Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1999 0317 CC REG ITEM 09BITEM q,& Be M oy *goORPVRK, CALIFORI U (:i:v Count ; Nleeting of s3: 17 -qq ACTION: CQ12t Y CITY OF MOORPARK — AGENDA REPORT BY. TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developmen Prepared by: Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager John Libiez, Principal Planner DATE: March 1, 1999 (City Council Meeting of 3/17/99) SUBJECT: CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MOORPARK HIGHLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (SPECIFIC PLAN 95 -2 /SPECIFIC PLAN NO.2, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95 -2, AND ZONE CHANGE 95- 4); AND, CONTINUE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2 PROJECT. APPLICANT: MORRISON- FOUNTAINWOOD-AGOURA.(Continued from March 3, 1999) BACKGROUND: City Council initiated the Public Hearing on the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan project on January 20, 1999, and continued consideration to February 3 and March 3, 1999. The Specific Plan No. 2 project and the certification of the Environmental Impact Report were recommended for adoption to City Council by the Planning Commission, upon completion of public hearings before the Commission, subject to modifications contained with Resolution No. PC -98 -362. The applicant agreed to extend the previously agreed upon date for certification action on the EIR from January 18, 1999, to March 26, 1999, and has further agreed to extend this until April 7, 1999. DISCUSSION: Council has received testimony from staff, the project applicant and citizens at the previous meetings. At the March 3, 1999 meeting, applicant presented a modification to the land use and circulation plan to address City Council identified issues and concerns. Council suggested some further modification and M:\ JLibiez \M \SP2 \SP2STFRPRT31799.doc U yr 0 0�1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO.2 March 17, 1999 Page 2 discussions with the Moorpark Unified School District regarding the school site and park. Council should consider and address any additional comments or concerns related to the Specific Plan project to the applicant and staff at this meeting. The applicant is preparing revisions to the land use plan to address concerns previously expressed. The consultant will also incorporate additions and revisions to the specific plan and EIR to address these changes. Evaluation of impacts contained within the FEIR adequately address the modifications to the Specific Plan design, requested by the City Council as an alternative, completed by the applicant and considered by the Council at the March 3, 1999 meeting. The Council preferred alternative design will be incorporated and evaluated within the Final EIR Errata. Recirculation of the EIR is not required under provisions of Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines since the changes contained within the alternative do not present any significant new information to warrant recirculation and no new impacts are created by the alternative that have not been considered or evaluated by the Draft EIR. The changes suggested by the Council consist of relocation of the school site and park site, increasing lot sizes within the northerly one -third of the project, reducing density by 54 dwelling units, and circulation changes to non - General Plan streets. Analysis of the alternative by the environmental consultant shows that significant adverse impacts would still occur, although the level of impact is reduced by the corresponding reduction in dwelling units. The Council requested alternative falls within the range of impacts evaluated by the alternatives previously considered within the EIR. At the March 3, 1999, meeting City Council requested that additional information be prepared to address concerns related to the levels of traffic on Charles Street and suggestions for mitigation. Council also expressed concern on determining if there were any traffic affects involving the Walnut Canyon Elementary School. Council also requested an explanation related to species listed within the EIR and Mr. LaPerch's comments related to those species contained in his written comments related to the EIR. Austin -Foust Associates, the City's traffic consultant, has prepared an analysis (Attachment A) to address the questions related to Walnut Canyon School and Charles Street. The City's EIR consultant, EDAW, and the 00600-* CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO.2 March 17, 1999 Page 3 project biologist have prepared a response (Attachment B) to address the question related to the species concerns. Pursuant to the agreement between the applicant and the City of Moorpark, the EIR certification date has been extended to March 26, 1999, and the applicant has agreed to further extend the date to April 7, so that further changes can be incorporated. Certification of the FEIR does not constitute approval of the project. Prior to, or simultaneous with, the approval of the project, a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations will need to be adopted. Staff and the EIR consultant are preparing the language of these documents for Council consideration at a future meeting. The Development Agreement for the project, currently under discussion, would also be considered for adoption at a subsequent City Council meeting. Staff Recommendations: 1. Accept testimony and continue the Public Hearing to April 7, 1999. Attachments: A. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Charles Street Traffic response B. EDAW Response Concerning Species Issues ® qV AIIST /N.FOUST A"0 CIA rES INC. rRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND rRANJPORrArION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 -7827 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager, City of Moorpark Joe Foust, P.E. March 9, 1999 TELEPHONE (714) 667 -0496 FAX (714) 667 -7952 E -mail: mail 0austintoust.com MOORPARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2 TRAFFIC CONCERNS MAR 10 1A9 This memorandum addresses various Specific Plan No. 2 (SP -2) traffic concerns recently raised during public hearings to review the project's Environment Impact Report (EIR). CHARLES STREET POTENTIAL IMPACTS The concern of potentially increased traffic on Charles Street created by development of SP -2 has been referred for our response. This memorandum clarifies traffic assessment practices in order to address concerns expressed regarding potential traffic impacts to Charles Street. Analysis The traffic study for the SP -2 EIR does not identify the amount of increased traffic that may occur on Charles Street if any. This is neither an omission nor a lack of understanding of the project's potential traffic impact on Charles Street. It is, however, an indication that the traffic created by Specific Plan No. 2 is not expected to cause a significant impact to existing conditions on Charles Street. The SP -2 traffic study indicates that the project has an overall trip distribution of 40 percent of the projected total trips to destinations west of the subject property. The bulk of these trips (28 percent) are forecast to use High Street while the remaining 12 percent will use Los Angeles Avenue. It is recognized that some project trips may utilize Charles Street instead of High Street under certain conditions, for example, to travel to the Civic Center or to the new elementary school under construction at Walnut Canyon and Casey Road. Under a "worst case" assumption that five percent of the SP -2 project trips might be destined to the Civic Center area, the increase in traffic along ATTACHMENT: A 00(300lj City of Moorpark Page 2 March 9, 1999 Charles Street is predicted to be about 300 vehicles per day. 'Ibis is less than one vehicle every two minutes even during the peak hour (typically no more than ten percent of daily traffic, 30 trips in this case, occurs during the peak hour). This potential increase in the number of trips would not be perceivable unless actual vehicle counts were taken. Byway of comparison, the current traffic volume along Charles Street is estimated to range from 500 and 750 average daily trips (ADT), but varies considerably depending upon traffic conditions near High Street and Spring Road and delays associated with the railroad crossing. Occasionally traffic volumes on Charles Street exceed 1,000 ADT when High Street is closed for civic events. Consequently, even though Charles Street is normally a low volume residential street, it still carries 500 ADT or more but has a capacity to accommodate 2,000 to 3,000 ADT based upon its width and improvement. An increase from 500 ADT to 3,000 ADT would be perceptible, however an increase of 300 ADT (i.e., up to 800 ADT) would not reduce the street's existing level of service. The term "worst case" is also applied to the five percent project trip assignment because it is assumed that residents will use the Spring Road/Charles Street connection for both trips to and from the Civic Center area. In reality, some of these trips will use Spring Road directly to Walnut Canyon Road, assuming signalization is provided at that intersection. More importantly, however, is the return trip (i.e., Civic Center area to the project site) where residents are expected to use Walnut Canyon Road north to Spring Road and make a right -hand turn rather than the more circuitous and less direct route of Walnut Canyon Road/Moorpark Road to Charles Street to Spring Road. The result is that an absolute maximum of five percent of project trips (or about 300 ADT) may potentially use Charles Street as a substitute to High Street. The indicated trip assignment was not specifically called out in the EIR since 300 ADT will not reduce the level of service even though mathematically it constitutes a 50 percent increase in potential traffic using Charles Street today. Residential streets typically are designed to carry anywhere from a few hundred ADT up to a few thousand ADT. This is why many cities have adopted "environmental capacity" guidelines ranging from 2,000 ADT up to 3,500 ADT or more as the minimum threshold definition of significant residential street impact. The City of Los Angeles, for example, who is acknowledged as one of the leaders and most active cities involved in neighborhood traffic protection or "traffic calming," defines a significant residential street impact as an increase of 12% or more for streets already exceeding 1,000 ADT; 10% for streets in excess of 2,000 ADT; and eight % for streets exceeding 3,000 ADT. They consider streets with less than 1,000 ADT to be insignificant. As a result, traffic studies typically do not report small traffic increases on local streets which carry low volumes since these changes are insignificant. In the case of Charles Street, the "worst case" condition would result in less than 1,000 ADT, which based upon traffic impact standards, is not a significant impact. 380011 mm4.wpd 0 () U () 0,1 City of Moorpark Page 3 March 9, 1999 Mitigation Although no significant impact is anticipated based upon traffic impact standards, mitigation of any increase in traffic along Charles Street can be implemented. To minimize traffic increases on Charles Street, the installation of signs prohibiting southbound right -turns and eastbound left -turns at the intersection of Spring Road and Charles Street and the signalization of Walnut Canyon Road at Spring Road would be appropriate. A "No Right Turn" restriction on southbound Spring Road at Charles Street would be most effective since there is no convenient alternative. Motorists could circumvent an eastbound left -turn restriction by continuing through the intersection and making a U- turn on Charles Street east of Spring Road followed by a right -turn north onto Spring Road. Therefore prohibition of U -turns on eastbound Charles Street east of Spring Road may also need to be considered. It is unlikely that there will be substantial "cut- through" traffic on eastbound Charles Street since the preferred route (i.e., Moorpark Road/Walnut Canyon Road directly to Spring Road) is shorter, quicker, and more direct than the Moorpark Road to Charles Street to Spring Road route. As a result, it is expected that prohibiting southbound right -turns would eliminate well over half, probably 65 to 75 percent, of any potential cut - through use of Charles Street and prohibition of eastbound left -turns would not be necessary. Summary It is our conclusion that Charles Street potentially faces a "worst case" forecast of increased traffic of about 300 vehicles per day or 30 vehicles during the peak hours related to SP -2 generated trips compared to the current average daily flow of 500 to 750 vehicles or 50 to 75 vehicles during the peak hours. Such an increase will not create a significant impact nor change the current level of service. Mitigation of this increase is possible through the following measures: A. Signalization of the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road and Spring Road B. Prohibition of southbound right -turns on Spring Road at Charles Street C. And, if needed, prohibition of left -turns on Charles Street at Spring Road (with a possible need to prohibit U -turns on Charles Street east of Spring Road) WALNUT CANYON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL A question was asked regarding the effect that the recently approved Walnut Canyon Elementary School (located west of Walnut Canyon Road at Casey Road) would have on the traffic impact findings contained in the Specific Plan No. 2 EIR. The proposed project is included in the housing and population growth forecasts that are used by the Moorpark Unified School District to estimate the student population and to plan for the types of facilities that will be needed to serve that population. Correspondingly, the EIR traffic impact analysis is based on an amount of school trips 380011 mm4.wpd 00600S City of Moorpark Page 4 March 9, 1999 which correlates to the student population that is expected to be generated by the project. The specific location of the magnet school that has been approved on Walnut Canyon Road was not assumed in the traffic analysis since approval of the facility was granted subsequent to completion of the EIR traffic study. The school location would not alter the findings of the traffic study for reasons which are explained here. A "worst case" for the purposes of this discussion would be to assume that the Walnut Canyon School is a typical elementary school (non - magnet programs), and as such may attract up to five percent (300 ADT) of the proposed project's trips (in actuality the percentage would likely be substantially less than this amount since magnet schools tend to draw students from much larger geographic areas than ordinary elementary schools). Were all of this traffic to travel to and from the school site via the proposed Spring Road intersection at Walnut Canyon Road, it could easily be accommodated, particularly if the intersection is signalized. Conversely, if all of the school trips were to use Spring Road to Charles Street to Moorpark Road to Walnut Canyon Road to access the school site, no adverse impact would result for the reasons discussed earlier in this report with respect to potential increased daily trips upon Charles Street. In determining trip generation estimates for development projects such as SP -2, various types of trips such as home to work, home to school, home to shopping, etc. are incorporated within the generation factors. Therefore, while the actual destination for the elementary school was not determined when the EIR traffic analysis was prepared, the trip generation and distribution procedures of the traffic model applied in the SP -2 traffic study do account for school trips that will be generated by the SP -2 project. As noted earlier, most trips from the project to the school will be from Spring Road to Walnut Canyon Road. Signalization of that intersection will provide reasonable safety levels. Since the school is a magnet school, it is anticipated that trip impacts from the project will be minimal. CONCLUSIONS 1) Traffic generated by the SP -2 project will not create significant impacts upon Charles Street. 2) Trips from the SP -2 project to the new Walnut Canyon Elementary School (magnet) will be fewer in number than for a regular elementary school and will not create significant impacts upon Charles Street. 3) Mitigation measures recommended for the Spring Road intersections at Charles Street and Walnut Canyon Road will result in properly designed transportation facilities and can minimize any potential increases in traffic along Charles Street. 380011 mm4.wpd 0000W) BIOLOGICAL STUDY CONCERNS Data regarding biological resources on the Moorpark Specific Plan No. 2 site was obtained through extensive literature review, federal and state species investigation protocol implementations, record searches that included documentation of biological resources in the vicinity of the project, a field reconnaissance, and applicable reference materials. The primary objective of the field surveys, conducted in June and July of 1995 and April of 1996, was to assess the conditions of any onsite biological resources. Field work focused on four primary objectives: 1) vegetation mapping, 2) sensitive plant surveys, 3) sensitive wildlife species assessment, and 4) directed surveys for the threatened California gnatcatcher. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto acetate overlaying a recent 2,400 -scale color aerial photograph of the site. All plant species encountered during the field survey were identified and recorded. Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded. In addition to species actually observed, expected wildlife usage of the site was determined according to known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. Focused surveys for sensitive plants that potentially occur onsite were conducted for several days by foot in all areas of suitable habitat for sensitive plant species potentially occurring onsite. MBA conducted focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher to determine the presence or absence of this species on the site in 1995. All areas of potential California gnatcatcher habitat were surveyed three times with intervals of one week between surveys, in accordance with Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel guidelines. Specific information in the MBA report was again field verified by Frank Hovore & Associates As noted within the Final Environmental Impact Report, only one (1) species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act occurs on -site. Table L on page 5 -120 of the Draft EIR identified 20 special- status species known to occur onsite. Special - status species are: 1) those plant or animal species that are given special recognition by federal, state, or local conservation agencies and organizations because of declining, limited, or threatened populations, which are the results, in most cases, of habitat reduction; and 2) habitat areas that are unique, or relatively limited distribution, or of particular value to wildlife. These species have been included under informal listings by organizations such as the California Species of Special Concern (CSC) (a broad data -base category applied to species, roost sites, or nest sites); or as USFWS Candidate taxa. California Department of Fish and Game and local governmental agencies may from time to time acknowledge special listings developed by focal groups (i.e., Audubon Society "Blue List," California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plants. The project site recognized impacts to wildlife migration, habitat, foraging range, and the presence /non - presence of species as noted by Mr. LaPerch's comments dated October 14, 1998. Many of the non - resident, non - sensitive species contained in Mr. LaPerch's list occur throughout the Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park area adjacent to the Specific Plan No. 2 site. It should also be noted that while some of the species as identified on Mr. LaPerch's list within his October 14'h letter might be considered special or of concern in Mr. LaPerch's opinion, they would not meet generally accepted professional protocols for special species treatment or identification and protection (with the exception of the loss of CSS habitat, which is identified as a significant unavoidable impact). Although the project could result in an adverse alteration of ATTACHMENT: B 000010 some existing conditions (as described in the Draft EIR), these species will not substantially diminish nor suffer permanent loss to the extent that mitigation is required. P: 5N12901�BIOLOGICALSTUDYCONCEPNS DOC C. "- 0661.1