HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 1207 CC REG ITEM 11HTO:
FROM:
DATE:
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
The Honorable City Council
ITEM110 H•
Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Development/
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner T
November 28, 1994 (CC Meeting of 12 -7 -94)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER COMMENT LETTER ON COUNTY OF VENTURA INITIATED
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING TRANSPORTATION/
CIRCULATION GOALS AND POLICIES
Background
Attached is a copy of a Notice of Public Hearing (Attachment 1),
information on the project description and environmental impacts
(Attachment 2), and a copy of the City's comment letter and the
County's response letter from the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report for the County General Plan amendment regarding
Transportation /Circulation Section goals and policies (Attachment
3). The County Planning Commission's public hearing was held on
November 17, 1994, and the Board of Supervisor's hearing is
scheduled for December 13, 1994.
Discussion
Staff's primary concern with the proposed General Plan amendment,
is that General Plan Transportation /Circulation policies are
intended to be adopted, which would allow County projects to be
approved that could result in significant, unmitigated traffic
impacts in the City of Moorpark. The project description
information in Attachment 2 includes the proposed changes to the
County General Plan Transportation/ Circulation Section goals and
policies.
Staff is concerned that proposed Policy 4.2.2.5 would allow the
County to approve a project, such as Happy Camp Canyon Golf Course
or Transit Mixed Concrete Mine, and not require any traffic
mitigation measures for impacts to roadways and State highways
located within the City. The language is broad enough so as to
allow interpretation that if a city had not already adopted
"...General Plan policies, ordinances, or a reciprocal agreement
with the County (similar to Policies 4.2.2 -3 through 4.2.2- 6)... ",
dst- 11- 28- 9411: I4PMC:\WP5I\STFRPT\CC12- 7CO.GPA
00411
The Honorable City Council
November 28, 1994
Page 2
before a County project reached the public hearing stage, the
County could approve that project and not require any mitigation of
traffic impacts to a city. Also, we do not agree that adoption of
the proposed policy language relieves the County of its obligation
to use its authority to require changes, in any or all activities
involved in a project, in order to lessen or avoid significant
effects on the environment. Section 21002 of the California
Environmental Quality Act includes the following language:
The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy
of the state that public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives
or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of such projects...
It is the City Attorney's opinion that the County's adoption of the
proposed revisions to their General Plan Transportation /Circulation
policies does not relieve them of their obligation, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, to require feasible
mitigation for potentially significant impacts. In order to meet
the legal requirements for a challenge to the action, the City
Attorney has recommended that a letter be sent to the County
expressing the City's opposition to the proposed General Plan
amendment, and that staff attend the Board of Supervisor's hearing
and verbally express the City's opposition.
Recommendation
Direct staff to prepare a letter to the Board of Supervisors, to be
signed by the Mayor, that expresses the City's opposition to the
proposed County General Plan Transportation /Circulation Section
policy revisions, and direct staff to attend the scheduled Board
public hearing to verbally express the reasons for the City's
opposition.
Attachments:
1. Notice of Public Hearing
2. Project Description and Environmental Impact excerpts from the
Final Supplemental EIR
2. City's comment letter on Final Supplemental EIR and County's
response letter
det- 11- 28- 94/ 1 :14pW:\WP51\STFRPT\CC12- 7CO.GPA
00111
ATTACHMENT i
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
county of viEntura
Planning Division
Keith A. Turner
Director
RECEIVED 94 -1 80
n NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
i994 VENTURA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION A
AND VENTURA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR
of iftorpar� COUNTY- INITIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING
bmm!!miv 0,3veiwrent Departme TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION GOALS AND POLICIES, AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES APPENDIX
r,
The County- initiated General Plan Amendment. is proposed as follows:
L:
Goals, Policies and Programs Document
This proposed amendment would modify the existing goals and policies of
the Transportation /Circulation Section of the County's General Plan to:
(1) provide a change in the Level of Service (LOS) standards for County
roads, and Federal and State highways, (2) revise LOS thresholds for
determining the need for road widening, (3) amend the Public Facilities
Map to reflect reduced road widening, (4) replace provisions prohibiting
discretionary development that would have certain impacts on the roads
with provisions allowing sucr development, upon payment of fees, to
provide its pro -rata share of road improvement costs, and (5) clarify
related goals and policies.
Public Facilities Appendix
This proposed amendment would modify the text and figures within the
Transportation /Circulation section to: (1) add a table showing Average
Daily Trips (ADT) and LOS thresholds for different types of roads, (2)
modify the 2010 Regional Road Network Map to reflect updated information
regarding ADTs and number of lanes, and (3) update the text and figures to
be consistent with the amendment= to the Goals, Policies and Programs
document.
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for this proposed project, prepared
pursuant to the provisions of the California Erivironmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the County's Administrative Supplement to CEQA, indicates that the project
(identified in the Supplemental EIR as "Alternative 2 ") may have a significant
effect on the environment (Farmland and Farming Operations, Air Quality, Noise,
Biological Resources, Traffic Flow, and Visual effects), and a Statement of
overriding Considerations must be prepared for the project.
Members of the public are invited to attend and be heard at the public hearing
to be held by the PLANNING COMMISSION OF VENTURA COUNTY on Thursday, November 17,
1994, at 8:30 a.m., in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, County Government
Center, Hall of Administration, 800 South. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California,
and at the public hearing held by the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF VENTURA COUNTY on
Tuesday, December 13, 1994, at 1:30 F.m. at the same location.
Questions concerning this proposed project may be directed to Kelly Scoles, RMA
Planning, L #1740, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California, or at (805)
654 -5042 Monday through Thursday, 7:C0 a rr.-3:00 p.m.
If you challenge in court the action taken on the project described in this
notice, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone raised at
the public hearings described in this Notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Ventura County Planninc: Directcr at, or prior to, the public
hearings.
800 South Victoria Avenue, L # 1740, Ventura, CA 93009
cc, & ily m►f,,, D G a
Printed on Recycled Paper
00 "12
(805) 654 -2481 FAX (805) 654 -2509
.rte
r:
r
ATTACHMENT 2
VENTURA COUNTY
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FINAL
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
( TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION GOALS AND POLICIES)
SCH. NO. 87100711
The Environmental Report Review Committee recommends that the decision - making body
of the proposed project find that this document has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Chair, Environmental Report
Review Committee
Date
R C �1/ED
00113
l 1994
uornfTm 9eVe,100111rt n9U8!;IP2CI
I. FOREWORD (SUPPLEMENTAL EIR)
Existing General Plan Transportation /Circulation goals and policies provide that discretionary
development producing individual or cumulative traffic impacts which would result in an existing
road within the Regional Road Network currently functioning at an acceptable Level of Service
(LOS) to fall below that LOS, or would worsen traffic conditions on roads within the Regional
Road Network which currently function below the acceptable County LOS, shall be prohibited
unless a full funding mechanism is provided to ensure that those impacts are mitigated within
a reasonable period of time. In effect, the existing goals and policies prohibit any discretionary
development, without full funding of road improvements, which will generate traffic on roads
expected to fall below acceptable County LOS standards by 2010.
On March 23, 1993, the Board of Supervisors directed the Public Works Agency to prepare a
Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance and directed the Resource Management Agency to
prepare amendments to the General Plan Transportation /Circulation goals and policies for the
Board's consideration. The purpose of the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance is to
establish a funding mechanism for improvements to the Regional Road Network. The purpose
of the General Plan Amendment is to establish a policy which requires payment of the traffic
impact fee as mitigation of the cumulative traffic impacts of discretionary development.
An amendment to the County General Plan
required the preparation of a Supplement to
Comprehensive Update.
1F52- 1.94/1
Traffic /Circulation Section goals and policies
the EIR prepared for the 1988 General Plan
00114
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (SUPPLEMENTAL EIR)
Ventura County is processing an amendment to the Ventura County General Plan. This
amendment is described below:
A. PROJECT APPLICANT
County of Ventura
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
B. PROJECT LOCATION
This amendment to the County General Plan covers future discretionary development
located in the unincorporated area of Ventura County.
C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this amendment to the General Plan are to revise the
Transportation/ Circulation goals and policies (Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the Goals,
Policies and Programs document) to modify the Level of Service (LOS) standards for
i road segments and intersections within the Regional Road Network, and to require that
discretionary development which would have a cumulative impact on existing and future
roads pay its pro -rata share of the costs of necessary improvements on the Regional Road
Network as established in the County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance (see
Section D).
The existing goals and policies of the Transportation /Circulation Section of the County
General Plan establish LOS standards for the entire Regional Road Network including
all County thoroughfares, County- maintained roads, and for all Federal highways and
State highways. The proposed amendment would enable cities to prescribe LOS
standards for those Federal and State highways which are located within their corporate
boundaries, as well as their own roads and thoroughfares.
The existing General Plan policies provide that County General Plan land use designation
changes, zone changes and discretionary development producing individual or cumulative
traffic impacts which would: (a) result in an existing road within the Regional Road
Network currently functioning at an acceptable LOS to fall below that LOS, or (b)
worsen traffic conditions on roads within the Regional Road Network which currently
function below the acceptable County LOS, shall be prohibited unless a full funding
commitment is made to ensure that those impacts are mitigated within a reasonable period
of time.
1F52- 1.94/11
00115
improvements to the Regional Road Network as provided under the provisions of the
Traffic Mitigation Fee Ordinance. Project specific impacts will continue to required fully
funded improvements to ensure that the affected road segments remain within acceptable
County LOS standards.
D. PROJECT SPECIFICS
The proposed changes to the Transportation /Circulation Section goals and policies are
as follows:
4.2.1 GOALS
2. Ensure that as new discretionaa development creates the need, existing roads
within the Regional Road Network and Local Road Network are improved, and
additional roads needed to complement the Regional Road Network and Local
Road Network are constructed, so as to keep all such roads functioning at an
acceptable LOS.
3. Ensure that eaeh new development which would individually of eufnuiatiyelyy
contribute to the cumulative need for improvements or additions to the Regional
Road Network of LeealE Rea Netwer k bears its pro -rata share of the costs of
all such improvements or additions.
4.2.2 POLICIES
C
3. The minimum acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for road segments and
intersections within the Regional Road Network and Local Road Network shall
be as follows:
a. LOS -'D' for all County thoroughfares. County - maintained local roads
and Federal highways and State highways in the unincorporated area of
the County, except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (b);
b. LOS -'E' for State Route 33 between the northerly end of the Ojai
Freeway and the City of Ojai;
e. LOS 'C'
roads;; and
1 F52 -1.94/ 12
00 .16
\ c.d- The LOS prescribed by the applicable city for all Federal highways,
\ State highways, city thoroughfares and city - maintained local roads
located within that city, if the city has formally adopted General Plan
policies, ordinances, or reciprocal agreement with the County (similar
to Policies 4.2.2 -3 through 4.2.2 -56) respecting
development in the city that would individually or cumulatively affect the
LOS of Federal highways, State highways, County thoroughfares and
County - maintained local roads in the unincorporated area of the County.
At any intersection between two roads, each of which has a prescribed minimum
acceptable LOS, the lower LOS of the two shall be the minimum acceptable LOS
for that intersection.
4. County General Plan land use designation changes, zone changes and
discretionary development shall be evaluated for their individual &id eufflulativ
impact on existing and future roads, with special emphasis on the following:
(a) Whether they project would cause existing roads within the Regional
Road Network or Local Road Network that are currently functioning at
an acceptable LOS to function below an acceptable LOS;
(b) Whether they project would worsen traffic conditions on existing roads
within the Regional Road Network or the Local Road Network that are
currently functioning below an acceptable LOS; and
(c) Whether they rp oject could cause future roads planned for addition to the
Regional Road Network or the Local Road Network to function below
an acceptable LOS.
5. County General Plan land use designation changes, zone changes and
discretionary development which would individually er cause any
of the impacts identified in subparagraphs (a) through (c) of Policy 4.2.2 -4 shall
be prohibited unless feasible mitigation measures are adopted which would ensure
that the impact does not occur or unless a project completion schedule and full
funding commitment for road improvements are adopted which ensure that the
impact will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time. This policy does
not apply to city thoroughfares er, city - maintained local roads or Federal or
State highways located within a city unless the applicable city has formally
adopted General Plan policies, ordinances, or reciprocal agreement with the
County (similar to Policies 4.2.E -3 through 4.2.2--56 ) respecting diseeetienary
development in the city that would affect the LOS of County thoroughfares and
County- maintained local roads, and Federal or State highways located within the
unincorporated area of the Countti.
1F52- 1.94/13
00117
6. Development that would generate additional traffic shall pay its pro -rata share of
the costs of necessary improvements to the Regional Road Network per the
County's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance, as may be amended from time
to time.
7. 6. The County shall oppose discretionary development within cities, and annexation
to cities for the purposes of development, where such development would
individually or cumulatively cause:
1 F52-1.94/14
(a) Any existing road within the Regional Road Network, or any existing
County - maintained local road, that is currently functioning at an
acceptable LOS to function below an acceptable LOS,
necessary to efis,...o that the C....e fienin of the d 41. be « d te an
(b) Any existing road within the Regional Road Network, or any existing
County - maintained local road, that is currently operating below an
acceptable LOS to function at an even lower LOS, unless a f ..sib
or
(c) Any future road planned for addition to the Regional Road Network, or
any planned future County- maintained local road, to function below an
acceptable LOS.
This policy does not al2ply to those cities which have formally adopted General
Plan policies. ordinances, or reciprocal agreement with the County similar to
Policies 4.2.2 -3 through 4.2.2 -6
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES (INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES)
K. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
1. ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
a. Setting
The Ventura County Regional Road Network consists of Federal highways. State
highways. County thoroughfares city thoroughfares and reserved rights of way.
The Local Road Network consists of County - maintained local roads and
city - maintained local roads. -
The existing (1x986) if 992) Regional Road Network consists of 541 miles of
County maintained thoroughfares and 267 miles of State maintained freeways,
expressways, and conventional highways. State highways and freeways traversing
the county include State Route 1, State Route 23, State Route 33, State Route 34,
State Route 118, State Route 126, State Route 150, State Route 232 and U. S.
101. U. S. 101 carries the greatest traffic volumes and is the only road in
Ventura County which is entirely constructed as a freeway or expressway within
the eounty County.
Level of service (LOS) is a term which provides a qualitative description of
operating performance of a road or intersection based on traffic conditions
regarding speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions and
motorists' perceptions (see Figure 29a). The levels range from 74 "A" (free flow
conditions) to F "F" (jammed conditions).
The Ventura County General Plan
specifies that LOS "C" is acceptable on County roads; LOS "D" is acceptable for
State highways (except for Highway 33 between the end of the freeway and the
City of Oiai); LOS "Er' is acceptable for Hi hway 33 between the end of the
freeway and the City of Ojai The 1994 General Plan Transportation /Circulation
goals and policies amendment would amend these standards to apply only to the
unincoMorated areas of the County. City thoroughfares and State freeways and
conventional highways within cities would be subject to the LOS standards of the
particular city's General Plan For purposes of establishing traffic mitigation
1 fees, the County does not recognize a city's LOS standards unless a reciprocal
agreement exists between that city and the County. ' ='p �'�'�-��� 7,: ♦ ' ,.
A- - ,- -.--A rU 7 Yl(, "Tn uru • . , , r
..r�trivrc.
past -iei�t -tear.
1F52- 1.94/15 00 119
At the present time. the County has two reciprocal traffic agreements with cities:
one with the City of Agoura Hills (for mitigation of traffic impacts in Zone III
in Oak Park and Ahmanson Ranch) and one with the City of Oxnard Agoura
Hills' General Plan establishes LOS "C" as the city's standard The City of
Oxnard's General Plan establishes the city standard at LOS "C" excepting a few
intersections within its jurisdiction.
The 1993 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) prepared by the Ventura County
Transportation Commission (VCTC), designates LOS "E" (unstable flow at or
near capacity) as the minimum system -wide standard Roads which have existing
traffic congestion at LOS "F" have been accepted at that traffic level to avoid the
penalty of loss of gas tax funds. LOS "F" is a temporary traffic level designation
which is upgraded to LOS "E" once improvements are built
Caltrans-Di strict 7 has determined that LOS "E" and "F" is acceptable for
conventional State Hi hways, and that LOS "FO" (forced flow operation with
a duration of more than 15 minutes and less than one hour and operating speed
of less than 20 miles per hour) is the minimum acceptable LOS for the freeway
system. Caltrans will consider funding capacity enhancing_ projects only when the
operating LOS deteriorates to less than that which Caltrans-Di strict 7 considers
acceptable. Construction of desired road improvements prior to reaching these
levels requires local financial participation
( The existing Regional Road Network in Ventura County is generally
adequate to meet existing traffic needs. However, according to a the 4484 1993
Congestion Management Plan's LOS monitoring, and taking
into account recent freeway widening work on U. S. 101, approximately 44 35.92
miles of the existing County Regional Road Network (excluding city
thorou hfares) currently operates below current 1=08 -0 County LOS standards
(see Figure 29b). These roads include portions of State - Reute-- 33 &ate Reete
118-- U. S. -11, and Vietafia State Routes 23, 34. 118 and U.S 101.
b. Environmental Impacts
1F52- 1.94/17
Traffic Congestion - Development in accordance with the General Plan land use
policies (whieh including city general plans) will result in significant
increases in traffic. Specific traffic projections for 31 County subareas are
detailed in Ventura County Area Transportation Study (VCATS, September
1987). The County's adopted Population /Dwelling -Unit Forecast projects an
average population increase of 2.3 percent per year from 1987 to the year 2010.
This will result in approximately 274,440 additional County residents and 137,420
additional dwelling units. The increased number of residents, coupled with a
projected 90% increase in County jobs, will translate into significant increases in
vehicle trips (889,290 vehicle trips between 1994 and 2010).
00IL 20
Given these projections, if no improvements to the existing Regional Road
\ Network were made, traffic conditions in the County would substantially decline.
Excluding city thoroughfares and Federal or State highways located within a city,
approximately 4-2-5 72 miles of County roads and State highways /freeways would
be operating below 1S "G" current County LOS standards, with more than 4-08
60 miles of roads and highways operating at LOS "F" (Figure 30). Estimates of
projected decline in LOS on City thoroughfares are not available at this time
Allowing planned growth without
improving the roadway netwafk), Regional Road Network would result in
significant adverse impacts weld -eeeur- with respect to traffic congestion, air
pollution (from idled engines) and energy (fuel consumption). Additionally,
economic effects would occur as a result of increased travel time and would
(potentially) decrease tourism. A perceived, if not real, decline in the quality of
life would occur as a result of frustration over traffic delays.
1F52- 1.94/19
Figure 31 illustrates the Regional Road Network ,
illu tfates the read ..e.,,.,,.,. (excluding city thoroughfares and State conventional
highways within cities) which will be necessary to adequately accommodate tr-a€€e
tiens based the 2010 traffic projections. Figures 32a and b list the
projected improvements to the Regional Road Network in the unincorporated area
to maintain County LOS standards. Figure 33 illustrates the projected
improvements to the 2010 Regional Road Network listed in Figures 32a and b.
The proposed network would operate at LOS "C" for County thoroughfares and
LOS "D" for State maintained highways, freeways and expressways, and at
—1✓' fey except for State Route 33 between Casitas Springs and the City of Ojai.
00121
. ..
- Wn -
_.
.... ._
1F52- 1.94/19
Figure 31 illustrates the Regional Road Network ,
illu tfates the read ..e.,,.,,.,. (excluding city thoroughfares and State conventional
highways within cities) which will be necessary to adequately accommodate tr-a€€e
tiens based the 2010 traffic projections. Figures 32a and b list the
projected improvements to the Regional Road Network in the unincorporated area
to maintain County LOS standards. Figure 33 illustrates the projected
improvements to the 2010 Regional Road Network listed in Figures 32a and b.
The proposed network would operate at LOS "C" for County thoroughfares and
LOS "D" for State maintained highways, freeways and expressways, and at
—1✓' fey except for State Route 33 between Casitas Springs and the City of Ojai.
00121
that dese6bed . As noted previously, the acceptable LOS for Highway 33
is LOS "E ". According to the Draft EIR (DEIR) for the Update of the Ojai
Valley Area Plan. cumulative development potential of the Plan would likely
cause segments of Highway 33 to fall below LOS "E" some time before 2010
T#e That DEIR offers mitigation measures to decrease project and cumulative
traffic impacts, but concludes that these may not be feasible and may not reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
Roadway Improvements - The 2010 Regional Road Network in the unincorporated
area will require construction of 2(4 135.9 lane -miles of State highway /County
thoroughfares and 444 40.2 lane -miles of freeways and expressways. in addition
existing (includes the
construction of 43 6_0 lane -miles of new State highwaysf, 3.26 lane -miles of new
County thoroughfares and 6-.2 24.6 lane -miles of new freeways, including 5 new
freeway interchanges). The precise number of miles of freeways expressways
and thoroughfares within cities' boundaries is not available at this time
While the construction of the proposed 2010 Regional Road Network
improvements would ensure that traffic congestion impacts generated by the 4m ft
General Plan land use policies would not result in significant changes from
existing levels of service (except for State Route 33 between Casitas Springs and
the City of Ojai), the construction of the proposed road improvements could result
in several potentially significant effects, which are summarized below:
Farmland and Farming Operations - The various road improvement projects in
the unincorporated area will physically consume approximately 242 190 acres of
agricultural land. Road widening within some cities would also result in some
loss of agricultural land. Approximately 439 100 Agricultural Land Conservation
Act contracts will be impacted.
The increase in traffic on rural farm roads and the construction of new roads in
agricultural areas may adversely affect farm operations by impeding the
movement of farm equipment between fields separated by roads. These tra€€ie
related -f mid impacts are considered significant due to the high productivity
of Ventura County farmland and its importance to the local and regional economy
(see also Section IV E of this EIR for a further discussion of farmland, and
farming operations impacts).
Air Quality - Construction of the proposed 2010 Regional Road Network
improvements will result in particulate. ROC and NOx air quality impacts due to
construction activities and due to increased numbers of vehicles which will be
able to utilize the road network. Impacts from ROC and
NOx should be partially offset by decreased air pollution due to improved traffic
flow conditions. A temporary increase in particulate matter (PNI") as a result of
roadway construction may he ex ectzd_
1F52- 1.94/27
00122
V. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES
OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR prepared for a project for which there may be a
significant impact on the environment include a statement of the relationship between local
short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long -term
productivity.
Existing General Plan policies provide that discretionary development producing individual or
cumulative traffic impacts which would result in an existing road within the Regional Road
Network currently functioning at an acceptable LOS to fall below that LOS, or would worsen
traffic conditions on roads within the Regional Road Network which currently function below
the acceptable County LOS, shall be prohibited without a full funding commitment to ensure that
those impacts are mitigated within a reasonable period of time. This policy effectively prohibits
any discretionary development, without full funding of road improvements, which will generate
one peak -hour trip on those roads expected to fall below, acceptable County LOS by 2010 and
are not currently funded for improvement.
The proposed amendment to the General Plan goals and policies will permit approval of projects
with cumulative traffic impacts on the Regional Road Network upon payment of a traffic
mitigation fee, formulated to represent the project's pro -rata share of designated Regional Road
Network improvements. Project - specific traffic impacts will still require full funding
mechanisms for mitigation and approval.
J` Except for those impacts already identified in the 1988 General Plan EIR, the pro sed
amendment is not expected to have a significant impact on the environment in the short- tterm.
The significant or potentially significant adverse long -term environmental effects of constructing
the Regional Road Network improvements have been identified in this Supplemental EIR as
occurring to: Farmlands and Farming Operations, Air Quality, Noise, Visual Resources,
Cultural and Historical Resources, Biology, and Growth- Inducement. However, since it is
recognized that the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance will not result in complete funding
of all necessary improvements to the Regional Road Network, the LOS on some roads can be
expected to drop below acceptable County standards by the year 2010. This will result in
significant impacts to Farming Operations (p. 35), Air Quality (p. 36), and Noise (p. 36) from
the long -term effects of increased traffic on inadequate roads.
§' 1F52- 1.94/61
00123
August 10, 1994
ATTACH TENT 3
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529.6064
Kelly Scoles
Resource Management
Planning Division
County of Ventura
800 South Victoria
Ventura, CA 93009
Agency
Avenue, L #1740
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (TRANSPORTATION /
CIRCULATION GOALS AND POLICIES) - SCH NO. 87100711
Dear Ms. Scoles:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced
Draft Supplemental EIR. We are concerned that none of the County
Regional Road Network assumptions take into consideration the City
of Moorpark's adopted General Plan Circulation Element. We also •
have concerns related to the specific wording of several of the
transportation /circulation policies proposed to be amended.
In regard to the County Regional Road Network assumptions, a State
Route 23 bypass connecting to Broadway should be addressed in the
funding options. The City's Circulation Element also assumes that
Broadway would be extended to a new interchange with State Route
118. These new roadways are considered necessary to serve both
local and regional projected traffic needs.
The proposed Transportation /Circulation Section policies, 4.2.2 -3,
4.2.2 -5, and 4.2.2 -6, would require that a city already have
adopted General Plan policies and /or ordinances similar to the
County proposed policies, or no mitigation measures to minimize
traffic impacts on city maintained local roads or Federal or State
highways located within a city would be imposed on discretionary
development projects. There would appear to be no time allowance
for negotiation of a reciprocal agreement, as is suggested in other
sections of the EIR. Obviously, it would not be possible for the
City of Moorpark to have the same or similar policies or an
ordinance adopted, before the County completes its current General
Plan update. It may also be appropriate for reciprocal agreements
to be negotiated on a project -by- project basis, to ensure that
mitigation money is spent on circulation improvements which will
truly mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts associated with a
particular development project.,
00124
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. PATRICK HUNTER .;C -N E VVCZNIAK BERNARDO M. PEREZ SCOTT, MCVTGCMERY
n Camciimember Counah►ember
Mayor Mayor Pro Tam _,oncdmembe
/ - P-WOO W AayNW Pam,
Kelly Scoles
August 10, 1994
Page 2
In summary, we believe that the draft General Plan policies, as
currently drafted, should be modified. In addition, all County
discretionary projects, which would result in a traffic impact on
a city maintained road or on a State highway located within a city,
should be conditioned so as to require funding of the required
improvement(s) or payment of a city traffic impact fee, if a
reciprocal agreement is negotiated prior to a specified time
period. For example, this type of condition of approval was
imposed on Conditional Use Permit No. 4571, Quality Rock. while
the condition language is somewhat vague, it is a starting point
for discussion.
Sincerely,
to Aguilera
Director of Community Development
JRA /DST
cc: Honorable City Council
Steven Kueny, City Manager
Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works
Charles Abbott, City Engineer
Il
00251
M
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
�ourity of ventura
N-6
17011
September 27, 1994
Jaime Aguilera, Director
Moorpark Community Development Department
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Planning Division
Keith A. Turr,r,
Direc-k
Subject: Response to Your August 10, 1994 Comments on Draft
Supplemental EIR for General Plan Amendment to the
Transportation /Circulation Goals and Policies
Dear Mr. Aguilera:
Thank you for your comments on the subject document. The following
responses are provided:
The determination of the need for Regional Road Network
improvements was based upon projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
for a given road segment. According to the information provided by
the Public Works Agency's Traffic Section, the projected 2010 ADT
for Route 23 can be accommodated on existing roadway improvements.
Nonetheless, the plans which the City may have for a Route 23
bypass could be discussed as part of a reciprocal agreement between
the City and the County.
The County's Public Works Agency does not agree that a new
interchange with State Route 118 in the Moorpark area is needed
before 2010. Should a new interchange be warranted due to
development in the City of Moorpark, it could be discussed as part
of a reciprocal agreement between the County and the City.
The proposed amendment to the Transportation /Circulation section
policies 4.2.2 -3, -5, and -6, does = require that a reciprocal
agreement between a given city and the County be in effect at the
adoption of this General Plan Amendment. Rather, we expect
negotiations between the cities which do not yet have reciprocal
agreements with the County to begin after action by the Hoard of
Supervisors on the proposed amendment.
800 South Victoria Avenue, L tt 1740, Ventura, CA 93009 1805) 654 -2481 FAX (805) 654 -2509
Printed on .7ecyclec Paper
00 126
Jaime Aguilera -2- September 27, 1994
The County is most anxious to work with the cities to achieve
funding of needed Regional Road Network improvements through
reciprocal agreements. Accordingly, while the County will not
categorically reject the idea of a project -by- project negotiation
of reciprocal agreements, we consider that solution to be highly
time - consuming and inefficient.
If you have additional comments or questions on this matter, please
contact Kelly Scoles at (805) 654 -5042.
Sincerely,
Bruce Smith, Manager
General Plan Section
cc: Bob Brownie, County Public Works Agency
i
00127