Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 0702 CC SPC ITEM 10FITEM AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developmeit�4:✓ DATE: July 2, 1996 (CC Meeting on July 2, 1996) SUBJECT: Circulation Alternatives to be addressed in the Specific Plan No. 2 Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) At the Special Town Hall Meeting and Council Workshop on June 22, 1996, a request was made for consideration of an additional circulation alternative for Specific Plan No. 2. The Council had considered alternatives to be addressed in the EIR at the meeting of June 5, 1996. A copy of the staff report for the June 5 meeting is attached. Staff had previously recommended that Alternative 1 under the Circulation Alternatives not receive further analysis. City Council may wish to include Alternative 1 for further analysis to ensure that all significant potential alternatives are included for ananlysis in the EIR. This alternative was apparently the alternative referred to by the speaker at the Town Hall meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Add Alternative 1 under the Circulation Alternatives, in the Agenda Report for the City Council meeting of June 5, 1996, to the scope of work for analysis by the environmental consultant. SP2ADALT.WPD I 1 000267 'T E, -- A G E N D A RE P O R T C I T Y OF M O O R PAR K TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner SST Jayna L. Morgan, Senior Associate, EDAW, Inc. DATE: 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. C:\M \stfrpt\CC6- 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 Table 1 (Acres) Total Land Use Summary Residential Development Single Family Detached (520 units) Multiple Family Residential (57 units) Roadways (arterials /collectors) School Site Active Park Passive Open space Natural Open Space Transportation Corridors Public Institutional C:1Mlstfrpt\CC6- 5- 96.sp2 152.0 34% 7.0 2% 34.6 8% 20.0 4% 10.0 2% 36.4 8% 137.5 31% 40.5 9% 7_0 2% Total 445 Acres 100% 1 (MZL 9 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\stfrpt1CC6- 5- 96.sp2 VV Z70 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:1M\stfrpt`CC6- 5- 96.sp2 1022 71 6 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:1M�stfrpt`cc6- 5- 96.sp� '00027Z 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 thi:s 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 I. 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:1M\3tfrpt\CC6- 5- 96,sp2 � c. 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:\MlStfrpt\CC6- 5- 96.sp2 I 274 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 C:1M\stfrpt\CC6- 5- 96.sp2 R Responses to Notice of Preparation Issue /Comment Matrix Page t 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 Happy Cam 2 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 pedestrianibicycle connection to downtown. Socioeconomic • Include a detailed affordable housing program. Yes (Housing FIcmcnt Socioeconomic • Consider dispersing and integrating affordable housing units into all consistency) Yes residential areas. (Housing Llanent Socioeconomic • Consider adding a small commercial /office center to assist in reducing consistency) Yes impact to current jobs poor/housing rich ratio in area. (jobs/housing County of Ventura ffic/Land Use . Project must be consistent with County General Plan policies, ordinances, alternative) Yes - Transportation DepartmenETTraffic or a reciprocal agreement with the county. • 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 PM 10) 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 en ineerin ro.ects. Page t 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. Plwe 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 Ycs 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. Plwe 2 wfti'NLct�''lf R \i,J��„ '�T r✓ y 1 + -eer 11'l'��'7`� II �6,•lfc�i��s, ��`l � ` �Ay.? Vk .•, R. Vii. • a . vJ"_ ' ��lo e� \�� — ; I I )'• ..� n :;'r:.. � 1 1 •i fill t 1 rt[,f/•, i�.a }���� _Le �� /�� �'�Z�9 'ems' =; ' _ ., a .au' T '�' �1 i� �,4�- 1- L 1 t ►tit r ;E i(•`�1 � I- I` .,�„ ,/./ rA r V.'W 4 ' Z. .()TE I QFND FREEWAY DrTERCHAdGE Six -LANE ARTERIAL •��� FOUR -LANE ARTERIAL '- -R_ RURAL COLLECTOR LOCAL COLLECTOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AT -GRADE RR CROSSING GRADE SEPARATED RR CROSSING �'�'�•�•�• CTTY LIMIT BOUNDARY aummoun■ SR- II8 FREEWAY CORRIDOR 7lu maC pl— eon.W ,.• prccue .L�m.nu Inr M� ant Can ul Moory.�l PVbw 4c cu Pco.nnxm .w Commyeun pn <�op'xn� p<p.�� u�u su.L�una �nlurm.i raw n� 19 FIGURE 2 CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT HIGHWAY NETWORK May 13. 1992