Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 1204 CC REG ITEM 10RFE, AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council 0 t," FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developmegt` DATE: November 27, 1996 (For the City Council Meeting of December 4,1996) SUBJECT: Consider Discussion of the Transit Mixed Concrete Company project in the Unincorporated Area north of the City (County of Ventura Conditional Use Permit No. 4633) BACKGROUND Council has previously authorized staff response to this proposed project. Attached are the two most recent letters which the Planning staff sent to the County Planning Commission. At the County Planning Commission hearing conditions were included by the County Planning Commission which addressed the major concern we expressed regarding expansion of operations and denial of a batch plant. However, mitigation of traffic impact within the City limits would be subject to execution of an agreement between the City and the County for traffic mitigation fees to also be collected from City projects to mitigate impacts on County roads. The Applicant has appealed the Commission action. Staff has requested a copy of the County's staff report and is preparing a letter again stating the City's position. / ►/ \ 1 Direct staff as deemed appropriate. !- C.\ OFFICE` ,WPWIN \WPDOCS \CCRPTS`,TMCCOBRD. WPD MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 September 25, 1996 Laura Bartels, Chair Ventura County Planning Commission 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON TRANSIT MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY PROJECT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP? NO. 4633 Dear Chair Bartels and Commissioners: This letter is intended to supplement our prior letter to the Planning Commission dated September 18, 1996. On September 23, 1996, the City received a comment letter from the County Public Works Agency on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan Project, and we consider t-he comments in that letter to be relevant to the proposed Transit Mixed Concrete (TMC) project. The County Public Works Agency has commented on the Hidden Creek Ranch Final EIR that the proposed mitigation measure requiring payment of a traffic mitigation fee to the County, if a reciprocal agreement is signed between the County and the City, is unacceptable because it is speculative and there is no apparent guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make the required improvements when they are needed. The County Public Works Agency has further commented that the subject mitigation measure should be reworded to require that a reciprocal traffic impact Mitigation agreement be signed by both :he City and the County prior to issuance of any discretionary entitlements, tract maps, grading plans, tree removals, etc., or the master devel,Dper should be conditioned to pay an equivalent traffic mitigation fee to the County. The TMC Project includes a reciprocal agreement condition /mitigation measure very similar to that included for the Hidden Creek Ranch project. If the County is asking the City to impose a mitigation measure to require a reciprocal traffic impact mitigation agreement prior to any discretionary entitlement, grading permit, etc., then we respectfully request the Ventura County Planning Commission to impose a similar condition on the TMC Project Conditional Use Permit No. 4633. The TMC c: \1- m \oa- envir \L9- 2596.vco 0003.87 1I 17 PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK ELOISE BROWN PATRICK HUNTER PEREZ Mayor Mayor Pro Tem BERNARDO M. Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember ber Transit Mixed Concrete Project Ventura County Planning Commission September 25, 1996 Page 2 Project will result in significant cumulative traffic impacts on roadways within the City of Moorpark, and the County's traffic mitigation fee does not provide mitigation for any roadways within the City limits. Thank you for your consideration of the City's concerns. Sincerely, Nelson Miller Director of Community Development CC: Honorable City Council Honorable Supervisor Judy Mikels Steven Kueny, City Manager c: \1- m \oa- envir \L9- 2596.vco MOORPARK FILE COPY 799 Moorpark Avenue September 18, 1996 Laura Bartels, Chair Ventura County Planning Commission 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON TRANSIT MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY PROJECT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) NO. 4633 Dear Chair Bartels and Commissioners: The City of Moorpark appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Transit Mixed Concrete (TMC) Company application for CUP No. 4633. The City's May 2, 1996, comment letter on the Second Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is enclosed, for your information. Our purpose in writing this letter is to reiterate our previous recommendations regarding the Second Environmentally Superior Alternative, to identify impact and mitigation concerns not adequately responded to in the Final EIR, and to emphasize the City Council's reasons for opposing the Project as proposed. Recommendations on Second Environmentally_ Superior Alternative The City Council has directed staff to express the City's opposition to the project as proposed, and strong opposition to the requested asphalt batch plant. The City Council is recommending that the County Planning Commission select the Second Environmentally Superior Alternative (pages 5 -16 to 5 -18 of the TMC Final EIR) , with minor modifications, as described below: 1. The Second Environmentally Superior Alternative includes the issuance of a permit for Phases 1 and 2 for a duration of no more than 20 years, with a requirement that a permit modification, following the requisite CEQA Yeview, be approved in order to continue Phase 2 mining beyond that time. A subsequent permit modification to the CUP and CEQA review would be required in order to initiate Phase 3 mining. The City respectfully requests that the Planning Commission require a new CUP to allow Phase 3 mining. c: \1- m \oa- envir \L9- 1896.vc0 00 X1 404U PAUL W. LAWRASON JR, JOHN E. WOZNIAK ELOISE BROWN PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Ventura County Planning Commission September 18, 1996 Page 2 Requiring a subsequent permit modification to the CUP and CEQA review, in order to initiate Phase 3 mining, does not alleviate the City's concern that Phase 3 approval may occur without a public hearing. 2. The City Community Development Department agrees with the recommendation of the County Planning Division that there should be restrictions on the daily and monthly average truck trips, which cannot be exceeded. The applicant should not be allowed to pay a County traffic impact mitigation fee to exceed the trip restriction. Based on the language in the Draft EIR, the City Council requested that the Second Environmentally Superior Alternative be revised to require the applicant to limit average daily traffic to that allowed by CUP -1328 (i.e., 810 one -way, heavy truck trips and 240 employee /other one -way trips), until such time that a bypass roadway has been constructed which does not require TMC trucks to use Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue through the City of Moorpark, and the applicant has paid a fair -share traffic mitigation fee to the County and the City. Any cumulative traffic mitigation fee should be based on the permittee's pro rata contribution to the traffic above the existing setting that is defined based on actual traffic and production data (a ten -year average is recommended, see following Comments on Impacts and Mitigation Measures). 3. The Environmentally Superior Alternative should include a provision that would require the applicant to obtain a temporary or emergency use permit from the County if any truck deliveries or returns are proposed before 6:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The proposal of the applicant that they can operate at night about 60 days per year is too open ended, and could not be effectively monitored or controlled by the County. The City also requests immediate notification, prior to County approval, of any proposal by TMC to operate at night or on a Sunday. Comments on Impacts and Mitigation Measures The City is concerned that both the Draft and Final EIR understate the cumulative traffic impacts of the project and that traffic mitigation has not been adequately provided. For example, in our comments on the Second Revised Draft EIR, the City disagreed with the conclusion that the existing setting daily traffic volumes can be defined as the maximum traffic volumes authorized by the prior (expired) CUP No. 1328, and recommended that the EIR should address the existing level of actual c: \1- m \oa- envir \L9- 1896.vco KKJVO Ventura County Planning Commission September 18, 1996 Page 3 traffic as the base line for the comparison. The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines identify that a project will normally have a significant environmental effect if it will cause a traffic increase that is substantial in relation to existing street traffic load and capacity. The City suggests that the County Planning Commission review the twelve year annual mine production data shown on page 3 -3, Section 3.4.3, Table 1, of the Final EIR. An average can be calculated to determine the existing setting. For example, a ten -year (1985 -1994) average is 1,243,700 gross tons for the annual production rate and 590 average daily one -way heavy truck trips. The ten -year average is considerably lower than the 1,800,000 gross tons and 810 one -way heavy truck trips that have been assumed as the "existing setting," and the twelve -year average from 1983 through 1994 is even lower. Correctly defining the existing setting is important, since traffic and noise mitigation is proposed to be restricted to the project's incremental addition (or pro -rata contribution) to traffic (i.e., in addition to the "existing setting ") . The Final EIR also erroneously concludes that all study intersections will continue operating at level of service "C" or better in the long- term (Year 2010 or later), except at one study intersection where level of service "D" is expected with or without the proposed project. The Planning Commission should be aware that unless a State Route 118 bypass facility through the City of Moorpark is constructed, to accommodate the long -term projected growth in Ventura county, Los Angeles Avenue and New Los Angeles intersections in the City of Moorpark are projected to operate at level of service "F" in the long -term. Any contribution of cumulative traffic to an intersection operating at level of service "F" should be considered significant. The County's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee does not fund any improvements within the City of Moorpark and, therefore, does not mitigate any of the TMC Project impacts within the City of Moorpark. The City agrees with the recommended condition that the permittee shall participate in any reciprocal traffic mitigation fee agreement between the City of Moorpark and the County of Ventura that is designed to reduce the cumulative traffic impacts. This condition should be amended, however, to require that said participation shall be based on the permittee's pro rata contribution to the impacting traffic and shall be limited to the incremental addition to traffic above 830 one -way vehicle trips per day, of which 590 involve one - -way truck trips. c: \1- m \oa- envir \L9- 1896.vco V W131 F Ventura County Planning Commission September 18, 1996 Page 4 The City also commented on the Draft EIR that the proposed condition requiring an engineering evaluation of the Grimes Canyon Road /SR -118 intersection, to determine how many of the trees should be removed, would not mitigate the problems at that intersection. The City suggested that the TMC Project should be conditioned to require a fair share funding of the following improvements: The intersection of Grimes Canyon Road and Highway 118 (Los Angeles Avenue) shall be modified to provide a southbound left turn pocket on Grimes Canyon Road and westbound right turn lane on Los Angeles Avenue. Modifications shall also be made at the railroad crossing adjacent to this intersection to improve the safety of this location. In addition, a median acceleration lane shall be provided for southbound traffic turning eastbound along State Route 118. A sight distance study shall also be conducted as part of the intersection and railroad crossing modifications The above requirements were developed through the EIR and public hearing process for a recently approved City golf course and residential project, Moorpark Country Club Estates. Contrary to the inaccurate statements given in Response No. 50 in the TMC Final EIR, the mitigation measure identified above was developed in response to comments from Caltrans, City and County residents that use Grimes Canyon Road, and projected cumulative traffic impacts. It is the City's understanding that the County's cumulative traffic mitigation fee program does not include funding for Grimes Canyon Road and Highway 118 intersection improvements. Reasons for Opposition to the Project as Proposed The City's opinion is that approval of the requested CUP No. 4633 for a 50 -year period, three mining phases, and an asphalt batch plant is not justified based on the following reasons: 1. A 50 -year CUP is beyond the time period covered by both the County and City General Plans. 2. Estimating impacts for a 50 -year period is beyond the capabilities of both the County and the City of Moorpark. (Neither the County nor the City has adopted land use projections beyond the year 2020, and traffic modeling capabilities are similarly limited. Since land use and traffic projections are used as the basis for calculating c: \1- m \oa- envir \L9- 1896.vco Ventura County Planning Commission September 18, 1996 Page 5 air quality and noise impacts, the future impacts of the project cannot be accurately estimated.) 3. The proposed project will result in significant noise, visual, air quality, odor, and traffic impacts to City of Moorpark residents. 4. Planned excavation in Phases 2 and 3 will result in significant visual impacts to existing and future residents and open space /recreation area users. Requiring a new CUP approval for Phase 3 would allow additional opportunities to address the significance of visual impacts to City Specific Plan Areas Nos. 2 and 8, based on approved specific plans. 5. Requiring a new CUP for Phase 3, will allow the City and the public additional opportunities to comment on the project impacts, compliance with conditions of approval, and access issues. This approval restriction would also allow the County the opportunity to impose additional conditions of approval on the new CUP for Phase 3, if required to minimize project impacts. 6. The proposed asphalt batch plant is an inappropriate use in such close proximity to residential and regional recreational areas, and residents along streets in Moorpark, where the asphalt delivery trucks (estimated to be 120 -144 weekly) would travel, would experience asphalt odors and find them objectionable. Thank you for your consideration of the City's concerns. Sincerely, Nelson Miller Director of Community Development Enclosure: City Comment Letter on Draft EIR dated May 2, 1996 CC: Honorable City Council Honorable Supervisor Judy Mikels Steven Kueny, City Manager c: \1- m \oa- envir \L9- 1896.vco I MOO FILE COPY I�PAAK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 May 2, 1996 Lou Merzario Planning Division County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SECOND REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE TRANSIT MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY AGGREGATE MINE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP -4633 Dear Mr. Merzario: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Second Revised Draft EIR for the Transit Mixed Concrete (TMC) Company Aggregate Mine Project, CUP -4633. The Moorpark City Council has directed staff to provide the following comments pertaining to the Second Revised Draft EIR, as well as to state the City's Opposition to the project as proposed. SECOND REVISED DRAFT EIR COMMENTS Compatibility with Adjacent Lgmd Uses 1 Page 4 -14, Section 4.1.10, COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT Viewpoint No. 2: The Mine Is Not Compatible with Adjacent Land UseS USES, City concurs with Viewpoint No. 2, based on significant traffic, noise, visual, and air quality impacts resulting from the proposed three - phase, 50 -year mining operations. 2• Page, 4-19, Section 4.1.12, GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY - The City concur with the conclusion regarding no significant truck traffic, noise, and odor impacts. See following comments. Groundwater 3. Pages 4 -44 and 4 -45, GROUNDWATER, GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY referenced are not from the current Element. Moorpark General Plan Land goals Biological Resources 4. Pages 4 -49 through 4 -77, BIOLOGICAL _ revised to reflect more current biological OUres urceDinformation based on should be an updated survey of the project site. The discussion on Page 4 -49 identifies that the last survey of the site was in 1991. the on -site habitat, and the inventory of sensitive The quality of and species potentially occurring in the Moorpark area, may have changed animal asince 1991• For example, in 1996, four California gers (two pairs) were sighted in Coastal sage scrub habitat w th nc the northern nesting Of the City. The California gnatcatcher is a Federally threatened species and is considered a species of special concern by the California Gam Department of Fish and e. Based on the Draft EIR discussion understanding is that the proposed mini , the City's ng operations, "would impact a total Of 80 acres of Coastal sage scrub habitat. PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor PATRICK HUNTER Mavor Pm TPm UUti�.94 BERNARnn nn PFRC7 Lou Merzario May 2, 1996 Page 2 5• Pages 4- g 68, 4 -70, 4 -76, and 4 -77 - The City concurs with the conclusions that both the loss of Coastal sage scrub habitat and the loss of nesting and /or breeding habit for sensitive species are significant, unmitigable (Class 1) impacts. 6• Page 4 -74, Section 4.5.4 -1, Consistency with the General Plan of the city of Moorpark, Natural Resources - The Goal identified is not from the City's current General Plan and the stated conclusion is not consistent with the identified Class 1 loss of habitat impact. Su Element Goal' .15 and related Policies 15.1 and 15.2 and Open Space, Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR) Element Goal too be addressed Use Enclosure No. 1)• sed {see Visual Resources 7. Q Q Page 4 -82, Section 4.6.2 -1, Recommended Condition, Nighttime Lighting - The City concurs with the nighttime lighting restrictions; however, we do not concur with automatically allowing 60 days per year of nighttime processing. As requested in previous co requesting that the ro mment letters, the city is again should not be P Posed automatic 60 days of nighttime processing P because such operations would be very difficult to monitor or enforce. Suggestion is that an emergency or temporary use permit be required for nighttime operations and that the City receive notification prior to approval. Pages 4 -80, 4 -81, and 4 -84 - The text on the referenced pages infers that there are few viewers of the existing Phase 1 and future Phases 2 and 3 cut slopes. One example is the reference on Page 4 -80: is not visible to most of Moorpark due to intervening existing mine However, there are scattered views along Tierra Rejada Ratopography. correct representation would be that the existing A more from many areas in Moorpark, g mine's cut slopes are neighborhoods located south of the Arroyo Simi and from the residential Spring Road and Los Angeles Avenue /New Low AngelesnAvenue. roSpring Road in 1994 had ADT volumes ranging from 5,000 to 8,000. Los Angeles Avenue /New Los Angeles Avenue in 1994 had ADT volumes ranging from 21,000 to 33,000. The ADT volumes are projected to increase in future that the number of viewers increases. Years, and this means increase the number of viewers due to increases2inncut slodeng would also conclude, the City disagrees that Phase 1 excavation would only be visible from Ha P heights. To Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. City residents do view the existing Cut slopes. We concur that Phases 2 and 3 excavations would result in significant, unmitigable visual impacts. Page 4 -83, Section 4.6.4 -1, Consistency with Moorpark, Goals listed are not from the City's Suggestion is that Land Use Element Goal 14 and Use Element Goal 16 and Policy 16.2, and OSCAR 1.1 be addressed (see Enclosure No.l). Air ua�y General Plan of City of current Land Use Element. Policies 14.1, 14.2, Land Element Goal 1 and Policy 10. pages 4_101, 4 -102 Trucks , and 4 -106, Odors from Asphalt Plant and Asphalt Haul Conclusion in Second Revised Draft EIR is that residents along streets in Moorpark, where the asphalt delivery trucks would travel (120- 144 weekly), may experience Next conclusion is that this impaclt sdo an insignificant inei adverse No evidence is Draft EIR identgified theupmpactconclusion l f insignificance. Pact. original assessment. The City concurs with Lou Merzario May 2, 1996 Page 3 Noise 11. Page 4 -128, Recommended Conditions, Third -Party 24 -Hour Telephone Service - The City concurs with the proposed condition requiring a third -party 24- hour telephone service to receive and log noise, night - lighting, dust traffic speeding trucks, unsafe truck operations, use of `jake brakes, and /or other complaints. We are requesting that the City of Moorpark be given notification of any complaint received from a Moorpark resident. 12. Pages 4- 131 -132, Section 4.8.5, MITIGATION MEASURES Three noise mitigation measures have been proposed that the Citv aP„P, -n i , .. ,. with. Traffic 13. The City's general comments on traffic are that use of older (1993) traffic count information, an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology and significance criteria that allow for a more liberal interpretation of what constitutes a significant intersection level of service change, an incorrect description of the existing traffic level to be the maximum average daily trips allowed by an expired CUP, and a Year 2010 traffic scenario that assumes that a State Route 118 extension has been collectively vely have resulted in an incorrect determination that the proposed project will not result in a significant traffic impact. More specific comments on the EIR traffic discussion are given below. 14. Page 4 -13, Section 4.9.1 -2, Existing Setting Daily Traffic Volumes - The City does not concur that the existing setting daily traffic volumes be defined as the maximum traffic volumes au can thorized by the prior CUP. In comparing the previous CUP to the new proposed CUP, the EIR should address the existing level of actual traffic as the base line for the comparison. The CEQA Guidelines identify that a project will normally have a significant environmental effect if it will cause a traffic increase that is substantial in relation to existing street traffic load and capacity. 15. Page 4 -136, Section 4.9.1 -3, Existing Setting Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service, Paragraph 3 - The City does not agree that the ICU methodology adopted for use by the County is the analysis of project impacts within he City of Moorpark. deThemDraft EIR and the Traffic Study should also include an analysis of project impacts based on the City's LOS calculation procedures. Using the County's methodology for impacts in the City results in the conclusion that impacts are less, in comparison to the City's methodology. 16. Page 4 -138, Section 4.9.2, PROJECT IMPACTS, _ y of Moorpark heading for City of Moorpark: following criteria are identified under the Cit City identifying project - specific impacts at the study intersections within the At an intersection that is operating at LOS D (with project traffic), a significant impact is attributable to the project if the project traffic results in a V/C ratio change greater than or equal to 0.02. At an intersection that is operating at LOS E or LOS F (with Project traffic), a significant impact is attributable to the project if the project traffic results in a V/C ratio change Of 0.01 or greater. The above are not City criteria. For an interchange operating at LOS D, E, or F, the City considers any increase in traffic to be significant, and thus requiring mitigation. Lou Merzario May 2, 1996 Page 4 17. Pages 140 -141, Section 4.9.2 -3, Proposed Project Intersection Impact Analysis, Tables 36 and 37 - The levels of service described in the referenced tables for the AM and PM peak hours are no longer entirely accurate. Updated traffic counts were completed in early 1996 for the City's Specific Plan No. 2 Project (see Enclosure No. 2). The enclosed Existing ICU Comparison Summary has been provided, because the 1993 traffic count information used in the Second Revised Draft EIR understates the LOS at several intersections. For example, Los Angeles Avenue /Moorpark Avenue is shown in the EIR at LOS "A" for the AM peak and at LOS "B" for the PM peak; however, the actual LOS is "C" for the AM peak and LOS "D" for the PM peak. 18. Page 4 -143, Section 4.9.2 -4, Safety Impacts, Recommended Condition - The proposed condition requiring an engineering evaluation of the Grimes Canyon Road /SR -118 intersection to determine how many of the trees should be removed will not mitigate the problems at that intersection. The City's, recently approved, Moorpark Country Club Estate$ Project (which, for the Year 2000 model conditions, was projected to add approximately 20 AM and 30 PM peak hour trips in each direction to the existing traffic on Grimes Canyon Road between "C" Street and Los Angeles Avenue) has been conditioned as follows: Prior to issuance of the first zone clearance for occupancy for any phase within the approved tentative tract, the intersection of Grimes Canyon Road and Highway 118 (Los Angeles Avenue) shall be modified to provide a southbound left turn pocket on Grimes Canyon Road and westbound right turn lane on Los Angeles Avenue. Modifications shall also be made at the railroad crossing adjacent to this intersection to improve the safety of this location, as approved by the City Engineer. In addition, a median acceleration lane shall be provided for southbound traffic turning eastbound along State Route 118. Plans for modification of the Los Angeles Avenue(State Route 118) /Grimes Canyon Road intersection shall be reviewed and approved by the City and Caltrans. Plans for modification of the railroad crossing shall be reviewed and approved by the Southern Pacific Railroad, County of Ventura and the City. A sight distance study shall also be conducted as part of the intersection and railroad crossing modifications. The TMC Project should be similarly conditioned to participate in the required improvements. 19. Pages 4 -147 and 4 -148, Sections 4.9.3 -2 and 4.9.3 -3, Year 2000 and Year 2015 Analysis, Participation in Reciprocal Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Agreement - The City concurs with the intent of the proposed condition, which requires the permittee to participate in any reciprocal traffic mitigation fee agreement between the City of Moorpark and the County of Ventura that is designed to reduce the cumulative traffic impacts; however, we do not agree with the language limiting participation to the incremental addition to traffic (i.e., in addition to the "existing setting" of 1,050 one -way vehicle trips per day, of which 810 involve one - way truck trips). The proposed condition should also be mitigation measure. As stated imposed as a previously, we are concerned that the traffic impacts of the project are understated. For example, the Year 2015 analysis of traffic impacts in the TMC Draft EIR does not adequately disclose the impact on Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue /New Los Angeles Avenue if the SR -118 and SR -23 bypass arterials are not constructed. (X-XW IV Lou Merzario May 2, 1996 Page 5 The City's 2010 Traffic Model is based on projected General Plan buildout and has been used for the TMC Project 2015 analysis. The City's 2010 model assumes that in conjunction with buildout, Completion of the required circulation system will also be achieved, including SR -118 and SR -23 bypass arterials. Construction of the SR -23 and SR -118 bypass arterials, however, is dependent upon fees to be. collected from new development, including development outside the City limits, which would otherwise contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts within the City of Moorpark. Those future bypass roadways will only be constructed if both the County and the City collectively condition projects to pay a mitigation fee to fund them. The County's traffic fee mitigation program does not provide funding for any roadway improvements within the City limits. The City, therefore, considers the proposed project's cumulative traffic impact as significant. The discussion on Page 4 -148 references that the scenario presented in this analysis is based on the traffic volumes and circulation system as contained in the transportation and circulation section in the EIR for the City's Hidden Creek. Ranch Project. What is not made clear, however, is that the Traffic Study for that project also states that even with intersection improvements along Los Angeles Avenue, only approximately 20 percent of projected General Plan buildout between the Year 2000 and the Year 2010 can be accommodated. Key intersections along Los Angeles Avenue will operate at the LOS F range for the General Plan buildout if the SR -118 bypass arterial is not constructed, which would not be an acceptable level of service as defined by the Ventura County Congestion Management Plan. 20. Page 4 -151, Section 4.9.4, GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY - Consistency with the City's General Plan is not addressed. Suggestion is that consistency with the City's Circulation Element Goal 2 and related should be analyzed. Policies 2.1 through 2.4 21. Page 4 -151, Section 4.9.5, MITIGATION MEASURES - See prior comment regarding the need for intersection improvements at Grimes Canyon Road. In addition, the City recommends that the Noise mitigation measure No. N -2 be included for cumulative traffic impacts, but should be modified to also include reference to the funding of the proposed SR -118 bypass extension, based on the trip distribution percentages. Project Alternatives 22• Pages 5 -10 and 5 -11, Section 5.7.2, STATE ROUTE 23 NORTH -SOUTH BYPASS - The City requests that the discussion for this alternative also recognize that the City is also considering an alternative circulation system for the Specific Plan No. 2 project that would create an arterial roadway connecting Walnut Canyon Road to Spring Road, that could serve as an interim SR -23 bypass arterial. For the Alternative Access Routes mitigation measure addressed on Page 5 -11, we repeat our prior comment for traffic impacts that the mitigation measure should be revised to also include reference to the funding of the proposed SR -118 bypass extension. The reason for _this request is that the estimated trip distribution percentage, for trucks traveling west on Los AngelestAvenue (SR -118), is shown as 20 percent to the west. Draft EIR, the State Route 23 North -South g Also, as identified in the require use of the Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Roads intersection New still Angeles Avenue east to the freeway and Los Angeles Avenue for the 20 percent of the TMC project traffic that travels west on SR -118. Lou Merzario May 2, 1996 Page 6 23. Page 5 -12, Section 5.7.3, EASTERLY EXTENSION OF BROADWAY, Alternative Access, Easterly Extension of Broadway - We concur with the proposed condition requiring the permittee to participate in any assessment district or other financing technique, including the payment of traffic mitigation fees, which the County of Ventura may adopt to fund or with te with partially fund the proposed easterly extension of Broadway to conn State Route 118., Participation is proposed to be based on the fund pro rata contribution to the impacting traffic. We do not agree with the language limiting participation to the incremental addition to traffic (i.e., in addition to the "existing setting' of 1,050 one -way vehicle trips per day, of which 810 involve one -way truck trips). Again, we recommend that this requirement should be a mitigation measure as well as a condition of approval. 24• Section 6.7, Second Environmentally Superior Alternative - The City is requesting two modifications to the Second Environmentally Superior Alternative: We note that the Environmentally Superior Alternative in the prior Revised Draft EIR required a Major Modification to conduct Phase 2 mining for no more than 10 years and a new CUP to complete Phase 3 mining. * The new language allows issuance of a permit for Phases 1 and 2 for a duration of no more than 20 years, with a requirement that a permit modification be approved in order to continue Phase 2 mining beyond that time. A subsequent permit modification to the CUP would be required in order to initiate Phase 3 mining. Given that Phase 1 mining has been occurring since 1986, the City does not object to the revision of the Environmentally Superior Alternative to include approval of Phases 1 and 2. We do, however, strongly object to the new language that could allow Phase 3 mining to be approved with a Minor Modification, without a public hearing. We are, therefore, requesting that the Second Environmentally Superior Alternative be revised to require a new CUP to allow Phase 3 mining. The City's second comment is in regard to the limitation on average daily traffic to that of the "Existing Setting.° We note that payment of the County's traffic mitigation fee would not mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts of the project within the City limits. We are, therefore, requesting that the language of the Environmentally Superior Alternative be revised to read as follows: The applicant shall limit average daily traffic to that allowed by CUP -1328 (i.e., 810 one -way, heavy truck trips and 240 employee /other one -way trips), until such time that a bypass roadway has been constructed which does not require TMC trucks to use Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue through the City of Moorpark, and the applicant has paid a fair -share traffic mitigation fee to the County and the City, as described in Sections 4.9.3 -1 and 4.9.3- 2 for all permitted trips. Also, as previously requested, the Environmentally Superior Alternative should include a provision that would require the applicant to obtain a temporary or emergency use permit from the County if any truck deliveries or returns are proposed before 6:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The proposal of the applicant that they can operate at night about 60 days per year is too open ended, and could not be effectively monitored or controlled by the County. The City also requests immediate notification, prior to County approval, of any proposal by TMC to operate at night or on a Sunday. v Lou Merzario May 2, 1996 Page 7 PROJECT COMMENTS k ) The City Council has directed staff to express the City's opposition to the Project as proposed, and strong The Cit o pposition to the requested asphalt batch plant. y Council is recommending that the County select the Second Environmentally Superior Alternative, with certain modifications, as discussed above. It is the City's opinion that approval of the requested CUP for a 50- year period, and three mining phases, is not justified based on the following: 1- A 50 -year CUP is beyond the time period covered by both the County and City General Plans. 2- Estimating impacts for a 50-year the County and the City of Moorpark. is beyond the capabilities of both adopted land use projections rpark. (Neither the County nor the City has capabilities are s'i similarly leiymited he year Since traffic and mtraffic projections are used as the basis for calculating air quality and noise impacts, the future impacts of the project estimated.) cannot be accurately 3. The proposed project will result in significant noise quality, odor, and traffic impacts to City of Moorpark residents. al, air 4. Planned excavation in Phases 2 and 3 will result in significant visual impacts to existing and future residents and open space /recreation area users. Requiring a new CUP approval for Phase 3 would allow additional opportunities to address the significance of visual impacts to City Specific Plan Areas Nos. 2 and 8, based on approved specific plans. 5. Requiring a new CUP for Phase 3, will allow the City and the public additional opportunities to comment on the project impacts, compliance with conditions of approval, and access issues. This a would also allow the County the o o PProval restriction conditions of approval on the new CUP for Phase 3 y to pose additional project impacts. if required to minimize The City suggests that the County require application fora new CUP a minimum ftwohyear seprioratorpermitbexpiration, to future ensure that the mine does not continue to operate without a valid occurred since 1986. In addition, we request that a co report on mitigation compliance be provided to the City. permit status py of the annual has status If you have any questions regarding the City's comments, please contact Deborah Traffenstedt, Senior Planner, extension 236. Sincerely, Steven Kueny city Manager Enclosures: 1. Moorpark General Plan Goals and Policies Excerpts 2. Existing ICU Comparison Summary (prepared for Specific Plan No. 2) cc: Honorable City Council Honorable Supervisor Judy Mikels Deborah Traffenstedt, Senior Planner ��ii t I-)1 ENCLOSURE 1 AIUD LxsE ELE1nEkT •.�iL"�' .. ADeJ H.;rFgY%♦ ,Y S1:M \KAY SM.;S::.wiwiY.:::. iwty. iii .v:r:::i.'li.:...•.«:i::wv.`r`r ':::.:::. Policy 12.8: Any proposed project shall be required to contribute its fair share of the cost of providing adequate public services and facilities. Policy 12.9: Where 1etermined feasible, future development shall incluce infrastructure improvements to allow use of tertir.:-y treated water. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT :AND EMPLOYMENT GOAL 13: Achieve a well - balanced and which diversified economy within the City provides a variety of economic and employment opportunities. Policy 13.1: A balanced job /housing ratio should be encouraged. Policy 13.2: New commercial and industrial uses which will generate long -term employment opportunities and diversify the community's employment base shall be encouraged. Policy 13.3: Policy 13.4: Policy 13.5: The City shall encourage the coordinated revitalization of obsolete or declining commercial areas, particularly focusing on the downtown area. The City shall work with the business community in a cooperative manner to encourage desired businesses to locate and to remain in the City. The City shall work development community to sales tax capture, with the business and encourage an increase in Policy 13.6: The City shall establish and implement a business attraction, promotion, and retention plan. PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GOAL 14: Establish land uses which are compatibleanwi h development t andtenatur r al resources and which encourage environmental preservation. Policy 14,1: New development shall be located and designed to minimize adverse visual and /or environmental impacts to the community. Policy 14.2: New development shall respect, integrate with, and complement the natural features of the land. 18 X)261 Policy 14-3: New development shall not contribute to or c hazardous conditions ause of any kind. Policy 14.4: The flood control easement area adjacent to Arroyo Simi the floodway shall be Preserved and enhanced as an important natural and of the community. scenic feature Policy 14-5: Compatible open space /recreational uses of the Arroyo Simi floodway should be encouraged which consistent with are the provisions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for floodway Policy 14-6: uses. Areas identified as significant a er recharge areas shall be protected and preserved GOAL 15: Maintain a high quality environment that contributes to and eahances the quality of life and Protects public health, safety and Policy 15.1: welfare. Public & private projects shall be desi geed so that significant vegetation shall be mai and protected, including riparian and oak vegetation and mature trees (as def ined in the Code). Citwoodland y Policy 15.2: Ecologically sensitive habitats shall be and preserved or replaced with no protected net habitat loss of so long as there is substantial benefit to any relocation public Policy 15.3: program. Natural and cultural resources having Significant educational, scientific, scenic, recreational or social value shall be Protected and Policy 15.4: preserved. Development which will not result in a negative impact on air quality shall be encouraged in order to maintain and enhance air quality for the health and well-being Of City residents. Policy 15.5: The City shall require developers to wildlife maintain corridors to allow for passage of animals between designated open space or areas. recreation Policy 15-6: Commercial, industrial and manufacturing uses shall be required to implement reuse r reduction, and recycling programs ams cOnsistent with Source Reduction and the City Recyclin g Element. 19 Policy 15.7: Policy 15.8: Policy 15.9: Policy 15.10: COMMUNITY SAL 16: Efficient /effective maintenance of sanitation encouraged facilities shall discharges from the sanitationfen plant. odors ant. be and Development in significant cannot be mitigated without rd areas, which significant adverse environmental -M pacts in prohibited, pacts, shall be New development projects shall be xeriscape landscaping techniques required to use drought - tolerant plant Spec ies ues which include area, irrigation designed to meet eduction of grouping plants accord' to their PI nt needs, g , and The City shall encourage the watering needs. conservation fixtures, introduction of water requirements, into new development exceed Building Code projects. APPEARANCE Policy 16,1: Policy 16.2: Policy 16.3: Policy 16,4: Enhance and maintain the suburban / the community. r rual identity of For each existing neighborhood and character shall be the overall theme(s) Redevelopment and /or maintained or e consistent with lnfill enhanced. the theme and projects shall be area, character of the Hillside development which restrict P standards shall be Percent grading on slopes adopted and which encoura greater than 20 visual horizon lines and significant the Preservation of Prominent visual features, gnificant hillsides Lines are shown on (Conceptual as Of this Exhibit 5, located at the rback document.) The overall density and intensit Y of development should decrease as the slope increases. New residential development should complement overall communit a sense of y character of the City, he important Place, and ensure compatibility y establish existing local community identities. wit ent t es.with 20 COAL 17: Policy 17.1: Policy 17,2: Policy 17.3: Policy 17.4: Policy 17.5: Policy 17.6: Policy 17.7: Policy 17.8: a r: s° Enhance the physical and vi community. sual New development shall be compatible and visual character of neighborhood. the Identifiable entryways fo iOage of the with the scale surrounding and unique or r the overall districts of the principal business /community, transportation corridors y (i e'' City mercial should be y core and encouraged. Design standards should be entryways on the south established for City Road), east (SR -11B freeway and Tierra Rejada and New Los Angeles Avenue at Los Angeles Avenue, Road and future SR -23 )' north (Walnut Angeles Avenue extension), and west anyon setbacks )' which encourage (Los design treatments to enhance n and landscape special other gateways to the Cit Design concepts should y� overall communit be established such as the downtown for special treatmentorease guidelines district for , which ma ' architecture, 1 narchitecture, y include infrastructure. g ge' streetsca P eandsca , and New development should incorporate landscape architecture themes a variety of help organize and delineate and techniques to enhance the overall visual land uses and to quality of the City. Enhanced landscaping shall residential, commercial be used and parkin and industrial around flood control 9 areas as well as along buildings , roadways g easements of thew and other public and Ys' railroad right of urban enviro Private areas, to soften roadways and n1IIent and enhance y surrounding uses. to from Design features separation shall belch Provide visual separation required between relief and- separation shall character. land uses of Undergroundin con' g function of utilities shall with development be required feasible. Pment projects in whenever 21 a . �scAR EL-EMEJ i Yl. GOALS AND PpLICiES Goals and policies result from the needs, issues and constraints i previous chapters. The identified in the They are based on an assessment of these existing conditions as they impact community values. broad statements identifying major aspirations of the City. They describe desired results in ways that are general and unmeasurab • Policies are specific statements committing the City to courses of le. action. GOAL I Preserve and enhance the unique aesthetic and visual qualities o with scenic topographic features and elements that promote I f Moorpark as a city Moorpark citizens pursue. P mote the quality of life that Poll__ �v 1-1 - Protect the scenic viewsheds both to and from t This shall include those views extending e City of Moorpark. south to Tierra g north to the Santa Susana Mountains and Re- Valley. This will extend to an future renovations and additions that ma , Y new development and to any } potentially obscure a viewshed. Poll— �y 1 ? - Study, monitor and link the existing include landscaped arterial roadways Greenbelt Agreement Area to P equestrian path and hiking trails to as Entrance ways to the City, bikeways, create a network of aesthetically pleasing links into and around the City. Develop an architectural and landscape throughout the architectural design City that will serve as a g theme Promote the unique guideline and a functional expression to tique aesthetic and visual qualities through future developments. Policy IA - Develop a hillside conservation that functions to discoura e rid , Preservation and management ro g evelop men alteration. P gram geline d Polic E-- - Explore with SCE and local utilities the potential to under ` above - ground lines. ground existing r^ GOAL 3 Ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the public through designating land uses that will minimize the risk of danger to the public. Pol' � 1 - In areas designated for flood control purposes, promote the use of the area for passive recreation activities, (e.g., hiking, fishing, bike riding) and reserve in open space use until the land can be used for a purpose. Policy cy 3_2 _ Where the Safety Element of the General Plan defines an area where building or development should be limited, promote the use of the property for recreation uses that do not require infrastructure (e.g., hiking, fishing, bike riding) and reserve the area in an open space category. GOAL 4 Preserve and maintain the physical and biological environment from future growth- related degradation. In those areas where degradation is inevitable, ensure the restoration of affected areas. Cooperate and participate in regional air quality management plans, programs, enforcement measures and mitigation measures designed to reduce and /or minimize the amount of primary and secondary air pollutants. Policy ? - Conserve and protect water quality supplies through cooperative efforts with the Ventura County Water Conservation Plan and any future regional water quality and water supply plans and o PT grams that may be instrumental in reducing water quality- related problems. Policy 4-3 - Conserve, preserve and enhance the quality of biological and physical environments throughout the City of Moorpark. Require restoration of those areas unsatisfactorily maintained or subsequently degraded. Policy 4-4 - Protect agricultural areas from future development. This polic a 1•� to those that are agricultural) Y pplies y productive and /or have beneficial qualities for isti designated use as open space corridors, exng viewsheds or open space. 1. 2. S. 6. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 37. ENCLOSUR,IC= 2 Table 1 EXISTING ICU COMPARISON SUMMARY Moorpark & High Spring & High L4�Princeton & SR -118 WB L- AJPrinceton & SR -118 EB Moorpark & Poindezter/n t Tlerra Rejada/Gabbert & LA Moorpark & LA Spring & LA Science & LA Walnut Canyon & Casey ' FAceeds level of service "C" Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F 1993/94 1996 37 AM PIv 32 ,50 •44 .48 .44 33 .45 .48 .38 S7 . .43 .45 .62 .46 .64 .52 .60 •46 .59 .65 .74 .73 .85 .63 .66 .65 .74 •68 .79 .76 .82 .55 .65 SR .62 .30 34 36 .43 ( iv