Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1988 1207 CC REG ITEM 09AJOHN 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 MOORPARK M E M O R A N D U M ITEM 9 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: November 29, 1988 (CC meeting of 12/7/88) 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 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF COMMITMENT TO ADOPT TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES PER VENTURA COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Summa The Ventura County Board of Supervisors, acting as the Air Pollution Control Board, adopted the County's 1987 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) on July 26, 1988. One of the features of the Air Quality Management Plan is the adoption of Transportation Control Measures by jurisdictions throughout the County. The Environmental Protection Agency has also reviewed the County's AQMP and expects these measures to be adopted by all local jurisdictions. The attached draft resolution and Implementation Schedule (Exhibit A) list various programs the city currently administers, or will administer in the future, that are aimed at improving air quality. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution and Exhibit. Background The Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan calls for implementation of transportation control measures (TCM's) throughout the County. The first step in meeting this measure is adoption of resolutions of commitment to implement TCM's from all local jurisdictions. The Environmental Protection Agency has also reviewed the County's AQMP and has given the County direction to make sure the cities adopt these resolutions. Ventura County is currently a non - attainment area with respect to federal air quality standards. Because air quality planning is done on a regional basis, Ventura County has taken the lead in preparing air quality management and attainment plans. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 TR The County's Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has organized a Traffic Demand Management working group consisting of city planners and traffic engineers, and has hosted meetings over the past year and a half to coordinate local efforts in meeting this measure of the County's AWMP. Resolutions with similar TCM's are therefore being proposed in all jurisdictions within the County. Discussion Exhibit A is an Implementation Schedule that lists the various programs representing the city's air quality improvement efforts. The specific measures of each program are also listed, as well as the legal authority, adoption timelines and funding sources associated with each measure. The Resolution of Commitment states that the city intends clearly to follow the Implementation Schedule in an effort to improve air quality. However, it also specifies that committing to such efforts does not abdicate any responsibility or authority for land use planning decisions. Recommended Action The draft Resolution of Commitment to Implement Transportation Control Measures and the Implementation Schedule for these measures documents those programs to which the city is committed in an effort to improve air quality. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution and Exhibit. Attachment: Resolution and Exhibit A TRANSA /CHRONI Man,, 9a� CITY OF MOORPARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 _X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 7 1. Entitlement:Resolution of Commitment to Adopt Transportation Control Measures per Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan 2. Applicant: City of Moorpark 3. Proposal: Implementation of transportation control measures (TCM's) throughout the County. Adoption of resolution of commitment to implement TCM's within the city 4. Location & Parcel Number(s):City wide. 5. Responsible Agencies:Air Pollution Control Board II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: An initial study was conducted by the Community Development Department to evaluate the potential effects of this project upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained in the attached initial study it has been determined that this project could not, have a significant effect upon the environment. III. PUBLIC REVIEW: 1 2. Prepared by: Publication of a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area. Document Posting Perio_d__November 24, 1988 through December 7, 1988 Approved by: Name/Date ame/Dat Associate Planner i.rector f Community Development �AA` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN, that pursuant to California State law, an evaluation has been conducted to determine if the proposed project could significantly affect the environment, and that based upon an initial study, it has been found that a significant effect would not occur; therefore a Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines issued thereunder. The public review period for the draft Negative Declaration is from November 24, 1988 to December 7, 1988. Copies of this draft Negative Declaration may be reviewed or purchased at the address below. Case: Resolution of Commitment to Adopt Transportation Control Measures per Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan Applicant: City of Moorpark Proposal: Implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) throughout the County. Adoption of resolutions of commitment to implement TCMs within the city. Location: City wide. NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE If you challenge the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing describe in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department at or prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions or comments regarding the project or he adequacy of the draft negative declaration, contact the Department of Community Development at the City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021; Phone: (805) 529 -6864. Date: November 21, 1988 Celia La Fleur, Administrative Secretary Publish Date: November 23, 1988 Inv.00060 Moorpark News TRANSMSR /CHRONI NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Moorpark, California, on Wednesday the 7th day of December 1988, beginning at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers in the City Hall of said city located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, 93021, for the purpose of consideration of the proposed project hereinbelow described. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN, that pursuant to California State law, an evaluation has been conducted to determine if the proposed project could significantly affect the environment, and that based upon an initial study, it has been found that a significant effect would not occur; therefore a Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines issued thereunder. The public review period for the draft Negative Declaration is from November 24, 1988 to December 7, 1988. Copies of this draft Negative Declaration may be reviewed or purchased at the address below. Case: Resolution of Commitment to Adopt Transportation Control Measures per Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan Applicant: City of Moorpark Proposal: Implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) throughout the County. Adoption of resolutions of commitment to implement TCMs within the city. Location: City wide. NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE If you challenge the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing describe in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department at or prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions or comments regarding the project or he adequacy of the draft negative declaration, contact the Department of Community Development at the City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021; Phone: (805) 529 -6864. Date: November 21, 1988 Celia La Fleur, Administrative Secretary Publish Date: November 23, 1988 Inv.00060 Moorpark News TRANSMSR /CHRONI in CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Applicant iC 2. Project Description �0120Y92Ar ; VI&Cci 1 r)Q e40n+YXD 1 m etas urs.S 76-4o nn -the 1907 Ver iDrn- CorsrAy R i r QLA,=1; (r6-1=9 -r,,,�wnt P gan 3. Date of Checklist submittal 1110Uer jbgry- 23t 148 4. Project Location C o mooy-pa,.k- II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or X overcovering of the soil? — C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of X any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, X either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, X or changes in situation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? I YES MAYBE NO 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration Z( of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or X temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d. Is there a potential for cumulative adverse X impacts on air quality in the project area? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, X or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood X waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in. X any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any X alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Degradation of ground water quality? X i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water X( otherwise available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? !o YES MAYBE NO 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species or number of x any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, X or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of x any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Restrict the range of or otherwise affect any X rare or endangered animal species? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an Z( area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife �( habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise ievei.s? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable X resource? is YES MAYBE NO 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, �( distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, x or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand X for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation X systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? �( 13- YES MAYBE NO b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications system? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X g. Street lighting annexation and /or improvements? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational nnnnrttinities? 20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL. Will the proposal: a. Affect possible unknown archaeological or historic - �( al sites? b. Result in destruction or alteration of a known X archaeological or historical site within the vicinity of the project? c. Result in destruction or alteration of a known X. archaeological or historical site near the vicinity of the project2 l �f YES MAYBE NO 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the.quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where impact on ea.h resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is X significant.) — d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. X III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION �ee o--tto`h �i5cu55tor) IV. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: In conformance with Section15060 of the State EIR Guidelines, I find with certainity that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the environment. I find the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to class I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet could be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD BE PREPARED. /s X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIOdN. should be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet could be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD BE PREPARED. _ I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. _ I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ADDENDUM to an existing certified Environmental Impact Report is required. _ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and this effect is adequately addressed in a certified Environmental Impact Report, and thus SUBSEQUENT USE of the existing EIR is required. 1(0 Attachment DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Adoption of the proposed resolution of commitment to implement transportation control. measurf�s (TCM's) and an implementation schedule for these measures will not result in a significant environmental impact. One of the requirements of the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan is the adoption of TCM measures throughout the County. Proposed TCM measures and an implementation schedule are identified in Exhibit A. Ventura County is currently a non — attainment area with respect to federal. air quality standards. The proposed TCM's are intended to improve air quality in the County by reducing air pollution emissions. Specific project proposals such as roadway and intersection improvements will be analyzed separately in regard to potential environmental impact:, resulting from construction of these improvements.