HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 0605 CC REG ITEM 10Ht J / -. 6Sfl
ITEM
t.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
A G E N D A R E P O R T
C I T Y OF M O O R P A R K
The Honorable City Council
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner SST
Jayna L. Morgan, Senior Associate, EDAW, Inc.
May 29, 1996 (CC Meeting on June 5, 1996)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER PROJECT LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES TO
BE ADDRESSED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2 PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
BACKGROUND
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for the
proposed Specific Plan No. 2 project by EDAW, Inc., under contract
to the City of Moorpark. The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requires that the EIR analyze a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,
which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project.
The discussion of alternatives in the EIR is supposed to focus on
alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse
environmental effects or reducing them to a level of
insignificance, even if those alternatives would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more
costly. The range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR is
governed by the "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth
only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
At the December 13, 1995 joint City Council /Planning Commission
meeting, the City Council directed staff to obtain Council
concurrence on the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR,
following the completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a
Draft EIR process. A Notice of Preparation for the Specific Plan
No. 2 project was distributed in April, 1996, to all responsible
and trustee agencies, and the comment period concluded on
approximately May 8, 1996. Attachment 1 to this agenda report is
a matrix which addresses NOP comments received to date. The matrix
provides a listing of all commenting agencies and their associated
issues of concern, as listed in their correspondence. Also
depicted is a statement as to whether or not the issues of concern
are within the approved scope of work.
Staff is now requesting direction from the City Council regarding
the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR, in order that the
alternatives analysis can be conducted.
1 -' ,
C: \M \stfrpticc6- 5- 96.sp2 ,
Honorable City Council
May 29, 1996
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Following is a brief description of the applicant's "preferred"
project, as currently proposed, and a range of land use and
circulation alternatives for the Council's consideration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based upon direction provided at the December 13, 1995, joint City
Council /Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has developed a
"Preferred" Master Plan. The agenda report for the December 13
joint meeting included a written and graphic description of four
(4) circulation alternatives. The applicant's "preferred" plan
incorporates the circulation from one of these alternatives per
direction given by the Council. (The remaining alternatives
included variations of a roadway connecting east across lower Happy
Camp Canyon Regional Park to the Specific Plan No. 8 site, and are
represented by proposed Circulation Alternative 6, which is
discussed later in this report.) Attached to this report is the
aerial photograph of the project site (Attachment 2) and revised
land use plan (Attachment 3), which also shows the applicant's
"preferred" circulation plan. The following is a summary of the
project description.
Land Use Plan
The proposed project is comprised of approximately 577 residential
units, and park, school, open space, and public institutional
designations. The acreage dedicated to each major project
component is summarized in Table 1.
Area Percent of
(Acres) Total
Table 1
Land Use Summary
Residential Development
Single Family Detached (520 units) 152.0 34%
Multiple Family Residential (57 units) 7.0 2%
Roadways (arterials /collectors) 34.6 8%
School Site 20.0 4%
Active Park 10.0 2%
Passive Open Space 36.4 8%
Natural Open Space 137.5 31%
Transportation Corridors 40.5 9%
Public Institutional 7.0 2%
Total 445 Acres 100%
C: \M\stfrpt\cc6- 5- 96.sp2 0024[
Honorable City Council
May 29, 1996
Page 3
Attachment 3 displays the proposed land use plan of the project and
illustrates the relationship between the residential, open space,
recreational, and public institutional components of the
development. Various housing types are proposed, ranging from
multi - family (affordable) units to large lot single - family homes.
The applicant is currently proposing that approximately 10 percent
(57) of the total dwelling units would be developed as affordable
housing. Of the approximately 445 acres in the Specific Plan area,
over 183 acres would be retained in open space uses (natural and
recreational).
The General Plan Land Use Element allows a residential density of
475 (maximum density) to 712 (density limit) dwelling units and
requires that a minimum of 7 acres of land shall be designated as
Public Institutional and a minimum of 25 percent open space be
provided. In order to approve the proposed density of 557 dwelling
units, the City Council will need to determine that public
improvements, public services and /or financial contributions have
been provided that justify a density higher than the maximum
density of 475 dwelling units. Public benefits that the applicant
has already proposed are the dedication of right of way for future
State Routes 23 and 118, open space exceeding 25 percent of the
total site acreage, and 57 affordable housing units.
Final decisions about the proposed land use designations for the
various components of the project, and the proposed zoning
(including development standards), will be made in conjunction with
development of the Specific Plan document, which will occur prior
to circulation of the Draft EIR. Zone district designations will
be consistent with Specific Plan land use designations.
As part of the proposed project analysis in the Draft EIR, the
potential relocation of the school site to Planning Unit No. 8 will
be studied to achieve environmental clearance for location of a
future school (tentatively planned as a middle school) in either
Planning Unit No. 8 or 14.
Circulation Plan
The Specific Plan will include the phased construction of required
circulation improvements. Recommendations regarding the timing and
sequence of construction of these roadways would be determined
based upon the traffic analysis completed as part of the
environmental impact report (EIR). The applicant's proposed
circulation plan is reflected on the Land Use Concept Plan,
included as Attachment 3 to this staff report. Figure 2 from the
Circulation Element is included as Attachment 5 for comparison
purposes.
C: \M \stfrpt \cc6- 5- 96.sp2
26S
Honorable City Council
May 29, 1996
Page 4
The applicant's proposed project includes right of way dedication
for the possible future extensions of State Route (SR) 23 and SR-
118, consistent with Figure 2 of the City's Circulation Element.
No precise alignment for future roadways is specified by the City's
Circulation Element. Preliminary alignment plans that the City has
received from Caltrans have confirmed that the most feasible
alignment for future SR -23 and SR -118 is through the Specific Plan
No. 2 project site. Both the Circulation and Land Use Elements
include language requiring right of way protection for the future
SR -23 and SR -118 freeway corridors. The attached land use plan
also shows the extension of Spring Road through the site as the
primary access road for the project, and provides for possible
regional connections via Spring Road west to Walnut Canyon. There
is a potential that the extension of Spring Road could serve as an
interim SR -23 bypass arterial through the Specific Plan No. 2 site.
The proposed project land use and circulation plan can also
accommodate a roadway connection from Spring Road east to the
Specific Plan No. 8 project (shown on Attachment 3 as a potential
future right of way, north of Planning Area No. 6).
EIR ALTERNATIVES
The following provides a discussion of potential alternatives to be
analyzed in the Draft EIR, including staff's recommendations
regarding alternatives that should be discarded without further
analysis.
Required Alternatives
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require
that the specific alternative of "no project" be evaluated and if
the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project"
alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally
superior alternative among the other alternatives. CEQA also
requires that the EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives
to the project, or to the location of the project, which could
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project.
1. No Project Alternatives. Two No Project scenarios are proposed
to be analyzed in the Draft EIR: maintenance of existing
environmental conditions, with no further development of the
site; and future buildout under the existing City of Moorpark
Zoning for the site(RA -10 Acre and RE -5 Acre).
2. Environmentally Superior Alternative. Staff will work with the
EIR consultant to determine the environmentally superior
alternative. This determination is usually made when all
project impact information is available for both the project
and the other proposed alternatives.
C:\M \stfrpt \CC6- 5- 96.sp2
+( W2'70
Honorable City Council
May 29, 1996
Page 5
3. Alternative Location. As required by CEQA, an alternative
location or locations for the project will be addressed;
however, staff does not anticipate that this analysis will
result in a feasible alternative.
Land Use Alternatives
1. Design Alternative - Clustered Development. A design
alternative that provides for increased clustering of
development is proposed to be analyzed. The purpose of this
alternative would be to determine whether further clustering
of development is necessary to minimize disturbance of the
site and avoid significant environmental impacts. For
example, avoidance of mature tree impacts, minimizing loss of
sensitive habitat areas, and providing increased buffer areas
adjacent to open space and circulation corridors may be
environmentally preferable to the proposed project to minimize
significant impacts. This alternative could include a
reduction in density in some areas or a relocation of planned
land uses. This alternative could also include a reduction in
acreage or elimination of the 7 -acre Public Institutional land
use (requiring an amendment of the General Plan Land Use
Element).
2. Reduced Residential Development Alternative. A decreased
residential development alternative is proposed to be
analyzed, which would assume a maximum of 475 residential
dwelling units, consistent with the "maximum density"
identified in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan.
The density of the residential development areas shown on the
land use plan would be decreased. The impacts of this
alternative are expected to be very similar to the project as
proposed.
3. Increased Residential Development Alternative. An increased
residential development alternative is proposed to be
analyzed. This alternative would assume a maximum of 712
residential dwelling units consistent with the "density limit"
identified in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan.
The density of the residential development areas shown on the
land use plan would be increased and possibly expanded.
Changes to proposed infrastructure and the park size may also
be required based upon the increase in dwelling units. This
increased density alternative may allow for the development of
a greater percentage of affordable housing units to facilitate
Housing Element compliance.
C: \M \stfrpt \cc6- 5- 96.sp2
Honorable City Council
May 29, 1996
Page 6
4. Jobs -to- Housing Balance Alternative. As proposed by the
County, this alternative could have an onsite
commercial /office center at the location of the proposed
affordable housing area to assist in reducing impacts to the
current jobs - poor /housing -rich ratio in the area. A
neighborhood commercial center could also replace the seven
(7) acre Public Institutional use proposed in the southwest
end of the site. Given that the applicant has not requested
a commercial site, the close proximity of the specific plan
area to the downtown, and the City's desire to maintain a
viable downtown, staff is not recommending further analysis of
this alternative. Council direction is requested regarding
the inclusion of this alternative.
Circulation Alternatives
Because the project site is critical to the future circulation plan
for the City and region, staff is suggesting that a number of
circulation alternatives be analyzed. The City's traffic model will
be used to analyze the impacts to the overall circulation system,
based upon the different circulation system alternatives studied.
The following alternative descriptions are considered preliminary,
and minor variations may be proposed during the alternatives
analysis process to achieve a more feasible alternative.
Circulation Alternatives 1 through 5 depict various realignment
locations for Spring Road, which is the proposed project's primary
access. Alternative 4 is the applicant's "preferred" circulation
alternative and is also shown on the land use concept plan,
Attachment 3. Circulation Alternative 6 depicts a roadway
extending east from the Spring Road extension, across lower Happy
Camp Canyon Regional Park, and connecting into Specific Plan No. 8.
Alternative 1. This alternative proposes a possible connection of
Spring Road to Walnut Canyon Road north of the adjacent property
(previously owned by Abe Guny). As shown on the Attachment, this
alternative would involve cuts in excess of 100 feet and would
eliminate portions of an existing foundation and access to property
owned by Mr. Dewayne Jones. It would also remove developed portions
of the property previously owned by Mr. Guny. The grade of this
alternative road would be in excess of 10 percent and would,
therefore, preclude it from being used as an alternative to SR -23.
Staff is not recommending further analysis of this alternative due
to the topographic constraints and significant aesthetic impacts
that would result.
Alternative 2. This alternative proposes a possible east /west
connection to Walnut Canyon Road within the reserved SR -118 right
of way. This alternative would involve 70 -foot cuts in the area
adjacent to Walnut Canyon Road. It is inconsistent with the design
C:\Ml3tfrpt\cc6- 5- 96.sp2
000272
Honorable City Council
May 29, 1996
Page 7
objective for a future SR -118 freeway, which is to have a 40 -foot
grade separation at Walnut Canyon Road, but would be consistent
with the City's Circulation Element, which shows an arterial roadway
as an interim bypass facility. This arterial roadway could
function as an alternative to SR -23 by diverting traffic from
Walnut Canyon Road /Moorpark Avenue to Spring Road /New Los Angeles
Avenue. However, if the future buildout of the SR -118 freeway
eliminates the connection to Walnut Canyon Road, an additional SR-
23 bypass would be required at that time, and the EIR would need to
include analysis of how SR -23 traffic would then be accommodated.
Alternative 3. This alternative proposes a possible connection of
Spring Road to Walnut Canyon Road by extending Spring Road
completely around the existing knoll on the SP -2 property (in
comparison to the proposed project, which would cut through the
knoll). This alternative would involve a maximum of 50 -foot cut
slopes. The priority of the road system for this alternative is
shown on the attached Alternative 3 exhibit as being from Spring
Road east to the Specific Plan No. 8 site; however, this
alternative could also be designed to allow the primary access road
to be from Spring Road to Walnut Canyon Road. What this
alternative would not allow is the future use of the primary
project access road as a SR -23 bypass, due to the circuitous nature
and grade. This alternative would also shift the location of the
active park within the Specific Plan No. 2 project.
Alternative 4. The circulation system shown on the attached
Alternative 4 exhibit is actually the applicant's "preferred" plan,
and is also shown on Attachment 3 (land use plan); therefore,
Alternative 4 will be discarded, as it is redundant to the proposed
project. The Alternative 4 exhibit has been included with this
report to show the Council the proposed grading of the existing
knoll on the site. The grading of the knoll is required to
maintain a berm to the south (for noise protection purposes) and to
provide for a 10 -acre active park site. The priority of the road
from Spring Road to Walnut Canyon Road is consistent with the
direction given by the City Council at the December 13, 1995, joint
meeting. The maximum cut slope height, adjacent to the roadway,
would be approximately 50 feet. In order to function as a bypass
arterial for SR -23, the road connection between Spring Road and
Walnut Canyon Road would need to be modified as discussed in
Alternative 5.
Alternative 5. This alternative is only a slight variation of
Alternative 4 (applicant preferred project), in that it proposes a
transition of Walnut Canyon Road to Spring Road, which eliminates
the need for vehicles using SR -23 to make a left or right turn onto
Spring Road. This alternative is intended to provide a SR -23
bypass arterial. The maximum cut slope height is estimated to be
40 feet. The EIR will analyze both on -site and off -site impacts
that would result from use of a Spring Road extension as the SR -23
bypass.
C:W \3tfrpt \cc6- 5- 96.sp2 0004`73
Honorable City Council
May 29, 1996
Page 8
Alternative 6. This alternative differs from the proposed project
in that a local collector or arterial roadway would connect from
the Specific Plan No. 8 area to the Specific Plan No. 2 area,
extending across lower Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. The
traffic study would need to analyze the projected traffic impacts
that would result from this roadway connection and identify the
roadway improvements required to accommodate traffic from the
Specific Plan No. 8 area. Potential impacts to Happy Camp Canyon
Regional Park and the adjacent City residential neighborhood would
also need to be analyzed.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the environmental consultant to analyze the following
alternatives, as described in the staff report: Required
Alternatives - No Project (two scenarios), Environmentally
Superior, and Alternative Location; Land Use Alternatives -
Clustered Alternative, Reduced Residential Development (475
dwelling units), Increased Residential Development (712 dwelling
units); and Circulation Alternatives - Alternative 2, Alternative
3, Alternative 5, and Alternative 6 (Circulation Alternatives in
the Draft EIR will be renumbered).
Attachments:
1. Notice of Preparation Matrix
2. Aerial Photo of Project
3. Revised Land Use Concept Plan
4. Alternative Circulation Plans (six total)
5. Figure 2 from Circulation Element
VUUZ74
C:,M�stfrpt\cc6- 5- 96.sp2
C
C
C
N
Ll
Responses to Notice of Preparation
Issue/Comment Matrix
Page 1
Within Scope
Agency
Issue
Comment
of Work?
County of Ventura
Traffic
• EIR should address impacts on County Regional Road Network and
Yes
- Planning Division
consider a reciprocal traffic fee mitigation agreement.
Traffic
• Consult with the County General Services Agency regarding road access to
Yes
Ha Cam Canyon Regional Park.
Traffic
• Highway 23 alignment is inconsistent with County Regional Road Network
No
Ma - Address effects of the re-alignment of Highway 23.
Noise
• Address impacts from future buildout of Highways 118 and 23.
Yes
Biology
• Consider modifying project design to preserve and enhance the stream
No
corridor and provide a pedestrian/bicycle connection to downtown.
Socioeconomic
• Include a detailed affordable housing program.
Yes
(Housing Element
consistency)
Socioeconomic
• Consider dispersing and integrating affordable housing units into all
Yes
residential areas.
(Housing Element
consistency)
Socioeconomic
• Consider adding a small commercial/office center to assist in reducing
Yes
impact to current jobs poor/housing rich ratio in area.
(jobs/housing
alternative)
County of Ventura
Traffic/Land Use
• Project must be consistent with County General Plan policies, ordinances,
Yes
- Transportation Department
or a reciprocal agreement with the county.
Traffic
• If a reciprocal agreement between the County and the City of Moorpark
Yes
regarding the project has been developed, the project must conform to the
agreement.
Ventura County
Air Quality
• Air assessment must be consistent with Guidelines for the Preparation of
Yes
- Air Pollution Control District
Air Quality Analyses - Address ROC and NO from motor
vehicles /construction equipment as well as fugitive dust (including PM10)
generated by construction activities.
Air Quality
• Include appropriate mitigation measures - Mitigation for an offsite
Yes
Transportation Demand Management fund should not allow for funds to be
used for traffic engineering ro'ects.
Page 1
C
N
NOTES:
Staff and the Consultant will investigate this issue further; however, typically Circulation Elements do not portray precise alignments for future State
Highways.
2 EDAW will address noise impacts and provide mitigation for these roadways within the Specific Plan boundary.
3 The referenced stream corridor not identified in Biology Assessment, therefore modified project design not necessary for this issue. The project will include
pedestrian/bikeway connections to downtown.
Page 2
Within Scope
Agency
Issue
Comment
of Work?
State of California
Land Use /Geology
• Portions of the project are within the abandoned Moorpark oil field (five
Yes
- Department of Conservation
well identified onsite) and exploratory (wildcat) area - Provide mitigation for
plugging and re- abandonment of wells if necessary - Review Construction
Project Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedure information package.
City of Fillmore
Traffic
• Address traffic along State Route 23 from Moorpark to Fillmore - Address
Yes
traffic on State Route 126.
City of Simi Valley
Traffic
• Address traffic on the 118 Freeway through the City of Simi Valley.
Yes
State of California
Biology
• Prepare a complete assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacent to
Yes
- Department of Fish and Game
the project.
Biology
• Include a thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
Yes
expected and mitigation to offset any impacts.
Biology
• Include a range of alternatives which include avoidance or minimization of
Yes
impacts to sensitive biological resources.
Biology
• If species listed under the California Endangered Species Act have the
Yes
potential to be affected, and CESA- Memorandum of Understanding must be
obtained - If plants listed as rare under the Native Plan Protection Act will be
affected, and Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan is necessary.
Biology/Hydrology
. The department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their
Yes
channelization or conversion to subsurface drains - Address impacts due to
increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion and/or urban pollutants on
streams and watercourses on or near the project site.
City of San Buenaventura
(no comment)
State of California
(no comment)
- Office of Planning and Research
NOTES:
Staff and the Consultant will investigate this issue further; however, typically Circulation Elements do not portray precise alignments for future State
Highways.
2 EDAW will address noise impacts and provide mitigation for these roadways within the Specific Plan boundary.
3 The referenced stream corridor not identified in Biology Assessment, therefore modified project design not necessary for this issue. The project will include
pedestrian/bikeway connections to downtown.
Page 2
4'��,4. � ���,' _.'`�1'iy- ���� �." '� =,,�� "�•.i1 \� \Il (:1711 �t'� i�l� ° - - ,
C
��; '; •��'�.
it.
,��.�� ��� - - �/ ' 1'l� ►��+ � \ ` _ \III /// =i 1'
FAn
t. _a
NEW
f, j.�.. I�ipil• ,�
•� „7{; ., x, � -.J . yL ( .ii�Bl �� t. �— 1 �3�C::�'C.I�I�If 1��, :I�: JI� Le
� —mot' � fi� x i• z_ •.•. � ,� . ..., �
' {.iri11��
VY
10TE
'j N
FREEWAY
FIGURE 2
CITY OF MOORPARK
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
HIGHWAY NETWORK
May 13. 1992
19 000;! j 8
SIX-LANE ARTERIAL
FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL
_R—
RURAL COLLECTOR
LOCAL COLLECTOR
'
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
AT -GRADE RR CROSSING
Li
GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING
— •— • —• —• —•
CrTY LIMrr BOUNDARY
■rmmumm•
SR -118 FREEWAY CORRIDOR
Thu map — p—T
pt— Wsl u IM Iu,u,e
., Pl L mmwl
.nett ,n c- W Moo k Puma
K VtU DCO. .1 — COtOmuNly De.ej —, DCp__.,
w a,JJ„tonal nlorma,nn.
FIGURE 2
CITY OF MOORPARK
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
HIGHWAY NETWORK
May 13. 1992
19 000;! j 8