HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0118 CC REG ITEM 11BELOISE BROWN
Mayor
3ERNARDO M. PEREZ
Mayor Pro Tem
LINT HARPER, Ph. D.
Councilmember
PAUL LAWRASON
Councilmember
'COTT MONTGOMERY
Councilmember
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
TO:
FROM:
MOORPARK
-71/�, �")
ITEM i. .
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
MEMORANDUM
The Honorable City Council
Yl-__
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: January 11, 1989 (CC Meeting of 1-18-89)
SUBJECT: Status of Latunski/Clemen.t General Plan Amendment and
'Lone Change Applications (GPA's 88-lA&lB/ZC's 88-2A&2B)
Discussion
This memorandum has been written in response to your request for an update
on the, processing of the Latunski/Clemen.t general plan amendment/zon.e
change proposals. The City Council initiated these applications at the
Counc.il's meeting of September 7, 1988.
On. October 26, 1988, these applications were assigned to Deborah
Traff.e.nstedt, of my staff, for processing. On October 31, Deborah
distributed a Request for Project Review to various agencies. Comments
were due November 21., 1988.
A separate memorandum was sent to the City Engineer on November 7, 1988,
requesting that a scope of work for a traffic and circulation analysis be
provided .for the La.tunski and Clement proposals. For the Latu.nski
property, staff requested that the analysis should address the adequacy of
the existing circulation. system and what effect the requested change in
land use would have on a fiatur_e alignment of State Highway 118. For the
Clernerit property, staff requested that the analysis include what the effect
on traffic and circulation would be assuming both a worst case commercial
generator (e.g., a fast food restaurant) and an. average case. On January
1.0, 1989, the City Traffic Engineer responded with a memorandum discussing
alternative work scopes (see attnchmen.t).
The attached
memorandum outlines
several different traffic
study analysis
levels which
could be provided
by Willdan to reSj.)0nd to our
request for
traffic and
circulation analyses for the La.tunski/Clement proposals.
Because each
of the alternative
work scopes would involve
a cost to the
City for Willdan
to complete the
selected analysis, Staff :is
requesting the
99 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
City Council to select the appropriate analysis level. Although the City
Engineer's office identifies a number of options, there is one additional
that may be considered. There is an EIR currently being prepared for the
Macleod/Devericks/Spondello commercial/residential project. The EIR
includes an expanded traffic review that would provide a more detailed
understanding of the local traffic issues. As an option these General Plan
Amendments could be held until the EIR traffic study would be completed.
It would be inappropriate to proceed without some level of
traffic/circulation analysis for several reasons. First of all, the
Latunski/Clement general plan amendments/rezonings have the potential to
result in significant cumulative traffic/circulation impacts. Staff cannot
complete a Negative Declaration based on the potential for significant
impacts. Another reason for requiring the traffic analysis is consistency.
The City Engineer has been requiring that traffic studies be completed for
all recent requests for new commercial, residential, and industrial
projects. In regard to the Clement property, it is important to note that
the City Engineer has been recommending that a cumulative traffic analysis
be provided as part of the traffic study for all new commercial
proposals --some of which would generate less trips than, for example, a
fast-food restaurant located on the Clement property.
In regard to our processing schedule, staff has completed draft staff
reports (with the exception of the traffic and circulation discussion
sections). We have also completed the lists and labels for public noticing
and have contacted a sign company regarding construction of signs for the
posting of hearing dates on the subject properties. The estimated cost for
the City to install the signs is $150-$200 each. A total of three signs is
anticipated. In early December, staff contacted Mr. Latunski and Mrs.
Clement to obtain formal permission to install the public hearing signs on
the subject properties. We are still waiting for a letter from Mrs.
Clement to allow us to install a sign on her property. On December 27,
1988, staff sent a letter to Mr. Latunski requesting that information be
provided which shows proof of legal access to his property. We have not
yet received a response from Mr. Latunski on this issue.
In conclusion, as soon as we receive a completed traffic and circulation
analysis from Willdan, a response from Mr. Latunski on legal access, and
permission from Mrs. Clement to install a sign on her property, we will be
able to complete the staff reports and arrange for public noticing. We are
requesting that the City Council direct staff as to the level of traffic
analysis which should be completed for the Latunski/Clement general plan
amendment/zone change proposals based on the alternatives outlined in the
attached memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer.
Recommended Act
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Attachment: January 10, 1989 memorandum from Mark Wessell
DST
cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager
Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer
3
MOORPARIa, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of f g 1989
ACTION: -Zse k-j
di -1 - - t
ELOISE BROWN
Mayor
BERNARDO M. PEREZ
Mayor Pro Tern
CLINT HARPER, Ph. D.
Councilmember
PAUL LAWRASON
Councilmember
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Councilmember
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Per your
prepared
follows:
MEMORANDUM
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
Pat Richards, Director of Community Development
Mark Wessel, City Traffic Engineer mS W
January 10, 1989
General Plan Amendments
GPA-88-1A and 1B (Latunski and Clement)
request, we have reviewed the subject projects and
preliminary work scopes and fee estimates as
GPA-88-1B (Clement)
Three alternative work scopes have been identified for
this component as follows:
1. This alternative scope would provide an analysis
for a zone change that would permit a maximum of
three dwelling units to be constructed on the
site. Because the incremental traffic associated
with the additional dwelling units would be very
small, it is anticipated that this analysis would
consist of no more than an estimate of the
incremental traffic volumes and a statement that
such volumes would represent an insignificant
impact on the adjacent street system. Although
this scope would not include an analysis of
cumulative impacts, a summary of cumulative
analyses contained in other recent studies would
be included. The estimated fee for this
alternative scope would be approximately $600 -
$800.
2. This alternative scope would analyze the
incremental impact of the project if developed as
either a general commercial project or a worst
case commercial project, such as a fast food
restaurant. The scope would include new traffic
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
GM
Page -2-
counts along Los Angeles Avenue, analysis of
existing intersection level of service, analysis
of post project intersection level of service for
existing zoning and both scenarios of proposed
zoning, and identification of appropriate project
mitigation measures. Although this scope would
not include an analysis of cumulative impacts, a
summary of cumulative analyses contained in other
recent studies would be included. The estimated
fee for this alternative scope will be
approximately $5,000 - $6,000.
3. This alternative scope represents a full scope of
work to conduct a complete study encompassing all
the tasks contained in Alternative 2, as well as a
complete cumulative analysis. Inhouse computer
software will be utilized to develop a City
circulation network consisting of zones, links,
and nodes, traffic analysis zones will be defined,
alternative travel paths will be identified, and
zonal trip distribution assumptions will be
developed. Traffic volumes will be generated and
distributed for all developments on the City's
current cumulative project list and cumulative
scenario intersection levels of service will be
analyzed. The study will culminate in a complete
report with exhibits and appendices. The
estimated fee for this alternative scope is
approximately $20,000 - $25,000.
GPA-88-1A (Latunski)
There are two alternative work scopes identified for this
component as follows:
1. Similar to Alternative Scope 1 for the Clement
component, this alternative scope would quantify
the additional traffic volumes that would be
generated by the four additional dwelling units.
It is similarly anticipated that these volumes
would represent an insignificant impact on the
adjacent street system. The report would also
summarize the results of cumulative traffic
analyses from other current traffic studies. The
proximity of the development to the alignment of
the possible future extension of the Route 118
Freeway would also be identified. The estimated
fee for this alternative work scope would be
approximately $800 - $1,000.
2. This alternative scope would represent a thorough
analysis, encompassing full traffic counts,
existing circulation system, level of service,
0
Page -3-
project impacts, identification and evaluation of
alternative circulation master plans for the
northwestern quadrant of the City, consideration
of the possible future extension of the Route 118
Freeway and associated interchange locations,
possible railroad grade crossing locations and
grade separated crossing locations, evaluation of
alternative east -west collector street locations,
relative effects of extending Spring Road
northerly from High Street to Broadway, relative
effects of constructing a Route 23 by-pass to
extend from the freeway connection northerly to
Broadway, etc. The scope of work for this
component is very large and overlaps significantly
with the Circulation Element Update scope of work.
Because of this duplication of work, a fee
estimate is not identified. It is instead
recommended that, if this scope of work is
desired, the necessary tasks be added to the City
Circulation Element Update scope. An alternative
would be to wait for the completion of the
Circulation Element Study, after which the
additional available information would decrease
the work necessary for this scope.
It is emphasized that the above work scopes and estimated
fees are no more than preliminary in nature. Once the City
Council selects the work scope alternatives to be pursued,
detailed cost estimates will be prepared. In general, it is
noted that Work Scope Alternative 3 for the Clement
component would normally be required for an independent
developer desiring to develop a general commercial site.
Similarly, Work Scope Alternative 2 for the Latunski
component would normally be desired to provide a broad
perspective of future development and associated impacts in
the general vicinity with regards to traffic.
MSW:jg
copy: Steve Kueny, City Manager
R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer
John F. Knipe, Assistant City Engineer
BMO609.Mem