Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0405 CC REG ITEM 11IITEM /Is T • ,_/ Ia .­46 MOOPPAK CAUFORW aty cc Of Iqq.5- A A'• A G E N D A R E P O R T C I T Y O F M O O R P A R K TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Developme Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner rT�; DATE: March 30, 1995 (CC Meeting of 4 -5 -95) SUBJECT: CONSIDER AN ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8 PROJECT Background The City Council at its June 1, 1994, meeting provided direction regarding the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR. The City Council's decision at that time was that the Draft EIR would not include study of the extension of the westerly terminus of Campus Park Drive. Staff is requesting reconsideration of this decision for the reasons discussed below. Discussion Subsequent to the City Council's decision on June 1, 1994, to not include study of a westerly extension of Campus Park Drive as a project circulation alternative, staff received the Adopted Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (dated July 8, 1994), that include further direction regarding selection and rejection of alternatives. Section 15126(d)(2) of the amended CEQA Guidelines states: ..The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. The Honorable City Council March 30, 1995 Page 2 It is staff's opinion that in order to comply with the amended Guidelines, the Draft EIR should include either: 1) an analysis of the positive and negative consequences /impacts related to a westerly extension of Campus Park Drive, including an analysis of whether that circulation alternative could avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the proposed project; or 2) the reasons for rejecting a westerly extension of Campus Park Drive as a feasible circulation alternative. One likely consequence of not including any discussion in the Draft EIR, pertaining to a westerly extension of Campus Park Drive, is that comments may be received on the Draft EIR alleging that the alternatives analysis is inadequate. A potential consequence may be that the Draft EIR would need to be recirculated. The amended CEQA Guidelines also further clarify the rules regarding recirculation of a draft EIR. If new information is added to the EIR after public review, that deprives the public of an opportunity to comment upon a feasible way to mitigate or avoid an adverse effect (including a feasible project alternative), that the project's proponents have declined to implement, recirculation is required. At the Community Development Committee's meeting on March 6, 1995, various circulation alternatives for the Specific Plan No. 2 (JBR Development Company /Morrison Homes) area were discussed, including the potential for a connecting roadway between the Specific Plan No. 2 and Specific Plan No. 8 areas. If Spring Road was extended north, from its existing terminus, and then east through the lower portion of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, there is the potential for allowing a connection to Campus Park Drive at its westerly end. This connection would improve emergency access for the Varsity Park area of the City. The Committee requested that JBR Development Company /Morrison Homes prepare maps identifying several potential circulation alternatives that would facilitate access between the two specific plan areas as well as facilitate access from the northerly portion of the City into downtown Moorpark. The Committee will view conceptual circulation alternative maps prepared by JBR Development Company /Morrison Homes at the Committee's next meeting. For the Specific Plan No. 8 project, the City Council has already authorized the study of a Spring Road extension alternative, that would cross the lower portion of Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park, and connect with the project circulation system. Staff's recommendation is that the EIR consultant (MBA) also be allowed to analyze a variation of the Spring Road extension alternative, that would include a connection of Campus Park Drive to this roadway, and that MBA be allowed to analyze the impacts of an extension of Campus Park Drive, that would directly connect with Hidden Creek Ranch Parkway (also known as the Broadway extension). The Honorable City Council March 30, 1995 Page 3 If after evaluating the merits of a westerly extension of Campus Park Drive, the City Council determines that the proposed project circulation system or other alternative is preferred, documentation could then be included in the Final EIR or administrative record (e.g., Findings), which clarifies the City's reasons for rejection of the westerly extension of Campus Park Drive as a feasible circulation alternative. Recommendation Authorize staff to include in the Draft EIR for Specific Plan No. 8 evaluation of the westerly extension of Campus Park Drive as a circulation alternative.