Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 0724 CC ADJ ITEM 11AV O.` 9 r\ MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Mc;, Parl '. a Wornia 93021 M E M O R A N L U M (805) 529 -6864 ORPAry(, CA'1I17C"V" , N city COUL1Ci1 Mee r'n-9 of 199 / AC71ON: TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, D.irf,ctor of Community Development DATE: June 18, 1991 (CC Meet..inc, of 7/27/91) SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR BLUE STAR QUARpY - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP -4633 Discussion Comments on the Blue Star Draft. hZR are due on July 25, 1991. Attached is the summary section -froiill t.l,e Draft EIR. Also attached are staff's preliminary comments or thie adequacy of the Blue Star Draft EIR, which we propose to in,- Ids= in a letter to the County. Recommendation Direct staff to prepare a comment 14 ttEr to the County on the Blue Star Quarry Draft EIR which inco - 7r,--es staff and City Council concerns. Attachments: Blue Star Quarry Draft EIR Summar, Section Preliminary Comments on Blue a-- I�uarry Draft EIR �O ^<PA <C, CAI IF0RNIA �.: C�un 11,lic -1ng f 7 199 i,CTION: 7 PAUL W LAWR.A$ON JR BERNARDO M PEREZ ,x;�;^ ��1i r, _ .,�' F "AL�c" �F ��r+N L WOZNIAK AS CITY OF MOORPARK PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR FOR BLUE STAR QUARRY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 4633 We are concerned that this EIR unde=stat.es the significance of traffic and noise impacts, and tl�Ia�- proposed mitigation measures throughout the document are vagi.e and will be difficult to effectively enforce as currently written. We recommend the use of a mitigation format which addresses the effectiveness of each mitigation measure in reducing the magnitude of impact, clearly identifies the party responsible foi- implementation and the method by which implementation can be assured, and clarifies whether the mitigation measure is acceptable tc the responsible party and has been incorporated into the project or whether the County would need to either adopt the measure as a condition of approval or adopt a Statement of Overriding Cons iderat_ons„ Following are comments related to specific discussion .e *i..ons it the Draft EIR• Project Description Page 3 -4 - Hours of operation are not clear. Will operation of quarry 24 hours a day require inbound or outbound truck traffic after 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday? Will the new batch plant be operated 24 hours a day? We ay-e opposed to a 24 -hour a day operation if light and noise impacts will result. Truck trip restrictions should be imposed cw,,,-Omments on Noise section. Land Use Page 4 -9, paragraph 2 - As wri.tt(-.,n Is misleading. Moorpark's Circulation Element update will take into consideration the traffic generated by Happy Camp Regional ''ark; however, it is not the City's responsibility to mitigate t.1i- 11 raff is impacts of that park. Page 4 -9, paragraph 5 - Contrary _.o statement in EIR, City of Moorpark does not consider the projf - -rct as currently proposed to be consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan due to the significant hillside grading that. is proposed, and significant visual, noise and cumulative traf_fi mpac.s that will result. Water Resources Pages 4 -22 through 4 -24 are missirc. Page 4 -29 - Mitigation Measure No. , requires additional study to verify pond bottom permeabilit, to preclude groundwater mineralization. This study should b« done raow; future study is not an acceptable mitigation measure. PR is unclear as to what the mitigation is if underlying or') -u;wat.e:- is currently being contaminated. Transportation, Circulation and Sa Traffic impact analysis is inadecli i t,� . 1'ra f f is Study identifies that regional access to the site s Pt-OV Lded by Highways 23 and 118; however, within the City limits c.:r;1y the intersections along Moorpark Avenue and Walnut Canyon ;�c ac are analyzed ( outside of the City limits Happy Camp /Broadway ,':i Grimes Canyon Road /Broadway intersections are also analyzed) The Scope of Work for the EIR i.n 'er, that the Draft EIR would include traffic data from City, C>un�y, and Caltrans, and that existing deficiencies will be identified. Also, cumulative traffic impacts were to be addressed. The Praffi.:° Study and Draft EIR do not appear to be consistent with °she Scope of Work. Current City traffic data on existing and prcjected 1:.raffic was not used to analyze traffic impacts. Cumulat::iie traffic data must not have been discussed with City staff, since several large projects proposed or recently approved are ot. addressed (such as Mission Bell Plaza, Westland Residential 1) ject "Ia.rtin V. Smith Hotel and Apartment project, etc.). The Blue Star expansion projec, will affect two critical intersections in the City-- Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road and the High Street /Spring Road /Los Angeles AvenuE3 intersections -- which were not analyzed in the Blue Star ,`uarry °Traffic Study. A recent traffic study completed for the Westland Residential Project includes traffic count data collected in May 1990 and updated to address 1991 expected traffic conditions. That study identifies for existing plus 1991 traffic that the Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road intersection is operating at ..i S C for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and that the High Street,':;;;i:ing Read /Los Angeles Avenue intersection is operating at LOS i A t-Le a m. and p.m. peak hours. The Westland Residential Project ''a fi-c Study also identifies that near -term cumulative projects wouI ::-esult in LOS F in the a.m and P.m. peak hours at both of these i:r,t. - rsect:..ic�ns. Also, that traffic study identifies that near -term cuiri.,.El.ati -ve impacts would result in a LOS F in the p.m. at the Moor�:D<,.r k AvE?nue /Los Angeles Avenue intersection. The Traffic Stl:'� f:er the Blue Star project identifies that the project pluE mr.. at.irE LOS at the Moorpark Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue will be We request that the EIR consul., It be directed to obtain a cumulative project list and current t-iaff i.c count data from the City of Moorpark and that the int('- !Csec:tican capacity analysis be recalculated for all intersections 4 Lh i n the City limits that will be affected by the proposed Blue ;:;r , _> , significant traffic im acts wilt r ,ii 1 ,7 -z Expansion project. if measures should be Identified. mitigation flied . Air Quality Page 4 -62 - For Mitigation No. `3, ,e reccmmend that paved roads on project site be required or that 3dversE� effects from petroleum - based dust suppressants be analyz, i in the Draft EIR. Requiring future study is not an accept.:)le mitigation measure. For Mitigation No. 13, we recommend p r o }u_b Jt. ing the coating of truck bodies with kerosene and fuel oil � Lt. igation No. 17 is unclear - exactly what is proposed? Noise The Draft EIR identifies that noise levels along Moorpark Avenue at sites tested are generally in exce: -.s of 70 dB Leq, with peak truck traffic noise levels at approximat( - -ly 77 -83 dB. Significant truck traffic currently begins before 3:00 a,.m. Additional project traffic is predicted to increase nc ise levels by 3 -4 dB in the City limits. No noise mitigation is lroposed for Moorpark residents other than a vague inference (Page 4 -69, No. 5) that the number of hourly or daily truck trips could bCr limited. We recommend that truck trips be prohibited on Sundays and restricted prior to 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, prior to 9:00 a m. on Saturday, and after 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays t{ minimize truck traffic noise impacts during the times of tl[Ek 'lay wh12!n residents would most likely be adversely affected. The Draft EIR does not specific,�Jjy identify what impact the proposed batch plant will have on °oise lc,vels. EIR also does not clarify how a 24 -hour a day operat oii wi11 affect noise levels. Visual The photographic exhibits in this s­cti on are poorly reproduced and do not allow for analysis of view We do not believe that Phase 3 i_sual. impacts on the City of Moorpark can be fully mitigated «flue to the level of grading that is proposed. At this time, we are s *:r ->ngly opposed to Phase 3 due to the significant visual impacts t: h1 : f,. wi I I result and the lack of reclamation /revegetati<�n detail!; r,:, �G zdE Based on preceding comments which address individual discussion sections in the Draft EIR and overall concerns related to inadequate mitigation measures, 4 ✓4 j.re recommending that the Draft EIR be revised and recirculated. e --eqi.)est that the mitigation monitoring program be ncluded ?E.rri;,rd Draft EIR. Based on the past history of rson -emp_i,nce with conditions of approval, project expansion witlwt aIppropriate permit approval, and minimal efforts towards �lazlation to date, we are recommending that the County cons r -es-_ricting approval to the requested Phase 1 expansion only ; ,, '-en-year limitation on the CUP) . Subsequent expansion pitasd, :;hou Ld require a new CUP. Requiring subsequent CUP approval f r Proposed Phases 2 and 3 will aid the County in enforcement of �Nitiga *ion measures including reclamation /revegetation requir-s!meit: At this time we are strongly opposed to Phase 3 approi,,,< ci..;F} t the significant visual impacts that will result. Postponing approval of Phases 2 ara _ will also allow time for further analysis of alternative• h,'-u' routes. For example, in conjunction with the City's curt, nl ;eneral Plan Update, we are analyzing a circulation plan wh.ic:" includes a rural collector y connecting Broadway to Alamos Carc t? Highway 118.