Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0919 CC REG ITEM 09C MOORPARK ITEM gee . BERNARDO M. PEREZ ,p STEVEN KUENY Mayor DORPARK. CALIFORN :P' �—�i City Manager SCOTTMONTGOMERY CItYCo Mama JJpp�������' ' CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tern •AI'�'�inal City Attorney of / 1I•• . `A ELOISE BROWN / ��'l���\►� PATRICK RICHARDS,A.LC.P. Coundlmember ' '?.� e Director of ACTION: ..t._ - ..: � •o • / C. i f;- eloptpent CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. / �, ' Councilmember /1' - � ri1 tbsia - i ' 'ELZEIT PAUL W. LAWRASON,Jr. • met / /990 City Engineer Councilmember ��` ' ' JOHN V. GILLESPIE LILLIAN KELLERMAN Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Clerk City Treasurer MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council e--- FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: September 14, 1990 (CC Meeting of 9-19-90) SUBJECT: MISSION BELL PLAZA AND GREENLEAF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (CPD'S 89-1 AND 89-2, RPD-89-1, AND LDM-89-2) Background The purpose of this memorandum is to keep the Council informed of the status of these projects and to provide recommendations related to their processing. Several meetings have been held between the applicants and staff and the environmental consultant (Impact Sciences) and staff. The applicants have deposited $6,000 to pay for additional environmental analysis, and a General Plan Amendment application has been filed requesting that the Circulation Element be revised to show Gisler Road (Liberty Bell Road) terminating at Lassen Avenue. A public hearing for the Circulation Element revision will be held before the Planning Commission on October 8, 1990. Austin-Foust Associates has agreed to provide the traffic analysis related to eliminating the Liberty Bell Road connection to Poindexter Avenue, and will act as a sub-consultant to Impact Sciences (see attached letter) . We expect to have a summary of their findings and recommendations prior to the Council's October 3rd meeting. Discussion Two different work plan options are discussed below that the Council could follow in regard to an approval action for the commercial and residential projects . It is important to note that the City Attorney has not yet been requested to provide an opinion on the appropriateness of proceeding with either of the identified options . 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 The Honorable City Council September 14, 1990 Page 2 Option 1 Impact Sciences has submitted a letter to the City dated September 11, 1990 (see attached) , which outlines their recommended work plan and includes cost estimate options for the environmental impact report (EIR) if their proposal is followed. The strategy which is outlined is that the City would adopt resolutions at the Council's October 17th meeting declaring your intent to approve the residential and commercial projects . Minor changes would then be made to the EIR to reflect the revised commercial project and the Council would then, at a subsequent meeting (in 30-45 days) , certify the Final EIR and approve the commercial project. Because the changed residential project is a completely different project from that analyzed in the Draft EIR and two new entitlements are now required (tentative tract map and General Plan amendment) , Impact Sciences is recommending that the Draft EIR project description and impact analysis be revised, and that the Draft EIR would then be recirculated. The residential project would subsequently need to be returned to the Planning Commission before final City Council action. Option 2 If the decision is made that the City should not proceed with the "Intent to Approve" approach outlined above (and in the attached letter from Impact Sciences) , another work plan option that may be feasible is as follows : September 19, 1990 Meeting 1. Council makes a determination on preferred plan for residential and commercial projects . 2 . Council closes public hearing for EIR and projects. 3 . Council directs staff (and Impact Sciences) to provide the City Council information papers in response to Council questions (as discussed in attached letter) to be reviewed at the October 17th meeting. 4. Council directs staff to prepare the responses to comments received on the Draft EIR and a draft mitigation monitoring program to be reviewed at the October 17th meeting. The Honorable City Council September 14, 1990 Page 3 October 17 , 1990 Meeting 1. Council reviews information papers. if no increase in impact potential would occur as a result of the commercial plan changes, Council directs that Final EIR include an Errata section discussing the minor commercial project design changes with a conclusion of no significant change in impact analysis. Any minor changes to mitigation measures would also be identified. 2 . Council reviews responses to Draft EIR comments and mitigation monitoring program and makes a determination as to adequacy. 3 . Council indicates intent to approve commercial project and directs staff to prepare resolution and final conditions of approval for the Council 's November 7th meeting. 4 . Council indicates intent to deny the residential project without prejudice and directs staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's November 7th meeting (assumption is that the appropriate entitlement applications for the revised residential application would then be filed, the necessary EIR corrections would be made, the EIR would be recirculated, public hearings would be scheduled, and the Council would ultimately approve the revised project. ) November 7, 1990 Meeting 1 . Council approves mitigation reporting and monitoring program. 2 . Council certifies Final EIR for commercial project. 3. Council adopts a resolution conditionally approving the commercial project. 4 . Council adopts a resolution denying without prejudice the residential project. If the Council decides to proceed with the work plan recommended by Impact Sciences, they have identified that their processing costs associated with work through October 17, 1990 are estimated to be $6, 000 (not including Austin-Foust's work) , and that their estimated costs to subsequently revise the EIR for both the residential and commercial projects could total $35, 000. Staff has requested a breakdown of these costs in order to determine the separate costs for the residential and commercial projects and to determine if any cost savings are available. The Honorable City Council September 14, 1990 Page 4 Regardless of the Council's intentions on these projects, the Final EIR cannot be completed and certified until the public hearing for the EIR is closed. Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Attachments : Austin-Foust Letter dated 9-12-90 Impact Sciences Letter dated 9-11-90 PJR/DST cc: Eric Sakowicz, Impact Sciences • u I ii , I -iii .. _ � „a� AUST/N fOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. TAAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 • TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 September 12, 1990 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark CA 93021 A I"ItNTION: Mr. Patrick Richards, Director of Community Development PROPOSAL: MISSION BELL PLAZA TRAFFIC CONSULTING SERVICES Dear Mr. Richards: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) is pleased to propose a scope of services to perform supplemental traffic analyses and submit recommendations on specific traffic issues pertaining to the EIR traffic study for the Mission Bell Plaza proposed commercial retail center in the city of Moorpark. Based on the information contained in the August 22, 1990, memorandum which you received from John Knipe, we suggest a scope of work comprised of the following individual tasks: 1. Determine the local and regional future usage of Liberty Bell Road if constructed to Poindexter Avenue as shown in the current City of Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element. The 2010 Current General Plan version of the Moorpark Traffic Analysis Model (MTAM) will be used to project future ADT usage of Liberty Bell Road and to estimate the local versus pass-thru components of the ADT projections.. ? Determine the impact of eliminating the Liberty Bell Road connection to Poindexter Avenue. A special MTAM run will be performed which eliminates this connection and resulting ADTs and peak hour ICUs will be compared with the MTAM Current General Plan results. 3. Examine the effect on the projections for Liberty Bell Road if a connection between the Mission Bell Plaza and Town Center commercial developments is assumed. This will be accomplished by examining the traffic model projections from [tern I and trip generation estimates for the commercial sites to estimate the internal interaction between the two sites. 4, Recommendations on a connection of the proposed Gisler Field commercial development to Liberty Bell Road will be submitted. Til ,111 1411 1111 1 (,V,<.T ia'.' 1,1 Mr. Patrick Richards September 12, 1990 Page 2 5. Driveway turning movements for each of the three locations along Liberty Bell Road in the commercial area will be estimated, and recommended intersection lane configurations will be submitted. The preparation of a functional layout plan for Liberty Bell Road from Los Angeles Avenue to Lassen Avenue is not included in the scope, but a separate cost estimate can be prepared based on the level of detail desired and the amount of available background information_ Work Tasks 1 through 5 arc proposed to be completed on a time and materials basis for a fee not to exceed $3,000 based on the following estimated personnel allocation: ESTIMATED PERSONNEL ALLOCATION Classification Hours Rate Cost Principal Traffic Engineer S $90 $ 720 Project Manager 8 70 560 Asst_ Transportation Engineer 22 45 990 Senior Technical 10 35 350 Traffic Technician 10 30 300 Subtotal $2,920 Direct expenses: travel, reproduction, etc. $ 80 TOTAL $3,000 This estimate is based on the availability of suitable background information for use in the analysis, and does not include meeting attendance. Work shall begin immediately upon notice to proceed with a summary of findings and recommendations completed within two weeks. Thank you for the opportunity to propose on this important planning effort. Please feel free to call with any questions regarding this proposal. Very truly yours, Kendall E. Elmer • 11 IMPACT SCIENCES INC -- RECEIVED - SEP 1 2 1990 267 West Hillcrest Drive•First Floor Thousand Oaks,California 91360 CITY OF M P Telephone(805)494-6600•FAX(805)494-6681 �OR�� '}� September 11,1990 City of Moorpark Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Attention: Mr. Pat Richards Director of Community Development RE: Work Plan;Cost Estimate Options;Mission Bell Plaza and Greenleaf Apartments Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Richards, At your request, we have supplied this information regarding the work that will be required to the complete environmental documentation for this project. To provide perspective,it may be helpful to define where in the process we are now,followed by a description of the tasks that will be required to complete the environmental review process. Most important at this time is the fact that the public hearing on this project remains open on both the project and Environmental Impact Report(EIR);and the fact that the most current project has not been presented in any form to the City Council. Until the City Council closes the public hearing on at least the EIR, we cannot • complete preparation of the Final EIR that is required for final Council action. Further, the City Council has requested information on a variety of environmental topics that must be supplied to the council in some form before a council action on either the project or the EIR can be made. A strategy has been identified where the City Council would would conduct three actions that are identified below. • declare by resolution the Council's intent to approve the project provided there are no additional changes in the project description • at a later date,certify the EIR for the commercial project components (i.e.,the upper and lower commercial project components)and formally approve these project elements • at a later date,certify the EIR for the residential project component and formally approve this project element This strategy has been developed because it would ensure compliance with the legal requirements of Planning and Zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act, this process would provide the Council both timely and detailed information on the environmental questions that the Council has proposed,and meet the City's time obligations. • 1. � To accomplish this objective, specific events must be accomplished at selected City Council meetings. The specific meeting dates and the tasks to be done are identified below. City Council Meeting of September 19,1990 • review the latest site plan • open the public hearing • close the public hearing • direct staff(and the consultant) to provide the City Council information papers on the data that the council has requested for their meeting of October 17,1990 City Council Meeting of October 17,1990 • determine if any increase in impact potential would occur as a result of the plan changes (the remaining "plan"assumes that there is none; if there is an increase in impact potential,the EIR must be recirculated by law and none of the remaning items are appropriate) • review the information papers that respond to the questions raised by the City Council • entertain any final discussion • approve a resolution declaring the Council"s "Intent to Approve the Project" • direct staff to amend and prepare the Final EIR's for the residential and commercial projects,and to include quantified data(as opposed to the more qualitative white papers that were supplied for this meeting) that responds to Council questions if the Council determines this item to be necessary At this time the City Council would have made an action,and would not be subject to further time deadlines as required by AB 884. At a later date (approximately 45 days) the following events would occur. • the Final EIR for the commercial project components would be returned to the Council • the Council would determine that the project has not changed • • the Council would certify the Final EIR • the Council would formally approve the project This would end the City Council actions necessary for the commercial project components. Final approval of the residential project is more complex due to the fact that a revised Residential Planned Development application is required in addition to a General Plan Amendment for the deletion of Liberty Bell (it is assumed that the most current plan deletes this roadway segment). Steps necessary to complete this process would are identified below and are expected to require approximately four months to complete. • accept the revised and new applications • revise the EIR for the residential project component • re-circulate the EIR for the residential component • conduct a Planning Commission hearing • conduct a final City Council hearing (at that hearing the steps for the City Council would be the same as identified above for the commercial project components) This would end the City Council actions necessary for the residential project component. None of this work was included in our contract for the proposed project. Costs associated with work through October 17, 1990 are estimated to be $6,000.00. This has been authorized by you verbally on Monday September 10, 1990. No formal estimate of costs for the subsequent work has been completed. However, we have estimated these charges to be approximately $35,000.00 and would include costs incurred by both Austin Faust and Linscott, Law and Greenspan. It should be emphasized that this is an estimate, and later number does not include revisions to the staff report or conditions (it is expected that only minor changes to these documents would be required,and that this work could more effectively be conducted by City staff). Further, all costs associated with work conducted previously on the EIR and the staff report have vastly exceeded the original budget due to inumerable changes in the project description and a process that has occurred over a long time period that has required substantial management, professional, and administrative charges. Impact Sciences, Inc. will be forwarding an invoice to the City for these charges as well. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this letter please inform us as soon as possible. Very ruly yours, IMPAIlbT SCIE S, INC. I \ Eric kowicz Presid nt