The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0603 CC REG ITEM 08JITEM • MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Steven Rueny, City Manager V(!f- DATE: May 29, 1992 SUBJECT: Consider Relocation of Caltrans Maintenance Station The City has recently received a copy of the approved initial study for the proposed relocation of the existing Moorpark Maintenance station. The proposed site is on excess CalTrans right -of -way at the southwest quadrant of New Los Angeles Avenue and SR 23. The City and other interested parties have until June 30, 1992 to comment or request a public hearing. As the Council is aware, the City staff has some concerns with the proposed site and related matters. The City Council Community Development Committee has previously considered this subject. It is recommended that this item be referred to the Committee and staff for consideration with a report back to the full Council at the June 17, 1992 meeting. If the Council has any specific items it would like evaluated by the Committee, such direction should be given at the June 3, 1992 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Refer this item to the Community Development Committee and staff with a report to the Council on June 17, 1992. - 02 ?ARK. CALIFORNIA - OUn ^II McotJng 0 199..2- tiCTION: �t k14- E� C:CaZTrans.add PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR, Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember 0-- -- 1► STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST. :�w� LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 m�A (213) 897 -3656 (213) 897 -0362 May 20, 1992 Honorable Paul Lawrason Mayor, City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Dear Mayor Lawrason: Enclosed is a copy of the approved Initial Study (IS) for the proposed relocation of the existing Moorpark Maintenance Station to a new site on excess Caltrans right -of -way at the southwest quadrant of New Los Angeles Avenue and the Route 23 interchange. An opportunity to review the document, make comments or request a public hearing is available until June 30, 1992. This IS is available for public review at the Moorpark Public Library, Moorpark City Hall and at Caltrans Environmental Planning Branch. Please review the IS. Your comments, if any, should be received in writing by June 30, 1992, the close of public comment period. For further information contact: Frank Bergen California Department of Transportation Environmental Planning-,,Branch 120 South Spring Street- Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephoner (213) 897 -3848 Sincerely, JERRY B. BAXTER District Director Enclosure RECEIVED - MAY 2 7 1992 r RELOCATE EXISTING MOORPARK MAINTENANCE STATION TO EXCESS RIGHT -OF -WAY AT THE NEW LOS ANGELES AVENUE AND ROUTE 23 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INITIAL STUDY State of California Department of Transportation District 7 L-. 1;. 'BEDOLLA Deputy District Director California Department of Transportation District 7 l� Z- pti to J P. State of California SCH No. Department of Transportation Moorpark Maintenance Station Relocation 07224 - 115630 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code (CEQA) Description Relocate an existing maintenance station in Ventura County in the City of Moorpark. The Moorpark Maintenance Station will be relocated to a new site on excess Caltrans right -of -way at the southwest quadrant of New Los Angeles Avenue and the Route 23 Freeway Interchange. The relocation of the existing maintenance station is necessary in order to accommodate the demand for a larger maintenance crew and bring non - standard structures up to current maintenance facility standards. Land use in the surrounding area consists of open fields at the present time, however existing and proposed zoning could allow for the future development of commercial land use. The topography is flat in the project area surrounded by hilly terrain. Determination An. Initial Study has been prepared by the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans). Based upon this study it is determined that the proposed action will not have a significant impact upon the environment for the following reasons: 1. There will be no effects on businesses, residences, schools or public facilities, neighborhoods, employment, or the area economy. 2. No unique or significant natural features, including but not limited to, plant life, animal life, its habitat or movement, will be affected. 3. No archaeological, cultural or historical properties, parkland, recreational or scenic areas will be affected. 4. No effects on noise, air quality or water quality will occur as a result of this project. 5. There will be no effects on wetlands, floodplains or agricultural lands. L. L. BEDOLLA Date Deputy District Director California Department of Transportation District 7 r TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. NEED FOR NEW MAINTENANCE FACILITY ..................... 1 A. Introduction ...................................... 1 B. Existing Maintenance Facility ... 1 C. Operational Deficiencies .......................... 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................... 3 A. The Proposed Action .......................... 3 B. Alternatives Considered ........................... 5 C. Related Projects ... ............................... 9 III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ... ............................... 14 A. Introduction ....... ............................... 14 B. Topography ......... ............................... 14 C. Land Use ........... ............................... 14 D. Biological Resources .............................. 15 E. Hydrology .......... ............................... 15 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION .............................. 16 A. Environmental Checklist ........ 17 B. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ............ 20 a. Air Pollution........... ..................... 20 b. Consistency with Air Standards ................ 20 c. Noise .......... ............................... 21 d. Biology .... • ...... • ............ 22 e. Disruption of Planned Development and Consistency with Community Plans ............... 22 f. Public Services ............................... 23 g. Traffic ........ ............................... 23 h. Hazardous Materials 23 i. Historical /Archaeological ..................... 24 j. Scenic Resources .............................. 25 k. Construction Impacts .......................... 25 V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ......................... 27 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PERSONNEL .................... 28 VII. DETERMINATION .......... ............................:.. 29 f C LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Regional Location ........ ............................... 2 2. Areas of Maintenance Responsibility ..................... 4 3. Moorpark Maintenance Station ............................ 10 4. Location Plan ............. ............................... 11 S. Preliminary Site Plan ..... ............................... 12 6. Floor Plan ................ ............................... 13 -ii- I. NEED FOR NEW MAINTENANCE FACILITY A. Introduction It is proposed to construct a new maintenance station on excess Caltrans right -of -way at the southwest quadrant of New Los Angeles Avenue and Route 23 Freeway Interchange. Construction of this station will provide facilities for road and landscape maintenance crews serving Routes 118, 23, and a small section of 101. B. Existinq Maintenance Facility The existing Moorpark maintenance facility is located on Los Angeles Avenue on a 1.85 acre lot. Currently, there are three crews housed at this facility (two road and one landscape) which total 26 employees. It is anticipated that in the next ten years 30 employees will be stationed at the Moorpark maintenance station. The existing facility consists of storage sheds, trailers, and pre - fabricated structures. The trailers are used for office space, housing for the crews and women's restrooms and showers. Thirty -two pieces of equipment are stored at this location. C. Operational Deficiencies The existing Moorpark maintenance facility was originally constructed in 1946 with an equipment bay added in 1960. The maintenance station's structures are non - standard according to current maintenance facilities standards. At the present time trailers are being used to house the crews and to provide women's restrooms and showers. -1- Id f VENTURA COUNTY N�eNTURA g � OXNA ® PORT HUENEME S 0 �QyodQ dos L0•9T�D�Y Df P.QOIECT .� 1 r �- 23 THOUSAND ROAK S� ce g Z'ovivr� In addition to non - standard structures, the lot has been reduced to approximately 1.85 acres due to the widening of Los Angeles Avenue, (State Highway 118) at the front of the station, and the widening of Diablo Street at the back of the station. This lot reduction has further made the location_ inadequate for future use. Increasing urbanization and traffic congestion in the vicinity of the existing location, and the demand for a larger maintenance crew has made it necessary to relocate the facility. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A. The Proposed Action In order to correct the above deficiencies Caltrans proposes to relocate the existing maintenance station on an excess right -of- way parcel at the southwest quadrant of new Los Angeles Avenue and the Route 23 Freeway Interchange. The relocated Moorpark maintenance facility will be able to accommodate thirty employees. The project site is approximately 3.5 usable acres in size and located entirely within State right -of -way (see Figure 1 for the project's regional location). -3- SANTA PAULA- 4 fEL T4 0 01% PARDSOALI S A N rA IZ/ S CJ I C) s O A ". K S M 0 G 'o X, 0. MOORPARX LA ' 1,SAIIOy p P l AIR 0' COLONY -10 k MOORP'RX SIMI' "o HOME ACRES VALLEY •sus CHATSWORTHI c e HILLS I CAMARILLO HEIGHTS sol�,s POW • LAS TSWORTH LAKE MANOR 4 r" mi A, OIL A 'ce A —51 C Lff L • WW". ATLAMU I lbS- 1-1 101 1, CA.— 1— CAMA� lo I L CANDG PARK 7 1 . ...... I c WOODLAND HILLS y p ARK. —c HIOD , E . X , MILLS \�l - THOUSAND T u A! ...... --s Ws -3- CALABASiS'� - S A HILLS s- -Atur 141CHLANDS 'Ll'!EE CIF xylEw .11� "I" VILLAI S—do— Pk. L. ,J.110 Pk P-1 44 0 N I C P' 0 , LID ...... - 114 rl I C� u POINT, Nlucu Imo �r.,I% PAUK M ,9 1, 11 .'.....Z & $ f . IOPANGA sT•nr — 7 2 cosl'o Pcok Fl axwooz 1. —A— r. I_, AIR A cj,k� pk - ------ - ---- MONK H 100 .7 ..,o4.PZW aor M"I 1Z"--1W!4gr �PEJPO/YJ //j /LIP.Y The new facility would provide adequate space and the appropriate number of bays, both service and equipment, allowing trailers currently in use to be eliminated. The proposed facility would include a superintendent's office, supervisor's offices, supply storage, both men's and women's restrooms and showers, equipment room, utility room, crew room, service bays, workshop, material bins, fuel island and wash rack with canopy. Separate secure storage areas for waste oil, fertilizer, herbicide, sand and flammable paint will be provided on site (See Hazardous Materials Section). Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 show the maintenance station's asthetic design, location plan, preliminary site plan and floor plan respectively. The project estimated cost is $2,617,000 and is to be funded from the HAl2 Program in the 1993 -94 Fiscal Year. B. Alternatives Considered In October 1990, during a Caltrans informational meeting with the City of Moorpark, the city stated their opposition to the relocation of the new maintenance station on the $ite located at the southwest quadrant of new Los Angeles Avenue and Route 23' Freeway Interchange (preferred alternative). Their opposition to the site was based on its alleged high visibility to a major entry to the city and the incompatibility of Caltrans' maintenance operations with existing and proposed zoning in the surrounding area. -5- On April 15, 1991, Caltrans received a letter from the City of Moorpark identifying eight potential sites acceptable to the city for the relocation project. All of these sites were investigated in relation to their possible environmental impacts, their safe accessibility to State highways and their lot size and shape to permit adequate operation for the maintenance station. Caltrans Environmental Planning Branch reviewed the eight alternative sites and concluded the following: Site 1- This site is partially a hillside of dense chaparral. ( If this hillside is impacted it will have significant C biological effects requiring revegetation and erosion control; therefore this site is not recommended. Site 2- This site is located between two hill sides of dense chaparral. If these areas are impacted they will require ( revegetation and erosion control. There are oak trees in the vicinity, which are protected under a county ordinance. Access to this site is also extremely difficult; therefore it is not recommended. Site 3- This site is located directly adjacent to the Arroyo Simi drainage and Caltrans Route 118/23 gap closure mitigation wetlands. Because a buffer zone for these mitigation wetlands is desirable the site is not recommended. Site 4- This site is also located too close to the Arroyo Simi drainage. Biological and water quality impacts to this area from construction would be significant; therefore it was rejected. Site 5- This site borders the Arroyo Simi drainage in an area where the stream banks appear to be extremely erosive. The site also appears to be located at a river bottom and consequently a flood plain. This site was rejected for the above reasons. Site 6- This site is freshly plowed and has no biological concerns. It is located at the end of a business park cul -de -sac and the adjacent areas are landscaped with exotic plants. This site can be recommended. Site 7- This site has no apparent biological value, although a wild flower survey may be needed if it is selected. It is located on an undeveloped lot adjacent to a business park. It is located next to the Arroyo Simi; however, if impacts to the river can be avoided this alternative may be considered as a site. Site 8- This site was rejected because the area is located at the bottom of a creek or waterway and could be subjected to flooding. The existing access road to the area is also in a low plain and could be subjected to flooding -7- during heavy rains. It would be uneconomical to improve the area in order to meet the maintenance station's requirements. Also, the anticipated environmental impacts on the existing biota at the creek, if the site is to be improved, would be difficult to mitigate. Caltrans identified Site No. 6 and Site No. 7 as the only two alternatives that were acceptable from the eight sites identified by the City of Moorpark. On June 24, 1991, Caltrans' staff met with the City of Moorpark Planning staff to discuss the relocation of the Moorpark Maintenance Station. During the meeting the city objected to both their previously suggested alternative sites No. 6 and No. 7. The city rejected Site No. 6 because of the Maintenance facility's undesirable visibility from the Route 23 Freeway. Site 7 was rejected because of the Maintenance facility's incompatibility with surrounding land use. The city's position on the Maintenance station's site location led Caltrans to select its original site located on the excess right -of -way parcel at the southwest quadrant of New Los Angeles Avenue and the Route 23 Freeway Interchange. This excess parcel appeared to be the most feasible alternative site and would not require additional right- :: of -way. The City of Moorpark was informed of Caltrans decision on July 8, 1991. e: No- project. This alternative would continue operation from the existing maintenance facility. The present overcrowding and non- standard conditions would get worse as urbanization, traffic congestion and workload increases, therefore decreasing productivity and increasing energy consumption. C. Related Projects The City of Moorpark is considering the adoption of the Carlsberg Specific Plan located to the west of Caltrans proposed maintenance station site. The Carlsberg Specific Plan will encompass a 497 acre area bound by New Los Angeles Avenue (north), Tierra Rejada Road (south), Spring Road (west) and Route 23 (east). The Carlsberg Specific Plan will consist of mixed use development, including retail, commercial, industrial, office and residential land uses as well as park land and open space. A portion of the site will be dedicated for city use and the Moorpark Unified School District is considering the location of a middle school on the site. The City of Moorpark is also considering the adoption of a land use plan for a 30 -acre sub - regional retail /commercial shopping center directly adjacent to the proposed maintenance station relocation site. TV 0 7-F - - OW \ \\ .^ �. OF FT, dIj- _- - �- __-- . / .+� � ^�~ m it 3.) ' - - - �- __- _! •- RAMP 10 ON CHAIN LINK FENCE Au I EMULSION TANK A.• �/ I FERTILIZER/ PAINT STORAGE i rh L im. I EOUIPMENT BAYS WASH RACK CLEANER ROOM GAS & OIL ROOM ENTRY GATE LT S' HIGH CONC. BLOCK WALL EQUIPMENT PARKING 11 -49014pw '45VAJ1.1 --will Al f E J' r 'S TIN FES C G OF WAY m y • W J W n / \ _ O CREW ROOM CREW ROOM CREW ROOM n „ NVAC 0 \�% 3 ¢ w W O / ¢ y LOCKERS u M C \ UTILITY COVE ^ U yyi L SUPERVISORS A LEAD WOnKEP$ I TENDENT \ 'L�RS 3 A / C O U N " { I GATE I■ ■ ■ l ■I G � ENTRY OFFICE FLOOR PLAN _ 114 --1 -T �� 1RR TOA ll��J 11 WonK 6110P EOUIPMEIIT DAYS I I E lu' i UTILITY ROOM VO 0 0 O 11 0 O q \ 1 v< /v NORTH ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. Introduction The relocation site is situated in the City of Moorpark in the south - eastern portion of Ventura County. It is located on a Caltrans excess right -of -way parcel at the southwest quadrant of New Los Angeles Avenue and Route 23 Freeway Interchange. Because the proposed site is located entirely within previously disturbed Caltrans right -of -way environmental impacts should be minimal. B. Topography The project area is located in the northeastern part of the Little Simi Valley. It is bordered on the northside by Oak Ridge and Big Mountain and on the southside by the Las Posas Hills. At the western edge of the valley the Arroyo Simi joins other drainage to become Arroyo Las Posas. No active fault passes through the limits of this project, however, it is located within a seismically active area. Although the geological processes which cause earthquakes will continue, the activity level of the project area is considered normal for Southern California. C. Land Use The project site has no residential or commercial land use in its immediate vicinity at this time. Adjacent areas consist of New Los Angeles Avenue and open fields to the north, the proposed -14- 118/23 gap closure freeway to the east and as yet undeveloped fields to the south and west. D. Bioloqical Resources The location of the project is on a completely graded parcel entirely within Caltrans right -of -way. The area is extremely disturbed with vegetation consisting mainly of exotic annual grasses. E. Hydrology The proposed project site is located on fairly flat terrain, therefore, there is little potential for soil erosion. There are no floodplains or rivers located within or directly adjacent to the proposed project. -15- IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION A. Environmental Significance Checklist An "Environmental Significance Checklist" focuses on the environmental impacts most likely to occur with project implementation and determines which impacts, if any, will be significant. Background studies performed in conjunction with this Initial Study /Environmental Assessment have been used in determining the extent to which the project will affect a particular factor. Where background studies indicate a need for clarifying discussion, an asterisk ( *) appears on the checklist. A narrative discussion follows the checklist. An asterisk is also used to indicate cases where no impacts are anticipated, but specific findings are documented. A Physical Environmental Report was prepared in March 1992 to analyze the proposed project's impacts on air quality, water quality, noise levels and energy consumption. In all cases the Physical Environmental Study indicates that there will be no significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. -16- ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST This checklist was used to identify physical, biological, social and economic factors which might be impacted by the proposed project. In many cases, the background studies performed in connection with this project clearly indicate the project will not affect a particular item. A "NO" answer in the first column documents this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, an asterisk is shown next to the answer. The discussion is in the section following the checklist. PHYSICAL. Will the proposal (either directly or indirectly): 1. Appreciably change the topography or ground surface relief features? 2. Destroy, cover, or modify any unique geologic or physical features? 3. Result in unstable earth surfaces or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic or seismic hazards? 4. Result in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation (whether by water or wind)? 5. Result in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? 6. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? 7. Result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource? 8. Violate any published Federal, State, or local standards pertaining to hazardous waste, solid waste or litter control? 9. Modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 10. Encroach upon a floodplain or result in or be affected by floodwaters or tidal waves? 11. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater, or public water supply? 12. Result in the use of water in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? 13. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? 14. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State or local water quality standards? 15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any climatic conditions? 16. Result in an increase in air pollutant emissions, adverse effects on or deterioration of ambient air quality? 17. Result in the creation of objectionable odors? 18. Violato or be inconsistent with Federal, State, or local air sTuIldards or control plans? 19. Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas? 20. Result in any Federal, State, or local noise criteria being equal or exceeded? 21. Produce new light, glare, or shadows? -17- IF YES, IS IT YES OR SIGNIFICANT? NO I YES OR NO No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No N ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST (Cont.) IF YES, IS IT BIOLOGICAL. Will the proposal result in (either directly YES OR SIGNIFICANT? indirectly): NO I YES OR NO 22. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC. Will the proposal (directly or indirectly): 30. Cause disruption of orderly planned development? 31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies or goals, or the California Urban Strategy? 32. Be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management Plan? 33. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? il 34. Affect life- styles, or neighborhood character or stability ?' 35. Affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit- dependent, or other specific interest groups? 36. Divide or disrupt an established community? 37. Affect existing housing, require the acquisition of residential improvements or the displacement of people or create a demand for additional housing? 38. Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or farms? 39. Affect property values or the local tax base? 40. Affect any community facilities (including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)? 41. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services? 42. Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? -18- No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No I * plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora, and aquatic plants)? No 23. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat or any unique, threatened or endangered species of plants? No 24. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? No 25. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop or commercial timber stand, or affect prime, unique, or other farmland of State or local importance? No 26. Removal or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? No " 27. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? No ' 28. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, threatened or endangered species of animals? No 29. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration of movement of animals? No SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC. Will the proposal (directly or indirectly): 30. Cause disruption of orderly planned development? 31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies or goals, or the California Urban Strategy? 32. Be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management Plan? 33. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? il 34. Affect life- styles, or neighborhood character or stability ?' 35. Affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit- dependent, or other specific interest groups? 36. Divide or disrupt an established community? 37. Affect existing housing, require the acquisition of residential improvements or the displacement of people or create a demand for additional housing? 38. Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or farms? 39. Affect property values or the local tax base? 40. Affect any community facilities (including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)? 41. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services? 42. Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? -18- No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No I * ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST (Cont.) IF YES, IS IT 53. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a YES OR SIGNIFICANT? drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant NO YES OR NO 43. Generate additional traffic? Yes No 44. Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively demand of new parking? Yes No 45. Involve a substantial risk of an explosion or the release of 55. Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable hazardous substances in the event of an accident or otherwise means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past adversely affect overall public safety? No 46. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? No 47. Support large commercial or residential development? No 48. Affect a significant archaeological or historic site, structure or indirectly? No object, or building? No + 49. Affect wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks? No 50. Affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? No 51. Result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e.g., noise, dust, temporary drainage, traffic detours and temporary access, etc.)? Yes No 52. Result in the use of any publicly -owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge? No MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. YES OR NO 53. Does the project have the potential to substantially 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 of, restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No 54. 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.) No 55. Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects probable future projects. It includes the effects of other projects which interact with this project and, together, are considerable. No 56. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No -19- B. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation A. Air Pollution ( #16) The maintenance station's daily activities will not exceed the one hour nor the eight hour state and federal carbon monoxide (CO) air quality standards. At a distance of 50 feet from the right -of -way one hour and eight hour carbon monoxide (CO) t concentrations are estimated to increase less than 0.3 ppm and less than 0.1 ppm, respectively, for the year 1993. For the year 2013 these levels would be even lower. The (CO) concentrations ( are expected to increase even less for the nearest residence which is 1000 feet from the right -of -way. B. Consistencv With Air Standards ( #18) The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require that the states prepare an implementation plan (SIP) to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. For transportation related air pollution, the California Plan contains transportation control measures 'to reduce emissions. All transportation plans, programs, and projects must be consistent with the measures set forth in this SIP. On November 3, 1987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating and ordering disapproval of the Environmental Protection Agency's previous approval of ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) control measures for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The State Implementation Plan for ozone and CO for SCAB -20- • r was disapproved by EPA on January 22, 1988, whereupon the 1979 SIP became the applicable SIP. The 1989 Air Quality Management Plan has been proposed as a SIP revision, but has not been approved by EPA. This project is included in SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan (1989 Regional Mobility Plan) and the 1991 -97 Transportation Improvement Program that FHWA determined to be in conformance with the SIP on November 14, 1991. The design concept and scope of this project have not changed significantly from that which is included in the 1989 RMP and the TIP. Analysis shows that the project does not increase the violations of the CO standard in the area substantially affected by the project. Therefore, this project is in conformity with the SIP. C. Noise ( #19 -20) The noise abatement criterion is comprised of the maximum exterior level of 67 dBA (Leq) for residential land use. This criterion and the analysis conform with�the Federal Highway Administration's Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3. The nearest residential area along Spring Road is more than 1000 feet from the proposed new site of the maintenance station. The maximum exterior level of 67 dBA (Leq) for residential land use will not be exceeded as a result of the construction or operation of the maintenance station. Because there is no residential land -21- A use in the immediate vicinity of the project, noise impacts will be minimal. D. Bioloqv ( #22) The relocation of the Moorpark Maintenance station at the southwest quadrant of New Los Angeles Avenue and Route 23 Freeway Interchange will not result in biological impacts. The area has been completely graded and consists entirely of exotic annual grasses. No biological or wetland resources are present, according to a field survey conducted by a Caltrans, Natural Science Specialist. E. Disruption of Planned Development and Consistency with Community Plans ( #30 -31) In October 1990, during a Caltrans informational meeting with the City of Moorpark, the city stated their opposition to the relocation of the new maintenance station on the site located at the southwest quadrant of New Los Angeles Avenue and Route 23 Freeway Interchange (preferred alternative). Their opposition to the site was based on its alleged high visibility to a major entry to the city and the alleged incompatibility of Caltrans' Maintenance operations with existing and proposed zoning in the surrounding area. The City of Moorpark is considering the adoption of the Carlsberg Specific Plan located to the west of Caltrans proposed Maintenance Station site, and the adoption of a land use plan for a 30 acre sub - regional shopping center adjacent to*the proposed site. -22- F. Public Services ( #41) At the present time no public utilities (water, sewer, gas, telephone or electricity) are available on the site. New connections to the city's public utility services will be required for the proposed maintenance station. Any excavations on or near New Los Angeles Avenue due to the extension of public utility lines may disrupt traffic for short periods. The work will be scheduled so as to cause minimum disruption and will be regulated by applicable local ordinances. G. Traffic ( #42 -43) The proposed access route for the Maintenance station will be a driveway located on the northerly side of the excess land parcel directly connected to eastbound New Los Angeles Avenue. This driveway is not intended for use by the general motoring public. Access is classified as "select usage" and is intended primarily for the use of highway maintenance workers. H. Hazardous Materials ( #45) Based on an initial site assessment for the proposed relocation site of the Moorpark Maintenance station, there was no visual evidence of hazardous waste contamination or records of known potential hazardous waste. During the daily operation of the maintenance station, if an unplanned incident occurs either the maintenance crew will -23- contain and clean up the spill, or they will contain the material and contact a hazardous waste contractor to clean up the spill. A recyclable oil storage container will be located at the maintenance station. It will be constructed of a vaulted containment system in order to reduce the probability of leakage to a very low level. The refueling island will be similar to that at a commercial gas station except gas will be stored in an elevated concrete tank. Any spills occurring at these facilities will be handled in the manner described above. Separate, secure space will be provided to store fertilizer and pesticides. The equipment wash rack, is designed with its own drain, separator, and clarifier system, independent of the drainage system for the rest of the station. The wash rack system will meet City regulations in regard to contaminate removal. I. Historical /Archaeological ( #48) No known cultural resources will 'be impacted by this project, according to a field review and records search conducted by a Caltrans Archaeologist. It was noted that most of the land had been previously graded, so there is a low probability of site discovery. In the event that archaeological or historic materials are encountered, all construction activities must cease until proper examination by a qualified archaeologist is conducted. J. Scenic Resources ( #50) Views of the project site will be affected by the construction of the maintenance station. The visual effect is not deemed significant based on the following considerations: ° From the adjacent freeways the site would be visible for a short time by passing motorists. ° Planting will be provided to increase the aesthetic appeal of the maintenance station grounds. K. Construction Imoacts ( #5l) Construction of this project may require use of equipment which has high noise characteristics. Typically, the equipment ranges from concrete mixers to jackhammers producing noise levels in the 80 -90 decibel range at a distance of 50 feet. To reduce the impact of this noise, construction activities will be confined to the daily period least disturbing to the neighboring community, between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Other measures to be considered in the use of this equipment are as follows: 1. All disturbed areas will be revegetated. 2. The noisiest operations will be arranged together in the construction program to avoid continuing periods of greater annoyance. -25- t f- 3. Equipment will be installed and maintained with effective muffler exhaust systems. During construction, solid wastes which may be classified as decomposable material will be removed from the construction area. These materials can include vegetation from clearing and grubbing operations and scrap lumber. Non - decomposable materials such as broken asphalt pavements, concrete, brick, and rock may remain within embankment areas. Excess excavation (dirt), although not classified as solid waste, will be handled and disposed of according to contract specifications. Decomposable solid waste materials generated during construction will be placed in dump sites provided by the contractor. All dump sites must be approved prior to construction and must be of a suitable class compatible with the type of material being deposited. If solid waste material is to be hauled on city streets, the determination of routes to the various dump sites will be a joint effort between.Caltrans, local authorities and the contractor. This will ensure the least disruption of local traffic service and the least damage to local transportation facilities throughout the construction period. -26- r V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Affected agencies, businesses and individuals have been identified during the preparation of this Initial Study. During the public circulation of the document, interested agencies and individuals will have the opportunity to comment and /or request a Public Hearing. _�-,_ r VI. LIST OF PREPARERS The following Caltrans personnel were involved in the preparation of this Initial Study /Environmental Assessment: Franklyn J. Bergen Martin G. Rosen Patricia Williamson Jack Hunter Paul Caron Gustavo Ortega William Lum George Ghebranious Ralph Thunstrom David Greear Senior Environmental Planner Environmental Planning Assistant Senior Delineator District 7 Archeologist Assistant Natural Science Specialist Geo- Technical Engineer District 7 Hydraulic Engineer Senior Environmental Engineer Associate Environmental Engineer Assistant Environmental Engineer 0- VII. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation, it is determined that the proposal could not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration will be prepared for this project. RONAL OSINSKI, Chi Environmental Planning Branch DOU L R. FAILING, Chief Project Development Br nch D -29-