792 1897 1973 2028 2084 2137 1690 1900 2113 2263 2385 2462 2515 1704 1704 1704 1704 1704 1704 1704 PROJECTED DISTRICT ENROLLMENT 6 -8 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 3000 2500 ■ DISTRICTTREND ■ DISTRICT W /APPROVED z 0 2000 ■ DISTRICT W /Messenger o DISTRICT W /PROPOSED — CAPACITY .l; F �'• ii 1500 .; ?,. f. F 1 1000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 YEAR /NOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROJECTED DISTRICT ENROLLMENT Q-12 HIGH SCHOOL 2001 YEAR 1987 DISTRICT TREND 1842 O|STR|CTVV/APPR[)VED 1842 D|STR|CTN0Meonenger 1842 D|STR|CT$VPROPOSED 1842 CAPACITY 1886 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1842 1842 1843 1842 1842 1842 1842 1872 1901 1934 1956 1058 1056 1958 1872 1083 2099 3183 2245 2308 2367 1872 2103 2330 2505 2641 2725 2784 1888 1888 1886 1886 1888 1886 1886 PROJECTED DISTRICT ENROLLMENT 9-12 HIGH SCHOOL 0 DISTRICT TREND El DISTRICT W/PROPOSED CAPACITY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 YEAR S311S IOOHOS JO NOIIVOOI IOIUIS1a IOOOHOS a31JINn NUV&I00W EXISTING AND PROOPSED DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Messenger New Housing Development Total Number of New Housing Units: 2,899 Current Student Yield Factors K -3 0.27 4 -5 0.13 6 -8 0.19 9 -12 0.21 TOTAL 0.80 Projected Student Yield at Buildout K -3 students 783 4 -5 students 377 6 -8 students 551 9 -12 students 609 TOTAL 2,320 Average cost per student to build new schools K -3 school $15,056 4 -5 school $13,665 6 -8 school $18,818 9 -12 school $20,608 Estimated Impact on School Facilities from Messenger Development K -3 $11,788,848 4 -5 $5,151,705 6 -8 $10,368,718 9 -12 $12,550,272 TOTAL $39,859,543 F(7;T I V E P NOV 1997 11-Atv C)" Moorpark I At It VA, J WATERS RALPH D. [A GEORG l h MAIJO V. LUNDQUIS r /,A/, 4; JTRUST " X MESSENGE VFS11 c()mpA\jy K F-N N. & S1 IARON L. SCRJBNER MESSENGER INVESTIME1 x— COMPANY r ' RA v -7-F PACIFIC I'/ COMPANY CAPITAL CO O'BRIAN, Ef D! AGRICULTURAL LANDS IL VLN-RJRA PACIFI C P� CAPITAL CO. AD, UNSNAMBA -ISI]INERANC Nz- 'cu 77- Flo a • C2 an VOLUME BREAKDOWN BY AREA EASTERN DEVELOPMENT CUT F81 C1 - 2,254 F1 - 705,453 C2 - 31,120 F2 - 1,032,784 C3 - 3,661,548 F3 - 62,179 C4 - 94.194 F4 - 64.204 C5 - 34,176 C6 - 10,200 F6 - 52,960 C7 1.162 - 3,0.57,616 C8 - 69.857 F8 - 970,974 C9 - 34.237 84,989 010- 17.268 F18 - 011 - 205.526 C29 - 188.286 012 - 120.240 67.708 C13 - 20,426 F20 - C14 - 2,464,254 C31 - 356.582 C15 - 53.968 36.632 Ct6 - 292,516 C17 - 9,424 'TOTAL C33 - 20.658 SU - CVT: 7,155,489 CU.YOS. FM1: 6,579.088 CUNDS. CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT CVT FILL C18 - 1,943,011 C19 - 61594,681 F9 - 307.765 F10 - 5,077,965 C20 - 899,959 F'2 - 248.841 C21 - 338,196 F12 - 4.941,632 C22 - 25,016 3.468 5U8 -TOTAL - CUT. 9.800.886 CU.YDS. FILL- 10,309.571 CUNDS. WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CUT FILL C23 - 4.414,546 113 - 35.6 89 C24 - 536.963 F1 4 - 3.468 C25 - 1.359.190 F15 - 13,898 C26 - 410,786 F16 - 8,617,993 C27 - 765.397 F17 - 84,989 C28 - 1,283.654 F18 - 20.798 C29 - 188.286 F19 - 67.708 C30 - 74,037 F20 - 271,362 C31 - 356.582 F21 - 36.632 C32 - 341,996 C33 - 20.658 SUB -TOTAL - CUT: 9.764.095CU.YDB. FILL: 9.134.355 CU.YDS. -- FILL CUT EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT /FILL VOLUMES (measured in cubic yards) CUT 26,720,448 0 0.0% SWELL /SHRINKAGE FILL 26,023,211 ® 0.07. SWELL/SHRINKAGE TOTAL VOLUME DIFFERENCE (balance) 697,237 �-I 1 EARTHWORK QUANTITIES MAP HIDDEN CREEK RANCH ?l_'wVD SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF MOOIWAM, CA r, NOV 0 5 1997 PROPOSED LAND USE Y muorpark PREPARED eY: HAS GROUP, INC. ,.e. PREPARED FOR: I �" $al souam 04ss m6rs, as cob TROVOM o.ss. u nlm661 MESSENGER (606) 49T -4664 :s (eoa) 496-6T2T INVESTMENT COMPANY SEPTEMBER, 1297 SHEET 1 OF 1 -,MA Nf Maw GY00. -#.M so m FED 397 rpark 64E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable City Council� FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development'-/11.' L - Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Principal Planner DATE: October 17, 1997 SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE AND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES PERTAINING TO HAPPY CAMP CANYON REGIONAL PARK ACCESS CONCERNS The staff report for the City Council's October 22, 1997, public hearing for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project responds to Council questions pertaining to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park access. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the letters and Council meeting minutes that address the Council's position since 1987 regarding access to the Park from Campus Park Drive. The attached information is summarized in the staff report for the October 22 meeting. If you have any questions, please contact us. Attachments: 1. Letter to Supervisor Maggie Erickson dated 8 -28 -87 2. Minutes from 4 -6 -88 City Council Meeting 3. Letter to Supervisor James Dougherty dated 6 -7 -88 4. Minutes from 6 -2 -93 City Council Meeting 5. Letter to Peter Pedroff, County General Services Agency dated 6 -7 -93 cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager MOORPARK CUNT HARPER, Ph.D. Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember JOHN PATRICK LANE Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk August 28, 1987 Maggie Erickson, Chairman Board of Supervisors 800 So. Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 RE: Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park 69 7 ..fl(/ ) STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL S KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer The Moorpark City Council supports development of the subject regional park facility. The City Council, however, is concerned regarding the ingress /egress for the park. The Park improvement phases and access should take into consideration road conditions, existing traffic problems and traffic projections on State Highways 118 and 23 as well as local streets. This includes potential degradation of LOS at intersections within the City. The City's specific concerns are as follows: 1. In the present and foreseeable future neither Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23) nor Campus Park Drive can be relied upon for access to a regional facility. 2. A study should be conducted to determine how the ultimate 118/23 freeway connection relates to the park development. Presently the City of Moorpark has no funds available to participate in constructing any road improvements that may be necessary as a result of development of the park. The City Council is pleased to see plans for development of this regional facility progressing and knows that our concerns regarding circulation impacts will be addressed during your consideration of this project. Very Truly Yours, CPT 17 • Ha-p, Clint D. Harper Mayor CC: Chief Administration Office General Services Agency 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Califomia 93021 (805) 529 -6864 Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California 5 _ Apri1 61988 • B. Consider an information report concerning Happy Camp Regional Park circulation. Staff recommended Council receive and file this report. Councilmember Galloway was concerned with access to the park. He felt additional traffic would be added in the Campus Park area of the City. He would like the Council to address this concern, and suggested the County participate in a connector other than Campus Park Drive. Councilmember Brown reported she had attended a meeting and that no other roadway was suggested. However, there was some mention that in the future homes might be acquired along Campus Park Drive to widen the road. Councilmember Harper commented he would like to make it clear that if Campus Park Drive is to be the primary access, the roadway will not be opened by the City for this purpose. The City controls access to the park through this street, not the County. MOTION: Councilmember Galloway moved and Councilmember Harper seconded a motion to direct staff to draft a letter to the County Board of Supervisors outlining the concerns mentioned by the Council, and to receive and file the report presented. The voice vote was unanimous. BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL, Item 11.D. was heard at this point in the meeting. 11. D. Consider a re ort concerning__reguested on Laurel ,Glen rive and Hillside Drive. Staff recommended Council direct staff as deemed appropriate. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer, gave the staff report dated March 25, 1988. Councilmember Lane stated there was an HOA maintained pool at the west end of the cul -de -sac on Williams Ranch Road which would be impacted if the cul -de -sac at the west end of Williams Ranch Road was eliminated. He thought the matter should be continued to allow residents a chance to respond to the option of eliminating the cul -de -sac, and the other suggested option of installing five speed humps. MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Galloway seconded a motion to notice all affected residents along Williams Ranch Road to Peach Hill Road, Laurel Glen Drive and Hillside Drive to Peach Slope by forwarding each a copy of the City Engineer's report with a cover letter announcing the matter will be heard May 4, 1988. The voice vote was unanimous. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A �a1 n 4661 Adonis Place. Consider an appeal jr!e'ardin.'"the - Planninh Commies 011 decision to uphold an administrative '>�de't'e'rmination b e Director of Community. Development pertaining to_ a zohin he violation is - MOORPARK JOHN PATRICK LANE Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk June 7, 1988 The Honorable James Dougherty 3190 Cochran Street Simi Valley, CA 93065 Subject: Proposed Circulation for Happy Camp Canyon Regional PaSjrl Dear Supervisor Do y STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer The City of Moorpark has reviewed the pertinent portions of the draft report prepared for the proposed development of the nappy Caiip Canyon Regional Park. We are concerned with the information about traffic and circulation for the proposed park. Even with completion of the scheduled construction of the 118/23 Freeway Connection, park access is predicated on use of City of Moorpark surface streets and substandard State Highway 23 (Walnut Canyon Road) . Circulation to serve the park, including alternatives to existing routes, should be addressed in the County's current update of the circulation element. In addition, participation in funding of an alterantive to State Highway 23 (Walnut Canyon Road) and Campus Park Drive, must be considered for this project. Recommended Mitigation Measure Number (4) is of particular concern. High c (.�__ l 7 c.7__L n�.i____ T_ ^:• := .. \��.. _]�_ The intersection of nigh agree' aiiu rvau :u� scheduled to have a traffic signal as a result of existing traffic conditions. Additional traffic caused by the park development would appear to require the proposed use of the Campus Park Drive entry to be needed immediately. The City of Moorpark ".,do e not support the use ,of, Campus' Park Drive as an access Ito the parkWest of k Princeton Avenue,,. it is ra local street serving 'the'y residents Hof the City Jt with only two travel. lanes gather than0 Lion 2 '�shoild be •'" cleated f for> F the ark 'Option 3 ,_ P F- ) A t 3 • �: 3� Campus Parks Di ive _, hould not be: available wlor other than emergency and seryicevehiele access, Caltrans has indicated it -does not plan on widening Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) except west of the Moorpark city limits or Walnut Canyon Road (SR 23) and, contrary to the statement on Page 72 of the draft 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Califomia 93021 (805) 529 -6864 zroposed Circulation Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park June 7, 1988 Page 2 report, there is no certainty that the City of Moorpark will widen Los Angeles Avenue to four lanes. In addition, the 118/23 Freeway Connection is not scheduled for completion in January .1992 as stated in the draft report. It is obvious that the proposed park development will have an impact on local and substandard state highways and should be treated the same as other commercial projects. Some mechanism is needed to have this proposed project pay its fair share to improving Los Angeles Avenue, Walnut Canyon Road and other affected routes including the previously mentioned alternative route. In summary, the City of Moorpark strongly opposes the use of Campus Park Drive for park access, except for emergency and service vehicles and will do what is necessary to assure that Campus Park Dirve is not used as a public access to the park. In addition, this project will add to the cumulative traffic impact in the Moorpark area and must contribute towards the improvement of existing major streets and potential development of an alternative route. I suggest that we discuss these concerns at the earliest possible time. Very truly yours, TD..4..:..7 T .. Vhll 1 Qt trick L�G<Lle Mayor JPL: sc cm. 8676 cc: Tom Berg, Director of Planning Peter Pedroff, Director of General Services Art Gouiet, Director of Public Works Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California 12 June 2, 1993 C. Consider Re guest of Moorpark Community Garden to Use 500 for Water and Other Materials. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Kueny indicated that a letter had been received from Pat Kemper regarding the use of the funds appropriated by the Council for the community garden. Pat Kemper, 569 Spring Road, #51, addressed the Council. She requested that the remaining unused money of the $500 appropriated be provided to the garden manager, Ms. Kemper, to allow for the addition to the church's insurance policy of the gardeners, for necessary garden items, and to permit low income families to garden without paying a monthly fee for water. She said that a periodic accounting of the funds would be provided to the City. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to concur with the request as outlined above by Ms. Kemper. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Hunter absent for the vote. AT THIS POINT the Council turned to consideration of Item 11.B. B. Consider Review of Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Second Dwelling Units. Staff Recommendation: Consider change to existing moratorium. Ms. Kane read the ordinance in its entirety, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Moorpark, California, Adopted on an Urgency Basis, Imposing a Moratorium on Second Dwelling Units in the R -A, R -E, R -O, R -1, R -2, RPD, PC and SP Zones on Properties of Less than One Acre. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 172 as read. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Hunter absent for the vote. D. Consider City Comments Regarding Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park - QUOR Resort, Ventura. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a letter to the County of Ventura, General Services Administration, addressing issues which should be analyzed in the Draft EIR for Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park - QUOR Resort. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California 13 June 2, 1993 Ms. Traffenstedt gave the staff report. Councilmember Wozniak noted that air quality impacts had not been addressed and should be in the EIR. He also indicated that the City should go on record as saying it will not allow the use of Campus Park Drive as access to the development. He said he was also concerned that there will be limited trail access. Mayor Lawrason indicated that this document does not take into account any of the work that went into the General Plan Update. Councilmember Wozniak indicated that there was an error in the document because it states that Specific Plan 8 had been designed by the City. Councilmember Montgomery said he concurred with all the comments made by the staff in their report and all the comments made by the Council this evening. He said this proposal presents an extreme threat to the City of Moorpark. He said it is a financial threat to the welfare of the City. He said there needs to be a differentiation made in the EIR between recreational and resort uses. He said resort and commercial uses will threaten our already existing commercial areas. He said the County should be reminded that their "Guidelines for Orderly Development" will be contradicted with this project. He said the deed agreement restrictions need to be identified and the County reminded that anything that is proposed needs to be in compliance with those agreements. Councilmember Montgomery said the project description is unacceptable. He advised that a personal note be sent to Supervisor Howard to let her know that the City seriously considers this development to be an economic and environmental threat to the City. He said the City needs to protest children and hikers having to pay for access to a County regional park. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California 14 June 2, 1993 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to direct staff to prepare a letter to the County of Ventura General Services Administration addressing issues which should be analyzed in the draft EIR for Happy Camp Regional Park - Quor Resort, including the comments made by staff in their report to the Council dated May 28, 1993 and all comments elicited this evening from the Council as presented above. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Hunter absent for the vote. E. Consider City Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Pacific Pipeline Project (Lead Agency: California Public Utilities Commission. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a comment letter on the Draft EIR. Ms. Traffenstedt gave the staff report. Tom Rooney, 1695 Mesa Verde, Ventura, addressed the Council as a representative of Pacific Pipeline. He indicated that the preferred route was not through the City of Moorpark. In response to Councilmember Perez, Mr. Rooney indicated that his company had been working with the SCRRA and will be presenting their alignment within the corridor to make sure they do not interfere with SCRRA's future planning. Councilmember Perez asked if the southerly alternate through the City of Moorpark was selected, would it be possible for Pacific Pipeline to use the portion of the pipeline that is currently transversing the City of Moorpark to carry their product. Mr. Rooney replied that it was possible. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said the City can only franchise the pipeline if they are in the public right of way. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to approve the staff recommendation to direct staff to prepare a comment letter on the draft EIR using the comments provided in the staff report dated May 24, 1993. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Councilmember Hunter absent for the vote. F. Reconsider Date for October Town Hall Meeting. Staff Recommendation: Select October 9th or 23rd as the next June 7, 1993 MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 Peter S. Pedroff, Director General Services Agency County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Attention Theresa Lubin SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR HAPPY CAMP CANYON REGIONAL PARK - QUOR RESORT, VENTURA Dear Mr. Pedroff: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP of a Draft EIR for Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park - QUOR Resort, Ventura. The City of Moorpark would be a responsible agency for the project as currently proposed. The Moorpark City Council discussed the subject NOP at its meeting of June 2, 1993, and directed staff to express the City's strong opposition to the proposed QUOR Resort project. Following is a discussion of City Council project concerns as well as specific comments related to issues and alternatives that should be addressed in the Draft EIR. It is the City Council's opinion that the proposed resort development violates the Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development, because the planned commercial and resort facilities constitute an urban development. The project is also inconsistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element in regard to use of Campus Park Drive for Park access. The City has continuously expressed its opposition to the use of Campus Park Drive for access to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, both to the County of Ventura and to QUOR Resorts, Inc. The City Council adamantly confirmed at its meeting of June 2, 1993, that use of Campus Park Drive for vehicle access to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park will not be allowed. It is also the City Council's opinion that the proposed resort facilities are not designed to meet the recreation needs of the residents of this County. The project description report makes reference to a draft 1985 Regional Recreation Areas Plan, which identified specialized facilities which should be provided in Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, based on an analysis of recreational PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. SCOTT MONTGOMERY PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Counaimember Counalmember Counalmember Pnnfed an Recycw Paper Peter S. Pedroff June 7, 1993 Page 2 demand and existing facilities in the County. We note that the specialized facilities allocated for Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park were recreation not resort facilities. Resort facilities appear to have been first proposed in conjunction with a 1987 Design Development Report, for which no environmental clearance document was ever processed. While the 1987 plan did include a conference core area with resort facilities, the current QUOR Resort proposal varies significantly from that plan in relation to the intensity of development that is now proposed. We feel that it is important to recognize the City's opposition to the currently proposed project at this time in order to avoid the expense of EIR preparation for a project that will never be acceptable to the City of Moorpark. We would like to work with the County and the applicant to design a project that will serve the needs of the residents of this County without resulting in significant, adverse environmental, health, safety, and economic impacts to the City of Moorpark. If the decision of the County and the applicant is to proceed with the project as currently proposed, we have included below specific comments related to issues and alternatives that should be addressed in the Draft EIR. Our comments are intended to supplement the issues discussion in the Initial Study that was distributed with the NOP. Project description issues are addressed first, followed by environmental issues in the order that they appear in the County's Initial Study: Project Description - The Initial Study references a 1991 Master Plan that has never been made available to the City for review. The EIR should clarify all plans and required permits that constitute "the project ", and all planning documents should be made available for public review. Inadequate information is provided for the proposed water activity park. The project description report identifies that "this portion of the park is expected to draw many visitors." Numbers of persons to be accommodated must be quantified and the impacts fully addressed. Other project components which are inadequately described are the proposed village center and the amphitheater. In regard to the village center, the City would not support any retail component which may be designed so as to attract nearby City residents to shop at the center, thereby impacting City sales tax revenues. The description of the amphitheater and proposed uses is vague. If a concert use is intended, the expected impacts should be fully addressed in the EIR. Peter S. Pedroff June 7, 1993 Page 3 Land Use - The EIR should address project inconsistency with the Guidelines for Orderly Development as well as inconsistency with County and City General Plan policies. The Initial Study currently only references Specific Plan No. 8, as shown on the City's land use plan. Specific Plan area No. 2 should also be identified, since it borders the southwest corner of Happy Camp Regional Park. Air Quality - We disagree with use of the standard consistency analysis that is used for residential projects in determining whether the project as proposed is consistent with the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan. The project as proposed should not be considered consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan, if found to be inconsistent with the Guidelines for Orderly Development and County and City General Plans. Information regarding the City's growth control ordinance is presented incorrectly in the initial study. The City's current growth control ordinance is known as Measure F (not Measure 7). Measure F will expire in 1995 (not 1994); however, the City Council has appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to formulate recommendations for extending Measure F or creating a new growth management ordinance. Water Ouality - The EIR should address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and applicable design measures or mitigation conditions that will be imposed on the project to reduce storm water pollution. Biological Resources - A new biological survey of all areas of the park proposed for development should be completed. The quality and quantity of various habitats may have changed based on the heavy rains during the winter of 1992 -1993. Visual Resources - "Significant" should be checked for both project impact and cumulative impact on the Initial Study checklist. Visual impacts on adjacent residents will be significant, and we disagree with the Initial Study conclusion that the impact would be adverse but not significant. In addition, the QUOR Resort may result in significant cumulative visual impacts to both adjacent residents and park users in combination with other planned development in the area. Lighting /Glare - Glare (Lighting) - "Significant" should be checked for both project impact and cumulative impact. The EIR should fully analyze both the direct and cumulative lighting /glare impacts to the City of Moorpark, including Peter S. Pedroff June 7, 1993 Page 4 impacts to the Moorpark College observatory. No information is currently provided pertaining to lighting that would be installed for the golf course and tennis courts. Transportation /Circulation Public Roads and Highways - The Initial Study incorrectly identifies a key intersection that will be affected by the project as "College View and Los Angeles Avenue (SR- 118) ". That reference is incorrect. The EIR should analyze the Collins Drive /SR -118 intersection. As discussed previously, use of Campus Park Drive for Park access is not acceptable (although emergency vehicle access would be permitted). The City's recently updated Circulation Element shows Campus Park Drive, west of Princeton Avenue, as a two -lane collector roadway, and the City's traffic model assumes no access to the park will occur from Campus Park Drive. The City's overall circulation system was designed to accommodate the projected traffic to be generated by the City's land use plan, and cumulative traffic generated outside the City limits, and includes a SR -23 bypass facility in combination with a SR -118 westerly extension, a Broadway extension to SR -118, and a connector roadway between Princeton Avenue and the SR -23 bypass (shown as "D" Street on Figure 2 of the Circulation Element). The City's traffic model assumes approximately 1,000 less average daily trips (ADT) for Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park than the amount currently projected for Phase 3 of the project. If the project is not modified to reflect the limited use of Campus Park Drive that will be permitted by the City, the EIR must analyze access alternatives that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element, including a SR -23 bypass, a westerly extension of SR -118, a Broadway extension connecting SR's 23 and 118, and a connector roadway between Princeton Avenue and the SR -23 bypass. The City's Circulation Element does not portray precise alignments for future roadways. Therefore, the most feasible alignment for the SR -23 bypass is unknown at this time. The EIR should analyze at least two alignment alternatives: One possible alignment would be within the Specific Plan No. 2 area, west of the 150 -foot high cliff in the northeast quadrant of that Plan area; another possible alignment would be the routing of the bypass east of the 150 -foot high cliff, through a portion of Happy Camp Regional Park, to connect with Broadway. Peter S. Pedroff June 7, 1993 Page 6 Law Enforcement /Emergency Services .. The EIR should clarify how law enforcement will be funded,-and how the officer -to- population ratio in the City and pertinent unincorporated area would be affected. Fire Protection - The EIR should clarify how fire protection services will be funded, and how service in the City may be affected if the Moorpark station would need to provide service to the QUOR Resort in addition - to. existing and planned development in the City. The project description report identifies that a fire station: will be :._provided onsite; however, the initial study does not make any reference to that station. If an onsite station is- proposed, the EIR should clarify how it will be funded and who cr will- .staff it. Recreation - The Draft EIR should provide:e_vidence that the QUOR Resort proposal is in compliance-., with the deed agreement that transferred ownership from the.S.tate of!California to the County of Ventura. The City questions the proposal to provide; a: neighborhood park x that will primarily serve only, city residents in a County park. The proposed park site would appear;to•be strategically placed so as to permit use of Campus G Park: Drive for resort. traffic. Another recreation /circulation. issiidG is the proposal to restrict (i.e., block) access into the:tPark'-from existing and planned trails. Refer to prior Transportation /Circulation comments. If you have any questions regarding the Cityr-bf�Moorpark's comments on -the. QUOR Resort project and NOP, pleagb :!contact Deborah Traffenstedt of my staff at (805) 529 -685 4:r Sincerely, a'.. - 2 J S t 3-me R. Aguilera ;r.. Director of Community Development SIR_- - ; JRA /DST r: a cc: The Honorable City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager Urban Strategies November 5, 1997 2509 E. THOUSAND OAKS BLVD. • THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91362 • (805) 494 -1336 Pat Hunter, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: Hidden Creek Specific Plan Dear Mayor Hunter and members of the Council: NOV - 6 199 i This letter concerns properties controlled by Ventura Pacific Capital and Bill O'Brian. Mitch Kahn is representing the Namba property, but shares the same goals. It is the desire of these property owners to be able to develop their properties concurrently with phase one of Hidden Creek. This would be advantageous to the area for the following reasons: 1. The westerly connection to the road through Morrison could be made much in advance of the current schedule. 2. Should the Moorpark Unified School District choose to construct the new high school, infrastructure would be available for the District to do so. In addition, these properties are already part of Water Works District I and have other utilities available. The Ventura Pacific properties also have access into the residential project on their south boundary and an easement on the access road to Happy Camp to Campus Park Drive. There is also an emergency access available into the Campus Hills development. These properties, technically can stand on their own without the Hidden Creek project. To achieve financially the extension of the westerly alignment to the new east/west road will require a land use designation of a minimum of 1.8 units per acre. Allowing this density and early construction of the road, relieves Hidden Creek of that financial responsibility. Therefore, the shifting of units to these parcels from Hidden Creek should not negatively affect their project. These requests will be presented for discussion at your public hearing on November 12. Thank you for your consideration of this request. i erely, EI ine L. Freema EL�:dr cc: Neno Spondello Mitch Kahn, Attorney Bill O'Brian !e, /-� % . Pf4 l �9 CITY OF MOORPARK OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Steven Kueny, City Manager, on behalf of the Hidden Creek Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee (Councilmembers Perez and Wozniak) DATE: November 10, 1997 SUBJECT: Proposed Development Agreement The Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) has met several times with representatives of Messenger Investment Corporation (Messenger) to develop the considerations to be provided by each party to the other party. While several details remain to be worked out, the following points have been agreed to be presented to the City Council as part of the consideration of a draft Development Agreement (Agreement): 1. Developer Considerations: A. Payment of a $7,000.00 fee per residential unit. The fee for any commercial and institutional acreage while not yet determined would probably be based on being equivalent to a specified number of dwelling units per acre. This fee would increase annually by the CPI, commencing two years after execution of the Agreement. B. Payment of $4,800.00 per residential unit to offset the lower property tax rate expected for this project. The actual rate must be negotiated with Ventura County. The County currently has an established policy for areas annexed to cities. This would result in the rate being about one -half of that provided for in the City today. The proposed fee for institutional and commercial acreage has not yet been determined. C. Payment of a citywide traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $4,000.00 per residential unit. The proposed fee for institutional and commercial acreage has not The Honorable City Council Re: The Hidden Creek Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee Page 2 November 10, 1997 yet been determined. The fee would increase annually based on increases to a construction cost index. D. The City would be deeded without any Quimby consequence the park land that would be approved in the Specific Plan. Improvements comparable to existing City parks as determined by the City in its sole discretion would be provided (similar language to Carlsberg Settlement Agreement). E. Provide 365 affordable dwelling units (about 11 percent of the proposed 3,221 DU) within the Specific Plan area. All units would be for low and very low income families. The City would receive the income from any of the "for sale" units removed from the program as part of second trust deeds and equity sharing provisions. The proposed program is further described in the staff report for the November 12, 1997, hearing. F. All appropriate mitigation measures would be incorporated into the Agreement, including Messenger obligations for backbone infrastructure financing and construction. G. The natural open space areas can be dedicated or sold; however, they will contain a conservation easement and dedication of development rights in favor of the City and other controls to insure they are never developed. H. Provide recycled water to all HOA and publicly owned and maintained areas at same time as such is provided to the first golf course. I. The Ad Hoc Committee has been working to limit the number of oil drilling sites. As discussed in the Public Hearings, no specific number has been agreed upon because discussions are ongoing between Messenger and the owner of the drilling rights (Nuevo). The Honorable City Council Re: The Hidden Creek Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee Page 3 November 10, 1997 J. Guaranteed use of the golf course for City recreational and public school instructional /competitive programs and free use for a limited number (two) of City - sponsored events. K. Provide a dedicated site for a fire station, if requested by Fire District, and if necessary, advance fees against future payment obligations to insure the fire station can be constructed in Phase I. L. Limit on number of homes that can be built prior to construction of second permanent access (road through Happy Camp Park for connection to Spring Road). The precise number has not been determined. M. Reimburse City for 1992 General Plan update and Sphere Study costs not funded by others. 2. City Considerations: A. Project is exempt from Hillside Ordinance. B. Whenever possible, concurrent processing of entitlements and expedited processing of tentative and final maps and planned development permits and plan checking of grading and public improvements. C. Early grading permit to be authorized by City Manager. D. Project shall be exempt from any growth management ordinance enacted after Development Agreement is executed. E. An extended period for use inauguration of the initial tracts and planned development permits. F. Work with Messenger to maximize any tax advantages for sale or dedication of permanent natural open space areas. M f The Honorable City Council Re: The Hidden Creek Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee Page 4 November 10, 1997 G. Sell at fair market value a portion of Griffin Park needed for street widening. 3. The Agreement is to reference the agreement in principle between Messenger and Moorpark Unified School District (MUSD) concerning the provision of school sites, timing of school site delivery, related improvements, and payment of school fees as a recital in the Agreement. Messenger agrees to deed restrict and /or transfer development rights, or provide another means acceptable to the City to insure that the sites are not developed with a use other than public schools. This is included because of the General Plan limit on the number of dwelling units (3,221) for Specific Plan No. 8 and the concern with the additional potential impacts, such as traffic and air quality, that were not considered as part of the EIR. In addition, Messenger will insure that the City approves the grading, drainage, and off -site public improvements for each site prior to transfer of the property to Moorpark Unified School District. The standard provisions contained in the Bollinger Agreement will be used with some minor language changes. The Ad Hoc Committee and Messenger are continuing to meet to resolve other issues and further clarify others so that precise draft language can be prepared. The Committee is scheduled to meet with Messenger on November 12 and is targeting December 17 to present a draft Development Agreement to the City Council. SK:db CC: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development c: \citymgr \msngr11.97