Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 0602 CC REG ITEM 11DITEM A. �. sc AGENDA C I T Y O F R E P O R T M O O R P A R K TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Development Prepared by Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner.7A�5T DATE: May 28, 1993 (CC Meeting of 6 -2 -93) SUBJECT: CONSIDER CITY COMMENTS REGARDING NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR HAPPY CAMP CANYON REGIONAL PARR - QUOR RESORT, VENTURA The City received a copy of the above referenced NOP on May 7, 1993, and comments are due to the County of Ventura by June 7, 1993. Included with the NOP was a project description report and initial study dated April 1993. A copy of those documents was provided to the City Council under separate cover (by memorandum dated May 12, 1993). A generalized site plan for the lower canyon area of the Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park and a summary of project facilities and phasing for the QUOR Resort proposal are attached. DISCUSSION The NOP for the QUOR Resort project identifies that the General Services Agency (GSA) of the County has determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an EIR should be prepared. The purpose of the NOP is to obtain input from responsible agencies regarding issues that should be addressed in the draft EIR. The initial study that accompanies the NOP identifies potentially significant impacts and issues to be addressed in the EIR. Staff's comments are intended to supplement the initial study issues discussion. Staff's primary concern is in regard to the proposed use of Campus Park Drive as the main access for QUOR Resort facilities in Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. Broadway is proposed to provide access for recreational vehicles only. The projected maximum peak daily (Saturday) traffic volumes for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the QUOR project would be 2,314, 6,368, and 8,502 one -way trips, respectively. The Honorable City Council May 28, 1993 Page 2 The City has continuously expressed its opposition to the use of Campus Park Drive for access to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park both to the County of Ventura and to QUOR Resorts, Inc. The City's recently updated Circulation Element shows Campus Park Drive, west of Princeton Avenue, as a two -lane collector roadway, and the City's traffic model assumes no access to the park will occur from Campus Park Drive. The City's overall circulation system was designed to accommodate the projected traffic to be generated by the City's land use plan, and cumulative traffic generated outside the City limits, and includes a SR -23 bypass facility in combination with a SR -118 westerly extension, a Broadway extension to SR -118, and a connector roadway between Princeton Avenue and the SR -23 bypass (shown as "D" Street on Figure 2 of the Circulation Element). The City's traffic model includes average daily trip (ADT) assumptions for both the Blue Star Mine and the QUOR Resort; however, the current QUOR Resort proposal would generate approximately 1,000 more ADT than the amount imputed into the City's traffic model. The initial study identifies that the QUOR Resort would utilize the SR -23 bypass arterial and Broadway extension, once those facilities have been completed. The project description report does not include any proposal for QUOR Resorts, Inc., to pay a fair -share fee to help fund those facilities. The Initial Study does identify that an offramp would be constructed at Broadway once the SR -23 bypass facility is completed. Broadway would then serve as the primary access to the resort with secondary access from Campus Park Drive. The Initial Study also identifies that if Broadway were to be extended eastward to SR -118, the primary resort entrance would be along the new Broadway extension on the east side of the park. The Broadway extension is not intended by QUOR Resorts, Inc., to be a thoroughfare; gates are proposed at park entrances along Broadway to prohibit through traffic. It is staff's intention to inform the County that use of Campus Park Drive as a primary park access route will not be allowed by the City, and that Campus Park Drive should only be used to provide emergency access. If the project is not modified to reflect the limited use of Campus Park Drive that will be permitted by the City, the EIR must analyze access alternatives that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element, including a SR -23 bypass, a westerly extension of SR -118, a Broadway extension connecting SR's 23 and 118, and a connector roadway between Princeton Avenue and the SR -23 bypass. The City's Circulation Element does not portray precise alignments for future roadways. Therefore, the most feasible alignment for the SR -23 bypass is unknown at this time. The EIR should analyze at least two alignment alternatives: One possible alignment would The Honorable City Council May 28, 1993 Page 3 be within the Specific Plan No. 2 area, west of the 150 -foot high cliff in the northeast quadrant of that Plan area; another possible alignment would be the routing of the bypass east of the 150 -foot high cliff, through a portion of Happy Camp Regional Park, to connect with Broadway. Since the project proposal is to block through traffic on Broadway with the use of gates at park entrances, the Draft EIR should analyze an access alternative for a Broadway extension that is consistent with the City's Circulation Element (i.e., Broadway would be a 2 -4 lane Rural Collector roadway connecting SR -23 and SR -118). Another alternative should be analyzed which consists of a phasing plan based on available access, not including Campus Park Drive. In other words, the EIR should clarify what Park facilities could be developed that would not result in significant adverse traffic impacts on existing roadways /highways if only existing SR -23 (Walnut Canyon Road) and Broadway are available for park access; what Park facilities could be accommodated if the Broadway Extension is constructed; etc. Mitigation must also be included in the EIR which requires QUOR Resorts, Inc., to pay its fair share of required circulation improvements needed to support their proposed development, and minimize adverse impacts to the circulation system (including City and County maintained roadways and State highways). In addition to the preceding transportation /circulation comments, other EIR comments that staff intends to include in a letter to the County GSA in response to the NOP are as follows: Project Description - The Initial Study references a 1991 Master Plan that has never been made available to the City for review. The EIR should clarify all plans and required permits that constitute "the project ", and all planning documents should be made available for public review. Inadequate information is provided for the proposed water activity park. The project description report identifies that "this portion of the park is expected to draw many visitors. " Numbers of persons to be accommodated must be quantified and the impacts fully addressed. Other project components which are inadequately described are the proposed village center and the amphitheater. In regard to the village center, the City would not support any retail component which may be designed so as to attract nearby City residents to shop at the center, thereby impacting City sales tax revenues. The description of the amphitheater and proposed uses is vague. If a concert use is intended, the expected impacts should be fully addressed in the EIR. The Honorable City Council May 28, 1993 Page 4 Initial Study Checklist - We disagree with the preliminary determination of "Degree of Effect" for issue areas as follows: Visual - "Significant" should be checked for both project impact and cumulative impact. Refer to comments pertaining to visual resources, below. Glare (Lighting) - "Significant" should be checked for both project impact and cumulative impact. Refer to comments pertaining to lighting /glare, below. Transportation /Circulation - "Unknown, EIR Required" should be checked for project impact on both public and private pedestrian /bicycle facilities. No information has been provided to clarify whether existing and planned trails into Happy Camp Regional Park from the City of Moorpark and adjacent unincorporated County area will be affected by the proposed development. Refer to comments pertaining to transportation /circulation, below. Land Use - The EIR should identify both Specific Plan areas 2 and 8 as designated on the City of Moorpark's land use plan. Both of these areas border Happy Camp Regional Park. (The initial study currently only addresses Specific Plan Area No. 8). Air Quality - Information regarding the City's growth control ordinance is presented incorrectly in the initial study. The City's current growth control ordinance is known as Measure F (not Measure 7). Measure F will expire in 1995 (not 1994); however, the City Council has appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to formulate recommendations for extending Measure F or creating a new growth management ordinance. Water Quality - The EIR should address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and applicable design measures or mitigation conditions that will be imposed on the project to reduce storm water pollution. Biological Resources - A new biological survey of all areas of the park proposed for development should be completed. The quality and quantity of various habitats may have changed based on the heavy rains during the winter of 1992 -1993. Visual Resources - Visual impacts on adjacent residents would be significant, and we disagree with the Initial Study conclusion that the impact would be adverse but not significant. In addition, the QUOR Resort may result in significant cumulative visual impacts to both adjacent residents and park users in combination with other planned development in the area. The Honorable City Council May 28, 1993 Page 5 Lighting /Glare - The EIR should fully analyze both the direct and cumulative lighting /glare impacts to the City of Moorpark, including impacts to the Moorpark College observatory. No information is currently provided pertaining to lighting that would be installed for the golf course and tennis courts. Transportation /Circulation - Refer to prior identified transportation /circulation issues and suggested alternatives and mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Other transportation and circulation issues which require further elaboration in the EIR include potential impacts to trails and pathways and transit. The Initial Study identifies that there would be no passage through the park for non - visitors, which means that trail linkages would be affected. The proposal appears to be inconsistent with the cooperative effort that is currently underway to develop a Ventura County Regional Trails and Pathways Program (the intent of which is to create trail linkages between all areas of the County). The EIR should identify what type of transit service(s) would be required as well as funding sources, and identify appropriate mitigation if significant impacts are identified. The Initial Study incorrectly identifies a key intersection that will be affected by the project as "College View and Los Angeles Avenue (SR -118). That reference is incorrect. The EIR should analyze the Collins Drive /SR -118 intersection. Waste Treatment /Disposal - The EIR should clarify whether all of the reclaimed water generated by the proposed wastewater treatment plant can be accommodated on -site or if discharge into Happy Camp Creek is proposed. The EIR should also clarify how recycling of solid waste will be encouraged through the design and operation of the planned park facilities. Law Enforcement /Emergency Services - The EIR should clarify how law enforcement will be funded, and how the officer -to- population ratio in the City and pertinent unincorporated area would be affected. Fire Protection - The EIR should clarify how fire protection services will be funded, and how service in the City may be affected if the Moorpark station would need to provide service to the QUOR Resort in addition to existing and planned development in the City. The project description report identifies that a fire station will be provided onsite; however, the initial study does not make any reference to that station. If an onsite station is proposed, the EIR should clarify how it will be funded and who will staff it. The Honorable City Council May 28, 1993 Page 6 Recreation - The Draft EIR should provide evidence that the QUOR Resort proposal is in compliance with the deed agreement that transferred ownership from the State of California to the County of Ventura. The City questions the proposal to provide a neighborhood park that will primarily serve only city residents in a County park. The proposed park site would appear to be strategically placed so as to permit use of Campus Park Drive for resort traffic. Another recreation/ circulation issue is the proposal to restrict (i.e., block) access into the Park from existing and planned trails. Refer to prior Transportation /Circulation comments. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to prepare a letter to the County of Ventura, General Services Administration, addressing issues which should be analyzed in the Draft EIR for Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park - QUOR Resort. Attachments: 1. Lower Canyon Concept Plan 2. Summary of Project Facilities and Phasing JRA /DST i r t Care Car Complex Guest Eq Center Recreatic Complex Village Complex I f R C Campus Park Not to Scale Drive Entrance Wilderness Preserve Entrance Children's Camp Complex Resort Park Complex Recreational Park Complex :al Systems olf Complex Public Park ProtLNo. Happy Camp Cany on 926 Re ional Park Figure 5. 1991 LOWER CANYON CONCEPT I December Wrd -Clyde Consultants PLAN 1 1992 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT FACILITIES AND PHASING Cumulative Cumulative Number Number of Construction Construction Construction Proposed Facility of Acres Units in Phase 1 in Phase 2 in Phase 3 Public Park 7.5 NA 100 % Recreational Vehicle 53 368 sites 50 % or 184 100 17b or IS4 Complex sites more sites Recreational Park 34 NA 40 �,c 70 170 100 % Complex Resort Camp 63 256 sins 50 % or 12S 50 G% or 123 Complex sites more sites Guest Equestrian 4 NA 75 '0 100 Center Village Complex 23 NA 17 170 50 °'0 100 % Wilderness Entrance 1 NA 75 17o 100 L70 Golf Complex 264 27 holes 67 % or 18 100 %' or 9 holes more holes Care Camp Complex 12 65 units 100 "0 Children's Camp 7 24 units 100 % Resort Conference 32.5 450 rooms 100 % or Complex 450 rooms Environmental 12 NA 25 1,0 35 '�0 100 % Systems Complex NA = not applicable. See Figures 5 and 6 for (ocations of facilities. jtf_g, IiCamp ibl